Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Pharaohs owning slaves

Hello everyone, I noticed that virtually every pharaoh is listed in the article List of slave owners, which claims to "include notable individuals for which there is a consensus of evidence of slave ownership." Now I do not know for sure if there is such a consensus for all pharaohs even if I suspect most had slaves (?). Although we can confirm that in some cases (say Sahure having reliefs showing boats bringing "Asiatics" from the Levant), in other cases it is speculation (Sanakht? seriously?). Could you share your thoughts on this? Iry-Hor (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think any entry that can't be sourced should be removed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt article on slaves gives the impression that the dividing line between slaves and non-slaves in Egypt wasn't as firm as in some other slave-owning societies, but there was a distinction, and WP should not operate on the assumption that every pharaoh must have had slaves. That said, it's a probably a good idea to ask User:BD2412, who added those names to the list a decade ago, what his reasoning was for adding those entries. A. Parrot (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no specific recollection, except that it was clear to me at the time that if the list was going to be titled that generically, it might as well include everything that fell under the title. If the list is to have a narrower sweep, it should have a narrower title. bd2412 T 20:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying the list should have a narrower scope; I'm saying that not all pharaohs are known to have had slaves. All of them would have used corvée labor, but chattel slavery was not as common in ancient Egypt. I think people would have to own chattel slaves to qualify for the list—otherwise they wouldn't be "owners". A. Parrot (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A. Parrot BD2412Right, I agree I think most pharaohs should be removed from the list. I just cannot decide on which basis to include one or the other. While it is clear that certain pharaohs must be removed given the complete absence of evidence (such as Shepseskare, Snakht etc.), for others it is less clear: should Sahure really be included merely because a relief from his causeway shows Asiatics on boats? Iry-Hor (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. A king would qualify if a text mentions slaves in his entourage, but the text must be explicit. A. Parrot (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no feeling one way or the other. bd2412 T 19:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I know of no text whatsoever explicitely identifying slaves owned by a king (I don't even know the Egyptian term for slave). I even thought that slaves would not have been allowed to approach the king. Iry-Hor (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Nearly all of what I know comes from the Oxford Encyclopedia article, which I hadn't read until this discussion started. Its most relevant paragraph, on page 294 of Volume III, says:

In documents, groups have been recognizable by the collective noun mr.(y)t (written with the hoe-sign). Those groups belonged to individuals and institutions (e.g., temples). Since the Old Kingdom, they were frequently mentioned along with land and cattle. In the Middle Kingdom, they could be acquired by bequest or another arrangement. In the New Kingdom, they could be recruited from captives or given in an endowment. Their apparently permanent relationship to their land and their master suggests that they were a type of slave. A similar term, mr.t (written with the canal-sign), denoted other groups who were seemingly not in connection with land and cattle but who were assigned to individuals and institutions. Individuals from such groups have not been identified, unless they were identical with the king's slaves (ḥm.w nswit) who, during the Middle Kingdom, were often transferred to estates of priests, nobles, and officials. The king's slaves had to work for their master and were considered his property. Their occupations were not confined to agriculture, as they were also employed in households. With the passage of time, their children undoubtedly inherited their status of servitude.

That's the paragraph that gave me the impression that kings had their own slaves. At the very least, the "king's slaves" seem to have been a state-owned group of slaves whom the pharaoh could hand out to people and institutions as gifts. Maybe none of them were the king's personal servants, but it sounds like they were under direct state control. Of course, that gets into the complicated question of whether the king would count as a slaveowner if his government owned slaves. And do we divide quasi-independent institutions like temples, which we know owned slaves, from other parts of the government? I think we need to understand slavery in Egypt better before including any pharaohs in the list. A. Parrot (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A serious article on the matter would be needed in wikipedia, especially given the important misconceptions about slaves in Egypt that are widespread in the public opinion on the matter. Unfortunately, I am in no position to write such an article given my total ignorance of the subject. Meanwhile, I agree with you that the pharaohs should be removed from the list until a better understanding of slave ownership can be reached. I will do it in a couple of days if nobody opposes this. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

New "article" Family tree of the Egyptian Gods

I don't know enough about Egyptian mythology to evaluate the accuracy, but I don't think this Family tree of the Egyptian Gods should be an isolated article. Perhaps it would be better placed to a section within Ancient Egyptian deities, or List of ancient Egyptian deities, for better context. I'll leave it to the experts here to decide its fate. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I nominated a similar "article" for deletion several years ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of the Egyptian gods. This new article has the same fundamental flaw I described then. So I think the new article shoud be deleted for that same reason.

I prefer to take the least bureaucratic route to doing things. In this case, that would be tagging for speedy deletion under criterion G4. But there are some significant differences between the old article and the new—there are no images or shorthand descriptions of the gods this time, and I think a few of the genealogical connections are different. So I'm not sure G$ would apply. A. Parrot (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguating divinities

There is a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. The question is: when a divinity has an ambiguous name, should its title use the word "(mythology)", "(deity)", or either "(god)" or "(goddess)"?

Anyone interested can make comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Disambiguations of divinities. A. Parrot (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

New photos from Harrogate Museum

Hi folks! I've just uploaded an image donation to Commons from Harrogate Museums and Arts. There are some fantastic professional photos of Ancient Egyptian artefacts that should be useful on lots of articles. If you have questions or particular topics you'd like more of let me know. Cheers PatHadley (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading those nice pictures PatHadley, let me create a link to your uploads so that other people here can see it and possibly provide more categories. Khruner (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoops! I was rushing and forgot the link! They're all in this category: Category:Images from Harrogate Museums and Arts. Cheers! PatHadley (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

PatHadley I just saw your posts, thank you for sharing these (extraordinary) photos! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Iry-Hor: Thanks! I'm glad you like them and hope you find them useful. If you think there might be particular artefacts and so on that Wikipedia needs more of, or other aspects of Harrogate's Egyptology on which you need information, please let me know. Also, you may find a (smaller) selection of open licensed Egyptology images from the Yorkshire Museum in their online collection. Cheers PatHadley (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have had in mind a wikipedia article on predynastic pottery with many illustration, possibly as a list of types and some of these photographies are thus going to be important. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Iry-Hor: That sounds fantastic. How would you feel about setting up a digital partnership between you and Harrogate Museums on that topic? Contact with curators, access to images etc. We can work out details that suit everyone. Cheers PatHadley (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@PatHadley:Wow, that would be stellar! Do you have contacts with people at the museum? It would be quite extraordinary to build such an article with good pictures and curator input. Iry-Hor (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent stuff! I'll be running a training session with one of Harrogate Museums volunteers next Thursday (19 April). The curator says there are around 40 predynastic ceramic items in the collection database and would love to set up a collaboration. Perhaps we could continue the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Directory/Harrogate Museums? If you start a sandbox or draft article with some indications of the things you'd like or are interested in that will help me direct the museum team. Many thanks - I'm excited about this! If you have any other ideas let me know :) PatHadley (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Ancient Egypt to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Standardizing the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period

Please consider taking part to the discussion: Template talk:Egyptian pyramids#13th Dynasty pyramids. Regards, Khruner (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Jean-François Champollion up for GA

I've nominated Champollion for GA following a major rewriting and expansion, some of you might be interested in looking at it or perhaps in reviewing it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Gods of Egypt

The usage and primary topic of "Gods of Egypt" is under discussion, see talk:Gods of Egypt (film) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about sources

My understanding is that a radio broadcast is not a reliable source? (Not verifiable for instance). It occurred on the Gebel el-Silsila page and refers to "Intrepid Radio broadcast, 2015 May 31 Sunday 9-11 p.m. CDT (2015 June 01 UTC), Wisconsin, U.S.A." Just wanted to check with others part of the project. I have contacted the editor, who has otherwise made some very nice contributions. AB (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the quality of the radio show, and whether it is archived. The Intrepid Radio Program has a lot of fringe figures on its guest list, but in this case, one of the interviewees is Maria Nilsson, a qualified Egyptologist who directs the Gebel el-Silsila project. That particular episode is archived here. As always, I'd much prefer a published scholarly source, but this one is probably sufficient for the moment. A. Parrot (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I may add the link later to make the source a little easier to access. AB (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussions for the Two Ladies and Nebty name articles, and for Serekh and Horus name

At the suggestion of Nephiliskos, I have created discussions about whether to merge Two Ladies with Nebty name, and Horus name with serekh. To comment on these two proposals, see Talk:Nebty name#Merger proposal and Talk:Serekh#Merger proposal. A. Parrot (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you writing!? I don't wanna merge them, I just wanna shorten "Two Ladies" and "Serekh"! I already explained the reasons on your discussion page: Both articles talk too much about the royal title connected with the subject, but the subject itself is not described or explained. Both subjects are no titles, but "Two Ladies" is a mere euphemism and a serekh is just a crest. Please, don't make up things! Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Nephiliskos, sorry I misunderstood you. I'll remove the merge notices on Horus name and Serekh if you want me to.

In the case of Two Ladies and Nebty name, I don't see any reason why there should be two separate articles on the subject. The Two Ladies hieroglyph isn't used anywhere except in the Nebty name, is it? If the articles are "merged", you don't have to actually include any information from Two Ladies in Nebty name. The one article could just become a redirect to the other. A. Parrot (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok... no problem. Again, I will just edit them and show you the results immediately. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. A. Parrot (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

New editor changing Re to Ra

Luppy-GT (talk · contribs) is going through articles changing all spellings of 'Re' to 'Ra', even image names. I've asked him to get consensus as this also makes some articles inconsistent with titles or the main article of a sub-section, but no response. Doug Weller (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Alone against nationalists in edit war

Hello, dear fans and contributors to Ancient Egypt. I would like to inform you that currently, there is an edit war at the Biology article concerning Ancient Egypt . I am going to explain you how it has began.There was a historical gap in the history of Biology concerning Egypt and I looked up on the net to find data and I realized that sources LITERALLY say Biology began in Egypt, so I added the information to improve the article. I was reverted along with sourced information involving damage/vandalism of well sourced content, with arrogant source falsification, guess on what grounds. On nationalist, by some Athenian(Greek) users, arrogantly falsificating the source I added, only because Egyptians predate them and they want to be stated as the beginners of biology, despite it is so simple because Egyptians are an older civilization by millenniums and only because of this they are just predated by the other in certain fields. I tried to explain and argue the source falsifications and manipulations they made but I wasted my energy, when I explain nobody answers on the talk page, the nationalists were two, additional blind reverters joined them, so I could not resist the reverts as nobody assisted me, neither they respond in the talk page so we can make a normal debate. While the source I found clearly states the "Western biology begins in Egypt",:

"Five thousand years ago Egyptian priests were already starting to gather a tremendous amount of medical data, having a highly advanced knowledge in plants and their medical applications, primarily out of necessity to aid soldiers in the battlefield. Thus the real story of Western biology begins in Egypt", link to the source: [1] , compare with the vandalistic revert [2] he's doing source falsification but blames me to do so

Biology is not the only article when the same thing happens today, check the history also in 'mathematics, chemistry,(sourced "with no consensus" Egyptian etymology removed) city(removing Memphis and two images of Athens pushed instead) and writing,(removing the sourced "but agenda-driven with no consensus" Egyptian achievements in writing removed) where a reliably sourced content or pictures of Egyptian cities etc were serially removed, the only stated reasons was "POV" and "no consensus", furthermore nobody worries that do not answers on the talk page. It seems that only way to one can deal with nationalism is counter-nationalism as I have so far been unsuccessful unlike the national groups, so I inform the Egyptians. This is not Greek Wikipedia, there are people of all nationalities, so you need to be informed, SO if you want take a look on the case. If you read that, thank you for the attention. Can I join the project the project by the way if I want? I can claim a have some knowledge on the subject--Evropariver (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ummm... first: welcome. ;) Then: technically you did right. You cited a source correctly and gave the references. You did nothing wrong here.

But! If someone claims things such as "Western biology begins in Egypt", my alert bells start to ring very loudly. Egypt is not "western"... Second, the author of the book you used claims that "Five thousand years ago Egyptian priests were already starting to gather a tremendous amount of medical data".

You may wonder now: what's the problem? Well, 5000 years ago, that would mean at appr. 3000 BC.. Holla-yolla! At this time period the Egyptians had just invented their hieroglyphs and a first form of writing! There was no such things as "collecting medical data", because the only things the writers were allowed to write down, were economical events, religious festivals and the names of kings and noblemen.

The first medical papyri (Papyrus Ebers, Papyrus Kahun, Papyrus Smith, Pap. Hearst and Pap. Berlin 3038) appear during the Middle Kingdom (app. 1940 BC.). Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for knowledgable editors to review Heart#Society and culture

Hi all, I'm one of the editors at WikiProject Anatomy (and I believe at one point also reviewed an article on a pyramid). I was wondering if some editors knowledgable about Ancient Egypt would mind reviewing the information that's contained in Heart#Society and culture... and possible adding something to Heart#History if that's appropriate. I'm hoping to get the article to good article status at some point, and so I'd be grateful if any of the egyptologists here would mind verifying & sourcing the information about ancient Egypt. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Prehistoric Egypt listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Prehistoric Egypt to be moved to Predynastic Egypt. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Category:Predynastic_Egypt renaming

"Category:Predynastic Egypt]] has been proposed for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_27#Category:Predynastic_Egypt -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The Mummy (1999 film)

Can someone please clarify with me whether this WikiProject covers popular depictions of Ancient Egypt? --Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 06:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Technically it does. Movies like The Mummy are listed on the index of ancient Egypt-related articles, but I don't think those of us who frequently participate in the project show much interest in them. Why do you ask? A. Parrot (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It just seems inexplicably odd.--Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 01:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wilbour Papyrus

Just created it as a stub, translating the French draft article. Not really very good right now. Doug Weller (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia ad for this WikiProject

My idea for a WP ad for this WikiProject:

1. Interested in Ancient Egypt?
2. Is Ancient Egypt your area of expertise?
3. If so, then join WikiProject Ancient Egypt!

Am waiting to hear your ideas about all this. Personally, I think we should use pictures of Egyptian gods in this ad, such as the one at Isis. Eat me, I'm a red bean (discuss • contribs) 06:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be a clueless ad designer. I will say that Jeff Dahl's SVGs of Egyptian gods seem to be popular with everyone, so including some of them strikes me as a good idea. A. Parrot (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

What about a bit drama?
Meet Râ, the sungod of the sky! Meet Horus and Seth, the patrons of Egypt! Experience the fascination of a divine culture, learn everything about the mighty pharaos and travel back into an era, when the pyramids were built and hieroglyphs were still magic! Join our team of experts and authors!
How's this! ;) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Good idea! However, I don't know how to make an ad.--Eat me, I'm a red bean (discuss • contribs) 06:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I can only think of Jackmcbarn when it comes to stuff like that. Maybe he can tell us what needs to be done? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely not the right person for graphic design. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

New Kingdom of Egypt listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for New Kingdom of Egypt to be moved to New Kingdom. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

King Scorpion listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for King Scorpion to be moved to Scorpion II. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Scorpion II listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Scorpion II to be moved to Scorpion II. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Mark Antony listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mark Antony to be moved to Marcus Antonius. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Category:Coptic-speaking people

Category:Coptic-speaking people has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Isis listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Isis to be moved to Iset. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

The plot of killing king Tety by his harem.

Plots were born to put on the throne a successor differing from his legitimate son. One of them is reported by Manetho that tells us that Teti I assassinated either by his bodyguards or by eunuchs, can -being in favor of the usurper Userkare. There is today no evidence of the murder, but most Egyptologists, including Nicolas Grimal, Wolfgang Helck and J.Vercoutter, support this idea. It is reinforced by the fact of accession to the throne of Userkare just after the death of the King, before that of Pepi I legitimate successor of Teti I, his brother had died Tétiânkh Khen. 

Teti I had at least four wives who are certified specialists according to him:

She was involved in a harem plot to overthrow Pepi I, but apparently she was unmasked and failed in its projects. Uni says: "A case came to trial in the harem against Great Wife Ouretimtès, a matter entirely secret person .... Never before I had heard a secret of the royal harem, but His Majesty did hear me. .... " The story unfortunately partway through and although the autobiography of Uni continues, it is unknown the exact allegations against the Queen or the punishment that was inflicted. We do not even know his real name, as that of Ouretimtès given by Uni is rather a title used to preserve the royal dignity. {{It bore the title: Great [Dame] scepter Hetes (Hts-wrt)....}}

http://antikforever.com/Egypte/Dyn/06.htm

He needed the support of powerful individuals in Upper Egypt in order to put down his brother, the usurper Userkare who had murdered his father and for Pepi to win back his rightful throne. These individuals would remain a strong presence in his court thereafter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepi_I_Meryre

• Khentkaus IV+
• ? This queen is mentioned in the autobiography of Wenis. It may be a reference to the title of the queen instead of her personal name. She was involved in a harem+ plot to overthrow Pepi, but apparently was caught before she succeeded. In the tomb of the official Wenis there is mention of “a secret charge in the royal harem against the Great of Sceptre”.

http://datab.us/i/Teti Manetho states that Teti was murdered by his palace bodyguards in a harem plot, but he may have been assassinated by the usurper Userkare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teti

According to Manetho the ruler was murdered, also complicated political circumstances at royal court at that times would confirm this. Although there is no clear evidence for that, still most of authorities (W.Helck, H.Goedicke,, J.Vercoutter, N.Grimal) support this idea, strengthened to some extent by fact of Userkare’s accession to the throne after the ruler’s death and just after that of the king Teti’s son –Pepi I.

http://www.narmer.pl/indexen.htm According to Manetho, Teti was murdered by his body guards. http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/old-kingdom/6th-dynasty/teti/biography-of-teti.html also for the names : http://hieroglyphs.net/0301/cgi/lookup.pl?ty=tr&ch=i&cs=1

Here is my story

These two wives killed the king because their names are Disgraceful and shameful names according to the principle of Damnatio memoriae .(not to mention the real names)

Khuit.

Khentkaus IV .

POV editors on genetics again

We have two new accounts trying to insert "Accordingto a genetic study in December 2012, Ramesses III belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1a.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Hawass | first1 = | year = 2012 | title = Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study | url = http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8268 | journal = BMJ | volume = 345 | issue = | pages = e8268| doi = 10.1136/bmj.e8268 }}</ref> into Ramesses III and DNA history of Egypt. This has been going on for some time- whether it's socks, off-wiki discussions or just chance I don't know. I try to explain that it's cherry picking and that genetic studies should only be used for the purpose for which they were designed. This one says clearly " "Objective: To investigate the true character of the harem conspiracy described in the Judicial Papyrus of Turin and determine whether Ramesses III was indeed killed." It's being suggested that I'm a racist or trying to hide something (see Talk:Ramesses III#Genetics, and that there's a conspiracy against Afro-centrism.[3] Doug Weller talk 19:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Khentkaus IV

An article on this possible queen was recently speedy deleted. The talk page exists, for the moment and says: "( Encyclopedic content is verifiable. Plots were born to put on the throne a successor differing from his legitimate son. One of them is reported by Manetho that tells us that Teti I assassinated either by his bodyguards or by eunuchs, can -being in favor of the usurper Userkare. There is today no evidence of the murder, but most Egyptologists, including Nicolas Grimal, Wolfgang Helck and J.Vercoutter, support this idea. It is reinforced by the fact of accession to the throne of Userkare just after the death of the King, before that of Pepi I legitimate successor of Teti I, his brother had died Tétiânkh Khen.

Teti I had at least four wives who are certified specialists according to him:

She was involved in a harem plot to overthrow Pepi I, but apparently she was unmasked and failed in its projects. Uni says: "A case came to trial in the harem against Great Wife Ouretimtès, a matter entirely secret person .... Never before I had heard a secret of the royal harem, but His Majesty did hear me. .... " The story unfortunately partway through and although the autobiography of Uni continues, it is unknown the exact allegations against the Queen or the punishment that was inflicted. We do not even know his real name, as that of Ouretimtès given by Uni is rather a title used to preserve the royal dignity. {{It bore the title: Great [Dame] scepter Hetes (Hts-wrt)....}}

http://antikforever.com/Egypte/Dyn/06.htm

Khentkaus IV+ ? This queen is mentioned in the autobiography of Wenis. It may be a reference to the title of the queen instead of her personal name. She was involved in a harem+ plot to overthrow Pepi, but apparently was caught before she succeeded. In the tomb of the official Wenis there is mention of “a secret charge in the royal harem against the Great of Sceptre”.

http://datab.us/i/Teti Manetho states that Teti was murdered by his palace bodyguards in a harem plot, but he may have been assassinated by the usurper Userkare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teti

According to Manetho the ruler was murdered, also complicated political circumstances at royal court at that times would confirm this. Although there is no clear evidence for that, still most of authorities (W.Helck, H.Goedicke,, J.Vercoutter, N.Grimal) support this idea, strengthened to some extent by fact of Userkare’s accession to the throne after the ruler’s death and just after that of the king Teti’s son –Pepi I.

http://www.narmer.pl/indexen.htm According to Manetho, Teti was murdered by his body guards. http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/old-kingdom/6th-dynasty/teti/biography-of-teti.html also for the names : http://hieroglyphs.net/0301/cgi/lookup.pl?ty=tr&ch=i&cs=1

Please reconsider the deletion and thanks anyway)

--R.azz.miligi (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

END COPY She is mention in our articles on Teti (Miroslav Verner, The Pyramids,1994) and Khuit[ Dodson, Aidan and Hilton, Dyan. The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt.] but I don't have either source and they aren't searchable. If anyone can verify what they say perhaps we can rescue the article. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I did some intense research, but there is NO proof that any egyptologist writes about more than two "khentkaws". Funnily enough, there's even no "khentkaws III", so where the hay should a "khentkaws IV" come from??? In fact, Teti I was married to following queens: Iput I, Sesheshet, Neith and Khuit. King Pepi I was married to: Nwb-wenet, Weret-iamtes, Inenk-inty, Wedjebten, Nedj-iftet and Ankhenes-Pepi. NO king was married to a "khentkaws III" and/or "khentkaws IV". The only queen(?) that may be mentioned was found on a re-used relief fragment at Pepi's pyramid necropolis. The name in question starts with Khentet... and has nothing to do with a "Khentkaws IV". Jánosi writes that the reading of the name is highly uncertain and even the familial and royal position of that lady is highly disputed. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Miroslav Verner (2014) do mentions a Khentkaus III, possibly a wife of Neferefre. I put a quote and source in Talk:Khentkaus III#Name some time ago. I've never heard of a Khentkaus IV though, but I'm not strong in ancient Egyptian topics which are so much ancient... Khruner (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, ok. Never heard or read of the queen, though. But I have read the websites mentioned in the upper sections, but there's also no "Khentkaus IV". Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Same here, Khentkaus III is definitely attested since the discovery of her tomb and might be the mother of Menkauhor Kaiu. I haven't read anything about a Khentkaus IV but I would actually not be surprised he some evidence for such a queen turned up. The name seems to have been fairly common during the 5th Dynasty. To me, an article on a Khentkaus IV would be justified if there was at least a couple of serious references on the subject. But then, since the discovery of Khentkaus III's tomb is very recent, any older source would call Khentkaus IV, Khentkaus III, thereby making the identification quite difficult. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I simply don't see and/or find enough sources and proofs to justify an article labelled as "Khentkaus IV". That's all. In contrast, there are so many Egyptologists who speak against a reading as "Khentkaus", because the alledged name in question starts with "Khentet", a syllable with a diction that doesn't fit to "Khentkaus" (as Jánosi, Helck and Schneider point out). Silke Roth writes that it was already difficult to identify more than two "Khentkaus" and that current archaeological proofs are extremely scarce. I could try to write an article, but I'm afraid it would look like a literaric stage fight to the reader. :D Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Fine, as I said if one cannot find at least a couple of serious references in favor of Khentkaus IV, then there should not be an article on her. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Mark Lehner

This has just been tagged, correctly IMHO, as a BLP with self-published sources. Needs some work. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A greater request

This "greater request" concerns our infoboxes and the new method of designing and grouping our articles of early dynastic nobles and officials.

