Wikipedia:Peer review/Critical appraisal of the Book of Abraham/archive1

Critical appraisal of the Book of Abraham

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote it to GA (and possible FA) one day. Since this is basically listing many criticisms and rebuttals of those criticisms, I thought it would be best to have someone else read over this article and see if anything is too POV. I have also, to the best of my ability, gone over everything to make sure that it reads well and that there are no typos, but a quick look-over would also be great.

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Emir of Wikipedia

@Gen. Quon: If you're still interested then I'll pick up this peer review. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: I would much appreciate that!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might be a while as I'm busy the next few days, but I hope to be helpful. 18:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I'm in no real rush with this project, so you can take your time!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead has a heavy amount of citations. Could these be moved to the article about the book, or the body of the text? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the citations aren't really necessary, as what they are sourcing is covered (and sourced) in-depth within the article itself. I have removed those. At the same time, I've kept the citations for the direct quotes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that edit. I like the use of the image and the caption about it, the article is well summarised by it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background

This section looks good. One problem is with the image caption. What is written under the image makes it sounds like it is questioned if Joseph Smith translated the papyri or not, but the vibe I'm getting from the main text is that the quality of the translation and not the authorship is what is questioned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is, "Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham, which he claimed was translated from Egyptian papyri"? I'm trying to say that Joseph Smith wrote the book, but he said he translated it (and evidence suggests that this is not the case).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So Joseph Smith undisputedly wrote the book? It is the person who translated it which is questioned? If so then a simple change from he which he claimed was translated from Egyptian papyri to something like from a Egyptian papyri which he claimed he translated will do. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith wrote the book, which he claimed to have translated. Most scholars believe that he did no such thing (that is, translate from Egyptian-to-English), although almost everyone is in agreement that he created the English 'translation' (if that makes sense). It's rather confusing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a bit confusing, but I think the new caption that you added succinctly explains it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis and translation of the papyrus by Egyptologists

To improve this section perhaps we could clarify about the Great Chicago Fire. The use of a question mark indicates that their is doubt that they were destroyed in it, what do the reliable sources say about this? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the chart to read "Presumed lost in the Great Chicago Fire". This is also what Ritner 2013, pp. 61–66 suggests, and he's the one who is cited at the top of the chart, after "Status".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar"

This section looks good. Only improvement I could suggestion is if you could include an image, perhaps of the relevant verses. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a page from the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar". How does that look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, thanks for the addition. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The facsimiles

Early criticism of the facsimiles

All looks good here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facsimile no.

I see that Facsimile No. 2 has a further information section linking to its' own article, does one exist for the other facsimiles? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. The only other articles that exist related to this topic are Joseph Smith Papyri and Kirtland Egyptian papers, which are linked above in the article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. In that case the sections for the individual facsimiles seems good. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other criticisms

This is a plural but only one one other criticism is given. I was initially thinking that is a small issue and was thinking of making it singular, but I wonder if you can think of a better title. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Scripture-based criticism", as I think that better summarizes the (rather short) section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Psiĥedelisto

Wow, small world. I literally just requested a peer review of a Mormon topic I've been writing about, and before I started that I didn't know anything about Mormonism and this article was one of the ones I read during research. I remember thinking it was really well written, so even though it wasn't related to what I was writing I still read the whole thing.

Well thanks! I appreciate you taking the time to look over this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I'd link Egyptologist
Good catch.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would mention that it is included in the Pearl of Great Price
Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Since its publication in 1842, the Book of Abraham has been a source of controversy. Non-Mormon Egyptologists, beginning in the late-19th century, have disagreed with Joseph Smith's explanations of the facsimiles. " <-- I think this is far too weak. One of them said "It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations", and none of them said that Smith was even close to correct.
I changed it to: "Non-Mormon Egyptologists, beginning in the late-19th century, have heavily criticized Joseph Smith's explanations of the facsimiles, with many claiming that his interpretations are entirely inaccurate."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery of papyri and their sale to Joseph Smith

Is it possible to include more information about how Smith translated it? How did he come up with the phonetic values, or is this unknown? (I mean, this is Joseph Smith we're talking about here, someone "known for tall tales"...)
I'll have to check the sources I used, but I have a feeling that the exact system hasn't been preserved. But then again, the 'paperwork' that suggests how parts of this book were constructed are in existence, so maybe scholars have considered this topic.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis and translation of the papyrus by Egyptologists

It seems strange to me that you included three different translated sections, but maybe this was unavoidable. Would it be possible to put translations by different people of the same section together? That would be quite interesting, as it would show independent Egyptologists in agreement about the translation (or not).
Not a bad suggestion (perhaps like something with the facsimiles?), although I will point out that the first block quote is just a summary of the recovered papyrus, whereas the next two are translations of two separate parts of that very same papyrus.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early criticism of the facsimiles

I really think this section could benefit from a (perhaps highly) abridged Decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs...when I read this it wasn't clear to me at all how much these early people knew vs. us today vs. what we don't know. I know about the Rosetta Stone of course, but the road from finding the rock to translating the whole language could not have been a straight line.
Good idea. I'll look into that, as I'm honestly not really that knowledgeable on how it all went down.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really related to this section, but I did reorder and rewrite the preceding section because I felt it was a little all over the place. I think it makes a bit more sense now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facsimiles 2-3

As I was reading this section, I was quite confused, probably because of my own ignorance never having read Smith's BOA. Earlier sections said that the originals were lost in a fire, but we know what they look like? So, it must mean that they were published in the Book Of Abraham, so what exactly was lost in the fire, why couldn't Egyptologists translate everything?
The originals for Facs. 2 and 3 were lost. The original for Fac. 1 was later discovered, and a reproduction of the source for Fac. 2 was later discovered in the Kirtland Egyptian papers. The only thing that is totally unaccounted for is the source of Fac. 3. I tried to make that a little clearer with this edit.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scripture-based criticism

Don't get me wrong, interesting and should def. be included. However maybe not stand alone, it would work better as a subsection due to its length.
I have modified the article so that there are two major sections: "Criticism of the book" and "Defense of the book". The former section now includes "Scripture-based criticism" as a sub-section. Does that work better?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of the book

"For many years, Hugh Nibley, for instance, preferred the argument that the Sensen text has two meanings: one that can be determined by standard translation, and another than can only be divined with something like the Urim and Thummim, or a seer stone." Maybe reiterate some info from "The "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar"". This isn't like the Book of Mormon, there is abundant evidence Smith was trying to do this in a pseudo-academic way. We don't have a dictionary/grammar of the BOM after all.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean to reiterate that this argument seems to be rather poor/weak, given all that we know?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These things are all very small, and if they were ignored the article is still excellent. Note that I am a very new contributor with no GA's as of yet, so take my advice with a grain of salt also! Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do really appreciate your comments, and no worries about being new. Your comments have been very helpful and have made me rethink and rewrite sections that I now see aren't all that clear.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]