Talk:Georgia Guidestones/Archive 1

Mildred and Wayne Mullenix

Did these individuals give permission for the stones to be erected on their property? Are they still alive?

Also, it seems that the local area came to accommodate the stones, naming a road after them and putting up signs directing visitors to the stones. Anyone ever speculate if this was just a local chamber of commerce trying to generate revenues? 98.221.131.77 (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

From a Wired magazine article on the guidestones: "Fendley and Martin helped Christian find a suitable site for the Guidestones in Elbert County: a flat-topped hill rising above the pastures of the Double 7 Farms, with vistas in all directions. For $5,000, owner Wayne Mullinex signed over a 5-acre plot. In addition to the payment, Christian granted lifetime cattle-grazing rights to Mullinex and his children, and Mullinex's construction company got to lay the foundation for the Guidestones."
Davefoc (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If that's correct, then Wayne Mullenix no longer owns the property, but apparently this mysterious Christian does. Wonder if he pays property taxes every year. Has no one looked into this? 98.221.131.77 (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the Wired article ownership was transferred to the county. I added a new topic on this since the Wikipedia article at present says the ownership of the monument is unclear. Davefoc (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but now the question becomes: who was the property owner who transfered the land over to the county? In all likelihood, Mullenix transfered the land to Christian, who then transfered the land to the county. Perhaps there is some way of finding out who exactly held the deed to the land just before it was given to the county. 98.221.131.77 (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable line of inquiry to me. If the Wired account is correct the property changed hands twice in a relevant time period. Once when it was transferred from the Mullinex's to R. C. Christian and once from Christian to the county. Could Christian have used a false name to register the land? Could he have used a false name to transfer land to the county? It seems like it might be sketchy to do something like that. One theory here is that it was indeed just a big prank cooked up by Fenley and Martin and there was no Christian. A review of county records might flesh that idea out a bit. The Elbert land documents confirm some of the Wired story details, i.e. $5000 for land, 5 acre parcel but it looks like the land might have transferred directly to the county without Christian ever owning it. That would have allowed Christian to keep his name secret. I think you can use a secret name all you want to give money to somebody to get them to give their land to the county. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefoc (talk • contribs) 05:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The stones vandalized

Should www.prisonplanetcom/georgia-guidestones-vandalized.html this] be mentioned in the article? --David Munch (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Alex Jones' sites are about as untrustworthy as sources can be. However, there are photos included -- although there has been discussion about the possibility of their being fake. I don't know if www.infowarscom/?p=6477 Infowars] is considered the slightly more "respectable" of Jones' sites (in the relative sense), but it has more comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's not a single mention of the graffiti incident/s on the live page, the alledged vandalization is definitely a signifigant incident concerning the stones' history, the most notable since the actual anonymous erection of them- it should be included, period. There's video footage of the graffitied stones on youtube with tourists walking around them, etc. Even if they were fake (which is extremely unlikely) they have generated enough interest to be a signifigant event involving the stones, real or unreal anyway, and still deserves a mention! An AP article that was quoted at the end of one of Georgia's local papers articles, the Augusta Georgia, they gave a mention of them being graffitied in a separate incident in 1998 that I think should also be covered: http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/082398/met_LG0415-1.001.shtml 91.85.141.64 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to the vandalism in news sources. Someone spray-painting a monument is hardly notable. Imagine if we noted it in the article of every building or monument that has been vandalized one way or another.   Will Beback  talk  19:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There was an article in Wired about this and the writer stated that just before he visited the Stones, they were vandalized and said something along the lines of, "Down with the New World Order" Geogo3r (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am planning to write a paragraph or two about this based on the Wired article and other sources. Pergamino (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just visited the stones today and the grafitti is getting worse. Should users here be concerned about the vandalism reference creating copycat vandals? 16 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.40.163 (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No. 173.164.86.190 (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The actions of those at large are part of ongoing events concerning the monument and definetly have a place within the article. J.Rly (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Explanatory tablet text

I have just added the full text of the explanatory tablet that is located to the west of the monument. Since so much information about the stones seems to be derived from this tablet, I thought it appropriate to present the full text in all its glory. I can see that it needs some work to pretty it up and improve the formatting; I will take a stab at this in coming days.

If anyone else wants to work on this text, my only request is to maintain the original typography, punctuation, spellings, line breaks, etc. I think it is important to represent the inscription just as it is in reality. --Craigkbryant 16:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If there is a suitable photograph of the explanatory tablet available, or if one could be made, that would be a good addition.

Does anyone know when the tablet was added? I was reviewing a document made by the quarry and stone-cutting companies and the explanatory tablet was not mentioned, along with no mention of the time capsule. This leads me to suspect it was added at a later date.

The article is also missing a good photo of how the noon calendar worked. 174.250.50.8 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Masonic connections?

I am looking for supporting evidence or sources to go with the sentence, "Many believe it is connected in more than one way to the Freemason fraternity," in the introductory paragraph of this article. At present, I have nothing but this assertion to connect the Guidestones to Freemasonry. In particular, there are no words or symbols on the monument or the nearby tablet that I think of as characteristically masonic, nor is R.C. Christian described as a mason in any of the material I have assembled to date. I am therefore planning to remove that sentence from the opening paragraph, and possibly from the entire article. Can anyone step forward to provide sources?--Craigkbryant 14:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the Grand Lodge of Georgia, there is a Masonic Lodge in Elberton, 8 miles away, and another one in the town of Bowman, which is also at some distance. But you might just as easily say that the Guidestones are "not far from" a gas station or a Baptist church. I am therefore removing the phrase about the stones being "not far from" a Masonic lodge. The question still stands about Masonic connections, as discussed above.--Craigkbryant 21:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The last reference to the Freemasons in the article has been removed for lack of references/evidence.--Craigkbryant 15:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The date 3/22 for Skull & Bones New Guy 00:49 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is your proof: The Age of Reason was a book written by Thomas Paine. Its intent was to destroy the Judeo-Christian beliefs upon which Western civilisation was founded. It tells a deistic and masonic story [1]--Stijn Calle (talk) 13:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Paine was not a freemason. The Age of Reason was about Deism. Indeed, he wrote about Christianity and also of Freemasonry, but he claims they are both based on Sun worshipping, whereas Deism is not. F3E9EC7 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the link to Paine's book seems appropriate, but if you want to argue the masonic content of it, the place for that is probably in the article on The Age of Reason. As for "western civilization" being built on "Judeo-Christian beliefs"...Rome? Greece? Mesopotamia? In any event, those are issues to be debated on the appropriate page.--Craigkbryant (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone see similitude to the protocl of Zion? [2] 205.205.194.43 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I was going to add some citation requests throughout the article, but realized that it's almost entirely without cites. The sections referencing R.C. Christian and his intent in particular need help.Wyatt Riot 08:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

other guidestones?

Are there other modernly erected guidestones in other places around the nation or world? --voodoom 03:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

The controversy section now has an external link to a Canadian web site featuring an article on John Conner of "The Resistance". A Google search on this name brings us to this site [3] which looks like original research to me. While it may be true that John Conner has asked for the Guidestones to be removed, this external reference to Canada Free Press is not an authoritative reference. Both "The Resistance" and the Canada Free Press article just spout the same stuff that was correctly removed from this page.

I think we should remove the entire controversy section as it violates WP:OR. There is no controversy except in the minds of a very few people. If we accept this section then we should rightly add a controversy section to the page on the planet Earth, citing controversy that it is really flat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.244.60 (talk • contribs) 21:53, January 21, 2007

For reference, this is the section that was removed:

==Controversy==

A California man named John Conner has called for the Guidestones to be removed from public property saying they are an occult monument.[4] He believes the name "R.C. Christian" is actually a reference to Christian Rosenkreuz, the supposed founder of the Rosicrucians, a secret society dating back to the 15th century.

Personally, I found the information interesting, and the Free Press article looks reasonable: [5], especially considering how few references there are on anything else in the article. In other words, in comparison to the rest of the article's references, the Free Press article looks like the closest thing we have to a "reliable source", so I recommend keeping it. --Elonka 02:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, there is a long history between Wikipedia and John Conner, who has repeatedly tried to use this project to promote his "Resistance Manifesto". While we have removed his other "contributions" we have previously kept this one reference because it is non-promotional, relevant, and sourced. -Will Beback · † · 04:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it not strike anyone as suspicious that John Conner is the name of a fictional character from the Terminator film series, and accordingly is the head of the "resistance" in the future? This whole thing sounds like a joke. Ninahexan (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not too suspicious, mainly because the Terminator character is spelled "Connor," but also because both the first and last name are very common. Mason1024 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

History

The history section is inconsistent with the section describing the monument itself. History claims R.C. Christian commissioned the monument, yet the section on the tablets relate that they are inscribed that RC Christian is the author. The monument is inscribed that "a small group of Americans" commissioned the monument. History should either get a solid citation for RCC being the person who paid for the monuments, or it should be changed to reflect what the monument itself claims. Or the history section could be cut down to just the verifiable facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.244.60 (talk • contribs) 22:11, January 21, 2007

The man who worked for the company that made these monuments was given the name of R. C. Christian by the person who paid for them. He was the only person to have met the man. Therefore his word on this matter is enough of a solid citation. Keep it the way it is.68.231.113.148 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)The Mosquito

Why is it not possible to research who owns the property? Who pays the taxes?190.135.163.199 (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Deb

Alex Jones, in his 2008 documentary 'Endgame: Blueprint For Global Enslavement' highlights "the message of the mysterious Georgia Guidestones, purportedly built by representatives of a secret society called the Rosicrucian Order, which call for a global religion, world courts, and for population levels to be maintained at around 500 million, over a 5.5 billion reduction from current levels. The stones infer that humans are a cancer upon the earth and should be culled in order to maintain balance with nature."

Do people really have nothing better to do than to vandalize Wikipedia, honestly? I'm not so wikisavvy, but can someone replace the text that used to be there instead of this Ted Turner stuff. Grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.12.119 (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the text you just deleted - do you have any idea what text used to be there? WHat's your beef with it? Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Has any one really read that Ted Turner Article. Its pure speculation with an obvious bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.160.7 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

LRH Connection?

Steven Fishman claimed that these were erected as a monument to L. Ron Hubbard.[6] Any possibility of truth to that? Fishman's "Lonesome Squirrel" doesn't look, shall we say, entirely authoritative, but this claim doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.--VAcharon (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fishman's story appears to be heavily dramatized, to put it politely. He claims in the leadup that someone told him the whole story of Xenu in a causal conversation. That doesn't happen in Scientology, ever. Anyone caught doing that (i.e. giving away Scientology's biggest secret for free) would be slapped so hard with ethics punishments his head would spin. WillOakland (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Frater CRC

I removed the following from the Explanatory Tablet section since it came without references. If the author could add a reference we could add it back.

"The identification of the author may be linked with Frater C.R.C. the Christian Rosenkreuz (Christian Rose Cross) of Rosicrucianism. "

Jimbo (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC).

It was restored and I removed it again. I agree that it is unsourced speculation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey... I added that info. At least it was interesting. But purely original, coz I'm a clever clogs^^ the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Committee of 300

The committee of 300 of the families of economically FAKE powers decided that their number one FEAR is too many people in the world. So during the Carter administration they developed a plan called "The Global 2000 Agenda". The Georgia Guidestones are a monument to proclaim there agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstlook420 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

NWO Wiki link

Given the general consensus regarding the conspiracy theories surrounding the monument, it seems strange that there is a link to the 'New World Order' in the 'see also' section. This is my first post, and I haven't the confidence to try and change things at the moment, if someone with better knowledge than me agrees, maybe they could review it? AlexTartu (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Are these scripts or languages?

In two places the article is unclear. In the introduction it says that there is writing at the top in "four ancient scripts". I think this should be "four ancient languages". If it were just the scripts, then we need to be told the language(s) written in those scripts. Latter in the article, someone has written "scripts/languages", but these are not identical terms. I'm changing each part to simply refer to "languages". Feedback is appreciated. Interlingua 11:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Languages is a generic term for the spoken word (from the latin for tongue - lingua). Scripts refer to the written word (from latin: scriba, scribere). So, in the case of ancient languages, we could refer to them as "ancient language's scripts". Would that work? Pergamino (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

The inscriptions in all upper-case makes it difficult to read. Pergamino (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to quote the text we should do so verbatim, without changing the text.   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Most, if not all engravings on stone, are done in uppercase. That means that using normal capitalization for what is transcribed in the article is something worth considering for ease of reading. Pergamino (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Source? I've seen plenty of inscriptions in mixed case.   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No secrecy

There can be no real secrecy about the authors of the stones. The Granite company involved must have asked for payment in advance for such a big project. There should be cancelled cheques, credit card statements and so on. The customers of the Granite company must have had some appearance, names, accents and so on. The languages used reflect a show of internationalism, after two world wars ruined nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

68.231.113.148 knows a very great deal about the Granite Company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

68.231.113.148 is in Atlanta, in the U.S.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• We're not here to speculate on what information might be available. If there's a source then let's add it. Otherwise let's wait until there is.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Swahili version sounds as though it is translated from the English version. This suggests what is pretty obvious anyway,

that the English version is the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mark Dice notable?

The citation of Mark Dice makes him look like yet another internet conspiracy theorist crank. It's not sensible for every article to include every cranky theory about the topic.

