Revision as of 05:13, 16 May 2007 editLeoboudv (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers21,193 edits →Re: Amenhotep I FA Nomination← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:35, 16 May 2007 edit undoTaharqa (talk | contribs)6,029 edits →Re: Amenhotep I FA NominationNext edit → | ||
Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
Congrats on your Amenhotep I article. I don't how you managed to get a 3-D photo of this king but that is simply amazing! Just to let you know, most serious scholars don't see any evidence for an Ahmose-Amenhotep I coregency. The coregency theory was once very popular especially in the 1960s and 1970s because scholars misread objects bearing the names of a king and his successor as evidence for a coregency between the two. Actually, it is more likely evidence that a current ruler was associating himself with his predecessor--as a way to show respect to one's deceased royal ancestors. | Congrats on your Amenhotep I article. I don't how you managed to get a 3-D photo of this king but that is simply amazing! Just to let you know, most serious scholars don't see any evidence for an Ahmose-Amenhotep I coregency. The coregency theory was once very popular especially in the 1960s and 1970s because scholars misread objects bearing the names of a king and his successor as evidence for a coregency between the two. Actually, it is more likely evidence that a current ruler was associating himself with his predecessor--as a way to show respect to one's deceased royal ancestors. | ||
BTW, on the ] vase, I decided to restore the photo of the vase from the Louvre. The picture of the vase from the Louvre is first rate; someone must have taken the time to carefully photograph the object in France. Also, the vase helps bring the Amenhotep III article to life a little more by adding a nice personal touch on this important king. Regards, ] 05:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | BTW, on the ] vase, I decided to restore the photo of the vase from the Louvre. The picture of the vase from the Louvre is first rate; someone must have taken the time to carefully photograph the object in France. Also, the vase helps bring the Amenhotep III article to life a little more by adding a nice personal touch on this important king. Regards, ] 05:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
==Response== | |||
Look, since you insist so much on keeping that statement in the Dynastic article, you shouldn't mind providing a quote so we know that the source isn't misrepresented, since we both know that the person who added it did not read the source at all, and uses the same source that debunks the theory in the same article. That is so suspect, so please provide a quote, otherwise it's OR.. If you can't do that, I don't know what to say, but the last thing I want to hear is an opinion. - '''Taharqa''' |
Revision as of 05:35, 16 May 2007
January 2006 - September 2006
September 2006 - December 2006
Re: Email address?
Thanatosimii, do you have an email address? Contact me thru the "E-mail this user" option on my home page; there is something I need your help with, & I'd like to discuss it offline. -- llywrch 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I received your email. I sent you a response which I hope demystifies everything. -- llywrch 01:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahmose I Mummy Head for FA?
Any chance the chosen image of the mummy head could be replaced by that of Ahmose's shawabti for the FA submission? It just seems a particularly gruesome thing to be greeted with on the front page of Misplaced Pages. (For a similar reason I have not added the mummy head of Tao II to the pharaoh infobox either).
Also, given what I am planning on adding to the article about the mummy -- essentially contesting that it may not be Ahmose -- the shawabti at least is probably a better likeness.
Cheers! Captmondo 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Got your reply, and I understand the situation. I have updated the section on the mummy based on the Forbes' piece, which casts some doubt that the mummy is who it is said to be. Ironic that the purported mummy of Ahmose I now rests in the same place as the equally dubious mummy of Ramesses I (that argument pretty much nailed down to my mind in the most recent issue of KMT).
- So where do we stand on the Thutmose III article? You have beefed things up considerably in terms of overall content, and I have hammered down the last of the needed citations/references, and been able to source a few more pics. (Which reminds me, I have made an effort to clean things up and source some other potential pics for the article, which can be found at Wikimedia Commons at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Thutmosis_III). I would like to further expand the section on the tomb, mention the "botanical garden" reliefs at Karnak in terms of art from his time, and am looking into coming up with a map of Karnak highlighting the sections that he established. I still think it would be a good idea to go into the co-regenecy with his successor, but other than that I think this article is coming together nicely, and Good Article/Feature Article submission is not far off.
