This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Egypt This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Literature This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Alternative views This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive001 Archive002 Archive003

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

I removed a see also tp the Egyptian language, and was reverted. I added reformed Egyptian to the see also of Egyptian language, and was also reverted. Are these two actually related according to reliable secondary sources? 166.198.21.32 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s begin by noting that Brian D. Stubbs is a member of the LDS Church. However, it’s important not to let personal biases cloud our judgment. He is a well-known and respected linguist, widely regarded as one of the leading experts in Uto-Aztecan languages. A simple search for “top experts in Uto-Aztecan languages” will show his name among the foremost authorities in the field. His previous works, such as "Uto-Aztecan: A Comparative Vocabulary," have been acclaimed and frequently cited by other linguists.

The research I am referencing—“Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan”—was published by bmslr.org. This fact does not diminish Stubbs’ expertise in the subject. The paragraph I wrote simply summarizes his findings; it is a straightforward presentation of research and results, without implication or bias.

If anyone disagrees with these findings, I encourage them to present evidence from another linguist of comparable standing to Brian D. Stubbs. Until such evidence is provided, this remains the most current scientific discovery on the topic and deserves inclusion, regardless of whether it aligns with personal narratives.

Here is the paragraph:

Brian D. Stubbs, a respected linguistics expert, compared the Uto-Aztecan languages ​​with Hebrew, Aramaic and Egyptian. More than 1,500 lexical and grammatical similarities, as well as systematic patterns of phonetic changes were found.^[1]

OmnerLV (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbs is not cited at Uto-Aztecan. He does not have a PhD in linguistics. No academic publisher has ever accepted work from him. He has no expertise whatsoever in historical Semitic languages or Egyptian. He never attempts to use, or allow for, the historical phonetic or lexical context of any word—because he is always completely ignorant of it, and this ignorance is a necessary condition for his argument. Similar "correspondences" could be drawn between any language family with a large enough vocabulary and the incredible range of geographic, historical, and phonetic variation he groups as "Semitic/Egyptian".

An amateur community college lecturer can't just self-publish a book which disagrees with every expert in the field and then use it as a cite on Wikipedia, demanding that someone refute his "evidence" before it can be removed. That's not how this works. GordonGlottal (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources on the Wikipedia Uto-Aztecan page are quite old; a few are from around 2012, but most are from the previous century. Brian D. Stubbs has undergraduate studies in Hebrew, Arabic, Egyptian, and Navajo. His master’s degree is in Uto-Aztecan languages. He also completed Ph.D. studies in Semitics, achieving ABD (All But Dissertation) status, and has more than 30 years of experience in these topics. Here are some experts who have commented on his work:

• Kenneth C. Hill, a renowned expert on Uto-Aztecan languages, described Stubbs’ work in "Uto-Aztecan: A Comparative Vocabulary" (2011, International Journal of American Linguistics) as "a monumental contribution, raising comparative UA to a new level."
• John S. Robertson, Ph.D. in linguistics from Harvard, has reviewed Stubbs’ work and argues that it deserves authoritative consideration.
• Dirk Elzinga, Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Arizona, offers a more critical but still positive view, noting the substantial data and careful analysis Stubbs provides.

Do you have any studies or papers that support your claim that similar results to Stubbs’ can be achieved using any foreign language, such as Japanese or Chinese? Anyone can make bold claims, but you need to back them up. OmnerLV (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hill is a talk radio host with a PhD in Religious Education from Andersonville Baptist Seminary. Robertson and Elzinga are LDS apologists. Anybody who has any genuine knowledge of more than 1 language family knows that the number of random correspondences between any two families is large. If you, like Stubbs, pay attention to literally nothing except the combined set of all dictionary transliterations as pronounced according to English phonetics, and are willing to consider "correspondences" between the UA word and any morphological form of any relevant Semitic or Egyptian word, in any time or place, naturally they number far beyond his list, and his list isn't surprising or significant in the slightest.

One of his first examples is Heb. בא ("boo" in his transliteration) meaning "coming" and UA *pooC meaning "road". Think, please, how many different words there are in English which mean "road" or something as close to "road" as "coming". It's dozens. Now allow for every declension and morphology. Now replicate this process across every Germanic or Romantic language, in all of their historical dialects. You'll have thousands of options. So how likely is it, by this method, that you'll find a word which is at least as close phonetically to "boo" as *pooC, and as close as "coming" is to "road" in meaning? The odds are ~100%.

