Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

The next sock of User:Plausy

User:VernonKoresh is undoubtedly the next sock of User:Plausy. --Taivo (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Limited Geography Model

This link is to an abstract of an article that seems to contradict Sorenson's limited geography model. It is interesting material, but needs to be properly summarized and the original article properly referenced. --Taivo (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

comment

If a theorist's qualification for mentioning in this article is that they're 'Mormon', 'apologist' or 'LDS' then that doesn't deserve them credibility, what deserves them that is acceptance of the findings in the academic field of archaeology. Religious adherences (or lack thereof) are irrelevant. They're a distraction and item of triva having no bearing upon the soundness of the underlying archaeology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.1.68 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2013‎ (UTC)
When will this be about the archaeological findings that relate to the fictional narrative of the book, rather than failed attempts to disturb those findings? Seriously, when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.1.68 (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2013‎ (UTC)

File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG

As is was described at File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG, I dispute the non-free file use rationale for the file:

There is no true "critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs" in the article this image appears in. Likewise that article doesn't really describe "the implications of the concepts in the image" in the article: instead the entire context of the use of the work is this single sentence: "A popular painting of Book of Mormon character Samuel the Lamanite which demonstrates some popular perceptions of the civilizations in the Americas held by Mormons." This statement is without citation to support it, and is only found in the caption of the picture: no directly related text is found within the article body itself.

Descartes1979 (talk · contribs) recently disputed this, contributing the following edit summaries:

He also added the following citations, in an apparent attempt to to justify the inclusion of this file on this article, and to support the fair-use rationale:

  • Toone, Trent (May 21, 2012), "Insight into Arnold Friberg's Book of Mormon paintings", Deseret News.
  • Fulton, Ben (July 1, 2010), "Famed LDS/patriotic artist Friberg dead at 96", The Salt Lake Tribune. Online archive at webcitation.org

Neither of these articles talk about this specific image, and neither support that this image "demonstrates some popular perceptions of the civilizations in the Americas held by Mormons." In fact, quite the opposite, the Deseret News article states that Friberg was frustrated with the varied opinions on how to depict Book of Mormon figures, and eventually went his own way. This is further borne out within the following citation:

I do not think this image meets the fair-use criteria for inclusion, and should neither be found in the article, nor be hosted on WP. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The citations were added to show that Frieberg's depictions of BOM scenes were very popular, which was the statement in the caption of the image, and is stated in those two references. Give me a moment to dig in to this. I suspect we will need to be more precise - the idea behind adding the image was to juxtapose the popular thought among Mormon's about the history of the American continent with its archaeological implications and anachronisms - which fits in very well with that entire section. Back in the day when I was constructing a lot of this article, there was a lot more content and I wonder if some of it has been lost making the image not fit in as well as it used to. But I think it is still very relevant to the topic, and the visual adds a great deal to the article. Sure it is not a "commentary on the work in question" or the "genre or technique of the work" - BUT it absolutely can be relevant as it relates to "the implications of the concepts in the image" - if we can adjust the caption, and get it in a corresponding section related to what it is portraying. Again, digging in here to see if I can make a few changes that would be acceptable. (By the way, I removed the speedy delete once again - let's hash this out. If we can't find a place for the image, then I will agree to removing it).--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I made the changes I noted above. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither the text added to the image description in the article, nor the images placement in the article currently helps meet the requirements for fair use images. Also coat-racking the image description doesn't add to it's relevance. What does looking for ruins have to do with this particular image? Absolutely nothing, so removing that text from the image description. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Did you not read my above? The fair use allows for treatment of "the implications of the concepts in the image". This image achieves precisely that - does it not? The article in general is about what Mormons believe about the history of the American continent and its juxtaposition with archaeological research. This image illustrates this better than any other image in the article, because it represents popular Mormon belief about the ancient Nephites, and juxtaposes that with the archaeological thought of non-mormons. Isn't this almost the perfect image for this article? And within the realm of fair use to boot? Explain the flaws in my reasoning here - (without just saying I am wrong, with no rationale). I have reverted your edits. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The article is about the intersection of Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. No one involved in that field is looking for the ruins of BoM cities based on this fanciful artistic image. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
You are wrong - the concepts in the image are precisely what they are looking for, and precisely why this image is such a good fit for this article. Not sure why you haven't spoken to my arguments yet, you keep just saying I am wrong, and not addressing what I am advocating.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Where is your reference that says that people are looking for ruins that look like this specific Friberg painting? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Are there not a hundred references on this page that talk about searching for advanced ancient civilizations with stone walls, money, commerce, tools of warfare, etc.? An image like this is used to augment the page. There isn't a specific reference to that specific picture of a tapir - but that image is a very good augmentation of the page to make it more consumable to the reader, is it not? --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving this discussion to the more specific topic specific wp:NFCR#File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG, to get other people involved that are specifically interested in and experienced with the requirements for the use of non-free images on WP articles. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments added to the discussion on that page.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Swine

In the swine section the article paraphrases a statement that peccaries have never been domesticated. Clicking on the hyperlink for peccaries leads to a Wickipedia page stating that peccaries are raised and used as food in third world countries. I think this apparent Wickipedia internal contradiction should be addressed.98.148.112.29 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Modern commercial farming of wild animals is not domestication. Domestication is an archaic process. --Taivo (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

LDS/Mormon consistency

This article does not make consistence use of the terms Latter-day Saint(s), LDS, and Mormon(s) when talking about people who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Before going thru and change it all one way or the other, I'd like to know what the consensus is for usage in this article. I'm aware of wp:NCLDS and wp:MOSLDS, but at least one recent editor disagrees with those standards: "Replaced "LDS" -- a term NO ONE uses except Mormons -- with the term Mormon to avoid confusion to those not familiar with Mormon euphemisms." Does his POV have merit? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe there should be consistency across Wikipedia (and certainly within this one article). The consensus at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints is to use the term LDS when talking about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not Mormons as you have already noted. I believe that to have this consistency throughout Wikipedia, the discussion of LDS vs. Mormon should be handled at the MoS level rather than this talk page. 72Dino (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Before there is a judgment made against the editors of this page, perhaps it would be wise if the LDS/Mormon culture defined these terms for themselves and codified these terms to the public in a clear and understandable way. This is not a fault of Wikipedia but a reflection that LDS and Mormon has been used interchangeably for many years. This also reflections divisions in the Church and disagreement concerning the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.150.35 (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed extensive unjustified criticisms

This article has gone beyond the pale in its (not so) tacit legitimization of pseudoscientific criticism of noncontroversial mainstream archaeology. Wikipedia is not a tool for blowing smoke over scientific findings, no matter how unappealing they may be given one's belief system. I feel compelled to make an accompanying entry on this page given the size of my edit, but I should be very surprised to see it simply reverted, given how inappropriate the content I excised was. Spinachwrangler (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an article dedicated to the WP:FRINGE theory. Therefore the beliefs of that fringe theory should be accurately described. I am reverting the change. Lets see what others have to say. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
My friend, you seem to have simply removed the referenced criticism! Your use of the word "pseudoscientific" in referring to the criticism is interesting, considering nothing in the Book of Mormon is scientific in itself, it's simply a matter of faith. At least the "so-called scholars and intellectuals" have done their homework. I invite you to bring it to the editors for consensus before attempting to edit this again. Thank you. Regards, --Manway 03:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that this whole article is based on WP:FRINGE science since it is about religion, not science at all. As such, Wikipedia's rules of documentation have to be skewed in the direction of allowing religious interpretation and religious pseudoscience to become a part of the discussion. Of course none of the fiction in the Book of Mormon is either scientifically or historically valid. But the fact that it exists as a religious point of view on the fringe of actual science and history is the point of the article, not whether or not this is factual American archeology or history. --Taivo (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
An article on pseudoscience more or less requires that the pseudoscientific view be presented, not just the scientific rebuttal. Overall, the Mormon views deleted by Spinachwrangler should be restored, although some of the wording might be improved. It might also be noted that the theory that the Western Hemisphere was populated by some lost tribes of Israel was a respectable academic theory - 200 years ago. Plazak (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
It is certainly key that the views of Mormons be represented in an article on their views. However, I see a gulf between that ideal and what we have before us. The article is titled "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon", not e.g. "Archaeological Postulates of the Book of Mormon". The title as it stands now suggests that we are going to be treated to a comparison between what the Book of Mormon says and what science knows, and indeed this is how large parts of the article appear to be structured to me. In this case I think my edits were on the right track, as we still get a description of the historical ideas in the Book of Mormon (although mostly in the lead -- an introductory section going into more detail would be nice, regardless of how/if the article changes), without loading a blunderbuss full of what are largely individual's failed attempts to discredit scientific fact and shooting the article in the chest with it. This aggressive use of individual's non-academic work is at the core of what I find distasteful, as we are mostly not learning about Mormon beliefs, but rather being subjected to an amorphous disinformation campaign (for example it's not Mormon canon that Joseph Smith meant brocket deer by the word goat. I suppose it is indicative of a style of Mormon apologetics, but then it would be put to better use in a section on apologetics techniques). One can't get a simple statement of scientific fact in this article without a breathless recitation of (wrong) reasons for why it might not be right or applicable. I don't see how this style can be made encyclopedic.
That all being said, I think the "LDS efforts to establish Book of Mormon archaeology" section dealing with excavations is interesting and worthwhile (it might actually go better at the beginning of the article), though it could perhaps be separated from the "Modern approach and conclusion" entries, given the gap between the real history of what Mormons have done and the false history of ancient America as given by Joseph Smith. I also agree with Plazak that the historical context of these archaeological beliefs would be a valuable inclusion.
So spontaneously I see two tracks that could improve this article: Either the title and sense of the article could be kept, but with the incessant pseudoscientific challenges (particularly those that don't represent broad majority Mormon viewpoints) to science greatly attenuated, or the article could be reshuffled into just talking about what Mormons believe, with just a healthy amount of recourse to real archaeology. I have gotten the sense, both in this article and elsewhere on Wikipedia, that not all edits by those who subscribe to Mormonism are made in entirely good (secular) faith, and that associated articles tend to believe in the Book of Mormon a little bit themselves. I bring this up not to merely be abrasive and annoying, but because I do not think articles like this are effective or are a credit to Wikipedia, and diagnosis is the first step to good health. At any rate, I'd like to hear other people's take on the direction this article is headed. Spinachwrangler (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The article lacks a neutral stance

Regardless of religious inclination, the constant reference to "Mormon Apologists" biases the article. It undermines the validity of the people, just because they disagree with you does not mean they are wrong. No one who has studied history can claim to know everything that has occurred in past civilizations. My edits did not detract from the information, I was only seeking to remove the overt and negative bias that is laced throughout.

If you could please read the same material so kindly shared with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayman85 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you lack a neutral stance, and you have a religious bias. Your persistent attempts to pretend that religious claims by Mormons are secular historical claims are dishonest.
Anyone who studies history knows damn well that there were no horses, pigs, or elephants alongside humans in America before they were introduced from Europe and Africa (and even then, the elephants are only in zoos). Your ignorance is not the same thing as uncertainty among academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I would argue you lack a neutral stance. David was 'disproved' by historians until evidence was found that proved he existed. Lack of evidence goes both ways, FYI. You can claim my stupidity all day long (which merely indicates your lack of vocabulary) or you can allow dissenting opinions to be introduced for the cause of truth. Notice again, I didn't remove any data, only slighting verbiage. What's the matter, are you afraid the readers aren't smart enough to follow your references? Jayman85 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That you equate ignorance and stupidity shows your vocabulary is the problematic one here, and that you've vandalized the report I filed on you indicates you're of no use to this site. Burden of proof rests on those making claims, that's how academia works. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
From Oxford Dictionaries: Apologist – “A person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.” The term "Mormon apologist," seems to me a fair description, and not POV. For those with genuine academic credentials, the descriptions "Mormon scholar" and "LDS scholar" are also appropriate, and both are used in the article. And certainly, if a non-LDS scholar supports something in the Book of Mormon, his non-Mormon background would also be worth noting in the article. Plazak (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've just dropped an NPOV tag on this article. It seems to pretty much make a mockery of WP:NPOV, specifically the idea that viewpoints held by a small number of people must not be given the same credence as those held by many. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Being more specific would help. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
To say that it is an issue of the beliefs of a "small number of people" versus the "many" is a mischaracterization. After all, there are far, far, more Mormons than there are archaeologists. If anyone is outnumbered, it is the archaeologists. This article is a comparison of scientific findings with the account in a religious text. If archaeological findings to date contradict the language and descriptions in the Book of Mormon, that is not the fault of this article. I believe that for the NPOV tag to stick, you should come up with some more specific issues in the article. Plazak (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE, the article shouldn't give the opinions of a few religiously biased pseudo-historians making a mockery of scholarship the same validity as we give to mainstream archaeological and historical consensus. I'm removing the tag since there's no good reason for it. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Weasel Words

This article (especially the anachronisms section) is full of references to "some people", "some Mormon apologists", and similar phrases. I see a good attempt has been made to avoid this language in some areas (by referring by name specific people who make minority claims) and that should be expanded to the rest of the article. --139.52.147.144 (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Cyberbot II has detected links on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/C/CATTLE
    Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No discussion of the Heartland Model.

As a non Mormon, I consider that the most plausible, but still has major issues.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Usage of the word "data" in Scientific publications

@TaivoLinguist: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150910084608.htm "data" is singular http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3718/is-the-word-data-now-considered-singular-or-still-plural the grammatical explanation.

Another explanation. If you are indeed a "linguist" you should have known this http://www.onlinegrammar.com.au/top-10-grammar-myths-data-is-plural-so-must-take-a-plural-verb/

Regarding your claim of "original research", I cited two sources legitimate to this discussion; 1) the oxford dictionary and 2) the LDS website itself. These are "reliable, published sources". How is this "OR" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research?

"Data" is a plural in standard scientific usage. Yes, popular writing often treats it as a singular, but formal usage is still to treat it as a plural. We should strive for formal usage here. And it is, indeed, original research because you have cited Fact A and Fact B, but it is YOU who made the connection, "Because A is true, then B is false". That's the part that is impermissible original research. --Taivo (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You said very clearly ""Data" is a plural in all scientific writing." and I have proven you WRONG. Secondly, citing new evidence on a topic is not "impermissible". You do not seem to have a grasp of Wikipedia at all. I suggest you review WP:OR.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I assume that you are simply in a bad mood because your football team did not perform as you expected. But your understanding of OR and SYN is woefully lacking. You cannot cite two unrelated things and then draw your own conclusion. That's a basic no-no in Wikipedia. Just get over it. You are simply wrong. --Taivo (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Gunsolley and Hills

I've revised the lead to make it clear that the article isn't suggesting that either was an archaeologist. I can't find a lot about them, mainly[1] and [2]. I've also made it clear that they wrote in the early 20th century. Gunsolley wrote in a newspaperm the Herald (Community of Christ). Doug Weller talk 14:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Weasel words and unsupported statements abound!

