Difference between revisions of "Talk:Book of Mormon archaeology"

Revision as of 14:22, 2 January 2008

Plagiarism?

Some modification needs to be made of the content here. The "Land of Bountiful" portion is very clearly copied verbatim from this piece by Warren P. Aston. Perhaps this was done with permission, or perhaps he did it himself, but regardless, sitting in the Wiki, unattributed the way it is, with references made in the first person to personal research, is unacceptable. If this is included with permission, then at the very least, we should attribute the work, but if not, then we need to provide something more along the lines of an abstract with a link. If Warren himself contributed this, then perhaps it can be attributed, or otherwise modified for the Wiki medium, to refer to his research in the third person. Thos are my thoughts looking at the "Land of Bountiful" section. I suspect the other sections are simply copied wholesale as well. --Seanmcox 10:56, 26 July 2007 (MDT)

I've verified that the section on Nahom is also copied wholesale from this article by S. Kent Brown. Since this is a different author, Themmormons, the original contributor, cannot be both, and can be assumed to be neither. This is a problem that needs some attention. (Since Themmormons hasn't contributed since a brief stint in April, I suppose getting him to clarify this issue would be unlikely.) I'm presuming plagiarism, (as it's the safe thing to presume) for which I suggested replacing the articles with abstracts and links to the original pieces. Any thoughts? --Seanmcox 11:08, 26 July 2007 (MDT)

Alright, I've added links to the sources of the content. When I get around to it (maybe sooner, maybe later) I'll write a brief overview of the three topics covered. --Seanmcox 22:08, 30 August 2007 (MDT)

Because of the problems with plagiarism, and the fractured content, I decided to rewrite this article into a general overview of the subject. The reader/investigator can follow the links to the information previousle included. The first article contained only a few details of BofM archaeology, so it was terribly incomplete. Had we followed its lead, this would have become extremely lengthy, and still wouldn't have hit on all the discoveries and investigations going on. An overview with links seemed to be a better idea. Thanks, Sean, for trying to fix this. Any additions from you on this new version would be appreciated.Gboyd 12:44, 31 December 2007 (MST)

I quite like your approach of creating a more general article. I think it does a better job of doing justice to the actual subject. --Seanmcox 13:22, 2 January 2008 (MST)