Talk:Miꞌkmaw hieroglyphs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Controversy

Sorry, Codex Sinaiticus, but can you imagine what the hieroglyphics article would look like if we included every wacko idea about Atlantis and extraterrestrials? Unless there is scholarly consideration, or unless such ideas have entered the popular imagination, these would only deserve mention in the most detailed article. Your phrase "The controversy grew even deeper when" is also not NPOV, because there is no controversy, any more than there is controversy among Egyptologists about Atlantis. This article is much too bare-boned to include mention of Barry Fell. kwami 21:44, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

• Okay, sinced you have blanked it out a second time, here is the sentence that gave offense:

The controversy grew even deeper when Barry Fell, himself a highly controversial figure, claimed in one of his books that Mi'kmaq hieroglyphs were intrinsically only minor alterations of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Now since you won't let that sentence appear in the article, this is the correct place to debate the merits of it. Many of the articles I work on DO include what many consider fringe ideas, that I don't necessarily agree with either, but we don't suppress them, we just have to find ways to couch them in NPOV terms. That's what wikipedia is about, letting everyone have a voice. If there is a book written about UFO's or Atlantis (neither of which I believe in) that connects with Mi'kmaw hieroglyphs in some way, and some one wants to quote it in the article, I say, let 'em, so long as it's written NPOV. But if they have their own crackpot theory that they came up with themself, we have a method of keeping that out of wikipedia, called "No Original Research". In this case, there IS a book, I can't remember offhand if it was America B.C. or a later book, but if you want to debate whether or not there is "evidence", I can try to find it in a library and post some of the charts in here that show the Mi'kmaq hieroglyphs side by side with their Egyptian equivalents (Fell devotes at least an entire chapter to this topic). Now I ask, why is Egyptian seafaring capability seen as more far-fetched than genuine nonsense like "extra-terrestrials" or "lost continents"? See you later, Codex Sinaiticus 22:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not inherently far-fetched. But the number of such proposals, with no evidence except for the author's imagination, is mind boggling. Should we reproduce claims that the Ewe are the lost tribe of Israel, and that the Ewe language is inscribed in hieroglyphics in the pyramids? Ewe nationalists has claimed (and published) that, but no Egyptologist has ever given it the time of day. How many hundreds of "lost tribe of Israel" articles should we have?

Anyone can publish a book. I've published things that I wouldn't dare put in Wikipedia, because the scholarly community hasn't responded sufficiently for it to warrant mention. Unless the book itself has entered popular mythology, or is the source of controversy among the scholarly community (indicating that it may have some merit), we shouldn't bother with it. Certainly not when the body of the article is only a paragraph. (If we had a full page, it might be appropriate to make a minor mention of Fell.) If we include such things, we should explicitly say that specialists in the field dismiss the idea as nonsense. Print is a powerful tool: people assume things are true when they see them in an encyclopedia. If there is no reason to believe something is true, then we should either ignore it, or include such a warning. As far as reproducing his charts, pictographic writing can have lots of superficial similarities, because they involve pictures. That isn't evidence that they're related, other than being products of the human mind. A respectable Egyptologist, however, who believes that the Mi'gmaq script demonstrates Egyptian seafaring (perhaps after reading Fell), now that would be a different story. Then we could discuss how his colleagues have received the idea. kwami 00:06, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

Well, I must say, that's a pretty high handed dismissal... It must be nice, being specially appointed to decide whose ideas are worthwhile, and whose need to be kept from the eyes of the public... Congrats.

By the way, have you actually seen Fell's chart showing the Mi'kmaq and Egyptian glyphs? From what you said above, I take it that even if you saw them, and even if they were demonstrably identical, you still wouldn't believe it until your peers told you it was "ok" to believe it. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 03:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You have to be arrogant to have standards. I'd hope you're the same, that you think highly enough of yourself to enforce some level of acceptability in the articles you edit. I have no objection to writing about Fell's ideas. However, they don't belong in a stub like this. If you want to add a paragraph or three about this idea in the Fell article, add illustrations, and link to it from here ("for another/nontraditional/etc. interpretion see" or some such), by all means do so. Or, if you wish to expand this article to the level of detail that would warrant such tidbits, that would be even better. You say this isn't genuine nonsense, like UFOs, but for people who believe in UFOs, they aren't nonsense either. There are plenty of Egyptologists that would be ecstatic if they were to find genuine hieroglyphs in America. Sure, many of their colleagues would think they're nuts, but there'd be some controversy. There is no controversy with this. Nobody's picked up on it. Without something more, there's no reason to think this is anything more than one of the thousands of sensationalist claims out there. About your suggestion, that I take a look at the glyphs and appoint myself to decide whether the entire field of Egyptology is right or wrong, now that would be high handed! kwami 01:45, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

• Well y'see, that's just it... You insist "Nobody's picked up on it"... But the truth be told, PLENTY have picked up on it... The only thing is, no sooner do they take Fell seriously, than, to folks like you, suddenly they mysteriously "don't count"... Thus enabling you to continue proclaiming in a quite informed-sounding way, that "Nobody" has picked up on it. (The reason "nobody" has picked up on it is because all the people who have picked up on it, suddenly "don't count" any more..) Come on, that's called a cover up. You don't even want anyone to see these claims and judge for themselves; if they think about them at all, they're supposed to just take your informed opinion as gospel that the claims are without merit. What are you afraid of?

We know you want everyone to think all the "primitives" come from coldest Siberia, and moved from there either east or west, because that path keeps them conveniently out of the way of all the civilised big boys who really make history, and who know the best way to "deal" with those "primitive" folk, right? They were obviously too primitive to make boats, so they could only have walked, right? That's the same lie that self-proclaimed "authorities" have been pushing since the 1800's, not even suffering anyone to even suggest different, and it makes me sick, because I KNOW better... YES it is arrogant, you nailed it on the head with that one... How many people do you want me to name who agree with Fell, I already know what you're going to say about each one of them: "They don't count, because in order to count, they have to agree that the Indians were too dumb to get here any way but walk..." See ya, MICMAC NATION LIVES STRONG Codex Sinaiticus 02:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I always thought it was the opposite: that people had said the Maya (or Olmecs) couldn't have invented writing, because they were just dumb Indians, therefore it must have been the Egyptians. Now you're saying the same thing about the Micmac. That the Maya couldn't have come up with their sophisticated calendars and astronomy on their own, therefore it must have been someone from Eurasia, like the Phoenicians or the Chinese.

How is it an insult to say that the Micmac came up with their script on their own? Any more than it's an insult to say the Maya created their own civilization?

(As for the boats, I was under the impression that people had thought it was impossible to survive while traveling along thousands of km of glacial ice sheets in the small boats people had 15+ thousand years ago. But maybe you're right.)

Incredible that you're able to conclude I'm a racist without knowing anything about me, or what I believe in. Given that you seem reluctant to attribute any intellectual achievement to the Micmac, I might think the same about you.

I'm not saying we should "hide" this stuff from people, only that when you only have an eighth of a page on a subject, it's misleading to include unsubstantiated claims. Make a link to the Fell article instead; that's how it would be done in other articles. But give me a peer-reviewed journal that discusses the Micmac-Egyptian connection, and I'll be happy to relent. Write a decent-sized article about this writing system, and I'll be happy to relent. Otherwise, this belongs with all the other claims of the Egyptians or Chinese civilizing America, based on the assumption that the Americans couldn't have done it themselves. kwami 04:56, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

P.S. If you feel I'm being unfair, we can always have someone who's respected for dealing with Wikipedia standards arbitrate.

• I didn't envision people coming in boats over "glacial ice sheets". But there are massive amounts of evidence that not ALL of the Native peoples came by foot either, if any did. The whole myth about walking over the ice bridge is just that, a 19th century myth. Maybe a very few of Native ancestors came that way, like the Navajo tribe. But there are massive amounts of evidence that more came over the Atlantic than over the Pacific.

I should have said "along the edges of ice sheets". The land-bridge hypothesis took hold in the 1950s, as the timing seemed right to explain Clovis, but there has always been a significant minority who have held that migration by boat was a good possibility. Recently, this has come to be seen as more and more plausible by mainstream anthropology.

As for coming over the Atlantic, recent genetic assays have suggested that a significant portion of pre-colonial Algonquian ancestry is European or western Siberian, suggesting just that. However, for most of the continent, the genetics is pretty clear that the main population came from Asia.

• There are also massive amounts of authors who have acknowledged that this evidence exists. The problem is, any author who does so is immediately ostracized and excommunicated and labeled a "crackpot" by the self-appointed "authorities" in much the same manner as you are doing now. The only way to find acceptance with these "authorities" is to turn a blind eye to all the vast numbers of epigraphic inscriptions found everywhere in the New World from Labrador to Tierra Del Fuego, and buy into the utterly unprovenanced hypothesis that ALL Indians must have walked over a land bridge from Siberia because they were incapable of making boats, let alone using any writing systems. It's a continuation of the suppression of Indian languages and writing systems that has been going on since the year 1500; you can rest assured that the Spanish, English etc. utterly destroyed whatever evidence they could of writing, so they could tell the story back home that these were illiterate, ignorant savages whose dwellings were "in the way" of their future Empires. This is just the modern form of the same suppression.

It's been ages since anyone has claimed that the Indians were illiterate in 1500, although many of them were, just as many Europeans were. I think you'll find that most serious literature is free from racism this egregious, although I wouldn't claim it isn't racist at all. But how is saying the Indians got writing from Egypt any different than saying they got it from Europeans? How is that any less racist?

If someone who knew the scripts in question, and had a reputable name in the field, were to say that the Micmac script is Egyptian, yes, he might be called a crackpot, but there would be some real controversy about it. Show me this controversy if you want to convince anyone of what you say. But to be blunt, you sound paranoid, and conspiracy theories do not belong in an encyclopedia (except in articles about conspiracy theories, of course).

We're just going round and round in circles. You sit there and smugly insist there "isn't any controversy" because noone "reputable" has signed on. At the same time, anyone who signs on is automatically not "reputable" - enabling you to smugly claim that there "isn't any controversy". What about Fell himself? He's probably done more of the actual leg work than anyone else. Oh yeah, that's right - he isn't "reputable", therefore there is no controversy. What about Boland? He wrote a book on N. American epigraphy 15 years before Fell, called "They all discovered America". Oh, yeah - he isn't "reputable", because he thinks there are Old World inscriptions in America - therefore, there "isn't any controversy". What about Gloria Farley? [1] Oh yeah, she doesn't count either, for the same reason. Still no controversy, eh. How about Professor Cyclone Covey, he's on the faculty the History Dept at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. Oh, silly me - he's not "reputable", you see, because he writes "Micmac-Algonquin writing was Egyptian hieratic" - making it easy to dismiss him as another "crackpot". Kwami, believe me when I say I've touched only the tip of the iceberg here! But scoffers like you make a point of shrugging all this controversy aside and saying "There is no controversy", therefore; and this non-controversy needs to be kept "out of sight" of readers as much as possible, because after all, "the cattle don't need to know where they are being driven", right??? But isn't saying "there is no controversy" something like an ostrich burying her head in the sand? If you truly aren't afraid to look at the evidence, and think you know about hieroglyphics, take a look at these four, just for starters. Like I said, this is only the tip of the iceberg! Codex Sinaiticus 01:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Whenever these inscriptions in Old World languages are found in North America, the usual response of the self-proclaimed "authorities" is to declare they must be "forgeries" and not even worthy of consideration, because everyone knows, the only way into this continent was by walking over the frozen ice bridge. If that's the case, I ask, why were so many of the "forgeries" found all written in the same language? (ie, Canaanite)... ? Did the same person go around this continent everywhere from Labrador to Tierra Del Fuego leaving forgeries in Canaanite? Why would they do that? But no, they imply that someone crossed the Atlantic in BC times, and so therefore they must be forgeries, and anyone who says otherwise -- or even talks about them existing -- is automatically an outcast.

But there are tons of demonstrable forgeries, and not just in America. Also, even when the inscriptions are real, there are all sorts of fanciful interpretations that aren't supported by the evidence. We need some way to separate the hoaxes and fancy from the rest. Crying 'conspiracy!' or 'racism!' isn't going to do it.

• I'm not afraid of being an outcast. The truth is out there for anyone who cares to find it. Don't believe the kindergarten books that say Indians were illiterates, who could only come to the New World on foot. Nemultis, Codex Sinaiticus 22:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The Indians were here long before there were any Canaanites, long before there were Egyptians. Shoot, the Chumash were in Santa Barbara before the Egyptians developed hieroglyphs! So you are saying that the Indians came over here illiterate, because you're claiming they were given writing thousands of years later by the Egyptians. Most anthropologists believe that they invented writing on their own, without any outside tutoring.

Put your money where your mouth is. If you want to make a controversial claim, show us the evidence. So far you've provided nothing. Unless you actually do something other than say that everyone's against you, no one will take you seriously. kwami 23:16, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

Well, now you've given me something to work with. But Cyclone Covey is talking about Solutrean connections from long before there was an Egypt, or any writing anywhere in the world. There's no "cover up" here: even if not everyone accepts it, or is unsure as to what it means, this is a big enough controversy that there are TV documentaries about it, archeological and anthropological magazine articles about it, and people with academic careers at stake are willing to sign up to it. It's also obvious from paleo-Indian skeletons that there's been a good deal of mixing of physically distinct populations, though we're not yet able to say where they all came from. So, if your argument were that there were ancient Americans who had come from Europe, this would indeed be a point of view that we should include. (I assume it's already covered in Wikipedia.) However, nowhere does he talk about Egyptian writing in the New World, which is the question here. (And nowhere does he say the Americas were not settled from Asia - just the opposite, in fact.)

Also took a look at the Gloria Farley stuff, and personally I don't find it very convincing. Maybe if I knew more about the subject I would, but I know how easy it is to decipher something, only to have someone else come along and decipher it just as convincingly - but as something else entirely. Of course, all this could be true, but I can't draw any conclusions from it. One thing I do notice, however, is that she relies on hand drawings rather than photographs. It's much easier to see what you want when you can draw it that way, even if there's no conscious intent.

So, as far as all the things you're saying about America being populated from various places, yes, that's quite probable, though it's not the question here. Cyclone Covey's rather incoherent site is hardly convincing, but there is plenty of much better evidence out there. If you can show me evidence for Egyptian connections that are as good as the Solutrean connections, great. But, as Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far I've only seen quite underordinary evidence. kwami 02:57, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

Major Edit

I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes too hard. I read your debate and the article, checked some professional sources (such as book reviews of Fell's book, reviews of Schmidt and Murphy's book, and articles on Mi'kmaq culture) and concluded that there is no evidence for or against prehistoric use of Mi'kmaq mnemonic glyphs, and that the contention among researchers on the subject is NOT whether it could serve as a prehistoric writing system, but whether it was ever a writing system at all (even after LeClerq's adaptation). The Smithsonian Institution's biting critique of Fell's Egyptian/Mi'kmaq hieroglyph analogy was particularly good reading, although I was surprised they chose to publish in Biblical archaeology. I added the reference for both of your interest. TriNotch 02:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I see my additions earned the article a "disputed" disclaimer. Don't you feel like discussing first? I've never even read this article before; its not as though we've been fighting about it. TriNotch 07:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A dispute doesn't end because one side arbitrarily, unilaterally, and without even so much as an ultimatum, decides that the other side hasn't responded in a timely enough fashion. You really ought to know better than that.

A dispute only ends when ALL concerned parties are satisfied with the neutrality of the language presented, and a compromise wording has been reached, however long it takes. The present wording of the article is unacceptable, nothing has changed for the better, it remains unacceptable, and may even have to go through a RFD. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding- I believed that my edits were really a completely new rewrite of the article, and that I was not involved in the previous dispute (between Codex Sinaiticus and Kwami) at all. I didn't realize there was a "dispute" between us, and I didn't know that I had a "side" since I've never discussed the subject before. So, since no one discussed the article with me, even after many days of my request for further discussion, it wasn't clear to me what parts of the NEW article are disputed. I removed the NPOV sticker, since it is not at all clear to me what is arguable about the present version. I am still happy to discuss the article, particularly since I would like to have the NPOV sticker removed. Will you please tell me what you find objectionable, and provide some useful references so that I can check up on it? Otherwise, I haven't any idea how to create a "compromise wording." TriNotch 07:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I have read the page history and deduced that the argument is whether a sentence on Barry Fell's idea should be included. I am inclined to say that a brief mention of Fell's idea IS reasonable- After all, the Smithsonian felt it was important enough to respond to. Why not a short link to his bio article? I don't think it hurts the strength of the article to say "Biologist Barry Fell argued that Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing was both pre-Columbian and Egyptian in origin, but his theory has not been popular in academic circles (Goddard and Fitzhugh)." Actually, if Kwami does not oppose, I think I'll go put it in right now. TriNotch 08:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing System

As I said above (on May 11th), the scholarly debate is NOT whether the original Mi'kmaq hieroglyphs were a writing system. The debate is whether LeClerq's adaptation was a writing system. Goddard and Fitzhugh say LeClerq's adaptation was not a writing system. Schmidt and Marshall say it was. No one except Barry Fell- a recognized scholar, but not in this subject- says that the ORIGINAL Mi'kmaq hieroglyphs were a writing system. We don't have enough data to make a supported argument that they were. The only data available suggests that they were mnemonic devices. I hope you will discuss this with me. If you have scholarly sources, or Mi'kmaq sources, that DO debate whether the original, pre-LeClerq Mi'kmaq hieroglyphs were a true writing system, please share them with me. I will happily admit my mistake; I am not an expert on the Mi'kmaq. However, if there is no discussion, or if you do not provide some sources for this, I would prefer to change it back to my previous edit, stating that it appears they were mnemonics. TriNotch 18:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you have to do this? It's just not true that Barry Fell is the only person who thinks Mikmaq hieroglyphs are a writing system. The Mikmaq people certainly think they are a writing system too regardless of whatever Fell thinks. You have a lot more research to do on the subject before you go ssaying things that aren't true. The relevant books are all found in the P.A.N.S. As for your statement "The only data available suggests that they were mnemonic devices." The only data available you are talking about is what? They were always used for writing and communicating, some condescending scholar with barely disguised scorn for the fact that natives had a writing system comes along writing an article that snootily declares that it can't be called a writing system, because, well, because it simply must be called something else that sounds less intelligent, how about a mnemnonic device... And then uninformed people rush in and wave that article all around everywhere proclaiming "See? We have a source! It says this is NOT a writing system! Everyone who says it is is therefore wrong!

If it's not a writing system, neither is Chinese. And if you are gullible enough to think a French priest would "invent" something like this, you are wrong. All he did is take the old symbols and put them on paper and book instead of birchbark. He may possibly have modified a couple of them slightly but nobody has been able to explain exactly how he allegedly transformed them from a "mnemnonic device" suddenly up to the level of a "writing system", magically because he was white. This is pure scholarly condescension at its worst. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are reacting like this. As I said, I am not a Mi'kmaq expert, and if you'd like to provide the sources I will happily admit my mistake. I have looked at a number of sources and identified a major scholarly controversy, which is the argument over whether LeClerq's adapted script qualified as a writing system. If there is additional controversy, I would honestly like to know about it. Please add the references you are using, as I asked above (on June 3rd)- particularly the Mi'kmaq ones- so that we can have a good encyclopedia article. TriNotch 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The best written sources I have ever seen on this were in the Public Archives of Nova Scotia, unfortunately I am many 100s of miles from there at present... It gets my goat because LeClerq did absolutely nothing but transcribe the symbols onto paper that had always been used, and this is well known. If you really research it, you can find monographs explaining how the printing press version looked quite different from what he put in his notebook. He certainly did not "invent" these symbols; note that whenever other priests attempted to represent native speech, they almost always used an adaptation of the Latin alphabet. But, amazingly, LeClercq wins 100% of the credit for coming up with this writing in all of the pompous, scholarly journals -- because of that well known scientific principle, that Natives are fundamentally incapable of inventing anything at all without some kind of help. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert in any way, but I can say this. The Anishinaabeg, in their Midewiwin rites, do have a ideograph-based writing system, which very few people these days are able to read. Writings by the Anishinaabeg on these Birch bark scrolls do strongly resemble the writing system used by not only the Mi'kmaq, but also the Abnaki and Lenni Lenape peoples. If the Anishinaabe migration story is to be taken seriously, it further states the Anishinaabe peoples came from the shore-lands, parting away from the the Wabanaki peoples, which the Mi'kmaq and Abnaki are part of, and addresses the Lenni Lenape peoples "Grandfather." CJLippert 22:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look at some of the materials in the Public Archives of Nova Scotia, which is now known as the Nova Scotia Archives and Records Management. They have a portion of their material online here: [2]. I have concluded that this source provides no evidence of pre-contact writing. Nor can I find a Mi'kmaq source that claims the existence of pre-contact Mi'kmaq writing. I suspect you will not take this well, but unless you can provide some additional evidence, it sounds like we have a problem with Wikipedia:No original research. At the least, you need citations that indicate that a debate exists- I haven't seen any evidence that there IS a debate, except for the one on this web page. In the absence of evidence, I will edit the article once again to state that the original Mi'kmaq symbols were mnemonic devices. TriNotch 05:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean you looked at a website, or you actually went to Halifax on University and Edwards Street and looked at the material there? Since you didn't find anything, I assume when you say "you've taken a look" you are talking about web-surfing. Because if you'd actually been there you would have found quite a bit of material. Also try contacting some Mi'kmaw organizations. You and others are trying to pontificate about something YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT, and it's making you sound rather smarmy in your condescension to insist that it wasn't dignified with the name of "writing" until a white man had his hands on it. FOr god's sake there is NO DIFFERENCE in the symbols before or after that white man had his hands on it. So why is it "writing" only after a white man touches it, but it can't be called "writing" before that??? Why the pseudo-scholarly condescension? It really makes me SICK. I am going to fight this b.s. for as long as I am around, I PROMISE YOU.

MIKMAQ NATION LIVES STRONG

I have been consistently polite to you. I wish you would return the favor. I looked at the website, as you say. Tracking down original sources in the Archives is original research, and Wikipedia is not the place for original research, as described in Wikipedia:No original research. Contacting Mi'kmaq organizations is also original research. We, as Wikipedia editors, cite sources to make an encyclopedia article. Ideally, we are neutral- specifically, we don't advance an agenda, and we particularly don't advance an agenda unless we have the resources to support our argument. The burden of providing citations rests upon your shoulders. You still have not done so. I intend to revert your edits again, but I will wait for your response. I am once again assuming, in accordance with Wikipedia:Assume good faith, that you intend, eventually, to provide your sources- despite the fact that you have not done so even after my repeated requests for clarification and citation. With that said, you may want to look at Writing system in order to clarify your thoughts, so that you can provide a defense of your position. It strikes me that it is POSSIBLE that our disagreement is a semantic argument revolving around the definition of "writing," rather than a substantive argument as to what LeClerq's role was. I hope you will respond cordially. TriNotch 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, who are you to put a burden on my shoulders?? I reject your pretended authority to assign me any burden. Secondly, the entire nature of the debate among the scholars is whether or not Mikmaq writing qualified as "writing" before a European saw it. Some in academia have patronizingly asserted that it could not have been "writing" until a European saw it, and therefore must be called something else. To date, they have not explained how the symbols were radically transformed by the Europeans to grace them with the honour of "writing system" when they previous were not. They would not have to make such a silly assertion if this were not the nature of the debate. You have revealed yourself to be fully in their patronizing camp. Rest assured, not everyone agrees with them, but you are refusing to do the research, and instead throwing the "burden" of research onto me for pointing out where you are mistaken. Looking up actual sources would not be "original research" either, it would be supported with references. You seem determined to push the view of a minority of scholars that since Mikmaks were incapable of having a writing system because they were savages, ergo their writing system was not really a writing system until the day a Frenchman wrote prayers in it. You would not have to look far to find a Mikmaq who disagrees if you would bother looking. As determined as you are, I am much more determined to resist this insulting, colonialistic pack of imperialist lies as if it were the devil itself. I promise I will revert all of your reverts as often as legally allowed, for years if necessary, until you go away and stop pretending to be an authority on anything to do with the Mikmaq. So you might want to find something else to do. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have not chosen to assume my good faith. The burden is on your shoulders because Wikipedia articles are supposed to have citations. There is a very easy way to stop me from arguing with you. Provide a citation- and edit it into the article in the references cited section- that shows that there is a scholarly debate over whether the Mi'kmaq writing system operated as a writing system before any Europeans were involved. That is all I want. TriNotch 16:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative origin theory"

Is it a "theory" in terms of being backed up by any actual fact? Fell practised kookery... I think the subhead title here (indeed any mention of Fell) is more neutral than warranted. Because no one (incliuding the Mi’kmaqs) respects his theory as credible. Evertype 20:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Including the Mi`kmaqs"? How can you possibly speak for all Mi'kmaw? Some Mi'kmaq may believe their ancestors walked here from Siberia, others may not... There's no such thing as "too neutral" as a pretext for p.o.v. language... The actual facts comparing the hieroglyphs have been already linked to on this page... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Who said he was speaking for anyone? But you are welcome to show evidence of Mi’kmaq publications supporting the theory. I'm saying that the "alternative origin" isn't credible, and that Fell's work is "overwhelmingly dismissed" by the academic community, and the rubric "alternative origin theory" suggests otherwise. It is not "neutral", it is apologetic. And where are the "actual facts" you refer to? And if they are facts, then isn't this "alternative origin theory" (which appears to be assertion, not theory) quite the opposite? Evertype 07:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is grossly unfair to make a demand like "show evidence of Mi'kmaw publications supporting the theory". Such publications aren't exactly easy to come by, as I'm sure you know. Many Mi'kmaq have not written books to share all their beliefs and oral traditions with the world. This conveniently allows people like you to dismiss them. So all we have are writings by people like Fell. Since they dare to suggest evidence anything besides the officially "canonical" thory, that they all walked here from Siberia, the evidence and all who acknowledge its existence are singled out for the harshest ridicule by the "establishment", which in doing so, reveals itself to be mortally afraid that people might not swallow the Siberia theory. THe coverup of the evidence in some cases is truly sickening. Just yesterday, you said calling Fell "alternative" was "too neutral", now I see you are changing your tack and saying the opposite. I suppose you think terms like "crackpot" and "kookery" are NPOV. And as for where the "actual facts" are, how many times do I have to say that some of the graphic comparisons between Egyptian and Mi'kmaq hieroglyphics are already linked to, right here on this discussion page, a number of times? Do you want me to link them for you yet again??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You suggested that some Mi’kmaq people support the "theory". Have you any way to back this up? If not, then your argument must fail to convince. "People like me" actually know things about the history and origin of writing systems, which is why I am interested in this article. Fell's "suggestion" that there was a connection between Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Mi’kmaq writing is nonsense and is entirely unsupported by any evidence. You suggest that this article from "science-frontiers.com" proves a relationship between Egyptian and Mi’kmaq writing? Balderdash! The "similarities" are completely spurious. The hieroglyph which is supposed to mean 'good' is F35, a picture of a "heart and windpipe", which is not even drawn correctly and certainly has nothing to do with the crossed-earth orb surmounted by a Christian cross. The hieroglyph N14 'star' is not used in words for sky or heaven and is not used under hieroglyph N1 pt 'sky'. The relationship the wickerwork basket V30 nb with the tall striated triangle nsit 'all' is pure coincidence by any metrestick, and O41 the "double stairway" does not mean 'exalted one' but is used in words meaning 'ascend' as in climbing a hill or indeed a flight of stairs. You think that has something to do with a trinitarian God triangle? Here are the actual hieroglyphs:

