Jump to content

Talk:Linguistics and the Book of Mormon/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Summary Statement

Routerone, you're not going to succeed in removing critical comments about Smith from this article. This isn't a missionary or evangelical tract. There are criticisms of the Book of Mormon's English text and of Smith's account of its origin. Critics think he's a fraud. You can't remove that fact from this article and make it sound like all the science points to the BOM text being what it claims to be. The text you keep removing is a summary of the criticisms that are listed in greater detail below. Prove that to be wrong if you think removing the statement is warranted. It's not synthesis of outside work, it's a summary of what follows. (Taivo (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

It is not a "summary of the criticisms", what that is is a biased declarative having a knock at the Book and trying to make it look like what the actuals are saying is "actual fact" rather than just disputed claims (which is the true picture), it tries to say "Smith's imperfect command of Early Modern English grammar, his failure to understand the various linguistic layers (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin) of biblical lexicography, and textual anachronisms" which is automatically assuming that he wrote it and that the critics are automatically correct in everything they say, which is again disagreed with and has been completely dissproven by mormon apologists, but you present it as fact! What sort of tyranny is that? If I am not mistaken that is poorly sourced, manipulative and POV pushing to the hilt. Plus you cited a youtube video to try and justify your statement... and wikipedia states officially that youtube is not a reliable source. Routerone (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
First, the YouTube video is a video presentation of the written source which is also cited. Second, there is nothing stated in that summary which is not detailed in the rest of the article under critical issues. You have presented no credible reason to delete this summary other than "I don't like it--it paints Smith in a bad light". The critics DO paint Smith in a bad light. That is the fact of the matter. (Taivo (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC))
Ahem, youtube is still not a reliable source, if you have an issue find the written source. Plus, just because that "summary" outlines the rest of the articles does not mean it is correct. What it means, is that there are problems within the whole article. I am removing that information because quite obviously it is flawed, and you're adding a + b to assume a view is correct with your own conclusions, the statement automatically assumes Smith was wrong, when the issue is very much debated. Hence you are excluding the LDS view, and you are excluding the fact that LDS scholars managed to find counter arguments against most of the "linguistic evidence against" the Book. This article is in a terrible state, and I will not allow such a rancid and off topic attack on the church to be endorsed through this website. Just because they are "critical" does not mean they are right, as described by John Stewart Mill; the tyranny of the majority. There is a reason why those tags are on this page, and its because of your disastrous and manipulative editing towards it! Routerone (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you are pushing your POV because you want to exclude the critical POV from this page and turn it into a review of FARMS work to prove the BOM. BOTH POVs must be presented equally and fairly. You have done nothing to balance the article. If you think that the wording I've placed there is too much, then present an alternate wording (as I have done on many occasions) rather than just deleting what you see as being against your Mormon POV. (Taivo (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC))
This is FAR from a "rancid attack on the church". Indeed, it is still HEAVILY pro-Mormon POV in its text. It presents FARMS' linguistic drivel as proven fact. (Taivo (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

So its ok for this article to be too critical, but not too apologetical? I find that quite tedious, for if I try and add apologetical information in then you will remove it (as you did with Canadianlady1) saying it makes the article into an "essay", so you're basically saying its best off as a one sided attack? Right? and how is that justified? I don't accept that, and that for me is "unbalanced", and pretty much "drivel". The fact you also said FARMS is "drivel" is incredibly offensive and sums up your prejudice, yet everything the critics say are "right"?. The thing is I will not "suggest" an alternative wording, because the critical opinion on the book of mormon is already stated in the lead paragraph, so why make it even worse by adding a viewpoint which is trying to say "its established fact he wrote it" and then citing a youtube video to support it (and youtube is officially not allowed as a soure on wikipedia). The article is not "bias" towards Mormons, its incredibly critical and I am balancing the article from being an attack to something actually worth being called an "article". Routerone (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You are too sensitive and probably shouldn't be editing an article to which you are so emotionally tied. I'm not certain what edit of Canadianlady1's you're referring to, but the critical thing which I look at (and I have not edited the whole article) is whether a particular addition is succinctly written in a NPOV style. Excessive quotes are unwarranted per Wikipedia policy. Summary statements are preferred without every little detail being aired. If a person wants the details they should consult the references. Just because you disagree with the critics doesn't mean that a summary of their conclusion is POV. The same goes for apologetical statements. This article was HIGHLY apologetical in its origin. Indeed, its life began as a missionary tract pushing the chiasmus stuff. You can still see that in sections where I haven't revised it down. There are sections where there is no published critical material (Native American names, for example), so the only thing mentioned is the apologetic thing. Personally, I think the premise of the entire article is unwarranted digging into trivia and I have proposed deleting it on a previous occasion. But as long as it's here it needs BOTH the apologetic and critical voices. (Taivo (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

English Errors

I added a quote from the Tanakh that shows the same kind of "inexplicable switch" in personal pronoun as is common in the BOM. The material was deleted without any discussion and with the comment that the article is about the "BOM not the KJV". But Tavio who deleted the material appears to misunderstand the issue. The pronoun switch is from the Hebrew Tanakh- not the KJV independently, the KJV is simply the translation of the text. I could provide the Hebrew text here but without an English translation it would be of little utility.

It seems self-evident to me that if the article is making the case that the BOM is unique in its switching pronouns, the reality that this also occurs in semitic texts is relevant to the discussion. — Mavasher (talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please Discuss: Tavio again changed the article without discussion and the following comment: "See Talk Page ad infinitum. This is not a debate, it is an exposition of positions no matter what you personally feel about them. Keep the argumentation for your tract."

1: I think you misunderstand the position and unfortunately how I "personally feel about them." I think the section on English errors is appropriate- there are many more examples of English errors in the current and previous editions of the Book of Mormon. The examples cited are fine, there are probably better examples to draw from.

2: Eliminating relevant material from the article simply because you individually do not like it is not appropriate. Please keep neutral POV.

3: Showing grammatical inconsistency in the text and texts Joseph Smith had access to is relevant to the topic.

4: I fail to see how the information you deleted could be used in any sort of "tract". Perhaps you can clarify what it is that you mean.

5: I completely agree that this is not a debate. I somewhat disagree that it is "an exposition of positions"- the article ought to present unbiased information that is relevant to the topic in an encyclopedic manner. Mavasher (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If the article is an "exposition of positions", then shouldn't this relevant and comparable position be mentioned? I don't see why Tavio is removing the material, aside from perhaps its slight flavor of original research, though this is not mentioned explicitly in his reasoning. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
"Tavio" has done absolutely no editing on this article. Please take two seconds to spell other editors' names correctly. The deleted material was not about the Book of Mormon (BOM). It is more appropriately placed in another article if it is an issue there. The function of this article is to present the linguistic views of apologists and critics of the BOM text without getting into an argument/counterargument/counter-counterargument/etc. format like a tract would. The section in question presents the referenced issues that one set of critics have with the BOM. If there is a referenced counter-argument, then it would be appropriate, but the material that was added was not referenced. The section in question appears to be original research, which is not appropriate to Wikipedia anyway. This is a highly controversial article on the best of days, so it's always good to present material here on the Talk Page first and then add it to the article only after forming a consensus about its relevance and usefulness. --Taivo (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I apologize for the misspelling of your name. I agree with a lot of what you have written in the talk page- for instance I'm not quite understanding the importance of the article in toto. I would also recommend for its deletion. However I remain in disagreement on some of your claims. The deleted material indeed was not a quote from the Book of Mormon, but I still stand by the position that grammatical inconsistency in the text and the texts available to Joseph Smith is relevant to the topic if we are going to address this issue at all. The whole article as it currently stands is argument/counterargument. I don't necessarily see the material from the Tanakh as being a "counterargument"- perhaps you can explain that- and explain why this disqualifies the text from inclusion. Now on the new issue you have about lack of references, they would be pretty easy to show- the quote is essentially self-referencing. But appropriate sources can be found here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=6&v=14&t=KJV#conc/14 and here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=6&v=14&t=KJV#conc/15 Mavasher (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Taivo, I keep getting your name wrong. Upon further inspection, the entire section is weakly sourced only to one Richard Packham. According to his 'about me' page he is "a retired college teacher (foreign languages) and retired attorney". While his teaching of foreign languages may give him some credibility in the way of linguistics, this self-published webpage is hardly a reliable source. I propose we delete the whole section unless we find some more linguists that agree with Packham's assessment. Preferably, linguists that have published on this topic in peer-reviewed journals.
You may be wondering, "why does B Fizz restore an unsourced chunk of counteragrument, and then turn around and ask to remove an entire section that at least has a source?" The reason is this, WP:V "requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source" (emphasis in original). The importance of including this section is challenged. If by no one else then by me, for the reasons stated above. However, if the section stands, I don't see the grounds for challenging the presence of the KJV comparison. Even Packham based his argument around the fact that they were similar.
I'm tired of hearing that inclusion of apologetic counterarguments equates to making the article a 'religious tract'. Could it not be just as likely that continually excluding such content is an attempt to create a counter-religious tract?
I repeat my conclusion that we scrap the section, which is based loosely and solely on a self-published website. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with scrapping the section. When dealing with subject matter such as this, we are dealing with a catalogue of arguments that exist, not facts that need verification, such as the boiling point of sulfur. As a catalogue, the requirements of "peer-reviewed journal" are not appropriate. The criticism of Packham exists as evidenced by the existence of his website. We are not judging the correctness of his POV, but only of its existence. If we were judging its correctness, then the normal requirements of verifiability would, of course, apply. But the criticism exists, and we can verify its existence by the website, so it is listed here. If Packham were to remove his website, then the criticism would perhaps no longer exist, so the section of the article could be removed. But since it exists, it is properly listed as one of the linguistic criticisms of the BOM. The only way that your comment about challenging applies here is if you have a source that says Packham's argument doesn't exist. Otherwise its existence is clearly and undeniably evidenced by its existence on the website. If your request for peer-reviewed NPOV journals were met, then this entire article would cease to exist since all the "linguistic research" that is pro-LDS is not peer-reviewed except by other LDS authors. LDS sources can appear to be scholarly and academic because they appear in "peer-reviewed" journals. But that peer review does not consist of normal NPOV peer review, but of peer review only within the LDS community. That hardly qualifies as "peer-review" in the academic sense.
The argument/counter-argument format is unavoidable in an article of this type, but we must be careful in the way these are presented. If we get into an argument/counter-argument/counter-counter-argument/counter-counter-counter-argument format, then we have moved into the position of "proving" or "disproving" the BOM in a tract format with the last poster being the "winner". This isn't a debate. Ideally, each section (whether pro or con) consists of an argument properly referenced and a counter-argument properly referenced--no more. But we must be careful that the counter-arguments are not original research. There must be a reference to either an apologetic or a critical work that makes that counter-argument. I'm sure that you agree that "but the KJV also shows X" is original research. If, however, the sentence was "Y has argued that the KJV also shows Z" (with reference), that is not original research and would be acceptable. It's a very careful balancing act to keep the article readable, maintain NPOV, and avoid OR. --Taivo (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, I appreciate your careful and calm explanation. I do agree with your statements on OR, and even agree with the technical refutation of my WP:V argument. You've stated before that "it's always good to present material here on the Talk Page first and then add it to the article only after forming a consensus about its relevance and usefulness." I challenge the relevance and usefulness of Packham's argument on this article; we need not catalog all points of view regarding the matter, only the significant ones. The policy I should have cited is WP:UNDUE, which explains why I feel it superfluous to include his argument here: there are no big whigs to back him up on the importance of this concept. LDS "peer-review" at least formally involves a review conducted by peers, biased though it may be. A self-published website requires no formal review: hence my hesitancy to accept Packham's site as enough basis to include his argument in the article. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I referenced a biblical commentary. Hope this makes everyone happy. Mavasher (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
While I feel your addition is relevant to Packham's argument, I don't feel Packham's argument is relevant to this article and stand by my proposal to remove the section. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Mavisher, you did not reference a work that says, "The argument that the Book of Mormon contains Early Modern English errors is not correct because the KJV also contains pronoun errors". All you've done is show your own research, not someone else's. It's still original research on your part at this point and not appropriate.
  • BFizz, if you're going to get into the WP:UNDUE issue then this whole article needs to go away. I'm not just joking around about the lightweight, fluffy nature of this whole issue. It is all WP:FRINGE because the pro-LDS arguments are not mainstream linguistics and have not occurred in any mainstream linguistics publications. We've (not necessarily you, but I've had this same discussion with others here and elsewhere) had this discussion many times. The issue of "supporting" the BOM with "scientific" or "historical" evidence is entirely fringe because it 1) does not occur in mainstream literature, 2) is not accepted by the mainstream fields of science or history, 3) is pushed by a group with a single POV. I have proposed deleting this article in the past and would be happy to do so again. If you're going to push to cherry-pick among the arguments you want presented here, then the whole house of cards needs to be eliminated. Packham's website exists. Packham's website presents a linguistic criticism of the BOM. This is a catalogue of linguistic arguments for and against the BOM. Packham's argument is a valid criticism to list here since it exists. That doesn't say its content is valid or not, it only says it is valid to list because it exists. WP:UNDUE does not apply in these catalogues. It applies in articles which are summaries of knowledge. This is not a summary of knowledge, but a listing of anything related to linguistics and the Book of Mormon. --Taivo (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This article has been stable for a fair amount of time with the current structure. That means that if you want to make changes you need to get a consensus first before changing anything. --Taivo (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Taivo, please read the reference before you remove the material. You are making an argument that I did not make. Richard Nelson says that " A puzzle [sic] feature of Deuteronomy is its alteration between second-person singular and plural address. The plural portions often seem to be somewhat later than the singular portions, but there is no completely satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon" (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 209). I did not make the argument that "The argument that the Book of Mormon contains Early Modern English errors is not correct because the KJV also contains pronoun errors". It appears that you are inappropriately concerned that the reader will make such as a conclusion from Nelson's argument. Please stay with neutral POV. Again, please read a little of the material before you come to a conclusion. I am including Nelson's argument, it is accurate, relevant to the material, better sourced that Packham's argument. There is no logical reason to remove my text if Packham's material can be included. By the way, the handle is Mavasher. I'm sorry but I just do not think you are currently acting in good faith. Mavasher (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Taivo, I would have an easier time swallowing the "get consensus first before changing the status quo" argument if it appeared that anyone but you had been consistently editing this article for the past year. What you say basically equates to "it has to get by me first", which flies in the face of the wiki idea that "anyone can edit".
Taivo has noted that LDS apologetic attempts at "proving" the Book of Mormon is true by literary means 1) does not occur in mainstream literature, 2) is not accepted by the mainstream fields of science or history, and 3) is pushed by a group with a single POV. However, within the scope of LDS apologetics, it 1) does appear in mainstream LDS literature, 2) is accepted by mainstream LDS scientists/historians. Packham's argument, on the other hand, in the scope of LDS critics, 1) does not appear in mainstream critical literature, and 2) is not accepted by the mainstream fields of science/history. I have no problem including arguments from mainstream critical literature on this topic, as I have no problem including arguments from mainstream apologetics. Packham's website is neither. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Sorry, Mavasher. You don't understand the issue. You have correctly cited Nelson's research, that's not the issue. The issue is 1) Nelson was not talking about the Book of Mormon or the argument that Smith didn't know how to use pronouns in Early Modern English; and 2) Nelson's statement is not clearly and directly related to Smith's pronominal usage because you have said it only relates to the book of Deuteronomy. The original research part is that you are applying Nelson's research to a context which Nelson did not intend. Nelson was only talking about the book of Deuteronomy. Packham is talking about the Book of Mormon. They are different things, so Nelson's quote does not apply to the BOM, only to the book of Deuteronomy. Nelson's comment may apply to Deuteronomy, but not here since he was not talking about the Book of Mormon. --Taivo (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
B Fizz, this article was not written by me and I was not even the principal author of this section. It is stable. You don't understand the principle of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to an article. It follows the principle of WP:BRD: 1) be Bold (you were), 2) Revert (I did because I disagree), 3) Discuss (that's what we do now before you make the change again). If you want other input on the issue then ask for comments through WP:RFC. But you don't have the right to change a stable article unilaterally without building a consensus. You need to read WP:CONSENSUS. You have no consensus to make the change. There are ways to get more input, so use them. --Taivo (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added another reference relevant to the Early Modern English issue from American Anthropologist (about as mainstream a peer-reviewed journal as there is). So that strips the WP:UNDUE argument for deleting this section. --Taivo (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that you got a legitimate mainstream reference for this. The publication is online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/658645?seq=8, and the grammatical criticism starts at the bottom of the page linked; you might want to include the link in the citation, and specify the pages of interest. I still feel the section is undue but can no longer support my editorial opinion with WP policy and so will let the matter of deleting the section rest. In the event that the section stays, which it appears that it will, I support Mavasher's addition. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem with Mavasher's revision is that the application of a quote relevant to the book of Deuteronomy to the Book of Mormon is original research and inappropriate. Nelson (Mavasher's authority) says that some passages in Deuteronomy have an interesting pronominal sequence in Hebrew. He's talking only about Deuteronomy and Hebrew and not at all about Early Modern English and the Book of Mormon. As original research, Mavasher's addition is not appropriate per Wikipedia policy. The problem with adding the link to the Pierce article is that it is not accessible except to users who have Jstor access. I tend to dislike links that only some users can use. Users who have Jstor access will know how to access the article with the citation given. --Taivo (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no way to support Mavasher's addition while upholding wikipedia policy. It is a very clear example of synthesis and Original research - he has two sources making two separate claims and he is holding them together to make a new argument. This is not ok in this encyclopedia. IF Mavasher can find a reliable source that supports his conclusion then it can be included but not before - no matter how many people support the inclusion, because it is against the basic rules of wikipedia.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other. The conversation is good but I feel you're arguing against a straw man. The conclusions that I supposedly draw I have not drawn. I did not make any of the arguments that it appears you think I made. I am not connecting Nelson's information with the Book of Mormon. The original text in this discussion should make it clear that 1) The biblical text does a weird pronoun thing like Nelson says 2) This is relevant. Apart from this I have made no conclusions, no edits to the text ever said anything more. The data are what they are. They do not independently point toward a conclusion. What precisely is the Original Research here? The information in question does not say that ""The argument that the Book of Mormon contains Early Modern English errors is not correct because the KJV also contains pronoun errors" as Taivo contends nor does it say that "it is possible Joseph Smith copied/was influenced by such a weird pronoun thing" Neither of those conclusions can be definitively drawn. The data are what they are. The absence of a conclusion is not a good reason to censor the data. I'm repeating myself but this still isn't getting through- I am not drawing a conclusion between Nelson's words and Packham's. I understand Nelson's words do not directly relate to the BOM- I have never made any pretense to that effect. I do however argue that the data is important and germane to the topic.