- Cheers! Captmondo 11:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- The new biography you mention certainly sounds interesting, though too rich for me to readily add to my personal library anytime soon. I also note that the professor who wrote this does have a Web page and his email address is mentioned on it -- interested in giving him a ping to look over what has been done on that article and make suggestions?
- I have also decided to pull in my horns a bit when it comes to coming up with an SVG version of Karnak -- once I delved into it I realized that it is a huge project. I've done a lot of technical illustrations, but doing this right would probably take a solid month's work. Instead I am working on a top-down view of the Thutmose III's tomb layout. Ultimately derived from the online Theban project, but in the end it is it not the only source and consequently should qualify under GDFL. No timeline on when I will get that done, but beforehand month's end at the outside.
- Business keeps me traveling, and it turns out that the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum resides in San Jose, which is where I will be early next month. I won't go into my opinions on the validity of the Rosicrucian belief system here, but suffice to say that their artifact collection seems substantial, and I will bring camera in hand.
- I also like your idea about posting what reference works each of us has to draw upon, though I can only see that happening on an individual's user page. I have never seen an equivalent page for a project on Misplaced Pages, but perhaps that's because no-one has asked.
- Cheers! Captmondo 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Back To Jerusalem
Thanks for your edits to this article/stub. It looks much better than when I first happened on it, and the references help greatly. --Pastordavid 17:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Personal Ancient Egyptian bibliography
I seem to remember that you asked for individuals from the Ancient Egyptian group on Misplaced Pages to list their personal bibliographies -- in other words, what they had in their own personal library and what they have access to. I've finished my own list, which can be seen here. I also have the past few year's editions of KMT. I also have a scanner. ;-) Cheers! Captmondo 03:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Adding Hieroglyphs
Hi Thanatosimii
I sayed that I would drop a a line on you discussion-page here in the en-wp. Well: I've tried the chat and the mailing-list, but didn't really get any usefull answers (or similar), maybe I just tried in the wrong moment... anyway. So I tried to find out, how the piece of software works etc. and I was successful (It's very simple, but a developer has to do that...). I think I/we probably would get some usefull feedback, if we already had some Hieroglyphs and their corresponding "Gardiner-Name". Do you have some useful images, which should be added? greetings--Kajk 15:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I found the developer who actually develped and (as far as I know) also maintaince the extension: fr:Utilisateur:Aoineko greetings--Kajk 16:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have been looing into this, and it is possible to add in new 'prefabs' as they are called, simply by drawing the new tile and adding to the script. So that
can be rendered as , etc. I have tried with on a private mediawiki installation and it is quite simple. I will try and get hold of fr:Utilisateur:Aoineko and get it added if possible. Are there others that need to be added Markh 08:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have been looing into this, and it is possible to add in new 'prefabs' as they are called, simply by drawing the new tile and adding to the script. So that
Can I get your reply
You like Misplaced Pages to be with images and not dull and boring. Images related to the pages and articles. You would've have removed as you did with other edits I made that you didnt agree upon. So please respond, so this person understands that you agree. Ararat arev 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you also notice that Dbachmann reverted his wrong "copyvio" that I had got approval from User:Jkelly the admin who handles copyright images. He removed it and put the "copyvio" message. And Dbachmann later explained to him that was wrong and the tag is ok. Ararat arev 20:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Let the guy have his say in this before changing it. Sheesh. Ararat arev 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Also why dont you yourself compare the 2 pages and see for yourself what I mean. Im just giving you good advice. If you want take it. Ararat arev 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
If you dont want to make the pages look good, its actually not up to you. Ararat arev 19:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just to let you know i reported Ararat for his disruptive edits i asked him nicely a thousand times it seems if he gets blocked he calms down. For the 3RR. Nareklm 20:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah exactly what i was thinking, i think its going to be 48 hours this time i also warned him about the 3RR he removed my message. Hopefully next time he will be more cautious with his edits. Nareklm 20:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- He has been blocked!! Hooray! lol :-) Nareklm 22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah exactly what i was thinking, i think its going to be 48 hours this time i also warned him about the 3RR he removed my message. Hopefully next time he will be more cautious with his edits. Nareklm 20:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Amenhotep I
Thanks for letting me know about the peer review request for this article. Will take a look at it and let you know what holes I find (if any). Will add them to the article's discussion page.
Out of the blue I have the opportunity to make a business trip to New York City at the end of the month. Don't know how much spare time I will have to visit other places while there, but am hoping to make it to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and possibly the Brooklyn Museum. Will bring camera in hand and take pics, if allowed.
One thing that may possibly interest you: a photogallery of the recent pics I took of the Egyptian Gallery at the Royal Ontario Museum . Not on par with the museum in Berlin (or those in New York) but there may be something of use to you there.
Cheers! Captmondo 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In my University days in the mid-1990's, we followed the kind of academic citations you mentioned with the added op cit for footnotes on occasions. But its just a matter of taste, frankly. Nothing important here really on the references/footnotes. Leoboudv 00:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You helped choose Peloponnesian War as this week's WP:ACID winner
Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Peloponnesian War was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
AzaBot 12:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Babylon
Hi, two sources on Babylon's etymology
- David G. Burke "Babel, Tower of" The Oxford Guide to People and Places of the Bible. Ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. Oxford University Press, 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
- The cuneiform digital library initative wiki on Babylon .
Of course, both notes that Bab-ilu (gate of god) might not be the original etymology. Probably not a strong enough statement for being called a reliable source.
I won't be reverting to the fake etymology version unless I find better sources. The only thing which is clearly wrong right now is the "translating Sumerian". Otherwise the present form of the article is fine, since it does not state that Bab-ilu is the etymology of Babylon (contrary to the article on the Tower of Babel).
I am having a similar discussion/argument with Codex Sinaiticus on the Tower of Babel Talk page, and I feel like I am starting to be a dick. On top of that this is not very important, because it is certain that Babylonians (at least Neo-Babylonians) understood Babilu as meaning gate of gods.
Thanks
USferdinand 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ramesses IV
Dear Thomas, Hope I am not contacting you at a bad time. You know I have always treated you with the greatest of respect. Captmondo's recent pictures look good indeed. Anyhow, I am contacting you about Ramesses IV. I have made many recent additions to this pharaoh under my 24.87 account with the usual scholarly footnotes. It helps that I have some University training here since many people make additions but never cite the specific sources for their claims. ie: Its unverifiable and can be a problem on Misplaced Pages. Do you know who created the neat Pharaoh info-boxes for the other New Kingdom kings? No such pharaoh infobox exists for Ramesses IV but if there was any 20th dynasty king who deserved such a 'special treatment', it might be this king because of his numerous projects. Ramesses IV may have died after a reign of only 6.5 years but he left behind such a wealth of material and information that AJ Peden managed to print a biography on this ruler in 1994 which is unusual for the post-Ramesses III New Kingdom kings. Leoboudv 10:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and for the creation of the pharaoh info box on Ramesses IV by Markh. Its a good start. Leoboudv 01:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks for the addition. Leoboudv 08:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thutmose IV
The kind of sources I have on Thutmose IV are the standard ones by Nicolas Grimal, the Oxford History on Ancient Egypt plus Bryan's biography which is fundamental for understanding this king's reign. There hasn't been any major changes in interpretation on this king since Bryan's 1991 book came out. Except for Peter Clayton's Chronology of the Egyptian Pharaohs, pretty much all scholars including J. Von Beckerath's Chronologie of the Egyptian Pharaohs give him a 10 year reign--by rounding up Josephus' figures of 9 Yrs & 8 Months to 10 yrs. (I don't know if Clayton is a scholar or a writer; I have not seen him write any articles in major periodicals) I can only tell you that many scholars view Thutmose's Dream Stela as pure propaganda to cover up the fact that he likely murdered his elder brother and presumptive heir to Amenhotep II to take the throne. This is Zahi Hawass' take on the document from a video program on Ancient Egypt I once saw in the late 1990's and the stela does smack heavily of propaganda--if Thutmose IV was the legitimate successor, he needn't have created such a document to legitimise his unexpected rise to power. Basically, those are my sources with Bryan being the best of the best because her book concentrates on this king's reign unlike the other writers I quoted who just browse by it before proceeding towards Amenhotep III's longer 38 year reign. Regards, Leoboudv 09:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
FF WikiProject
Hi; looking for something to do? I might have an idea. Do you have any official strategy guides, by any chance? — Deckiller 02:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- We're trying to attribute a lot of the game material (such as explanations of how the battle systems work, or the descriptions of notable monsters/races/magic types) to a reliable, published source - in this case, it's the official strategy guides. Monsters of Final Fantasy is the first to start this system, and it's about halfway done. But if you can help finish sourcing that with that you have and perhaps start with other articles (Final Fantasy character classes is using mostly manuals packaged with the games right now, which is not as good), that would be greatly appreciated! This may sound vague right now, because we're still trying to find our way, but whatever you can source with those strategy guides is great. — Deckiller 14:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks; any help is appreciated. — Deckiller 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
FAC Maximus the Confessor
I have responded to your request for a theology section for FAC Maximus. Please check the article and see if this now meets the FA criteria. (FYI, I am still trying to think of a way to include some more info on the Maronites). Thanks for your helpful comments, I think they have made for a better article. -- Pastordavid 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have replied on the article FAC page -- and thanks, your comments have been very helpful, and I think the article is looking better with each change. -- Pastordavid 21:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support and comments on the FAC for Maximus the Confessor. The discussion has closed, and the article has been promoted to Featured Article status. I think the article was greatly improved through the comments and suggestions offered in the nomination process, and was happy to see the process work so well. Again, thanks. -- Pastordavid 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"Rameseses" or "Ramesses" or "Rameses"?
I don't know if you are aware of this, but there is currently a vote over on this page trying to achieve a consensus on which spelling of the name should be used for this line of pharaohs. Just thought that someone who is a better interpreter of hieroglyphics than I am ought to lend their weight and vote accordingly. Cheers! Captmondo 12:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Thomas, In case you're wondering, I made a correction on your introduction page on the spelling of Egypt. BTW, I sent a message directly to "you know who" here and mentioned your site and Captmondo's site. I'm not sure Betacommand cares about our work on Egyptology though. He seems very closeminded and unreasonable--the very antithesis of Misplaced Pages. Regards, Fabian Leoboudv 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Touregypt website
The website was added to the block list on March 16 for what was considered cross wikispam. That means while it wasn't spammed in English Misplaced Pages, the spam occured on many wiki's in specific languages. I do not know which Wiki's were affected, but asking User:Eagle 101 could find out some clues. User:Zscout370 00:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I put the entire domain on the whitelist. However, as I mentioned on the whitelist page, I have a few suggestions for you and others.
- The site should work, if not, tell me so I can fix it
- Try and use other websites that could convey the same information
- The presence of ads doesn't bother most of us, but some will still feel that Tour Egypt isn't the best authority to use on Misplaced Pages, since they are mostly a commercial venture
- The rules on external links still aplly.
- I hope this helps. User:Zscout370 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Amenhotep III
Dear Thomas, I added an image of the temple of Amenhotep III to this king's article today. You can now submit the Amenhotep III article to be proofread by the Misplaced Pages board; it may perhaps one day be a future featured Misplaced Pages article. (I don't know how to do this myself!) The article is very good in my opinion. I mostly rewrote the article over the past year and gave verifiable footnoted sources for all the ancient texts listed here. As of today, the Amenhotep III article is close to perfect. While one would wish there was more information on his monumental work throughout Egypt, this can be rectified in future. The article is superior to the ones on Thutmose IV or Akhenaten, which still require lots of work or have much unverified info. or claims. Fabian Leoboudv 03:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Thomas. I'm afraid--as you may know--I am not very tech savvy. If you wish to improve the phrasing of words or sentences in the article or make them clearer please feel free to do so. I wish there was more data on this king's monumental projects but all the data I have comes from Grimal's book for the most part. Leoboudv 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
personal attacks and that page
They have a history of making personal attacks. Please join the mediation that's going on right now.--Urthogie 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
First, all Urthogie is trying to do is use his propaganda to turn Newbies in his favor, but besides the point. Why would you ask if I read Redford, he's not the pioneer of the Dynastic Race Theory, it has a long history.. It isn't like he defined the term - Taharqa
- Redford doesn't agree with the dynastic race theory, and Thanatosimii isn't a newbie. He's criticized both me and you on the mediation talk page.--Urthogie 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Quote: I'm asking you, because you keep asserting what redford does and does not say, and since you just recently asked, "Who's redford?" I have to wonder if you have read it in the interceeding hours since you discovered he existed, such that you have authority to state what he says and does not say
Well the question doesn't seem to be of relevance given the fact that you had nothing at all to do with the wording of the statement and it's suspect that you'd defend a statement typed up by another person who has obviously admitted to not reading what was said in any context. Obviously he isn't paraphrasing if he didn't read it himself so your point is devoid of meaning, there's no burden of proof on my part, I'm not making wild claims about possible biological demographic changes and trying to quote a cultural "Egyptologist" who I didn't read to answer an anthropological question. It's also another thing to ramble on and not provide any sources or quotes yourself.. I'm sorry, but you seem to be arguing by Straw Man. We're debating over what an "Egyptologist" said in the context of Biological continuity or population change, and still no one provides a quote or anything, but only their own supposed authoritative opinion on what was said by "personal experience". No answers as to how it's relevant to an article about "race" and if the source is qualified to answer these questions, how old it is, is it today's consensus, what exactly is said, if what is implied (that there's disagreement as to the extent of "biological" influence from Mesopotamia) is actually said, that's sloppy. You came in from the POV of a reductionist, if you're going to participate, do it fully please, you're not helping by coming in and out of the situation questioning me only, where have you been all this time? You're not being neutral at all and started off on the wrong page focusing on the wrong things.. - Taharqa
Edit - Never mind, I saw your comments on the discussion page, thanx for the reply and explaining what you meant, giving me a chance to clarify what I meant. Taharqa
Why is she still reverting?
It seemed like you addressed her concerns about Redford, and she is still removing him as a source on both dynastic race theory and race and ancient egypt. Two things:
- If Taharqa reverts again on dynastic race theory, I'm reportin her for 3RR.
- It'd be very helpful if you'd stay on the Ancient Egypt and race article because honestly we'll get nowhere unless there's more people involved in the discussion.--Urthogie 01:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- She's still reverting on dynastic race theory, by the way.--Urthogie 18:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Second Intermediate Period and Ryholt
The names Intef and Antef are definitely interchangable as you note. There is an Intef/Antef V and he is definitely a 13th dynasty king...he is listed in the 13th dynasty section of the Turin Kinglist under his prenomen Sekare. He must also be listed In thutmose III's Karnak list of Royal Ancestors. In contrast, Intef/Antef VI, VII and VIII are all 17th dynasty Theban kings. So, the Misplaced Pages entries for them are correct. If there is an Intef V is the 17th dynasty, I suggest you amend it to Intef VI. This must have been someone's typo. Ryholt's source is his 1997 study on the Second Intermediate Period. Even then, it was conventional to name the Sehotepkare Intef/Antef here as Intef/Antef V. Check your E-mail for 3 scans on the situation Sehotepkare is definitely in line 7.22 of the Turin Kinglist. Leoboudv 20:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Thomas, The problem here lies not with Misplaced Pages or Encyclopaedia Brittanica. It is an old error that was made long ago by Egyptologists. It is now tradition that Nebkheperre Intef/Antef is called Antef VII and so forth. Ryholt recognises the confusion inherent within this numbering system and he calls these kings by their prenomen as in Intef W for Sekhemre Wepmaat Intef (Intef VI), Intef Nebkheperre (Intef VII) and Intef H for Intef Heruhirmaat (Intef VIII) But for Sehotepkare Intef, he clearly calls this king Sehotepkare Intef V because most previous papers call this king Intef V! I had the same reaction as you--who was Intef IV? The answer is probably no one but nobody ever accused Egyptologists of being consistent in their numbering of kings! If we renumber Intef VI, VII and VII, I'm afraid this will only only create even more confusion. Best to let sleeping dogs lie here.
The best example I can give you is that of king Osochor or Osorkon the Elder of the 21st Dynasty. Theoretically, he should be called Osorkon I but Egyptologists long ago decided Osorkon I was the son of Shoshenq I. Some books tried in the past to renumber Osochor as Osorkon I and Osorkon I as Osorkon II but the writers eventually gave up on this experiment because everyone accepted the conventional view that Osorkon I was the son of Shoshenq I. Besides if you did this, you wld have to rename Osorkon II, the son of Takelot I as Osorkon III and Osorkon III as Osorkon IV! You can imagine the confusion this system would create. That is why Egyptologists today follow the traditional numbering system here for these kings. As an Aside, Egyptologists are not stubborn: the Theban king Shoshenq VI was known as Shoshenq IV in pre-1993 books until Egyptologists confirmed the existence of a new Tanite king called Shoshenq whom they renamed Shoshenq IV because he ruled at Tanis between Shoshenq III and Pami unlike the old Shoshenq IV who is attested only in Upper Egypt. So, there is some logic in Egyptologists approach to kings here. Leoboudv 23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply
The reason I believe my friend Nkuka held you in bad faith, and first he did not personally attack you, that's exaggerated, but it's because you come out of no where saying a bunch of off the wall stuff, there's two options. Either you're not being honest and are biased or you don't know a lot about the subject and aren't being helpful, I just had to correct you on some very elementary Egyptological facts. Also you complicate things by demanding Egyptological sources when the article is about ancient Egypt and race and you never chastise or criticize Urthogie who we all know isn't perfect, all of this makes you seem suspect, but that's being honest with you... I make no accusations..
http://en.wikipedia.org/Egyptology http://en.wikipedia.org/Physical_anthropology http://en.wikipedia.org/Archaeologist http://en.wikipedia.org/Peer-reviewed - Taharqa 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, he has criticized me. See the talk page on our requests for mediation.--Urthogie 17:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:Ahmose.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ahmose.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Madmedea 09:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
This image is of a 3-d work of art, the PD-art tag can only be used for images of 2-works of art. Madmedea 09:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is a sculpture/engraving on stone therefore it is in 3d - it has depth in the carving it is not just printed on a page or painted on canvas. For more information see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag which explains the law more clearly i.e. coins are 3d art in this case. Madmedea 15:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Amenhotep I FA Nomination
Saw your note asking me to comment/vote on the Amenhotep I FA nomination. Will provide a critique as soon as I can, but that will likely have to wait until later in the week. Am just back from vacation, and am teaching a night course at the local university during the week so I don't have a lot of spare time these days.
Just did a quick glance of the material you have, and it seems solid: it is well-referenced, well-written (though the subject may not be as inherently interesting as Ahmose I), and reads well. I also like the fact that you chose one of my pics for use in the pharaoh infobox. ;-)
I suspect that some digging through the texts on my end may reveal some other possible out-of-copyright images, particularly of the still-wrapped mummy and cartonage mask. Will see if I can find anything useful in that area. And somewhere I seem to remember reading an article about possible candidates for his burial complex which I will also search for.
In any event, when time allows, will do a thorough critique and place my vote on the FA nomination page.
Cheers! Captmondo 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Thomas, Congrats on your Amenhotep I article. I don't how you managed to get a 3-D photo of this king but that is simply amazing! Just to let you know, most serious scholars don't see any evidence for an Ahmose-Amenhotep I coregency. The coregency theory was once very popular especially in the 1960s and 1970s because scholars misread objects bearing the names of a king and his successor as evidence for a coregency between the two. Actually, it is more likely evidence that a current ruler was associating himself with his predecessor--as a way to show respect to one's deceased royal ancestors. BTW, on the Amenhotep III vase, I decided to restore the photo of the vase from the Louvre. The picture of the vase from the Louvre is first rate; someone must have taken the time to carefully photograph the object in France. Also, the vase helps bring the Amenhotep III article to life a little more by adding a nice personal touch on this important king. Regards, Leoboudv 05:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Response
Look, since you insist so much on keeping that statement in the Dynastic article, you shouldn't mind providing a quote so we know that the source isn't misrepresented, since we both know that the person who added it did not read the source at all, and uses the same source that debunks the theory in the same article. That is so suspect, so please provide a quote, otherwise it's OR.. If you can't do that, I don't know what to say, but the last thing I want to hear is an opinion. - Taharqa