Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Egyptian temple peer review

Egyptian temple has just been put up for peer review. Anyone who wants to comment on ways to improve it, please do so here. A. Parrot (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Numbering of the Kings named Intef seems to be off

When I look at the numbering given to the Intefs, there seems to be a problem.

• Inyotef V - Nubkheperre (Beckerath, Bennett) is called Intef VI by Dodson, and is listed as Intef VII here.
• Inyotef VI - Sekhemre-wepmaat (Beckerath, Bennett) is called Intef V by Dodson), and is listed as Intef VI here.
• Inyotef VII - Sekhemre-heruhirmaat (Beckerath, Bennett, Dodson) is listed as Intef VIII here.

Using:

• Chris Bennett, A Genealogical Chronology of the Seventeenth Dynasty, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 39 (2002), pp. 123-155 JSTOR (he quotes Beckerath)
• Dodson, Aidan and Hilton, Dyan. The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. Thames & Hudson. 2004.

Can't find my copy of Ryholt right now, but given these discrepancies would it maybe we better to move the pages to "name-horus name" (so for instance Intef Nubkheperre) and comment on the numbering issue on the page? The ordering of these kings is not well understood, so that the numbering may not make much sense anyway. Using the Bennett numbering and referring to his article:

• Dodson (1991), Ryholt (1997): VI-V-VII;
• Franke (1988), Beckerath (1997): V-VI-VII;
• Helck (1992), Vandersleyen (1995): VII-VI-V

So very little agreement here. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeez. With confusion like that, using another name to disambiguate looks like the only option. But do you mean the Horus name or the throne name? Those names all have "re" in them, which is the characteristic of a throne name.

Incidentally, there's a similar problem with the Mentuhoteps, and I've sometimes seen Egyptologists use throne names to distinguish between them. At least we know which order the Mentuhoteps came in, but I wonder which numbering system is more common in their case. A. Parrot (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean throne name :-) Sorry about that. I would have to look into the Mentuhoteps. There the name-throne name may also be the way to go. If there is no objection I may move the pages for the Intefs to the proposed longer names. Still not sure if we should use Intef or Inyotef. From the (small) sample I have looked at Inyotef seems more common, but I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise. Thanks for your input A. Parrot. I appreciate it. --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of the Egyptian gods

So that people here know, I have nominated Family tree of the Egyptian gods for deletion. On its surface it looks like a valid article topic, but I don't believe that it is, for reasons I discuss at the deletion debate. A. Parrot (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments there. I think that page is misleading and there is no good way (that I can think of) to salvage it. I made my comments on the talkpage there. --AnnekeBart (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Measuring rod

New article (which should probably be merged to ruler which is being used to discuss fringe claims about Egyptian measurements, that Akhenaten is depicted holding not a crook and flail but a measuring rod (creator is saying that he is trying to get people to "stop thinking Pharaohs were flail-using farmers"), that Egyptians influenced British measurements, etc. (I tried to delete all of this tonight, especially as much was tangential to the article, but the talk page needs attention as does the article). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Pyramidion Construction

Please take a look at this. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Navigation boxes

What is your take on navigation boxes? There is one for the Amarna period and I think it may be helpful? I created one for the reign of Ramesses II: User:AnnekeBart/sandbox2. Do others think this may be useful as an addition to certain pages? I did not want to just add it to several pages and find out people do not like them :-) --AB (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions on navigation boxes, as long as an article doesn't accumulate a huge pile of them. I can see the reasons for these particular boxes; the Amarna period, particularly, is a very well-known and well-studied tangle of related subjects. There are some possibilities that concern me, though. The lists of officials in these boxes are at manageable sizes now, but I doubt that they're complete (the one for Amarna is missing Ramose (TT55), for instance). If officials can be included, the navboxes could get uncomfortably large. There's reason to incorporate officials, of course, particularly because most of those articles are rarely-visited stubs disconnected from most of the article web. But there are probably some officials known for every pharaoh of the New Kingdom, and for many of the pharaohs from other eras. Somebody might decide that we need a navbox for every pharaoh for whom any officials are known. We should probably think about which reigns need boxes and which don't.

I'm not raising objections here, just mulling some possibilities to consider. Giving a cursory glance at the Ramesses II navbox, I don't see problems with it. A. Parrot (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts A. Parrot. I was wondering as well if they would lead to a lot of nav boxes. It has always seemed to me that a way to link the main officials to the king would be nice. For some of the rulers (Ramesses II, Hatshepsut, Thutmosis III, Amenhotep III to just mention a few) we knnow a bit more about their administration. That was the underlying motivation for the nav box. But I don't know if this is the wisest way to go about it. As I was putting together the nav box for Ramesses II there was some duplication from the infobox. That should probably be avoided now that I' thinking about it some more. As you can tell I was not so bold as to just add it :-) I really appreciate any thoughts or comments anyone might have. --AB (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Rope stretchers

I have suggested merging Rope stretcher into the Egyptian name ie Harpedonaptai, but am open to using the other name ie Rope stretcher. Hugo999 (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I know very little about this subject, but if it's true that "harpedonaptai" are more commonly known as "rope stretchers", then the content should be at rope stretcher. (See WP:COMMONNAME). A. Parrot (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion for Khnum-Satet-Anuket

I have proposed the article Khnum-Satet-Anuket for deletion. My reasoning is that the article adds nothing to our existing articles on Khnum, Satet, and Anuket. Even an ideal, well-sourced examination of those gods' relationships would be unlikely to contain information that could not reasonably be moved to the three individual articles. A. Parrot (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hatshepsut

I'll start a talk page discussion there on the addition of a section called "Tyldesley hypothesis" and I'd appreciate other comments. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Westcar Papyrus

I removed a misleading, paraphrastic interpretation of Lichtheim's translation of the last story. In addition, I explained the peculiarity of the deities hiding crowns in barley, as well as the dancing and singing that came from the barley, in a far more logical, scientific, and instructive way than Lichtheim or anyone else did previously.

I recognize that this interpretation questions a number of Egyptology's long standing assumptions -- particularly those dealing with the role entheogenic mushrooms played in the origin of Egyptian religion and kingship. Nevertheless, the interpretation is part of a paper that a well respected science journal published, evidently because it made sense to the scientists who reviewed and edited it. Accordingly, I believe that people who read this WIKI entry should be able to compare this interpretation to Lichtheim's.

If anyone here has a problem with this, I would greatly appreciate his or her discussing it with me before redacting or removing anything I wrote. Thanks very much in advance. Berlant (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Berlant

I didn't see this and in fact I've removed your edits. It looked to me as though you were quoting far too much from Lichtheim (thus a copyright violation), and your mushroom hypothesis though interesting should have no more than a couple of sentences unless you can find some secondary sources commenting on it. Not only did it unbalance the article, I believe that WP:UNDUE applies here (unless it has been frequently discussed by Egyptologists). Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I also think that if you want that much coverage of your own work you should not add it to the article but to the talk page for discussion as per WP:COI. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

New file

New file for Sa-Ra hieroglyphs: Best regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

New King Tut DNA claims

Are being added to articles. This report is the best I can find in a quick search and says "The researchers didn't evaluate the DNA themselves; they say they made their findings "with the help" of a film made for the Discovery Channel." and also does not back the Western European claims being made as it says "Researchers say it's likely that King Tut and Europeans share a common ancestor who lived in the Caucasus region about 9,500 years ago.". If you read Talk:Tutankhamun there is some background about the commercial company making these claims (want a certificate saying you're a descendant of King Tut?). Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

See [1] and [2]. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion About Renaming Ramesses II -> Rameses II

Just thought I ought to point this out: Talk:Ramesses_II#Requested_move. Captmondo (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Who is...

French and German Wikipedia's have articles for Pharaoh Baka (Bicheris) between Khufu and Menkaure who we do not mention in 4th dynasty article or in his successor/predecessor articles (except in Turin King List). Our 4th dynasty list does have the name Setka? between Djedefre and Khufu who is mentioned no where in the text. Is something confused here? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not clearly readable Hieroglyphs of King "Baka" or "Sethka" or "Nebka" or ...

The King, which is mostly called Baka or in the greek version Bicheris is known by a multitude of names, as the hieroglyphs showing his name on a stone at his unfinishe pyramid are not clearly legible. The most common reading is currently "Baka". --GDK (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated articles

High Priests of Amun and Theban High Priests of Amun seem to cover the same subject, any suggestions as to what the proper title should be for a merged article? Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"High Priest of Amun" is simpler, and it's what one usually sees in Egyptologists' writings, but when people write that, they mean "High Priests of Amun at Karnak". Generally, every temple had its own priesthood, but Karnak was Amun's greatest cult center, so its high priests overshadow any high priests of Amun at other temples.

That said, I'm not sure if the Karnak priests' authority may have extended to some other temples—I'm thinking particularly of Luxor—so it might be inadvisable to narrow the title down to Karnak. I dislike putting "Theban" at the beginning of the title, so maybe "High Priests of Amun at Thebes"? I don't know. I hate naming decisions. A. Parrot (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of for splitting it up that way is because the Theban High Priests of Amun - which refers to those high priests fromt he 21st and 22nd dynasty - were much more powerful than regular high priests and were de facto rulers of that region. Having said that I think the two pages could be merged. The name "Theban High Priests of Amun" for one of the articles is rather a bad choice. The other high priests also held their office in Thebes. I think a merger of the two articles and just moving it to High Priests of Amun may be the most straight forward way to proceed? --AB (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This may need some watching?

An editor by the name of User:Drift chambers is editing quite a lot and some of the edits are kinda iffy. The sources used are sometimes questionable (websites) or given in rather non-standard form (links to pdf files). At times large sections are just removed instead of putting in a request for citation first. I don't have time to keep an eye on this, but it looks to me like someone should. --AB (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to be this when I get older!

I really want to be the Fan Bearer on the right side of the king when i get older. Does anybody know how to become this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.198.2 (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

bugzilla:1008

Hi, input is needed from those of you who use hieroglyphs, please comment on that bug. 46.44.48.170 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Cartouches of the Pharaohs

Since each pharaoh had 5 names and any one of them might be used (depending on context, I guess), it would be useful to see, next to each Pharaoh a picture of the 5 cartouches and their pronunciation. I guess these should be available for most and is a matter of knowing where to look and assembling the set rather than new research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.162.62 (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Already there. It's minimized by default, but if you hit the show button next to Royal Titulary in the pharaoh infoboxes, they'll show up for most pharaohs. Thanatosimii (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I've proposed that a recently created article, The Legend of the destruction of mankind, be merged with Book of the Heavenly Cow. The destruction of mankind narrative is just a portion of the text of the Book of the Heavenly Cow, and as the article on the book is little more than a stub, I see no reason for them not to be merged. The discussion of the merger is at Talk:Book of the Heavenly Cow. A. Parrot (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Amarna letters-great powers' club & Velikovskian site we are using for the letters

An article with no links from any other articles. Not sure what should be done about this. If the article itself is ok, it needs a proper title by our standards and links from relevant articles. On another issue, which led me to this, I'm not happy with this source. Another page, for instance, assures us Noah's Ark has been found [3] and the site itself is a bit mysterious - see [4] but I also found this [5] saying that it is Velikovskian and run by Johnny Zwick, whoever he is. 07:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Remove all links to the website. Although it contains what appear to be straightforward translations of the Amarna letters, the entry for just about every letter has a comment telling people to "click here!" to read about the Velikovskian identification of the relevant historical figures.

The article seems to be drawn from reliable sources (except that website), but the title is kind of silly. Just because one journal article called the nations recorded in the letters a "great powers' club" doesn't mean we should have an article by that name. But even with a title change, I have difficulty seeing it as a viable article. At the least, there's no need for an article with this scope until our articles on Amarna letters and related subjects (with titles something like Foreign relations of Egypt during the New Kingdom or Foreign relations of Assyria in the second millennium BC) have been covered on WP in much greater depth. Pieces of the article might be useful elsewhere; maybe we should propose deletion for it and cut and paste usable sections into Amarna letters. A. Parrot (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Salvage bits if there's anything to be saved, but the article seems to be espousing one person's strained interpretation of what the letters mean, not the scholarly understanding of Late Bronze diplomacy. I found the part about the letters indicating there was a "global village" mindset to be particularly strained. Thanatosimii (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that an AfD would fail but that we could redirect it (but perhaps put a mention of it into Amarna letters. I doubt anyone would object to that and we would probably end up having to do that anyway (a merge in effect). Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The clumsy title really doesn't seem like a valid name for a redirect. I think we should try WP:Proposed deletion first. The article's creator hasn't edited in over a year, and hardly anyone else pays attention to the article, so the prod tag may sit undisturbed until its deadline. A. Parrot (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Gosford Glyphs

The user draft User:EvanyEmlins/Gosford Glyphs could use some expert eyes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh my. The Gosford Glyphs are a well known hoax. (see Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis to the Walam Olum By Kenneth L. Feder pp 119-121) If anything is written about this on Wikipedia it should be made very clear in the lede that these are not thought to be 4th dynasty engravings. What are the guidelines for people posting an article like this on their user page? The writing is full of what looks to me like original research. The formatting with the bold text is odd and the personal comments make it rather inappropriate for wikipedia. I'm also not so sure about Senff who seems to be quoted an lot. He claims he has a PhD, and he is apparently an editor and publisher for Sumptibus Publications, Newcastle, N.S.W, Australia. I can't find anything that suggests that Senff has the credentials to be a reliable source for Egypt related publications. He is an author, but has no background in Egyptology for as far as I can see. A search on google scholar gives some hits, but nothing indicating a publishing record in studies of Ancient Egypt. --AB (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the userpage and noindex templates - it's been showing up on Google but that should stop, or at least this copy won't show, others might. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it's by one of John Hoopes' students. He's anti-fringe, these were as I recall supposed to be exposing fringe stuff. But I think it's abandoned, I could ask John. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I'm very interested in the attention this page has received. I created it as part of an assignment for Dr. Hoopes' Archeaological Myths and Realities class and tried to keep it factual. That being said, this page definitly needs some clarification and additional information. I agree with AnnekeBart that the Gosford Glyphs are not in any way evidence of Ancient Egyptians in Australia. However the potential of debunking this glyph-myth is an interesting study in psychology and science. I haven't been keeping up with this page but I am now available to help keep it afloat. :) EvanyEmlins (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange changes at Imhotep