I'd like to start a serious discussion about what project members and interested think about that new design. To show you an example, I give you these two articles: Neithhotep and Sehener.

About the article text design

I'm currently trying a certain way of dividing our articles into reader-friendly and well-arranged chapters and sections.

How are they divided?

Each article is divided into following sections:

• Attestations: Where was his name found? At which sites? How many objects were found? Where are they at display now?
• Identity: With subsections Name (why is his name special? what does it mean?), family (who were the relatives?) titles (what titles did the person own? with English and ancient Egyptian dictions), career (is the career development known? what circumstances ruled during the career?).
• Tomb: Where was the person buried at? What is known about the tomb?

Each section appears only when the distributed informations are available and referenced.

About the infoboxes

Well, currently we are using two different infoboxes: the white box with stripes and foldable bottom and the orange coloured box. I'd like to know which box we should finally use or if we should use certain boxes for certain persons depending on their status (like, orange for common peoples and white boxes for kings).

Voting

In this section you can give a voting for "pro" or "contra". Please think carefully before voting and give a plausible and objective reason as to why you give your vote. Any non-objective voting and troll-voting will be deleted. Please set your votings beginning with # beneath the distributed section.

ABOUT THE NEW ATICLE TEXT DESIGN

Pro

1. Mostly pro, anyway. The sections on "attestations" and "tomb" make sense for people like these for whom there's little evidence. "Identity" feels rather clumsy and too general as a section title, but I'm not sure what I'd use instead. A. Parrot (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Strong "Pro": The most tidy way to present informations about long time deseased peoples. Furtherly, it gives every reader the chance to choose the section he wants to read first.--Nephiliskos (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Contra

1. Mostly contra, let me explain why by proposing something slightly different: "Attestations" should be a separate section (not a subsection of the vague "Identity"). This section should come first, since the attestations of someone are the only sources that we really have about this person. You can subdivide this section into historical sources and contemporeanous attestations if the person is also known from sources dating to much later than its lifetime (perhaps this applies only to pharaohs?). Second, can we do away with the name section? I mean by putting all this info in the infobox? If not, then surely this should be kept in the article, after or in the attestation section. The Tomb section is well placed at the end as you did. Overall I prefer the layout of Neithhotep however, the subsection "New discoveries" should not exist: first, what is "new" is completely subjective and will soon not be new anymore (wait a few years) so this cannot be used in the article, only absolute dates should be used since they are neutral, informative and objective, e.g. "In 2008, the discoverey of...", you can judge if this is "new" or not. Second, whatever the discovery, all it does is produce more attestations, hence these details should be included in the attestation section. To balance the article, you could include a section giving the interpretation of these attestions that Egyptologists have produced, e.g. "Following the discovery of the Sinai reliefs of Neithhotep, Pierre Tallet now believes that she was a queen of Hor-Aha and a regent early in the reign of Djer, creating a precedent for Merneith." The same section would also include details of the activities that this person undertook while alive, e.g. a detailed list of the titles he/she held and a short explanation of what these titles mean. For example "Overseer of the two granaries" is unlikely to reveal much of the person activity unless the reader is an Egyptologist. Hence one could add a small sentence explaining what this meant and thus giving details about this person likely did. Overall the layout I propose is the following: Attestations including possibly a subsection Name, then Career/Activities containing the subsection Titles, then Tomb. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

ABOUT THE INFOBOXES

Orange box!

1. I prefer the orange box for two strong reasons: first of it all, the white box gives too much informations. I mean, seriously: who wants to be bombarded with THAT much side-infos like family members and consorts??? The infobox is meant to give a blitz-overview about the mentioned person, it should not replace the whole article in a nutshell. Second, the hieroglyphs can be inserted and presented in a much more tidy and attractive way.--Nephiliskos (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

White box!

1. I generally favor the standard white box because it can contain a greater variety of information. But the orange box is slightly more aesthetically pleasing, so maybe it can be used if there's very little information on the article subject and not really anything to put in the parameters of the standard box. A. Parrot (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
2. White infobox all the way for me for the information it contains and I also find it aesthetically more pleasing. Ideally the name in hieroglyphs with transliteration and translation should be given in the box, see what is done for pyramids (e.g. Pyramid of Unas). Iry-Hor (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
3. White infobox for me too. I find it more appealing, way more informative, less intrusive (at least on my netbook). I don't get why in the orange box the place for the pic is in the bottom instead of top, but this point is possibly biased due to the importance I give to illustrations. I tend to believe that unlike the white one, the orange one was not originally made for biographical purpose but rather adapted later, or otherwise, it's a very old format maybe. I find use for it in articles about ancient Egyptian objects, proper names, in disambiguation pages etc. I only used it on biographical articles once but it was for technical reasons, and it does not belong to the early dynastic period anyway. Khruner (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Both!

The voting will be carried out until the Beginning of March 2016. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

See my details ideas above, overall I have very happy that you want to uniformize the presentation of these articles, it is an excellent idea! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

All I wish for is a standardized design system, I don't really mind about the labels for the sections. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Index of ancient Egypt-related articles

I noticed that several articles listed in Index of ancient Egypt-related articles are in fact redirects, thus useless when checking the changes related to the articles on that list. Should we remove those or simply keep, once assumed that each target-article is also present in the index? Khruner (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I remove redirects from the list whenever I notice them. A. Parrot (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I am prone to do the same from now, hoping that if someone edits the redirect (for example for a redirect inversion, or making a "new" article from a redirect etc), he/she will update the index just like when a genuine new article is created. Khruner (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Request for input in discussion forum

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

_{Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011}

Wadi hammamat - hans Winkler

on the Wadi hammamat page, with respect to the rock carvings, no mention is made of Hans Alexander Winkler. Please add him

Help on the Heart in Ancient Egypt

Hello to knowledgable editors! I've been editing on the Heart article with some other editors, with the aim to get it to GA class. Unfortunately we've reached a loggerheads at the "society and culture" section, because we really don't know that much about the heart in ancient history. Would a knowledgable editor be so kind as to check the current text and cite it with relevant sources? We would be very grateful, and offer wiki-food such as brownies and tea refreshment for any help :)

An important part of the concept of the soul in Ancient Egyptian religion was thought to be the heart, or ib. The ib or metaphysical heart was believed to be formed from one drop of blood from the child's mother's heart, taken at conception. To ancient Egyptians, the heart was the seat of emotion, thought, will, and intention. This is evidenced by Egyptian expressions which incorporate the word ib, such as Awt-ib for "happiness" (literally, "wideness of heart"), Xak-ib for "estranged" (literally, "truncated of heart"). In Egyptian religion, the heart was the key to the afterlife. It was conceived as surviving death in the nether world, where it gave evidence for, or against, its possessor. It was thought that the heart was examined by Anubis and the deities during the Weighing of the Heart ceremony. If the heart weighed more than the feather of Maat, it was immediately consumed by the monster Ammit.

Looking forward to your replies, --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you A. Parrot! --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian military history

I started this initiative on the MILHIST Incubator that aims to improve and better organize Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptian military history, from ancient times up to the present day. Anyone is welcome to join. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Add actual reconstructed pronunciations to articles?

Hi. I think it would be great if the articles on ancient Egypt did indicate educated reconstructions of the pronunciation of names. I'm not at all fond of the 'egyptological' approach. It's clear that the pronunciations are unknown, but my understanding is that very sensible guesses are possible. I certainly have no competence on the matter, but I suspect there are some here who have. The pronunciation would of course have an explicit label, so that it would be clear what time period / school it referred to. This is probably not the place for this kind of request; in that case, please move it accordingly. 46.50.7.130 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to find sources for a systematic reconstruction of pronunciation. The only sourced reconstructions I can think of come from the Amarna letters—*naftita for "Nefertiti" and so on. The letters were written in Akkadian, so they only give us the pronunciations of proper names. Those names serve as handy examples of how far the spoken language had deviated from its writing system, but that and Coptic are the only points of reference for figuring out how the pronunciation evolved over 3,000 years. It would be a hard job involving a lot of guesswork, and I don't know if any scholar has tried to tackle it. A. Parrot (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Understood. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Vowels and http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm I formed the impression that a more or less complete picture is available, possibly taking reconstructed PAA into account as well. But with no sources little can be done. Maybe a scholar or two have the required expertise but haven't applied it systematically to the onomastics. Given that many elements appear repeatedly in names, a relatively small number of reconstructions might be enough. Let's keep hoping. 2001:8A0:F009:9A01:9CE3:43E6:FAE2:735E (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Neferirkare Kakai has been nominated for discussion

Category:Neferirkare Kakai, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Was listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Was to be moved to Was (scepter). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Was listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Was to be moved to Was (sceptre). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Was (sceptre) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Was (sceptre) to be moved to was-sceptre. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of ancient history listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of ancient history to be moved to Draft:Outline of ancient history. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

The Scorpion King listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Scorpion King to be moved to The Scorpion King (2002 film). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Berbers

Hi, I noticed that recently (and less recently too) many kings of the 22nd Dynasty and of the Libyan period in general were added to the category "Berber people" or were associated with Berbers in some way, always without sources in support of this claim. It looks like the main argument is that, since these pharaohs were of Libyan/Libu/Meshwesh blood/ancestry, and that these groups were allegedly related to the Berbers, then they must have been Berbers as well.
I thought that it's time for confirm or debunk that claim once and for all, so I'm searching for any reliable source linking Lybian pharaohs-Berbers, but I'm failing in finding these. By far, the only link I've found is in Shoshenq I's article, this book written by Thomas C. Oden (a theologian, so I don't know how much reliable is in such cases) claiming that "Shoshenq I was likely of Libyan Berber ancestry through his Libyan uncle Osorkon [the Elder]". Most Google results for this connection are of questionable reliability at best, and almost all specifically link the Berbers with Shoshenq I only, although this is probably because he was the most famous ruler of the period. My suspect after such searchs is that the association is a sort of modern "nationalist forgery", so I was asking any reader here if their sources do confirm that claim or not. Khruner (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

These edits may be sockpuppetry; see User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 41#Twenty-second Dynasty of Egypt. I don't have much information on hand about the connection between ancient Libyans and Berbers. My impression is that it's considered plausible but not certain. There are inscriptions from North Africa in Greek and Roman times that may well represent a language ancestral to modern Berber, but this source advises caution, because the Berber language itself isn't recorded until the Middle Ages. If those inscriptions aren't certain to be Berber, then Wikipedia should not claim that people from 500 to 700 years earlier definitely were Berber. A. Parrot (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I am also not sure whether the Libyans were Berbers, the Libyans are not that well attested outside of Egypt, so I am not sure if it is possible to draw any firm conclusions. I rather see the category removed. I am not an expert on the Third Intermediate Period! -- Udimu (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both. The fact is that even today a lot of rulers were just added to these categories, from Osorkon the Elder to Bakenrenef. In my opinion, the category should be kept in an article only if the specific ruler is called by a reliable source to be of Berber origin, not all of his offsprings for decades and centuries after him. And by now, the only one among these is Shoshenq I. A final word, I haven't found any mention of "Berber" in the whole The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt book by K. Kitchen, if that could means something. Khruner (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Contests

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. Would anybody here be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Isis listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Isis to be moved to Isis (goddess). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Book of Abraham

Is there anyone here that might be able to look over Book of Abraham article? For the past month or so, I've been completely redoing the whole page, adding in new information from Robert Ritner's book The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition. A good chunk of the article is theological in nature, but what I'm really needing help with is the Egyptology near the middle part until the end; I'd really like someone to maybe peer-review that section if that is at all possible. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Gen. Quon: As the WikiProject's resident specialist on religion, I'm the logical person to do that, but I'm not sure I'd have the time or the resources right now. For one thing, I'm not very familiar with all the details about these papyri or the Books of Breathings, so I'd prefer to get Ritner's book myself to consult. I can give some general pointers, though.

