Template:Did you know nominations/Tabnit sarcophagus
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tabnit sarcophagus
[edit]
... that the Phoenician-Egyptian Tabnit sarcophagus (pictured) was discovered with King Tabnit's body perfectly preserved in the original embalming fluid?
Created by Oncenawhile (talk). Self nominated at 11:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC).
New enough, long enough. Neutral. No close paraphrasing, copyvio or plagiarism. QPQ done. Not really sure why the big swathe of French is required to support the fact it cites; the penultimate sentence would have done. Hook is fine now it isn't implying he was in his own icky fluids. Picture is quite nice. Belle (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Pulled this from prep because Belle was off her game. The idea that an Egyptian king was found perfectly preserved, gloatingfloating in some magic fluid, is an extraordinary claim needing way more than a 4th-hand account in a minister's my-experience-of-the-of-the-Holy-Land wonder book. EEng (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- As an aside, Tabnit was not Egyptian, he was Sidonian (Phoenician). Oncenawhile (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please read Hamdi Bey's account in French - a very clear excerpt relevant to this is quoted in the article notes (in French). Oncenawhile (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- I did, and via Gtranslate it says
- A layer of yellow sand and wet which emerged the gaunt face, clavicles, the ball and the toes which fingers were missing ... all the muscles of the hind and all the internal organs of the chest and abdominal areas were perfectly preserved ... I kept a portion of the sludge formed of sand and rot it contained
- That's nothing like "body perfectly preserved ... in original embalming fluid". EEng (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have found another great source, Charles Cutler Torrey, who had liaised directly with William King Eddy, on the subject. I will add it to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi EEng, can you please propose a form of words which would be acceptable to you? It is unlikely that Tabnit is going to present himself to you in person tonight in order to prove that he was "perfectly preserved", so we're going to have to follow the sources.
- Please note that the "body had been found floating" comes from this 2003 source by Eric Gubel, and it is clear from Hamdi Bey's quote above that the body was extremely well preserved given it was 2500 years old, so all we are arguing over is whether Jessup's "perfect preservation" is an over-exaggeration. Torrey calls it a "very good state of preservation", that the "vital organs and viscera... were perfectly preserved" and "I do not know that any similar case has ever been observed and reported".
- How about just replacing the words "perfectly preserved" with "very well preserved"? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- I did, and via Gtranslate it says
Gubel says he's relating Jessup's account, but in fact he cites some intermediate source, and what he says isn't quite what Jessup says. Unless we find a careful secondary source that weighs all the primaries and comes to a sensible conclusion as to what really was the state of the body, and this oops! - sorry, boss, spilled the magic fluid incident, the best we can do is give this as according to or something like that, distancing WP from any assertion it's factual. I see you've added a new source, and it's helpful. If you want I'll see what I can do in the next few days. EEng (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi EEng, is "very well preserved" ok as a watered down version? It matches Torrey's description well (who based his account on the testimony of Dr. Shibly Abela and William K. Eddy), and to my mind is an accurate paraphrase of Hamdi Bey's account. So with Abela, Eddy and Hamdi Bey we are covering all three of the educated people who saw the body before it decomposed.
- I have read a lot of sources on this topic and the question of his excellent preservation has never been questioned by any source I have seen.
- I really would like to get this back into the queue if possible - happy to discuss any counter suggestions if you have any if it will speed things up. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Unless there's an anniversary or something can we just take our time? A lot of bad things have happened at DYK because of rushing. I'd like to read over the sources so we can put together a really fun hook that no one can poke holes in. EEng (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK fair enough, you've convinced me with your niceness! I was just quite keen for it to be up with the photo during wikimania. This is only my second DYK, and interestingly the first one had exactly the same dynamic - the first reviewer gave me a quick confirmation, and then a second reviewer came in and questioned the first review and began a long discussion. I'd love to know some of the stories where things have gone wrong, so I can learn to be less frustrated with the delay and also can keep an eye out for the big potential problems when doing my QPQs. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- A whole book could be written on that topic, because over the years Wikipedians have come up with so many innovative ways of getting into strife. My personal favourite is a Wikmedian who created an article about an artist who paints with his penis, and commissioned a portrait of Jimbo Wales for the article. So don't do that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's this one: Template:Did you know nominations/Pricasso? Classic. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- A whole book could be written on that topic, because over the years Wikipedians have come up with so many innovative ways of getting into strife. My personal favourite is a Wikmedian who created an article about an artist who paints with his penis, and commissioned a portrait of Jimbo Wales for the article. So don't do that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK fair enough, you've convinced me with your niceness! I was just quite keen for it to be up with the photo during wikimania. This is only my second DYK, and interestingly the first one had exactly the same dynamic - the first reviewer gave me a quick confirmation, and then a second reviewer came in and questioned the first review and began a long discussion. I'd love to know some of the stories where things have gone wrong, so I can learn to be less frustrated with the delay and also can keep an eye out for the big potential problems when doing my QPQs. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Unless there's an anniversary or something can we just take our time? A lot of bad things have happened at DYK because of rushing. I'd like to read over the sources so we can put together a really fun hook that no one can poke holes in. EEng (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, if we're done with the penis-painting, let's get back to business
ALT1 ... that a "wonderful fluid" in King Tabnit's sarcophagus (pictured) kept him unusually well preserved for 2300 years, but its secret was lost when it spilled in the sand while the museum director was at lunch?
I always enjoy mixing something lofty and regal with someone spilling the goods while the boss is at lunch. (195 chars, in case you're wondering.) EEng (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Off my game? Fighting talk, mister. (The original hook was supported; perfectly preserved doesn't necessarily mean perfectly intact; and it is just the sort of ambiguous but hooky thing you normally change hooks to in prep, but what-ev-er [waves hand disparagingly].) Your hook is better though, except the ending where the fluid commits fluicide (fluid suicide; geddit?) by spilling itself in the sand (what sand?) while the museum (you know, "the museum", that museum that has all the ancient tombs in it, too obvious to explain) director is at lunch. Belle (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I know you realize that for me to say you were off your game implies that, in general, you got game. That fawning compliment now dispensed with, I'm unsure how grave you see these objections to be. Definite articles referencing indefinite things ("on the ground", "caught in the rain") are not unusual, though there are limits, and I guess the question is whether "the museum director" is too puzzling. I'm unsure, but I think it's OK. Or how about
ALT2 ... that a "wonderful fluid" in King Tabnit's sarcophagus (pictured) kept him unusually well preserved for 2300 years, but its secret was lost when workmen spilled it during lunch?
- That sounds even more Laurel and Hardy. (Someone check me on the 2300 years, please.) EEng (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that a "wonderful fluid" in King Tabnit's sarcophagus (pictured) kept him unusually well preserved for over two millennia, but its secret was lost when workmen spilled it?- Your ALT2 sounds too much like "Omar, got any ketchup for my sandwich?" "Sure Youssef, I think I can reach it, it's just behind this bottle of embalming...[crash]" (we aren't even going to have any further discussion of how fine my game is) Belle (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- In all seriousness, for insignificant collateral details like "during lunch" (it was, indeed, during someone's lunch -- the director's) it's OK to say something somewhat ambiguous or incomplete, even if we know the reader is likely to form an inaccurate mental image, as long as the article tells the whole, straight story. But I won't fuss this... this time. The poor nominator would like this returned to prep, so would you please approve alt3? I think you can be allowed to approve it since it's a logical subset of my alt2. EEng (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I know you realize that for me to say you were off your game implies that, in general, you got game. That fawning compliment now dispensed with, I'm unsure how grave you see these objections to be. Definite articles referencing indefinite things ("on the ground", "caught in the rain") are not unusual, though there are limits, and I guess the question is whether "the museum director" is too puzzling. I'm unsure, but I think it's OK. Or how about
Hi guys, I feel totally unqualified to join in the banter, but I have very much enjoyed watching the flirting [cheeky smile].
I very happy with EEng's alt proposal, but I do think it would be a shame to lose the "Phoenician-Egyptian" from the hook as that is what gets most archaeologists really excited about the artefact.
So how about:
- ALT4 ... that a "wonderful fluid" in the Phoenician-Egyptian sarcophagus of King Tabnit (pictured) kept him unusually well preserved for over two millennia, but its secret was lost when workmen spilled it?
{197 characters). Oncenawhile (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
ALT4 is practically perfect in every way (or passable at least) Belle (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)