User talk:Purkinje1001

Book of Mormon edits
Sorry but I've reverted you there. Basically it's because you are new and don't understand our policies and guidelines. First, neither source discussed the Book of Mormon. Secondly, there were problems with your sources. The National Geographic report didn't actually reflect the study. The study actually says "Our findings are significant at two levels. First, it shows that Upper Paleolithic Siberians came from a cosmopolitan population of early modern humans that spread out of Africa to Europe and Central and South Asia. Second, Paleoindian skeletons like Buhl Woman with phenotypic traits atypical of modern-day indigenous Americans can be explained as having a direct historical connection to Upper Paleolithic Siberia.". Your 2nd source is simply fringe stuff - Yates, sometimes known as Donald Panther Yates, an 'Elvis is alive' believer fails our criteria at WP:RS. There can be a steep learning curve here I'm afraid, depending in part on what you are editing. Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller,

Thank you for your explanation and review. I agree with your deletion of the second reference-- I can see now that this is not a reliable source. The first reference, however, is respectable and legitimate, and perhaps requires a more in-depth analysis than what I originally wrote. I recognize of course that this reference was clearly not intended to be specific to the Book of Mormon, nor was it specific to the time period of the Book of Mormon (and that, in and of itself, really shouldn't matter since scientific evidence often arises that affects questions and ideas that are only peripherally related), but I do feel the study is pertinent because it demonstrates Mid-Eastern origin to the Native American population that was clearly missed based on earlier techniques. This study relied on more complete genome sequencing, capturing an entire origin of a population that was previously unnoticed. This study also used a different approach, comparing sequences from an ancient source to a modern source, whereas previous studies have generally compared SNPs from the modern populations of Native Americans to populations of Mid-Eastern decent. Now I recognize that the results of this study are not proof or even evidence applicable to the specific case of the Book of Mormon, but I did feel that it might be relevant to those reading the article in that it sheds light on the fact that much remains unknown regarding these populations and more rigorous approaches are clearly needed to achieve a more complete analysis of a complex population pattern. For example, if a relation between Native Americans and Mid-Eastern populations had actually been found previously, this study would actually suggest that the relation arose long before Book of Mormon times, thus having the opposite effect of debunking the idea, so it does seem relevant in some regard. Do you think that this sort of analysis has a place in this article, or is it general policy to leave out aspects which are still unclear or which a more thorough researcher might be interested in? Purkinje1001 (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it belongs in this article. It doesn't really relate to the BoM claim as you note. Wrong time period and the BoM isn't suggesting a migration through Asia and over the Bering Strait. And it doesn't mention the BoM. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)