Talk:Helaman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Helaman was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 5, 2006

Contents

[edit] Disambiguation

I think Helaman and Helaman II deserve separate artices, so I centered this article on Helaman and made a disambiguation page to separate this from Helaman II and Helaman, son of Mosiah. Antley 22:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Namesake?

Should we mention things that are named after Helaman, such as Helaman Halls, a mens dormitory at BYU?

Items with the same name should be put on the disambiguation page mentioned above, if they are worth of mention. If a substantial list of prominent items can be compiled, however, it might be worth including a section towards the end of this article including them. uriah923(talk) 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Helaman Halls really doesn't meet notability guidelines. I wouldn't add it. Tijuana Brass¿Qué pasa?-E@ 17:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborate Good Times

So here we are collaborating. What else does it need? Novel-Technology 01:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to see is an image. I uploaded one, but was unsure of the copyright and it was subsequently deleted. uriah923(talk) 14:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. It was Arnold Friburg, copyright the LDS Church (Intellectual Reserve, technically), free to use for home or incidental purpose, but probably Wikipedia wouldn't fall in that category.
Also, I standardized the BC equivalent dates (1 AD occurred in 92 RJ, defining 1 AD as beginning at Christ's birth.) Also removed ref. to date of second battle: we know the main fighting was on day 3, month 7, but it may have been in 27 or 28 RJ. Novel-Technology 03:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there a contradiction between this and this? Or can we assume that Helaman & co. marched in 26 RJ and that the mention of 28 RJ is a jump ahead - the gap to be later filled in by the epistle? uriah923(talk) 14:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, they clearly marched in 26, in light of the rest of the story (see this). So I guess vs. 23 jumps ahead like you say, or is an error. Errors are not impossible in the Book of Mormon, either by the original writers or in the translation/transcription/typesetting process. But maybe we should just leave the date out to avoid controversy? Or put in the whole dilemma: "it seems clear da da da, however 53:23 does seem to contradict, etc." Novel-Technology 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, upon examining the chapter, it makes perfect sense. The main narative is the eastern war, which has been going along since Ch. 51 essentially in order, and it's up to year 28 (52:19) and most of 53 is following that same narrative, occuring in 28 RJ, then the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis from 53:10-22 is a "oh, by the way" sidenote/flashback. Then in 53:23 and 54:1 we get back on track with the main storyline. Verse 23 would probably actually make more sense merged into Chapter 54 verse 1 (the chapter divisions were not in the original, and are not claimed to be inspired in any way, and have changed over the years). Novel-Technology 02:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should leave the date as 26 RJ, as it directly specifies. There is room for interpretation in the other instance, so we should probably leave that reference out. uriah923(talk) 03:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I plan to expand the 2000 warriors article this weekend with a synopsis of the battles.

I'm going to see if I can't round up some image. Maybe some artist is willing to sign over his work for the wiki. Novel-Technology 07:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uh...

Uhhh, that's cool and all that you can link to wikisource, but don't you think from a practical point of view it was way better to link to the version on the LDS web site? These references are from Alma, a very long book, and the *WHOOOOOOLLE BOOOOK* must load every time you click on a footnote (or atleast once, depending how smart your browser is, which most aren't.) The www.lds.org links, on the the other hand, loaded only the chapter in question. Remember the dial-up users! Novel-Technology 18:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm down with either way. I know that WP policy encourages inter-wiki links, but I also see your point. uriah923(talk) 22:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be bad to put both? So maybe each link could point to LDS.org, but then be followed by a parenthesis wikisource. Like:

Ibid., Alma 30:6 (Alma 30:6 on wikisource)

Novel-Technology 05:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why that would hurt anything if you want to do it. uriah923(talk) 03:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Helaman has failed, for the following reason:

This article is written from the LDS point of view and does not take into account views of non-Mormon scholarship, which does not view this figure as historical. See Book of Mormon, which shows how an NPOV on a subject like this can be achieved. In addition, scholarship other than the Book of Mormon is not cited, even from LDS sources, nor authorities within or without the Mormon Church--CTSWyneken(talk) 02:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)