Talk:Adamic language/Archive 1

Dilemma

Since it makes no sense (at least to me):

(No serious linguist today believes this.)

However, some groups maintain this belief, especially some in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other early leaders of the Church made statements about the Adamic language.

The place "Adam-ondi-Ahman" in Daviess County, Missouri, U.S., is supposedly in the Adamic language.

See [1]

No serious linguist believes what? That the Adamic language is Hebrew? That there is an Adamic language? Since it rests on the Bible anyway, linguists are in the normal science/faith dilemma, and are going to have to pick a side.

No they don't. It's only a dilemma if you insist on maintaining a literalist Christian POV. Besides, the 'Adamic language' isn't mentioned in the Bible anyway.

And then again, the Mormons believe what? The biblical passage about confounding the languages at the tower? So what?

Mormon beliefs

If you read the article I provided links to, you'll find that Mormons (or at least some Mormons) have unique beliefs that most Christians don't on this issue. Such as that the Adamic language will be widely spoken come the end of the world (i.e. what Ezra Taft Benson had to say), or that words of it was revealed to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others, or that it isn't Hebrew, contrary to the beliefs of most other Christians (or at least Christians who believed in an Adamic language, most of which have been dead for centuries now...) -- SJK.

Good clarification. Good article link, too, although I don't know how useful it is to link to pages containing copyrighted material in Google's cache (caches, by nature, being volatile) from domains which no longer exist...

Moved to a different site -- just found a really good article from the LDS point of view, explaining their beliefs about the Adamic language. --Dmerrill

Pay Lay Ale

How do you pronounce "Pay Lay Ale"? Like the English Words "Pay", "Lay" and "Ale"? It isn't really that clear (I've probably been looking at languages other than English too much...). -- SJK

Yes, just as the English words are pronounced.

Non-Mormon Adamic language

I think if you look at 17th or 18th century linguistics you may find some non-Mormon references to an Adamic language, maybe not using that term though. Early linguists believed that Hebrew was the language spoken by Adam, and that at the Tower of Babel God produced the other languages of the world (or their ancestors) out of Hebrew. Even if they didn't call it by the Mormon name (I don't know if they did or didn't), their idea was pretty similar. (The main difference was their belief that the Adamic language was Hebrew, a belief Mormon's don't share.) -- SJK

I've certainly read about it in non-Mormon contexts. Wasn't it Frederick II who is reputed to have tried to discover the Adamic language experimentally by having two children raised without speech so that they would 'come out' speaking the Adamic language? it's an anecdote whose source escapes me.--MichaelTinkler

Michael: I've heard a story like that, but I thought it was someone in ancient times, like some ancient Greek king or Egyptian pharaoh or something. The tale I recalled was that two children were raised by shepherds who were not allowed to talk to them. They came out saying "pa pa pa", which was the word in some language X for bread. So the ruler concluded X was the first language. More likely "pa pa pa" was the sound of the sheep. -- SJK

Yep, Herodotus reports it of Psammetichus of Egypt, but there are lots of late medieval and early modern kings who are reputed to have done it, too, including one of the Scottish kings. The later reports are (a) exactly the kind of thing that people who'd read Herodotus might report of later kings reputed to be intellectuals and (b) exactly the kind of thing a king who thought himself an intellectual (like Frederick II) would do. I have no idea what the state of 'evidence' is for it, but it'll get a page of its own, I suppose! 'Human experimentation'?--MichaelTinkler

I believe Herodotus reported the first word to be bedos, which was Hittite for bread, rather than papapa. Some Medieval king tried the experiment, but the baby died before it started talking. Which is to me an eminently plausible story, for the Middle Ages.

Psammetichus I, bekos, and Phrygian and Frederick II of Prussia (18th century). It's all on Wikipedia, you know. Baad 13:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Origin of Adamic language

Adamic language was spoken since Creation at beginning of the 4th millennium BC in the Holy Land and then worldwide until confusion of tongues, according to Anne Catherine Emmerich's private revelations mentioned in archived talk linked above.83.19.52.107 07:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How are Anne Catherine Emmerich's revelations any more reliable than, say, David Frawley's "revelations" that proto-World was spoken in India in 10,000 BC? You confuse mysticism with scholarship. dab (𒁳) 07:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wery simply. Anne Catherine Emmerich's revelations and associated visions came directly from God, and David Frawley tries to guess without certainity, having no direct revelations from God. God always knows better, because He is omniscient. Anne Catherine Emmerich's revelations served as basis for Mel Gibson's movie Passion of Jesus Christ.83.19.52.107 13:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While I wouldn't take it upon myself to rule out the possibility, I am afraid we do not consider God a reliable source on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 13:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's very unfortunate. If God was able to create our souls and bodies, He is of course infinitely reliable.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.19.52.107 (talk • contribs) .

Just because you make something doesn't mean you're especially reliable. Besides, even if there were an infinitely reliable God, how would we know Anne Catherine Emmerich was right in attributing her revelations to him? garik 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right - just being creative doesn't make you reliable. These artsy types tend to be moody and eccentric, and God especially has been known to smash things and change his mind on a whim. A problem user with an unhealthy attitude, I'd call Him, if he chose to sign up as a Wikipedian :) dab (𒁳) 22:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And he never cites his sources. All original research. garik 23:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

God changes His balance of saving by explanation and saving by destruction, because He adapts in realtime His pushing sinners to conversion, according to changing deepness of sinner's sinful state. Additionally Pope John Paul II nominated Anne Catherine Emmerich blessed. Her revelations served as source for archeologists in Palestine for locating potential excavation places.83.19.52.107 07:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as I can still ping wikipedia.org, I will work from the assumption that God has not objected to the project and its policies strongly enough to have "saved it by destruction". You may want to have a look at http://www.conservapedia.com/ which unlike Wikipedia explicitly "favors Christianity and America". thankyou :) dab (𒁳) 10:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I stated above, that PIE=Adamic began in Paradise near Jerusalem since creation of Adam and Eve, which had much more children of both gender than these three sons mentioned in Bible. I can only agree that directly after Deluge PIE=Adamic began again worldwide spreading from Ararat that was place of Noah Ark final landing, to which fact most closely matches Anatolian hypothesis and Armenian hypothesis. All these facts are derived from Anne Catherine Emmerich private revelations. Wikinger (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nomothete

I agree that it's probably not the term for Adam—it should really be used of Moses, if anyone (nomos: law), or indeed God. garik 11:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, it was a mistake. To think that I have no end of hassle with some of my scholarly and well sourced edits, and a blunder like this is left standing for months :( dab (𒁳) 12:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

LDS Endowment

Juden seems to be having a bit of an edit war. Please explain what the words of the LDS Endowment have to do with the topic of this article before continued warring? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A war with one side? You seem to have missed naming names. As you well know, the citations were added because you, presumably not disingenously, doubted that "Pay Lay Ale" was accurate and insisted that citations could not be found. I found them and added them; and even after, you voice concerns about the spelling of the words. - Juden 22:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I must admit the connection isn't clear to me either. mentioning the "Pay Lay Ale" is enough, link to another article for details of the ceremony. dab (𒁳) 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if all will concede that the words are accurate, I would be very happy to add the citations to other articles. - Juden 22:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Category dispute

Please go to Category talk:Religious language for a discussion on whether this article belongs in Category:Religious language. –SESmith 11:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted phrase

I removed the following phrase today:

Joseph Smith taught this and called the language "the tongue of angels".

First, I find no place where Joseph Smith used this statement. Also, "the tongue of angels" is best illustrated in 2 Nephi 31:13:

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

Unless there is a reference that Joseph Smith used it as such, it should not be in the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

I am not sure what is going on here. Slrubenstein keeps blanking content (without comment), and Wikinger keeps restoring it. Can there please be some debate on the talkpage so we can at least be clear on what exactly is under dispute? dab (𒁳) 16:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Slrubenstein blanks referenced Catholic private revelation from God about Adamic language, while keeping unreferenced Jewish theories about Adamic language I think that he simply denies Catholic revelation from God about Adamic language, while preferring Jewish theories. Because Slrubenstein is massively involved in edits of Judaism-related articles, I think that he simply wants to display in article only Jewish version, while he wants Catholic version to be omitted, due to his Jewish fictional imaginations. Wikinger (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We should assume good faith I suppose. The Midrash bit is arguably referenced (Genesis Rabba). But then some of the removed content was also referenced. But I really don't see the problem. The section should be tended to and expandend, not bulldozed. dab (𒁳) 18:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All Adamic language solutions should be displayed, to give readers chance of acknowledging them. Slrubenstein's vandalisms prevented this. Wikinger (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic content

"It is, however, unclear how much from the Biblical perspective this language was preserved by Adam's descendants until the confusion of tongues (Genesis 11:1-9), or whether it began to evolve naturally (Genesis 10:5)."

According to whom? The editor who wrote this? that would violate NOR. Presumably this sentence represents a view, and a notable view. Please provide a reliable and verifiable source.

"There is no ancient claim that the Adamic language was identical to Biblical Hebrew, for "the Torah was written in the vernacular" of the Israelites (Talmud Sanhedrin 21b)."

The above does not belong in the article. The lack of a source means nothing. We should add to the article only claims for which there are sources. If there is no source for a claim, let us simply not put the claim in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

At least you finished blanking sourced statements. Because both Bible and Emmerich's revelations were both religious works that has status of holy books, that are believed by Catholics as created under God's inspiration, they are on equal footing as sources. Wikinger (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your appeal to divine inspiration fails Wikipedia´s criteria for verifiability. Stick to Wikipedia´s policies on verifiable and reliable sources. At most you could claim that Emmerich made these above two claims. Please provide citations and page numbers anc we can rewrite this as "According the Emmerich ..." and perhaps then reinsert it into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is citation available here: http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/origin_sorcery.htm (Chapter 7 - The Tower of Babel)

"The first tongue, the mother tongue, spoken by Adam, Sem, and Noe, was different, and it is now extant only in isolated dialects. Its first pure offshoots are the Zend, the sacred tongue of India, and the language of the Bactrians. In those languages, words may be found exactly similar to the Low German of my native place. The book that I see in modern Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, is written in that language."

I already placed link to this citation into article, but you didn't even checked this citation. It directly reveals Proto-Indo-European as Adamic, because it states that first pure offshoots of Adamic are Bactrian, Zend, and Indian, that are of course Indo-European. Wikinger (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You are disobeying our NPOV policy and our Verifiability policy. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. No source can possibly "reveal" that PIE is Adamic. A source can reveal only that some notable view holds that it is Adamic. You need to make it clear that this is view, not the truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The statements criticised by Slrubenstein just gesture at the general content of the debate. I don't see how they are controversial. They are informed by Eco's book, and by all means they should be expanded into greater detail. Eco is a good place to start, and has lots of literature to pursue further. Of course this article needs a lot of work. You should invest your energies in building it, not in haggling about stubby content that acts as a placeholder until somebody can be bothered and add a proper discussion. Wikinger, your apparently confused assertions are not helping. This is a serious subject, and needs serious philological discussion, not rhetorics. dab (𒁳) 20:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is not about the content but that the content is being presented as truth, when this is forbidden at Wikipedia. It must be presented as a verifiable and clearly identifiable view. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I wanted only to prevent vandalism. I considered Slrubenstein's edits vandalisms, because he blanked sourced sections, falsely describing his edits as deletion of unsourced sections. Wikinger (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I again removed the above mentioned material, which violates NPOV as it is presented as a fact rather than as an identifiable point of view, and also because it has no bearing on the question of divine language. Wikinger accuses me of "vandalism" because I have removed content that is unencyclopedic and violates our policies. I have here provided an explanation for my edits with constructive suggestions for what kind of work might produce acceptable edits. I urge Wikinger to and Dbachmann to read the "Comments" below for more discussion on the problematic nature of the removed text. My edits are by no means arbitrary and definitely not vandalism. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Violation of NOR

I removed this: "Dante in the Divina commedia implies that the language of Paradise was different from later Hebrew by saying that Adam addressed God as I rather than El." Unless you actually have a quote in which Dante states that Hebrew is not the Divine Language, this violates NOR because it is you who are drawing the inference. Wikipedia does not publish editors´own interpretations of primary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Slrubenstein, but you are not being reasonable here. dab (𒁳) 10:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinger, do not edit other people's comments

Fullstop, I wanted only to make this page shorter to load by optimizing indents. Wikinger (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC) First, that is not all you are doing. Second, that is not a valid justification. Third, it is close to being the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

I've told you once not to do it; you can take this as your second warning. DON'T do it again. Am I crystal clear? -- Fullstop (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

BAN

Wikinger uses 83.0.0.0/16 IP address range. 216.40.255.90 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that all of the above IP address are in fact User:Wikinger, talking amongst themselves. Wikinger has been blocked for around 9 days, in total. He will be able to edit on the 6th January, provided he makes no further attempts to edit whilst blocked. If you see any similar IP addresses, please report them to either myself, any other administrator citing this text, or report to WP:AIV. Thanks. Nick (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are for the improvement of articles. Let´s drop this topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC) I have now range-blocked Wikinger's source IP address ranges (anon-only, account creation disabled) for 24 hours, in an attempt to help Wikinger's resolve to abstain from editing until their account block expires. If more Wikinger-like IP editing occurs, please WP:AIV know about it. -- The Anome (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Piast, 216.40.255.90 (who also edited as 83.5.8.241) and now User:CBMIBM‎ are all extremely likely to be Wikinger entities... AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not true except Piast. But can I return and edit constructively? I don't want to have wasted my time, to avoid forgetting of fresh ideas while waiting. I even forgot my complicated password of "Wikinger" account, that looked like hexadecimal dump, but didn't set email in account, thus I will rather abandon it forever. Wikinger (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your block does not formally expire until tomorrow afternoon at 18:00 UTC approx. You're free to do what you like AFTER that time, with whatever account you choose, as long as it is not a continuation of the behaviour which led to your block. I would prefer if you informed either myself, The Anome or JzG of your new account in order that we can deal with any sockpuppetry allegations that may arise, however. Nick (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikinger, you're unfortunately very poor at concealing the fact you use multiple identities to edit Wikipedia, since all your identities keep returning to the same points of obsession, such as the Adamic language, the numerical symbols Stigma and Sampi connected with the Greek alphabet, absence of sexual content, Ala Boratyn‎ (whatever that is), the Emmerich Trinity vision, etc. etc. Having User:CBMIBM‎ step in to defend 216.40.255.90 on User:Wikinger's talk page really didn't do too much to maintain a facade of plausible deniability either... The only way to keep multiple Wikipedia editing accounts completely separate over the long term is to devote each one to editing a completely different range of subject matters from all the other ones. I really don't want to debate this subject at any great further length, since I simply don't believe any of your denials issued under any of your aliases. Therefore from this moment on, new material added to my user talk page concerning your various aliases (and not concerning substantive matters concerned with the editing of Wikipedia articles) will be deleted, and probably will not be replied to... AnonMoos (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I lost password for my original "Wikinger" account, I think, that I will use single new account instead. Please consider "Wikinger" account abandoned forever. Wikinger (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC

possible NPOV and NOR violations, and unencyclopedic claims, is anyone familiar with reliable verifiable sources from the history or sociology or religion, or theology, that can be drawn on to provide accounts of notable views concerning Adamic language? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(see talk section above, unencyclopedic content, see article section on medieval language) "Writings by Emmerich" may be a verifiable source, but Wikinger´s appeal to divine inspiration is not a verifiable source and masks original research. In the article, I believe the claims about linguistics and the history of language ignore or distort actual research in historical linguistics. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not original research, I only stated that both Emmerich's writing and Bible has status of being believed by Catholics as inpired by God. Wikinger (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinger, it is you who are the vandal for deleting my request for comment [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It wast eventually countervandalism, but not vandalism proper, because you previously waged edit war previously making repeatable vandalisms in article by mindless reverts, that deleted unnecessarily even Pay Lay Ale etymology [3], that I wanted to comment several minutes later with proper reference. Wikinger (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

See section above on unencyclopedic content (in talk). Possible NPOV and NOR violations claims about the history of language (and perhaps the history of religion) disregard historical research. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

A few suggestions here:

1. I recommend tagging claimed original research and discussing it on the talk page rather than simply removing it. I understand the policy permits summary removal, but doing so can exacerbate tensions and prevent reaching a rational consensus through discussion, and this possibly be happenning here.

2. I would be inclined to agree with User:Slrubenstein that at least some of the disputed material represents an original research synthesis. For example, the quoted passage from Talmud states that Adam spoke the "vernacular of the Israelites", but this passage doesn't support a claim about what that language was or wasn't. Perhaps the Talmud assumed this language was Hebrew.

3. Similarly, drawing an inference that Dante had an opinion about the language of Paradise from the fact that Adam addressed God as I also appears to be a clear example of WP:SYN. Dante didn't express any direct opinion on this subject, so the claim he expressed an indirect opinon is sourcable to the editor, not to Dante.

4. I disagree with Slrubenstein's reasoning on the issue of Anne Catherine Emmerich's material, although it may ultimately prove to be inappropriate for inclusion on somewhat different grounds. This is an article on a religious as well as a scientific/linguistic subject, so religious viewpoints are certainly relevant. Divine inspiration would appear to be a fairly commonly-claimed basis for religious viewpoints. Whether editors believe in it or not is simply not Wikipedia's business. What is Wikipedia's business is whether Anne Catherine Emmerich is an important enough mystic to be considered as representing a significant religious view under the WP:NPOV policy. I believe this is an example of a difference between notability and significance where matters of religion are concerned. A religious thinker only needs to be mentioned in a few sources to be notable and get an article, but needs substantially more and higher quality coverage for what the thinker has to say to be considered a significant viewpoint that can be mentioned on other religion articles' subjects. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure to what reasoning you are referring to. I do not believe I have made any claims about the inclusion or exclusion of Emmerich´s material. I do not believe I deleted or removed any material attributed to her from the article. My only comment was that the claim that Emmerich´s views have some kind of claim to "truth" because they were divinely revealed has no status at Wikipedia. Do you dispute this, Shirahadasha? I stand by it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is false statement. You deleted Emmerich-related material here: [4], thus don't be surprised if I called you vandal. Wikinger (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Note 1: I agree what she says (assuming it's significant) can't be presented as bare fact, but I don't think this is a problem. It's generally good policy to attribute with "according to" language when there are multiple viewpoints anyway, all we have to do is say something like "According to (secondary religious source) 19th Century Catholic mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich was divinely inspired to..." etc. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Note 2: The Anne Catherine Emmerich article indicates that her visions were the basis among other things for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and that her stock with the Vatican more or less seems to have been going up lately. For these reasons, it may not be entirely outside the realm of possibility that her views might be considered a significant religious viewpoint (although whether this is so on this subject is another matter). I would recommend consulting an expert in Catholic theology, who perhaps might be able to locate secondary sources discussing her views. If the material is included it should be clearly labeled and attributed as a religous viewpoint. Given the fact that inferences were attributed to the source in other cases, it might also be worth checking whether she actually said what is claimed or whether this is simply an inference drawn by an editor. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree with what you say as such, but I wonder if you are not raising a red-herring, given that my RfC is not over whether or not we include her views, as long as they are properly identified as such. Perhaps I expressed myself unclearly, so please, Shirahadasha, allow me to clarify now: I did not mean that Emmerich´s writings are not verifiable sources. I meant that God is not a verifiable source. It seemed to me that this is what Wikinger is claiming. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I think the most important thing you write, is "although whether this is so on this subject is another matter." Emmerich may or may not be a notable source for conservative Catholic faith. But I question whether she is a notable source on linguistics (Wikinger is using her as a source on Proto-Indo-European languages, an object of scholarly research) or on Israelite or Rabbinic thought (another context in which her claims are invoked) ' in these two cases at least, I suggest she is a fringe and inappropriate source. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the OR identified by Shirahadasha, a significant problem of this article is that it positions the subject in the scientific sphere, when it is really only in the realm of religion. For example, the expression "hypothetical proto-language" in the lede. The first para of the "In modern linguistics" section is out-of-context OR, while the second para has nothing to do with "modern linguistics."
Suggestion: rearrange the article to discuss the 'sources' in their own contexts (i.e. one section per source). This will stifle the tendency to build bridges between sources. Also, rewrite the lede sentence to not posit that Adamic is anything but mythological. Its not really a "language" (prototypical or otherwise). -- Fullstop (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the gist of the misunderstanding here. This article strikes me, too, as being more about religious beliefs than scientific linguistics, although there was a substantial period of history where religious philologists wouldn't have perceived any incompatibility. As to claims that religious views are true, I think the standard attribution approach covers everything that needs to be covered. I realize we Judaism editors are used to thinking of claims of Divine revelation as events that refer only to ancient history, but not all religions think this way, and there's no reason to treat contemporary claims to revelation any different from ancient ones. While contemporary claims to revelation are less likely to be regarded as significant then those that have stood the test of time, this isn't an absolute bar. If it's a significant religious view, it simply doesn't matter what we editors think of it. I suspect it it's not likely to be significant. But its the sources, not my personal opinion, that matter here. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about "claims about the history of language" but about the history of linguistics. Modern linguistics emerged only very gradually in the late 18th century. Before that, study of language was immersed in mythology and speculation, and many opinions of venerable 17th and 18th century scholars sound like patent madness today. It is still fascinating to review them, and trace the close ties of language and mythology. I really fail to see Slrubenstein's point. Nobody claims there ever was an "Adamic language". Adam is just a character from an Iron Age Hebrew story. But a story that had considerable cultural influence on medieval and early modern thought. dab (𒁳) 10:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

While the article may once have been in relation to the "history of linguistics," this is - for the average reader who actually reads the thing from top to bottom - not so.

Today, the article stands in the realm of religion, and the notion that the article is "about the history of linguistics" is myopic (if not "patent madness"). In fact, the idea that it is a historical/scientific curiosity is not evident at all.

If the article is supposed to be in relation to the history of linguistics, then the article needs to be restructured/rewritten. As a side effect, the esoterica would then not provoke an illusion of science, which is what Slrubenstein is justifiably objecting to.

-- Fullstop (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry -- it did not occur to me that the article could "provoke an illusion of science" to any sane person. I am a little irritated by Wikinger's erratic statements now. You are most welcome to expand and improve the article. What we cannot do is go out of our way to prevent the confused and insane taking 17th century opinions at face value. Sorry, I refuse to forego discussing 17th century scholarship just because some people seem to be too far gone to appreciate the discussion for what it is. But this is by no means an objection to clarification and informed expansion of course. dab (𒁳) 12:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that my interpretation of "I" as English pronoun was wrong, because there both Hebrew words are compared, not English with Hebrew. Wikinger (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Dante was Italian, not English or Hebrew. As I said, discussion of this in some detail is in the Umberto Eco book cited. I just don't have the time to dig it up and provide you with verbatim quotes right now, but in the spirit of AGF, you could all assume that I have in fact read the book, and if you are interested in improving the article try to get hold of a copy of your own. dab (𒁳) 12:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this edit: [5] Wikinger (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been engaged in a simmering edit war with Wikinger and Dab. I fear I shall never be able to reach some understanding with Wikinger based on WP pollicies. But I hope that Dab and I can resolve our sifferences in good faith. It is my hope that there has been a misunderstaning between us, and I hope we can now begin to clear this up. Above, Dab wrote "I am sorry -- it did not occur to me that the article could "provoke an illusion of science" to any sane person." I think this hits the nail on the head. Dab proposes that any "Adamic languages" is a literary construction, perhaps of ancient Israelite thought, or Rabbinic thought, or of others ' but NOT a real language relevant to the history of actual languages. If this is Dab´s vision of what the article ought to be, I agree with him. I would only note that this article should then provide serious accounts of claims about Hebrew and God´s language made by Rabbis, Jewish theologians and writers, and others, and I would further note that it does not provide such an account.

