Talk:Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 14, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] POV tag added

I added a POV tag. To get it removed, the article needs to come up to Wikipedia neutrality standards. Specifically:

  • Need better balance between mainstream scholarship vs. LDS scholarship views (at the moment, latter is too heavy)
  • Needs an explicit discussion of how/why linguistics is important: namely, because it could provide strong evidence that J. Smith did or did not fabricate the BoM
  • Needs to disclose that all the cited scholars that support the divine origin of the BoM are LDS-funded.
  • A named section outlining the views of mainstream scholars on this topic
  • Needs more explicit discussion of linguistic aspects of the BoM that suggest that it was written by mortal, not divine sources
  • Needs more explanation of _why_ certain linguistic analyses are significant. Exergasia, etc are simply discussed with no explanation of why it is significant. Gives the appearance of legitimacy by overwhelming the reader with lots of big words.
  • Although there is already an article on BoM and KJV, there needs to be a paragraph or 2 in _this_ article summarizing the issues of why the KJV stuff is used by skeptics to argue that the BoM was not divinely inspired.
Noleander (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't you mean whether the scholars that support the divine origin are LDS-funded? Not that they are. In a topic of such interest to all sorts of individuals, it would seem implausible to presume as a default that all viewpoints that would agree in such a way would be through research funded by the church. It almost smacks of conspiracy theory. True, from a NPOV, this article perhaps needs balance. But to presume what you have just said would be a strong imbalance, and it would be on the burden of the editor making such a claim to provide sources for each scholar that state whether or not their research is LDS-funded. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
One small NPOV item, "mainstream scholars" in the lead paragraph needs to either be cited or changed to "non-LDS scholars." Many LDS scholars are also "mainstream" unless you are going to provide a qualifying standard for "mainstream." If you are not going to define "mainstream" then there should be a citation for "mainstream scholars" from among non-LDS scholars that shows this lack of support mentioned. For balance, those non-LDS scholars cited should have at least similar credentials in Egyptology, Mesoamerican archeology, linguistics, etc. as their LDS counterparts. As it now stands "mainstream" in the context of this article (and your note) meets the criteria for a weasel word Jbh001 (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarized material

I've just removed a large amount of material plagiarized from [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. At most, a few words were moved around or inserted, but most of the time not even that. Sheesh. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is pure anti-mormon bias, this is no plagiarism, we just need sources because wikipedia does not consider original research.84.146.201.29 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the idea here is that you are quoting things word for word without giving the credit. If you can include quotes and summarize what you are referencing, then it would be more acceptable. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You also have to realize that a lot of the research by FARMS and the Maxwell Institute are disputed by mainstream scholars. As such, when you quote them (IMO), you should preface it by saying: "FARMS asserts that..." or "Mormon Apologists say...". I also don't buy your idea that this article is "pure anti-mormon bias". --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You lifted entire chunks of texts from these websites and dumped them in the article with minimal editing. Of course it's plagiarism. Also, even if you did rewrite the passages, they wouldn't be notable enough for reinsertion. Currently, the article checks things that have been widely discussed and debated, like chiasmus and wordprint analysis. That's notable. If you want to add a link to the book as a source, that's fine (it may even already be in there; I haven't checked), but this is not the place to list every single argument one author comes up with. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is that I add the "Mormon Apologists say..." quote and put all statements in the quote format.84.146.206.45 (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Which still doesn't make any of this notable. Both Pinnock and Parry are in the notes and references sections already. We don't have to quote large amounts of their books. Just focus on the big issues, and leave the minutiae for the ones wanting to learn more on their own. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non scholarly source?

I don't believe that this is a valid source - it appears to be a personal website. We can't cite Wikipedia articles using things that we get from "the creator of one website..."

The creator of one website identified chiasmus and parallelism in nearly every section of the D&C from section 1 to section 41." cited to http://www.donwinegar.com. Bochica (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suppression of Facts, introduction of anti-LDS POV

What this merger has amounted to is the suppression of several facts and their sources, and their replacement with a plethora of polemical arguments with a strong anti-LDS Point of View. The arguments furthermore do not make sense. What does it mean, "the possibility of a unity of religious thought"? Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What facts have we suppressed Das? The sourced article from Dialogue is an independent and well documented scholarly article, perhaps you should read it if you don't know what a "unity of religious thought" means. I think it adds a great deal of balance to the information, rather than portraying Nibley's claims as facts themselves, when in reality they are his opinions. There are no facts that were suppressed - if there are let me know what they are, and we can get them into the article. I guess what I am saying is that I couldn't disagree with you more Das - the merger was a good move, supported by several very pro-LDS people, and I don't see the anti-LDS POV that you are alluding to - the relevant sections appear very NPOV to me. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, they appear very anti-LDS to me. The worst thing, however, is that so many facts have been suppressed.Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again I ask, what facts? There are no facts, they are all opinions. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nibley's Sources

Sources for Egyptian Names in Nibley's Lehi in the Desert.

  • Die Agyptischen Personnennamen, Hermann Ranke, 1935. Gluckstadt; Augustin.
  • Dictionnaire de noms hieroglyphiques, Jens D. C. Lieblein, 1871. Crhistiania; Broger and Christie.
  • The Amarna Letters.

Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, I am challenging the information from these sources - can you give us some quotes and page numbers? --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You may want to challenge this article as well, then: Haman (Islam) --TrustTruth (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No TrustTruth - what I am challenging is that Nibley said that the Egyptian name pairs were exact matches, something that Das keeps claiming, but can't seem to provide a reference other than the name of Nibley's book. I have no beef with Hermann Ranke. Per WP guidelines a page number or quotation is appropriate in this case. Frankly, I don't believe that Nibley is claiming that, but I can't check the reference because he won't give one. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't going to Nibley's book clear up the confusion then? Wouldn't anything else be original research? --TrustTruth (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
EXACTLY. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither I nor Dr. Nibley ever said that all the names are exact matches, only that a few of them are. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian Names Merge Proposal

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was Merge with one dissenter. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose we merge Egyptian Names in the Book of Mormon with the Egyptian names section of this article. They are treating exactly the same topic.

  • Merge --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge. Please do not merge. There is absolutely no need to do so. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs)
    • The comment is not "unsigned." It is properly signed. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Das - that last comment was added by a bot, not by any user - you should sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically post your name and links to your talk page. --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you explain your reasoning Das? Because this seems like a strong case for merging. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • There is no case for merging, except a desire to suppress facts. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Please Das, I am not the enemy here, I am just trying to make the content on the Wikipedia more relevant, useful, and accessible. --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Another thought - there is no article called Hebrew names in the Book of Mormon or Greek names in the Book of Mormon, although there are parallels with those languages too. All of that material is summarized and treated in Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, those articles should exist too. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you are wrong Das - those articles would end up being merged here if they were independent articles. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and cut the list. Keep a few examples, but not that many. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No, it is wrong to suppress facts. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Given that we'll name the author, his book, his arguments and a few examples, it hardly qualifies as suppression. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very important matter, and to merge it diminishes it. It is a disservice to knowledge and to scholarship to shorten the list. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Can you explain why it is an important matter? I am not sure I agree with you.--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To want to go from an extensive treatment to just "a few examples" seems to me very wrong and the very opposite of useful. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge - Mild support. The list can be shortened, but it should be kept for those names that a layman would recognize as similar. The current Egyptian article does not yet have enough information to merit a separate article. However, if it can be properly expanded, then it should have its own article in the future.--Storm Rider (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I concur, names like Paanchi and Pahoran are the ones that immediately come to mind and should remain. I really don't think this topic will ever need an own article, but who knows... Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with both of you, this was my intent from the beginning, I should have explained a little better. --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears we aren't getting a ton of interest in this subject, but there is a clear leaning towards "merge", with one dissenting opinion. Since the merge votes are coming from a cross section of users with backgrounds inside and outside of Mormonism, I am considering the one dissenting opinion as an anomaly, and will start the merge this weekend according to the agreed upon guidelines. If there are still strong dissenters, please let me know and please give a reason why they shouldn't be merged. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Linguistics used as criticism

If I remember correctly, B. H. Roberts found several problems with the Book of Mormon on linguistic grounds that he detailed in Studies of the Book of Mormon. Also, Richard Packham, the noted linguist and critic of the church wrote a lengthy article detailing the linguistic problems with the Book of Mormon at this website: http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm. Both are notable enough that I think they should be included in this article - I will try to work on these little by little as I get time, but would appreciate some help. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] -ihah merge

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merging to Linguistics and the Book of Mormon - see comment below. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we merge the article -ihah to the section in this article about Linguistics and the Book of Mormon#Hebrew names. If you read the -ihah article, the crux of the whole thing is that it is based on the Tetragrammaton. Other than that, and a list of names, there isn't much else in the article. It is doubtful it will ever have any other content in it. A few sentences of summary would be a nice fit here in the Linguistics article.

No response for two weeks, and this seems cut and dried - I going to "be bold" and merge. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.