User talk:Kovesh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Original Research

Kovesh, I have noticed that a large portion of your edits on the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon are Original Research or Synthesis - please read the Wikipedia policy WP:OR to make sure you are in line with standard practice on the wikipedia. Once I get some time I plan on looking through all of your references - anything that qualifies as Original Research will be deleted. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As you have noticed, I have been supplying references and commentary as needed, to every instance called out as “original research”. Let’s take one at time. What specifically is your current concern?

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incongruent

I am not sure I agree with your recent comment on the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon talk page. Everything I have read points to the Mesoamerican setting as the most commonly accepted one. See the quote below from the Limited geography model (Book of Mormon) article.

"Based on extensive textual analysis and comparison of the Book of Mormon limited geography model to existing geographical regions, time-lines and cultures, the majority of LDS scholars now agree that the Book of Mormon geography is centered in Mesoamerica around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, in the area of current day Guatemala and the southern Mexico States of Tabasco, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Veracruz, and the surrounding area" (Sorenson, John L (1985), An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book and The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies - pg. 35 and 36).

--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be the most commonly accepted setting for now. It probably wasn't the most commonly accepted in the past. Will it be in the future? Please understand that I cannot go on all that you have read. Are you planning to conduct a poll? Here is a questions to ask a large LDS population: Is the United States in the Promised Land of the Book of Mormon? How do you think most LDS will answer that question?

Kovesh (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phyllis Carol Olive

From a quick review of the article Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, it appears that all of the references to the Great Lakes theory seem to originate from Phyllis Carol Olive. After looking into her background, it does not appear that she has any archaeological training. Is there anyone else that advocates the Great Lakes theory? --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Descartes,

Olive is certainly not the only one to propose a Great Lakes setting for the Book of Mormon. I can name at least three other authors. The biggest problem you will run up against here is of course Joseph Smith. Do you want to find the origin of a Finger Lakes / Great Lakes setting for at least one Book of Mormon land? Start with the Doctrine and Covenants.

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in your arguments and original research Kovesh, I am interested in making the article accurately reflect current research on the subject. Perhaps you can cite an established archaeologist or anthropoligist that advocates this view? If indeed it is as common sense as you say it is, then perhaps a BYU or FARMS PhD has written a paper on this right? That is all I am looking for. I don't think we should quote any old LDS enthusiast who has written a book - there are a lot of people with no training that have written about such things, who conveniently ignore evidence that opposes or refutes their hypotheses. Established scientists are much more balanced and are more likely to arrive at the truth. That is why Wikipedia has a no original research policy, and looks for cites from third parties and established authorities to back up the facts in their articles. Who are these other authors you are citing? Are they archaeologists? If not, why should I care what they think? --Descartes1979 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)