Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Four sons of Horus

[edit]

Nice article on the four canopic jar deities, created just recently by User:-Ril-. However, he wants to turn the individual gods' articles into redirects. I don't think that's such a good idea: they could be expanded with the information on the "four sons" article, include a prominent link to that article, but not made to disappear. That would be a retrograde move. What do others think? –Hajor 01:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no particular reason or benifit for having individual articles on each one. A simple redirect to the main article should be fine. —Nefertum17 09:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, not the answer I wanted to hear. Anyone else, or should I give in gracefully? –Hajor 22:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there a decision made on this yet? ~~~~ 21:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't appear to have emerged. From what appears to be a minority position, I'd still like to try and make a case for keeping four separate bare-bones articles, containing to-the-point information on them individually, but each linked to the main article -- which then deals with them in a broader context, with broader themes, and a more detailed, discursive style. Like the Britannica does with its Micropaedia and Macropaedia. This redundant treatment allows them to be dealt with from different perspectives, with different styles. Another -- albeit not terribly vital -- point is that it makes the interwiki links to other languages far more transparent. –Hajor 22:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I prefer things to be concise (thus my VfD of Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, ..., Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, .... etc.). I don't see an encyclopedia as containing everything as seperate articles. Ill give it another month. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)

Deletion list

[edit]

Hi folks,

I just wanted to let you know about a list of deletion debates involving Egypt (ancient or modern). You can find the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Egypt. Believe it or not, the majority of recent items have been related to ancient Egypt.

If you find this list useful, please help maintain it by organizing the list, adding new items, and (if needed) archiving old ones. Thanks!

Cheers,

-- Visviva 15:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change on Project page

[edit]

Although this hasn't been discussed since dab proposed a relationship 9 months ago, I am adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East to the category "Similar WikiProjects" -- mostly for my own convenience (I often myself looking for that page when I work on something related to Ancient Egypt). If no one reverts the change in the next couple of weeks, I'll assume everyone agrees to this cahnge. -- llywrch 18:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tutankhamun

[edit]

I thought it appropriate to note here the RFC I just raised. Talk:Tutankhamun - dispute about the amount of prominence to give a recent (fairly minor) political controversy about a facial reconstruction of Tutankhamun, in the light of the acres of space given to the issue at Afrocentrism. 16:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ptolemies

[edit]

This may be marginal to this project, but if anyone cares deeply about it, they're probably on this list:

Should Ptolemy I of Egypt be moved to Ptolemy I Soter; Ptolemy II of Egypt to Ptolemy II Philadelphus and so forth?

If not, why not?

I've also asked this on Talk:Ptolemy II of Egypt. Septentrionalis 03:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree with this. Especially considering that the Greek Claudius Ptolemaeus actually worked in Alexandria in Egypt, Ptolemy I of Egypt is not the best way to disambiguate things. I would also suggest someone come up with a disambiguation page for whenever someone types in Ptolemy (I don't know how this is done, otherwise I'd do it myself). Captmondo 21:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review needed!

[edit]

Markh, congrats on finishing the tombs project! I was looking through them last night. And I must have some old photos from trips to Egypt to illustrate some of those; I'll check later. What I would like to suggest is that you give some thought to combining the three core articles (Valley of the Kings, burials in... and exploration of...) into just one article. I don't think they need to be so fragmented. And putting them all together would make one fine article which, with a bit of a polish and fleshing out, could become one of our better articles (with a nod to the section immediately below). –Hajor 23:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but the burials is just a long list – maybe they could have an introduction and them See Also article (like Tombs of the Nobles (Amarna). I will see whether adding brief intros makes the list look better. If I wanted to create a merged page for review, where would be the best place to put it .. Valley of the Kings/temp for example ? Markh 15:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of the Kings/temp is looking good. I like the idea of a one-sentence descriptor underneath each of the tomb listings: exactly serves the intended purpose of making it look less like a three-page-long bulletted list. Did you see my suggested tweak to the list format on the WV section of "Burials..."? –Hajor 16:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks less like a list - will change the whole lot in the temp page, just as an alternative. Markh 17:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The merge / update of the page is done, so if anyone whats to swing by and review / comment, feel free. Markh 20:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement drive

[edit]

A related topic, History of the world is currently a nomination on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote to improve its quality. --Fenice 14:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Data dumps

[edit]

I've been going through the en.wikipedia data dumps and flagging articles that have some sort of connection regarding ancient Egypt. The articles can be seen in Category:To do, Ancient Egypt (update: I will add the list here) and could use improvement, ancient Egypt information expansion, fixes in general, and/or Ancient Egypt sub-categorization.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-22 05:56Z

And I voted that cateory for deletion, as I think that's not the right way of doing things, sorry. You can comment at the deletion page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already did that previous to seeing your comment and understand the reasoning. I posted a message about leaving TALK as well. Thank you for your contributions.
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-22 07:08Z

Stub sorting

[edit]

I've listed some possible {{Ancient-Egypt-stub}} sub-stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Comments? Igiffin 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharoah template

[edit]

I have been experimenting with a new template for egyptian rulers, based on the on for british monarchs! It needs to be turned into a template, and also needs someway of indicating different chronologies. Used Ramesses II as a template. Any comments ? Markh 16:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesses II
Nomen Ramesses (meryamun)
Born of Re, (Beloved of Amun)
Prenomen Usermaatre-setepenre
The Justice of Re is Powerful,
Chosen of Re
Golden
Horus 		Userrenput-aanehktu
Nebty name Mekkemetwafkhasut
Horus name Kanakht Merymaa
Reign
See
Egyptian
chronology 		66 years
1279 BC to 1212 BC
1290 BC to 1224 BC
2637 to 2613 BC Ian Shaw
Predecessor Seti I
Successor Merneptah
Spouse Isetnofret Nefertari
Maathorneferure
Issues Bintanath Sethnakht
Khaemweset Merneptah
Amun-her-khepsef Meritamen
Dynasty 19th Dynasty
Father Seti I
Mother Queen Tuya
Born 1302 BC
Died ??
Does any article benefit from something this big? Septentrionalis 20:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see some of this information being usefully displayed in an infobox -- the 5 Pharaoh names, family ties, an image & maybe which dynasty -- but if you look over the discussions we've had above, you'll notice that length of reigns & the dates that the Pharaohs lived vary between authorities. Chronology is best left to a section in each article, where the problems & theories can be discussed more in full. And like Pmanderson noted, an infobox would need to be much narrower. Keep in mind that many articles already have a succesion table at the bottom, & another field that shows the Pharaoh's name in Egyptian hieroglyphics: a new infobox should help further organize information, & avoid making the pages look confused. Do my comments help? -- llywrch 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the layout a bit – making it slimmer, and removing the picture (not all of the articles will have pictures). I tried having the cartouches, this made the box MASSIVE. Cheers for feedback, so what do you all think about the general idea. I have made a copy of the Ramesses II page in my sandbox, to give an idea of what it might look it. Markh 11:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good idea. It could be slimmed somewhat with judicious line breaking. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will turn this into a template and put it in for a few kings and see what comments come out of it Markh 11:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template made, and I have added it to Ramesses II, so I'll see what comments are made there Markh 21:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmose Meryt-Amon / Ahmose-Meritamon

[edit]

I notice we have two stubs on this queen. I will happily merge them and redirect, but does anyone have an opinion on which name would be best to use? Igiffin 23:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: Ahmose Merytamun or Meryt-Amun (neither of the above) is the most common spelling yielded by a Google search and is used by www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk, answers.com, and reference.com. Igiffin 07:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ancient Egypt topics}}

[edit]

I just saw this tmeplate for the first time in several months, & am surprised at the size of this beast! Either someone prunes it back to a useful size, so it doesn't take up so much of the article space -- I will start trying to find ways to exclude it from articles. (I assume I'm not the only person who feels this way.) I've mentioned some of my concern at Template talk:Ancient Egypt. -- llywrch 04:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I've also added some comments at Template talk:Ancient Egypt. Carcharoth 15:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Double ditto – I changed it to be as suggested (much smaller and a big link to another page), but it was reverted back &ndash so I changed it so it can be hidden Markh 11:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for help

[edit]

Dear members of this Project,

I have run into a dispute with another user on a term concerning Ancient Egypt, so I am posting here looking for help and expertise. The dispute is about a theory by E. A. Wallis Budge concerning parallels between the Christian concept of Resurrection and the Egyptian view on the afterlife. Budge uses the term "Egyptian resurrection" in his book's title and my opponent in this advocates using the term in the article as well, while I prefer to call it either "the Egyptian view on the afterlife" or "what Budge calls Egyptian resurrection". My point is that using the term "Egyptian ressurection" endorses Budge's theory, since such a naming is the result of Budge's theory and not the pre-condition. The Christian and the Egyptian concepts to me seem quite different, since Osiris is reborn in some otherland and not physically resurrected in this world. I don't think that Resurrection is a term used by curent scholars of Ancient Egypt to describe the events around Osiris' afterlife. However, since I am no Egyptologist I don't know whether scholars use it or not. If they do, I will yield. My opponent, unfortunately, has not provided a modern reference for that term outside of the context of Budge's thesis, so I am asking whether one of the project members might weigh in. Thanks, Str1977 (smile back) 12:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection appears once in the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, under the "Resurrection of Osiris," on page 378—which is only a brief description of a local festival of the Resurrection of Osiris on a lake outside of Sais. The only online references that do not concern Budge seem to involve early Christianity rather than a term from Egyptology. -JCarriker 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image help

[edit]

I've uploaded an image [1] to illustrate the sunken-relief article and I need to pick a fair use tag for it - can anyone suggest a suitable one? Sophia 19:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested to Sophia that it might be a public domain image? Something such as {{pd-old}} or {{pd-ineligible}}. I'm not really sure with no expert knowledge on the subject. Any ideas? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location maps?

[edit]

I have added a few location maps – Buto, Thebes, Egypt, Amarna, Abydos, Egypt – (I stole the idea from de.wikipedia.org), I think we can make this into a template and make it a little easier (i.e. try and use long/latitude). Any comments Markh 20:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. Some sort of infobox (name, hieroglyphs, coordinates, upper/lower/middle, dates occupied, major antiquities) would be absolutely fantactic. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a template, and added a few more locations. Markh 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well, the box in Ramesses II looks very good. As I said before, the location template would be even better with a bit more information (turning it from a pure location into more of an infobox). As you may have noticed, this WikiProject is not as active as it could be, but keep up the good work! -- ALoan (Talk) 09:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project banners

[edit]

Hi, many of the other WikiProjects has their own banners, which go in a articles talk page. Do you think we can do the same, so that people known that this project exists, and can ask for help, etc.

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
Something like the above – any thoughts about the wording ? Markh 08:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight change to the above banner Markh 11:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have a problem if I start to tag articles with the above banner ? I will start with the templates and lists, etc. rather than specific articles on places, kings, etc. Markh 07:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that wikiproject biography has slapped their tags on all the pharaohs... That doesn't bother me so much, but it does probably mean that we might want to put this tag on our individual pages that we work on as well, so that people don't get directed to the wrong place in order to help. Thanatosimii 17:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So this is where you're hiding

[edit]

I just noticed that most of the editors who have done the good work on my favorite egypt related articles are all hiding out on this page here. Anyhow, I've got the potential of getting my hands on some pretty heavy egyptology tomes in the near future, and was planning on going through and expanding the 18th dynasty first, and then hitting the second intermediate period (which, unless it's hiding too, is virtually non-existant), but if I could coordinate this stuff with you and head off on some particularly lacking corner of ancient egypt here, it'd probably work better.

Oh, a thought. I've noticed several of you have some sort of "this user can read basic hieroglyphics" userboxes, and I actually tried to make a babel-box (which works really badly), but should there be any attempt to standerdize these? Just a thought. Thanatosimii 06:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Welcome to Wikiproject Ancient Egypt. Have to signed the project page ? Markh 07:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, have now. Thanatosimii 17:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conventions

[edit]

I've been speaking with a couple of people around here to see what they think of the current name "senusret" being used for three 12th dynasty kings. We basically came to the conclusion that the greek derived name, sesostris, is a bad transliteration, but I'm not comfortable with senusret. So I'm asking here to get answers from a wider group of people, is Senusret really as well established a name as people are saying it is? I've never heard it before two or three days ago, and so I'm a little suprised by it. What I had always heard is Senwosret
So feel free to comment, to say if we should instead change to Senwosret, or to tell me that I'm just really ignorent if I've never heard Senusret and I should just be quiet, it's all the same to me. Just as long as we're sure that we don't have a screwy name, I'm fine. Thanks!Thanatosimii 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a recap on what I wrote elsewhere – Wolfram Grajetzki's Middle Kingdom book transliterates it as Senusret, as does Ian Shaw in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. However, R Parkinson has Senwosret. I would still stick with what we have (Ramesses II is transliterated here as Usermaatre, rather thean Wosermaatre. Markh 07:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I suppose I'm just asking this for my own edification now, but I was taught in hieroglyphics class to transliterate w as w, unless at the beginning of the word. Oh well, there's a few important egyptologists who say so, so I'm alright. Thanatosimii 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should still put the alternative names in the articles, and possibly have redirects (if they don't already exist). Markh 08:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now we have redirects and a disambiguation page at Senusret, as well as a note on Sesostris, which is about a legendary pharaoh that the greeks wrote about by the same name. Thanatosimii 19:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Userbox

[edit]

As my first contribution to this WikiProject, I've created a userbox for members.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Ancient Egypt.
{{user WikiProject Ancient Egypt}}

I'm taking suggestions for different colors and different pictures, to add some variety...

Enjoy! — Editor at Large ( talk) 19:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woohaa! It looks like we're finally getting the tags, bannars, and boxes to turn into one of the more respectable looking wikiprojects. DankeThanatosimii 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Thanks for the userbox. (Hmm. Maybe a barnstar is also in order? ;-) Cheers! Captmondo 20:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks! It was my pleasure.
I was bored, so I created another version:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Ancient Egypt.
{{user WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Isis}}

I'll try to make more with different pharaohs and gods (and godesses!). — Editor at Large ( talk) 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I am officially crazy. Here you go, lots of options:

WikiProject Ancient Egypt userboxes

[edit]
Gods & Goddesses
Anubis
This user is a participant in WikiProject Ancient Egypt.
 {{User WP Ancient Egypt/Anubis}}
Horus
This user is a participant in WikiProject Ancient Egypt.
 {{User WP Ancient Egypt/Horus}}
Ra
This user is a participant in WikiProject Ancient Egypt.
 {{User WP Ancient Egypt/Ra}}
Isis
This user is a participant in WikiProject Ancient Egypt.
 {{User WP Ancient Egypt/Isis}}
Kings & Queens
Sahure
This user is a participant in WikiProject Ancient Egypt.
 {{User WP Ancient Egypt/Sahure}}
Akhenaten
This user is a participant in WikiProject Ancient Egypt.
 {{User WP Ancient Egypt/Akhenaten}}
Nefertiti
This user is a participant in WikiProject Ancient Egypt.
 {{User WP Ancient Egypt}}
Tutankhamun
This user is a participant in WikiProject Ancient Egypt.
 {{User WP Ancient Egypt/Tutankhamun}}

I hope you like. Most got deleted and I had to start them again, as subpages of the WP; it makes them a mouthful to type, but hopefully they won't get deleted again...

Abu Simbel was in Sudan?

[edit]

I noticed that the Abu Simbel article has a couple of statements that the temple was in Sudanese territory before relocation in 1964. This seems unlikely to me, but I am definitely not any sort of Egyptian expert. Thus, I appeal to you folks to check that out. Thanks! GeoGreg 19:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Abu Simbel was at aswan, which virtually on the sudaneese boarder, I believe. However, I don't think the sudaneese would have let egypt take it if it was there. Thanatosimii 20:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abu Simbel is definitely in Egypt, but is not "at Aswan". You can get to it by a lonely desert road (the way I got there) or by air. It is approximately 280 kilometres south of Aswan, on the west side of Lake Nasser. It relatively close (maybe 50km or so) from the Sudanese border, but it is not usual for tourists to venture south from Abu Simbel; tours there are normally only day-trips, returning to Aswan in the afternoon. Determined surface-travellers can enter Sudan from the north by boat, although they might have to board in Aswan, even though it calls at Abu Simbel.[2] There is a whizzy Google earth map over at the following URL showing the location: http://www.tagzania.com/item/18285. And in 1964 the territory would still have been Egypt's. There is however a territorial dispute between Egypt and Sudan, but that is far to the east, in an area adjacent to the Red Sea called the Hala'ib Triangle.[3] Bezapt 15:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I get my cataracts messed up sometimes.Thanatosimii 18:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to edit Hermeticism

[edit]

You may want to check out the discussion on Talk:Hermeticism. Your template has been removed, a 3RR violator is reported, WP:AN/3RR#User:Hanuman_Das_reported_by_User:KV.28Talk.29_.28Result:.29, and a poll on whether you have the right to work on the article as a project has been put up.

KV(Talk) 22:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify KV's statment a bit. No one is saying that anyone from the project can't work on the article, but that the category has no validation or merit of inclusion thus far. Can anyone validate Hermeticism as being an Egyptian topic? Not to mention ancient egyptian. SynergeticMaggot 23:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bot that tags the talk talks uses the category Ancient Egypt. Hermeticism seems to have been tagged as such. I think that the cat has been removed, and the banner removed from articles. If there are any more please feel free to remove them Markh 09:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so this project never intended to tag the article? That was King Vegita's personal action not on behalf of this project? I note that he is not a member of this project: I'd stupidly assumed he was. —Hanuman Das 10:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Pyramid of Giza

[edit]

Does anyone else hate this article ? What can be done about, other than abandoning it ? Markh 21:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What precicely don't you like? The fact that it's one crackpot theory after another, or somthing else? Thanatosimii 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is enormous, confusing and generally appalling. Represents everything that can go wrong with Wikipedia! Lots of repeated information (i tried to split the article into construction and information about the actual structure ages ago, but the information just got copied back in). Crackpot theories are OK, but not when they look like this! Markh 11:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't disagree that the article is at least partially a construction of crackpot theories, the place and the Wikipedia page have been attracting nutters for an awfully long time, and while I don't think it is hopeless to reform that particular article, doing it right would take a concerted effort, and should be spec-ed out beforehand, I would suggest, rather than just doing it piecemeal on the actual page. I think and out-and-out replacement by something better would be the way to go. Somebody did this work a while back for the article on ancient Egyptian chronology, replacing the previous crackpottery with a well-researched, well-cited and fairly definitive article.

I suspect that reforming this page would only be the first step however, as keeping it from becoming increasingly crackpotty would be a never-ending chore. I gave up on editing the Tutankhamen article for such a reason—in the end reverting edits and arguing with people took away from work I wanted to do elsewhere (such as Pepi II). In the end, you would be committing yourself to an ongoing effort, so just be aware of what you will have to do before taking the plunge. Cheers! Captmondo 12:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Apparently there will be a change in Wikipedia editing policy soon, see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5286458.stm. It likely makes the most sense to start tackling that article in earnest after this policy is in place.
The person who did that for ancient Egyptian Chronology was me -- BTW, which still could benefit from some informed attention. My principal problem in rewriting that article was that I had no model of how to present the material, which I don't think is the case with this one: I'd be surprised if there aren't several PD accounts that one could use to start with & update. One suggestion I'd I'd offer is post notice of this proposed rewrite so the rest of us can keep an eye on it. Another suggestion is that it should include a section listing alternative theories -- I've noticed that this gives more the, er, contentious editors something to work on. (And besides, some of these crackpot theories are known widely enough -- if not very well -- to justify some mention.) -- llywrch 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing Ahmose I

[edit]

As most of you know, Captmondo and I have been working to make Ahmose I a GA and hopefully a FA article. The only major problem which remained as of a few weeks ago was the need for a good copyedit, which Editor at Large helped us with. So, if anyone wishes to take another look here at it for us, It'll probably be there for a few more days. If there are objections to its current form, please tell us, but if not, I hope you'll all support it during nomination. Thanks. Thanatosimii 22:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! I have put in a few changes & comments (mainly about internal consistency with names, etc). If only we could do this with every article! Markh 22:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Osman

[edit]

There has been a lot of editing by people who support Ahmed Osman's interreptation of Egyptian history. Personally I think his ideas are madness, but I guess they should be commented upon, rather than dismissed. Does anyone have any actual sources of criticism of these ideas? Markh 08:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptologists do not interact with crackpotism. Waste of their time. So we're not going to find much. I do, however, believe strongly that his ideas ought to be kept to his own page. While, as an inclusionist, I believe that everything deserves a note, not everything deserves space on the main article for a pharaoh. Thanatosimii 16:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that would be an issue, as no one is willing to engage him, there is very little direct criticism of his work. But, take a look at the articles that deal with the end of the 18th Dynasty, especially Yuy and Tjuya, as these have more Osman related information that generally accepted Egyptology. Markh 09:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of the end of the 18th dynasty generally needs an overhaul regardless. If someone ever does one, they should write no more than a tiny note for alternative theories at the most. It is precicely because these theories get full space in the main article that many articles on wikipedia are so horrid. As a rule of thumb, I think that egypt related articles should refrain from any reference to anyone who does not posess a formal egyptology Ph.D., with rare exeptions for people on the order of Kitchen or Kenyon, or other formal experts in relavent related fields. Alternative theories which have not gained acceptance can be mentioned elsewhere, with perhaps a short, single sentance containing a link to the other page at the most near the end of the article.Thanatosimii 18:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks like someone has bitten the bullet [4]! Markh 11:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NPOV: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." These are the words of Jimbo; we have no authority higher than that. What everyone seems to agree upon is that those professional Egyptologists who have heard of Ahmed Osman, reject his views. Thus, the group of those who share his viewpoint is limited to himself and perhaps a circle of his fans, none of whom belongs to the academe. Thus, his hypotheses are exactly "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority," and they don't belong anywhere outside the page about himself. Furthermore, WP:RS says: "Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions." Ahmed Osman has some background in law and journalism, but he has no advanced degree in Egyptology, so he cannot be considered a reliable source on Egyptology. Either way, the most appropriate solution would be to limit his theories to his own article, where they can be discussed in detail with comments from professional Egyptologists, where applicable. Beit Or 18:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Lets get rid of it then! Well done on lifting the lid, I managed to get the Osman stuff out of the introductions and replace some references. I think we will get edit wars though Markh 11:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that the talk page for Ay says that I support Osman, which I most certainly do not! Markh 11:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing which is likely to tone down a possible edit war over Osman is to not only to remove his musings from the current articles that they are inserted into, but to copy them into his own article, perhaps with a link under a section entitles "Alternative theories" or something similar. Not having read Osman I am in no position to credit his veracity on specifics, but his opinions definitely appear to be on the fringe (he's never been referenced in anything reputable that I've run across -- and I can honestly say I'd never heard of him prior to Wikipedia). And fringe can have a place: within its own article. Captmondo 13:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Captmondo and other Wikipedia members, I second Captmondo's view here--just place Osman's views in its own article rather than have another war of reversions! But I don't know if any of the Wikipedia monitors here have the resources to do this--without Thereamalikee simply REVERTING back their attempts and attaching Osman's untenable views to Major historical subjects like the Pharaohs of Egypt--(ie: [[Ay], Horemheb, and esp. Ramesses I--or the Biblical Joseph, the Exodus, etc. Does Wikipedia care about the reliability or correctness of its articles? I do but the problem is Wikipedia's open nature. Anyone can have their own unacceptable, unorthodox or 'crackpot' views but to just insert them into Wikipedia articles concerning major historical figures or events is just not acceptable--in my opinion! If you then try to remove them, Thereamalikee will call it 'Vandalism' and revert back the revisions to his own view. Talk about pushing his own POV! What happens then? My apologies to Markh--I confused you with Thereamalikee.

By the Way, I will give you a reliable Egypt-related article here for Wikipedia editors to show just how untenable Osman's view that Efrayim, Joseph's son, could have become the Pharaoh Ay who ruled Egypt in the 1320's BC or that the Biblical Joseph served Pharaoh during the New Kingdom of Egypt which started from 1550/1540 BC. Kenneth Kitchen writes here in his 2003 book--On the Reliability of the Old Testament--concerning the price of 20 shekels which his brothers got for selling Joseph into slavery in ancient Mesopotamia:

"AT WHAT PRICE? (Header) Against this overall background, the story of a young Joseph sold off [into slavery] into Egypt fits in easily, especially in the early second millenium, in the overall period of tyhe late Twelfth/Thirteenth and Hyksos Dynasties. After a good haggle, his brothers got 20 shekels for their young brother (Gen. 37:28). This we know to be approximately the right price in about the eighteenth century. This is the average price (expressed as one-third of a mina) in the laws of Hammurabi (SS116,214,252) and in real-life transcactions at Mari (exactly) and in other Old Babylonian documents (within a 15- to 30- shekel range, averaging 22 shekels)* Before this period slaves were cheaper, and after it they steadily got dearer, as inflation did its work...After the eighteenth/seventeenth centuries, prices duly rose. In fifteenth century Nuzi and fourteenth/thirtenth-century Ugarit, the average crept up to 30 shekels and more (cf. replacement price of 30 shekels in Exod. 21:32.)** Then in the first millenium, male slaves in Assyria fetched 50 to 60 shekels***" (Kitchen: pp.344-345) *1st Footnote by Kitchen--'The Hammurabi information is in ANET, 170, 175, 176; CoS II, 343,348,350. For Mari, see G. Boyer, ARM(T) VIII (1958), 23, No.10:1-4. On the other Babylonian tablets, see (eg.) M. van de Mieroop, AfO 34 (1987), 10, 11. For a list of other Old Babylonian slave prices within fifteenth/thirty shekels, see A. Falkenstein, Die Neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden I (Munich: Beck, 1956), 88 n.5 end.' (Kitchen:pp.576) **2nd Footnote by Kitchen: 'For Nuzi, see B.L. Eichler, Indenture at Nuzi (New Haven: Yale University Oress, 1973) 16 and n.35, and texts listed on 17-18. On Ugarit, cf. Mendelsohn, Slavery, 118 and 155 n.181' (Kitchen: pp.576) ***3rd Footnote by Kitchen--'For Assyria, see list in C.H.W. Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1924) 542-546' (Kitchen: p.576)

