Talk:Miꞌkmaw hieroglyphs

message: Is there one big book or website that has all the known mi'kmaq logographs conveniently sorted by english (or french or whatever)? I want to look up various words and see how they are rendered in the old mi'kmaq script.--142.108.107.36 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: big dictionary of all mi'kmaq logographs?

message: There is currently a dispute on whether or not to include a link to a certain site on the article.  Please, if there is disagreement, please discuss things at the talkpage, don't just battle it out in edit summaries.  Thanks, --Elonka 18:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree. I also did not think it was appropriate to blank the Fell section. That's POV. I reject the Fell "hypothesis" of course, but it's a fact. I'm on holiday in Brittany at the moment and my copy of Fell is at home, so I can't check. But deleting the link to the website, and blanking the whole Fell section are certainly not the right way to do things here. -- Evertype·✆ 07:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stick to "debunkings" that have been reliably sourced somewhere.  If these "debunkings" are published for the first time anywhere on wikipedia, isn't that the definition of OR? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One does not need an "external debunking" to "prove" that the heart-and-lungs meaning 'good' does not mean 'truth'. It simply doesn't. It is not a question of "original research". We have, however, linked to other Wiki pages about it. I will check my original Fell books when I get home regarding the section and try to improve its external references. -- Evertype·✆ 08:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But ውይይት is right, if it's made up for Wikipedia, it's OR. It's not so much proving that 'good' doesn't mean 'truth', it's the conclusions we draw from that. The reason it seems suspicious to me is that it's too good a match: after several millennia, I'd expect the meanings (and the graphic forms) to diverge more than that, so I'd draw the same conclusion from the opposite reasoning. If we can't debunk Fell without our own analysis of the data, then maybe it would be better to remove the section completely. kwami (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't indulge in Wiki-fetishism... The rules are not there to make it difficult for us to contribute to articles articles in a meaningful and useful way. I see nothing in the article that is objectionable, and I would strongly object to summary deletion. -- Evertype·✆ 22:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that "good"-"truth" is actually a very good semantic match, so to say Fell is wrong because they don't match is disingenuous. That's one of the problems with OR. kwami (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot agree. (1) Fell (or this source) doesn't show the Egyptian heart-and-lungs accurately. (2) F35 nfr with phonetic complements F35-I9:D21 may mean 'good' but F35-F35-F35 nfrw (a plural) means 'beauty'. With other determinatives the character is used to mean 'the Crown of Upper Egypt, Neferḥotep', 'zero' (nfr pw 'not', 'there is not'); nfrt 'cattle', nfrw 'young men', nfrt 'fair women'. Fell's evident suggestion that it means 'truth' is simply inaccurate as 'truth' which is written m3't with  Aa11-U1. So compounded with that error, I don' t think  'holy' is a "very good semantic match". Particularly as the Míkmaq character is far more likely to have been derived from the Christian orb of the earth surmounted by the cross than the Egyptian heart-and-lungs. Moreover the same problems are (easily!) found with all four of these examples. I don't think there's any disingenuity here. -- Evertype·✆ 07:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I kind of agree that the Fell hypothesis deserves to stay, as a search on the Mi'kmaq writing system seems invariably tied to Fell and his Egyptian hypothesis. This website gives a nice and detailed explanation about the whole theory and history. And although I'm not suggesting that the theory is truth, it is also briefly mentioned on Mi'kmaq websites as well, such as this one. So if references could be improved, there should be no reason to keep arguing the section's notability. - Io Katai (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit-warring

message: I have before me "parallel versions" of part of Psalm 116 in Fell's America B.C.. The brashness of Fell's fiction is truly staggering. The text is actually from Psalm 113:11-14 "In exitu Israël" (though the numbering of psalms may differ between the Vulgate and other versions) and Fell doesn't even draw the Míkmaq correctly. Then below that he gives a set of Egyptian hieroglyphs; evidently he would have us believe that the syntax of Míkmaq and Egyptian are the same as well. In the New American Bible the citation is Psalm 115:3-6. Fell also gives two tables of one to one "correspondences"; "goodness" is not there. I am not really sure how to present this material. A proper debunking (including line by line criticism of his Egyptian in the psalm at least) would probably constitute original research. Discussion? -- Evertype·✆ 08:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree he is both sufficiently notable to include and needs debunking. I'm not sure how to go about it, though. kwami (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a question of a claim about translation. If someone published a theory saying that La plume de ma tante est sur le bureau de mon oncle was equivalent to यच्छापि सार्वभूतानां बीजां तदहं, would it be "original research" for a Wikipedian to demonstrate why this theory was false? -- Evertype·✆ 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OR to interpret the relevance of the difference. No problem if the translation is completely off. But if it's a matter of how accurately the glyphs are drawn and whether the semantics are really close enough, then that's rather like us debunking Nostratic or some such based on our expectations of what such a relationship should look like. We could have a near-perfect match and it still wouldn't mean much (as in rongorongo & Indus), but if you say a match is close enough and I say it isn't, how do we decide? kwami (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no match of any kind. Fell altered the data to make his theory sound plausible. The false equivalence of the French and Sanskrit I give above is not a matter of "interpretation". It's a matter of fact. Not judgement. बीजां bījaṁ does not mean 'bureau'. It means 'jewel'. Perhaps my analogy was poor. Fell's "equivalent" lines of Míkmaq and Egyptian are not falsely equivalent because I argue that they are. They simply are not equivalent, and this can be demonstrated. ANYONE who knows anything about Míkmaq and Egyptian would know this at once. Since (let us say) you do not, I could show you. Would this be "research"? No... it would be demonstration. -- Evertype·✆ 21:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I'm not going to revert anything you add to this, because I know you're right, and I've added similar things to other articles. But I don't agree with your argument. Regardless of phonetic complements, F35 can mean 'good' (reduplicating it, after all, makes the root nfr plural, demonstrating that the root nfr is associated with this glyph and not just the phonetic complements). The fact that a glyph or root can have other derived meanings is irrelevant; the core meaning is 'good'. Yes, Fell's drawings are sloppy, but the graphic match between Micmac 'holy' (assuming that it's drawn accurately) and a correctly drawn F35 is decent, as is the semantic match between 'good' and 'holy'. We therefore have a reasonable semantic and graphic match, especially considering the separation of space and time. Now if we had a hundred such examples I'd think the proposal looked pretty good. The problem for me is that a look-alike or three can easily be coincidence, just as English much and Spanish mucho are coincidence, or Latin ta and kana た are coincidence, and also that other etymologies are plausible, given the missionary influence on the script and the graphic similarity between Micmac 'holy' and Christian symbolism. I'd argue that we have a good match, but that it's insufficient; you argue that we don't have a match at all. This isn't fact vs. fiction, it's a difference in opinion on how to interpret the evidence. It's OR. kwami (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a heart-and-lungs, not the Christian orb-and-cross. This isn't research. It's just what is. Anyway the image we have is not actually Fell's drawing, and I will do what I can (I am very busy at the moment) to upload something better. -- Evertype·✆ 12:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Just wondering -- if a fringe view like this hasn't been debunked, is it really significant? Doug Weller (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted, rational sources such as Cape Breton University make no mention of him, and I'd rather not give him any more publicity, but Fell has had reasonable exposure, and Micmac writing is so obscure that a large number who've heard of it have heard of it through Fell. Rather than debunking him here, though, maybe we could have a link to the Fell article and debunk him there? kwami (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Debunk him how? Source? Doug Weller (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fell

message: As it stands, per my comment above, I think this article needs expansion, with Fell a minor side-note so to speak. It didn't take me long to find, as an example, this 
- the article should say something about what was translated into pictographs and why. It says it was popular but doesn't explain why. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting reading. IMO, though, Fell doesn't really belong here at all. It's hard to imagine an account that wouldn't have undue weight. — kwami (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found "Bruce Greenfield also notes the important role of performance with respect to Mi'kmaq hieroglyphics; see Greenfield, "The Mi'kmaq Hieroglyphic Prayer Book: Writing and Christianity in Maritime Canada, 1675-1921," in Edward Gray and Norman Fiering, eds., The Language Encounter in the Americas" and "A similar control of forms of literacy is evident in eighteenth-century Acadia, where the Spiritan missionary Pierre Maillard fostered the use of Mi'kmaq hieroglyphics but was reluctant to teach the Roman alphabet because the ability to read in French might lead to political unrest among his Native charges.33" in Warkentin, Germaine. (1999). “In Search of ‘The Word of the Other’: Aboriginal Sign Systems and the History of the Book in Canada.” Book History. Volume 2. It's this sort of stuff that we need, not fringe stuff about Egyptians. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fell does belong here because wrong or fringe or whatever, he still did write about Micmac hieroglyphs. We've similar fringishness in Ogham and Runic if I recall. There should be more than the Fell stuff here, but the Fell stuff at least should be accurate. -- Evertype·✆ 13:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I found the strange Fell section a bit of a shock when I read it, but I agree that it at least relates to the article's topic. The question is whether Fell is notable according to reliable sources. If enough quality references can be found, the section should stay. Furthermore, if he is merely FRINGE, then he doesn't belong. But if he is notable FRINGE (his speculations are of real interest to academicians or to Native Americans), then he belongs with a "FRINGE" note. Debunking is neither needed nor appropriate here, unless done by citations; the real issue is notability as shown by quality references. David Spector (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

text: As stated by other editors above, Fell himself is notable, he wrote on the topic and it does represent a viewpoint picked up by others or that has some following.  Even if you consider it "fringe", we still ought to report on it, not suppress all mention of it from wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

text: No, because I dispute your assertion that Barry Fell's writings are not notable or pass GNG. They probably aren't notable to you because you personally disagree with them.  The previous consensus on how to treat Fell in this article is better than blanking out all mention of his theory relevant to Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing, as you are doing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fell is notable, but not everything he says belongs on Wikipedia. In this case it dominates the article. This doesn't seem to be significant enough to be included - it seems to receive scant mention in reliable sources. I know you don't like our NPOv policy but WP:UNDUE applies here. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are wrong, and you are now suppressing / censoring all mention one of the significant published viewpoints regarding the subject, Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing, because you are trying to enforce your personal POV about the question. I suppose I should make a request for comment here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Throwing out logical red herrings about "alien abductions" in your edit summary doesn't help much.  In terms of a logical argument, this has no valid connection whatsoever. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an NPOV issue as I've said, so take it to WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

text: It may be worth including in the article on Fell.  If this article were well developed, then it might belong here per WEIGHT, but as is it's too much.  — kwami (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should actually be in this article? 

message: I don't ever recall hearing the Egyptian theory, I'm more familiar with the Chinese/Asian connection. Also, is this the actual Mik writing, or some White/missionary imposed scribbles assigned to their heathen language as was often done with other Natives? Could Kublai Kahn's fleet have been blown to North America by that typhoon in 1281, like debris from the Fukushima tsunami?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.234.205 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well even if Kublai Khan's fleet did get blown to Nova Scotia, but there are no sources whatsoever suggesting that, then unfortunately we can't mention it per WP:VER.  Talk pages are not a forum for shoe-horning your own original speculation on the subject.  And yes this is original Mi'kmaw writing, not invented for them by the French - but there is indeed a school of thought that says if non-white races had any signs of intelligence, the only possible explanation is that whites must have taught it to them, therefore they say the French must have taught the Mi'kmaq to write in hieroglyphics.  We call this school of thought "white supremacism". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an article for that Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts#Fringe theories. For a better explanation of why it's not in article other than this, see WP:FRINGE. Heiro 19:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What fringe theory? The anon's speculation about Kublai Khan having something to do with this topic doesn't even rise to the level of a fringe theory, because I'm pretty sure nobody else has ever suggested any such thing before.  This is pure abuse of talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Chinese/Asian origin theory? 

message: ?--Albedo @  12:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing. 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/20041124100245/http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mikmaq/ to http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mikmaq/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051017184218/http://www.vjf.cnrs.fr/celia/FichExt/Am/A_19-20_34.pdf to http://www.vjf.cnrs.fr/celia/FichExt/Am/A_19-20_34.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I used this content in the article Mi'kmaq Oceanflynn (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Article on Mi'kmaq

message: When I said in the move summary from Miꞌkmaw hieroglyphic writing, I mean the pre-Le Clercq symbols. Since this article is partially about them, it is inappropriate to have "writing" in the article title. Remsense诉 22:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying move