Talk:Anthon Transcript

What's the Point?

Sorry, but this article is nothing more than an extensive POV quote concerning a scrap of paper. It shouldn't have been at Reformed Egyptian for the same reason. The entire encyclopedic value is already stated in the lead--it's a scrap of paper that apologists say supports the Smith account and that critics say doesn't--an NPOV end of story. The rest of the article is just POV pushing. Such an extended quote has no place in Wikipedia. All of these articles on the Mormon scriptures keep turning into the same things--a laundry list of detailed arguments and counter-arguments that really are not encyclopedic at all. (Taivo (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

I believe use of quotations here is in accordance with WP:QUOTE (an essay), but just to be sure, I went ahead and summarized some of the non-essential information conveyed by the quotation (diff). All that remains now, I feel, is critical background regarding the Transcript. —Eustress ^talk 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Read that lead paragraph. That says absolutely everything that needs to be said about this scrap of paper in an encyclopedic context--1) Smith wrote some characters on a piece of paper, 2) Harris took the paper to an classical scholar named Anthon, 3) according to Harris' account, Anthon wrote an authentication of the script which he later denied, 4) according to Anthon's account, he denied the paper's authenticity all along. That long quote is nothing more than an excessive POV push to cast the best possible light on the Church, especially since there is no other quote to balance it. What does it say more than the lead paragraph? Nothing. It just showcases the official Church position in religious language. (Taivo (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

And about WP:QUOTE, please note the section When not to use quotations. This quote was too lengthy and was substituting for prose. (Taivo (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

I like your modifications to the lead, but in the body, I prefer having Joseph Smith's record of the event in-house. WP:QUOTE is after all an essay, but if it helps you sleep better at night, then so be it. —Eustress ^talk 05:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed Shii's addition on three accounts: 1) Anthon's quote was trimmed to the essentials necessary to convey his opinion, 2) the interpretation of motives in both subsections was removed, and 3) the Tucker quote is not about Anthon's remembrance of the event, but Harris' remembrance of the event(s) since he was a compatriot of Harris. (Taivo (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

The two sections (Anthon's & Harris') are now about equal in length and include an approximately equal amount of quoted material. The statements, of course, are mutually exclusive, but I think between them it's fairly NPOV right now. And it doesn't include any of the "he said, but" counterarguments that I think detracts from these articles in general. (Taivo (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

We're getting perilously close to the "he said, but" type of comments. (Taivo (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

Slowly, but surely, sentence by sentence, first by an apologist, then by a critic, this article is turning into the "debate" which religious articles should not be IMHO. It saddens me that no one can just leave the facts to lay there untouched. The faithful must make sure that no one "misinterprets" the facts and the critic must make sure that no one believes the faithful interpretation. Sure, everyone has a "reliable source", a scholar, a damning piece of original material, a skillfully written exposé, but just because it is there does that mean that it should be used in an encyclopedia? (Taivo (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Wording about Anthon's contradictions and similarities in his accounts

This is the most neutral wording for the statement about Anthon's contradictions and the similarities between his two accounts. Adding "even LDS scholars agree" is just POV baiting. We're just going to state the facts here. It's not about pushing either POV. We don't need "interpretation" of the facts from either camp on this matter. There are contradictions and similarities. That's the fact. It doesn't matter how many LDS and non-LDS scholars line up on either side. The facts are stated and don't need interpretation. (Taivo (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

LDS claims there's a contradiction. Critics say there is not. So we can either leave in both sides, or we can take out both sides. It's really up to you, but I'm not going to have the LDS opinion stated as fact in this article. Shii (tock) 11:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to check your strong feelings at the door, Shii. Both sides are already expressed in: "While Anthon's 1841 account of the event presents some contradiction as to whether or not he gave Harris a written opinion about the document, "in both accounts...he maintained that he told Harris that he (Harris) was a victim of a fraud." 1) There are some contradictions and 2) both accounts maintain fraud. There is not an "LDS opinion" here, just the statement of the facts without POV interpretation. And facts are just facts, they are not "LDS" or "non-LDS". Interpretation is LDS or not. The former is relevant, the latter, unless found in a paragraph discussing interpretations rather than facts, is not. (Taivo (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

The idea that there is "some contradiction" is disputed. We can either describe both sides of the dispute or not describe either. I don't know where you get the idea that only your sources are reliable, and that I'm somehow the one POV pushing. Shii (tock) 03:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read both of his actual letters and there are minor differences. Doesn't matter whether the LDS faithful overemphasize them or the anti-LDS crowd de-emphasizes them--they're there. (Taivo (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

That's not how we determine things. The source I cited and you removed states that there are no contradictions. Shii (tock) 07:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So you've got a scholar that says there are no differences and there's another scholar of equal stature who says there are. That's my point about these religious articles. You critics and the apologists get into pissing matches over "My scholar says X and your scholar says Y, but he's wrong". The whole article deteriorates into a piece of argumentative garbage. If you have wording that you think is NPOV, then propose it here. (Taivo (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

That's what NPOV means. I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it works. Because it sounds like that wording would upset you, I propose we omit mention of the "contradiction" altogether. Shii (tock) 08:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying eliminate it, but propose some wording here on the Talk page. What are your sources? There's a reliable source for the contradiction, present some NPOV wording and we'll talk about it. Your previous attempt at NPOV wording was not neutral. (Taivo (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

"In both his 1834 letter and a later account from 1841, he maintained that he had told Harris he was a victim of fraud." Shii (tock) 17:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the text already says that, I assume you're wanting to remove the preceding clause about there being some contradictions. (Taivo (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

Correct. Shii (tock) 08:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a reliable source that says there is a contradiction. What is your reliable source that says there is no contradiction? (Taivo (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

This excerpt from a Mormon Studies group, which had its own book reviewed by FARMS. Shii (tock) 17:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you included that second reference since it is not a review of the digital voice reference and it isn't about Anthon or the transcript. (Taivo (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Here's your problem. Anthon said in 1834 that he didn't write anything, but said that he did write something in 1841. That's just the plain fact. Yes, it's a contradiction. No matter how much K.. wants to explain it away, it's still a contradiction. It may not mean as much as the LDS church wants you to think it means, but it's there. (Taivo (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Unless if you can prove that Anthon was referring to the same letter in 1834 and 1841, I don't see why we have to bring this up in the article. Shii (tock) 21:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As written, the article is NPOV. It's fairly obvious that Anthon was talking about the same situation since he described Harris' visit in both letters. You're grasping at straws in order to keep this apparent contradiction out of the article. Anthon clearly described the same piece of paper and the same event in both his 1834 and 1841 accounts. That he misremembered or forgot certain aspects in that seven year period is not at all unusual or unexpected. And don't forget that the 1834 letter was written 6 years after the event. So that's 13 years between the Harris visit and the second account. Given that time frame on what was (in 1828) surely a very minor event in his career, it's amazing that the accounts are so similar. As said earlier, there are contradictions--overzealous Mormons overemphasize them, overzealous critics try to remove them. The contradictions are there. We have two references in the article about the contradictions--one to a Mormon source describing that perspective and one to a critical source describing that perspective. That's encyclopedic, we're not here to either promote or criticize Mormonism. Just to describe the facts as neutrally as possible. It's very clear that Anthon is talking about the same event in both 1834 and 1841, trying to argue against that is rather silly. (Taivo (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

History of the scrap of paper itself

There is a glaring lack of information about the history of the caractors document itself. Where did it come from? Who owns it? Why do people think it is the original Anthon Transcript? I did a quick search and added a new section to try and fill in this gap - I relied solely on the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (a source that I do not consider without bias on this topic - but I used it anyway since it was the quick and easy way to get information). You will see I added a bunch of cite requests and fully expect that my addition will be reworked to align with the facts more strictly as we get the references to back it up. To me this is the more interesting topic concerning the Anthon Transcript. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good addition. I removed the interpretation part and kept all the factual stuff. (Please don't take offense, Descartes, at my edit summary--I considered the comment (from Enc of Mormonism) to be POV, not you.) (Taivo (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

LDS Template at bottom

Is there any way that the LDS church template at the bottom of the page can be hidden as the default mode? Every other template that I know of (mainly in linguistics articles) is hidden as the default parameter and if people want to look at it they click on "show". That LDS template is just too bold and screams "official LDS page" in every article where it is located. It detracts from Wikipedia's NPOV stance. Every other template I'm familiar with comes hidden by default. This LDS template needs to be hidden by default as well or we risk being mistaken for a missionary tract. (Taivo (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

Caractors document

Why is it called this? This should be mentioned.Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Is elaboration needed? The document is titled "Caractors" (see image). —Eustress ^talk 00:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Should the Caractors document be included in a discussion of the Anthon Transcript? As discussed in the article, they seem to be two different things. Or, if it should be included because of a long standing belief they were one and the same, since debunked or at least questioned, should the discussion about the Caractors document be limited to acknowledging and dismissing the connection?RWIR (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Grover translation edit revert

I disagree with the reversion of my edit on the Grover translation reference. The answer provided by the admin, "As said before, this self-published book by an engineer/geologist doesn't belong here." sounds like a rather pat biased answer. This engineer/geologist consulted with former BYU Dean of the Department of Archaeology John Sorenson on this and submitted his draft to experts in the Egyptian and Mayan languages for review, some of whose comments were included in the text. Furthermore, the interpretation of the glyphs is discussed in detail. To prevent the public from having access from this linguistic study smacks of a thinly veiled effort to suppress the work.Jkolak (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

User:JkolakThe fact that I am an Administrator (or an Arbitrator, etc) is completely irrelevant here other than it shows that I am trusted by the community. I am however an experienced editor with over 180,000 edits. One thing we ask of editors is that they assume the good faith of other editors. You've chosen not to. This is an encyclopedia with its own policies and guidelines, including WP:SPS which is basic policy and says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." This is of course a self-published work by someone who is not an established expert. You can ask at WP:RSN if you think for some reason WP:SPS doesn't apply here. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to keep this talk section up to date, there is a new publication updating and revising the 2015 translation at www.bmslr.org. It indicates independent review by an Egyptologist, a Mayanist, and the independent peer review company Rubriq.Geneva11 (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Stanley B. Kimball article from Sunstone magazine

Just wondering why this reference was reverted as apparently not being acceptable under Wikipedia standards, the revert comment was a bit cryptic indicating encyclopedic?. Sunstone is a peer reviewed academic source that appears in multiple places throughout Wikipedia. Stanley B. Kimball, the author of the article, meets all the qualifications and more as an academic, as seen from his Wikipedia page. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_B._Kimball . The event in the article is clearly corroborated by the Hayes letter provide later in 1956 that is already included as a reference. Anyway some specific references to Wikipedia standards not met would be helpful.Geneva11 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Geneva11:It's not an article, it's a "Sunstones musing": "SUNSTONE invites short musings: chatty reports, cultural trend sightings, theological meditations. All lovely things of good report, please share them. Send submissions to: <SunstoneED@aol.cono>." It's like a letter to an editor. It also appears to be a copyright violation and the link must be removed unless you can show it isn't. I also see no evidence that Sunstone (magazine) is a peer reviewed academic source. It doesn't claim to be one.[1] This defense of it calls it an open forum and says it is not peer reviewd.[2] Doug Weller talk 17:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)