Talk:Adamic language/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Non-Mormon Adamic language

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Nomothete

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: LDS Endowment

message: 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)
thread_title: Category dispute

message: 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)
thread_title: Deleted phrase

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Edit war

message: 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)
thread_title: Violation of NOR

message: Fullstop, I wanted only to make this page shorter to load by optimizing indents. Wikinger (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wikinger, do not edit other people's comments 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: BAN

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 , that I wanted to comment several minutes later with proper reference. Wikinger (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit Break 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  (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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Either way, the 'pedia loses. That sucks. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Dbachman´s text to talk, until it can be rewritten to conform to encyclopedic standards 

message: I think much of this controversy can be resolved if we agreed on three things:
#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. 
#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
#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)
thread_title:  Towards an agreement