This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Interpreter (journal) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 August 2013. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Regarding this edit: that source really does not add anything to the article. It doesn't give any independent information, it doesn't add anything to the notability of this journal (which is weak), there is simply no reason to list every website that ever mentioned this journal. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 18:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Randykitty said, " someone criticizes someone else. That's not an affair and trivial for a journal like this. In addition "Dehlin affair" is (quite justifiedly) a redirect"
The affair (sorry you disagree with English usage of this word), in its timing and subject matter, is all mixt up with the change at M. Studies Review from a sectarian, in-house hothouse for doctors of apologia toward BYU's apparent goal of influencing the now-burgeoning field of M. Studies in the outside, secular academy through BYU's bringing in a new board drawn from this greater world and assigning a new editor, etc (hence the split off of Interpreter to continue the old regime's work).
"[...]Executive Director M. Gerald Bradford, were concerned that what they saw as the sometimes-aggressive nature of the apologetic material produced by the Institute was compromising the Institute’s respectability as a scholarly body. Other members of the Institute, led especially by Peterson, insisted that it was imperative that the Institute continue publishing apologetic material to answer criticisms of Mormonism."--Student Review, an indie student pub at BYU. link
For a random asstmt of Dehlin affair links (there's literally scores of em to choose among) see here, here, here and here and, for fun, a discussion board with BYU participants here and one with critics of BYU(/"anti-Mormon"?) participants here.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
<sighs> The internet-published comments by principals to the controversy (um debacle? "issue of public discussion and interest"? geez can't we just use the one that most quickly comes to mind for writers of the English language for god's sake?) are RSes for the purposes of documenting issues relating to the principals themselves per wp:SELFPUBLISHED and the indie student newspaper and patheos.org linked above are both legit RSes in their own right.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 16:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Per Student Review. (And there is no other [following scare quotes added later, see next comment] "scholarly journal" so to be.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 21:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (Re-signed)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)I will not include in this chapter any discussion of Mormon theology, doctrine, beliefs, or apologetics, which are generally considered outside the realm of social science, except as they might be discussed as influences on behavior.
Another Peterson qt:
The [Maxwell Institute] director’s desire to turn the Maxwell Institute in a more neutral, “objective” direction—i.e., toward “Mormon studies”—was entirely consistent with his own academic background in the relatively secular non-confessional world of “religious studies.” link
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Peterson, Dec. 11, 2012: "Interpreter is, if anything, more rigorously peer-reviewed than the Review ever was. The [M.Studies] Review was peer-reviewed by readers who acted at the invitation of its editors, but Interpreter has an absolutely independent article-review committee." LINK-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 16:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Interpreter (journal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
There are two reasons I've currently identified to keep "understanding" in this line.
We've already established that the journal has the goal of defending the Church. Leave it as is. It's a good compromise and captures everything anyone will want to know about the journal. Marspe1 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Interpreter (journal) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 August 2013. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Regarding this edit: that source really does not add anything to the article. It doesn't give any independent information, it doesn't add anything to the notability of this journal (which is weak), there is simply no reason to list every website that ever mentioned this journal. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 18:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Randykitty said, " someone criticizes someone else. That's not an affair and trivial for a journal like this. In addition "Dehlin affair" is (quite justifiedly) a redirect"
The affair (sorry you disagree with English usage of this word), in its timing and subject matter, is all mixt up with the change at M. Studies Review from a sectarian, in-house hothouse for doctors of apologia toward BYU's apparent goal of influencing the now-burgeoning field of M. Studies in the outside, secular academy through BYU's bringing in a new board drawn from this greater world and assigning a new editor, etc (hence the split off of Interpreter to continue the old regime's work).
"[...]Executive Director M. Gerald Bradford, were concerned that what they saw as the sometimes-aggressive nature of the apologetic material produced by the Institute was compromising the Institute’s respectability as a scholarly body. Other members of the Institute, led especially by Peterson, insisted that it was imperative that the Institute continue publishing apologetic material to answer criticisms of Mormonism."--Student Review, an indie student pub at BYU. link
For a random asstmt of Dehlin affair links (there's literally scores of em to choose among) see here, here, here and here and, for fun, a discussion board with BYU participants here and one with critics of BYU(/"anti-Mormon"?) participants here.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
<sighs> The internet-published comments by principals to the controversy (um debacle? "issue of public discussion and interest"? geez can't we just use the one that most quickly comes to mind for writers of the English language for god's sake?) are RSes for the purposes of documenting issues relating to the principals themselves per wp:SELFPUBLISHED and the indie student newspaper and patheos.org linked above are both legit RSes in their own right.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 16:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Per Student Review. (And there is no other [following scare quotes added later, see next comment] "scholarly journal" so to be.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 21:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (Re-signed)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)I will not include in this chapter any discussion of Mormon theology, doctrine, beliefs, or apologetics, which are generally considered outside the realm of social science, except as they might be discussed as influences on behavior.
Another Peterson qt:
The [Maxwell Institute] director’s desire to turn the Maxwell Institute in a more neutral, “objective” direction—i.e., toward “Mormon studies”—was entirely consistent with his own academic background in the relatively secular non-confessional world of “religious studies.” link
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Peterson, Dec. 11, 2012: "Interpreter is, if anything, more rigorously peer-reviewed than the Review ever was. The [M.Studies] Review was peer-reviewed by readers who acted at the invitation of its editors, but Interpreter has an absolutely independent article-review committee." LINK-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 16:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Interpreter (journal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
There are two reasons I've currently identified to keep "understanding" in this line.
We've already established that the journal has the goal of defending the Church. Leave it as is. It's a good compromise and captures everything anyone will want to know about the journal. Marspe1 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)