Talk:Petra

message: Can anyone please elaborate on the techniques used to work with the rock? This is more of a science question.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.79.150 (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rock manipulation techniques

message: Removed "kabah" statement, as the Kabah is absolutely NOT worshiped by Muslims.
I am not sure that the Category:Roman towns and cities is suitable for this city, as it simple was not :) Romans passed by the city, it was under the Roman Empire at some point, but it was build long before the Roman Empire entered the region, and it have a totally different architectural style than Roman cities. I am no expert, but this is how I see it. -- Isam 01:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kabah

message: Does anyone know the coordinates of Petra?
:30° 19' 22.55" N, 35° 26' 49.99" E.  This is a location between the Roman Theater and the High Place of Sacrifice.  The main gate (visitor's entrance) is located at 30° 19' 23.90" N, 35° 28' 3.00" E. - Cybjorg 21:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: The "movies and popular culture" section currently includes these items:
* Petra is a very famous musical play produced by the Rahbani brothers, and performed by the Great International Lebanese Diva, Fairuz. It was one of their most successful plays. It was performed in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria for two consecutive years (1977 and 1978).
* Petra is also the name of a popular Christian band.
* Petra is a character in the Ender's Game Series by Orson Scott Card.
These items do not have anything to do with the archaeological site Petra; they just happen to have the same name. That makes them fair game for the Petra (disambiguation) page, and in fact two of them were already listed there. I have just added the third one (the musical play) after editing out some non-NPOV language.
But these three items don't belong in this article, and I am deleting them. [[User:Pat 
Berry|Pat Berry]] 06:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first reference is VERY interesting, because the play takes PLACE in ancient Petra...(Fairuz plays Queen Shaqilat, mother of King Rabbel, the last king of Petra before Roman acquisition.)  i agree however with the remainder of u'r assessment concerning the last two references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.249.133 (talk • contribs) 7 September 2006  (UTC)
* It was definitely used in one of the laste scenes of Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade.  --Rubik's Cube 20:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Eliot Stearns 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Petra in movies and popular culture

message: I added this template because it asks critical questions, constantly cites evidence, and otherwise sounds like a high school history textbook. It might even be straight from one. While the information here is good, the language used in this article is almost pretentious. Or plagiarized. For example:
It is thought that a position of such natural strength must have been occupied early, but we have no means of telling exactly when the history of Petra began. The evidence seems to show that the city was of relatively late foundation, though a sanctuary (see below) may have existed there from very ancient times. This part of the country was assigned by tradition to the Horites, i.e. probably cave-dwellers, the predecessors of the Edomites;[1]the habits of the original natives may have influenced the Nabataean custom of burying the dead and offering worship in half-excavated caves. But that Petra itself is mentioned in the Old Testament cannot be affirmed with certainty; for though Petra is usually identified with Sela, which also means a rock, the Biblical references[2] are far from clear. 2 Kings xiv. 7 seems to be more explicit; in the parallel passage, however, Sela is understood to mean simply "the rock" (2 Chr. xxv. 12, see LXX). Hence many authorities doubt whether any town named Sela is mentioned in the Old Testament.
What, then, did the Semitic inhabitants call their city? Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. sacr. 286, 71. 145, 9; 228, 55. 287, 94), apparently on the authority of Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews iv. 7, 1~ 4, 7), assert that Rekem was the native name, and Rekem certainly appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls as a prominent Edom site most closely describing Petra. 
The first paragraph here has a first person statement "... but we have...". And it also constantly cites its evidence, even though Wikipedia articles all should have their evidence and sources at the bottom. The second paragraph starts with that useless question. Lord GS-41 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In regards to the template I added 

message: They wrote in Aramaic in the earlier phases of their history, but does that make them Aramaic-speaking?  They had Arabic names, for one thing, and the Wikipedia article on Nabataeans says: "This Aramaic dialect was increasingly affected by the Arabic dialect of the local population. From the 4th century AD, the Arabic influence becomes overwhelming, in a way that it may be said the Nabataean language shifted seamlessly from Aramaic to Arabic. The Arabic alphabet itself developed out of cursive variants of the Nabataean script in the 5th century.".  Slacker 17:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That part of the article is quoting sources from biblical times, when they were Aramaic-speaking.  --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aramaic-speaking? 

message: http://www.new7wonders.com/index.php?id=633
:I can see there's disagreement about whether this is important enough to go in the article, or if it's just another of the many corporate promotions involving Petra.  It would be really helpful if, here on the talk page, you could offer some of the big media coverage associated with the "new Seven" and show that the list is truly of international importance.  -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at the conversation on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taj_Mahal#Seven_New_Wonders_of_the_World It is dealing with the same topic. The new7wonders wikipedia entry classed this event as a scam. So how does it make sense to pollute other, worthwhile, entries with this and replace things like "UNESCO world heritage site" with "being named as one of the world's seven wonders" (with no mention of it being the classical, real, ones or this commercial event) - DanniellaWB 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It does not belong in the lead section, but is an event related to the modern history of the site and I have no problem mentioning it in an appropriate location. Putting it in the lead gives it undue weight. It is not equivalent to being a UNESCO site in any meaningful way. IPSOS (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I didnt read this before inserting it on the lead. You probably right but seems neither the UNESCO is mentioned on the lead Jor70 14:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UNESCO and this new thing are completely different. It is entirely appropriate to mention UNESCO in the lead. It is well established, has been recognized for decades, and is not a sensationalist publicity stunt! IPSOS (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree , then, why the UNESCO is not mentioned in the lead ? --Jor70 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know. Thought it was but clearly I was confusing this article with another. Feel free to add it or I will later. IPSOS (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've included it, I could've sworn it was there some months ago. Thanks for the assistance btw. Cheers, DanniellaWB 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Y're welcome --Jor70 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petra is one of the new Seven 

message: * Archaeologists seek to safeguard Petra
* Ling.Nut 02:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News story 

message: I shot this picture 6-2007 at the end of the siq.  It's a lot higher res - and has better color than the one up on the page now. Here for everyone's consideration. --KasemO 04:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pic of end of siq? Is it good? 

message: Hi, I added a link to the database of excavations at the Great Temple. The content was developed by researchers and has a Creative Commons license. Due disclosure: I helped create that database. If anyone thinks the link shouldn't be there, please remove it, but it seems relevant to me, even though I'm an interested party.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.226.236 (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added link to database 

message: I just finished watching a documentary on the discovery channel on Petra, and they said they found little figurines of Aphrodite in the tombs and that it was a hellenistic culture.  This seems to contrast with the article that claims they worshipped Arabic Gods, which is strange as from the rest of the article the culture is clearly hellenistic. --216.110.236.243 (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion in Petra

message: Sorry, I'm new to this and I could have done some mistakes, but the Petra article was using those templates
* Template:Multi-video start 
* Template:Multi-video item 
* Template:Multi-video end 
that caused the page to be quite out of wikipedia standards....
HTH, --Giupo777 (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this could have been vandalized 

message: Does anyone know why the article currently displays with all the other-language wiki articles as red links? It shows up properly when you press on the most recent version from the history page, but not when you go to the article directly. NoCal100 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display problems 

message: This inscription is illus. in the article. The following text has been repeatedly deleted:
:The only place in Petra where the name "Rekem" occurs was in the rock wall of the Wadi Musa opposite the entrance to the Siq. About twenty years ago the Jordanians built a bridge over the wadi and this inscription is now buried beneath tons of concrete.
:Brünnow thinks that "the rock" in question was the sacred mountain en-Nejr (above). But Buhl suggests a conspicuous height about  north of Petra, Shobak, the Mont-royal of the Crusaders, aka Montreal.
In this, "Brünnow" refers to Rudolf-Ernst Brünnow, who, with von Domaszewski, made an early attempt at classification of Petra's architecture. "Buhl" referes to Frants Buhl Geschichte der Edomiter (Leipzig, 1893). Someone seems in haste to suppress this text. Blanking isn't editing. --Wetman (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with the inscription but the "buried by the Jordanians beneath tons of rock" really needs some sort of WP:FOOT.Student7 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rekem inscription

message: With a case of a subject like this, one thing pretty much anyone reading the article is going to want to know is: when were the buildings constructed? It should be right in the lead, or otherwise easily discoverable early in the article. The History section here is full of info, but damned if I could find a simple statement along the lines of, "Current estimates place the construction of Petra from ____ to _____ BC." In fact, the History section overall seems too focused on sources and not focused enough on presenting a clear, approachable narrative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NonsuchDan (talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eh, when was it built? 

message: There a lot more references needed in this article. The history section is particularly short of them and is full of POV statements such as "More satisfactory evidence of the date of the earliest Nabataean settlement may be obtained from an examination of the tombs". Who says this evidence is more satisfactory? The paragraph then goes on to say: "Two types may be distinguished—the Nabataean and the Greco-Roman. The Nabataean type starts from the simple pylon-tomb with a door set in a tower crowned by a parapet ornament, in imitation of the front of a dwelling-house." There is no corroboration of this by references and so it could be a completely wrong interpetation. Articles in wikipedia are supposed to be verifiable. Also, the Geography section tells you were the treasury and the theatre are located but there is no mention of the Monastery although it is supposed to be the largest building. It also says "at the foot of the mountain called en-Nejr, is a massive theatre, so placed as to bring the greatest number of tombs within view" What tombs? - they haven't been mentioned before. Richerman (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More references needed 

message: Can someone explain to me why this article is under the Wikiproject Christianity? The people of Petra were hellenized or at least pagans right? Sure, there is some info in the article about Petra being mentioned in the Bible but it's from the Old Testament and related to Judaism, not Christianity. What is the relation to the wikiproject and what info does this article provide to the topic of the wikiproject. 24.182.142.254 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject? 

message: The Greek word πέτρα simply means rock, not cleft in the rock. Reviewing this article's history shows that this spurious translation was added January 2009 by an editor (Rktect) who was blocked soon afterward for "disruptive editing." Before that edit, the translation had been given correctly as simply rock. I am going to remove the spurious and wholly incorrect "cleft in the."--Jim10701 (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that!Student7 (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct translation of Greek πέτρα 

message: I was of the understanding that Petra and Sela' were not one and the same place. Sela' being a sort of natural fort (close to the old Edomite capital of Busheira) used when being attacked (for example the Macedonians in 312BC), described as being a large flat rock on which the defenders took place and that was only mountable by a narrow stairway like path. While Petra lies  in the center surrounded by large rocks (which is quite the opposite), and while accessed by one small entrance as well, the suq, it really doesn't seem to fit the description.
Doing a quick search it seems that nabataea.net seems to agree. will try to reference an Academic work in the future to back this statement up. Of course a lot of work just writes and assumes that petra and sela are the same, I guess it's just a common mistake based on outdated information due to a lack of research in many books. 91.177.163.228 (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed from the lead the unsourced claim that "The earliest historical reference to Petra was an unsuccessful attack on the city ordered by Antigonus I in 312 BC and recorded by various Greek historians." This theory, identifying this "Petra" with the one attacked by the Macedonians in 312, has been largely discarded. See the article Sela (Edom) for more on this. Arminden (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Sela' and Petra really the same? 

message: I removed the category:Arabic Architecture.  reason is, this is an ancient site.  and what is usually called Arabic architecture dates from the seventh century.Broad Wall (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic architecture?

message: The reference provided for this claim (16) doesn't seem to say anything about unsustainable tourism in Petra. 89.211.80.208 (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unsustainable" Tourism 

message: In the article I see that the Romans, Byzantines (admittedly not Westerners under some definitions), and Crusaders knew of Petra.  So in what sense can a Westerner have discovered or rediscovered it in 1812?  It seems akin to saying that a British travel writer "rediscovered" Vietnam in 2003 by writing about it in a magazine and making it an object of interest again. 98.243.172.27 (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rediscovery" 

message: I've just fixed a problem with the article where Mada'in Saleh was identified by an almost untraceable name. There's a serious problem in that a large chunk of the history comes from a 1911 encyclopedia. Not only are encyclopedias bad sources for history - they almost always represent one author's understanding, this is far too old, but it's only been tweaked since it was added in 2002.. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Century old EB material in history 

message: Does anyone have verifiable information on the recent (2015) threat to Petra by triumphant terrorists/Islamicist invaders?  Recent network news broadcasts implied that the same fate as had befallen other archaeological sites overrun -- mass defacement so as to impose Mohammedan strictures against certain images -- was in process against the architecture at Al-Batrā.  A tragedy, if true...!  While one ought not automatically assume such evil acts  ARE  true without data, it should surprise no one if proven.  Again -- anybody have verifiable info?
67.55.154.8 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the Walls Come Tumblin' Down 

message: The Nabateans were Arab, . And I put this because there are some people who mistake the Greek name of Petra into thinking that Petra was built by the Greeks.--Makeandtoss (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked into this a bit more and it seems to be the general consensus. It never occurred to me that people might think they were Greek. Petra's a lovely place, I'm lucky to have been there. Doug Weller (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

text: It probably was built with the involvement of at least greek architects. For example, this and this and this source say so. 91.157.10.191 (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is. But in the past few days I was shocked to hear that some Europeans thought it was made by Greeks!--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab Nabateans 

message: Dan Gibson's book Qur'anic Geography indicates through mapping that early mosques faced Petra, not Mecca.  Islam came from Petra, not Mecca.  Should this be a heading?
: Find this discussion below under "Dan Gibson". --IbnTufail (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early mosques faced Petra 

message: "More satisfactory evidence of the date of the earliest Nabataean settlement may be obtained from an examination of the tombs. Two types of tombs have been distinguished: the Nabataean and the Greco-Roman. The Nabataean type starts from the simple pylon-tomb with a door set in a tower crowned by a parapet ornament, in imitation of the front of a dwelling-house. Then, after passing through various stages, the full Nabataean type is reached, retaining all the native features and at the same time exhibiting characteristics which are partly Egyptian and partly Greek. Of this type close parallels exist in the tomb-towers at Mada'in Saleh in north Arabia, which bear long Nabataean inscriptions and supply a date for the corresponding monuments at Petra. Then comes a series of tomb fronts which terminate in a semicircular arch, a feature derived from north Syria. Finally come the elaborate façades copied from the front of a Roman temple; however, all traces of native style have vanished. The exact dates of the stages in this development cannot be fixed. Few inscriptions of any length have been found at Petra, perhaps because they have perished with the stucco or cement which was used upon many of the buildings. The simple pylon-tombs which belong to the pre-Hellenic age serve as evidence for the earliest period. It is not known how far back in this stage the Nabataean settlement goes, but it does not go back farther than the 6th century BC." is from the 1911 EB.
A period follows in which the dominant civilization combines Greek, Egyptian and Syrian elements, clearly pointing to the age of the Ptolemies. Towards the close of the 2nd century BC, when the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms were equally depressed, the Nabataean kingdom came to the front. Under Aretas III Philhellene, (c.85–60 BC), the royal coins begin. The theatre was probably excavated at that time, and Petra must have assumed the aspect of a Hellenistic city. In the reign of Aretas IV Philopatris, (9 BC–40 AD), the tombs of the el-I~ejr type may be dated, and perhaps also the High-place. is copied from the same source or the 1926 version or een a later version. Copying broke some the text so that "el Hejr" which is Mada'in Saleh became "el-I~ejr". All of this was easy to find. We have a lot of articles with material from the EB1911 but I'm not happy with that. On the other hand, this article clearly states in the references that "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "article name needed". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press." Doug Weller talk 12:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text and where it was copied from 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Petra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111228122554/http://petranationaltrust.org/ui/ShowContent.aspx?ContentId=1 to http://www.petranationaltrust.org/UI/ShowContent.aspx?ContentId=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi everyone, I was just wondering why my paragraph on the animal abuse at Petra was deleted?? Thanks in advance for your feedback (OliCharlton (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:REF, please. Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

text: User:Makeandtoss may want to answer that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal Abuse at Petra 

message: Petra and Jinns Mammyounas (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to provide a bit more than just three words. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV Show Jinn 

message: Petra is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible/OT, at least there is no certainty about it, and the only contemporary Edomite village there  the one at Umm al-Biyara, was a tiny site, so no surprise that it's not in the OT. Arminden (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jokteel is NOT Petra, remove autodirect! 

message: Petra Roman Road wikilink links right back to Petra article. Never defined. What is it? All I can think of is the Roman-period main street (not road) in the city centre, leading to Qasr el-Bint. Or is some trade road connecting Petra with, say, Via Nova Traiana meant? Please, either fix or remove the autodirect!!! Thanks. Arminden (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Petra Roman Road? Remove autodirect! 

message: We don't have here a proper "Description" paragraph - was that a conscious decision? Yes, there are lots of good online descriptions, but so what, this is WP!
Considering that, I think we at least need a well-visible list of the main sites, not hidden in the "Petra category", which hardly anyone looks at & which contains some topics only remotely connected to the Petra site. For that reason I added to "see also" a list of already existing WP articles under the heading "Petra monuments, findings, and nearby related sites", adding "(see also "Petra" category below)". Please don't remove or change this useful item in major ways until we do have a description of Petra containing wikilinks to all the listed sites. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was not offering a description a conscious decision? 

message: :The treasury has to be part of the infobox picture. Petra is almost synonymous with the treasury for many people. A collection of different pictures for the treasury, little Petra and other structures in the city of Petra can serve as an inclusive infobox picture. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox picture

message: The "tourism" section contained two photos of some brits who finished some trail race that ended in petra.  There were two photos of the same couple - which is one more photo than the whole page has of petra itself.  these photos and the accompanying text added zero to the article and are reasonably understood to be ego-based vandalism and hence were removed.  The "tourism" section deserves legitimate expansion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6484:DB00:E556:641F:5778:70F1 (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Ego Photos 

message: Hi my name is Lea  I am going to tell you about Petra. The Petra names come from the Greek rock. It is a historic and archeological city in souther Jordan. 188.247.79.10 (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petra 

message: I am questioning this line
 "The name 'Rekem' (rqm) was inscribed in the rock wall of the Wadi Musa opposite the entrance to the Siq. However, Jordan built a bridge over the wadi and this inscription was buried beneath tons of concrete."
First of all, it is not clear where the inscription is (or was) nor when is was found or inscribed - surely this can be reworded, eg. "an inscription reading .... was found ... " 
Also "Jordan" the country built the bridge? Wouldn't the passive be better here? It doesn't say when the bride was built. Is there a photo of this bridge? Also, the "tons" on concrete sounds like criticism or rhetorical exaggeration - is it important how many tons? 2A02:8108:48BF:F214:6DD6:386D:5C3F:B686 (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The part about the bridge is going out until a proper source is provided. The current source is a tourism company, which is a type of source notoriously unreliable. Zerotalk 07:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm also removing the image as the only inscription visible on it is some modern graffiti in English letters. From the snippets I can see of the source, the inscription is there but if it isn't visible in the photo there is no point in having it. The source doesn't suggest any age or spelling of the inscription, which sort of makes it hard to justify. I'll look at the source in a few days. Zerotalk 07:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

text: The "tons of concrete" part was a copy-paste from the tourism company. Zerotalk 07:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Ok, I found proper sources and they explain why I couldn't find the inscriptions in the photo: they are about a meter underground! I have to sort out the details, then I'll rewrite that section. Zerotalk 08:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of the "rekem" inscription 

message: This article currently says that "Petra may be seen on the Madaba mosaic map from the reign of Emperor Justinian." As far as I know the mosaic map currently doesn't include Petra. Wondering what this is referring to? Is it known that Petra was on a part of the map that's missing? 188.247.70.218 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petra on mosaic map in madaba 

message: The Treasury image is inverted/upsidedown. Mrericsully (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treasury Image 

message: Nothing in terms of real geological background: what formations, their age and composition, tectonics - nothing! Sandstone & erosion is far too superficial. Arminden (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology??