Talk:Adamic language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dee's Adamic langauge[edit]

I just added some info about Dee's Adamic language. Right now it's pretty bare - just cut-and-paste (with some clean-up) from the articles they point back to. It still needs some dates and references. Kheph777 (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Glossary reposting[edit]

The glossary and other items not pertinent to the article have been repeatedly reposted here, despite warnings that they do not belong. If it is reposted, it will once again be removed, and I will semi-protect the page to avoid this continuous disruption. This will have the effect of restricting comments here to registered users, and is less desirable than the alternative: that anonymous users practice appropriate restraint. - Nunh-huh 16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the material in question has been repeatedly reposted by unregistered users despite warnings, I have semi-protected the page. This page is for discussion of the article, and not for discussion of the topic in general. - Nunh-huh 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It referred to asking people for their comments before looking at making additions to the pages about Adamic and also other subjects. Please forgive me. I really can't even begin to understand your argument. Please explain why you have removed discussion of a matter which would appear to clear up several mysteries, on several pages, in a way which seems pretty much self apparent once it is pointed out. Why did you remove comments? And why did you remove what appears to amount to a citation from Wikipedea itself stating that new insights appear in encyclopedeas, including Wikipedea. It seems to be saying that is a positive. I saved that quote and I've put it below.

Online collaboratives are run by users, some are experts, some are not… Expect surprising insights. A major encyclopedia, like Britannica, can have articles written by highly intelligent experts who might describe astounding insights in their articles. However, even the street-level Wikipedia sometimes contains articles by intelligent experts or eyewitnesses, who avoided the committee censorship, and wrote profound insights within a Wikipedia article. Also, profound information might still exist in prior Wikipedia revisions: check the Talk discussion of an article to see if expert opinions were removed but still exist in prior revisions that can be viewed.

Can I make a practical suggestion. As you feel so strongly about ensuring that no discussion can take place upon the subject of additions to the page about Adamic, could you please explain your feelings? Maybe we can overcome your personal issues on the matter and we can then move on to further rational discussion of things which otherwise seem to make little rational sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Snowball (talk • contribs)

I'll make a suggestion as well: don't misstate the facts. I am encouraging discussion here aimed at improvement of the article. I have no "personal issues". If anyone re-adds the glossary - which is bizarre screed, not rational discourse - here, it will be removed and that person will be blocked. Keep your discussion here limited to improving the article. WIkipedia is not going to be the web host for your personal idiosyncratic views. see WP:NOR. - Nunh-huh 23:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "I'll make a suggestion as well: don't misstate the facts… I have no "personal issues". If anyone re-adds the glossary - which is bizarre screed, not rational discourse - here, it will be removed and that person will be blocked." You also wrote: "I am encouraging discussion here aimed at improvement of the article." Please forgive me. Anyone who has just read the notes above will see that they clearly state that people were asked to consider self apparent information on the subject of Adamic, with a view to see what, if anything, should be added to the page about the subject of the Adamic language, and quite possibly a number of other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Snowball (talk • contribs)

You have now gone from saying that information may only be placed on the discussion page about Adamic, provided for the purpose of discussion of possible additions or changes to the article about Adamic, provided it is about possible changes to the article on Adamic (which the information you are attempting to ban clearly is,) to saying that the information may not even be placed in the archive of past discussion and comment, and that if anyone places it here - or anywhere else, such as the discussion page archive - you will ban them completely from commenting in any way on Wikipedea where other people can consider the relevance of the comment to the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Snowball (talk • contribs)

Forgive me, but how on earth can you possibly hope to react in such a strong way that you will not just ban all consideration of something on a discussion page, but ban anyone who attempts to place it there for consideration, or leave past discussion in the discussion page archive, while attempting to maintain that you do not have any personal feelings about the subject matter?—Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Snowball (talk • contribs)

Forgive me, but the use of the word "bizarre" was a bit of a give away. For you to feel that something is bizarre, you must clearly have pretty strong feelings about it. That is a feeling. You are plainly acting on your feelings towards something, and given your insistence upon citations from other sources, it would appear that you object strongly to anything that has not previously been presented.—Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Snowball (talk • contribs)