Two editors, User:Okoloko and User:Lovemenowhard, are making some odd edits to Imhotep. Their edits don't seem to be related to each other, but neither user is very good about explaining the reasons for their changes. I'm trying to get them to discuss what they're doing, but I'd appreciate someone else taking a look, too. A. Parrot (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The text about Imhotep inventing the papyrus scroll is strange. From what I have read it seems that the oldest known papyrus scroll dates to 3000 BC, the first dynasty. This is an uninscribed roll found in a tomb. See for instance The evolution of the book by Frederick G. Kilgour, Oxford University Press, 1998, p 28-29 link --AB (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page (and moved the section to the bottom of the talk page where it should be)--AB (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

radiocarbon dates

I highly recommend that anybody who wants to improve the Egyptian articles get hold of the following article and anything associated with it. From radiocarbon dates, the claimed reign of Ahmose I is 100 years too late and if other pharaonic articles on Wikipedia give dates that coordinate with the article on Ahmose I, they all need re-evaluation. Don't brush this off from some rumors that the radiocarbon dates aren't exact. Do the homework. Manning, S.W., and B. Kromer, “Radiocarbon Dating Archaeological Samples In The Eastern Mediterranean, 1730 To 1480 Bc: Further Exploring The Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration Record And The Archaeological Implications”, Archaeometry, Vol. 53, Issue 2, pp. 413-439, April 2011. You could also read David Warburton's book "Time's Up" cited in the article. 4.248.217.40 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I got the article and it does not claim that the date for Ahmose I is off by 100 years at all. The article mentions (several times in fact) that the Bronk Ramsey et al. (2010) study shows that - based on carbon 14 - "there is in fact no conflict between calibrated radiocarbon and Egyptian historical dating" (quote from page 416). The real problem the authors are pointing out is the dating of the Tell el-Daba site. The question raised by the article is if this site dates to the early New Kingdom at all or may actually predate it by about 100 years. It is mentioned on page 417 that: "The Bronk Ramsey et al. (2010) study does include the earlier New Kingdom, and finds dates for these reigns that are nicely compatible, give or take a decade, with standard Egyptian historical chronology. Tell el-Dab‘a strata D/1.1-2, C/3 and C/2 are supposedly—according to the excavator’s archaeological dating—contemporary with Ahmose to Tuthmose III, but they produced much older radiocarbon dated ranges (Bietak and Höflmayer 2007)." So no need to start adjusting dates on any of the pharaonic pages. The Tell el Daba site is the one in question, not the dating of Ahmose I. --AB (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Ramesses II#Requested move

This is a suggestion by another editor to rename the article to Ramses II. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Names of all the dynasties

Is it customary, or accurate, to speak of the "First dynasty"?

There is a massive move request at Talk:First dynasty of Egypt#Requested move. JCScaliger (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Egyptian mythology peer review

Egyptian mythology has just been put up for peer review. Anyone who wants to comment on ways to improve it, please do so here. I would greatly appreciate it. A. Parrot (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Former countries template being added to dynasty articles & an article rename of Late Period of ancient Egypt

Is this[6] appropriate? And rather than start a 3rd topic, the same editor renamed Late Period of ancient Egypt to Late Period of Egypt which seems odd. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that this is an editor with numerous messages on his talk page xhe never replies to, no edit summaries, etc. I'll revert this edits when I get the time. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

-Ilhador- (talk · contribs) was given a 24 hour block for using a sock puppet. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Rameses again

There is a request at Talk:Ramesses#Requested move to move the entire dynasty from Ramesses to Ramses (with one e). There is a discussion at Talk:Ramesses#Spelling, which raises some concerns about the suggested spelling. Comments from people who know the subject would be appreciated. JCScaliger (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we sort this old merger proposal?

There's a 2009 proposal to merge Babylon (Egypt) and Babylon Fortress (to which I just added our project tag). Can we sort this out and close it? Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be the same thing, so yes. A. Parrot (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Old Kingdom of Egypt

Anyone want to handle the issue raised here? Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Touregypt.net

Found an editor adding copyvio material from touregypt.com. The odd thing is he's also removed material copied from Touregypt as it was copyvio, raising questions as to whether there is a COI with this editor. See [7]. I don't think we should use TourEgypt at all. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not as a source, certainly. And considering that I've discovered inaccuracies and probable copyright violations in their own text, probably not as an external link, either. Clearing out all those links (and sometimes article text sourced to Touregypt) will be a pain, but I'll work on it, at least in Category:Ancient Egyptian religion, which has practically become my fiefdom by default.

Also, bearing in mind what I told you about User:Lanternix introducing copyright violation from Touregypt, you should probably look into the possibility that Monaibra is connected to Lanternix. A. Parrot (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to help with the clearout. I'm impressed with MoonriddenGgirl's finding new references given all the burdens on her time. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, it is of course touregypt.net, and the job is daunting [8]. Lanternix was much more aggressive and edited a wider variety of articles, so I'm a bit dubious about the suggested connection. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm no sockpuppet expert; I was just throwing out the possibility. Also—this isn't about ancient Egypt, but it's part of the Touregypt problem—I remembered that The Hanging Church has a Touregypt link, and I went to look at it. Comparing the article history to the Wayback Machine archives of the Touregypt article, I found that our article on the Hanging Church has been a copyright violation of theirs since it was created in August 2007. It was created by User:Ghaly, who looks unlikely to be anybody's sockpuppet. Uninformed editing, I guess. And Ghaly has created more than 80 articles. A. Parrot (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why this section hasn't been archived already, but I'm posting here again to make sure it isn't archived any time soon. I'd rather keep this section here to have the link-search on hand, and so that my edit summaries when removing links still point to the right place. There are still 380 links remaining, though I figure the ones that aren't in article space can be left alone. A. Parrot (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Some photos that could probably use better descriptions

A typical example; all I could really say was "Detail, outer coffin of the mummy of Ankh-Wennefer, Washington State History Museum." - Jmabel | Talk

I just uploaded a set of photos of the inner and outer coffin of the Commons:Category:Ankh-Wennefer mummy (the "Tacoma mummy"; see see http://www.tacomaweekly.com/citylife/view/unwrapping_history/). I'm guessing that a lot of the hieroglyphs and images are quite decipherable by someone with a clue (which would not be me) and that a lot could be added to the descriptions. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an article in this, as well. - Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I can only recognize a handful of hieroglyphs, so I wasn't able to add a lot of detail, but I did what I could. Two of the photos are straight-on views of Isis and Nephthys, so I noted that in the descriptions. I looked at the museum's website and found that the sarcophagus decoration is made up of extracts from the Book of the Dead, so I added the appropriate category. (Also, I believe that the figures in this photograph are knife-wielding demons of the underworld, but I can't be absolutely certain.) A. Parrot (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Those hieroglyphs are in hieratic. This specific text is admittedly written with clearer penmanship than many hieratic texts, but it's still a wee bit harder to read than your run of the mill stone inscription. I can't be of help on this one either, and I'd be kind of surprised if any of the regulars could either. Thanatosimii (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you'll forgive me for being nit-picky, the text is in cursive hieroglyphs, not hieratic. But I agree with everything else you said. A. Parrot (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Jacques Kinnaer

Is his site [[9] something we'd consider a reliable source? At least his own papers? This ]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_Dynastic_Period_of_Egypt&curid=1107043&diff=485588561&oldid=482798818 edit] caught my attention. (And I think it's too closely paraphrased to the source[10] also). Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Kinnaer is better qualified than the vast, vast majority of online sources on AE. I've casually looked at his website several times, and I don't think I noticed anything remotely non-mainstream. (For instance, the paper you linked says only one thing that might be slightly unexpected—that the Third Dynasty belongs in the Early Dynastic period rather than the Old Kingdom—but it's a significant position in Egyptology, even if it's not the majority position.) I'd say that if someone were trying to polish an article to truly decent standards (GA or higher), Kinnaer should not be used as a source. But in the slapdash editing that characterizes most Wikipedia work, in which people without enough time to totally rewrite articles put in the best sources they can find, it would be unreasonable to object to someone citing Kinnaer. The specific edit you point to is problematic for different reasons. It's an uncomfortably close paraphrase, and yet it doesn't really reflect what Kinnaer was trying to say! I'll go fix it.

Whether Kinnaer is notable enough to merit his own article is a separate issue. A. Parrot (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Book of Mormon Pronunciation Guide

Is this a reliable source? See [11]. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same question. I do not see the Book of Mormon as being a reliable source regarding Egyptology or any guide to pronunciation. If they wish to pronounce things a certain way then they certainly can, but I do not see that as an appropriate entry on Wikipedia. The website provided as a source does not say where this pronunciation guide is based on either. I think quoting the Merriam-Webster dictionary and saying for instance pharaoh is pronounced ˈfer-(ˌ)ō, or ˈfā-(ˌ)rō would be much more appropriate. --AB (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AnnekeBart about the Book of Mormon, and that Webster's is a better source for the pronunciation of "pharaoh". But I feel there's a deeper problem with User:Sburke's prolific pronunciation requests. In many cases, I don't think there's a good source out there! He put a bunch of these requests on various ancient Greek, ancient Egyptian, and biblical articles (see his contributions). My Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gives some of the pronunciations he asked for, so I'll add some. But, for instance, the dictionary only lists four Egyptian gods' names, compared with at least 26 gods whose pronunciations he requested. An unabridged Oxford might provide more, but I doubt it would have them all. I don't think Egyptologists bother to write down their casual pronunciations of Egyptian names; they're all just convenient fictions anyway. A. Parrot (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the requests for pronunciation on the Memphis page and decided to undo it. The request is likely well-intended, but does not really make sense. For as far as I understand it we do not always know how these words were pronounced. We have some clues from the diplomatic correspondence on how some names may have sounded when written in Akkadian, or the present pronunciation in Coptic is sometimes used to reconstruct pronunciations. But linking a modern language to one that existed thousands of years ago seems "kinda iffy" to me. I do not think there is an agreed upon English pronunciation for many words. The name for the Theban god Amun is also represented as Amen or Amon indicating that there is no agreement on pronunciation/spelling. --AB (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite - while "Pharaoh" has an agreed English pronunciation, there are plenty of Ancient Egyptian words that don't. If there isn't an agreed pronunciation, we'd probably need to supply a footnote indicating the different options and the reasons for them. (If I recall correctly there are several competing systems of transliteration, and many of them include guesses about which letter represents which sound, even for consonants...) The Land (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've raised the RS issue at RSN as he's using it for non-AE (and non-LDS) articles. I think we should be reverting him at AE articles. I'll invite him here. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank everyone for their attention to this, and for dealing with the muddles I've made of AE things. And I'm happy that a conversation about me now includes me!
Long story short:
I was (without great reflection then) on the fence about that LDS.org: "Book of Mormon Pronunciation Guide" being a passably reliable source, but now my reckoning of things is "of course it's not a Reliable Source for anything at all outside the BoM- what was I thinking!?"
I've completely stopped altering AE articles; and I very much encourage you to revert/tweak AE things as you like. (...but I'm talking about AE, as opposed to Greco-Latin things, which have quite different relationships with English... but still none with Book-of-Mormon; and I think the topic of their reversion is quite distinct from their AE cousins- but more on that later). As to RS of that BoM Guide, that's the short version from me, namely: "It isn't RS, and I regret and apologize that I acted as if it were". A long and hopefully not too delayed or digressive version of the long-story-short will follow, below, within hopefully not too many minutes... In fact, I'll split it into two chunks, so each can be mulled over in separate threads- first Mormonese stuff, second, general pronunciations… as I'm proofreading them…, aaaaand as I hear the dinner bell/beeeeep, reminding me of an angry doctor's admonishments about blood sugar, that meddling little man…(—sburke@cpan.org (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)) Chunks one and two follow…

·"Long story Long: On the topic of Book of Mormon things: I've decided that LDS.org: "Book of Mormon Pronunciation Guide" is a flat-out unreliable source for anything that's not solely in Book-of-Mormon. Reiterating: if a thing exists outside the BoM (whether its domain is AE or Old Testament or who knows what), I consider the BoM Pronunciation Guide to be no good as an RS. In it, a given item's pronunciation might be correct, but that Guide guide is still no good as a qualified source, namely, support for it. I was never convinced that the BoM-Guide was a great source (definite quibbles with the IPA- or rather, the lack of sufficient distinctions in the source notation that I calqued the IPA from), but for a while, I hadn't decided on calling it source-non-grata. My line of thinking was: "Well, I happen to know that this pronunciation is right, and I have a source-reference right here in my clipboard (as I'm in the middle of dealing with scores of BoM-only entries), and it's already not just in IPA but in Wikipedia's peculiar kind of IPA. And any source is better than no source!, so..."— but no, that's quite wrong, notably that fallacious last part. And I hope I haven't disrupted more than a handful of exists-outside-BoM entries with a ref to the BoM-Guide, and if anyone sees any remaining, I apologize, and please revert them:— a simple revert if you like, or if you can find a different source to pop in there; or maybe consider putting a "pronunciation-needed" if (if!) you think it's sensible for that entry; or if you have the time, give a better-sourced entry to straight out replace it,... as I see has been done in entry "Pharaoh"! Thank you for having done that, A. Parrot.
An example of when I had finally gotten my head together and dealt more sensibly with the BoM-Guide's highly constrained reliability is "Paanchi". The BoM-Guide says "Paanchi = /peɪˈæn.kaɪ/". Besides this being sounding,uh, creative to my ear, I saw that I was about to put in it the entry for the (historical) Paanchi; but of course if you take one look at the article, it's obviously not just a guy rattling around in the BoM. There's an entry "Paanchi (Book of Mormon)", and I put the pronunciation exactly and exclusively there; I reckoned that if BoM folk want to pronounce their "Paanchi" that way, that's their notion, but the BoM-Guide's domain ends strictly there. By coincidence, that pronunciation may well be the conventional pronunciation for the historical Paanchi, but I consider these to be are different things in different domains.
Moreover, considering how generally, uh, creative, Mormons have been toward Egyptology from their very beginning, I'll be the first to suggest a metaphorical DMZ between the two, based on the same scope and mutual-estimation as the North-Korea-South-Korea zone. (Incidentally, I dare say that if we look at the Egyptology and Mormonism, and wonder which corresponds to North Korea vs South Korea, well, I leave that as a task for the reader... particularly ofter he has read thru the entry "Book of Abraham", much less having a look at the "Caractors" page, or even merely hearing the sound of the words "Reformed Egyptian" as a supposed language.)
Again, my apologies for the sourcing and trouble that this has caused; certainly my notion "well, any source [namely, the BoM guide] is better than none!" is a trainwreck of an idea (particularly given that source, in this field!), which I wish I had caught earlier and had found and reverted more instances of. —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

·To the topic of Anglicized pronunciations (and completely leaving aside the earlier topic of BoM stuff): For my linguistic concept of what the English mental lexicon means, I consider "Nefertiti" and "Memphis" and "Pharaoh" and "Tutankhamun" to have established, lexicalized, Anglicized pronunciations (just as they have English spellings, albeit with variants— but typically quite separate from scholarly transliterations); and I like the idea of having those Anglicized pronunciations (as just such, never to be mistaken to be a native/original pronunciations) in the respective entries in EN.wikipedia.org. (I don't see how they would have much scope beyond that.) As an example of the Anglicized pronunciation not being totally incidental, I believe that someone speaking in English and referring to /,nej:fərtɪ'ti:/ would be pointlessly going against the conventional English-lexicalized pronunciation (and such a thing as that does exist, or else the odd pronunciation wouldn't give anyone a moment's pause). It's only somewhat less odd than a Frenchman speaking fluently English but referring to /pla.'tʌn/, or /zan'θip/; or even just an English speaker referring not to 'kirkəgard but instead to /ˈkiɐ̯ɡəɡɒːˀ/ (which I, with two linguistics degrees under my belt and way too many hours clocked in front of displays of acoustic spectrograms, can't imagine even approximating, at least in the absence of a tongue-depressor and hard liquor.) And god help, and pity, any art student (or their teacher) in a classroom in America who raises their hand and asks "What's the the reeeal way to pronounce van Gogh?" so they can use that from now on, instead of being content with /væŋ'go/, or the /...θ/ that I hear in the UK.) But going the other way, I think of the above Frenchman looking up the en.wikipedia entry on "Xanthippe" and felicitously learning what English pronunciation is normal for it. (But I wish him luck with "Laeaeans". I'm guessing /li 'i ənz/, just guessing from Vulgate pronunciation piped thru Great Vowel Shift)
Crucially, I am not, in the least, familiar enough with the current state of the Egyptology to know where the set of things with conventional English pronunciations ("Pharaoh", /,tut.ən.'ka.mən/, /'gi.zə/, etc) ends, and the vast set of things with no conventional Anglicized pronunciations begins... and where it in fact it shades quickly into the yet vaster realm of things where even the advanced state of linguistic Egyptology can't offer a pronunciation, because,... well,... There's no vowels! If there are Egyptian matres lectionis, who knows whether you're looking at one of them, or just a regular consontantal /w/ or /j/. Now, I've seen wonders of reconstruction in with some Native American linguistics lately, and I sort of hoped (not as in "...until you let me down!", but as in "it never hurts to hope, who knows!") that linguistic Egyptology (in ways too recent for me to have heard about) could have similarly pulled rabbits out of hats... or blood from stone,... or the vowels from Coptic. But, well: not so much. It's quite understandable, considering that the time depth on trying to get to missing parts of Egyptian is an order of magnitude greater than what I've seen with, say, Mayan, or Iroquoian.
Now, my argument toward the importance of showing established Anglicized pronunciations (when they exist) is just my argument, and what I've just now said is basically the limit of how long or articulate or convincing I'll make it. And I completely defer to any opposition here, for the people in these entries' fields to judge which (very few) entries should have Anglicized pronunciations, or respectable guesses at a native pronunciation, or nothing of the sort. So my ideal outcome is one where I'm not part of it. It's tricky stuff, and it's your stuff!
And like I said, I've completely stopped altering Egyptian articles— and have every reason to not resume! Incidentally, I found the content of the entries really fascinating (millennia of weirdness)— but it was all basically a now quite-complete tangent from my grander meander thru Greco-Roman stuff— because there has been the tweedy discipline of Classics philology that well predates the Great Vowel Shift, and which carried a great number of the English-lexicalized pronunciations thru it, so that you can get the /ej/ in /'plejto/ which people outside of English rightly find quite idiosyncratic (along with the arbitrarily clipped forms like Virgil, to say nothing of the issue of where the Greek-in-English syllabic stress should go. But this is a Classics issue, where the linguistic situation is vastly different from AE's.
About a matter of expressive tone: the name of the template, "pronunciation-needed", is an awfully pushy name— I can't remember the last entry that needed a pronunciation. I also cringe at the way that the template renders: as a honking big "[pronunciation?]"— It's extremely obtrusive, to the point that in some entries, it ends up looking like the most important thing on the screen (when it's possibly the least, some would argue. Of course, the tone that I wish there were a way for me to straightforwardly express would be just a little "Does anyone happen to know a pronunciation? maybe? or strike this if you know there can't be such a thing!". (Altho for the last choice, I ask that AE folks reserve this for AE words/names where a reconstruction is known to be impossible. The judgments of "there's can't be such a thing" for (Greco-Roman) Classics things, like "Lææans", is a whole different ball of wax that I no doubt get to address elsewhere, and in other terms.)
Now, it has occurred to me that it might be... kinder?... all around if I could tag entries as being in a category— say, "Category: Classical names lacking pronunciations", or "Egyptological...", Biblical, etc., or however those category names could be much better phrased. I have a vague idea of the mechanics of creating new categories— but I wouldn't do it if you put a gun to my head. I'm pretty sure that a just-some-guy user like me simply creating a category out of the blue would bring out Wikipedia's frantic Pandaemonium of template-keepers and ontologists, who otherwise normally keep felicitously to themselves. — sburke@cpan.org (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Qakare Ibi

Hello everyone ! I just updated the article about Qakare Ibi. Up to now, the article is rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. I do not know how to discuss this elsewhere or propose this in a more official manner so here I propose that the article be moved up one category to Start-Class. Let me know what you think ! Iry-Hor (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ptolemy III and portraiture on coinage

Please see my talk-page comment at Talk:Ptolemy_III_Euergetes#Who_issued_coin.3F. --Haruo (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

While you're at it, look at my comment at Talk:Ptolemaic_dynasty#32nd_or_34th.3F_why.3F, and also the hidden text at the top of that page (I hid it) from 2003 about sex. Totally extraneous even for a talk page, I think, not to mention it gets in the way of the truly topical parts. --Haruo (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Atum equivalent to Scorpio?

Would someone else look at this claim in our article on the Ouroboros? Based on an ancient edition of the Britannica. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That whole section (Ouroboros#Egypt) looks like a confused mixture of accurate and misleading statements. Hornung does trace the ouroboros back the the serpent that represents eternity in the Amduat, Atum was sometimes represented as a serpent, and Atum and the ouroboros are both connected with the creation–death–rebirth cycle of time. But that does not mean that the ouroboros is necessarily synonymous with Atum, which is what the section seems to assume when it spends two whole paragraphs talking about Atum.

Regarding your specific question, the old Britannica says that the Egyptians saw a snake constellation in the same area of the sky where the Greeks saw Scorpio. That may well be true (the only thing I know about Hellenistic Egyptian astrology is that the Egyptians picked up the zodiac from the Greeks, which the Britannica article agrees with). But that does not mean that Atum is Scorpio. The statement is an example of the problems with that whole section. It looks like the work of esotericists trying to support their strange ideas by synthesizing disconnected statements that are supported by sources of varying reliability. I think the section needs to be rewritten.

Hornung's Books of the Afterlife and Secret Lore of Egypt state the essential points of the Egypt–ouroboros connection: that the ouroboros originated as an emblem of cyclical time in Egyptian underworld books and was adopted at some point by Hellenistic mysticism. That's all the section really needs to say, so I could rewrite it based on those sources alone. I'll look up Hornung's exact words. A. Parrot (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Your criticism is itself confused, Parrot. The Britannica is talking about signs, not constellations: [12]. The astrological signs are the 12 equal segments of the sun's annual path, counted from the vernal point (0 degrees Aries), which means that the signs are completely independent of the constellations bearing the same names. —89.110.28.2 (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

IP warned for personal attack, and I've reverted back to the earlier version. This is clear original research - the sources do not discuss the Ouroboros. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Good, but that's not the end of it. Another section, Ouroboros#Judeo-Christianity, looks like its full of similar ideas, which may be synthesis-laden as well. Some Christian mystics may well have put those kinds of interpretations on the ouroboros, but at the least, it's a mistake to talk about the ouroboros as if it's a conventional element of Judaism and Christianity.

Also, the IP put that same Egypt-related text from Ouroboros into the article on Atum. Most of the same issues apply: sources are misrepresented or absent, and the whole thing puts esoteric interpretations on Egyptian beliefs. It even equates Osiris with God the Son and Atum with God the Father! Most of the parts that were accurate were rather lengthy quotations from Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. So I removed most of it, leaving only the parts that I'm sure are accurate.

Note that there was one part about Shu and Tefnut, Atum's mythological children, that looked believable but wasn't supported by the quotations that were used as references for it. Atum did give rise to Shu and Tefnut during the creation of the world, and sunrise was regarded as a repetition of creation. But I do not know of a source that explicitly states that Shu and Tefnut were believed to merge with Atum at sunset and divide again at sunrise. Such a belief would fit well with Egyptian tradition, but just because it might fit with reality doesn't mean it is true. A source must state explicitly that the Egyptians believed such a thing; otherwise it doesn't belong in an article. That is what the IP editor seems unwilling or unable to grasp. A. Parrot (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Parrot, since you have confessed that you have absolutely no knowledge of astrology, you have no right to edit articles dedicated to the solar myth, which includes all religious and mythological articles. Do not be so cocksure, Parrot. —91.122.9.21 (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I confess I don't know much about astrology, but I know a great deal about ancient Egyptian religion, and I know that AER had nothing to do with astrology as we think of it, at least until Hellenistic times. You seem to take it as a given that the two are connected, but that is exactly what you need to prove, using reliable sources that explicitly state the connection. Disparaging me won't help you do that. A. Parrot (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the Aries chapter in this book: [13] (begins from page 107). It is clearly stated that the Greeks adopted astrology from the Egyptians and that the Egyptian mythology was astrological since time immemorial. —91.122.9.21 (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That book seems to be by William Mure, who was a classicist (not an Egyptologist) in the early to mid-nineteenth century. Nineteenth-century knowledge of ancient Egypt is in large part woefully outdated. It looks like Mure still cited classical writers and even Horapollo with little question of their accuracy, and the most recent source he drew upon was Jean-François Champollion, from the earliest, fumbling beginnings of Egyptology. In short, he knew very little about Egypt before Hellenistic times. Although the Egyptians did have their own astronomical tradition, and it was connected with their religion, the notion that it gave rise to the zodiac is dismissed today. For instance, the Egyptologist Donald V. Etz, in the article "A New Look at the Constellation Figures in the Celestial Diagram" published in Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt in 1997, says "the astronomical imagery of the Egyptians was not in general adopted by the Greeks, and therefore not passed along to Western astronomy." He specifically states that the zodiac is "a product of Babylonian and Greek, not Egyptian, astronomy."

More to the point, even in that outdated book I don't see confirmation of your specific claims, e.g., that Atum is Scorpio or Khepri is Aries. (He does point out the equation of Scorpio with a serpent constellation and equate the serpent with Agathodaimon, who was linked with some Egyptian deities like Serapis and Shai, but not with Atum as far as I can tell.) A. Parrot (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A. Parrot is correct, the zodiac is not a product of Egyptian astronomy. The IP has just deleted some well-sourced material at Atum and added some copyvio which has made the article POV. I've reverted - IP, please don't edit war to get your material back in and delete the material you don't like, discuss it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No one has claimed that the zodiac is a product of Egyptian astronomy. You have used a strawman argument, Weller, which signifies a lack of moral integrity on your part. —91.122.4.153 (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. So what does a revert saying "Expelled a topic-banned user" signify? I'm sorry if I thought you were making that claim, but the Greeks did not adopt astrology from the Egyptians. I've brought up your edits at WP:NORN as you are edit-warring to include original research (as well as making personal attacks). Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Positive Dating of Psusennes II

The identification of the Pharaoh Psusennes II as satisfying the post-Siamon Year 17 is challengable in the fact that Pharaoh Psusennes I was still ruling. His dates are -1401 to -1331. Year 13 III Peret 10 +x [=3] drift-counted (i.e. days * 4) from -2108, the "start" of Dynasty Four, yields a date of -1336. This gives a joint-rule with the king of Argos (in Manetho - Harmais) Danaus. To clarify; Danaus fled to Argos and established rule there in -1349' Source: Ian Shears in an unpublished Egyptian Chronology elderlyrstaff@gmail.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elderlyrstaff (talk • contribs) 12:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

A new editor, editing first as an IP, is ignoring the two notes (one when you read it, one when you edit) "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, " and "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, " - and confusing cultural affinities with racial, but that isn't the main problem. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? This editor doesn't seem to care about consensus. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anyone else here but me, and I have to say, I'm reluctant to get involved in a racial controversy of any kind. Nor am I familiar with the reams of arguments that have been made on that talk page over the years, except that I know there are reams of them. So I don't know exactly how people on that page have tried to draw the line between the "population history" article and the "controversy" article. I understand why that distinction exists, but it's tricky to apply in practice when dealing with recent scholarly statements. The outdated and racially motivated ideas of past scholars obviously belong on the controversy page and not in population history, but modern scholars' analyses of the population history will often become part of the controversy as it's argued today. Some of SirShawn's additions, like those from Redford in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, seem fairly relevant to the race issue, while others, like those about the movements of peoples in Neolithic times, don't. But as I say, it's difficult.

Looking briefly at SirShawn's contributions, it does seem that he is trying to stress African connections at the expense of statements that might be seen as counterarguments. For instance, he removed Yurco's statement about the close genetic affinity between modern and ancient Egyptians. He declared that idea "false" and "fallacious" but did not (as far as I can see, scanning his edits) provide sources to counter Yurco's claim, except perhaps the quote from Britannica's article on "Populations, Human", which is less specialized and less recent than the statement from Yurco. Yet he inserted information about a DNA study of Puntish baboons. The uncertainty over Punt's location is race-related and has a section in the race controversy article, but one specific study in that broader debate seems too detailed and tangential to put in the race controversy article. I don't claim to know this editor's motivations, but the changes look like attempts to push a point of view.

(Incidentally, and possibly helpful in work on the article, I found this PDF, apparently of a letter by Yurco, saying that similarity between ancient and modern Egyptians does not conflict with the idea that the ancient Egyptians would look "black" in modern American eyes—quite the opposite.)

So that's what I think about it; I'd rather not get more deeply involved. I'm unsure where the lines between the two articles should be drawn, and I think some of SirShawn's additions may be worth including, but I don't think it benefits the article for all of his changes to stay in place. Paste this statement on the talk page if you want. But if the editor really refuses to listen to consensus, I doubt that one more voice will change his mind. A. Parrot (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking this to DRN. My main concern is that this article is not meant to be 'the' debate, it is meant to be the 'history' of the debate. Another editor did replace some of SirShawn's material, but it appears to be my way or the highway right now for him. Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians and Pi

I thought this had been settled some time ago, but today there's been some edit-warring and a block over this. See the discussion at Talk:Pi. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in this topic, but the end of Great Pyramid of Giza#History and description has a referenced summary of the dispute. It seems wrong to say that pyramidologists alone think the Egyptians had some grasp of pi; the issue is still debated in Egyptology, where pyramidologists are a laughingstock. It would be fringe if someone argued that the Egyptians knew pi's value with modern precision. (See, for instance, Talk:Ancient Egypt/Archive 3#meaningless reference to pi., where a quotation from an RS states that the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus gives only a rough method for calculating the area of a circle.) But I don't think Dave Light is arguing that. The compromise wording that Noleander suggested looks reasonable to me. A. Parrot (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Need help with Abutiu

hello,

could someone answer here, and check whether the transliteration and hieroglyphs are really correct? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ogdoad

The article Ogdoad covers both the Ogdoad in Egyptian mythology (a group of gods who created the world) and the Ogdoad of Gnostic belief (a group of aeons). I've argued on the talk page that the two subjects should be in two articles, as the connection between them is tenuous; see Talk:Ogdoad#Egyptian and Gnostic. I'd like input about the location of the divided articles (whether one gets the main "Ogdoad" title or whether that page becomes a disambiguation). A. Parrot (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox pharaoh

Hello,

some user, User:Nephiliskos, keeps adding an amateurish infobox, {{Infobox hieroglyphs}} on several pharao pages, eg Khufu. The table does not include the required, non-plus-ultra information which all infoboxes should have. For beginners, an infobox is a short overview of family, wife, age, successors, etc, but the other inofbox is loaded with hieroglyphs bs which have no meaning for the majority; even the picture is placed in the bottom of the template, what nonsense! As if someone will care more about the hieroglyphs than the picture! I strongly agree to replace this odd infobox with the good one. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Right - some links and structured discussion would be good here. There was an old discussion in late 2011 here Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Support more standard ruler infobox

As seen here

Support ruler infobox with prominent hieroglyphs

As seen here

Discussion

• Discuss away. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes are supposed to allow quick comparison between articles on a similar subject; that's one of the major justifications for their existence. Therefore, I tend to agree that a pharaoh infobox should look like other boxes for biographies. The long-established pharaoh infobox incorporates names in hieroglyphs along with a lot of other information that means more to most readers. The hieroglyph box doesn't have as much information. The hieroglyph box is also bulkier than the other two and, with the text so spread out between the glyphs, not as easy to read.

The reason the hieroglyph box won support in the discussion last fall is that the traditional box faces the perennial infobox problem of oversimplification, particularly with dates of reigns, birth, and death. Every chronology varies somewhat, so a particular reign can be assigned to several similar date ranges even if old sources are excluded. That many ranges are inconvenient to put in an infobox. The hieroglyph box has the advantage of listing only reign lengths, which are generally much more solid. I still don't like the hieroglyph box and lean toward the traditional one, but I understand people's dissatisfaction with it. A. Parrot (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the existing infoboxes - there is no harm adding plentiful hieroglyphics where they are well-attested in sources, but not in place of the summary information provided by the standard infobox. The Land (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to ask: what would a "hybrid version incorporating hieroglyphs and standard info" look like? Because as I said, the standard box already has a field for royal names in hieroglyphs, and I don't see that a hybrid would offer any advantage. (In my original comment I misread the three options and confused the hieroglyph box with the hypothetical hybrid; I've adjusted that comment accordingly). A. Parrot (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The actual problem is that of a single user who destroys hard works by reverting the new boxes despite there is a clear agreement that we use the new orange boxes. It doesn´t really bother me if someone questions these boxes, but it bothers me all the more if single users provoke edit-wars just in attempt to push their riddiculous thoughts of esthetic through, ignoring done decisions within a wiki-project. It´s simply a question of good manners to contact any member (no matter whom) of portals and projects before ruining works. I might inform the participants, that the user in question already received blockings because of his provoking behaviour. I doubt that any discussion with him will ever be successful.

The new boxes were chosen because they allow to show the reader ALL royal names and titulatures for a king or noble person in hieroglyphic form, synchronically allowing to spare writing space within the articles. Furthermore, they allow to translate them. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Translations can be given in the standard boxes, although in many cases they aren't. See the nomen in the Khufu example. A. Parrot (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

But they don´t offer the possibility to show the hieroglyphs and their translations. ;-P And why spamming the article with boxes if you can store all infos and hieroglyphs in one single box? Besides: The older boxes were full of redundant and uninteresting infos like mothers and fathers and stuff. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support the standard infobox which is far better looking that the hierobox one. It is also a standard and as such allows a unified presentation of Egyptian rulers. Until recently, I agreed with Nephiliskos that the standard infobox did not provide the possibility of putting, for example, several horus names, or to remove or not some prefix. For example the Sa-Re prefix does not make sense for early dynastic pharaohs. However, I succeeded recently to do all of this with the standard version, see for example the Khasekhemwy titulary. This is way better looking that the hierobox and allows to show as much information as wanted. I strongly support that we revert all hierobox pages to the standard infobox, keeping the several names, translations and transliterations, with or without prefixes as needed, using the tricks exposed in the Khasekhemwy page. Finally, note that the standard infobox offers the possibility of putting as many hieroglyphs required in the titulary section (even royal lists names) without cluttering the page with them, thanks to the hide/show button. I hope this settles the discussion. Iry-Hor (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I would say that should settle it. Whether we like it or not, the standard practice across most of Wikipedia is to have an infobox containing a bunch of vital statistics on biography pages. (There are wikiprojects that object to that practice, and I don't want to get into that argument, but in any case the infobox is already established on ancient Egypt project pages.) Plus, the pharaoh infobox makes the list of hieroglyphs collapsible, so it provides more information with less bulky intrusion into the text. 00:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Egyptian pantheon

I've asked two questions about the naming and organization of the Egyptian pantheon article at Talk:Egyptian pantheon#Move proposal and Talk:Egyptian pantheon#List of deities. I'd appreciate some input; if there is none, I'll just act on my own suggestions in a month or so. A. Parrot (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Map of Nomes error

I believe the titles for the maps of upper and lower Nomes are reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.40.22 (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No; the map names ("Lower Egypt Nomes 01" for the Nile Delta and "Upper Egypt Nomes" for the Nile Valley) are correct. Lower Egypt, or the Nile Delta, is the part of Egypt that is generally lower in elevation (closer to sea level) and farther down the Nile. Upper Egypt, or the Nile Valley, is upriver of Lower Egypt, and its elevation is higher. The names seem odd to us, because our culture conventionally puts north at the top of maps, so we think of north as "up". But not every culture has that convention, and the names of Upper and Lower Egypt reflect the actual behavior of the river rather than the conventions of modern maps. A. Parrot (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

David Rohl and Sheshonk IV

David Rohl has been editing Sheshonk IV adding material that he wrote. I've removed this (and a bit more) as it isn't appropriate for him to be making claims about his own work or even adding it. He's raised this at Talk:Sheshonk IV and it may be possible to find sources that confirm his claim of primacy, etc - and if he's right it seems reasonable that he gets the credit. I also reverted him at Osorkon III[14] where he was using his own work to assert that he and Peter James were the first to identify HPA Prince Osorkon with King Osorkon III - again this needs independent sourcing, and in both articles I think the sources don't meet our WP:RS criteria. But I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong. Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Both papers being referred to here as sources are entirely reliable as they are published, in print and held in the British Library, the Library of Congress and fifty different university libraries. The quotations are taken directly from the articles which have publication dates showing they were written several years before both Dodson and Leahy's papers on the subjects of Shoshenk IV and Osorkon III. Dodson, in his paper, acknowledges this fact and references my paper which precedes his by four years. To deny or remove my role in the discoveries (now accepted in Egyptology) is to suppress truth and mislead the reader.

So the questions I have for WikiProject Ancient Egypt are these. Do you suppress truth as a matter of policy? Do you deny a discovery in Egyptology and attribute it to someone else because you have some sort of grudge against the discoverer? Does doing the right thing matter at Wikipedia? Why does an editor here assume that I am lying, even when I give full references? Somebody needs to do the right thing here and reinstate my edits as a legitimate (and in this case specialist) contributor to Wikipedia.213.172.34.198 (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We have our own criteria for reliability which you can read at WP:RS. I didn't assume you were lying, I said we couldn't use you as a source for being the first. We can probably use Dodson as a source but I need to get the paper and read it. And being in the BL and the Library of Congress doesn't make anything reliable as virtually every book published is held in those libraries. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

After discussion at WP:RSN David has sent me his preferred version, which can be seen at Talk:Sheshonk IV#Rewrite suggested by David Rohl. We have moved on from the discussion above. Other input would be desirable. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

DNA Tribes (private testing company) being used as a source for the genetics of the AE

We have a number of articles that discuss the genetics of the Ancient Egyptians (too many I'd say as they are battlegrounds). The private firm DNA Tribes has been used in some of them as a source. I brought this up at WP:RSN#DNA Tribes, a private genetics company, being used as a source where I've had only one response but that's from one of our most experienced editors in this area, who agrees with me and points out DNA Tribes "is not one of the better or most successful and respected ones" of these testing companies. I'm having particular problems at DNA history of Ancient Egypt where first an IP reverted me then an inexperienced editor - see [Talk:DNA history of Ancient Egypt]]. Neither of them have based their reversions on any of our policies or guidelines. This is the sort of problem we have on articles which have few watchers. This one, for instance, has only 5. Maybe we need some agreement on sources for genetics? My own opinion is as I've described it on the talk page - only peer reviewed or other academic sources (specifically academic books) unless the report has received significant media attention. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, we should be particularly careful to control the validity of the sources for articles discussing controversial issues. I think being stringent is the best strategy otherwise we might end up with article discussing fringe theories as much as/on a par with mainstream ones, which should not be. Also media attention is not a guarantee of quality of a source (although the source can be briefly discussed in connection with the attention it received). For example there has been a lot of media attention on the Bosnian pyramids or how aliens built the pyramids. This does not mean these hypotheses should be taken seriously. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it again, we'll see what happens. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor has complained on the talk page and posted to RSN but for some reason didn't mention DNA Tribes. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And despite no one agreeing with him and not arguing that it is a reliable source, he has restored the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Need help with proposed merge

Don't know whether this request should go on the project page or the talk page, but since there's been more recent activity here, I'm editing here.

• see Talk:Cities of ancient Egypt help requested to resolve whether and how to merge two lists. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't our articles on Egyptian chronology mention high, low and medium chronologies?

Raised by an editor at Talk:Egyptian chronology#The terms High, Low, Middle Chronologies not mentioned. Nor does Conventional Egyptian chronology although what it calls a reference "The dates of Dynasties 11 to 20 are from Kitchen, "The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age", in Astrom (ed) High, Middle or Low (Gothengurg, 1987), taking his low chronology." does. However, all is not lost, Egyptian chronology does mention a number of fringe/alternative chronologies instead of mentioning the high, medium and low chronologies. So Velikovksy does get a word in. But someone reading Amenhotep II where it gives high and low chronology dates has no way on Wikipedia of knowing what this refers to. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason that article doesn't mention the terms "High, Low, Middle Chronologies" is quite simple: what I originally wrote was a rough draft, touching upon only a few of the more important points about the subject, & offered in hope others would come along & not only flesh out what I wrote but strengthen it with a lot more details & cites. My intent in writing what's there was to explain how the chronology was arrived at, which is a fascinating story, however one not explained in a single or a few sources. Excuse the following paragraph as I ramble a little about this history.

Until the 19th century, ancient Egyptian chronology was based on a combination of what survived of Manetho's book as modified by Christian chronologers like Sextus Julius Africanus & Rufinus of Aquileia; in that century, archeologists recovered primary documents from both Egypt & the Near East which clearly showed errors & omissions in the older chronology -- yet provided no one source that offered a correct chronology back to the beginnings. The first major solution offered was Eduard Meyer's Sothic cycle, which offered to anchor several key points in Egyptian history, & its simplicity & elegance convinced a consensus of Egyptologists through most of the 20th Century. In the last few decades, however, important problems were acknowledged with the Sothic cycle: namely, its most important anchor -- the absolute date provided in Censorinus -- was not reliable, & thus the cycle actually tethered nothing. Fortunately by that time, enough piecemeal work on the myriad sources had been completed that in general the Conventional ancient Egyptian chronology is solid, but many details are still hotly debated by experts. Trying to explain all of this concisely & without inadvertently violating WP:NPOV was as far as I took my draft; describing important things like "High, Low, Middle Chronologies" was something I left for others after me to do.

From my attempt to understand this history of, & the rationales for, the conventional chronology, I have formed the opinion that it badly needs a thorough revising, much as any 100-year-old structure that has been remodeled or added to needs a thorough renovation. A lot of Egyptologists simply accept on faith various points of the conventional chronology, some of which have been shown to be erroneous; they make this mistake not out of some conspiracy theory, but simply because there is no single authority they can consult. It would be a very good thing if some Egyptologist did write that reference work, but I doubt it will happen: Egyptology is an underfunded field, & there is more fund money (& better prospect for tenure) excavating & reporting on tombs & habitation sites than sifting thru decades of specialized journals & thousands of primary sources (most fragmentary &/or unpublished), then trying to integrate all of this into a coherent account. Doing that would be the labor of at least one lifetime!

That is why the article currently needs more work. And considering that there were a lot of other subjects Wikipedia covers that needed more attention -- for example, only a handful of articles on Ethiopia had been written at the time -- I left it there & moved on. And since I'm no longer contributing to Wikipedia in a significant way, I won't be coming back to pick up where I left off. Sorry. --llywrch (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this response - which makes a lot of sense. Is it worth putting on the two relevant talk pages? Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Kingdom of Makuria for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Khaybat, another deity appearing from nowhere

In December, Moosch11 created an article on a goddess called Khaybat, a supposed sister and/or wife of Anubis. The one source that supported Khaybat's existence was this brief description supposedly written by "Thomas Walker, Egyptology student". That site says "Khaybat is a fairly inknown deity becuase reference to her was only found in tombs during the late 90's", but the Khaybat article is illustrated with an image from the tomb of Nefertari, which has been open for a century. The image's description, also by Moosch11, says it depicts Khaybat (instead of Anubis, who I always assumed it was)—but how could anyone know it's Khaybat if no written mention of her was found before the nineties?

I asked Moosch11 to supply more sources but received no response. In January an IP editor added some references to the article, but they aren't any help. One is to the German version of The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, but that reference only supports a sentence that isn't directly related to Khaybat. Another source is Egyptianmyths.net, which also says nothing about Khaybat and is used to support synthesis that assumes Khaybat is the daughter of Set and Nephthys. Finally, there's a reference to a Google books preview of a modern reprint of Religion of Ancient Egypt by Flinders Petrie, which refers to khaybat as a component of a human being like the ba or the ka, not as a deity.

Now, we have an IP editor (81.98.208.128) and a new account (Mikerose3876385g) adding references to Khaybat to articles on real Egyptian deities. I'm going to put notes on these users' talk pages, but I would like some help in dealing with the wider issue. I doubt that Khaybat is a genuine deity; the situation is rather reminiscent of "Kapi" a couple of years ago. Unless solid sources can be found to support the existence of Khaybat, I think the article should be deleted and mention of Khaybat should be removed from other articles. What do others think? A. Parrot (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is a faux!!!! There is no such deity as "Khaybat"! Wilkinsons never refers a "Khaybat" to an "nearly unknown deity", he refers a "Khaybit(y)" to one of the fife holy essences of the human life: the shadow! Khaj bitj = "Appearance of the bee". It is correct, that Anubis had a wife in New Kindom papyri, but she is never mentionened by name. He also had a daughter called Qebeh-khet ("she with the cooling body"). Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Do you have a source that says Anubis' wife is never named? It's looking less and less likely that Khaybat is a real deity, but there are a lot of obscure deities with strange names (like the goddess Hapetnebes, "she who hides her lord", who sounds like Abydos' equivalent of Meretseger and whom I might never have heard of if I hadn't obtained David O'Connor's book about Abydos). I'll probably nominate the article for deletion tomorrow if no sources turn up. A. Parrot (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The eighth book listed here seems to state clearly that Anubis's wife is never named. FWIW, I have got access to quite a few, actually rather a frightening number, of reference books relating to all sorts of mythology, including Egyptian, and will try to develop a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/Encyclopedic articles for this project in the next few months. That might help a little. But those lists take at least days to make each, and there are quite a few which I created already which need a bit of work to bring up to the level of more recent ones, so there might not be any such list created anytime soon. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have never heard of such a deity. Unless there is a WP:RS for it, I assume that it is a hoax. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have consulted any vast encyclopedia about deities and demons in English, German and Netherland... nothing. This goddess does not extist. The only similiar word to that name is "Khaj-bit(j)" (s.a.). It's denifitively a hoax. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. Glad that's settled. I've put that article up for speedy deletion as a hoax, and I've removed mention of Khaybat from other articles. A. Parrot (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not settled yet. I suppose I was overzealous in using the speedy deletion tag, as it's not an obvious hoax. Somebody removed the tag, pointing that issue out. Because it was a new account who had found the Khaybat article suspiciously quickly, I rather doubted this user would allow a proposed deletion tag to run its course. So now I've opened an Articles for Deletion discussion: WP:Articles for deletion/Khaybat. Please comment there. A. Parrot (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked up one of the sources, Petrie's Religion of Ancient Egypt, and found he does make reference to a Khaybat on page 92, but not as a goddess, but as a part of man's soul, alongside the ka and ba and a number of other terms. I am not entirely sure what to make of that. Thanatosimii (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And it looks like you already caught that well before me. Goodness I'm tired right now. Thanatosimii (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I gonna write an article about the real Khaybit. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, we already have ancient Egyptian concept of the soul, which covers the ka, ba, name, shadow, et cetera. So whatever you write about the khaybit probably belongs there. A. Parrot (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Human–goat sexual intercourse - deletion discussion ongoing

• Human–goat sexual intercourse

Deletion discussion ongoing about whether or not this article page should exist.

Please see deletion discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human–goat sexual intercourse, if you wish to voice your opinion. — Cirt (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wadi al-Jarf

If anybody would like to help out at Wadi al-Jarf, an 4th Dynasty port on the Red Sea coast that has hit the lay media, please do. There are links to the articles in the stub, which are open source at least for now. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Predynastic or Prehistoric

I've raised the question on Talk:Prehistoric Egypt why the page on the Predynastic Period isn't titled as such. Thanatosimii (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Lector priest and kerheb are duplicate articles, and I've proposed merging them. Please discuss at Talk:Lector priest. If nobody shows up in a month or so, I'll go ahead and merge. A. Parrot (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Need a hand

Well I have been classifying the Unassessed Ancient Egypt articles and I have done about 20 of them but there are still 262 and I would like to tell everyone about it because I probably won't be able to do all of these articles and in order to get them done quickly, more people need to help out. You can see the articles here. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done a few. I may do more every once in a while. Really, though, I don't see assessment as a critical task. I tend to lump articles into two categories: those that seriously need work and those few that don't. If an article hasn't received enough attention for somebody to rate it, it almost certainly needs work. A. Parrot (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, all I need is a few. But the way I look at it is if it is unclassified, then it hasn't been looked at in a long time and so needs help anyway. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Subpages of Gardiner's sign list

Like list of hieroglyphs/A, list of hieroglyphs/B, and so on. A new user has pointed out that they have a lot of incoherent text. I traced the source of the near-gibberish to List of hieroglyphs/german-Gardiner-list-translated, a poor translation of a German Wikipedia page that should have been scrapped years ago. Anyone who wants to help with this mess (or just help deciding how to clean it up), please comment at Talk:Gardiner's sign list. A. Parrot (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that Library of Alexandria, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 07:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Template:Ancient Egyptian religion

I've reverted an attempt to have Template:Ancient Egyptian religion titled Ancient Egyptian Religion and Kemetism - Kemetism is already in the template as an ensuing religion and it's obviously inappropriate to put it in the title. I also removed some piping that changed the spelling of names - if anyone thinks an article title is wrong, they need to change the article title first. Eg if someone thinks 'Hapi' should be spelled differently, get agreement at the article first for the change. Eyes on this template and the footer version (and Kemetism would be helpful. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Royal Women Titulary in Ancient Egypt

I've nominated Royal Women Titulary in Ancient Egypt for deletion. The discussion is at WP:Articles for deletion/Royal Women Titulary in Ancient Egypt; please comment there. A. Parrot (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeking input on Schwaller de Lubicz

Can anyone with a bit of time please come to Talk Schwaller de Lubicz and participate in the discussion there about whether or not he should be called an egyptologist. Thanks. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Numbers or words in describing dynasties

Eg Twenty-sixth or 26th? See [15]. My view is that it should be as the article titles. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I have a mild preference for writing out the words, and when I mention a topic in an article, I generally follow the spelling and style of the title of the article on that topic. I recently reverted a change to Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt, where it seemed especially odd to write in numbers when the title is all words.

But "18th dynasty" and the like are very common in Egyptological writing, as is "Dynasty 18". I'm not sure which style is more widely used. Even Roman numerals show up sometimes (like "Dynasty XVIII"). I don't know whether the Manual of Style says anything pertinent to this issue, either. Usually it's not the sort of thing I take a position on. A. Parrot (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling

The Egyptian state was formed prior to the existence of verifiable historical records. Conventional dates for its formation are based on the relative ordering of artefacts. This approach is no longer considered sufficient for cogent historical analysis. Here, we produce an absolute chronology for Early Egypt by combining radiocarbon and archaeological evidence within a Bayesian paradigm. Our data cover the full trajectory of Egyptian state formation and indicate that the process occurred more rapidly than previously thought. We provide a timeline for the First Dynasty of Egypt of generational-scale resolution that concurs with prevailing archaeological analysis and produce a chronometric date for the foundation of Egypt that distinguishes between historical estimates. [16]

See also [17]. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, following Bietak, radio-carbon dates are patently up to a century and a half off during the 2nd intermediate period, so I trust their results about as far as I can throw them. Thanatosimii (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a response! The full paper is available here. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed the German article on Egyptian chronology - worth using Chrome or something that will let you read the full translation.[18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 08:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Major blunder

Hello everyone, I just noticed a major problem with the identification of Sobekhotep I and II. Recently, the tomb of Sobekhotep I was discovered in Abydos, however, the archeologists are actually referring to Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep and not Khaankhre Sobekhotep. This is a big problem because on wikipedia the article Sobekhotep I points to Khaankhre Sobekhotep whom the archeologist would refer to as Sobekhotep II. The problem is further obscured by the fact that the dynastic position of Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep is debated, with some egyptologists seeing him as the founder of the 13th dynasty and others believing it was Wegaf. In the latter case, Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep would be Sobekhotep II and Khaankhre Sobekhotep I. In any case, the mistake here is terrible because I and others have been editing the article Sobekhotep I with the discovery of the tomb when the rest of the article talk about Khaankhre Sobekhotep, who, regardless of the position of Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep in the dynasty, is not the owner of the tomb. I should add that if we do not do this, people from all over the web who heard about the discovery of the tomb will type "Sobekhotep I" and end up on the page of Khaankhre Sobekhotep when archeologists talk about Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep. Thus it is urgent to do something, and to avoid problems of who is I and II, we should just name the articles "Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep" and "Khaankhre Sobekhotep". I have Ryholt's book, Baker's book and the Petrie Museum website confirming this blunder. I do not know how to change an article title, so please help me! Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! This is indeed a big problem, since there are at least nine(!) pharaohs namend "Sebek-Hetep". The Ancient Egyptians didn't count their kings, they devided them by their mere different birth names (which is visible in the cartouches of rammeside kinglists). My German sources (such as Beckerath and Schneider) identify Sebek-Hetep Khaj-Ankh-Rê as Sebekhetep I. and Sebek-Hetep Sekhem-Rê-Khu-tawy as Sebekhetep II. Unfortunately, the article of Kemet gives no further details. --Nephiliskos (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the press is clear that the tomb owner is Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep (even though they call him Sobekhotep I) as the minister of antiquity said the owner was the founder of the dynasty, which is only possible for Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep. Thus I think the best is to rename the article "Sobekhotep II" to Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep and "Sobekhotep I" to Khaankhre Sobekhotep. In the article we can discuss the various hypotheses as to who is I or II but only Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep is the owner of the tomb, regardless of wether he is the founder of the dynasty or not. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Many pharaohs missing categories for birth and death years

While I realize we are often not sure about exact year, it gets better with decade/century/millennium. Here's what I mean - if someone would like to look at the existing articles and add those categories (plus, some brackets in lead) it would be a nice addition to many articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Berlin Papyrus

I think there is from a long time a confusion between two Berlin Papyrus, a medical one, and a mathematical one. I never read (on books on history of egyptian mathematics) that the mathematical one contains medical knowledge (except this article http://planetmath.org/BerlinPapyrusAndSecondDegreeEquations which seems not to be reliable), original description by Schack-Schackenburg can be read online. I created the disambiguation page. There are some cleaning to do (see Talk:Berlin_Papyrus). I does not think I miss something, but I will appreciate if you confirm reaching the same conclusion, because I am not at all specialist of these things. Proz (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I found a confirmation (see talk:Berlin Papyrus). Proz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Article Ancient Egyptian royal titulary

Hi there! I wanna discuss the content of this article. I really hate to say it this rough way, but... the article is nothing but a loveless and totally unreferenced trash heap. A catastrophe! I personally see two ways to save that article:

• Delete. Every single royal title of Ancient Egypt has a long tradition and experienced lots of changes and developements. The current article tells most probably false stuff (since there are no senseful references, this couldn't be checked anyway) and lacks TONS of informations for every single title.

• Alternatively, A short, but very well referenced overview article could be written, explaining the titles as a unit und its changes and extensions through time. The article would list shortly the royal titles and every title for itself would have its own article.

What do you think, dear colleagues? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I know how you feel, Nephiliskos; most of the articles I'm deeply interested in are unreferenced trash heaps. But I'm not enthused about either of these options. The titulary should be covered in detail somewhere, so I don't favor deletion, but I think it's generally preferable to cover a subject in one place if possible, so I don't favor creating five new articles. I don't know a lot of the detail about the form and evolution of the titles, so it's possible that full coverage of each title would require more text than any one article should contain. As it is right now, though, the titulary article is a long way from being too big.

