Talk:Linguistics and the Book of Mormon: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:52, 25 January 2018 editMPants at work (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,602 edits →Stubbs ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:29, 25 January 2018 edit undoRDWinmill (talk \| contribs)36 edits →Stubbs: Fair enough: apply the same criteria to everything elseNext edit →
Line 82:		Line 82:
	:::That's what Taivo said. It's immaterial. His fringe work is not reliably published. Heck, I pointed out that one book of his could hardly be called published, it's printed by a printing company. But ok, we'll call it self-published. See ]. He is not an acknowledged exert in the field of Egyptian or Semitic languages let alone their relationship to US. ] ] 14:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)		:::That's what Taivo said. It's immaterial. His fringe work is not reliably published. Heck, I pointed out that one book of his could hardly be called published, it's printed by a printing company. But ok, we'll call it self-published. See ]. He is not an acknowledged exert in the field of Egyptian or Semitic languages let alone their relationship to US. ] ] 14:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::I agree with Doug and Taivo. Having published one good work doesn't make all of his work reliable. The circumstances surrounding the publication of the cited works is incredibly suspicious, and in direct conflict with ]. And again, that last sentence was not what the source said. I understand that it was added to "balance out" the claims of Stubbs, but we can't balance out unreliable sources with OR. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 14:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)		:::I agree with Doug and Taivo. Having published one good work doesn't make all of his work reliable. The circumstances surrounding the publication of the cited works is incredibly suspicious, and in direct conflict with ]. And again, that last sentence was not what the source said. I understand that it was added to "balance out" the claims of Stubbs, but we can't balance out unreliable sources with OR. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 14:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

			:::: Okay fair enough. Will you apply the same criteria to everything else on this page? Starting with foot note Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? (1972, Modern Microfilm Company) as historians. and Richard Packham as a linguist, A Linguist Looks at Mormonism http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1480167

Revision as of 15:29, 25 January 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on September 14, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages of original research. We don't care if you are able to look things up in the OED. Doing so is original research and Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --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 Misplaced Pages'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)

External links modified

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)

External links modified

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.

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, 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)

Stubbs

The addition of material cited to Brian Stubbs is not reliably sourced. I can find no indication that anything published by this author is taken seriously by academic linguists, but more specifically, the three sources cited all fall short of WP:IRS. The two books are both published by incredibly small presses, and the paper hosted on the BYU website doesn't appear to have ever even been seen by the academic linguistics community, being published in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. This is not the first time this material has been challenged. Continuing to re-insert it without discussion is disruptive. Pinging @Doug Weller, TaivoLinguist, and RDWinmill:.

Re-inclusion may be appropriate if the author can be shown to be notable, and the passage is re-worded so that attribution is clearer. The final sentence, however, was WP:OR. The author only expressed their own views in the provided quote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Stubbs' comparison of Uto-Aztecan with Near Eastern languages is not taken seriously by any academic linguist, either within or without the community of Uto-Aztecan specialists. His methodology is unsound for these comparisons and the places where he has published are highly unreliable since they exist for the express purpose of using science to support the claims of the Book of Mormon. This academic doubt does not apply to his book on comparative Uto-Aztecan, which is sound and regularly cited, only to his work comparing UA with Semitic and Egyptian languages which is never cited in scholarly works, only in LDS propaganda. It should be clear that just because a scholar has produced one work which is widely respected doesn't mean that everything else he or she ever produces is of equal quality. Stubbs uses different methodologies for his UA work and for his Mormon comparative work. They are apples and oranges as far as scholarly acceptance goes. --Taivo (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The person citing the UA comparative dictionary as an example of Stubbs' scholarship doesn't seem to have ever seen it and may assume that it contains the comparisons between UA and the Semitic and Egyptian languages that are featured in his Mormon work. That is not the case. The UA comparative dictionary contains not a word of Egyptian or Semitic languages and not a single hint of the Mormon "science" which is found in the other works. That's why scholars respect it and not the Mormon publications. Most UA scholars who use the UA dictionary still bemoan the fact that he has never published it, or even offered it, to a solid academic press. He still feels like it is unfinished. --Taivo (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not being familiar with the author, I'll take your word that's he's done some positive work, but as you said; there's nothing about the actual sources used that lend themselves to the notion of reliability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is a book review of Stubbs 2012 work: Kenneth C. Hill, "Uto-aztecan: a comparative vocabulary. By Brian D. Stubbs," International Journal of American Linguistics 78, no. 4 (October 2012): 591-592.

() I think this qualifies. Alexis Manaster Ramer and Wick Miller encouraged Stubbs to complete a three decades efforts to produce a comprehensive reference book which became "Uto-Aztecan: A Comparative Vocabulary." — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDWinmill (talk • contribs) 14:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That's what Taivo said. It's immaterial. His fringe work is not reliably published. Heck, I pointed out that one book of his could hardly be called published, it's printed by a printing company. But ok, we'll call it self-published. See WP:SPS. He is not an acknowledged exert in the field of Egyptian or Semitic languages let alone their relationship to US. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Doug and Taivo. Having published one good work doesn't make all of his work reliable. The circumstances surrounding the publication of the cited works is incredibly suspicious, and in direct conflict with WP:IRS. And again, that last sentence was not what the source said. I understand that it was added to "balance out" the claims of Stubbs, but we can't balance out unreliable sources with OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. Will you apply the same criteria to everything else on this page? Starting with foot note Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? (1972, Modern Microfilm Company) as historians. and Richard Packham as a linguist, A Linguist Looks at Mormonism http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1480167

Categories: