Talk:Book of Mormon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateBook of Mormon is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
October 17, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 26, 2011, March 26, 2014, and March 26, 2016.
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Proposing to delete the section "Literary criticism" because the section itself is thin and critical literary scholarship can be used throughout the page[edit]

The last section on the page, "Literary criticism", is only a collection of quotations and a very short reference to the existence of a book. There has been little work to build it up, and being just quotations it doesn't seem like an encyclopedic summary of the best sources. I think that it's more natural to simply use literary scholarship in building up the rest of the page (for example, citing American literature scholars in the subsection on "Apocalyptic reversal" under the "Content" section) rather than cordoning such scholarship off to one section at the end. Since deleting an entire section, even if it is a rather thin one, is a bit bold, I want to put my reasoning out here on the talk page before making the page revision. P-Makoto (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone through with the revision. P-Makoto (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no concerns with the removal of the section. Such quotes or comments could easily be integrated into other parts of the article. Rollidan (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(The) Community of Christ?[edit]

@FyzixFighter, if I may, I'm curious about this prior discussion where previous editors concluded "the Community of Christ" reads better than "Community of Christ". I looked back in the talk archives, but the only discussions from three years ago on this talk page were about Book of Mormon usage, views on historicity, and concerns about anonymous editors around a church's annual conference. There's no three-year-old discussion about "Community of Christ" or "the Community of Christ" on Community of Christ's talk page either (there is one from five years ago, but with only two editors' input it's not much of a discourse). Was this discussion on a different page?

As an aside, I admit I don't quite see what's so grammatically confusing about the phrase "Community of Christ", at least any more than, for example, "Creative Commons" or "Flatirons Commuity Church" without a preceding "the". And external (as in outside Wikipedia) usage isn't (in my limited experience) consistently applied as a standard on Wikipedia. (On top of ngram seeming like a difficult measure to apply to a denomination that is notable enough to have a scholarly literature studying it but not popular enough to inspire spates of new books on short notice.) But my aside is neither here nor there if there's a discussion I can apprise myself of first. P-Makoto (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@P-Makoto: Sorry - I should have been more specific - the small discussion I was thinking of was at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 19#Removal of "the". About three years ago, Hwangfan was going through several pages, including this one, removing "the"s that preceded "Community of Christ". Multiple editors, including myself, challenged this removal arguing that it created odd grammar and that WP was not required to follow the CoC style guideline (similar to how it is not required to follow other churches' style guidelines) - eg [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Sources outside of WP, including CoC documents themselves, as you noted are inconsistent; my reference to ngrams was about my attempt to verify the claim that recent informed sources were increasingly using the style, which I was unable to substantiate via that method. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to where that discussion was. I confess, I can't help but feel a little amused that one editor remarked that Wikipedia is not beholden to the "LDS world" when most Community of Christ members would tremble at conflating them with Latter-day Saints.
My bad on the claim about informed usage; I think you were right to call me on it. I did a brief search of some relevant academic journals (JWHA Journal, Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, Dialogue, etc. I don't know if journal publications are included in Google's measure of "books") and realized that usage in the last few years was more inconsistent than I remembered, sometimes without [1] [2] and sometimes with [3] [4]. Sorry for my error, and thanks for making the catch.
For clarity's sake, when I said "isn't consistently applied", I meant that non-WP that is also non-subject doesn't seem to always dictate use on WP. e.g. For instance, while "4 Da Gang" appears in external independent sources about the song, there's nevertheless a push among some editors to render it "4 da Gang". But what happens on that page is its own matter. Here, I'll let the earlier discussion take priority since the ground hasn't changed much since. P-Makoto (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]