Talk:Los Lunas Decalogue Stone

message: 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)
thread_title: Its Rightful Place?

message: 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)
replies: text: That quote is not in the given source - removal seems fair enough. ClovisPt (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source/Citation 6 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dilapidated article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Potential Authors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  References section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Sections and Images