Talk:Interpreter (journal)

Self-congratulatory blurb from editor

Regarding this edit: that source really does not add anything to the article. It doesn't give any independent information, it doesn't add anything to the notability of this journal (which is weak), there is simply no reason to list every website that ever mentioned this journal. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The self-congradulatory blurb (un-/)fortunately also contains an overview of what had transpired over at the journal over the preceding year: its genesis a week prior at the 2012 FAIR conference, its weekly publication schedule, its roundtable sponsorships, likewise its sponsorship of a symposium, etc.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dehlin affair

Randykitty said, " someone criticizes someone else. That's not an affair and trivial for a journal like this. In addition "Dehlin affair" is (quite justifiedly) a redirect"

The affair (sorry you disagree with English usage of this word), in its timing and subject matter, is all mixt up with the change at M. Studies Review from a sectarian, in-house hothouse for doctors of apologia toward BYU's apparent goal of influencing the now-burgeoning field of M. Studies in the outside, secular academy through BYU's bringing in a new board drawn from this greater world and assigning a new editor, etc (hence the split off of Interpreter to continue the old regime's work).

"[...]Executive Director M. Gerald Bradford, were concerned that what they saw as the sometimes-aggressive nature of the apologetic material produced by the Institute was compromising the Institute’s respectability as a scholarly body. Other members of the Institute, led especially by Peterson, insisted that it was imperative that the Institute continue publishing apologetic material to answer criticisms of Mormonism."--Student Review, an indie student pub at BYU. link

For a random asstmt of Dehlin affair links (there's literally scores of em to choose among) see here, here, here and here and, for fun, a discussion board with BYU participants here and one with critics of BYU(/"anti-Mormon"?) participants here.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK, so it's being discussed on Internet boards and blogs. How about some RS? At this poit, I don't see any sign of an "affair". Just a critical article that was published in Interpreter. If we would link in "see also" to every instance a journal has some role in something, we would end up with hundreds of links for really notable journals like The Lancet or Nature (including some real controversies worthy of the word "affair"). --Randykitty (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The sad part is that your attitude, although less than common on WP, nonetheless unfortunately is quite prevalent. In any case, again (and sorry if you somehow recall that I've asked you to do this many, many times in the past, as well, but... ) please, please, please at least CLICK on the provided links, man. I mean, in the name of "wiki - cultural diversity" if nothing else, and I don't care if the religion in question is Salinger's Vedantaism or something else. (LDS are usually so accustomed to being a minority that they most typically seem respond to displays of willful ignorance with displays of their own absolutely polite behavior--but, alas, I'm the (rather unusual in this regard, I suppose) rude Buddhist....)

<sighs> The internet-published comments by principals to the controversy (um debacle? "issue of public discussion and interest"? geez can't we just use the one that most quickly comes to mind for writers of the English language for god's sake?) are RSes for the purposes of documenting issues relating to the principals themselves per wp:SELFPUBLISHED and the indie student newspaper and patheos.org linked above are both legit RSes in their own right.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Is flagship journal of Mo[rmon-a]pologetics

Per Student Review. (And there is no other [following scare quotes added later, see next comment] "scholarly journal" so to be.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (Re-signed)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologetics is indeed scholarly, after all. But alas it cannot really be considered a subset of the social sciences, no? Rather I suppose it might ought to be considered under the rubric of divinity or some such----am I right? Eg: Note this qt from footnote six from Maas's contribution to Amer. Sociology of Religion: Histories (2007)--which presents Maas's run down of the new new sub-disc. of M.Studies as a recent development under the grossest-grain academic category of the soc.sciences:

I will not include in this chapter any discussion of Mormon theology, doctrine, beliefs, or apologetics, which are generally considered outside the realm of social science, except as they might be discussed as influences on behavior.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Another Peterson qt:

The [Maxwell Institute] director’s desire to turn the Maxwell Institute in a more neutral, “objective” direction—i.e., toward “Mormon studies”—was entirely consistent with his own academic background in the relatively secular non-confessional world of “religious studies.” link

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Said to enjoy a quite formal peer review

Peterson, Dec. 11, 2012: "Interpreter is, if anything, more rigorously peer-reviewed than the Review ever was. The [M.Studies] Review was peer-reviewed by readers who acted at the invitation of its editors, but Interpreter has an absolutely independent article-review committee." LINK--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interpreter (journal). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216012348/http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56184763-78/mormon-review-institute-studies.html.csp to http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56184763-78/mormon-review-institute-studies.html.csp

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) 05:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Mission of Interpreter

There are two reasons I've currently identified to keep "understanding" in this line.

1. The sentence as currently reads is redundant. "The journal publishes historical surveys, responses to critics, book reviews, personal essays, and other scholarly literature, all with the primary goals of increasing faith in Latter-day Saint scripture and religion and defending it." Defending and increasing faith are basically the same thing.
2. The journal's description says that its "goal [is] to increase understanding of scripture."

We've already established that the journal has the goal of defending the Church. Leave it as is. It's a good compromise and captures everything anyone will want to know about the journal. Marspe1 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)