Talk:Nephite

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)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Neutrality dispute

The characterization of a dispute of forest/trees is meaningless to me. Documentation of the alleged statues and legends of white people are absolutely necessary if this article is to be taken seriously. 69.51.153.203 21:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is neutrality disputed?209.181.147.213 22:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Since this question has been here since 5 April, over six months, with no answer, I'm removing the "neutrality dispute" tag. Val42 03:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is ridiculous for Wikipedia and reads like it belongs in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Folks, this article is consumed with minority views on the subject of Nephites. The world's community of non-Mormon scholars universally contend that Nephites never existed outside of the imagination of Joseph Smith. For a Wikipedia article, the bulk of this article should in the majority be about this majority view. As it is now, it is written to be "faith promoting". I am placing the NPOV tag back into this. CyberAnth 17:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you were more specific. Or you could make the fixes yourself. Otherwise, after an amount of time, the NPOV tag will be removed for the very same reason that I removed it before. Val42 17:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article comes up from time to time. If you wish to discuss this topic, the current discussion is taking place in the topic "Strange thing to say" later on this discussion page. Val42 21:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Shouldn't all the discussion of the historicity of the Nephites be better placed in an article on the historicity of the Book of Mormon? This is an issue common to many subjects in the Book of Mormon Mrmcgibby 18:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that it is done too often with Book-of-Mormon-related topics, I think the historicity discussion is relevant to this article because the Book of Mormon is the record of the Nephites. I don't think the discussion should make up the bulk of the article as it does now, but it does bring up some interesting points about Quetzalcoatl and the pochteca, the latter of which I had never heard of before.
To me, it wouldn't seem so POV if we added more to the article about the Nephite nation (which I think we should). For example, a lot could be included about their systems of government (King Nephi and his successors, the Reign of the Judges, kingmen, freemen, etc.), their wars with the Lamanites, the culture of their lawyers, even their money system... I am surprised that so little has been written about the history of this people (not pointing fingers here, just would like to make this my next project maybe). In short, if we include all of that, the archeological dispute, which I think is relevant, won't be so "in our faces" for LDS members. Matatigre36 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
For the most part I agree. I think that a link to more detailed discussion of the topic would at least be warranted for those who are interested. Mrmcgibby 15:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Matatigre36, I put in a section called "Nephite society," covering government, laws, maney, and calendars. I agree that it will make the historicity discussion not seem so prominent. I hope others add to that section. I'd like to do the same for the Lamanites, but that article seems to be organized in a completely different way. It's more about the significance of Lamanites today than about their society in ancient times. (BTW, the history page doesn't show my name for the addition of "Nephite society" because my computer had logged me out by the time I finished writing it.) Nathan000000 11:53, 11 Aug. 2006 (MST)

The neutrality of this article comes up from time to time. If you wish to discuss this topic, the current discussion is taking place in the topic "Strange thing to say" later on this discussion page. Val42 21:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Destruction of the Nephites

I changed the article to indicate that the Lamanites destroyed the Nephites in 385 AD instead of "circa 421 AD." I realize that Moroni and other Nephites were still alive after the great battle recorded in Mormon 6, but the Nephite nation was already destroyed. Mormon begins chapter six by stating, "And now I finish my record concerning the destruction of my people, the Nephites," and then goes on to describe the tremendous final battle at Cumorah. Also, in 401 AD Moroni writes that he was alone (Mormon 8:3); all of the other 'survivors' of the battle had been killed off or absorbed by the Lamanites after "deny[ing] the Christ" (see Moroni 1:2). In other words, the Nephites were destroyed in the battle of 385 because they could not have recovered as a people (or even be considered a people) after that. Please let me know if you disagree with my assessment of the destruction of the Nephites. Cheers! Matatigre36 04:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, you are killing me! Next time try using the words "allegedly", "porportedly" and "according to the book of mormon" :-). Aside from that, thanks for the corrections. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usages

I added the four usages to the article. I think that the terms "Nephite" and "Lamanite" have suffered from oversimplification among both LDS and non-LDS readers of the Book of Mormon. Hopefully my additions will clear things up a bit. Also, it may lessen the need for the archeological and NPOV sections of the article.--Cassmus 10:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

What does everyone think of merging this article wi the Lamanite one? To me it seems like you can't understand one without the other.--Cassmus 10:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Although it may be true that "you can't understand one without the other," that argument could hold true for almost any two nations or groups of people that have extensive interaction with one another. There is a lot that binds these two, but there is also a lot that sets them apart from each other. I say we keep them separate. Matatigre36 01:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Merging with Lamanite would require a completely new article name. Nephites and Lamanites seems to imply an article only about the relationship between the two people. Each group does stand on its own to some extent. A prominent link to Lamanite is a no brainer, but merging doesn't make sense. Mrmcgibby 04:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Each merits its own article. Those who seek a merge could, instead, produced a combined article referencing the individual articles. Not sure, though, what the combined article would add to the body of wisdom. The Editrix 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The consensus is obviously not on my side, so I'm removing the merge tags from both articles.--Cassmus 02:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange thing to say

they "fell into wickedness"

really? well, I don't think that is a very encyclopedic thing to say--82.26.87.194 15:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a quotation from the Book of Mormon. Isn't quoting a primary source (in proper context) encyclopedic? Val42 17:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


I would say yes were the primary source material in question regarded as a scholarly text. There are very few respected scholars who would consider the Book of Mormon scholarly.

Reading the article the main issue is that the tone treats the Book of Mormon claims as historic, despite the fact that this is the only record of the group. Were it revised to state "According to the Book of Mormon" when making claims, it would go a long way to addressing the neutrality. Without that disclaimer the article is, frankly, extremely biased. Jmcachran 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in question reads, "The book describes the Nephites as an initially righteous people, who eventually fell into wickedness and were utterly destroyed by their rivals the Lamanites circa A.D. 385.[3]" Since this paragraph begins with "In the Book of Mormon," in this context "The book" is refering to this previously-referenced book. Since this was in the article since at least the last edit on December 4th (before your comment), are these disclaimers acceptable, or do you want your exact wording?
Also, each level 1 section ("Various usages" and "Nephite society") begins with "The Book of Mormon" and "While the Book of Mormon" (respectively), and the statements are clearly references to the Book of Mormon, what else needs to be done to remove the neutrality tag? Please be specific. Val42 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Under the "Archeological Disputes" section, it says that "...images of the pochteca (a merchant group often depicted with beards, having the face structure of Caucasians)..." The article on the pochteca doesn't mention Nephites, or even the LDS Church. The tlatlani, a subgroup of pochteca, helped prepare slaves and captives for human sacrifice. Also, if the Nephites came from the general area of Israel (except Iran), they would be Semites, not Caucasians. 69.119.98.236 18:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it has been almost a month with only the one objection to removing the POV tag. So I removed this text mentioned and also removed the POV tag. Remember, it is Wikipedia policy that if an article is mentioned as POV, the reason(s) for adding the tag must be added to the article's talk page. So, if the POV tag goes back up without saying why it was put back on this page, I will remove it. Val42 05:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the last line of the introductory paragraph. Basically it said "studies have proven no genetic link between Native Americans and Israelites". Generally speaking, science doesn't "prove negatives". I think it is more scientifically accurate to say that no links have been discovered. It's a subtle but logically critical difference. 128.143.171.188 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)James Mitchell, 27 April2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.171.188 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compelling Archaeology

For some time I have watched the word compelling repeatedly added and removed from the 2nd sentence in the Archaeology section. Because this sentence is supposed to represent the opinion of most (or mainstream or non-LDS) archaeologists, the wording should reflect that of a cited source. Unfortunately, no one has cited any source for this. Someone please cite a source so that we can settle this one way or another.Plazak 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any mainstream archeological studies that attempt to delve into the existence or otherwise of the Nephites, for the simple reason that the overwhelming majority of archaeologists and historians regard them to be an entirely fictional creation of Joseph Smith. Surely it is sufficient to note the complete absence of mainstream support for the Nephite story proposed by the LDS? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)