Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon/Archive 1

Archive 1

West Eurasian origin of Native americans

"North American Indians are generally considered the genetic descendants of East Asian peoples.[42] Several authors have published works that suggest that current studies of genetic anthropology using DNA evidence do not provide support for the Book of Mormon. To date there have been no DNA studies which link any Native American group with any group in West Asia.[43][44"

I recently read an article in national geographics online that states, that they found out, Native Americans DO have West Eurasian origins too. Here's the link to the article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/

I'm not a mormon but I think we should delete the line that there ate no proofs for west-asian or west-eurasian origin of native americans.

Eromae (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There is only one minor edit that will harmonize this data:

• Change "with any group in West Asia" to "with West Eurasia".

While there are minor genetic links to the genome of West Eurasia, the article is clear that the linkage is with the ancestors of West Eurasian people, not with West Eurasia itself. The genome still crossed to America via the Bering Sea land bridge from the origin at Lake Baikal (which is in East Eurasia). The two things that 99% of NG's readers will miss are that the evidence is from Lake Baikal (and they have no idea that Lake Baikal is solidly in East Eurasia), and that the article clearly states that the genome still entered the Americas over the Bering Strait. --Taivo (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

The actual quote is "These include asses, cattle, milk,... plows, swords, scimitars, and chariots. The Smithsonian Institution has stated that "none of the principal food plants and domestic animals of the Old World (except the dog) were present in the New World before Columbus." I find this odd, considering the fact that the Smithsonian's own National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. as a very obvious example of a child's toy scimitar (made from clay) on display among the other examples of children's toys. (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8UMEf5UmkEnNzBiNWMxN2UtNmU2Yy00ZGY3LTlmOWMtNmY0NDdlMjIyNjEz&hl=en) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.199.182.234 (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The section on the Historicity at Book of Mormon have been deleted and a reference sent here. That means we have to neutralize this article, which seems to have problem. Let's mention one to start with.

"Critics believe that insufficient evidence in the pre-Columbian archaeological record for horses, cattle, swine, goats, wheat, steel swords, possible wheeled chariots and other elements mentioned in the Book of Mormon casts doubt on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon."

The actual situtation is that the overwhelming majority of non-LDS scholars believe that these technologies, animals or plants did not exist at the time the BOM describes. Calling them 'critics' implies that only those opposed to Mormonism believe this. Also "insufficient evidence" implies that there is a little, but not enough. In fact virtually the only evidence is LDS provided and disputed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't appropriately neutral. Clearly this was started by a pro-mormon writer. For example: historicity is generally not accepted. Generally? How about not accepted by any non-mormon scholar. I recommend that the wording for this paragraph is changed accordingly. Unless someone can find a half respected scholar - I'm going to change the wording here. Jspice9000 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

This entire article should be deleted. There is no debate among persons outside of the Mormon faith regarding any factual basis for the claims in the Book of Mormon. Even to say that there is no debate among non-Mormon archaelogists is not a strong enough statement because it implies that there are Mormon archaelogists that believe in it. Let's be really clear here: archaelogy is a science, and if any person professing to be an archaelogist, Mormon or non-Mormon, claims that the events set forth in the Book of Mormons are true from an archaelogical standpoint, then that person is not a scientist and not an archaelogist. They can certainly believe so as a matter of faith, but wrapping themselves in the vestments of a profession does not make them part of the profession and does not legitimize their theories. I mean for crissakes, at least the Nazis had some shreds of archaelogical legitimacy to base their theories on. The Book of Mormon is about as credible as Scientology text from a historical standpoint. Ndriley97 (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the deletion of this article. More or less useless, and almost impossible to write from a 'neutral' perspective. The original read like a mormon apologist, and the current version was obviously sourced and written by a dedicated mormon critic. Overall, poor Wikipedia quality.96.225.230.22 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

New Topics

Another potential topic would be the method of transportation to the new world. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that boats were sufficiently developed to make transatlantic travel possible at the time. I'll dig up some references for this. Jspice9000 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

The limited geography section should be expanded a bit more. How can the Hill Cumorah be explained if the characters in the BoM stayed in Mesoamerica? Jspice9000 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

I hate to be a real pain, but this page should probably be merged with the Archaeology page. I am no historian but it seems to me that a critique of the accuracy or historicity of a particular work (BoM in this case) one needs a historic event that the work describes and a general agreement as to what probably happened. For example, if I wrote an account of WWII (most agree it happened), areas of criticism could include topics such as which countries were involved, timelines, important individuals etc using letters written by soldiers compared to accountes written by the press. There are no events mentioned in this article at all and no mention of alternative scenarios or sources of information. It is my opinion that there is no evidence that any of the events described in the BoM actually happened but there is no possibility to critique it on these grounds since there are no alternative sources of information to determine the BoM's accuracy in describing those events. Can anyone come up with a good reason not to merge this? Jspice9000 (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

Perhaps Authenticity of the Book of Mormon would be a better title for this page? Jspice9000 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

View of the Hebrews is a topic that I had almost forgotten about. If we keep this page, there should be a reference to this book. Jspice9000 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

View of the Hebrews is treated in detail at Origin of the Book of Mormon.--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add a one line reference to that page (Origin of...). Once again however, makes me think this page is incorrectly titled. Jspice9000 (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

Keep it Simple

Some of the sentences need to be simplified to provide clarity and better writing style to this article.--WaltFrost (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss

Let's remind people that discussion helps the process of producing a good article.

I've put back the reference to barley as being one of the items not found in the New World. That is the Smithsonian's opinion and I've referenced it. Please don't remove it without a more reliable counter-reference. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It be more correct to say that the Smithsonian used to say this. Current correspondence with them does not produce the same response. As for a counter-example, one need go no further than Wikipedia itself, which says that a form of barley, Hordeum pusillum ("little barley"), was cultivated (possibly even domesticated), in pre-Columbian times. As for mainstream scientific references, there are:

• Daniel B. Adams, "Last Ditch Archaeology," Science 83 (December 1983): 32
• V.L. Bohrer, "Domesticated and Wild Crops in the CAEP Study Area," in P.M. Spoerl and G.J. Gumerman, eds., Prehistoric Cultural Development in Central Arizona: Archaeology of the Upper New River Region (Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional paper 5, 1984): 252
• Nancy and David Asch, "Archaeobotany," Deer Track: A Late Woodland Village in the Mississippi Valley, edited by Charles R. McGimsey and Michael D. Conner (Kampsville, Illinois: Center for American Archaeology, 1985), 44
• Patricia L. Crown, "Classic Period Hohokam Settlement and Land Use in the Casa Grande Ruins Area, Arizona," Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Summer, 1987), pp. 147-162
• Bruce D. Smith, "Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America," Science, New Series, Vol. 246, No. 4937 (Dec., 1989), pp. 1566-1571.

There's probably more, but this was the result of a quick search. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That's the sort of references we are looking for. You might want to think about finding somewhere to explain this in the article, because lots of sources cite barley as one of the things not present in the New World and some editor will add it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

LFrankow

Just a heads-up. Many of the links at the bottom of the article are dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankow (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

LDS Apologists

Can anyone explain what the purpose of the section LDS Apologists is? The first three sentences would be agreed with by any archaeologist (They have little bearing on the historicity question except to confirm that some civilizations did exist). The final sentence is covered much better in succeeding sections. Could I maybe replace it with a statement of agreed facts and a pointer to later sections? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's gone. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles Anthon

Although this discussion is interesting, Charles Anthon didn't know what he was talking about since the Rosetta stone wasn't discovered until 1799, hence he couldn't say whether Smith actually knew what he was talking about or not either. Can anyone think of any reason to keep this paragraph in light of this? Jspice9000 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

Firstly all this is happening in the early nineteenth century, after the Rosetta was discovered. Secondly translation (which Rosetta allowed) isn't the issue, it's identification of the writing as Egyptian. It is certainly possible that a scholar could have identified the writing as plausibly Egyptian or not without reference to Rosetta. But thirdly and most importantly the Anthon story is frequently used by Mormons to attest to the historicity of the BoM, so the story belongs here solely on that basis. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I had always assumed that the translations from the Rosetta Stone had never been seen by neither Smith nor Anthon. Why? I have read that some of the original 'egyptian' translations from Smith were discovered recently and found to be completely incorrectly translated. I need to dig up some references for this however. If I can find some good references, what then? Add to this section? Jspice9000 (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

Please read the following wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri. This paragraph in particular:

In July of 1835, Chandler brought four mummies and associated papyri to Kirtland, Ohio, then headquarters of the Latter-Day Saints. Although the Rosetta Stone had been discovered in 1799, the ability to read Egyptian wasn't well developed until the 1850s. Chandler asked Joseph Smith to look at the scrolls and give some insight into what was written on them, due to Smith's notoriety and claim to have translated the golden plates of the Book of Mormon.

Maybe we need a link to that article? Jspice9000 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:City of zarahemla the testaments film lds.jpg

The image Image:City of zarahemla the testaments film lds.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents and the LDS view

These two paragraphs don't flow very well. The first describes one or two civilizations. The second mentions three civilizations(this is more accurate). It needs to be cleaned up. Be curious, not judgmental. --WaltFrost (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Steel

I'm putting steel back in. True, there was some 'iron' products that people refer to as steel, but you can't use it like modern steel to make a bow that is light enough to lift and flex and return to its original shape. Drop a cast iron pan, see what happens. Otherwise, we can go into much greater detail on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspice9000 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Added additional commentary regarding steel. Any metalurgists, please add commentary. In addition, are there any modern bows made from steel? No. Why? Wood is better for bows. Jspice9000 (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue every single technology that the BOM mentions. I removed the unnecessary steel reference as too trivial for the point of the paragraph, which is that there were many animals, plants, and technologies mentioned in the BOM that are anachronistic. We don't want a detailed discussion of each of these because that would just get into a detail-boring argument between critics and proponents. The word "steel" could refer, as you clearly state, to many different metal alloys, so singling it out for detailed discussion just opens a Pandora's Box. The horse is a much better example because it is clear that horses didn't exist in the New World and the arguments that "horse" might refer to llama or tapir are really quite ludicrous. (Taivo (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

I appreciate your point of view, perhaps my explanation is too long and argumentative. However, since the BoM is 'divinely inspired' and translated with the help of God, shouldn't steel actually mean steel? I do think steel should stay as per the orginal, just a single word. Perhaps make the link to the History of ferrous metallurgy page instead. You have to admit that making a bow out of steel is equally foolish and points to the same logical error that J Smith made over and over again - they thought that all the animals, plants and much of the technology that they saw in their daily lives were always there - in North America. They had no idea about the origins of the various plants, animals or technology. J Smith would have had no real concept of the history of steel making either. Don't we open up a different pandora's box when exluding concepts that are longer and more complex because some apologist has come up with an arugement that may cast a sliver of doubt on it, like suggesting that steel really means alloy?Jspice9000 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to remember that this page is not just for non-LDS readers to get "fuel for the fire", but for LDS readers to hear a neutral presentation of the issues that nonmembers raise. It's not the place for a detailed analysis of every problem, but an overall presentation of the problems. I agree with you that an uneducated Smith was listing things he could see around him and assumed had always been there, but the believer sees things differently. We need to keep from getting overly critical of the BOM here and simply present the issues without excess embellishment. The Bible says that the Earth has four corners, that the sky is a solid dome and the stars are fixed in place on it, that women emit semen during copulation, and that bats are birds. But we don't spend excess time worrying about it. Faith is very forgiving when it comes to the scriptural basis of itself. We must be careful and make sure that when believers come to this page, they see that we have treated the topic respectfully. They can respect the nonbelievers' unbelief as long as they know that their belief is respected in turn. (Taivo (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

I see your point, but I maintain that thorough can still be neutral. Without being a pain on this issue, we leave mention of steel in, but cut the commentary? Jspice9000 (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your last post. Steel should, of course, be left in the list, but, as you say, without commentary. (Taivo (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

BTW, I didn't realize that wikipedia was for de-converting believers. If they are curious enough to ask questions, they probably already suspect problems. Cheers.Jspice9000 (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed a 'cite needed' in the archaeology section. There is a good reference at the end of the paragraph. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Default Position

Asking for a reference that the majority of the people in the world do not accept the BOM as fact is equivalent to asking for a reference that the majority of people in the world do not accept the Flat Earth hypothesis. The BOM is a religious work, not a historical work, and, as such, most of the world doesn't even know much about it all. Ask a Ukrainian on the street whether he has ever heard of the BOM or its account and he will answer "no" (but he's probably heard of Mormons and their missionaries--with a negative opinion). (I was told by colleagues there to not mention that I was from Utah unless it was necessary.) You could just as well ask for a reference for "the majority of people in the world are not Catholic". (Taivo (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

Proposal to re-name article

... to "Historical Authenticity of the BOM". Please see discussion at Talk:Book_of_Mormon for details. --Noleander (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Let’s briefly contrast the proposed “Historically Corrupt Scriptures” of mainstream Christianity with the Book of Mormon. Although much older, Scripture was originally written in documented, academic languages – Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Kione Greek. There are more than 40 authors of the Bible, on several continents spanning nearly 2 millennium. However, they all seamlessly reported the same things. Not to mention that humanity has thousands of Ancient source manuscripts (in our possession) to cross-reference. The Book of Mormon was dictated by 1 man, in a single location, from a “never-existent” language. It also has no source manuscripts to reference proving the accuracy / legitimacy of Joseph Smith’s writing. Now, you tell me: based solely on material fact, which one of these books would be more “credible” if submitted in court trial?“those living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by HBCALI (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lucifer

I've removed a sentence that states

“ One example is the word Lucifer which is of Latin origin and appears in both the Book of Mormon and Mormon temple ceremonies. (ref) http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml LDS-Mormon.com (/ref) ”

I can't find any solid statements in the Lucifer or KJV articles to back this up as a "translation error". Do any reputable critics really bring this up? ...comments? ~BFizz 00:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Hebrew text doesn't contain the word "Lucifer". Lucifer is a Latin name for Venus/Morning Star meaning "light bearer" and is found in the Latin translation of Isaiah 14:12: Quomodo cecidisti de caelo, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris?" The Hebrew has: Heylel ben-shachar ("shining one, son of dawn"). The critical argument is that Nephi would have been working from Isaiah's Hebrew of the 7th century BC so rather than the KJV "Lucifer", based on the Latin translation from about the 4th century AD, he would have used something more akin to the actual Hebrew rather than the Latin usage preserved in the KJV, which should have translated the Hebrew properly as "Venus", "Morning Star", etc. "Lucifer" as a name was completely unknown in Hebrew. Even if he was quoting directly from the Hebrew text, Nephi would not have used the KJV text and certainly not used a Latin name that postdated him by several centuries. This argument has occurred many times in the critical literature. And your requirement for "reputable critics" isn't really appropriate. The list is a list of critical arguments, not whether the critique is good/reliable or not. The "Lucifer" argument is one of the critical arguments that are out there. This is a translation error in KJV because the Latin name "Lucifer" doesn't mean "Satan", but "Venus/Morning Star". It was only in the Middle Ages that the equation "Lucifer" = "Satan" entered Christian tradition. The KJV translators should have translated "Heylel ben-shachar" as "Venus" or "Morning Star", which is the only meaning of the Hebrew. Instead they followed the Medieval Christian tradition and used "Lucifer" as a proper name with the implication of "Satan". In other words, they used a name out of the Latin text which in 1611 meant "Satan" to translate the phrase out of the Hebrew text which in 700 BC meant "Venus/Morning Star". --Taivo (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we leave it to reputable critics to determine what the "critical arguments" are? Otherwise we're wandering in the land of original research. I'm not saying the criticism isn't valid, I'm just saying it's controversial, and has no reliable source (at least none that I've seen) to back it up. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the need for reputable sources to state facts versus the simple listing of things that are in existence. This criticism exists and the evidence for its existence is a source that discusses it. The source that uses it doesn't have to be a peer-reviewed academically-published work to be in existence. This article is about the existence of criticisms no matter where the source is. The criticisms have to obviously be above the level of "The Book of Mormon sucks" and to be based on some legitimate argument, but their existence is enough. Now if this article were judging the relative merits of the pros and cons, then reliable sources would be important, obviously. But it's not. The existence of the criticism is demonstrated by a basically decent source presenting it and the arguments behind it. --Taivo (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The article as it stands presents the criticism as valid, asserting that the JST and the Book of Mormon have translation errors, and that the Lucifer bit is one such error. We cannot assume the POV of lds-mormon.com without reputable sources backing up the assertion that it is, in fact, a translation error. The prose should be reworded to make clear exactly who is making this assertion. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph isn't about whether the criticism is valid or not, only that the criticism exists. As such it is a valid reference since it proves that the criticism exists. If you need references that "Lucifer" is a bad translation, then refer to any recent, non-fundamentalist commentary on the 14th chapter of Isaiah, such as the Word Bible Commentary or the Anchor Bible Commentary. Here are some footnotes from reputable study bibles at Isaiah 14:12 along with (in parentheses) the modern translations:

• Harper Collins Study Bible: (New Revised Standard Bible: "O Day Star, son of Dawn!") "Day star, Dawn, names of deities."
• Oxford Study Bible: (Revised English Bible: "Bright morning star") "Bright morning star: Heb. "Helal son of Shahar," possibly meaning "Day Star, son of Dawn," and reflecting the names of deities."
• New Oxford Annotated Bible: (New Revised Standard Bible) "Canaanite mythological background is reflected in Day Star and Dawn (Hebrew "Helal" and "Shahar," names of deities)"
• New Jerusalem Bible: (New Jerusalem Bible: "Daystar, son of Dawn") "vv. 12-15 seem to be based on a Phoenician model. At all events, they display several points of contact with the Ras-Shamra poems: Daystar and Dawn were two divinities...The Fathers [Christian writers of the late Roman Empire] identified the fall of the Morning Star (Vulg. 'Lucifer') with that of the prince of the demons."
• New American Bible: (New American Bible: "O morning star, son of the dawn!") "Morning star: the king of Babylon. The Vulgate has "Lucifer," a name applied by the church Fathers to Satan."
• The Reformation Study Bible: (English Standard Version: "O Day Star, son of Dawn!") "O Day Star, son of Dawn. Lit. "shining one, son of dawn." Probably this refers to the planet Venus, rising in the morning and climbing toward the top of the sky, only to be overtaken by the sun. In the ancient world observations of this astronomical cycle gave rise to several myths."

There's no real debate about this among mainstream biblical scholars. "Lucifer", meaning "Satan", is a mistranslation of the Hebrew here. Whether the text is talking literally about the planet Venus or about the Canaanite deities associated with it, it's not "Satan", which is what "Lucifer" has meant in the Christian world since the early Middle Ages. --Taivo (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

But to reiterate, if this paragraph were about whether the criticism were valid or not, then the best references would be needed. But the paragraph isn't about the validity of the criticism. It's about the existence of the criticism. Since the only thing required to prove the existence of a criticism is its existence in a critical source, then the website is perfectly adequate to prove the existence of the criticism. The criticism exists; Wikipedia says nothing about whether the criticism is valid or not, only that it exists. --Taivo (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your point, but the new wording is slightly better and I don't have the enthusiasm to continue trying to explain my editorial opinion on this one. Note that I've removed the reference to mormon temple ceremonies, which—while true—is not germane to the BOM. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The temple reference did seem a bit odd here. --Taivo (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Milk

I'm proposing we re-word "milk," in a list that begins "The Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies for which there is currently no evidence..." Milk is not a technology, and milk was abundantly present in pre-Columbian America. It is the dietary of use of (non-human) milk that is in question, and I think the easiest way to suggest that is to say "dairy products" or "domestic dairy animals." Ethan Mitchell (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Milk" was not "abundantly present". Common English usage is very clear that "milk" in the present context refers to the "dietary use of non-human milk". It isn't even ambiguous. In English, when one means human milk, it is always modified by "breast milk" or "mother's milk". "Milk" by itself in normal English always refers to cow's milk. --Taivo (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I am oversensitive, but when I first read the sentence, I did something of a double take. I agree that in general, "milk" unmodified means cow's milk. But the context here is a list of stuff one might find in an ancient culture, and we've specifically mentioned animals and plants, so the reader is expecting us to be talking about non-human stuff. Since "milk" is definitely not a technology or a plant, I suppose I tried to mentally cram it into the animal category....like, an animal product. But then it makes no sense, because blah blah. I don't see why "dairying" or "dairy products" isn't an acceptable way to avoid this. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Because the BOM text specifically says, "milk". It does not mention "cheese" or any other dairy product. --Taivo (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)