Talk:Los Lunas Decalogue Stone

NPOV

Please read Wikipedia:Neutrality dispute. Dispute headers need to be explained, and preferably constructive edits or suggestions made. I have removed the dispute header until such is forthcoming. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I changed the rather biased last sentence of this article, but I believe the neutrality of this article is still suspect due to lack of citation. "The script IS Paleo-Hebrew"? "But with the discovery and subsequent study of Paleo-Hebrew writing, including the style of the tetragrammaton in the Dead Sea Scrolls, these alternative translations have been largely discounted." Oh, have they? I'm sure this issue is contentious enough to inspire at least some literature to cite, so this sentence could certainly be fleshed out a little. I will change some of this, so hopefully we can avoid a NPOV. User:TurabianNights

Its Rightful Place?

This whole article is a bit suspect in its neutrality, IMO, but I am concerned mostly with the last sentence. With its uncited quote from "one proponent," this sentence seems to imply that the Kensington Runestone, Dighton Rock and the Newport Tower are genuine. There is no proof that any of these things, the Decalogue Stone included, are from the "ancent past," and they are by no means indisputable or "undeniable." I have pared the sentence back to be more neutral.

I would also recommend you add citations for who "its partisans" are and who the "some" are who claim the inscription is Hebrew. -User:TurabianNights

I have gone through and edited the entire article extensively, adding sources and deleting spurious information. I cannot find any reliable literature on the alleged tetragrammaton appearing four times, but you can see it in the pictures. --TurabianNights 02:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternate interpretations?

This article appears clearly biased, as there is no mention of alternate interpretations of the stone which have been made over the years. Most notably that of Dixie L. Perkins who translated the script as a message left by a Greek man named Zakyneros. The NM State Land Office has a page on the Mystery Stone that has some information on a few of the alternate interpretations/translations on the stone, however it's probably not the most accurate source either. However, at least a mention that perhaps the Ten Commandments interpretation is not necessarily set in stone (excuse the pun) would be in order? - Suzumebachi 18:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the article is biased so much as it lacks sources. When I took it on last year, it was wild country - you should have seen it. We should certainly include any other interpretations of merit in the article. The NM State Land Office page is not loading for me, but I'll try to find more info on this.--TN | ! 09:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We might not be able to link directly to the NM State Land Office page on Mystery Stone, but here is the complete text from a search on that term:

Mystery Stone

It is a mystery in the desert hills near Los Lunas, New Mexico. It has puzzled experts for more than 50 years. It has been referred to by many different names -- Ten Commandments Rock, Mystery Rock, and The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone. It is most commonly known as the Mystery Stone.

Mystery Stone is located at the base of Hidden Mountain, on New Mexico state trust land, about 16 miles west of Los Lunas. It is a boulder weighing an estimated 80 to 100 tons and is about eight meters in length. Nine rows of 216 characters were chiseled at a 150 degree angle into the north face. The characters resemble ancient Phoenician script. Like the rest of Hidden Mountain, the boulder is volcanic basalt. The site was first documented in 1936, when visited by Anthropology Professor Frank Hibben, from the University of New Mexico. Any other reported visits prior to that year are unconfirmed.

Three meters to the north of Mystery Stone, on top of a flat boulder buried in the bottom of the arroyo, are the names "HOBE & EVA, " and the date "3-19-30. "

You must purchase a Recreational Access Permit from the New Mexico State Land Office to be allowed access to the land where Mystery Stone is located.

I have visited Hidden Mountain twice, once in 1993, and again in 2004. I have several photos of the area, including photos of "Mystery Stone" or "Inscription Rock," viewable at Flickr: Hidden Mountain, Inscription Rock and Zodiac Peak, New Mexico Pooua (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

_____________________________

FINDING THE DECALOGUE STONE

Starting in Albuquerque, drive approximately 25 miles south on I 25 to the Los Lunas/ Route 6 exit. From the point that you first get onto Route 6, drive 14.6 miles west and follow the picture/guide at the bottom of the webpage, www.LostTribes.info.

Source/Citation 6

I am somewhat familiar with Hugh Nibley and I actually have the source cited "New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study". I looked for the claimed quotation and could not find it anywhere in the text let alone any mention at all of the stone or the inscription. Can anyone else verify this? If not I think that it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trick newbie (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

New Approaches to Book of Mormon study

That quote is not in the given source - removal seems fair enough. ClovisPt (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dilapidated article

Translation part of the article looks like a mess, an eyesore. It should be much better formatted and probably welcome a schematic bitmap graphic of the whole text as is on the rock. 87.97.96.24 (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Potential Authors

The article currently states that dating the inscription back at least to the 19th Century is important for those who believe the authors of the inscription were members of a lost tribe of Israel. I don't see any citation for that position. My own information on this rock, and the theory that I hold, is that a group of Phoenicians or others brought a few Hebrews with them to the Americas. For whatever reason, a small group of Hebrews (evidence at the site, including the size of the hill where this rock is located, suggests maybe a dozen to a few dozen people) camped here. I know of no one who has been to this site who is claiming that an entire tribe (the tribes of Israel generally numbering in the thousands) was in this area. That seems unlikely to have happened, or to have had a reason to have happened. On the other hand, it wouldn't be the last time that a handful of desperate people wandered across the Southwest. Pooua (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

References section

I've added a "References" section for external references, and placed the Notes under a "Notes" section, per Wikipedia layout guide and discussion with DougWeller on his Talk page (qv). Added NM State Lands webpage as a neutral authority for the previously unsubstantiated "exceptional claim" that such an inscribed boulder exists in the claimed location. HuMcCulloch (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Deal book, which was removed by administrator Dougweller 9/26/11, has been readded merely as source for the claim that it can be interpreted as the Decalogue, but not that it actually can be interpreted as such. Juergen and Fox give a similar purported translation, but conveniently online. This is more efficient and less affirmative than the inline translation removed by Sandstein in August 2010.

Likewise, Deal and Tabor cited as evidence for the previously undocumented assertion that some believe this is evidence of pre-Columbian contacts.

There are only 3 YHWH's in the inscription itself. A 4th appears as an isolated graffito on the summit of the mountain, but that might be a later copycat inscription and should be judged separately. HuMcCulloch (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've strengthened footnote 2 so that the interpretation of the inscription as an abridged Decalogue is now "documented" by Deal and Juergen/Fox, rather than just "claimed" as before. I don't think any informed person questions this interpretation. The subsequent claim that it is evidence of pre-columbian contacts is still just a "claim" made eg by Deal and Tabor.HuMcCulloch (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Deal still fails our RS criteria. If you still insist it stays in, one of us should go to WP:RSN and ask. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS -- "Sometimes 'non-neutral' sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Deal is non-neutral, but he is a noteworthy example of the alleged viewpoint, though Barry Fell would be an even more noteworthy example. (I don't remember which book, but will look it up tomorrow.) If you question Deal's translation of the inscription, we can revert to "claimed" rather than "documented" in footnote 2, unless you have a more reliable transcription and translation. HuMcCulloch (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Barry Fell briefly discusses the stone, with a photograph, on p. 167 of Saga America (Times Books 1980). Modern interest in the stone probably is more due to Fell than to Deal, though Deal provides a careful transcripion and translation, which Fell does not. (A few articles in Fell's ESOP, by Underwood and others, did do this, but Deal's book is more accesible and goes into more detail about the site etc.) HuMcCulloch (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sections and Images

In MOS:IMAGES, the 220px default is just a guideline, and lead images may go up to 300px in the absence of user settings making images larger or smaller. "upright=1.35" somehow generates this 330px default, so I think we should use this for the lead.

The Samaritan mezuzah image is rather tall, making it disproportionately large at the default width, so perhaps we should narrow it to "upright=0.8" or so.

"Controversy" strikes me as a better title for the main section than "Questions of Authenticity," since Gordon is not questioning the authenticity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuMcCulloch (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The sections MrX has added are useful, but I think that the physical description of the boulder should go up into the history section rather than the controversy section. I liked having the visitation information at the very end, but now that would call for a separate, one-sentence section, so I'll leave it in History for now. HuMcCulloch (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded sooner. I'm fine with the layout. I have some objections to the word "Controversy" for the section that discusses the authenticity of this object. I don't think it rises to the level of controversy and that wording is not very neutral; there are simply different theories about the origin of the stone. "According to archaeologist Kenneth Feder, "the stone is almost certainly a fake." " suggests that there are questions as to the authenticity, so I would propose one of these alternative headings, "Authenticity", "Origins" or perhaps "Theories" as a more neutral heading. Unfortunately, there is little consistency in the wording used at similar articles, as far as I an tell. - MrX 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Theories" would be fine by me -- Gordon's theory is that it's a legitimate Greco/Samaritan mezuzah. Feder's is that it's a fake. There's also a dispute over whether the caret used to indicate the insertion point for the omitted line can be ancient or if it's a relatively modern printer's mark. (Fell points out a similar mark in a Greek MS, the 4c Codex Sinaiticus if I'm not mistaken.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuMcCulloch (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)