Talk:Reformed Egyptian/Archive003

No evidence that "reformed Egyptian" ever existed
In my opinion this article is not upfront about a very simple fact which should be included in this or any other encyclopedia article on the topic of "reformed Egyptian." At some point the following sentence, which from the above discussion was apparently arrived at through lengthy and ultimately successful efforts to achieve consensus, was removed:


 * "Because there is no archeaological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America, they [i.e. critics] have suggested that the claims of the Book of Mormon regarding reformed Egyptian are implausible (or false)."

I think this is a useful and important sentence, and it or something along these lines (personally I would word it more strongly) should be included in the article. Currently the intro to the article notes that critics "question the existence" of reformed Egyptian and later in the article a couple of critical points about why Smith may have ID'd reformed Egyptian as the source language are mentioned. However at no point in the article is it clearly stated that there is no evidence (non-Mormon or otherwise) for the existence of reformed Egyptian. I think this point should be found in the introduction of the article because it is one of the most fundamental facts about the so-called language--no one has ever seen it before or can describe what it looks like, and many have therefore concluded that its very existence is a myth.

I want to tread very lightly here because this is obviously a matter of faith for many, but I think the article in its current form gives far too much weight to the Mormon point of view on this question. As this is an encyclopedia article, if anything greater weight should be given to the skeptics (which is to say, wikipedia in general should remain very skeptical about the existence of things, events, etc. for which there is little or no rational evidence). Obviously the full context for claims about "reformed Egyptian" should be given (i.e. discussion of Mormon claims about what Joseph Smith did), but in the end I think we must state that none of this can be proven, which is to say we must go beyond saying "some skeptics say" and assert that there is no rational proof for the existence of reformed Egyptian.

To me this article in its current form seems like it would be more useful to an LDS member than to a non-Mormon. The article is based almost exclusively on Mormon sources, and more "objective" points-of-view are barely present (I believe footnote 9, The Secular Web, is the only non-Mormon/Mormon apologist source in the notes). I think criticism of the whole notion of "reformed Egyptian" must be much more front-and-center in this article (which is to not to say that the detailed Mormon exegetical information cannot remain--I think it should). My inclination is to start by changing the last sentence of the intro paragraph into something more along the lines of the deleted sentence cited above.

However I'll hold off on doing this as I am far, far from an expert on this subject and I know there are many who have spent a lot of time on this and other LDS-related articles. I'm hoping others can add some of their thoughts in response to my post.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've modified that first sentence to address your concerns, with which I agree.--John Foxe 10:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that looks pretty good, we could maybe play with the exact wording a bit (and also maybe try to find a source or sources for the claim) but this is basically what I had in mind.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence that was removed (this is the first time I've seen it) has several problems because it combines several points in one. It implies as fact that there is no evidence of any sort for the existence of such a language. ("because there is no...") Several LDS scholars at FARMS, myself, and several other Mormons (those who are actually interested in this specific subject) would strongly disagree with this statement. There is no way to source this "fact" ("there is no") and this is an idea that has been hashed out (with varying amounts of success) in Mormonism-related articles as well as articles of broader scope on wikipedia. We are to cite facts, not to declare the nonexistence of evidence towards any fact. A fact would be "Critics of Mormonism don't believe that there is evidence for Reformed Egyptian as described in the Book of Mormon" or something to that effect. An alleged or perceived lack of evidence is not enough to declare something nonexistent, because that perception varies from person to person. I believe that the Anthon transcript, along with varying witnesses of the time testify to the reality of this language, linguistic patterns and proper nouns, and the similarity of the proposed history of this language (started as Egyptian, used by a small amount of historian/record keepers and evolving over time and eventually being lost) to the history of other languages that followed a somewhat similar history all make the existence of this language plausible. Just saying that there is no evidence is a possibly dishonest simplification of a very complicated subject, and we have to be careful in attempting to summarize this article in a neutral way, recognizing both major viewpoints. The summary at this point fails miserably in attribution and neutrality. I'll make an attempt... gdavies 23:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article by John L. Sorenson citing various non-LDS scholars regarding possible similarities between Mayan and Egyptian hieroglyphics. Digging into the Book of Mormon. While of course this isn't necessarily evidence that we could cite in the article and say "Reformed egyptian as described in the Book of Mormon is a concept accepted by several scholars," it is interesting and makes phrases like "there is no evidence..." seem naive and lacking in substance. gdavies 00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To Gldavies, I'm not sure your changes to the intro are an improvement, for one thing you created a broken link and changed "Mormonism" to Latter-Day Saint movement when some prior editor or editors had specifically asked that this not be done because "Mormonism" is the more general term. But these are minor issues.


 * My question for you is this: do you disagree with this statement, "the existence of a language called reformed Egyptian is not accepted by any scholar not a member of an LDS church"? You just removed this statement from the intro after it was added by John Foxe.  In your first comment you noted that "Several LDS scholars at FARMS, myself, and several other Mormons...would strongly disagree" with the initial statement which was removed ("no archeaological, linguistic...", etc.).  You then posted a link to an LDS-linked article which does not, from what I can tell, actually mention any non-LDS scholars who actually assert that reformed Egyptian might exist.  My point is that I think the statement "reformed Egyptian is not accepted by any scholar not a member of an LDS church" is probably accurate.  Do you disagree?


 * I also think your logic in your first post in this section of the talk page is a bit flawed. You basically point out that one generally cannot prove a negative, i.e. I could not provide a source which proves there is no evidence whatsoever for reformed Egyptian.  Certainly this is true (think of the lead up to the Iraq war, where we could not prove that Hussein didn't have WMD--e.g. Rumsfeld's famous "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence").  But the fact that it's often impossible to prove a negative does not mean that we (on wikipedia, or in newspaper articles, historical accounts, etc.) do not often mention that there is no evidence for a certain assertion and that it is therefore implausible or, at the very least, unproven.  To take just one quick example I found which relates to questions of scripture, in the article on the famous Q document it is pointed out that "no copies of it have been recovered and no definitive notices of it have been recorded in antiquity."  You want to deal in "facts" and seem to imply that facts must consist of positive statements, but the fact that no copies of the Q text have ever been found and that there are no references to it in ancient texts are "facts" which demonstrate a lack of physical evidence for its existence (though far more scholars believe in the existence of a Q document than in reformed Egyptian).


 * Similarly, it is, I would argue, a "fact" that there is no evidence for the existence of reformed Egyptian which non-LDS members find even mildly convincing. You say, "I believe that the Anthon transcript, along with varying witnesses of the time testify to the reality of this language..." and of course it's your prerogative to believe this, but I certainly do not believe the Anthon transcript constitutes anything remotely approaching evidence for the existence for reformed Egyptian, and my point is that this is the conclusion that has generally been reached by scholars and observers who are not of the Mormon faith.  The burden of proof here lies strongly with those who want to show that reformed Egyptian is real, and I do not think it has been met.  The fact there are some people, such as yourself, who believe there is good evidence for the language's existence does not really matter--the evidence itself must convince a number of objective and well-qualified observers.  When it does not, that "fact" is very much worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article.


 * Again, I believe the lack of evidence should be highlighted at the outset, and not in the form of a highly watered down statement like "Critics of the Book of Mormon question the existence of reformed Egyptian for a variety of reasons." (Part of the problem with that formulation is that one need not be a critic of Mormonism to say that reformed Egyptian probably does not exist.)


 * I'm inclined to edit Gldavies' last change but I'm still curious as to what other editors think.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried a different wording. (gdavies knows how I hate the word "critic.") If there is any non-LDS scholar who believes in a language called "reformed Egyptian," that information should be introduced.
 * I don't think the citation gdavies requested is required by the context, especially since the sentence is in the introductory paragraph. I'm unaware of any difference of opinion about the matter.--John Foxe 09:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "... rejected by all scholars not affiliated with an LDS church"? Most scholars probably haven't even heard of "reformed Egyptian".  Of those that have, most probably don't care.  So "all" is a very incorrect word to use in this case.  I have changed the wording.  Unfortunately, it uses two negatives.  But I couldn't think of a way to make it more neutral without doing so. Val42 02:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets keep in mind the purpose of the introductory paragraph, which is to summarize the rest of the article succinctly, and avoid using it to justify including unsourced POV general statements. gdavies 03:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the paragraph a bit, as much for clarity as anything else. If I've introduced POV, feel free to try again.--John Foxe 08:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Val42 brings up an important point. The statement that "no non-LDS scholar believes Reformed Egyptian ever existed" is rather pointless and adds no value to the article.  Of course people who don't believe the Book of Mormon is a true historical/spiritual text aren't going to believe in elements for which it is the primary or sole evidence.  It's similar to "non LDS people don't believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet"... well duh...  My concern is not only with the concept of "evidence by omission" (and its inherent problems of attribution) but the fact that it adds no value or information to the article.  If a scholarly reference can be provided (a poll etc.) then lets add it, but until then I think it isn't proper to include the statement in this form.
 * A separate issue is the definition of "reformed Egyptian," which obviously is misunderstood by most people outside of the LDS faith. The small "r" in the title denotes an adjective rather than a proper name of a language, and languages that have evolved from Egyptian can be found in surprisingly large amounts. The Book of Mormon says that Nephi and his family were taught in the "learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" and at the very end (Mormon 9:26) that they had "written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech." The plausibility/occurrence of this type of language evolution is attested to by the existence of (this list is taken from this article) Egyptian hieratic and demotic, Byblos Syllabic texts, Cretan hieroglyphics, Meroitic, Proto-Sinaitic and the alphabet. There are numerous non-LDS sources (and even books) written on the evolution of language, but it is nigh on impossible to find a serious linguistic scholar that denies the possibility of "reformed Egyptian" as described in the Book of Mormon.  If we can properly attribute statements, lets add them.  gdavies 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:John Foxe, I still am not sold on this edit for the intro, because I believe that it is factually incorrect - there is no scholarly contest for the existence of all the "reformed Egyptian" languages mentioned above. That's why I added "as described in the Book of Mormon" to attempt to avoid that issue in my edit. gdavies 03:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I wrong here, or is this article about "reformed Egyptian" (quotes very intentional), which is to say the language which Joseph Smith supposedly translated to write the Book of Mormon and not some highly general category "reformed Egyptian?" If so, invoking "Egyptian hieratic and demotic, Byblos Syllabic texts, Cretan hieroglyphics..." etc. does not address the point I am making.

If "reformed Egyptian" meant any altered version of an Egyptian language, then clearly this would be a very different wikipedia article. It is not. It is about a very certain version of "reformed Egyptian" which relates only to Mormonism. Again I ask, is it or is it not a fact that the very existence of this language is not at all proven? And contrary to what Gdavies says, this is not the same thing as including the phrase "non LDS people don't believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet" in the Joseph Smith article. Whether or not Joseph Smith (or anyone else) was a prophet is a completely subjective question. Such is not the case for the existence of "reformed Egyptian" (the "Mormon version"--let's keep it specific if we must) or any other language or object that can have some sort of physical presence in our world. No one has ever seen such a language written anywhere (at least not anyone whose testimony is even remotely reliable), and this point absolutely should be mentioned in the introduction. It is not an "unsourced POV general statement." It's a fact.

I'll try to make an analogy which I hope is not too outlandish (but probably it is). I might tell you that I believe in Shimmysham, and that there are thousands of Shimmysham adherents in the world, and that our sacred text was originally written in and then transcribed from a certain script which for lack of a precise term we call "derivative Billabong." Since wikipedia is pretty inclusive I assume there would eventually be an article written on "derivative Billabong." If Shimmyshammers had produced no evidence that such a language ever existed--i.e. that it was never anything more than a figment of the imagination of the founder(s) of the religion--than I assume that would be mentioned prominently in the introduction to the article.

I don't want to get too adamant about this (though I guess maybe I have) but when I first came across this article I was very concerned that it far, far too much left the impression that reformed Egyptian was a real language when the preponderance of the evidence at this point has suggested that this is not the case. That's my thing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct that this article is about a specific language alleged to be the source for the Book of Mormon, but I disagree with your logic/conclusion and your comparison. The difference (starting with the analogy first) is that Billabong is not a real language, and Egyptian is.  Furthermore, there are several other languages that have been evolved from Egyptian (but not Billabong) and are known across the world. This tends to make the idea more plausible, eh? As does the fact the name to the language denotes the source ("reformed Egyptian) and isn't just a random proper name.  So instead of "Derivative Billabong" (a script related to a non-existent language) we have something more like "adjusted Greek."  The small "r" in the Book of Mormon for reformed Egyptian, along with the fact that Egyptian was a script used for writing during the time period and place mentioned (600 BC in Jerusalem) lends the concept more plausibility.  Certainly this is less outlandish than the billabong example...  I guess what I'm saying is that of course no scientific expert is going to come out and say that "according to my understanding, reformed Egyptian must have existed in the New World," but they are also not going to come out and say "reformed Egyptian (as an idea) is ridiculous and no such text exists" because there are several other examples of languages related to Egyptian.  The Book of Mormon says that no other nation knows the language, as they use it and infers as a possibility that the text was only used on rare occasion by a small group of people (those who kept the records).  That's my interpretation and of course doesn't belong in the article, but that is a decent explanation in my mind as to why there isn't egyptian looking writing all over mesoamerica (although as an aside the Mayan hieroglyphs have been shown to have some general similarities to Egyptian). I can understand your concern, and if the article gives the impression that there is scientific evidence for the existence of this language (without a source) than of course that should be rectified.  However, the proper solution is not to add an unsourced POV general and misleading statement as an attempt to "counter-balance" an enigmatic and generally perceived bias.  I think we should try to source the article better in order to maintain (or improve) NPOV rather than adding more unsourced and irrelevant statements. gdavies 04:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bigtimepeace, here is the part of what you wrote above that I want to discuss:
 * No one has ever seen such a language written anywhere (at least not anyone whose testimony is even remotely reliable), and this point absolutely should be mentioned in the introduction. It is not an "unsourced POV general statement." It's a fact.
 * On Wikipedia, even though they are facts, if they are in dispute, they require citation. The statement under discussion is clearly disputed.  Please provide the citation.  Val42 04:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see if I can find a source which mentions the lack of evidence for reformed Egyptian. However I would point out a couple of things. I've only commented on this talk page and have not personally edited the article yet, so I obviously don't have to source points made on talk pages as we discuss the article. However like you I do think it advisable to have some kind of source for the intro statement "no scholar unassociated with a Latter Day Saint church acknowledges the existence of "reformed Egyptian." I'm still open to re-wording that because, as has already been mentioned, the double negative is a bit awkward and it's difficult to prove that no one has ever done or said a particular thing.  Personally I guess I prefer something along the lines of "to date there is no archeaological, linguistic, or other evidence for reformed Egyptian..." though I'm not wedded to that either.  It has the advantage of not being phrased in such a superlative degree ("no one" "ever") but rather just pointing out that we are not aware of any definitive evidence.

Also I think we have to bear in mind, as I tried to express above, that the burden of proof is on those who assert that reformed Egyptian exists (or at least existed, even if we can never recover it). The burden is not on those who suggest it does not exist, anymore than the burden of proof would be on someone who argued that unicorns do not exist (again, sorry for an extreme example, but my point is that when there is no physical evidence for something--be it a unicorn or a language--those who argue for the non-existence of such things do not have to "prove" their point--they simply state that there is no evidence. I think this is a fairly basic and non-controversial point about evidence and proof)

To gdavies I think I basically agree with your last post and obviously recognize that my "derivative Billabong" analogy was not at all entirely apt (though I think if we change it to "adjusted Greek" as you suggest my basic point would be the same). I think your main concern is about sourcing (not so much POV though you keep mentioning it) which is understandable. As I've said I'm not at all an expert on this topic but I have access to a huge number of academic journals online so I can try to find a source for the claim that no evidence has (at this point) been found which suggests that reformed Egyptian exists (that might take me awhile). I think after pointing this out in the intro (and maybe including a quick section elaborating on this point of view) we can follow with the existing sections on the LDS point of view vis a vis reformed Egyptian. Thus the point about no evidence would be emphasized at the outset, but the article would devote (as it does now) a great deal of space to Mormon arguments.

To Gdavies and Val42 (and anyone else obviously), does this sound agreeable? If, for example, I can find a good (and ideally fairly recent) article from, say, an academic journal dedicated to linguistics (or maybe history) which lays out the case for the non-existence of reformed Egyptian (and ideally describes some sort of scholarly consensus on this point) would the statement currently present in the intro (or some similar but revised version) be acceptable to you? I don't think we're too far apart at this point but please let me know what you think.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note my last change to: while one of the original written languages of Lehi's group was Egyptian, that language evolved (possibly due in part to contact with other cultures) into a language that became a modified or reformed Egyptian" BOM 1Nephi 3:3 states "....Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass" this and other passages in this chapter make it clear that these were the plates of brass that Lehi's group originally took with them. In BOM 1 Nephi 3:19 "...it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers" (Italics mine)This passage clarifies that the brass records of those Jews were written in "the language of our fathers" which was not egyptian. It shows that they were versed in at least two written languages.Rlittlec 02:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We need sourced statements, even for "no evidence". If you think that there are any POV or unsourced statements in this article, bring them up and we'll deal with them.  But for now, how should we deal with the "no evidence" statement while a source is being found? Val42 15:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A note to Rlittlec, you are absolutely correct that at least a small group of people had knowledge of at least two written languages, and in another reference in the Book of Mormon one of the languages is pointed out to be Hebrew: Here's Mormon 9:33-34
 * 32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
 * 33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.
 * 34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.
 * Apparently Mormon, who was the major historian and compiler of the Book of Mormon (and by my own speculation a great linguist, as he had all of the records kept by the Nephite historians), knew that his ancestors could write Hebrew, and that he had the ability to use some sort of reformed Hebrew as well. Also, I think the very beginning of the Book of Mormon (Nephi 1) makes it clear that Egyptian was a very common language of the time period and place (Jerusalem in 600 B.C.) which makes sense, given that Judah was under Egyptian rule at a few times during the 7th century BC.  Also remember the Hebrews spent some time in Egypt before the exodus, and these two facts make it very reasonable that those who were of high class in Jerusalem would have learned Egyptian as well as Hebrew (1 Nephi 1:1, I Nephi having been born of goodly (or prosperous) parents, therefore I was taught...).


 * To Bigtimepeace I have to be honest and point out a vibe that I'm getting from your posts here. The vibe (which is widespread outside of LDS circles) is that there are all kinds of "scholarly concensus" out there that "prove" Mormons are wrong (in theology, history, archeaology, and in this case, linguistics).  However, I've found (at this point) very few responsible scholars who come out and support the claims made against Mormons.  If you find a decent source, please feel free to add it, but I doubt the conclusion will be to the satisfaction of yourself or myself (a perfect "reformed egyptian could never have existed" or "it did exist in this time period, blah blah blah") because responsible scholars don't speculate like that. That's the reason we should avoid (not only here, but on all controversial articles on Wikipedia) making statements similar to this.  Let me explain what I mean... almost invariably there are two opposing parties on these types of articles (Mormons and those who aren't Mormon in this case) and the things we're dealing with aren't necessarily "facts" in the wikipedia sense, but usually assertions made by either party.  The easiest way to make an article which is so controversial and based fundamentally by faith on one side and skepticism on the other is to just say what each side believes (while still avoiding an argument-counterargument format).  What one group believes is a fact, and it's much easier to prove that the Book of Mormon says something than to prove whether or not its true. The best way to do this is to say that "Mormons think that reformed egyptian was a language used by.... Non-Mormons don't believe that evidence supports the existence of reformed Egyptian" without asserting which side is true.  As to the reason I keep saying NPOV, I think that NPOV is inherently about attribution, and that not properly attributing statements in these types of articles is usually a vehicle to unfairly support a side of an argument by asserting as fact something that may be merely speculation. gdavies 20:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have some strong disagreement with this last post. We should not dance around an issue just because it is "controversial."  This is an encyclopedia, and it's fine (and indeed necessary) to come down on one side or another with respect to questions of fact on topics which remain controversial.  For example there are many, many people in this country who believe in various 9/11 conspiracy theories.  The intro to that article here on wikipedia mentions the "controlled demolition" hypothesis about the collapse of the Twin Towers but then says "published reports by structural engineers do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis."  I'm sure a lot of believers in 9/11 conspiracy theory are not happy about that sentence and would view it as "POV pushing", however the fact is that most structural engineers do not agree with the controlled demolition idea and the wikipedia article rightfully pointed that out.


 * I think it's the same thing here. With reformed Egyptian I think we should emphatically not just say this side says this, the other side says this.  We are allowed to judge the quality of the evidence and draw conclusions.  We are allowed to say that there is no evidence for the existence of reformed Egyptian even if there are many who disagree with that conclusion and even if it offends some people.


 * Again, I'm not looking for a source that says something like "reformed egyptian could never have existed" as you suggest above and I've said this repeatedly. Such a statement would be ridiculous, but simply suggesting that at this point there is no evidence for the existence of reformed Egyptian is perfectly reasonable and I think necessary.  This is not "speculation," it is not POV.  It's the best objective conclusion based on the available evidence (or actually the lack thereof).  I understand there are people who disagree with that but this isn't a debate with equal time, it's an encyclopedia article that can and should draw clear conclusions for readers based on available evidence.


 * I have not found any articles on reformed Egyptian along the lines of what I was looking for, I think because (as someone suggested) few scholars have taken the time to deal with the question of this language's existence. I'm going to hunt around a bit more and I've picked up a couple of books which might be helpful since I've become interested in this topic.  One way I'm thinking the article could be revised is to have the last sentence of the intro say "Non-Mormon scholars point out that there is no evidence for the existence of reformed Egyptian" and then have a paragraph at the end of the article which details the views of some people (like maybe Fawn Brodie, though I'm sure LDS folks don't care for her) who have written about the Book of Mormon/reformed Egyptian and hypothesized about the possible sources for Smith's work (i.e. sources different from those described in the Mormon faith).--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 01:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you notice the important words in what you quoted from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article? You wrote, "published reports by structural engineers do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis."  This is citable as a reference.  Something from a Fawn Brodie published work would also be citable as a reference. Val42 02:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did notice that, and I have never argued at any time that we ought not cite references. When I spoke of the Fawn Brodie book it was obviously in terms of using it as a source and my last couple of comments have pointed out that I am looking to better source the material in the intro, exactly as you suggested above.  There's no argument here about the question of references.  I've already agreed with you about this so I don't understand why you are bringing it up again.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I brought it up because, as far as I can tell, you still haven't answered the question that I posed above: "But for now, how should we deal with the "no evidence" statement while a source is being found?" Val42 05:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I barely noticed that question and did not realize it was directed toward me. I wasn't trying to dodge it or anything. I assume when you refer to the "no evidence statement" you mean the line "no scholar unassociated with a Latter Day Saint church acknowledges the existence of "reformed Egyptian" (which actually does not relate to evidence). For starters I put a needs citation tag which I think is the standard thing to do in a situation like this.

As I've said I don't really care for the formulation of that sentence and have no problem with its removal (I didn't add it in the first place), though obviously I think something along these lines should be there. If you have a huge problem with it because it is is unsourced (and if the needs a cite tag doesn't allay your concern) go ahead and get rid of it or rewrite it in such a fashion that you think it does not need sourcing. However if you think the statement is basically correct (and relevant) I don't see a strong need to delete it right now. Really though I don't care much either way because I think this sentence should be rewritten.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that this sentence needs to be rewritten too. Thanks for putting the tag on it.  This should do for now. Val42 15:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'm a fan of John Foxe's most recent edit, particularly the detail in the footnote. This is a creative approach which I had not thought of but which I think largely addresses my concerns, thanks!  I still might be inclined to elaborate on it a bit and include a short section at the end of the article which specifies a couple of criticisms of the whole idea of reformed Egyptian as a way to flesh out the case for its non-existence.  But I think this is a big improvement.  I think it could be slightly reworded, however, and I don't know if the superlative "no" is necessary.  How about something along the lines of "Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of a "reformed Egyptian" language as it has been described in Mormon belief."  (We could play around with that but I think it's a little bit better).  Thoughts from others on my proposed alteration, and more importantly John Foxe's contribution?  I'll wait and then maybe edit the sentence along the lines I described--the footnote is great though.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 21:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I wasn't very clear on my last few notes, and it might have looked like I was avoiding the issue. The reason I brought up the whole "reformed" vs "Reformed" Egyptian and the existence of languages evolved from Egyptian in the first place was because the sentence back there seemed to imply that no language exists that has descended from Egyptian (which is of course not true).  This last edit (while an improvement in some ways) seems to make that implication, when the real point is that a language derived from Egyptian isn't believed to exist in Mesoamerica specifically. Right?  Maybe I'm wrong in that assumption, but I thought that's what the point is, since there are numerous "reformed Egyptians" the real question is if there was one here.  I also don't think it's perfectly correct to say there is "no evidence" as the Anthon Transcript or Mayan hieroglyphics both could be considered "evidence" in some way (even if it is not accepted by other scholars).  The Book of Mormon says that "no other nation knows their language" so apparently it had become substantially distinguished from its roots.  Mayan has been illustrated to hold several fundamental similarities (in form, etc.) with Egyptian... so possibly this could be conceived as evidence?  I just don't think that we're going to see a responsible scholar making the kind of statement that there is "no evidence for a language derived from Egyptian in the New World."  Hopefully that explains my point a little better.... gdavies 01:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think one advantage to the new edit is that it does not deal with the question of "evidence" at all, it just states that modern reference works on languages do not include any discussion of "reformed Egyptian" (from this a reader can easily infer that these scholars don't see any convincing evidence for its existence--otherwise they would obviously talk about it).


 * I understand your point about "reformed Egyptian" vs. "reformed" (as an adjective) Egyptian, and that was partially why I suggested the slight revision to John Foxe's edit, i.e. something along the lines of "Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of a "reformed Egyptian" language as it has been described in Mormon belief." My goal with the italicized phrase was to show that we are not talking about any conceivable "reformed" version of an Egyptian language, but very specifically about the language that Joseph Smith translated from in order to create the Book of Mormon.  Thus I see the thrust of the John Foxe's edit (and my proposed revision, the precise wording of which can easily be changed) as communicating the idea (or at least trying to) that the scholars who have written recent reference works on language do not see fit to include the language Joseph Smith said he translated (which we are calling "reformed Egyptian") in their encyclopedic listing of actually existing current or ancient languages.  Does that make sense?  Or am am I misinterpreting your concern?--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 03:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you've read my concern perfectly. I think a few edits ago I tried to add a phrase similar to what you've suggested ("as described by the Book of Mormon", etc.) in the past as well as touch on the other issue (that we've mentioned earlier) of what non-LDS scholar has said this.  Of course there are a lot of former LDS writers (such as Fawn Brodie) that I don't think are necessarily fitting for this citation - I'd prefer (if possible) to have a scholar that is completely independent (ideally not a former member with obvious bitter feelings) sourced if we are to include any mention of "non-LDS scholars."  Until then, I prefer what my original edit did, which was to just state that "those who disagree with LDS belief/teachings/the Book of Mormon, etc. feel that there is insufficient evidence for a reformed Egyptian script as described in the Book of Mormon."  It's a mouthful, but I think it might be necessary to be that verbose. gdavies 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, but I still don't understand what your opinion of John Foxe's edit is and/or my slight alteration. Isn't this better because it doesn't say anything about "evidence" at all, which has been such a contentious point?  Can you live with something along these lines?  I do think the sentence you suggest is far too awkward, but it also does not go as far as JF's edit in terms of specificity.  The sources he cites are not "those who disagree with LDS belief/teachings/the Book of Mormon" (they probably, like me, simply don't care), but rather scholars of language who by omitting any mention of "reformed Egyptian" in their reference works obviously do not put much stock in its existence.  I think the view expressed here is NPOV and well sourced and along the lines of what I was looking for when I first posted here (about 80,000 words ago! :) ) whereas your re-proposed version does not really do it for me.  So, putting aside for the moment any other proposals you have just so I can understand where you're coming from, are you okay with JF's edit or a slightly modified version?  If not, what is your specific concern with it?  I didn't get that from your last comment.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose any solution that describes the standard reference works on language as "those who disagree with LDS beliefs." If there were opposition to LDS beliefs in the references, "reformed Egyptian" would be mentioned, not ignored.
 * As for the term "reformed Egyptian," the standard works describe nothing of the sort. Daniels & Bright discuss hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic and call none of them "reformed."  We speak of Old English, Middle English and Early Modern English, not "reformed English."  If someone referred to "reformed English," we would not believe the author was referring to any earlier variety of English but was coining a new term.--John Foxe 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We're talking about a concept, and the specific terminology (be it "reformed Egyptian" "derived from Egyptian") is irrelevant, and obviously we shouldn't expect the same terminology to be used by the Book of Mormon and modern linguists. I'm sorry to belabor this point, but I think that the solution we've arrived at so far is very weak (specifically referring to this sourced statement).  Why don't we just say that "reformed Egyptian is not listed in this (book about languages)."  The way it is now we're extrapolating that fact (that reformed Egyptian obviously isn't a language that is mentioned in language textbooks) to a feeling or implied consensus about a lack of proof.  I like the idea of just expressing that it isn't an attested language in a scholarly sense such as English, Spanish, Hebrew, etc. but certainly not in this form. It would be an easy point to portray with out POV and with a good source, and I think it would illustrate the view that reformed Egyptian never existed neatly and concisely.  If you guys support just making this statement, I guess we just need to work on is wording.  My biggest problem is that we're taking its exclusion from these books a step farther than might be safely justified. gdavies 04:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To Gdavies, I think you're reading much more into the sentence "Nevertheless, no modern, scholarly language reference acknowledges the existence of such a language as "reformed Egyptian"" than is actually there and thus I'm finding it very difficult to understand what exactly you are objecting to at this point. I think the sentence (in explicit terms) means exactly what it means and no more. You said "The way it is now we're extrapolating that fact (that reformed Egyptian obviously isn't a language that is mentioned in language textbooks) to a feeling or implied consensus about a lack of proof" but I just don't see that at all. Readers might well make that inference, I certainly would, but there's no extrapolating in the sentence itself at all. It's very neutral and relates to a matter of fact, it does not say anything at all about consensus or lack of proof. The best I can make of your objection is that you don't like the implication of what the sentence says: namely, if "reformed Egyptian" does not warrant inclusion in reference works on languages than linguists probably do not take it seriously. That's a good conclusion a smart reader might draw from John Foxe's sentence (they might, on the other hand, decide that the lack of discussion of "reformed Egyptian" in modern reference works is why such works are flawed), but the sentence it self is not at all POV, it simply reports a fact and offers multiple sources from the footnote to back it up. I thought this was exactly the kind of thing we were looking for.

You also say, "We're talking about a concept...and obviously we shouldn't expect the same terminology to be used by the Book of Mormon and modern linguists." But that is completely beside the point. It is not the case that the Book of Mormon is using one term and modern linguists are using another. Modern linguists are not using any term in their books because they do not see fit to include "reformed Egyptian" in their reference works. This is not a problem of terminology so I'm not even sure why you are introducing that point. In general I guess I don't think the objections you bring up in your previous comment are valid and/or I am not understanding your point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No evidence that "reformed Egyptian" ever existed
??? There is plenty of evidence. just do your research. I have seen reformed egyptian in a buried temple in bolivia. There are pyramids in bolivia that the government wont let anyone escavate. There is also many artifacts that are only found in egypt and on the american continent. Like the pyramid in mexico that is the EXACT size and shape as a pyramid in egypt. so dont tell me there isnt any evidence. for the most part, many scholars and archeologists, dont want to make any link that supports the book of mormon so many of these finds are over looked and forgotten.
 * Uh, Whoever you are in the previous statement, you are on drugs. There is ZERO extant evidence for Reformed Egyptian.  The only evidence (aside from the highly problematic and controversial documents described in the article) is the claim by Joseph Smith and the BOM text that that's what was written on the plates.  Your claims about Bolivia are completely and totally false.  Since the plates don't exist (or are unavailable for examination).... (Taivo (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

Altered version of last sentence of intro
The previous talk page section was becoming ridiculously long so I've started a new one, though this is basically a continuation of the previous thread. I've edited the last sentence of the intro offered by John Foxe somewhat in what I hope is an improvement which retains the same basic meaning (see my discussion of this in the previous talk page section). Obviously comments or revisions are welcome, but as I said I'm fairly happy with this version in terms of addressing the concerns I've brought up on this talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this edit by Gdavies to the introduction. His comment that the word "however" is "POV pushing" is a bit beyond the pale in my opinion.  The word "however" is clearly a transition in the context it is being used.  That is, the first couple sentences of the intro talk about the Mormon point of view on reformed Egyptian, and the word "however" is used in the last sentence of the intro to show that the view being described in the last sentence is in contrast to the Mormon view already described.  It is not even remotely POV, it is a way of wording the sentence that makes its meaning more clear by positioning it in relation to the sentences that preceded it.  Transitions are a good thing in writing, and I put "however" in that sentence because it sounds much better than having two sentences that go "Mormons say this.  These other guys say this."  It had never even occurred to me (and it still doesn't occur to me) that placing "however" there would have any POV issues.  If you like, you can even switch the sentences around so that the sentence on "scholarly reference works" comes first and then a sentence on the Mormon POV ends the paragraph and receives the honor of having the word "however" in its midst.


 * I must admit I'm a bit disappointed by Gdavies' edit (which I basically reverted in full). I proposed the sentence "Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of a "reformed Egyptian" language as it has been described in Mormon belief" over two weeks ago and waited several days before putting it into the article.  I tried to draw out Gdavies on what, if any, objections he had to it and this was simply never made clear to me so eventually I made the edit about 10 days ago.  Before making other changes, can we have a bit of discussion on the talk page since it is obviously a contentious issue?  And if this is going to be changed (which I don't object to, though I think the change Gdavies made again watered down the basic point), I definitely will need a better reason than "'however' is a POV word."--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 06:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hofmann forgery revisited
I just noticed that Hoffman's forgery of the anthon transcript is missing again from the article. Any takers to pull it back from its history? I think it is strange to have a discussion about the transcripts without a discussion of his forgery. It was once of his most well-known pieces, and if I remember right, the old "golden" printing of the book of mormon with "characters" on it (5000 copies printed) was based on the forgery. It is pretty well documented. Anyone takers to pull it back in? One place to start would be the Tanner's discussion: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/trackingch6a.htm. -Visorstuff 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues Related to Joseph Smith's Cultural Theft of Native Religion and Languages
I added the relevant tag for the following reasons:

Okay. Too late for reformed egyptian. No point in including as they two are not tied
 * It is known that at least one group of Native Americans, the Ani-kutani, who settled in Missouri were known to have posessed an advanced writing system, and historical accounts indicate Joseph Smith may have visited this group during his travels in Missouri[34] a few years after the Book of Mormon was published.

Has nothing to do with reformed egyptian
 * Ancient Cherokee oral tradition recounts that this group held much sacred knowledge and were hated and feared because of their great powers and knowledge. Ancient oral traditions concerning this group indicate they were killed or went into hiding due to their eventual misuse of this power and sacred knowledge.[35]

What is Mormon cosmology? Mormon view on space? Hmm. Sounds like it fits in a different article about Smith, or Mormon_teachings_about_extraterrestrial_life But then again, it could stay. It is also uncertain if he ate banannas or oranges, but fairly certain he ate apples. They since he may have been exposed to bananna peels at the time the book of mormon was written, he probably didn't include monkeys. To me the It is uncertain is a weasel phrase and the whole sentence is conjecture. It would be objected to and overturned in a courtroom for sure.
 * It remains uncertain as to whether Joseph Smith's Mormon Cosmology and claims of a Reformed Egyptian Language were based upon oral history and Indian legends that he may have been exposed to at the time the Book of Mormon was being written.

I completely agree with this sentence. But again, what is the relevance on reformed egyptian?
 * There was widespread publicity about controversies of his day involving Native American Tribes during the time period the Book of Mormon was written, including widely circulated newspaper accounts at least one tribe had in use a written language.

Good sentence.
 * A large number of the characters resemble Sequoyah Syllabary Characters in the Anthon Document.

True. Because it's not cherokee. Other similarities have been shown by well-known researchers.
 * Some of these characters are upside down and sideways, and do not conform to known grammar and conjugation rules for written Cherokee.

The stretching to be of relevance to the article is strange to me. The section just doesn't fit. Perhaps we need a seperate article on the comparisons between Cherokee and Mormonism. I actually would support that idea. -Visorstuff 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

AFD
I cannot locate reliable sources to indicate such a language ever existed. The only sources I can find are self-published. Any attempts to introduce sources other than those from LDS apologetics get removed from the article. Given that the article does not accurately identify reliable linguists who are willing to endorse such a speculative theory, I have AFD'd the article. The only source in the article from a third party source with linguistic background I could locate states in the lead this language does not or ever existed. This article should be deleted, renamed, or moved into the section on "Fictional Languages" or some other more encyclopedic category. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free. The article has nearly a four year history, so I don't think it will be deleted, besides, it clearly states in the initial paragraph that it is unique to Mormon scripture and that the book claims it was written in the language.


 * Also, due to master forger Mark Hofman's forgery of an Anthon transcript, the notability of the topic seems good. -Visorstuff 22:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a more descriptive name is in order. As it stands, the current title seems to imply this is an actual language, when in fact there is no evidence it existed.  The only concrete evidence indicates the Anthon document is possible cultural theft from the Cherokee Language.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the title suggests the concept is unique to Mormonism - a faith-based topic. Hense the -(Mormonism) suffix. That was the point of the suffix to begin with to ensure that articles under that title would be seen in that context. Now it it were still just "Reformed Egyptian" i may agree with you. To be honest, you are a gifted editor, but still don't get the Wikipedia culture and standards. This seems to be a tantrum because your original research on the topic comparing Reformed Egyptian and written Cherokee is not accepted because it is not citable - and no other scholar has done similar research that you can find. I learned in kindergarten that the "if I can't play, no one can play" philosophy is vengeful and wrong. I'm a bit suprised and dissapointed that you took this route, as I thought we were making progress. -Visorstuff 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to your explanation as to why you've tagged teh article as OR, non-Neutral and un-factual. Nearly everything here is sourced per Verifiability except the Cherokee section. -Visorstuff 22:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the article is OR, NPOV, fails WP:V and WP:RS. I also added back the comparison for the afd discussion so other editors can review the evidence of Smith's apparent cultural theft of the Cherokee Language in this document.  I can actually read the Anthon transcript. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Actually they do. Most of the sources are academic and peer-reviewed.

Merkey, here, and on the AFD you mention that you can read the transcript: "Unlike the editors who keep removing the matrials, I can actually read the Anthon transcript and derive several sentences from it. It's clear and obvious cultural theft of syllabaric writing."

If it is so obvious (Heaven knows I can't read cherokee), why hasn't anyone else written about this before from a scholarly standpoint? I'm not doubting you, but there is a obvious vacancy if so. In nearly 200 years of the Book of Mormon's existence, the only source claiming this is Dan Moonhawk Alford. Sounds suspicious to me, until more can be demonstrated by someone who is well-known.

I realilze this process is frustrating for you, but you still are not grasping Wikipedia's verifiability standard. I'm really trying to help you learn this and uphold wikipedia standards, not make your life difficult. -Visorstuff 23:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Because only 30+ people are fluent in the pre-Sequoyah Syllabary. Some of this document is written in it. And people have written about the parallels.  FARMS runs the other way when someone mentions similarities with Cherokee writing and stick their heads in the sand like Ostriches.  Thank God for the internet, that's why we can all collaborate now.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense but that doesn't add up. The whole purpose of farms is to proactively address issues such as this. They discuss similarities such as this and issues with the book of mormon very frankly. Their conclusions may or may not be biased, but they are asked to address concerns specifically. Having known many of the folks who have worked there over the years, and gone on archeological digs wiht some of them, I know they want to throw out every concern there is in the public forum and then discuss why it is right or wrong. Remember, FARMS is the main LDS group that is skeptical of archeological findings - they were the one that said the stella 5 sample wasn't what some mormons thought it was. your accusation of them doesnt' add up to what their mission is. But if nothing has been written about it, how can they stick their heads in the sand. You logic is flawed. However, if only 30 people and no academics in 200 years know about pre-Sequoyah Syllabary, then this is a moot point. Sounds like a masters thesis in the making. I know three linguist professors quite well, I'll suggest this to them as possible masters topics. Then you can have the research you need, and FARMS can then publish on it, as something will be written. -Visorstuff 00:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to learn more about this orthography, as well. I have read a biography of Sequoyah, and while it talked about the process he went through to create his syllabary, he made absolutely no mention of the existence of a pre-seqoyah Cherokee writing system—in fact, it seems that Sequoyah himself was completely unaware of such a writing system.  The Jade Knight 00:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentences quoted (with the exception of a single glyph) are all derived from the public Sequoyah Syllabary. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Which sentences? The Jade Knight 00:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentences listed in the image of the Anthon Transcript under comparisons between Cherokee and the Anthon document. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Massive Revert
I've reverted on the grounds that, in my humble opinion, this Cherokee business is simple craziness. Mr. Merkey needs to find credible documentation before posting here. This looks to me, as a non-Mormon, like an attempt to defend one non-existant language by calling in the aid of another, like two wet noodles trying to prop one another up.--John Foxe 00:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you should abstain from removing AFD tags while deletion discussions ae ongoing. The sentences quoted in the section on the Anthon transcript are derived from Sequoyah's Syllabary, which is published.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about wiping out the redirect, but I will be here regularly reverting. Please work out the issues on the talk page, not the article.--John Foxe 00:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally, I'd agree with you, but we are dealing with someone who has been blocked numerous times and even banned for the better part of a year or so. He just got un-banned in late April, got re-blocked twice a few weeks ago.


 * Everything with him needs to be documented and he needs to be mentored until he gets how wikipedia works. Which means baby steps.


 * In any case, it is probably not wise to delete the content there and revert utnil the current issues are worked out on the talk page.


 * Also, the second transcript article was deleted and merged into this one earlier today, and it should stay, as it was a stand alone article for over a year.


 * I appreciate your understanding until this is all worked out with merkey and fixed.
 * Oh - and you shouldn't delete an active AfD request. An admin should do that. -Visorstuff 00:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are also published. That does not mean they're reliable. At the request of Visorstuff, whose opinion I respect, I will back off for a week. But I promise if nothing changes that I will be back, reverting everything up to my daily Wikipedia limit.  You will find me a determined and persistent opponent.--John Foxe 00:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's doesn't sound good or in complaince with the projects goals.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I care only only for justice and truth.--John Foxe 01:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you may not belong here since Wikipedia is about verifiability to conformance. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * “I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do.” Edward Everett Hale--John Foxe 01:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks John, If you can monitor the discussion as a nuetral Non-Mormon editor as Merkey and I walk through point by point, that would be appreciated. -Visorstuff 00:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, Merkey, John's reverting is not considered vandalism as you said in your edit summary. I would encourage you to read what vandalism is on Wikipedia. Also, as you are close to the 3RR, we should probably continue the discussion here rather than in the article. -Visorstuff 01:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Removal of an AFD tag over and over again while deletion discussions are ongoing violates ARBCOM rulings and Wikipedia policy and it is vandalism. Reverting his vandalism doesn't count towards 3RR.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

From 3RR: your reversion would count toward 3RR. the policy states the exception is for "simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking" What John did was neither grafitti nor page blanking. Second, he was reverting the entire page, not specifically the AfD, which could have been as easily added back in by you, as undoing his revision. Third, nothing he did is considered vandalism, as many editors would have made a similar judgement as he did. -Visorstuff 01:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Anthon transcript
There is a huge amount of redundancy between this section and the "Caractors" section before it. I'm not sure if they should simply be merged or if there is something more to say about the potential second document. I don't really know that much about the topic. So I'll leave it to some more knowledgeable editors. Thanks. --JGGardiner 02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The section about a theorized non-existent document seems redundant as well. Since it's in an article about about a non-existent language, perhaps it does not matter. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * JGGardiner is absolutely right, and I think the "Second Anthon transcript" is completely unnecessary. It's basically implied in the section "The Anthon transcript or "Caractors" document" that Mormons theorize that Anthon saw some document other than the "caractors" document (or a fuller version).  That idea just needs to be fleshed out further and then the "Second Anthon transcript" section should be deleted since it differs little from the previous section.  In general, this whole discussion of the Anthon transcript could be re-worked as it is a bit confusing to non-specialists (which I say as a non-specialist).--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons why the section is significant is the Mark Hofmann forgery. See the forgery here. We'll need to divide the sections better, but I agree in the current form it is redundant. -Visorstuff 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merkey, I'm curious about the forgery from your perspective - is there any correlation to Cherokee in it (ie does it have any sentences, etc?)? If so, we may be able to find some other scholar dealing with the forgery that may have made the connection, and give you more sources to draw from. Curious in your thoughts. -Visorstuff 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the analysis, but I certainly feel both documents can certainly be included in the article since both are obvious forgeries and cultural theft of Cherokee and Micmac languages. In fact, The Hoffman document more so because of its history.  I consider both to be of similar historical interest.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of Alphabet Images
Please do not remove the gallery. They are examples of all the alleged and possible alphabets by Pro-Mormon researchers and they significantly enhance the article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As it currently stands, the only uncited orthographacial comparison (Micmac) had three times as many images in the gallery as the cited orthographical comparisons (Mayan, Shorthand, etc.) I think it is only appropriate to use one Micmac image (if any at all—indeed, the reference is uncited and should probably be removed), or increase the coverage of each other orthography to 3 images apiece.  The Jade Knight 04:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed all of the Micmac and Cherokee images but left the others for now (I haven't checked the footnotes to see if all of these other languages are actually talked about as possible sources for the Anthon transcript). Personally I don't think any of the images enhance the article, I think they make it far more confusing since it is unclear to a casual reader why they are there.  The fact remains though that no reliable sources have been cited which argue that there are similarities between Cherokee and/or Micmac and the Anthon transcript.  Thus those images do not belong here.  I also removed the references to Sequoya syllabary and Micmac in the previous section as I had before.  The latter, as Jade Knight pointed out, did not have a source and the Sequoya footnote referenced an article on Cherokee and Hebrew--I don't know what connection the article has to the book of Mormon and reformed Egyptian (I assume none).


 * Honestly this is growing tiresome. If there are no reliable, secondary sources which discuss connections between the Anthon transcript and Cherokee and/or Micmac then we cannot include that information as it constitutes original research (research which, to my mind at least, seems quite dubious).  Let's put this to bed for awhile.  And personally I would vote for removing the entire image gallery section as it strikes me as unencyclopedic and unhelpful (the reason they are there is because these are "under study?"  Why does a reader care about that?).  But at this point I'll leave that for someone else to do if they so choose.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 05:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. This is like a bad joke... It seems like Jeff's additions across several LDS articles have basically halted all progress on them as we all have to stop, scratch are heads and say "what are you talking about?" gdavies 06:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, reformed egyptian is a bad joke. please by all means proceed.  I certainly feel its best not to pervert Cherokee culture and beliefs by associating it with Smith's dubious religion.  Modern Cherokee historians and other experts have apparently validated most of it to be cultural theft and possibly fraudulent.  best of luck.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Original Research
Now that it has been positively concluded that the Anthon transcript was copied Sequoyah Syllabary and Micmac Characters and is a complete fabrication of Joseph Smith and Martin Harris, I see no further need for any of this original research to be included here. I have removed these materials since they are clearly original research. I will forward a formal research paper for publication based on this analysis. I apologize for junking up the talk page, but the discussion has been useful. Thanks to all. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good, if you get a paper published I'm sure we'll all be interested to read it. I'm not sure if all of the talk page stuff should have been deleted though---archived possibly, but not deleted.  In addition to some OR there was also discussion so it should probably have been retained.  If someone else agrees perhaps we can re-instate it or archive it.


 * Also to Jeff, why did you add a dispute tag to the article? I don't see a reason at this point and if you don't offer one I think it should be removed.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 08:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The tone and materials strike me as unsubstanciated original research. It also has apparantly been previously proven the book of mormon is considered by the Smithsonian institute to be an unreliable source for archealogical work, reference, or other matters.  I think these materials could go into a religious article, however, given that the Smithsonian, a reputable and recognized research organization have issued a statement the book of mormon is not accurate nor reflects the history of North America, nor is it reliable, I would recommend moving these materials away from scientific claims of an actual language in an article.  The book of mormon clearly falls within the realm of WP:RS as an unreliable source for these types of articles.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 09:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So, let me ask one more question about your OR, Jeff, so I clearly understand. Are you saying that the first anthon transcript is in Sequoyah (or pre-Sequoyah) Syllabary, and that second, the Hofmann forgery, is in Micmac - both related, but seperate languages? And that an expert in both languages would be able to see the differences and decipher them? -Visorstuff 13:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Both are obvious forgeries. Syllabary and Micmac Characters exist in both. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if anyone still intends on including it in the article but I should point out that the use of the spelling and related pronunciation of "Micmac" is generally considered old-fashioned in Canada. You'd never see it in a newspaper for example.  It isn't quite offensive, although some might take that way.  "Mi'kmaq" which is actually pronounced somewhat differently, is preferred today.  --JGGardiner 18:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff - I get that you say they are forgeries. My question is: Are both translatable - you provided a translation of the first one, can you provide a translation of the second? -Visorstuff 05:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of text
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, This morning, you removed a lot of the previous discussion text and started this discussion section. Wikipedia tradition is to move discussion material to an archive when the discussion is no longer relevant. Some such archive links can be seen above. You may not be aware of this tradition. We all have things to learn. For instance, I don't know how to properly reference an archive range, so I did it as an external link above. Val42 16:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia specifically states original research should not exist. I think discussion is alright, but when the discussions are closed and the materials are OR they should be removed.  At least this is how I read these policies.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the Miqmaq didn't have a written language. thx1138 (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon is an Unreliable Source
Please read these statements from the Smihtsonian institute. I do not believe Wikipedia should use such a source given it has been repudiated as inaccurate by the Smithsonian Institute. The Smithsonian Institute issued an official statement in 1996 and again in 1998 that it did not consider the Book of Mormon to be an authoritative reference for use in archaeological research, and stated it considered the Book of Mormon to be an unreliable source for scientific and formal linguistic, archealogical, and other studies. 

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 10:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is well understood. Nobody is saying the Book of Mormon is considered an accurate source for information about the world in general- the Book of Mormon is an accurate source for knowing what the Book of Mormon says.  This alleged language is only known or talked about because of the BoM- so obviously it's a highly relevant source to this article.  This, I think, is the same misunderstanding that lead you to nominate this page for deletion.  Friday (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, so I'm largely echoing Friday's point) You are right that the BOM clearly is "an unreliable source for scientific and formal linguistic, archealogical, and other studies" and the Smithsonian did say this.  But it is a reliable source for describing Mormon belief, and I think that is the context in which it is being used in this article.  Similarly, the Bible is obviously unreliable as a historical text, but quite useful for discussing Christian belief.  To me this article is similar to the article Resurrection appearances of Jesus as both describe particular religious beliefs and naturally make use of religious texts in order to do so.


 * I would agree though that this article is too heavy on Mormon sources and that there should be a section detailing the views of those who believe "Reformed Egyptian" simply does not exist. In other words, beyond describing the religious belief, we need more discussion of the skeptics.  One problem seems to be that most non-LDS scholars simply don't care about this issue and therefore don't get into the question of Reformed Egyptian (even lapsed Mormon Fawn Brodie, in her well known book, does not address the issue that directly).  I'm waiting for a book from inter-library loan which hopefully will cover this issue and then I'll work on a section along these lines.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 17:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In order to determine if WP:COI comes into play here in your role as an administrator, I have to ask if you are LDS or affiliated with the LDS movement. Silence will be taken as a yes.  I am actually gathering evidence for a RFC related to the book of mormon for its use as a reliable source.  Following this RFC, if any articles need to be deleted, I am certain it may happen en masse, but that is not my intent at this point. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. Some people might be somewhat offended by that, and/or may not want to answer.  I have no problem answering tho- I'm not affiliated with any LDS church or movement, or any other church for that matter.  But I am relatively familiar with LDS doctrine and to a lesser extent, history.  But before you go to RFC, I still am not convinced you understand the issue.  We don't declare sources reliable or unreliable for all purposes- context is very important.  Even if a source is considered reliable, this doesn't mean we consider anything they say true.  The BoM is an important source for what the BoM says.  If the BoM is being used inappropriately as a source, we can easily fix this without needing an RFC.  Friday (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your candor and assistance. How does WP:ASR apply in situation like this.  The basic issue here seems to be the use of LDS related materials to fabricate non-existent history for Native Americans.  I and other Native Peoples are somewhat concerned about the obvious cultural perversion and misrepresentation of native cultures in these materials since LDS materials have no backing of reputable scientific communities.  There are even references in the book of mormon that native peoples "eat the flesh of our fathers and children" and other highly offensive and unsubstanciated claims.  Some of these materials in addition to being ahistorical also serve to marginalize native peoples and appear to be blatant cultural theft.  This is only the tip of the iceberg.  The LDS Church, based on its teachings that blacks are "of the accursed lineage of cain" and it obvious actions to block gay rights, and its history of this type of rhetoric directed various groups.   What do you suggest to address these issues? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record I, too, am not now, nor have I ever been affiliated with any LDS church. Not that it really matters, we need to judge editors by their edits, not their belief systems or values.  The fact that the BOM contains details which some folks, including native peoples, find offensive is not relevant for our purposes.  Wikipedia is not censored, and our articles do not moralize.  If there is evidence you can provide about negative reactions from native groups to the BOM or Mormonism in general than I think that could and should be placed in those articles (it would not, I think, have any place in this particular one, which is on a rather narrow topic).  The LDS church obviously has a pretty problematic history vis a vis African Americans, but then again so does practically every church in this country (the Bible was used as a justification for enslavement in the decades prior to emancipation).  I don't see how that fact is relevant to our project.  Mormon attitudes toward gays are obviously controversial, but so are GLAAD's.  We can't really make a judgment on these kind of issues.


 * Jeff, I would advise you to take a step back and look at your comments in a more objective light. You say LDS churches are "hate groups," and "its teachings are ugly and hate filled."  These are not objective facts, but highly subjective opinions to which many will take great offense.  Please check yourself and avoid injecting your personal opinions into our discussion--it really is not going to get us anywhere.  I say this as a (I think) highly objective observer on these matters since I'm not a member of any religion, and I hope you will consider my point and refrain from these kind of remarks in the future.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 18:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In the realm of religion, open debates are the best approach. Please review this article and tell me if you think the teachings and materials might cause great offense to casual readers -- Blacks and Mormonism.   I think that is certainly very subjective to viewpoints.   All that aside, that's not the central item of discussion, the historical reliabilty of the book of mormon is the current topic.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That article is fine (though maybe the title is not the best) because it is based on sources. If it offends someone too bad.  I'm not trying to get off topic here, and I'm not opposed to open debates about religion. I'm just saying that in such debates it behooves us to be respectful of one another.  Saying that LDS teachings are "ugly and hate filled" will just inflame tensions and is not respectful, even if you believe it to be true.  I'm asking you to consider the effect your language here might have on others and try to dial it down a few notches.  I think it will make it easier to address the real issues.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see no such comments above. I guess my primary assertion no one ever reads anythig around here may be accurate.  Before spouting a pre-recorded response over and over again, let's address the main issue.   The Smithsonian has identifited the book of mormon as an unreliable source for scientific study.  What's you take on that? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The information about the Smithsonian using the Book of Mormon as a basis for archaeological research was removed quite a while ago. If this information has been added back in, then remove it.  I'm glad that we could resolve your issue.  Since this is the problem that you have identified, and we have resolved the issue, I'm going to remove the "disputed" tag. Val42 23:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As a follow-on to my previous comment: I checked and there is no mention of the Smithsonian in this article. Therefore, my removal of the "disputed" tag is correct since the issue raised isn't even present in this article. Val42 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused. Are you suggesting that this article shouldn't exist because Reformed Egyptian is/was not a real language?  --JGGardiner 00:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To Jeff, I already gave "my take" on the Smithsonian issue in this very talk page section. Look up a bit and you'll see I agreed with it by saying (to you) "you are right that the BOM clearly is "an unreliable source for scientific and formal linguistic, archealogical, and other studies." The point everyone here has been making is that the BOM is being used in this article as a source for religiously belief, not for linguistic of archaeological studies.  You studiously ignore this point for reasons which elude me.

And as to your note "I can see no such comments above" (referring to "ugly and hate filled" as a reference you made to LDS teachings)--give me a break Jeff! You don't see any such comments because you removed your mention of LDS "hate crimes" and their "ugly and hate filled" teachings with this edit here right after I complained about your choice of words. Making nasty comments, then removing them after you are called on it, and then saying "I don't see any such comments" is incredibly dishonest. We all know how to use the history page, so please don't try it again. And please don't remove this either.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, why did you add the "Disputed" tag? You will need to be specific so that we can address these issues. Val42 16:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The book of mormon is considered an unreliable source for linguistic studies. As such, all materials relying on it for claims of linguistic research or archeaology is subject to removal from the encyclopedia.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth." In an article about a language mentioned in the Book of Mormon it would be idiotic to throw out the Book of Mormon as a source describing the belief about it.  We're not saying "Reformed Egyptian was a language spoken by some group... etc." with a citation to the Book of Mormon.  Instead, we're saying "According to the Book of Mormon, etc. etc. etc." with a very simple citation to the appropriate verse.  That's what wikipedia's about, we shouldn't throw out all the articles on the greek Gods because we don't have "scientific, archeological or linguistic" proof for their existence, but instead describe the subjects in the context of works that deal with them - "according to Greek mythology... etc. etc. etc."  It's a very basic and fundamental principle on Wikipedia, frankly I'm embarassed that this is even a discussion. Going around trying to delete articles about things you don't feel exist indicates nothing more than intellectual insecurity. gdavies 20:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What specific information in this article are you objecting to regarding your comment? The same standard applies as the comments that I have added to your comment in the Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon article. Val42 17:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gdavies' comments, and Val42's concerns. The Jade Knight 21:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a reponse to the points raised. The Smithsonian has issued an advisory the book fo mormon is an unreliable source, whats your take on that? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Where on the Smithsonian website may I read this advisory? The Jade Knight 00:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah! This dispute is in relationship to the issue raised in the previous section of this discussion page.  I will continue the discussion of this issue in that section then. Val42 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

K, Jeff, think about it this way. Should we keep the article on Harry Potter? The only real source for this character is an avowed fiction book, so shouldn't the article be deleted? We already know he doesn't exist, so we should kill the article, eh? How about the article on Zeus. Some people think he exists, but certainly there is a scholarly and academic consensus that he doesn't. It's totally and completely irrelevant whether the subject of an article is real or not when determining if an article should exist. Does that make sense? Secondly, when something doesn't have scholarly or academic "proof" in the wikipedia attributable sense, you rephrase things and work with the information you have. Instead of using the Book of Mormon to prove reformed Egyptian exists (in a citation), you use the Book of Mormon to prove that the Book of Mormon talks about reformed Egyptian. That's all you're saying in this article, "the Book of Mormon says..." or "According to LDS theology..." not whether their claims are correct. Does that make sense? 67.182.228.201 00:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

When I refer to the online Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject of reformed Egyptian, here is what I find:

''When the pharaoh Ikhnaton reformed Egyptian religion, he took up the cult of the ancient deity Re-Horakhte under the name of Aton, an older designation of the Sun's disk. Under Akhenaton, the sun's qualities as creator and nourisher of the Earth and its inhabitants are glorified.''

The Smithsonian Institute in 1996 issed this statement regarding these book of mormon claims and classified these materials as "sensationlist reports":

''8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.''

Please rename the article to "Reformed Egyptiam (mormonism)". Our project is not a cheap tabloid for sensationalist claims. Reputable encyclodpedias, if they even carry this type of content, have it properly attributed if it involves sensationalist tabloid style claims. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, if you were to read the Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints), the article (if renamed) would become "Reformed Egyptian (Latter Day Saints)", with an "n" instead of an "m" and "(Latter Day Saints)" instead of "(mormonism)" (note the capitalization). Second of all, we have already addressed the specifics of what you have listed as being wrong with this article regarding the Smithsonian.  If you make charges about this being "a cheap tabloid for sensationalist claims," then be specific. Val42 04:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian (Latter Day Saints) Sounds fine to me. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would also be an unnecessary inclusion of “Mormon”. This is the only kind of reformed Egyptian article that we have.  Adding "Mormon" should only be as a disambiguation aid.  It would be like saying "Virgin Birth (Christian)".


 * But frankly Jeffrey, I'm a little concerned about your inclusion standards. I was more than willing to include your speculative bit about Cherokee and Mikmaq, even though I thought that they were most likely untrue and I doubted that any serious scholar support the assertion.  It seemed valid for some inclusion because we talk not just about physical truths but also about intellectual ones.  Reformed Egyptian is a theological topic and to a lesser degree an area of intellectual inquiry.  Similarily, a speculative theory like your Cherokee one deserves mention not because it is true but because it demonstrates what some people think in this area.  Phrenology is another good example of an untrue thing that we have an article about.  Or maybe the Garden of Eden for something that comes from a book.


 * Thirdly I’d like to say that I’m a little concerned with the Smithsonian link. The IRR group which displays it seems to be a Christian missionary organization with strong anti-Mormon leanings.  Indeed their anti-Mormon feelings are so strong that they seem to have written a letter to the Smithsonian indicating that the museum was using Mormon teachings as a scientific guide.  I don’t think that a conspiratorial group like that is a reasonable source.  Of course it really doesn’t matter because the BOM is obviously not a scientific guide by our own standards but I’ve seen the IRR link included in another article (Archaeology and the Book of Mormon).  I am a little distressed by that and I’d like to see that it doesn’t end up here as well.   --JGGardiner 06:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to echo JGGardiner's concerns. The Jade Knight 10:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If the Smithsonian has released an advisory on an issue, Jeffrey, it will be published. Can you please point me to the published advisory you mention?  Personal correspondances aren't required to be peer-reviewed (or, indeed, even necessarily "official" Smithsonian opinion or policy), but anything the Smithsonian publishes usually is.  The Jade Knight 10:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We have two editors calling the Smithsonian Institute an "anti-mormon" group and another editor claiming a formal letter written by the smithsonian is not in fact a statement of their opinion.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A "formal letter" is very different from an "advisory". A businessman may write a "formal letter" to another businessman, contradicting entirely an "advisory" published by his organization.  If it was simply something a member of the Smithsonian wrote in a letter, you should state "in a letter from the Smithsonian", not "the Smithsonian has issued an advisory".  There are reputable Linguists that argue various Old World language influences are to be found pre-1492 in the Americas.  A friend of mine actually published his Master's thesis in Linguistics on this very topic (he's an atheist and it had nothing to do with Reformed Egyptian, in case you're afraid he was a Mormon apologist).  Regardless of whether or not "Reformed Egyptian" has left any traces in the Americas, it seems awfully ignorant of the Smithsonian to claim definitively that no traces of "Old World languages" have ever been found in the Americas—and I don't believe they would issue an official advisory on something as controversial as that (the existance of pre-1492 Old World linguistic influences).  The Jade Knight 03:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that I was pretty clear that I said the IRR was anti-Mormon, not the Smithsonian. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood me.  I'd quote the relevant sentences but they are right above this.  In any event, it doesn't matter what the Smithsonian says because the religious nature of the BOM is the most obvious thing in the world.  I only mentioned my concerns about the IRR because we shouldn't include a religious website as a source for something about a rival religion, unless it is to note the first religion's views of the second.  --JGGardiner 18:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I understood you quite well. You referred to the Smithsonian Institute as "anti-mormon" (even though it was done with the famous LDS look there's elvis tactic by directing the emotion at the website hosting the letter).  you also said It doesn't matter what the Smithsonian says because I believe .  Did I miss anything there?  The topic of discussion is the unreliable nature of the book of mormon as a reference in light of the Smithsonian's analysis.  I have yet to see salient analysis addressing this topic.  Instead, the dialouge I have seen is attacks on the smithsonian that it is "anti-mormon", challenges on technical grounds that the smithsonian materials are valid, etc.  And lastly, a statement that sounds like a personal testimony relative to the accuracy of the book of mormon.  Is there a scholarly discussion somehwere in our future on this topic. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Smithsonian is correct. The BOM is not valid for science, linguistics, etc.  Several of us have said this repeatedly, and I'm not sure who is arguing otherwise.  It is valid for describing Mormon belief, which is a huge part of this article.  Do you understood this Jeff?  I'm asking in all sincerity because you seem to be missing this point which and I others have made several times now and which is in direct response to your concerns.  I am in full agreement with you about the invalidity of the BOM as a scientific resource, but do you agree it is valid for describing LDS belief, and that this should be part of this article?  It's the same thing as using the Quran to describe Islamic belief.  Please reply and let me know if you see my point here, because I think folks are talking past each other and wasting a lot of talk page space for little reason.  Let's try to clarify where we agree and where we differ.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I bring up two or even three topics in one post. It isn’t a diversionary tactic – I assume that most editors have the ability to follow along.  It certainly isn’t an LDS tactic as far as I know.  An atheist Canadian like me doesn’t really have the opportunity to pick those up.  I’ve actually only met a couple of people who I’ve known to be LDS in my entire life.  I brought up the IRR because it had been used in articles and was not a reliable source.  I don’t think that we can trust that they will represent the views of the Smithsonian fairly.  It isn’t the Smithsonian’s fault.  I have a lot of respect for that organization.


 * It really doesn’t matter how anyone or group characterizes the Book of Mormon. Is it fact?  We can talk about those.  Is it fiction?  We can talk about that.  Is it religion?  We can talk about that also.  Is it a conspiratorial hoax?  We can even talk about those.  We are free to talk about the content and ideas expressed in any book that has ever been published.  Indeed, the encyclopedia would be incomplete if we omitted some of the crazy ideas that humans have come up with.


 * If you think that this article shouldn’t exist, I’d encourage you to submit it for deletion. If you have a particular problem with the content of the article, please express exactly how you’d like to change it.  Right now I really don’t understand what you want.  I know that you find the BOM to be fictitious and you believe Mormonism is "cultural theft" but I don't know how you intend for that to impact the article.  --JGGardiner 23:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category dispute
Please go to Category talk:Religious language for a discussion on whether this article belongs in Category:Religious language. –SESmith 11:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions Raised about Merkey's translation
Okay, so I went back and talked with a couple of linguistics folks, language decay experts, and looked into the Hofmann forgery a bit more. Here is what Merkey has said about his "translation" of the document.

Merkey stated the following:
 * "There exists a pre-Sequoyah syllabary. It consists of 126 characters. I am well versed in both Sequoyah's syllabary and the syllabary which existed before sequoyah. It has never been shared with the academic world and is only used to record religious documents and events." (Found here).


 * "...only 30+ people are fluent in the pre-Sequoyah Syllabary. Some of this document is written in it. And people have written about the parallels. found here"


 * "I can actually read the Anthon transcript." found here

Visorstuff's thoughts: Merkey appears to be saying that he can translate Sequoyah and pre-Sequoyah syllabry - something only about 30 people can do - because it has been kept as a secret language. He also says he can translate and read the Anthon transcript. In fact he provided a translation found below:


 * "Several Cherokee word fragments appear in this document, including "a(we)la" (woman), "a(ma)" (water), "dayesi" (going to or travelling to), "(u)weya" (river), ats(a)(d) "fish", "(u)gvwi(wu)yuhi" (King of those). There is an implied sentence (without verb stem fragments present to denote time, tense, place, or whether the sentence applies to a human, liquid, spirit, or physical object) which reads "the women "journeyed or traveled" to the river (water) to visit the King(ruler) of the fish-people". On the same line appears the word "se[lv](lu)", the mother of all humanity in Cherokee legends. "selu" also refers to corn or maize." (This was removed by him here. Italics to highlight Merkey's translation added)

Merkey has provided a translation of the Anthon document with this caption. He is stating that the entire anthon transcript is written in Sequoyah (or pre-Sequoyah syllabry and that it actually means something. Providing that this actually is the Anthon document that Whitmer had, and not something he was given by someone else later, this is a very significant claim. Not only would this the Anthon document is cherokee, but that it has a definite meaning.

In regard to the Hoffman forgery, Merkey said:


 * "The Hoffman forgery appears to be based on Micmac (sic) Script, another algonquian written language. There are claims it is recent, however, several stone artifacts over 500 years old have been found using portions of it. It appears all Iroquoian culture at one time had a common written language. See these references. " (Found here).

Merkey then claimed that he would produce a translation, but it ended up lost into another discussion, which is unfortunate. What Merkey has said here is that the Anthon Transcript is in Sequoyah and pre-Sequoyah syllabry, while the Hofmann forgery is in "Micmac" (sic). Upon further review of the Hofmann forgery, Hofman and others have said how the forgery was done, as written by Blair Bryant:


 * No. Portions of the Anthon transcript resemble Sequoyah Syllabary -- not the entire document.  Portions of it resemble Micmac.  There are characters from Micmac and Sequoyah Syllabary in both. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Find a copy of that forgery and you can easily compare and see how Hofmann did it. Just turn a copy of the Caractors Transcript 90 degrees clockwise. Now compare the right-hand most column (line A) with Hofmann's left-hand most column. Reorient the individual characters as in the original (rotate each individual character 90 degrees counterclockwise) and you can identify every character.... Then Hofmann added a couple of additional squiggles to the bottom. Then, go to the line B and compare it from top to bottom with Hofmann's second column and so on. He copied it character-by-character with a few changes in flourishes or combinations of elements. He did that for the first four lines. In his fifth column he took elements in sequence from line E at the top and segments of other lines for the circular figure at the bottom. In a letter written several years after the Martin Harris meeting (1834, if memory serves), Professor Anthon described the document characters as being like mixtures of ancient alphabets jumbled and that there was a circular figure similar to an Aztec calendar at the bottom. It seems apparent that Hofmann rearranged the pattern to agree with Professor Anthon's description."

In other words, the characters are the same in both documents, just twisted, but Merkey said that both documents said things in different languages. I'm finding an inconsistency with this. Merkey says one is in Micmac and the other is in Sequoyah and pre-Sequoyah syllabry, yet the creator of one admits that they are the same characters. Now as far as the symbols/characters used, I've been pointed to a symbol's site - all of the images used by merkey that were deleted later are used in other cultures. The "smoking gun" one Merkey points too in Cherokee was actually this symbol, but flattened.


 * Again, I stated that Sequoyah Syllabary, pre-Sequoyah Characters, and Micmac appear in both documents. This is impossible if these chracters were copied from golden plates.  I think its more plausible Smith had access to exmaples of Native Writing and he and Harris fabricated all of it.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

However, the one in the Whitmer specimen is used in other cultures as well. I can seriously make a case that the sentence could translate into something very different leaving out verbs and subjects as he did. Now, in pointing all of this out, I'm not saying that Merkey had the intent to decieve by any means, but that there is an inconsistency or a very strange coincidence in his translations. If, as Merkey states above, that other "people have written about the parallels," where are the references aside from a single email? I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve his claims, but I am saying I have serious doubts about his presented credentials in this field, or based on his past editing history, another attempt to get back at Utahns? I'm not sure, but am curious in thoughts from other editors on his original research? Apparently there are no additional supporting sources backing his claims. And, should the gallery stay in the article? -Visorstuff 23:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your work, Visorstuff. None of the proposals advanced by Mr. Merkey exhibit any credibility.--John Foxe 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Care to explain your basis for this comment? I am a native speaker of Cherokee.  I also have access to the pre-sequoyah syllabary.  I stated Micmac and Syllabary characters are in both documents.  The micmac equivalents are correct.  Your blanket statements lack any refuting evidence for me to assess your levels of expertise in this area.  I sit around and translate documents into Cherokee all day long.  Micmac is not much different.  Which books did you say you translated into a Native Language?  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and just for grins and linguistic study so I could compare the Anthon transcript to the Book of Mormon, I translated it into Cherokee as well ... Cherokee Book of Mormon. Needless to say, I find no parallels or excerpts after translation which even remotely match the Anthon Transcript. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You must be a glutton for punishment if, with a world of classic literature awaiting, you chose to translate portions of the BoM into Cherokee. Come to think of it, the BoM may read better in Cherokee. You probably had opportunity to correct the grammar and syntax, which Joseph Smith had neither the ability nor occasion to do.--John Foxe 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need to flaunt your claimed expertise. These articles need not be written by experts and it is somewhat against the point of the Wikipedia project.  Our job is to aggregate facts and opinions of fact from reputable sources rather than present our own.  In any event, I doubt that you possess all of the expertise which you imply.  Every time that I read the old-fashioned Mick-Mack (Micmac) I cringe inside like when I hear an old Briton say “Red Indian”.  I know that harm is not intended in either case because the speaker doesn’t know that the terms are offensive if uttered by those in the know.  While I have no reason to doubt your proficiency in Cherokee, I have to wonder, like Anthon did of Smith, if Mi’kmaq is merely some characters which you’ve seen in a book.


 * Beyond that, your theories, even if correct, constitute original research. You’ve shown no real evidence that anyone other than you believes these ideas.  We are not allowed to present our own opinions in the articles because they would only be evaluated on the basis of our credentials which, like I said above, are not apparent to the other editors.  NOR is a core policy.


 * Additionally, even if a theory exists beyond the imagination of one editor, it still must be weighted properly. Perhaps ten or twenty people believe that the BOM was written by Thomas Jefferson but that doesn’t deserve a paragraph in an article and probably doesn’t deserve mention at all.  It isn’t wrong per se but it is not encyclopedic.  --JGGardiner 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * About those credentials you claim give you the ability to insult a Native Speaker and state they have no credibility, care to share them with all of us. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Let us know when the site gets online, would love to take a look. Right now, it says that "This page is used to test the proper operation of the Apache HTTP server after it has been installed. If you can read this page, it means that the Apache HTTP server installed at this site is working properly." -Visorstuff 20:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me, but I don't have Cherokee font installed, so I can't read any of it except the names, and the words "Wo" and "O", which are in English. The Jade Knight 21:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's back online. Sorry, I has the http.conf file pointing to an older IP address.  Give it try now.  It's certainly interesting to see the Book of Mormon in a Native American Language (touche!!! I undid the work of Smith and put it back into the language he took it from -- :-) ).  I wasn;t certain how to translate some of the proper names so I left them.  I thought about substituting "anikutani" for "nephites" and "southern trbes" for "lamanites" since that matches our history better, but someone else could advise me there.  Download the Code2000 fonts for windows and you will be able to view the syllabary.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, does any of this matter? If it's all original research, then we won't be using it, right or wrong. Friday (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Friday, we are collaborating. This isn't an article just a talk page.  Let us relax and have some fun socializing together and reviewing Cherokee characters and our analysis.  It's better than the alternative and certainly an improvement over the previous dialouge ... :-) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is an improvement over the previous discussion, but like Friday and JGGardiner re-iterated it sort of does not matter at this point because all of this material violates WP:OR and therefore cannot go into the article itself. Jeff had mentioned trying to get a paper published in a previous discussion thread and if that happens (or if there is something published already) then we could cite it.  Though I have no linguistic expertise which bears on this topic, I remain skeptical of Jeff's claims simply because it is doubtful to me that Joseph Smith would have had access to Sequoyah Syllabary and, even more so, pre-Sequoyah Syllabary.  If the latter is such a tightly held secret such that only a few dozen people know about it today, how would a relatively uneducated burned-over district treasure hunter turned religious leader like Smith have known about it?  Even if he had seen a list of Cherokee characters in a newspaper (which I doubt), how would he have known how to string together phrases?  It seems highly, highly unlikely.  Until some evidence is provided that Smith came into contact with Cherokee writing systems prior to the late 1820s I find it difficult to believe Jeff Merkey's assertion.  But I look forward to the research paper that proves me wrong!   :)  Anyhow, again, this is all irrelevant for now because of our rules about no original research.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is that this is beyond original research, it is questionable research. The methodology and results can be duplicated with a half-dozen archaic languages - the only difference is different translated phrases and sentences result. I'm not questioning Merkey's "ability" to translate (although my linguistic friends think I should), rather I'm questioning the integrity of the methodology, and the result. Something in this is just not adding up. On to the next topic, but I think we should re-evaluate the inclusion of the gallery. -Visorstuff 23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you like to go through a character by character analysis of that phrase?  You can use your own methodology with the same materials see if you obtain the same result.  I'll post the characters for the phrase and you can verify each verb root and language particle.  It even matches the sentence structure.  I think Smith had a copy of the Cherokee Phoenix since they were in circulation during his day, and Harris copied from that .... Along with some Micmac German Hymns one of those travelling preachers claimed to be so prevelant in Smith's area had, ... and possibly some old books and a Cherokee newspaper. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Cherokee Phoenix apparently began publication in 1828 which I think is the same year that Anthon looked at this manuscript (relatively early in the year I believe). Unless the newspaper began publishing early in the year, and a copy of it quickly made it's way from Georgia to Joseph Smith in upstate New York (not a quick trip in those days) then it is basically impossible for this to have been a source.  If someone can nail down when Harris visited Anthon and when the first issue of the Phoenix was published it might be possible to eliminate that as a possible source for the caractors document.  I don't know what "old books" Jeff is referring to that Smith could have had his hands on, but again it seems unlikely he would have had access to books with Cherokee characters in them.


 * And as I said before I think we should get rid of the gallery--I don't think it adds much and it strikes me as a bit confusing, but that's just my opinion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Phoenix apparently began publishing in late February of 1828 (see here). According to Smith, albeit after the fact, Harris went to NYC in February of (I think) 1828.  As it says here, "Sometime in this month of February, the aforementioned Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York."  Maybe an LDS person can correct me if I'm wrong in my dates, but since Harris was apparently en route to NYC with whatever document he showed to Anthon at basically the exact same time the Cherokee Phoenix was first published (very far away from New York) I don't see how that Cherokee paper could have been the source for the caractors document.  This fact creates difficulties for Merkey's theory, in my opinion.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 01:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cherokee Phoenix Editions
Cherokee Phoenix Online

My heavens, look at all those editions in 1828, one a week, and distributed in Washington, DC no less - in english and syllabary no less. Wonder if Harris got a copy in New York. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This http://www.wcu.edu/library/CherokeePhoenix/Vol1/no27/pg2col3-4.htm appears to be the Cherokee Phoenix issue used by Harris and Smith to concoct the Anthon transcript -- a lexicon lesson in english and syllabary.  The verb stems match the words in this list, including the one sentence fragment.  The link is the english version. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue you cite was published in September of 1828, by my reckoning Anthon had already looked at the transcript many months before that (again, maybe an LDS person more versed in this stuff can verify this, I could be reading the source I cited above incorrectly). Dates do matter you know, and whatever Harris showed Anthon could not have been based on something which was not published yet.  I also don't see anything in the link you provided about Washington DC, except for a comment apparently in the earliest edition of the paper which notes "The failure of the 2 last mails" and "that our receipts of Washington papers have been so irregular, that we are not able to present to them [our readers] what is doing in Congress in regard to affairs of Indians."  This suggests to me that the paper's distribution was not that widespread, since they were not even receiving DC papers.  Not to mention the fact that DC and NYC were pretty far away in 1828--it's not like you could just jump on the Acela or the Chinatown bus.  The whole thing remains implausible (and now even more so, since you've identified an issue that was not in existence until late 1828 as the source for the Anthon transcript).


 * And just to clarify for Jeff one more time, even though I have said this repeatedly. I am not a member of any LDS church as you suggested on the Categories for discussion page.  I am, and have always been, an atheist.  If you look at the first section of this talk page here-- written before you even started editing this article--it should be quite obvious that I am not a Mormon.  I was working to include language in the article which expressed the fact that scholars generally agree that "reformed Egyptian" is not a real language (the intro now has information along these lines).  Not that it matters, because editors are judged by the quality of their edits and not their religious beliefs, but I just want you to have your facts straight.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 03:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How can we know that for certain about the dates? The first vision story moved around with the dates.  I doubt the purported dates for these reasons.  It's far more likely Smith and Harris had to get Professor Anthon's critique as necessary to get money to publish the book of mormon.  It is far more likely Anthon was approached closer to the publication date for the book of mormon ( in an attempt to raise funds for publication).  This is more plausible if the affair was indeed a confidence scheme.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't know for certain, but the only info I can find here (which admittedly is a Mormon source, but quite frankly I don't know who else would care) says that Harris showed the document to Anthon in the winter of 1828. Specifically, Smith gave Harris the transcript in February 1828 and then Harris set off to visit various scholars.  Harmony, PA is a few hundred miles from NYC so it would have taken him awhile to get there (though  I'm guessing the roads in this area were probably fairly decent), but the point is Harris would have been on the road, out of touch with Smith and not liable to pick up up a random Cherokee newspaper and forge a document on his own (we'd really be uncovering something if that had happened!).  He certainly would have arrived in NYC well before September, when the issue of Cherokee Phoenix which you cited was printed.  I see no reason to question this particular date (i.e. leaving Harmony in February of 1828) because I don't think there's much of a reason for Smith et al. to lie about it as you imply (though Smith's relationship with the truth seems a bit, well, tenuous to me), and the rationale you provide (to get money) is completely speculative.  I still think the best information we have as far as dates creates a problem for your theory, though I would welcome contrary evidence if any is forthcoming.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The first vision story dates in LDS Church history drifted two years or more based on current accounts. These dates are just as unreliable. It is highly likely Harris and Smith had access to such materials.  It's too much of a coincidence. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

" ...The two men's accounts of the meeting differ. Harris said that Professor Anthon gave him a certificate verifying the authenticity of the characters but that when Anthon learned that Joseph Smith claimed to have received the plates from an angel, he took the certificate back and destroyed it. Anthon, for his part, left written accounts in 1834 and 1841 in which he contradicted himself on whether he had given Harris a written opinion about the document. In both accounts, apparently to dissociate himself from appearing to promote the book, he maintained that he told Harris that he (Harris) was a victim of a fraud. ..."

This is from the citation provided. It implies one of them was less than truthful. Which one? Harris? The first written account from Anthon appeared in 1834, not 1828. This is six years later. Fawn Brodie also refers to attempts by Harris and Smith to raise money to publish the book of mormon, with Harris mortaging his farm in the end. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that raising money was an issue, I just don't see how seeing Anthon ties in with that. And obviously something's amiss when Anthon and Harris tell different stories (I'm inclined to believe the former) but that does not relate to the date they met, which as far as I know is not in dispute.  I can see fudging the date on the vision thing because that's important to LDS beliefs, but why they would lie about when Harris met Anthon eludes me.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 05:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the proof Anthon and Harris met in 1828? It was certainly not that article.  It says the earliest written materials were 1834. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I provided a couple of links above, including this, which as I said is a Mormon source (I got it from the Charles Anthon article). Fawn Brodie says that on his trip Harris first met a scholar named Samuel Mitchell at Rutgers (who was not at all sympathetic to Harris) and then went to see Anthon.  She says Harris had moved to Harmony, PA permanently by April of 1828 to work on the "translation" (after, Harris claimed, Anthon verified the legitimacy of the document Smith gave him) so presumably his trip to see Mitchell and Harris (and a third person) was completed by then.  Again, he apparently set out in February 1828 per Mormon sources. Brodie does not mention this date explicitly, but from the time frame discussed in her book one can infer he must have left in late 1827 or early 1828 since he was back in Western Pennsylvania by April of 1828 and a full believer after his encounter with Anthon (Harris started dishing out money at that point).  See Brodie, No Man Knows My Name, pages 51-53 (this is from the 1957 edition, the only one I could get at the library).  There is no hint in Brodie's book that there is any dispute about these dates, whereas she does detail apparent contradictions as to when Smith was reported to have had various visions, as you mention above.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 05:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay Jeffrey, you convinced me. There is no point in me doubting the veracity of your theory. It must be 100% right.

Unfortunately it can not be included in the article because it is original research. If there is some off-Wikipedia belief in this, we can discuss that. Otherwise, this theory can not be included in the article despite its merits. --JGGardiner 07:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, we know of a certainty of the dates due to travel records, contemporary journal and newspaper accounts. February 1828. -Visorstuff 16:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of these last two sections on this discussion page? It seems to be pretty much composed of a discussion of an editor's original research. Seems like blog material and we shouldn't be using a WP page to discuss. -SESmith 11:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The discussion seems to be over now (and has been for a week) so it's kind of a moot point. But when one editor is expressing at least some interest in putting OR in an article obviously there will be discussion about that.  Jeff Merkey seems to have moved away from this article for the time being so it's not really an issue any more.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have no doubt that there will be discussion when an editor wants to add OR material, but I see no reason to debate the merits of the OR itself. The discussion should begin and end with whether the material should be included and whether or not it is OR. These discussions have seemed to go far beyond that. As I said it seems more like discussions appropriate for a comment section of a blog entry. It's not a moot point if it can help avoid this type of discussion in the future here or elsewhere. -SESmith 01:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Category
After a discussion about the dispute over including this article in Category:Religious language, the consensus seemed to be that it didn't belong there and that in fact the category itself was a bit problematic. I've put the article in Category:Language and mysticism, which seems to be a more broad category where we won't run into the problem of whether this is a "real" language or not. If anyone has a better language-related category to put this in, I'd be glad to hear about it. -SESmith 12:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent category for this article, and you deserve a cookie for finding it. alanyst /talk/ 03:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't really see how it's relevant—there's nothing mystical about Reformed Egyptian, any more than about Greek, Hebrew, or Latin. The only difference is that there's debate over whether or not the language exists.  No special category is given to Greek or Hebrew, being confirmed historical languages who held a role somewhat similar to Reformed Egyptian, and other theoretical languages, such as Proto-Nostratic, are simply given the category of Proposed language families.  Perhaps this belongs there?  The Jade Knight 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Jade Knight that there's nothing mystical about Reformed Egyptian. But it doesn't belong in Proposed language families. Reformed Egyptian is simply a hypothetical language like the writing on the Kinderhook Plates. We can't tell whether it's a real language or not because the extant sample is too small.--John Foxe 14:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got to admit that the fresh light of day and the lucid comments by The Jade Knight and John Foxe have made me rethink my opinion of the category. I liked the neutral way it juxtaposed the concepts without suggesting that all such languages were necessarily mystical, but I see now that the label of "mysticism" does not exactly fit, as there's nothing in Mormon belief to suggest that Reformed Egyptian has any sort of mystical power or supernatural status, or is an "ideal" language like Adamic language or other philosophical languages&mdash;it's simply thought to be an evolved version of an Egyptian-Hebrew mix of some sort.  Maybe a possible solution is to rename Category:Religious language to Category:Language and religion, as there aren't a lot of articles under the former category anyway, and then include Reformed Egyptian under that.  alanyst /talk/ 17:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think that Reformed Egyptian is simply too unique to be included in any language categories. The categories are really there for convenience and if we have to think this hard to contrive something, it probably isn’t a useful grouping anyway. --JGGardiner 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought about that too&mdash;just leave it uncategorized&mdash;but I think that eventually some editor will come along and wonder why it's not in Category:Languages, and just restart this whole debate. If we can find a fitting category then adding it might prevent the issue from being raised again. alanyst /talk/ 19:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that categorization is tough here. I'd suggest a look at the Kinderhook Plates, the bones at Glozel, and the Rohonc Codex.  There is a category of Archaeological forgery, but Reformed Egyptian is not archaeological in any conventional sense of that term, and Mormons would (correctly) not accept its designation as a forgery.--John Foxe 22:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My reason for searching for a categorization was as suggested by Alanyst above—I figured to leave it uncategorized would just invite a future editor to search for one in a language category, putting us back at square one. But if the consensus is that this would be best to leave it uncategorized, I'm fine with that. One of the problems with including it in any category to do with language is there are some editors who are adament that since this is not a real nor a developed imaginary language, it cannot be included at all in a language category. -SESmith 23:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is article is really about the problem of Reformed Egyptian rather than RE as a language itself. In fact we don't even know if it was a language per se rather than simply a writing system for example.  --JGGardiner 23:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Gregg Shorthand
I'd like to remove that from the article. I knew that it came about much later than Smith so I looked at the source. I think that the author meant that RE was to Hebrew what Gregg is to English. Is that okay? --JGGardiner 23:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Compactness
It is problematic to put the Smith/Moroni claim that "Reformed Egyptian" is more compact than Hebrew as the only reference for this is from the Book of Mormon itself which is problematic.

If we look at Smith's Book of Abraham process, we can see that he believed, erroneously, that regular Egyptian used a |ideographic glyph system in which one character stood for multiple words. That is not true for demotic or hieratic. Most believing Mormon scholars (such as Hugh Nibley) have associated the "Reformed Egyptian" with hieratic or demotic script, not with hieroglyphics. In all of the three systems, vowels were not written, further complicating claims that Egyptian is "more compact" than Hebrew which likewise does not write these symbols.

The claim that Egyptian is "more compact" than Hewbrew requires an academic source in order to be included in this article, especially considering the incorrect assumptions made by Smith about the Egyptian language. Those still wishing this claim to be included must also allow for more objective evidence against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.44.42 (talk • contribs)


 * As long as this is described as something Smith claimed rather than something that's true, what is the problem? Friday (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And incidentally, the link you rpovided is a dead link. It should be http://www.irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bhoh3.html. you may want to double check your formatting in the future. -Visorstuff 21:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

pro-Mormon reversion?
I simply couldn't resist making a "pro-Mormon" reversion.--John Foxe 13:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Or a second. Hope the tutelary spirits of Wiki have a sense of humor.
 * Here's the problem with saying that Hebrew requires fewer characters than Egyptian: we don't know that "reformed Egyptian" has any relationship to any version of Egyptian writing. No one has the data to make such a judgment. Perhaps as Joseph Smith gazed at the stone in his hat, one character was enough to provide an entire paragraph of the Book of Mormon.--John Foxe 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We do know that Smith believed this to be the case when it came to the Sensen papyrus, aka Book of Abraham. However, ancient Egyptian did not operate in such a fashion and Smith's "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" was mistaken to state that it did. --Bgump 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Smith didn't dictate his wacky "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" until at least five years after he completed the BoM, so arguably this reverie on hieroglyphics has nothing to do with "reformed Egyptian."--John Foxe 18:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am amazed at just how much very relevant facts to "Reformed Egyptian" are being relegated to footnotes. Why do some here seem so bent on quoting Anthon's description of the Harris papers but refuse to allow his denial to be quoted? Why the quote of Moroni talking about "Reformed Egyptian" being compact but no counterbalancing quote from a linguist saying otherwise? Please stop such vandalism.
 * Oh no! John, you've been outed as a pro-Mormon editor, how does that make you feel?
 * @Bgump: please notice that you have violated WP:3RR. This is not vandalism but a content disagreement and so does not circumvent that rule. The reason why we quote Anthon's description is because it relates directly to the material, ie a description of what the text may have looked like. A quote of Anthon's denial adds nothing, but the denial is worth mentioning as part of the story. Notice that we also don't use the full Harris quote either - just the part that relates to the characters. Also, the version you revert to has a few NPOV issues, the most glaring that calling Moroni a "character" in the Book of Mormon (a very recent edit and was somewhat surreptitiously added in) favors the POV that the book is fiction. The old line "A Book of Mormon prophet..." is the most neutral, favoring neither POV on the veracity of the book. Lastly, John's edit handles the counter arguments much better, fully citing the quotes as they should be since neither are scholarly (peer-reviewed) sources but opinion sources and should be treated the same way that LDS opinion sources are treated. While Packham is a trained linguist, it is not in ancient Mideastern languages (though I'm sure he had some classes in/exposure to them) and the argument is from his personal website and not a peer-reviewed source, so the statement should make it clear that this is his personal opinion/assessment. The argument is also much more nuanced, as JF has tried to indicate - though it would be nice to cite this rebuttal idea, or reword the Packham counter-argument so it's not needed.
 * Perhaps some of the information should come out for clarity, I do disagree with John somewhat on pushing all the information into the footnote. Right now the footnote is doing double duty, giving the source of Moroni's description and critics' counterarguments. Adding a sentence for the counterarguments might require a reshuffling of the paragraph, though. It is somewhat awkward even now with the two Moroni quotes separated. The Moroni 9:33 reference should probably be moved to be one of the first sentences, with the other Book of Mormon cites, followed by the LDS scholar opinions (with cites), countered by the non-LDS skeptical opinion (with cites). That way both POVs enter on about the same footing. Thoughts? --FyzixFighter 07:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That suggestion sounds fine to me, FyzixFighter. Some material in that footnote really should be incorporated in the text. Bgump, why don't you exercise your proven creativity by putting up a page on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar?  (You might also try to beef up your own bio before it's tagged as AfD.)--John Foxe 10:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If the subject matter is "Reformed Egyptian," a direct quote from the Smith-Harris account adds nothing since it is hearsay (Smith quoting Harris quoting Anthon) about the alleged happenings between Anthon and Harris. That should be a footnote. I have adjusted the Anthon section to reflect this.
 * The statement about compactness of RE in the name of neutrality cannot be allowed to be given only a footnote rebuttal. Packham does not need to be quoted in the article but considering that his existence is not in doubt (unlike Moroni), his argument needs as much space as the Moroni statement. Therefore, summaries of both statements are in order.--Bgump 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we disagree on what parallels what. Quoting Harris' account, specifically how Anthon described the characters parallels the Anthon quote later on of what the characters look like. To label the Harris account as hearsay is very POV, since only two people really know what transpired during that meeting. The Harris account is the event according to Harris as reported by a pro-Mormon source, while the Anthon account is the event according to Anthon as reported by a contra-Mormon source. As such, both accounts should be valid sources for reporting what the two POV's say happened.

I've also tried to move the critics' views of the footnote. I tried to avoid using the "critic" word that I know John Foxe objects to, but I couldn't think of another way to describe Kyle Gerkin. I'd be open to some discussion of better ways to describe the different groups. The footnote for the LDS view was a little off, so I tried to edit that a bit. Hamblin (and other LDS scholars I assume) doesn't argue that reformed Egyptian was hieratic or demotic script, but that the existence of these and other modified egyptian scripts supports the plausibility of a "reformed Egyptian" as described by the Book of Mormon.

Also, calling Harris a "local farmer known for his eccentric religious beliefs" is very POV, which draws my attention to another issue, namely that long footnote for Harris. What is the purpose of that footnote? Is there a secondary source that relates Harris' magical world view to the reformed Egyptian event? Regardless of the intent of that footnote, if Bgump was attempting to summarize it with that statement, then the footnote needs to reworked as the information appears to be arranged to lead the reader to a specific POV conclusion (as demonstrated by Bgump's summary). I'm not against mention of Harris' background, but it needs to be relevant to the event described here, and the relationship should be drawn by a reliable source. A secondary source (did Vogel relate the two?) here would also help to simplify and shorten the long footnote. As it is now, it is not clear (from my view at least) what relevance those quotes have to the event other than to cast Harris in a negative light. Why those quotes about Harris and not others that might be pertinent to the event? The information certainly is relevant to understanding who Harris is, but is more appropriate to the Harris article (which is linked to) and not here unless it can be shown (in a non-OR synthesis way) that it is relevant to the idea of "reformed Egyptian". --FyzixFighter 20:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Harris was universally regarded as gullible and superstitious, so I think some reference is necessary because it speaks to Harris's reliability in regard to his conversation with Anthon. I have no problem with shortening the footnote though.--John Foxe 21:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As John Foxe points out, Harris was universally regarded as superstitious by non-Mormons and Mormons. It is not POV to have that in the article.


 * It is important to note, however, that we actually do not have a primary source for what Harris said about the encounter in the article. In his account, Smith says Harris said that, however, since he provides no citation for what he imputes to Harris, we do not necessarily know that Harris, in fact, believed everything transpired the way that JSH says it did.


 * Additionally, it is worth noting that JSH as published by the LDS church was not written by Smith, but instead by others. That is why the "Harris account" needs to be regarded with some skepticism. The Anthon account, however, is a primary source.


 * All that said, I do like how John Foxe has arranged the Anthon-Harris dispute and have tried to make that writing flow a little better.--Bgump 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I might debate whether or not Harris is universally regarded as gullible and superstitious. Do we have a reliable secondary source that says as much? Even if we do, to include that information in the spot where it is would also require a reliable source that draws a connection between Harris' gullibility and Harris' reliability of his encounter with Anthon, otherwise the argument for its inclusion at that point falls under original synthesis (ie (A) Harris was regarded as gullible, (B) accounts of the events differ, therefore (C-OR synthesis) Harris' account is suspect). Many people had many different opinions of Harris - to selectively choose the "farmer with eccentric religious views" is just as POV as stating that he was a "farmer of respectability" without a proper citation. Again the key to including this information here in such a way that is not OR is a reliable source that connects Harris' gullible nature and his account of the Anthon event, or at least says that this is/was a general criticism of Harris' account. --FyzixFighter 22:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fyzix. The Jade Knight 01:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if it is true that Harris was "universally regarded as eccentric" or superstitious (of which I would like to see a source that can dispel my suspicion of OR on this matter), those facts (from our modern point of view) would not be unusual for a person from rural New York in 1830 and hardly even mentions noting in an article that is not specifically about Harris. Rather than injecting POV either way, why don't we just let the farmer's reported version stand against the professor's reported version and let the reader decide for themselves what to make of it all? Let the words from the sources speak for themselves and let's get away from our 21st century interpretations of the events, unless we are reporting sources that have directly interpreted the events. –SESmith 02:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * SESmith, see the accounts in the footnote for references on Harris's eccentricity. That information should be in the article if we are going to include that Anthon could not read the document which is a criticism of him. Both statements are true and to be fair, they both need to be in the article about the dispute between the two men.--216.15.44.42 02:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note on the references, I was more speaking off the cuff and should have read the footnote first. I don't follow how the reported statement that Anthon couldn't read the document is a "criticism" of him comparable with reporting on Harris's eccentricities, though. The report that he couldn't read it comes from the "Smith account" (I know, I know, it may not have been written by who it claims to have been written by), which claims to quote Harris directly. This would be the equivalent of statements from Anthon about Harris's simple nature (which should be included), and is not the equivalent of external sources reporting on Harris's eccentricity. (Also note that while you say "both are true", I would argue that to accept as true that Anthon couldn't "read" the document may be a POV acceptance of Harris's version over Anthon's, and the "fact" that Harris was "eccentric" also depends on one's POV.) It's just simply not needed in this article to go beyond the reports of Harris and Anthon as to what transpired. Take the further analyses of character, etc. to Martin Harris and Charles Anthon. These are but players in one incident that is relevant to this topic, and it hardly needs to be covered as comprehensively as some seem to wish to.–SESmith 05:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (sorry for the delay in response - RL issues) Even with those quotes, the fact remains that applying them to this situation is original research. I agree with Sesmith that this is character analysis that best belongs on the Martin Harris page, not here. If it speaks to his reliability, then surely some secondary source can back this conclusion up. As it is, nowhere in the quotes provided in the footnotes does it say that Harris is an unreliable witness, though they do speak to Harris' superstition and religious fervor. The footnote seems like an underhanded way of pushing the POV that Harris is unreliable without explicitly saying it or citing a RS that says as such. So find a reliable source that applies Harris' nature to his reliability in this case before reinserting it. --FyzixFighter 14:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no original research here. Harris's contemporaries thought him naive and superstitious.  So did Anthon.  But I'll add a RS to the mix.--John Foxe 17:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is original research in applying these quotes here. They show that Harris was superstitious/religiously passionate. However, that they "[speak] to Harris's reliability in regard to his conversation with Anthon" is original synthesis unless you can find a RS that says this. On the other hand, I do think it is entirely appropriate and NPOV to mention (and attribute) Anthon description of his impression of Harris as you have done. --FyzixFighter 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an unreasonable position, contrary to judgments we make every day in real life. I've reverted.--John Foxe 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not unreasonable. It's wikipedia policy on original research and reliable sources. Reverting. --FyzixFighter 18:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fyzix that it's not unreasonable. John Foxe seems to be confusing what's reasonable in our everyday lives of using our "common sense" and intuition and what's reasonable in terms of WP's OR policy. It's clearly, in my opinion, OR to use the information in the sense that John Foxe wishes to apply it here. –SESmith 21:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's absurd. You mean if I said Joseph Smith was considered a good and faithful friend by many, you could argue that unless I had a secondary source that called him a good friend to a specific person at a specific time, then I couldn't mention the generality?--John Foxe 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you're missing the original research point. If you included such quotes in a footnote to imply that Smith was reliable in his account of some event, then that would be OR, especially if no one has ever used those quotes to comment on Smith's reliability in general. These quotes about Harris talk about his superstition and his religious fervor, not about his reliability. Any implication on his reliability is an extrapolation (ie original research) from those quotes. If you want to tell readers that the veracity of Harris' account is suspect because of his superstition, then provide either (1) a source that specifically addresses this with respect to reformed egyptian, or (2) a source that extrapolates to Harris' reliability in general, and include it properly attributed after both accounts have been given. --FyzixFighter 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I'll try to cobble something together that won't be obtrusive to an article that is, after all, about Reformed Egyptian.--John Foxe 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no "character assassination" of Harris. I've taken nothing out of context.  There's no original research. I've quoted a perfectly acceptable secondary source. What's the problem?--John Foxe 09:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My problem is I just don't see the relevance of discussing Harris's character, temperment, level of stability, proclivities, etc. in this article. What does it have to do with Reformed Egyptian or the story of him taking the characters to Anthon? Why do we not just report what Harris says happens and report what Anthon says happened without all the side comments about what these people were presumably like? There's plenty of room at Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints) for commentary and discussion of character, etc. I just don't see its relevance here unless it's being used to suggest that Harris did not reliably report what happened at the Harris–Anthon meeting. If that's what it's being used for, let's find a source that says that and avoid the innuendo. –SESmith 09:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hardly an innuendo when one person says another is "unstable." Of course, the relevance to our story is who's description of the encounter is more accurate. On one hand, we have a notable scholar, a professor at Columbia College, and on the hand, a farmer who thinks he's met Jesus Christ as a deer. Only in the world of Wikipedia would there be an attempt to suppress information of that kind that would allow a reader to make his own informed judgment.--John Foxe 10:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not maliciously trying to "suppress" any information; it's simply not relevant to this article, which for some reason you are unable to recognize or acknowledge. Your comment above ably demonstrates that your attempt to add it is tainted with POV as to motive as well as interpretation of it. And I'm sorry, but it is an innuendo when you use a description of someone to suggest that his recollection of an account may not be accurate. Quite simply, to include this information--assuming it is relevant--you would need a reliable source that deals with this issue directly. Oblique statements that Harris was 'unstable' or 'eccentric' are unhelpful as they add nothing to the article unless innuendo is used to derive some relevant meaning from it. Why is that too much to ask?


 * I also think you should give the WP readers some credit (i.e. stop attempting to use them to shield yourself from accusations of POV-pushing) and trust that they know how to click on links, where they will have access to all the information you're so selflessly trying to provide them with. It doesn't all have to be available in the artlce about Reformed Egyptian; I thought that understanding was a given. -SESmith 00:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear about the quotation not being an "innuendo"--which means a subtle implication. I meant that calling a person "unstable" was a totally unsubtle, and in Harris's case, accurate description of his character.
 * I will not contest the point with you. It is petty, and you have won it through pettiness. I hope if the situation had been reversed, I would have acted differently.--John Foxe 10:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether my comment should be "LOL" or "huh?"... –SESmith 21:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

POV tag added
I added a POV tag. To remove it, we need to bring the article up to Wiki neutrality standards. Specifically:
 * Need to improve the balance between what LDS scholars and mainstream scholars think of this language
 * Need more explicit discussion about the pseudoscience/fringe aspects of this topic
 * A named section outlining the views of mainstream scholars on this topic
 * Need to have a named paragraph disclosing that all scholars that research this topic are funded by the LDS church
 * Using terms like "The Anthon Transcript" gives the subject a scientific air that is not justified. Where did that term come from?  If it is only LDS scholars that created the term and use it, that fact must be disclosed.
 * The citations/footnotes are overly detailed and give the article an air of scientific legitimacy that is not warranted. This distorted appearance is not neutral.  Equal weight must be given to scholars/skeptics who view the language as total fiction.  Although that will be difficult, since no mainstream scholars would spend their time on this language.  Yet an effort must be made before the POV tag can be removed.
 * Noleander (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Noleander, the opening paragraph states, "Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of a "reformed Egyptian" language as it has been described in Mormon belief," with a reference. Addressing your concerns, the first three says that there is independent research but the fourth says that there isn't.  The fourth item is also contradicted by the footnotes: the Community of Christ and non-Mormon (anti-Mormon) items are listed there.  The question in the fifth item about "The Anthon Transcript" is a good question. The sixth item doesn't seem addressable since, as with the first four items, in this item you say that such research must be cited but this item also states there are no such references that can be cited.  Do you see the inherent problems here? &mdash; Val42 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got some good points there. Im sure if we work together we can make the article more neutral, and more useful to Wikipedia readers.  Noleander (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that although the neutrality of the article could be improved, there's nothing in it currently that justifies the POV tag. I'd be especially careful about removing any citations on the grounds that they "give the article an air of scientific legitimacy." That's a judgment call. Unless a citation is totally irrelevant, I think it's warranted on the grounds that it may be of interest to some investigator.--John Foxe (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%. The suggestion I was making was not to remove the citations, but to simply balance them somehow.  As someone who has spent many thankless, tedious hours hunting down citations, I would never suggest deleting any (valid) citations :-) Noleander (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure why the POV tag is necessary. Could you provide an example of a POV sentence, perhaps with a suggested change?  And about your fourth item, it's not clear to me that all research on this topic is paid for by the LDS Church.  The researchers may all be Mormons, but (as in LDS missionary activities) they may be working on their own hook.--John Foxe (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The WP:NPOV policy requires articles to be neutral in wording, tone, balance, and structure. In particular "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views".    As far as I can tell, every individual sentence in this article is corrrect and verifiable.  The problem is the bias that is inherent in the structure, phrasing, and balance.   A visitor to Wikipedia that stumbled on this web site might think that "Reformed Egyptian" is an actual language, with large numbers of researchers actively engaged in studying it.  In fact, most mainstream scholars believe that there is no such language, that it was fabricated by the founder of the church, and that the LDS funds pseudo-scientific research in order to promote a certain faith.  To make this article neutral POV [typo fixed after original edit], the mainstream view needs to be presented with more emphasis than the minority view. Noleander (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you need to cite an expert who says just that. Otherwise, it's just your opinion—correct though I consider it it to be.  (Except that a lot of LDS apologists don't need to be paid by the Church; they consider what they do a service to their religion.) It's curious to argue that every sentence is correct and verifiable but that the whole is POV. The burden of proof is on you to document your own point of view.--John Foxe (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not my point of view. It is the point of view of every non-LDS scholar that has ever examined "Restored Egyptian".   Regarding "every sentence is correct", I refer you to above comments on balance and emphasis from WP:NPOV.  You may also want to check out Pseudoscience, Falsifiability, and especially WP:FRINGE.  Noleander (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "A visitor to Wikipedia that stumbled on this web site might think that "Reformed Egyptian" is an actual language, with large numbers of researchers actively engaged in studying it." It never ceases to amaze me how laughably stupid some editors assume every other reader of WP to be. The article is quite clear about the status of this "language", and there comes a point where you have to trust the reader. Snocrates 03:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One simple thing we can do to establish neutrality in this article is to add a named section on "mainstream view of R.E" or "Critical view of R.E" or similar.  I'll get to it next week, unless some one beats me to it.  Noleander (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sincere best wishes. I expected Stephen Williams, Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of North American Prehistory (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991) to make a flat statement such as, "Every non-LDS scholar who has ever examined 'Reformed Egyptian' has considered it fraudulent." But he doesn't. If he had, I would have quoted him. (By the way, Williams has some great examples of Pseudoscience and general wackiness if you're interested in those topics.)--John Foxe (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Noleander, perhaps you could take a look at North Shore Monster. This is an article that I have stumbled across and edited.  As you can see, I have done some copyediting and requested more citations for information that is already in the article.  Even though I live within sight of this lake and don't believe in this monster, I consider the first two sentences in the introductory paragraph sufficient notice of the context of this article.  This is essentially what is given in the introductory paragraph of this article. Trust the readers; they are smarter than you think they are. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)