User talk:RelHistBuff
Hi. You are welcome to leave messages here.
HWA
My apologies for trip over your edits, not my intention. Must admit if I am doing a large set of edits I either copy them to my clipboard or save a few times through the edits. Sorry I'll take a look at what you have done. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- better, the long section about his "misconduct" is not suitable, and highly contentious with little supporting evidence. About the "other doctrines", it could stay but would need a lot more citations. In fact the whole article is badly in need of more references and independant citational work. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm semi-retired from editing Wikipedia, and did not notice the edits that you worked so hard on. The article reads rather smoothly, now. There are still, and probably always will be, annoying half-truths and misconceptions here and there; but it still shows that it was an effort to work together from very different perspectives. I have not looked at your edits in particular. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Revert query
Hi, why did you drop the explanatory final clause in:
- Joseph Smith kept in his personal diary an “Egyptian alphabet” which demonstrates his inability to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs, since Egyptian hieroglypths are non-alphabetic
--Michael C. Price talk 13:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at his "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar", it is clear that Smith could not translate Egyptian. He had it completely wrong. I just took out the clause "since Egyptian hieroglypths are non-alphabetic", and left the rest because the glyphs being "non-alphabetic" is only a minor reason that demonstrates his inability and only weakly supports the argument that Smith was completely off. I have a paper copy somewhere of his "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar". Perhaps there is a stronger way to say it. Maybe "since he made bizarre complete paragraph translations out of one glyph."
RelHistBuff 13:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but there needs to be some explanation of this, otherwise the casual or LDS reader, being ignorant of hieroglyphs, will not see the relevance. What you seem to be saying is that the diary entry is not as relevant as the actual falacious translations that emerged -- but the latter are addressed elsewhere in the article. Sadly I would say that we have to lose either the whole sentence or expand it considerably. Didn't JS claim to receive the translation straight from god whilst ruminating over the papyri? In which case why did he need a dictionary? --Michael C. Price talk 14:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just read your link on the diary: Howabout just quoting their own warning:
- NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC GRAMMAR AND ALPHABET OF THE EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY GRAMMAR OR ANY GENUINE OR RELIABLE ANALYSIS OF THE EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE.
- Sourced and clear? --Michael C. Price talk 14:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just read your link on the diary: Howabout just quoting their own warning:
- The problem is that quote is made by a well-known excommunicated Mormon and does not carry much weight at least in being NPOV. However, the document itself (the alphabet and grammar) is NPOV. So my suggestion is to add a citation with the URL and let the reader read the document and form an opinion himself. At least that's a start. If we could add an additional clause later, all the better. I will go ahead and add the citation now. RelHistBuff 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- The low key approach. I like it :-) --Michael C. Price talk 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that quote is made by a well-known excommunicated Mormon and does not carry much weight at least in being NPOV. However, the document itself (the alphabet and grammar) is NPOV. So my suggestion is to add a citation with the URL and let the reader read the document and form an opinion himself. At least that's a start. If we could add an additional clause later, all the better. I will go ahead and add the citation now. RelHistBuff 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Book of Abraham
Very nicely done, with excellent added material. Frankly, I don't know how you have the patience to deal with articles that are so contentious, and deal with all the nonsensical argumentation that adding actual facts entails. (P.S. someone's spelled "idolatry" as "idolotry" there, but I've left it alone as it has a {{fact}} notation by it. - Nunh-huh 14:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
GA, delisting
I love what you are doing with the GA process and removing the articles and all but we have been discussing a really important thing lately (I don't know if you missed it) and it is that we want to have EDIT SUMMARIES to help keep track of what happens in the GA process. Lincher 12:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)