Talk:Tulli Papyrus

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Amelia-the-comic-geek in topic Doubt issue

Untitled edit

I am new to this so I may not be doing it right, but I'm trying. I edited out a German website reference which I had earlier introduced--then the "clean up" notice appeared. It caused the reference page to have 2 types of references, which may have raised the "clean up" alarm. Then I changed the assertion that only one person had claimed to have seen the original Tulli papyrus (factually incorrect) to three persons. I managed to include factual and documented information without using the German website. I hope this is satisfactory. Thank you.Firecircle 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rachewiltz translation edit

Hello, the "Racheviltz translation" in this page is very different from the real Rachewiltz translation published in Doubt magazine n.41, 1953 (see: http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/6292/doubt411953p214vs0.jpg ) For this reason I change the text following the printed article by De Rachewiltz. --Milo Temesvar (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

July 2017 edit

I have removed large portions of WP:OR cited to sources that do not mention the subject, as well as much uncited speculation, rumor, and unreliable WP:FRINGE sources. Essentially, the topic is an anecdotal story published in a long lost issue of the Fortean Society magazine by someone who claimed that someone else said they once saw a papyrus that described an ancient UFO sighting. A search reveals zero reliable sources that are reliable and independent of UFO believers. The sole reliable source is a Fortean Society journal describing the article in Fortean Magazine. Unless multiple reliable and independent sources can be found, this topic fails WP:N for a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, I located and added a NYT source (passing mention of the subject) and a paper by Edward Condon. Enough for a stub, but still not quite enough sources from which to build an entire article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, great work. But I agree about it not being enough. Redirect somewhere? Doug Weller talk 15:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Could be merged to Erich_von_Daniken#Book_of_Dzyan_and_Tulli_Papyrus. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Doubt issue edit

I managed to track down the specific issue of Doubt this was mentioned in, #41 on the Wayback Machine, is there any way to insert this without it coming off as awkward?--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply