Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon/Archive 5

hardened copper blades and projectile points

I have contributed references and removed the erroneous statement (Sword section) that Native Americans did not make metal blades. This is certainly not true in the case of copper working mound builder societies. Kovesh (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

While it is true the hardened copper blades, "knives", "axe", "arrow" and possible "spear" heads have been found at mound builder sites, it is important to carefully sort these out from references to "swords" in the "Mound-builder" genre (e.g. Priest, American Antiquities). I have therefore added language to the recent contribution, that better differentiates between things found in recent literature and museums and things (though quite possibly legit) that were unearthed and written about in the 19th century. Onondaga (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Coon notes that the same Hebrew word translated "sword" in the King James, is also translated "knife", "dagger", "axe", "tool" etc. The term refers to a sharp implement. Onondaga (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

recent improvements

Several sentences in the article were too long and too wordy and needed to be rewritten as two or more sentences. Some statements were redundant – saying the same thing in the same paragraph, another way. I judged some expressions and adjectives to be unnecessary for communicating the point. A few statements contained information that required clarification. The “horse” section for example, stated that there are fourteen references to horses in the Book of Mormon. True, but three of these references do not clearly relate to the New World setting. Other statements made it sound like Native Americans failed to develop metal working acumen in antiquity, or failed to make any kind of metal blade - not true.Onondaga (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

earlier "Early attempts" defended

The concluding sentence in the “Early attempts” section was recently removed. I have restored this sentence, buttressing it with references to non-LDS authorities. Onondaga (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hemispheric Geography Model

Some may not know the meaning of the adverb “cursorily”. I have clarified the opening sentence to the “Hemispheric Geography” section. Onondaga (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

New editor trying to provide some information getting bitten, bullied by Ian Thomson, please help!

Hi, I'm a new editor and I would like to add some information to this article. I am still learning how to add sources and such, I made some edits that I feel were perfectly appropriate. Maybe I should not have removed some of the DNA related information, so I apologize for that, but other minor changes and additions I made were perfectly valid. I quoted an article by John Bennett, which had been quoted directly above where I added the content.

I want to add some information to this article, but I'm getting bitten and bullied by Ian. Can anyone help me out here? I have done a lot of research on the archeology of the Book of Mormon and I am working on getting some of my articles published in Scientific journals. I am looking to share some of my research on Wikipedia, but this editing I am doing is testing out the whole system before I add more personal research. Please advise, those who are genuine editors and not here to bully and bite new comers like me. Thanks, Jaredkunz30 (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits just removed sourced info (<ref>the stuff in tags like this</ref>), and then replaced it with unsourced info that counters sourced info. You then made personal attacks on my user page for undoing your edits, instead of just asking me what to do to get your info in the article. We do not accept personal research. If you want to add in your research, get published, and then use that as a source. Wikipedia is not about qualifications, it is about sources. This site is not a scholarly site, it is just a summery of sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, (everyone out there that is not named Ian Thomson), it is difficult to add anything to this article when you are a new editor and there is a bully blindly undoing every single edit, even if it's just minor re-wording to make the article more clear. I look forward to getting help from someone like Ogden or Walt, someone who actually has some credibility as an experienced editor. Please advise if your name is not Ian. I've heard enough of hot air from this guy. Thanks, Jaredkunz30 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor re-wording? Anyone can go to the page's history and see you replacing sourced information with unsourced information that counters the sourced info. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Jaredkunz, Ian.thompson is right on this one. For a controversial article such as this one, you need to take your issues to the talk page and try to get a consensus before barging in and making contentious changes to the article. That's what talk pages are for. Plazak (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are hoping to publish your research on here before getting it into peer reviewed journals you should be aware that Wikipedia has a policy of no original research.--Charles (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, maybe they should start calling this Wikipolicy police. Don't worry people, I am not publishing anything here, until I sign on the dotted line and cut through all the red tape. Even if I did publish something, the policy police department here would undo it within minutes, so don't worry, you've got more people ready to pounce on anything unbiased in this article than the FBI has special agents around the president.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew design in Mesoamerica: Temples match

I am planning to make some updates to this lovely article with the following as the source, any objections policy police?

Hebrew design in Mesoamerica: Temples match

http://www.archaeologydaily.com/news/200910192429/Hebrew-design-in-Mesoamerica-Temples-match.html

"Archaeologist F. Richard Hauck researched the shapes of ancient Hebrew sacred space. Relying on the work of Asher Kaufman, Hauck learned that the tabernacle of Moses and Solomon's temple both used cubit measurements of 43.7 centimeters and 42.8 centimeters in their construction. The building's spaces -- such as the Holy of Holies, sanctuaries, outer walls and other rooms -- were also proportionally related. Solomon's Temple was twice the size of the tabernacle, yet it kept the same ratios of width and length.

Even the Ark of the Covenant matched those proportions on a much smaller scale.

Hauck told participants of the seventh annual Book of Mormon Lands Conference, held Saturday, Oct. 17 in Salt Lake City, about his examination of the temple complex at the ruins of Izapa in Mexico. He plotted out the spatial relationships of Izapa' s various buildings and pyramids along various lines. He discovered that, like the Hebrew sacred spaces in the Old World, Izapa architects used cubit measurements of 43.7 centimeters and 42.8 centimeters.

Then, one day, as he worked on recreating architectural drawings of Solomon's temple, Hauck said he felt inspired to compare the proportions of the Temple of Solomon with the shapes in the Izapa ruins.

They matched.

In the same way that the temple of Solomon was a larger version of Moses' tabernacle, the Izapa temple complex was aligned with the same proportions -- only 15 times larger than Solomon's temple. There was a direct correlation, according to Hauck, to Izapa's mounds and plazas with the tabernacle and Solomon's temple.

"They were all built on the same model," Hauck said.

From the cloth and wood tabernacle, to the stone temple of Solomon, to the huge complex of buildings in Izapa, there was a correlation in size, according to Hauck. "The measurements system used to design Izapa, and the basic architecture in Izapa were copied directly from sacred architecture employed by Moses and Solomon."Jaredkunz30 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The article from archeologydaily.com is originally from the Mormon Times. That would be an acceptable source, but it would have to be noted that the information is from Mormon scholars, not general mainstream scholars. Normally, sites that are based on user-submitted content (such as most wikis and archeologydaily.com) are not considered reliable sources, but the Mormon times is acceptable for a representative Mormon source. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That is fine by me. Some people could have all "general mainstream scholars" begin to agree with things the Book of Mormon has evidenced all a long, then a new set of golden plates could be found, with writings by "Mayan" or "Olmec" prophets who identify themselves as the characters in the Book of Mormon, Jesus could come again and tell everyone the Book of Mormon is true, and there would still be close minded, skeptical elitist snobs out there who have the same quick answer for everything they don't want to believe..."that's not what my mainstream archaeological heroes agree with..." in other words, "neener neener neener, I'm right, you're wrong!". So go ahead and stick your nose up at so called "outside the mainstream" scholarly works that are found on reputable archaeological websites. All the "mainstream historian" elitist snobbery won't matter when all things are revealed and the "anesthetic fog" disappears as C.S. Lewis puts it and you stand there to meet your maker.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaredkunz30 (yes, I know it's you, anyone can look here in the talk page history and see that you put this here), I take it you still haven't read the reliable source guidelines. Please sign your posts with four tidles (~~~~). Wikipedia is not about what is "true," it is just a summery of sources, and the Mormon Times is not the same as a peer-reviewed journal for archaeology and history. BTW, refering to C.S. Lewis to justify slanting the article to a Mormon POV is like refering to the Pope to try to justify slanting the Mohammed article to a Sunni POV. And as for the reputable archaeological website, as can be seen here, all anyone has to do is pay a fee and they can put anything on there as long as it has to do with history, archaeology, anthropology, etc. Someone could put an article about similarities between the Aztec word Teotl and the Greek word Theos are evidence of ancient R6 brainwashing of thetans by Lord Xenu, so long as most of the article is about archaeology (not necessarily good archaeology) and not an advertisement for Scientology. Archaeologydaily.com just carries other places material, they only review it enough to make sure that the material has something to do with Archaeology. For this reason, the site itself is not a reliable source, but it is an acceptable place to view a copy of the Mormon Times, which is an acceptable source for the Mormon view of things. The Mormon Times has an agenda and is not a peer-reviewed journal, so it is not representative of mainstream scholarship. Mormon scholarship, yes, but not mainstream scholarship. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know how to type four tildes, I forgot to add them. Thanks Policy policeman of the self appointed wikipolicy interpol. Who cares whether as you say "Mormon Times has an agenda". If the facts are that a mesoamerican temple has the same proportions as the Temple of Solomon, then anyone with half a brain could see that this is not mere coincidence. Oh and by the way, I was not referring to C.S. Lewis from a "mormon POV slant". C.S. Lewis as a Christian writer says a lot of things that many respectable Christians agree with whether they are Christians of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS or whether they are Alchemist,Zoroastrian Omega Point believers. Know this, not all "mainstream scholarship" is devoid of anyone with an agenda. Talk all day, til you're blue in the face about reliable sources. If you don't even understand basic Christian doctrine and if you're so confused by long dead philosophy from the likes of communists and pagans and astrologist/alchemists listed on your personal page, then I will wait until you find out a little more about true Christianity before I share any enlightening C.S. Lewis references with you. Jaredkunz30 (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Because you have once again made personal attacks despite warnings not to, and because you have said you do not care about the NPOV and reliable source guidelines, I am reporting you. You bringing in religion is at best a non-sequiter, at worst a red herring. If you do not want to follow the guidelines for civility, reliable sources, or neutral point of view, then leave because you should not be editting on this site. Go treat others in an unloving and hateful fashion sans agape somewhere else. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow...oooh, I'm scared...report me. I have not made any personal attacks. If you are so worried about your reputation here, don't put all your personal beliefs out on your wikipedia profile page. Intimidation and wrist slaps don't discourage me. I don't think reporting people for so called personal attacks is very civil. Go ahead, report me, block me...who cares? Big loss. I will create another account with a different name and email. Grow up and stop calling mommy on people who disagree with you. How adolescent is your response here? Never seen anything like this, so immature and childish. Pathetic. Jaredkunz30 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Does your behavior really reflect Christ's love? Do you think that you are being a Christ light to the world with your attitude? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, my behavior does not reflect well His love, you are correct. I do find a good attitude adjustment is in order on my part now and again. I have been a bit flippant. I don't mind being called uncivil. Christ wasn't always "civil" but now I know the definition of civility in Wikipedialand, I will conform. You have proven your Christianity, albeit a little bit over reactive with all the warnings you have given me, but nonetheless, like I wrote you seem like a decent fellow.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Christ was uncivil to the people that were ruining society for personal gain, not to the people that were actually trying to help others. Actually, if your edits had been overt vandalism, you would have been banned the day you started here. I was far more generous warnings than I otherwise would have been. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead link, reference number 5

There is a broken link for an MIT webpage that is referenced in three different locations in this article. I added "dead link" to the last reference, but I'm still learning the best way to re-number them unless someone can find a new link for this MIT article. I am interested in reading the MIT article. Jaredkunz30 (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That is MIT as in Mormons in Transition, not Massachusetts Institute of Technology. What makes the Institute for Religious Research a reliable source for archaeology? Alanraywiki (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, nothing indicated that I thought this was referring to the Institute of Technology, but thanks for the clarification.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I initially thought it referred to the university and maybe others did, too, so I clarified it. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading further I see that the reference supports the sentence the critics disagree with the conclusion, so the citation looks appropriate in this context. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering adding some text in the third sentence of the first paragraph with valid sources, which it currently lacks

I request that someone remove or modify the last sentence in the first paragraph, because I am working on a more thoughtful and valid addition of a fourth sentence to the first paragraph which clarifies this pointlessly anti-book of mormon statement..."Mainstream historians and archaeologists, however, do not regard the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient American history." This statement is ambiguous, states the obvious and the same thing can be said for the Bible, the Qur’an and any other religious and historical text. Wikipedia also has an article on Biblical Archaeology which informs the reader that "mainstream, modern archaeologists" dispute the historicity of the Bible...it reads.."

"The earlier assumptions of people such as Albright and Wright who faithfully accepted the biblical events as history have now been seriously questioned. According to one of the world's leading Biblical archaeologist William G. Dever, "Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."[1] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[2] The debate is usually articulated between Biblical maximalists, the assumption that the Bible is historically correct, and Biblical minimalists, the assumption that the Bible is mostly myth."Jaredkunz30 (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in question is not necessarily an anti-Book of Mormon statement. I do not see that it condemns the Book of Mormon with any religious zeal or intent. Like it or not, neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon are accepted by majority academia or secular schools of thought as completely historical works. Both works are subject to similar scrutiny and criticism. Both are regarded as true by their adherents on a variety of levels. On the whole, there is no complete archaeological proof of either works. This does not mean that the works are without value. Nevertheless since I see that the point of the statement is made earlier in the introduction, I volunteer to remove it from the last paragraph. This does not mean that I will agree with whatever you’re planning to contribute. I and others will oppose any effort to turn this article into an unbalanced propaganda page. We request that you discuss your contributions. Thanks Kovesh (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with the removal of “Genetics and the Book of Mormon” link. I have left the critical comment in place, but have restored the Wikipedia link. Right or wrong it is informative to show the various ways in which LDS defend their position. Kovesh (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I initially removed that area because generally links like that go under the "See also" section, so I moved the link to that section. I also thought the footnote attached to the link was more appropriate at that article on genetics. Although I thought it was a non-controversial edit, I clearly was wrong and it was controversial. I would prefer it the way I changed the edit, but I'm not going to change it again unless there is a consensus. It's not a huge thing for me. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Since it is a sore point, perhaps for now we can leave both point and counterpoint upfront as is for now. Kovesh (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A number of phrases in this article violate WP:WEASEL, please improve or remove

"Mainstream historians and archaeologists," last sentence, first paragraph

"Critics and supporters..." first sentence, third paragraph

"Critics and..." middle of third paragraph

" critics and some archaeologists..." anachronisms section

"Critics rebut that there" swine section

"Critics reject..." barley section

"Critics argue..." chariot section

"Critics counter..." chariot section

" critics note..." knowledge of hebrew languages

" LDS scholars, however, " LDS views of world population section

I am planning to improve or remove these phrases, following the WP policies for "Improving weasel-worded statements". Any objections, cautions, etcetera?Jaredkunz30 (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

These are not weasel words. They are statements of fact, reports of opinion in the real world. Just because something does not fit your particular religious ideology does not make it "weasel" or "biased". Please stop your POV pushing.--Charles (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

First, please don't be so quick to accuse people of POV pushing. That violates the rules of civility. Second, don't assume that I have a particular religious ideology. You don't know me, you don't know my background, you know nothing that gives you the right to make such accusations. I should report you for personally attacking me and being uncivil, but that would be overreacting. I will wait until I know a little more about you and see if you apologize. Third, each of the phrases are poorly worded, and the examples of weasels words justify my position on this. For example, a weasel word example is "Critics/experts say that..."

"Critics and supporters disagree (which critics? All critics? Some critics? Which supporters? All supporters? Some supporters?) as to whether archaeological findings support or disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon." There is no reliable source for this statement, the wording of it is confusing. Why not place the names of a notable Critic or a notable supporter or two, and include a reliable source reference?

A good example of what this sentence should become is what is written in the Bibilical archaeology wikipedia entry, where it makes a general statement then backs it up with the names and quotes, references of actual critics and actual supporters, "Over the past thirty years, some archaeologists have led an effort to divorce archaeology in Israel from the biblical texts. Reflecting the change in biblical studies from historical reconstruction to textual criticism, the archaeology has become more sociological and processual and less a search for the realia of biblical life. The earlier assumptions of people such as Albright and Wright who faithfully accepted the biblical events as history have now been seriously questioned. According to one of the world's leading Biblical archaeologist William G. Dever,"Jaredkunz30 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

However, per WP:SPADE, pointing out a continuation of POV pushing does not violate the civility guidelines. There are multiple critics and supporters, including institutions instead of readily named individuals, so placing one or two persons on each side would actually misrepresent the nature of the disagreement. Also, the example you provide starts with an equally acceptable use of weasel words ("some archaeologists"). Naming specific scholars allows for POV qualifiers such as "one of the world's leading," which violates WP:PEACOCK. Critics and supporters are named in the article, but sometimes it is not an individual person (e.g. the Smithsonian and National Geographic). Articles do not need sources to restate something that the article already makes clear: that different people disagree over the archaeological results and their relationship to the Book of Mormon. The rest of the article shows that. The entire article does not have to be completely summed up in each sentence. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your argument and I disagree with your statement that "placing one or two persons on each side would actually misrepresent the nature of the disagreement." The biblical archaeology WP entry starts off with naming two leading scholars, Albright and Wright and contrasts them with a new leading scholar, Dever. Are you inferring that this Biblical WP entry misrepresents the nature of the disagreement? The two sides of the argument can be represented as the names leading scholars and scholarly organizations (National Geographic) which counter the claims of mormon scholars. Wouldn't it be a stronger article if from the get go people can read the actual names and possibly some quotes from organizations and leading scholars? National Geographic quotes in this article present a more specific counterpoint than just an empty weasel word like "Critics". I think the critical side of the coin is poorly represented by not connecting the National Geographic and other leading critical scholarship entities. The Biblical article on WP is much stronger in representing the case that there is new scholarship that questions the historicity of the Bible. Shouldn't the book of mormon article be just as strong up front about who these critics and supporting entities are? This article would be much more accurate and neutral if there were actual sources cited like the Biblical WP entry.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is something that should be dealt with in the body of the article. It is too much detail to go in the lead section. Mentioning only a couple of US examples there, as Ian has pointed out, understates the disbelief of the world wide archaeological community.--Charles (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with both of your arguments and I have proof to back up my disagreement. The biblical historicity article has this much detail, if not more in the second paragraph, so there is no reason other than "Charles says so" that this level of detail cannot be up front. Regarding second point, there is no evidence, quotes, statements in the rest of the article that there is a world wide archaeological community that disbelieves in the historicity of the book of mormon. There are a couple quotes from early questionable sources that dispute the accuracy of some aspects of the book of mormon history. Nowhere in the entire article is there proof that the historical and archaeological community at large disputes the historicity of the book. The only entities that have even small statements against the historicity of the book are the National Geographic and the Smithsonian institute. The Smithsonian back tracked on one of its statements, so their disclaimer has been weakened. Unlike the Bible, there is no international organization or leading scholar who stands up and challenges the historicity of the book of mormon. Please do identify one or two and they should go right up front just like the Biblical article quotes Albright and Wright versus Dever as the leading scholars who debate the historical accuracy of the Bible. Your words don't have any basis in reality. If they do, please provide the proof. Thank you. Jaredkunz30 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Weasel words are phrases that are evasive, ambiguous or misleading" - the views discussed in those sections are the views of mainstream historians, LDS scholars, and critics. That's not evasive, ambiguous, or misleading. Furthermore, words that could otherwise be used as weasel words are acceptable when "When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion," "When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify," and "When contrasting a minority opinion with a more widely held one." Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the terminology above in the article does not constitute “weasel words”. The majority secular position deserves to be stated and repeated. The divergent but defensible views of others also deserve to have a place in this article. How else are we to describe the views of those who challenge for instance the FARMS position? That’s a rhetorical question! I believe that the views of FARMS and its ilk have been given a fair shot in this article. Kovesh (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the majority secular position does deserve to be stated and repeated. That's not the question here. The question is whether or not the majority secular position is stated with weasel words. This whole article does very little to identify who the "critics" and "majority" is composed of. Sure there is National Geographic, some statements from the Smithsonian, but where are the specific "mainstream archaeologists" actually identified as a group or as individuals? The Smithsonian institute is more than mainstream archaeology. The National Geographic is more than mainstream archaeology, it is mainstream a lot of things. So specifically, where are these so called "mainstream archaeologists" and "majority secular position supporting groups"? The fact is they are a phantom reference here that is a cop out by using this weasel word "Critics" this and "Critics" that. Let's see some real critics noted upfront, not buried in references somewhere and real "critical organizations". National Geographic does not exist solely as a "Organization of Critics Representing the Majority against Book of Mormon historicity". There need to be some specifics. I challenge any one of you to find some real "mainstream" critics and critical organizations who are willing to put their neck on the line and identify themselves as completely opposed to and critical of book of mormon historicity.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a credentialed non-LDS historian, American literature specialist or archaeologist you would like to cite, who openly endorses the Book of Mormon as a historical text? Kovesh (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Soon to be cited in this section. Actually more than a few.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is one. "Dr. Cyrus Gordon, former chairman of the Department of Mediteranean studies at Brandeis University, said: "I am speaking academically and am not qualified to speak on the Book of Mormon itself. If I were to do that I would study it for three years before commenting. But there are many points in archaeology in its favor."

___Google books link to "Of Faith and Reason..." Ash

Google books link to "A Challenge to the Critics" Wirth

Jaredkunz30 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So, you're citing someone who was never a student of ancient American history or archaeology, who was speaking at Brigham Young University, and who admitted to not having studied the Book of Mormon? Gordon's views on Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is viewed as an aberration in his career. The article "Forever Gordon: Portrait of a Master Scholar with a Global Perspective" (Biblical Archaeologist 59.1, pp.2-12), written by former students of his only in praise, downplays his views on pre-columbian America and avoids elaborating on them. Marshall McKusik in "Canaanites in America" (Biblical Archaeologist 42.3, pp. 137-140) points out that Gordon was not familiar with Native American languages, and that the artefacts which Gordon believed to be Semitic in origin were either hoaxes or misinterpretted American languages (such as Cherokee in the case of Bat Creek inscription). While he is a respected scholar of Semitic languages, his views on America are not accepted as mainstream. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah Ian. You really worked hard to try to debunk this quote from this guy, didn't you. Amusing. So you have some obscure guy named Marshall disrespecting Gordon. So what? That doesn't mean anything. So Gordon was speaking at BYU. So what? How do you know what Gordon was really familiar with? You read a couple notes about his life, you think you're an expert on him eh? Fact is, you're worried because there is one more "mainstream scholar" who supports the historicity of the book of mormon. Why worry so much Ian? Just accept the reality.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Marshall's article was printed in a peer review journal, and his article only pointed out that that Gordon's thoughts regarding America were off - if that is disrespectful, I probably should report you some more. And no, I'm not worried, because a mainstream scholar outside of their subject isn't necessarily mainstream. If an biologist starts commenting about sociology and religion, are his views on the latter subjects more acceptable than any layperson's just because he's a mainstream biologist? No. And I have to chuckle when you talk about people needing to accept reality. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Adding a parenthetical comment such as "(who indicated he was not "qualified" as an expert on the book's historicity)" insinuates that Gordon's comments should be disregarded or taken skeptically. This kind of comment is not NPOV (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial about insinuation.) It should be left out and the reader should not be drawn into a conclusion. Alanraywiki (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy if the whole mention of Gordon were removed entirely. If a biochemist made statements about sociology and they were rejected by sociologists and numerous biochemists, biologists, and chemists, we wouldn't include that statement in any articles about sociology unless that view was especially notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree with adding the parenthetical information. If Gordon's opinions are verifiable and in a reliable source, the additional information just insinuates that his research is less than scholarly, which is just a point of view. One's personal opinion of the validity of his research is not relevant. What matters is does it meet the NPOV policy. I believe the parenthetical information violates NPOV and should be removed. I'm interested in hearing views other than those of Ian.thomson and Jaredkunz30 as they have already made their positions well known. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious, Alanraywiki, can I file a NPOV dispute on this question of adding the parenthetical information? How would I go about that? When would it be wise or not wise to do so? I'd appreciate some guidance as I am a new editor. Thanks Jaredkunz30 (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I may set up a request for comment in the next few days so some more editors can review the dispute. Frankly, this article probably is not on the watchlist of a lot of editors so that approach will bring in additional input so a consensus can be formed. You may want to review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more information on how to handle these kinds of issues. May I also suggest, as others have, that you focus on content rather than other editors. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing source for lengthy Nat.Geo. quote in section titled Knowledge of Hebrew and Egyptian languages

There is a link to a web archived letter that does not contain this quote in the Hebrew and Egyptian languages section:

"The National Geographic Society has noted, "Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland."[108]"

Unless someone can find the real reference, I am going to remove this quote. The quote does not appear in the referenced image of a letter to Luke Wilson from Julie Crain, National Geographic Research Correspondence. This is the link that is supposed to contain this quote regarding Egyptian Hebrew: http://web.archive.org/web/20080316062741/www.irr.org/mit/natgeo.html Jaredkunz30 (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the statement is an important contribution to the article. Instead of removing it from the article, summarize what it actually says; reference it with the link, and remove any misquote! This is how you can actually help improve the article. It will also demonstrate you intellectual honesty. Kovesh (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would gladly leave it in, but the link does not show the location, source of the quote. Where was this quoted from? I cannot find where it was quoted from anywhere on the web and the link provided shows the image of a letter that does not contain this quote. Is it not a violation to quote or describe a quote by a group or person without actually having the source where the quote is written?Jaredkunz30 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the linked letter that is supposed to show this quote is already quoted in another section of this article.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

National Geographic has been emailed with a request to confirm the authenticity / origin of the letter from Julie Crain. I can tell you that Julie Crain is a real person affiliated with National Geographic. Please be patient. Give others some time to respond before editing the article. Thanks! Kovesh (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The letter is still being referenced even though it is a highly questionable source. It's kind of a double standard because if someone were to post a reference to a letter from a reputable non-LDS person or organization indicating that they believed the Book of Mormon to be a valid historical document, then this reference would be scrutinized to no end. There certainly would not be this policy where the reference gets posted and people leave it alone while someone is emailing the source of the pro-book of mormon letter written by said non-LDS scholar. I think the letter from National Geographic and Smithsonian institute should be validated by something more than a simple web archived image. Any person working at these organizations could write a letter on their organization's stationary stating they are for or against the historical accuracy of the book, but that does not hold up as well as an official statement published in a book or journal.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of the reason that hypothetical non-LDS source would be scrutinized is that that would be the only non-Mormon that sees the BoM as historical. There is no real reason to question the validity of the letters because there is no reason to think that either institute would say anything otherwise: mainstream scholarship just does not accept the BoM. Calling them into question only serves the purpose of trying to get them removed to gradually unbalance the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now reference 23 is a circular reference that simply states 1996 Smithsonian Insitution. This does not satisfy the verifiability requirement of Wikipedia. Is there a copy of this letter somewhere on a neutral and reliable site? If not, the reference should be removed until such a source is found. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alan. He is correct. The reference should be removed until a neutral, more reliabe source is found. The reference is suspect until proven valid.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I found the location now under the References section. However, I still think finding a copy of the letter on a neutral site rather than one with a clear POV would be better. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fixed the refs so that it goes to the correct ref instead of just "1996 Smithsonian Institution." Also, BYU acknowledges that that statement is from the Smithsonian (it's actualy a routine, pre-written statement that can be sent to anyone that asks about the BoM). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the refs. I am not doubting the existence of the letter, it just would be a little less POV if it was not on either a pro- or anti-Mormon site (i.e., not BYU and not IRR). I am okay with keeping it until such a reference is located, or perhaps both to show neutrality. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect reference for Klaus Baer's 'doodlings' quote in Knowledge of Hebrew and Egyptian languages section

In the Knowledge of Hebrew and Egyptian languages section there is a reference to Klaus Baer, but the sources identified, Sunstone magazine May-June 1980 [Sunstone article link] and ["Cumorah Revisited"] do not actually contain this quote by Klaus Baer. I've seen it quoted in other places on WP and elsewhere, but I cannot find the reference. If no one can find the real source for this "doodlings" quote I plan to remove it. The reformed egyptian WP article has this same incorrect reference as wellJaredkunz30 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Does Nat. Geo. and Smithson. Inst. not "regard" the historicity of the Book or do they not "endorse" it?

It may be correct, but not completely clear to say they "do not regard the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient American history.

Per the definitions below, you may see that the definition of regard does not fit the sentence as well as the definition of endorse. Regard in this context based on the definition indicates that the organizations don't pay any attention, nor even consider, or don't have a protective interest, don't care, don't see the worth of the book of mormon as historically accurate. There is way too much conjecture and expression of feeling in the use of regard here. If these organizations do not pay attention or consider, don't care, why in the world did they issue statements? They must have some kind of regard for the book as it possibly being taken as historically accurate. Just because they don't regard it as an organization, does not mean they do not have any members of the group that regard it. If there are findings that prove it's historicity, they may actually have people in their organization who regard it as historical, but the organization as a whole does not endorse it. Endorse is a much better way of stating the organizations' position.

Therefore, the word "regard" in this context is more of a weasel word than endorse. The definition of endorse and as used in this context simply states the facts, that the two organizations don't openly express definite approval of the book of mormon as a historical document. Endorse is more correct and clear and less weaselly in this context. Jaredkunz30 (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Merriam Webster, regard means:

a : attention, consideration <due regard should be given to all facets of the question> b : a protective interest : care <has no regard for her health>3 : look, gaze4 a : the worth or estimation in which something or someone is held <a man of small regard> b (1) : a feeling of respect and affection : esteem <she soon won the regard of her colleagues>

Per Merriam Webster, endorse means:Main Entry: en·dorse

a : to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a mayoral candidate> Jaredkunz30 (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the word “regard” is simply being used in a tactful way to say to a religiously sensitive public, that the Institution does not professionally endorse the Book of Mormon. I would not put too fine of a point on it! I also responded above, incase you didn't see it. Kovesh (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looks like you agree that the word "regard" is being used in an attempt to communicate the idea of "professionally endorse". Why not use the actual word "endorse" which more tactfully communicates the correct idea instead of using "regard" which as you wrote is employed to communicate the word "endorse?!Jaredkunz30 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

First Jaredkunz30 insisted on inserting the National Geographic and the Smithsonian Institution into the lede as examples of critics. Now this is being used to justify changing regard to endorse. My version of English may carry different weight to US English but I certainly consider this an attempt to downplay the scale of non-belief in the historical nature of the Book of Mormon. It is individual experts who form opinion, not institutions. This is smoke and mirrors stuff.--Charles (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree! Kovesh (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice try Charles, but no cigar. If there were individuals who are part of the so-called "mainstream scholars" who dispute the historicity of the book, then they ought to be up front and center just like the Biblical historicity article has Albright and Wright (pro Bible historicity) versus Dever (anti-Bible historicity). Unfortunately there are not any true critics of Book of Mormon historicity that can be cited upfront, so rather than using the weaselly smoke and mirrors attempt to construct a phony broad mainstream consensus, we are using the only reputable sources who supposedly have some obscure statements disputing the books historical accuracy. These are National Geographic and Smithsonian Institution. Please, do try to make this article better by weeding out the weasel words like "mainstream scholars...etcetera". Please put your money where your mouth is and put some real anti-book of mormon historicity reputable scholars names up front. I challenge anyone to find such a reference. Let's see it. Come on, we're waiting.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason you want a few individuals named for the critics is to make it appear that there's only a few of them, when really it is pretty much only the Mormons or people that end up Mormons saying that the Book of Mormon matches up with history. As per WP:FRINGE (and demonstrated by the Young Earth creationism and Astrology articles), if mainstream scholarship just does not agree with a doctrine in any way, there is no need to set up a straw man to be ignored as not being the whole of mainstream scholarship. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong on all points there Ian. Please don't be so uncivil as to make assumptions about my reasons and motives. No, the reason I want a few individuals named is not the reason you have named in your sad attempt to be clever. I will give you this much, I did enjoy how you state "pretty much only the Mormons or people who end up Mormons"... The phrase "pretty much" leaves a lot of room for all those mainstream scholars out there that don't fit the phony mold you are proposing exists. Believe it or not, there are actually a lot more open minded people who support the possibility of the book of mormon being a historical document. I have read plenty of quotes by non-LDS, non-biased scholars who indicate just the opposite of what you are arguing here. Nothing in WP:FRINGE indicates that books like the Bible and the Book of Mormon should not have quotes from leading scholars with opposing views. Are you saying that the way the Bible's historicity WP article is written a straw man is being set up? Have you even read that article? It's referenced in the Book of Mormon archaeology article. Do you even know how to read and comprehend things like WP fringe? It doesn't apply wherever you want it to. It does not apply to the Bible. It does not apply to the Book of Mormon. These books are not theories like Young Earth Creationism. The books are not phony sciences like Astrology. They are two physical objects that have been compiled with historical and religious information. The books claim to be historical by their very nature. The bible has leading scholars, not straw men. The book of mormon has leading scholars on both sides of the argument. Wake up! Until science has dug up every nook and cranny of North, Central and South america, there is still the possibility and likelihood that evidence for the historicity of the book of mormon will be found that fully substantiates everything the book purports to be! You are wrong on all your points. Quit pretending to know about the book when you have not even read the thing from cover to cover. I have read it at least 50 times and I have researched it since I was 8 years old! I know the thing back to front! You probably have not read a chapter out of it, so you have no place in commenting on it. Get real man. Get a clue!Jaredkunz30 (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not uncivil of Ian to analyse the methods you are using in your attempt to remove NPOV from this article. Perhaps you would have benefited from a wider choice of reading material in your youth.--Charles (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is uncivil to accuse people of having motives and reasons without being able to back up this accusation with any reliable evidence. Ian is making accusations regarding my reasoning without any justifiable evidence to correlate his reasoning. That is perpetuating, falsifying and attempting to justify his personal attacks on a new editor. Very uncivil indeed. You don't need to try and defend his behavior either. Are you in league with this guy? Does he pay you for all your support? Why even insert yourself in the middle of this. You have no place.

Regarding your second statement, in fact I did benefit from a wider choice of reading material, not only in my youth. You are correct. I have read the classics, I read Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy in my youth, written by a well known atheist. It's one of my favorite books. I have read so-called atheist manifestos, Freud, all kinds of philosophical and scientific works. Who knows, maybe I have read and digested much more of a breadth of information than you have! Who are you to assume I don't have a breadth of understanding and education. This is the problem with anti-mormons, they assume that all mormons are narrow minded, uneducated, blind believers. This is your great error. Many mormons and mormon supporters are much more educated in all knowledge existent in this world than many anti-mormons. You cannot dismiss a mormon source as biased until you analyze the breadth and depth of their writings and readings. Can you dismiss Einstein's scientific work as biased for Judaism because he was jewish? No! Judaism was a tiny part of his education. Mormonism is a tiny part of my education. Can you dismiss Darwin's evolution work because he said he believed in God? No! Of course not. You and other anti-mormons are basing your dismissals of mormon scientists on a false premise. Mormon scholars can be just as mainstream as any other scholars. It's a fact. Deal with it!Jaredkunz30 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to assume anything about your motives, you've stated your motives in the past and stated that you were going to continue your behavior. The Bible is accepted to be far more than a couple of centuries old by mainstream scholars, the books of Old Testament are accepted to have been written (at latest) between 600 to 300 BC (making it about as old as Herodotus), and the New Testament was written around 100 AD (at the height of the Roman Empire), give or take a few decades. Even atheists acknowledge this and recognize that it does have some sort of historical value since it is written by individuals living in the past. No copies of any book in the Book of Mormon have been found from before Joseph Smith's "discovery." You have to acknowledge that, even if you do not want to acknowledge that nobody but the Mormons who has seriously looked at American history sees the Book of Mormon as a historical document. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct, you don't need to assume anything about me, so why are you making these sad attempts that only make you look ignorant? Regarding no one having found copies of the book of mormon, this is the snag for you anti-book of mormon pseudo scientists, isn't it? Has every inch of the New World been scoured? No! Until it has, then you don't know what will be discovered. And regarding your broad generalization, "nobody but the Mormons...sees the book as a historical document", you just contradicted your earlier statement. You wrote "pretty much" nobody except the mormons, now you're increasing the unjustified tone of your rhetoric. Which is it, pretty much nobody or nobody at all, except the mormons?Jaredkunz30 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record I am not anti-Mormon or anti any other religion. I am anti POV pushing. As you say it is possible that ancient copies of the book will yet be discovered. It is also possible that Elvis will return from hiding out in a secret base on the moon and become the next president of the United States. Please stop cluttering up this page with your non-productive contributions. I am pleased to hear of your broad reading.--Charles (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You're quite the comedian with that Elvis remark. Fortunately there is a large number of religious people out there (2 billion Christians, per adherents.com) who believe that some "possibilities" are worth more attention and respect than others. The broad consensus of people in the world find no hope and benefit from believing in silly theories such as this Elvis remark. People in Haiti, and others who are suffering don't need to be belittled and to have their only hopes mocked. Religious and humble people have hopes in an entity who balances the scales of justice, call him "God" or what have you. These beliefs are of much more significance, considering they provide hope and balance to 2 billion or more people on the planet than childish ideas like "Elvis lives" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" etcetera. Please study and comprehend the value and spectrum of well accepted theologies before you make such comments and make yourself look like an imbecile "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile". You don't want this place cluttered up then stop responding and defending people's uncivil behavior Jaredkunz30 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It is wrong of you to compare your attempts to slant this article being thwarted with the suffering in Haiti. It is at best a red herring, at worst an insult to them. This was not about belief in God at all, but your attempts to slant this article with your sectarian views, and your intolerance of any evidence to the contrary. As for scouring every inch of the Americas, burden of proof lies on those that make such claims for existance (because this is an empirical issue, not an ideal issue like the existance of God). Until an older copy is found, or even an older mention of a copy, then there is no reason to believe that there is an older copy. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The use of regard quoted from Merriam Webster by Jaredkunz20 is the noun form (nouns are things), not the verb form (verbs are actions). The verb form includes "1 : to consider and appraise usually from a particular point of view <is highly regarded as a mechanic>" and "3 a : to show respect or consideration for b : to hold in high esteem" - Neither one of those institutions holds that the Book of Mormon has any historical value. There is a difference between not regarding something positively and simply not endorsing something. The Catholic church does not endorse abortion because they do not regard it as a good thing; but just because they do not endorse Coca-Cola does not they regard it as a bad drink. The only reason to change "regard" to "endorse" would be to make it seem like those institutions do not think the book is unhistorical, they just aren't telling people they should believe it. It's softening their "no" to a more neutral answer, and that is evasive, ambiguous, and misleading. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaredite statement is inaccurate, second paragraph

The following sentence is inaccurate:

"It also deals with the rise and fall of the Jaredite nation, which the Book of Mormon claims existed in the Americas starting at the time of the Tower of Babel until as late as 400 BC. Literalist biblical scholars date the Tower of Babel time period to between 3100 BC and 2200 BC."

The BOM does not "claim" that the Jaredite nation existed in the Americas at the time of the Tower of Babel. I just finished reading Ether chapter 1 in my personal daily scripture study and this summary of the chapter heading explains the order of things in the Jaredite history:

"The language of the Jaredites is not confounded at the Tower of Babel—The Lord promises to lead them to a choice land and make them a great nation."

The Jaredites were not in the Americas "starting at the time of the Tower of Babel".Jaredkunz30 (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of editing the said statement to make it more accurate according to the record contained in the Book of Mormon. You may view my edits on the main page.--Shemseger (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I have read your edits, they are excellent.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is phrase about Cyrus Gordon neutral?

The third paragraph of the lead section contains the following sentence: "Mormon archaeologists and researchers, and non-Mormon scholar Cyrus Gordon (who, speaking outside of his field of study, admitted he was not qualified to speak on the book) claim there have been archaeological findings such as place names, and ruins of the Inca, Maya, Olmec and other ancient American and Old World civilizations that give credence to the Book of Mormon record." A question has arisen as to whether or not the parenthetical qualifying phrase about speaking outside of his field of study meets NPOV policy, particularly about insinuation. Additional input from editors is desired to form a consensus. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at WP:UNDUE, "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." The whole mention of Gordon should be removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two possebileties: 1) He is not qualified to contribute to this topic at all then he has to be removed. 2) He is only qualified to contribute in this special topic then this part has to be removed : "(who, speaking outside of his field of study, admitted he was not qualified to speak on the book)" But the way it is now is not realy acceptable in an encyclopedia. --Templeknight (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have searched extensively and read about Cyrus Gordon. He made some assertions which were based on certain beliefs about what archeological evidence existed. Those beliefs have been questioned: i.e. Cyrus Gordon's statements may have come about because he was misled as to what the evidence was. This being so, it is totally misleading to refer to his statement without also mentioning the doubts. More relevant to whether his comments should be mentioned at all in the article, however, is the fact that his views do not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. They are rarely mentioned anywhere except by Mormons trying to show that there is non-Mormon support for their interpretation of archeology. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that people mention him. So now you have to proof that he is not notable. Can you do this ? --Templeknight (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The paranthetical statement has no relevance to the statement and is incredibly unencyclopedic. Furthermore, without proper sources, the entire statement ("Mormon archaeologists and researchers...claim there have been archaeological findings such as place names, and ruins of the Inca, Maya, Olmec and other ancient American and Old World civilizations that give credence to the Book of Mormon record") needs to be removed (as such, I'm placing an inline citation request at the end of it). Unless Cyrus Gordon, as a scholar, has made a notable contribution to any field relating to Mormonism, his use as a source is invalid.
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have abbreviated the introductory paragraph that references Cyrus Gordon (mentioning him in the reference – not in the main body). Kovesh (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus Gordon is only notable for being the one non-Mormon person Mormons can claim supports their position. They use him as a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination. If he belongs anywhere in this article it is certainly not in the lede. I have removed him for the time being at least.--Charles (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have preferred this being discussed a little longer before removing the content, but the consensus so far appears to be to remove all information about Cyrus Gordon at this point. I'd still like to keep the RfC tag out there until the normal expiration date of 30 days in case there are others who wish to comment. If additional pertinent information about Gordon's comments and qualifications becomes available in the future, we can readdress the issue. Thanks all for your thoughtful comments, Alanraywiki (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is too bad that any scholar who researches and supports pre-columbian contact with the Old World gets attacked and their reputation called into question. An example of this scholarly prejudice against researchers who find evidence supporting Old World and New World contact before Columbus is found in this book | Atlantic Crossings Before Columbus Pg 31-35 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.181 (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty well-established that trade routes existed between the americas and Eurasia/Africa as much as 5,000 years ago. The ancient Egyptians documented use of coca leaves (and subsequent finding of coca-based alkyds in mummies) stands as ironclad proof, as the coca plant is indigenous to, and still only grown in central america. How much trading occurred during the first millenium A.D. is certainly debatable, but I've seen very little evidence of 'attack' against those who 'research and supports it'.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt there was some interaction, but Gordon based his stuff on things that were shown to be frauds years before he pointed to them as evidence, and for things that weren't frauds he ignores the more plausible creation by Native Americans (someone completely unfamiliar to Native American scripts could easily misinterpret some of them as some sort of Pheonician gibberish). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I support removing Gordon's statement. Sole Soul (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reponse to RFC - The arguments against any mention seem convincing, per WP:UNDO, WP:NOTE, and WP:FRINGE. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fringe? This whole article is about a bizarre fringe theory :-) As far as notability goes, Gordon is notably quoted, OK, only by people supporting that theory, and his friends found his odder ideas rather embarrassing, but still I'd suggest that this is sufficient notability in context. For what my opinion may be worth. I'll shut up now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fringe of fringe is still fringe, per the transitive property of fringeness. I'm sure Gordon is mentioned in a notable source in passing. Similarly, I'm sure the complete refutation of Gordon is equally notable. Thus you can either include him + the awkward argumentative refutation, or you can just remove both on the grounds that his reliability as a source is not established. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for including Gordon's statement

It seems to be agreed that he is the only non-Mormon supporter of some ideas otherwise unique to the Mormon faith community. Certain Mormons trumpet his ambiguous remarks (which seem to relate to some of his other fringe ideas - they might have been describable as proto-science at the time but are now definitely discredited) as support from an actual archaeologist. He was in fact a respectable academic, although he espoused some ideas which have not stood rigorous investigation. I would argue that this makes him notable in the context of this article, which is after all about fringe ideas. As for his lack of expertise on the Book of Mormon, I scarcely see that it matters. The pseudo-historical claims made in it do not require any great expertise to understand in outline.

I have flexible ideas on the exact wording, but I suggest that some comment should go in this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Gordon's support for the BOM, qualified as it is, belongs in the article, but perhaps not in the intro. Plazak (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Gordon's statement may need to be added back in. Unfortunately there is a flawed perception being communicated and perpetuated through this article. The perception is that there is a huge divide between “mainstream scholars” and “mormon scholars”. In fact, one of the leading Mesoamerican scholars quoted in this article, Michael D. Coe, readily cites a leading “mormon scholar” as someone whose ideas have greatly influenced his own regarding the Maya. As evidence, here is a quote from the Seventh Edition of “The Maya” by Michael D. Coe. Page 8 reads “Others on whom I have relied for new information (but they may not always know this!) are John Clark, Simon Martin,….[etcetera]”. Coe then goes on to cite two of Clark’s “mainstream scholarly” works in the back of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.145 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to the IP, respecting and making use of someone's archaeological expertise is not the same as endorsing their religious beliefs.--Charles (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The point of the comment about Coe was probably not meant to imply that Coe endorses Clark's religious belief, it should probably only be taken as evidence that "mormon scholars" and "mainstream scholars" are not mutually exclusive. This article has a lot of biased statements which push the POV that "mainstream archaeologist" scoff at the theories of "mormon scholars" and other quacks. Even the Smithsonian which does not support the BOM as credible has a lot of artifacts that were first found and provided by so-called "fringe" "mormon scholars". If the scientific community of our day had a longer term memory they would remember that it was not long ago that so called "fringe theories" and other "outside the mainstream" quacks actually brought about a lot of good research that now is accepted as scientific fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.181 (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing genuine archaeological work conducted by Mormon scholars with pseudoscientific theories of pre-Columbian European settlement. In the latter case there IS a huge divide between Mormon scholars and everybody else. Scientific misunderstandings in earlier times do not imply that modern science will be proved wrong.--Charles (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the title of the article, there is no reason not to include Gordon's statement. That being said, I question the premise of the article. Modern genetics has all but proven that the people of central and south america are decended from acestors who came from Northeast Asia not the Middle East. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But the Book of Mormon concerns American archaeology, and Cyrus wasn't a student of American archaeology. He pointed to things as evidence that were shown to be frauds years earlier. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

All that modern genetics has proven is that the individuals who were tested may have descended from ancestors from Northeast Asia. It's entirely possible that an Asian migration may have wiped out the previous indigenous population. We don't know too much about the history of the New World because the study of it is still relatively young. The Book of Mormon won't be dis-proven until there is a unanimous consensus by all scientists that it is an erroneous record. --Shemseger (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't suggest that the Gordon comment belongs in the lead, but what about retitling the relevant section to "Non-Mormon statements about the Book of Mormon" and including a comment such as: "Non-Mormon scholar Cyrus Gordon (who used inscriptions now regarded as fake antiquities to support his theories of widespread ancient contact between the Old World and the Americas) once commented on the Book of Mormon "But there are many points in archaeology in its favor." Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richard Keatridge. Gordon's comments are out in the public forum, and this article should note them and deal with them. Plazak (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

National Geographic Correspondence

National Geographic was contacted through

"askngs@nationalgeographic.com" <askngs@nationalgeographic.com

Inquiry regarding the authenticity of the letter from Julie Crain (Research Correspondence) to Luke Wilson (Institute of Religious Research) was made.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080316062741/www.irr.org/mit/natgeo.html

Julie Crain personally responded (2/16/2010):

“The letter to which you refer is legitimate.

Sincerely yours, Julie Crain National Geographic Society”

I recommend that this letter be used as often as appropriate in this article. Kovesh (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an error in the section called "Existing ancient records of the New World". It quotes the Smithsonian quote which is already quoted earlier in the article, only this instance it attributes the quote to the National Geographic Society. Man this article is rife with errors..."The National Geographic Society has noted, "Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland."[26]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.19 (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thor Heyerdahl

He said "I must admit that some of the discoveries that I have made on the Polynesian islands and in South America would conform with the contents of the Book of Mormon." Title The firm foundation of Mormonism Authors Kirk Holland Vestal, Arthur Wallace Publisher LL Co., 1981 ISBN 0937892068, 9780937892060

Alright folks, have at it. Otherwise some of Thor Heyerdahl's quotes should be used in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.15 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem referencing favorable statements by non-Mormons in the introduction or anywhere else in the article, as long as we are upfront about the authoritativeness of these statements. I have contributed some references to the Introduction where a citation was called for. These include contributions by two women and RLDS sources. Kovesh (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thor Heyerdahl's theories have always been controversial and are also quite dated. He was often accused of pseudo-science.--Charles (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thor had his share of scholarly errors and controversy, but he did more than promote "theories" etcetera. The guy sailed in a primitive ship across the Atlantic from Morocco to Barbados. I'd say that's irrefutable evidence supporting the ability of primitive cultures to have crossed the ocean from the Old World to the New. That's not a theory, pseudoscience, what have you. That's plain fact. His words and research provide very "illuminating" support to one of the core premises of the Book. Let's hear how the antis tear down the "authoritativeness" of the successful Ra II voyage. Should be fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.182 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Could and did are two different things. Whether or not they could have is not so much the issue as whether or not there is evidence that they actually did. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about whether the Book of Mormon has anything useful to say about archaeology. That proposition has no standing in mainstream science. The article is about pseudo-science and in that context I suggest Heyerdahl's comments too should go in. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaredites and Olmec

Daedalus969 quite quickly removed some substantial edits I made to this section, and encouraged me to bring them up here. So here I am.

My concern with this section, like the section on the Nephites, is that the language of the wikipedia article doesn't match the actual source.

Here are my comments about my changes:

The 1st paragraph mentions the archaeological evidence is "disputed and circumstantial," but gives no source.

Then, the current statements, especially in the 3rd paragraph, don't match the actual source very well. Instead of citing sources clearly and with quotes, the language "is said to have" gives the flavor of a rumor, rather than a documented encyclopedia--and the statements are not accurate to the source. For example, the Jaredites were NOT destroyed in 590 BC, because the last survivor was found among the Nephites between 279 BC and 130 BC., and shown in the sources below.

Do you have any factual concerns with the following portion of my additions?

The Book of Mormon describes the Jaredite civilization migrating from the Old World "from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of his people", [1] then eventually operating both north and south of a narrow neck of land, [2] where the "whole face of the land northward was covered with inhabitants," [3] but "they did preserve the land southward for a wilderness to get game."[4]

The Book of Mormon, in Ether, describes the destruction of all but one individual from the Jaredite civilization but does not give any dates for this destruction.[5] Elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Omni briefly mentions this individual interacting with the Nephite civilization sometime between 279 and 130 B.C.[6]

If you can produce evidence that these are not factual representations of the sources, bring it forward. Otherwise, I would like to see my edits included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwiki18 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not selectively discuss your edits. As can quite clearly be seen here, you remove more than just the paragraphs you discuss above. You remove sourced information, and you have no provided a reason why. Further, give time for others to comment here. This isn't like some school class, people can take awhile to respond.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To address some of our concerns, you state: "The 1st paragraph mentions the archaeological evidence is "disputed and circumstantial," but gives no source." If you are refering to the section "The Jaredites and the Olmec", (where the phrase "disputed and circumstantial" appears), it gives two sources in that section, namely:

• Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, by Joseph L Allen PhD printed in the United States
• Olive, The Lost Empires & Vanished Races of Prehistoric America, Ch. 3, "The Jaredites - From Babylon to the Promised Land (2000-1800 BC)"; see also Coon, Choice Above All Other Lands, pp. 1-6, 71-72

Which you must of seen, since you removed them. Also, looking for where the phrase "is said to have" appears, you said it "gives the flavor of a rumor, rather than a documented encyclopedia--and the statements are not accurate to the source." The only source I see is at the edit of that paragraph:

• Coe, Michael (2002). The Maya (6 ed.). New York: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-28066-5.

Which is there for the line "Although the Olmec civilization ended, there are indications that some of the Olmec people survived and interacted with other cultures." Now, I will admit I don't have the book in front of me, but I don't believe it is the source you mentioned, so if you could clarify something for me: If those statements are not accurate to the source, which source are you referring to?

As for what it says in the Book of Mormon itself, we need specific source information on it. We can't say, for example:

"Oh yeah, love your neighbor, it's in the bible, book of Leviticus."

We need to lay it out clearly:

In the Authorized King James Version of the Bible, book of Leviticus, Passage 19:18, it states: " Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD."

Also, we need to consider policy when it comes to primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully.

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

I hope this information helps to explain some things. ^Avicenna_sis @ 08:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My biggest concerns are where the comments don't match the primary source of the Book of Mormon. How about if I concede adding back in anything I deleted with a source, but we go ahead an include my additions that clarify the references to the book itself. Can we live with the two paragraphs I propose adding in the above talk page? 63.248.43.71 (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How about no. The burden is on you, not us. Secondly, your edits were already reverted, as you removed sourced information, as noted above. A single reply to you is still not enough. More discussion needs to take place, enough hasn't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Avecinnasis, for your explanation. I agree with the importance of specific sources. That's what I'm trying to do with my additions.

To answer your question about to which source the opening paragraph about the Jaredites refers--I don't know. The current language, "It is said to have. . " is very unclear. I'm proposing we at least clarify what the Book of Mormon says about location, and my sources refer to specific chapters and verses, with links to the original, as you suggest with examples from the Bible.

The primary source caution is noted--thank you. In this case, at least some accurate references to the primary source are required to establish the whole point of the page--whether archaeology supports geographic comments in the Book of Mormon. The article as it currently stands is missing this information.

Again, for now, I'm fine with leaving in the sourced material I removed, as has already been done. I'm just proposing adding additional, strong and clearly sourced material. If others remove my sourced additions, they should be subject to the same burden of proof to which I'm being held. I'm still awaiting any concerns in this talk page with my proposed sourced additions. Truthwiki18 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Nephites

This section has several inaccuracies and unsourced or incorrectly sourced statements. I tried to make some changes, adding numerous sources, but my edits were quickly removed.

It currently appears quite biased and incorrect.

Let's start a bit at a time: No Central or South American civilization is recognized by academia to correlate with the Nephites of the Book of Mormon. NO SOURCE here--a statement like this is actually disputed and should at least include a source.

I added this: As with the Jaredites, the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints has stated it has no position on geographical settings for the Nephites.

Any dispute with this addition? It's definitely factual and has a solid source.

This next sentence is simply not factual, and I present other sources to show why: The academically accepted literary setting for the Book of Mormon relates to the “mythic mound builders” of North America.

Here's my replacement: One early possible setting for the Book of Mormon connected the Nephites to the mound builders of North America. However, few current LDS or non-LDS scholars subscribe to this theory. Among most current scholars, this possible location has been largely replaced by the limited geography model, most often placing the Book of Mormon in a small portion of Central America.

The limited geography model wikipedia article I point to here shows numerous sources to suggest that the great lakes region is a minority view for a possible archeaolical site.

Finally, this sentence isn't accurate, and isn't supported by the sources cited:

"It is indicated that the ground upon which Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon record is the same which the saints of the Book of Mormon possessed in life."

Nothing in LDS scripture, and definitely not the sources indicated suggests the Book of Mormon happened in upstate New York. The book itself just gives a few slight hints about geographical features. That's why this topic is such a debated one.

Finally: Here is some documented information I've added, that is factual and unbiased. If there is a problem with including these heavily sourced statements, I'd like to know what the specific problems are:

The Book of Mormon mentions, "that those saints who have gone before me, who have possessed this land, shall cry, yea, even from the dust will they cry unto the Lord; and as the Lord liveth he will remember the covenant which he hath made with them," which most Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints feel symbolically refers to the ancient record being recovered from the ground buried in a stone box in a hill.

Some have interpreted the name of the hill Cumorah near Palymyra, New York as the same hill called Cumorah in the book of Mormon, but others suggest the Book of Mormon Cumorah is Central America. 2 Nephi 26:14-16, Mormon 8:23-26, The LDS Doctrine and Covenants mentions "Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed", but it does not share any information about the location of the ancient inhabitants. See Doctrine and Covenants 128:20, Mormon 6:4.

What specific factual concerns are there with these additions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwiki18 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 April 2010

Reading the line

“The academically accepted literary setting for the Book of Mormon relates to the “mythic mound builders” of North America.”

I do not believe that this statement suggests that academia recognizes the B of M as a historical work. I think the line is simply saying that the literary setting for the work is classed by specialists in American literature in the “Mound-Building Genre” of the 19th century. The statement is factual. By way of comparison, academia places the literary setting for the Arthurian legends in Britain of old (not Spain or Italy), whether you believe King Arthur and Camelot are historical – or not!

Central, South American, Malaysian settings etc. for the B of M are not recognized by the majority of academia who specialize in American History and Literature, as authentic representations of the works literary setting. Regardless of how many LDS may or may not favor these other settings they are not in line with the majority view among academic experts. It is in this secular sense that these more recent, alternate settings are not regarded as mainstream.

Regarding your other comments, I suspect you are partial to a particular setting for the B of M other than the general literary one which non-LDS scholars and even some LDS regard as original. Kovesh (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Some readers seem to be confused about the important distinction between evidence for the historicity and divinity of the Book of Mormon, versus archaeological finds that merely support the classification of the work in the Mound Builder literary genre. I have added commentary and references on this subject. Onondaga (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I’m working on the recently contributed text and have added an image of a mound builder earth, timber and plaster city. Onondaga (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge of Hebrew and Egyptian languages

In the Hebrew and Egyptian Language section I have contributed a quote from non-LDS archaeologist Salvatore M. Trento (director of the Middleton Archaeological Research Center, NY). Onondaga (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith's statements regarding Book of Mormon geography

Updated the “Joseph Smith’s statements…” section, in light of recent word-print analysis claims. Kovesh (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)