• In the tables that give the Egyptological interpretation of passages in the papyri, consider replacing Devéria's quotations with ones from more recent Egyptologists like Ritner. I prefer to avoid 19th-century Egyptological sources when possible, simply because the discipline was so new and underdeveloped then. I don't see any obvious inaccuracies in what Devéria said, but I can't read hieroglyphs and can't really judge his accuracy. Compare his translations with the more recent ones. If there are no substantial differences and Devéria is the only one who has addressed these passages in such a pithy form, leave him in.
• There's another Egyptological source you may want to consult: "The Ancient Egyptian 'Books of Breathing,' the Mormon 'Book of Abraham,' and the Development of Egyptology in America", by Lanny Bell. I think I've happened across it somewhere online.
• Although this isn't an Egyptological concern, I do wonder if the article focuses too much on the Egyptological controversy. I'm not saying the Egyptological sections should be cut down, considering how detailed the arguments are, but that the article should say more about its influence on Mormonism. It sounds like the Book of Abraham is a fairly significant text for Mormon beliefs, at least in the largest branch of the church.

I hope this helps. I may be able to do a detailed peer review sometime later. A. Parrot (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response! All three of your points are very helpful. As to the last one, I've been thinking of breaking most of this article off into a new one called Controversy over the Book of Abraham or something like that. You are right that it gives quite a bit of attention to the controversy, and not to the book.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a new article: Criticism of the Book of Abraham.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Antiu

Budge seems to be the only source for this "Smashing of the Antiu" festival. As for the Antiu, I can't find modern sources. Henry Hall discusses them.[4] But he also wrote over a century ago. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Temple of Edfu images

There's a discussion on my talk page[5] about the images. Specifically, should we use a computer game image stating that it is a computer game image, and should we clean up the plethora of images there. There's 30 including a gallery. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Kuk (mythology) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kuk (mythology) to be moved to Kek. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gardiner's sign list

FYI. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Article alerts added

I have added article alerts to this WikiProject. It should become functional on the next run of Article alerts (within 24 hours). I hope someone finds this useful? Ottawahitech (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Archive 8 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Is Sheldon Gosline an Egyptologist?

His website is here, a site debunking his lost Chinese civilization 'find' here. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Darius the Great's Suez Inscriptions - rename?

As requests to rename Darius I over the years have all failed, isn't it time to rename this? A Google Books search shows over 4000 hits using just Darius, over 600 using "Darius the Great". I'm not sure what the best anme is, maybe just Darius's Suez inscriptions]]. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller I agree with a change. I personally provided two old drawings of the stela; in both cases it was called "Shaluf stela" (Chalouf, in French). Khruner (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Shabaka-Shebitqo succession

As someone here may knows, in recent years the traditional order of succession of the two 25th Dynasty pharaohs Shabaka and Shebitku has been questioned on several basis by Bányai, and later Payraudeau and Broekman (see Shebitku#Order of succession and references therein). A very recent paper by Broekman ("Genealogical considerations regarding the kings of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty in Egypt", Göttinger Miszellen 251, pp. 13-20) also states that quite an amount of scholars (Dodson, Donker van Heel, Jansen-Winkeln, Jurman, Kaper, van Walsem and Kitchen too) now accept the new order of succession Shebitqo->Shabaka. I'm here to ask for a consensus or sort to reverse the order of succession even here on en.wiki. Khruner (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• The archaeological evidence now favours a Shebitku-Shabako succession. Broekman's GM 251 (2017) paper shows that Shebitku reigned before Shabaka since Shabaka’s NLR #30’s Karnak quay inscription was partly carved over Shebitku’s NLR#33 inscription. Payraudeau writes the facts in a 2014 Nehet I paper. Critically, Payraudeau writes in French that "the Divine Adoratrix Shepenwepet I, the last Libyan Adoratrix, was still alive during the reign of Shebitku/Shabataqo because she is represented performing rites and is described as “living” in those parts of the Osiris-Héqadjet chapel built during his reign (wall and exterior of the gate) [45 – G. Legrain, “Le temple et les chapelles d’Osiris à Karnak. Le temple d’Osiris-Hiq-Djeto, partie éthiopienne”, RecTrav 22 (1900) 128; JWIS III, 45.]. In the rest of the room it is Amenirdis I Shabaka's sister), who is represented with the Adoratrix title and provided with a coronation name. The succession Shepenwepet I - Amenirdis I thus took place during the reign of Shabataqo. This detail in itself is sufficient to show that the reign of Shabaqo cannot precede that of Shabataqo." Hence, Shabaka ruled after Shebitku as Payraudeau's 2014 Nehet I paper notes that the God's Wife of Amun (Divine Adoratice) Amenirdis I.

Payraudeau notes also that: "The construction of the tomb of Shabataqo (Ku. 18) resembles that of Piankhy (Ku. 17) while that of Shabaqo (Ku. 15) is similar to that of Taharqo (Nu. 1) and Tanouétamani (Ku. 16) [39 – D. Dunham, El-Kurru, The Royal Cemeteries of Kush, I, (1950) 55, 60, 64, 67; also D. Dunham, Nuri, The Royal Cemeteries of Kush, II, (1955) 6-7; J. Lull, Las tumbas reales egipcias del Tercer Periodo Intermedio (dinastías XXI-XXV). Tradición y cambios, BAR-IS 1045 (2002) 208.]."

Finally, Payraudeau notes that Shebitku/Shabataqo’s shabtis are small (about 10 cm) and have a very brief inscription with only the king's birth name in a cartouche preceded by “the Osiris, king of Upper and Lower Egypt” and followed by mȝʿ-ḫrw [41 – JWIS III, 51, number 9; D. Dunham, (see footnote 39), 69, plate 45A-B.]. They are thus very close to those of Piye/Piankhy [42 – D. Dunham, (see footnote 39), plate 44.]. However, Shabaqo's shabtis are larger (about 15-20 cm) with more developed inscriptions, including the quotation from the Book of the Dead, which is also present on those Taharqo, Tanouetamani and Senkamanisken." All this shows that Shebitku ruled before Shabaka. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• The new order should be Shebitku-Shabaka...and then Taharqa. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• • I'm happy with this. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• • The above outlined arguments sound convincing to me. The summary provided shows a significant amount of work by well-regarded scholars. I personally would like to see Wikipedia reflect the latest information on this. --AB (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Archive 8/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Tulli Papyrus

"The Tulli Papyrus is an oft-cited document of questionable origins that some have interpreted as evidence of ancient flying saucers."Someone has just added 10 cn tags, almost one per sentence, plus a refimprov tag - which seems a bad idea, it should be one or the other. Any takers? Doug Weller talk 12:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Uniliteral hieroglyph articles

I've just noticed we have a bunch of low-quality articles on the uniliteral hieroglyphs, like Vulture (hieroglyph). Failure to understand that there's a difference between different spellings of the same consonant ( vs. ) and different consonants which are casually transcribed the same ( vs. ), which I've just corrected; calling hieroglyphs like w vowels; replication of the same table across more than twenty articles without templates; a "skip this cell" instruction just written into a table cell... And we have better pages on the uniliterals collectively. Something should be done with these articles. What? Ordinary I'd just propose deleting them, but given the number of other articles on individual hieroglyphs it would be bad to have the uniliterals systemically unrepresented. 4pq1injbok (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

-did some research, think

is better tbh FusiTheMeme (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Richard William Howard Vyse being edited by fringe editor

It looks to me as though the article is being edited by Scott Creighton[6][7] using 4 IP addresses that geolocate in Glasgow where he lives. See the comments by these IPs on the article's talk page. There's a 5th IP, 72* who is in Virginia and I don't think that's Creighton. See Talk:Richard William Howard Vyse#The Great Pyramid Hoax where he is promoting his new book and acting as though he is different people. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hall of Records

I've posted to WP:FTN#Hall of Records about some problems with the fringe aspects of the article. There's some archaeology in the article that could use proper sourcing. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Solar eclipse study dating Merneptah and Ramesses the Great - be a bit wary

See this. I'm always wary about Colin Wilson, and the Book of Joshua isn't of that much historical use. I suspect this might soon appear in articles. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeking reviewers for Natacha Rambova

Hello all, I've recently done significant work on the Natacha Rambova article, and I frankly feel it is at Featured article status at this point. I am trying to get it there so that it can potentially make it to "Featured article of the day" for January 19 (her birthdate). It is currently unranked, but I have nominated it for GA status and would love it if anyone would be interested in doing a review. She is a fascinating topic whose earlier Wiki did not do her justice. Thank you! --Drown Soda (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Ancient_Egypt

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 13:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Isis has been rewritten

I expect to take the new version of the article to FAC. If anybody wants to look it over and look for possible improvements, feel free. A. Parrot (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Aside from my suggestion regarding the leading picture, I think the article is great as it is.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Assistance with article

Hi all, i'm working on an article here , i'm hoping for some help with it. Unfortunately there aren't many articles on it. It may be the only museum exhibit with Egyptian mummies in Florida but I can't be sure, the Miami Bass museum supposedly did, but its not clear if that exhibit is still there. Anyway, not sure it can be held to the notability criteria under significant coverage because of the lack of coverage. Any other help is appreciated. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sephiroth storm Try looking online on Google, then on Goole books, you might find some sources.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Pharaoh Infobox

Dear Khruner, A. Parrot, Nephiliskos, Udimu, Ealdgyth, PiCo, Tim riley, Me, Myself, and I are Here, as active users editing Ancient Egypt articles, I need your opinion on a simple question. There is a potential problem in the design of the pharaoh infobox as most people seem to miss the [show] button next to "Royal titulary". There are three possibilities regarding this issue:
1) put [show] on by default;
2) make the [show] button more conspicuous (write [click to show], use bold font, a special color, or a combination of those);
3) do nothing, there is no problem.
Could you please give your opinion on the matter?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Iry-Hor, thank you for contacting me, but in fact I don't edit Egyptian articles unless they touch on Biblical matters (e.g. the exodus). I really don't have the knowledge to help, sorry. All the best. :) PiCo (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iry-Hor: Perhaps a note on the specific info-box talk page? Template talk:Infobox pharaoh. Tim riley talk 16:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Iry-Hor, what's up? I never had this issue. Anyway, I've just checked the template page, ybut I lack the required knowledge to show it on by default, I'm sorry. Khruner (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Iry-Hor I do not find the box perfect, but I think the layout is okaish. On the German wiki there is no button, all names of the pharaohs are all fully visible, but I find the boxes there often too big, especially for lesser known kings, the boxes are often unproportional large in comparison to the short texts. -- Udimu (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought about making the titualry visible by default, but I checked on a couple of pharaohs' articles and clicked "show" to see how the box looks when the titulary is open. It's very long and pushes the images beneath it a long way down, so I don't think it's a good idea. I'd support making the "show" button larger, as it is pretty small. A. Parrot (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Egyptian Empire

How common is it to call the New Kingdom the "Egyptian Empire"? Doug Weller talk 16:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not common, although it is sometimes called that, usually by nonspecialist sources: general histories of the world or of imperialism. When Egyptological sources use the phrase, they tend to use it to refer to Egypt's foreign possessions in any time period when it had foreign possessions (like the Middle Kingdom, which controlled a large swathe of Nubia). It's rare for them to use the term as a synonym for the New Kingdom, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid synonym; in a discipline that's all about ancient Egypt, "New Kingdom" is simply the less ambiguous term. Why do you ask? A. Parrot (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: Thanks. This came to my attention when I noticed that in the article on Bronze Age States New Kingdom is piped to read "Egyptian Empire", which seems unhelpful.[8] Doug Weller talk 19:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Hyksos, 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 — MusikBot talk 00:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Transcription/transliteration of Ancient Egyptian words

Has there been any discussion of creating standards for transliterating and transcribing Ancient Egyptian words in articles? Tanis is an instructive example. The Ancient Egyptian doesn't directly affect the article title at all, since the common English name for this place is the Greek name. However, there are at least three forms of the Egyptian name that are included in the article. When I first saw it, the Egyptian name was listed as "Djanet", which is basically an Egyptological pronounceable pseudo-transliteration, plus an infobox with a transcription of the hieroglyphic spelling ḏˁn.t. I added IPA per Loprieno (/ˈɟuʕnat/ or /ˈcʼuʕnat/). The IPA is the easy part: either scholars have a reconstruction or they don't. For the Egyptological name and the transcription, ideally we could have a standard for both. I'm not sure which system 'ḏˁn.t' is supposed to be. I'm fine with switching everything to Gardiner 1927/1957 (so Tanis would become ḏꜥn.t, although it's arguably deficient in not distinguishing

from

or

from

, so we might want to consider modifying it to make those distinctions. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It's probably been discussed in passing, but the project has never established a standard for how to transliterate or transcribe Egyptian words. One reason why some articles use the weird system you point out is that older browsers can't read signs like ꜥ, so some editors used to use ˁ in its place. As more people get more up-to-date browsers, that problem is less widespread than it used to be. Personally, I'm most familiar with the "European" system of transliteration that is found in James P. Allen's Middle Egyptian—see the chart in transliteration of Ancient Egyptian—and I tend to use it. It only differs from Gardiner's sysstem on a few letters, though, so I wouldn't object to using the Gardiner system. Iry-Hor, Khruner, do you have an opinion? A. Parrot (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I really don't know as I tend to use the variants provided by the given source. But if we have to standardise somehow, I'd say Allen too since I own a copy of Middle Egyptian. I have to say I can't read any of the four signs written by Greg Pandatshang, only four, apparently inevitable squares filled with numbers and letters. Khruner (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection at all to using the "European" system. The main difference seems to be that it uses j instead of the "Egyptological i" ı͗; j is easier to type and will render correctly on more computers; and it uses z for one of the two hieroglyphs that Gardiner uses s for; which means it avoids one of the non-distinctions I pointed out above. James P. Allen's system still uses the same symbol for and . It seems that many of the transliteration systems conflate with either or . We might consider using ï for per various systems, most recently Daniel Werner's. P.S. I have switched unicode hieroglyphs above to WikiHiero, so they should display now. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Renaming ancient Egypt articles

There is a proposal to change the article title at Talk:Second Intermediate Period of Egypt. This can be a wider discussion on the titles of other periods as well, whether we need a consistent naming convention, and if these articles need changing. Comments are welcome. Hzh (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Cleopatra

I'd like to inform the members of the WikiProject that I have nominated Cleopatra for Featured Article status, after a recently successful Good Article candidacy. If you are interested in making comments or offering suggestions, please feel free to visit the FA candidacy page. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggested move of Egyptian mythology and Egyptian temple

I've proposed moving these articles to ancient Egyptian temple and ancient Egyptian mythology. Practically all articles that refer to ancient Egypt in their titles (Ancient Egyptian technology, art of ancient Egypt, and so on) use "ancient". These two don't because modern Egypt doesn't build temples or have a mythic tradition of its own, so I thought disambiguation was unnecessary. I've since changed my mind and figure the titles should just be consistent across the board. The move discussion is at Talk:Egyptian mythology for anyone who wants to participate. A. Parrot (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Iruña-Veleia claims of Egyptian hieroglyyphs

Iruña-Veleia#Expert opinions favorable to the authenticity of the findings at Iruña-Veleia - there's been some very vehement editing on this article. And some use of sources that I don't think meet WP:RS, eg some YouTube links, link 27 by Egyptologist Ulrike Fritz which may or may not be published (and the next link may be copyvio), etc. There's also "As of 2017 no peer-reviewed study has been published supporting the falsehood of the findings and no control excavations have been performed at the site" which of course is not sourced. Maybe these claims are correct, but if so I'd think they'd be discussed more in Egyptological sources. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Isis is now at FAC

Feel free to comment on its nomination page. A. Parrot (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Fourth Dynasty of Egypt?

It seems to have recently been rewritten by Bemalm248 (talk | contribs), a student editing for a course assignment supported by the Wiki Education Foundation, in a string of edits starting here and ending here. I don't think the result meets Wikipedia standards. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

not very good. Reads like a history for a children's book. Most facts are somehow okaish, but there are also mistakes. I would delete; better facts about the kings are in their articles. (one example: about king Snofru: He descended from a family in the Middle Kingdom, near the city Hermopolis. It seems there is a confusion between Middle Egypt (region) and Middle Kingdom (period). The author means Middle Egypt. -- Udimu (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this fringe?

The chapter by Charles Finch III in this book] called "From the Nile to the Niger: The Evolution of African Spiritual Concepts" is being used as a source and I've brought it up at WP:FTN#Fringe source being added to articles about African history where you can find links to various pages and videos relating to him plus a comment on his use of Hancock and Bauval and claim that the Great Pyramid was built for religious ceremonies and could only be entered by secret passageway from the Sphinx.Doug Weller talk 16:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ˑoh dear; the book looks okay, its is published by a big academic publisher (Blackwell-Wiley). So it is hard to argue against it, as reference for articles. Evidently, Great Pyramid was built for religious ceremonies and could only be entered by secret passageway from the Sphinx - that is rubbish. So even big publishing houses, publish bad research. I would not use it as first choice for data, but it might be a useful reference work in discussions for African centred Egyptology. -- Udimu (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox pyramid

Template:Infobox pyramid has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox building. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hieroglyph merging

The Category:Articles to be merged from November 2017 is rather full of hieroglyph articles in need of expert attention with a view to consolidating the material in a set of currently overlapping pages. Perhaps Talk:List of Egyptian hieroglyphs#Eventual cleanup is a place to coordinate efforts. Klbrain (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Early life of Cleopatra is FAC

You may comment on the review page. Векочел (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Lower Egypt#Pliny the Elder (N.H. 5.11)

Hi

Can someone take a look please? I am guessing it is Naturalis Historia chapter 5 page 11 - but that is just a guess.

It seems some of these articles were written in an "in house" style, where it is assumed that the reader is very knowledgeable about ancient history, and completely up-to-date with abbreviations and terms.

Many sections of the Lower Egypt article are also unrefd, making it more difficult to understand where these "explanations" ocme from.

Here, for example, the (N.H. ...) is clearly trying to ref the preceding words, but makes a complete mess of it by not explaining what the heck N.H. is, let alone the 5.11 !!

I realise that it might seem a bit ranty, but it was infuriating to have to spend twenty minutes to find out what that might be referring to- which I am guessing is PLiny's text.

THanks Chaosdruid (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's Pliny's text: Book 5, chapter 11. I've specified that in the article, although it may make the sentence a bit too long. A. Parrot (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negro-Egyptian languages

I've no idea how this got through AFC. Doug Weller talk 20:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Ramses III arguing that the section on a mummy which might be his brother be titled "DNA: Haplogroup E1b1a"

For about 4 years, at least, IPs and other editors have been trying to use the BMJ article ""Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study"found here by cherry-picking the DNA to suggest that he is of Sub-Saharan ancestry, despite the fact that the article is not about his DNA but only uses it as one of several tools to look at the relationship between his mummy and another. See Talk:Ramesses III#Genetics and Talk:Ramesses III#haplogroup predominantly found in Sub-Saharan Africa, - original research. The section does mention his DNA but an IP is been attempting to claim that the section should be called not "Possible relationship with his son Pentawaret", which is what the section and the aource are about, but "DNA: Haplogroup E1b1a". Their latest attempt is accompanied by the edit summary " doesn't matter what the BMJ article is about, it matters what is in it. Now stop trying to obscure Ramses III's known and accepted (by testing companies) dna results" and a link to a YouTube video (see the first talk page link "Genetics) "5 Brits Take A DNA Test".

If people agree that the IP is correct, sobeit, but otherwise I'd like help. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm always reluctant to get involved with these genetic/racial disputes, but I agree that the IP's preferred section heading is very undue weight. I've watchlisted the article and will revert if the IP changes to that title again, but I don't know how else to help. A. Parrot (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The heading of an article section should reflect the subject of that section. Haplogroup E1b1a1 is entirely incidental to the subject, so it should not be the header for the section. I'm not touching the race issue with a ten-foot pole though. Good luck with that. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Basileus

Slapnut1207 is making similar changes in a couple of articles, like this, essentially adding "Basileus" to rulers of the Ptolemaic dynasty. I can find no good documented justification for that, especially not for the claim the editor made in this edit summary. I asked them to stop, and I think they have, which is good, so maybe we can get some more opinions on it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Drmies: Well, it was the Greek word for king, and the Ptolemies did use it. But I don't see why "basileus" and "pharaoh" should both be listed in the infobox. Basileus hasn't entered English vocabulary the way "pharaoh" has, and most English-speakers won't recognize it. I would expect—and from skimming my sources on Ptolemaic Egypt I can't see anything to contradict this—that the Ptolemies simply treated basileus and the Egyptian word for a king as synonyms of each other, not as separate titles. (The Rosetta Stone, for instance, uses basileus in the Greek text and nout in the Egyptian text, nout being the Demotic descendant of the original Egyptian word for the pharaoh, nswt.) It makes most sense to me to use "king" for both, as in the revision before Slapnut1207's edit. A. Parrot (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I figured something like that, but "did use it" apparently didn't rise to the level that it makes it into the articles one way or another. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: you beat me here. User:A.Parrot makes sense. What annoys me is that Slapnut never uses talk pages. I think I'll revert with a link here. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do. Thanks. I think we have a consensus here--with more meat to it than the rather useless "Changed Succession" that Slapnut1207 drops. Slapnut, this is a collaborative joint, and consensus means a lot. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran

Your feedback would be appreciated at this request for comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran. Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 656

On the page Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 656 a citation reads:

"At places where the tetragrammaton should appears, these spaces where filled with κυριος uncontracted, by another hand", and contracted κς.[1]

I looked this up in the referenced material as I noticed the typo "should appears", but it seems the entire quote is a paraphrase. What should we do? I also do not feel the referenced material is particularly well substantiated or representative of the Tetragrammaton debate. It states on the same page that it should be bourn in mind that Christians would have first used the nomina sacra in the Old Testameant. Leader in the field on nomina sacra, Larry Hurtado, absolutely disagrees. Jbjbjbjbjb (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. First, when posting about an article it is always a good idea to provide a link to the article being discussed, which makes it easier for other editors to familiarize themselves with the matter.

As to the quotation itself, if it is inaccurate, then by all means replace it with an accurate copy! (I don't have access to the book being cited -- Comfort's Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism -- so I can't offer an informed opinion about its suitability in this regard.)

Third, I feel this discussion might be better located on the talk page of the article. Since you did post your question here, I'll respond here. This portion of the article is awkwardly written, & doesn't really explain the importance of how the tetragrammaton matters. It appears that the papyrus was originally written with blanks where this symbol would appear, & later someone else filled the space with the Greek word kyrios. (This leads me to wonder if the original was produced on speculation, so it might be sold to either a Jewish or Christian customer, rather than on commission by someone of one of those two faiths.) Why this is important is not explained: is this typical, an early example, or otherwise uncommon? Beyond that, the matter of the tetragrammaton is best left to tetragrammaton to discuss. And I suspect that there are other characteristics of this manuscript (e.g. variants, handwriting, etc.) that merit at least a mention. -- llywrch (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

They claim egyptians played bowling

There is a bowling historian 1 2 who is claiming everywhere on the internet some bowling stone balls were found in a 3200BC egyptian child's grave. The historical references on egyptian games and sports don't mention anything related to bowling (throwing a ball on a bunch of pins) and the contributors of wiki/Bowling deny this is probably a fake (our discussion).

Does that grave exist ? Quoting bowlingmuseum (sorry I didn't find anything more precise) :

Sir Flinders Petrie, discovered in the 1930's a collection of objects in a child's grave in Egypt that appeared to him to be used for a crude form of bowling. If he was correct, then bowling traces its ancestry to 3200 BC.

Reuns (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The most obvious place to check would be the OEAE, but I could not find any entry for bowling or any mention of it in the entries for sports and games. The index also turned up nought. I found a book which referenced Naqada and Ballas 1895 as the source of the claim. Checking the book, sure enough there is something resembling bowling to be found there. Reference pages 35[9] & Plate VII[10]. Petrie refers to it as the game of Skittles (sport) in the section. That's what I found with about 20 minutes of searching. I don't know much about sports in Ancient Egypt, I'm afraid, to be of any further help. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Thanks a lot, sorry for not having found myself. It is convincing it is a game but it is not obvious Petrie's interpretation is correct (of table skittle), the shape of the pawns is similar to that of Senet and I doubt anyone will locate it and try to play with it for real. Reuns (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Physicians

Coming here from an argument at Talk:Imhotep. I see that Ancient Egyptian medicine states that Hesy-Ra is the earliest recorded physician in the world, although his article says "he most discussed title is Wer-ibeh-senjw, which can be translated in many ways. Ibeh can be translated as "dentition" and/or "ivory" as well. Senjw is a plural for "arrows", "cutters" and/or "physicians" alike. Thus, the full title Wer-ibeh-senjw can either be translated as "Great one of the ivory cutters" or as "Great one of the dentists". If the former translation was correct, Hesy-Ra was a professional ivory-cutter and artist - a profession that was fairly common and already attested in early dynastic inscriptions. If the latter translation was correct, Hesy-Ra would be the very first person in Egyptian history to be officially entitled as an occupational dentist.[3]"

Which also leads me to think that we have to fix Template:Ancient Egyptian medicine. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to be much help here, but I took a look at the broad sources that I have – much of my stuff is pyramid related, surprise surpise. The most obvious, source for me to check is, as it was above, the OEAE. Findings:

1) Hesy-Ra (third dynasty) was the earliest person to carry the title of physician, and he called himself "Chief of Dentists" (wr ibḥ swnw). James E Harris, OEAE Vol 1, p. 384. In article this has been rendered as Wer-ibeh-senju, which is strange to me as I'd be inclined towards Wer-ibeh-sunu.

2) Besides Imhotep, a further important high-ranking official was Hesy-Ra, "overseer of the royal scribes, greatest of physicians and dentists". Jochem Kahl, OEAE vol 2, p. 593

I found further mentions of Hesy-Ra, but these related to the contents of his decorated tomb, and not to his role in Djoser's court. I also checked Oxford History – very brief mention; Grimal's (1992) History – no mention; and Smith's (1960s) Old Kingdom – no mention. I did a search for "wr-ibh-swnw" and I get hits for dentisty. The hieroglyphs in Nuun's work are (Gardiner signlist) G36-F18-T11 and from the image provided, I can believe that. That's all in 30 mins searching. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Jonesː An Index of Ancient Egyptian Titles, Epithets and Phrases of the Old Kingdom, Vol I., ISBN 1841710709, p. 381, no. 1412 lists several readings and translations by other Egyptologists. Most Egyptologists read the title as chief dentist, but others translate big one of the ivory and arrow maker. It means due to our bad knowledge of these early hieroglyphs, the reading and translation of the title is open to different interpretations. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Book of Joseph (Latter Day Saints) and Joseph Smith Papyri

These seem to be mainly from an inhouse persepctive. I'm not sure if anything at Criticism of the Book of Mormon#Relation to the Book of Abraham can help. --Doug Weller talk 15:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Not sure what you mean by an "in-house" perspective. I do think the articles go into excessive detail and lose track of the most salient points, but that's hardly an unusual occurrence on Wikipedia. A. Parrot (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@A. Parrott: I mean it needs more sources that aren't from the Latter Day Saint movement. --Doug Weller talk 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It may be that it needs fewer sources from a Mormon background, because as far as I can tell only a handful of non-Mormon scholars have tackled this subject, and those scholars—Wilson, Baer, and the four contributors to Ritner 2013—are already cited in these articles. A. Parrot (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Which of these interpretations is correct?

See [11]. Doug Weller talk 02:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It seems that both are viable interpretations. The Great Name (2013), Ronald Leprohon's complete list of pharaohs' titularies, renders it as "Thoth is born", whereas Peter Clayton's Chronicle of the Pharaohs (1994) and Kara Cooney's biography of Hatshepsut (2014) render it as "born of Thoth". A. Parrot (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: thanks. I don't think I'm up to showing that in the article tho. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I put both meanings in, with refs. A. Parrot (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: thanks. ````

Problems with portrayal of historicity at The Exodus

I believe I have identified problems with the portrayal of sources concerning the historicity of the Exodus and would like outside input. Please see Talk:The Exodus#Lede citations and mis-citations.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts

As I indicated I would do in talk-page messages to interested parties and in my sandbox, I have rewritten this article. Comments are welcome. A. Parrot (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

IP making unexplained date changes

See 173.48.157.56 (talk · contribs) By the way, would 1561 BCE be late 1560s or early? I think late but I saw a date (not exactly that one) which called it early. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a (brief) assessment

Would someone like to re-assess Pyramid of Pepi I? It's definitely not a stub anymore. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Done. A. Parrot (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mr rnddude (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

How many Ptolemaic Decrees were there?

Our Ptolemaic Decrees article says in no uncertain terms that there were three, but according to Decree of Canopus#Importance for the decipherment of hieroglyphs there were four, the first one being a "Decree of Alexandria" that is not mentioned at all in the main article. This Decree of Alexandria is mentioned in several reputable sources, including this 2019 book which calls it "recently discovered," so this may just be an issue of some articles needing updates, but one way or another they need to be harmonized on this. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Elmer Clark: Thanks for pointing this out. I edited the article to incorporate this decree, as well as two others that have been known for 200 years but don't have as much written about them. A. Parrot (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Medjed (god), 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 — MusikBot talk 00:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

European writing similar to Egyptian script and the oldest in the world?

See WP:FTN#WP:UNDUE issue at Gradeshnitsa tablets - claim that they are similar to Egyptian script and the earliest evidence of written language. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSN#Are these apparently reputable Egyptologists used at Land of Punt fringe?

The editor User:Dalhoa, states that they deleted all the material suggesting locations other than the Horn of Africa because " However, what is a commentary, pov and personal analysis is keeping those fringe theories in the page when the archaeological and dna finds all point to the Horn of Africa. As for labelling the revert of Arminden an attack and condoning the revert of 2601:405:4A00:75F0:CE:CFAA:163B:339C it is clear there is a pattern of bias against HoA". Doug Weller talk 20:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is interesting:New research into Egyptian mummies leads to calls for major ethical review eg "Talking specifically about Ulster Museum’s mummy, Takabuti, Stienne says she was concerned that press announcements reference her DNA but fail to provide any context on migration to ancient Egypt and Greek and Roman invasions. She warns this echoes Victorian research that set out to prove ancient Egyptian were white, and plays into the hands of the right-wing media." Doug Weller talk 08:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought the media had a minimal interest in Egyptology, providing only two or three relevant articles per year. Are you certain there is any agenda about white supremacy in their narrative? Dimadick (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the use of Copic names (as a native name) for AE figures appropriate

Eg Seti I[12] with an edit summary (after I reverted) "He is pre-Coptic, but it, still, remains the native name. Coptic is Ancient Egyptian. Also, in other articles about pre-Coptic Egyptian staff, there are Coptic names, e.g "Demotic (Egyptian). Doug Weller talk 05:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: No. Do we give the "native names" of Roman emperors in Italian or French? And at least Romance-speaking peoples retained the memory of Roman emperors and continued to write their names down; the Copts didn't retain the memory of most pharaohs because the extinction of pre-Coptic scripts broke their connection with their own country's history, aside from what they could glean from Greek sources. Some dynastic Egyptian names survived into Coptic, but for others one would have to play etymological games to construct a Coptic form. There is one example of a Coptic name that is used in Egyptology for a dynastic character—Sinuhe is a Coptic word, and his real name is Sanehat—but I don't know why that is, and as far as I'm aware it's a unique situation. A. Parrot (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

AfC Drafts

Hi, two submitted drafts you may like to comment on and/or improve

• Draft:Hat Hor
• Draft:Wash (pharaoh)

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

they most likely deserve an own article, but the references are extremely weak, mostly very general publications. No research bibliography. best wishes Udimu (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Egyptian tomb proposed for merge

An editor has proposed that {{Infobox Egyptian tomb}} be merged with {{Infobox ancient site}}. If you have an opinion on this proposal, please comment at the discussion. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of merger of The Exodus to The Book of Exodus

There is a discussion of merging The Exodus to The Book of Exodus that may be interest to members of this project at Talk:Book of Exodus#Merger proposal.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The Hyksos and Indo-Europeans

Aid in untangling the mess revealed in this discussion Talk:Hyksos#"Indo-European" elements and Martin Bernal would be much appreciated. I fear I'm not going to be able to find scholarship on this very easily.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

For once JSTOR actually had a recent book online about the Hyksos that I could access! However, help would still be appreciated.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of Fifteenth Dynasty of Egypt to Hyksos

There is a proposed merger of Fifteenth Dynasty of Egypt to Hyksos. Please discuss at Talk:Hyksos#Merger proposal.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I realize that at the moment the merge discussion is monopolized by an argument between myself and another editor, but it would be very helpful to get some more input to see if I’m just wasting my time and should withdraw the merge request.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Théophile Obenga

I'm not at all sure about the recent edits to this article. The issues I have are mainly about language though. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I've changed it to be less POV. A. Parrot (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks much better now. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Reign of Narmer

Infobox, lead and body of article don't match. I'm not sure how to fix this. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller The article needs proper care. Removing conflicting info demands lots of works especially because in Egyptology, conflicting info comes from valid but conflicting sources that all need to be discussed.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Please help me improve this article

Please help me improve this article based on its German version. Тёрнер (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

New sources

Why are the sources on the article outdated by close to 20 years or more. In order for a topic to hold credentials shouldn't it be up to date with modern day history? -Lrambara (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC).

it is a small subject. There are often no more modern discussions on certain problems. Sometimes publications more than 100 years old are still valide. Udimu (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

New article: Shoshenq VII

Draft:Shoshenq_VII

Many other poorly attested kings have articles, and I've wondered for years why there is no article on Shoshenq VII/VIa, so I decided to try to contribute it myself. He clearly "qualifies" for an article, especially with caveats. Opinions? Advice? Mnd5trm (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Translating a paragraph in German

I have a small paragraph of German that I'd like translated for use in an article, but can't think of any German speaking users. Sowohl mit seiner Gesamtkomposition wie in der sicheren und gewandten Zeichnung der Einzeltypen steht also der Künstler des Jagdbildes aus dem S′aʒḥu-reˁ-Tempel jedenfalls an der Spitze - This is part of Ludwig Borchardt's closing remarks on the hunting scene from Sahure's mortuary temple. You can see the context here. I have a stand-in translation (GT assisted) on the article in footnote b. Feel free to edit it directly. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

—The artist of the hunting scene from the Sahure temple stands at the top, due to the overall composition, as well as due to the secure and elegant drawing of single types -- Udimu (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Dankeschön. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I would translate "The artist is at the top [of his profession]" just to make that clearer Mr rnddude. He means he's very good, not that he's located somewhere.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

If you need more peanut gallery comments, I agree with Ermenrich, and note that there's an "also" in the original sentence - thus strictly the translation should start with or contain a "therefore" (the sentence is apparently the summation of a prior assessment). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I knew that Borchardt was referring to the painter's ability, but that might not be obvious to a reader so will add that in. I've put in 'thus the artist' to match 'also der Künstler' ('thus' just because it's a syllable shorter to read). Mr rnddude (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Atet, Matet boat, and Seqtet boat

I’ev proposed a merger of these three articles, as they’re describing the same solar barques under different variants of the same names. I figured I’d post here in case anyone wants to join in on the discussion at Talk:Atet. —Vorziblix (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Khafra

I've requested that this article be moved to the title Khafre. Anyone interested can comment here. A. Parrot (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hatshepsut heavily rewritten and needs attention.

Doug Weller talk 19:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Having glanced at the changes, I don't know that it's much of a problem. Most of the text that was removed was unsourced. What was added isn't supported by ideal sources but isn't clearly problematic either. The whole article needs a more fundamental rewrite, unsurprisingly, and I don't see User:Crazyaspie's changes as a major improvement or a major detriment. A. Parrot (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposing a Combination of Articles Related to Royal Children of Amarna

My apologies if this is the wrong place to put this. This is my first attempt at posting on wiki, but I've been pouring over Ancient Egypt materials and these articles for a while and want to see these pages shine.

Anyway: has anyone considered combining the royal children of Amarna Era into one article? The more minor ones whose articles are fairly short without much information? The three foreign-born wives of Thutmose III have a singular page, in part because they shared a tomb, see:Menhet, Menwi and Merti. Having at least some of the children in the same article might be more practicable or navigable for readers since the individuals are attested to in the same resources and rarely discussed separately. Specifically:Meketaten, Neferneferuaten Tasherit, Neferneferure, Setepenre (princess),Meritaten Tasherit and Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit. This might also work as two articles: one for the confirmed daughters of Nefertiti (the first four listened) and one for the two ambiguous girls (the two final Tasherits). Meketaten might warrant her own article as there is speculation about her funerary arrangement and whether she died in childbirth, but the articles of the others are repetitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForWhomTheSunShines (talk • contribs) 00:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@ForWhomTheSunShines: The guidelines about merging articles are at WP:Merging#Reasons for merger, though given how general they are, they're not very helpful in this case. I don't have an opinion about your proposal myself, but Wikipedians generally seem to prefer to keep articles on individual people separate. Menhet, Menwi, and Merti are an unusual case, given that all we know about them seems to come from their tomb; see Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum for another example. That said, the daughters you name, other than Meketaten, do seem to be pretty obscure. A. Parrot (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@A. Parrot:I think it would fit under reason for merger 2) Overlap and 3) Short text. Potentially also 4) Context, "If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." Again, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask these questions, but would it make more sense to do the "be bold" approach, or to open a discussion on one/all of their pages about it? Thanks!! 20:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think they deserve different articles.Menhet, Menwi and Merti and Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum are known from single sources, these are their tombs, they are not attested outside their burials. The Amarna princesses are known from a wide range of sources. Two became queens, one died early, for Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit the parents are debatable. Udimu (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Netert Mudat Egyptian Scarab Map

Does anybody has access to the cited article/journal Loper, N. (2020). "A Steatite Scarab Map from the Second Intermediate Period". Present Pursuits of the Past. Chicago: American Association of Archaeology. 5: 37–39. ? I have the impression one author is pushing here his idea. This is scarab with random motifs carved on it, as typical for the period. This is not a map. -- Udimu (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Udimu: as this "association" says "our publications are not made available to the general public, but reserved only for verified and vetted members of the archaeological community who adhere to a strict non-disclosure agreement in the use of peer-published materials and joint-research studies" [...]"We take the protection of our assets seriously, and all members with access to the journal or Big Book are bound legally in agreement not to disclose or disperse the materials outside the collective membership." it looks like a secret society. Possibly Creationist. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: This sound all very weird, but a reference that nobody (or just member of a selected group) can check, is not a proper reference. I would almost ask for a deletion. The conclusions of the article have some wider implications (oldest map of world), therefore, they need proper references, otherwise many people might copy this article and see the oldest map as fact backed by proper research (but many references, do not proof that an article is reliable and proper research is not yet visible here). Udimu (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Udimu: here's what I wrote at the article's talk page. Looks like a hoax.

The first source doesn't seem to mention it. In fact, none of the reliable sources do. Unreliable sources such as this Tweet[13] say it was discovered last year. This Pinterest post[14] seems to be the author of one source, Nate Looper. Click on his name, he's a "·@ArizonaGuide·Grand Canyon & Southwest Tour Guide. Flagstaff Beekeeper". A Reddit archaeology site also says discovered last year.[15].

It's creator was User:Nathandloper now User:Paleoarchaeo who seems likely to be the N Looper who wrote one of the sources - is that correct? [here I'm asking the editor this]]

No reliable sources mention this. Looks to me as though it should be deleted as a hoax unless proof is forthcoming shortly. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The creator of the article also created Genesis Creation Science Institute and an article on its founder, Nate Loper, the author of one of the sources. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion. I agree that the source and author seem extremely sketchy, and in any case it completely fails verification. – Joe (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

BTW; Something a friend suggested to me. The scarab is in a private collection and a wikipedia article might push up the market price of the object in case the owner wants to sell it. Udimu (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Mysteries of Isis is now at FAC

Feel free to comment at the FAC page. A. Parrot (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A long and fractious debate over whether Ahmose-Nefertari was a Nubian

The talk page is not a pretty sight, but if anyone is interested in the topic their participation would be helpful at Talk:Ahmose-Nefertari - the last two threads. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am flattered that it was felt support was needed (WP:BITE) to maintain censorship of important literature concerning the subject of the article at Ahmose-Nefertari. I also believe it is important to remain polite and avoid personal attacks including slander.

While it is said that the father of the subject of the article had tightly curled, woolly hair and strongly Nubian features (Yurko, 1989), and of the subject herself that she had pure genealogy (Shaw, 2003), I myself did not claim that the subject of the article was Nubian. I did suggest (based on iconography, as well as overwhelming support and virtually no credible opposition from literature), that the subject of the article was likely dark-skinned and that it should be reflected in the article. It is currently not reflected, and editors have tried to insist on conflating symbolism to avoid discussing natural skin color. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I had the opportunity to survey the project in the last month. I believe anyone with rigorous scientific training and some familiarity with ancient symbolism can surmise motivations behind systemic suppression of phenotypic information about Ancient Egyptians. I do question its logic. Progress is exponential and as the balance continues to shift, the poor behaviors and negligence of the editors of today will yield the ruthlessness and tyranny of the editors of tomorrow. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

3,000-year-old ‘lost golden city’ of ancient Egypt discovered

"dates to the reign of Amenhotep III, and continued to be used by Tutankhamun and Ay.”[16] "Betsy Bryan, Professor of Egyptian art and archaeology at Johns Hopkins University, said the find was the “second most important archeological discovery since the tomb of Tutankhamun”, according to the team’s statement." It was found between the temples of Ramses III and Amenhotep III near Luxor - I may have walked over it when I visited the temples several years ago! See also ]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/lost-golden-city-luxor-discovered-archaeologists-egypt National Geographic's article0. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

this is a nice and important excavation, all around in the news due to heavy advertisement (tourismǃ), there are many similar important finds not in the big news. The town seems to be part of Malkata, i think it should be incorprated there when more scientific reports are available... Udimu (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Udimu: -that's not clear yet. The best writeup I can find is this one, which includes a drawing showing the location of the dig and the palace complex Malkata.[17] Doug Weller talk 14:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: There is nothing substantial out there. But Malqata is not that far away and parts of the same city were already excavated by the French in the 1930s ([18]). My main point is just, that there should not be an article Golden City of Luxor (or something like that), before any research papers are out. When you look at the published photos, they excavated two or three houses.Udimu (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Udimu: I agree too early for an article. The French excavations are shown on the link I showed you, the image that Hawass posted over the weekend. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Here is a more professional evaluation http://www.archeo3d.net/?p=3909&fbclid=IwAR1DX6Nf4_IznCK4I5a7cbnhCLTyQc419NpbO64D2N3nvO0_8Rq_wtlCeC4 best wishesUdimu (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Udimu: thanks, much appreciate. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

KV62/tomb of Tutankhamun move discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:KV62#Requested move 22 April 2021 about whether the article should be moved to the title "tomb of Tutankhamun". Please comment there. A. Parrot (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Tiaa (wife of Seti II)

This queen never existed and was in literature for some years due to a misinterpretation of data. All entries in other wikipedias are copies of the English article. Should the article get deleted? I am not sure what to do. best wishes Udimu (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Udimu: I recommend merging the information in that article into Seti II#Wives and treasure, so that Tiaa (wife of Seti II) is a redirect to that section. That section already says a bit about the nonexistent queen, but if any of the details from the article on the queen are worth adding to the one on Seti II, you can incorporate them into it (while noting in the edit summary that you're copying from the other article). If you've never merged a page before (or need to refresh your memory on the exact steps, as I always do), the instructions are at Wikipedia:Merging. Let me know if you need help. A. Parrot (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Most-viewed stub article within this Wikiproject

Helicopter hieroglyphs 20,568 685 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Two recent recurring problems

In recent weeks, somebody editing under several IP addresses that geolocate to the Glasgow area has been editing articles on various pharaohs and their relatives, making unsourced assertions about pharaonic genealogies and people's ages at death. Examples: these edits to Pepi I Meryre, this edit to Pepi II Neferkare, these edits to Ramesses III, and these edits to Ramesses X (in this case the edits apparently contradict recently discovered evidence). User talk messages are frustratingly futile when sent to hopping IPs, so I really don't know what to do about this editor.

Another problem, unrelated but recent and recurring is the behavior of a couple of editors, User:Ahmed88z and User:Ⲙϩⲙⲱⲇ ⲱⲥⲁⲙ. They've been inserting maps that claim Egypt's empire during the New Kingdom extended far beyond what I understand its limits to have been—claiming it ruled over Mitanni, Cyprus, all or most of Mesopotamia, and Punt. Ahmed88z has been warned but has not stopped If anyone else can keep an eye out for these dubious edits, I'd appreciate it. A. Parrot (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ipy and Taweret

Not entirely sure if this is the right wiki project to post this but I have a issue.

So I created this article called Ipy (goddess) and I kept noticing how this figure has similarities to Taweret. I did some research and there are some sources indicating they are the same figure.CycoMa (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The sources I found are in the page page for Taweret.CycoMa (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Family tree of the Egyptian gods nominated for deletion

Again. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of the Egyptian gods (2nd nomination). A. Parrot (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Can anyone identify the Nubt which, according to the article 32nd century BC, was annexed by Thinis ca. 3160 BCE?. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The Nubt you want is Naqada, according to Hassan et al (2006) 'The sequence and chronology of the Protodynastic and Dynasty I rulers' Archaeology of Early Northeastern Africa (Studies in African Archaeology 9). Poznan Archaeological Museum p.694. However this source doesn't give a specific date for the conquest or say specifically if it was Thinis or Nekhen that annexed them Merytat3n (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I've made the change. Thanks! At least, we can get the place right. Narky Blert (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Statuette of the lady Tiye

Draft:Statuette of the lady Tiye appears to me to be a defective but promising draft about a subject worth writing up. The draft was created by a username that's otherwise unknown and who disappeared before submitting it to AFC. In part to forestall its death from old age, Liz submitted it; I was then the second person to comment on it.

