Talk:Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

Summary Statement

Routerone, you're not going to succeed in removing critical comments about Smith from this article. This isn't a missionary or evangelical tract. There are criticisms of the Book of Mormon's English text and of Smith's account of its origin. Critics think he's a fraud. You can't remove that fact from this article and make it sound like all the science points to the BOM text being what it claims to be. The text you keep removing is a summary of the criticisms that are listed in greater detail below. Prove that to be wrong if you think removing the statement is warranted. It's not synthesis of outside work, it's a summary of what follows. (Taivo (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

It is not a "summary of the criticisms", what that is is a biased declarative having a knock at the Book and trying to make it look like what the actuals are saying is "actual fact" rather than just disputed claims (which is the true picture), it tries to say "Smith's imperfect command of Early Modern English grammar, his failure to understand the various linguistic layers (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin) of biblical lexicography, and textual anachronisms" which is automatically assuming that he wrote it and that the critics are automatically correct in everything they say, which is again disagreed with and has been completely dissproven by mormon apologists, but you present it as fact! What sort of tyranny is that? If I am not mistaken that is poorly sourced, manipulative and POV pushing to the hilt. Plus you cited a youtube video to try and justify your statement... and wikipedia states officially that youtube is not a reliable source. Routerone (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

First, the YouTube video is a video presentation of the written source which is also cited. Second, there is nothing stated in that summary which is not detailed in the rest of the article under critical issues. You have presented no credible reason to delete this summary other than "I don't like it--it paints Smith in a bad light". The critics DO paint Smith in a bad light. That is the fact of the matter. (Taivo (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

Ahem, youtube is still not a reliable source, if you have an issue find the written source. Plus, just because that "summary" outlines the rest of the articles does not mean it is correct. What it means, is that there are problems within the whole article. I am removing that information because quite obviously it is flawed, and you're adding a + b to assume a view is correct with your own conclusions, the statement automatically assumes Smith was wrong, when the issue is very much debated. Hence you are excluding the LDS view, and you are excluding the fact that LDS scholars managed to find counter arguments against most of the "linguistic evidence against" the Book. This article is in a terrible state, and I will not allow such a rancid and off topic attack on the church to be endorsed through this website. Just because they are "critical" does not mean they are right, as described by John Stewart Mill; the tyranny of the majority. There is a reason why those tags are on this page, and its because of your disastrous and manipulative editing towards it! Routerone (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are pushing your POV because you want to exclude the critical POV from this page and turn it into a review of FARMS work to prove the BOM. BOTH POVs must be presented equally and fairly. You have done nothing to balance the article. If you think that the wording I've placed there is too much, then present an alternate wording (as I have done on many occasions) rather than just deleting what you see as being against your Mormon POV. (Taivo (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

This is FAR from a "rancid attack on the church". Indeed, it is still HEAVILY pro-Mormon POV in its text. It presents FARMS' linguistic drivel as proven fact. (Taivo (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

So its ok for this article to be too critical, but not too apologetical? I find that quite tedious, for if I try and add apologetical information in then you will remove it (as you did with Canadianlady1) saying it makes the article into an "essay", so you're basically saying its best off as a one sided attack? Right? and how is that justified? I don't accept that, and that for me is "unbalanced", and pretty much "drivel". The fact you also said FARMS is "drivel" is incredibly offensive and sums up your prejudice, yet everything the critics say are "right"?. The thing is I will not "suggest" an alternative wording, because the critical opinion on the book of mormon is already stated in the lead paragraph, so why make it even worse by adding a viewpoint which is trying to say "its established fact he wrote it" and then citing a youtube video to support it (and youtube is officially not allowed as a soure on wikipedia). The article is not "bias" towards Mormons, its incredibly critical and I am balancing the article from being an attack to something actually worth being called an "article". Routerone (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You are too sensitive and probably shouldn't be editing an article to which you are so emotionally tied. I'm not certain what edit of Canadianlady1's you're referring to, but the critical thing which I look at (and I have not edited the whole article) is whether a particular addition is succinctly written in a NPOV style. Excessive quotes are unwarranted per Wikipedia policy. Summary statements are preferred without every little detail being aired. If a person wants the details they should consult the references. Just because you disagree with the critics doesn't mean that a summary of their conclusion is POV. The same goes for apologetical statements. This article was HIGHLY apologetical in its origin. Indeed, its life began as a missionary tract pushing the chiasmus stuff. You can still see that in sections where I haven't revised it down. There are sections where there is no published critical material (Native American names, for example), so the only thing mentioned is the apologetic thing. Personally, I think the premise of the entire article is unwarranted digging into trivia and I have proposed deleting it on a previous occasion. But as long as it's here it needs BOTH the apologetic and critical voices. (Taivo (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

English Errors

I added a quote from the Tanakh that shows the same kind of "inexplicable switch" in personal pronoun as is common in the BOM. The material was deleted without any discussion and with the comment that the article is about the "BOM not the KJV". But Tavio who deleted the material appears to misunderstand the issue. The pronoun switch is from the Hebrew Tanakh- not the KJV independently, the KJV is simply the translation of the text. I could provide the Hebrew text here but without an English translation it would be of little utility.

It seems self-evident to me that if the article is making the case that the BOM is unique in its switching pronouns, the reality that this also occurs in semitic texts is relevant to the discussion. — Mavasher (talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please Discuss: Tavio again changed the article without discussion and the following comment: "See Talk Page ad infinitum. This is not a debate, it is an exposition of positions no matter what you personally feel about them. Keep the argumentation for your tract."

1: I think you misunderstand the position and unfortunately how I "personally feel about them." I think the section on English errors is appropriate- there are many more examples of English errors in the current and previous editions of the Book of Mormon. The examples cited are fine, there are probably better examples to draw from.

2: Eliminating relevant material from the article simply because you individually do not like it is not appropriate. Please keep neutral POV.

3: Showing grammatical inconsistency in the text and texts Joseph Smith had access to is relevant to the topic.

4: I fail to see how the information you deleted could be used in any sort of "tract". Perhaps you can clarify what it is that you mean.

5: I completely agree that this is not a debate. I somewhat disagree that it is "an exposition of positions"- the article ought to present unbiased information that is relevant to the topic in an encyclopedic manner. Mavasher (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If the article is an "exposition of positions", then shouldn't this relevant and comparable position be mentioned? I don't see why Tavio is removing the material, aside from perhaps its slight flavor of original research, though this is not mentioned explicitly in his reasoning. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Tavio" has done absolutely no editing on this article. Please take two seconds to spell other editors' names correctly. The deleted material was not about the Book of Mormon (BOM). It is more appropriately placed in another article if it is an issue there. The function of this article is to present the linguistic views of apologists and critics of the BOM text without getting into an argument/counterargument/counter-counterargument/etc. format like a tract would. The section in question presents the referenced issues that one set of critics have with the BOM. If there is a referenced counter-argument, then it would be appropriate, but the material that was added was not referenced. The section in question appears to be original research, which is not appropriate to Wikipedia anyway. This is a highly controversial article on the best of days, so it's always good to present material here on the Talk Page first and then add it to the article only after forming a consensus about its relevance and usefulness. --Taivo (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I apologize for the misspelling of your name. I agree with a lot of what you have written in the talk page- for instance I'm not quite understanding the importance of the article in toto. I would also recommend for its deletion. However I remain in disagreement on some of your claims. The deleted material indeed was not a quote from the Book of Mormon, but I still stand by the position that grammatical inconsistency in the text and the texts available to Joseph Smith is relevant to the topic if we are going to address this issue at all. The whole article as it currently stands is argument/counterargument. I don't necessarily see the material from the Tanakh as being a "counterargument"- perhaps you can explain that- and explain why this disqualifies the text from inclusion. Now on the new issue you have about lack of references, they would be pretty easy to show- the quote is essentially self-referencing. But appropriate sources can be found here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=6&v=14&t=KJV#conc/14 and here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=6&v=14&t=KJV#conc/15 Mavasher (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Taivo, I keep getting your name wrong. Upon further inspection, the entire section is weakly sourced only to one Richard Packham. According to his 'about me' page he is "a retired college teacher (foreign languages) and retired attorney". While his teaching of foreign languages may give him some credibility in the way of linguistics, this self-published webpage is hardly a reliable source. I propose we delete the whole section unless we find some more linguists that agree with Packham's assessment. Preferably, linguists that have published on this topic in peer-reviewed journals.

You may be wondering, "why does B Fizz restore an unsourced chunk of counteragrument, and then turn around and ask to remove an entire section that at least has a source?" The reason is this, WP:V "requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source" (emphasis in original). The importance of including this section is challenged. If by no one else then by me, for the reasons stated above. However, if the section stands, I don't see the grounds for challenging the presence of the KJV comparison. Even Packham based his argument around the fact that they were similar.

I'm tired of hearing that inclusion of apologetic counterarguments equates to making the article a 'religious tract'. Could it not be just as likely that continually excluding such content is an attempt to create a counter-religious tract?

I repeat my conclusion that we scrap the section, which is based loosely and solely on a self-published website. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with scrapping the section. When dealing with subject matter such as this, we are dealing with a catalogue of arguments that exist, not facts that need verification, such as the boiling point of sulfur. As a catalogue, the requirements of "peer-reviewed journal" are not appropriate. The criticism of Packham exists as evidenced by the existence of his website. We are not judging the correctness of his POV, but only of its existence. If we were judging its correctness, then the normal requirements of verifiability would, of course, apply. But the criticism exists, and we can verify its existence by the website, so it is listed here. If Packham were to remove his website, then the criticism would perhaps no longer exist, so the section of the article could be removed. But since it exists, it is properly listed as one of the linguistic criticisms of the BOM. The only way that your comment about challenging applies here is if you have a source that says Packham's argument doesn't exist. Otherwise its existence is clearly and undeniably evidenced by its existence on the website. If your request for peer-reviewed NPOV journals were met, then this entire article would cease to exist since all the "linguistic research" that is pro-LDS is not peer-reviewed except by other LDS authors. LDS sources can appear to be scholarly and academic because they appear in "peer-reviewed" journals. But that peer review does not consist of normal NPOV peer review, but of peer review only within the LDS community. That hardly qualifies as "peer-review" in the academic sense.

The argument/counter-argument format is unavoidable in an article of this type, but we must be careful in the way these are presented. If we get into an argument/counter-argument/counter-counter-argument/counter-counter-counter-argument format, then we have moved into the position of "proving" or "disproving" the BOM in a tract format with the last poster being the "winner". This isn't a debate. Ideally, each section (whether pro or con) consists of an argument properly referenced and a counter-argument properly referenced--no more. But we must be careful that the counter-arguments are not original research. There must be a reference to either an apologetic or a critical work that makes that counter-argument. I'm sure that you agree that "but the KJV also shows X" is original research. If, however, the sentence was "Y has argued that the KJV also shows Z" (with reference), that is not original research and would be acceptable. It's a very careful balancing act to keep the article readable, maintain NPOV, and avoid OR. --Taivo (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Taivo, I appreciate your careful and calm explanation. I do agree with your statements on OR, and even agree with the technical refutation of my WP:V argument. You've stated before that "it's always good to present material here on the Talk Page first and then add it to the article only after forming a consensus about its relevance and usefulness." I challenge the relevance and usefulness of Packham's argument on this article; we need not catalog all points of view regarding the matter, only the significant ones. The policy I should have cited is WP:UNDUE, which explains why I feel it superfluous to include his argument here: there are no big whigs to back him up on the importance of this concept. LDS "peer-review" at least formally involves a review conducted by peers, biased though it may be. A self-published website requires no formal review: hence my hesitancy to accept Packham's site as enough basis to include his argument in the article. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I referenced a biblical commentary. Hope this makes everyone happy. Mavasher (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

While I feel your addition is relevant to Packham's argument, I don't feel Packham's argument is relevant to this article and stand by my proposal to remove the section. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Mavisher, you did not reference a work that says, "The argument that the Book of Mormon contains Early Modern English errors is not correct because the KJV also contains pronoun errors". All you've done is show your own research, not someone else's. It's still original research on your part at this point and not appropriate.
• BFizz, if you're going to get into the WP:UNDUE issue then this whole article needs to go away. I'm not just joking around about the lightweight, fluffy nature of this whole issue. It is all WP:FRINGE because the pro-LDS arguments are not mainstream linguistics and have not occurred in any mainstream linguistics publications. We've (not necessarily you, but I've had this same discussion with others here and elsewhere) had this discussion many times. The issue of "supporting" the BOM with "scientific" or "historical" evidence is entirely fringe because it 1) does not occur in mainstream literature, 2) is not accepted by the mainstream fields of science or history, 3) is pushed by a group with a single POV. I have proposed deleting this article in the past and would be happy to do so again. If you're going to push to cherry-pick among the arguments you want presented here, then the whole house of cards needs to be eliminated. Packham's website exists. Packham's website presents a linguistic criticism of the BOM. This is a catalogue of linguistic arguments for and against the BOM. Packham's argument is a valid criticism to list here since it exists. That doesn't say its content is valid or not, it only says it is valid to list because it exists. WP:UNDUE does not apply in these catalogues. It applies in articles which are summaries of knowledge. This is not a summary of knowledge, but a listing of anything related to linguistics and the Book of Mormon. --Taivo (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This article has been stable for a fair amount of time with the current structure. That means that if you want to make changes you need to get a consensus first before changing anything. --Taivo (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, please read the reference before you remove the material. You are making an argument that I did not make. Richard Nelson says that " A puzzle [sic] feature of Deuteronomy is its alteration between second-person singular and plural address. The plural portions often seem to be somewhat later than the singular portions, but there is no completely satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon" (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 209). I did not make the argument that "The argument that the Book of Mormon contains Early Modern English errors is not correct because the KJV also contains pronoun errors". It appears that you are inappropriately concerned that the reader will make such as a conclusion from Nelson's argument. Please stay with neutral POV. Again, please read a little of the material before you come to a conclusion. I am including Nelson's argument, it is accurate, relevant to the material, better sourced that Packham's argument. There is no logical reason to remove my text if Packham's material can be included. By the way, the handle is Mavasher. I'm sorry but I just do not think you are currently acting in good faith. Mavasher (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, I would have an easier time swallowing the "get consensus first before changing the status quo" argument if it appeared that anyone but you had been consistently editing this article for the past year. What you say basically equates to "it has to get by me first", which flies in the face of the wiki idea that "anyone can edit".

Taivo has noted that LDS apologetic attempts at "proving" the Book of Mormon is true by literary means 1) does not occur in mainstream literature, 2) is not accepted by the mainstream fields of science or history, and 3) is pushed by a group with a single POV. However, within the scope of LDS apologetics, it 1) does appear in mainstream LDS literature, 2) is accepted by mainstream LDS scientists/historians. Packham's argument, on the other hand, in the scope of LDS critics, 1) does not appear in mainstream critical literature, and 2) is not accepted by the mainstream fields of science/history. I have no problem including arguments from mainstream critical literature on this topic, as I have no problem including arguments from mainstream apologetics. Packham's website is neither. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, Mavasher. You don't understand the issue. You have correctly cited Nelson's research, that's not the issue. The issue is 1) Nelson was not talking about the Book of Mormon or the argument that Smith didn't know how to use pronouns in Early Modern English; and 2) Nelson's statement is not clearly and directly related to Smith's pronominal usage because you have said it only relates to the book of Deuteronomy. The original research part is that you are applying Nelson's research to a context which Nelson did not intend. Nelson was only talking about the book of Deuteronomy. Packham is talking about the Book of Mormon. They are different things, so Nelson's quote does not apply to the BOM, only to the book of Deuteronomy. Nelson's comment may apply to Deuteronomy, but not here since he was not talking about the Book of Mormon. --Taivo (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

B Fizz, this article was not written by me and I was not even the principal author of this section. It is stable. You don't understand the principle of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to an article. It follows the principle of WP:BRD: 1) be Bold (you were), 2) Revert (I did because I disagree), 3) Discuss (that's what we do now before you make the change again). If you want other input on the issue then ask for comments through WP:RFC. But you don't have the right to change a stable article unilaterally without building a consensus. You need to read WP:CONSENSUS. You have no consensus to make the change. There are ways to get more input, so use them. --Taivo (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added another reference relevant to the Early Modern English issue from American Anthropologist (about as mainstream a peer-reviewed journal as there is). So that strips the WP:UNDUE argument for deleting this section. --Taivo (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you got a legitimate mainstream reference for this. The publication is online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/658645?seq=8, and the grammatical criticism starts at the bottom of the page linked; you might want to include the link in the citation, and specify the pages of interest. I still feel the section is undue but can no longer support my editorial opinion with WP policy and so will let the matter of deleting the section rest. In the event that the section stays, which it appears that it will, I support Mavasher's addition. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Mavasher's revision is that the application of a quote relevant to the book of Deuteronomy to the Book of Mormon is original research and inappropriate. Nelson (Mavasher's authority) says that some passages in Deuteronomy have an interesting pronominal sequence in Hebrew. He's talking only about Deuteronomy and Hebrew and not at all about Early Modern English and the Book of Mormon. As original research, Mavasher's addition is not appropriate per Wikipedia policy. The problem with adding the link to the Pierce article is that it is not accessible except to users who have Jstor access. I tend to dislike links that only some users can use. Users who have Jstor access will know how to access the article with the citation given. --Taivo (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to support Mavasher's addition while upholding wikipedia policy. It is a very clear example of synthesis and Original research - he has two sources making two separate claims and he is holding them together to make a new argument. This is not ok in this encyclopedia. IF Mavasher can find a reliable source that supports his conclusion then it can be included but not before - no matter how many people support the inclusion, because it is against the basic rules of wikipedia.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other. The conversation is good but I feel you're arguing against a straw man. The conclusions that I supposedly draw I have not drawn. I did not make any of the arguments that it appears you think I made. I am not connecting Nelson's information with the Book of Mormon. The original text in this discussion should make it clear that 1) The biblical text does a weird pronoun thing like Nelson says 2) This is relevant. Apart from this I have made no conclusions, no edits to the text ever said anything more. The data are what they are. They do not independently point toward a conclusion. What precisely is the Original Research here? The information in question does not say that ""The argument that the Book of Mormon contains Early Modern English errors is not correct because the KJV also contains pronoun errors" as Taivo contends nor does it say that "it is possible Joseph Smith copied/was influenced by such a weird pronoun thing" Neither of those conclusions can be definitively drawn. The data are what they are. The absence of a conclusion is not a good reason to censor the data. I'm repeating myself but this still isn't getting through- I am not drawing a conclusion between Nelson's words and Packham's. I understand Nelson's words do not directly relate to the BOM- I have never made any pretense to that effect. I do however argue that the data is important and germane to the topic.

@Maunus- welcome to the conversation. I'm not understanding something you wrote- you wrote that I have "two sources making two separate claims"- I only added the quote from deuteronomy as an example and the reference to Nelson. Not sure what the two separate claims are. I do not accept that advocating that the data are relevant to the article constitutes OR. Please do not put words in my mouth nor say that I drew conclusions that I, in fact, did not draw. I reject the claim that I need to find a reference to this mythical conclusion that you say I have arrived at. Peace and love. Mavasher (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you didn't add the first source stating something about pronoun usage in BOM - that one was already there. However you are the one saying that the bit aout deuteronomy is relevant - that is the synthesis part. You say that you are not making any claim or conclusion - but you are - you are concluding that a study about pronoun use in deuteronomy that doesn't mention BOM is relevant for the article about linguistics in the BOM - that is a conclusion, and unless a published study also makes the conclusion that deuteronomy pronoun usage is relevant to discussing pronoun usage in the BOM then including it here is synthesis and inadmisaable. You say that mentioning data is not OR - Data is something used in research not in encyclopedias where we represent other peoples research based on data. You are not in a position to reject our conclusions that you addition is original research and hence indamissable - the only way you can insert the material is by convincing us through arguments based in wikipedia policy that it is not. Untill you read and internalize the applicable policies about WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:CONSENSUS that is not likely to happen. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, heres an example that might explain the problem to you better. I could cite a study saying that pronoun mixups is a common feature of the speech of people suffering from schizoid personality disorder. I could also claim that that was relevant to the present article, and in fact it would be as relevant as would pronoun mixups in deuteronomy. However it isn't clear why it is relevant and it prompts the readerto ask himself why is this information included. I am pretty sure that if I included the material about schizoid personality disorder the reader would come to the conclusion that it is being suggested that the author of BOM suffered from schizoid personality disorder. To my knowledge no scientific studies have backed up this conclusion so I would be misleading the reader. You ar doing the same thing by including this material which prompts the reader to ask the relevance of the material and possibly arrive at the conclusion that when deuteronomy and BOM both mixes up pronouns then pronoun mixup in the BOM isn't something that should lead to questioning its authenticity. Do you see? Leading the reader to drawing novel conclusions by juxtaposing data that has not previously been connected is the very definition of WP:SYNTHESIS.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the example- honestly I wouldn't have issue with such a comparison in your example if it were appropriately cited but I do agree with your interpretation of WP policy on Synthesis and its use in this case. I still think that Pierce is a much better source for this case than Packham whose mini-english lessons between statements ought to be superfluous if his argument is as solid as he contests. Why do we have two separate sections on Grammar in this article? Packham was uniquely about Early Modern English, while Abanes was focusing on grammatical mistakes in general. Pierce deals with both- so why the separate sections? I agree with Taivo that the whole article has issues. Some examples:

In Hebrew Names section: "However, -ihah does not appear in transliterations of attested Hebrew names." No citation for this idea. Additionally, I'm assuming you'd agree that such a source would have to be directly referencing the BOM per the above discussion. Recommend citation or removal.

