Talk:Bat Creek Inscription

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why does this article this have a runestone template, when the inscription doesn't contain runes, and apparently no one ever claimed that it contained runes? AnonMoos 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First person

The first person sentence "I note..." violates Wikipedia style requirements. AnonMoos 14:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This article quotes extensively from my webpage "The Bat Creek Stone" at http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/batcrk.html, without quotation marks or even a citation. The first person ("I note..") objected to above by AnonMoos is myself, speaking in my own webpage. While I appreciate the well-meaning use of my material as authoritative, it constitutes plagiarism not to use quotes and cites. Also, please note that Mertz and Ayoob are not Smithsonian archaeologists (nor did I claim they were), and that the photograph accompanying the article is not Smithsonian Public Domain as claimed, but rather is copyrighted by Warren Dexter, and lifted from my site, where I posted it with his permission. His copyright notice was cropped from the Wiki version. It's a great photo, but you'd have to get his permission to use it other than on my webpage, or else use a different photo. HuMcCulloch 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I might add that the stone has been identified by a Smithsonian geologist as siltstone, coated on the insribed side with an iron oxide crust, not greywacke as claimed in the Wiki article. The misidentification as greywacke goes back to Cyrus Gordon, I believe, who apparently was confusing its material with that of the Kensington Runestone. HuMcCulloch 20:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

HuMcCulloch, why don't you modify the article and references to quote you properly, or give your permission here on the talk page foir the material to be used?