@Maunus- welcome to the conversation. I'm not understanding something you wrote- you wrote that I have "two sources making two separate claims"- I only added the quote from deuteronomy as an example and the reference to Nelson. Not sure what the two separate claims are. I do not accept that advocating that the data are relevant to the article constitutes OR. Please do not put words in my mouth nor say that I drew conclusions that I, in fact, did not draw. I reject the claim that I need to find a reference to this mythical conclusion that you say I have arrived at. Peace and love. Mavasher (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you didn't add the first source stating something about pronoun usage in BOM - that one was already there. However you are the one saying that the bit aout deuteronomy is relevant - that is the synthesis part. You say that you are not making any claim or conclusion - but you are - you are concluding that a study about pronoun use in deuteronomy that doesn't mention BOM is relevant for the article about linguistics in the BOM - that is a conclusion, and unless a published study also makes the conclusion that deuteronomy pronoun usage is relevant to discussing pronoun usage in the BOM then including it here is synthesis and inadmisaable. You say that mentioning data is not OR - Data is something used in research not in encyclopedias where we represent other peoples research based on data. You are not in a position to reject our conclusions that you addition is original research and hence indamissable - the only way you can insert the material is by convincing us through arguments based in wikipedia policy that it is not. Untill you read and internalize the applicable policies about WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:CONSENSUS that is not likely to happen. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Look, heres an example that might explain the problem to you better. I could cite a study saying that pronoun mixups is a common feature of the speech of people suffering from schizoid personality disorder. I could also claim that that was relevant to the present article, and in fact it would be as relevant as would pronoun mixups in deuteronomy. However it isn't clear why it is relevant and it prompts the readerto ask himself why is this information included. I am pretty sure that if I included the material about schizoid personality disorder the reader would come to the conclusion that it is being suggested that the author of BOM suffered from schizoid personality disorder. To my knowledge no scientific studies have backed up this conclusion so I would be misleading the reader. You ar doing the same thing by including this material which prompts the reader to ask the relevance of the material and possibly arrive at the conclusion that when deuteronomy and BOM both mixes up pronouns then pronoun mixup in the BOM isn't something that should lead to questioning its authenticity. Do you see? Leading the reader to drawing novel conclusions by juxtaposing data that has not previously been connected is the very definition of WP:SYNTHESIS.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the example- honestly I wouldn't have issue with such a comparison in your example if it were appropriately cited but I do agree with your interpretation of WP policy on Synthesis and its use in this case. I still think that Pierce is a much better source for this case than Packham whose mini-english lessons between statements ought to be superfluous if his argument is as solid as he contests. Why do we have two separate sections on Grammar in this article? Packham was uniquely about Early Modern English, while Abanes was focusing on grammatical mistakes in general. Pierce deals with both- so why the separate sections? I agree with Taivo that the whole article has issues. Some examples:
In Hebrew Names section: "However, -ihah does not appear in transliterations of attested Hebrew names." No citation for this idea. Additionally, I'm assuming you'd agree that such a source would have to be directly referencing the BOM per the above discussion. Recommend citation or removal.
In the Parallels section: "Scholars point out that this could well be the logical result of an ancient work translated by a modern man using the wording best suited to convey the ideas to a modern reader." Again no source for this. Recommend citation or removal.
The whole section Archaeological anachronisms has no referencing material whatever, nor do I understand its connection to the topic of this article. Recommend removal.
I'll restate earlier statements- I think the article has major issues, let's apply WP standards across all of these areas. Mavasher (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you are correct that those examples need citations. I think you should tag the sentences in question with {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) templates and then see if anyone finds a citation within a reasonable period e.g. a couple of weeks. You could also look for sources yourself and if it is impossiblke to improve it then I agree that the unsourced information should probably be removed.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Rather than trying to tackle all the issues at once, I suggest you go one step at a time. --Taivo (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Archeological Anachronisms

This section is barely related to the topic. As I can see it, the relationship is that critics say there were no horses, etc. in Ancient America, but apologists use a linguistic argument in rebuttal. That's a pretty flimsy connection to "linguistics". I concur with Mavasher (above) that this section should be deleted from the article, especially since there is an entire article devoted to the topic. --Taivo (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Mavasher (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Also agree. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, also agree.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Done. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Church" and "Synagogue"

This section references only scriptures without any reference to an authority claiming the material in the section. How important is this issue to the various parties involved? Both the argument and counterargument to use Taivo's parlance have not provided any references for their claims. Lots of original research. Let's discuss possible removal if this issue is not of great importance. Mavasher (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is a linguistic argument. References aren't hard to find, so just tag it with a citation needed tag and I'll add a proper reference in the next day or two. --Taivo (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. I tagged a statement and provided a reference to one of the statements. Reading over the information in the article the claims still seem pretty silly to me for lack of a better word: The use of the word "Church" or "έκκλησία" is attested in the Septuagint as the article states and the sources I can see validate the KJV rendering of מועדי as "synagogues". What is the case for these words being anachronistic? Mavasher (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Mavasher, it's not what you think or how you read the dictionaries. It's what the critics and the apologists have written. None of the references in that section are valid at this time because none of them cite a critic or an apologists who makes the argument. Our judgment of the validity of a criticism or apologia matters--we don't judge validity. Don't open another Hebrew or Greek dictionary. Find critical or apologetic literature and see if they make the argument. This whole section needs rewriting and restructuring as it reads like a piece of original research as it is currently written and structured. I'll work on it. --Taivo (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. The issue I have is the lack of any authority. So looking at the claims themselves becomes the next issue because it's a matter of trying to find authorities to claim this stuff. You're fine, just take the time you need. Mavasher (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose Combining Early Modern English Grammar Errors with Grammar

I propose combining section on Early Modern English Grammar Errors with the Grammar errors section. I don't care which one is combined with which nor where the resulting section goes, but think that the information ought to be combined under the same heading. Comments please. Mavasher (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, they are basically about the same topic. --Taivo (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I concur. My initial reaction would be to move the Early Modern English Grammar Errors section down with the Grammar section....comments? ~BFizz 00:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Either direction of movement is fine with me, since some of the grammar errors are already listed in Pierce's comment quoted in the EME error section, I think. Either way, we'll probably need to massage the lead sentence a touch. --Taivo (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Combined the sections- I added the Early Modern English Grammar to the section below as BFizz suggested. I also think this is a logical place for the information. I separated out Pierce and moved that text higher as it seemed to me that his argument paralleled Abanes and then have Packham last. I added a couple of clarifying introductions; put in that George Smith was an LDS leader. Obviously if anyone has any issue with what I've done, I'm perfectly happy having the group modify it. Mavasher (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I combined and condensed all three of the critical introductions and placed Smtih's comments last so that it was a clear Critic-Defender structure. We had an edit conflict, so make sure that I didn't delete any good wording that you may have added. --Taivo (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I really like your edit. I think you did a good job. Mavasher (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Structure of Sections

Just a reminder for people who want to argue a point. We've tried to be careful and not turn this page into a A says B, but then C says D, while E responds with F, etc. We have tried to have a paragraph of apologist positions followed by a paragraph of critical positions (or vice versa), period. We don't want to have a paragraph of apologist positions, then a paragraph of critical positions, to which some faithful soul has added detailed apologist responses to each critical position. This isn't a debate. This is a simple, Present the positions of A, Present the positions of B, MOVE ON. --Taivo (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Whipple, did you bother reading this post? I didn't think so. Read WP:BRD as well. If you make a change and it is reverted, you don't go back and reinsert disputed material, but build a consensus on the Talk Page before reinserting it. --Taivo (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has been stable for years now based on consensus. Do not insert what you think is NPOV, but is actually biased, without discussion here on the Talk Page. I will continue to revert the insertion of biased wording, especially when that biased wording uses incorrect terminology and bad grammar. --Taivo (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say that this is a changing field with Skousen's Earliest Text published, and with reliable, searchable EModE databases now available, so stability in this article is an undesirable thing. I would also say that bad grammar exists in this entry, as it currently stands, and that you apparently preside over. But your misplaced jab is largely inconsequential to the matter at hand: the substance and the POV of this entry. Terms need to be redundantly applied so as to ensure NPOV. NPOV is difficult to achieve, and this piece falls short of the mark. For instance, historians and scientists are mentioned as rejecting the historical authenticity of the BoM, but the introduction does not state that there are historians and scientists who study it critically, just like those who reject it, and that they accept the historical authenticity of the BoM (and they have published extensively on it in the typical academic manner). So I would say that the article needs to say, in order to achieve NPOV, that h&s on both sides of the issue accept and reject the historical authenticity of the BoM.
(As an aside, which you don't need to read, I would point out to you that those who accept the authenticity of the BoM usually work much harder and more seriously on the matter than those who reject it. Those who reject it understandably fear that accepting the authenticity of the BoM would hurt their academic standing, so that journals are more quick to accept work rejecting authenticity, and thus just as apt to accept shoddy scholarship rejecting authenticity as any "apologetic" journal is to accept shoddy scholarship that supports authenticity. As I mentioned, both sides are apologists. The critics are no more legitimate than the "apologists". No one can approach this text in an unbiased manner.)
Also, no discussion of linguistics and the BoM should fail to mention Skousen's critical text project and the thousands of pages published on that, one published by Yale UP in 2009. You seem content to preside over an inferior product. The grammar section is outdated and laughable. Some examples come from an 1899 Amer. Anthropology piece written by an author who displayed unprofessional scorn without any EModE knowledge, and some come from a personal webpage written by someone with a woefully insufficient understanding of EModE. I mention EModE because that is what the outset of the grammar section mentions as the attempted BoM style that is open to criticism. And then examples are provided from critics who have no linguistic knowledge of EModE. Yet a quick search in EEBO and the OED, established authorities that provide millions of examples of EModE style, gives most examples of the bad grammar listed in that section. And an in-depth search finds all of the examples. I could provide a simple list for insertion here to show typical/possible EModE usage, unless you are hopelessly intransigent about the matter. I write that because part of the material that I inserted was a reference and citation to Skousen's important, ground-breaking work that several non-LDS scholars have praised. Yet you deleted it all. In your wisdom, you could have chosen at least that item to insert somewhere appropriate in this entry, especially since it is arguably the most important item that has ever been published on BoM linguistics, as for the first time it provides a reliable base text for linguistic inquiry from this point going forward. Please respond addressing the substantive issues that I have brought up, and not with boilerplate. --Champatsch (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You seem to operate under the misguided notion that articles published in Mormon-owned and operated journals are somehow on the same level of reliability as articles published in actual scientific journals. That is simply not the case since articles in the former are not peer-reviewed by anyone except those who accept Mormon doctrinal beliefs and who already believe that the BOM is an actual historical artifact and not a fiction that sprung from Smith's imagination. That violates the principle of scholarly reliability. If there are grammar issues that you have, then separate them from the doctrinal or sourcing issues that you have. If you again try to push your entire bulk of edits at once, then you will again be reverted. Truly minor grammar edits ("There dogs bit me" > "Their dogs bit me") can be done quickly and easily without controversy. But dealing with sources and other issues requires a discussion here on the Talk Page and building a consensus among interested editors. That is standard Wikipedia operating procedure. Just because you think something, doesn't make it so. I strongly suggest that you proceed item by item (or a small group of related items) for the most productive effort. --Taivo (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me put it to you succinctly: controversial literature = no NPOV. You seem to operate under the misguided notion that scientific journal articles approach the BofM neutrally. I am sorry that you have such a naive view. In your own words, that is simply not the case since articles in typical academic peer-reviewed journals are examined only by those who do not or refuse to entertain the possiblity that the BOM might not be a fiction that sprang from Smith's imagination. In addition, I am sorry that you have decided against making this article have a less biased POV, as I have minimally suggested. You would do well to compare a recent article on stylometry and the BofM by a Stanford professor named Jockers, and compare the response by three authors published in the Mormon Studies Review. The scholarship of the latter in no way suffers by comparison with the former. As another item, I just read a Language Log piece written by a former professor of mine, Bill Poser, who has a PhD in linguistics from MIT. Yet he made egregious errors in relation to judgments on the EModE of the BofM, tacitly accepting several of the silly criticisms of Pierce 1899 that this same Wikipedia article does. When it comes to controversial literature such as the BofM, the reliability of scholarship and neutrality is sadly lacking in the academic domain. And this article perpetuates it. --Champatsch (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You apparently failed to understand the main point of my comment, which was that if you want to make improvements to the article, then present them one-by-one here for discussion. And your Mormon bias is pretty darn clear. The wording of this article is not the result of some anti-Mormon writer running amok. Several years ago several editors, myself included, both Mormon and non-Mormon, worked hard on hammering these issues out. You would do well to read the archives on this and every other article that deals with the BOM to see that your POV has been well-represented in discussions. And in reading your comment above I can see that your faith might very well get in the way of objectivity on the issue. Accusing every non-Mormon academic of bias is pretty blatant POV-pushing. I have close friends who are Mormon linguists and academics. They are very clear in drawing a line between what is their scientific writing and what is their writing for the faithful. They know the difference. --Taivo (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
And in case you haven't bothered to read the history of this article, I suggest, at a minimum, that you read this section as a guide to how to structure any proposed changes you want to make. As I wrote there, this isn't a point-by-point debate, but a presentation of apologist comments and critical comments that have been made in the literature. --Taivo (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Parallelomania

I suggest that the section with an obvious POV title "Parallelomania" be merged with a prior subsection called "Parallels". Also, Parallelomania is 5/6 critical POV, and 1/6 promoter POV. I suggest the Hamblin content be expanded by presiding editor(s) so that this section is no more than 2/3 critical POV. --Champatsch (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The critical part of that section is, I agree, too long and not really substantive. I suggest you offer a rewritten section here for agreement. --Taivo (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"Linguistics" and this article

There are actually two different things being combined in this article, for better or worse (I personally think the latter).

  • 1) What are the linguistic problems with the English text of the BOM? This includes problems with 19th-century English grammar, mistakes Smith made with his imitation of Early Modern English grammar, linguistic anomalies in Smith's text, and grammatical differences between the BOM Critical Edition and the current official BOM text(s). This is actually a valid field of study.
  • 2) The attempts by Mormons to find similarities between the English text of the BOM and ancient Hebrew language and literature. This is just religious mythology masquerading as some sort of pseudo-scientific pursuit.

There is one further problem with Mormon articles in general: the attempts to push a particular POV by using materials published by BYU, FARMS, FAIR, the Maxwell Institute, or other Mormon-owned venues as if they are on a par with actual peer-reviewed academic journals and books. Their sole job is to push the Mormon POV, and, as such, their goal is the exact opposite of neutral academic journals. --Taivo (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me put it to you succinctly: controversial literature = no NPOV. As mentioned above, academic journals are anything but neutral, and often produce substandard material as long as the POV coincides with a powerful player on the editorial board of the journal. I am grateful to have your list above in number 1, since that will provide me with good titles for articles. The first one I will pursue is "mistakes Smith made with his imitation of EModE grammar". Now that we have the necessary databases in digital form, I will be able to provide counterexamples with real EModE data, not simply employ soft argumentation and make pseudo-scientific inaccurate pronouncements that have been blithely thrown around for decades because it was difficult or impossible to counter the assertions since one could not easily search texts that could counteract the misinformation. Skousen is doing the last one you mention under number 1. --Champatsch (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me add that the parallelomania section is anything but balanced. This article is heavily skewed one way. A self-respecting NPOV adherent would balance that section and many others in this piece. --Champatsch (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Be warned when developing material for Wikipedia, since you appear to be a new editor. Original research is not allowed. You cannot go through a BOM data base and write your own analysis of Smith's Early Modern English errors, trying to refute them. You have to rely on reliable sources, which can then be refuted by other sources which you may not like, but which are academically sound. --Taivo (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
As an example of original research that is not allowed here, this edit of yours is not permitted in Wikipedia. If you have a source that has made these arguments, then you can present it. Otherwise, if it's just your perusal of the OED database, then it's not allowed. See WP:OR. --Taivo (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
As I have indicated, the substance of the sources is not reliable, since they are unsubstantiated assertions without expertise. I guess the form of the 1899 Amer. Anthrop. article is reliable, but a personal webpage is not reliable. Yet you wish to maintain an unreliable product. I would advise that you delete the latter since it is unprofessional and unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champatsch (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the 1899 article is considered a reliable source. It is found in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. But that web page is just as reliable as any Mormon-published source. "Reliable" doesn't mean that it has no POV. Sadly for you, there are no NPOV sources (meaning non-Mormon) that accept the BOM as anything more than a fiction from the imagination of Joseph Smith (or some other 19th century source). --Taivo (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
And you may have some legitimate changes to make. No Wikipedia article is perfect. But what I'm insisting on is that you propose your changes here on the Talk Page first and then we can come to an agreement on wording if your change is a valid one. --Taivo (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
As I indicated, there is no NPOV possible here. Please don't use that term. And please clean up the skew and unbalanced sections that are present throughout this piece to the best of your ability. BTW, I changed the citations in the grammar section because the others were useless and I deleted a redundancy. So can I make a webpage like one in the grammar section and then cite it? Or do you only allow one-sided personal webpage linking, thus betraying your POV bias? --Champatsch (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
NPOV is what the involved editors think it is. The editors (whether Mormon or not) who have worked on this page have come to a series of compromises--that is the definition of NPOV. If you think that everything is either your way or no way, then you will have a problem editing this page. You are new to Wikipedia and getting involved on a page that has the potential to be very divisive unless patiently and carefully discussed before trying to edit. Perhaps you might want to get your feet wet in the Wikipedia process on a less problematic and controversial page before trying to swim in the deep end of the pool. --Taivo (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I want to know to whether I can create a personal webpage with critical content and then cite it in this article as I note has been done with material by Packham. His personal webpage is cited more than once in this article. If I cannot do that, then I suggest you remove Packham content and citations from this article, and any other material like it. --Champatsch (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You really need to learn Wikipedia rules. Packham is a legitimate critical source. It's not the best source, but it is a source nonetheless because it was not created for Wikipedia--it exists outside the world of Wikipedia. You creating a webpage for the specific purpose of using it in Wikipedia is not allowed. There is also a rule against conflict of interest--editing a Wikipedia page by quoting your own material created just for Wikipedia. You hate critics of the BOM. I get that. But just because critical information against your holy book exists doesn't mean that you get to find any means to remove it. Live with it. The majority of people in this world who have heard of the BOM think it is Smith's fiction. And they write stuff demonstrating that it's Smith's fiction. So to answer your question about creating your own webpage to use as a reference for Wikipedia, the answer is no. And that doesn't equate to removing references to Packham since Packham is not a Wikipedia editor. --Taivo (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
So I could write something, have someone else post it on the web as their work, then cite it in the future here. That is an unacceptably weak citation policy. I suggest Wikipedia shore up their citation standards.
According to current policy, I get what you're saying about Packham's material, but a second qualified person should edit it before Wikipedia cites it. I can see you're frustrated with me by your comment that I hate critics of the BofM. That's not true. Have I told you that you hate promoters of the BofM? I don't think so. I suspect that you have revealed that it is more likely that such a notion applies to you than to me. (I suppose that I have said that you preside over an unbalanced article.) I don't hate Packham or others. I simply dislike poor scholarship that isn't accurate which is laid out for public consumption. The untrained take it as legitimate. I guess I can see why you allow the citation as a Wikipedia editor, but it must pain you as a linguist to allow it since he criticizes some BofM usage that is patently King James English and mentioned transparently in relevant OED entries. He doesn't have a doctorate in lx, which would be inconsequential except that it is arguably relevant because he has not done much research and someone with a doctorate in lx would probably have done so before making such comments. As far as the 1899 Pierce article is concerned, I have looked at it and there is one item that is a legitimate criticism of BofM usage, and another one that is interesting but which can be argued either way. However, the other grammatical criticisms are cases of typical or possible EModE.
Because you are a linguist and concerned with and even perhaps interested in this topic, I will provide you with the following substance. If we consider the BofM's pervasive past-tense syntax with and without "did", which is a solid time marker during the early modern period according to Alvar Ellegård (1953), we come to realize/accept that Smith could not have written/dictated the text of the BofM. Why is that? Because no one, including biblical imitators, had written that way since the 1500s. And no one has since. So the nonbiblical 16c past-tense usage profile found in the BofM text was inaccessible to Smith and scribe. It is unique for its time. And this is a matter of syntactic knowledge, not genius, etc. Therefore, for that reason and others based on substantial syntactic evidence, one must assume that there was a prior English-language source MS written by an expert in EME linguistics. So, scientifically speaking, the BofM could not have been Smith's fiction, but must have been someone else's. --Champatsch (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hugh Nibley was also not a linguist. Neither was Benjamin Lee Whorf. Yet we use their research. By your reasoning we would never mention Joseph Greenberg or Merritt Ruhlen because their mass comparison methodology has been widely debunked, nor would we mention Whorf because he didn't have formal academic credentials as a linguist. Packham's work exists and it meets the minimum criteria for use here. Rather than complaining in general terms because you don't like sources that are critical of the BOM as a holy text, just move on--present your proposals for discussion. As you can see in the next section, I actually agree with you on the broad problems with the Parallelomania section. That's where productive revisions will come from. --Taivo (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Those names are clearly distinguishable from Packham, as you know. But I thank you for a profitable discussion, for I have learned about some of the ways that Wikipedia can be manipulated. --Champatsch (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
And Greenberg was in the audience and asked a couple of questions when I read my first paper at a linguistics conference. But Nibley's "linguistics" are comparable in depth and quality to Packham's. --Taivo (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Propose adding to third para of intro

I propose changing "The" at the beginning of third paragraph of the introduction to "One" and adding a sentence, something like: "The English-language text is available for study in a critical edition." The reference is Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2009). -Champatsch (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No response on this proposal for one week... Now you say English is irrelevant. Then why this Wikipedia entry, and why have anything criticizing the English language of the text? I propose that the last intro para be deleted as it is irrelevant to the following discussion that focuses on arguments based on the English-language text. --Champatsch (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The comment that you want to add is irrelevant because the critical edition has nothing to do with linguistics. It is very relevant in the main article (Book of Mormon), for example. It is relevant in a minor way when talking about Smith's Early Modern English errors (but only in a minor way). The paragraph you want to add it to is about the non-existence of the original text (which the English is not according to Mormons). It's not an appropriate addition to the lead--it's only appropriate in the Early Modern English errors section, if it affects any of the described problems, not to any other linguistic issues. Does the critical edition have something other than "adieu"? or "Sam"? or "Christ"? etc. If there is no difference between Nibley's text and the published texts in these matters, then having a critical edition is irrelevant. --Taivo (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
How is it possible to assert what you do when there can be no discussion of Hebrew lx or anything else without some text? The critical text is relevant in a major way to the errors section and everything else because it is the version that is closest to the original Smith production, attempting to eliminate copying and printing intervention by reasoned analysis. By your extreme logic you must fashion a terse statement for this entry dismissing it as a topic. BTW, Nibley never worked on a critical text. --Champatsch (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the critical text is relevant to the English errors section, but it's not relevant to any of the other sections unless it specifically has a reading opposite to the current English text. The reason it's not relevant is that only the "original text" has any critical value to the issue of Hebraicisms. Any alleged Hebraicisms are relevant to the text of the golden plates, not to Smith's version--whether a translation or a creation. So unless there is actually a difference between the critical text and the current English text, then one "translation" is as good as another. If the BOM is a translation, then only the text of the golden plates is relevant and the English "translation" is a poor substitute. If the BOM is a creation, then Hebraicisms are irrelevant since Smith knew no Hebrew. But the critical edition is just another BOM edition, it has no place in the lead where you wanted to place it anyway. You wanted to place it after the comment that the original plates are gone and thus cannot be used for linguistic comparison (if they ever existed). The critical edition is not a substitute for the plates. And my apologies for accusing Nibley of working on the critical edition--all those LDS apologists look the same to me. --Taivo (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Word substitution

The first sentence after the semicolon is wrong and poorly written. First, 28% of the original MS is extant; nearly all of the printer's MS survives. That should be put there instead of what is there now. And the following sentence about translation should be eliminated. Mormon researchers are not in agreement about whether Smith translated or transmitted. In 10 or 20 years they will likely agree that Smith was NOT the translator but the transmitter. So it should have that some believe he was the translator and some that he was the transmitter, etc. --Champatsch (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How should the corrected paragraph read? And what is the difference between "translator" and "transmitter"? Are you saying that the traditional tale of Smith dictating out of his hat is wrong? Of course, that's just a distinction for believers. It probably doesn't matter at all for the topic of this article. --Taivo (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a better start to this section: "One challenge in performing a linguistic analysis of the Book of Mormon is that no original text is available for analysis; there is only an English-language text. Twenty-eight percent of the original MS scribed in English is extant; nearly all of the printer's MS, a copy of the original MS, survives." Translator/transmitter: loose control versus tight control. Smith received ideas and used his own language versus Smith received words and dictated them. All this has nothing to do with the hat story. That's irrelevant as you say, but whether one assumes translation or transmission is relevant. This article assumes authorship or translation, as has been commonly thought. But since at least 1998 Skousen has argued, based on MS evidence and English linguistic evidence, that transmission is the correct view (for the believer). The background assumptions could be mentioned somewhere, perhaps in this section. --Champatsch (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
That correction to the first sentence is fine. Of course, by "original text" is meant whatever was supposedly written on the mythical golden plates. And the translation > transmission sounds like good old-fashioned "change what we believe because the older belief has been debunked". It doesn't deserve more than slight mention because the article is on what sources--both critical and apologetic--say. And most Mormon apologists are, or at least have been, "translationists". It's about what's in the sources, not what modern Mormons want to belief to get out from under the criticisms. --Taivo (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
From the apologetic POV, transmission is either right or wrong, based on textual evidence. A very high degree of EModE correspondence, inaccessible to Smith and scribe, tells the apologist that it's the correct view. Your view about motivation is wrong. Let me enlighten you. English-language criticisms arose immediately, in the 1830s. The transmission view is recent. It was impossible to come to such a view before this time because there was no critical text that gave accurate original MS readings. Because of that and the time gap it cannot reasonably be viewed as a reaction to a debunking of a translation theory. It is an outgrowth of the critical text project (praised by non-Mormons for its editorial rigor), begun in the 1980s with typical critical text aspirations: to achieve a reliable early text. Independent of Skousen, I have reached the same view -- completely unaware of past English-language criticisms. I had never read any of them before and didn't know they existed. My background and interest was in historical syntax working with Romance languages. I came to the same view as Skousen from naive work I did with the 2009 Yale edition and the OED, trying to update the language. The transmission view is robust, based as it is on hundreds of textual examples. --Champatsch (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I certainly don't doubt your sincerity, nor the scientific rigor of the critical edition of the BOM. But the difference between transmission and translation may not really be a major issue here except in a very limited range. And while transmission may very well be the wave of future Mormon apologetics, it isn't found to any great extent in the apologetic sources that have to form the basis of this article. The great majority of both critical and apologetic sources that presently exist assume translation. Wikipedia doesn't look into the future, it only describes the past and present. So until transmission becomes the standard POV of Mormon apologetics and apologetic sources, it really cannot, and should not, be highlighted here. Indeed, at some point sources with both POVs (translation and transmission) will have to be described in the article. And, no matter how right and devastating to the opposition you think your arguments are, Wikipedia isn't a missionary tract leading to conversion. --Taivo (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriately condemning tone

