Talk:Rosetta Stone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Size

Is this really how big it is, or is this a reproduction?  : http://www.slower.net/pl.php?photo_id=1232 Koyaanis Qatsi 00:23, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, the real thing is over six feet long, according to the British Museum. --MIRV 00:27, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You can also find the book Cracking Codes the Rosetta Stone and Decipherment by R. Parkinson. It has it's percise dementions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.209.29.112 (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures covering text

When my browser window is a "normal" width, the headline "Use as metaphor" and many lines below it are overwritten by the smaller of the two pictures. Can someone good at tables fix this? Tempshill 05:48, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The larger image was floating (which it shouldn't have been, judging by its size), so I've confined it to its own table. Also spaced things out a little and repositioned the insertion points of both images. If the overlap isn't fixed, I suppose the larger image can be moved up even higher. Failing that, I don't see any harm in removing the smaller image (though I'm not bold enough to do so myself). Hadal 06:05, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Basalt or granite?

Paragraph 1: The Rosetta Stone is a dark granite stone (often incorrectly identified as "basalt")

Paragraph 3: Pierre-François Bouchard (1772-1832) found a black basalt stone when guiding construction works in the Fort Julien...

So... which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.10.92.45 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2004 (UTC)

From http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/conservation/cleaning2.html -

Analysis of the stone has shown that it is a granite-like rock and not a basalt as it has previously been described.

Wizzy 16:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I noticed this yesterday, and had planned a cleanup, but (obviously) never got around to it. The section on provenance (I see you've corrected the heading) really should be re-written completely, but at least it the article longer contradicts itself. Austin Hair 17:26, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

The ( 6 ) stelae listed for stone types are: fine limestone, white limestone, dark granite, sandstone, dark granite, limestone; See the section for "3-Stone Series"..Mmcannis —Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC).

deciphering of the hieroglyphs

Did modern scientists use computer technologies to check the deciphering for accuracy? The multilingual wikipedia here works like a Rosetta stone too. However, if you read wikipedia articles written in different languages on the same topic, you'll notice it is not easy to map the meaning word for word unless the entries are presented in dictionary form. Different language have different sentence structure and grammer. The deciphering was done in 1822 with no help from advance technology. Nowadays, the century old work can easily be checked by computer for consistency. Perhaps many historical accounts will be rewritten if errors are found in the deciphering. Kowloonese 19:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Modern computational techniques, etc etc are indirectly based on the work done by Champollion and Young. Of course many researchers have revisited the discoveries made in 1822-23 and continue to improve our understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Tafinucane 18:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe the only way to refine the translation is to do the "pairings" translated line-by-line, and translate the "pairing" texts simultaneously:

• Demotic w/ Hieroglyphs
• Demotic w/ Greek
• Greek w/ Hieroglyphs
• and also all ( 3 ) in a "triplet" Demotic w/Hieroglyphs w/Greek

That's 4 categories of translating. (Note: The demotic with its abbreviated shorthand words is informative.)

I made pages with " Greek vs/Hieroglyphs ", for each 1/2 line, lines 1.00 to 1.50, then 1.50 to 1.100 (the mid point has to be chosen as a mid-point for end of sentence, or comma in sentence.) (The last (2 pages), line 14.00 to 14.100 has the 3 languages, the erecting of the stone in temples of order I, order II, order III, so how many stones actually got produced? ) For lines 1-14 of Rosetta Stone, that's 28 pages. It takes some months. I did it for various lines in the Decree of Canopus, as a trial run, specifically the "kosmos" lines with Leap Year ( 2 of 26 lines)( 4 pages). Michael McAnnis,YumaAZ

The "Decree of Canopus" is 100 percent complete, and could give an excellent study ( of 4 comparisons ). Yet to be completed...Mmcannis —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC).

Just another note:

I just found the Text corpus page (and it needed a 'Major' edit omission), but it leads an Individual to POS tagging. Part-of-speech tagging synchronized with commas, or end of sentences, is what one does in these pairings. The root of the word ( the lemma?) is all that is important. The thread and direction of the story is the Important thing. The "Rosetta Stone" page never mentions that there are 22/23 Reasons for honoring the Pharaoh, and 10 Actions in Reward, including the Erection of the Stone for all to know (Greek, gnostic..)(( This is also the Egyp. god Saa, who "sees". "Knows" the way forward. The hieroglyph is above his head for Saa. )) ..The word "kathidra" as a seat, or chair, or to sit is presented, like the word Cathedral is in the Rosetta Stone. Of the 23 reasons, no one mentioned the "Rebels" who are impaled on wooden stakes... " for everybody to know the error of The Ways (against Pharaoh) "(The complete story is in the Demotic text). These are the foreshadowings of the whole Christian thing. In the Canopus Stone, Ptol III, leap year is implemented. (238 BC,..Caesar then did it for real in 55 BC.) Any how translating these pairings, are all about Part-of-speech tagging.M McAnnis,YumaAzMmcannis 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Importance

I'd like to see more about the importance of the stone. For example, according to one of the linked articles, "For 1400 years, no one knew how to read Egyptian hieroglyphs. Virtually all understanding of this mysterious script had been lost since the 4th century AD..." That really drives home what a special and historic find it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Schiraldi (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

• Seconded The reason the Rosetta Stone is special is because up to that point people had been unable to read hieroglyphics. But the linguistic signifigance is barely mentioned in this article. I'd like to know: Why hieroglyphics had been lost, what were the difficulties in learning from the Rosetta Stone, and what gaps in our knowledge of hieroglyphics still remained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgies (talk • contribs) 08:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Thirded It seem like this should be a whole section, possibly the most important section. This article as is, completely misses the point of the stone. 63.238.141.34 21:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• I agree, but am confused - the article on Egyptian hieroglyphs says "The discovery in 1799 of the Rosetta Stone by Napoleon's troops (during Napoleon's Egyptian invasion) provided the motivation to study the script, but the text on the stone was of almost no use in decipherment." So it wasn't actually that important, if this is true. I don't know enough to know which article is correct - anyone? Steve --195.137.91.247 10:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• That is true, but unrelated to the findings of Jean-François Champollion. Before him, no one could make sense of the hieroglyphs. He was the first one to understand the the parallels, and deciphered the word Ramses. This led to further discoveries. It is because of his work that this stone become useful. -RockMaster-talk|contribs 13:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Res Images

Is there any high-resolution images of the stone? All the ones I found are either small, or of low resolution so you cannot read the writing at all. Naelphin —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC).

Try the Google image search at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Rosetta+Stone%22+images+jpg&btnG=Google+Search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.147.142 (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You can go to this link. http://www.bgst.edu.sg/realia/rosetta.htm There is an over all picture with smaller ones focused on details of the 3 types of writting on the stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.209.29.112 (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Clunky prose

A note on the W of Ionian: many languages have the EE, double E, long E, or I sound; modern Russian is an example. But the common Ionian with short i, might be more properly understand, as double E, EEonian, though spelled Ionian. The U, Y in Greek, and the W used for Egyptian (translating only), may all be sometimes more properly understand as EE, in some situations. Note EEonian.

What? EE, double E, long E, or I sound? Instead of this amateurish roundabout description, why not just say "[i]"? And what's the rest of the paragraph trying to say? The U, Y in Greek, and the W used for Egyptian (translating only), may all be sometimes more properly understand as EE, — the "Y" in Greek? You mean the letter "upsilon"? And what's the "W used for Egyptian, translating only"?

This paragraph really needs a bit of reworking. Can someone who knows the situation well rewrite it? -- ran (talk) 00:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I just came here to say the same thing. Makes no sense to me. — KayEss | talk 14:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the phrase "There are approximately two copies..." in the Contents of Stone section. This seems like a very odd thing to have an approximate number of, and I think it should be re-phrased. I would do it, but I dont know what exactly is approximate about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harley peters (talk • contribs) 19:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph reads a little clunky to me. I've slipped a line break in, and when I have a little more time I'll try to make it make a little more sense. I don't know much about the stone or Ptolemey so I wont alter the content, just the structure. Strato —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

The UK Gothic Rock band

I've added a disambiguation link to Rosetta Stone (band), an influential British gothic rock music band from the 1990s who used Ancient Egyptian imagery and other ancient myths in their works. I note that there is a "See Also" section, but the Manual of Style states that a disambiguation section at the top of the article is preferred. If there is a strong consensus towards moving the goth link to the See Also section, then I'd be happy for that to happen, provided it is discussed here first.

evilandi —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC).

2003-01-03: I note the disambig link has been repeatedly removed, so I've moved the goth band link to the See Also section. Again I plea that if anyone disagrees with this, please discuss it here first, otherwise I'll assume it is mindless vandalism and restore it.

evilandi —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

Is it granite or basalt?

