Talk:Mesha Stele

message: This article leaves me still asking: is the reading "House of David" generally accepted in respectable academic circles, or is it not? PiCo 04:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the heading Content, the current last paragraph, which I added on Feb. 23, attempts to answer this question.  In this paragraph, I had to open up a really squirmy can of worms, so I tried open it as little as possible: the matter of the biblical maximalist-minimalist controversy that has occasioned searching discussion, ungentlemanly exchanges, and not a few books.  It probably merits an eventual article of its own.  Lawrencemykytiuk 23:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, PiCo, because of the Tel Dan stele, even scholars who are not fond of the idea of a real, historical David will reluctantly accept that a certain David actually did rule somewhere in the southern kingdom of Judah, during the tenth century B.C.E.  Typically, they quickly go on to claim that the David of the Tel Dan stele was at the level of a chieftain and that his kingdom was a very small "cow town" named Jerusalem, with its nearby environs.  Relatively few scholars reject the reading "House of David."  On another note, I really need to apologize for the lengthy delay in replying, PiCo.  Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Where does it say "David" or this other things. Why has no one circled the named of Yahweh? And how is it possible when the language is not Hebrew? 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The language is closely related to Hebrew, it also uses a variant of early Hebrew scripts. 2601:140:8900:61D0:2511:ADB4:C001:50E4 (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of David 

message: I'm confused as to why the Tel Dan Stele article has two transliterations and a modern translation, while this much more extensive and arguably more important text only has a very old and not very accurate translation and no transliteration. Johundhar (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is questioning the quality of the new translation. The difficulty is that Wikipedia has to obey copyright law and you can't arbitrarily insert material from a copyrighted source. There are possibilities that include fair-use, limited quotation, and paraphrase but the details are complex. I suggest you converse with administrator  about how to best present your source within the rules. Zerotalk 02:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Since Wikipedia is freely licensed content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute, it's not appropriate to copypaste large amounts of non-free text into Wikipedia. A more appropriate way to do it is to offer a link to the translation in the external links section of the article.— Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: I reorganized the translation to correspond with line numbers of the source.
Also fixed some inacurracies. The meaning of "לפני" is "before" or "in front off", it litteraly means "at the face of". It can be translated to "before", or if one wants be litteral "at the face of", but not "before the face of".
Same with "מפני", which means "away from", and litteraly "from the face of".
Itaj Sherman (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: There is only one sentence describing possibly one of the most important aspects of the stone: "The Stele is also significant in that it mentions the Hebrew name of God - YHWH. It is thought to be the earliest known reference to the sacred name in any artefact." Also, this section should stand on its own and the Contents section should be broken in to subsections. Just an observation: Researcher123456789 (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted to a much earlier versionj of the page, one last edited by User:Lawrencemykytiuk. Mykytiuk is an important scholar of ancient Levantine languages and inscriptions, and we were very fortunate that he took time to edit our article. I feel that edits since then have actually tended to make the article worse, not better, although of course that wasn't anyone's intention. I've given Mykytiuk's version a very light edit, largely from the point of style - too many words, which is a failing common to academic writing. Plus of course the editors in this thread are quite right about the need to find references for the transcription and translation - I'll try to do this. But please, don't change the actual article too much unless you're very sure it leads to an improvement. [User:PiCo|PiCo]] (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in the previous section, I organized the translation to fit the line in the source, and then more accurate words. Others including you, fixed the translation even further. Your revert put it back to the state it was before, without the fitting lines, and some inaccurate translation. It seems that Mykytiuk, in all his edits in 2006, did not change the translation except one link, I don't know that gave it any attention. I think it was in best state right before your revert. I think we should put that version back in, and ask Mykitiuk to give it a look. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been 2 days and still no word. I just went ahead and re-reverted the translation to the revision as it was just before your revert. And also I put back the right allignment for the hebrew text, which is the right allignment, instead of the wrong one which is left, or the left one which is wrong (depends how you interpret the beginning of this sentence). --Itaj Sherman (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you, PiCo, for the revert during September 2009, and thank you, Itaj Sherman, for handling the translation.  I was a bit discouraged by what seemed to be erosion of the article, so the reversion was a morale boost.  As you have correctly observed, I did not check the translation, figuring that someone else concerned for its accuracy would handle that part.  I have no problem with anyone's editing in the direction of conciseness, as long as it is careful, as PiCo's edits are, thank goodness.  With one book to my name, I care enough to edit certain aspects when I can.  Sorry for the seven-month delay due to an academic year full of crunch times followed by recuperations and new pressures.  Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawrence, I've taken the liberty of extending the paragraph about Rainey's reconstruction of line 12 to take in what I found in the DDD - I felt this was needed for balance. I've tried not to support or denigrate either possible reading (how could I?), but feel free to amend or revert me if you disagree. How I wish Wikipedia were always so civilised. PiCo (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking important information 

message: Moved to talk since not in English RJFJR (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Did you transcribe this one-to-one from the Phoenician letters? Ligata (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was posted here by either someone using multiple ID addresses or a sockpuppet, copied from elsewhere on the web. Even if they are still around they probably won't respond. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Text

message: There is a better photo [IMO] of the Mesha Stele at the wiki "Tetragrammaton" article. Maybe someone may wish to change it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better photo of Mesha Stele 

message: So the original is missing, and the paper mache caste has never been shown?
And we're supposed to just assume that this is genuine?  Do they think we're idiots?
216.54.22.188 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the original is not missing, but it is damaged. The pieces were reassembled and are on display in the Louvre Museum. -- Lindert (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof 

message: Does anyone have a copy of the following book:
* Albert / Abraham Löwy, A Critical Examination of the So-Called Moabite Inscription in the Louvre, 3d ed., London: Printed for private circulation, 1903.
It questions the authenticity of the Mesha Stele. Would be interesting to see the basis on which it is questioned. Presumably part of the scepticism is based on the fact that in 1868 archaeological science was still relatively undeveloped and the expected confirmation bias of the Church Mission Society. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to that book, but the fact that archaeological science was undeveloped at the time of discovery is actually a strong argument for the authenticity of the stele. The reason is that a forger in the 19th century could not have known the details of the Moabite script. At the time almost nothing from that location and period had been excavated. Subsequently scientists have found many new (fragementary) inscriptions which match the Mesha Stele. -- Lindert (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , FYI I just added a quote from William F. Albright using your exact argument above. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I should note though that Albright's argument is not wholly convincing, given that pages 19-46 of Gesenius's 1837 work include all of the variations of each of the characters in the Mesha Stele: . Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite, I believe. Many letters are very similar, but it's about the details. Look for instance at the vav and the qoph: both are symmetrical in the Mesha Stele, but Gesenius has no symmetrical variants of either letter. - Lindert (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your analysis. Worth noting that Schroder had 331 Phoenician inscriptions at the time of the Mesha Stele versus only 70 available to Gesenius (p.241). Oncenawhile (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , out of interest, are you aware of any similar inscriptions with a symmetrical qoph? Lidzbarski's 1898 table suggests that the Mesha stele was still unusual from that perspective based on the corpus at the end of the 19th century. A few years later the Stele of Zakkur and Kilamuwa Stela were found, and both were mentioned by Albright as being similar to the Mesha script - I can't see symmetrical qophs in either of those but it may be the photos are not high res enough. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Looking at Lidzbarski's Aramaic table (now added on right), the qoph matches that much better. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was just about to post that the Melqart Stele has a very similar qoph (see p. 120 of this article. I am not currently aware of any examples in Hebrew or Phoenician inscriptions, but I haven't really looked into it much. - Lindert (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As do the Nerab and Zincirli inscriptions (see Monsieur C-G on his publication of the Nerab steles). It seems strange that the only known scripts which match were discovered 400-500km away... Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Assyrian Lion Weights were discovered by Layard in the late 1840s, with a very similar script. This seems to me to undermine Albright's argument that this Mesha form of the script was unknown at the time. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Critical Examination 

message: We have a translation of the entire text, 566 words, in our articles. That much text is copyvio, and I'm asking for advice on trimming. What would be best of course is to find a PD translation. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a PD translation from 1888 here by Archibald Sayce (1846-1933). We could use that, but we should not ignore subsequent research and insights. Maybe we could use footnotes in places where modern translations differ significantly. - Lindert (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I knew Sayce had made one but the only version I found was interspersed with commentary, this is much easier to copy. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not at all happy with a translation that's getting on for a century old - things have moved on. I'd like to find something more recent. PiCo (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: I have decided to undo the following changes 08:46, 7 April 2013‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,437 bytes) (-44)‎ . . (Jehovah is not the same as Yahweh) (undo) 
My reasons are here in more detail. The appearance of the Biblical God on the Moabite Stone is very significant in that it provides another non-biblical reference to the divine name יהוה (YHWH). In Hebrew יהוה is generally pronounced Yahweh. Later Yahweh was translated into Latin as Iehova, and finally it was translated into Jehovah in English. There is nothing controversial about noting this stone containing the divine name. In fact it is very important to note this because King Mesha was not part of the nation of Israel. That Mesha knew the God of the Hebrews by name enough to inscribe this name on his stone tablet is very important. Gorba (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The stele does not describe the name, so that's wrong. Except for the translation the article uses Yahweh. The old translation we had used YHWH, but that had to be replaced with a free much older one. The name on the stone is clearly not Jehovah but Yahweh/YHWH, and a Google books search shows that Yahweh or YHWH is the preferred use. More than that,  Yahweh is neutral it may refer to either a god of the Israelites or the god of the Israelites, thus it is not identical with Jehovah. Jehovah is generally thought of as the monotheistic god of Israel, and we don't know exactly what was meant by the word Yahweh on the stone - other than it referred to a god of Israel (read the article). So Jehovah is a violation of WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is like saying 4 + 4 is the ONLY way to get 8. I have already provided evidence that Jehovah and Yahweh are the same name. Scholars the world over would agree with this conclusion. Jehovah is simply the Latin-English version of the divine name. In fact the name Jehovah actually appears in the translation within the article -- "I devoted them to Ashtar-Chemosh; and I took from it the vessels of Jehovah, and offered them before Chemosh." -- I am simply highlighting it as an item worth noting. To deny this edit on some sort of bizarre technicality is not only is wrong but also goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. I would appreciate it if - as a long time visitor and contributor - you would discontinue undoing my edits. Gorba (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Folks, there are several distinct issues here.  First, Gorba is correct that "יהוה" is the same as Yahweh, though not correct that "in Hebrew יהוה is generally pronounced Yahweh".  Actually it is not usually pronounced at all, since halacha forbids it; however Yahweh is considered by scholars a fair guess at how it would be pronounced.  Gorba is also correct that Jehovah is the same as יהוה too: it is an erroneous transliteration of יהוה that somehow came into the English language.  However, I don't think Gorba's sentence is good.  For a start, the stele mentions יהוה but doesn't describe it.  Second, the interpretation of the word יהוה in the passage as the Israelite god is one for scholars to argue about.  This interpretation is not plainly provided by the text itself and so we shouldn't make a claim about it as a fact. Zerotalk 07:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, probably better explained than I could. The other point is that Yahweh as a name didn't always refer to the monotheistic Israelite god, or at least that scholars make a case that it wasn't. If you read the article it took a while after the first appearance of the name for that to occur. As Zero0000 says, we shouldn't make a claim about this as fact. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing important information 

message: I moved the Following HERE:
The stele, whose story parallels, with some differences, an episode in the bible's Books of Kings (2 Kings 3:4-8), provides invaluable information on the Moabite language and the political relationship between Moab and Israel at one moment in the 9th century BCE. It is the most extensive inscription ever recovered that refers to the kingdom of Israel (the "House of Omri"), it bears the earliest certain extra-biblical reference to the Israelite god Yahweh, and — if French scholar André Lemaire's reconstruction of a portion of line 31 is correct — the earliest mention of the "House of David" (i.e., the kingdom of Judah).
I went to the source. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0ya0XskpSC4J:www.cojs.org/pdf/house_of_david.pdf+House+of+David%27+restored+in+Moabite+Inscription&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiDgJM9zOiYPXCyWcqqc5_FEDVsiHG059P8W_kK3QSp4AXJ4KTH2-QEE5MPDMExqhAr2iwuWDgU24IRNyhr-bhpNTkL4_qIoCrW5QJsh59s-KMulVh33vq0eo2F65Yd_82ZTlk4&sig=AHIEtbTxYcTg1Ubc4ZP-iYlaiKYXmLZImg ~ The image is not in any language I can recognize. Moabite what? Needs some cross source verification that these letter refer to what is being claimed. In Greek, the name Jesus is written as "Joshua". Check the Chalcedon and Niacene Scrolls for yourself as I have done online. This habit of, "Hey this name is just another name for that person", without any phonetic basis is killing the Religious Archaeology profession. {The reason for the jesus error, is that J did not exist until after 1,000AD. His phonetic name was "iisoun" in greek, and "yay'soun" in old latin, the "yay'suse" in middle latin. And again with they added "J" to the alphabet they tried to unite Jew with Jesus by using the same letter to name both faith and people.} 
The highest concern, is that the parts being sighted were all added back into the tablet from the plaster imprint? How do we know this isn't a silly putty trick? Seriously, they could have printed this on clay, they transferred it to the broken parts of the tablet. What they quote and refer to, can not be located on the parts that are original, and they seem to have discarded the broken piece, rather than keep them? No Hebrew would ever throw away the original pieces!!! 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal problems with the sources don't count here.  You need to argue that the text is not supported by the source.  Can you? Zerotalk 09:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can. There is no proof the source relates to what is claimed. There is not proof the text was not invented in plaster. ~ Lack of proof, makes their claims invalid. No honest archaeologist throws away the original pieces. / This is like the fake T Rex Dinosaur bones they found up north in the USA while I was a kid. You make a plaster skeleton, that is not proof of a real skeleton or creature.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4WhatMakesSense (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the source is Lemaire's paper.  Not the stele.  You are not entitled to argue against Lemaire, nor to interpret the stele yourself.  This is what the rules say.  If you want to make your own arguments, you need to do it somewhere else. Zerotalk 13:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a Professional and a Hoax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man You can't believe people who, throw away the original Stone Evidence.  4WhatMakesSense (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the reason that Wikipedia reports Piltdown Man as a hoax is because scholarly sources agree that it is a hoax. You and I cannot judge these things for ourselves according to Wikipedia's rules. We need reliable published sources. If most scholars would still be fooled by the Piltdown hoax, we as editors would be required to report it as genuine. Remember Wikipedia does NOT publish Original Research. - Lindert (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Where do you get that "they" threw away original pieces? (I read some but not all of the article.) The article says some bedouins destroyed it due to some controversy over ownership (and maybe for other reasons). Misty MH (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: As to listing "Jesus" and "Joshua" here, and the letter "J", how is all that relevant to the article at hand? Misty MH (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: And, further, the way you've stated it about "Jesus" and "Joshua" (if I may continue what seems like a tangent in Talk) doesn't seem entirely accurate. Yes, there was no "J", perhaps, but the question would seem to be about IDENTITY not to some English rendering of a word. The Greek word for Joshua was apparently the SAME for Jesus, or at least several major translators of the Bible thought so. SEE Hebrews 4:8 in the NASB, ESV, NIV, YLT, RSV, or ASV. http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=%22Joshua%22&t=NASB#s=s_primary_58_1 AND http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&c=4&v=8&t=NASB#s=t_conc_1137008 (The Web site only supported use of the Concordance when using either the NASB or KJV. I picked the NASB for this topic, tangential to the topic of the Mesha Stele.) Some older versions in English, such as the KJV, "translate" 4:8 as "Jesus", which, if it's in reference to Joshua, would have been confusing to readers of those versions. Misty MH (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility of Both Authorship & Translation in Question 

message: I find the idea that there was an image of the original existing in a "squeeze" as fascinating, but in a quick Google search of images, I do not find a photo of the squeeze anywhere, though it is listed as existing at the same location as the Stele itself. Can some savvy editors or readers of this locate good photos of the squeeze itself? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of the SQUEEZE 

message: All the references that have just the author's last name need to be expanded to include the name of the work and other identifying information so other readers can take advantage of the rest of the material in them.  
71.163.117.143 (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Full specification of the references appears in the bibliography section.  Are any missing?  There seem to be a few errors; for example "Green 2004" is apparently the same as "Green 2010".  This page (fn. 84) of Green's book gives a cite to Ne'eman.  It would be fine to check Ne'eman's original and put in a direct citation if it is called for, but citing Green citing Ne'eman like we do now is allowed within our rules. Btw, the Ne'eman article seems to be IEJ 47(1997)83–92. Zerotalk 14:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete references 

message: I believe I need to make everyone aware that a new translation proposal has appeared for this Stele and others as well based upon an alphabetic form of Akkadian. You can see it at this website. Thoughts?
SalamisDragon (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. We can't use self-published sources unless  there has been significant discussion in sources meeting WP:RS, which in this case would be academic sources. 12:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Translation in Alphabetic Akkadian 

message: While the presented translation might be somewhat useful for readers interested in the inscription from a Biblical (or story telling) POV, it is not the most useful from a Linguist's POV.
While a linguistical analysis - would be to put it mildly not the most relevant for a story-oriented reader. Should there be a subpage with 'linguistic analysis of the inscription'? it makes certain sence, since for most readers the even actual text (in Moabit) probably seems like line-noise.
What's the current 'standart' in such articles of historic documents?
 
The translation of the sentence: "and I killed in all seven thousand men, but I did not kill the women and maidens, for I devoted them to Ashtar-Chemosh" - is just wrong. It says  exactly the opposite of what the original text says.
The original text says:
16.     זה. "ואהרג. כלה. שבעת. אלפנ. גברנ. ו[גר]נ | וגברת. וגר
17.     ת. ורחמת | כי. לעשתר. כמש. החרמתה" | ואקח. משמ. א[ת.
That means, in English: "And I killed it (i.e, the city) all. Seven thousand men and boys, women and girls, and pregnant women (or "embryos")*, because I sacrificed it (i.e, the city)** to Ashtar-Chemosh".
The words "but I did not kill" simply don't appear in that text (or anything else like them). The translator only imagined them (maybe out of the kindness of his own heart).
*The word "רחמת" comes from "womb", but it is not clear if it means "pregnant women" or perhaps "embryos".
**The word "החרמתה", which I translated as "sacrificed", is the same word as "חרם" which is used in the Hebrew Bible to indicate that the entire population of a city was killed, as a special kind of sacrifice or gesture to god, and no prisoners or booty were taken. For example see in the Bible: "..and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys" (Joshua 6: 20-21). The single Hebrew word used here that was translated here as "They devoted the city to the Lord" is "וַיַּחֲרִימוּ". The verb "חרם" actually means "to sacrifice by killing and/or burning", and that's exactly what Mesha king of Moab did - according to his own description. He killed everybody, for his god Chemosh... Pleas fix the translation, it's wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.74.209.206 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We can only change the translation on the basis of a translation published in a reliable source.  This is according to the rules. Zerotalk 08:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Doug Weller (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation

message: you are right there is nothing here - the discussion is at Talk:Tel Dan Stele#Only four. It seems to me if we are to have a binding decision across the four articles, we need to invite views from all four talk pages...
Oncenawhile (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mesha Stele. 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/20120331134523/http://www.cojs.org/pdf/house_of_david.pdf to http://www.cojs.org/pdf/house_of_david.pdf
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) 08:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The English Wikisource now has Compston's 1919 article on s:The Inscription on the Stele of Méšaʿ, with the Moabite text in Phoenician script, the same text in Hebrew square script, and an English translation of the text.
This article is not yet referenced in the Bibliography of the Wikipedia article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New text available on Wikisource 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: He was a creationist evangelist. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harry Rimmer]] wasn’t an archaeologist