Jump to content

Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.137.150.35 (talk) at 13:46, 12 October 2013 (→LDS/Mormon consistency: Mormon sects reflect differences of opinion even within the group). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

LDS/Mormon consistency

This article does not make consistence use of the terms Latter-day Saint(s), LDS, and Mormon(s) when talking about people who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Before going thru and change it all one way or the other, I'd like to know what the consensus is for usage in this article. I'm aware of wp:NCLDS and wp:MOSLDS, but at least one recent editor disagrees with those standards: "Replaced "LDS" -- a term NO ONE uses except Mormons -- with the term Mormon to avoid confusion to those not familiar with Mormon euphemisms." Does his POV have merit? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there should be consistency across Wikipedia (and certainly within this one article). The consensus at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints is to use the term LDS when talking about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not Mormons as you have already noted. I believe that to have this consistency throughout Wikipedia, the discussion of LDS vs. Mormon should be handled at the MoS level rather than this talk page. 72Dino (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before there is a judgment made against the editors of this page, perhaps it would be wise if the LDS/Mormon culture defined these terms for themselves and codified these terms to the public in a clear and understandable way. This is not a fault of Wikipedia but a reflection that LDS and Mormon has been used interchangeably for many years. This also reflections divisions in the Church and disagreement concerning the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

Comment on Limited Geography Model

This link is to an abstract of an article that seems to contradict Sorenson's limited geography model. It is interesting material, but needs to be properly summarized and the original article properly referenced. --Taivo (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment

If a theorist's qualification for mentioning in this article is that they're 'Mormon', 'apologist' or 'LDS' then that doesn't deserve them credibility, what deserves them that is acceptance of the findings in the academic field of archaeology. Religious adherences (or lack thereof) are irrelevant. They're a distraction and item of triva having no bearing upon the soundness of the underlying archaeology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.1.68 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
When will this be about the archaeological findings that relate to the fictional narrative of the book, rather than failed attempts to disturb those findings? Seriously, when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.1.68 (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG

As is was described at File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG, I dispute the non-free file use rationale for the file:

There is no true "critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs" in the article this image appears in. Likewise that article doesn't really describe "the implications of the concepts in the image" in the article: instead the entire context of the use of the work is this single sentence: "A popular painting of Book of Mormon character Samuel the Lamanite which demonstrates some popular perceptions of the civilizations in the Americas held by Mormons." This statement is without citation to support it, and is only found in the caption of the picture: no directly related text is found within the article body itself.

Descartes1979 (talk · contribs) recently disputed this, contributing the following edit summaries:

He also added the following citations, in an apparent attempt to to justify the inclusion of this file on this article, and to support the fair-use rationale:

  • Toone, Trent (May 21, 2012), "Insight into Arnold Friberg's Book of Mormon paintings", Deseret News.
  • Fulton, Ben (July 1, 2010), "Famed LDS/patriotic artist Friberg dead at 96", The Salt Lake Tribune. Online archive at webcitation.org

Neither of these articles talk about this specific image, and neither support that this image "demonstrates some popular perceptions of the civilizations in the Americas held by Mormons." In fact, quite the opposite, the Deseret News article states that Friberg was frustrated with the varied opinions on how to depict Book of Mormon figures, and eventually went his own way. This is further borne out within the following citation:

I do not think this image meets the fair-use criteria for inclusion, and should neither be found in the article, nor be hosted on WP. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citations were added to show that Frieberg's depictions of BOM scenes were very popular, which was the statement in the caption of the image, and is stated in those two references. Give me a moment to dig in to this. I suspect we will need to be more precise - the idea behind adding the image was to juxtapose the popular thought among Mormon's about the history of the American continent with its archaeological implications and anachronisms - which fits in very well with that entire section. Back in the day when I was constructing a lot of this article, there was a lot more content and I wonder if some of it has been lost making the image not fit in as well as it used to. But I think it is still very relevant to the topic, and the visual adds a great deal to the article. Sure it is not a "commentary on the work in question" or the "genre or technique of the work" - BUT it absolutely can be relevant as it relates to "the implications of the concepts in the image" - if we can adjust the caption, and get it in a corresponding section related to what it is portraying. Again, digging in here to see if I can make a few changes that would be acceptable. (By the way, I removed the speedy delete once again - let's hash this out. If we can't find a place for the image, then I will agree to removing it).--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes I noted above. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the text added to the image description in the article, nor the images placement in the article currently helps meet the requirements for fair use images. Also coat-racking the image description doesn't add to it's relevance. What does looking for ruins have to do with this particular image? Absolutely nothing, so removing that text from the image description. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read my above? The fair use allows for treatment of "the implications of the concepts in the image". This image achieves precisely that - does it not? The article in general is about what Mormons believe about the history of the American continent and its juxtaposition with archaeological research. This image illustrates this better than any other image in the article, because it represents popular Mormon belief about the ancient Nephites, and juxtaposes that with the archaeological thought of non-mormons. Isn't this almost the perfect image for this article? And within the realm of fair use to boot? Explain the flaws in my reasoning here - (without just saying I am wrong, with no rationale). I have reverted your edits. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the intersection of Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. No one involved in that field is looking for the ruins of BoM cities based on this fanciful artistic image. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong - the concepts in the image are precisely what they are looking for, and precisely why this image is such a good fit for this article. Not sure why you haven't spoken to my arguments yet, you keep just saying I am wrong, and not addressing what I am advocating.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your reference that says that people are looking for ruins that look like this specific Friberg painting? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there not a hundred references on this page that talk about searching for advanced ancient civilizations with stone walls, money, commerce, tools of warfare, etc.? An image like this is used to augment the page. There isn't a specific reference to that specific picture of a tapir - but that image is a very good augmentation of the page to make it more consumable to the reader, is it not? --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this discussion to the more specific topic specific wp:NFCR#File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG, to get other people involved that are specifically interested in and experienced with the requirements for the use of non-free images on WP articles. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments added to the discussion on that page.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swine

In the swine section the article paraphrases a statement that peccaries have never been domesticated. Clicking on the hyperlink for peccaries leads to a Wickipedia page stating that peccaries are raised and used as food in third world countries. I think this apparent Wickipedia internal contradiction should be addressed.98.148.112.29 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern commercial farming of wild animals is not domestication. Domestication is an archaic process. --Taivo (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon&oldid=576858133"