This is the kind of meticulous scholarship Wikipedia should rely on! Feel free to copy and paste it on Wikipedia's article on Joseph if anyone wishes to because Joseph is not my cup of tea! Anyway, Kitchen supports this level headed assessment for Joseph's date in the 19th or 18th Century BC with information from both the Bible in Exodus and in the published contemporary prices of slaves at Mari, Nuzi, Ugarit, Assyria, etc. With this date for Joseph, his son Efrayim could not have survived for 400+ years into the 1320's BC and rule as Pharaoh Ay of the Egyptian 18th Dynasty. Frankly, Osman's ideas are just plain wrong. He is no scholar compared to Kitchen who is meticulous in his research.

Finally on Ramesses I, Thereamalikee has posted Osman's views here in a long paragraph at the bottom titled "Possible historical context". Here Osman asserts that the Bible of the Exodus and the Bible of the oppression are NOT the same people. While I haven't read the Bible for a long time, I distinctly recall that these Pharaohs are the SAME person. IMO, Ramesses II oppressed the Hebrews by making them toil in slavery building his massive projects in the Delta region--which explains why Moses was easily able to gather them together to flee into safety into Canaan through the Sinai. Moses forced this Pharaoh to set his people free by unleashing various plagues--which included the death of the king's eldest son. The Bible does record that the Pharaoh set of in pursuit of the escaping Hebrews but never claims that the king himself died when the Red Sea collapsed on the advancing Egyptians. Besides, does anyone really see the aged Ramesses I--a king who barely lasted 1.5 years on the throne--as the great Pharaoh of the Exodus chasing down Moses and the Hebrews especially when this king was already a grandfather when he took power? I don't think this is credible at all! Osman claims that Horemheb was the Pharaoh of the Oppression and Ramesses I was the Pharaoh of the Exodus but the Bible clearly states that that there was only one Pharaoh who both oppressed the Jews and then released them in the great Exodus. In my view, this Pharaoh is likely Ramesses II who is renowned for his vast monumental building work throughout Egypt. Hence, Thereamalikee's acceptance of Osman's fringe view on the elderly Ramesses I in 'Possible historical context' should be removed--but I fear Thereamalikee will just revert back any attempts to edit it out and push his/Osman's POV on Rameses I, a genuine historical figure. Encyclopaedia Brittanica would never include Osman's unacceptable views in their work, that is for sure. Regards, Leoboudv 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Leoboudv, I have stumbled into this by chance and do not wish to get involved but I want to say that I fully support your and others' effort at keeping WP article sensible. As far as the distinction between the Pharaoh of oppression and exile is concerned, I want to point you to Exodus, chapter 2, verse 23, where this is clearly stated (of course, the Pharaoh of the Exodus also was an oppressor). That of course doesn't make Osman's identifications right. Whether the Exodus happened in the early 19th or the middle 18th dynasty is another matter. Str1977 (smile back) 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Str1977. Thank You for pointing this key fact out. I'm afraid, my knowledge of Biblical verses is poor but I always recalled that the Pharaoh of the Oppression and the Exodus was the same person. He is labelled as the Pharaoh who knew not Joseph. As an Aside, the Exodus likely happened in the 13th Century BC under Ramesses II which is centuries after Joseph's arrival in Egypt in the 19th or 18th Century BC. Osman doesn't claim the Exodus happened in the 19th or 18th Century BC; however, he dates Joseph to the mid-18th Dynasty New Kingdom of Egypt era and argues that Joseph's son even became king as Pharaoh Ay in the 1320's BC. This is not possible as Kitchen has shows; also Ay was a native Egyptian from Akhmin. Leoboudv 22:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both of those are the majority views, but there are enough significant dissadents to make a sizable minority. There's always the early date exodus under either Thutmose III or Amenhotep II, and then there's the issue that Ay may be the son of Yuya, who is not insignificantly often believed to by an indo-european maryannu. These are minority views, but Osman's problem is that he's not the minority, he's the one and only. Thanatosimii 05:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree here. In addition, there are scholars who believe that the Exodus took place in the reign of Merneptah, and their position is not entirely untenable. All of this, however, has nothing to do with Ahmed Osman, who is merely an oddity outside the academe. Beit Or 06:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the matter of Therealmikelvee metnioned above: if he keeps reverting with no attempt to to discuss the matter (as well as claim that the edits he disagrees with are "vandalism"), he's going to get in trouble. I've warned him about that, so I advise everyone here to be civil towards him, & calmly debate his claims. If he continues to revert changes that reflect the consensus of the group & fails to discuss his own reasons for his edits, the rest of the Wikipedia community will conclude that he's just one more frustrated kook & treat him accordingly -- especially if everyone here treats him as they would expect to be treated. -- llywrch 16:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note for Wikipedia Moderator: The reference to Wikipedia's article on Pharaoh Ay--a real flesh and blood historical figure--still contains Thereamalikee's reference to Osman's untenable view that he is identical with Efrayim, the son of the Biblical Joseph. This is listed under the paragraph "Possible historical context" for the page on Ay. That should be removed, in my opinion, because no serious scholar contends the two are the same--except Mr. Osman! This reference mars the otherwise good quality of the page on Ay in Wikipedia. I suspect that even Encyclopaedia Brittanica didn't bother to mention the date of Ay's Year 4 stela or that Ay designated Nakhtmin to be his successor, rather than Horemheb. Leoboudv 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are more than welcome to remove the section if this bothers you so much. Just be aware that Therealmikelvee may revert it. If he does, as I said above, discuss the matter with him. (Frankly, I have no problem with a passage about the length of this one mentioning Osman's theory, although I'd prefer a different title like "Alternative historical interpretations".) -- llywrch 20:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Thanatosimii, llywrch, User:Humus sapiens and Markh, I have removed the reference to Osman in Ay's article and given my reasons why. I have also made additions by way of a paragraph titled 'Origins' which explains that Ay came from the city of Akhmin. Akhmin is located deep in Upper Egypt--not too far from Thebes. In contrast, Semites such as Joseph and his family all settled in the Delta region which is close to Asia which explains how Moses was able to easily collect the Hebrews in the first place. If they were in Upper Egypt, Moses would have had an imposible time collecting all his flock. By the Way, did anyone see here what Thereamalikee did to Beir Or's edits concerning Yuya, another historically attested person in Egypt here?[5] He simply deleted ALL of Beit Or's diligent work concerning this person in one fell swoop. Talk about pushing your own POV on others!! Is this the Wikipedia I joined? This is simply Outrageous--its almost as if Thereamalikee is on a mission to stamp out all of Beit Or's work which I believe strikes a more cautious balance in interpreting the evidence concerning Yuya. A more reasonable person would have at least attempted to incorporate some of Beir Or's ideas which--I believe--is more careful in its treatment of the existing evidence on Yuya rather than just pushing Osman's improbable ideas. Who is really doing the POV here? And then Thereamalikee has the gall to end his 'version' of Yuya with these words: "The late Sheikh Abdallah Shehata has anounced that a special mausoleum would be built for Yuya on behalf of Ahmed Osman, the first to publish a theory discussing that there may be a connection between Joseph and Yuya.[13] Whether or not this mausoleum will still be built since Sheikh Shehata's death is uncertain"