Can I suggest a simple test to see whether you are banning people from considering the subject matter. On my Talk Page you stated that the information may only be placed on a Talk Page. Does that mean that people are allowed to propose something for consideration in an article on their Talk Page and refer people to it on the discussion page, without it being removed and/or without them being banned from any comment on Wikipedea again? Or will you allow people to be notified of information to be discussed, prior to proposals being made to make additions or changes to the article about Adamic?—Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Snowball (talk • contribs)

Your behaviour has raised a number of points, not all of which have been raised yet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Snowball (talk • contribs)

Snowball, you want to review WP:TALK for the purpose of Wikipedia talkpages. If you don't stick to discussing encyclopedic sources, your contributions may be blanked. You also want to read Wikipedia for an overview of what Wikipedia is. See WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is not. The policy that applies to your stuff is WP:NOR (read it). Bizarre or not, your material is of no interest to Wikipedia unless and until you have published it academically, or at least with a major publisher, eliciting reviews in notable media. Before you do that, there is nothing to discuss here. If you want to have this kind of discussion, kindly hold it at an internet forum of your choice, but not here. dab (𒁳) 10:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I am now reading the Wikipedea policies. I have raised valid points above. I look forward to the responses upon those points. Also to hearing whether people will be allowed to consider whether additions or changes should be made to the article about Adamic on people's Talk Pages, or if the ban upon consideration of information, no matter how self evident, also extends to disallowing people from letting people know that discussion of the article about Adamic is taking place there instead.

Can I also ask if the ban is so total that it extends to other Wikipedea projects.—Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Snowball (talk • contribs)

Again, you need to actually read WP:NOR. Speculations and pet theories of Wikipedia editors are not ever going to be part of the encyclopedia. We are interested only in information that can be verified in a reliable source. - Nunh-huh 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hoping that I correctly attributed to "It's Snowball" the unsigned comments that appear to have been made by them. I'm trying to figure out who is saying what.jonathon (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Re: Asking for Comments: The consensus is that the glossary is, at best, irrelevant. WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V apply; jonathon (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Re:self apparent information on the subject of Adamic: It was neither self-apparent, nor supported by any research in linguistics, grammatology, and related disciplines;
  • Re: Ban all discussion: The point of the talk page is to improve the article. This means discussion of sources, as to whether or not those sources meet WP:RS and WP:V criteria. If the proposed additions are original research, it is not to be placed on Wikipedia, because that violates both WP:RS and WP:V;
  • Re: I have raised valid points above: It has been explained why your proposals fail Wp:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR;
  • If that synopsis did not cover your points, list them clearly, with one line per point. jonathon (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
if you think that points that have been blanked were "self-evident", it should be extremely easy for you to provide a large number of sources making them. If nobody has ever made your point before, perhaps it isn't as self-evident as you believe. Again, the internet is wide, and there are many places other than Wikipedia where you can discuss your idea. It is unclear why you chose Wikipedia in particular for posting this: Wikipedia is a very specific project with a very specific aim. You should only be here if you are interested in what Wikipedia is doing. You don't go posting cookie recipes to websites specialized on dog breeding, do you. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me. Whenever I ask you a question, you seem to hide behind a page on Wikipedea. So with that in mind, would you mind beginning with the point about the direct quote from Wikipedea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Snowball (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a number of policies and guidelines on how to write an article. The quote you cited comes into play after the three major policy guidelines have been met.jonathon (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have taken a very large step backwards. For some time now, I have been pointing out that I have not attempted to re-write the article. I am hoping that it will not be necessary to point this out again after this. We are only talking about being able to consider the relevance of the information to the page about Adamic on the talk page provided for that purpose. People cannot consider the relevance for themselves if the observations are removed and banned, along with anyone who dares refer to them anywhere on Wikipedea. Once again, could I ask that the quote from Wikipedea be addressed. Namely, that of allowing insight in Wikipedea. If the rules say it is wrong, then Wikipedea does not have a clear view upon it. The quote about finding insights on Wikipedea is on a front page on Wikipedea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Snowball (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been considered; it's not cited to a reliable source, and so has no place in the encyclopedia. Since it has no place in the article, it has no place on the talk page. This is Wikipedia policy; if you think otherwise, you misunderstand WIkipedia policy. - Nunh-huh 07:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is plainly nonsense. The talk pages are here to discuss points so to judge their relevance. Not for anyone to insist that if anyone dare attempt to discuss the relevance of any point raised, they will all be banned from Wikipedea. Moreover, you have failed entirely to address the matter of Wikipedea's statement that insights are a positive to be expected on Wikipedea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Snowball (talk • contribs) 19:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. If you repost this material here, I will block you. - Nunh-huh 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making your position clear. Without wishing to sound disrespectful, the information about Adamic and it's written form Enochian, is being rewritten and will, quite properly, be posted here so that we can all comment on its relevance to the article. I take it from that that if anyone attempts to provide insights about reading the written form without the use of any dictionaries either here or anywhere else, such as the discussion page about Enochian, the information, those responsible for putting it there and any anyone attempting to discuss the relevance will also be banned.

For the sake of clarity, the written form is so self evident that as soon as the deliberate distractions, such as making gold and other glossaries - which really don't make any sense - are removed, Enochian can be read instantly. Like the verbal form of Adamic, it can say a multitude of things at the same time in different languages so that it is possible to begin reading Enochian with the alphabet alone.

This has been given to well over a thousand people now, and with just one exception, everyone was able to perceive it. Consequently, it will not be possible to say that it is just my idea. I take it that you will not allow people to see this for themselves either. Even though the original government code cracker, 007, John Dee, said that it contains a hidden message for mankind from God. (I'm not religious. I'm just open minded.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Snowball (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of issues is ascribing Enochian as the written form of Adamic. The simplest issue to deal with is that the writing direction is opposite that of the earliest known writing systems. Other issues include relationship, or rather lack thereof, between the glyphs used in Enochian, and those of ancient writing system; the fact that it is an alphabet, and not abugida, or abjad, which most early writing systems were --- the exceptions were ideographic. John Dee's reference about a hidden message was to the content of the material he received. Specifically, he thought that the material could be decrypted using two different methods, to provide two different messages.jonathon (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Jonathon. I've clearly tried to see whether the information that has become available is credible, and as such, whether it is relevant to the page about Adamic. That's the kind of consideration that the matter needs and it's really useful. Genuinely, thank you. Although my primary aim here is to see whether it is relevant to the article, and if so, what would be an appropriate addition either to the article or the discussion page, this kind of comment on the talk page is also useful in seeing if it is possible to shoot the new information down completely.

Some of what you have said now is very relevant and I'm strongly inclined to agree with some. The idea of an alphabet seemed at odds with what I have seen, for more than one reason. Firstly, the notion that this is the first form of communication seems to suggest that it is way too early for something like an alphabet. Also, I can't see more than one of the characters in the Enochian tablets in what we are told by some sources is the alphabet. It appears that people can naturally read things in it in a number of languages, so an individual alphabet seems wrong. The notion of a alphabet seems also seems at odds with the new information, because since there appear to be no individual words in this form off communication, the idea of individual letters wouldn't seem right. Rather, we are looking at similarities with all sorts of different kinds of symbols and sounds.

It would have been fantastic if we could dismiss it on the grounds that the direction is opposite to that of the earliest known writing systems. Unfortunately, characters can also be perceived as individual symbols, so that, for example, one person immediately identified one of the characters as a symbol for God in his culture. It was also perceived to be a womb and a heart. It seems that numbers can also be perceived, so that when the numerical number 7 is read in conjunction with the characters around it, it formed part of a word in a specific message. (An apparent greeting for the reader of the alphabet from Heaven.) Since people are able to perceive similarities with characters from different alphabets, as well as symbols, and because people are able to perceive words and phrases in different languages, I had to point out to people that they will be able to read it in the way that they are used to reading, whether that be from right to left, or top to bottom in one of the tablets, which I have yet to try.

Also on that point, it's been pointed out that there are ancient tablets with an unknown origin in Chinese or Japanese, and that no matter where you begin reading, which changes you make in direction, and no matter how long you carry on reading, they continue to read coherently, poetically, and to educate the reader about spiritual matters. I know the Qu'ran is poetic and I'm under the impression the Torah is too, if they are read in the original language that they were delivered in. So if it is true about these oriental tablets, and I hope to find out, it seems reasonable to suspect they came from the same source. Since Enochian is sometimes written in boxes and is also very poetic, it seems that it would be a mistake to assume that anything that is written in it should be read in a particular way.

You said that John Dee thought that the material could be decrypted using two different methods, to provide two different messages. As it can say different things in the same language at the same time, and also say other things in other language at just the same time, what I have seen of it is not at odds with Dee's theory, but goes considerably beyond even that. The interpretations, which appear to have been given to Kelley in a book at Glastonbury, and which seem to make no sense to most people, seem to have been a deliberate attempt to distract people from something that is far more obvious, once these distractions and any preconceived notions have been removed. It can be interpreted in many ways, and can be read in many ways. (My immediate impression was that as this is supposed to be the first language and way of writing in it, it would not bear much resemblance to any rules that we have in this day and age.)

My sincere thanks for the comments, and I look forward to your next observations. You clearly know a great deal about languages. As I understand it, you are also fluent in Hebrew and know a lot about religious tracts. I'd be interested to see how you and the others feel about removing the other comments and editing this down to the relevant points being considered, forgoing the information I originally posted on this discussion page for the time being and including a basic description of the notion being discussed. Would you also consider looking at some of the ways that the Enochian "alphabet" has already been interpreted? That would give you a better idea of the source of the information, and would also allow me to glean good comments for consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Snowball (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dante/Eve[edit]

There was one point not adressed in the article and i'm not sure if it was adressed by dante himself. it says how Dante argued that Eve spoke first. it is interesting but not entirely accurate which is why the article should be reveiwed and certain changes made. we read in Gen. 2:19-23 that Adam not only named all the animals before Eve was even created, it also says how Adam named her "woman" because she came from "man".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by HAMDMAN (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That was my first thought, but irrelevant to the article--the focus of the comment is that Dante said something about Adamic, not whether Dante's arguments were sound. But yes, according to the Bible, Dante as presented here was wrong. I think the problem may be in the translation of "mulierum invenitur ante omnes fuisse locutam," since I'm assuming that's saying "the woman is said to have come before all" (out of context)--but not saying anything about her necessarily speaking first. Maybe Dante's/Eco's Latin is the problem. Googling the phrase brings nothing up but mirrors of this article, so I'm betting it isn't even Dante. I think, because of the Mormon/NonMormon games, this article is increasingly unsound academically. On a side note, what's up with the Tamra Jean Braithwaite "source"? --Mrcolj (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Caught it. The real phrase begins with "mulierEm.note" Fixing in the article. Okay, so Eco's Latin is good; Dante's Latin is irrelevant; Dante indeed says that Eve spoke first, and therefore it's Dante's version of or knowledge of the Bible that's the core problem.--Mrcolj (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words[edit]

Common posters on this page may do well to read the Wikipedia's article on Weasel Words. This article is full of unsourced "many people believe ______" type statements, especially the LDS section.--Mrcolj (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 January 2012[edit]

The following line from this entry is incorrect:

"In the Pearl of Great Price, a section of [[Joseph Smith Translation|Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible]], it refers to "a Book of Remembrance", written in language of Adam.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/6/5,46#5 Moses 6:5, 46].</ref>"

The Pearl of Great Price is not a section of Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible, but rather, contains sections of Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. The part of the Pearl of Great Price titled, in brief, "Abraham" came from a traslation of papyri.

The Wikipedia article "Pearl of Great Price" is acurate.

140.196.24.2 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; fixed as per the Pearl of Great Price article's information. Allens (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew not breaking correctly within (L2R) text. Not sure how to report this ...[edit]

In the text is: Some think that the "Pay Lay Ale" sentence is derived from the Hebrew phrase "pe le-El", פה לאל 'mouth to God'.

If the zoom is set so that the two Hebrew words must break, then פה is shown first at line's end with לאל beginning the next. This would be correct behavior if the entire sentence was right-to-left (פה at the end of the line, לאל starting the next). But embedded into an English (L2R) sentence reads incorrectly. (לאל פה)

Is this something that can be corrected. Or is it a generic problem inherent in hypertext? Or ...? I don't know much °about these things. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.54.4 (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2012[edit]

The Latter-day Saint Endowment prayer circle once included use of the words "Pay Lay Ale",[16] which some adherents believed were Adamic words meaning "Oh God, hear the words of my mouth".

This is not quite accurate. The TEXT of the CEREMONY ITSELF explained that "pay lay ale" meant "Oh God, hear the words of my mouth" prior to the 1990 changes. I heard it myself dozens of times.


173.165.26.38 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' level of detail and provide a reliable source for factual changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A Contemporary Scientific Case for Hebrew as the Mother Tongue[edit]

Wikipedia dismisses Hebrew as the Mother Tongue by citing one marginal and pre-digital kabbalist. To offer readers the chance to assess the Hebrew-As-Mother-Tongue or "Adamic Language" theory in a 25-year global project that has been peer-reviewed and noted by etymological authorities a URL should be cited: www.edenics.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.97.165 (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 Sept 2012[edit]

There should be an mention and link to this site:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperDetails/sample-of-pure-language-circa-march-1832

A Q&A from Joseph Smith and samples of Adamic language are available on that page.


  • Not done Not done. Your link does not seem to be validly formatted and comes up empty. Please check it again. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Please look at the link a second time. It works fine for me, and the link is to The Joseph Smith Papers material that is notable for Mormonism. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It works now but didn't in September. Anyway I added a mention of it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

it doesn't work now; 404 page not found. If another reference isn't found the line should be deleted. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request 19 January 2016[edit]

Request that the following reference:

John S. Robertson, "Adamic Language", in Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan) 1:18–19.

...be replaced with this:

Robertson, John S. (1992), "Adamic Language", in Ludlow, Daniel H (ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism, New York: Macmillan Publishing, pp. 18–19, ISBN 0-02-879602-0, OCLC 24502140.

Thanks. -- 155.95.90.245 (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --allthefoxes (Talk) 23:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adamic language. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Mormon section: what language does God speak?[edit]

Was Adam's language on earth the same as in the pre-existence? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2017[edit]

Please remove the following paragraph, as it is sacred to the Latter Day Saints. Leaving it in would be akin to building a pipeline through sacred Native American territory.

The Latter Day Saint endowment prayer circle once included use of the words "Pay Lay Ale".[1] These untranslated words are no longer used in temple ordinances and have been replaced by an English version, "O God, hear the words of my mouth".[2] Some believe that the "Pay Lay Ale" sentence is derived from the Hebrew phrase "pe le-El" (פה לאל), "mouth to God".[2] 66.219.227.242 (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith, The Mormon Murders (New York: St. Martins's Press, 1988) ISBN 0-312-93410-6, p. 69. "the sign of the Second Token [is] raising both hands and then lowering them while repeating the incantation "Pay Lay Ale" three times"
  2. ^ a b "Current Mormon Temple Ceremony Now Available", Salt Lake City Messenger, no. 76, November 1990.
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Wikipedia is not censored. Izno (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

While the first request was somewhat a request for censorship, it would be respectful to honor it. Barring respect for sacred aspects of religions by Wikipedia admins, however, a fair argument for the removal of the aforementioned section is that the sources are anti-Mormon, and it is poor scholarship to use and to trust sources that are intentionally negative and destructive (fanatically positive works are also poor sources)--such sources (in any case, whether religious or otherwise) are generally filled with opinions and false or shakily-sourced information so they are not reliable. Wikipedia has a responsibility to use reliable and accurate sources, and parts of articles that cite variations of op-eds or inflated statements should be deleted as they are no more accurate than their sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midawest (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done per WP:NOTCENSORED. Being critical of something doesn't automatically disqualify a source, especially over mundane claims of fact. If there are other sources that dispute this, then you can certainly bring that up here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Your response is appreciated but the argument used does not hold water. By that argument, one can write a book critical of Catholicism with a statement that Pope John Paul I was transgender, and that would count as a valid source. The burden of proof is on the sources cited, and as they do not provide evidence to support their claims, the parts of the article that rely on them should be removed. Contrary to the reason provided, this is not a matter of censorship anymore but a matter of true information sources from verifiable claims. If admins insist on not removing the section it must be made clear that the information is speculative (e.g. by preceding the lines with, "According to critics..."). Midawest (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, come on. There's nothing speculative about a phrase that was used by hundreds of thousands of people during their endowments. Sure, there is the old Church line, "Anybody talking about the Endowment Ceremony is not following church policy that forbids them from doing so, and since they're not following Church policy they're not good members, and since they're not good members they're not reliable."
But Wikipedia doesn't stack the deck in favor of Church censorship that way. Alephb (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The issue is no longer one of censorship. Claiming "hundreds of thousands of people" did something without providing a source is the same poor scholarship that this article has. This is not an edit request that has to do with censorship anymore, but one of scholarship. It is poor scholarship to treat as fact statements from disaffected members of any group. One would not take Leah Remini's word on Scientology as fact unless they were aiming for poor scholarship (as 20/20 did last year). Put away personal feelings about a topic when discussing scholarship--the first request by the anonymous user at IP 66.219.227.242 was personal rather than scholarly, and your response was the same. If the admins fail to follow proper scholarship protocol then that is the fault of them and Wikipedia, but things need not be personal.Midawest (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, neither of the sources cited appear to have hundreds of thousands of authors. While I agree that "not following Church policy = not reliable" is hardly a watertight argument, neither is "It used to say this and loads of (unnamed) people say so!" FWIW my own (limited) experience is that sources antagonistic towards the church do not always show the most accurate understanding of its ordinances, even when those ordinances are open to the public.
Anyway, regardless of my POV, I think there is a simple solution here. I suggest the first sentence be changed to begin 'According to some authors, the Latter Day Saint endowment prayer circle once included ...'
On a related note, the end of that paragraph mentions the theory that "Pay Lay Ale" was taken from Hebrew. The second reference (by the Tanners) explains this theory and goes on to suggest that church leaders may have agreed with it, but says nothing about any claimed Adamic origin. Can anyone with access to the other book (by Naifeh & Smith) confirm that the words are/were claimed to be from the Adamic language? If we can't at least find a source claiming that, then the whole paragraph is irrelevant to the article and this discussion is moot. Pastychomper (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
"According to some authors" might be useful waffling if the assertion were disputed in some cited reliable sources, but as far as I can see, it is not. - Nunh-huh 18:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The Naifeh & Smith book is partially available for reading and fully available for search on Google Books. The page referenced in the article (page 69) does mention the wording under discussion, but there is no claim in the book that the wording is Adamic (nor any reference to the Adamic language at any other point in the book). Pastychomper's point is a good one, and as neither source shows this being considered Adamic (and indeed one shows it instead as being considered Hebrew), I would advise the discussed paragraph is removed from the article as it is now irrelevant to the discussion of the Adamic language. Midawest (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Well spotted, I thought I tried Google books but clearly managed to miss that. Pastychomper (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There appears to be some discussion below with users who could make the suggested alteration, if it had consensus. I trust they will do so if/when they agree to make some change. Izno (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