There are not many citations made for many of the Mormon viewpoints presented which provides a more one-sided argument that does not satisfactorily illustrate Latter Day Saints' views. In the section entitled "Linguistic anachronisms" and its subtopics there are very few mentions of the proponents of the Mormon faith and direct citation of that side of the discussion is noticeably quiet.

The section labeled parallels seems arbitrarily ill-formed. If the section went into greater depth or was taken out completely; it would improve the article. Additional citation is needed for this section if it is not omitted.

Awcrawford (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This whole article is rather unencyclopedic anyway and should be deleted (along with a whole collection of X science and the Book of Mormon). The BOM is a religious text. Religious texts are, by definition, irrelevant to science, history, and linguistics. --Taivo (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Obviously there is a huge body of literature on the historicity of the Bible. There is no way we are deleting all such material. That is true of all major religious texts. Ditto linguistics. There is no policy on Wikipedia that gives them the exemption you claim. We also discuss their scientific claims, e.g. the shape of the earth.. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
When a religious text is useful outside the context of the religion itself and is referenced by scholars outside the religious context who are not members of the religion, that is a different matter. Thus, atheists can reference Old Jerusalem and discuss the reign of David as part of their archeological and historical work. Characters and places in the Bible are named outside the Bible. The Vedas are useful linguistically because the language of their text is related to and ancestral to extant Indo-Aryan languages and is useful outside the religious context. The BOM is completely different in that regard. There is no use of the BOM in scientific literature outside the confines of the Mormon tradition and worship. It has no usefulness in the world of science at large. The tone of these "science and the BOM" articles is also rather unencyclopedic in general and the level of niggling detail in them is rather outside the overall tone of Wikipedia (X wrote A, but then Y wrote B, and finally Z wrote C). Perhaps a single, summary article could encompass a general overview of Mormon attempts to link the BOM to the outside world, but this chain of pseudo-science without independent extra-Mormon corroboration bears only nominal similarity to historicity articles relative to other religious texts. --Taivo (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Grammar

The conclusions related to Early Modern English usage that accompany the last three bullet points are objectively wrong. Relevant OED entries are clear on that point. Those conclusions should be deleted. --Champatsch (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what you think, that's what the source includes. Do you have a source that "corrects" the error? --Taivo (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote, they are objectively wrong. It is not what I think. The authority is not me but the OED and EModE scholars. Here's one incorrect statement from this section: "You/ye are plural pronouns and thou/thy are singular pronouns, but the text switches back and forth between them." Here's what the OED has under ye, pers. pron., definition 2: "Used instead of thou in addressing a single person (originally as a mark of respect or deference, later generally: cf. thou, you)." So according to the OED, ye is not only a plural pronoun, but also a singular pronoun in the EModE era. Here's def. 3 of ye: "Used as objective (accusative or dative) instead of you (in plural or singular sense)." Definition 3 applies to other incorrect statements about EModE usage I've read in conjunction with the BofM. Ye functioned as both a subjective and objective pronoun, in either a plural or singular sense. Finally, there is OED you, pers. pron. def. 2a.: "Nominative, replacing ye (sense 1). In early use sometimes app. for emphasis, as opposed to ye unemphatic; but often beside ye as a mere alternative." And def. 5a.: "Nominative, replacing thou." So, the statements incorporated in this Wikipedia entry directly, and naively, contradict the authority of the OED and general EModE linguistic scholarship. --Champatsch (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the concept in Wikipedia of original research. We don't care if you are able to look things up in the OED. Doing so is original research and Wikipedia is not the place for that. It doesn't matter whether you think, or can even prove with your own research, that those sentences are ultimately grammatical. Those sentences are in the sources that have been cited. If you have references to a Mormon apologist who has refuted those forms, then you can summarize his rebuttal following the sentences. But you looking things up in the OED to refute the critical sources based on your own research is not allowed in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Saying that looking things up in the OED is primary research seems nothing but odd—one could say the same about "looking things up" in the other sources under discussion in this section. Seriously, why in the world would citing a scholarly resource like the OED be wrong according to any of Wikipedia's guidelines? Quick answer: It wouldn't be. DBowie (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Your defense of the OED misses the point. The point is that looking up words in the OED to prove an argument about the BOM is original research. If this article were about the word "ragged", then the OED is a perfectly fine and appropriate source. But if your argument is that Joseph Smith didn't write the BOM because the word "ragged" appears in 1 Nephi whatever, then the OED is not an appropriate source and your use of it in that context is original research. It's not the quality of the source that is the issue, it's the use you put it to. --Taivo (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. 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) 11:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. 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) 19:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Should we identify self-published works?

Stubbs books seem self-published. Grover Publications, Provo, Utah may have more than one book and author, but I can find no information about it. His latest book is printed (I wouldn't say published) by FCCD, Four Corners Digital Design[1], who do "print work" of banners, brochures, billboards and books. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Stubb's Uto-Aztecan work is, sadly, self-published. His work with UA is respected among his peers, but they also bemoan the self-published nature of it. His UA methodology is sound. However, there is a clear distinction made between his UA work and his attempts to link UA to the ancient Near East linguistic map. His methodology breaks apart and is unsound when making that connection. --Taivo (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linguistics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon/Archive_3&oldid=1193755719"