Jump to content

Talk:Captain Moroni

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

Begin collaboration

[edit]

There is a lot that can be done here. I look forward to a month of good work. I suggest we use Helaman and Nephi, son of Helaman as go-bys. --uriah923(talk) 03:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a rather disappointing collaboration, but we must move forward! uriah923(talk) 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article treatment

[edit]

This article reads like it's about a real person. I think it should be clearer we are talking about a fictional character here... --Infradig (andrew) (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Moroni is believed by many to have been a real person who lived. I have added appropriate context. — Val42 (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is ridiculous. There aren't wikipedia articles for fictional characters from other books. Not only would no historian corroborate this article, but the history contained within the book of mormon is contradictory to what historians know about the history of the Americas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.237.242 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are those that believe some/all of the people written about in the Bible (both the Old & New Testament) are non-historical as well, and wp:NPOV allows for those articles to be written to include information about both sides of that belief. There isn't a great deal of wp:RS published material specifically about the historicity of Captain Moroni, but if you want to discuss the more general topic of the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon, there is a place for that at Talk:Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. You may also find wp:The Truth interesting reading. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity

[edit]

There are serious problems with this article. No historically credible sources are mentioned in the sources. When I tried to add a section on the lack of evidence of Captain Maroni's existence, a very unscrupulous person deleted it. Other religion-related pages, including that of King David, include sections on historicity. Unscrupulous person, if you are reading this, shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michoacan2013 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First - please see WP:NPA. Second - the historicity section on King David is an apples to oranges comparison. On King David, the historicity section is exclusively about the historicity of David, not the historicity of the Old Testament or the Books of Moses. If you have sources that talk directly about the historicity of Captain Moroni, then they would be appropriate. When I asked the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Archive 3#Statement on book of mormon related pages, the advice from other editors was that for pages like this or other figures in the BoM, the statement at the beginning "According to the BoM..." was sufficient. This is similar to how it is handled at other pages for figures in the Bible whose historicity is also often called into question, e.g. Noah, Cain and Abel, Kenan, Enoch (ancestor of Noah), and so on. Again, the only time you see historicity sections is when you have sources that talk specifically to the historicity of that individual. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michoacan2013 here. Thank you for the clarification. I'll produce something in accordance with your advice. Please contribute to the discussion and add content on historical evidence if you find any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michoacan2013 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new paragraph is better, although it still feels like a bit of a stretch since the cited article is about the Angel Moroni and not Captain Moroni (different figures in the Book of Mormon). Also, a quick scan of Huggins' article doesn't support all of the claims that are attributed to it. For example, I cannot find support for the following claims in that article:
  1. Smith became familiar with the name "Moroni" through his study of the treasure-hunting stories of Captain William Kidd
  2. ...it has been suggested by religious historians such as Ronald V. Huggins that Smith borrowed the name of the settlement and applied it to the angel who led him to buried treasure
  3. Prior to 1830, most maps and gazetteers referred to the Comoros as "Comora", but do not contain any mention of the name Moroni. The 1830 first edition of the Book of Mormon printed the name "Cumorah" as "Camorah"

From my admittedly quick reading of Huggins, I certainly see him connecting the JS's gold plate/Moroni story with the Kidd motif, but I don't see where he argues that the Kidd story is where he got the names from. Can you provide here on the talk page the page numbers and possibly short quotes of the text that you feel support the above statements statements? --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the "Theorized origin of name" section is just copied and pasted from the section in the Angel Moroni article. Higgins is talking about the origin of the name of the Angel, not the origin of the name of Captain Moroni—though, of course, it's the same given name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment. Since I have been called unscrupulous above, I feel it necessary to comment. I also disagree with the validity of the comparison to biblical figures. The Bible is somewhat different because there's pretty good proof that some people in the Bible actually existed, whereas the historicity of others is doubted. That's not really the case with the Book of Mormon—at this stage, most people take an all-or-none approach: the people were either all real or none of them were. There are no sources that I am aware of that discuss Moroni's historicity in particular, or as compared to others in the Book of Mormon. There's nothing special about him when considering whether or not the Book of Mormon is actual history or fiction. So the historicity stuff doesn't really belong on the page about Moroni—it belongs where it already is, in the general articles about the Book of Mormon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Good Olfactory. However, I'm not exactly how you came to the conclusion that the historical authenticity of the story of Captain Moroni is someone unquestionable in a wikipedia page about him. Your comment that the Bible is somewhat different because there's pretty good proof that some people in the Bible actually existed, whereas the entire Book of Mormon is considered by "most people" to be either true or not true. Who are these "most people" you speak of? Let's look at your train of logic for burying the legitimacy question away from Wikipedia's readers: King David=Might be true=Therefore we can have a section on the historical legitimacy question. Captain Moroni=Book of Mormon=Considered all true or all not true by "most people"=Captain Moroni might be true=Therefore we CANNOT have a section on the historical legitimacy question. Likewise, Moroni=Used at various places in the Book of Mormon=NO section on the origin of the word Moroni. That's absurd. Perhaps we should have a section on Aristotelian Logic on this page as well.

Moreover, this page has a clear disclaimer at the top: This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view. (September 2011)

If you would like to improve the section I've included on addressing historical claims for and against this figure and his name, I encourage you and others to expand the section--not delete it. This censuring of information should really stop. Keep it professional, open, and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michoacan2013 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Good Ol'factory: Just to clarify, if you look at the time stamps, the "unscrupulous" name-calling above was before your removal of the text and was originally directed at me.
@Michoacan2013: I still feel it is a stretch for this situation as the sources are about the Angel Moroni and not Captain Moroni. Remember that the onus is on the person adding material, not the person removing newly added text, to get consensus. Even though you did essentially a cut-and-paste of a section from the Angel Moroni article doesn't make it right or appropriate for this page. I would still like to see you provide the exact page number and/or quotes in the Huggins journal article as I don't at this time see where, in that source, those statements that I listed above are supported. If I can't find support for it in that source and you don't provide your reasoning based on that source, then I will remove the unsupported text per WP:V. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FyzixFighter on these points. We don't use Aristotelian logic in deciding whether or not to add information to an article—we are guided by sources. I see no sources that discuss the historicity (or lack thereof) of Captain Moroni. All I can find are sources that do so for the Book of Mormon as a whole, not for the individual characters within it. I also agree that we need something non-Angel Moroni related to discuss the name, since they are two different characters/people in the book. To respond to your specific question @Michoacan2013, "Who are these 'most people' you speak of?": It's everyone I know of. I don't know of a single person who takes the view that, for instance, some of the Book of Mormon actually represents true history but that other parts of it do not. Everyone I know either says it's fiction and has no historical basis OR they say it is true history. That's why no one argues about the historicity of individual characters within the book. It's always about the book as a whole. So it makes sense to have those discussions in the broader WP articles, not in every single article about a Book of Mormon character, of which there are quite a number. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Ol'factory: OK. I think we are communicating past each other. There is no precedence in Wikipedia for judging whether or not to add a section on historical authenticity, word origins, or the like to a page based on whether or not your friends either believe the Book of Mormon or not. This zero sum false choice that you are presenting is not appropriate for this research platform. The section is going to stay since it is relevant to the name Moroni, and the theme does not merit its own page. The information certainly is mentioned in other pages which also use the same nomenclature. Aristotelian logic is, by the way, a much better metric than the false choices you are using to deny readers key information about this real or imagined figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michoacan2013 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Michoacan2013: You're recent addition that ties directly to Captain Moroni is better with respect to the concerns raised above, however it fails WP:RS, hence my removal. Please respect WP:BRD and wait for establishing consensus before re-adding. The two sources you cite [1] and [2] both fail the wikipedia criteria of WP:RS. The first is anonymous blog post, it also does not support the statement you attached it to in this edit. The second is an e-published article, attributed to Thomas Donofrio, but there is no indication that Donofrio is a historian or what if any editorial process the article went through. Hence, my removal.
Again, you still need to provide information on how you believe Huggins supports the earlier text you added. I don't see it supported. I will remove that text soon if I cannot confirm that it passes WP:V. --FyzixFighter (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Michoacan2013: You're recent edits are responsive to the concerns addressed above (we no longer are dealing with the Huggins reference). However, they introduce new problems. Both are sourced to self-published sources (AuthorHouse and Xlibris are both vanity/self-publishing presses). Therefore the paragraph sourced to Davis still has no reliable source. Quinn is a valid source, but you cite a self-published book that itself is quoting Quinn. Why not cite Quinn directly? I'm trying to determine which Quinn source that Hammond is referring to, but he unfortunately makes liberal use of "Ibid" in the endnotes. Even so, the quote is again about the angel Moroni and not Captain Moroni, which as noted above is a concern for other editors. Your edit also removed sourced text from apologetic sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FyzixFighter: regarding your concern about the previous posting of Huggins work,Dianaa wrote the following (copied and pasted): ... Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Angel Moroni into Captain Moroni. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted

template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

... I am going to reintroduce the aforementioned content to Captain Moroni's page. The content is about the etymology of the word Moroni, and it is relevant to this article. Please do not vandalize this article or war against this section. There is an apparent bias against posting anything about the historicity or authenticity of this figure. The person who penned the narrative of Angel Moroni and Captain Moroni is the same person: Joseph Smith. These critics are addressing the origin of the word Moroni--not the origins of the Angel Moroni or Captain Moroni. You seem to be confusing these two concepts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michoacan2013 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

I think you're still missing my point. Diannaa's comments are about copy-pasting text from one wikipedia article to another. My main concerns about the Huggins text have nothing to do with this. As I have repeated multiple times, I do not see where in the Huggins article those statements are supported. I have asked repeatedly for you to clarify how the source supports those statements. I am under no obligation to leave material in that fails WP:RS or WP:V. Such removal is not vandalism. You are the only one who has failed to abide by WP:BRD. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, not on those challenging and removing the disputed content. As a courtesy, I have left in such material, voiced my concerns here on the talk page, but given your unresponsiveness those concerns, that courtesy may not last much longer.
Also, learn to properly thread discussions on a talk page and learn how to sign your comments (~~~~). --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FyzixFighter: I am going to include the content and citations as suggested by Danaa. If you have a problem with the sourcing, take it up on the Angel Moroni page where it originates. Does it bother you there, or only when I post it to Captain Moroni's page?Michoacan2013 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in Diannaa's suggestion, nothing in the WP:Copying within Wikipedia guideline, nor anything in any other wikipedia policy that requires me to first address the page of origination for copying text. Yes, now that I'm aware of the text and that you copy-and-pasted it from there, it bothers me there, too. Here is where the active discussion is, so her is where it is more appropriate to reach a consensus. After some kind of consensus is reached here, I fully intend on addressing that page. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FyzixFighter: Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Apparently there is a precedence for its citation on the other page. It seems others have already addressed your concerns. It has been there for some time now, so it is going to be reintroduced to Captain Moroni's page with its proper cut and paste template. Nothing in WP:Copying within Wikipedia states that I cannot introduce it to this page, especially considering the fact that it is accepted by other Wikipedia users as a proper use of citation.Michoacan2013 (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FyzixFighter: Now you are deleting content by non-religious sources. You are in violation of Wikipedia rules.Michoacan2013 (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, for the love of Jimbo, learn how to properly WP:THREAD discussions. Second, there is no discussion Talk:Angel Moroni that addresses my concerns. The text in question has been there, but it has also had "citation needed" and "who?" tags for awhile. Since I am raising new questions that have not been previously raised, then the stability of the text is less meaningful. My concerns have been on this talk page for now more that 24hrs with neither direct response from you about those concerns. My patience is getting to an end. Third, my edits are not vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND). Feel free to report them to WP:AIV though, but beware the WP:BOOMERANG. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FyzixFighter: You are now threatening me and it is duly noted. Your edits are vandalism. You are compromising the readers of Wikipedia. Michoacan2013 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?! What threat? I see no threat. If I did threaten you, that is a serious breach of WP:NPA and you need to report me immediately to WP:ANI. You really need to learn what is and is not vandalism. To quote WP:NOTVAND, "If an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, then that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per my concerns expressed above about self-published sources I've removed the Washington comparison paragraph sourced to Davis. I also removed the Hammond citation as it too is a SPS, but left a citation needed tag since there likely exists a RS for the Quinn quote. I believe it is in Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" book but I cannot confirm at this time.

Not a historicity concern, but as a way of explanation, I removed a link to a court document in "anti-goverment protestors" section. WP:BLPPRIMARY says explicitly and emphatically that we do not use primary court documents to support statements about living persons. Fortunately the Williamette Week source is sufficient for that sentence. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FyzixFighter: The article still sounds too much like an apologetics page. The section regarding the nomenclature "Moroni" is going to stay to add a level of balance to the article. The following concern still needs to be addressed:
"This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view. (September 2011)"
To date, I cannot find a single non-religious secondary source in the list of sources you have contributed. This article needs serious work. Perhaps you can help in the process by adding non-Mormon sources rather than deleting them. Wikipedia readers cannot and should not be denied multiple viewpoints.Michoacan2013 (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop accusing other editors of acting in bad faith by denying viewpoints and information to readers. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. The tag at the top of the page asks for reliable secondary source. The majority of the sources that I've removed and challenged fail that simple requirement. Even while we look to add additional secondary sources, let's not forget that requirement. I'm all for adding multiple viewpoints if those viewpoints can be verified in reliable sources, are relevant to the topic at hand, and don't introduce undue weight. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's page includes a narrative analysis. It is fitting for Captain Moroni to have one too.Michoacan2013 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are better. However I don’t know if I would call any them a narrative analysis, certainly nothing like the sources used in the narrative analysis section at Noah. The third is the one that maybe comes the closest IMO to a narrative analysis. However, it’s also the weakest in terms of reliability. It’s not clear to me if the Joseph Smith Foundation has the provenance necessary to qualify as a reliable source. For example, the slideshow you linked to – who created it? Are they a trusted source for this analysis? Was this presented at a scholarly conference? These are the same questions that lead us not to trust self-published sources. Now if this were the Joseph Smith Papers Project, that would be another question. The fourth reference, the documentary, also fails the SPS test and has no verifiable provenance. Note SPS type sources are acceptable when the author(s) are well-known and have been previously published in reliable sources.
As such, I think what you have written is actually a good start for what the significance of the narrative and Captain Moroni in Mormon culture. I’ve therefore renamed and expanded to include more commentary on how the Moroni and his story are viewed and understood today within Mormonism. It can certainly be expanded.
As part of that rename and expansion, I also removed the table. It wasn’t clear to me what the purpose of the table exactly was. It seemed to me that a link to the slideshow was sufficient. That way we don’t have to distill quite a number of examples from a single source into a concise table. It’s not clear to me how those specific examples were chosen. Also, this comes from the third and least reliable source – devoting more than two thirds of the section on that one source IMO was undue weight. Perhaps you could explain what you saw as the purpose of the table so that we could come to some consensus on its inclusion? I also removed the Joseph Smith Project references until we can establish their reliability. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FyzixFighter: A section on the "Significance in modern Mormon culture" is not what I had in mind, but I think the way you recreated it presents information readers would need. This section should be expanded. Your sources, however, are still LDS/BYU-sponsored, whereas the Joseph Smith Foundation (JSF) is independent. What exactly are you concerned about with regard to the JSF? Do you need to know their entire editorial process? A narrative or textual analysis section should be on this page.Michoacan2013 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FyzixFighter: I have not been given a response about your editorial standards, and why you believe BYU's analysis is more valid than that of The Joseph Smith Foundation. They are certainly not the only organization with an analysis, and the LDS Church is not the only form of Mormonism. If an editorial standard is not provided, I am going to reintroduce the analysis provided by The Joseph Smith Foundation. It seems like the goal post keeps changing.
The metric for what constitute a reliable source can be found summarized at WP:SOURCES and more detailed at WP:IRS. Additionally, for disagreements over a sources reliability, there is WP:RSN. Basically the metric favors, but is not limited to, journalistic and academic sources which have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. This is why self-published sources are not considered reliable for wikipedia articles. Of the sources I added - Encyclopedia of Mormonism, BYU Studies, Religious Educator, and Dialogue - all have that professional structure in place (the second and fourth are known academic journals within the Mormon Studies niche). It is also easy to identify the author in each case for attributing and for double-checking whatever credentials the author may have. Note that Dialogue, while publishing on Mormonism, is completely independent of the LDS Church and BYU. It's probably your best bet for the type of material I think you're looking for, but I could be mistaken. With the JSF, I cannot find anything to indicate that there is any kind of editorial control or reputation for fact-checking. Again, at this point it is probably a good idea to bring the matter up on WP:RSN, remembering that onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FyzixFighter: Fair enough. I'll try to get more info on the JSF and their editorial process. We should continue to post info that is independent and adds to the number of viewpoints on this page. Michoacan2013 (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FyzixFighter: For now I am moving a bit of the JSF content to the external links section.
@FyzixFighter: From reading the exchange, your vandalism is not in good faith.71.235.148.68 (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Captain Moroni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Captain_Moroni&oldid=1202127067"