GordonGlottal (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually know English and Spanish, and I’m learning German, so what you’re saying is true! In fact, I’ve been working on a comparative list of related words among these three languages to help me learn faster. This is actually the theme of Stubbs’ first book—he created a comparative vocabulary of all the Uto-Aztecan languages (the one quoted by the experts mentioned before). So, the second book (the one we’re discussing) was not his “first rodeo” on the subject.

It’s understandable that languages sharing common roots—like English and German, or the Uto-Aztecan languages, or even Chinese, Japanese, and Korean—will have many related words. However, finding correlations at this level between two languages that do not share the same known root is a completely different situation. That’s why I use the example of comparing English and Chinese, or, in the case of this study, Biblical languages and Uto-Aztecan languages.

So, the comment made in the podcast is fine as a hypothesis, but the necessary comparative exercise must be done to prove or disprove the idea that any two languages without a known common root can have this level of correspondences. OmnerLV (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

haha!!! I love those! are so funny! I remember there used to be a website that used to do that statistic correlations but I don't remember the name... OmnerLV (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let’s wrap this up. The section where the paragraph will be added is called "Mormon Studies of Reformed Egyptian." We have already established that Brian D. Stubbs has the necessary credentials and we are aware of his PhD status. We also acknowledge that this is a self-published work, which makes it appropriate for a "Mormon Studies" section. Therefore, I believe this study belongs in this section, but it should not be added to a more general page, such as the Uto-Aztecan Languages page. Can we agree on this? @Tgeorgescu @GordonGlottal OmnerLV (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone agreeing with you that "Brian D. Stubbs has the necessary credentials". Please do not pretend that there has been consensus where there has not. You've done it multiple times now. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s exactly why I’m asking @Tgeorgescu and @GordonGlottal — and of course, you're welcome to share your opinion too, just please keep it neutral. Is there any reason you believe Brian D. Stubbs lacks the necessary credentials? I’m not going to repeat them here; please review the previous conversation. If you have a well-founded reason to disregard his credentials and also believe that his research doesn't belong in a section called Mormon Studies, then I honestly don’t know what you expect to be included in that section. OmnerLV (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyrael @GordonGlottal @Tgeorgescu Can we reach a final consensus on this? I’ll wait a couple of days before considering it closed and accepted if nobody responds. If you have any points that haven’t been addressed yet, please share them—I’ll be glad to review and comment on them. If you disagree with the "credentials" or the appropriateness of including this in the "Mormon Studies" section, please explain your reasons. I encourage everyone to be as neutral as possible; I know we all have personal biases, but I believe everyone here is well-intentioned and wants to keep Wikipedia in good shape.

Below is the paragraph I’m planning to add. If you have any corrections or suggestions to make it more neutral, please add them here:

Brian D. Stubbs, a respected linguistics expert, compared the Uto-Aztecan languages ​​with Hebrew, Aramaic and Egyptian. More than 1,500 lexical and grammatical similarities, as well as systematic patterns of phonetic changes were found.^[1]

OmnerLV (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion whether Stubbs belongs in "Mormon Studies". tgeorgescu (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a couple of days and no response has been received, @GordonGlottal @Fyrael — so can we consider this a consensus? OmnerLV (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have a citation for "respected linguistics expert". I'd rather not mention it at all, but we can say "Brian D. Stubbs, a Mormon scholar, has argued . . ." if really necessary. And then you'd need to note the responses from mainstream linguists. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its just fringe works, it isn't due outside of Sunday school. 12.75.114.25 (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the anonymous user, I thought we had already reached a consensus here. However, I see the content has been removed again. Do we have a consensus, or is there something we still need to clarify? OmnerLV (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unequivocally not. I judge your actions on this page to be WP:PROFRINGE violations trying to slant it towards Mormon apologetics. I have warned you. jps (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the Talk section before removing this? As you can see, I gave enough time for everyone to share their reasons, and all of that was considered before adding the content. It clearly falls within the scope of Mormon studies, and there is a fringe advisory at the top for context. I encourage you to add your reasoning here, work towards consensus, and then make any changes based on that discussion. OmnerLV (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confused about what makes a consensus. Everyone has rejected your sources and prose. We are not obligated to create a compromise version. A consensus has been reached, and this article is better without excessive apologetics. 12.75.41.80 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TA: We're biased for mainstream history. We're biased for mainstream science. I don't know why that would be a problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]