Talk:Georgia Guidestones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
High traffic

On 12 August 2007, Georgia Guidestones was linked from, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

Links section updates. New sources to be added soon.[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

RC Christian (a pseudonyn)[edit]

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 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Reference is irrelevant[edit]

"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)

Babylonian, Classical Greek, Sanskrit and Egyptian hieroglyphs?[edit]

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)

Infowars and Alex Jones[edit]

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

MrMojoRisin71 (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)== 2009 notch & the 2014 'cube' ==

Found this source.[1] 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 [2]. Nothing in that source on the 'cube' which is interesting considering they mention vandalism this month.[3] I did find an article in Van's Hardware Journal.[4] 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)

Mind's Eye podcast[edit]

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: 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)


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 (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[edit]

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

Inscriptions, languages[edit]

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.

Possible connection to far-right[edit]

The whole "maintain world population below 500,000,000" piece and also the eugenics-sounding language about "guiding reproduction wisely" makes me wonder if whoever erected the stones might have had neo-Nazi leanings. IIRC, the book The Turner Diaries, which was published two years before, ends with an all-white world population of either 50 or 500 million (not sure which).

The stones don't explicitly mention race but maybe that's because if they'd had explicitly racist messages on them, they probably would've been vandalized beyond recognition by now, or else the granite company wouldn't have agreed to take the project on in the first place. Likewise the inclusion of non-"white" languages like Swahili and Chinese is weird, but might've been done as a red herring. But Sanskrit holds a lot of significance for Nazis (it was the "Aryan" language), as does Hebrew (Christian Identity adherents use the language a lot because they believe it to be rightfully "theirs").

In any event, a lot of neoreactionary and alt-right types would probably agree with almost everything that's on those stones. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Almost all right-wingers hate it, because a world population of half a billion would require family planning and the occasional abortion, which they oppose. Most right-wingers also mistakenly believe that caring about the environment is an exclusively left-wing thing. So this display is definitely not a right-wing thing.77Mike77 (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. The NAZIS were socialists and the right absolutely despises the thought of a one world government. These stones are a monument of left wing fantasy. Kryan74 (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

socialism and eugenics can intersect, as can right-wing and family planning. leave speculation out. Grigori Rho Gharveyn (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed detail[edit]

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 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 is not a reliable source). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)


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)

The whole financial process and its secrecy qualifies for money-laundry by U.S. laws.

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

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

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[edit]

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

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

Conjecture vs. "conspiracy theory"[edit]

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)

Current state[edit]

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)