Talk:Tar pit

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Dead Sea

The Hebrews knew tar pits. According to the Holy Bible there used to be tar pits in the vale of Siddim before there was the Dead Sea.--80.141.246.121 (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The day we start citing the Bible as a historic reference work is the day Wikipedia stops being taken even remotely seriously... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.46.110 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bible has more archaeological supporting sources than any other document has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.226.6.204 (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This could be added if you made sure to clearly state that it came from the Bible. This would tell the reader that the facts came from a less reliable source then others. Wiparker (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding content

I was think about adding more sentences to the intro to add a description about what happens to the asphalt as it is coming to the surface. Does this make sense? Wiparker (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC) D[reply]

Does it make sense to add more to each section to make the definitions bigger?Wiparker (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any sources I could use for this? Wiparker (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or disambig needed

Tarpit redirects here, but there's also Tarpit (networking). Should be findable somehow... Equinox ◑ 14:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Only the skull and parts of the skeleton"

" Only the skull and parts of the skeleton" Extremely vague.

That could be anything from the skull and one vertebrae to a skull and all the other bones minus one. Robcat2075 (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]