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 COGDEN (talk | contribs) at 18:46, 2 September 2016 (→‎Referencing in the Sciences (Archaeology being a science)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Weasel words and unsupported statements abound!

This is a text-book example of using weasel words and using puffery and editorializing. This is so bad, the bias is so obvious! I am changing it to a more NPOV. I will be checking references after that. Note that American heritage is not an archeology magazine and Robert Silverburg is a science fiction writer not respected archeologist.

And Venice Pridis?[1] No qualifications, her book was published by an LDS publishing house (Bookcraft, etc, Yes, American Heritage is a history magazine. Are you suggesting we remove all sources that aren't archaeological? Doug Weller talk 14:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that if non-archeology sources are used, you shouldn't use weasel words to suggest it is an archeological source. Saying that most experts agree and suggesting that there is consensus among non-Mormon archaeologists requires more than a article in American Heritage. This article is so full of weasel words, puffery, editorialization, original research. Wow, it's bad!

Dig Deeper (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a rumor that the Smithsonian believed this and that

Wow! This is so bad! So some people from the Smithsonian supposedly sent a private letters to some inquiries telling them that they did not research the claims of the Book of Mormon and perhaps (despite not researching it) they say they did not believe the claims, but later retract that, to maybe possibly be politically correct. This is not good referencing. This is, however, a good example of original research. Without any official and public declaration, this is not evidence of the official position of the Smithsonian organization.Dig Deeper (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the section. The issue has been discussed in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and in the Givens book. Both are obviously pro-Mormon and pro–Book of Mormon, but they are reliable sources for a discussion of these issues and the fact that the letters were issued and were revised. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any official public declaration by the Smithsonian? No. Has the Smithsonian published any of this in their own journals or publications? No. Even if one assumes that the letter writer had the authority and knowledge to write for the organization (and not simply just a secretary brushing them off) your assumption that the Smithsonian wanted to "take a less controversial stance" by sending a second letter is editorializing, and not simply summarizing relevant facts. The content of this paragraph is not notable, it is speculative at best, possibly misleading and deceptive at worst, and does not add to article.
We don't need the Smithsonian, we have the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and they say they are the leading journal on BoM studies.[2] Are you suggesting that they aren't telling the truth? Doug Weller talk 20:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question is does this follow Wikipedia policies? This is original research and editorializing. Also this is attributing a statement to the Smithsonian based on a letter which was not an official public declaration by the Smithsonian and then coming to your own conclusions about why a second letter retracted the first. Also, as I stated earlier, the content of this paragraph is not notable, it is speculative at best, possibly misleading and deceptive at worst, and does not add to article. The only thing going for this paragraph is that is doesn't use as many weasel words as other parts of the article.21:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not original research. The issue of the Smithsonian letter and its history are discussed in both the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and in the Givens book. In this context, those are reliable, third-party sources. We don't need the primary source, the Smithsonian letter. In fact, citing to the primary source would be more like original research than what is here. The statement that the Smithsonian wanted to "take a less controversial stance" is not editorializing—it is reporting on Givens's published opinion of why the change was made. The direct quote from his book is that the revised letter was "in all likelihood a product of controversy-avoidance." How can reporting another's words be a Wikipedian editorializing? In short, I think you are misunderstanding the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that you are citing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Good Ol’factory that this is well sourced, and clearly not WP:OR. Further, this is such a well-known (if misunderstood) issue that for Wikipedia to ignore it would be a disservice. We can quibble about the wording, but the Smithsonian letters definitely should be covered in this article. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Context is everything and the title of the section is misleading given the source provided. Rather than say Organizational statements regarding the Book of Mormon it should read Private correspondence from individuals who work at the Smithsonian who may or may not have had authorization to make official statements on behalf of the organizations, but they were published somewhere, so who cares! It's a lengthy title, I'll grant you that, but definitely more accurate than organizational statements. Rumors and speculations about why the second letter was sent, should not be part of Wikipedia.
From WP:RUMOUR Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. ... Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.
I can see why you would want the words like Smithsonian and National Geographic in the article somewhere, seeing as many of the sources in the article are original research from unqualified science fiction writers. Dig Deeper (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The excessive use of bold and underlying is not helping your credibility here. Perhaps we could tone things down a notch. I don't think the Smithsonian letter constitutes the type of thing that is addressed by WP:RUMOUR. Its existence and content has been confirmed by multiple sources, both non-Mormon and Mormon, both pro– and anti–Book of Mormon, and it has been commented on by both groups, so I think it's fine. As User:Plazak mentioned, it would be a disservice not to include it since right or wrongly, the Smithsonian is held in such high regard in this area of study. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with this. Would you disagree that Terryl Givens speculated about the reason for the change in the statement? Would you disagree that this is original research, given that the source is Given's himself and not some other source referring to Given's statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dig deeper (talk • contribs)
(1) I have no idea where he got his information, whether he was speculating or had something else on which to base his statement. (2) No, it's not original research in the Wikipedia sense because it is published in a reliable source. If the article reports what Givens stated, there is no OR issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the original Wikipedia editor was reading between the lines, interpreting Given's statements and coming to his/her own conclusions, then it's original research. If not, and Givens explicitly said that "it is likely that Smithsonian writer did this because..." then you're correct it's not original research, it would be a primary source. Still not ideal.
Regardless, unless you can prove otherwise this is still speculation. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.Dig Deeper (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we disagree on this issue. I really can't see how anyone could reasonably consider Givens a primary source with respect to this issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about the speculation? Does Givens statement not sound like speculation to you?Dig Deeper (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gunsolley and Hills

I've revised the lead to make it clear that the article isn't suggesting that either was an archaeologist. I can't find a lot about them, mainly[3] and [4]. I've also made it clear that they wrote in the early 20th century. Gunsolley wrote in a newspaperm the Herald (Community of Christ). Doug Weller talk 14:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Silverberg is a science fiction writer, why is he cited as a archeology expert?

This article very much lacks reliable sources. Robert Silverberg, the author of "The Mound Builders" is predominantly a science fiction writer, and yet he is being treated as a archeology expert and Book of Mormon scholar? He has BA in English Literature. No degrees in archeology or even theology. This is unbelievable! So I change this to "Science fiction writer Robert Silverberg believes..." Good Olfactory immediately reverts it back to "numerous observers" (again still only citing the one science fiction writer) and justifies the revert by saying "it is not just Silverberg who is referenced-this has been a common observation of various people from various fields". OK, would you please cite those "numerous people" in their "various fields"? This is sloppy referencing and casually reverting it back makes it more so. Good Olfactory has been editing Wikipedia since 2008 and Doug Weller since 2006. Come on you guys, you're not newbies. You should know Wikipedia policies and standards. Dig Deeper (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dig deeper: dude, have you even read the footnote and looked up the references included in it? The footnote I see for the statement is currently footnote 26, and under footnote 26 it says this: Kennedy 1994, Garlinghouse, Thomas, "Revisiting the Mound Builder Controversy", History Today, Sept 2001, Vol. 51, Issue 9, starting pg. 38; Silverberg, Robert "and the mound-builders vanished from the earth", American Heritage Magazine, June 1969, Volume 20, Issue 4. So that's three different references, only one of which is Robert Silverberg. (1) Silverberg is a fiction author, so that's one observer and one field. (2) Garlinghouse is a columnist, who is reporting on archaeological developments, and he writes of the 19th-century mound builder literature: "Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon, with its account of Israelite migration to North America also seems to reflect familiarity with this literature." So that's a second observer writing from the field of archeological journalism. (3) Then we have Roger G. Kennedy (1994). Hidden Cities: The Discovery and Loss of Ancient North American Civilization, pp. 228–231. Kennedy was director of the Smithsonian's American Museum of Natural History, and he makes similar observations about the Book of Mormon in his book. So that's a third observer, coming from the third field of natural history/American history.
Do you want more sources?—because it is a common observation that has been made and there are certainly more to be had. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So should the interpretations and conclusions of science fiction writers be considered as reliable sources? Would Michael Crichton be considered an expert source on Dinosaurs?
Are administrators of companies and organizations (such as the lawyer Roger G. Kennedy)considered reliable sources? Would Jack Welch be considered a light bulb expert or a jet engine expert since he was the CEO of General Electric? Let's get real here.
Combining multiple primary sources from non-experts and then drawing conclusions, by saying "Many experts agree" and other weasel statements is considered synthesis and editorializing.
Last point, this isn't about what is true, but what is verifiable. Wikipedia policy is that claims should be backed up by reliable secondary sources. The burden of proof lies and the onus of achieving consensus lies with the editor who added the material. Dig Deeper (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Jack Welch had written a book called, How the Lightbulb Works, then I think it would be fine for Wikipedia to refer to that book in an article about the lightbulb. But putting the rhetorical hypotheticals aside, I believe that as an author of fictional works, Robert Silverberg is a fine source for an opinion on whether a work appears to be a work of fiction, especially since he has extensively researched the phenomenon of 19th-century mound-builder fiction. Garlinghouse is a reporter and is reporting on general trends and opinions, so I see no reason why he needs to be excluded. Kennedy's work is clearly a reliable source with respect to ancient North American civilizations. As I mentioned, there are reams of other sources that also could be used—some of them by Mormon researchers. If there is a concern about how well this is referenced right now, I'm happy to add more.
Another thing to keep in mind is that these are just observations of similarities between the Book of Mormon and the early-19th-century mound-builder literature. They are not statements by archeological experts, so your header to this section kind of misses the point. Silverberg and the others are not being cited as archeological experts. He's being cited for an observation that the Book of Mormon resembles 19th-century mound-builder literature. You're absolutely right that the issue is not truth but verifiability—here the issue is not whether the Book of Mormon actually is an example of 19th-century mound-builder fiction, but whether people have suggested that it is or that it might be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree with you more. Given the context and the claims, Robert Silverberg and Roger G. Kennedy are very poor references.
Jack Welch was an amazing CEO. GE had about 20 divisions that ranged from light bulbs to jet engines to nuclear power plants to NBC. In the book Jack Welch & The G.E. Way he tells the interviewer that he himself knew nothing about making light bulbs or hiring actors or nuclear physics. Instead of trying to know everything about everything, he found experts and he trusted them. Great book btw.
What makes Wikipedia great are the editors who improve articles and use reliable, expert, secondary sources to back up the claims made. This is especially true in the sciences; and archeology is a science. For children's books, it might be fine to use commentary, opinions and speculations and theories from Robert Silverberg, Jack Welch, and Michael Crichton and other non-experts. In Wikipedia and in this context, these are considered questionable sources and should be used sparingly if at all.
The first sentence of this article would suggest that the references in this article would be from qualified and well respected archeologists. Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, both Mormon and non-Mormon archaeologists have attempted to find archaeological evidence to support or criticize it. Do you not find this statement misleading given the references?Dig Deeper (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. (As for the Welch example—if you're going to play in hypotheticals, you have to keep it in the realm of hypotheticals. You can't take the facts of my hypothetical and change the underlying facts to take it out of hypothetical-land and then say that's why you disagree with the conclusions of my hypothetical. The fact that users always do this is one reason why dabbling in hypotheticals when trying to address real issues is generally a waste of time.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You must always, always stay in the realm of hypotheticals" From a nonexistant Wikipedia policy. Give me a break. You left the "realm of hypotheticals" first, I followed your lead.... I don't see it as a "waste of time", I see it as a sincere effort at presenting a compelling argument and hopefully moving towards consensus. (bold for emphasis, not yelling)Dig Deeper (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can do whatever you want in forming an argument; I was just pointing out that what you did reduced the strength of your argument considerably. Repeatedly bolding comments does the same. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Side stepping the issue and focusing on the font, imho, is not making a compelling argument. It's as though you're deliberately trying to avoid any sort of consensus.Dig Deeper (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really—it's just an outgrowth of a realization that further discussion is probably not time well spent for me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent archiving of talk page and a history of complaints re Wikipedia policy violations

I couldn't help but notice that this talk page was set to be archived every 3 months. That seems rather excessive considering the few comments that have appeared over the years. I changed it to 3 years. If it seems too long let's talk about and reach consensus first before changing it.

As I reviewed the hidden archives, I couldn't help but notice that the issues that I have raised here have been brought up numerous times in the past by other editors such as @TaivoLinguist:, @Kevin Gorman: and to some extent @COGDEN:. Had the discussions not been archived so frequently, we could have simply continued the discussion rather than start from scratch again.Dig Deeper (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no hidden archives. They are where archives should be. To be hidden they'd have to be somewhere else. And no, we should have new discussions, not just continue an old one and claim that one some long vanished editor said several years ago should be taken into account when trying to reach a consensus. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From my talk page.... Please read WP:AGF I just read your edit summary about archiving. Please don't go around accusing editors of nefarious evil deeds. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not accusing anyone of "nefarious evil deeds". Did I say that? Archiving hides the material on the talk page when it gets too long. It requires extra mouse click and deliberate action to see it. That being said "hidden" is perhaps redundant, given that to be archived means to be stored and hidden from view.
Rather than focus on the definition of "hidden" and "archives" and what anyone's intentions are, let focus on the fact that Wikipedia policies are not being followed and there is a history of complaints that keeps resurfacing.Dig Deeper (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You did write "unless one is deliberately trying to hide past debate and discussion". And left it to me to point out that the "Some Mormon archaeologists" weren't archaeologists, surprised that you missed that. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see it now. I didn't realize you were referring to the edit summaries. You're right, I probably shouldn't have phrased it like that.
If you found that some "Mormon archeologists" aren't really archeologists, that's great! If I find some, I'll do the same. This article is full of bold claims, weasel statements, false experts, primary sources, and original research. Let's work together to make the article appropriate for Wikipedia standards.Dig Deeper (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one has ever claimed that this article is in perfect shape. Very few in Wikipedia are. I don't think there are any editors conspiring to prevent improvements to the article. However, some of your changes have been questioned by multiple editors here. It's nothing to worry about, that's how the system works—change by consensus, not by one editor's interpretation of what needs to happen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And remember that just because one editor might be making all the changes at a particular time doesn't mean that there aren't other editors who might not be as vocal at the moment, but who are still watching and agreeing. --Taivo (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles related to religion and religious expression are controversial by nature. The articles related to Mormonism especially so. Most of the information here has been subject to long discussions in the past and the wording has been reached by consensus based on the views of both adherents and non-adherents. Slash and burn editing rarely works in articles like this because of that delicate balance. I'm not saying that anyone has practiced slash and burn here recently, but when I see an editor write, "This article is full of bold claims, weasel statements, false experts, primary sources, and original research" it throws up a red flag. Delicate balances require a go-slow approach and meticulous consensus building to meet the needs of both adherents and non-adherents. I've seen too many of these Mormon articles lean precariously in the direction of missionary tracts. --Taivo (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I made some bold edits initially (mainly to the intro paragraphs). I explained my rationale for making the edits in the talk page. Some edits were promptly reverted with a brief edit summary. No reply on the talk page. Rather than engage in edit wars etc, I invited Good Ol’factory to the talk page, so I could get his feedback. We have both made minor edits very slowly since then. I think we're slowly moving towards consensus. At the end of the day, the article should not read like a missionary tract, but the scientific claims made within the article should be evidence-based. If at the end of the day doing so makes the Mormon church or its followers "look bad", so be it. Dig Deeper (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing in the Sciences (Archaeology being a science)

Let me start off by saying that if the title of this article were "Speculations about Archeology and the Book of Mormon", we'd be having a very different discussion. The title of this article implies that this article will be based on Science. As such it should have appropriate references.

So then what makes a good reference. From the conversation above, it's clear that there is disagreement about what is an acceptable source. Acceptable sources form the foundation of a good article, so hopefully in this section we can come to some sort of consensus about references, establish a foundation then we can go forward from there.

I don't know what your experience is in scientific publishing. Rather than dive into peer review process and publishing in the sciences, and getting technical with what makes a primary, secondary and tertiary source, etc allow me to start with a simplified example. Please bear with me on this.

Once upon a time, an obscure archeologist named Dr. Flinstone PhD publishes his theories on how dinosaurs lived and interacted with humans. It is published in the late-1800's in a bizarre journal has has a very low impact factor. He receives some exposure form the popular media, but he is generally ridiculed by his colleagues. Two respected Archeologists, go so far as to publish two separate rebuttals in a high impact factor journal. Dr. Flinstone he retracts his research and is never heard from again.

Another fifty years later, an editor on Wikipedia find several more recent sources, books from non-experts (editors and BA degrees) which expound on Dr. Flintstone's research.

Can you see the multiple issues in this example?

Can you see why, in this hypothetical example, some editors may consider "expert statements" from these more recent sources as unreliable?

Dig Deeper (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cute hypothetical. I'm not sure it takes things very far, though. I personally I am not that interested in getting into extensive discussions into hypotheticals and such things this on this page. If users have suggestions of how to improve the article in practical ways, I'm open to consideration of them, and won't be shy stating if and when I disagree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Dig Deeper, you have mistaken the nature of this article. This article is not about "science" per se. It is about interpreting facts on the ground in relation to a religious text. "Book of Mormon archeology" is not archeology in the strictest sense of "I will dig here and see what I find and interpret it then." It is "I will dig here and see if what I find can support the Book of Mormon narrative." Mormon archeologists who practice the former are not strictly speaking "Book of Mormon archeologists". So you have to remember that some of these references you will encounter here are not archeologists, but are apologists who use archeology to bolster the tale of the Book of Mormon. If you want strict archeology, then you need to work on the articles on Meso-American archeology that proceed without reference to the Book of Mormon. This article is about harmonizing archeology with the Book of Mormon tale. As such, you will have quite appropriate references here that were written not by archeologists, but by apologists trying to fit archeological data into the BOM narrative. This not an archeology article, it is a religious article about archeology. --Taivo (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second, no one wants to read your extended excurses on hypotheticals. So you are going to be unable to build any kind of consensus using that tactic. Keep your comments brief and on point. --Taivo (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I shortened the hypothetical.
I agree that this article is not about science. Unfortunately, it is presented as though it were. From all sides.
To briefly summarize the issues in the hypothetical example. 1.Original research is dated 2.Research does not represent the majority of experts 3.Selective sourcing from non-experts and game of telephone thru non-experts distorts original findings.
Good Ol’factory has failed to make a compelling argument that the science fiction writer Robert Silverberg and the lawyer Roger G. Kennedy should be considered as reliable sources. Are they much different from the above hypothetical example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dig deeper (talk • contribs)
First off, there is no evidence that Silverberg or Kennedy have been ridiculed for the works in question. Secondly, they didn't retract their positions. Thirdly, the publications in question were not the end of their careers. There's more, but on the basics it's just not a parallel situation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm suggesting Silverberg and Kennedy represent the "recent sources (editors and BA's)" not the disgraced expert. Dig Deeper (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to read hypotheticals. They are meaningless. If you want to consider a source in the article then speak directly about the source. Everyone knows that hypotheticals are always slanted toward your POV and are never neutral or fair. I don't know what your underlying agenda is, but when I read in your very first comment "most scholars know this Wikipedia article is..." I say, "Bulls..t". "Most scholars"? Really? Prove it. Most scholars in what field? And most scholars don't even read Wikipedia. I'm in academia and I'm the rarity. So when I see exaggerations and bombast I want to discount everything you have written following. Then I read your comments about Silverberg and Kennedy and it is, in some respects, ridiculous. You see "Silverberg" and then ignore the rest of the footnote. You think that the director of the Smithsonian Natural History Museum is irrelevant because he got a law degree at some point in his life. He would not be the director of that Museum if he were not qualified. --Taivo (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quote Everyone knows that hypotheticals are always slanted toward your POV and are never neutral or fair. -- Does everyone know this? Really? Is this a Wikipedia policy?
That sentence was an obvious example of using weasel words, similar to what is found throughout this article. Making claims without proving it with an expert source is a weasel statement. This implicit point should have been obvious given my title "Weasel words and unsupported statements abound!". I deleted my sentence to avoid further confusion. This is all side-stepping the issue.
I have already "spoken to the source" as well as provided Wikilinks to the Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia policies don't seem to apply here. Museum administrators who have never published in peer-reviewed academic archeology journals are not experts. To suggest Kennedy is an expert simply because he happened to work at the Smithsonian is utter nonsense. This may come as a shock to some, but to be an expert in archeology one needs to first get a PhD in archeology. It may be a convenient hobby for him, but he's not an expert in archeology. Dig Deeper (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're completely missing the point: Kennedy is not being cited on any issue of archaeology. He is being cited for the observation that the Book of Mormon resembles 19th-century mound-builder fiction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can understand Dig deeper's point about the title and scope of the article. The focus of this article isn't primarily about archaeology, because there are no mainstream consensus conclusions in the scientific field of archaeology relating to the Book of Mormon, except arguably negative ones. If the article were really about archaeology, we would only be citing mainstream archaeologists and their mainstream conclusions. On the other hand, I don't think the answer is to delete all the pseudoarchaeology, apologetics, fringe theories, and purely faith-based scholarship from this article, which would pretty much gut the article. I've always thought of this article as something roughly comparable to Ancient astronauts. Like this article, it is an interesting and important topic, and there is lots of material, but the article is careful not to frame anything as archaeology. So maybe the word "archaeology" in the title of this article is a problem, but I'm not sure what a good alternative is. There are a few other pseudoarchaeology articles with "archaeology" in the title, such as Psychic archaeology. COGDEN 18:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon&oldid=737430298"