This is a text-book example of using weasel words and using puffery and editorializing. This is so bad, the bias is so obvious! I am changing it to a more NPOV. I will be checking references after that. Note that American heritage is not an archeology magazine and Robert Silverburg is a science fiction writer not respected archeologist.

And Venice Pridis?[3] No qualifications, her book was published by an LDS publishing house (Bookcraft, etc, Yes, American Heritage is a history magazine. Are you suggesting we remove all sources that aren't archaeological? Doug Weller talk 14:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
What I am saying is that if non-archeology sources are used, you shouldn't use weasel words to suggest it is an archeological source. Saying that most experts agree and suggesting that there is consensus among non-Mormon archaeologists requires more than a article in American Heritage. This article is so full of weasel words, puffery, editorialization, original research. Wow, it's bad!

Dig Deeper (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Frequent archiving of talk page and a history of complaints re Wikipedia policy violations

I couldn't help but notice that this talk page was set to be archived every 3 months. That seems rather excessive considering the few comments that have appeared over the years. I changed it to 3 years. If it seems too long let's talk about and reach consensus first before changing it.

As I reviewed the hidden archives, I couldn't help but notice that the issues that I have raised here have been brought up numerous times in the past by other editors such as @TaivoLinguist:, @Kevin Gorman: and to some extent @COGDEN:. Had the discussions not been archived so frequently, we could have simply continued the discussion rather than start from scratch again.Dig Deeper (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There are no hidden archives. They are where archives should be. To be hidden they'd have to be somewhere else. And no, we should have new discussions, not just continue an old one and claim that one some long vanished editor said several years ago should be taken into account when trying to reach a consensus. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
From my talk page.... Please read WP:AGF I just read your edit summary about archiving. Please don't go around accusing editors of nefarious evil deeds. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not accusing anyone of "nefarious evil deeds". Did I say that? Archiving hides the material on the talk page when it gets too long. It requires extra mouse click and deliberate action to see it. That being said "hidden" is perhaps redundant, given that to be archived means to be stored and hidden from view.
Rather than focus on the definition of "hidden" and "archives" and what anyone's intentions are, let focus on the fact that Wikipedia policies are not being followed and there is a history of complaints that keeps resurfacing.Dig Deeper (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You did write "unless one is deliberately trying to hide past debate and discussion". And left it to me to point out that the "Some Mormon archaeologists" weren't archaeologists, surprised that you missed that. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, I see it now. I didn't realize you were referring to the edit summaries. You're right, I probably shouldn't have phrased it like that.
If you found that some "Mormon archeologists" aren't really archeologists, that's great! If I find some, I'll do the same. This article is full of bold claims, weasel statements, false experts, primary sources, and original research. Let's work together to make the article appropriate for Wikipedia standards.Dig Deeper (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No one has ever claimed that this article is in perfect shape. Very few in Wikipedia are. I don't think there are any editors conspiring to prevent improvements to the article. However, some of your changes have been questioned by multiple editors here. It's nothing to worry about, that's how the system works—change by consensus, not by one editor's interpretation of what needs to happen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
And remember that just because one editor might be making all the changes at a particular time doesn't mean that there aren't other editors who might not be as vocal at the moment, but who are still watching and agreeing. --Taivo (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
All the articles related to religion and religious expression are controversial by nature. The articles related to Mormonism especially so. Most of the information here has been subject to long discussions in the past and the wording has been reached by consensus based on the views of both adherents and non-adherents. Slash and burn editing rarely works in articles like this because of that delicate balance. I'm not saying that anyone has practiced slash and burn here recently, but when I see an editor write, "This article is full of bold claims, weasel statements, false experts, primary sources, and original research" it throws up a red flag. Delicate balances require a go-slow approach and meticulous consensus building to meet the needs of both adherents and non-adherents. I've seen too many of these Mormon articles lean precariously in the direction of missionary tracts. --Taivo (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I made some bold edits initially (mainly to the intro paragraphs). I explained my rationale for making the edits in the talk page. Some edits were promptly reverted with a brief edit summary. No reply on the talk page. Rather than engage in edit wars etc, I invited Good Ol’factory to the talk page, so I could get his feedback. We have both made minor edits very slowly since then. I think we're slowly moving towards consensus. At the end of the day, the article should not read like a missionary tract, but the scientific claims made within the article should be evidence-based. If at the end of the day doing so makes the Mormon church or its followers "look bad", so be it. Dig Deeper (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

There was a rumor that the Smithsonian believed this and that

Wow! This is so bad! So some people from the Smithsonian supposedly sent a private letters to some inquiries telling them that they did not research the claims of the Book of Mormon and perhaps (despite not researching it) they say they did not believe the claims, but later retract that, to maybe possibly be politically correct. This is not good referencing. This is, however, a good example of original research. Without any official and public declaration, this is not evidence of the official position of the Smithsonian organization.Dig Deeper (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the section. The issue has been discussed in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and in the Givens book. Both are obviously pro-Mormon and pro–Book of Mormon, but they are reliable sources for a discussion of these issues and the fact that the letters were issued and were revised. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there any official public declaration by the Smithsonian? No. Has the Smithsonian published any of this in their own journals or publications? No. Even if one assumes that the letter writer had the authority and knowledge to write for the organization (and not simply just a secretary brushing them off) your assumption that the Smithsonian wanted to "take a less controversial stance" by sending a second letter is editorializing, and not simply summarizing relevant facts. The content of this paragraph is not notable, it is speculative at best, possibly misleading and deceptive at worst, and does not add to article.
We don't need the Smithsonian, we have the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and they say they are the leading journal on BoM studies.[4] Are you suggesting that they aren't telling the truth? Doug Weller talk 20:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The question is does this follow Wikipedia policies? This is original research and editorializing. Also this is attributing a statement to the Smithsonian based on a letter which was not an official public declaration by the Smithsonian and then coming to your own conclusions about why a second letter retracted the first. Also, as I stated earlier, the content of this paragraph is not notable, it is speculative at best, possibly misleading and deceptive at worst, and does not add to article. The only thing going for this paragraph is that is doesn't use as many weasel words as other parts of the article.21:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not original research. The issue of the Smithsonian letter and its history are discussed in both the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and in the Givens book. In this context, those are reliable, third-party sources. We don't need the primary source, the Smithsonian letter. In fact, citing to the primary source would be more like original research than what is here. The statement that the Smithsonian wanted to "take a less controversial stance" is not editorializing—it is reporting on Givens's published opinion of why the change was made. The direct quote from his book is that the revised letter was "in all likelihood a product of controversy-avoidance." How can reporting another's words be a Wikipedian editorializing? In short, I think you are misunderstanding the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that you are citing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Good Ol’factory that this is well sourced, and clearly not WP:OR. Further, this is such a well-known (if misunderstood) issue that for Wikipedia to ignore it would be a disservice. We can quibble about the wording, but the Smithsonian letters definitely should be covered in this article. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Context is everything and the title of the section is misleading given the source provided. Rather than say Organizational statements regarding the Book of Mormon it should read Private correspondence from individuals who work at the Smithsonian who may or may not have had authorization to make official statements on behalf of the organizations, but they were published somewhere, so who cares! It's a lengthy title, I'll grant you that, but definitely more accurate than organizational statements. Rumors and speculations about why the second letter was sent, should not be part of Wikipedia.
From WP:RUMOUR Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. ... Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.
I can see why you would want the words like Smithsonian and National Geographic in the article somewhere, seeing as many of the sources in the article are original research from unqualified science fiction writers. Dig Deeper (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The excessive use of bold and underlying is not helping your credibility here. Perhaps we could tone things down a notch. I don't think the Smithsonian letter constitutes the type of thing that is addressed by WP:RUMOUR. Its existence and content has been confirmed by multiple sources, both non-Mormon and Mormon, both pro– and anti–Book of Mormon, and it has been commented on by both groups, so I think it's fine. As User:Plazak mentioned, it would be a disservice not to include it since right or wrongly, the Smithsonian is held in such high regard in this area of study. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's start with this. Would you disagree that Terryl Givens speculated about the reason for the change in the statement? Would you disagree that this is original research, given that the source is Given's himself and not some other source referring to Given's statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dig deeper (talk • contribs)
(1) I have no idea where he got his information, whether he was speculating or had something else on which to base his statement. (2) No, it's not original research in the Wikipedia sense because it is published in a reliable source. If the article reports what Givens stated, there is no OR issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
If the original Wikipedia editor was reading between the lines, interpreting Given's statements and coming to his/her own conclusions, then it's original research. If not, and Givens explicitly said that "it is likely that Smithsonian writer did this because..." then you're correct it's not original research, it would be a primary source. Still not ideal.
Regardless, unless you can prove otherwise this is still speculation. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.Dig Deeper (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess we disagree on this issue. I really can't see how anyone could reasonably consider Givens a primary source with respect to this issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
How about the speculation? Does Givens statement not sound like speculation to you?Dig Deeper (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert Silverberg is a science fiction writer, why is he cited as a archeology expert?

This article very much lacks reliable sources. Robert Silverberg, the author of "The Mound Builders" is predominantly a science fiction writer, and yet he is being treated as a archeology expert and Book of Mormon scholar? He has BA in English Literature. No degrees in archeology or even theology. This is unbelievable! So I change this to "Science fiction writer Robert Silverberg believes..." Good Olfactory immediately reverts it back to "numerous observers" (again still only citing the one science fiction writer) and justifies the revert by saying "it is not just Silverberg who is referenced-this has been a common observation of various people from various fields". OK, would you please cite those "numerous people" in their "various fields"? This is sloppy referencing and casually reverting it back makes it more so. Good Olfactory has been editing Wikipedia since 2008 and Doug Weller since 2006. Come on you guys, you're not newbies. You should know Wikipedia policies and standards. Dig Deeper (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dig deeper: dude, have you even read the footnote and looked up the references included in it? The footnote I see for the statement is currently footnote 26, and under footnote 26 it says this: Kennedy 1994, Garlinghouse, Thomas, "Revisiting the Mound Builder Controversy", History Today, Sept 2001, Vol. 51, Issue 9, starting pg. 38; Silverberg, Robert "and the mound-builders vanished from the earth", American Heritage Magazine, June 1969, Volume 20, Issue 4. So that's three different references, only one of which is Robert Silverberg. (1) Silverberg is a fiction author, so that's one observer and one field. (2) Garlinghouse is a columnist, who is reporting on archaeological developments, and he writes of the 19th-century mound builder literature: "Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon, with its account of Israelite migration to North America also seems to reflect familiarity with this literature." So that's a second observer writing from the field of archeological journalism. (3) Then we have Roger G. Kennedy (1994). Hidden Cities: The Discovery and Loss of Ancient North American Civilization, pp. 228–231. Kennedy was director of the Smithsonian's American Museum of Natural History, and he makes similar observations about the Book of Mormon in his book. So that's a third observer, coming from the third field of natural history/American history.
Do you want more sources?—because it is a common observation that has been made and there are certainly more to be had. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
So should the interpretations and conclusions of science fiction writers be considered as reliable sources? Would Michael Crichton be considered an expert source on Dinosaurs?
Are administrators of companies and organizations (such as the lawyer Roger G. Kennedy)considered reliable sources? Would Jack Welch be considered a light bulb expert or a jet engine expert since he was the CEO of General Electric? Let's get real here.
Combining multiple primary sources from non-experts and then drawing conclusions, by saying "Many experts agree" and other weasel statements is considered synthesis and editorializing.
Last point, this isn't about what is true, but what is verifiable. Wikipedia policy is that claims should be backed up by reliable secondary sources. The burden of proof lies and the onus of achieving consensus lies with the editor who added the material. Dig Deeper (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
If Jack Welch had written a book called, How the Lightbulb Works, then I think it would be fine for Wikipedia to refer to that book in an article about the lightbulb. But putting the rhetorical hypotheticals aside, I believe that as an author of fictional works, Robert Silverberg is a fine source for an opinion on whether a work appears to be a work of fiction, especially since he has extensively researched the phenomenon of 19th-century mound-builder fiction. Garlinghouse is a reporter and is reporting on general trends and opinions, so I see no reason why he needs to be excluded. Kennedy's work is clearly a reliable source with respect to ancient North American civilizations. As I mentioned, there are reams of other sources that also could be used—some of them by Mormon researchers. If there is a concern about how well this is referenced right now, I'm happy to add more.
Another thing to keep in mind is that these are just observations of similarities between the Book of Mormon and the early-19th-century mound-builder literature. They are not statements by archeological experts, so your header to this section kind of misses the point. Silverberg and the others are not being cited as archeological experts. He's being cited for an observation that the Book of Mormon resembles 19th-century mound-builder literature. You're absolutely right that the issue is not truth but verifiability—here the issue is not whether the Book of Mormon actually is an example of 19th-century mound-builder fiction, but whether people have suggested that it is or that it might be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree with you more. Given the context and the claims, Robert Silverberg and Roger G. Kennedy are very poor references.
Jack Welch was an amazing CEO. GE had about 20 divisions that ranged from light bulbs to jet engines to nuclear power plants to NBC. In the book Jack Welch & The G.E. Way he tells the interviewer that he himself knew nothing about making light bulbs or hiring actors or nuclear physics. Instead of trying to know everything about everything, he found experts and he trusted them. Great book btw.
What makes Wikipedia great are the editors who improve articles and use reliable, expert, secondary sources to back up the claims made. This is especially true in the sciences; and archeology is a science. For children's books, it might be fine to use commentary, opinions and speculations and theories from Robert Silverberg, Jack Welch, and Michael Crichton and other non-experts. In Wikipedia and in this context, these are considered questionable sources and should be used sparingly if at all.
The first sentence of this article would suggest that the references in this article would be from qualified and well respected archeologists. Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, both Mormon and non-Mormon archaeologists have attempted to find archaeological evidence to support or criticize it. Do you not find this statement misleading given the references?Dig Deeper (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
No. (As for the Welch example—if you're going to play in hypotheticals, you have to keep it in the realm of hypotheticals. You can't take the facts of my hypothetical and change the underlying facts to take it out of hypothetical-land and then say that's why you disagree with the conclusions of my hypothetical. The fact that users always do this is one reason why dabbling in hypotheticals when trying to address real issues is generally a waste of time.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
"You must always, always stay in the realm of hypotheticals" From a nonexistant Wikipedia policy. Give me a break. You left the "realm of hypotheticals" first, I followed your lead.... I don't see it as a "waste of time", I see it as a sincere effort at presenting a compelling argument and hopefully moving towards consensus. (bold for emphasis, not yelling)Dig Deeper (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
You can do whatever you want in forming an argument; I was just pointing out that what you did reduced the strength of your argument considerably. Repeatedly bolding comments does the same. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Side stepping the issue and focusing on the font, imho, is not making a compelling argument. It's as though you're deliberately trying to avoid any sort of consensus.Dig Deeper (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Not really—it's just an outgrowth of a realization that further discussion is probably not time well spent for me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Referencing in the Sciences (Archaeology being a science)

Let me start off by saying that if the title of this article were "Speculations about Archeology and the Book of Mormon", we'd be having a very different discussion. The title of this article implies that this article will be based on Science. As such it should have appropriate references.

So then what makes a good reference. From the conversation above, it's clear that there is disagreement about what is an acceptable source. Acceptable sources form the foundation of a good article, so hopefully in this section we can come to some sort of consensus about references, establish a foundation then we can go forward from there.

I don't know what your experience is in scientific publishing. Rather than dive into peer review process and publishing in the sciences, and getting technical with what makes a primary, secondary and tertiary source, etc allow me to start with a simplified example. Please bear with me on this.

Once upon a time, an obscure archeologist named Dr. Flinstone PhD publishes his theories on how dinosaurs lived and interacted with humans. It is published in the late-1800's in a bizarre journal has has a very low impact factor. He receives some exposure form the popular media, but he is generally ridiculed by his colleagues. Two respected Archeologists, go so far as to publish two separate rebuttals in a high impact factor journal. Dr. Flinstone he retracts his research and is never heard from again.

Another fifty years later, an editor on Wikipedia find several more recent sources, books from non-experts (editors and BA degrees) which expound on Dr. Flintstone's research.

Can you see the multiple issues in this example?

Can you see why, in this hypothetical example, some editors may consider "expert statements" from these more recent sources as unreliable?

Dig Deeper (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Cute hypothetical. I'm not sure it takes things very far, though. I personally I am not that interested in getting into extensive discussions into hypotheticals and such things this on this page. If users have suggestions of how to improve the article in practical ways, I'm open to consideration of them, and won't be shy stating if and when I disagree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
First of all, Dig Deeper, you have mistaken the nature of this article. This article is not about "science" per se. It is about interpreting facts on the ground in relation to a religious text. "Book of Mormon archeology" is not archeology in the strictest sense of "I will dig here and see what I find and interpret it then." It is "I will dig here and see if what I find can support the Book of Mormon narrative." Mormon archeologists who practice the former are not strictly speaking "Book of Mormon archeologists". So you have to remember that some of these references you will encounter here are not archeologists, but are apologists who use archeology to bolster the tale of the Book of Mormon. If you want strict archeology, then you need to work on the articles on Meso-American archeology that proceed without reference to the Book of Mormon. This article is about harmonizing archeology with the Book of Mormon tale. As such, you will have quite appropriate references here that were written not by archeologists, but by apologists trying to fit archeological data into the BOM narrative. This not an archeology article, it is a religious article about archeology. --Taivo (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Second, no one wants to read your extended excurses on hypotheticals. So you are going to be unable to build any kind of consensus using that tactic. Keep your comments brief and on point. --Taivo (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, I shortened the hypothetical.
I agree that this article is not about science. Unfortunately, it is presented as though it were. From all sides.
To briefly summarize the issues in the hypothetical example. 1.Original research is dated 2.Research does not represent the majority of experts 3.Selective sourcing from non-experts and game of telephone thru non-experts distorts original findings.
Good Ol’factory has failed to make a compelling argument that the science fiction writer Robert Silverberg and the lawyer Roger G. Kennedy should be considered as reliable sources. Are they much different from the above hypothetical example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dig deeper (talk • contribs)
First off, there is no evidence that Silverberg or Kennedy have been ridiculed for the works in question. Secondly, they didn't retract their positions. Thirdly, the publications in question were not the end of their careers. There's more, but on the basics it's just not a parallel situation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm suggesting Silverberg and Kennedy represent the "recent sources (editors and BA's)" not the disgraced expert. Dig Deeper (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to read hypotheticals. They are meaningless. If you want to consider a source in the article then speak directly about the source. Everyone knows that hypotheticals are always slanted toward your POV and are never neutral or fair. I don't know what your underlying agenda is, but when I read in your very first comment "most scholars know this Wikipedia article is..." I say, "Bulls..t". "Most scholars"? Really? Prove it. Most scholars in what field? And most scholars don't even read Wikipedia. I'm in academia and I'm the rarity. So when I see exaggerations and bombast I want to discount everything you have written following. Then I read your comments about Silverberg and Kennedy and it is, in some respects, ridiculous. You see "Silverberg" and then ignore the rest of the footnote. You think that the director of the Smithsonian Natural History Museum is irrelevant because he got a law degree at some point in his life. He would not be the director of that Museum if he were not qualified. --Taivo (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Quote Everyone knows that hypotheticals are always slanted toward your POV and are never neutral or fair. -- Does everyone know this? Really? Is this a Wikipedia policy?
That sentence was an obvious example of using weasel words, similar to what is found throughout this article. Making claims without proving it with an expert source is a weasel statement. This implicit point should have been obvious given my title "Weasel words and unsupported statements abound!". I deleted my sentence to avoid further confusion. This is all side-stepping the issue.
I have already "spoken to the source" as well as provided Wikilinks to the Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia policies don't seem to apply here. Museum administrators who have never published in peer-reviewed academic archeology journals are not experts. To suggest Kennedy is an expert simply because he happened to work at the Smithsonian is utter nonsense. This may come as a shock to some, but to be an expert in archeology one needs to first get a PhD in archeology. It may be a convenient hobby for him, but he's not an expert in archeology. Dig Deeper (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, you're completely missing the point: Kennedy is not being cited on any issue of archaeology. He is being cited for the observation that the Book of Mormon resembles 19th-century mound-builder fiction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I can understand Dig deeper's point about the title and scope of the article. The focus of this article isn't primarily about archaeology, because there are no mainstream consensus conclusions in the scientific field of archaeology relating to the Book of Mormon, except arguably negative ones. If the article were really about archaeology, we would only be citing mainstream archaeologists and their mainstream conclusions. On the other hand, I don't think the answer is to delete all the pseudoarchaeology, apologetics, fringe theories, and purely faith-based scholarship from this article, which would pretty much gut the article. I've always thought of this article as something roughly comparable to Ancient astronauts. Like this article, it is an interesting and important topic, and there is lots of material, but the article is careful not to frame anything as archaeology. So maybe the word "archaeology" in the title of this article is a problem, but I'm not sure what a good alternative is. There are a few other pseudoarchaeology articles with "archaeology" in the title, such as Psychic archaeology. COGDEN 18:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest that changing the title to Speculations on Book of Mormon Archeology would be appropriate, given that all points of views seem to be offering speculations. I am open to other ideas.Dig Deeper (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I can understand the concern, but I don't like the idea of adding weasel words of this type to article names (or words of precision, depending on your POV). Article names should be succinct and to the point, and then the article text is where all the nuances are brought out. There are plenty of sources out there that discuss the topic in terms of calling it "Book of Mormon archaeology". I know of none that would explicitly refer to the subject as "Speculations on Book of Mormon archaeology". Ultimately, much of what relates to religious subjects amounts to speculation; I don't think we need to state that this is so in an article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about the standards for quality of sources in this article

After seeing DougWheller revert an edit by Geneva11 with the message:

"Please read sources yourself first. Ray says "likely" and we would need more academic sources for such a claim, "Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies:" gives a later date for Ecke..." --->Did you pay to read the original article Doug?

DougWheller then adds the following message on the newbie's talk page: "Please don't add this again. The FARMS review[1] trashes the book as inaccurate and making the false claim that Nibley endorsed it, we should definitely not use it for anything"

Seriously Doug?

I am once again disappointed at the double standard that exists for this article. The standard is very low for any references that seem antagonistic towards the book of mormon, and yet very high for any references that may lend archeological support. As it stands, and as I mentioned above, this article is based on speculations from all perspectives. It is not a science article, I think we've thoroughly established that, and yet it is treated as such when the edit supports a specific POV. If articles from science fiction writers such as Robert Silverberg and the mound builders are considered appropriate then articles of an apologetic nature (i.e. FARMS) should be permitted. Dig Deeper (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, the citation of Robert Silverberg in the article is not being related to a scientific issue. It is being related to the point that the Book of Mormon is seen by some people in the literary world as resembling 19th-century mound-builder fiction. Can we stop trotting this out as a supposed example of using a literary figure to prove a scientific point? That's clearly not how it's being used by the article. Repeatedly suggesting that Silverberg is being used as a supposed scientific source is undermining the otherwise potentially valid points that you are making. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC
Any chance of spelling my name correctly? @Dig deeper: why are you asking me if I paid to read Ray's article? And yes, I was serious when I wrote that we shouldn't use Johnson, Stan, and Polly Johnson. "Translating the Anthon Transcript". It fails our criteria at WP:RS as well as WP:UNDUE. Sure, Wayne May mentions it, but we wouldn't use Wayne May either. Doug Weller talk 11:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
And I just read your comment on the newbies talk page. Why do you think I gave them a cookies welcome message rather than one of the other IMHO more informative ones? And I avoided giving them templated warnings. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Good Olfactory Silverberg is used for footnotes 15, 18, 116 and well as a general reference. All of these footnotes are following a scientific statement, NOT following a statement like "The book of Mormon resembles other American fictional works". Look at the references, it's pretty clear.
@Doug Weller I wasn't referring to the Johnson, Stan, and Polly article. The comment I quoted was under "Horses" and you said "Ray says likely". I'm just curious where you got this? I tried to to get the original article to see this "likely" statement you found but it requires payment.
Just because a FARMS review "trashes" our favorite book as "inaccurate" (trash talk = "inaccurate"? really?) doesn't mean we should necessarily discount the entire review. I'm not saying it is a high quality source, I am questioning your stated rationale. Cookies aside, the statement's a little harsh (& potentially misleading) for a newbie editor, imho.
Tavio stated in earlier thread that "This not an archeology article, it is a religious article about archeology". Cogden stated above this is a pseudo-archeology article, due to lack of mainstream academic discussion/consensus. So if I'm understanding this right, this article is not a real science article. It is a collection of scriptures and apologetic opinions, with original research, primary sources, non-academic secondary sources giving opposing opinions. Just scroll through the references, it's quite obvious. As such, if not being held to Wikipedia standards, the referencing standards should at least be applied consistently to all POV's. Dig Deeper (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Please learn how to spell the names of the other editors. You've now spelled two of our names incorrectly. Cut and paste if you are unable to match your finger movements with what your eyeballs see. This article, like many of the articles that were initially created to make the Book of Mormon look like it is on the same level of geographical and archeological verification as the Bible, has been proposed for deletion in the past (a deletion that I happen to agree with). It's not an article about archeology, it's not an article about history, it has grown into a schizophrenic piece, like all the other "and the Book of Mormon" articles. One part is a description of Mormon apologia that try to link American archeological data with the BOM text. The other part is a description of non-Mormon criticism that shows where American archeological data contradict the BOM text. The difficulty is balancing these two parts in the text. --Taivo (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I still want to know why User:Dig deeper asked if I'd paid to read the Ray article. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)i
I find the whole question of "payment" to be rather silly. The words "paywall" and "payment" are often thrown around Wikipedia as some kind of flaw in the source, the implication being "I won't pay for anything online, so you can't either." --Taivo (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Dig deeper writes: "Silverberg is used for footnotes 15, 18, 116 and well as a general reference. All of these footnotes are following a scientific statement, NOT following a statement like "The book of Mormon resembles other American fictional works". Look at the references, it's pretty clear."
Indeed, let's look at the references.
18 is placed after this sentence: "Numerous observers have suggested that the Book of Mormon appears to be a work of fiction that parallels others within the 19th-century 'mound-builder' genre that were pervasive at the time." Right off the bat, we have a contradiction in what User:Dig deeper claims above.
116 is placed after this sentence: "The LDS Church's view of the issue has shifted slightly over time, with Joseph Smith and early Mormon leaders taking the traditional stance [on the hemispheric geography model]." Nothing to do with science here, just a reporting of what the church's view has been.
15 follows a sentence that doesn't really make sense to me. Whatever the original intent of whoever wrote it, it seems to have been mangled to point that it's not clear what is being said. To me, it seems to be saying that some Mormon scholars have said that 19th-century scientific discoveries do not prove the divinity or historicity of the BOM. I don't see why we need a scientific source to point out what some Mormons have said about scientific discoveries not being sufficient to prove that the BOM is what it claims to be. Seems a rather pedestrian observation to me, if that is what is intended. It's not a commentary on the science itself, it's a commentary of what Mormons have said about the science, which doesn't require the observer to be a scientist or an expert. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice try. There is no contradiction. You aren't even using the references I listed. #16 is Kennedy. I wrote #15 which is Silverberg. This comes after "...native North American inscriptions, North American elephant remains etc.) are not interpreted by as proving the historicity or divinity of the Book of Mormon.". Sounds like a scientific statement to me.
Also #8 "the use of a plaster-like cement" Again, sounds like a scientific statement to me.
Good Olfactory, I kindly ask you assume good faith with my comments and spend a little more time investigating my criticisms.
Perhaps not scientific, but also not literary. Are you trying to tell me this science fiction author is an expert on church history? Is he a reliable source on what LDS church leaders have believed over 100 years ago? I don't think so, let's get real here.
Yes #15 probably should have beside #16. It's ironic that the only sensible spot for the Silverberg reference isn't even in the right place.Dig Deeper (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Username typos are not intentional. My apologies to both. I agree the article looks like a dogs breakfast, I wouldn't want the talk page to match it with username typos.
The following was added by the newbie Geneva11 and reverted by Doug Weller
Peterson Daniel C. and Roper, Matthew "Ein Heldenleben? On Thomas Stuart Ferguson as an Elias for Cultural Mormons" FARMS Review: Volume - 16, Issue - 1 [5]ref A Pre-Columbian horse skeleton has been identified in Southwest Wyoming dated to 1426 – 1481 AD (one sigma calibrated dates) using AMS methods. ref David Eckles et al., "An Early Historic Period Horse Skeleton From Southwestern Wyoming" The Wyoming Archaeologist 38:55-68 (1994) [6] ref Other examples of Pre-Columbian horses have been found in the Yucatan Peninsula. ref C. E. Ray, “Pre-Columbian horses from Yucatan,” Journal of Mammalogy 38 (1957): 278 [7]
The reason given by Doug Weller was the following:
(Reverted good faith edits by Geneva11: Please read sources yourself first. Ray says "likely" and we would need more academic sources for such a claim, "Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies:" gives a later date for Ecke...).
If there's a way to see the rest of Doug Weller comments (was cut off), that would be greatly appreciated.
I would like more of an explanation as to why this entry (3 sentences & 3 references) was reverted in it's entirety. Because of this big revert, Doug's specific revert explanation (on just one of the 3 sources) was very confusing. Maybe the cut off part gives a more thorough explanation, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. After closer inspection, I now believe he was referring to the following (the second ref not one within the first).... https://www.scribd.com/document/259978875/Mammology-1957-PreColumbianHorses (no payment required).

Dig Deeper (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Payment is irrelevant for these discussions. If you don't have access to a source, then you either need to pay for access, find a copy in your local university library, or back out of the discussion about that source. There is no requirement in Wikipedia for sources to be free for all. In reference to the Ecke source, it's clear that it has been re-evaluated in "Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies". As for the Ray article, if you read it at no point does he make a definitive judgement that horses were co-existent with the Maya or their precursors. Indeed, he concludes that the horse teeth were already fossilized when they were used by the pre-Mayans (as decoration?). And the reference is hardly recent. It is from 1957. The fact that it has had no influence on the history of the horse in the Americas speaks volumes about its reliability in terms of using it for a BOM backup. --Taivo (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue whether or not these 3 reverted sentences and references are adequately reliable or recent. My contention is that...
1. these references seem to be of comparable quality to the references already in the article (including the tertiary source (textbook) you mentioned). Hence the title, a blatant double standard for quality of sources. and
2. Doug Weller's rationale to the newbie for reverting the 3 sentences and 3 sources (both on the users page and in the page history) was both inadequate and inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dig deeper (talk • contribs)
@Dig deeper: Silverberg is referenced in footnote 18, as you noted. The sentence it is placed after is this sentence: "Numerous observers have suggested that the Book of Mormon appears to be a work of fiction that parallels others within the 19th-century 'mound-builder' genre that were pervasive at the time."
You stated that "All of these footnotes are following a scientific statement, NOT following a statement like 'The book of Mormon resembles other American fictional works'. Look at the references, it's pretty clear."
The evidence directly contradicts what you have written. If you want to be taken seriously, you can't make a statement that is false on its face. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dig deeper: Kind of you to give me the benefit of the doubt, but I don't see why I should respond to any more questions or explain myself while you are not responding to my questions about why you asked me if I paid to read a source. You're wrong about my rationale for the revert. You're also wrong about what I reverted. I did not revert "Peterson Daniel C. and Roper, Matthew "Ein Heldenleben? On Thomas Stuart Ferguson as an Elias for Cultural Mormons" FARMS Review: Volume - 16, Issue - 1 [1]ref " as that wasn't added by the new editor but was already in the article. I did revert " A Pre-Columbian horse skeleton has been identified in Southwest Wyoming dated to 1426 – 1481 AD (one sigma calibrated dates) using AMS methods. ref David Eckles et al., "An Early Historic Period Horse Skeleton From Southwestern Wyoming" The Wyoming Archaeologist 38:55-68 (1994) [2] ref Other examples of Pre-Columbian horses have been found in the Yucatan Peninsula. ref C. E. Ray, “Pre-Columbian horses from Yucatan,” Journal of Mammalogy 38 (1957): 278". I can't be sure but I suspect it was copied from somewhere else, and I hope we all agree that editors should read their sources. Wherever it came from, it's just plain dishonest. The source says "The range of dates suggested is between A.D. 1426-1481 (one standard deviation) and A.D. 1400-1633 (two standard deviations). These are the calibrated ages of the radiocarbon date converted into calendar years (Murray Tamers, written commu¬nication). The "modern" bone date suggests an age of less than 300 years (less than A.D. 1650) but bone tends to date younger compared to other materials (Tamers and Pearson 1965). Given the history of European exploration and settlement in North America after 1492, it is next to impossible to expect horses to have been present in Wyoming before the major Spanish exploration in the Southern Plains of the mid- 16th century or even the Spanish settlement in New Mexico in the early 17th century." That's a far cry from what the edit says that I removed. Ray says that pre-Columbian horses were found in the Yucatan Peninsula. Coupled with the misrepresentation of Eckles this is clearly meant to suggest that horses existed during BoM times, although we know that horses existed in the Americas in the Pleistocene, which of course is also pre-Columbian. Now I can't find a reliable source discussing everything in Ray, but he does mention Hatt, and I've found an interesting source analysing Hatt which is however not an RS.[8] It does however present text from a reliable source that the author found in a Google book search, which the website author says shows that Hatt was discussing Pleistocene horses. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Good Olfactory I did not realize you set the standard for who shall or shall not be taken seriously on this thread. You made an error by saying "Right off the bat, we have a contradiction" and your first example is reference #16 which was not even on my list. Also, history is a social science. This is side stepping the issue and could possibly be considered by some as POV railroading. Let's stay on point, focus on improving the article and editing process, and making sure new editors are treated kindly.
I think we can agree that all of the references using Silverberg are inappropriate. If #15 is moved beside #16, then I agree with you on that point and think that would be fine. Silverberg is just one of the more obvious examples, there are others. Until the references are cleaned up in this article, I see it as inappropriate to quickly revert a good faith edit by a newbie. Any attempt to improve the article should be welcome.
@Doug Weller I would think that this more thorough explanation you provided here (with the exception of the strongly worded commentary) is much more appropriate than the one you provided on the newbie's talk page, especially considering this is one of a newbie first edits.
That being said, do all the other references currently in the article follow such a stringent inclusion criteria as you set here? Certainly not. There is an obvious double standard here.
With respect to newbies, let's follow the Wikipedia guidelines by not biting the newbie, assume no clue and make reverts only when necessary. Dig Deeper (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I set standards only for myself, but I can also read the tea leaves, so my comments were just a suggestion to you as to credibility, which you can take or leave as you wish. My "right off the bat we have a contradiction" was in reference to note 18, not 16. Any reference to 16 was an error, and it's been corrected for awhile now. 16 is irrelevant to my point. You haven't addressed the issue of note 18, which is the source of the "right of the bat" contradiction. I won't quote that sentence and your comment again: they are above. If you can't acknowledge the obviousness that this directly contradicts your claimed position, we're done here, or at least I am. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
When did reverting edits that misrepresent their sources become unnecessary? Possible problems with other sources are not a reason to leave misrepresentation of sources in an article. And you are still avoiding my question about why you want to know if I paid to read an article. Are you suggesting I haven't read it? Or that there's some sort of problem if you have to pay to read a source? Doug Weller talk 20:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Good Olfactory. It seems we've both made some typos, I meant to put #8 rather than #18. Obviously this has lead to some confusion on both sides here. I won't belabor the issue. We both presented our POV's. I'll make a few small changes to the article with respect to the Silverberg references. Makes the article slightly less "schizophrenic". There are still quite a few references that are inappropriate.
@Doug Weller. Regarding the issue about the payment, are we focusing on the editor rather than the edits and editing process? This has been addressed, your original revert explanation was unclear. You have since made your explanation more clear. Let's move on.
The claim that the sources have been misrepresented is highly subjective and not obvious, especially considering your original rationale for revert.
Misrepresentation: the action or offense of giving a false or misleading account of the nature of something. This seems to assume ill intent rather than assuming a mistake or ignorance.
Perhaps misrepresentation isn't the right word here. Misrepresentation would assume that you are 1. perfectly aware of the motives of the original author and/or the newbie Wikipedia editor and 2. your POV and the POV of your tertiary source is the right one. This is not obvious. You said so yourself that this was a good faith edit on the part of the newbie. This was also not vandalism. The policy to make reverts only when necessary clearly applies here. As always, I'm open to your hearing your POV.
Reverting is reversing a prior edit, in whole or in part. Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit.
I would think that from now on, editors on this article will not bite the newbies, assume no clue and make reverts only when necessary. The low quality nature of this article and its references should be taken into consideration when editors make small attempts at improvement. We should also bear in mind that no editor owns this article and stringent inclusion criteria for references (if used) should apply equally to all POV's and existing content. Is this an unreasonable expectation?Dig Deeper (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Dig deeper, you ask "Regarding the issue about the payment, are we focusing on the editor rather than the edits and editing process?". Since your first post at the top of the page suggesting that Good Olfactory and I aren't familiar with or aren't following Wikipedia policies and standards to this section which starts with "After seeing DougWheller revert" you've been making this about editors as well as anything else. I note that your link is to the essay Pov railroadthat says it is about "the use of bullying tactics to discredit an editor with an opposing viewpoint or eliminate them from a discussion." Are you saying I'm bullying you?

