Talk:Reformed Egyptian

—Archive001 —Archive002

Linguistics Discussion about Similarities to Sequoyah and Pre-Sequoyah Syllabary

One portion of the transscript in the lower left corner partially resembles the pre-Sequoyah Syllabary if the manuscript is rotated 90 degrees to the right, and only the three lower rows are used (or the three leftmost columns after rotating the transscript). The copied symbols, however, appear to be missing verb stem qualifiers as though they were copied by someone who did not understand the ordering of the words, and resembles an extinct Southern Iroquoian dialect. The characters imply a reference to a "woman going to the river to meet the fisher-God", however, since the letters are missing the final verb stem constructs, it cannot be conclusively verified against any known extinct Southern Iroq uoian dialect.

Do any of the LDS folks or its researchers have any materials on this area of study? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The editor who have the most on this topic is User:Hawstom, but he is not very active wikipedian right now. User:RelHistBuff and User:Gldavies may have some information, and our Non-LDS friend User:John Foxe may have some, but he seems to cut things like this right out of articles, but he does have some good research on reformed egyptian. -Visorstuff 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My (very limited) understanding is that the tale about a written Cherokee language before Sequoyah originated with the novelist, Robert J. Conley just a few years ago. In any case, some scholarly documentation should be provided before the story appears on this page.--John Foxe 02:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There exists a pre-Sequoyah syllabary. It consists of 126 characters. I am well versed in both Sequoyah's syllabary and the syllabary which existed before sequoyah. It has never been shared with the academic world and is only used to record religious documents and events. I found entries on Robert Conley. He appears to be aware of the Ani-kutani legends, but I have not read his books. It is not well known among the Cherokee People (except for the legends), only one very small group still uses it. The group that used it has preserved it for over two millenia. There exists some very old artifacts using it -- articfacts that have been verified as authentic. It is not ideographic as is hieroglyphs (which are a crude method of writing). The language that uses it is very small in comparison to English or even modern Cherokee. The dialect that uses it only has 3000+ verb roots and nouns. It also follows a different structure than Sequoyah's syllabary. There is a current theory among us that Smith obtained access to some of these materials and based his religious writings on the legends of the Ani-kutani. There is also a theory his ancestry was vastly different than history claims based upon evidence in the possession of this group (since in the early and mid-1800s, being part-Indian could subject you to some rather hard times given the history of what happened). It appears Smith was exposed to these stories at an early age, and Cherokee's were colonizers and chameleons in society at this time and blended in quite well -- since they appeared fair and most could pass as Europeans. Christanity was never part of our culture or religious practice until the 1700's. Smith may have blended ancient stories and writings with Judean beliefs as the foundation for this religion. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

One can also find similarities in some of the characters with the Japanese syllabary, but that doesn't mean Smith derived the religion from ancient Japanese traditions. Mere similarity is insufficent to establish a causal connection. I think, Jeff, that you're a bit enamored with a theory that is wholly your own, and are interpreting carefully selected portions of the evidence to fit a preconceived conclusion. If there are scholarly papers suggesting the sort of connection you have posited, that can be considered reliable sources per WP's policies, then of course I will be open to including mention of the theory in the article. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as uncited original research

We need to see some citiations identifying these characters and the evidence as related to egyptian beyond self-referencing publications which do not conclusively demonstrate this. There is no such evidence in the article. The current materials appear to be a bad copy job of Cherokee Syllabary. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Identified Sequoyah Syllabary Characters in the Anthon Document (some of them are upside down and sideways, and they show a complete lack of grammar and conjugation):

• Ꭰ - a
• Ᏼ - yv
• Ꮞ - se
• Ꮅ- li
• Ꮈ - lv
• Ꮩ - lo
• Ꮟ - si
• Ꮝ - s
• Ꭺ - go
• Ꮿ - ya
• Ꮽ - wu
• Ᏹ - yi
• Ꭲ - i
• Ᏺ - yo
• Ꮫ - dv
• Ꮶ - tso
• Ꮎ - na
• ᎥᎥ - yes
• ᎥᎥᎥᎥ - (emphatic Yes!!!)
• Ꮵ - tsi
• Ᏸ - ye
• Ꮧ - di
• Ꮡ - su
• Ꮋ - mi

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New materials added. Article now presents alternative views as well as a primary view a non-existent language for which no evidence exists. Tags removed. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The materials added are original research; the view about the Sequoyah syllabary is, so far as I can tell, the personal view of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. The citations in that section do not support the synthesis presented; for instance, the mere fact that Joseph Smith traveled to Missouri at a point in his life does not mean that he borrowed anything from Cherokee tradition, especially since the Book of Mormon was published while Smith was still in New York state and had not yet visited Missouri. It's all speculation and the conclusions are not attributed to any external reliable source. I'll be bold and remove the original research, but I'd be happy to discuss this further here if someone takes issue with my changes. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I might not be the best one to take this action, given my history with Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. I am confident that the material should be removed as it's purely original synthesis, but I'd like for someone else to remove it, or else support my taking of such action, so that it doesn't come across as a personal issue instead of a good-faith effort to improve the article. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, the material I think should be removed is the entire Cherokee theory mentioned in the article lead (last three sentences of the current lead), along with the sections titled "Similarities between the Sequoyah Syllabary and the Anthon Document" and "Comparison of Anthon Document to the Sequoyah Syllabary". No point in leaving it in for further discussion unless it can be attributed to a reliable source, given the prominence and scope of the material at question. I can't see how it could be fixed without having any sort of attribution. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Preserving here, however, as I think that Merkey may be able to find a source for this. I'm genralizing based on what I've seen various publications discuss - will add source. -Visorstuff 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cut section text - no wiki...

Comparison of Anthon Document to the Sequoyah Syllabary

A large number of the characters resemble Sequoyah Syllabary Characters in the Anthon Document. Some of these characters are upside down and sideways, and do not conform to known grammar and conjugation rules for written Cherokee.

Caractors document. Note the Sequoyah Syllabary Characters which appear to be present in the document.

Sequoyah Syllabary Characters which appear in the Anthon Transcript

Sequoyah Syllabary	Sequoyah Syllable
Ꭰ	a
Ᏼ	yv
Ꮞ	se
Ꮅ	li
Ꮈ	lv
Ꮩ	lo
Ꮟ	si
Ꮝ	s
Ꭺ	go
Ꮿ	ya
Ꮽ	wu
Ᏹ	yi
Ꭲ	i
Ᏺ	yo
Ꮫ	dv
Ꮶ	tso
Ꮎ	na
ᎥᎥ	yes
ᎥᎥᎥᎥ	(emphatic Yes!!!)
Ꮵ	tsi
Ᏸ	ye
Ꮧ	di
Ꮡ	su
Ꮋ	mi

Materials cited and placed back into the article. OR and self-published sources and related materials removed. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

i've made some edits based on ancedotal comparisons, and here you go. Merkey, I've also provided a source of comparison between cherokee and hebrew that can at least point you in a direction for some sources. -Visorstuff 17:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hofmann forgery revisited

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

Language comparisons and Cherokee

Merkey, a couple of things:

I've added back in the language comparisons section, per the following: 1- you removed because a Mormon editor added it in. 2-you removed saying that the sources were pro-Mormon (an exmormon and self-proclaimed anti-Mormon Tanners were referenced) 3-it is in a section about Mormon studies, so Mormon references are appropriate. 4-It uses the word hypothesized, which to 90 percent of readers says that it is non-scholarly and non-tested. 5-self-published sources may be used if they are from an academic setting (FARMS, part of BYU) and notable researchers (the Tanners). There is no reason for that section to be removed how it is currently written.

I removed the sources because they are self-published "circular" statements. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I read through the sources you provided for the section you added back in. I'm not sure what to say. Only one source - an email shows comparison of Reformed Egyptian with the Cherokee language. I provided a source, which you removed that actually shares more about the comparison between Cherokee and Hebrew. (See J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Inscription: Cherokee or Hebrew," Tennessee Anthropologist 13/2 (1988): 79-123). The email you shared does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability standards, but we'll leave in for you. The policy states:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

In addition, email is considered a "self-published source." Self-publised sources, as you've pointed out elsewhwere, shouldn't be used as references unless they meet certain criteria - listed above.