It appears that the current state of this is neutral and in favor of removing the paragraph as the resources used reference Hebrew rather than Adamic. I'll be calling for an edit based on this apparent consensus in the next few days if there are no opinions otherwise. Midawest (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no consensus for the change you suggest. (And your use of the word "neutral" is confusing.) Two users are not a convincing "consensus". - Nunh-huh 10:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you might suggest better wording or share what is confusing? If not, your comment on the wording isn't of any value to your main point and is just empty and unwarranted criticism.
A lack of anything raised to the contrary indicates no dissensus which arguably isn't the same thing, but this talk page sees almost no action so expecting additional users to just happen to throw their two cents in is unreasonable. Most responses in this section have been emotionally charged and show no interest in adding to the discussion; the proper responses all indicate interest in changing or else demonstrate no reason not to change. Two users may not be a convincing consensus normally, but when the number of people present and interested in a discussion is no more than those two, and no one else raises an issue with the proposition, it can be reasonably claimed there is consensus.
An analogy to this situation now is that of a marriage of two loners: should they be forbidden their marriage just because no other showed up to vouch for them? The answer is obviously and uncontestedly that the wedding should still be performed by one who has the power, for to not do so is to show disregard for proper usage of that power (and thus would reflect very poorly on the justice of the peace that refused to perform the wedding).
Valid and scholarly reason has been presented for the removal of the paragraph, and refusal by editors to abide by that (or else to present valid counter-reasons) is just stalling at this point. If any editors want to continue to give vague or emotional reasons for not editing then that is their choice, but there is as much a consensus here as there realistically will be, so the edit ought to be performed, unless Wikipedia has become a place where we no longer care about proper scholarship and accuracy (in which case we ought to remove protection from all pages just to be sure inaccuracy is as unrestrained as possible). Midawest (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
In the name of love, will someone just censor this page already? Do we really want the two loners to never experience the joy of holy matrimony? Alephb (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
As stated above, censorship is not the issue here, even if that was the reason for the first request. Wikipedia has two separate pages devoted to the endowment ceremony so I think it's fair to say it doesn't censor in this area. The issue is that this page is about the Adamic language. I see Nunh-huh has added a cited statement that the words in question were claimed to be Adamic, which seems to answer my question above and (finally) represents some progress on the issue - thanks for that. Given the bits about Hebrew (and assuming the sources are accurate) I suspect there's a discussion to be had around whether it was meant to be Adamic or to represent Adamic, but with the kind of sources we're relying on I doubt it would be a fruitful discussion. Pastychomper (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Christianity[edit]

Why is this article in the Christianity WikiProject, if the concept derives from the Midrash? Dimadick (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Projects are wierd; sometimes they seem to want to leave their footprints everywhere. But if the article were better (by, like, mentioning Paradise Lost and Milton) it would be less of a mystery, I think. There's a nice article at [1] which notes in passing and might serve as reference for the current efforts of the LDS Church to downplay the importance of the purported recovery of the Adamic language by Joseph Smith. - Nunh-huh 23:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, on a literal reading of Genesis you don't really need Midrash to come upon the idea that there must have been a first language -- Adam naming the animals, Eve naming her children, the Tower of Babel story. And so it wasn't a distinctly Jewish idea, even if the lead makes it look that way. Most Christians, at one point, believed there was an Adamic language. Alephb (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Did they believe that Adam was a real person, instead of a mythological character? Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The demythologization of a "historical Adam" is a fairly recent phenomenon, beginning with new styles of hermaneutics after the Rennaissance, and not becoming predominent until much later. Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) wrote an essay in 1941 titled "The New Testament and Mythology; The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Preaching" which helped to popularize the notion. The pertinent Christian writers (Dante, Milton, Bunyan) all seem to have thought Adam existed and was actually ancestor of all humans. - Nunh-huh 17:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"the first speech act"[edit]

It says, "the first speech act is due to Eve, addressing the serpent, and not to Adam". What about when Adam said at Genesis 2:23 "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." He was probably talking to God or a nearby Angel. Even if he was talking to himself, God could still hear him, just like when he named all the animals. It seems that the original language was in part made by Adam, since he created the animal names and the word "woman". 2600:1700:8830:8DF0:E8D1:613C:731F:26C7 (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adamic_language&oldid=924895254"