Talk:Reformed Egyptian

From Talk:Reformed Egyptian/Comments

The following was previously found on Talk:Reformed Egyptian/Comments, but should have been here instead, so moving it here now. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This article was quite lopsided -- it was biased toward a non-LDS viewpoint -- and a few helpful additions can make it much more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.202.41 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 24 April 2009

Why so gentile?

Again, what is by all accounts nonsense gets treated with kid gloves because it's "religious" in nature. "Removed Egyptian" is, to the best encyclopedic standards of evidence, an invented bunch of nonsense - that is, a hoax. The entry for "piltdown man" in wikipedia has it labelled as pseudoscience and a hoax, so why not this? It is cowardly of wikipedia to tiptoe around the elephant in the room just because some people happen to have religious views on the matter. I might have religious views on pildown man or crop circles, too, but it does't make them any less nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.186.122 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? I just read the first paragraph, and it was respectful but still pretty clear that modern science doesn't accept this as real. To me that message comes through crystal clear. --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean "gentle" (tender, soft) and not "gentile" (non-Jewish, or, in Utah, non-Mormon). Which would you rather read--"Mormons believe X while the scientific community says Y" or "Mormons believe X and everyone knows they're idiots for it". Being polite and respectful while still stating the difference between belief and evidence is key here. --Taivo (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The one change I'd make would be to add Category: Fictional languages. Is there any reason this shouldn't be the case? Trilobright (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

^^For no reason WHATSOEVER it is REFUSING to let me add the link to Category: Fictional languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobright (talk • contribs) 15:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Trilobright, I was able to add it with no problems. Not sure what you were doing. If when you look at the categories you see a '+' symbol on the right of them you can click on that and start adding the category. If you don't see that, editing the last section, External links, shows the existing categories at the bottom and you just add a new one there. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed the category as it is just one point of view. Bahooka (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

So? It reflects the mainstream view. Taken to WP:FTN. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

the word the OP wanted was "genteel" not "gentile", a common mistake. No worries, the OP is right.

POV tag

I've moved footnote material to the footnotes and removed the POV tag. If it's to be added, a reason needs to be given here.--John Foxe (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay... I added a POV tag. The shortcomings of the article are:

• 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
• Need to have a named paragraph disclosing that all paid scholars that research this topic are funded by the LDS church
• The citations/footnotes are overly detailed and give the article an air of scientific legitimacy that is not warranted.

The WP POV policy requires balance and emphasis to be proportional to how much the views are held by mainstream vs. minority scholars. This balance is not present in this article. Noleander (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the POV tag could just as easily have been added by a Mormon who thinks the article too critical. But you deserve some time to find relevant quotations. My gut feeling is that you won't find top-ranked "mainstream scholars" who have been enough interested in the subject to comment, that the LDS-members investigating "Reformed Egyptian" are not being paid by the Church, and that the "overly detailed" footnotes lend profitable insight into the Mormon mind. You're a rare bird, Noleander, a non-Mormon interested in the arcane side of Mormonism.--John Foxe (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I did find some mainstream scholars, and put their opinions into the article. Someone moved them into a footnote. If we move them back into the main article, and put the "mainstream" section back at the top (where it was): that would provide the appropriate mainstream/fringe balance to remove the POV tag, in my opinion. Noleander (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd feel better if the "mainstream scholars" weren't being quoted from an anti-Mormon book published by Moody Press. Are you willing to pass on the "pseudoscience/fringe aspects of this topic," a declaration "that all paid scholars that research this topic are funded by the LDS church," and that the "citations/footnotes are overly detailed and give the article an air of scientific legitimacy"? Why should the opinion of "mainstream scholars" go at the beginning rather than at the end of the article?--John Foxe (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of consensus-building ("not getting what you want, getting what you can live with"), Id be content with just getting some quotes from mainstream scholar's views at the top of the article. Im not sure what you mean by the "Moody press" question ... are you suggesting that the quotes are not accurate? Lots has been said about the Tanners, but inaccuracy is not one of them :-) Noleander (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I trust the Tanners. It's just that Mormons don't, and it would be nice to stand the article on all fours. As for positioning the material, we (rightly) don't quote Mormon apologists at the beginning of the article, why should we quote mainstream scholars there? Note the Tanners' treatment. They give a summary first and present the view of "mainstream scholars" at the end of their chapter.--John Foxe (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But the WP:POV policy clearly requires that the distinction between mainstream vs fringe views must be reflected in the article's balance and emphasis. The existence of RE is fringe; mainstream view is that it does not exist. The article does not reflect that in empahsis or balance, so the POV tag is warranted. Noleander (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this article is odd in that it devotes a great deal of space to discussing a language of which all credible egyptologists agree does not exist. RE is a concept without historicity other than it is one of the more bizarre LDS beliefs. I'd suggest moving the section entitled 'View of mainstream scholarship' above the section called "The "Caractors" document" which will show more clearly that the existence of RE is highly doubted. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago, the article did have the "Mainstream" section up near the top, and it included a few quotes from reputable sources saying that RE didnt exist. That section was quickly moved and eviscerated, but for that brief period of time, the article satisifed the POV policy, in my opinion. Noleander (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the section and removed the POV tag. Let's see what the Mormons say. In my view, "Reformed Egyptian" is important precisely because it's "one of the more bizarre LDS beliefs." (In passing, if Salimfadhley can come up with quotations from any of those "credible Egyptologists," I'd be much obliged.)--John Foxe (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the WP policy is "Please do not remove this [POV] message until the dispute is resolved." In my opinion, the dispute is not resolved, as explained in comments above. Noleander (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, what will resolve it?--John Foxe (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving the "Mainstream" section near the top was a good thing. I moved a few mainstream scholar quotes from the footnotes up into that section, and now, in my opinion, the article is sufficiently balanced to remove the POV tag (at least until that section gets bowlderized again :-) If no one objects here on the Talk page to removing the POV tag in the next couple of days, I'd say you can remove it. Noleander (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that in so far as the text itself goes, less is more. Readability is important. But I'd certainly welcome comments by more recent "mainstream scholars."--John Foxe (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Harris's character

The description of Martin Harris is not character assassination. It's both accurate and relevant to his competence as a witness to the interview with Anthon. On one side we have a fellow who believes that he talked to Jesus in the shape of a deer, on the other side, a noted classical scholar from Columbia. It's easy to know to which of the two the average reader would give the greater credence. So to remove that information demonstrates blatant Mormon bigotry, an attempt to deceive in the name of religion.--John Foxe (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We already discussed this two sections above, John. Two editors disagreed with you, and more recently Snocrates raised similar objections. You stopped participating in the discussion with a wonderful, but mild insult. The information on Harris is appropriate in the Harris article, but it is not appropriate here. No sources tie Harris' superstitious nature to his reliability or even to the topic of reformed Egyptian. Your previous comment is exactly why we can't include it - you're reason for including it is to lead the reader to a specific conclusion that is both OR and POV. The comment and footnote are participating in the debate and synthesizing original research. And lay off the "Mormon" personal attacks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Three Mormon editors disagreed with me, and only Mormon editors. Find a non-Mormon editor who will do the same. Harris's superstition is absolutely relevant here, and you're trying to exclude it because you know just how relevant it is. I repeat, your position is an attempt to deceive.--John Foxe (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh wonderful, so because you think that we are Mormon, our opinion on the matter should be dismissed? My objections to the inclusion are based on WP policies, not because of any religious affiliations. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? And SESmith nor I have ever self-identified as Mormon, and I don't know if Snocrates has either. Stop trying to play this as a Mormon vs. non-Mormon disagreement when in fact you have no idea about our religious affiliations just as we have no idea about yours - besides, using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views is against WP policies. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Should you be plagued by doubt about the matter, I'm not a Mormon. And I have no hesitation affirming that this is a Mormon vs. non-Mormon disagreement. Find a non-Mormon who agrees that relevant material about Martin Harris's extreme superstitiousness should be excluded from an article in which the reader has to decide between two completely different accounts of an interview. I repeat, your position is an attempt to deceive the reader.--John Foxe (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Where have either I or User:Sesmith ever stated that either of us are Mormon? Again, using someone's religious affiliation to dismiss their opinion, as you seem to want to do by requesting a "non-Mormon" editor, is strictly prohibited by WP policy. You have stated your reasons for inclusion, I have stated my objections against. None of my reasons are too deceive the reader, but are based on WP policies to present the debate without participating it and to not include original synthesis. Essentially you're calling me a liar, so stop the personal attacks and start to assume good faith. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't called you a liar, and I won't. Nevertheless, your position is an attempt to deceive the reader. Find a non-Mormon who will agree that relevant material about Martin Harris's extreme superstitiousness should be excluded from an article in which the reader has to decide between two completely different accounts of an interview. That's a simple matter of good faith.--John Foxe (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're statement that my position is to deceive doesn't translate to "you're a liar". Oh I get it, you're calling me a deceiver - so much better. You're renouncing the accusation that my edits represent "blatant Mormon bigotry, an attempt to deceive" would be a simple matter of good faith. What you're asking for is not a matter of good faith, but a complete departure from wikpedia policy - what policy requires such a blatant bigotted request, and how do you know that any of the editors to comment previously (including myself) aren't non-Mormon? How the hell is getting a self-identified non-Mormon editor to agree with me a matter of assuming good faith? Here's a hint, it doesn't - nowhere in WP:AGF is there anything that even remotely implies that I have to meet your request for me to assume good faith in this disagreement. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a non-Mormon, and I was the editor who at one point removed John Foxe's tangent discussion on Martin Harris's superstition and character. I don't think these points are at all relevant to this article and probably constitute an application of WP:OR to the issue. If you can find a neutral source that discusses Harris's superstitious nature in the context of whether or not we should believe his Anthon story — that may be a different issue — but here it seems to be all one editor bringing in information that has not been connected to the Anthon incident by neutral sources, which appears to be a fairly textbook case of WP:OR.

I find it slightly odious that there is an attempt to frame this as a Mormon vs. non-Mormon issue; that seems to be a fairly basic violation of WP:AGF. Even if someone is a Mormon, you should assume they are editing in good faith. But I am not a Mormon and I can see problems with John Foxe's edits, so that aspect of the argument should probably be dropped and the merits of the edits should be evaluated. I see little merit the edits here — they certainly do have their place at Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints), though. Snocrates 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Snocrates and Vassyana both for your comments. Based on these neutral third opinions, I'm going to remove the objected to comments and footnotes. I think the only reference that may tie these ideas together is the Tucker one John just recently added, however Tucker is not really neutral nor reliable, nor does he make the connection that Harris' account is therefore suspect, so I'm tweaking it a bit and moving it to after the the anthon account to make the opening paragraphs completely neutral. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Statements about Harris' character and personality quirks are not appropriate for this article unless the source used specifically relates them to the topic of this article. Using such statements to build an argument against Harris' reliability as a witness is original synthesis. Those types of claims may be appropriate for Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints), but they are inappropriate and against policy here. Vassyana (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a comment about this issue from a non-Mormon, and I think I've received two. I concede my point. Nevertheless, I still believe that most people unfamiliar with Harris's superstitious nature would find it deceptive not to mention it here in a case where the accuracy of two different accounts of a meeting are given, one by a noted classical scholar and the other by a farmer who saw the devil in the form of an ass. Perhaps some expert really does connect the dots and I'll eventually run into him.--John Foxe (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry, that's why wikilinks exist. Someone interested in assessing the credibility of the two characters in the drama will probably click on the links and read the biographies. Snocrates 06:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples of "Reformed Egyptian"

Egyptian hieratic and demotic. The Egyptian language was written in three related but distinct scripts. The oldest is hieroglyphic script, dating to around 3000 BC; it was essentially a monumental script for stone inscriptions. Hieratic, a second script, is a modified form of Egyptian hieroglyphics used to write formal documents on papyrus with brush and ink, and demotic is a cursive script.6 Thus, both the hieratic and demotic scripts could be considered "reformed" or modified versions of the original hieroglyphic script. These are both examples of writing the Egyptian language in reformed versions of the Egyptian hieroglyphic script; there are also several examples of the use of reformed or modified Egyptian characters to write non-Egyptian languages.

Byblos Syllabic texts. The earliest known example of mixing a Semitic language with modified Egyptian hieroglyphic characters is the Byblos Syllabic inscriptions (eighteenth century BC), from the city of Byblos on the Phoenician coast.7 This script is described as a "syllabary [that] is clearly inspired by the Egyptian hieroglyphic system, and in fact it is the most important link known between the hieroglyphs and the Canaanite alphabet."8 Interestingly enough, most Byblos Syllabic texts were written on copper plates. Thus, it would not be unreasonable to describe the Byblos Syllabic texts as a Semitic language written on metal plates in reformed Egyptian characters,9 which is precisely what the Book of Mormon describes.

Cretan hieroglyphics. Early forms of writing in Crete apparently developed from a combination of "Egyptian hieroglyphic, Mesopotamian cuneiform and Phoenician native signs into one single, new pictographic script."10 Note again that there is a mixture of Semitic (Mesopotamian and Phoenician) and Egyptian writing systems, precisely as described in the Book of Mormon.

Meroitic. Meroitic, the script of ancient Nubia (modern Sudan), "was first recorded in writing in the second century BC in an 'alphabetic' script consisting of twenty-three symbols, most of which were borrowed or at least derived from Egyptian writing. . . . The script has two forms, hieroglyphic and cursive."11 Meroitic hieroglyphic signs were "borrowed from the Egyptian . . .[and] the cursive script derived mainly from the Egyptian demotic script."12

Psalm 20 in demotic Egyptian. Scholars have also deciphered an Aramaic version of Psalm 20:2–6 that was written in demotic Egyptian characters.13 This is precisely what the Book of Mormon claims existed: a version of the Hebrew scriptures in the Hebrew language, but written using Egyptian characters.

Proto-Sinaitic and the alphabet. Semitic speakers of early second millennium BC Syria and Palestine seem to have adopted reformed or modified versions of both Egyptian hieroglyphs and Mesopotamian cuneiform into syllabic and alphabetic systems of writing. Ultimately, this reformed Egyptian script became the basis for the Phoenician alphabet, from which nearly all subsequent alphabets derive.14 "The Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions were written in a Semitic language, and . . . their letters were the prototypes for the Phoenician alphabet. The letters are alphabetic, acrophonic in origin, and consonantal, and their forms are derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs."15 "Since the Canaanite/Phoenician syllabary formed the basis of the Greek alphabet, and the Greek in turn of the Latin, it means, in the words of Gardiner, that 'the hieroglyphs live on, though in transmuted [or could we not say reformed?] form, within our own alphabet.'"16 In a very real sense, our own Latin alphabet is itself a type of reformed Egyptian, since the ultimate source of our characters is Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Conclusion

There are thus a number of historical examples of Semitic or other languages being written in "reformed" or modified Egyptian script; the Book of Mormon account is entirely plausible on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.179.166 (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any language being written in "Reformed Egyptian" as defined by Joseph Smith. Remember that Smith provided examples of this for examination. If you mean "hieratic", then that is not "Reformed Egyptian". There is absolutely no evidence of any language other than Egyptian being written in Hieratic. If you mean "demotic", then that is also not "Reformed Egyptian". There is absolutely no evidence of any language other than Egyptian being written in Demotic. There is evidence that the earliest Canaanite script was based on a highly simplified reading of 20-something hieratic characters (out of hundreds of hieratic characters and without adopting the Egyptian phonetic values for the symbols), but that is not the same as using "Egyptian" characters and reforming them. Going from hundreds of symbols in a writing system to 20-or-so and not even using the phonetic values is not "reforming". In that sense we could call the Cherokee syllabary "Reformed English". English has an alphabet of 26 letters; Cherokee has a syllabary of several dozen symbols with different phonetic values for the letters that look like English letters. While your list of supposed uses of Egyptian writing may fool a nonspecialist, I have been studying the history of writing as part of my professional work for over 30 years and your list is full of irrelevant analogies, logical holes, and simple error. None of these examples is even close to what Smith himself drew and called "Reformed Egyptian". (Taivo (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

You seem to ignore the Psalm 20 example above. The language is Aramaic, but the script is Demotic, and the dating between 900BC and 600BC. I don't see how this is irrelevant. Jbh001 (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

But you fail to comprehend the basic problem with the whole notion of "Reformed Egyptian". For the sake of argument, let's assume that "Reformed Egyptian" was a syllabic writing system based on modified Egyptian hieroglyphs used to write Hebrew. At the time of the Lehite emigration from Judah, Hebrew already had a writing system that has continued in use until the present day. When asked why the Nephites didn't use Hebrew to write Hebrew, most apologists say something along the lines of "Because using Egyptian would save space on the golden plates". This indicates an assumption that "Reformed Egyptian" looked like Egyptian Hieroglyphics and was more of a pictographic-ideographic system like Chinese. This clearly shows a complete misunderstanding of the nature of Egyptian Hieroglyphics, which was not a pictographic-ideographic writing system (as Smith and the rest of the world assumed before the decipherment of the Rosetta Stone). Indeed, Egyptian Hieroglyphics was an expanded syllabary that was used to write consonantal text. The Canaanite abjad (the "alphabet" that was used in 6th century BCE Judah to write Hebrew) was also used to write only consonantal text. When one actually examines the amount of space needed to write a sentence of Hebrew in the Canaanite abjad and the space needed to write a sentence of Hebrew in Hieroglyphics, they are virtually identical since both systems write only the consonants. One might think that using Egyptian biliterals and triliterals might shorten the space required, but the use of these symbols always required the addition to the word of a determiner--thus eliminating the space savings. And when we examine the Caractors document and assume that it represents a syllabary (based on the number of distinct symbols shown on it), we find that using it to write Hebrew was possibly less efficient than using the Canaanite abjad. There would have been virtually zero space savings in using any conceivable permutation of Egyptian hieroglyphics (or hieratic or demotic) to write Hebrew as opposed to using the Canaanite abjad which many (if not most) of the Lehite emigrants would have already known. In contrast, none of the Lehite emigrants would have known how to write either hieroglyphics or hieratic because none of them were priests in the Egyptian religion, which was a precondition for even learning to write these systems. (Taivo (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

The assumption that reformed Egyptian was used to engrave the plates "to save space" comes directly from Mormon 9:34. That a modified Egyptian script was more concise is but one assumption. Another might be that is was easier to engrave than a Hebrew script. Regardless, both are nothing more than assumptions since the Book of Mormon itself provides no reason for the constraint other than they were constrained to use a modified Egyptian script to engrave the plates. Another assumption is that the Egyptian script modified was Egyptian hieratic or hieroglyphs. While it may be true that only Egyptian priests at the time would have known it, that assumption says nothing about the possibility or plausibility of the Lehites knowing Demotic script. In fact, the examples cited above that you dismissed as irrelevant seem to support that possibility, Caracters transcript notwithstanding. I found this article provided additional perspective (the footnotes are provided more completely further down the discussion). Jbh001 (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that a serious editor of Wikipedia is using Yahoo! Answers as a source! What has this world come to? It is the very antithesis of a Wikipedia reliable source. Do you have an actual reference for the Psalm 20? And I'm not talking about something out of a second-hand apologetics text. I mean the first-hand, primary archeological reference where the guy who described and translated the document discusses it in a NPOV perspective. (Taivo (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

1. Charles F. Nims and Richard C. Steiner, "A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2-6 from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script," Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983): 261-74;
2. Richard C. Steiner, "The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a New Year's Festival Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from Rash," Journal of the American Oriental Society 111/2 (1991): 362-63
3. Bonus citation: Richard C. Steiner and, Charles F. Nims, "You Can't Offer Your Sacrifice and Eat It Too: A Polemical Poem from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 43/2 (1984): 89-114

Citations are still citations even when found in Yahoo! Answers. Jbh001 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the citations. I will examine them carefully tomorrow. Citations may be citations, but you were praising the answer, not the citations there. (Taivo (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

I have examined the citations. The discussion of the Psalm and the other mainstream examples are valid. It seems ideological motivation is behind the persistent removal of these sources as opposed to concerns over scholarship. --QuickmereGraham (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you need to show that your references mention LDS Reformed Egyptian. That's the reason I've reverted you. You also need to read WP:AGF and WP:OR. You are also coming close to Wikipedia:Edit warring. See WP:3RR. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And John Foxe's version has the same problem so I've raised this at the NOR noticeboard. [1] Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Harris's faith was confirmed?

"In any case, Harris's faith was confirmed by the experience to the degree that he was willing to mortgage his farm to publish the Book of Mormon."

Can it be shown that Harris sold the farm as a direct result of this particular experience? If not, this sentence is misleading. --Simon D M (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I've tweaked that sentence.--John Foxe (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Orthography vs. Language

This article entirely confuses orthography and language, which are two completely separate things. For example, the arcticle quotes Mormon 9:32: "the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian".

However, later on the article says "Standard language reference works contain no reference to 'reformed Egyptian'",
as well as "No non-Mormon scholars acknowledge the existence of a 'reformed Egyptian' language as it has been described in Mormon belief",
as well as quoting John Wilson as saying "From our standpoint there is no such language as 'reformed Egyptian'.",
and "It has been hypothesized that the characters resemble those of other languages".

English can be written in the Cyrillic script, Hangul, etc., and it is still the English language. Please don't confuse langauge and orthography. --24.31.187.238 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor, can you be more spesific about how you might want to alter this article? I think it is already clear enough in the way that it represents mainstream opinion, spesifically there is no script, nor is there a language called "reformed egyptian". --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made it perfectly clear. I am not saying anything concerning people's opinions regarding acceptance or lack thereof of reformed egyptian. What I am saying is that this article thoroughly confuses orthography and language, as I have documented in the examples above. As a practical matter, the article needs to either state that reformed egyptian is an orthography or a language, and stick to either one throughout the article. For an article that deals so much with linguistics, it's striking how confused its authors are on such fundamental concepts. --24.31.187.238 (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because there are many authors who aren't clear on the subject. To resolve this, let's start with the references in the Book of Mormon that give rise to this subject:

Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. (1 Nephi 1:2)

And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time. (Mosiah 1:3-4)

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. (Mormon 9:32)

From these alone, we can't conclude anything that we can put on Wikipedia. However, what I personally gather from these is that the Brass Plates were written in the same language that they used when writing on the Golden Plates. But having a record in another script as well as a different language would have complicated things for Laban, so it is probably an adaptation of an Egyptian way of writing on metal plates to write Hebrew. However, we're going to need a reliable source that says this to put it on Wikipedia. Anybody have such a reference? — Val42 (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But we have no evidence of Egyptian golden plates. And why would Egyptians need a different orthography or script(or even why would they want to write Hebrew?).--Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We could continue to hash this out, but it would be original research. Like I said above, we're going to need a reliable source to put this on Wikipedia. — Val42 (talk) 05:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mormon 9:32 does not refer to a language, but to the symbols it's written in. It says this explicitly. I think I can find a reference where Joseph Smith said that by reformed he meant "reshaped". Nothing is more common than symbol shapes that have evolved. You are right now reading English, which uses reshaped Latin letters. Latin was adapted from Greek, and the Greeks borrowed some Egyptian letters (and modified their shapes somewhat.) So what are you reading right now? Reformed Egyptian. How funny! Friendly Person (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please cite

Can you please cite the edit you made on June 23rd to Reformed Egyptian? Thank you. Wm.C (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible to cite a source for something that has not happened. "No living Martians have ever been discovered on Earth." The statement remains true until someone can provide evidence that it is incorrect.

I'll move this discussion to the Reformed Egyptian page.

All the best, John Foxe (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read this and the logic is incorrect as far was Wikipedia is concerned. No definitive statement can be used unless an expert says it. What you are doing is placing Wikipedia in the position of making a declaration that has no basis in fact i.e. an expert must say it rather than you opinion. --^StormRider 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The more absurd the claim, the more difficult it will be to find an expert to deny it. I'd hate to go looking for the scientist who would solemnly declare that no Martians have been discovered on earth. Nevertheless, I've added a quotation and a citation from a "Bad Archaeology" website.--John Foxe (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

About Egyptian Modifications Elsewhere

Here's the paragraph that John Foxe proposed:

*Scholars have discovered examples of Egyptian script depicting Hebrew or other Semitic languages in hybrid scripts that might be similar to the Book of Mormon's reformed Egyptian. Non-Mormon scholars have also deciphered an Aramaic version of Psalm 20:2-6 written in demotic Egyptian characters. Mormons argue that the joining of an Egyptian script with Hebrew scripture in this manner is similar to the claim of reformed Egyptian in the Book of Mormon.

• The angel Moroni implies the script was uncommon, and therefore it is not surprising that no example of the script has been discovered in North America.

I think it's unnecessary for two reasons: 1) It's about modifications to Egyptian in the Old World. There's nothing controversial about that--the Phoenician alphabet contains letters that are modifications of Egyptian writing. 2) This article isn't about whether or not Egyptian could be modified or modifications made in the Old World, it's about the existence of a modified Egyptian orthography in the New World, for which there is no evidence. So the point of the paragraph, that Egyptian could be and was modified is not controversial and is not relevant here. (Taivo (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Excluding the paragraph doesn't bother me; but I think the reader might be interested in knowing how the Church attempts to finesse the difficulty.--John Foxe (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Your first bullet is already covered in the section labelled "Mormon studies..." and I added your second bullet at the end of that section. Should cover the issue. (Taivo (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Thanks. I just shortened and tweaked a bit and added a citation to FAIR.--John Foxe (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "Native American connection" comment for two reasons. 1) This article is about the existence of a writing system in the New World and the FAIR comment isn't about writing at all. 2) The FAIR site deals only with Semitic and Uto-Aztecan, but Egyptian was not a Semitic language. (Taivo (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Certainly you're right there.--John Foxe (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Incorrect reference for Klaus Baer's 'doodlings' quote in the Mainstream scholarly view of reformed Egyptian

In theMainstream scholarly view of reformed Egyptian section there is a reference to Klaus Baer, but the sources identified, Sunstone magazine May-June 1980 [Sunstone article link] and ["Cumorah Revisited"] do not actually contain this quote by Klaus Baer. I've seen it quoted in other places on WP and elsewhere, but I cannot find the reference. If no one can find the real source for this "doodlings" quote I plan to remove it. The Book of Mormon Archaeology WP article has this same incorrect reference as wellJaredkunz30 (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove the quote. I don't know why you're looking in Sunstone because the article clearly references one of the Tanners' books for the source of the quote. The quote has a published source. (Taivo (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

Your response was a little late. Ian.Thomson already corrected the bad reference so you are seeing the correct source now. Check the history. Earlier it was referencing Sunstone and another book. Neither contained the quote.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I wrote that after I looked at the article, but before I noticed the history. (Taivo (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Recently Taivo determined that a post did not meet Wikipedia's source standards, where it referenced an Egyptologist whose sole reference was from a pro-Mormon book source (Thomas Ferguson, One Fold and One Shepherd) and involved an apparent conversation with the Egyptologist. The Klaus Baer reference in The Changing World of Mormonism by Jerald and Sandra Tanner does not meet this standard either, even less so. There is no indication of any source of the Klaus Baer statement in the book. It is not footnoted in any manner, nor even any documentation where, when and to who the statement was made, and Klaus Baer is not included in the Bibliography of the book See https://www.scribd.com/document/403377812/Klaus-Baer-No-References?secret_password=kaX5oV6yY8yoPvvelATo . Please note that this link is a private link and can only be accessed from this page in order to be consistent with copyright laws. Should there be any confusion, the Sunstone reference on that page in the Tanner book is only a reference to the Ashment article, there is no mention of Klaus Baer in the Sunstone article. https://www.scribd.com/document/403381755/Sunstone-May-June-1980-Pg-30?secret_password=QZ2RFE6CKaiXwS4Em2I4 As a result, I am deleting this as a reference from the Wikipedia article as it does not meet Wikipedia standards. Geneva11 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geneva11 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with Links

Note 17: Blair Bryant's Caractor's Translation is a broken link.

Note 20: Meridian Magazine is a broken link.

Note 23: I don't think this particular page on ExMormon.org is a reliable source.

--CABEGOD 03:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Note 23 looked like it originally pointed somewhere else. I removed it and replaced it with a citation tag. --Taivo (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! --CABEGOD 18:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Orthography vs. script

It seems to me like the article confuses script with orthography. Orthography are the rules for writing a language correctly, a script is a writing system used to express thoughts in one or more languages by using elements of a limited set of signs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.194.205 (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Script" doesn't bother me, but according to the OED, "orthography" also means "a system of spelling or notation."

• 1530 J. Palsgrave Lesclarcissement 396 He leaneth to moche to the orthographye of the latyne tonge.
• 1937 Bantu Stud. 11 137 The orthography set out in the present pamphlet represents the latest result of a prolonged series of efforts made‥by the Education Departments‥to arrive at a uniform orthography of Tswana.
• 1991 Spy (N.Y.) Apr. 14/2, I can testify to the quality of her writing in two orthographies, English and Greek.

John Foxe (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course orthography is a system of spellings but it functions on another level than script. Orthography is always based upon one or more scripts, and cannot change them. It regulates the correctness of written words, so orthography is based upon words and their correct spellings, whereas a script is the fundamental system (set of characters, signs, symbols etc.) it depends on. A character can be said to be an element of a script, while a word is part of an orthographical dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.194.205 (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the distinction has much bearing on the subject at hand, but since "script" is fine with me, I think we can leave it there unless some linguist objects.--John Foxe (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

POV edits

Freddybobbits, your overall changes were POV pushing--removing critical comments and references without any discussion whatsoever. Read WP:BRD. If someone reverts your change, then it is your responsibility to come here to the Talk Page and discuss each of your edits one by one and build a consensus. I found your overall editing to be POV pushing and anti-critical, especially since you removed critical references and critical comments only. Your edits were totally POV pushing. --Taivo (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense, this is the first time I've felt an article I read was so incredibly POV-laden by someone else that I thought it needed changing, and I'm new to the process. Thanks for helping me out Taivo.

The Statement that there is "no" archeological evidence of the presence of Egyptian characters is the point of view of some experts, and not of others. The whole revision history for this article is one of people pushing the POV's of different people. The facts that should be in an opening paragraph of an article about what "reformed Egyptian" is, should be more contained to the topic. Digressing into the debate over whether or not this scholar or that scholar says it exists right off the bat doesn't help the reader. Before calling it into question (and I think there is reason to question it), we need to establish what the term "Reformed Egyptian" refers to. In doing that, we have to remember some very important things:

1-The the only reference to a language called Reformed Egyptian is inside the Book of Mormon itself.

2-The man writing the record and calling his writhing "Reformed Egyptian" says that nobody but his people, the Nephites, knew that writing,

3-The Nephite people who knew that writing were all killed at the end of the book.

4-The Lamanite people who did the killing are also accused of destroyed all the records they found, making it much less likely that we would find additional samples of "Reformed Egyptian"

From these limitations inside the Book of Mormon, it only follows that we probably wouldn't find any evidence of it's existence outside. So to make a big deal of the fact that no one has found any examples is missing the crux of the matter: REFORMED EGYPTIAN IS AN INTERNAL AFFAIR IN THE TEXT OF THE BOOK OF MORMON. Just because a bunch of aspiring apologists and antagonists seem to like having an endless debate about less than perfect research and opinions (and having spent more time than I ought to have this last week scouring all those sources, I can tell you that most of the research is less than perfect on BOTH sides) doesn't mean we need to include all their banter in an encyclopedia article meant to convey facts. Most of the reference I deleted were to other less-than-credible third-party research reports, redundant, or based off of other people's work. It took me a week to sort through them all, but I think I did a good job.

For example: Articles like that "Bad Archeology" website make Statements like "no archaeological evidence has ever been found to support any of this story. Indeed, it looks like an obvious justification for European supremacy." To me, that seems ill-researched and reeks of POV, and therefore not a credible source. Many claims have been made that there is archaeological evidence found. Some are even good claims. Instead of doing a line-by-line analysis of the claims, and then specifically dis-proving them, they say that they are none. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't seem like something we, as the readers and writers of the world's largest encyclopedia, need to tolerate.

Just because nobody has found any other example of something, doesn't mean that the one example we have is a fake, and that is the sole premise of most of the articles that were referenced against it. It's totally acceptable to call into question Crazy Joe Smith's account of finding a golden book, and the authenticity of the copies of the characters. What isn't acceptable is to say, without a doubt that there could be no possible chance of such a thing existing. To claim that is poor scholarship.

I felt like I made changes that brought the article into better established and factual realms, and away from debate. The fact that there is a debate is mentioned, but the debate should be kept to the discussion page.

A few specifics:

An additional section in the Book of Mormon referring to the use of Egyptian was added.

The account of Joseph Smith Was moved into a new section, because it's not about the reformed Egyptian in the book of Mormon, it's about the translation of it. I felt like I made it more clear about what Smith claimed happened, without getting into a debate about whether or not he was a liar.

I deleted the section called the Anthon Script because this isn't an article about the authenticity of that. It does need mentioning, but i felt like that was better accomplished in a different way.

There was only one side of the argument represented in the "Mainstream Scholarly Views" and there were multiple arguments that had been removed previously. I suggest we simply give one argument for, and one against, and leave the rest to the discussion page. We do not need to have a edit debate about which "scholar" is more reliable (which is what the edit history seemed to suggest) in a facts-oriented article.

Is there more that I should say here? Like I said I'm new to article editing. I'm a professional writer, a student of history and anthropology, and so I'm not new to writing. I hope that from this point on, my edit will be addressed more specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddybobbitts (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

First, read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. If you make a change and someone objects, you do not make your change again until you have built a consensus to do so. That means that you discuss and come to an agreement here on the Talk Page before you make your edit again. If you change the text again, I will report you for edit warring and you could be blocked. That's your warning. Talk here and agree, then make whatever edits that agreement covers.

Second, rather than posting a long, multifaceted response it's better to pick one item at a time to discuss and come to an agreement over. No one wants to read multiple paragraphs that cover multiple issues. Pick one item at a time.

Third, unless they demonstrate otherwise, assume that the editors who respond to you here are fully conversant in the issues surrounding Reformed Egyptian, so you don't have to start from scratch.

So pick what you want to deal with first and we'll go from there. But do not make your changes to the article until you have built a WP:CONSENSUS for it here first. --Taivo (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, So I came up with an in-depth discussion. You did not explain your objections in anything even close to the WK:BRD format you are pushing. I did read WK:BRD and I now cite it:

"BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."

"BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. Try an edit summary of "Let's talk about this; I'll start the discussion with a list of my objections" rather than "Undo. I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD."

I am welcoming the sort of specific analisys that this is championing. I will follow the guidelines. I am not edit warring, and if you wish to specifically adress my changes, feel free. Until then, stop reverting. In GOOD FAITH, I revised the whole article to make it more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddybobbitts (talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood WP:BRD. 1) Be Bold and edit (you did). 2) I disagreed, so I Reverted. 3) Discuss and reach a consensus before editing again. That's where you are stuck. I did respond to your massive edits--they are POV. Now you can take your proposals one at a time and we can discuss them and, perhaps, reach a consensus. --Taivo (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And it's not my responsibility to prove why your edits should not be made. The status quo is the basis. You have to convince me that your edits are appropriate. I'll tell you right now, they are not. You have uniformly deleted critical statements and references and added a pro-Mormon POV. That's unacceptable. These BOM articles are solidly based on consensus building between Mormons and non-Mormons so editing without getting a consensus first is generally frowned upon by the group of editors who "watch over" these articles. --Taivo (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've not taken the time to form an opinion about these edits, but have only noticed the back-and-forth edits and reversions. Freddybobbitts, I agree that you do need to stop making the edits until a consensus is formed. It's OK to be bold and make edits without going to the talk page first, but as soon as an editor reverts the changes and requests the issue to be taken to the talk page, edits related to the original edit need to cease until a consensus has a chance to form. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It is my suggestion that my edits were not at all bias to the pro or anti Mormon viewpoints. I couldn't care less about who's right. When you can show me a place where my edits clearly violate the POV neutrality, then I will stop making these edits, until then, I will stand by my edits. You have not demonstrated to me sufficient evidence that my edits are bias. I don't think most of the "anti-Reformed-Egyptian" comments had enough credibility to justify their presence. This is coming from a completely neutral outside source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddybobbitts (talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You can stand by your edits, but if you keep making them over and over again, you'll probably be blocked for edit warring. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make them again out of respect for others opinions, which I hoped they would voice more directly. I was hoping that my first editing experience on here would be a satisfying scholarly exercise, not a rejection out-of-hand with no clarification. I feel like I just wasted a week's worth of fact-checking, bazaar discussions with Mormons, and research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddybobbitts (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I stand with Taivo and Good Ol’factory. One thing certain to get you in trouble is removing cited material without discussing on the talk page why you're removing it. I often suggest to new editors at Wikipedia that they first try a few edits on a non-controversial article about which they know a lot, like the one about their home town.

You can sign your edits, rather than make a bot do it, by typing four tildes (~) after your post.--John Foxe (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If you stand by your edits, Freddybobbitts, then you will have no problem justifying them and building a consensus for them one by one right here before making them again. --Taivo (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I do wish that your would let me post the edits, and then respond to specific objections as they come up, as opposed to having to post my reasons one by one, which would have been better to do from the start, but I already spent dozens of hours reworking things before it was ready to post. My first post explained my reasons generally, and you seem to not care enough to post any specific objections yourself, so may I please repost the edit, and allow others who care more than you take it up line by line? Freddybobbitts (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You have not read our posts, or else you would already know our main objections to your whole posting. But if someone objects to your posts, you are required to build a consensus before you repost them. Your edits are unacceptable at this time, so there is no point to posting them. Discuss them one-by-one here and if you can build a consensus for an edit, you can post it. That's Wikipedia's process. You cannot just cavalierly ride over the objections of other editors. So pick one of your points and try to build a consensus for the change. And I find your comment "others who care more than you" to be offensive and uncivil. If you look at the history of this and other Book of Mormon articles, you will find that I have worked on them a hundred times more than you have during your short time as a new editor on Wikipedia. You'll note on that contributions page that two of the top ten articles I've worked on are Book of Mormon related. --Taivo (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I read your posts. I read them carefully. I have reposted the first section edit below for discussion. When I say "Others who care more than you", I meant others who care more about specifically giving me more constructive feedback on my edits than you, not who care more about the Book of Mormon more than you. You hurt my feelings Taivo :( I feel unloved by you. It was nice to see a glittering history of your prestigious contributions to The Great Oracle. Freddybobbitts (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

POV issues in the first Section

I propose that we change the first paragraph, so that it contains a better, more informative summary of the background behind "reformed Egyptian":

The Book of Mormon, one of the books of scripture held as canonical by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is claimed to have originally been written in reformed Egyptian characters on thin sheets of metal "ore", sometimes called golden plates, by a group of Nephite prophets, who claim to have left Jerusalem in approximately the year 600 BC and travled by boat to the American continent. Their descendants kept a record until 421 AD, when Moroni, the keeper of the records and the last surviving Nephite after a major war, was commanded by God to bury them in a hillside near Manchester, New York. Moroni is said to have returned as an angel and appeared to Joseph Smith, Jr. (the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement) and shown him in vision where to find the buried record. Smith claims that, under the direction of Moroni, he was able to translated the record. Smith then published the claimed "translation" in 1830, and titled it The Book of Mormon. Only one small sample of the characters that were on these plates is claimed to be in existence, but it's authenticity is contested (see Anthon Transcript). No other examples of reformed Egyptian have ever been found.

I say that we limit the claims that no proof for Smith's claims exist to the section about scholarly opinions, for the sake of neutrality. I also feel it's Original Research to infer that since the standard language reference texts don't say anything about it, reformed Egyptian doesn't exist. Also, I think there are too many objections concerning the validity of the articles in "Fantastic Archaeology" and "Bad Archaeology" for them to be reliable texts. Both of them rely solely on secondary research for their tertiary research claims. Instead of citing them, someone go to the secondary sources they got their information from. Because there are so many conflicting viewpoints, this is the only fair way, as I see it. Any objections?Freddybobbitts (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There are not "many conflicting viewpoints." There are only two: one held by Mormons and the other by all non-Mormon linguistic scholars. Furthermore, we're not saying that because the standard language references texts don't mention Reformed Egyptian that it doesn't exist. We're only saying that those reference works don't acknowledge its existence; they don't mention it. As for Fantastic Archaeology and "Bad Archaeology," both are reliable sources, and you can't complain about their research. What you'd need to challenge them are other reliable sources that take issue with them or challenge their findings.--John Foxe (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree, agreeing with John Foxe's comments. The lead of an article should summarize what is in the article briefly. Your version, Freddybobbitts, is just the standard "founder's tale" for the BOM, adding just a "claimed" or two at the beginning, but then dispensing with any doubt as the tale progresses. It then dispenses with all doubt by the end in deleting any mention of the fact that there is absolutely no scholarly, scientific recognition of "Reformed Egyptian" as a language or script. Your "no other examples have ever been found" is but a thinly disguised attempt at weaseling the LDS POV into the text. Scholars say that no other examples of Linear A have ever been found and the corpus that exists is all there is. They say nothing of the sort for Reformed Egyptian, because as far as the scientific community is concerned there hasn't even been one example of Reformed Egyptian "found" since the BOM is a complete fabrication of Joseph Smith's fertile imagination. To imply that "one example has been found" is to push the LDS POV and the opposite of NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is a complete fabrication of Joseph Smith's fertile imagination, and we can treat it as such if you like, the wording is currently unacceptable! It's much to against the LDS-POV to leave the status-quo. The article needs to be much less of a direct attack on Smith's claims that such a language existed. much more contained with the facts of what it is, and what it isn't. It is the language that this record is claimed to be written in. It is not claimed to be a widely used language. I think you're bringing up the issue of whether Crazy Joe Smith actually did all these things doesn't belong here, Taivo, keep it confined to the myriad of other articles you fervently watchdog. I would refer you to another example of a made up language that confines itself the context of the books where the language. Quenya In this article, the fact that it is a made up language is stated right off the top, then the history of the language within the realm of fiction is set forth as fact. I propose we follow this format more closely, establishing that it is only claimed to exist, then establishing it's history in brief. We can include those reference, but they should be moved down to the mainstream section. Taivo, the first paragraph does not need to summarize the article, it needs to summarize the topic. It may be a founder's story, but it's relevant, since it's the source for the language. How would you propose I change my wording to make it more acceptable? Don't just attack, make constructive revisions please, as you suggest is the proper format. The current wording is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddybobbitts (talk • contribs)

But the current lead is a summary of the topic--Smith claimed to have found some plates with Reformed Egyptian on it which he translated. Those plates do not exist, the "language" has zero evidence for it (other than the "claim" of Smith), etc., and the scientific community completely disregards it as anything valid. That's the topic and it can't be sugar-coated. This "language/script" exists only in the realm of a belief system and has no other existence whatsoever. So to use language (the last sentence specifically) that implies there is "some" evidence for it, but no more, is completely false. One person's statement does not constitute scientific, NPOV evidence. While I also think that you have written three times too much about the "founder's tale" in relation to this topic, the last sentence is completely unacceptable. The original sentence states the scientific issue much clearer and without the weaselly "no other examples have been found". There isn't a single example of Reformed Egyptian. Even if you are LDS, the plates do not exist and there is no real copy of the original language in existence. All you have is the purported English translation--you cannot point to a single page of untranslated Reformed Egyptian text, so the "no other" is just weasel words. In the end, the only evidence for "Reformed Egyptian", whether you are LDS or not, is Smith's word for it. That's it. That's not evidence and the scientific community recognizes that. The current text is perfectly accurate and well-referenced. --Taivo (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Reformed Egyptian does not exist outside the claims of Joseph Smith should smack the reader of this article right in the face from the get-go. There should be no attempt at hiding its non-existence by pushing that critical information down into the body of the article.--John Foxe (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I've examined the proposal and compared it to what currently exists, and I agree with Taivo and John Foxe that the current version is superior. The proposed version has two main problems, as have been mentioned before: (1) it focuses a bit too much on the background story of the Book of Mormon/golden plates, and (2) it says that "no other" examples of reformed Egyptian have been found, when there is no solid evidence that there have been any examples that have been found. (There is dispute as to whether the Anthon Transcript that exists is the "real" Anthon Transcript that Harris took to Anthon, so I don't think it can be used as an "example" of the language, if that was what was meant.) This topic is essentially a language referred to in a religious text, but it doesn't exist outside of that context, which is what the lead explains. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Include in article : Reformed Egyptian was based on Micmac Hieroglyphic from Canadian Missionary

Can someone find a source for this and include it in the article ? Micmac Hieroglyphic was a 1700s Western missionary-created combination of Greek letters, Latin letters, Western symbols, and Micmac pictographs used to make mneumonic proto-writing to translate the Bible. It resembles Smith's Reformed Egyptian to such an extent, that it's worth someone combing the literature for a reference. The idea, of course, is that Smith imitated Micmac Hieroglyphs when he made up his this, ahem, ridiculous gibberish.  :)

Also, for the record, Egyptian scripts transcribed language, whereas Micmac is proto-writing, just giving a few symbols for key words and filling the space in between with (what amount to) scribbles, though they are actually non-random or less-random symbols intended to jog the memory, re-occuring in the corpus without any connection to semantic or phonemic or any other logical phenomena, except as arbitrary mnemonic symbols. Micmac was from east Canada, near New York.

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that describe a possible connection, or is this your own theory (i.e. origional research)? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is another of Barry Fell's notions. I don't see much similarity myself, and neither did Utah Lighthouse Ministries. See Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing.--John Foxe (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Article lock!

Can we block mormons from editing this article? No, really. If it can be done with scientology articles and scientologist, it can be done with these. --76.105.145.143 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What specific problem(s) are you referring to; or, in other words, what prompted this suggestion? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As a long-time non-Mormon editor on these pages, I can tell you that there is not a problem on the Book of Mormon pages. Mormon and non-Mormon editors alike work together fairly well to hammer out the best NPOV text. Sometimes we get a little blunt, but we always work out a good result that maintains WP:NPOV. Actually, the last major problem editor was pushing an anti-Mormon agenda until he and all his socks were finally blocked indefinitely. --Taivo (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit surprised by the suggestion. In my opinion, things seem to have been going generally well on articles for most Mormon-related topics. That's why I was curious what incident or incidents prompted the suggestion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reformed Egyptian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120206010157/http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ancients/060228egyptians.html to http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ancients/060228egyptians.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"LDS" acronym

Seeing the "LDS" acronym used in the body of this article, I placed the acronym in parenthesis after the article's first use of "Latter Day Saints" as per standard English usage. My edit was reverted, with this accompanying explanation:

(LDS tends to be an abbreviation used solely for the LDS Church, not the entire Latter Day Saint movement)

My first thought, in response, was that "LDS" tends to be an abbreviation used by everyone who speaks English, whenever they want to use something short, in place of words which start with those letters. But then, I realized that this must be a point of debate, between factions of this religion. The substance (such as it is) of this matter strikes me as a subtle (and quizzical, and illogical, and borderline absurd) distinction with all the makings of an intradenominational squabble. The preservation of this linguistic distinction is behavior which espouses a non-neutral point-of-view, and its end result is a text which is non-encyclopedic in tone and form. Thus, my edit was reverted in contravention of two of the central tenets of this project. Yet, in deference to those who know more than myself, I appreciate the correction. Yet the acronym still appears throughout the article, without any signification of its meaning. Perhaps these graphemes are charactors of Reformed Egyptian script that only coincidentally resemble letters in the Latin alphabet. If so, then they are far beyond my ken, and my concern must be ignored. But if these markings are, indeed, the same letters which begin the words "Latter-day Saints" then their meaning (or lack thereof) needs to be clarified. The article should denote the contextual meaning of the "LDS" acronym, especially if the letters do not share their meaning with a nearby phrase which seems to have been their most-likely origin. My edits are not made in respect of niggling religious doctrinal conflicts, so I'll leave this defect for another to repair. But I will offer a parting prayer: Leave us not crucify Wikipedia upon the cross of Mormon ultra-orthodoxy. Catsmoke (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's any sort of intradenominational struggle; I doubt most Latter Day Saint groups would want to be called "LDS", though many would embrace "Latter Day Saint". Typically, within Wikipedia and without, "LDS" is an abbreviation to designate the LDS Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). In this article, it appears to be used in this context—the people described as LDS researchers, for example, are people who are members of the LDS Church. I agree that this should be clarified. Another option is to simply use "Mormon" instead of LDS, since Mormon is probably better understood and is also used to designate LDS Church members. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "Mormon" should replace "LDS" in the article where it occurs. "LDS" almost always refers exclusively to the Utah church. --Taivo (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

4 additional 'reformed Egyptian' characters that are not on the Anthon or Caractors transcript

I have tried to add a link displaying the 4 characters that were copied by both Oliver Cowdery and Fredirick G. Williams (scribes and secretaries to Joseph Smith) that are historically documented. These are additional characters that are not found on the "Anthon Transcript". They should be included on Wikipedia to make the reference corpus of these characters complete as they are in fact 'reformed Egyptian' characters (whether ones subscribes to the existence or not of the actual language). The proposed information (actual characters and bibliographic cite) to be added by link to the Reformed Egyptian Wikipage is provided at the link http://nebula.wsimg.com/99074fed98b595ae4471309e89be3eb5?AccessKeyId=A0EA741743254B9C037B&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 L — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revorgjr (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is that website? It is a blog, a personal website, a website of an organization—what? It's not clear that it constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia. It might be better to simply use the references that are cited in the link rather than linking to that website directly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that these are actually "Reformed Egyptian". Their attestation as such seems murky at best from the captions on the pdf. Otherwise I agree with Good Olfactory. --Taivo (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, with a little more research, I have found these 4 additional characters are documented in a source that is already included as a citation on the page that identifies John Whitmer as the scribe on the Anthon Transcript ""The 'Caractors' Document: New Light on an Early Transcription of the Book of Mormon Characters," Mormon Historical Studies, vol. 14, No. 1". www.academia.edu. Retrieved 2015-12-09. I think it would add good information to the Wiki page to actually add the pictures of the examples that are in that article. There is also a picture of the newspaper broadside discussed on the wikipage that might add to the page. There is also another error on the page in that no current academic or otherwise asserts that the Caractors document was the document that was shown to Charles Anthon. Anthon describes the document quite differently (ie says that there was an emblem that resembled the Mexican zodiac). This issue is also discussed in the Mormon Historical Studies article.Revorgjr (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the reverting of the 2015 Jerry Grover "Caractors" Document translation

The edit I have made, providing the Linguist Jerry Glover's claimed translation of the Caractors document, is claimed to violate WP:RS (by FyzixFighter. While true that this citation is a self-published work, it has gained significance within Mormon circles. I myself (a non-mormon) have read the documentation and while it lacks peer-review (which I was going to provide note of with my eventual clean-up of the new section) it appears to make an excellent case for its study. I feel that despite the self-published nature, it is a fundamentally good treatise on a possible translation. For this reason, I believe the undoing edit should be reverted. --134.204.0.90 (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Grover (not Glover) has a BS in geological engineering. That does not make him a linguist. Evidently his method of decipherment involved " the characters to numerals from different writing systems, including Mayan, various Egyptian, and Semitic languages. He combines these "matches" with Ariel Crowley's earlier attempts to match characters to names in hieratic and demotic Egyptian to produce his translation." That's from a discussion in which he took part and he doesn't deny it.[2] Doug Weller talk 15:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This claim is not true. Your citation has reply by Mr. Grover[3] where he states "[...]I didn't use much of Ariel Crowley's work, most of the research was original in the hieratic and demotic. There wasn't much Semitic language there, mostly Egyptian with some Mesoamerican influence." On your point that he is not a linguist, this was a mistake made on my own personal study. I am not attempting to make a comment of accurate translation, I am only attempting to include it within the page due to the significance of a contemporary attempt at translation, and the significance of a claimed full translation of the text.--134.204.0.90 (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller is right on target. This guy is nothing more than an untrained amateur, without any actual linguistic methodology to fall back on, making guesses as to what the content of a random series of marks on paper might mean. Here's the "methodology": "I'll look at symbols in hieratic. If nothing matches then I'll look at symbols in demotic. If nothing matches then I'll look at symbols in some other ancient Semitic script. If still nothing matches then I'll look at various scratches and marks in Mesoamerican scripts and pseudo-scripts. If still nothing matches then...." The statistical probability of finding random symbols from a dozen different scripts to come close to matching something in "Reformed Egyptian" is near 100%. It is ridiculous and it doesn't matter whether or not uninformed Mormons buy it, that doesn't make it worthy of mention in a serious Wikipedia article. We don't quote Breitbart and InfoWars conspiracy theories normally either. --Taivo (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The significance of the attempt at translation has to be established by independent sources. WP:SPS applies in this situation, and I don't see a good reason to ignore that rule. The only way this attempt at translation could begin to be considered for inclusion is if it receives significant coverage in other sources (newspapers, Mormon studies jourals, etc) that would back up the claim about the significance within Mormon circles. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, from my perspective as a non-Mormon, I agree with FyzixFighter. John Foxe (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Although in agreement that more coverage is needed prior to inclusion of this reference in Wikipedia, not everything said here is correct about the actual translation. Grover has also worked for 25 years as a translator in addition to a BS in Geological Engineering and a ME in Civil Engineering so saying he has NO linguistic experience is incorrect. It is also worth noting that one of the principal constributors to the Maya decipherment was a chemical engineer, John Teeple, who deciphered the Dresden Codex Venus tables and the Lunar Series. Ironically Grover's translation consists primarily of a calendrical series of dates. Linda Schele graduated in Art. For the record, looking at Grover's actual translation, there are 119 unique characters, the translation has 86 with Egyptian hieratic translations, 27 with Egyptian Demotic translations, and 6 with Mesoamerican translations/correlations so it pretty much is an Egyptian translation, with some Mesoamerican elements which is precisely what one would expect.

(talk) 7:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Just to keep this talk section up to date, there is a new publication updating and revising the 2015 translation at www.bmslr.org. It indicates independent review by an Egyptologist, a Mayanist, and the independent peer review company Rubriq. Geneva11 (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The link says nothing whatsoever about "independent review" and I simply don't believe it. I seriously doubt that the "Egyptologist" and "Mayanist" are truly independent except, perhaps, in the sense of "Mormon scholars not actually employed by BYU". --Taivo (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

1956 quotation

On 19 March 2019, Geneva11 replaced a 1999 quotation from Michael Coe with this material from 1956. I see no reason why following information trumps Coe. What would trump Coe is a statement that Reformed Egyptian doesn't resemble other complete scripts from Meso-America.

"In 1956 a request for review of the Caractors Document was made to three recognized Egyptologists, Sir Alan Gardiner, William C.. Hayes, and John A. Wilson. Gardiner replied that he saw no resemblance with "any form of Egyptian writing." Hayes stated that it might be an inaccurate copy of something in hieratic script and that "some groups look like hieratic numerals," adding that "I imagine, however, that the inscription bears a superficial resemblance to other scripts, both ancient and modern, of which I have no knowledge." Wilson gave the most detailed reply, saying that "This is not Egyptian writing, as known to the Egyptologist. It obviously is not hieroglyphic, nor the "cursive hieroglyphic" as used in the Book of the Dead. It is not Coptic, which took over Greek characters to write Egyptian. Nor does it belong to one of the cursive stages of ancient Egyptian writing: hieratic, abnormal hieratic, or demotic." Earlier in 1956 Hayes had provided his analysis of his assertion of hieratic numerals within the Caractors Document. Reformed Egyptian has not been identified as one of the many Mesoamerican scripts." John Foxe (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Geneva 11 agrees to retain the Coe quote regarding Mesoamerican languages until a more recent Coe citation or equivalent is found to make this quote consistent with the current state of knowledge which is the existence of multiple scripts found in Mesoamerica as found in the current Wikipedia Mesoamerican Writing topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geneva11 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the new material to the notes. I see no reason why, if the Coe quotation is out-of-date, we need to treat some 1956 material more seriously. (You can sign your posts by typing four tildes.) John Foxe (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime I will try to find something more recent from Coe (he is getting pretty old) or other recognized Mesoamerican authority that mentions all of the now known scripts.Geneva11 (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Coe says "complete scripts." I'm not sure what a partial script might be, but the adjective "complete" may make a difference to experts in the area. John Foxe (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The third edition of "Breaking the Maya Code" came out in 2012 and I've ordered a copy for my library. I'll check for Coe's most up-to-date text when it arrives in a few days. --Taivo (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the point relevant to this article is that reformed Egyptian has not been identified as a script in Mesoamerica, partial or otherwise. Why is this statement limited to "complete scripts?" That's what I wrote in one of the changes that got reversed. I have nothing against Coe's statement, it is just not up to date and also doesn't really address accurately address the point of the article. For example, the Epi-Olmec is a script that has been recognized as clearly a script language, although its decipherment is still tentative. Same but less so with Zapotec. Why not include mention of these scripts as well? (talk)Geneva11 (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem so long as you have a reliable, post-1999 source that says so. John Foxe (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A very reliable source, co-equal in time with Coe's quote: "A conservative estimate of the number of distinct writing systems identified in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica is fifteen--many known only from a single inscription." Martha J. Macri, "Maya and Other Mesoamerican Scripts," The World's Writing Systems, ed. Peter T. Daniels & William Bright (1996, Oxford, pp. 172-182. The quote is on pg. 172. Prof. Macri is the director of the Native American Language Center at UC, Davis. She developed the Maya Hieroglyph Database Project as a graduate student at UC Berkley. She is eminently qualified to make such a statement. Of course the difference between this and Coe's equally authoritative statement is that Coe was referring to the only Mesoamerican system with enough textual evidence to permit decipherment. --Taivo (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! I have put your citation in for now, as I noticed there is a 2010 version of this book with Macri still writing that section. I will check it and make updates to the source and/or numbers of scripts based on a look at the newer version.Geneva11 (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Other Examples of Reformed Egyptian

Doug Weller suggested this item go to the talk page for additional information about citations. The scans and discussion of the two additional sets of Book of Mormon characters are found at the Joseph Smith Papers project site. The scans are on the project site are at and . The discussion on the project site of these additional character sets is found at.

The 4 characters in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting on a small piece of script and the same 4 characters from Frederick G. Williams and their provenance are also discussed in the article: The “Caractors” Document: New Light on an Early Transcription of the Book of Mormon Characters

The larger set of characters copied by Frederick G. Williams that came down through the Frederick G. Williams family is also discussed extensively in the book The Life of Dr. Frederick G. Williams, Counselor to the Prophet Joseph Smith : The Life of Dr. Frederick G. Williams, Counselor to the Prophet Joseph Smith by Frederick G. Williams (2012). Unfortunately there is no online version of this book, but I do have the hard copy. Geneva11 (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I see that the material was restored and the primary sources tag removed. A primary source here is anything that's not independent from the LDS and affiliated sites (WP:PRIMARY). But since we also work by WP:CONSENSUS, I'll let another editor determine if the material should be reverted instead of reverting it again myself. —PaleoNeonate – 21:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted - I didn't think I had to object about something I'd reverted, I was waiting until there was further discussion. Hm, seems I failed to add this to my watchlist, sorry. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. We can, with care, use"primary sources that have been reputably published". But we don't have those. We have papers on a website and a self-published book published by the church (and not by Brigham Young University Press. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Doug, I thought that you had reviewed the proposed citations listed here on the talk page. I'm not sure where the self-published book concept is coming from, perhaps someone is thinking that the Frederick G. Williams book is self-published? The book is published by BYU Studies, and the author is a BYU professor who happens to be a descendant of the original Frederick G. Williams but has the same name. http://humanitiescenter.byu.edu/frederick-g-williams-in-english-and-portuguese/. This is clearly a secondary source. The http://mormonhistoricsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/The-%E2%80%9CCaractors%E2%80%9D-Document.pdf is a secondary source and is an article from Mormon Historical Studies, a peer reviewed journal http://mormonhistoricsites.org/publications/. The sources from the Joseph Smith Papers Project contain both primary and secondary sources. Quoting from the Joseph Smith Papers Project website:

"The Joseph Smith Papers do not present a unified narrative. Annotations supply background and context to help readers better understand and use the documents. The aim of the annotation is to serve scholars and students of early Latter-day Saint history and American religious history generally, whose familiarity with these fields may vary widely.

The Papers cite original sources where possible and practical. Secondary sources of sound scholarship are cited when they usefully distill several primary sources or provide useful general context. Quotations from primary sources preserve original spelling but silently emend cancellations and insertions (unless judged highly significant). Following standard documentary editing practice, footnotes identify where the featured texts quote, paraphrase, or otherwise refer to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith revelations, and other written works. "

I think it is pretty clear that all of these sources meet the source requirements of Wikipedia in spades. Geneva11 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Geneva11

Selfpublished may not be quite the right word, but it wasn't published by BYU's university press. And the physical book isn't published by a reliable source if Amazon is correct. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

And "Mormon Historical Studies" doesn't appear to be reviewed by independent scholars of any brand, just Mormon ones. The "peers" in "peer-reviewed" are Mormon peers, not historian peers by the looks of it. That's not a reliable source in the wide world, although it might be considered reliable among the faithful. --Taivo (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, —PaleoNeonate – 01:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that these sorts of sources don't meet Wikipedia standards.John Foxe (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

References

The Stick of Joseph transcription and better photo request

The article refers to "a broadside about the Book of Mormon called "The Stick of Joseph" that reprinted some "reformed Egyptian" characters". Can we please see a better photo of this, at a high resolution? Is there only one broadside, and only one photo? Misty MH (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If you click on the image, you can see a higher resolution. Epachamo (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be nice if these were accurately redrawn in large size, and easy to read, for scholarly analysis, sort of a "transcription", as it were. Misty MH (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Not related to the Egyptian Language

I removed a see also tp the Egyptian language, and was reverted. I added reformed Egyptian to the see also of Egyptian language, and was also reverted. Are these two actually related according to reliable secondary sources? 166.198.21.32 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)