But this vision is ´´not´´ the source of the edit conflicts between myself and Dab. I have deleted material which Dab has restored, which has no bearing on Adamic language as a literary construction. I have been removing unsourced or inappropriately sourced, fringe POV and OR claims, that are clearly about the history of language. I provide three examples:

Anne Catherine Emmerich stated in her private revelations that most direct descendants of the Adamic language were Bactrian, Zend and Indian languages. In this way Emmerich identifies Adamic language as Proto-Indo-European language.[1]

Some Early Modern scholars on basis of Genesis 10:5 have assumed that the Japhetite languages are the direct descendants of the Adamic language, having separated before the confusion of tongues, by which also Hebrew was affected, confirming in this way Emmerich's private revelations.

According to Ernst Cassirer, The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century philosophers of language still supposed that phenomena of onomatopoeia offered the key to the basic and original language of mankind, the lingua adamica.[13] The modern concept corresponding to that of the Adamic language is that of the Proto-World language, but rather than positing divine inspiration, linguists also assume that it arose from proto-linguistic forms of communication.

Dbachman, how on earth were you interpreting these statements? Above you write, "I really fail to see Slrubenstein's point. Nobody claims there ever was an "Adamic language"." You are being unfair to me, and not taking my point seriously ' and you seem not to be reading the text at all. Of course Wikinger is claiming there was an Adamic language! Just read the actual text, he is claiming that it is identical to proto indo european! How can you fail to see my point about Wikinger´s claims?

According to the above material, the Adamic language is Proto-Indo-European, and early modern scholars - in context this must refer to scholars of language - see the Japhetite languages as descendents of Adamic/Proto'Indo'European, and that other scholars claim that the origins of Adamic language is not divine revelation bht onomatopoeia, i.e. the Adamic language is a more natural language. This identification of Adamic language with natural (onomotopoeic) sources and wth Proto'Indo'european is not making claims about Adamic language as a literary creation, but as the source of Sanskrit, German, Latin, etc. Why do you think I deleted it? Why did you restore it? Did you even read what you were restoring? Didn´t you assume good faith on my part, that I was deleting it (or removing it to this page) for serious reasons? I beg of you: if you are going to restore text I deleted, please take the time actually to read the text and my explanation of the problems with the text. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

you are right that Wikinger appears to be making nonsensical claims. However, this is irrelevant. This isn't about Wikinger's confused ideas, it is about the material you removed. There was nothing wrong with it. There appears to be some misunderstanding. Of course "God isn't a reliable source". Of course this isn't a topic of current linguistic scholarship. This is a topic of religion, mythology, philology, and the beginnings of the history of modern linguistics. You appear to have taken the article to make claims in Wikipedia's voice about such-and-such a nature of an "Adamic language". I cannot find any such claim, but that's perhaps because it didn't even occur to me to consider this a topic of actual linguistics, as I admit Wikinger, and by all appearances you as well, seem to be doing. I am sure we can come to a satisfactory solution if we can manage to clear up that sort of misunderstanding. To begin with, the categories this article is in, "Adam and Eve | Language and mysticism | Latter Day Saint doctrines, beliefs, and practices" do not attempt to pass this off as anything else than a topic of religion or mythology. Perhaps the "proto-language" in the lead may give the impression that this is about actual linguistics? We can try to rephrase that. Beyond that, I really think it should be clear to any reader, even Wikinger and Slrubenstein, that no claim is being made of any "Adamic language" that could be taken as an object of actual linguistic research. dab (𒁳) 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with what Slrubenstein has noted. Not only is Wikinger asserting that there is such a thing as an Adamic language, he/she is also explicitly asserting that his source establishes that Adamic language == PIE. Slrubenstein's critique of dbachmann for not reading is also justified.

Wikinger is selling Emmerick as "fact", and the removal by Slrubenstein was appropriate.

Oh, btw, Wikinger has pumped Emmerick at de:Adamitische Sprache and pl:Język Adamowy as well. Unlike here, where there is at least (at the end of the article) still a small token mention of the scientific angle, in those wikis its pure fringecruft all the way.

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

hm, hello, did you read what I just said? Of course I agree that Wikinger's claim of "PIE=Adamic" is nonsense. I also emphatically agree that he should not be allowed to present that claim as "fact" or endorse Emmerich in Wikipedia's voice: no dispute there. However, this is just about Wikinger's posts on talk and in edit summaries. The actual material Slrubenstein removed wasn't due to Wikinger at all, and simply stated that "Emmerich claimed such and such". There is nothing wrong with that, Wikinger or no Wikinger. So, can we please focus on the material in question instead of the rather futile debate on what Wikinger may or may not believe? Slrubenstein's statement that the Emmerich stuff for the purposes of Wikipedia holds no "truth" is perfectly correct, if a truism. That's what Slrubenstain said on talk. His edit to article space, however, consisted in just blanking the entire section without further ado. For me, this doesn't compute at all. dab (𒁳) 00:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

um, did you read what Slrubenstein removed? e.g. "It is, however, unclear how much from the Biblical perspective this language was preserved by Adam's descendants until the confusion of tongues (Genesis 11:1-9), or whether it began to evolve naturally (Genesis 10:5)"? Ditto "Some Early Modern scholars on basis of Genesis 10:5 have assumed that the Japhetite languages are the direct descendants of the Adamic language, having separated before the confusion of tongues, by which also Hebrew was affected, confirming in this way Emmerich's private revelations." etc etc ad nauseum.

Well, to me that looks very much like presentation of the old testament as 'fact', with a liberal dash of OR thrown in.-- Fullstop (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw, did it not occur to you that Wikinger evidently does not know what "Zend language" is? Even though the term does exist as a redirect on WP? (guess who created it)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that neither "Adamic" nor "Adamantic" (Adamantisch) had yet been coined in Emericks time. Wikinger is him/herself associating the term with Emerick, who simply said "The first tongue, the mother tongue, spoken by Adam, Shem, and Noah, was different, and it is now extant only in isolated dialects." How many instances of OR do you need before you'll accept Slrubenstein's removal as justified?

-- Fullstop (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Original text for the one relevant day in her diary (Tagebuch Band 5,11):

Am Abend lehrte Jesus in der Synagoge. Er lehrte von Abrahams Beruf und Reise nach Ägypten. Er sprach von der hebräischen Sprache, von Noah, Heber, Hiob usw., und ich sah viele Bilder aus dieser Lehre folgen. Er lehrte auch noch von Moses. Er sagte, daß schon in Heber Gott die Israeliten ausgesondert habe, denn diesem Mann habe er eine neue Sprache gegeben, die hebräische, welche mit anderen keine Gemeinschaft habe, um sein Geschlecht ganz abzusondern von allen anderen, denn früher habe er wie Adam, Sech und Noah die erste Muttersprache gesprochen. Die sei aber bei dem babylonischen Bau in viele Mundarten zerfallen und verwirrt worden, und Gott habe, um Heber ganz abzusondern, ihm eine eigene heilige, die althebräische Sprache gegeben, und ohne diese Sprache würden sie nie so rein und abgesondert geblieben sein. Hierüber hat Jesus gelehrt, und über den ganzen Ruf Abrahams usw.

Not quite in support of Wikinger's "In this way Emmerich identifies Adamic language as Proto-Indo-European language", eh? This quote is also the only place where something close to Adam's language is mentioned.

Wikinger's chapter references are false too. The chapter Bild von Noah und Babel (Tagebuch II,7) does not even mention language, and the chapter titled Babel (also Tagebuch II,7) barely mentions language either:

Ich sah aber noch alle Nachkommen Noahs, wenngleich als großes Volk bereits weit umher, doch noch in einer Sprache vereinigt leben. Ich sah von Chams Nachkommen viele nach Osten in ebenes Land gezogen, und sie begannen zu bauen.

No mention of language after that.

-- Fullstop (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is from http://www.all-jesus.com/deusch/Bibel2.htm relevant to http://www.all-jesus.com/scriptures/bible2.htm, while Bactrian, Zend and Indian are in http://www.all-jesus.com/scriptures/bible1.htm, and no http://www.all-jesus.com/deusch/Bibel1.htm exists. Thus you mistook distinguishing section equivalents at all. Wikinger (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is still no mention of "Adamic language" or "Proto-Indo-European" at all, leave alone the conclusion that In this way Emmerich identifies Adamic language as Proto-Indo-European language. Also no support in any source for the notion that "some Early Modern scholars" confirmed "in this way" Emmerich's private revelations.

While your theories of the http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language are fascinating, like everything you have added to this article (to include the de and pl versions) and Divine language, these are your own conclusions.

-- Fullstop (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ps: Please do not again edit comments that are not your own.

Again, I see no problem with the material Slrubenstein removed, except of course the "confirming in this way Emmerich's private revelations" bit, which unsurprisingly was added to the existing paragraph by Wikinger. The version which I am defending here is, of course, the pre-Wikinger version of 25 December. We can agree that Wikinger's additions were flawed in that they unduly mixed up Emmerich's visions with early modern scholarly debate. It should be noted that these "early modern scholars" wrote before Emmerich, so that Emmerich's claim is informed by them and not the other way around. In fact, in 1790 this mythological or biblical approach to linguistics had already become obsolete, and you will find it difficult to find any notable scholar after 1750, or even after 1700, proposing such views: they belong to the 16th and 17th centuries, and by 1720 or so would have come to be considered crackpot fantasy. 18th century linguists still had naive views by modern standards, but they preferred to derive language from "primitive man", not from biblical patriarchs. Note that the notion of a "parent language" of Bactrian, Zend etc. was breaking news of bleeding edge research in 1790, and Emmerich's taking up such recent exciting ideas in her mysticist speculations should be compared to the similar propensity of "quantum quacks" such as Deepak Chopra to sprinkle their New Age blather with exciting sounding "science" terms.dab (𒁳) 14:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1. You are mistaken in your supposition that 25 December is pre-Wikinger. Wikinger's first edit to this article was on November 14 2006. You may also wish to review the edit history in this article and talk space (including archive) in relation to the edits at Divine language and Confusion of tongues.
2. Emmerich is not the only OR. The other two paragraphs I have already noted are:
   • "It is, however, unclear how much from the Biblical perspective this language was preserved by Adam's descendants until the confusion of tongues (Genesis 11:1-9), or whether it began to evolve naturally (Genesis 10:5)"
   • "Some Early Modern scholars on basis of Genesis 10:5 have assumed that the Japhetite languages are the direct descendants of the Adamic language, having separated before the confusion of tongues, by which also Hebrew was affected, confirming in this way Emmerich's private revelations."
3. "Emmerich's taking up such recent exciting ideas in her mysticist speculations should be compared to the similar propensity of ..." would be valid, but that is not what is happening here.
4. Why on earth are you (of all people) defending this fringecruft anyway? Wikinger's edits have more OR and unencyclopedic material than a swiss cheese has holes.

-- Fullstop (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fullstop, based on your checking the sources, do you believe that the paragraph beginning "Some Early Modern scholars based on Genesis" should be deleted? If I read you correctly it violates NOR and perhaps NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The notion of a "language of Adam" is not a product of the Early Modern age. It was a subject that scholasticism already dealt with. These scholars philosophers had no scientia but what - in the main - the bible told them.
2. My point above vis-a-vis "Some Early Modern scholars" is two-fold:
   • who are these "scholars"?
   • the OR is in the last clause of the paragraph which has this message:
     "Some Early Modern scholars ... confirm[ed] in this way Emmerich's private revelations."
     While the text between those two clauses could well be correct, the suggestion that "scholars" confirmed Emmerich is horsepuckey.
3. I'm inclined to reject any source that does not explicitly refer to "Adamic language." Explicitely, and in precisely those terms.

-- Fullstop (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You obviously know much more than I do and I certainly respect your knowledge of this area. While I appreciate your thoughtful comments on the talk page, could you just go ahead and make the appropriate edits to the article itself, to reflect your understanding of the reliable sources and notable views? What you have written here already surely provides a strong basis for deleting some material, rewriting other material, and adding some material. Please, go ahead and help us turn this into something informative and reliable!!! Slrubenstein | Talk 01:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it next week. Right now, I wonder if this article fails WP:NOTE by recycling an existing term to mean something new. And, even so, does it really need its own article? There is already a section under 'Divine language', and which has virtually the same content (and all the same problems) that this article has. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dbachman was dismissive of my concerns about this article. I wonder whether this an other comments by you succede in persuading him. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit Break

According to my Bible (New International version), Genesis 2:19 states:

Now the Lord God had formed of the ground all the beasts of field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

The current opening paragraph is at the very least a Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.

I have access to Oxford Reference Online - there is not a single mention of Adamic language.

In a nutshell, this article needs to be tagged

Aatomic1 (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing Dbachman´s text to talk, until it can be rewritten to conform to encyclopedic standards

Dbachman now insists that he rejects Wikinger´s views, and that it is he, rather than Wikinger, who supports the following passages:

It is, however, unclear how much from the Biblical perspective this language was preserved by Adam's descendants until the confusion of tongues (Genesis 11:1-9), or that it began to evolve naturally (Genesis 10:5). There is no ancient claim that the Adamic language was identical to Biblical Hebrew, for "the Torah was written in the vernacular" of the Israelites (Talmud Sanhedrin 21b).

I would like some explanation as to how and why this (1) belongs in the article, (2) does not violate NPOV and (3) does not violate NOR. I think it simply does not belong in the article because it adds nothing at all to our understanding of the Adamic language. All it says is "there is something that "is not clear."" We should limit ourselves to adding notable views of Adamic language, not statements about what we do not know. Second, this violates NPOV because it makes an absolute claim (it is unclear) as if it were a fact. Whose view is this? I believe it is a wikipedia edito´r´s view and should be deleted, but if someone can tell me that this is in fact a view expressed by a notable source on the Adamic language, we can put it back in as long as it is made clear that it is a particular view, and the view is identified. As it is written it does not belong in the article. Third, I think this is original research as it makes an inference from an original source. It thus violates policy, and cannot go in the article.

Dante in the Divina commedia implies that the language of Paradise was different from later Hebrew by saying that Adam addressed God as I rather than El.

This is a clear violation of NOR. Dante did not make an assertion about Adamic language, some editor is making an original argument based on his or her own inference from Dante. If Dante actually made an explicit claim about the Adamic language, then this might be worth including the article, but according to this sentence he did not. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, there is a whole chapter (Chapter IX) called "Dante's Reappraisal of the Adamic language" in "Linguistic Theories in Dante and the Humanists" by Angelo Mazzocco ISBN 9004092501 (it's viewable on Google Books). This seems to be a perfectly good scholarly reference — there are probably others. Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And I would love to see that chapter represented in the article. But this sentence is not that. For one thing, I imagine that - in compliance with NPOV and NOR - the material would begin with something like, "According to Angelo Mazzocco ..." and furthermore would provide contextual information.

I think some people, including Dbachman, misunderstand my point and I hope I can clarify it right now. What I object to is this specific "content" meaning these particular sentences which I believe are unencyclopedic and violate policy. This does not mean that I object to the inclusion of any discussion of Israelite religion, Rabbinic Judaism, or Dante. Au contraire. I wish the article had good encyclopedic coverage of these views of "Adamic" language. This would require reliable, verifiable sources that provide material concerning notable views, which can be represented in the article in a way that clearly identifies the POV, does not violate NOR, provides adequate context, is informative, and is well'written. Perhaps you and Dbachman are well'qualified to add such content to the article. I would like to see equally reliable verifiable sources on Israelite and Talmudic views of "Adamic language" drawn on as sources for notable views in the article! Far from getting in your way, I would applaud you both and be grateful. That said, I continue to believe very strongly that the sentences I removed from the article are an embarassment to the project (a quality encyclopedia) and in violation of our policies as written. I repeat: "If Dante actually made an explicit claim about the Adamic language, then this might be worth including the article, but according to this sentence he did not." If what you write is correct, Mathsci, and I have every reason (viz. AGF) to believe it is, I am even more sure that I was right to remove the sentence. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I appreciate your mellow tone, but I am afraid I have to call bullshit all the same. Everyone agrees the discussion of the topic could be improved: I'm sorry, I simply don't have the time to sit down with this article for four hours right now, sue me. This is still no reason to blank what little content we have. Your request for an explanation of why the paragraph "(1) belongs in the article, (2) does not violate NPOV and (3) does not violate NOR" leaves me exasperated. How to explain the obvious? You could ask the same for any paragraph in any article whatsoever, and doing so is textbook WP:POINT. Slrubenstein, if Dante portrays Adam as using the name "I" for God, I ask you, is Dante, or is he not, portraying Adamic language? And is such a portrayal of Adamic language in world literature , or is it not, on topic in an article on the topic of Adamic language? What part of this do you feel needs "explanation"? Not to mention that the paragraph contested by you is a straight paraphrase of Eco's treatment of the subject. I must say your behaviour at this point is simply annoying, and disruptive. The time we have wasted with this pointless discussion, including your time, could have been invested in making the article about three times as informative as it is at present. Now please stop these disruption tactics and try to actually contribute something of value to the article if you are interested in the topic. dab (𒁳) 14:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am really not trying to be disruptive, I am removing unsourced and apparently OR material. Since I left in most of the contents, obviously I am being very selective in what I remove. And I am deliberately moving it to the talk page, rather than deleting it, to give other editors an opprotunity to work on it before returning it to the article. Lots of editors have taken this approach to problematic materials in many articles here over the past six years. I won´t sue you - but if you are so convinced the line is a direct paraphrase of Eco, would it really take you four hours to provide a citation? Sorry, that to me sounds like bullshit, since you insist on using the word. In the meantime, I look forward to reading your response to Fullstop´s reflections on the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is, in fact, a substantial body of critical literature on the subject of Adamic language (aka prelapsarian language) in Dante and Milton (specifically Paradise Lost). I think Slrubenstein's point is that we should be quoting and citing that literature rather than winging it. - Juden (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. When I first looked at this article it looked like a mix of pseudoscientific fringe theories and notes for a stub for a good article. I´d love to see this become a real scholarly article but even now I shudder to think what someone using Wikipedia as a real encyclopedia would conclude from reading this article. I fear they would either walk away with confused and misinformed ideas about whatever it is that the critical literature Juden refers to (including Eco) actually has to say ... or they will walk away thinking Wikipedia is a crappy encyclopedia. I certainly didn´t learn anything coherent from reading this. I feel I have to repeat that I am not impugning the good intentions of some editors, nor am I trying to delete this article bit by bit. I just think text has to pass a certain minimum threshold of accuracy and style, in addition to compliance with our content policies, before it becomes an article. Talk pages are specifically for working on improving the article which is precisely why I moved some questionable or unclear passages to the talk pages. Dbachman misconstrues my acts, and perhaps even the purpose of talk pages, when he judges my acts disruptive. Using the talk page is disruptive? Sorry, I believe on the contrary it is precisely the space for working on improving an article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The article is riddled with OR and original thought, and is unencyclopedic. This is so even now, after Slrubenstein's cautious removals.
   While the misquote-based OR is patently obvious from the very first sentence onwards, a far more insidious case of OR is present in the representation of "language of Adam" and prelapsarian language as "Adamic language." Who built that bridge and when? (NB: "language of Adam" and prelapsarian language - aka "language of Eden" - are not equivalent/interchangeable either).
2. Dbachmann's defence of Wikingers/his own OR, and continuing dismissal of Slrubenstein's objection is just plumb bad behaviour. Not "hav[ing] the time to sit down with this article" (i.e. to properly source statements) is no excuse. That "we have wasted [time] with this pointless discussion" is in the main because Dbachmann does not listen. Incidentally, in the ad-hominem attacks, the latest wielding WP:POINT, dbachmann appears to have forgotten his own failure to respect OR, V, PROVEIT, AGF.
3. Further, "world literature" (even if dbachmann is only explicitly referring to Dante) does not use the term "Adamic language." Even iff it were part of "world literature" vocabulary, we would not create an article because some write of old (eg. Dante) used such a term, but because there is significant peer-reviewed exegesis/discussion of that text's/author's use of the term. These two points are covered by WP:NOTE and WP:FRINGE, the latter being particularly remarkable because wp:fringe is dbachmann's favorite guideline. Perhaps he forgot that too.
4. The suggestion that if Slrubenstein has identified problems with the article, then he should rewrite it is putting the cart before the horse. The problems are there because dbachmann et al put them there, and - for unfathomable reasons - choose to defend them rather than listen and fix them.

Either way, the 'pedia loses. That sucks. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Towards an agreement

I think much of this controversy can be resolved if we agreed on three things:

1. The views described in this article are religious or "speculative" in nature. However, they are perfectly appropriate material for Wikipedia so long as they are significant and are presented for what they are. We should use neutral language that describes them as religious beliefs and speculations, characterizing them neither as science nor as myth.
2. Dante. Now that it is clear that there are works discussing Dante's view of the Adamic language, this material is appropriate so long as it is sourced and attributed to the contemporary secondary works, not to Dante himself
3. Anne Catherine Emmerich - In order to include Anne Catherine Emmerich's views, we need to find another source who comments on them and identifies them as significant. We should present the point of view of this secondary source if available. Otherwise, we have no basis to establish that her viewpoint on this subject is significant. --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think everyone involved here needs to step back and take a deep breath. Oh, and remember that one should do onto others as they would have done onto themselves. -- Sharkface217 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism section: Detailed quotes in footnotes

I don't really see a need for the extensive quotes that keep getting added in the footnotes. Why is extensive commentary about other parts of the Endowment ceremony that were eliminated in 1990 necessary? All we care about in this article is that the Adamic language part was removed, which a simple citation to a source satisfies. To me it appears that some editors just like to add detail which is intriguing or titilating but is not particularly relevant to this article. There are other articles where that information is relevant, like Endowment (Latter Day Saints), Blood oath (Latter Day Saints), etc. The complete quote from Pratt is not necessary; a simply note of what words he said were from Adamic and what the words meant should be sufficient. A full description of where "Pay Lay Ale" was said is also a bit extraneous to this article, which is about the language, not about the Endowment ceremony. Snocrates 21:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To me (someone who knows next to nothing about Mormonism), the section seems rather muddled. In contrast, the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" article (linked from section) is self-explanatory, and evidently written by someone who knows what he is talking about.

Why not simply paraphrase that article here? Whats with the other stuff in the "In Mormonism" section evidently not known to the person who wrote the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article?

I also note that a great many of the sources being invoked in the Mormonism section don't say a word about "Adamic language."

If those sources are in fact in some way a part of the relatively recent developments described in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article, then the interpreting authorities need to be cited, and not the original scriptures (etc) themselves. The originals should only serve as "backups" (as examples for instance).

-- Fullstop (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fullstop, I think part of the issue is that the part about "Pay Lay Ale" involves temple ceremonies, which good Mormons don't really talk or write about outside the temple, so stuff on that's not going to appear in the semi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism. People that do comment on it generally aren't interested in analyzing it's claim to be Adamic; they are more interested (typically) in highlighting just how weird or non-Christian it all is. Snocrates 01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Juden has a long history of appearing to have an ax to grind. Policies, writing style, or anything else seems to be more important than meeting her/his personal objective. We have all seen editors of this ilk; it is something that we deal with by being a public encyclopedia. Everyone one else must be diligent in monitoring their edits and allowing her/him to provide some type of logic that makes sense; if none is forthcoming, edits should be reverted. Until now, there has been nothing but pushing a personal agenda. It is the hope that one day these types of editors will learn to put down the ax and join the rest of the editors in producing superior articles. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

More accurately, you have a long history of grinding your ax, and making personal attacks on User: Juden. So this one is no surprise. If the quotes are not given, we find that "Pay Lay Ale" gets removed because it's not adequately cited (you've actually done so in the past), and because people don't actually read the cited works: two such removals have happened in this section already twice today. I'll put back a more limited quote, but past experience has proven that if a specific passage being cited is not included on the page, someone will come along and claim the citation doesn't support the data being given. - Juden (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a great reason for using the quotes. I think we can probably all agree that the citations say that, and there's no need to quote extensively. I will restore the information if deleted on the grounds of the citation not being supportive of the claim, so we can leave it at that and direct people to this discussion on the talk page if anyone wants to remove it for that reason. It sounds like a pretty petty edit war that should stop, and there's no need to continue it. Include the information in the text; exclude the quotes in the footnotes. A compromise everyone should be able to accept. Snocrates 07:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think it is petty, then you should stop participating in it. And since you are the person who removed the citation because you overlooked what was being referenced (in Pratt), I don't really think your opinion on the matter should carry the day. I will restore the citations of the Naifeh & Braithwaite references with the phrases pointing toward what is being referenced, in conformity with the Woman's Exponent, Brigham Young, and Journal of Discourses references. - Juden (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Pratt reference when it was inaccurate, which it clearly was since he didn't mention the place-name "Adam-ondi-Ahman". When the text was rephrased, I left it as is. I am not arguing that the cites don't say anything about "Pay Lay Ale", so I'm not sure why you think I'm part of your little tiff about that. Time to grow up, mate, and at least try to work within consensus instead of your own unilateral opinions. Snocrates 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You also removed the Pratt reference when it was accurate. And you clearly didn't review it well enough before doing so either time, because if you had, you would have made the same edits I made rather than removing it. Time to 'fess up, "mate". You've been removing references and information rather than adding and correcting them. - Juden (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The reinserted remarks are about ritual activity with (very obviously) no relationship to 'Adamic language'. The 'Pay Lay Ale' phrase is already covered with The Mormon Endowment prayer circle once included use of the words "Pay Lay Ale",^[*] which adherents believed were Adamic words meaning "Oh God, hear the words of my mouth".

The reinsertions contribute nothing. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collector of information. This policy carries the day. So, what you need to do is establish relevance to the topic. Failing that, any editor would be quite justified in removing them.

-- Fullstop (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And any editor would be quite justified in moving them from the notes to the article text. The reinserted quotes are self-evidently relevant, as "Pay Lay Ale" and its role in the Mormon ceremony represent the most notable usage of the so-called Adamic language. - Juden (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of just reflexively opposing anything another editor says, you need to try to understand what their point is and what it means. If the detailed quotes are irrelevant for the footnotes, chances are they're also irrelevant for the main body of the text. You may be right that an untrained editor would feel justified in adding them, but then other editors would be entirely within policy to pare them down to conform with policy. We're trying to help the article, and Fullstop especially has been making an effort to improve this page; and I don't think it's fair to just immediately reject his position when it's well set out. We need to try to work to consensus, which Fullstop is trying to broker here. Snocrates 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Snocrates, perhaps I'm reading something wrong, but why would an (even untrained) editor want to pull the footnotes up into the text? -- Fullstop (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(ps: thanks for the vote of confidence :)

Juden, they are perhaps self-evidently relevant to you, but not to me (who knows nothing about Mormonism). To me it looks like the inclusion of a sentence just because it shares a phrase with an already included sentence, but doesn't actually have anything to do with the topic under discussion. So, as I said before, what you need to do is establish relevance to the topic.

Secondly, it doesn't matter what the role of "Pay Lay Ale" is. This article is not about that phrase, but about the language of that phrase. The relationship between the phrase and language has been established as I noted before. The relationship between the phrase and the Mormon ceremony, or that ceremony to Mormonism are both irrelevant. Or to put it another way: Just because Joseph Smith said something about the language of Adam, doesn't mean we need a description of Joseph Smith or anything he otherwise said.

Again, from my (ignoramus) point of view, the reinsertions contribute nothing. If they do say something about Adamic language, then for heaven's sake explain how. Go forwards, not backwards. :)

-- Fullstop (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Forwards vs. backwards depends on your goal, I suppose. The Second Token of the endowment ceremony is the hapax legomenon of "Pay Lay Ale". That that is relevant should be clear. The insertions being reverted by those who would keep this information "secret" simply make that clear. There's nothing in the descriptions about Joseph Smith or anything else he said, so I really wonder what it is you are talking about. It seems you are talking about something that hasn't been in the article for several revisions. Further, pay lay ale redirects here; comprehensive coverage is warranted. - Juden (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Smith was just an analogy, i.e. 'X' is relevant, a biography of whoever said 'X' is not. Similarly, "Pay Lay Ale" is relevant as an example of Adamic, the ceremony in which the phrase appears is not relevant/an example of Adamic.

I don't follow your point that something is being suppressed. Whats visible in the article/history doesn't (to me) sound particularly remarkable, or make me suppose that it is some strange thing that someone might want to suppress. Every religion has its idiosyncrasies, that to an outsider might even appear to be outlandish, but neither do I see that being the case here, nor would it per-se imply that an adherent would want to suppress it.

If 'pay lay ale' is redirecting here, then the redirect is going in the wrong direction. This article is definitely not even remotely about 'pay lay ale', and certainly should not made to do so. What could an article on a language even say about a phrase in that language other than describe its grammar/syntax? (which obviously can't even happen in this case).

Since you evidently have quite a bit of material on that phrase, it would actually be appropriate to flesh out that article, and simply link from here. Then you could even pull up the notes into the article itself, they are then appropriate for that context.

If comprehensive coverage of 'pay lay ale' is warranted then what could possibly be more constructive than creating the comprehensive coverage in the article of that name?!

But even if you didn't have all that material, it would still make more sense to redirect to the ritual in which it is (so you say) so important. But you have the ball (material), so run with it (write the 'pay lay ale' article!). Don't stand around here in the bleachers. :)

-- Fullstop (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We can do without the analogies, then, since they don't seem to have any relevance. As to suppression, you can discover more about the efforts of the various editors in keeping information out of articles by reviewing their edit histories. This may be difficult to discern from a cursory review. as their history is spread over years. When someone devotes a great deal of editing time to removing information rather than supplying it, they are working counter to the raison d'etre of the encyclopedia, which is to supply information rather than repress it. - Juden (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(new indent) This logic is almost farcical! Keeping it secret? This little tid bit is already included in Endowment (Latter Day Saints). This is a very tired mantra for people desperate to promote an agenda that has no foundation. When the information is already on Wikipedia, who exactly is keeping it secret. When you google for it there are no less than 73,800 hits. Please tell us; if someone is trying to keep this secret they have failed miserably. The fact is that the information in question has no place in the article because it does not address the bloody topic! Put down that silly ax of yours before you hurt your credibility. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No one said you had been particularly successful. - Juden (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That is kind of funny—for me, I can say that my intent in reverting was not to keep anything "secret", as has been suggested. The information is just extraneous to the information in the article. If there was a dispute in the past about what the source actually says, that's fine, but I don't think such a dispute exists anymore and I still see no need for the extra information. Snocrates 09:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Extra information? This is an encyclopedia. We traffic in information. - Juden (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

But relevant information. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. - Juden (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Following Juden's assertion that 'pay lay ale' is/was a central feature of the Endowment ceremony, do you gentlemen think the redirect from pay lay ale to here should be changed to go to Endowment (Latter Day Saints) instead?
2. Given Juden's assertion that "comprehensive coverage is warranted", is there enough RS material on 'pay lay ale' to have a standalone article on pay lay ale? (while meeting notability too of course)

If either can be met, then we can give all the 'pay lay ale'-related stuff a more appropriate home and everyone will be happy.

-- Fullstop (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, what is clearly needed is expanded coverage. Surely with Storm Rider and Snocrates contributing their knowledge on the subject, we can fashion a stand-alone article on Pay Lay Ale. - Juden (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well now that is cute; don't you feel cute having suggested that? Juden, you have been prowling LDS sites regarding the temple long enough to be fully aware of their sacred nature. You also know that LDS make a covenant to not discuss the endowment in specific terms outside of the temple. I will not violate those covenants; however, given the amount of data on the internet it is a farce to claim anything about LDS temples is secret. Snocrates is not LDS and does not have any limitations.

This particular part of the endowment does not exist anymore; however, it is fully covered in the Endowment article. I cannot see a need for a separate article, but then I have been baffled in the past by what passes for articles on wikipedia. I dislike redundancy and stupidity, but it seems to be oft repeated here. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as soon as Pay Lay Ale is created, a proposal would be put forward to merge it into Endowment (Latter Day Saints). I would view such a merge as appropriate. It's a subtopic within the Endowment and I think most editors would agree to a merge. Snocrates 22:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the votes are in on the 'pay lay ale'..

1. For fashioning a separate pay lay ale/Pay Lay Ale: Juden

2. For treating it in the Endowment ceremony article: Storm Rider and Snocrates.

3. For treating it in the Adamic language article: no one.

That settles the issue then as far as this article is concerned.

-- Fullstop (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Formerly in Divine language article was linked better source. Because it doesn't cover whole sourced text, I restored this source. 216.40.255.90 (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

progress

an anon has archived and blanked the page, including active discussions, before I had a chance to reply to Fullstop's confused evaluations and rather vicious attacks on my person. That's perhaps as well. (I see you have restored the portions in question. Experience at Talk:Asha and elsewhere informs me that it would nevertheless be pointless to react to Fullstop's attacks)

To Slrubenstein I have the following suggestion: How about we merge the non-Mormonic material into Divine language and/or confusion of tongues, and make this exclusively about the Mormonism topic (with the necessary disambiguation notice)? I am afraid I still completely fail to see your point regarding "OR". You seem to be concerned that the fact that the Adamic language was discussed as a serious topic in the Middle Ages to the 17th century could somehow encourage confused fringe editors today. As indeed appeared to have been the case with Wikinger. What I fail to see is why we don't just revert the confused editors and keep the valid discussion of historical authors like everywhere else on Wikipeidia. Juden's helpful comment that There is, in fact, a substantial body of critical literature on the subject of Adamic language (aka prelapsarian language) in Dante and Milton (specifically Paradise Lost). I think Slrubenstein's point is that we should be quoting and citing that literature rather than winging it. This is perfectly fair enough, it is the regular progress from "stub" or "start" to "B" class articles. We only rarely make such progress by blanking the stubs we have. It is considered good practice to judiciously place {{fact}} tags with claims regarded as dubious. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope the RfC works and draws others into the discussion - let's see what they have to say, okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

you seem to want a better coverage on "Dante and Adamic". What is there to discuss? Juden has given a useful reference (Mazzocco), and we can build on that. The entire "dispute" seems to surround editing etiquette, viz., my objecting to your "asking" for a better discussion by blanking material. I am not used to that approach, but that a better discussion would be great is undisputed. Feel free to help. --dab (𒁳) 12:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, it was not Juden: it was my friend "google books" :) Mathsci (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can ignore what you consider Fullstop's personal attacks against you, perhps there are constructive suggestions for how to improve the article in his comments. Ditto Juden. That said, I really would just like to see more people participate. At one point you suggested that you knew ways to improve the article but did not have the time. Well, I certainly hav no objection to you working on the article itself, when you have the time!! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored a few more comments by Fillstop that do not seem to me to be personal attacks against you. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, I don't make a habit of bitching about people attacking me. I am just trying to get this conversation on constructive ground. Our original clash seems to have been due to a misunderstanding of some sort. My entire point is that an article on "Adamic language" that doesn't mention Dante is a joke. We had a brief mention of Dante, and even if it just served to call the reader's attention to the fact that Dante is important to the topic it was better than no mention of Dante at all. I have now expanded it into a brief section based on Mazzocco's discussion. This still needs a lot of work, and I do hope people will feel more compelled to add further material rather than simply blanking parts they don't like, that's all. To my mind, the whole Mormonism topic is completely irrelevant by comparison, but that doesn't mean I up and remove it. But since the Mormonism bit is completely detached from the literary history of the topic, I wonder, again, if it wouldn't be better to delegate it to a standalone Adamic language (Mormonism). dab (𒁳) 12:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your idea about the Mormonism thing sounds like a constructive suggestion, but I'd like other editors to weigh in. I am not questioning your good faith, only a general principle I have that Wikipedia articles should involve as many contriutors bringing different perspectives as possible (as long as they are all equally committed to core policies), Slrubenstein | Talk 15:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now also restored the material you have removed with some more context and proper citation. Below the line, it was a matter of sitting down for half an hour with google books. It is perfectly fair to ask whoever it is who wants to keep a statement to provide proper sources (this is why we have {{fact}}), but seeing that I did point to Eco (1993), and that this is on google books, I must really note that once again, people have invested much more time in bickering about a point than it would have taken to simply verify things and consider the case closed.

regarding the Mormonism thing, I do not insist on a split. It just strikes me that the article's two section are about completely different things that just happen to be called the same. But since the page isn't over-long, I see no harm in their standing side by side. dab (𒁳) 15:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is looking much better, now - good job, dab! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Mormonism part should be separated. There's little there, barely enough for a stubby article, and it's easily incorporated as a section at the end of the article. It deals with the exact same topic and merely represents one Christian group's take on the "language"; they are not about "about completely different things". As it stands now, there are already too many Mormonism-specific articles that should be merged into main articles; no need to make the trend worse, in my opinion. To segregate Mormonism's views of different topics to their own independent articles (just because they have a different spin to them) leads to this unfortunate Balkanization of WP, which means we have far more articles than are necessary. Snocrates 06:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think that the Mormonism part should be broken out, but in summary style rather than a disambig page. (I'm coming from the RFC.) The current configuration gives Mormonism undue weight, considering that most people thinking about this issue probably aren't Mormons. (Correct me if I'm mistaken--I don't have any outside info on this issue.) I don't think that this would balkanize the article, since Mormons understandably have different views on the same issue, which should be explained in reasonable detail if someone's already done the research. I'll probably be coming back later to comment on other aspects of this dispute, and I may attract the attention of some of my classmates to this page as well. (I'm in a class on internet law at Harvard Law School that requires us to try to help resolve an editing dispute on WP, and I think this could be a good one.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)