Talk:Izapa Stela 5

Removed text

I've removed the extensive recent additions by an anon contributor which detail various Mormon-apologetic interpretations.

Firstly on the basis that the added text is mostly a verbatim copy of text appearing elsewhere on the web at this site, although a few sentences are changed and otherwise weak paraphrases. Hence a presumed copyvio; possibly the contributor is the same in both cases, but even if so that's not the way to go about constructing a wikipedia article.

Secondly, on the basis that this is a genuine Mesoamerican artefact of the Izapan culture, and while there's a lot still to be documented for the culture and this object it is quite misleading and unbalanced to provide such extensive coverage from what is essentially a fringe interpretation, even (I gather) among LDS researchers. If it really is warranted to go to such lengths detailing what these few propose, it should be done firstly in contributors' own words and secondly probably on some separate article altogether. Any different interpretations of this artefact ought to be documented according to their relative standing and acceptance, and not give undue priority to interpretations which are at best speculative.--cjllw | TALK 08:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Visorstuff would probably be up on the thinking in the LDS archaological community about this artifact. But I agree that we should summarize then link to an external source that provides the extensive analysis that was added. I've gone and done this, what I think is appropriate. I tried to be brief while saying that there are many more parallels drawn then giving the external reference. I also avoided getting into Nephi's vision of the interpretation of the vision. Val42 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the article, but think i'm done for now. Still much more work to do, but much cleaner. -Visorstuff 20:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I like the improvements that you made to the article Visorstuff. I made some spelling fixes. I fixed the name of the BYU department to the dictionary spelling, though they may have used the spelling that you used in the article. The only improvement that I think should still go in there is some sort of clear separation between the three, presented interpretations of the symbology on the stone. But with the new layout, I don't think that breaking it into sections again would work. Any ideas as to how to address this concern? Val42 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what you want to accomplish by seperating it out. Curious if the thought is to highlight that there are multiple interpretations, or if it is to show that there is disagreement. Someone still needs to add in what is now commonly accepted meaning (versus interpretation) of the stone, which I'd like to do at a later date. If you can clarify what you want to accomplish, that would help me address the concern. I see all three theories as an attempt to support Mormon beliefs, so I struggle with how they are all that different. Only a few researchers have seriously dealt with it outside of the Smithsonian and BYU. -Visorstuff 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If they are all the same, then they should be labelled as such, with applicable references. I'd also like to see what the Smithsonian have to say about the symbols on the stone. Val42 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

conflicting

Visorstuff, I'm at a loss as to why you are concerned with the "conflicting interpretations" phrase. Obviously, the Mormon and the "out of Africa" interpretations are mutually exclusive, and I would hazard to say that they are both at odds with the "real" meaning of Stela 5 (whatever that is -- I suspect that the Mormons and the "out of Africa" theorists have spent more time analyzing and interpreting the imagery than more conventional researchers and that we know too little about Izapa culture to be able to properly interpret Stela 5 at this time). In any case, there are too many unreferenced remarks purporting to state the views of "researchers", "some researchers", "other Mormon researchers" and "many scholars" . Madman 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned - let me shed some light on my issues with wording:

The out of Africa interpretation supports statements made by early Mormon leaders that some Book of Mormon peoples were of Black African descent (Parley P Pratt stated that the Jaredites were black and hamitic in orgin, and most Mormons tend to tie the Olmecs to either the Jaredites or the Lamanites). All of the interpretations are apologetic in nature. They are seeking to establish a religious point. All interpretations of the stone are from Christian or Mormon sources, and are very religious in nature, so that they don't conflict, but are meant to support a view that is in line with Mormon-ish thinking.

Aside from early theories about the creation legends, nearly all interpretations are LDS. Until we see some non-LDS alternate interpretation, then we are left to conclude that existing interpretations are done with a LDS worldview, not conflicting, but providing alternative and complementary Mormon views, supporting alternative Mormon theories from a Mormon worldview, which is fine.

It still seems to me that the present Mormon and the "out of Africa" interpretations are conflicting. From my little understanding of the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites left for (Meso)America from the Middle East whilst the "out of Africa" folks generally posit a west Africa departure.

If there were some reputable non-LDS source about this, then it would make sense to include it, but the bottom line is that its a picture of a bunch of dieties or kings sitting around a tree of some import, and nearly all recent interpretations point back to Mormon apologetics. That's all that anyone knows with any level of certainty. The Smithsonian and others have left it at some type of creation or fertility/harvest deal for now. All other interpretations are pro-Mormon, so they don't seem to conflict, rather provide an alternate pro-Mormon apologetic view.

As mentioned, the mainstream scholars haven't spent nearly the time on this that the, ah, non-mainstreamers have. And something so rich in (in our present state) almost unknowable imagery is bound to attract fringe theorists.

I agree that there are "too many unreferenced remarks." The claims are accurate enough, and I was just hoping to add in what I know on the topic, per the above request. Definitely more work needs to be done to clean it up, but others have the basis and some sources now to start with. I think you are more than qualified and respected enough to clean it up from here, and I'll trust the bulk of your edits.

Thanks for the compliments.  : )

I hope this makes sense. If you really think the interpetations conflict with this view in mind, then let's add back in. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not always right. :^) Nor do I typically do this much article revising. -Visorstuff 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's no big deal. Just thought I'd mention it. Madman 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Better

Nice work on the expansion, Visorstuff, that's a considerable improvement.

We're still missing exposition of the 'conventional' archaeological interpretation(s), and assuredly there have been publications addressing this artefact, such as by Karen Bassie, Linda Schele, Justin Kerr (I think), among others. Will see if I can dig these up, the (conventional interpretation of the) representation is that of a world tree, albeit an ornately depicted one. The poor condition of the artefact has not helped in the interpretation, but a number of motifs present on the stela are identifiable.

It'd be useful to put the Izapan culture into historical context, a para or two on this would be in order. Also, mention that other stelae from Izapa have world tree depictions (eg Stelae 25 & 26). I'll see if I can work this in.

One other thing- in the sentence beginning "In line with theories put forth by Stirling and others...", that could be construed as implying that Stirling gave credence to the "Lehi's dream" interpretation. I don't think this was intended, AFAIK Stirling had no such belief...?--cjllw | TALK 04:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question and sorry it is not clearer - Stirling apparently believed it was a religious "tree of life" or something - I believe he was the originator of the term tree of life stone - which is why it caught Mormon/Christian attentention. Agree that context would be great - may even want to discuss the stela's placement in the ruins - as that is probably significant in its astrological set up. -Visorstuff 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Izapa Stela

I know that I created this article with this name, but there are other Izapa Stela. Should we move this article to Izapa Stela and make sections on the other stela (or steli?). The section(s) on this stela will probably be the largest, but this may not always be the case. What do you think? — Val42 (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There's already a list of other stelae in the Izapa article, so I would hate to duplicate anything. Madman (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Madman on this one, at least for the moment. Given that the main Izapa article itself is not yet bursting at the seams, it may be a little premature to start separating out lists etc of stelae, inscriptions & structures associated with the site. I think this article should in any event remain titled as it is now, devoted to this particular monument. Of course there are quite a few other Izapa monuments & inscriptions, each of which would be equally deserving of their own articles at some point in the future. I would say, once we start to accumulate several individual articles on Izapan monuments and inscriptions, then that may be the appropriate time to construct a separate list article. Just my opinion, if someone really wanted to set up such a list now, then I guess Izapa stelae would be a reasonable article title, or List of Izapa stelae. Not "Izapan", as that would refer more to a style than the particular site (although that in itself would be a valid grouping). It might also be reasonable to broaden the list to include monuments other than stelae, so maybe something like Izapa monumental inscriptions. Would probably be best to select a scope and naming formulation that can be repeated for other Maya/Mesoamerican sites; at the moment not sure what the best formulation would be.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you have both misunderstood what I meant. I meant to have an article that was the Izapa stelae, and this article would be a section of said article. However, after your comments I have reviewed the Izapa article and agree that the current structure works. — Val42 (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of Africa section

Clovis Point, I think that the paragraph on the African origin proponents' use of this imagery to support their theory is as notable as the Mormon view. Moreover, to a large extent, this Rorshack-like interpretation of the imagery is what makes this stela notable, so we can't ignore that. Madman (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My rational for removing this was simply that while the interpretation by certain Mormon researchers is well known and frequently referenced, I hadn't come across a reference to the African origins besides on the Geocities site cited in this article. To me, this suggests a lack of notability. I won't re-remove this paragraph, but I would appreciate hearing where else you have come across this viewpoint. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Van Sertima brings up Izapan stelae as "all important historical [evidence]" for African/Egyptian presence, in African Presence in Early America (pp.74,101). Since most of his books repeat the same tosh, others probably do as well. Possibly other diffusionists have noted along the way supposed similarities to Egyptian iconography and posing. However, I don't think Izapan iconography gets that much of an airing in afrocentrist/diffusionist circles, so the para here probably only needs to be a brief one.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reduced the mention to a single line, with reference not only to Clyde Winters, but also van Sertima. Hope you all like it, Madman (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That works nicely. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)