Talk:Book of Abraham

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Book of Abraham article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4: 12 months

Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal 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.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts

Ancient Egypt Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects 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.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles
- A page with a list of desired articles / wishlist
  - Current: Most nomes, government / administration or alternatively Organization of the ancient Egyptian State if those aren’t separate topics, State development in predynastic Egypt, Predynastic hunting, Kleinkönig (Egypt), Predynastic marine (egypt), and Disability in ancient Egypt
  - Redirects that could be articles: Economy of ancient Egypt
- Could also do with a list of articles that are in urgent need of some TLC
Needing attention
- Articles needing some TLC
  - Current: Fifth Dynasty of Egypt has a lot of details missing
- Project page could use some work, specifically the aimless links in the header. Whether those get directed to destinations or removed is up for debate
- The Religion work group has a separate To-Do that could always use some love
- All stub and start class articles, always
Misc
- Standardized chronology
  - Currently a difficult task due to the lack of consensus in the greater community over an accurate chronology, but definitely something to keep coming back to
  - In the meanwhile: it’s a good policy to have a survey of dates from sources in articles about time periods; for smaller mentions (ex. at the start of “Atenism under Akhenaten” here: “Amenhotep IV, the son of Amenhotep III, was crowned king c. 1353 BC.”) circa is your best friend
- Discussion
  - Creating a separate article for Predynastic Egypt from Prehistoric Egypt starting with the Badarian culture where many overviews begin
- Data sorting
  - Looking through sources for quotes and data that can be added to relevant articles

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Corinne, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 29 August 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Book of Abraham was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 9, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 12, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
December 15, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
January 10, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 22, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
August 22, 2016	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

translation

Could this article be translated into spanish please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.150.43 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 5 March 2014

Is Larson reliable or fringe?

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

@Jgstokes: - You recently added text by an author that is not reliable for this topic. Can you discuss why Larson is a reliable source before readding contested content? 12.75.41.70 (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the Christian apologist blog post from the Institute for Religious Research by Larson among other non-reliable sources as they're not reliable sources for an enyclopedia per WP:RS and WP:LDS/RS. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pastelitodepapa, thanks for outlining the reason for that removal. I have no objections to that removal now.

12.75.41.70, I never once said I found the source in question to be credible. That wasn't my reason for reverting your edits and restoring the WP:STATUSQUO, as was consistent with Wikipedia policies for disputed content. My reasoning for restoring the status quo was that you may significant and substantiative changes to the page in question without much (if any) explanation, either in edit summaries or here on the talk page. When a bunch of content gets altered or added with minimal or no explanation, that raises red flags. If your edits are valid, they should have been made in smaller batches with adequate explanation for each change in the edit summary. That is consistent with Wikipedia policies. When content is challenged, the onus for explaining why those edits are valid rests on the person who made the edits, not the person who reverted them.

I apologize if you have good and valid reasons for massively altering the page content. But if I am unsure about massive content changes, I prefer to have a discussion about that, which is also consistent with Wikipedia policies. So could you provide a better explanation for your edits? And could we have a discussion about why the page content needs to be so massively changed, in your view? That is the issue I have, which is why I reverted the massive changes. I explained that in the reverting of your edits in question.

My reverts in question were intended to be in good faith, and I apologize if they came across as anything less than that. If so, that's on me. But I would like to understand your changes better, and why you feel they are necessary. So could we have a conversation about that? Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 23:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You need to become familiar with WP:BOLD and WP:SQS. Prior approval is not required to edit articles. You added unreliably sourced content twice before coming to the talk page, both times only citing WP:QUO.

Anyhow, as I wrote in my edit summary, this author is not a reliable source for this topic – they are fringe. The onus is on you now to explain why it is WP:DUE despite not being a WP:RS if you would like to keep it. 12.75.41.70 (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add topic