Talk:Oak Island mystery

Copied content
In the copyright violation detector this shows as copying http://www.crystalinks.com/oakislandmystery.html and http://www.tauycreek.com/2009_09_01_archive.html. But perhaps content is in the public domain, or copied of Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I just split off this article from Oak Island so it is possibly Wikipedia copied content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Advertising for the TV show is inappropriate
Articles on Oak Island are NOT supposed to be used to promote the Laginas and their TV show. As been has discussed many times in the past, It is totally inappropriate to put referenced to the TV show in the introduction to the article. I'm going to remove the advertising. 75.17.125.189 (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's "advertising" then everything is. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 19:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

rewriting the article
You stated your purpose as being to split the article. But you have at the same time done a massive rewrite of sections of the article. It would be better to have described the major changes you intended to make before you started to rewrite the article. The article has maintain a careful neutral balance. It also has to carefully avoid making any claims of fact in terms of uncertain or disputed history. This is especially important as regards the pre-1850 history of the island where the only sources are thirdhand accounts written half a century after the fact. I've tried to fix the most controversial of the changes. If you disagree with any of them, we should discuss them here and try for consensus. 75.17.125.189 (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutrality is important, but getting the article's structure laid out is just as so. The focus should be on one thing at a time, I am trying right now to condense sections. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Article is once again presenting legends as facts
The article should be treated as entirely untrustworthy. There is no documentation and no physical evidence for any treasure hunt on Oak Island prior to around 1856. The article was rewritten once to separate the false information from the proven information. But now all of that has been undone and Wikipedia is back to lending its support to a con game. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This may be your personal point of view but the sources in the article say otherwise. How the treasure (if there is one) came to be there is steeped in legend. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There are no sources, no written evidence and no physical evidence for any treasure hunting on Oak Island prior to the 1850s. There was no 90 foot stone, no Onslow company and no Truro company. The article is presenting what amounts to at best a bunch of legends as if they were historical facts. That is not opinion. That is reality based on available sources. Not that it matters much given that these sorts of paranormal articles on Wikipedia are not taken seriously about anyone. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, It is embarrassing that Rationalwiki's Oak Island money pit is more balanced and accurate than this nonsense.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect year
I believe there is a mistake in the "Early History" section. The line "he was wounded by another treasure hunter Micheal J Whynot, in 1989. His attempts ended" has an incorrect date, "1989". Could someone with more information on this event, please rectify the mistake. Jdbepono (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of references
User 208.103.255.87 has removed a large number of references without explanation - see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oak_Island_mystery&type=revision&diff=836660307&oldid=836618441. I propose to revert these amendments, on the basis that the references are valuable, and that no reason for their removal has been given. Alekksandr (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What he did was clearly vandalism and should be undone immediately. The subsequent edits (so far) have been attempts at corrections to what he did. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I undid the vandalism. 2600:1700:CA01:F20:E0D2:DF0B:E1F1:C398 (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Alekksandr (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Roman sword
A claim not mentioned is that of a Roman gladiator's sword — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.99.135 (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * also Reptiloid skeletons, Walt Disneys brain in a jar, Jimmy Hoffa (alive), the Calvary Cross, Buddhas robe, F Scott Fitzgeralds lost novel, the Snyder Cut of Justice League, and 300 mint condition VHS copies of the Star Wars Christmas Special, signed by the main cast. 50.193.19.66 (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Valve on old Spanish map
What could the valve be? A valve to shut off the water in the tunnel to the money pit? 2601:602:C680:5480:718A:7009:8652:F260 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Problematic sentence
I have an issue with the following text currently in the article.

''At one point, one of the platforms placed in the original shaft at 98 feet (30 m) collapsed and dropped to a lower level. The effect caused the next two platforms to drop as well, with the treasure now resting some 119 feet (36 m) below ground along with an estimated 10,000 board feet (23,597 L) of lumber.''

These sentences present the treasure as a fact with a specific resting place, while it is really only a hypothesis.Tvx1 01:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is the whole article is largely horseshit, cited to people who have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth.IrishStephen (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment on quality
This is one of the worst articles I have ever read. --90.243.93.147 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree, I can see some serious intent to get this back on track, but still citing half facts. 66.58.202.74 (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Scott Wolter wants to be paid to reveal the secrets
Scott Wolter Says He Won't Reveal Oak Island Secrets without a Big TV Payday] Doug Weller  talk 16:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)