Talk:Shiz

Latest comment: 12 years ago by 208.81.184.4 in topic "Religious text" question

"Religious text" question edit

What sort of secondary source were you looking for by posting this box?--John Foxe (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Almost all of the text is supported by direct citations to the Book of Mormon; need some analysis (preferably scholarly) on the religious text, not just citations to it. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Shiz is a character in a literary work, like Wilkins Micawber, so we'd expect direct citations to the work in which he appears. Should the treatment of Shiz differ from say, the treatment of Ehud in the Book of Judges?--John Foxe (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
If you look at the references on Ehud, you'll see that only 2 of the 7 inline references are directly to the text (really only 1 & 1/3, as the second one comparing 3 different translations). The rest are to non-primary references such as commentaries, dictionaries, and other scholarly work. This is what's missing from this article, and why that tag applies. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. I'd say there are more non-textual references here sitting here in that first footnote. They're not scholarly, of course, but that would be a stretch under the circumstances. A scholarly source treating Shiz? Have any suggestions?--John Foxe (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's just for the beheading; if that's all that seems valuable enough to discuss, then that material belongs in either Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, Criticism of the Book of Mormon, Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Anti-Mormonism or some other venue, and this article should be deleted for lack of notability as a equivalent to a wp:1E for a living person. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ah, then I'd suggest that we list it at Articles for deletion and see what the sense of the community is.--John Foxe (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sounds reasonable to me. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply