The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is subject to problems with WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE. This is, in essence, an article about an unverifiable religious text and historical and scientific problems in that text. As a religious text, it is subject to the principle of faith-based evidence. That, in and of itself, makes scientific verifiability virtually impossible. The article is, basically, a series of attacks by editors seeking to discredit historical and scientific claims by the religious text followed by believers seeking to substantiate the historical and scientific claims. The only "scholarly" literature on the topic is in faith-based publications (both pro and con). Since the religious text is not taken seriously by historians, there are no reliable sources that specifically address the issues of why it is not used as a serious source of historical information. Therefore the non-Mormon side of the issue consists of either original research or faith-based attacks. Sources on the Mormon side of the issue also consist entirely of either original research or faith-based defenses. None of the published sources on either side of the issue pass the reliable source tests of Wikipedia. If compared to other religious texts, there is, for example, no article on "Anachronisms in the Bible". Taivo (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are "outside sources", but they are not reliable scholarly sources. They are religious sources without independent peer-review that are dedicated to promoting the Book of Mormon. That's the problem with this article. Either the information is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or it does not meet the standards of WP:RS or WP:NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So if they're robust secondary sources, we say "The were no horses at this time.[source]".
If they're not adequate secondary sources, i.e. they're Mormons writing about Mormon interpretations, then we treat them as PRIMARY. We refer to them as "Mormon scholar <Dr Foo> explained this as a reference to tapirs instead.[source]". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this article needs to be deleted, the somewhat identical anachronism section needs to be deleted on the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon page. If this article is to be deleted and the other section kept, than information that is on this page but is not on the other needs to be included there in the anachronism section of that article. I think it might make sense to eliminate the article but am neutral. I do think it would be useful to only have one article or section of an article on anachronisms as now it requires the maintenance of two essentially identical topics on two different articles.Geneva11 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can add Criticism of the Book of Mormon to that list, it contains a section that attempts (badly) to cover the same ground as the article being discussed. There has been recent talk of either improving Anachronisms or merging it into Archeaology of.... I have a nasty suspicion that if they were merged, some future editor would helpfully split out a new "anachronisms" article to shorten some of the others. Pastychomper (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To insist that sourcing must be from "peer reviewed" sources has never been our standard. Those who publish in favor of the Book of Mormon are overwhelmingly much better educated than those who attack it, and trying to label people as "fringe" for a religious belief held by over 16 million people is over using the term. The attack on this article is basically an exercise in trying to exclude voices from Wikipedia that some editors disagree with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your point is other than to disparage authors on both sides of the issue. This isn't an "attack" on an article other than to point out that the article is not, by its nature, encyclopedic. The title itself is a veiled attack on Mormonism and is based on a subclass of anti-Mormon literature. WP:FRINGE applies not because of the number of adherents, but because historians give zero credence to the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. It's fringe because the views are fringe within the world of scholarship. --Taivo (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of which is any reason for deletion unless they're insurmountable problems which can't be fixed by editing.
I see no sourcing problem here (at least, not ones that can't easily be fixed thus). We would need our usual standards of sourcing for claims about the historicity of tapirs etc. As to the Book of Mormon itself, then that's easily available as a (presumably authentically transcribed) copy. A WP:PRIMARY source. That's obviously a problem for WP generally, but A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. So we're fine to use the Book itself to state "The Book of Mormon describes horses", we need an everyday RS to say "There were no horses in America in that geological timeframe" and we need the slightly more esoteric secondary commentary upon this to say "Mormon may have been referring to deer or tapirs instead", which we do indeed have here.
Any specific problems (which could certainly exist) should be listed at Talk: and means found to resolve each one separately. There's no overall issue requiring deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is well sourced that e.g. the book writes about steel. Amazing! How could Joseph Smith in 1827 know about steel? Anachronisms would need to be about things more recent than the earliest evidence of the book, i.e. after 1827-ish. I don't see anything like that in the article, which means the useful anachronism content is exactly zero at the moment. What Smith claims about the book's age doesn't create anachronisms. If I write a book next year and claim the book would be from 10,000 years ago then no one will be surprised that the book talks about mobile phones, and no one would write a Wikipedia article about it. --mfb (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Misunderstood the article. Maybe the introduction could be improved. --mfb (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The anachronisms here are not as you describe, an anachronism between the text of the Book and Joseph Smith's time period of 1827. There's no claim that he's talking about mobile phones.
The anachronisms are those between Smith in 1827 (where steel was known) and the bronze-age period supposedly being described. As a critique of Mormonism (implying it's a fabrication by Smith) this is seen as a serious flaw: the sort of flaw one might expect in such a fabrication. A similar thing happens in the King James Bible (2 Samuel 22:35 [1]) where references to steel (rather than bronze) were introduced by 17th century translators. One would not expect the Angel Moroni to make such a gaffe. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia cannot give credence in Wikipedia's voice that something published in 1830 was actually 4,000 years old. That's only one problem though. The article contains a tremendous amount of WP:OR, cited to material that does not even mention Mormonism and which has nothing to do with it. And "anachronism" is the wrong word anyway, even accepting Joseph Smith's claims; most of the items have nothing to do with time and are instead logical impossibilities, not anachronisms. This OR/SYNTH/ESSAY article has got to go. Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix the problems mentioned. These logical impossibilities exist and need illumination. Improve the writing and referencing where needed or whatever. And yeah I would have a conflict of interest given my last name :) Vsmith (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the "logical impossibilities" ignores the simple fact that they are only a problem if the BOM is actually what it purports to be--a book from ancient America. But if it's just another work of fiction then there is no more need for this article than "logical impossibilities" in Lord of the Rings. Thus, the very existence of this article implies that Wikipedia is giving voice to a religious belief. Since no serious historian accepts this as a historical account, then it's WP:FRINGE to treat it in any way as if it were a serious historical account. --Taivo (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But just because you have a belief (which, by definition, means that you don't require any proof or evidence to think it's true) doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to endorse that belief system when it violates the nearly universal opinion of the scholarly community of historians, archeologists, linguists, etc. Wikipedia endorses that view by allowing a pseudo-debate in its pages between pseudo-reliable sources (written, peer-reviewed, funded, and published solely by believers) and people of the opposite belief view who aren't scholars because scholars don't waste their time telling us that the moon isn't made of green cheese just because some community believes that it is. --Taivo (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The other fallacy that has been stated here over and over is that "we just follow all the policies and this article will be 'fixed'". That's false. It assumes that the BOM is an actual document from ancient America and serious scholarly discussion is needed (and exists) to clarify the problems. It assumes there there are an equal number of peer-reviewed scholarly works on both sides of the discussion and that the discussion is scholarly. That is a false assumption. Historians ignore the BOM as a historical text with "anachronisms" because they universally treat it as a work of fiction from the imagination of Joseph Smith. Therefore, just as no scholar of lunar geology ever has to write "the moon is not made of green cheese" in a peer-reviewed text, no historian of ancient American history ever has to actually write, "the narrative of the Book of Mormon is fiction". Thus, trying to "fix" this article by adhering to Wikipedia's policies leaves an article that is overloaded with Mormon "scholarship" from pseudo-academic sources that receive peer-review only from other Mormon scholars. It gives the appearance of legitimate scholarship that is overwhelmingly weighted on the side of Mormon beliefs and not on the actual state of affairs in the scholarship of history. --Taivo (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But when we have a "disproofs" article for something that is almost universally ignored without having to say that it's being ignored, then there ends up being no scholarly sources that actually say, "I'm ignoring this because its fiction/fake science/etc." In this case, that means that there are pseudo-scholarly sources, written by believers, peer-reviewed by believers, and published in works that are funded and edited by other believers, that appear to outweigh the actual nearly-universal scholarly view on the subject just because no scholar outside the belief system finds it necessary to say "I'm ignoring this because it's fiction". --Taivo (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP should be reluctant to "endorse" any particular viewpoint. The latest from WMF now seems to imply we have to give weight to the anti-vaxx viewpoint as well, which is probably time to wind up the whole project. We certainly shouldn't endorse any particular belief system, but nor should we claim that such a belief system is objectively wrong.
If a particular set of beliefs is based on canon texts which contain objective logical flaws or anachronisms, such as these, then it is legitimate for WP to produce an article such as this which describes them: the basis for why it's an anchronism should be given, any refutation or explanation of such (which is likely to be PRIMARY or SELFPUB) should be given too, making it clear that that's a subjective viewpoint. The effect all that then has on your belief system is up to the reader. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. I'll note that if this is deleted, material being moved into this article from other articles on the grounds it should be in this article and not duplicated needs to be reinserted in the original articles. Doug Wellertalk15:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix, or failing that, merge into one of the related articles. The claim that all the "scholarly" sources are either from faith-based publications or OR/SYNTH seems to be based on the assumption that the article is a proof or disproof of the Book of Mormon as an historical text. The article is not (supposed to be) about that, it is about claims in the Book of Mormon that are (considered to be) anachronistic. WP doesn't shy away from discussing current thought within religions, or current criticism of religious texts. Saying "the Book of Mormon mentions elephants, this paper says there were no elephants, critics/apologists say this/that" is entirely within the scope of the article and (in my view) within the scope of WP. The problems arise if the article either says or implies "therefore the Book of Mormon is true/false" - that kind of wording should be removed. Pastychomper (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the posts above, argue whether the Book of Mormon is to be viewed as historically accurate. That is a separate question. This article lists a number of points, with varying kinds of documentation, that are anachronisms or have some logical flaw. The fact that sources are not peer-reviewed is not a Wikipedia standard for most articles (though it may be more logical on an article such as Vaccination). This article will offend many, cause some to dismiss it, but it is still a valid article. I do not intend to Watch or edit it, but it should be kept. Pete unseth (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.