Talk:Teancum

Town
I would like to put forth an idea of making the Town section of this article into a seperate article. What does everyone think about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W7jkt (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see that there is enough material that could be covered in a stand-alone article about that location to merit it's own article. Instead it'd probably be better to expand that section with the material you would want to be found on a separate article, then see if it can achieve critical mass for a split. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

C? lol
Generally not accepted as a historical account?

There are still people that believe in ODIN and ZUES!!! I hardly think Jesus is any different, considering there is little evidence he even existed, or that the JESUS recorded is the same JESUS in the Bible.

Ultimately, all religion is mythology that some people choose to believe. I suggest you realize that Secular Atheism is not very practical.

Secularism itself isn't Atheistic. It is without regard to belief or lack thereof and doesn't argue anything, it merely facilitates the process.

As a Nihilist, my sentiments are that the only thing needed for this article to be given a grade-raise, is the clarification that it is out of The Book of Mormon. Let the reader decide whether or not it is historically accurate or meaningful. So your review is meaningless and hypocritically biased.

FACTS AND TRUTH ARE NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS ABOUT. (unfortunate to be sure, since the truth is the only thing that matters)

Think of Wikipedia as the modern Library of Alexandria! (thank god it was burned down)

In any case, it's a story like any story, historical or not. I think grades should be determined on how accurate the story is told, not how factual the story really is.

Story Facts may or may not be History Facts. IT ISN'T UP TO YOU TO DECIDE. If there are other sources that add to the story, great! If they give witness to the factual history of the story, great!

IT ISN'T UP TO YOU TO DECIDE. Ultimately everything allowed on WIKIPEDIA is hearsay....just not original hearsay.

Loneindividual (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Seriously....no direct quotes?


 * There is so little spoken about Teancum (as I have recently read in The Book of Mormon) That you literally could swap what is in this article right now for the actual accounts within the BOOK!


 * On a Nihilistic note....This page shouldn't even exist!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loneindividual (talk • contribs) 10:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Etymology and Pronunciation of Teancum
I suppose it is impossible to find out what the name Teancum actually means?

I'm interesting in the Etymology of it....tea n' cum or tean cum? I'm at a loss!

I guess it might be helpful if someone put together some sort of a pronunciation guide...

Is it pronounced Tee an come? That has to be the only unoffensive way of saying it. Loneindividual (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Pronounced as tē-ăn´kum per . -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Images without reference
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Teancum_For_Wiki_2.jpg/494px-Teancum_For_Wiki_2.jpg

Seriously? Is wikipedia becoming an ART GALLERY FOR ORIGINAL ARTISTS?

If the top image is the same Teancum in the Book of Mormon, I suggest there be a citation or a reference to some description giving credence for its use!

KEEP YOUR ORIGINAL ART OFF WIKIPEDIA.

I'm pretty sure The Book of Mormon isn't a PICTURE BOOK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loneindividual (talk • contribs) 10:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Religious art is part of Mormon culture (they are not aniconistic). Latter Day Saint artists (such as Arnold Friberg) commonly create visual representations of their history, culture, beliefs and scriptural texts, including the Book of Mormon (BoM). The imagery in the file you question is just as potentially valid/invalid as the other representations that have been made from the BoM (see this query on Amazon for a few examples of the illustrated editions of the BoM) since authenticating historic aspects of the BoM is difficult; there is no good way to know what people described in the BoM look like, any more than there is a way to know if any depiction of Jesus is accurate. Wikimedia Commons allows for files that are "potentially useful on any of the Wikimedia projects" such as this one. It'd be fine to replace this current image if there was a better image for this topic that could be used, but until that point, this image is just fine. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Your artwork taints the page and makes it look like a children's book by a weird artist. There should be no art until all agree that it is a good representation. The text in the page is good, but the art is not appropriate and I suggest you ask people on here if they approve it before simply adding it. And hey, try creating an account for yourself. You just have an IP address. That way we know who you are and that we're talking to the same person. Douglas.hawkes (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not my artwork & wp:IPs are human too. Also if you look at my edit history, I am not a neophyte.


 * I didn't add this artwork to these articles, but I agree with their placement, and have stated so, with the reasoning above. Wikipedia & Wikimedia Commons actually encourages the donation of original material (see Image use policy). The only counter-view seems to basically be wp:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not all that useful of an argument. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to see who the author of the images actually is, and get information about why he donated these, take a look the URL on the image description page for File:Teancum.jpg. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, the original contributor of the artwork was also involved with the following, which soured his view of WP: Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 15 and Sockpuppet investigations/Kcummins9/Archive. Do you really want to be involved with further badgering this user, even after he stopped contributing? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

@Douglas.hawkes: Based on the above, and your further explanation at User talk:Douglas.hawkes, is it correct to state that your objections are these (I have listed them in order of what I feel is increasing importance): If this is correct, could you provide a more detailed explanation on why you feel this is the case? I'm particularly interested in the methodology you propose for gradating the value of differing artistic styles, as well as why you feel the images misrepresent the subjects. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The artwork is original (not previously published elsewhere), and so is undeserving &/or self-serving for the contributing artist;
 * 2) The artistic style is not fine art, and so is unworthy of usage;
 * 3) The artwork misrepresents the subject, and so diminishes rather than enhances the article?


 * To answer your question as to whether I agree with your interpretation of my comments, here you go. First, I have no idea if the artwork is original (not previously published elsewhere). And that doesn't matter to me if I have any say as to whether the artwork would be appropriate on the wikipedia pages for which I have expressed concern. And I'm not going to do any digging to find out if it is original because I believe that's the responsibility of the provider and people who have time and would like to do that digging. I don't have all day to do that. I simply saw something that in my opinion was ridiculous, and requested that people talk about the potential replacement or preferably the removal of the images. As to the second point, no, I don't feel that artwork needs to be fine art in order to be included in a page about a character. That has nothing to do with it. It doesn't even need to look close to real life images as far as the realism quality. So, I admit that I was wrong to say that something was inappropriate just because it looks like it is out of a sketchbook. As to the third, absolutely. Yes. I feel that these particular images may misrepresent the subject on the level that the subject includes zero details about certain dress (swathy leg wraps, bright red headband and superfluous capes), lifestyle (swordsmanship practice with a ninja-lookng theme), and other qualities. These qualities are definitely from the imagination of the artist and while I admire their desire to draw, I simply feel that it clashes with the subject. It may be fun to have illustration, but these are real (or at least believed by some to have been real) characters. It's like if there were a wikipedia page about the Moses and the Ten Commandments, and an artist wanted to provide artwork, he provided something like this: An image of Moses with a buzz haircut and zebra skin trousers, chiseling the words of Jehovah in stone while Jehovah dictacted them to him with a big toothy grin on his face. Now, this is an extreme example I know, but here is the point: I simply feel that a "modern artists interpretation" can be anything, and just because an artist interprets something in his own way, that doesn't mean that his interpretations should be put on the pages on which he or anyone would like to add his work. I would much rather leave the pages with the text. Because the text is more measurable and verifiable. The particular artwork bothers me on some of these pages because we have no idea whether Moses had a buzz haircut or long braids or was bald, and a particular interpretation may give a depiction that assumes what is not there. Now, if it is the policy of Wikipedia to encourage any and all artists to contribute their work, whatever it may be, then okay I guess I have nothing more to say. But if Wikipedia does allow for there to be talk as to whether an image should be replaced or removed, then I would ask that such talk be undertaken, and that at least several people vote on it. I for one feel like the artwork on some of the pages for Book of Mormon characters that I have seen is over-assuming and is just silly and should be replaced and preferably just left out. Douglas.hawkes (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To be more specific, I believe the images lack contextual significance. Non-free_content_criteria (Policy #8) Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I feel that the images in no way significantly increase the reader experience. And I may nominate some of the images for deletion, if anyone else feels the same, and then the deletion can be discussed. Douglas.hawkes (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see that 1 & 2 are not an issue for you; that would have greatly lengthened the conversation. Lets look at the images from this artist side-by-side so we can get a good feel for them, as a group (I've added numbers to the image description to facilitate discussion of the images):

If you notice, one could rip-apart every single one of these images as not being a literal historically accurate depiction (except perhaps for 13). The question then revolves around how useful the images are, even though they may not be historically accurate. If you notice the representations of Moses seem to be included for one or more of four main reasons: 1. They depict an important event or element related of the subject; 2. They are famous representations of the subject; 3. They demonstrate the differences with how the subject is represented by multiple groups; 4. They are esthetically appealing, in the classical sense.

Image 1 above doesn't really meet any of these criteria, so I'd be fine with removing it, even though I find it esthetic appealing (I personally like anime/manga style illustrations, even though others may find them crass or too modern). To be honest, when looking closely at the image, the illustration looks like it could be a knight's page/squire out of an animated sword and sorcery story.

Image 2 attempts to illustrate an important point in Teancum's story; it's not perfect (it's obvious from this & the other illustrations from this artist that he favors drawing his figures as left-handed, but it is far more likely that the right hand would be the one wielding the weapon), but the leap is compelling, the subjects skin tone is not white (as in so many imperfect representations of BoM), the artist has faced the subject away from us so we are not focusing on the representation of the person as much as the action being taken, and the loincloth is semi-realistic enough to not be distracting. I'd say this is a good representation, and should be retained. However it would be a better image if it were mirrored so that it was facing the other way, with the spear in the right hand.

I take image 3 not as "practicing" sword fighting, but instead as an isolate of one of the more significant events in Ammon's story: the smiting off of the arms of the men who were trying to steal the kings livestock. Thankfully the artist has spared us the gore of the armless men, but you are correct that his stance is off, especially with the rest of the scene missing, so we can't see where the sword is going &/or had already been. Even though the stance is not samurai (as you claim it to be on your talk page), it is out of balance and not very realistic to anyone that has ever actually handled a sword would tell you. That being said, artistically capturing the swing of a sword in an ultra-realistic fashion is really hard to do outside of photography, which is why it is commonly stylized. The sash over the upper body helps with accentuating of the lateral motion of the sword, and is not so ethnic/specific to look like an out-of-place object. I agree that the wrapping on the lower leg and feet are distracting and out of place. In all I'd say this is a fair-to-good representation, and should be retained. The leading hand on this image is also the left one, so it would also benefit from being mirrored.

Image 4 is the one I found both the most intriguing and also the most potentially problematic. We again find the leg wrapping on the character at the far right, who also seems to be sporting a Bowie knife, possibly in some sort of sheath. The bow looks like a Sassanid/Turkish/Chinese composite bow, and is not at all similar to any pre-Colombian bows I've ever seen. It'd be more accurate for the spear that looks like a short pike to have a rounded obsidian tip, instead of the metal tip with fluted edges depicted. The tallest figure in the middle who is holding his hand of exaggerated size actually looks like he's a Pacific Islander or Māori, which is understandable based on the common beliefs in LDS circles about Pacific Islanders, but still looks out of place. The padded vest on the next fellow to the left looks more like like a bullet-proof vest than anything. The last figure, the bald fellow to the far left, is holding some sort of exotic combination of several mêlée weapons merged into one, like something off of a Frank Frazetta illustration. Even with all of these issues, this image still gets across the point that these are a group of serious looking young men, armed with what could be taken as pre-Colombian era weapons (for those that don't know better) who are prepared for battle. In serving that purpose it's still an OK image to use, at least until we can get something better.

That's it for now; sorry for the length. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is an interesting issue. In general I agree with the points made by 208.81.184.4, especially the four points he enumerates that can be used for justifying the inclusion of artwork depicting an event when no one really knows what it looked like. Based on those criteria, I can see why Image 1 (the head drawing of Teancum) is of limited utility. Almost any other image depicting Teancum would probably be superior and preferred, especially if it depicted a particular event. Therefore, Image 2 is to be preferred, I think, and I would say its inclusion on this page is fine until something better comes along. Image 1's lack of utility and low value doesn't necessarily mean Image 1 would have to be immediately removed, but I'd have no objection to taking it off if everyone is in agreement about this in general. Douglas.hawkes's concern about using modern artists' interpretation of Book of Mormon characters and events can usually be dealt with best by being sure to include words such as "an artist's impression of ..." included in the image's caption on the article page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your lengthy, careful treatment of the issue. It is obvious that you haven't taken my concerns lightly, and have put in considerably more time than I personally would have been able to, in order to put things into proper perspective. Also, thank you for responding in such a measured and calm way. You could have easily dismissed my comments. Frankly, the images obviously frustrated me, and I nearly expected a more fervent response.


 * Now that you have laid out some good measuring points to evaluate the images, and after having given some reasonable points as to why some of the images should perhaps be kept, I think I have a better perspective as well. If everyone ends up being okay with replacing or removing the artist's depiction of Teancum, my opinion would be that we might want to look elsewhere for a replacement or remove it. After hearing your perspective, I would be okay with keeping the other images for now, unless better ones could be found. Maybe I will ask a friend to try to create something and submit it for consideration. But yeah, while I would prefer something else if available, your perspectives have good points.