"Misrepresentation" is a statement of fact, the edit misrepresented the sources. Motive would be implied if I said "lying" - I've had to deal with people who can't distinguish between lying and being mistaken, I know the difference and I certainly wasn't implying any dishonesty. We have no policy that states "revert only when necessary". That's just an essay, not even a guideline. Of course we should remove material that misrepresents the source. Are you really suggesting it should have been left in? That wouldn't be improving the article.

Seriously - too much of this page is taken up with discussions about behavior, and you started it. Even your comment about ownership is about editors. Maybe taking a different tack would help you make more progress. And you know what? Explaining why you asked about payment would be an act of good faith that might help make progress here. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller. My concern is and always has been the editing process and being consistent and fair, and following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, especially when it comes to newbies.
@Doug Weller. Misrepresentation implies dishonesty, but I will not dwell on semantics here. In this instance Doug, you made an error in judgement. Rather than come up with more poor excuses and continue to try to take this discussion off topic, why not do the right thing and admit that you did in fact bite the newbie, that your revert and original explanation was inappropriate and that there exists a double standard for inclusion given the poor quality of the article's existing references. Once I hear an acknowledgement of error from you, I would be more than happy to address your other questions.Dig Deeper (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dig deeper. Demanding an apology is one of the poorest tactics on Wikipedia for building a consensus. If your only interest is in your personal honor, then you need to find another pastime. Wikipedia discussions are often blunt and hard-fought. Demanding apologies is counter-productive. If you're sincerely interested in improving an article, then work on that and leave soothing your hurt feelings to your dog. Don't ask for it here. Move on. --Taivo (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
And since my actions weren't "an error in judgment", I'm clearly never going to get a response. This is one of the most unproductive and editor-centred discussions I've had on a talk page, and a waste of my time. If Dig deeper is unhappy about my editing ANI is that way. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
So after reading quite a few articles on wiki-etiquette, consensus-building, etc, as well as re-reading comments above, I've come to see that my approach has been a bit too bold. I've learned that being bold is fine for articles, less desirable for talk pages. So for that I apologize. I was also mistaken about essays being similar to guidelines and policies. I also learned about respecting the time of other editors and admin., so I apologize for not being more concise and for some erroneous statements & typos. I appreciate your engagement and answering questions.
With respect to the paid article, I thought Doug was referring to a different article, which required payment. My mistake. I assumed either Doug paid for the article or he knew of a site that held the same article for free (of which I was also hoping to see). I agree, I could have approached this with a little more tact. Ditto for the newbie comments. Rather than be critical, I could have simply extended a warm welcome to the newbie and tell them "don't sweat it". I apologize. I still have concerns about the article and its sources, I have no apologies for that. I'm not assuming "nefarious" intent or bullying towards me, everyone has biases and differing POV, I have no problem with that. Just because this is a religious article doesn't mean that everyone who wants to improve it is either a religious zealot or a staunch "antimormon". That being said, you 3 have been with the article much longer than I have and have probably seen more than your fair share of both, it isn't reasonable for me to expect fast changes and instant consensus. You have let me make some edits, which I appreciate. I apologize if my expectations for change were unrealistic.@Doug Weller:@TaivoLinguist:@Good Olfactory: Dig Deeper (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dig deeper: Much appreciated. If I'd known the reason for your question I would have told you I got it from JSTOR (Yale alumni have free access to it) and offered to email it to you. I still will of course if you want it. I try hard to offer explanations to newbiews, even sometimes when I think it's a waste of time. I've even blocked a newbie, explained what was needed for an unblock, and been thanked by them. Maybe I should have spent more time on this one. No need to apologise for your views on the article. I don't care about the religion, just the archaeology, a main interest of mine. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dig deeper:. Thank you for taking the time to review policies, etc. to understand where we were coming from in our comments. And you are right that not everyone who comes here is either a religious crusader or an anti-religious zealot. (It's telling that both "zealot" and "crusader" have linguistic roots in religious extremism and intolerance.) But there are enough of both who drop in here that extra-caution and a "go-slow" approach is usually warranted. --Taivo (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. If I hadn't gone to the wrong reference, I would take you up on that offer. The article of interest was free, my mistake, thanks though. Despite editing Wikipedia on and off for almost 10 years, I find there is still lots to learn (and relearn if forgotten). Going slow and avoiding extremes is fine with me.Dig Deeper (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Book of Mormon Geography.

I am very new to this forum. I may have violated some rules by changing material about Book of Mormon Geography. I thought I was free to make edits as I deem responsible. I will refrain from any other changes as I don't understand all the rules. Thanks. (174.23.172.223 (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)) I don't know what this means. Thanks.

LOL. what happened?. You haven't made any edit in any article.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

minor change to Iron/steel in the Americas

I added a wikipedia link to native copper in the iron/steel section to clarify that the copper worked by ancient moundbuilder traditions was native copper from the Michigan region, and NOT smelted copper as it was in the Old World. While ancient natives in southern Indiana were known to be smelting lead, no known instances of smelting copper or iron are known in pre-Columbian North America, according to Kenneth Feder, citation here: (around 37 minutes into the podcast) [9]

Speaking of which, the current article claims that there are a few examples of pre-Columbian "hardened" copper. Is this accurate? I'd sure like to see a source that states this, but I am unable to access the citations provided for this claim. AFAIK, there are NO known examples of alloyed copper or iron anywhere in pre-Columbian North America. The second source indicates that the procurement model of where the native copper was sourced is oversimplified, but it does not appear to refute the notion that the artifacts found were formed from native copper (i.e. the article is not claiming they were smelted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogontrombone (talk • contribs) 16:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be good to get some clarification on the smelting, but I'm not sure how relevant it would be to this topic. From a quick text search, the closest the BoM comes to smelting copper is a single reference to finding copper ore in the New World, shortly after arriving. There's a common theory among apologists that Nephi was familiar with Old World metallurgy of the time, in which case it's feasible that he'd recognise the ore and think it noteworthy, but if later generations found they could obtain copper without smelting the ore there would be little reason to smelt it. (FWIW the ref is 1 Nephi 18:25, it might be relevant that it's in the part of the book that wasn't said to be part of Mormon's abridgement.)
I'd also like to see some examples of pre-Columbian hardened copper. Presumably there's some kind of consensus on exactly what was translated "steel" in the KJV - was is a specific alloy, or did it just mean "hard metal"? If a specific alloy then it should be easy enough to find out if it's been dug up in America. As I understand it, copper can be hardened by repeated hammering, which shouldn't have been too hard to discover if they were already working copper.
I remember seeing references to something called tumbago (or tumbaga), which is an alloy containing copper and gold. Probably not much use for weapons, at least not the blades, but it is an alloy and seems to have been widespread before Columbus. Pastychomper (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove Anachronisms section

I suggest the anachronisms section be removed, other than the link to the main "Book of Mormon Anachronisms" page, for the following reasons:

  1. Most of the section looks like a copy & paste (rather than a summary) of parts of the Anachronisms page.
  2. Maintaining the same information in two places is both unnecessary and unreliable.
  3. Probably as a result of (2), there are a few places where one version contradicts the other.

The obvious alternative would be to merge the main page into this article, which I would also support. 62.6.59.86 (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC) NB: For what it's worth, this suggestion was written by me while not logged in. Pastychomper (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I also agree, and will try to get any info on this page. I am in the process of trying to update the anachronism page, and will also transfer over anything on here that isn't on there over, and then delete this section. Hope to do it over the next month or so.Geneva11 (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I think any archaeological anachronisms belong here. It makes no sense to remove thm, although a shortened version could be in the Anachronisms article. Not the other way around. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC) User:Geneva11 and User:Pastychomper this is the normal way to gather information from specialist articles into more general articles, not the other way around. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon/Archive_8&oldid=1136528223"