Talk:Zelph

Book of Zelph
I tried to ad a bit about the 'prophet' Josh Anderson and his 'revelation' "The Book of Zelph". I have recently read this book and find it to be just as reliable a source of information as the Book of Mormon. Could you please let me know why this data was removed? I certainly hope this is not some Wikipedia editor trying to oppress an emerging religion. 128.157.160.12 (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here for you to promote your "emerging religion" per this What Wikipedia is not. Continue to try and use it as such and you will find yourself blocked from editing here.  He  iro 22:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not re insert your spam advertisement for a book or for your "religion". Facebook is not a valid source and neither are blogs. Insert this once m ore and I go to WP:ANI to get admin attention on this issue.  He  iro 22:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would LOVE for you to get an admin involved. I recently found this religion, read their holy book and thought it deserved mention on Wikipedia. So far, you have shown a great deal of intolerance in you handling of the situation. Why do you hate them so? 128.157.160.12 (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For one thing, it was sourced to facebook, which is not a valid citation. For another, read the link I provided about adding promotional material.  He  iro 22:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am an administrator. Do not re insert your advertisement for your book or your religion.  Facebook is not a valid source, and neither are blogs.  Insert this once more, and I will block you from editing, unless some other administrator does it first.  (Now, did it really make that much difference to hear that from an administrator?  You should have just believed Heironymous.) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoah! hold on here! Blocking is not the solution yet. Stop treating him Like spammer. He is apparently devout person who has no idea about our many rules on Relaible source and our many rules The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assumption of good faith, but this person is just a spammer for a humor book. The "Book of Zelph" is not a real religious text.  It's always a good idea to look the material up in these situations, just in case you're dealing with a user who's trying to add legitimate content and doesn't know how to do it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Google "The Book of Zelph" and it is indeed a parody of the Book of Mormon. Which raises the question, is Zelph for real, is the entire article a hoax? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this article is for real, as real as Mormon figures described by J. Smith can be anyway. I'm sure thats why the author of this book picked the name.  He  iro 23:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When I say "for real", I mean a genuine part of Mormonism. So apparently it is "for real" in that context. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * never mind, irritating little bugger time. WP:RBI time The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Take my advice: Forget about this Zelph character, and convert to The Church of Baseball. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

E. D. Howe Reference
At first I was just going to say that the term anti-mormon to describe his book should be changed to critical since anti-mormon is a pejorative, but as I read the rest of this portion of the article I just thought this portion should be removed. Is it that important to not only mention but dedicate almost half of the Background section to talking about how this one guy that wrote Mormonism Unvailed messed up and called Zelph a Nephite instead of a Lamanite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.173.113 (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The E. D. Howe/Mormonism Unvailed mention adds nothing to this article, especially since it is qualified with the fact that it contradicts primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SauLovesWiki (talk • contribs) 16:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unreliable how? This is used as further background about an event at a Native American mound involving early Mormon history. Unreliable because it mistakes one fictional ancient group in the BoM for another?  He  iro 19:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That Zelph/Nephites/Lamanites are fictional is irrelavant. That Smith claimed to receive a revelation about them is a matter of early Mormon history that should be reliably sourced. Several people who were actually there provided first hand accounts of the event. Howe's information is based on affadavits gathered by others. He is a third hand account who gets at least one very basic fact about the event wrong. What further background does he provide that makes him worth including in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SauLovesWiki (talk • contribs) 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should go read WP:PRIMARY.  He  iro 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm clearly new here and I appreciate the link, I definitely learned something. I still don't understand, though: According to all primary sources, Howe gets a basic fact about the event wrong. How does this not draw his reliability into question? Is it seriously considered an original interpretation or original research for me to raise this issue? According to WP:PRIMARY, shouldn't Howe be quoted to provide an interpretation or analysis of the event instead of the current problematic summary? Does the quote do this in some way that I'm not seeing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SauLovesWiki (talk • contribs) 22:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)