User talk:Jeppiz/Archives/2016/June

Psuedohistory
I'd argue categorizing the exodus or the quran as such is different from that article. The article is about the historicity of the book of Mormon (not even the article "book of mormon"), which the lede indicates is a firm "no". It's not like the bible or the quran or most other religious books for that matter. The bible has roots in ancient semitic religion and the monolatristic and later monotheistic cult of YHWH and events in the kingdoms of israel and judah during the iron age. The Quran was was written in parallel to actual events in muhammads life set firmly in the arab pagan world it describes, with the parts set in the past mostly retelling the bible with occasional innovations. The book of mormon is different, it is completely ahistorical by its mere existence, it's one big forgery. As for the comparison to the book of exodus (unscientific claims of divine intervention aside), absence of evidence is different from evidence of absence. We assume the exodus is a myth because we don't have archeological evidence attesting to it. We assume the book of mormon is a myth because what we know about the ancient world and mesoamerica totally refutes it. And one narrative is attested in ancient times, while the other appears 5000 years after the "events" it describes. Historical psuedohistory vs psuedohistoric psuedohistory if you will. Anyway there's a big difference.--Monochrome _ Monitor  00:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Independent Catholic Church In Asia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Independent Catholic Church In Asia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Independent Catholic Church In Asia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. for (talk)  12:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for requesting a speedy keep on the Assault of Daniel Nivel. I was shocked that it went to AFD for "Not News", you summed it up very well. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

improving scholarly content
Is there a place you'd suggest that I start? Maybe we work on a page other than Jesus for a while to get used to working productively together? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)