Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reformed Egyptian (Mormonism)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Friday (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian (Mormonism)

Reformed Egyptian (Mormonism) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Sequoyah Syllabary>Non-existent language "reformed egyptian". No reliable sources to verify it ever existed. Article should be renamed if kept or merged into Book of Mormon rather than exist under a misleading title that implies a non-existent language existed when there is no verifiable source to prove such a claim. The only sources are self-published LDS sources which cannot be verified as accurate or reliable. 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. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn - based on personal attacks of "impaired mental abilities" and coercive threats of blocking by admin User:Visorstuff due to this editor attempting to provide scholarly analysis of the claims and materials related to this article and to either delete, merge, or enhance the article with encyclopedic quality and invite discussion by non-LDS admins and editors to comment on the article and review the materials as a community effort. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• keep The article has a history of existence and active editing since 2002, and was not created by a Mormon. The reason given for deletion is that it such a language does not exist. The same can be said for Jesus and a hundred other faith-based articles. Also, the lead paragraph clearly states that there is no evidence outside of Mormonism for the language. Master forger Mark Hofmann thought it significant enough to forge one of the samples. This seems to be a tantrum by the suggesting editor due to his original research on the topic comparing Reformed Egyptian and written Cherokee which no other scholar has done. The editor has a long history of citing controversy on Wikipedia. -Visorstuff 22:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I agree that the actual language itself never existed except among the first Mormons, and that the references listed in this article supporting the existence of it are not independent (and many don't seem to actually have anything to do with the supposed facts they're supporting). On the other hand, it is notable in the same way that the Mormon belief that Algonquin is similar to Hebrew is notable even though almost all of the words the Mormons use to "prove" this aren't actually found in any native language, and the rest appear to be mere coincidence. The belief in these unsupported theories (and they are part of the basis of the Mormon faith) is notable. --Charlene 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is a very odd AfD. Jeffrey Merkey has made a huge number of edits to this article in the last couple of days (apparently trying to improve it) and has now suddenly put it up for deletion (see the article's edit history and its talk page to see what I am talking about). I am confused and question the rationale for this AfD. I am in full agreement with Jeff that this language never existed, and have been involved in trying to get a sentence into the article which addresses this point (currently in the article intro as "Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of a "reformed Egyptian" language as it has been described in Mormon belief.") But I think this is clearly a worthy article albeit one that could use some work. Quite simply, Mormons claim this is the language from which Joseph Smith translated in order to create the Book of Mormon. There has been a great deal of debate (at least in Mormon circles) about what this language is, while non-Mormons have generally dismissed the language as one Joseph Smith made up and look for other sources for the foundational Mormon religious text. It is referenced and discussed in probably just about every scholarly book on Mormonism. It was mentioned just a couple of days ago in an article in The Scotsman and will be mentioned even more because of Mitt Romney's candidacy. Even without this revived contemporary interest (which is why I, a non-Mormon, came across the article in the first place), it's clearly a notable topic of historical interest. Just because the language probably does not actually exist (and again I utterly and completely agree with that--though LDS members would beg to differ) does not mean it should not have an article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick clarification, his research was actually preserved on the talk page until a reference could be provided. Incidentally, consensus will be needed to make such a move with out an admin... -Visorstuff 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC) this edit was in response to this retracted post] -Visorstuff 23:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• • It's also been in the news because some Aboriginal writers have received death threats from Mormons recently after having pointed out that virtually all the words Mormon scholars use to "prove" that native languages are descended from Hebrew and Egyptian don't actually exist in any native language. Someone made them up. (Edit to remove exciting bolding.) --Charlene 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlene, Can you share with me those references? I've not seen that in the news... it would actually be a good addition to the article. Death threats...I thought I was the only one who received those... -Visorstuff 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find something online. The controversy was mentioned on APTN a few days back, but I haven't seen anything in print. --Charlene 23:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - i'll drop future questions on you talk page rather than here. -Visorstuff 23:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep Given the sources in this article, the reasons given for deletion smack strongly of POV. And, hypothetically, even if the language doesn't exist, how about Tolkein's Elvish and Black Speech articles? Those have separate articles, even though they don't exist outside of fiction. Hmmm... Wrad 23:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As LDS perspective and views of history. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep It smacks LOUDLY of POV and personal agenda. The name reformed Egyptian is only a term used to refer to it; Smith simply used to the term to describe what he said he translated. However, this article is valid for an LDS view of ancient history and how it coincides with their beliefs. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I keep seeing smacks loudly of POV comments yet I cannot find anything POV about statements that non-existent languages with no proof or reliable sources should have articles. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Religious viewpoints scarcely come with proof. It is sourced within their religious text. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree religious viewpoints can be characterized this way -- until they make claims which are refuted by physical evidence -- like the fact there are three sentences in Cherokee in the purported Anthon transcript which is claimed to be written in "Reformed Egyptian". I am not Egyptian by ancestry, nor is our language. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are Cherokee sentences, and reliable sources say so, then the answer is to work that into the article, not to delete the article. I personally don't see any evidence saying that Muhammud was visited by the Angel Gabriel. I might even say I see evidence against it, but I'm not going to push for that article to get deleted, because a lot of people believe it. There are even articles on wikipedia about how 9/11 didn't happen, and Apollo 11 wasn't a moon landing. This isn't a reason to delete an article. "Non-existent languages" is, again, also no reason to delete. See my previous comment. Wrad 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Try placing those types of materials in the article and watch the tagging and edit wars that ensue. The article just gets slowly reverted back to the original when anyone attempts scholarly editing and sourcing of this language or the associated evidence claimed to back it up. If the article is just going to be a one-sided and unverifiable view view with a mongolian hoard of editors reverting out any serious study of the content, Wikipedia could do without the content, and/or it should be classified correctly as LDS teachings, not an authoratative article on a non-existent language. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep : Per all the reasons above. Just more POV maneuvering by the Merk. Incidentally, why was it moved from Reformed Egyptian to Reformed Egyptian (Mormonism)? If the concept only exists in Mormonism, no disambiguation should be necessary. In any case, the use of "Mormonism" should be avoided per the naming conventions. -SESmith 23:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It was moved as some editors, including myself, thought that some readers may think it was a language that could be studied, or that it was not a religious text (ie the reason for this whole mess), which it cannot, as it is a faith-based topic. Every so often we have someone like Merkey come along and say they were mislead by the article. We wanted to make sure there was no confusion that this was mormon-specific. Like most Mormonism related articles, the Mormon editors err on the side of NPOV caution, and are overly sensitive that we are not pushing POV. -Visorstuff 00:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who bothers to read even the first sentence of the article will not be deceived by the lack of a parenthetical disambiguation. I appreciate and commend your NPOV caution, but I think most impartial observers would find it unnecessary. It's not like it's in other language categories apart from Category:Religious language. Anyhow, this conv. is not appropriate here so I'll shut up. -SESmith 00:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep. east.718 00:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.