Talk:Ahmed Osman (author)

Last Line of Article Cite
This is a good cite because other people state that no reason has been brought up not to believe his contentions, which is true.mikey 01:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC) moved from archive
 * I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this statement, but talk doesn't go in the archives. Those are, as the name suggests, for archiving. Thanatosimii 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"None have come up with a satisfactory reason to reject them."
There are two problems with this sentence:
 * 1) Satisfactory according to whom? I mean, surely anyone who has come up with any reason at all has felt their reason was satisfactory. This statement is inherantly POV.
 * 2) Even if #1 was addressed, in order to support this statement you need proof that there has NEVER been ANYONE to have done this. The articles you are citing, as far as I can see, just has Osman talking about his detractors. The articles do not provide an academic review of all papers about Osman's theories

I would recommend that instead of trying to cite this sentence, you change it or simply remove it. In fact, with the new quote from Osman it may not be necessary -- cmhTC 14:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see, I see. The articles do say that, but yeah, obviously they are POV, and being said by Osman himself, it makes it a bit more POV.  I will remove the sentance and leave the quote.

mikey 22:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Who, exactly, supports this?
The ambiguity this article employs to explain the support/rejection of Osman's theories currently is a little weasel-wordish. Opinions should, as a general rule of thumb, have specific adherants listed. This is underscored by the Reliable source page which says that it should be easy to pick out the major proponents of a minority thesis. My specific qualm is, who are the specific positive reviewers who support his work? Even more specifically, who are these few egyptologists who support this theory, so that the statement "egyptologists reject his work" must be changed into "most Egyptolgists reject his work"? I've gone through the smattering of reviews done by actual egyptoligsts for stranger in the valley of the kings and I have yet to find a single person with a Ph.D in egyptology or even Near East Archaeology at all who concedes even one point to Osman. Ususally they reject what he says, and make a sport of mocking him. Redford, in a manner reminicent of the way he evicerated the coregency theory in seven studies, tears him to pieces. Osman seems to be reviled by the entire egyptological community. For the sake of argument, assuming that he is in fact right, it still ought to be written on the main page that he has (unless support can be produced) no support whatsoever. Thanatosimii 02:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have found two supporting authorities, one definite, one unsure. One is a well-respected professor of Christianity at Harvard, Helmut Koester, who I am sure is a supporter.  The other, which I am not sure about, is Bob Brier.  I found the reference for Brier on a site that is not affiliated with Osman and I am not sure if it is affiliated with Brier or not. 71.243.141.131 17:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... If the brier backing were legit, he'd instantly recieve a kind of academic excommunication for heresy, so to speak, so given that he's still considered respectable, I suspect his quote has been tampered with. And while a professor at Harvard is nothing to shake a stick at, he's not an Egyptologist, and that was the kind of necesarry support I was looking for. Thanatosimii 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Content
This page is about Ahmed Osman. If you don't agree with his ideas, there's a wide world out there in which to debate them, but this page is not the appropriate place for it. It's fine to observe that many people disagree with him, and provide links to differing opinions, but this is not the place to present other people's arguments against Osman's ideas.Yonderboy 19:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that these are reasonable comments to include in this article. Maybe if you can find a way to rephrase it that's not so prejudicial. Say his ideas represent a minority opinion, for example, and supply links to refutations. THAT is reasonable, not just declaring in the introduction "this guy's a kook." Yonderboy 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Look... Egyptology hasn't accepted what he's said. That's just it. Saying anything else is prejudicial in his favour, and that's just as bad, if not worse. And the comments about his eviceration by redford are exactly what you just asked for, so I don't see why you remove them... Thanatosimii 06:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is Egyptology? I think you mean yourself. I don't even agree with this person either, I just don't think it's appropriate to include comments that are worded in a mocking or malicious way. Yonderboy 07:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Egyptology is the whole spectrum of trained professionals, and this man is not one of them. Egyptologists are malicious to this man's beliefs, and it is inaccurate to remove information which provides the reader with that context. There is nothing at all inappropriate with pointing out that this man's beliefs are in fact rejected by the academic community, and removing a specific example of this kind of behavior undertaken by the foremost egyptologist in the western hemisphere is just rather odd... Thanatosimii 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yonderboy, this guy is a kook. There are two possibilities: either he is a notable kook, in which case we will find an ample choice of quotable secondary references saying he is a kook, which we can quote to build this artilce. Or he is an unnotable kook, and nobody bothered to even refute his kooky ideas. In this case, we cannot keep an article about him, because Wikipedia has a threshold of notability for inclusion, WP:NOTE. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

1970?
He published books in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, but died in 1970? So his books were published decades after he died? Pretty weird.--2003:6F:8C02:1F1A:A0D6:B213:703F:7BF5 (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed. That date of death was added a couple of days ago, looks like vandalism. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation Note
There are two authors with the same name. This one was born in 1934. I have reverted a good-faith hijack of the article to add information about the other author. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)