Yoko Ono is herself notable therefore worth citing. -- Subsolar (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Mark Dice is quoted in the Wired Magazine article as an example of the people that have publicly expressed opposition to the Guidestones. That's why he is quoted in Wired, and here. Pergamino (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Do we need to include it just because we have a source for it?   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • What do you think? Pergamino (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Pergamino, that's useful information that he was in Wired, though magazines often include information that's not necessarily encyclopedic. ("Local woman says ...") I agree to it is useful to represent critics of the stones and it's better to have a specific person than just "critics have said..." But I still think the current section is not quite right. -- Subsolar (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Other languages?

Is it necessary to feature the inscriptions in languages other than English? Pergamino (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you follow the third rule - probably not :) But why to ignore them? They may have some slight differences in translation. Would't be interesting to see the ancient texts especially? That's why I added chinese - it's also sort of ancient (written in traditional script). Mykhal (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia usually doesn't host source material, especially material that is is presumably copyrighted (presumably because there's no information to indicate the text has been released under a license). If the text has been released and is free then Wikisource would be the best repository. If it's not free we can possibly link to a site that hosts the text, but again copyright issues may be a concern. It'd be better to summarize the text here and ideally we should use a secondary source as the basis for the summary, though if necessary we can do our own summary.   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• ROFL! An inscription on a granite slab in a public monument copyrighted because it has not been "released under a license"? That's a crazy idea. Pergamino (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• http://books.google.com/books?q=%22GUIDE%20REPRODUCTION%20WISELY%22 – Luckily authors such as these, are not as pedantic with copyright issues about writings made on slabs of granite as you do. Pergamino (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Laugh if you like, but I don't see any real argument that the material is not copyrighted. Plenty of text is posted in public but that doesn't put it in the public domain. Unless someone can find evidence to the contrary it should be deleted. If it is free from copyright for some reason then it should be moved to Wikisource. Either way it doesn't belong in this article.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I laugh – You are making an utterly ridiculous argument. Unless you can find evidence that an inscription in this public monument is copyrighted, then I will stop laughing. Pergamino (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• All books that refer to this monument include the inscribed text, and there is no reason why this article shouldn't include it as well. The "wikisource" argument does not work, as this is not a book or a document. Pergamino (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can show you dozens of websites that "illegally" host the lyrics of popular songs. Yet, despite the rampant copyright violations elsewhere, Wikipeia does not follow suit. Likewise, I can show you thousands of websites that host photographs that are copied without authorization or permission of the copyright holders, but Wikipedia deletes every such picture. The fact that others do wrong doesn't make their actions right. As for the copyright itself, every creation is automatically copyrighted, according to US law, even those that appear in public locations. I wouldn't lose the copyright to text I wrote just because I print it on a billboard or inscribe it in stone.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You are simply wrong:

• Faces_Of_War_Memorial
• Four_Corners_Monument#Monument

Pergamino (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The source for the "Faces of War Memorial" text appears to be one of two websites. They have these notices:

• This web site is the property of the Roswell Memorial Day Committee, and no portion, including graphics and text, may be used without prior condition.[7]
• Copyright (c) 2009 Groundspeak, Inc. All Rights Reserved. [8]

So it's not clear that the text of that monument is properly copied into Wikipedia. The text on the Four Corners monument is a short sentence, so I'm not sure it's comparable to the long quotation in this article.   Will Beback  talk  03:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Inscriptions & Copyright

Please read the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Georgia_Guidestones Pergamino (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of Article

Wired magazine published a very good article about the Guidestones and with their permission we may be able to use some of the information they gathered to expand the article. Geogo3r (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I already did... Check the Notes and Reference subheadings. Pergamino (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wired magazine references

References are supposed to be WP:Verifiable - but these Wired magazine references seem to be all over the place and I certainly can't figure out how to verify them. If whoever put them in can fix them, that would be a good idea. If we can't verify them we can't keep them. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Another "American Stonhenge"?

I recently watched a History Channel program about an "American Stonhenge", but IIRC correctly that one was in New England. Is there more than one "monument" with this nickname? – ukexpat (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an 'archaeology site' which is almost certainly colonial but some people like to think it's Celtic or something. Here are some more [9]. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, it was the third one down on that page. Glad I wasn't imagining it! Thanks.  – ukexpat (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Text removed, why?

Hello, in one version of the page, the inscription on the stones was quoted. This text has been removed and can now only be recovered by using image manipulation, using the dim-litted image on the page. I don't know why the transscription was removed, and the link to the copyright page doesn't explain it to me, either. Can someone provide either a good explanation and/or restore the text, please? 79.228.187.23 (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ownership

The article currently states that the ownership of the monument is unclear. The Wired article states that the monument is owned by the county. I don't believe the Wired article should be relied on as a source for this, but the county records would be easy enough to look at for somebody that lived nearby or maybe the county would just respond via email to a question. I just looked at the Elberton County web site, the Elberton city web site and the Elberton Chamber of Commerce web site. None of them seem to mention the monument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefoc (talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Elbert County has their land records on-line. This is a link to what I believe is the guidestones parcel: http://qpublic3.qpublic.net/cgi-bin/ga_elbert_display.cgi?KEY=027%20%20%20%20018

It lists the size of the parcel as 4.93 acres which seems to be much larger than the area of the actual monument (about 1/3 of an acre by my calculation using a satelite map). However the actual plot seems to encompass a considerably larger area than for just the monument area. The owner of the property is listed as Elbert County BOC. Combining this information with the Wired article it seems like the ownership of the monument is clear and that it is the Elbert County although I don't know what the BOC at the end of Elbert County means. The owner of the nearby property is not the Mullenix's, however the land was last sold in 1993Davefoc (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think BOC is Board of Commissioners. See Elbert County Directory Kipedi (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Approximate Cost of Construction?

If a worker in stone could do even a back-of-the-napkin estimation for this project citing relative or contemporary man-hour and stone prices, I think that would add a lot to this article in the way of a modern man's estimation of the project. I have absolutely no idea, but wouldn't this project cost at least hundreds of thousands of dollars? 173.21.106.137 (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Photograph

The photograph in this page shows a stone with the sun shining on the side opposite the one we're seeing, so we don't have a very good view. It also shows only one of the slabs. Aren't there any better photographs? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I think a photo showing the entire structure instead of just one leg would be a much more useful illustration. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added a better image of the Georgia Guidestones that I took a couple of months ago. AmpCoder (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Van’s Hardware Journal

This is used quite a bit, but does anyone think this computer hardware website is an appropriate site to use? How does it meet our criteria at WP:RS? And we need to take WP:BLP into consideration here. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As an expert on the Georgia Guidestones, Van Smith appeared on the History Channel's Brad Meltzer's Decoded. He has also been interviewed by CNN and many different radio programs regarding this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.97.57.66 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's ok for a WP:BLP, take it to WP:BLPN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Van Smith is an expert on the Georgia Guidestones recognized by CNN and the History Channel. Eliminating his research from the Georgia Guidestones entry demonstrates ignorance of his contributions to this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.97.57.66 (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read the information on his site? It's a pretty typical conspiracy website. I believe this is his first article on the subject: http://vanshardware.com/2009/12/decoding-the-georgia-guidestones/ His claim is that there are three significant ratios in the dimensions of the granite slabs that comprise the monument.

Ratio #1 (1-4-10) is the official completion date of the Burj Khalifa ("tower of babel")

Ratio #2 (1-4-6) is the date that the former Emir of Dubai died (unexpectedly) on a trip to Australia. His replacement commissioned the burj khalifa.

The "evidence" that he puts forth as the "indisputable connection" is my favourite, though.

Capstone Ratio = 1+4+6 = 11

Gnomen Stone Ratio = 1+2+10 = 13

Guidestone Ratio = 1+4+10 = 15

Now, he points out that the height of the Burj Khalifa is 2 717 ft. The prime factors of this number are 11, 13 and 19, not 15. But wait! There are four guidestones. Instead of multiplying 15 by 4, which I think would be the common-sense thing to do, he simply adds 15+4 and voila, the three "ratios" he has selected from the Georgia Guidestones can now be multiplied together to produce the height of the Burj Khalifa.

I just wanted to post some of this info, I came across this page and found the idea of the guidestones pretty cool, and when I saw the reference to all this nonsense I felt obligated to read up on it a bit more. Please note that the link on the wikipedia page points to a CNN article, which only briefly mentions that Van believe's there is a connection of some sort. The info I have listed here is from Van's own website. Specifically from this link: http://vanshardware.com/2011/02/a-georgia-guidestones-update/ which I came across in this post: http://vanshardware.com/2011/09/the-georgia-guidestones-the-mahdi-world-war-iii-and-comet-elenin/ located on the front page.Cantripping (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Q: Is there a Time Capsule 6 ft under the slab?

The slab refers to a Time Capsule, but the dates it was buried and to be opened are blank.

Has a Time Capsule been buried under the slab already, or will the slab be lifted and a time capsule be buried sometime in the future? If the latter, who has the information on when this will happen?

Has anyone tried Ground_penetrating_radar and/or other methods to determine if a time capsule is currently buried under the slab?

The answer to these questions should be added to the article.

Phantom in ca (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The date is absent because it is meant to be when someone has the guts to dig the thing up! How come no-one tried this already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.158.203 (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference is irrelevant

"Computer hardware expert Van Smith said he has uncovered numerological messages encoded within the proportions of the various Georgia Guidestones components that link the monument to the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world which opened in Dubai over thirty years after the Georgia Guidestones were designed.[10]"

It points to reference #10, which has absolutely nothing to do with what has been posed. No idea of alternative nor what to do to rectify change, I just noticed it now. Would be good if someone put in a relevant reference. Eeveeman (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Infowars and Alex Jones

Not a reliable source. Secondary sources needed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Mind's Eye podcast

A recent episode of a podcast has a crackly phone interview with the vice president of Elberton Granite Association, who seems to explain a lot about the mystery cube. (I haven't listened to it beyond verifying that the episode exists.) User:104.246.77.229 added a full paragraph about this, from this source, although it's unclear how much was taken from the podcast, and whether the interviewee or the host made the allegations about theft and wedding.

I assume this podcast isn't a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, by itself, and we should wait for mainstream press coverage? --McGeddon (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Reception

I am Van Smith and I have been interviewed by CNN and other media organizations regarding my Georgia Guidestones research. I was also on Brad Meltzer's Decoded. I am cited in this Wikipedia entry. My name is NOT William C. Van Smith and I do not know how anyone could justify that edit considering that the linked CNN article gives my name as "Van Smith" and there is not even an attempt substantiate a different name. I have tried unsuccessfully to correct this obvious mistake, but it was reverted both times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.204.143.220 (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This was fixed a couple of hours after you posted. Your website and the source both say "Van Smith" and hopefully this will be maintained in the article. It's a violation of our policy to change it. Doug Weller (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Broken Link

The link to Georgia Guidestones Guidebook is broken 82.235.147.212 (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed detail

I removed the following from the top section

"A previous claim that the location is the highest point in Elbert County is incorrect, according to peakbagger.com. The actual Elbert County high point (elevation 840 feet) is located near the county line about ten miles away, northwest of Bowman, Georgia."

I removed this because, per WP:LEAD, the top section is supposed to provide summary information, and because the sentence lacks citations (I note that peakbagger.com is not a reliable source). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Links section updates. New sources to be added soon.

I have begun a series of updates to the external link section of this article. Any links posted will be relevant, and meet wikipedia guidelines. Amongst them is a link to a book that will be released on the Guidestones in September. Once the text is available, I will add it as a source to the article and use a quote or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymonium (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No, a link promoting a book is not consistent with Wikipedia's external links policy. Mindmatrix 19:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that the main author is described as "a sober, Southeastern version of the radio host Art Bell, exhaustive in chronicling conspiracy theories and the occult." Not at all promising. Dougweller (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"Unite humanity with a living new language" - are we speaking a death language ? Is there any other ancient "living language" ? Russian / Serbian / Bulgarian / Macedonian... = ancient living language ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.39.91.209 (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Babylonian, Classical Greek, Sanskrit and Egyptian hieroglyphs?

the article states there is a shorter message at the top in these languages:

Babylonian, Classical Greek, Sanskrit and Egyptian hieroglyphs.

what is that message? it would add a lot to the article posting that message along with an english translation; a photo of the inscription in said languages would also be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:15C0:66A3:2:0:0:0:116F (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

These are just translations of "Let these be guidestones to an Age of Reason"; fixed. —Mykhal (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georgia Guidestones. 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/20120421094844/http://www.elberton.com/articles/2005/05/18/news/news03.txt to http://www.elberton.com/articles/2005/05/18/news/news03.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

RC Christian (a pseudonyn)

What exactly is a pseudonyn - A pseudonym is of course an alternative name and well understood -but for people who seem to lay claimn to unserstand the arc of history and the future of humanity in such detail a spelling mistake of this sort seems pretty incompetent. Perhaps it is the first step towards the new universal language envisaged. Has anyone noticed any other clearly deliberate mistakes in English or any of the other languages used in this thought provoking piece of sculpture. Personally I think this represents a considerable dumbing down since Poussin Leonardo etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.119.155 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There are spelling mistakes in the comments above. SquashEngineer (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Without knowing anything about it, it could be the engrave who made a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.107.15.50 (talk) 23:11, July 27, 2021 (UTC)

Inscriptions, languages

1. Classical languages: Why was an inscription made in Babylonian instead of the much wider spoken and written Latin? 2. Modern languages: Why are Swahili and Hebrew included, languages of less international importance and way smaller headcount of speakers, instead of French and Portuguese (by headcount) or French and German (by importance)? Wannabe-Stonehenge with fascist content and cheap Hollywood pathos seems like a political programme of an elitarian group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:1A08:52B7:F442:C0C3:AD0E:3E53 (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is the accompanying stone tablet with the history of the monument only provided in English? Why was it not more universally engraved also? It seems shortsighted that although the primary messages are translated (or originated) in numerous languages would be useful for post apocalyptic societies to "right" themselves, the instructions for the monument itself might be cryptic to those future societies in need. SquashEngineer (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The English language meanwhile has become the de-facto universal world language through the worldwide use of the internet.

Legality

What legalities exist around the foundation of this monument? Seems risky for a prominent Bank employee to accept money, from an intentionally secretive person wanting to remain anonymous, via transfers from equally secretive sources, accounts, locations, and (presumably) across state lines, with the express purpose of being hard to trace. Why would a legitimate town council accept the burden of maintenance and ongoing scrutiny of such a controversial public structure? Why wouldn't it have stayed within fully private hands of the land owner? How could the Elberton town council accept such an anonymous gift, with no record of its origin and legitimacy? What legitimate means would town council have used to implore public resources to be expended to investigate and repair the vandalism? They re-named the road to Guidestone Rd. Amazing. SquashEngineer (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Georgia-guidestones sharealike-sa2.0 flickr.com photos viryakala 15210145398.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Georgia Guidestones 2014-03-18 03.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Current state

I started to add "in 2014" at the end of the caption under the photo at the top, figuring the vandalism had occurred after the photo was taken in March of that year. I then noticed, however, that the initial vandalism had been in 2008, so at least the north side of the Guidestones had been cleaned when the photo was taken. But there was more vandalism in September 2014; it may be supposed that this too was cleaned up, but it's not clear and the article doesn't communicate the present state of the monument in regard to being or not being vandalized. I consider this important and/or of interest, so I suggest that anyone familiar with the current state (as I am not) update the article to provide indication on this. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Conjecture vs. "conspiracy theory"

Continuing to feel that "conjecture" is an improvement over "conspiracy theory", I object to Philip Cross's reversion to the latter. The logic of the reversion – that "conspiracy theory" is required because "conspiracy theorists" appears in the article – is inadequate. "Conspiracy theorists" indeed appears, but then so does the interpretation that the Guidestones "describe the basic concepts required to rebuild a devastated civilization", which escapes the pejorative "conspiracy" classification. It's not true that everything in an article has to appear also in its summary, and if it were we would presumably need to have something like "an object of controversy and conspiracy theories, as well as of reasonable hypothesis not involving the vision of a secret elite for the future of the world". Lacking this, it's in fact "conspiracy theory" that is misleading, since so-called conspiracy theory is conjecture, while conjecture in conformance with the official narrative is not conspiracy theory, nor is considering the Guidestones to be a stirring call to rational thinking.

Having also observed that Sherman's March is referenced by its article and that Endgame is also the subject of an article, I will restore the mention of the 2007 film without using either the YouTube or the BitChute URL. The YouTube link wasn't dead, by the way; I was misled by the notice that came up, which didn't say the video had been taken down as I supposed, but that it "has been identified by the YouTube community [?] as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences [?]".

Finally, thanks to Mr Cross for having made it explicit that conspiracy theories are understood to be impossible. Many of us have suspected this propagandistic trick for some time, so it's nice to have it out in the open. I myself am tired of the hackneyed "conspiracy theorist" denigration and believe its constant insertion at every available opportunity discredits the encyclopedia, but Mr Cross and the administrators can do as they wish. –Roy McCoy (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I made an observation to Doug Weller yesterday that I will add here: "any interpretation of the Guidestones necessarily has to be 'conspiracy theory', since there is no party-line narrative and since conjecture must be involved owing to the inextricable mystery of the subject. Such conjecture must furthermore involve a conspiracy, since no individual could have produced the monument on his own; he would at least have needed several translators, for example." I believe that this also supports "conjecture", but am not into trying to pull off any one-man crusades on this or anything else, here especially given the impossibility of prevailing alone against Mr Cross and his allies. If anyone wanted to support the use of a reasonable term and the disappearance of at least one clichéd pejorative (with no chance of any so-called conspiracy theory being possible, as Mr Cross has clarified, and with the assumed gospel truth of anything appearing in the NYT or Rolling Stone), that would be welcome as far as I am concerned. –Roy McCoy (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

2009 notch & the 2014 'cube'

Found this source.[10] Aug 2013:"After nearly four years, the Elbert County Sheriff’s Office has recovered an item from the Georgia Guidestones reported stolen. The item in question, a small cube of granite taken from the top of the stones, was recovered after deputies noticed three individuals on the surveillance cameras that monitor the land mark." And [11]. Nothing in that source on the 'cube' which is interesting considering they mention vandalism this month.[12] I did find an article in Van's Hardware Journal.[13] but that's a personal website. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The Red Dirt Report source currently used in the article doesn't seem particularly reliable (it's a "one does have to wonder" opinion piece responding to an Infowars story, that muses about Ebola and ISIS, with no direct research). The ISIS graffiti got some mainstream press coverage, which I'll add, but I can't find anything for the 2014 cube. --McGeddon (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. As I said above, if nothing showed up from more reliable sources it should be removed and I back your removal. That source was the best of a bad bunch. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We can't use a YouTube video to source the fact that the cube existed and that "an official from Elberton" removed it (it's a WP:PRIMARY source and could be anyone), and saying "ah, in the marble industry MM means something and JAM means something else" is all very interesting but it's WP:SYNTHESIS to include it here ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"). The references back up the fact that MM and JAM mean something, but they say nothing about their relevance to the Georgia Guidestones, so there's no reason to consider them to be relevant here. --McGeddon (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You people are unbelievable. First of all, I've talked to the Elberton Granite Association and the terms "MM" and "JAM" stand exactly for what my original edit said. "MM" stands for "Manufacturer of granite memorials, monuments & markers". Every granite and marble worker has to have that certification in order to start a legal business. The term "JAM" stands for "Joint Annual Meeting" and I think the meaning is self-explanatory. Obviously it's unclear what the cube means but the markings mean what they do. Second, how can you disregard a filmed proof of what happened on September 25th, 2014? 99,9% of all sources on Wikipedia are less credible than a first-hand captured clip on site. As for Van Smith, he's one of the most informed persons regarding the monument. He has been writing about it even before it became mainstream. Even CNN used his information in 2010. Look it up.MrMojoRisin71 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately if there's not been any serious published coverage of a particular fact of the case, then Wikipedia shouldn't include that fact. The YouTube video isn't any use by itself because it's a primary source and policy is clear that editors shouldn't make any "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources" - it's not up to us to decide whether the clip is legit and what it means as part of the wider story. (I could head over there myself with a ladder and hide a stone cube on top before recording my YouTube video, but it would be absurd to then add "on October 3 someone else climbed the monument and removed and destroyed the cube again".) Have any press sources mentioned the video?

In Van Smith meets the "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication" of WP:SPS, then we can use something he's written in his blog. Is this the CNN article you mean? --McGeddon (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Now you just argue for the sake of aruguing. What do you mean by "serious published coverage"? All the acts of vandalism didn't get any serious coverage either, but that is somehow not removed from the GG article. The YouTube video that I includes shows the event that took place on 9/25. I'm not making any "interpretive claims, analyses or synthetic claims" by using the video. It's just an incredible detailed account of the event, the other four inscriptions on the cube and the faith of the cube. Or are you trying to tell me this event never happened in the "Wikipedia world"? Why do you include the numbers "20" and"14" but not "8", "16" and the letters "MM" and "JAM"? What you don't seem to understand is that this event was extremely rare. Incidents like this don't usually happen there. Have any press sources mentioned the video? No, but The Elberton Star (local paper) has put up a poll asking what people think the cube meant. The Georgia Guidestones 2014 block Yes, that's the CNN article I was talking about and if you read it then Van Smith is mentioned and even asked a few questions. Besides you have already linked to his blog on the GG page.MrMojoRisin71 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, should have linked to policy there: WP:RS defines what is and isn't an appropriate source for Wikipedia. The vandalism is sourced to an article in Wired magazine. You're making the interpretative claim that a video someone put on YouTube is of the same cube referred to by Smith, rather than being some sort of hoax (like I say, I could make the same video myself, or a video of me holding what looks like a smashed "20" fragment and explaining what I think it means, and Wikipedia wouldn't document this). The article doesn't include the other numbers because the Smith source only mentions the "20" and "14".

The one-sentence poll isn't much to go on, but it looks like the Elberton Star has at least one full article about the 20/14 cube behind their paywall, I'll see what I can dig up. --McGeddon (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

... and nope, unless I want to pay $25, all I can get from the website is the story fragment "20-14 block removed from Georgia Guidestones: The Georgia Guidestones have been shrouded in mystery ever since their construction in 1979. Just this past week a new mystery surfaced. A small block was placed at the top of one of the stones, so..." - which is maybe enough to source the fact that a block was placed there (seems safe to assume that opening sentence isn't later retracted as false), in place of the Van Smith blog, and that it was later "removed", but no further detail. --McGeddon (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So what you're telling me is that in order for anything to be eligible on Wikipedia it has to be written about and posted on the internet by a "serious source"? Who decides if a source is valid or not? Isn't The Elberton Star a serious source? You just found the paywall article saying the cube was removed. And just because the 9/25 incident hasn't been widely reported doesn't mean the incident never happened. Of course it happened! The man in the red shirt climbing up the ladder, taking out the cube and throwing it on the ground is most likely the caretaker of the monument. His name is Mart Clamp. Here you can see him in 2009 removing the Polyurethane Mart Clamp 2009 and here he is a few days ago Mart Clamp 2014. Of course it's the same cube and the same incident that Van Smith published on his blog on 9/22. He just hasn't updated his blog after 9/25. Have you actually watched the YouTube video that I linked to? You can clearly see all the inscriptions on all six sides of the cube when it's picked up. Why are you being so stubborn about this?MrMojoRisin71 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct, that's what I'm telling you: WP:VERIFY sums this up and is worth a quick read. The WP:RS policy (as interpreted by editors) is the process that "decides if a source is valid or not", and an article from the Elberton Star would be great as a source if we could actually see a copy (and probably okay to quote as a snippet if we can't).

I've watched the video and I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that WP:RS requires a secondary source and an uploaded video is a primary source. We need to quote a journalist or expert writing about the video, its veracity and what it might mean - it's not up to us to clear our throat, shuffle our papers and present our own conclusions. --McGeddon (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I edited the page with the following. "On September 22th (after a tip on September 11th), local blogger Van Smith reported that a granite cube inscribed with the numbers "20" and "14" had been installed in a square notch in the corner of the English language stone. On September 25th the cube was removed by an Elberton official. It revealed four additional markings, which were "8", "16", "MM" and "JAM". The cube was then destroyed by the official. On September 28th, Van Smith, acknowledged that fact in the comments on his blog. Van Smith has been interviewed in 2010 by the CNN regarding this monument". All I added was the "additional markings" part and I left your own link to Van Smith's blog because he did acknowledge the fact on 9/28 in the comments. I have also emailed the Elberton Star for a copy of their article. I'm not paying $25 for it either. That's what they want. But I did link to their snippet because you said you would acknowledge it. I also linked to the Van Smith article on CNN to show his credibility.MrMojoRisin71 (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Van Smith has posted a follow-up blog entry, so I've worked that in as a source. Would welcome a second opinion whether the CNN interview counts as "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". --McGeddon (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Very good! Finally we both managed to get to an understanding regarding the wording and the sources. I will let it stay and I won't touch it since all the valid information is there (except for my sources regarding MM and JAM). I can welcome a second opinion on the CNN article regarding Van Smith but I don't think it's necesarry. Afterall, CNN and Ted Turner is the problem...if you know what I mean. By the way, you were quicker than me. You must have clicked on Van Smith's blog not long after his update on 5/10. Have you read the entire entry and the mysterious email he received? As a fellow human to another, that's some scary sh*t, isn't it? Stay safe and let's look what happens on August 14, 2016 and if the Georgia Guidestones are right. MrMojoRisin71 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

(^rare example of a mature wiki-argument... mindblowing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violarulez (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nickname

Why doesn't the local nickname appear in this article: "The Redneck Stonehenge?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBee2020 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have sources that it's a common nickname? When I search on "redneck stonehenge", I don't get any mentions of the guidestones. Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Casual interpretation/ references in pop culture

I think that a pop culture or list of amateur interpretations section should be added, it's had plenty of short films and podcasts made about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsaking (talk • contribs) 23:33, July 6, 2021‎ (UTC)

I doubt that many (if any) "amateur interpretations" have coverage in independent, reliable sources. Although if you've found such sources and want to propose them for inclusion in the article, that could be a useful discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's really in line with Wikipedia's guidelines about such things. I realize that this is sometimes abused, but WP:IPCEXAMPLES makes it pretty clear that "In Pop Culture" items should be notable works, not just podcasts.

Amateur interpretations would need third party sources asserting their notability. (Example : The Voynich Manuscript article lists a number of amateurs who announced that they decoded the manuscript, but only because those claims were picked up by major news sources. Just announcing it on your own blog or podcast isn't enough.)

Sorry. ApLundell (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

More detail

See http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/03/22/georgia.mystery.monument/index.html .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:4e9f:d101:802c:2c14:98ec:78de (talk)

Nice find. At the very least I think we should include something about this banker, Wyatt Martin. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Greene again

@ApLundell: it seems kind of pointless to engage in an edit war with this (albeit ridiculous) IP editor, given the context. We're already quoting her responding "that is all true" to a "post endorsing a number of conspiracy theories". Do we really need to spoon-feed the reader the conclusion that she's a conspiracy theorist? Seems redundant. Readers can always click into her article if they want to know more about her. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The thing is that, ordinarily, a public endorsement from a U.S. congressperson (of any party) would lend an air of respectability or legitimacy to a position. Readers who don't follow US politics might not understand how extreme of a special case Greene is.