In the Parallels section: "Scholars point out that this could well be the logical result of an ancient work translated by a modern man using the wording best suited to convey the ideas to a modern reader." Again no source for this. Recommend citation or removal.

The whole section Archaeological anachronisms has no referencing material whatever, nor do I understand its connection to the topic of this article. Recommend removal.

I'll restate earlier statements- I think the article has major issues, let's apply WP standards across all of these areas. Mavasher (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are correct that those examples need citations. I think you should tag the sentences in question with   templates and then see if anyone finds a citation within a reasonable period e.g. a couple of weeks. You could also look for sources yourself and if it is impossiblke to improve it then I agree that the unsourced information should probably be removed.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than trying to tackle all the issues at once, I suggest you go one step at a time. --Taivo (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Archeological Anachronisms

This section is barely related to the topic. As I can see it, the relationship is that critics say there were no horses, etc. in Ancient America, but apologists use a linguistic argument in rebuttal. That's a pretty flimsy connection to "linguistics". I concur with Mavasher (above) that this section should be deleted from the article, especially since there is an entire article devoted to the topic. --Taivo (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Mavasher (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, also agree.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Church" and "Synagogue"

This section references only scriptures without any reference to an authority claiming the material in the section. How important is this issue to the various parties involved? Both the argument and counterargument to use Taivo's parlance have not provided any references for their claims. Lots of original research. Let's discuss possible removal if this issue is not of great importance. Mavasher (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is a linguistic argument. References aren't hard to find, so just tag it with a citation needed tag and I'll add a proper reference in the next day or two. --Taivo (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I tagged a statement and provided a reference to one of the statements. Reading over the information in the article the claims still seem pretty silly to me for lack of a better word: The use of the word "Church" or "έκκλησία" is attested in the Septuagint as the article states and the sources I can see validate the KJV rendering of מועדי as "synagogues". What is the case for these words being anachronistic? Mavasher (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mavasher, it's not what you think or how you read the dictionaries. It's what the critics and the apologists have written. None of the references in that section are valid at this time because none of them cite a critic or an apologists who makes the argument. Our judgment of the validity of a criticism or apologia matters--we don't judge validity. Don't open another Hebrew or Greek dictionary. Find critical or apologetic literature and see if they make the argument. This whole section needs rewriting and restructuring as it reads like a piece of original research as it is currently written and structured. I'll work on it. --Taivo (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. The issue I have is the lack of any authority. So looking at the claims themselves becomes the next issue because it's a matter of trying to find authorities to claim this stuff. You're fine, just take the time you need. Mavasher (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose Combining Early Modern English Grammar Errors with Grammar

I propose combining section on Early Modern English Grammar Errors with the Grammar errors section. I don't care which one is combined with which nor where the resulting section goes, but think that the information ought to be combined under the same heading. Comments please. Mavasher (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, they are basically about the same topic. --Taivo (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. My initial reaction would be to move the Early Modern English Grammar Errors section down with the Grammar section....comments? ~BFizz 00:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Either direction of movement is fine with me, since some of the grammar errors are already listed in Pierce's comment quoted in the EME error section, I think. Either way, we'll probably need to massage the lead sentence a touch. --Taivo (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Combined the sections- I added the Early Modern English Grammar to the section below as BFizz suggested. I also think this is a logical place for the information. I separated out Pierce and moved that text higher as it seemed to me that his argument paralleled Abanes and then have Packham last. I added a couple of clarifying introductions; put in that George Smith was an LDS leader. Obviously if anyone has any issue with what I've done, I'm perfectly happy having the group modify it. Mavasher (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I combined and condensed all three of the critical introductions and placed Smtih's comments last so that it was a clear Critic-Defender structure. We had an edit conflict, so make sure that I didn't delete any good wording that you may have added. --Taivo (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I really like your edit. I think you did a good job. Mavasher (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)