Earlier this week I posted a comment on the Wikipedia talk page that said "how can I trust Wikipedia?". After reading tons of sites about this stone, I have two questions: Why are stones so popular in history, like the Sorcerer's Stone and the Rosetta Stone? And my second question is: it the Rosetta Stone made of basalt or granite? Other sites say it's basalt, others say granite, but now Wikipedia says "incorrectly sited as basalt" . . . how do I know basalt is incorrect? Janet6 17:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC) it's granite i looked at a british site and they had it

user neosurfer2695 —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

Examples

The examples given are ridiculously obscure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.78.217 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey i got a ? where is the stone now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.213.125 (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There were more Metaphor examples previously. They were removed and also condensed. They are lacking (my opinion).MichaelMmcannis 02:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

dimension

Does anyone have any idea of the dimensions (in cm) of the stone? I always thought it was small, but on the second picture, the stone looks quite big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.218.227 (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sign your name. (edits) --Mmcannis 03:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

One Question

I just have one question wikipedia, what does the Rosseta stone say? What were the degrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6.SIE. (talk • contribs) 04:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You can sign ur name you know with 4 tildes ( ~ ). And since the word "chair", Grk: 'kathridra', is used: as in, ... "and the statue (of Pharaoh Ptolemy V), will be "seated" ( i.e. verb usage of "chair") next to the other statues. ...." Are you, or is any one really interested in the true, knowledge, or scholarship, of our ancient peoples? They constantly used the word "..Know", as in 'be cognizant', or "Gnostic", obviously just the common usage (keeping the religious stuff out of it). I find the scholarship of people today lacking. Do your own translating. The grandfather's stone, for Ptolemy III used Gk: syngoge, (synagogue). (i.e. To Gather) Michael M in YUMA,AZ,usa--Mmcannis 02:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)one editMmcannis 02:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting info about discovery of the stone.

The article has some conflicting info about the discovery and history of the stone, see the second paragraph of the "Use as a metaphor" section. It looks like somebody was just having some fun. Should this section just be removed?

earl 01:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone has removed the offending text, thanks.

earl 16:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It was cute, kinda like Stream of consciousness. It's too bad creativity like that wouldn't actually be used to program a rock-chiseling-machine to engrave real stone with Cuneiform, or Egyptian hieroglyphs. A la the designs that can now be put into wood-inlay. --Michael--Mmcannis 18:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

I moved this from the article. It looks like yet another 'hot' new discovery which will be forgotten within a year.

On June 29, 2006, two scientists from MASA (Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts) found that the second script on the Rosetta stone is the official language of Ptolemy dynasty and is not at all Egyptian ptolemaic demotic. They have found grammar rules, sounds, and all meanings. Most of the advancement had been around identification of the position of one letter in the sentence which gave clear meaning of every word and sentence. That pointed out to clear language identification. Middle script is written in a language which had live words in conemporary Macedonian dialects, Old Slavic, and language "Jotovanje," present in Balcan Slavic languages. Both scientist pointed out that situation in this area is full of confusion and they have helped to clear some of the smoke with clear identification of 167 words from Rosetta stone. Script in middle text on the Rosetta stone is Syllabic with syllables of type Consonant-Vowel. Behind all ready sounding of consonants for the first time, they introduced the sounding of vowels. Identified and sounded have been 25 consonants and 8 vowels, half of the vowels (12) form syllables with all 8 vowels. The rest of the consonants have 4-5 vowels only. Identified have been four pictographical signs and use of ligatures with purpose to cover multiple uses of "to". ("Contributions XXVI 2 MASA - Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts Academician Tome Boševski and PhD Aristotel Tentov")

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbatus (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The second text of the Rosetta Stone is written in the script and language of the then-masters of Egypt – the Ancient Macedonians.

The results of the research from the project "Decyphering the second text of the Rosetta Stone" were presented in the Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences (MANU) Thursday.

Academic Tome Boshevski and prof. Aristotel Tentov conducted the project was conducted under MANU auspices.

The Rosseta Stone, the researchers stressed, was discovered in 1799 in Egypt. Made of granite, 1.44 m tall, 0.72 m wide and weighting 762 kg. Text's contents is a decree by Ptolemy V Epiphanes written in three scripts: hierogliphic, "demotic" and ancient Greek in the year 196 before Christ. Currently the stone is stored in the British Museum in London.

"Contemporary science has mainly adopted the stance that there are no traces remaining from the script and the language of the Ancient Macedonians," Boshevski said. "Thus, the Rossetta Stone is considered as written with three scripts in two languages, in the following order: Hieroglyphic in Ancient Egyptian, Demotic in Ancient Egyptian, and Ancient Greek in Ancient Greek [Ionian]. Our starting premise was that it is unlikely that there's not a single complete sentance in the language and the script of the Ancient Macedonians preserved. Based on this, we hypothesized that the text on the Rosetta Stone is written in three languages, in the following order: Hieroglyphic in Ancient Egyptian, with a syllabic alphabet in Ancient Macedonian, and with a phoenetic alphabet in Ancient Greek."

The researchers came to these conclusions by comparing the basic characteristics of the writing in that period. The texts of the time did not contain interpunction characters in the contemporary sense, the alphabets consisted of capital letters only, and all was written in an unbroken series without spaces between words. The texts on the stone have the following characteristics, as indicated by the researchers: the Hieroglyphic and the "demotic" text are written from right to left, while the Ancient Greek text is written from left to right. They also indicated the following characteristics of the second text: it is written in with dominantly syllabic alphabet with very few pictographic characters, the syllables exclusively consist of consonant-vowel pairs, there are also characters for writing isolated consonants and vowels, and besides the standard writing order of syllables one next to the other, they could be written one above the other, too. Exceptions in the text are the names of two gods, which were written as they were pronouncend in Ancient Egyptian language.

At the end, by way of conclusion, the authors stressed that the script of the second text of the Rosetta Stone is syllabic with syllables consisting of consonants and vowels, besides the consonants there are letters for vowels – with 25 consonants and 8 vowels identified. Almost half (12) of the consonants form syllables with all of the 8 vowels, while the rest with 4-5 vowels only. They also identified four pictographic characters, and use of ligatures to cover the frequent use of the article "of". Using the defined reading and sounding rules the researchers identified over 160 words. From all this they conclude that the second text is definitly written in the script and the language of the then-masters of Egypt, the Ancient Macedonians. P.S.I will remind you after one year... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.231.236 (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

ancient macedonian =/= contemporary slavic macedonian biggest joke ive heard in a while :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmtours (talk • contribs) 10:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahaha!!! I agree 100% with your last statement. What a JOKE!!! Now this really is pathetic. :D : Apro 14:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Typos in the "Full Text of the Stone" ?

The "Full Text of the Stone" section has very many spellings that don't - to this amateur - appear to be merely archaic constructs.

Examples: "Stabalizer" "recieving" "recieved" "Pyolemy" "Osirus" (twice) "consentrated" (seems like it should be "consecrated," anyway!) Other possible problem: "to all those subjects to his rule"

Where did this "Full Text" come from?

Peter 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The errors appear to be corrected and the subsection is now titled "English translation of the text (synopsis translation)", not "Full text", but I still would like to know where it came from. The text is very different from that at British Museum Rosetta Stone webpage linked from the References section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgan002 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

The text listed in the main article reads in part:

“Since King Ptolemy, the ever-living, beloved by Ptah, the God Manifest and Gracious, the son of King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoë, the Parent-loving Gods, has done many benefactions to the temples and to those who dwell in them and also to all those subjects to his rule, being from the beginning a god born of a god and a goddess—like Horus, the son of Isis and Osirus, who came to the help of his Father Osirus—being benevolently disposed toward the gods, has concentrated to the temples revenues both of silver and of grain, and has generously undergone many expenses in order to lead Egypt to prosperity and to establish the temples... the gods have rewarded him with health, victory, power, and all other good things, his sovereignty to continue to him and his children forever”[4]

A question arises whether the idea expressed by the English word “concentrated” in the translation might be better expressed by the English word “consecrated”. Would this proposed alternate English word be a more contextually appropriate expression of the idea or concept that was contemplated in the original text, by the original authors, given the overall tone of the text taken in its entirety, and considering the position and context of the English word as it appears in the translation.

Definitions of the two alternate word choices as they are commonly used in English;

Consecration is the solemn dedication to a special purpose or service, usually religious. The word "consecration" literally means "setting apart." Persons, places, or things can be consecrated, and the term is used in various ways by different groups.

Noun1.consecration - a solemn commitment of your life or your time to some cherished purpose (to a service or a goal); "his consecration to study"

allegiance, commitment, loyalty, dedication - the act of binding yourself (intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action; "his long commitment to public service"; "they felt no loyalty to a losing team" 2.consecration - (religion) sanctification of something by setting it apart (usually with religious rites) as dedicated to God; "the Cardinal attended the consecration of the church" sanctification - a religious ceremony in which something is made holy

faith, religion, religious belief - a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

con·cen·trate (k n s n-tr t )

v. con·cen·trat·ed, con·cen·trat·ing, con·cen·trates v.tr. 1. a. To direct or draw toward a common center; focus. b. To bring into one main body: Authority was concentrated in the president. 2. To make (a solution or mixture) less dilute. v.intr. 1. a. To converge toward or meet in a common center. b. To increase by degree; gather: "Dusk began to concentrate into full night" Anthony Hyde. 2. To direct one's thoughts or attention: We concentrated on the task before us. n.

A product that has been concentrated, especially a food that has been reduced in volume or bulk by the removal of liquid: pineapple juice concentrate.

Given the religious “grounding” of the text, and the apparent effort to connect the proclamation to Deities and acts on Deities’ or their priests’ behalf, the substitution of “consecrated” for “concentrated” is suggested for discussion.

Litigo 14:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved from the article

Non-mainstream theories

The government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, through its Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, is promoting a theory put forward by two professors in Skopje that the "Demotic" script is, in fact, a form of Old Slavonic text. This contradicts all previous interpretations of the Stone, and the mainstream scientific belief that Slavic speakers did not reach Macedonia until the 6th Century CE. This promotion is part of a wider effort by scientists in the former Yugoslav Republic to link the Ancient Macedonians with a Slavic-speaking people, despite all evidence to the contrary [1][2][3]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barbatus (talk • contribs) 21:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Style

This article is very badly written, could someone please improve it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinMacDonald (talk • contribs) 11:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Young

• My source says that Thomas Young linked some of the hieroglyphs to specific names in the Greek version in 1818 but in article the year 1814 appears. Igor Skoglund —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC).

move 'the three decrees, the three-stone series'

The 'three decrees, the three-stone series' section seems to only add confusion as its not about the rosetta stone per se; I suggest that it be moved to its own article, or moved under the ptolmeic dynasty artice, and the reference shortened to a sentence stating that the rosetta stone was part of a series of decrees...

Also, and unrelated, the artice says the stone was a 'copy of the decree' sent to whichever city. Isn't it the actuall decree? or is it a copy? wgh 19:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)dialectric

'three-decree series'

Is there any evidence that this was a three-decree series? As far as I can see, it's just the fact that they're all trilingual and written by three succeeding pharoahs. Unless there's something in the texts themselves (which I don't think there is...) the 'three decrees' is unproven. Re also the article on 'three decrees', which is a mess. I would change it but don't have time and I'm not sure how. ~~visitor~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.73.127.31 (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

What you 'R unaware of "Sir of the signed, but unknown", is that Ptolemy II, had a memorial Decree, and that his son, grandson, and great-grandson Ptolemy V patterned theirs, post His creation. I believe, as most of these Stelae are, that it was basically autobiography-oriented and was his Memorial. His progeny took it 3-Decrees further (and thank goodness), and thank goodness, for Stone, and Scribes. (And for wiki-pedians: --The–common–folk)... from the SonoranDesert of Arizona ..--Mmcannis 14:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is the Precise Format:

Intro

List of reasons for Honoring Pharaoh-(the list made by the Priests, etc.)

The List of rewards TO Pharaoh

including/ the Decree, erected, and written in three scripts, two languages-(so that everyone will be 'cognizant', Know: Gnostic-verb in Greek).

This is not mentioned in the great "Rosetta Stone" article, except in passing. ..from the ArizonaDeserts ..Mmcannis 14:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Creation and Improvement Drive

I nominated this article for ACID's collaboration. If you think that B-class is a poor condition of an article of this importance, you can go there and vote. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 00:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation of the text

The full translation contains the phrase "has consentrated to the temples revenues both of silver and of grain". I can guess that "consentrated" is a typo for "concentrated", but unfortunately that makes little or no sense. There are a couple of other passages that aren't really proper English either. It would be good if an expert could fix these. Matt 00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.214.253 (talk)

• It struck me later that maybe it's a typo for "consecrated"?? Matt 10:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.110.254 (talk)

It says Rosetta Stone#Full text of the Stone, but it isn't the full text. Compare to the 6 times longer translation in the External Links here. The ellipsis (...) near the end of the shorter version actually skips most of the second paragraph of the longer version. The last paragraph of the longer version is removed without even an ellipsis in the shorter version. 3 choices: call it something like "partial translation" not full text, use the whole translation, or take it out relying on the external link. Art LaPella 07:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Rosetta Stone, (the Decree of Memphis (Ptolemy V)) is equivalent in length to the 1st Decree of the Series: Decree of Canopus. That decree's length, is about the same length. See English version here: The Canopus Decree, modern English version.

It is of note, the last line of the Decree of Canopus also has it written in: script of the egyptian hieroglyphs, egyptian Demotic, and Greek. --(from the Arizona-deserts)--Mmcannis 14:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What is Kooolll is, you get different length versions from the 3--different scripts, (The vagueries of the Scribes adding, or omitting some information.)--Mmcannis 14:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The external link doesn't work today, neither here nor at Decree of Canopus. But anyway you are aware of the difference. Art LaPella 18:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The entire, about 2000 word text was available. Sorry about that. --Mmcannis 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

AID: Improvement tips

Using AndyZ's automated peer review, here are a few suggestions if you're not able to contribute to the article in terms of new content:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 676 pounds, use 676 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 676 pounds.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Thanks, CloudNine 20:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Meaning

I just glanced at this article, not in depth, and I couldn't seem to find where it said the stones purpose was in ancient times. Shouldn't there be a section for what it was used for within the Egyptian society, and it's effect? If it's there, maybe it should be mentioned in the intro section as well. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just replied in the 3-stone series section above which gives a partial answer to your query. from the ArizonaDesert(Sonoran)... --Mmcannis 14:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki links from words in translated text

It would be great if an expert could create links from the various mysterious words and names that are in the synopsis of the text, such as "Hephaestus the Great", "Alexander", "Areia" and so on. I tried to do that, but most of them did not have an entry on Wikipedia, some had entries that did not seem to relate to the context and some had more than one entry. -Pgan002 06:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem....Non-mainstream theories

The government of the Republic of Macedonia, through its Academy of Sciences and Arts, is promoting a theory put forward by two professors in Skopje that the "Demotic" script is, in fact, a text in a Slavic language. This contradicts all previous interpretations of the Stone, and the mainstream scientific belief that Slavic speakers did not reach Macedonia until the 6th Century CE. This promotion is part of a wider effort by scientists in the former Yugoslav Republic to link the Ancient Macedonians with a Slavic-speaking people, despite all evidence to the contrary [4][5][6].

Is this a 'serious' theory? Are these people (T. Boševski, A. Tentov) actually professors and members of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republic of Macedonia? Is this page (http://rosetta-stone.etf.ukim.edu.mk) a truly academic one?

This sounds so ...ahem ridiculous that it's not even funny AccidentalTourist 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Facts are:

1. The Academy of Sciences and Arts is a fully-government funded institution of the fYROM which exists by parliamentary decree.
2. The proposed translation is clearly into a Slavic language, written right-to-left. For example see [7].
3. The paper clearly goes beyond advocating that the text is in Ancient Macedonian. It proposes a translation based on the identification of words as being the same or similar to words in a modern slavic language. It explicitly points out that the syntax of the text is Slavic or "contemporary Macedonian" [8][9]. The document, as posted on the website of a state university [10] is as clear on this point as it is absurd. sys < in 15:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the article taken from the Vest newspaper does mention the Old Slavonic, but just read the phrase carefully in its context: "The basic symbols (consonants) are in 8 positions and, depending on the position i.e. the angle they are at, the syllable is read with the vocal pronounced, like a kind of iotting in the Old Slavonic language" (emphasis mine). It doesn't say it is Old Slavonic! And "Tracing the Script and the Language of the Ancient Macedonians" (their main piece) doesn't even mention Slavic language.--Barbatus 15:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted a link to the paper itself. It clearly states that the vocabulary [11] and the syntax [12][13] is "contemporary Macedonian", i.e. Slavic. Especially on the vocabulary issue, every page has examples of the claim. Every effort is made in the article is to identify the script with "contemporary Macedonian" (clearly a Slavic language). The primary source, the paper itself, is clear on the subject, regardless of what secondary sources add to or subtract from that claim. sys < in 15:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying those "professors" are right. But I think you don't understand what is their real goal. They are not trying to prove that the Ancient Macedonian was Slavic, or that the Ancient Macedonians were Slavs, quite the opposite: that the contemporary Macedonians are direct descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the land. ... So, unless you can cite their article where it claims that the Demotic part of the Stone is Slavic, I'd prefer to call it Macedonian.--Barbatus 15:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we agree that they are not right, and you are now putting the word "professors" in quotes. So it is pseudoscience, is it not? They clearly try to make the point, over and over again, that Ancient Macedonian == Contemporary "Macedonian". And since all serious linguists agree that the contemporary language spoken in the FYR is a Slavic one, well, it is simple math. They even state the connection with Slavic explicitly in the paper[14], lest there be any doubt. sys < in 15:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

But of course it is. If you go back to the history of this article, you'll find that it was me who removed that claim when it first appeared here.--Barbatus 15:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And you we right to remove it, as it was uncritically stated as a fact. Now that the claim is under a proper heading (pseudoscience) and with proper references as to what is being claimed, there is no need to "soften" the position of the "professors" to make them sound less unscientific. Doing so only gives them undeserved credibility. Regards, sys < in 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The work of the two professors is completely their effort and there is no funding or any other help/backing by the state institutions. The fact that there was a promotion of their book in the hall of the Macedonian Academy of Science and Art does not mean governmental/institutional support. Many independant studies and books have had a promotin there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.10.135 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous: The Academy of Arts and Sciences is a state institution created by parliamentary decree [15]. The "Professors" are in the faculty of a state university. The "paper" is hosted on the site of a state university. Saying that the publication, hosting and staging of symposia for the "professors" does not constitute "funding" is quite odd. In any case, the article did not use the word funding, but the word "promote", which is exactly the same word you used. Just admit it, the FYR government screwed up this one, badly. Instead of trying to deny that it happened, please admit reality, and perhaps try to get the FYR to retract these absurd claims. Censoring facts from WP is not the answer. Regards sys < in 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see that there is no point arguing when you are committed to bash the Republic of Macedonia in any way. You don't accept any facts and you are painting a false picture on purpose. You also make up a lot of stuff. It is sad seeing that the "Greek community" here at Wikipedia misuses its purpose and turns it into a weapon of a chauvinistic agenda against its neighbor. There are much more Greeks here than Macedonians, so I guess this sad situation will remain as such, simply by using numerical superiority to paint a picture that is desirable for "Greek national interests". But remember that the truth can not be changed on the basis on what is written on Wikipedia. With this I'm stopping my attempts to confront you with the facts, because it is obviously useless and because you will keep hanging here, instantly changing the info you dislike, no matter what the factual situation is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.205.10.135 (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Dear anonymous, please look at my explanations above. This pseudoscientific claim is so preposterous that I have to footnote every few words (and I do), otherwise even I wouldn't believe that this claim is being made. Clearly you recognize how absurd these "professors" are, otherwise you would not be so embarrassed about this claim. Your problem is with the government of the FYR, not with me. Don't blame the messenger. Regards, sys < in 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sysin, I said that I will leave this discussion and the article text to "your mercy" (simply because there is no point confronting you with any facts and you will use numerical superiority to paint the picture that suites the Greek side). You probably took this as some kind of encouragement and now you pushed your agenda even further by renaming the Republic of Macedonia in the article. I checked and the name used in wikipedia is the constitutional name of the country. I dont want to enter in a what you call here edit war, so I ask you kindly to stick by wikipedia rules and correct yourself by changing it to the proper name: Republic of Macedonia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.205.10.135 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Claims and counterclaims in sci. community should be rule for expresion of these type of points.Obviously this is current event in development and there are still not in exsistence counter claims,nor sci. papers with oposite view.Science most of the time is dealing with facts ,and not with labeled or baseles opinions without proper content criticism.Until the time when sci.community give their opinion on this paper Wikipedia should maintain neutrality and describe basic theory with note that sci.community have still not responded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.226.11 (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous, Anonymous, Sturceto & co.,

Your concerns have already been answered above. To summarize:

• The "Academy of Arts and Sciences", which is promoting the book [16], is a government organization as per their website [17]. The "professors" teach in a government university. The paper is posted on the site of a government-owned university [18]. It is thus clear that the FYR government supports funding for the promotion of this theory directly and indirectly.
• The theory, as posted on the government site, clearly and explicitly supports a translation to a language with a slavic vocabulary and syntax [19][20][21]

Please present any evidence to the contrary here, before making unsupported claims on the main article again. Regards, sys < in 13:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Greek POV pusher Sysin and co.(UTC)

The book was promoted in not by [22] Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. The authors are real professors and their theory is hosted on the faculty where they work. That doesn't make them funded by the government. Their research is independent and please give me proof about their government funding.(UTC)

Their theory is unproven, but doesn't make it Pseudoscientific. If something is different than Greek POV, that doesn't automatically mean that is pseudoscientific.(UTC)

They don't claim that the language is the same as Macedonian language. They claim that some words from Ancient Macedonian language exist today in modern Macedonian. That doesn't make it Slavic language(UTC) User:Sturceto 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How about calling it a fringe theory, see also WP:NPOV#Undue weight.--Domitius 14:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

fringe theory has pejorative use, but recent unproven or just unproven will be ok. Regarding the NPOV... the short text is much more NPOV (since doesn't push any view). Regards Sturceto 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Read your own reference: "Academic Tome Boshevski and prof. Aristotel Tentov conducted the project was conducted under MANU auspices.". Bad grammar aside, "under the auspices" signifies financial and moral support.

The paragraph did not state that this was in "modern Macedonian" The article stated that the paper proposed a "Slavic language" for the text. Which it clearly and explicitly does [23][24][25]

This theory contradicts the works of Thomas Young (scientist), and all the known translations of the stone for the past century. That's exactly why the paragraph did not state that the theory was false, but that the theory "contradicts all mainstream interpretations of the Stone" sys < in 16:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a source (besides this unfair page created in wikipedia of course) where it says that this theory is pseudo-science... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.216.56 (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I added again in the article the part about the pseudo-scientific theory. (Why it was deleted in the first place? Was it decided in a different talk page?) In general all theories that support not mainstream and imaginary views are considered pseudo-science. The fact that those two engineers from Skopje supports that the Demotic Egyptian script is actually Slavic it is alone a strong support for the pseudo-science "title". Do you want to propose a different title or a different version of the article? Seleukosa 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the author of the removal, and insisting on keeping it out. We have tons of these eccentricities concerning the Balkans: some of these are notable, and as such are inserted, while most are ignored and refused mention because they don't respect WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. This is a typical example of the latter. Please remember: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"; to go on "exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources", and please remember, "If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." To go on "Wikipedia self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion, and because other mainstream sources often view our project as a contender for mainstream status, it is important that Wikipedia itself not become the notability-validating source for these non-mainstream theories". Now the point here is exactly notability. Give a look also to WP:SCI and WP:PROF; and please remember this "Exclusion of non-mainstream ideas from articles about mainstream scientific topics may occur when the scientific community has ignored the ideas". On these grounds I'm reverting.--Aldux 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Aldux for your quick reply. Before your reply, I thought that the “pseudo-scientific” part of the article was deleted by the anonymous user above. Since you wrote why you reverted (and in a way that convinced me!) I have no objection. Especially the part: “Exclusion of non-mainstream ideas from articles about mainstream scientific topics may occur when the scientific community has ignored the ideas". Before I read that I did tried to find some reliable sources about the reaction of the scientific community in the “theory” but I was not able (till know) to find any. Seleukosa 21:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, ignorants, this theory was presented in seminar in Russia just a little while ago, concerning the pre-Cyrilys Slavic languages, and is NOT ignored, as a matter of fact, is accepted as a new point of view about the second decree. So, just because these proffersors are from Macedonia, doesn't make them biased or pro-Macedonian. They were, also, never rejected as a pseudo-whaterever you claim them to be. Can someone find something to mark them as pseudo? No, of course. The only pseudo arround here is Greek mocking of something they heard, but didn't want to listen. As allways, that is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.7.4 (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That some ignorants in Russia (or elsewhere) accept some fringe "theory" does not prove anything. To the best of my knowledge, no serious institution (and I mean really serious academic ones, not some loonie nationalist institute created after the fall of the USSR) in Russia has accepted anything of the sort. If Russian Wiki is of any indication, look up articles on the Rosetta Stone and Macedonian language there.--Barbatus (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Synopsis"

A synopsis is meant to be an explantion or and overview - this reads like an excerpt from the introduction. Could someone offer us an explanation of the stone's contents?. WA Burdett 08:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a more concise synopsis would be helpful.--Sevilledade 19:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

remove products?

Do Apple and other companies really deserve a free ad in this article just because they chose to use its name? Do we want to encourage companies to conduct this type of marketing? Is it really significant to the subject? I believe products should be in the disambiguation page at best. 60.240.128.119 15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur, and have removed the text. Links to them can be found on the disambig for rosetta.User A1 05:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Authenticity

Hi, there. If some body ever prove authenticity of Rosetta Stone? I read a lot about this "stela" and it looks like from the beginning Rosetta Stone was excepted as artifact. What if it is fake? Who may need to right on Stela by Hieroglyphs and 'demotic' shrift in ones? Apparently there is not other examples has been discovered, otherwise this stone was not so popular. In time the stone has been made it had practical means, to inform public about decree. It may be have sense to right Greek and local public language (that demotic was). But what sense it make to write by religious, sacral script, that may be understood by priests only? It similar if in period of Second World War, during German occupation of Russia, some body start to write documents by German, Russian and Cyrillic at once. It make no sense because none Russian, except Orthodox priests may understand old language. I a little familiar with philosophy of science and I know what Egyptology's have to say about it. But try to look on this stone like you are first man who see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.142.23 (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Alex.

P.S. Champollion "could read both Greek and Coptic". Coptic will not help to read 'demotic' Egyptian because Coptic alphabet was changed by Coptic Orthodox Church. It looks like there was attempt to develop united alphabet for all Orthodox Churches, similar to Latin alphabet of Roman Church. That is why Coptic dose not help to much to understand 'demotic'. Trying to recreate Egyptian from Coptic it is same as try to recreate Hebrew from Jewish. It impossible, because Jewish, basically German that include Hebrew words. Similar to this, Coptic may be basically Greek (or Arabic or both)that include Demotic words. Most likely Coptic has been changed too hard to help to understand Demotic. The fact, that translator of Demotic part of Rosetta Stone text (Silvan de'Sasy ) was specialist in modern Arabic but not in Ancient Egypt also could make us think about authenticity of this artifact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.142.23 (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this just caught my attention (I haven't been actively editing for some time). What that suppose to mean, 'write in German, Russian and Cyrillic'? Russian script is Cyrillic, is it not? Did you mean pre-Peter the Great reform of the alphabet Church Slavonic? Russian is my native language, not the Church Slavonic, of course, but though I'm not a priest, I can read the latter with a little effort.--Barbatus (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

possible copyrighted material?

I just read the wiki page and subsequently followed the link the the british museum site. I noticed that are a couple of sentances that are nearly identical between the two. They are the ones that talk about the stones brief time away from the museum during World War I. Does the British Museum allow Wikipedia's use of their text? or perhaps the British Museum copied Wikipedia?

Just thought I should bring it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.144.122 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonian?

There is a recent edit claiming that one of the texts is Ancient Macedonian. I'm not sure what to make of this. Is this plausible or commonly accepted? Mlouns (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a tiny-minority view promoted by User:Ireland101, who has also raided a raft of other articles with the assertion that ancient Macedonian was the progenitor of the unrelated modern Slavic language. Both claims lie well outside the scholarly consensus. Removed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The two scholars that wrote the report were not electrical engineers, they were professors[26].Ireland101 (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask where the evidence is that these two people are professors? Ireland101 has claimed this is a thesis, something not normally associated with professors, but students. The paper doesn't state any titles against the writers names, something unusual as for academic papers it is normal to state your credentials. Also has this paper actually been published in any academic journals or publications other than that of the writers? If so where? If not then it doesn't really put itself into the realms of verifiability or even notability. Ben W Bell talk 17:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. All we have is a website run by a couple of guys from the University of Skopje of unknown credentials. A single comment about them on a random blog does not satisfy WP:V, I'm afraid. The paragraph should be removed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It has received academic attention for example with Richard Bangs [27]. Ireland101 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A blog page, nothing near academic.  Andreas  ^(T) 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just a simple mention, not an academic review or support of their report, just a basic news mention. Also the other blog that has been linked to previously is just someone commenting on someone else's blog about it. And that blog commenter has only one blog entry and that is advertising this theory, and nothing else. You need some serious academic sources to back this up, support they are professors, have some peer reviews and show it's been published in proper academic journals to support it's inclusion. If not it's just one of the millions of little theories people have jotted down over the years on thousands of subjects that is of little to no value to an encyclopaedic. Ben W Bell talk —Preceding comment was added at 19:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article shuld not contain every hypothesis that has been uttered. Whereas it may be verifiable that some individuals (whether with or without adequate academic credentials) have issued a statement about the language or the demotic text, this is irrelevant as long as the statement itself is not a reiliable source. The article is about the Rosetta stone and not about what some poeple think about the Rosetta stone.  Andreas  ^(T) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is some news coverage of the finding: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Ireland101 (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So we have 1) Youtube videos of copyrighted material, and 2) videos that you've just uploaded to YouTube to support your claim. The videos have only been up there for 2 hours so evidence seems to support the likelyhood that you've uploaded them yourself. I have to ask, are you one of the people involved in this "discovery" or closely related to them, as it seems to be becoming increasingly likely? In addition those videos are not in English and are therefore difficult to use to prove your position on the English language Wikipedia. In addition there is nothing to show that these programmes are from a mainstream scholarly TV station, academic broadcast service or other serious service, for all we know they are something someone videoed and put on a local cable TV station if that, or just uploaded themselves to the internet. Ben W Bell talk 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL, all of a sudden you think I am secretly actually one of the academics in the video just because I posted them. Besides the fact that I have been an editor in Wikipedia for months and only started editing this article a couple of days ago and have no relation to any academics in that country, you accuse me of being some secret conspirator. I found those videos in a internet forum, I did not upload them, I do not live in Macedonia I could not have taped them. If you want I can post the link where I found them although it is unnecessary. Ireland101 (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say I'm having trouble assuming good faith here. You say you found links to them on an internet forum, but posted the links on Wikipedia less than half an hour after they were uploaded to Youtube. Seems a tad close. By all means post your link. Anyway as I said above, for all we know they could be discussing how to get tzatziki out of your clothing. English language sources, and the verification of those sources would be best. Ben W Bell talk 00:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[33] page 14. happy? . Read these comments they are a bit more helpful.Ireland101 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The date and time stamps suggest that it is entirely possible that you got those links from the forums, and since it is a topic you are interested in you check the forums regularly. There is no evidence to suggest to me that you did upload them in an attempt to support your claim. I apologise for that and retract the statement of suggestion of such. Ben W Bell talk 03:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing this and retracting your accusations, not many people on this site admit their mistakes. Ireland101 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - As an aside, while I have no idea what is being said in those videos, comments left by other users against the first one seems to suggest that they, or at least the show, is viewed with some ridicule and lack of seriousness. Based on this comment of "Ha ha ha - I knew they would finally claim the Moon as well", by someone who obviously can understand the video and knows what is going on. However obviously comments that someone posts on the likes of Youtube can't be taken as gospel. Posted as a comment. Ben W Bell talk 03:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is mentioned in a skopjian news medium does not mean that this is anywhere near serious news. FYROM is an echo chamber of diseased ultranationalism and racism, the whole country in the throes of an ideological fever that means most skopjian newspapers have about the same level of objectivity as the Sturmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.213.151 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Demotic translation of Ptolemy with a help of Macedonian language

The Rosseta Stone shows three scripts: Egyptian hieroglyphs, Demotic and Ancient Greek. In 2005 the Academy of Macedonian Sciences and Arts published a study "Tracing the Script and the Language of the Ancient Macedonians" by the authors Tome Boševski & Aristotel Tentov. This is a study where they were trying to decipher the Demotic script with a help of Macedonian language. The ispiration to connect these laguages was by the last line of the deciphered text in Greek that says: "And this Decree shall be inscribed upon stelae of hard stone, in holy, and in native, and in Greek letters,” and shall be set up in the temples, alongside statues of Ptolemy V." Boševski & Tentov assumed that the native letters were used to write in Ancient Macedonian language, and they made a deciphering theory.

Their theory was dissmised by the Greek editors in Wikipedia, but it is geting publicity in Russia these days. The authors were invited in Saint Petersburg to present theor work on a conference that among other things dealed with pre-Cyrilic Slavonic literacy.

The authors were having an interview yesterday on the private TV Channel 5 in Republic of Macedonia and I decided to investigate and test their theory as a native speaker of Macedonian language. I took a Ptolemaic Demotic text from schillerinstitute.org and I applied their deciphering rules on a word that is Demotic parallel to the name Ptolemy in Egyptian hieroglyphs. I got a translation (ZeCeNeIBeBog₳??? or in Cyrilic:ЗеЦеНеИБоБог????) (the unknown ???? are 4 lines that are not included as letters in the rules, but by the rules after the three straigt lines that mean God there comes some specific discription of the God even as symbolized hieroglyphs). The most intriguing thing is that ЗеЦеНеИБоБог is very close to СеЦеНет И ПоБог ???? that is translated in English as all respected (praised) and (next to, by, following, preposition for comparative -er) God ????(unknown name)). The text from the schillerinstitute.org is not included or connected with the study, I found it on a Google Image search, but by Boševski & Tentov rules it gives translation in Macedonian language on my big surprise. Maybe their theory should not be dissmissed so lightly. It is getting publicity in scientific conferences and it worked on a random Demotic text, again I will say on my big surprise. (Toci (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

This translation attempt is nothing but a hoax to advance a political agenda and has nothing to do with archaeology or linguistics. These two FYROMian scientists, achieved to translate a text in Egyptian Demotic, making claims that it wasn't Egyptian after all but the true ancient Macedonian language, which they defined as Slavic and tried to make a corelation of the Demotic alphabet with some symbols found in the Balkans as proof that this was a previously unknown Macedonian alphabet. What is really sad is that although there are thousands of texts in Egyptian Demotic, they have of course disclosed no attempt to translate any other such text apart from the Rosetta Stone, a symbolic relic indeed. Their failure to provide the academic community with any other intelligible translation has of course convinced every university that boasts an Egyptology or Classical Studies department that their work is unscientific and driven by politics rather than scholarly seriousness. The only followup they made was a "deciphering" of symbols found in the Balkans dated as far back as the 7th millenium BC, which is as unsupported as their initial attempt to provide us with an alternative translation of the Rosetta Stone. Of course they have also provided us with no answers to questions such as :

1. If this was the writing of the ancient Macedonians, then why is there no trace of it throughout the Macedonian or any other Empire and kingdom ruled by the Diadochs or the Epigons?

2. If this was the writing of the ancient Macedonians, then why is it written in the Greek part of the Stele that this is the language of the local people (enxoriois), the one they translate as the "language of the Masters"?

3. If this was the writing of the ancient Macedonians, then why weren't these two electrical engineers able to provide us with a translation of anyother text written in Egyptian Demotic?

4. Why didn't they include a full translation of the Stone and only provided limited extracts?

Their method, of course, was simply to try and match one text with a given, premade slavonic text of their preference. this is actually quite easy to achieve but very difficult to apply to other texts, if available, which is the case here...

This 44 page theory already has a history of 3 years and all those questions are of course still unanswered. Now there are even newer theories that try to fill in the gaps by suggesting that the ancient Egyptian and Phoenician languages are all branches of the "protoslavic (according to them) Macedonian language" and thus the Egyptian demotic, which in its first forms predates the conquests of Alexander the Great by more than 4 centuries, is actually the true ancient Macedonian language and writing, that was for some unnamed reason forgotten and put out of use by the Macedonians themselves...

To conclude, after more than 3 years, this theory has failed to attract even one official academic supporter, even in their homeland.

GK1973 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC).

Dear Makedonci Toci. Firstly, the story you present makes no sense and makes no point. Clear it out. Do you even know about what language and script you are talking about that you claim as connected to your modern undoubtedly and fundamentally Slavic language? I'll tell you.

You compare and try to connect, I mean those multi-tool "professors" do, the modern Slavic self-called Macedonian language to Demotic_(Egyptian), a script used to write the Egyptian language of the time.

Let me clear it out for you. You are comparing an Indo-European language, a Slavic to an Afro-Asiatic, the Egyptian language.

Do you get this? two unrelated language families. ..and connect it on what basis? fundamental? that they have a common ancestor? or by contact? That Slavs and Egyptians contacted? that the Slavs who started reaching the Balkans in the 6th century after Christ were in Egypt at 100BC ?

believe me, I have heard that kind of crazy stories by your side. You are very prolific on stories and every other of you I speak to has a different story... and don't you ask yourself how only the Macedonci Slavs claim all that? where were the other Slavs at the time? were there many Slavs scattered and the today's smaller Slav group made that huge empire? this is a big joke. Reminds me of Afrocentrism pseudohistory.

You do realize that one can "connect" any language to any other language by a few random words and convenient, similar/mysterious meanings, right?

..so, yet another baseless, made-up, desperate, nationalistic, undoubtly pseudoscience, half argument trying to manipulate eager-to-be-manipulated and uneducated masses by giving them hot keywords, like "ancient macedonian language" "related to" "makedonski language" "in Egypt, after the time of our Alexanderski the Great"

No don't need to say more. Those sources of "researches" have been ridiculed before by well-known scholars and will be once again. That is the sure part of the deal...

Waiting for your next story soon. Make something up that includes Mormons or Scientologists. They have solid stories like you do. Well maybe a little more solid.

150.140.227.238 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Unix

Under Unix a Rosetta Stone is a document which places similar commands from different dialects (and offspring) of Unix side by side.[8]

The link is to a document, itself called "Rosetta Stone", which does so. There is no indication that "a Rosetta Stone" is a common name for such documents, and since the document itself is apparently not notable I think we should remove this, lest we have to add a link to everything everyone decides to call "Rosetta Stone". Any objections, or should I be bold? The Wednesday Island (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead! Doug Weller (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

How it works

Modern language translation dictionaries require hundreds of pages. How is the stone, a mere few thousand characters, able to carry out a similar function? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.56.181 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it only showed similar words. Other words were "interpreted" from Egyptian wall writing etc. It's all very sketchy 99.236.221.124 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Simple answer: it's not a dictionary. In the simplest terms, it carried an inscription in two Egyptian scripts, and one in Greek. Jean-François Champollion was able to understand the Greek and with his knowledge of Coptic was able to make best guesses as their equivalent in the Egyptian scripts. From there he was able to decipher Egyptian text on other monuments/texts. So the Rosetta Stone is not a dictionary, it's one of several "keys" that helped scholars decipher the Egyptian language. Captmondo (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mondo 99.236.221.124 (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

MANU controversy

As the section stands it reports on what has happened without taking a stance or endorsing this theory. --Anothroskon (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As can be seen from the links I supplied this "theory" has found its way into a Yahoo news piece that further links to this WP page. It can do that because there is neither reference of this controversy nor its rebutall here in WP. This is something that should be rectified.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been discussed in detail above. You were told by another editor that the idea of including it had been rejected. You then saw a 2nd editor, me, revert you. What you have done is Boldly added something that had been rejected. That was Reverted, and then the appropriate action is Discuss - WP:BRD. Instead, you added it a 3rd time, with what looks like a personal attack on me (your comment 'blind revert'). I'm removing it again, please don't replace it until there is a new consensus it should be here. The Yahoo link is not a news story and is dated July 7 - which was in 2006. Dougweller (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed your concerns. The section has been modified heavily to remove the venerable reference, to add that it is not supported outside RoM and then even further to add that it is considered pseudoscience and unscientific. As it stands it only reports on the fact of the theory as proposed by MANU. Please state what more needs to be done and avoid further unfounded accusations of personal attack. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely NO controversy in the academic circles about this "work" of those engineers. Their deductions consist nothing more than a totally unscientific approach and a laughable extremist effort. Such ludicrous deductions are not considered "controversial" by any academic institution. Please, do not add something like this again here. Sometimes fringe theories can be added but this is not fringe, this is plainly laughable. GK1973 (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that it is laughable it is also a fact that a state run institution has backed these claims and they hence deserve mention in WP. It also falls under the notability criteria as it is mentioned in a sufficient number of English language news pieces.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

nope... it does not. It is not truly supported by the Faculty of Classical Studies of RoM. It is just another essay and bears no significance. As for notability, it is not accepted nor noted in any real academic sites. Fora and nationalistic sites which add up to Google results are not noteworhy mentions. GK1973 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind indenting please? Now it is supported by MANU as it is on hosted on their website and published in their journal. Further there are actual news items and several of them as well. I have not included any forum links as sources. --Anothroskon (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hosting an essay is of course not the same as endorsing it. Please provide me the links so that I do not have to research it. Which links do ytou consider most important? GK1973 (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please indent. links--Anothroskon (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It says here that it was published in an official edition of MANU. p.35--Anothroskon (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It is an announcement that their work is being funded and an essay as to how amateurish their work is... So? Where is any sign of endorsement? And of course more scientific sources should be given, some signs that these baffoons' (I am really fed up with them, I diligently read their work years ago) work is somewhere taken seriously... They didn't even compile any follow up clearly failing to support their own claims. GK1973 (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how many such essays are produced globally in academic campuses? How many ludicrous assumptions are being made in dissertations by much more credible scholars? This work has been published years ago and did not stand the test of time and academic credence. It is not even considered fringe. Should we offer any claim ever made (by much more prestigious scholars), we would never be able to produce a coherent article. GK1973 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Non Sequitur

This sentence from the introduction has me somewhat baffled: "Both hieroglyphs and cuneiform were starting a translation revolution, as were the physical sciences of describing fossil evolution." I fail to understand what fossil evolution has to do with translation and the Rosetta stone. Is this some form of subtle graffiti? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.176.42 (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence

People editing here might be interested in a discussion I've just posted at the talkpage to the article on the British museum here: Talk:British_Museum#Wikipedian_in_Residence. Sincerely, Witty Lama 05:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Napoleonic army "grounded its arms"

The article claims that "The Napoleonic army was so awestruck by this unheralded spectacle" of the Rosetta Stone that, "It halted of itself and, by one spontaneous impulse, grounded its arms." However, the actual quotation reveals that the army "grounded its arms" at the sight of the ruins of Thebes, and not the discovery of the Rosetta Stone: Google Books Link

"At nine o'clock, turning the end of a chain of mountains which formed a promontory, the French suddenly beheld the seat of the antique Thebes, in all its development; Thebes, of which Homer has painted the extent in a single word, the hundred-gated Thebes—a poetic and empty expression, confidently repeated through a series of ages. Described in a few pages dictated to Herodotus by the Egyptian priests, and copied ever since by all other historians; celebrated for a succession of kings whose wisdom has placed them in the rank of gods, for laws which were revered without being understood, for sciences confided to pompous and enigmatic inscriptions (those learned and earliest monuments of the arts, which time itself has foreborne to injure); this abandoned sanctuary, insulated by barbarism, and returned to the desert whence it was conquered; this city, in a word, perpetually wrapped in that veil of mystery by which even colossuses are magnified; this exiled city, which the mind no longer discovers but through the mists of lime, was still a phantom so gigantic to our imagination, that the army, at the sight of its scattered ruins, halted of itself, and, by one spontaneous impulse, grounded its arms, as if the possession of the remains of this capital had been the object of its glorious labours, had completed, the conquest of the Egyptian territory."

Kramden (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

I'd like to swap around the current lead image (File:Rosetta_Stone_BW.jpeg) with the current 3rd position image (File:Rosetta Stone.JPG), does anyone object to this? The reason is that the latter image is a fairly good photo of the actual object in its current state of restoration. The current lead image is a poor quality scan of a photo of how the stone looked many years ago in a former state of conservation - coloured in black with the words highlighted in white. This added colouration was removed quite a number of years ago as it is now considered to be bad archaeological practice to make this kind of over-painting. As a result, the current 3rd image is not only more representative of the present look of the object it also represents our current understanding of archaeological practice. What does everyone say? Witty Lama 22:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking the same thing -- certainly having three images of the item at the beginning of the article is overkill, and the third image is the most representative of its current state, as you say. Captmondo (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with switching them around, the original image should not be deleted from the article as it is the clearest for making out the actual text. The third image is best for the stone itself. Canterbury Tail talk 02:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That being the case, then that image ought to go with the section that describes the meaning of the text rather than being the lead image (though I your point is debatable the fine details of the hieroglyphs at the top that I can make out are not entirely clear in the full-sized image). I have been bold and have made both changes. Captmondo (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers guys :-) Witty Lama 09:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reworking and expanding

I'm beginning to rework and expand the text and improve the references -- based to some extent on what I've already done on the Latin Wikipedia.

Since the introductory section will be a summary of the main text, it should need no footnotes. Or am I wrong there? Andrew Dalby 19:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, if you look at other Featured Articles, you are correct. However intro sections are usually not completely free of citations (often there is at least one or two), so if pruning citations from the lead, make sure that the point the reference is listed further down in the article, and if not, leave it. Captmondo (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind and must indeed remember to repeat, and cite, all significant details lower down. Andrew Dalby 15:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought of rearranging the first sections thus:

• [Introduction]
• The stone
• The decree [with highlights of the decree itself in summary/translation]
• Historical background to the decree
• Rediscovery ... decipherment ... [etc.]

Shall I leave the historical background section to be written by you? I could transfer across what I have already said on this in the Latin article, but that might be a waste of time.

If one were telling a historical story, one would only reveal what the decree says after telling about the decipherment. For an encyclopaedia article, I think we have to say up front what importance the document has, because the document is why the stone exists. Andrew Dalby 09:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

While the Memphis Decree is what brought the RS into existence, I think it is safe to say that any encyclopedic reference ought to put that decree in its context first, so I would place the Historical background section prior to the section dealing with the decree. Other than that, I think what you propose makes sense.

I will definitely be adding further material on the historical background of the RS, and am also working on an illustration as to what the whole stele might have once looked like, based on information from a couple of sources I have access to. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see you've written something on that already.

It's still slightly startling to click "edit" and see the words "Editing Rosetta Stone"! Andrew Dalby 19:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as you don't have a stone chisel in hand, am sure it is alright. ;-) Captmondo (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have moved your paragraph on the original appearance etc. into the section above, "The stone" and added information on what is missing from all three inscriptions: does it work like this, do you think?

I find it a bit awkward, and perhaps overlong. In the end I'd rather wait for a WP reviewer's decision on that since my instinct in these matters is often wrong. Captmondo (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You're right about the length and I have given it a separate section. We can keep this in view as we continue. Andrew Dalby 10:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The older version said that the sides and back of the Stone were "unfinished". This is correct as a technical term but to the reader it suggests that something was left undone, and that's not (necessarily) true, so I have changed the word to "unsmoothed". Any comment?

I take your point and it is a good one, which could well lead to confusion. Agreed that "unsmoothed" is a better description in this case. Captmondo (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Also ongoing was the rebellion of Horwennefer: are you planning to add that, or shall I? Andrew Dalby 19:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting -- the sources I have don't mention him (at least not by that name). Will go digging and see what I can find.

The name "D'Hautpoul" isn't much seen in the usual narratives, and other sources give fr:Michelange Lancret a different role to yours. I take it you've consulted the Adkins book: are you confident of it? I note this review "Their description of the French occupation of Egypt at the time that the Rosetta Stone was discovered is superficial and fails to take into account some of the more recent scholarship on the subject. The authors, in fact, never indicate what sources they utilized for this study" but I can't read the book myself. Andrew Dalby 20:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The majority of the Adkins book concentrates on Champollion's progress on deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics, though I found its account of the discovery of the RS and what happened immediately afterwards to be more rounded than most other accounts (which tend to be more superficial). Can you point me to any of those more recent sources cited? Captmondo (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the text of Parkinson et al. 1999 is available on Google Books (from this jurisdiction, anyway). This narrative is well footnoted (and I've followed up many of them), and it should be authoritative since Parkinson is responsible for the Stone right now. If (as the review I quoted says -- but I don't know) the Adkins book does not cite sources, surely we can't regard it as a reliable source itself?

I admit the risk with relying on British Museum sources: that they will not necessarily be totally NPOV on nationalist issues: it's the British national museum, after all. One review of this book criticised Parkinson for over-emphasising Young over Champollion.

None of them are free from errors, of course. If the Adkinses say that Lancret was Bouchard's superior officer, that's just wrong: he was one of the technical experts (savants), a highway engineer in fact, part of a completely different unit. But then [if I recall correctly] Parkinson describes fr:Jean-Joseph Marcel as the senior Orientalist on the expedition: he wasn't at all. He was another technical expert, a printer in fact, though certainly with a flair for Oriental languages. Andrew Dalby 10:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, as far as D'Hautpoul is concerned, I have it now. the Courier de l'Egypte, the official newspaper of the expedition, should at least be a reliable source on the hierarchy of the individuals involved. The report is reprinted here (see footnote on page 7). D'Hautpoul was boss of the batallion of engineers, but Bouchard wielded the spade. It looks as though the Adkinses got this the wrong way round. No one else claims it was D'Hautpoul who discovered the Stone. Andrew Dalby 11:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Most sources (including the BM website) seem to say 196 BC, as does our category. Parkinson (1999) says 197 BC, and this date is used in our text. Do you have views on this? I can ask Parkinson by email. It may be a calendar issue. Andrew Dalby 20:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, ask Parkinson. Can't hurt. Captmondo (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, my main contribution for this evening was finishing up/uploading the image of the original stele containing an image of the RS to the "Stone" section. Captmondo (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful. Must have been hard work, but worth while.

Thank you! Not as hard as you might think (illustrations are part of what I do for a living) and the images of the gods/goddesses at the top is done by User:Jeff Dahl. I thought it worthwhile to spend the time doing this, as it helps to put the RS into its original context. Captmondo (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the word "pharaoh" when used as a title for Ptolemy V. I think it's only used for the Ancient Egyptian rulers, not for the Macedonian/Greek Ptolemaic dynasty. Hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby 13:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time I've written extensively about the Ptolemaic pharaohs which are a likely exception to the rule, but in general I oppose using "king" instead of "pharaoh" because of the societal context of the two titles. A "King" is a ruler of the people, sometimes considered to be appointed by God(s) to rule. Pharaohs are not only kings of the land, but are gods in their own right, to be venerated and worshipped as well as obeyed by the populace. Given that the RS is all about confirming Ptolemy as pharaoh, and setting up statues to be venerated, I would argue that the title of "pharaoh" be used over that of "king".

Well, of course, I don't dispute that it's about worshipping him as god. That has to be made clear, but it can't be done just by using the one word or the other, because other readers, like me, will not have in mind the detailed definitions that you've just given above. That's why, in my writing, I oppose using specialist terms when a common English word will do (when Greek specialists, for example, use polis instead of city). It often shows that the specialist is hiding behind the term to avoid questioning his/her assumptions. So, in this case, the historical background section and the text of the decree will show to what extent Ptolemy is an Egyptian pharaoh rather than a Macedonian basileus. If we adopt either term, we're making an assumption. If we use the common word king, every reader has a quick idea of its meaning and we can go on and show what the real context was, here and now, to Ptolemy and the priests.

So, now that I know your reason, I'm more strongly against using the word than before :) Andrew Dalby 16:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Each to his own opinion, and I certainly take your point. The title took on special prominence during the New Kingdom, but was arguably watered-down by the time of the Ptolemies (after all, it took several years for Ptolemy V to be coronated). The section covering the history of the Ptolemies in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt refers to them continually as "kings", so I am not going to fight on that point. ;-) Captmondo (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for seeing it that way. I am fully with you in the need to point out powerful continuities from the earlier period to the Ptolemaic. Andrew Dalby 11:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

But now what about the timeline that I've transferred from Vicipaedia? It's essentially a list of early publications covering the period of the decipherment. Most of these will be mentioned in the decipherment section. But the timeline may be just too much detail, better omitted. Or it may be that some different layout would help it. Or maybe we wait and see. I'd be glad to know what you think. Andrew Dalby 18:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Will take a look at it. The article is looking great btw, and I think we are very close to the stage of taking this officially to the next stage: taking it the intermediary step of nominating it for Good article status, or nominating it directly as a Feature article candidate. I would advocate doing the former and then the latter. Also, is the BM representative available to weigh in either before we take the plunge? Captmondo (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think so too. I will complete the "decipherment" section today, with luck -- here I'm largely translating/adapting what I have already written on Vicipaedia, and I'll add the references to this section today. Then I think a new (but short) section is needed about nationalist concerns. The French/British ownership thing is merely historical (thank goodness), but there is still so much being written about the Young/Champollion issue, and now there is the question of Egyptian ownership, which will fit in here.

I agree, we could go to GA first. I have never done any of this on en:wiki; it's more informal on Vicipaedia. Have you? Andrew Dalby 11:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done this before, and know the steps involved (though I see things have been slightly modified since the last time I helped usher an article through this process). Be prepared for spending time possibly sourcing new material/references to add, and to defend the structure and content of the article. Let me know when you feel ready and I can start the first step in this process.

Btw, I was planning on adding more material to the historical background last night, but WP went "dark" last night. Will try again later today. Captmondo (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the publication timeline, I think it may be overkill for the article, but I suggest keeping it for now until othe Wikipedia editors/reviewers weigh in. It's always easier to cut excess material than to add new content. ;-) Captmondo (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Andrew Dalby 11:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've looked over the latest incarnation of the process, and I think it would be best to skip over seeking to nominate the article as being a Good article, and instead jump to the Peer review stage, which then puts this article within reach of making it a Feature article candidate. Has the BM expert that you have been in contact with volunteered to do an edit pass on the content in this article? If not, it would be a good idea, especially prior to taking making it a Featured Article. For a hint as to what to expect on that front, you might want to take a peak at the FA assessment currently underway for the fellow BM-centric article on the FA Candidate discussion: Hoxne Hoard. As you can see this is nowhere near as informal as things are on the Latin version of WP. ;-) Captmondo (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all this, and I've asked Richard Parkinson to read the article while at peer review: I suggested this coming weekend. Can we get it to peer review by then? I did less than I intended yesterday, but will make up today. I see the useful new section of language/decipherment background ... Andrew Dalby 06:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think aiming for this weekend would be a good idea. I am pretty much done with the material I originally planned to add. There are a few more things I would like to cover in brief:

1. talk about how the stone was originally displayed at the BM (we already have a pic of it) and the alterations that were made to the RS
2. mention the copy of the RS that has been placed in the King's Library as it would have been available to early 19th century patrons of the BM
3. add a bit more background to the Zahi Hawass bid to reclaim the RS (and other objects from the world's museums)

Will also see if I can at create at least stub articles for some of the "red links" that currently appear in the article. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Of your three items above (which I have just numbered) I didn't even know about no. 2. I would say all three are important, and no. 3 is highest-priority. What the article currently says about this is too-obviously based on a couple of news sources. Andrew Dalby 11:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what to do with the "timeline" now. I will turn it into a second set of footnotes (A to Z) which can be keyed to the text. It won't take long, and it'll look good -- I've tested -- but we'd better not conflict over this. If I start one hour from now, will you allow me an hour clear? Then it's all yours again. Andrew Dalby 16:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll work on eliminating some of the "red links" this evening my time. They don't directly impact this page at all, so you will be free and clear to work on what you like. I managed to do one earlier for Tomkyns Hilgrove Turner and I plan to work on Gebel Tingar and filling in some basic background on the other French savants that get a mention here. Captmondo (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Splendid picture of Turner. Nice work!

I'm done here for today. So, do as you suggest by all means, but if you need to edit the page, go right ahead :) Andrew Dalby 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for passing the baton. ;-) Captmondo (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Have done some minor tweaks here and there: have added a pic of the replica version as it appears in the King's Library at the British Museum, and placed images within the sections that they pertain to, and I managed to tackle Lettre à M. Dacier though it is only a stub. You might also be interested in a pic I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons of a letter ([34]) from Thomas Young to William Bankes in 1818 that gets several hieroglyphs correct, in case you want to add information about Young's prior claim to (partial) decipherment

There's more that could be added—mainly minor details here and there—but I think at this point the article is verging on becoming too lengthy, so I am going to hold off making any other substantive additions until we hear from the peer review process. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I'll look at that material, which sounds fascinating and surely important.

I agree we don't want to get too long. I was working on the dating systems last night -- there will be links to add, and I was sure this issue needed explaining -- but I know it currently duplicates with the quotation from the text of the Stone. I will work on that today. If there are any other points that you think have got too long and detailed, feel free to say. My other job today is to add some footnotes. Andrew Dalby 13:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think footnoting is a good thing to concentrate on at this point. Am not sure whether the publications listed as references within the article are by themselves sufficient for the points that are sometimes associated with them, though the majority seem reasonable assertions to make. Given that we are already at 60+ references, we don't need to go much further, just anything that might be considered contentious.

The date formats ought to be consistent, ditto the reference formats (haven't had a hard look at this, so I don't know where we stand).

Will hold off on making comments on sections that I think are too long since again, since I think that's what peer review process ought to do.

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

From now for about 1 hour I'm going to be adding references. These will not be in consistent format yet: I'll do that separately tomorrow. My impression is that we easily can and should simplify and standardize footnote references to items that are in "further reading"; we might leave other items (the ones that are referred to only in footnotes) to see what peer review says about them. OK? Andrew Dalby 19:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, done for today. I did it the other way round: I got the existing references into consistent format first: I'll add some more footnotes, using the same format, tomorrow. Andrew Dalby 20:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely looking better. There's really not much more I can add at this point without feeling that the article is going overlong. At this point I intend to wait for the BM peer review of what's there, and then will wade into it again as necessary. Captmondo (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll just complete the job of adding references where I needed to. If, after that, you want to take it to peer review, I'm right behind you! Richard Parkinson is "out of the office" but will no doubt read it through when he gets back.

I am emailing you about the prize ... Ah, no, I can't. Anyway I'll write on your talk page. Andrew Dalby 11:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added those references now. I think you could take it to peer review any time. Andrew Dalby 20:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)