Talk:Newark Holy Stones

message: I just attempted to add the link appearing below as a source reference supporting the claim that the stones are housed in the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum; but I have to admit that for some reason I was unable to get the template used for establishing an online reference to work. Perhaps it has something to do with the existing code that's already being used to reference this article. Can someone more technically "adept" than myself have a look at it. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a gadget in 'preferences' that you can use to create cites. This article needs a lot of work, more in-line citations and rewriting to follow our guidelines and policies. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for doing that work on this article Doug and for the tip. I completely agree with your assessment that the article needs a great deal of work to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. In my opinion, the way it's currently written, at times what is fairly obviously a nineteenth century hoax appears to be presented as almost having merit as an actual archaeological find. thanks again Deconstructhis (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  help 

message: I'm not an expert on the subject matter (like, at all), but it seems to me this article may be too even-handed. Are there actually credible archaeologists who don't see this as an obvious hoax out of hand? If I'm correct in thinking that no one credible treats this seriously, I'd recommend tightening it up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanp (talk • contribs) 17:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... but there are problems, because you get things like "Local Dentist Claims to Have Committed Hoax" and nobody thinks to ask him why... that smells like a cover-up because it probably is a cover-up. It makes very little sense for dentist to go to so much trouble in creating an elaborate hoax and then immediately confess, making all that effort amount to nothing. Maybe somebody just wanted the rest of the world to stop investigating. Too much weight is also given to the "modern Hebrew" factor. This on its own proves absolutely nothing, other than that this particular artifact might not be as ancient as the others. Or it could be that none of them is ancient. Or it could be that modern Hebrew is older than is thought. Or it could be that the modern version evolved in Ohio and was taken back to the Middle East... nobody could possibly know anything, so it's weird to make claims suggesting they do know. They can only speculate, using what seems most plausible (fair enough) but there is no genuine neutrality here... just a clear attempt to dismiss any alternative explanations to the most likely one, which is that it's a hoax (which is definitely very credible, but not the only possibility). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.182.99.189 (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the dentist cover-up concern... It's important to keep in mind that the last section of the article contains zero references. I've added a section hatnote so others don't overlook that. If not fixed in a few months, it should probably be removed altogether. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial Neutrality? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Newark Holy Stones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100823022750/http://www.newarkadvocate.com:80/article/20100820/NEWS01/8200307/Glenn-Beck-mention-boosts-Newark-Earthworks to http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20100820/NEWS01/8200307/Glenn-Beck-mention-boosts-Newark-Earthworks
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Not sure if these issues belong in this article or others, nor what degree of citation to do in this article, since these issues have their own more extensive articles with lots of citations (and redundant citation should be avoided if a more focused article has plenty of them itself).
Are there articles that directly address the relationship between Mideast & pre-Columbian alphabets found in North America, or the very specific diffusionist claim that Phoenicians or Hebrews reached North America?
=== Mi'kmaq glyphs ===
Similarities between Mi'kmaq_hieroglyphic_writing and Phoenician (a predecessor of the Hebrew alphabet) are commonly noted.  These appear at Bedford, Nova Scotia and other inland sites, from which a sea or river route to Newark would have been feasible by early societies.
:Commonly noted? By academics? In any case, I thought the claim was Egyptian. Nothing to do with this article however. Please sign with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~ Doug Weller talk 13:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Haplogroup X (mtDNA). Who says it left the MidEast? Our article says " Neither is there a path or ancestral form of X2a found in Europe or the Middle East." The source you link to says "X2a is not found in the Middle East, none of the X2 lineages present in the Middle East are immediately ancestral to X2a, " and "Thus, at this time, there is simply no evidence that X2a evolved in the Near East, Europe, or anywhere in West Eurasia." There is no academic debate about it coming from the Middle East, let alone 2000 years ago. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related" 

message: Similarities between Mi'kmaq_hieroglyphic_writing and Phoenician (a predecessor of the Hebrew alphabet) are commonly noted.  These appear at Bedford, Nova Scotia and other inland sites, from which a sea or river route to Newark would have been feasible by early societies.
:Commonly noted? By academics? In any case, I thought the claim was Egyptian. Nothing to do with this article however. Please sign with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~ Doug Weller talk 13:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mi'kmaq glyphs 

message: Discovery of a haplogroup in common between Middle Eastern & Native American peoples was raised by diffusionist dissenters to the mainstream (exclusively Ancient Beringians) theory of population of the Americas, that all Western Hemisphere peoples are descended from less than a dozen Beringian families.  This theory, raised by diffusionist scholars, is often claimed to be conclusively debunked, but without addressing other diffusionist evidence & usually making unusual note of motives for distortion, as was done to Wyrick https://www.csicop.org/si/show/civilizations_lost_and_found_fabricating_history_-_part_three_real_messages.  Debates continue https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1179/2055556315Z.00000000040 about when haplogroup X left the Mideast:  as early as 30,000 years ago, or as late as 2000 years ago.
:You mean Haplogroup X (mtDNA). Who says it left the MidEast? Our article says " Neither is there a path or ancestral form of X2a found in Europe or the Middle East." The source you link to says "X2a is not found in the Middle East, none of the X2 lineages present in the Middle East are immediately ancestral to X2a, " and "Thus, at this time, there is simply no evidence that X2a evolved in the Near East, Europe, or anywhere in West Eurasia." There is no academic debate about it coming from the Middle East, let alone 2000 years ago. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haplogroup X 

message: The POV claim seemingly from Williams that Wyrick had, prior to the "discovery" of the Newark stones, promoted the theory of Jewish origins of advanced Mound Builders culture, has been muted twice now to make clear that this was Williams' claim, not based on Wyrick's correspondence prior to the discovery, and not reflected in his colleagues' views of him prior to then.  It is extremely POV to just state Wyrick had this bias as a fact, and that should not be implied regardless of whatever else is said (or not) about Wyrick and the accusations of him involved in hoax.
The article seems to more likely finger the stonecutter & clergyman, in its present state, as they had motive & means, if not opportunity.  As there were many people present at the dig, and this was prior to the profession of archaeology developing its modern protocols, it seems wrong to simply assign Wyrick all blame for authentication errors.  Any guidance on how this was handled in other articles would be of some value.
The Michigan relics and the claims of Mormonism certainly would slant contemporary perception in the late 19th century of Wyrick and the Stones.  However it should be clear to readers that Mound Builders relics were being dismissed entirely from a racialized perspective, and also promoted from such a perspective, and that no claim of individuals' bias by another individual at this time can be taken entirely credibly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.254.107 (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Williams' accusation against Wyrick 

message: Here. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please include a romanization of the Newark holy stones please. 38.141.37.227 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brad Lepper - new article - scientific forgeries meant to end slavery 

message: The Newark Holy Stones: The History of An Archaeological Comedy Jeff Gill, Bradley T. Lepper, and Meghan Marley. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another new source