Perhaps a better solution would be to show-not-tell, and give a representative example of one of the other ideas she's endorsed. *"Congresswomen Greene, who once alleged that California forest fires were caused by space-based lasers, ..."* or something along those lines.

ApLundell (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it as spoon-feeding, remember not everyone is aware of U.S. political happenings, especially globally, and this is a key piece of information about Greene that our audiences should be informed of. I think removing it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 21:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The spoon-feeding doesn't assume the reader knows anything at all about U.S. politics. The only assumption is that they're able to read the rest of the two sentences. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually not the only 'IP' editor. But whoever added that line has an obvious political bias AND it's redundant since Conspiracy is mentioned about 5 words later. "The Conspiracy Conspiracy Theorist has Conspiracy theories about Conspiracies!" Can you at least *try* to have a semblance of objectivity?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.49.198 (talk)

Actually I'd like to shift gears and talk about why this quote is here at all. The subtext here, especially with the possibly redundant label, is that we're quoting a person whose opinion on the subject shouldn't be given much weight and could be easily dismissed. And then all she says is that she's seen the stones, not anything interesting or informative. So what is the value to the reader of having this in the article? -- Fyrael (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It has absolutely zero value; I'm removing the sentence. It may be suitable for Taylor Greene's main article, if reworded. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 15:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Removing it entirely is perfectly reasonable. ApLundell (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Author(s)

I wonder why the very convincing investigation and uncovering of Dr. Kersten etc. in “R.C.”’s correspondence in Granite Finishing Company’s old Wyatt Martin’s suitcase (in his personal presence) several years ago in the Dark Clouds Over Elberton documentary did not get more attention (maybe because of unfortunate conspiration-theory-like impression of first moments of the film, and also maybe somewhat black-and-white idealistic emotional finale). —Mykhal (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

on a hillside that is the highest point in Elbert County, on the farm of Mildred and Wayne Mullenix north of Elberton on Highway 77

Mildred M Mullenix (...) Wayne Mullenix https://www.officialusa.com/names/Mildred-Mullenix/ 2003:E8:5F02:9A01:B06B:C8B0:FC44:D4C1 (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Need to update with information from the LastWeekTonight 'Rocks' segment.

2022 GA Gov candidate Kandiss Taylor proposed an Executive Order to Demolish the GA Guidestones, calling it a "Satanic Cabal". Marjorie Taylor Green endorsed the idea that these stones reveal a 'genocide plot'.

A 2015 Documentary by Born-Again Christians shows the man who ordered the construction of the stones was Dr. Herbert Kirsten. Kirsten wrote at least 2 letters in newspapers praising David Duke, former KKK leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4100:B90:215F:DB86:F73A:7C21 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The name is spelled Kersten, not Kirsten. Nomen ambiguum (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Can't use the documentary anyway. Few good sources for this sadly. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

https://theclio.com/entry/11194 gives the name as "Herbert Hinie Kersten"

173.93.205.188 (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really a reliable source and uses one we dumped. We’re they written by just one person?[14] Another source but no name.[15] Doug Weller talk 20:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Update

Need to add that they have tore them completely down now as they were unstable/unsafe because of the bomb. 198.251.44.31 (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that verifies this? - Aoidh (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/SwaniFiles/status/1544799763001901058?s=20&t=mgvthNqhIOVhyivPFb6qqw Here's a video of them doing it 22:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Fbifriday (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Officials

I understand what you are saying. The monument was owned by the county. The scene is currently a crime scene controlled by, at the very least, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the FBI. The only people who could have ordered that torn down were governmental officials. A construction crew did not approach the scene and do it themselves. The statement is valid, officials removed the remaining stones. Fbifriday (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If it's a valid statement then surely it would be easy to find a reliable source that says this then? The twitter post you added says nothing of the sort. We don't know who could have ordered it torn down, at this point we don't even know what happened in the first place and the only thing the twitter post shows is a bulldozer knocking something down. Sure it's a likely and good guess that officials had a hand in that, but we have to support that with reliable sources, and also the wording was potentially wrong. Did a government official knock those down, or was it a contractor? If it was a contractor then it's technically wrong to say that officials were the ones to knock it down. - Aoidh (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/GBI_GA/status/1544808935907024898?s=20&t=ssfxtGHTe4ah_e2QhKapSA Here you go. I will add it. Fbifriday (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't verify anything except the fact that it was knocked down. Doesn't say who did it, who authorized it, nothing. Even if "officials" authorized it, they weren't the ones to knock it down, so the edit is still factually incorrect and should not be added. Please discuss it before readding it, rather than making a comment with a tweet and then immediately readding it. - Aoidh (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Your assertion is that the governmental agency that investigating the explosion, who says it was demolished for safety reasons, is not confirmation that officials demolished the structure is flawed, inherently. Fbifriday (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Compromise wording, if you're agreeable.

On July 6, 2022, the guidestones were partially destroyed. Some initial reports say it may have been a bombing. Later in the day, officials ordered a constriction crew to pull down the remaining parts of the structure. Fbifriday (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

My assertion is that the only thing they said was that it was demolished. It is WP:OR to conclude something not stated by a reliable source. That is not a flaw, it is Wikipedia policy. Until there is a source supporting what you're saying, the article shouldn't be saying it. That's also ignoring the fact that "officials" is vague and unhelpful as to who, exactly, were these supposed officials? Officials of what? We just don't know and can't and shoudn't be speculating. - Aoidh (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If you'll notice, reliable sources take care not to place responsibility on who ordered it demolished, as they don't know and won't jump to conclusions. But we're going to ignore WP:OR and do otherwise? Why, exactly? - Aoidh (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Do I need to quote from that article to prove my point? "Later in the day, a backhoe toppled what remained of the Guidestones as Georgia Bureau of Investigation agents looked on." Fbifriday (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

How exactly does that prove your point? I'm genuinely confused how that supports any claim that officials ordered it. They "looked on". Not ordered. Not suggested. They watched. That's all it says. - Aoidh (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Changed it to yours, you're arguing semantics and certainly won't stop. Have a nice night. Fbifriday (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-guidestones-explosion-elberton Changed it again, article clearly states officials demolished it, semantics over. Fbifriday (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Clean the slab up, Jannies

The recovery efforts should definitely be documented and discussed here on this thread. This will ensure accurate cataloguing of restoration and individuals involved, especially if they do it for free. 2601:147:C380:57C0:B0CC:843E:5D16:B90C (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Or they can just tear it down, that works too, lol. Fbifriday (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Why does the end say it was bombed

I don’t think there should be any false accusations or any unproven things stated as a fact. It’s kind of funny people wanna make history out to be whatever their narrative is. You can tell it was not a bombing if you watch the video versus any other bombing video there’s no explosion afterwards. Quit spinning the narrative. 2604:2D80:A881:4F00:A82D:1B6A:36CE:2310 (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Because we use sources. Multiple reputable sources are citing investigators that it was a bombing. That is why it is called a bombing, because the police are telling the media it is. Fbifriday (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2022

change: heavily damaged in a bombing. To: heavily damaged by lightning. 104.35.115.88 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Inscription

Ummm it wasn’t in Russian it was Classical Greek. 73.137.129.134 (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The four slabs had the guidelines written in 8 languages, one of them being Russian. The capstone had "Let these be guidestones to an Age of Reason" written in four ancient languages, one of them being Classical Greek. LegoK9 (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

IP disagrees

You are liars. I read this page at noon today and it was accurate. Now you have changed it to make it sound like the message on the stones was not as sinister as it was. Why? 24.155.196.46 (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a conspiracy site. It's an encyclopedia. No one knows what the message was for, which is reflected in the article. Fbifriday (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The content about what was inscribed is the same today as it was last week, and there's certainly no lying involved. If you have the ability to describe what you think is inaccurate, please do so. Making vague accusations is not constructive. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Comparing the current version to the Cluebot NG's December edit shows that there hasn't been that many changes outside of splitting paragraphs up more and some additional lines. The only main change since then is the removal of two sentences from the lede. (Currently, the lede explains What, When, and Where, but kinda fails at Who and Why. The lede probably should mention that an anonymous person had the monument built and give a very brief description as to why.)

Regardless, the last paragraph of the December version was broken up. Other changes from December include: the first paragraph in the History section being split up, spelling and grammar fixes in the History section, the addition of the three paragraph to the History section (including the bombing and removal sub-section), hyphen fixes in the Description section, grammar fixes to the first paragraph of the Explanatory tablet section, the text "Astronomic features" becoming "Astronomical features" (which appears to be a mistake based on the photograph), the addition of two images to the separate "Astronomical features" section, the addition of a sentence to the first paragraph of the Interpretations section, the second section of the second paragraph in the same section was split off and a new sentence was added to the end of the first half, two sentences added in the same section to the second half of the original second paragraph, and the addition of a See Also section with links to Ten Commandments/Decalogue and to Tablets of Stone. That concludes the changes. Despite all this, the article has stayed practically the same as it was at the end of last year. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Very impressed with the fact that you went through and summarized all page changes for the last 6 month. Fbifriday (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Just some curiosity and a bit of time. (Which ended up helping the article out in a minor way.) It seems that most of the ~225 edits was stuff that was reverted or was an addition to the article due to recent events. The word "revert" appears over 100 times in the revision history. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It just got blown up

A lot of the present tense should be made into past tense etc. 5.173.131.255 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

My sense is it's too soon to decide if will be totally demolished or otherwise removed enough to consider changing tense. Skynxnex (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is biased saying it was destroyed in a "bombing." No one knows yet what caused this. Some reports are saying there was a possible earthquake. Also, no burn marks can be seen. So, what kind of explosion was it then? 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:F4CE:3518:EC5E:CC03 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It wasn’t completely destroyed, read the news. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No one is saying it was "completely" destroyed. I didn't address that either. Please actually read what I wrote. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:F4CE:3518:EC5E:CC03 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Destroyed means completely destroyed, at least to most people. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Apparently there was a small incident of vandalism, and given the confusion surrounding its current state I propose the article be locked for at least a day or so. Chickeness (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Special:Log shows that the article was placed under Semi-protection just 17 minutes after your comment and will last for three days. Not sure how to link to it properly, but figured I should reply so that you know. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Documentary

I see there was language added about the documentary and alleged authorship. I strongly urge caution with anything that uses that documentary as a source. The production company behind the documentary does not appear to be a neutral source. Fbifriday (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I moved it from the history section to a new alleged authorship section. No one is saying the documentary has found the indisputable proof of authorship. Just claims and allegations. LegoK9 (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources used are findagrave and medium. I can't find any reliable source discussing the documentary at all. This article should use reliable sources only. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Merge bombing article

Pls merge into here. I can't do any edits since apparent vandalism. 81.181.130.106 (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for this link to the discussion. Regardless, this article is semi-protected for another 2.5 days, so you will need to make an edit request if you wish to add stuff to the article. If you do make an edit request, I would recommend using the Edit Request Wizard as it helps with the process of making one. (Just make sure to read the instructions and don't forget a link to a source if proof is needed.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Say what?

A flag in the history section claims that a "reliable secondary source" is needed for information that already sites a primary source.

Since there is already a primary source, why the hell would you need a secondary source, reporting second-hand on what the primary source already states? Seems like faulty research procedure, not to mention a bit ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You could have saved yourself time by actually reading the guideline linked in the tag you're talking about. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikilink to Kandiss Taylor

When I mouse over Kandiss Taylor's name on this page, it shows Stacy Abram's picture. This should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.126.126 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The wikilink for Kandiss Taylor is a redirect to 2022_Georgia_gubernatorial_election#Republican_primary, so a mouse-over will display one of the photos on that page. Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Makes perfect Wikipedia sense! Hover over an article on Communism and it will display a photo of Hitler, because he is mentioned in the article about Communism! Brilliant! Both Stalin and Hitler would be very proud of the Wikipedia! 69.165.142.76 (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The link for Kandiss Taylor should be removed or linked to a site about her. There's simply no justification for the link provided for Kandiss Taylor other than someone not wanting readers to actually read about her. That same link is found just a few words over for "Georgia Republican gubernatorial primary". If you simply don't want any links to her website or articles about her then just remove the link. We all know your bias anyway. 206.208.32.2 (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the link was removed from her name even before your comment, so you can stow the baseless accusations. We of course will not add a link to some other web page about her because we don't add external links like that to article text, regardless of any politics involved. And if you think this person is notable enough for an article their own, nobody is stopping you from creating one. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

“America’s Stonehenge” is in Salem, NH.

There is misinformation contained within the article. 24.62.128.243 (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This attestation is per reliable sources. Do you have a reliable source supporting what you're saying? - Aoidh (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple structures that have been referred to as America's Stonehenge. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a monument in Salem officially called "America's Stonehenge" while the Georgia Guidestones have been colloquially referred to as America's Stonehenge but it is not the official name. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That must be why this article isn't called America's Stonehenge. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Georgia Guidestones explosion.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

In the 'Explanatory Tablet' section, change:

"spaces on the stone intended for filling in the dates on which the capsule was buried and was to be opened were not been inscribed"

to:

"spaces on the stone intended for filling in the dates on which the capsule was buried and was to be opened had not been inscribed" Cosmicstresshead (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)