Talk:Eliot Indian Bible

Alphabet question

Very interesting. It says he developed an Algonquin alphabet but the photos show the Algonquin Bible uses the Roman alphabet like we do. Can you explain this? PumpkinSky talk 11:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question. I notice also that the 1663 edition shows "1663" in English for the time printed. The 1685 has for the date printed in Roman numerals. The other letters are of the Algonquin alphabet. So, my guess is that it was the printer's choice to show how the printed date would be shown. I think in 1685 it was a common practice for the printers to show the printed date in Roman numerals to confuse their customers so they wouldn't know later on it was an older edition. Keep in mind most people couldn't read or write English, let along Roman letters. It would be a way to disguise the printed date.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I see now what's confusing to me. I was expecting something with its own script, like Arabic or Thai. But it uses the Roman alphabet but with accent marks, like French or Spanish. PumpkinSky talk 13:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct!!! Eliot created a phonetically based written language based on the Roman alphabet. The reference does not tell me this exactly as the Roman alphabet. It says, Eliot became the first missionary... ...to translate the Scriptures into an unwritten language and then teach the people how to read it. He must have spoken the words (with the accent marks) and it sounded pretty much like their verbal language and they could recognize it then. English on the other hand must have been so far off that the Indians could not recognize it (as something similar to their language).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eliot Indian Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526165750/http://www.myloc.gov/Exhibitions/Bibles/OtherBibles/ExhibitObjects/TheEliotIndianBibleFirstBiblePrintedinAmerica.aspx?ImageId=886c5b91-a9b5-4fbf-a7e2-776c45f18484:8275982c-7354-4f46-af30-5948c4102449:321 to http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/Bibles/OtherBibles/ExhibitObjects/TheEliotIndianBibleFirstBiblePrintedinAmerica.aspx?ImageId=886c5b91-a9b5-4fbf-a7e2-776c45f18484:8275982c-7354-4f46-af30-5948c4102449:321
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k18801&pageid=icb.page93847
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430163434/http://www.myloc.gov/Exhibitions/Bibles/OtherBibles/ExhibitObjects/TheEliotIndianBibleFirstBiblePrintedinAmerica.aspx?Enlarge=true&ImageId=886c5b91-a9b5-4fbf-a7e2-776c45f18484%3a8275982c-7354-4f46-af30-5948c4102449%3a321&PersistentId=1%3a886c5b91-a9b5-4fbf-a7e2-776c45f18484%3a12&ReturnUrl=%2fExhibitions%2fBibles%2fOtherBibles%2fExhibitObjects%2fTheEliotIndianBibleFirstBiblePrintedinAmerica.aspx to http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/Bibles/OtherBibles/ExhibitObjects/TheEliotIndianBibleFirstBiblePrintedinAmerica.aspx?Enlarge=true&ImageId=886c5b91-a9b5-4fbf-a7e2-776c45f18484%3a8275982c-7354-4f46-af30-5948c4102449%3a321&PersistentId=1%3a886c5b91-a9b5-4fbf-a7e2-776c45f18484%3a12&ReturnUrl=%2fExhibitions%2fBibles%2fOtherBibles%2fExhibitObjects%2fTheEliotIndianBibleFirstBiblePrintedinAmerica.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eliot Indian Bible/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aven13 (talk · contribs) 12:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I'll review this article. Aven13 12:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

From a first read-through, it looks like a good, solid article. Here are some suggestions:

• Put the fact that it was published in 1663 into the intro somehow.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Stephen Daye of England contracted with Jose Glover". Do you need the "with" here? Would it make it clearer if it was just "contracted Jose Glover"?

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• There are a lot of commas in this article. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but in some sentences like "where religious materials, such as" could do without them.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "(a language they little understood)". Change the little around to make it "a language they understood little of".

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Eliot’s Indian Bible was printed in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at Harvard College by Samuel Green." You've said that Samuel Green was the printer and that it was printed at Harvard multiple times throughout the article at this point, so you don't really need this sentences.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Make sure to put commas in all numbers with more than three digits that aren't years.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "In 1685, after some debate, the 'Corporation' decided to..." Instead of using corporation, use the name New England Company.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of the "legacy" section, you start two sentences in a row with the phrase "Eliot's Indian Bible". Substitute the second one with a pronoun.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• You don't have to necessarily have a citation after every single sentence. The exact example I'm thinking of is the fourth paragraph of the "Legacy" section, where for three consecutive sentences, you cite the same source three times. Once at the end of those three sentences should be enough.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• At the end of the article, under the "see also" section, there's a mention of John Ratcliff. However, throughout the entire article, he isn't at all mentioned. Mention him once as one of the main people who bound the Bible for Eliot.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the infobox, why was it "new testaments in 1663" the "preceded by" segment? Also, the note that just says "x" has to be removed. You don't need the "media type", "subject", "cover artist" or "series" sections either. Just author, publisher, language, genre, publication date, country, and the picture of the cover should be enough.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• There's a big red link under citation 11.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That's all I have for right now. More to come. Aven13 13:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• You should probably add a paragraph break somewhere in the first paragraph (I'd recommend before the phrase Mamusse Wunneetupanatamwe Up Biblum God). It's a bit long as it is and covers many different subjects. Make it into two paragraphs.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Johnson had a three-year contract to help assist to print". This sentence needs fixed. Aven13 16:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aven13: - All issues have been addressed. Can you take a look at it. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Yes, the vast majority of the prose is clear.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Complete list of sources with all paragraphs referenced

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   You've written just about all that can be written

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Hesitant yes; the article is quite wordy, but it's still good enough for GA criteria

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   It's a well-written article on a topic that it is rather difficult to get good info about. Good job. It is hereby promoted to GA. Aven13 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Translation Source of the Original Edition

The introduction states (with good evidence) that Eliot and his Wampanoag assistants translated from the Geneva Bible. However, the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph in the Legacy section states that the 1709 edition is based on the King James Bible "just like 'Eliot's Indian Bible' (aka: 'Mamusse Wunneetupanatamwe Up Biblum God')." It seems that the 1709 edition does seek to render the King James, i.e. Authorized Version, given that the link from footnote 36 gives as Other Titles "Bible. O.T. Psalms. English. Authorized. 1709" and "Bible. N.T. John. English. Authorized. 1709" along with the Note quoting Trumbull that "every verse underwent revision and scarcely one remains without some alteration", as would be the case if a Geneva Bible translation is being brought into alignment with the Authorized Version. Please delete the comment beginning "just like 'Eliot's Indian Bible..." Curmudgeonly Pedant (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Algonquin v. Massachusett

The beginning of this article originally stated that the title of the book was in Algonquin. I changed it to Massachusett.

Algonquin is a different language spoken outside of New England, and was likely conflated with the Algonquian language family that Massachusett is also a part of. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)