![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
_____________________________
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)