 * I am unable at the moment to determine if some works of Arnold Friberg fall under the right license to be used on wikipedia. Those, to me, would perhaps be more suitable. I do prefer attempts at realism more than cartoon types, but again that's just my own preference. This would have been a decent one for ammon, for example: http://lds.org/hf/art/display/1,16842,4218-1-3-97,00.html
 * I will see if I can find suggestions that may be better for the other images. They may or may not be considered as replacements, and maybe just possible supplements rather than replacements. Douglas.hawkes (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that I am coming to this thread late and the issue has been resolved. However, I would like to put my 2-cents in.
 * I cannot agree that any "citation or a reference to some description giving credence for its use" should be required, per Loneindividual's. Nor is douglas.hawkes suggestions that images have to be "previously published elsewhere" or that an editor has to "ask for approval" before adding it WP policy (which dose seem odd since it is required for text).  I have never been unable to find any such requirements for images (and I really have tired).  There are even copyright tags specifically for "unpublished" images.  Since no other image or editors have those requirements, these images and any editors should not ether
 * I have in the past tried to find such policies regarding "Images", "references/citations", "publication", etc. If there are please give me the link.  There are two particular images that I would love to include with their pages, but I cannot seem to "prove" to myself that they really are photos of who the webpages say there are.  I wont upload them as I cannot get myself to ignore my nagging suspicions at some "hints" that seem to point to them being someone else.  However, I cannot find a policy that that requires such due diligence so this is a personal decision. As I understand it, if the image owner say its "X" and if it meets copyright rules, I can upload it as "X" whether it is "original", "published", and whether it has proof that it is, or not.
 * However, I totally agree with Douglas.hawkes that the image aren't "Fine art", cartoonish, not a particularly "good representation", and projects a "Picture book" quality. I also don't particularly like the images and I would much prefer a "fine art" type image.  However, I like having images on as many page as possible, and images are required for "Featured" statues, so they are also important to WP also.  Unfortunately, as 208.81.184.4 points out, this becomes a "I just don't like it/I just like it" argument and that isn't justification per WP policy.
 * So in a nut shell, right now the the trade off I see is cartoonish vs. lacking and I would choose cartoonish every time. Until a better "fine art" type image can be found I think they should stay.  That also seems to be the consensus (as I see it) at the moment, so my 2-cents is worth just that.
 * Douglas.hawkes says "I am unable at the moment to determine if some works of Arnold Friberg fall under the right license to be used on Wikipedia". I have gotten "OK" (I wouldn't call my self good) at figuring out licensee.  Right now the two images on Arnold Friberg are under the "Fair use" policy.  Can you address your concern?  Perhaps I can help?  I don't see why any Arnold Friberg can't fall under the "Non-free fair use in" tag.  If you have an image that you would like to upload, perhaps I can help you find the right license?  Can you supply a link to a Teancum image?  I will also look myself, but Teancum would seem to be a obscure topic to find a "art" image on, let alone one that can be used.  I don't think I will find one.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible replacement images to consider
I have found some images online, that I feel would be worth at least considering. If you can find any others to add to consideration, please do! If ARTEST4ECHO or anyone familiar with requirements for adding images to Wikipedia legally, I would appreciate your help here. Here are some suggestions:


 * 1&2 Teancum    http://seminary.lds.org/manuals/book-of-mormon-seminary-student-study-guide/bm-ssg-07-a2-9-49.asp -scroll down to see the black and white image. I think this one is great.
 * 1&2 Teancum    http://joshsimagination.blogspot.com/2009/01/teancum-man-of-liberty.html


 * 3 Ammon      http://lds.org/hf/art/display/1,16842,4218-1-3-97,00.html  -click "Print Image" to see full size.


 * 4 Stripling Warriors    http://www.ldsart.com/p-22164-helamans-two-thousand-stripling-warriors.aspx

Thanks for any help anyone can provide. Douglas.hawkes (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am concerned with the No free equivalent Rule (#1). Before I attempt to upload any of these image I would like to ask the following question from you all.
 * Do you all consider the current image "acceptable quality"?
 * I don't. The argument can be made that the "quality" is not sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose (see above discussions) therefore the "No free equivalent" rule dose not apply, unless a "Free" image is found or created.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My opinions on the intrinsic quality of images 2, 3, & 4 are unlikely to be representational of the expectations of the average reader. Most English speaking people from the US, UK, AUS & NZ will have a cultural expectation that religious artistic representations will be high art/fine art. As such, the existing images are unlikely to meet the principle of least surprise (or whatever the exact phase has been on the recent controversies about images & the purposed image filter). However that argument also feeds into a Western Civ cultural bias, so I'm a bit torn on this. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Cultural Impact?
I'm thinking about adding a cultural impact page here, particularly considering the Tennis Shoes series and James Goldberg's character Teancum Singh, as well as Latter-day Saint naming conventions dating back to Teancum Pratt. The issue is secondary sources... BenBeckstromBYU (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)