Talk:Georgia Guidestones

Kersten again

Does this help?[1] Also this on his views on Duke and Buchanan.[2] Accessible in the US, you need a vpn to read it from the UK.An Iowa physician, Herbert H. Kersten of Fort Dodge, reacted to my attack on those who attribute base sentiments to anyone who wants to solve America's problems first. He lulled me into dropping my guard. He said I correctly suggested it is not wrong to be patriotic. Then, wham! He threw in the incendiary names of Patrick Buchanan and David Duke, contending they are among the few public figures who speak for American interests "in this new era of internationalism." Duke, he said as my skin crawled, "voices many beliefs held by reasonable Americans. It is unfortunate that more acceptable public figures are not pushing similar views."' Doug Weller talk 14:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Both of those sources provide information about Kersten; The only thing linking him, in any way, to the Guidestones, is a documentary from a source that is not reliable. Doesn't matter how much information we can find about him, we aren't adding any of that information into this page without consensus, and verifiable sources other than the documentary. Fbifriday (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Even if the documentary is taken not to be a reliable source for things that are seen on camera just because it was published by a small studio with eccentric opinions, that Christian has been identified by some as Kersten has been reported by Last Week Tonight, a Peabody Award-winning show with millions of viewers, which accepts the documentary's conclusion. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

And if the Last Week Tonight crew want to open themselves up to libel based off of a production studio that produces patently false, propagandist content (For verification, see this, in which they push the Gay Nazis myth, including claiming that Hitler hated the Jews because the Jews were against homosexuality, which is blatant Holocaust denial) they can do that. I don't think it is a good idea to open Wikipedia up to such liability. This is not a small studio with eccentric opinions, it's a patently false source. Fbifriday (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Why would it be defamatory to accuse Kersten of building the Georgia Guidestones? - Cal Engime (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

They linked him to white supremacists based off of that documentary. And the veracity of the documentary is questionable, at best, based off the source. If you legitimately thing think that is a valid source, I will gladly open an RFC for wider discussion, because I think the other productions of that studio discredit it as a valid source, and I'm fairly certain a wider RFC would agree, given their links to the above Holocaust denial. Fbifriday (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The documentary is questionable. There are several websites, including historians, who debunk Chris Pinto and state that he intentionally lies. On Kersten, there is other evidence that he may be one of the creators, but there is no evidence that he was a racist. Considering the fact that he was well respected in his community and that he has family that is still living, I think it would be wrong to accuse him of being racist at least. My sources are from my own research. It can be seen here if needed:

https://gaguidestonesconspiracies.wordpress.com/ Annetta1018 (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I will further cite WP:QUESTIONABLE in my assertion, as they clearly have a history of pushing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, and rely on rumors. Fbifriday (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

There are several ideas which debunk the David Duke, racist, eugenics connection. Assuming it is related to secret society planning of the NWO, specifically Rosicrucianism, the founding and inner order of Freemasonry; Duke is a White Christian Nationalist, a follower of the Christian Identity religion. All adherents to Christian Identity are anti-globalists. They are self-professed enemies of Freemasonry, which they consider to be a Satanic Jewish religion. Therefore David Duke does not support the NWO and would have nothing to do with such a monument created by Neo-Rosicrucians.

Secondly, the monument does not promote white race eugenics ala Adolf Hitler. The fact that the 10 instructions are written in 8 major world languages, speaks to a different type of "globalist" eugenics. The KKK would have nothing to do with Hebrew, Swahili, or any other languages than English and Indo European ; though based languages; Christian Identity claims the white race to be the true Israelites. They simply would not want to mix blood with modern Africans or Jews. Rather, globalist eugenics is about taking the best qualities of each race to create a new "Super Human". This is supposed to occur after the next global cataclysm. So "guide reproduction wisely" and "limit the population to 500 million" is a reference to the ideas of a new species of homo sapiens and having a second chance to not overpopulate the world as we have done presently. This overpopulation and its associated pollution is the primary reason for climate change/destruction.

I personally met Joe Findley Jr., the son of the owner of the granite company who built the monument for RC Christian and his associates. He is the self proclaimed tour guide of the monument and knows more about it than anyone alive. He wore a large Freemasonic ring, but when I asked about a connection he denied the Freemasons had anything to do with it. That's because it was created by the Rosicrucian Order, not the Masons who are but the outer order. He assured me that he would take the secret of RC Christian's true identity to the grave. And I believe him. 2600:6C50:587F:C852:25BB:FF23:241D:21E7 (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I am jumping back in here again. I noticed that the Dark Clouds Doc is cited in the article. Is this something that is going to be left? If so, it should be in my opinion, be moved to the conspiracy section, as opposed to being in the construction section. There are quiet a few sources online that call out Chris Pinto's bias and sometimes out right lies in his other docs. I can come back and cite some sources if needed. Either way, the information he got was from Wyatt Martin. That is a reliable source since Martin was first hand in contact with Christian. But that is the ONLY think Dark Clouds got right. The film goes off on a conspiracy rabbit trail speculating that Kersten was racist. I have seen Kersten's other writings. He was not racist. The sentinel sun article that is used as a source is taken out of context. Kersten clearly said Duke was "unacceptable". Kersten also donated to candidates who had a past with the NAACP. This is not the actions of someone who is a racist. So having said that, I think the Dark Clouds source should be removed or if cited, it should be moved to the conspiracy section. As I said on this page before, Kersten has children that are still alive. WE DO NOT want to fuel hatred and misunderstanding of their father. Also, as a side note, I know personal research is not accepted. I posted the WordPress above. It is based on personal research and includes a defense of Kersten as well as additional proof that he did likely create the Guidestones. I am not saying it should be included here. But just leaving it in case anyone wants to take a look so that perhaps the whole Kersten, NWO, Racist thing on the talk page can be put to rest. Annetta1018 (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

What remains is what was left from the below RfC; by consensus of the community, listing it as a statement of fact isn't possible, due to the obvious unreliability of the film, but we can reference the fact that it exists, based off of reliable sources that mention the film. That's how it is in the article now, but because none of those sources call it a conspiracy theory (despite being from a known conspiracy theorist) we can't put them in the conspiracy section either, since the film isn't referred to as such. I've said from the beginning the only way to deal with the film at all is to entirely remove any reference of it from the article. I wanted it gone, entirely, and I think that be possible at some point, but as it is, the way it is mentioned is the consensus of the community below, and since we just had a whole long RfC regarding it, I'm not about to be bold and remove it myself, since that will probably lead to a new dispute.

With the removal of Kersten's alleged links to white supremacy, there is no need to dispel those rumors on the article, so while I would agree that it is entirely possible Kersten was not racist (it is also entirely possible that Pinto set out to make ANYONE he could link the guidestones to appear racist, since the documentary isn't based in fact), it isn't mentioned in the article anymore anyway. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

That is fair enough then. I just hate to give Dark Clouds more attention by them being on here, since they have an intentional bias and the way they treated Mr. Martin says alot about their integrity too. And while I have not edited this page and wont, if it counts in the future and there is another vote, I vote to remove mention of them as well. Annetta1018 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I found this CNN article that mentioned Kersten, "Here are three reasons to believe that the man who commissioned the Georgia Guidestones was Herbert H. Kersten, a physician from Fort Dodge, Iowa:

1. Kersten was born on May 7, 1920, and thus would have been 78 on July 14, 1998, the date of the letter in which Robert Christian said he was 78.

2. Kersten lived for many years at the same address seen on one of the envelopes sent to Wyatt Martin.

3. Kersten wrote a lot of letters that were published in newspapers, and in those letters he sounded strikingly similar to Robert Christian.

“Most important of all, America should now begin to direct the attention of the world to solving the fundamental problem which threatens to engulf all humanity in social and economic catastrophe,” Herbert H. Kersten, M.D. wrote in a letter published by the Des Moines Register on January 25, 1981, less than a year after the Guidestones were unveiled. “I refer to the uncontrolled reproduction of our species, which has already caused human numbers to far exceed the level which our planet can support in decency.”

“Rational planning of human reproduction is becoming increasingly essential,” Kersten wrote in a letter the Register published in 1990.

“Contrary to widespread opinion,” Kersten wrote in a 1996 letter to the editor, “our nation is now overpopulated.” https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/02/us/georgia-guidestones-mystery-cec-cnnphotos/ Abotnick (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

In order to help make this article more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we mention (if only briefly) Herbert H. Kersten as the likely individual behind the Georgia Guidestones? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Was vs Were

The first sentence is grammatically incorrect, either "set of monuments" needs to be changed to "monument" or "was a" needs to be changed to "were a", it cannot be both singular and plural. MishaQuinn (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's been discussed above, but the "Georgia Guidestones" is a singular monument, as the stones as a whole were one monument, but "guidestones" which is referring to each of the stones themselves, and is non-proper, is plural. It's confusing, but that's the english language for you. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you are mistaken. The Georgia Guidestones were a bunch of stones; they were plural. Those stones together comprised a monument; the monument was singular. So it would be correct to say "The Georgia Guidestones were a monument and the monument was in Georgia." If you aren't sure which verb to use, look at the noun. 24.1.44.233 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I also think that "guidestones" with a lowercase g is not an ordinary word; the word Guidestone was apparently invented for the monument, and should be capitalized and proper wherever it appears. 24.1.44.233 (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The guidestones were "a bunch of stones" that formed a singular monument, and sources in the article such as NBC and the Associated Press use "was" to describe it, as does USA Today and other sources. Your point about Guidestones being a proper noun just reinforces this; similar to something like Six Flags, just because the proper noun is plural doesn't mean the singular object that it describes would use "are/were". - Aoidh (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

1) NBC uses the singular (your preference): "The Georgia Guidestones, a granite monument adorned with a message about the conservation of humanity, was demolished for safety reasons after the 4 a.m. explosion in Elbert County"

2) AP does not use the capitalized Georgia Guidestones with any verb that is singular or plural, except in combination with the word monument, such as "The Georgia Guidestones monument near Elburton was..." which leaves the question open.

3) USA Today uses the plural (my preference): "The 19-foot tall Georgia Guidestones, shown Aug. 8, 1998, have been drawing curious visitors..."

The sources are not in agreement with each other. One thing they all have in common, which you might be observing, is that none of them say "the monument were." That would obviously be incorrect.

Six Flags is different because when you say Six Flags, you don't mean the flags. You mean the park or the company that runs it. When I say the Georgia Guidestones, I mean the stones. If you were to write about the "six flags over Texas" (the flags, not the park or the slogan), you would write about them as plural. Just try writing about the six flags as if they were singular and see how it sounds. The distinction is not between proper nouns versus common nouns; the distinction is between one thing versus several things.

If someone wrote a book called The Georgia Guidestones, the book would be singular. That's what Six Flags is like.

The original comment is mistaken as I said earlier. The Guidestones were several stones that comprised one monument. The stones were plural and the monument was singular. Both can be true without a contradiction. The verb goes with the subject noun of the sentence. I don't think it's necessary to draw a sentence diagram. 24.1.44.233 (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The Chicago Cubs are an American professional baseball team...

The Replacements were an American rock band...

The Rocky Mountains, also known as the Rockies, are a major mountain range... 184.170.171.43 (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

in addition, the article repeatedly switches from plural to singular. MishaQuinn (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I fixed it in the lede, that was atrocious. Thanks for pointing it out. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Rebuilding

So, in this article, they discuss potentially rebuilding the stones, in honor of the granite industry in the county. Also, this page is a whole section the local news did about the guidestones after their destruction, might be a good source for info and history. If someone wants to add it, it's here, if not, I'll leave it here for me to add later. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that addition information, Fred.

If you ask me, I think the Sheriff and GBI have no real interest in catching the culprit.

97.107.37.1 (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The book

@Abotnick: If you'd look, the information about the book is already in the article, sourced properly, in the part of the article about the construction. The rest of it appears to be severely UNDUE conspiracy stuff. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon:

The Robert C. Christian book Common Sense Renewed is not conspiracy stuff. It is cited and distributed to congress. A congressman even spoke the the GA Guidestones opening ceremony. Read the book and it talks about eugenics and the other stuff.

Here's what the book says, "Because we have controlled disease and many other life-threatening dangers we need no longer depend upon high birth rates to assure the survival of our species. Excesses in childbearing often result in degrdation and poverty. It will be extremely difficult, even in the short term, to provide five billion human beings with the material living standards typical of advanced societies today. A reduction in total numbers is essential to maximizing the potential of every human being. We cannot fortell the exact "climax" limit for human numbers. Providing even 500 million people with current American living standards may exceed that limit on a perpetual time scale. Common sense would suggest that we make the reduction in a selective fashion. Yet we are devoting more attention to the production of improved plants and animals than to the selective continuation of our own species." (pp. 26-27)

This is eugenics and it's right from his book and supported by the UN.

=== Links to the United Nations and U.S. Congress===

The same anonymous author, Robert (R.C.) Christian (pseudoname) printed a three-chapter companion book entitled "Common Sense Renewed" which was created five years later and distributed to all members of the U.S. congress and “several thousand political officials and shapers of public opinion throughout the world. One photo from the creator of the monument, the Elberton Granite Finishing Company, shows U.S. Congressman Doug Barnard making the keynote address at its unveiling.

The thrust of the book is to promote a "rational world order" that rules the globe by reason. It contains the religious idea that "each human being has a purpose," but adds that it takes a single governing body to be blunt about which humans are more valuable than others. It proscribes difficult positions on eugenics, controlling the amount of births, extreme Darwinism with regard to those who are ill or without money, voting restrictions based on education level and wealth, etc.

The message of the book links up with the beliefs of Alice A. Bailey's Theosophy New Age movement, 'Common Sense' by Thomas Paine and the Rosicrusian ideas on secret truths of nature, man and social order. Bailey promoted her religious ideas through the Lucis Trust of the United Nations. Abotnick (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

References

I see not a single mention anywhere, except in a blog, that, once again, does not count as a reliable source on Wikipedia, about a distribution of the book to all members of US Congress. I also see absolutely no link to this Alice A Bailey or the UN established in sources, where does that come from? Also, I'm sorry this document you are trying to use as a reference that makes several references to a "Luciferan Doctrine" in the UN....I don't think I need to explain why that one is not a reliable source. I'm actually fairly certain this is all just more conpsiracy stuff related to the stones, trying to link them to the "New World Order", which is actually mentioned in that document you're trying to use as a reference, so I'm fairly certain I'm right. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How do you know it's the same anonymous author? A blog isn't sufficient for this content, nor does a Goodreads post verify anything. The connection with Alice Bailey and the UN is similarly unsourced. There's a lot of dots that are being connected without sources being the ones making the connections, making this WP:OR. - Aoidh (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Since you're just adding to your original post instead of replying, I'll reply here: Where is the link between the Guidestones and the UN? Or between he book's views and the UN? FrederalBacon (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon I don't see enough of a link to keep the eugenics statement (Alice Bailey promoted abortion but I'm not finding anything on sterilization/eugenics) however I did back up the eugenics thrust of the book and connection to the guidestones. So you can drop the UN/theosophy parts but should keep the rest. Abotnick (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No, the problem is that none of it is reliably sourced, it's WP:OR to connect the book to the guidestones, or the guidestones to the UN, or any of it. None of it is reliably sources or relevant to the article's subject in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the article. There's a reference to the interpretations of eugenics in the interpretation section, properly cited, as covered in third party sources. There's also the part I mentioned where the book allegedly written by Christian is already covered in the article in the Construction section, also properly sourced, as covered in third party sources. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

I added a sentence which mentioned that a model of the Guidestones was featured at the center of the virtual world "Adrift" in the online platform VRChat, but it was deleted 3 minutes later by ScottishFinnishRadish with the comment "This needs independent secondary sourcing to demonstrate that it is noteworthy". Who's to say what is or isn't "noteworthy" in the Popular Culture section? Virtual reality is a cultural phenomenon, and VRChat is the single most popular platform in VR. The existence of the virtual Guidestones in "Adrift" is an independently-verifiable fact, and definitely in popular culture by virtue of being in VRChat. I discovered the Guidestones in "Adrift" first, and didn't know a real version existed until the news of the bombing. Since the dismantling, the VR version is the only one remaining. Isn't that "noteworthy" enough? 24.125.98.193 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

We use third party refs to determine whether something is "notable" on Wikipedia or not. Have magazines or reviews noted the guidestones' use in "Adrift"? Otherwise it is just WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Well said. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that items in the "Popular Culture" section had to have third-party mention prior to being included. I thought that they just had to be verifiable facts rather than speculation or opinion. As for it being trivia, the WP Trivia article says that a prose item in a Popular Culture reference may give on overview "of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media ..." I submit that a virtual reality world is a medium as equally valid as a magazine. It's not as if the world simply says "the Guidestones exist", but has re-created them complete with the inscriptions in multiple languages. If it would make a difference, I could expand my entry to give a better, "logically presented overview" of how a model of the Guidestones was created in the world to allow others who cannot or would not travel to see the real Guidestones to experience them in VR. And in case you're wondering, no, I didn't create the world and am not associated with it. My daughter and I just happen to like it. 24.125.98.193 (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

In order to be considered popular culture, it would need a reliable source discussing it on some level. The issue isn't the wording, it's the lack of sources. - Aoidh (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Independent secondary sources are good we determine if something should be included. The section should only include notable examples in popular culture, and what makes them notable is that someone independent has made note of it. If we didn't require other sources to include an example in the popular culture section then we'd end up with popular culture sections far larger than the rest of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The virtual world IS the independent source, in the same way that a TV show such as "Mysteries at the Museum" is an independent source. The TV show presents footage of the Guidestones in a 2D medium along with narration and discussion, while the virtual world presents a recreation of the Guidestones in a 3D medium. Granted, there's not a discussion or narration in the world, but there was never a discussion or narration at the actual site. The original Guidestones as well as the virtual model are presented to viewers/readers to interpret as they see fit. Using your own words, it's notable that someone independent has made note of it, in the form of a virtual model allowing people to experience it. 24.125.98.193 (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

A VR world is not an independent source, it is a WP:PRIMARY source. - Ahunt (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The source has to be independent of the example, otherwise we'd list every book and television program and videogame and website and on and on that mentioned something, using the example as the source. There needs to be a source that is independent of the example to show demonstrate that it is notable, because we as editors do not decide what is notable, we follow the sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Then with that logic, the three television shows currently listed should be removed, since the sources listed (41, 42, and 43) are the examples themselves and not independent of the examples.

I disagree that the VR world is a Primary source in this case. The Primary source of the Guidestones was the person who commissioned them and the company that fabricted them. The VR world didn't create the Guidestones, but created a model using the original Guidestones as its source. In the same way, the TV shows didn't create the Guidestones, they created video using the original Guidestones as their source. 24.125.98.193 (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Something in a VR world is not independent of that VR world. For the other mentions in the article, I looked at the last one and quickly found multiple independent sources discussing it such as this one. Those sources are readily available if not already included in the article; it is the existence of these sources that show relevance, and is the kind of sourcing that is needed to show that the VR world example is notable. The issue isn't that the thing you're describing doesn't exist, that's not in question. The question is "Is it popular culture?" and the VR world itself cannot answer that, we need third-party sources to do that. - Aoidh (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. 24.125.98.193 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction

Regarding whether the monument was controversial from the beginning, the article's lead section says "It initially garnered little controversy" but later in the Reaction section it says "The monument was controversial even before it was unveiled." These quotes seem to be contradictory, so this discrepancy should be corrected or clarified. Unfortunately I am not knowledgeable enough on this subject to be of much help here. Runner5k (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for bringing this up. The cited refs for the lede claim actually indicate that it was controversial from the start, so I have amended the text to better reflect that. - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Jan 2023 revert.

Hello wiki-pals.

I just reverted the changes made by Hcmontessori200 two days prior. The formatting was incorrect, some of the "references" should have been hyperlinks (i.e., citing the relevance of The Age of Reason by linking to the Wikipedia page on the Age of Reason), others were incorrectly formatted (i.e., just a blind link to the Dark Clouds video on YouTube), and the bulk of content seemed to be a bunch of stuff that y'all'd previously removed because it reads like a conspiracy theory.

Reverting seemed like the best move given the volatility of late.

Cheers! Reve (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Georgia Guidestones explosion.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Writing?

Looks to me like the complete text on these concrete slabs could be written directly into this Article. Seems like this Article is more about people talking about the text, rather than the words themselves. Also I'd be more inclined to take seriously the whole "it's satanic" line of gibberish more seriously if the Article bothered to even attempt to connect "stones" with "satan" in an attempt to explain WHY "they say" it's "satanic". In short, the Article seems more focused on the dramatic furor of the stones existence, than it does on the words that were written on them. 72.181.112.54 (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The text from the stones is already written in the artlicle. - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Georgia Guidestones#Description is quite a substantial portion of the article as well, with much more content than the "Satanic" mentions in the Conspiracy theory section gets (and rightfully so). - Aoidh (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The message on the stones anticipates the destruction of more than 90% of humanity and advocates for it to remain at that reduced state (or less) forever. Much of the world--including a significant fraction of educated people--accepts as fact the idea that there are evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking humanity 's ruin. For them, it's not that big of a leap. 24.1.44.233 (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

In popular media should be added

This was covered by lastweektonight and can be found at this youtube address. https://youtube.com/AEa3sK1iZxc?si=fW-ktjuqYVN5gfkS 32.221.26.216 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That link does not appear to work, but the video you're referring to is in the article as a reference. However, to have a section on popular culture the entries in that section would need to meet MOS:POPCULT to ensure that it's not just indiscriminate trivia, mainly by showing that third-party sources (independent of the show itself) have discussed this appearance on the show as a significant aspect of the Georgia Guidestones in some way. - Aoidh (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)