Please forgive me but why would anyone build a mausoleum for a nobleman, rather than a great king like Ramesses II/ Ramesses the Great? Even the state authorities in Egypt place Ramesses II in a pressure balanced glass coffin in the humble and overcrowded Cairo Museum. Last time I checked the state authorities controlled all the mummies in Egypt. Why would a real scholar like the Chief of Egypt's Antiquities--the well respected Zahi Hawass--release control of the well preserved mummy of Yuya just to support the ideas of Osman who has no academic standing in Egyptology. Will someone just remove Thereamalikee's article on Yuya to Beit Or's version without us worrying that he will revert it back? Its time for sanity to prevail here on Yuya and all the major historical subjects that Thereamalikee has written on. Leoboudv 03:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did so, but no promises on him coming back. I asked him to present somthing here, and he didn't, so I think it's fair to say he's forfeited his right to edit these pages. Thanatosimii 05:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

[edit]
Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

  • Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
  • Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 11:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks cool. I mainly seem to be dealing with vandalism at the moment, but will look at this ASAP Markh 12:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seichim

[edit]

Someone who wrote the Seichim article has added it to this project. This 'healing method' has no connection to ancient Egypt other than that which a channeled spirit guide told them, and that the leader had a mystical experience in the great pyramid. It might as well say it is part of WikiProject Atlantis. Is up to you if you keep it in this project. I am a practitioner of seichim but still see that there is no proof that it is historically from ancient Egypt.Merkinsmum 08:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Egypt/Archive_5&oldid=1137395332"