None of those "graphic comparisons" show the least connection between Egyptian and Mi’kmaq. And why are you talking about Siberia? The origin of the Algonquian peoples is not anything I mentioned. The paragraph about Fell's "theory" is pointless and ought to be deleted. It is NOT a credible "alternative" and it isn't even well-formed enough to be called a "theory". Evertype 18:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually seen Fell's book with the complete chart? You've just managed to explain away these four coincidences as coincidences. That's just four from the webpage. If you check the book, you'd have another whole page full of coincidences to go. But when someone is as determined as you are to cover up the evidence by any means necessary, I'm sure you can do it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have provided refutations of the four examples which you had previously stated were enough to make a case. You have not responded to my refutations. Instead, you dodge the question by invoking a different source, and stoop to accusing me of being "determined to cover up the evidence". This is not mature argument. You provided some "evidence" which was shown to be poor. Would you like to explain in a lucid fashion how my refutation fails against the evidence? If you will not, then you must admit that your argument has failed. Alternatively, perhaps you will care to upload Fell's chart. I am confident that it will show that Fell was not practising lingistic science in any way. Evertype 08:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It was only "shown to be poor" in your own perception. It is pretty arrogant to imagine that what you wrote about those four examples is in any way convincing. Not to mention, you are engaging in original research, this is not a place to engage in your own scholarship debate to tear apart a published author's views. Fell is there, he is a published author, I have listed above several other sholars and authors who support his views; even if they are all wrong, this published view is still relevant to the subject and is entitled to be mentioned in the article and not suppressed just because your POV is different. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is poor in my judgement not in my perception, and I have demonstrated with actual facts that the links made between Egyptian and Mi‘kmaq are superficial. The meaning of Egyptian characters is not "original research" of my own. You can look them up in Gardiner's Egyptian grammar or anywhere else. It does not matter a damn if Fell is a "published author" or not. He is not an expert in writing systems and his "theory" about the relationship between Egyptian and Mi’kmaq is not credible. And I say this as an expert in the world's writing systems whose work has been evaluated many times by technical committees with regard to proposals for enccoding characters in the Universal Character Set. I am reverting your deletion of the table in the article. You insisted that Fell be mentioned. I insist that the flaws in his work be shown so that readers of the Wikipedia can be able to form their judgement based on the facts. (Indeed, you should re-evaluate your respect for Fell's fictions based on those facts.) Evertype 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that the suggestion is just regular kookery. I mean, look, the world is full of these confident decipherers and discoverers, we just had another one deciphering the Indus script yesterday[3]. This is why academia isn't meaningless. "Academia" includes the people who know their stuff (not exclusively, alas), and it is meaningful to say that academia ignored or dismissed a certain suggestion. 999 times out of 1000, it means that it is worthless, and 1000 times out of 1000 it means that Wikipedia should treat it as fringe-cruft. Still, Codex is technically right that you need to source your assertions about the individual hieroglyphs (which should be easy, and I don't mean you need to cite the Gardiner page for each one, just refer to Gardiner or some other dictionary once). That said, "spurious origin theory" doesn't sit quite right with me, linguistically. It seems to refer to a theory that claims that the origin of the hieroglyphics is, well, spurious. We could just call it the "Fell hypothesis" or something. It is probably too much already to honour such a suggestion with an inline image, but since we have the image, its debunking should also be posted (or, of course, both could be removed). regards, dab (ᛏ) 16:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling the theory "spurious", even if it is, just doesn't sound neutral enough. In the articles on Sumer, Assyria and Babylon, which I edit regularly, some fringe editor quoted some crackpot author that claimed that these ancient peoples were all Turkish. We eventually ended up putting it in a section labelled "divergent views". Mind you, I doubt if many people take such claims seriously, I know I certainly don't. But it was sourced to a publication, and one thing that makes wikipedia better is that it can mention ideas that are out of the mainstream as existing, even in cases like this where they are blatantly hogwash. So on that basis I think "Divergent views" is more neutral sounding and "Spurious theory" is pov pushing, in this case a pov I don't share. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Spurious means "(of a line of reasoning) apparently but not actually valid". That's what it is. Fell made his claims based on superficial resemblances, which are not accurate and do not "prove" that Micmac derives from Egyptian. Evertype 08:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Like von Daniken's beliefs about (say) the Nazca Lines or Elephantine, this sort of manifestly wrong and (as importantly) non-notable claim is probably better covered (if it is to be covered at all) in Barry Fell than in Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing. It's not notable enough to deserve a historical mention here, and you simply don't cover every exploded hypothesis in an article. - Mustafaa 22:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly IS notable enough to be mentioned here. You're wrong. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it notable enough to be mentioned here? Because you believe it? Evertype 08:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, because it is encyclopedic and pertinent to this article. It doesn't matter whether or not I believe it. People looking up Mi'kmaq hieroglyphics should read about the controversy here, it should not be suppressed because you, or even most people, DON'T believe it. The principle of NPOV is to present ALL evidence and let that evidence speak for itself, not to push POV on the reader one way or another. This is actually new ground in many cases because throughout all of human history human history, the tendency in any field has been for writers to push their own POVs over the evidence, in ways that range from subtle and subliminal, to overt and explicit. Wikipedia is breaking new ground by getting people with differing viewpoints to stop pretending that theirs is the only viewpoint, that everyone agrees with their viewpoint, that anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint is to be ostracised or ridiculed into silence. The desired end result is pure evidence, no opinion, and letting the reader judge from all the facts. He who does not fear the reader's judgement will not seek to color his decision by manipulating the presentation in any way. I realize that Evertype is a great authority on how writing systems developed. Someone of his calibre really ought to realize that the objections he has raised are really quite minute compared to some of the divergent forms that have developed from Egyptian hieroglyphs around the world in the same time span of thousands of years. Yes, the Mikmak hieroglyph for "holy" is not strictly identical to F35. Yes, maybe "truth" is someone's bad translation of F35. If you take out the word "truth", I still see a strong resemblance. As you have demonstrated, the Egyptian "translations" provided in the graphic for the other hieroglyphs are similarly sloppy. But if you replaced them with the correct meanings that you provided, and even fixed the shape of the Mikmak symbol for "all", the similarities are still impressive to me, in just these four examples. I really hope someone can get all of the other examples from America BC up here, because four similarities is only a small sample, but the list of similarities gets really, really long beyond those four, and I would be very fascinated to see your analysis of the others in the same manner as you have 'dealt with' these four. Other factors that have been totally ignored here are 1) the fact that the 'square' version of Mikmak hieroglyphs that came out in the printing press in Europe in the 19th Century are a far cry from the ones in Le Clerq's note book (you can find a comparison somewhere on the web) and 2) pictograms have turned up in many other locations in North America that Barry Fell claimed to be able to read as Egyptian hieroglyphs, notably in Long Island, Davenport Iowa, Oklahoma, and elsewhere. The typical reaction is to start scoffing and ridiculing even before seeing the evidence. But not being close-minded means at least being willing to look at the evidence. It's all there in his books. There is no question that Fell made glaring mistakes in many cases and these have gotten a lot of publicity, one of the most obvious were his misguided attempts to connect the Carrier language with Celtic. (!) But mistakes like this do not mean he was wrong about everything 100% of the time. He has been the subject of so much ad hominem - but ad hominem is still a logical fallacy. It's better to look at his arguments on a case by case basis, to separate the wishful thinking from the more solid evidence that speaks for itself. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Codex, it is a common mistake on Wikipedia to conclude that "NPOV" means anything anyone ever said on some topic must be included. It is a question of balance; "NPOV" means giving a viewpoint a degree of prominence proportional to its academic acceptability. Which in this case is nil. Fell's take on the Mi'kmaq hieroglyphs are more relevant to Barry Fell than to the hieroglyphs, simply because his hypothesis is wrong by any definition of 'wrong' in topics of academic speculation (i.e., 'spurious'). We are not trying to censor anything; the point is that it will be enough to mention Barry fell with one brief sentence here; his hypothesis, such as it is, might find a place on Barry Fell, where people can read all about it. dab (ᛏ) 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

that said, while at present the Fell stuff takes up 50% of the article, if we keep the paragraph at its current length, and expand the rest of the article into a full account of the writing system, I suppose the Fell paragraph will not strike us as jarring as it does now. So the solution here might just be to keep working on the non-Fell parts of the article. dab (ᛏ) 15:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that all I ever tried to put in here myself was one brief sentence. It was another editor who decided to expand it into a full fledged rebuttal. And it is mistaken to state that the academic acceptability is "nil" because I have already named above some of the academics who agree with Fell. The problem is, simply for agreeing with Fell, those academics always immediately become subject to the same ostracisation and ridicule by the N.E.B.C. machine. (That's "No Europeans Before Columbus"...) That conveniently allows one side of the debate to pretend the other pov doesn't exist, because it "doesn't count". It has nothing to do with the actual evidence. But, I agree with your conclusion that expanding the other parts of the article would be a good solution. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that Fell has fallen into the same trap as many a comparative linguist who added their own wishful thinking to the vaguest of coincidences. It's possible to see such 'clever connexions' being made throughout the history of amateur philology. I think the most fun I had with one of these theories was the connexion of Welsh and Hebrew based on the not so near resemblance of certain words and grammatical features in the two languages. I eventually had to provide 'evidence' for common features and vocab between Mongolian and Cockney to disprove the belief that all coincidences are meaningful. There are questions about the true nature, usage and provenance of the script, but I'm sure these can be discussed further. — Gareth Hughes 22:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I had earlier objected to the inclusion of Fell's stuff (proving that I'm an Anti-Micmacite), but I like the current version contrasting his claims with the actual Egyptian. It gives people the opportunity to explore Fell for themselves if they want, but makes it very clear why academia is dismissive of his claims. kwami 11:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As for 'logographic', that implies something approaching a one-to-one correspondance between word/morpheme and glyph. However, the two sources mentioned disagree as to whether this was the case. I don't believe a mnemonic script would be considered logographic, but would instead be ideographic. kwami 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the case. There is a one-to-one correspondence between word and glyph. It is every bit as logographic writing as is Chinese. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. It only goes to show, Codex, that you haven't studied this writing system. The correspondence between word and glyph is not one-to-one. Don't worry. I'm analyzing it for possible Unicode. All will be told in due course. But in the meantime, you really oughtn't make categorical statements unless you can back them up. Evertype 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed studied it, and that is why I am stating that it IS one-to-one. I have written out the Lord's Prayer in its entirety. One word, one glyph. Just like Chinese. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have also looked up every single material there is available in the actual PANS building in Halifax NS, because I wanted to know everything about them that could possibly be known. It's quite a huge collection. I haven't seen anything yet to back up the assertion of some dry critics that it couldn't be writing. The main basis for those few who make this claim, again, seems to be racism. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't writing. But it isn't "pure logography" either, and neither is Chinese. The only truly logographic script is Blissymbols. And if you think there is a one-to-one correspondance between word and "glyph" then either you have a peculiar notion of what "word" is, or you just aren't trained well enough in script analysis. Evertype 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if you think you have turned up any concrete example of even one case where there isn't a one-to-one correspondence of glyph and word, I'd love to see it. (We are talking about Mikmaq words - not the translated English words, of course) ... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Egypt

I'm deleting the Ancient Egyptian banner, as this article is not part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. Evertype 08:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Míkmaq orthography

After some discussion about the spelling of the word "Míkmaq" I was bold and moved "Mi'kmaq language" to Míkmaq language. The apostrophe (or the right single quote, or the spacing acute) are all fallback representations for the Francis-Smith orthography which was devised in 1974 and adopted by the Grand Council in 1980. It is easier to have one spelling than four. If Mi'kmaq, Mi’kmaq, and Mi´kmaq are all fallback representatitons for Míkmaq, it is simpler to use Míkmaq. Evertype 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed page move

The page move is disputed. That triggers an automatic vote on the new title. I oppose the page move and vote to keep it at the more commonly seen spelling Mi'kmaq .ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Superficial resemblance

I see a superficial resemblance between the first pair of hieroglyphs in the image posted on the main page (the Egyptian glyph that is described as meaning "good, beauty, truth" and the Mi'kmaq glyph that is labelled as "holy") and the Chinese character 吉 jí (good luck). The Egyptian hieroglyph for "heaven" looks quite a lot like the Chinese character 天 tiān (id.). I suppose it is one great achievement of evolution that human beings are endowed with the mental capacity to categorize and associate various objects and symbols according to their recognized characteristics, but I think this is just another example of humans' natural ability running amok. These glyphs themselves are so simple and the semantics of the concepts they represent are so basic (or broad and ill-defined, particularly in the case of concepts like "good" and "holy") that it is easy for the human mind to trick itself into seeing a close relationship between these three scripts. A historical analysis of the origin and evolution of each of the writing systems on its own, followed by a much more precise comparison of the several writing systems and discovery of systematic correspondences in form and meaning is absolutely necessary before I could accept that these writing systems might be cognate. Ebizur 05:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)