This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Book of Abraham article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt
We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
Cleanup.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Stub sorting
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
Data sorting.
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
This article was copy edited by Corinne, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 29 August 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Book of Abraham was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
@Jgstokes: - You recently added text by an author that is not reliable for this topic. Can you discuss why Larson is a reliable source before readding contested content? 12.75.41.70 (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pastelitodepapa, thanks for outlining the reason for that removal. I have no objections to that removal now.
12.75.41.70, I never once said I found the source in question to be credible. That wasn't my reason for reverting your edits and restoring the WP:STATUSQUO, as was consistent with Wikipedia policies for disputed content. My reasoning for restoring the status quo was that you may significant and substantiative changes to the page in question without much (if any) explanation, either in edit summaries or here on the talk page. When a bunch of content gets altered or added with minimal or no explanation, that raises red flags. If your edits are valid, they should have been made in smaller batches with adequate explanation for each change in the edit summary. That is consistent with Wikipedia policies. When content is challenged, the onus for explaining why those edits are valid rests on the person who made the edits, not the person who reverted them.
I apologize if you have good and valid reasons for massively altering the page content. But if I am unsure about massive content changes, I prefer to have a discussion about that, which is also consistent with Wikipedia policies. So could you provide a better explanation for your edits? And could we have a discussion about why the page content needs to be so massively changed, in your view? That is the issue I have, which is why I reverted the massive changes. I explained that in the reverting of your edits in question.
My reverts in question were intended to be in good faith, and I apologize if they came across as anything less than that. If so, that's on me. But I would like to understand your changes better, and why you feel they are necessary. So could we have a conversation about that? Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 23:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to become familiar with WP:BOLD and WP:SQS. Prior approval is not required to edit articles. You added unreliably sourced content twice before coming to the talk page, both times only citing WP:QUO.
Anyhow, as I wrote in my edit summary, this author is not a reliable source for this topic – they are fringe. The onus is on you now to explain why it is WP:DUE despite not being a WP:RS if you would like to keep it. 12.75.41.70 (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