When I get fed up with a bad article that I can't rewrite anytime soon, I strip out all the misinformation, even if it ends up being really short, because short and correct is better than long and wrong. So if you can tell which parts of the titulary article are inaccurate, I suggest simply removing those parts. (I don't see anything there that I recognize as inaccurate, but as I said I'm not very knowledgeable on the topic.) If you have better sources, use them. If not, that's a problem, but just leave it in a stripped-down state until you have them. I can help a little, because I own two of the books that are listed as references in the article (Allen 1999 and Shaw 2012).

A few days ago I added a very promising source to the "Further reading" section of the titulary article: The Great Name: Ancient Egyptian Royal Titulary (2013), by Ronald J. Leprohon. You may have difficulty obtaining it in Germany, and my library system doesn't accept interlibrary loan requests for books that were published that recently. But I'm sure it would be very useful for an eventual rewrite. A. Parrot (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Parrot. ;o) Ummm, to be honest: ALL informations in the current article should be erased. ANY unreferenced stuff is in my humble opinion unbearable for a project that claims itself to be at encyclopedic niveau. And next to all books named in the article lack their note of site numbers. If at least these were still in, one could quickly check out, which information were taken from which site. But in this state... Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I know at least some of this stuff can be cited to Allen and Shaw. Let me check the article against my sources to see what I can supply a source and page number for. I have real-life responsibilities today, but I may be able to do the check this evening. A. Parrot (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• It would be good to add sources to this article but I have to work in real life too and my specialty is not in ancient Egyptian titulary. I just know the basic nomen and prenomen. Thank You for the invitation Nephiliskos. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Right the article is bad and lack references, but we must absolutely keep it: virtually all pages on pharaohs link to it and as a result about 2700 people visited it just last month. This shows that the article addresses an important subject. Rather than delete it, we should simply work on making it better. We all have have our pet projects on wikipedia, well from time to time we should do the chores... Iry-Hor (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Then simply lemme do that work-over. I got tons of the right literature in German, French and English. Especially about the origin, changing meaning and religious-political function of each title. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And I would be glad to check the English and provide illustrations. Foe example, the vase of Semerkhet is, I believe, the earliest known use of the two Ladies title. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hieroglyphics warning template?

http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U13000.pdf

Seems like we need a template like

{{Contains Japanese text}}

{{contains Cyrillic text}}

To inform people that those question marks / boxes are not vandalism if we use Unicode codepoints to encode the Egyptian hieroglyphs, and that people need to install additional fonts. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Most hieroglyphs encoded into Wikipedia pages are rendered with WikiHiero. WikiHiero has kinks, but as I understand it, it renders more reliably in browsers than Unicode's partially supported hieroglyph characters. There is another issue, with the alef, ayin, and yod characters that are used in transliterating Egyptian. I use j instead of yod (because German Egyptologists, and a few English-speaking scholars, use it), alef is often replaced with 3, and ayin can be replaced with ˤ. I'd rather use the more traditional symbols, at least in the case of alef and ayin. But people have complained before about the inconvenience to the reader of using those symbols without providing a link that explains what the characters are and how the reader can add them to a browser.

If you want to create a template for hieroglyphs, it should probably link to Help:Special characters#Egyptian Hieroglyphs, which explains a little about WikiHiero and Unicode support for hieroglyphs. I don't know of any help page that explains the transliteration signs. If I knew how to obtain the transliteration characters, we could add information about them to the Egyptian Hieroglyphs section of the Special Characters page and use the template for both purposes—but I don't fully understand how all that stuff works. A. Parrot (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

So I have created a draft. Draft:Template:Contains Egyptian Hieroglyphic text Look good? -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I just wish I knew what to add to the Special Characters page about alef and ayin. A. Parrot (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

{{Contains Egyptian Hieroglyphic text}} is now live -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice template, but I sincerely hope it will be redundant and useless. Unicode is just not suitable for the hieroglyphs. The script was never meant to be written in such a linear fashion that Unicode forces us to do, the result being that it just looks plain wrong and ugly. IMO WikiHiero does the work just fine and should be used whenever possible.WANAX (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I didn't think about how the grouping of hieroglyphs would interact with Unicode. Yes, WikiHiero is better. Incidentally, WANAX, do you have any idea what to do about alef and ayin? (Sorry I keep harping on this, but I really don't like writing "3" when I mean "glottal stop".) A. Parrot (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally would much prefer if there was a policy to use the Manuel de Codage system over the traditional transliteration i.e. mAat for mȝˁt (or m3't or whatever characters various articles now use for transliteration). Ease of use being a big positive of that system plus that would standardize the transliterations which are at the moment all over the place. Would be no more such problems as you are now concerned about. That's just my opinion, sorry can't be of any more help.WANAX (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Unicode is used on Wiktionary for some ISO639:egy terms, and should we link to Wiktionary, it can include a unicoded variant. Some of the terms written with hieroglyphs on Wikipedia are just short strings of characters, without cartouches or other non-linear elements, so would be appropriate using unicode. And any article on particular hieroglyphic characters would also be suitable for having unicode. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Category request: Category: Egyptian hieroglyphics templates

Articles which are already in this category:

Example articles which belong to this category:

• Template:Infobox hieroglyphs
• Template:Hiero
• Template:Hiero/Serech
• Template:Hiero/serekh
• Template:Hiero/cartouche
• Template:Hiero/1cartouche
• Template:Hiero/2cartouche
• Template:Hiero/3name
• Template:Hiero/5Fold
• Template:User Egyp-1

Parent category/categories:

• Category: Egyptian hieroglyphs
• Category: Writing system templates

-- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone think this is a good idea? If you do, could you make the category, and I'll categorize the pages into it. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. A. Parrot (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Scorpion papyrus

I happened upon this article recently. I'd never heard of the texts it describes before. One of the source citations (to Richard Wilkinson's Complete Gods and Goddesses) was obviously wrong, and one to the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt may be wrong as well (I don't have the book at the moment, but I can't find mention of these texts by searching the Google Books preview or looking at the relevant index page). I can't find anything at the Berlin Museum links about these papyri, although of course I'm hampered by my inability to read German. And finally, the article says the papyri may be the oldest religious texts in the world, whereas Egyptologists always say that about the Pyramid Texts, whose earliest known copy is a few centuries later than the Second Dynasty. In sum, I'm concerned that this article is a hoax. Can anybody confirm the existence of these papyri? A. Parrot (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a frisky fake. There is no such thing as a 2nd dynasty papyrus imprinted with hieroglyphs. The actually oldest papyrus with hieroglyphs dates back to the time of inthronization of king Khufu. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I see it's mentioned in our article on Adolf Erman as something he studied. I can't confirm this or the existence of this papyrus, but I guess it could have another name. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The article's author, User:Wolf lupeson, hasn't edited in a year and a half. I left a note at the user talk page, but I doubt there will be any response. That editor created another AfC submission that was abandoned and subsequently deleted, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Egyptian Legend of the "Dark Family". Doug, could you see what the content of the submission was? Its title doesn't sound like anything I know of from Egyptian tradition, so I wonder if it was a hoax as well. I'd be more comfortable proposing this article for deletion if there's confirmation that its author created hoax articles. A. Parrot (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I got some Literature by Ermann, Verena Lepper and Fritz Krebs. Erman studied papyri such as the infamous Westcar, some medical papyri (such as Berlin 3027 and Berlin 3043) and a papyrus about some trials against robbers. But nne of these fit to the fairy tale written in besaid article. Once again: There is no such thing as a 2nd dynasty papyrus with texts. --Nephiliskos (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel fairly certain now that it's made up. But before proposing it for deletion I want to wait just a little bit, to see if the article's creator responds, and to see what Dougweller says to my question above. A. Parrot (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I can only tell what my literature provides. The only papyri talkin' about scorpions are the medical papyri. But NONE of them, really NONE talks about king Scorpion II. And already the claim that the papyrus was destroyed in WW2, should have let anyone's alert clock ring! --Nephiliskos (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've proposed the article for deletion. I think it must be a sort of pastiche of Wikipedia's ancient Egypt articles. It claims that "the extant writings are very similar in composition to the Biblical Book of Psalms", which is reminiscent of a claim made about the Great Hymn to the Aten. The citation to the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt refers to page 480, which is the chronological table that I cited when trying to standardize the dates in our ancient Egypt articles. The article's note about the Kesh temple hymn is copied from an old version of the Pyramid Texts article. The Wilkinson 2003 citation points to the book's first page of actual content, which has nothing to do with the claims in the Scorpion papyrus article. And the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica template can be found all over the neglected corners of WP, so it could have been copied from anywhere. Besides, it's hard to imagine that neither Nephiliskos or I would have heard of these papyri if they existed. Egyptologists used to talk a lot about the Memphite Theology when it was thought to date to the Old Kingdom, because if it were that old it would be very important for understanding Old Kingdom religious beliefs. And if it sounded like the Psalms, we'd never hear the end of it! A. Parrot (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Egyptian legends of the Dark Family

Some excerpts: The story of the “Family of Darkness” (Familie der Dunkelheit), refers to a high priest and his priestess daughters that supposedly lived in pre-dynastic Egypt. Based on fragments of the legend that was reconstructed from the “Abydos fragments”, a group of incomplete papyri found in an early mustaba tomb near Abydos in the mid-19th century. The story is also referenced in The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, when the goddess Nyx is discussed by stating: "NYX is often associated with NUIT, the Egyptian goddess of the night sky and mother of SET. According to the Orphics (Argon. 14) she was "Of the gods that that brought about the immortality of the priest Sethirkopshef and his priestess daughters with Sekhmet (The Dark Mother), Anubis, Nepthys, and Set". She is further said, without any husband, to have given birth to Moros, the Keres, Thanatos, Hypnos, Dreams, Momus, Oizys, the Hesperides, Moerae, Nemesis, and similar beings. (Hes. Theog. 211, &c.; Cic. de Nat. Deor. iii. 17.)"

The following is utterance 162 of the Abydos fragments: Here is the family of darkness, The breakers of the laws of the gods. He was a priest in the town of Abdju, (Abydos) He was called "Set is his strength". He and his daughters were attacked by the Vizier of the King and his men. They destroyed the family in the way of the Khasfik (translation unknown). The followers of the vizier were killed during the night because the gods were angry. The Gods made the father live forever for their own reasons. He became immortal and the lady of the night sky loved him. He had sex with his daughters like a man has sex with his wife, And this made the daughters dirty in the sight of priesthood. The daughters were called: First born, Beautiful strong victorious, She is Without Equal, Bad Little One, Beauty of “Sekhmet”, Her Soul is Beautiful, Wanting, Without Price, Loved, Daughter of “Sekhmet”, Loved by Seth, Lover of the destroyer And they had to walk through the country Not knowing real death, They would be born all over again to new mothers. Until the two countries no longer exist, And then they will journey in the darkness with him until the end of the universe when the stars become dark Living and dying endlessly Until time ends.

Hier ist die Familie der Dunkelheit, Die Brecher der Gesetze der Götter. Er war ein Priester in der Stadt von Abdju, (Abydos) Er hieß "Seth ist seine Stärke". Er und seine Töchter wurden von der Wesir des Königs und seinen Männern angegriffen. Sie zerstört die Familie im Wege der Khasfik (Übersetzung unbekannt). Die Männer von den Wesir wurden während der Nacht durch den Zorn der Götter getötet. Die Götter machte den Vater ewigen aus ihren eigenen Gründen. Wurde er unsterblich, und die Dame des Nachthimmels liebte ihn. Er hatte Sex mit seinen Töchtern, wie ein Mann mit seiner Frau Sex hat, Und das machte die Töchter verschmutzt. Die Töchter wurden genannt: Erste geboren, Schöne starke siegreich, Sie ist sehr gut, Böse wenig ein, Schönheit der "Sekhmet", Die Seele ist schön, Wunsch, Unbezahlbar, Ihr lieben, Tochter von "Sekhmet", Von Seth geliebt, Herrin des Zerstörers Und sie würden Fuß durch das Land Nicht wissend, echte Tod, Sie würden neue Müttern geboren werden. Bis die zwei Länder nicht mehr vorhanden, Und dann werden sie die äußere Finsternis mit ihm bis zum Ende des Universums Reisen, wenn die Sterne dunkel geworden Leben und sterben ohne Ende Bis zum Ende der Zeit.

Lichtheim, Manfried (1875). Alte ägyptische Literatur, vol 2. (Sarg-Texte ) Verlag Kimmel und Swieger, Berlin, Unter den Linden 84

Transcriptions of Scorpion Papyrus , Aegyptisches Institut Universität Leipzig Germany

The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, Boston 1849, William Smith Editor.

Ok? Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dougweller. Pretty good translation!^^ I'm impressed. Some little grammatics, but really good. But one question: How does this help us with the obviously fake article (see above)? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I think this is a fake, too. The earliest AE stories were written in the Middle Kingdom, and none would have been found in "early mastabas". And any text from that early on that said "until the two countries no longer exist, And then they will journey in the darkness with him until the end of the universe when the stars become dark Living and dying endlessly until time ends" would have been mentioned by my sources on mythology—it would be by far the earliest source for an eschatological concept in Egyptian thought, for which the primary evidence is one vague Coffin Texts spell and one Book of the Dead spell. Also, I checked an online version of the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, and searching for "Nyx" I didn't come up with anything like the passage quoted above. A. Parrot (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's absolutely my thought, too. Both hoaxes should be deleted ASAP. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Article List of Egyptian pyramids

I have cleanswept and corrected besaid article and I hope everybody enjoys. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Emblem of the East and West etc.

The title emblem of the East seems a little odd, the only Google Book hit is related to bamboo. An alternative "hieroglyph for East" gets 8 hits. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't see anything odd about calling them emblems, but I took a quick glance at some of the Egyptian grammars to see what the different authors call this sign and the results are: 1. Allen calls it "spear emblem" 2. Ockinga: "spear standard" 3. Mueller: "spear decked out as standard" 4. Hoch: "ornamented spear (Emblem of the East) 5. Englund: "spear decked out as standard, emblem of the East". --WANAX (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone want to join us in London on the 8th March?

The Petrie Museum has invited WMUK in to train some of their people on the 8th March, and they've just told me they have some spare places for any of you who can get to London. There is also a talkpage for any questions or special requests that you want to put to a Petrie museum curator. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Army of the Pharaohs

I just noticed this, it doesn't have a hatnote either. Should we consider the ancient Egyptian military the primary topic, or the hiphop band, and where should a hatnote point to? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"Army of the Pharaohs" isn't a typical way of referring to the ancient Egyptian military. I've seen phrases like "armies of Pharaoh" on occasion, but not often. I'd say just put a hatnote on the hip-hop article, pointing to military of ancient Egypt. A. Parrot (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Prehistory section of Nubia

If anyone knows about this subject, could they check Nubia#Prehistory? Eg claims such as "Civilization originated in 5000 BC in Upper Nubia." Ta-Seti could also use some work. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgeable about Nubia. The claim that "civilization originated in 5000 BC in Upper Nubia" is simply too vague. "Civilization" can mean anything from "a society with settled villages" (which, based on the prehistoric Egypt page, may have been present in Egypt as far back as 6000 BC and need not have been any later in Nubia) to "a society with writing" (not true anywhere in 5000 BC). And that section shows the obvious scars of a POV battle over the Qustul burner, with sentences contradicting each other. Archaeologists are paying increasing attention to Nubia these days, so their perspective on Nubia may be changing rapidly. Pretty recent sources will be needed to get a handle on the current state of scholarship. And I don't have them. I did delete the "civilization" claim, though. A. Parrot (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a hint: Maria Gatto is one of the leading scholars of prehistoric Nubia at the moment and much of her work is freely available at academia.edu. Reading some of her papers might be a could starting point for someone who is interested in cleaning up the mess (not me).--WANAX (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean this person? (It took me a try or two to find her; just making it easier for the next person.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the correct person.--WANAX (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

New category on reportedly haunted locations

Editors might want to be aware of Category:Reportedly haunted locations in Egypt. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't categories need to be supported by the article text? I don't see anything about hauntings in either of the articles in that category. The Baron Empain Palace is supposedly haunted (Empain's wife and daughter both died there), but I don't even know what the categorizer had in mind when tagging Farafra. A. Parrot (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

See the discussions at WP:FTN and WP:RSN. He's arguing that they don't, that something in another article, ie List of reportedly haunted locations can be sourced there and doesn't have to be mentioned or sourced in the article with the category. This is I think nonsense and in any cases a lot of the sources are dreadful. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well you can't really expect an accurate scientific report about a place being haunted. The sources are clearly going to be crackpot stuff. I personally think this category ought not to exist at all. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

+1. There is really NO credible report about any Egyptian place said to be haunted, not even the Khufu-pyramid. I searched a little through popular and pseudoscientific literature and found nothing. Thus, I see neither a base nor any use of such an category. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments requested

Just found WP:FTN#Claims of medieval Muslim decipherment of hieroglyphs. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Indestructibles

FYI, there's a notice at WT:ASTRONOMY about this article on Ancient Egypt. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

New article Ancient Egypt (magazine)

Is this magazine notable enough for an article? Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Need a new article on Amenemheb

I ran into this change of spelling from Amenemheb to Amenehet[19] and realised we probably need an article on this military commander. Amenemheb is sometimes called Amenemheb-Mahu, at other times "Amenehmheb" also called Mahu, so I'm not sure of the correct article title - other Egyptians with the same name are mentioned in some of our articles [20]. At List of Theban tombs he is called "Prince, Royal Registrar" but I don't know where that comes from (well, I know its cited, but that's not what current sources say). A very good source is [21] downloadable here. Michael Rice discusses him here (do we use Rice?). Cline mentions him here and also see [22]Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Egyptology Scotland - being used for mini BLPs

Not sure this is notable enough for an article, but my main concern is that it is mainly mini-biographies and this seems inappropriate. It's also being edited by the current chair who is also an editor here and with whom I have been involved off-Wiki and on-Wiki in disputes over Egyptology and Pi. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't replied to your string of posts, Doug. I've been very busy, and the issues you've raised aren't the type of thing I'm good at addressing. I'm not very knowledgeable about notability standards, and I know nothing about Amenemheb. (Rice's book seems fairly well respected, though, and I don't see a reason not to use it unless something clearly superior is available to us.) As for Egyptology Scotland, I do think the article should be about the organization itself, and the biographies should be reduced or eliminated. Note that the "about us" page on Egyptology Scotland's website is closely similar to the text of the WP article. Parts of the article date back to 2006, and the Wayback Machine didn't crawl the website at any time earlier than December 2013, so it's possible they copied from us and not the other way around. A. Parrot (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, A. Parrot. I appreciate busy and realise that some of my issues aren't yours. Any chance you could tidy up this article though as I'd rather not be the one to do it? At least so far as the bios go? I don't think I should do it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I turned the first section into an introduction and eliminated the miniature biographies. I replaced them with a simple bulleted list of current members in leadership positions, based on the website page. Before my edit, the article had sections on people who had previously served as chairpersons of the organization. I thought about listing those former chairs, too, but I decided not to because I couldn't figure out who held the position when. Somebody may complain, of course. If so, I advise him or her to find independent sources that can provide more thorough coverage of the organization—or for separate biographies of some of its members. A. Parrot (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, looks much better. Minor niggle, we try to avoid 'current', I may change it to the year. Or just have Leadership as the section heading, years beside names. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

New Minister of State for Antiquities

Seems to be Mamdouh Eldamaty - he didn't have an article so I had one imported from simple wiki. I haven't updated it yet, needs work. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that Anubis, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Khaba

Hey, would someone mind reviewing this for GA? It's the oldest in its section at WP:GAN by over a month. I can't do so, as I could be considered a major contributor (I copyedited it way back when). It's not fair to Nephiliskos, I don't think. Tezero (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never done a GA review, and I don't have a lot of confidence in my reviewing skills, so I'm reluctant. But I'm much more comfortable with something Egyptological like this, and the article's fairly short. I may be able to do it in the next few days. A. Parrot (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Praenomen Ramesses II

I've posted a question for feedback on the talk page of Ramesses II, here, any input would be great as my knowledge of the subject isn't great:

In the infobox, the translation of Ramesses's prenomen is given as 'The justice of Rê is powerful – chosen of Rê', but in the last paragraph of the lead it is given as 'Ra's mighty truth, chosen of Ra'. Which one is correct? I can see how they've vaguely connected and both could be considered correct, but for the sake of continuity we should chose one.

Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Isis

There is a discussion at Talk:Isis as to whether the article should be a redirect to Isis (disambiguation). Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Tohuwabohou with Egyptian transcriptions and translations in en.Wikipedia

Hi everyone. Well, my German buddies of the Egypt Portal point to an confusing problem visible within our pharaoh boxes. As far as I know, terms such as "Nebti" (The name of the Two-Ladies-Crest) and "Bitj" are normally transcripted here as "Nebty" and Bity", right? How comes, that our boxes are so inconsistent about that??? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about transcriptions in the boxes in individual articles? I don't work with pharaoh infoboxes, so I don't know the details of that situation. Transcription systems do vary in English-speaking Egyptology, and as far as I know, English Wikipedia editors have never tried to standardize a system for our articles. When I'm working on an article without an established system, I use the system from James P. Allen's book Middle Egyptian, which differs from a lot of Anglophone systems; it uses nbtj instead of nbty or nbtı͗. (See Transliteration of Ancient Egyptian#Table of conventional transliteration schemes for a detailed comparison.) Do you think we should establish a standard? A. Parrot (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The inner core of this riddle is the mix-up between transcription and transliteration. Gosh, it's like so confusing! Yes, A. Parrot, I would totally appreciate it if we could work out standards together! Awesome! Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, transcription always does weird things, which is why I personally avoid it except when writing proper names or long-established terms of art like ka and maat. As for a transliteration system, I think it would be a rel pain to enforce across all ancient Egypt-related articles. I don't know what we would settle on, either. I prefer Allen's system, for no better reason than that I'm familiar with it, whereas User:WANAX suggested suggested several months ago (here) that Manuel de Codage would be better because it avoids characters that some people's browsers can't read. A. Parrot (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

To be honest: I, personally, think that there should be no transcription and transliteration in the boxes anyway. I mean, c'mon - who the fxxx reads it??? Whom does it help to understand the name of an pharaoh/deity/object??? This whole translit and transcript thing is something for geeks, nerds and bossy pants. But surely not for common readers, who scarcely know what hieroglyphics are. In my personal opinion it would be more than enough if the box shows the hieroglyphs, the common reading in latin letters and -if present- the translation. That's all. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I cannot disagree more with the above statement. It is absolutely necessary to record pharaoh's names in hieroglyphs with transliteration AND translation. I personnally read them all and I known people who like to read at least the translation of the names. We are writing an encylopedia not a leisure website about ancient Egypt. All information available has to be there (in a resumed form of course). I cannot care less if a majority of readers don't read this or that information about the pharaohs, again an encylopedia is not just about what most people want to see or not. It is a compendium of human knowledge. Otherwise, we better take down all pharaoh articles since the proportion of people interested in these pages is certainly an epsilon as compared to those wanting to read about facebook, Justin Bieber, or the episodes of Breaking Bad. It all has to be there, it must absolutely be kept. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

To keep the transcription - and transliteration stuff off the boxes would be surely better than presenting the reader such an tohuwabohou. That's what I meant. No reason to go havoc like that. If you read the textes at the top, you'll see that I favor the workout of an clear and strict concept to deal with that stuff. The above text has nothing to do with the result of an well organized workout, it was nothing but an personal thought. Gee, if I had known before that some authors here are that hysteric and explosive I'd have never come up eith that thread...--Nephiliskos (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least it taught me a new word. Tohu wa-bohu has not been adopted into English, but I know the term now. A. Parrot (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

My reply may appear passionate but it not explosive and even less hysteric. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to have at least a rudimentary MOS - maybe just for pharaohs as a start? 21:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

• I agree with Iry-hor's position. A translation and transliteration is needed with pharaoh's names. If a reader doesn't want to read the name they don't have to click on the Pharaohinfobox to view the hieroglyphic signs. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Should list of ancient Egyptian deities be included in the main ancient Egyptian deities article?

Please comment on this question at Talk:Ancient Egyptian deities#List of deities, again. A. Parrot (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Obelisk making technology in ancient Egypt

Just noticed a PROD on this. "It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Deletion criterion #6. No citations or attributions in six years." If people think this is worth saving, it just needs citations. Not sure about the title though. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

To be honest: delete it. It's so like redundant, this theme could be explained in the main article about obelisks as well. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait do you mean that the content of the article is already in the article about Obelisk or that it should be? because if it is the later then we might as well keep this article and add references. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A proposition regarding Template:Pharaohs

Hello everyone. I have noticed that Template:Pharaohs is not only very useful to naviguate between Egyptian rulers but also it attracts people on article of little known pharaohs by providing a direct link between them and better known rulers such as Ramses II or Akhenaten. I particularly like the chronological ordering of the king the template provides but this also creates serious problem for rulers with highly uncertain dynastic position, identity or even existence. I take for example Nubnefer, Horus Sa, Qahedjet, Bikheris, Wadjkare and many more. When placed in the template, these shadowy rulers, who may simply be an unidentified name of an already known king, makes the mainstream successions in certain dynasties difficult to perceive, see e.g. the 4th dynasty on the template. Thus:

• I propose that rulers with uncertain position, identity etc. be put in italic like this in the template, at the end of the dynasty if their position is completely unknown, and otherwise in place according to the opinion of a scholar but still in italic if it is debated.
• I propose to revert back female rulers to names with normal font and some symbol next to it. There are many more rulers that are difficult to place than female ones.

If not in italic then we need some sort of way to mark the difference of certainty between the position of, for example, Nubnefer and Khufu. Please tell me your opinion. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I agree to reverting back female rulers, or even to write their name in the same way of male rulers as they effectively were pharaohs in all respects. My concern is about the definition of uncertain: in a sense, many pharaohs of the Second Intermediate Period should be written in italic then, just think about Wepwawetemsaf (13th or 16th or Abydos Dynasty) or Senusret IV (13th or 16th or 17th Dynasty)... Khruner (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree that for the FIP and SIP many kings will show up as uncertain, but I thought that we need a way to signal the reader that the position of Qahedjet does not have the same value as that of say Seti I. I don't see what would be so bad about having many kings in italic. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I. The problem with boxes is that they make it really difficult to represent uncertainty. Italic text seems the least intrusive way of indicating it. A. Parrot (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: the main problem is, that the box entices the readers to think that the chronological positions of the kings of certain dynasties was secure. Especially following dynsties are highly problematic, though: the end of 1st dyn., the midst of 2nd dyn., the midst of 3rd dyn. and the intermediate periods. Now, how to make clear in this box, that certain chronological timespans are seen as problematic? One solution might be, to put a note inside the dynasty fields saying something like: the chronology from king Blah up to king Blubb is highly uncertain and disputed within Egyptology, or so... Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes but that's too long for a template whose only goal is to guide and distribute readers between pharaohs articles. Furthermore, some of the kings suffer from other problems than debated chronological position. For example, the existence of Qahedjet is in doubt, Wadjkare could be a name of Neferirkare II and many more. Then we would have to write something else for these cases. This would flood the template and hinder navigation from pharaoh to pharaoh. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Can the making of several smaller templates for each period be a way to preventing flood? For example, in a "Pharaohs of the New Kingdom" template we can provide the kings of the three dynasties, we have place for small notes, and a navigation bar below would allow to skip to other periods. Khruner (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a strong opinion about the female rulers, but I strongly recommend to delete Merneith from the list. She was ruling for her son, but never had formal royal titles. I agreed that many kings are problematic, I am sure that some rulers appear in the list twice, once with name X and once with name Y. After all it might be wise to put them in italic, while the female rulers are not treated in a special way (or we can put a female sign behind their names ....can't find it under symbols...) best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok so I am now updating the template. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

To Do List

At the top of the page appears the To Do List. This was based on some off-hand comments I made back in the early days of Wikipedia (i.e. 2005), & may no longer be applicable. I would not be offended if someone were to revise it & replace some or all of the suggestions with new & more relevant ones. -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I gathered as much, but I don't know what items I would add to the list in place of the old ones. Most of the articles we need already exist now, so it's mostly a matter of improving those we have. Chronology is still an issue, and I did once try to standardize it. But that didn't work so well, and, for reasons you have stated yourself, all the chronologies found in the sources seem to have visible defects. The most active project members right now all seem to have individual priorities: Nephiliskos and Iry-Hor mainly dealing with lesser-known pharaohs, me with my endless list of religion articles to rewrite, and Dougweller putting out fires lit by fringe theorists and copyright-violators. I commend their efforts, of course, but I don't know if there's any major project we're suited to collaborate on, given our rather different interests and expertise. A. Parrot (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you're right then there's no need to have that list at the top any more. Every time I happen on this page, I feel a little embarrassed to see my words up there. (Yes, I can be less arrogant than I might appear.)

As for chronology, may I suggest one strategy which you've already begun the first few steps? I've adopted it in rewriting the articles dealing with the Empire of Trebizond, & revising the list in Eponymous archon:

1. Identify a reliable general reference that is widely accepted, & revise all of the articles in accordance with that. In the case of the Trebizond Empire, that work was William Miller's 1926 history. There are a number of issues with it -- more recent research has not only expanded our knowledge, it has shown his account to have mistakes; his approach is primarily one of courts & battlefields, while contemporary historians look more at cultural & social evolution; Miller reveals a number of ethnic & cultural biases -- but it is the one that appears in the notes & bibliography time & again.
2. Sift thru the secondary literature, starting with works published since then. This is easy to do if you have access to something like JSTOR (which not only provides access to Journal of Near Eastern Studies & American Journal of Archeology, but to even specialized periodicals like Journal of Egyptian Archeology.) You won't find every work you need, but the relevant articles will contain leads to the ones you might want -- & help you get them thru ILL. And don't forget to look at persee.fr & at the German equivalent. If you can't read French or German, Bing has an online translation tool that will help you read most of what's in the original.

   In the case of the list of Athenian archons, there is no one general reference for all of them, from 681 BC to AD 484; there are some that cover parts of the list, & I have had to integrate secondary sources, contradictions & all, & trust that ignore all rules will help avoid inadvertent instances of original research. And besides, where the expert opinion is still in flux, a new article will doubtless be published & allow those passages to be revised away to my relief.

3. Never be afraid to resort to presenting differing opinions, or admit the existence of contradictions concerning a matter. Sometimes I sense that we Wikipedians expect only one version must be be the correct one, when even the experts are divided & forced to accept two or more possibilities as equally valid. (And I'll admit here that I've stumbled on new material that suggests the Sothic Cycle as a tool for dating events might, indeed, be viable.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone, although A. Parrot is right that we have differing interests and expertise, I think we can still work loosely together on some subjects. To start this, I propose that we add a list of desired articles / work-needed articles somewhere. I am also interested in updating the chronology and would be happy to participate to it. However there is a big difference with the Empire of Trebizon etc. since the Egyptian chronology covers over 3200 years very far back in time with all the uncertainties that this entails, and I am not talking about the intermediate Periods where educated-guesses seems to be the rule for egyptologists. For this reason I don't think that there is a widely accepted reference for the 3200 years time span and every existing chronology has its pitfalls. Even things that seem secure are not: e.g. the Sothic Cycle datations strongly depends on whether the observations were made in Memphis or Thebes, and egyptologists are still debating the two possibilities. Instead, I agree with the beginning of point 3) of Llywrch, we should include in articles on time periods (e.g. the Early Dynastic Period, the Old Kingdom etc.) the various possible datations as well as in article on pharaohs. Only then will we be able to update Egyptian chronology, which propose only 2 datations for now, some of which can already be ruled out due to more recent scholarship. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Some kind of "article wish list", maybe...? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are a few articles we still need. Our project suffers from a named topic bias; the articles we lack are mostly general topics without specific names. Economy of ancient Egypt, for example, is still red, though we do have ancient Egyptian trade. Then there are religious subjects I hope to tackle someday: ancient Egyptian afterlife beliefs (currently a redirect), priests in ancient Egypt, ritual in ancient Egypt, offerings in ancient Egypt, ancient Egyptian festivals, popular religion in ancient Egypt, animal cults in ancient Egypt, oracles in ancient Egypt, hymns in ancient Egypt, and possibly prayer in ancient Egypt (although, depending on how sources cover it, prayers might not need to be a separate subject from popular religion). Any other suggestions? A. Parrot (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating, the named topic bias. I had never noticed it but reading about it, it becomes obvious! Perhaps then we could have a State Development in Predynastic Egypt, which has tons and tons of sources, or Organization of the Ancient Egyptian State which could clarify the administrative relations between pharaohs, viziers, nomarchs, town governors, tax collectors, priests etc... Iry-Hor (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In the latter one we could perfectly describe and explain the hierarchy of Ancient Egypt, beginning with the Predynastic Period, continuing with the Old Kingdom and so on. That gonna be bitchin'... I was thinking about themes such as Predynastic hunting, Kleinkönig (Egypt), Predynastic marine (egypt) and Handicaps in Ancient Egypt. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Source request

If anyone has access to the following, I would love to read it. It's for the antiquity section of female genital mutilation.

Paul F. O'Rourke, "The 'm't-Woman", Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, 134(2), February 2007.

Many thanks! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin if it's not too urgent I think I can get this article in paper form, but not before a couple of weeks... Khruner (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be very kind, Khruner, thank you, if it's no trouble for you. What I'm really hoping for is an electronic version of the heiroglyphic text that I can copy over. It's the spell in the Antiquity section, beginning "But if a man wants to know how to live ...". SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, after obtaining the paper I can help you transcribing it with Gardiner's sign list and the Manuel de Codage. Khruner (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Khruner, HHill has sent me a copy of this, and gave me permission to forward it to you, so drop me an email if you'd like to see it. I don't know whether I've reproduced the heiroglyphic text properly, but it was great fun trying! See here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I thought you needed a transcript of all the passage, I see now I had misunderstood. For the paper no problem, I don't need it in the immediate future and in case, I can find it in my university. See you around..! Khruner (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Khruner, ideally I'd love to post the whole spell in heiroglyphs, if it's not too much work. At least I would like to reproduce the heiroglyphs that may mean "uncircumcised girl," so if you (or others) can help with either of those things that would be great. I've tried to post "uncircumcised girl" ('m't):

but I'm not sure I've done it correctly. D42 (the first and third) doesn't look exactly the same as the heiroglyph in the article, but I can't find anything closer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hieratic

Hi WikiProject Ancient Egypt, please see my comment at Talk:Hieratic#Confusing_definition_and_interrelation_with_cursive_hieroglyphics.

The Hieratic article represents an important topic, but its revision history suggests it has had very little focus. If anyone here has a good understanding of the subject, I'd be grateful for the help. Thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Font for WikiHiero

Hi, I was thinking about giving WikiHiero (the very thing we use for displaying hieroglyphs with the <hiero> tag) a facelift that will involve a regeneration of hieroglyph images in a better resolution and addition of an optional mode where hieroglyphs will be displayed using downloadable fonts. Therefore, I'd like to ask for your opinion about which open-licensed hieroglyphic font is best for this? So far, from options at Egyptian hieroglyphs#Fonts JSesh seems like the best for me, because it is closest to the style of WikiHiero's present images. Thoughts? Max Semenik (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Juggling image

There seems to be a problem with File:Early Egyptian juggling art.jpg. It's taken from a 1875 book.[23] However, more specific sources discussing ancient Egyptian juggling such as this one show a more complete representation of that wall painting (photo), and the rightmost person in our image either was taken from somewhere else (making the image a collage) or possibly made up in whole cloth. In the latter case we obviously should not use the image, in the former we should clarify that it's not a faithful representation of a specific wall painting. Thoughts on how to best fix this? Huon (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There is more information about this issue at http://www.jugglingedge.com/smalltalk.php?ThreadID=1415&SmallID=10168&#Small10168. Neither the jugglers of Tomb 15 or Tomb 17 are in this configuration. I have looked through all the Percy Newberry Beni Hasan books IE: very laboriously, which attempt to be a complete survey of the Beni Hasan tomb paintings, and not found this configuration of jugglers. Seveirein (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Lotii

Both Nymphaea caerulea and Nymphaea lotus have claims about the flowers being important in AE. is that true of both, or a mixup? trespassers william (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

They're both present in Egypt, so I don't see why not. I don't have details about the flowers' respective uses, though I get the impression that Nymphaea caerulea had greater religious significance—it's the flower on Nefertum's head, after all. A. Parrot (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There are books I know that talk about Egyptian medicine and floral decoration for cultic occasions. If wanted, I'm gonna search through my book collection if I can find anything concerning the lotus. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Anglo-Nubian"

FYI, the usage of "Anglo-Nubian" is up for discussion, see Talk:Anglo-Nubian -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

A few comments regarding the 10,500 BC vernal equinox's position.

Tony Fairall and Ed Krupp are quoted as saying that, in 10,500 BC, the vernal equinox wasn't in Leo, but was within the modern boundaries of Virgo.

First of all, of course, where that year's vernal equinox was, with respect to modern constllaton-boundaries, is irrelevant, because maybe the late Pleistocene people hadn't yet heard about the modern constellation-boundaries.

Additionally:

1. The 2000 equatorial co-ordinates (RA and dec) that Fairall gave for the vernal equinox of 10,500 BC are exactly what one would get if one assumed that precession had always occurred at its current rate. But that's known to be incorrect. The precession-rate has been increasing. The precession-rate over the past 12,500 years has been less than the current rate.

2. Jaques Laskar is a distinguished, prominent and respected astronomer, and an expert on longterm celestial mechanics. He has published precession-rate curves that show the precession-rate over the millennia.

By Laskar's most Fairall-favorable precession-rate-curve, the local rate-minimum, occurring around 10,500 BC, was 49 arcseconds per Julian year.

The current rate is 50.28 arcseconds per Julian year.

If one assume that the rate varied linearly, with respect to time, during the interval from 10,500 BC to the present, then that implies an average precession-rate, during that interval, of (50.28 + 49)/2. That's 49.64 arcseconds per year.

Because the curve, over the entire interval of interest, is upward-curving, then the above-described linear approximation of it will over-estimate the area under the curve (the accumulated precession) over that interval. That favors Fairall's claim, because it makes the 10,500 BC vernal equinox look farther east (left) than it was. In other words, the equinox was farther west (rightward) than the linear approximation would suggest. ...more toward Leo, and farther from Virgo.

3. The matter of whether the equinox was within the ecliptic-longitude range of Leo's sickle-and-right-triange lion asterism depends on the position of that asterism's east (left) boundary--Denebola, Beta Leonis.

"Proper motion" is the gradual movement of the stars, noticeable over the millenia. Denebola is a fairly fast-moving star. Since 10,500 BC, Denebola has moved about 1.72 degrees, in a mostly westward (rightward) direction.

4. When that Fairall-favorable linear approximation of the precession-rate is applied, when the 49.64 estimate for the average precession-rate is applied, and when Denebola's proper motion is applied, you'll find that the vernal equinox, in 10,500 BC was within the ecliptic-longitude range encompassed by Leo's sickle-and-right-triangle lion asterism. In other words, in 10,500 BC, the vernal equinox was in Leo.

5. Additionally, to answer Fairall's and Krupp's statement that the 10,500 BC vernal equinox was within the modern boundaries of Virgo: Actually, when we use the Fairall-favoring linear approximation to the precession-rate, giving an average precession-rate of 49.64 over the interval of interest, a different result is found:

In 10,500 BC, the vernal equinox was well within the modern boundaries of Leo.

Summary:

Fairall's and Krupp's 2000 equatorial co-ordinates for the vernal equinox in 10,500 BC are exactly what they'd get if they made the incorrect assumption that the precession had always occurred at its current rate.

But, by Laskar's precession-rate curves, and allowing for Denebola's proper motion, the 10,500 BC vernal equinox was within the ecliptic-longitude range encompassed by Leo's sickle-and-right-triange lion asterism. Additionally, the 10,500 BC vernal equinox was also well within the modern boundaries of Leo--contrary to Fairall's and Krupp's claim that it was in the modern boundaries of Virgo.

Michael Ossipoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.166.175 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ushabti

There is currently a merge discussion concerning Ushabti and the newly created Egyptian shabtis. The latter needs some attention from an expert on the subject. Anyone's input would be appreciated. Regards, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The new article should be deleted at once. That much text needs citation. And I'm not sure if the content is correct. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

1 million mummies

I've just created Fag el-Gamous because I wasn't sure whether an article existed about this cemetery or not. I thought this was a major discovery, but someone on ITN revealed that it was old news dating back to 2010. Someone should correct me here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Shoshenq vs Sheshonk

Hello everybody. I noticed that most of the Shoshenq articles were moved to "Sheshonk" some years ago, with the motivation that the latter is a more common spelling. Is that true? And was the decision discussed somewhere? I usually find "Shoshenq" on books and articles, and sometimes other minor variations, but I can't say where I saw "Sheshonk" the last time besides of these articles. Khruner (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Nefertum17 moved them in 2009, but I don't see any sign of a discussion. I doubt that Sheshonk is the more common term. More of my sources use Shoshenq, including The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt edited by Ian Shaw, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt edited by Donald B. Redford, Chronicle of the Pharaohs by Peter Clayton, and The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt by Toby Wilkinson. A. Parrot (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Same here with The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3 part 1 edited by I. E. S. Edwards, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt by Kenneth Kitchen, Ancient Egyptian Chronology edited by Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss and David A. Warburton, History of Ancient Egypt by Nicolas Grimal, A companion to Ancient Egypt edited by Alan B. Lloyd and so on. Begins to seems obvious that the moving were arbitrary. Khruner (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)