The rest of the sources have nothing to do with Reformed Egyptian, and demonstrating that Smith was in Missouri ten years after the Book of Mormon was translated, doesn't neccessarily show that the reformed egyptian specimen was influenced by Cherokee ten years after it was created. The logic seem backwards, but perhaps I'm missing somethign in my reading of what you wrote. Could you clarify? Otherwise, what you are adding in is simply original research, as no academic has written on it - not even Mormons, who are typically quick to point out comparisons. -Visorstuff 22:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing - can you show me on this citation you provide where anything relating to Mormonism is provided? Text is your from the reference:

• Dan Moonhawks Linguistic Analysis Cherokee Syllabary and Mormon Claims http://www.enformy.com/alford.htm

Perhaps you mistyped the source? -Visorstuff 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Try reading a little harder into those sources. Also, if verifiability is an issue here, then from such a perspective, there is no Reformed Egyptian langauge. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How about if I just post the full text of the source here. Please show me where reformed egyptian or Mormonism is mentioned -Visorstuff 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC):

Regarding Benjamin Lee Whorf NEW: The Great Whorf Hypothesis Hoax: Sin, Suffering and Redemption in Academe. Chapter Seven from The Secret Life of Language, October 17, 2002 DRAFT. Nurturing a Faint Call in the Blood: A Linguist Encounters Languages of Ancient America Introduction: The Great Whorf Hypothesis Hoax: Which Whorf do you dock at? 1. Part I: Demise of the Whorf Hypothesis 2. Part II: A Hidden Cycle in the History of Linguistics 3. Is Whorf's Relativity Einstein's Relativity? 4. Reality, Mind, and Language as Field, Wave, and Particle ** 5. Linguistic Relativity Theory 6. Book Review: Peter C. Rollins, Benjamin Lee Whorf: Lost Generation Theories of Mind, Language, and Religion. 7. Manifesting Worldviews in Language ** 8. Chomsky's Rebuttal of Whorf: The Annotated Version by Moonhawk ** 9. God is not a Noun in Native America 10. God is a Verb 11. Stealing the Fire Regarding the Inside-Out Model of Language 1. The Origin of Speech in a Deep Structure of Psi 2. Language: The Ultimate System (ISSS Panel) * Preamble: Benjamin Lee Whorf * Introduction: Language as the Ultimate System * Paper: Language as the Ultimate System 3. Chin Music: An Evolutionary States of Consciousness Model of Language 4. ShamanTalk: A Medicine Way of Language 5. History of an Idea: 4-BrainMind Evolution of Language Model 6. Rationality and Science, Fouring and Verbing 7. Moonhawk’s Brainwave Processing Model of Similarities - Summary chart Quantum Linguistics 1. Quantum Anthropological Linguistics 2. Indigenous Science (letter to David Peat) 3. Patterson's Quantum Grammars are Conceptual Quantums are Linguistically Structure [sic] Complement Sets -- Reply by moonhawk 4. Bohmian Dialogues * 1992 First Bohmian Dialogue Between Western and Indigenous Scientists * 1999 Bohmian Dialogue * 2000 Bohmian Dialogue Papers by or with Matthew Bronson Email Matthew 1. Genre is a Verb: Research on Academic Writing in Critical Perspective 2. Rekindling the Flutes of Fire: Why Indigenous Languages Matter to Humanity (pdf) from ReVision Journal, Volume 25, No. 3, Fall 2002. All rights reserved. 3. Clairparlance: The Transcendental Gift of Gab 4. Harnessing the Butterflies 5. Pace and Lead: The Grammar of Rapport 6. Healing With Mind And Heart 7. Do Spirits Cause Illness? 8. Brazilian Spiritist Healers 9. When As-if Becomes As-is: The Spontaneous Initiation of a Brazilian Spiritist Medium 10. The Evolution of the Evolution of Language 11. Animacy, Respect and Salience in Surinamese Creole Grammar E-mail/List Postings of Note re: Whorf 1. Universal Word Order, [or The Great Whorf Hypothesis Hoax Revisited] 2. Sapir-Whorf and what to tell students these days 3. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Hoax on VMs List 4. Discussion of Yngve Review 5. Whither Linguistics? 6. Re: Whorf's idea re: Native American Language 1. Sequoyah -- Tell Them They Lie excerpts 2. Cherokee and Cree writing systems 3. God(ding): A Cross-Linguistic Puzzle 4. NIH and Consciousness: Commentary 5. Linguistics & Nominalising Languages - 1 6. Linguistics & Nominalising Languages - 2 7. Linguistics & Nominalising Languages - 3 8. Linguistics & Nominalising Languages - 4 9. Linguistics & Nominalising Languages - 5 10. Linguistics & Nominalising Languages - 6 11. The Turtle Island Hypothesis of the Origin of Writing re: The 4-BrainMind Model 1. EvolLang: An EvolLang/s Scenario 2. Animal Mind, Language, Culture 3. Animal Telepathy 4. AnimalMind -- alpha-level of language 5. The Languages of Animalmind 6. Language/Species extinction: What is language? 7. Lacan for and against -- a contribution from Sergio Benvenuto 8. Does "Language" equal "Human Language?" (1) 9. Does "Language" equal "Human Language?" (2) 10. Does "Language" equal "Human Language?" (3) 11. Does "Language" equal "Human Language?" (4) 12. Does "Language" equal "Human Language?" (5) re: psi, dis-easing, spacetiming, and other critical issues 1. Moonhawk's One-Minute (or more) Time/Timing Rap 2. J/Y-S-S: Jasos, the earlier Jesus 3. J*S*S -- letter to Dr. Laura 4. Voices in the Head Rap 5. Dialogue with a Chomskyan about Science 6. Dialogue with Mia Kalish - I 7. Dialogue with Mia Kalish - II 8. Dialogue with Mia Kalish - III Special (i.e., not easily categorized) 2001 Presentations by Moonhawk Ravin's of a Piute Poet Poe Links of Special Interest 1. SEED Open University, Albuquerque NM. Director: Glenn Parry. For information on yearly "Language of Spirituality" Dialogues (between linguists, quantum physicists and indigenous philosopher-scientists) and separate weekend seminars by Moonhawk.http://seedopenu.org 2. Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness, an organization which Moonhawk helped found and has served as Board Member -- and helped hold open the language perspective with Matt Bronson -- for over 20 years. http://sacaaa.org 3. Where Moonhawk teaches: (a) California Institute of Integral Studies http://www.ciis.edu/ (b) John F. Kennedy University http://www.jfku.edu/ (c) California State University, Hayward http://www.csuhayward.edu/

Also, I don't follow in-line comments well, can you respond at the end of posts rather than in the middle of them? Thanks in advance. -Visorstuff 22:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliability tag

I added the relevant tag for the following reasons:

• It is known that at least one group of Native Americans, the Ani-kutani, who settled in Missouri were known to have posessed an advanced writing system, and historical accounts indicate Joseph Smith may have visited this group during his travels in Missouri[34] a few years after the Book of Mormon was published.

Okay. Too late for reformed egyptian. No point in including as they two are not tied

• Ancient Cherokee oral tradition recounts that this group held much sacred knowledge and were hated and feared because of their great powers and knowledge. Ancient oral traditions concerning this group indicate they were killed or went into hiding due to their eventual misuse of this power and sacred knowledge.[35]

Has nothing to do with reformed egyptian

• It remains uncertain as to whether Joseph Smith's Mormon Cosmology and claims of a Reformed Egyptian Language were based upon oral history and Indian legends that he may have been exposed to at the time the Book of Mormon was being written.

What is Mormon cosmology? Mormon view on space? Hmm. Sounds like it fits in a different article about Smith, or Mormon_teachings_about_extraterrestrial_life But then again, it could stay. It is also uncertain if he ate banannas or oranges, but fairly certain he ate apples. They since he may have been exposed to bananna peels at the time the book of mormon was written, he probably didn't include monkeys. To me the It is uncertain is a weasel phrase and the whole sentence is conjecture. It would be objected to and overturned in a courtroom for sure.

• There was widespread publicity about controversies of his day involving Native American Tribes during the time period the Book of Mormon was written, including widely circulated newspaper accounts at least one tribe had in use a written language.

I completely agree with this sentence. But again, what is the relevance on reformed egyptian?

• A large number of the characters resemble Sequoyah Syllabary Characters in the Anthon Document.

Good sentence.

• Some of these characters are upside down and sideways, and do not conform to known grammar and conjugation rules for written Cherokee.

True. Because it's not cherokee. Other similarities have been shown by well-known researchers.

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

AFD

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

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

Also, due to master forger Mark Hofman's forgery of an Anthon transcript, the notability of the topic seems good. -Visorstuff 22:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a more descriptive name is in order. As it stands , the current title seems to imply this is an actual language, when in fact there is no evidence it existed. The only concrete evidence indicates the Anthon document is possible cultural theft from the Cherokee Language. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would be interested to learn more about this orthography, as well. I have read a biography of Sequoyah, and while it talked about the process he went through to create his syllabary, he made absolutely no mention of the existence of a pre-seqoyah Cherokee writing system—in fact, it seems that Sequoyah himself was completely unaware of such a writing system. The Jade Knight 00:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Massive Revert

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

Sorry about wiping out the redirect, but I will be here regularly reverting. Please work out the issues on the talk page, not the article.--John Foxe 00:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree with you, but we are dealing with someone who has been blocked numerous times and even banned for the better part of a year or so. He just got un-banned in late April, got re-blocked twice a few weeks ago.

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

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

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

I appreciate your understanding until this is all worked out with merkey and fixed.

Oh - and you shouldn't delete an active AfD request. An admin should do that. -Visorstuff 00:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

That's doesn't sound good or in complaince with the projects goals. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I care only only for justice and truth.--John Foxe 01:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you may not belong here since Wikipedia is about verifiability to conformance. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

“I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do.” Edward Everett Hale--John Foxe 01:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Back to the issues Merkey

I asked earlier if Merkey could point me in the sources you provided to somewhere where Mormonism and Cherokee are compared, the than the email string. Can you and I start there? Can you show me the exact quote(s) as I can't seem to find them. How about we start there and then go point by point with the issues we have with the article. -Visorstuff 00:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

They are in the article. Go read them again. Stop removing cited materials. STOP STOP STOP. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't removed your cited materials. We'll go through each one by one, and i'm willing to allow the email one, if we can find two more sources on the topic. I've looked over the source you provided at http://www.enformy.com/alford.htm. I cannot find "mormon" mentioned anywhere. Let's start there. Where does this citation discuss the Anthon Transcript, or Reformed Egyptian, or a comparison of either to Cherokee? Is there a sub page from this source that does? Can you help me, I just can't see it. Please provide the quote. -Visorstuff 01:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There are three quotes. Go and read all of them. I am not going to debate with you. My NPOV as an editor allows me to post comparisons. I do not have to defend it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not understanding what I am asking for. I have read them, nor am I debating. I agree that you should post comparisons.

However, I cannot see any mention of Reformed Egyptian, the Anthon Transcript, or Mormon at http://www.enformy.com/alford.htm, as you claim. Can you please just put the quote from that source about any of those topics here in the discussion page. I'm sure it is there, as you say it is, I just cannot find it. I'm asking you to share it. Share what it says about it, and I'll move on. -Visorstuff 01:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

References 36, 37,38, and 39. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, I know which sources you added. However, within those sources, I can't find the terms mentioned.

For example, reference 37 states: "Dan Moonhawks Linguistic Analysis Cherokee Syllabary and Mormon Claims http://www.enformy.com/alford.htm" Upon going to the page, there is no "Mormon," "Anthon Transcript" or "Reformed Egyptian" listed. How is this then an Analysis of "Cherokee Syllabary and Mormon Claims?" Where does the link within citation 37 discuss Mormonism? -Visorstuff 01:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Anthon Transcript [was: A similar problem perhaps]

    * To: Woody Brison <wwbrison@xxxxxxx>
    * Subject: Re: The Anthon Transcript [was: A similar problem perhaps]
    * From: Dan Moonhawk Alford <dalford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    * Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
    * Cc: voynich@xxxxxxxx
    * Delivered-to: reeds@research.att.com
    * In-reply-to: <3944EA62.6D87D35@lds.net>
    * Sender: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'm glad this was repeated to the list. As a part-Cherokee, I feel you're
on the right path re: the Cherokee Syllabary and the Anthon Transcript
(didn't know that was the keyword for it) of Joseph Smith.

See my webpage for some of this. Briefly, the original written language
was brought on golden tablets from a tribe that joined the
Tsalagi/Cherokee "from the north" long ago; before Sequoyah, only those of
the heritage of the people from the north were allowed to become literate
in it, but Sequoyah, being the last living member of the Scribe Clan, the
others having been massacred by the invaders, opened up literacy to the
Tsalagi-proper. Joseph Smith was snoopin' around the Tsalagi for a while,
and then he disappeared -- coincidentally, so did the golden tablets;
coincidentally, he founded a new religion on some gold tablets with some
kind of writing on them which was hard to decipher; coincidentally, some
say that the writing describes a primal history of the Americas -- which
I'm sure must have been the academic specialty of the Angel Moroni! ;-)

I got most or all of the above from Traveling Bird's *Tell Them That They
Lie,* which I found in my CSU Hayward library in the Cherokee section,
written by descendants of Sequoyah, who insist he 'created' nothing, just
passed along ancient writing to the Tsalagi "masses" before it was too
late; all the rest was self-serving missionary and linguistics puffery,
according to them.

warm regards, moonhawk

dalford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.sunflower.com/~dewatson/alford.htm

"I don't need a compass to tell me which way the wind shines!" 
                                                   -- Roy, Mystery Men



On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Woody Brison wrote:

> Hmmm, why is this so difficult?  Maybe if I learn to check 
> the outgoing address on my posts... here's another repeat 
> this time to the list
> 
> =============
> 
> This is great, to actually get some feedback...
> 
> I have 'debated' Mormonism with a lot of hostile people, so 
> over the years I've developed a mindset about it that allows 
> me to evaluate their criticisms objectively without being 
> offended by their personal stances.  Your comments are very 
> interesting and welcome.
> 
> And you are right, we don't know if the Anthon Transcript 
> was made by Joseph Smith from the plates, or by some clever 
> forger trying to discredit him, or some lunatic, or what, 
> so even if I was defensive about the religion that wouldn't 
> be legit here -- we don't know whether this is connected to 
> the religion or not (and we may never know!)  Scientific 
> detachment is called for.  You have no idea the fun we have
> as Mormons trying to investigate our 'roots'; all sorts of 
> nuts inject all sorts of pressures into any attempt to 
> discuss anything on publicly accessible forums. 
> 
> Thanks for the pointer about Sequoia, I had forgotten that;
> very appropo.  I will check.  My research needs a lot more 
> familiarity with old alphabets.
> 
> Your comments on the fact that the characters get smaller 
> as the lines go along are well appreciated.  I had noticed 
> that but don't know what to think of it.  It's telling us 
> something, but what?  That doesn't occur in the VMS, right?
> I had a math professor in college that wrote on the 
> blackboard like that. He would start big at the left and get 
> smaller and smaller, but at the right he would run out of room 
> in spite of his best efforts, and then he would turn the line 
> of writing downward at the end, toward the lower right corner. 
> I don't know too much about psychology, but he seemed a little
> self-conscious in front of his classroom full of students; I 
> thought that had something to do with it.  He was also very 
> excited about his topic, almost oblivious to his class, the 
> size of the blackboard, and everything else -- the spacing 
> was just a very subordinate, half-noticed detail.
> 
> What about a model that supposes there were lines of text 
> on the plates of a certain length, and Joseph Smith was 
> trying to copy them onto the paper without breaking the 
> line?  He was not highly educated, he was a farm boy, it 
> would be a problem to him like hoeing a row of corn or 
> something like that.  He'd start with a letter size about 
> 'yea big' and see how it went, as he got a ways down the row 
> he'd see he wasn't going to make it and start reducing the 
> letter size.
> 
> To check this idea we ought to measure the letter sizes 
> and their spacing along the lines.  I will do that.  Good 
> idea, thanks!  We should see the size getting smaller as 
> we go downward, too, ie. the starting characters at the 
> left of each line should decrease in size as we go down -- 
> the writer should be getting smarter with each line.
> 
> Looking at the picture more closely, 
> (http://web.lds.net/pages/wwbrison/freq_ct.htm)  I think 
> this whole idea isn't right.  The first four lines don't 
> show much variation in size of characters.  The first line 
> does show some initial 'oversize' characters but 'corrects' 
> this after 5 or 6 symbols; the rest of lines 1 thru 4 are 
> of uniform size.  The last three lines look like a separate 
> sitting, like someone wrote the first four, then after a 
> day or week came back and decided to add three more lines. 
> They are uniform size, all smaller.  Only a little variance 
> here and there, most noticeable at the beginning of line 
> 6.  I will have to do the measurements.  I wonder if there 
> were two different copyists? 
> 
> Gee, this is great!  I didn't expect to get this much help 
> on the first try.
> 
> Joseph Smith was not crazy, but he did some crazy-looking 
> things.  Travelled around quite a bit at great discomfort 
> to promulgate his new religion, came into opposition with 
> neighbors to the extent of having to move away several times,
> built two large buildings at great expense at a time when 
> his followers were penniless, settled them in a malaria 
> swamp and by dint of mind-boggling effort turned it into 
> a healthy place and a good sized city (Nauvoo), and so on.
> Endured being arrested and sued something like 40 times,
> never convicted.  If we assume he was crazy we could find 
> many points of correspondence with that model.  But if we 
> assume that he really had contact with God, then it all 
> makes good sense according to that model too; better, I 
> think...
> 
> I will try not to tangent like that too much here, this list 
> is for discussing the VMS...  I wonder if there is anything 
> from the Mormon mindset that could help decypher it?  A fair 
> number of professors at BYU have been puzzling over a couple 
> of ancient documents that Joseph Smith translated, and Mormons 
> typically are very good with languages.  Mormon boys go on 
> proselyting missions at age 19 for 2 years, and about half go 
> to foreign missions and learn some new language if not several. 
> Walk around Salt Lake City and take a straw poll, ask people 
> what languages they know, and you'd be astonished at the 
> results, if you didn't know about the missions thing but were 
> familiar with Americans generally... 
> 
> OK, that's enough out of me.  I will try to relate this to the 
> VMS in future, to try to sort of 'pay' for the help I'm getting 
> with my project.
> 
> Woody
> 
> 
> Brian Eric Farnell wrote:
> > 
> > Hey, those little characters that look like a computer mouse
> > remind me of something I learned in Cub Scouts, maybe a Native
> > American sign or something.  You might want to check the symbols
> > against Native American alphabets, some had no written language
> ...
> 

Still having trouble reading it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you really not understanding what I am asking? I'm actually starting to question your language abilities or your mental ability to edit Wikipedia.

What you pasted above is not any of the text at http://www.enformy.com/alford.htm (citation 37). I am interested only in citation 37 at this point. What you provided was from citation 36.

Let's do this step by step. Go back to citation 37. Where does the link take us? hint: click on the following link: http://www.enformy.com/alford.htm. Then look over the page. Please tell me where on that page "Mormon," "Anthon Transcript" or "Reformed Egyptian" listed, or where there is an analysis of Cherokee Syllabary and Mormon Claims." Highlight it. Copy it. Paste it back here. -Visorstuff 01:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)