In principle Liz or I might be able to knock it into shape, but I've no reason to believe that Liz is anything of an Egyptologist, I'm certainly not, and I'm very wary of (non-trivially) editing material about matters that are utterly new to me. Can Liz and I nudge somebody here to take a look? -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't think it meets notability. While I've only looked at two of the sources the Met gives on their website as publications the statue has been mentioned in (Pharaohs of the Sun, and The Scepter of Egypt vol 2, they don't say anything beyond 'its a lovely wooden statuette of a lady from Medinet el-Gurob dated to late in Amenhotep III's reign'. The lack of in-line citations has been mentioned already, as has the fact its not the Queen Tiye. It also says she wears the Nubian wig - she does not, its a regular long women's wig; I assume this is the sentence the Aldred Hairstyles and History article is used as a reference for. Merytat3n (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the statuette is worth an article. It is depicted more than once in art histories and books on Ancient Egypt.Udimu (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I've removed all the stuff about how this shows a queen, but would prefer not to proceed further. If this draft is worth bothering with, then I think that one or more editors who (unlike me) have some background knowledge should take over. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Esmet-Akhom vs. Nesmeterakhem

I invite anyone that's knowledgeable and interested to weigh in here on whether the last hieroglyphic inscription should most appropriately be called the Graffito of Esmet-Akhom, the Grafitto of Nesmeterakhem or something else entirely. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Transliterating royal titulary

I added Thutmose IV's names that were missing and it got me wondering - the titulary should be transliterated as well, right? To me the transliteration seems more important than the current italicized Anglicised(?) version that appears before the translation. Perhaps this is because I am used to the academic convention of showing hieros, translit, and translation. I see that most (featured) articles on kings use all three eg. Pepi I Meryre is 'Nefer za hor' Nfr z3 Ḥr Perfect is the protection of Horus[13]/Excellent is the protection of Horus[14].' However, Ahmose is a featured article that doesn't have a transliteration for his titulary. I just wanted some clarification before I go to town on adding transliterations. Thanks! Merytat3n (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I doubt anybody at the wikiproject ever established a convention about this. I'd say if you want to add transliterations, just go ahead. A. Parrot (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, will do Merytat3n (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

SAGE making the Journal of Egyptian Archeology free to access for a time

I'm not sure how long it's set to last, but everything from the Journal of Egyptian Archeology is currently free to access. I figured that it might be worth notifying people as I'm sure there are plenty of articles which could be improved by mining something in this collection - there's more than a century of scholarship for the taking here after all! vagabondsun (it/its + he/him) | talk ✨ contrib 16:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I actually sign up?

When I click sign up it just takes me to the list of members and doesn't let me do anything to actually sign up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdbhi (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vdbhi: Add a bullet point to the list by typing an asterisk (*), and on the same line type four tildes (~~~~). The tildes will become your signature when you save the page. A. Parrot (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that it won't let me edit, to type that. Vdbhi (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC) OK- never mind it works now. The first time I looked, there was no edit button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdbhi (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Obelisk making technology in ancient Egypt has no sources

I don't know if we have another article covering this it could be merged to. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Shift Infobox styles into css file

In German wiki I just developed a module being able to write vertical cartouches. I will port this here. It will use an Egyptology/styles.css file as a template style sheet. This sheet is meant to control several aspects of designing pages in this project. --Vollbracht (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Neferneferuaten

Source 5 for a chronology table is over 10 years old and the note says the dates were under discussion. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of discretionary sanctions for the area of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy is under discussion

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Names of Theban Tombs and WP:COMMONNAME

The articles in Category:Theban tombs (including Category:Valley of the Kings‎ and Category:Valley of the Queens) have their technical names as the article titles. This was changed for one tomb last year in the discussion at Talk:Tomb of Tutankhamun#Requested move 22 April 2021. We also have the lost Tomb of Nebamun, which doesn't have a technical code. Having just visited many of the tombs, it strikes me that the move to common name would be appropriate for a few more of the high profile ones:

• QV66 => Tomb of Nefertari (by far the most famous tomb in the valley of the Queens) Ngram comparison here
• KV46 => Tomb of Yuya and Thuya (became the most well-known tomb prior to Tutankhamun's discovery, with its contents inhabiting a very large display area at the Egyptian Museum) [The Ngram is difficult here because Yuya and Thuya have different spellings and order in the sources; the title in bold is what is used at the Egyptian Museum]
• KV17 => Tomb of Seti I (another of the most famous tombs in the Valley of the Kings) Ngram comparison here

I have opened a discussion at Talk:QV66.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

About Infobox-Pharaoh

Hey, I've posted a question about the order of the titulary in the Infobox Pharaoh at Template talk:Infobox pharaoh. Any comment is welcomed. Thank you.--Sethemhat (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Giovanni Battista Belzoni#Requested move 13 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Giovanni Battista Belzoni#Requested move 13 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Saqqara Tablet name for Huni

A21   A25     A23

In Saqqara King List the name of Huni is given on a picture using A21 while on Huni page it's given with A25. Which one is correct? (no regard of face direction) Unfortunately I have no high-res photo of the stones. --Vollbracht (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vollbracht: Lundström(2011) says that the King's name had two varieties, in the Saqqara King List and Turin King List. I think the difference can be ignored. You can make it easier by adding the description like "This name is came from Turin King List". --Sethemhat (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sethemhat: Actually the quality of the photos taken by de Rougé is high. For Saqqara Tablet it clearly shows an upright standing figure. By appearance of its head it might have meant to be a pharao (false beard and Nemes?). By no means it is bent as A25 but it's clear that it's wielding a scimitar like A25, so it can't be an A23 and of course no A21. New Glyphe? --Vollbracht (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Spectator article: "Proof at last that the Great Pyramid wasn’t built by aliens"

[19] Doug Weller talk 12:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we ever use the Encyclopedia Britannica as a source for Ancient Egypt

This concerns me.[20] It calls Senusret I Sesostris I with no mention of the Senusret spelling. And of course this could be confused with the legendary king Sesostris whose article I've hopefully improved although it still needs a lot of work. Doug Weller talk 07:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

one reason I would not use itː Britannica does not provided references. Wiki is so strict on references and then, Wiki is totally relaxed on sources without references. Udimu (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Dakhamunzu, Nefertiti and Zannanza

Running into the use of this by someone who doesn't seem to have qualifications and hasn't published this - it's on the Electronic Egyptology Forum Online Library that I found it. I've removed it from Nefertiti and replaced it with scholarly sources. Sadly Nefertiti still has some rubbish sources, eg a defunct YouTube video by "Badger Utopia" is used twice,History.com and the Discovery Channel are used, as is the International Business Times. And the bit on the Hittite letters that I worked on needs more work. Dakhamunzu needs some major work - it still has Bill McMurray and also a geocities source. And Zannanaza is virtually unsourced and related. I just don't have the energy to work on these, sorry. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Debate on the interpretation of a quotation

See Talk:Population history of Egypt#Older sources need review. The debate is about whether the last sentence from this statement by Margaret Gatto means that Williams claims have been rejected or whether it means that after rejection they are being reconsidered. "Exemplary, in this respect, is the debate that followed the publication in 1980 by Bruce Williams of a report on Cemetery L of Qustul. The unmistakably rich graves of this small cemetery located just north of the modern border between Egypt and Sudan, and excavated by the Oriental Institute of Chicago in the t96os, were unique in the A-Group funerary panorama. Some of the tombs had unusual architecture and incredibly large size; there was a wealth and variety of funerary offerings, including rare imports from Egypt and even from the Levant; and there were a few objects decorated following Egyptian royal iconography of the Naqada III period, thus preceding the 1st Dynasty. To Williams, tombs with such size and wealth in Egypt would have been recognized as royal (Williams 1980:16), and because they pre-dated any royal graves known at that time in Egypt, he proposed Qustul was “a birthplace of pharaonic civilization several generations before the rise of the first historic Egyptian dynasty” (Williams 1980:12). His words were understood by many scholars, among others William Adams, as suggesting “nothing less than a Nubian origin for the immemorial pharaonic monarchy of Egypt (Adams 1985:185)” and for this were highly criticized. Williams replied that “no such claim was made” (Williams 1987:15) by him, and that his intention was to “raise the strong possibility that Egypt’s founding dynasty originated near Qustul and that the unification was accomplished from Nubia” (Williams 1986:177). Whatever the claim, the (for some scholars) inconceivable idea of a primary role for Nubia in the rise of the Egyptian monarchy has been reconsidered after more recent finds in Upper Egypt, dating back to the Naqada I period the early manifestations of elite iconography. 'That the tombs found in Qustul were exceptional and comparable to those of the earliest Egyptian rulers remains, nevertheless, a fact."

Thank. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Ashkali and Balkan Egyptians

Is sourced to [21] - is this legitimate? Doug Weller talk 19:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The organisation is legitimate but I have issues with the historical info presented. They rely on Herodotus, Greek myths, plays, and the Alexander Romance. Just feels a bit iffy. Herodotus I always take with a massive rock of salt. I have only done a little digging, but, for example, the only source I can find for "Egyptologists" saying the Lion Gate at Mycenae represents the Egyptian Aker is a Freemason publication who is citing 'Arthur Evans 1901' - but I haven't as yet found Evans saying such a thing in as many words in that publication. I don't know enough about the more recent history, but certainly the ancient section I would treat with caution. I would like to hear what others think Merytat3n (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixing archive navigation at Talk:Population history of Egypt

I was wondering why archive navigation was not available in the header, and I noticed archives for the present talk page start at 12. It appears that archived pages content for the talk page of the article should be moved to actual start of a count (Archive 1, 2, 3) for the archive navigation to appear (according to Template:Talk header/doc#Archives), and that archived pages starting at 12 should be deleted. I can proceed with the change unless I am missing something and there is a good reason to keep archive navigation invisible on the talk page. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena ^talk 21:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Requesting assessment on Kom El Deka

Hey, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and I recently made some major changes to the page for Kom El Deka, an archaeological site in Alexandria, Egypt. The article isn't currently under the wiki project but I think it should be. I'm a bit too new to feel comfortable assessing the article. I'd also appreciate feedback to help me edit more articles going forward. Thanks! Darthbeep (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Darthbeep: Hi there! Thanks for you work on Kom El Deka! I have added it to the wikiproject. For the assessment of Kom El Deka, I've assessed it as Start class. You're off to a great start! Your sources are good. The wikiproject has an assessment portal over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Assessment. You can also get to it from the main project page, in the 'General strategy and discussion forums' section, below the project member lists. I've popped a message on your talk page with some basic resources about wiki editing which you might find helpful, feel free to check them out! Merytat3n (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer review of Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun

See Wikipedia:Peer review/Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun/archive1. Some aspects of the tomb clearance were politically controversial at the time, and their treatment in the sources is changing as academia reassesses the impact of colonialism (I've put some more information about that on the talk page), so I'd like to have as much input as possible to make sure the article meets NPOV. A. Parrot (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this edit at Smenkhkare correct?

[22] Doug Weller talk 12:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Technically yes? In that Smenkhkare is a candidate for the KV55 mummy, and that Meritaten, as his known wife, could be a proposed identity for The Younger Lady, if it is agreed that these mummies are the parents of Tutankhamun. Meritaten Tasherit may be Smenkhkare's daughter but she could also be Akhenaten's child or entirely fictional. Smenkhkare's father being Akhenaten is a theory, yes, but equally likely that he could have been a brother of Akhenaten. An entirely different take in this article suggests Smenkhkare is a son of Crown Prince Thutmose and one of his sisters, later marrying Meritaten, and Tutankhamun is their son. It entirely depends on how much faith is put in the Hawass et al. DNA analysis. With so many competing theories out there, it should be clarified and sourced.

I would probably remove The Younger Lady as his wife, as the Hawass et al interpretation is that she is a sister of Akhenaten. Presumably, as the mother of Tutankhamun, The Younger Lady is proposed to be the mummy of Meritaten?? For Smenkhkare's father, I would either leave it off or give the possible options (cited). I'd like to hear what other people think! Merytat3n (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Merytat3n Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Popular pages link

I've been nosing around on other Wikiprojects and I see some of them have a handy link to a list of the most popular pages. Would it be a useful link for us to have too? It is interesting to see what is popular (and maybe even to get ideas of what needs improving). Let me know what you think! Merytat3n (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

We have a list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Popular pages. It's linked at the bottom of the Tools section of project page and not very prominent (when it was added, I wasn't sure where else to put it), but it is there. You could move it somewhere more visible if you want. A. Parrot (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

How silly of me, missed it entirely! But we do have it so that's fine :D Merytat3n (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about this edit, or rather the source, to Middle Kingdom of Egypt

[23] Source seems to be only a university text book spanning thousands of years (and perhaps government published, so isn't what I'd call an RS. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I also noticed those edits. I assume they are okay in a broader sense, but the bibliography in general is too obscure for this article. I am also adding often non-English literature to articles, but mainly when referring to original research. However, that cited book is very general. The information are easily available in other, English books. So I think it should not be used. BTW, you deleted the book from the bibliography, but the references in the footnotes are still there. Udimu (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Udimu yes, I realised that a bit late. Let's see if there are other comments, otherwise I'll just delete it all. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSN#Is the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs a reliable source for archaeology?

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)