Talk:Gebel el-Silsila

John Ward
Someone mentioned that statements regarding John Ward that the editor removed were malicious and factually incorrect. Neither of those statements is true. In fact, Ward has openly admitted that he does not possess a degree whatsoever, and that his title was given to him by a Knights Templar club. Furthermore, it is also a fact that his original logo for his organization contained the SS Totenkopf ring symbols of the Nazis, and once exposed by journalist Jason Colavito, was changed by his business partner. The original logo is available both at Colavito's article, and by viewing Ward's website through the WayBack Machine archive. These facts are quite relevant to the article, since Ward is mentioned as one of the archaeologists (when he factually is not an archaeologist, his wife is.), and Wikipedia would be undermined by propagating a fallacious claim.

I'd encourage editors to actually read the material posted. Thor's response read like he was more Ward's pal than a serious editor. Links provided below:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120117231845/http://thesiriusproject-sp.blogspot.com/

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/fringe-history-and-the-survival-of-esoteric-nazism — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDopplegangerX (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Gebel el Silsila and John Ward
My edits regarding John Ward are very much pertinent to the discussion. If Wikipedia is going to maintain factual information then referring to Ward as an archaeologist must be removed or my edit allowed. Ward holds no academic degree whatsoever. His title of "doctor" was granted to him by a Knights Templar club, as he openly admits. He has created a lot of controversy using the title and for claiming to be an archaeologist when in fact he is not. His wife, Maria Nillson, is the archaeologist and hired her husband. He is also controversial for using Nazi symbols on his organizational logo which is associated with the Gebel el Silsila Epigraphic Survey team. These facts are important if Ward is going to be mentioned in connection to the survey and its work, especially if Wikipedia is going to fallaciously refer to him as an archaeologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDopplegangerX (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed the statement that John Ward is an archaeologist and replaced it with his title as assistant-director of the Gebel el Silsila Survey Project. The claims about his controversy is not relevant to Gebel el-Silsila and falls under WP:FRINGE; and also is simply the opinion of someone not a fact. Aeonx (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverted my edit
Please review the discussion pertaining to this matter at WikiProject Egypt. This spelling is not more "academically" correct simply because it is used in a reference. The edits were based on consensus at WikiProject Egypt to make the romanization of Egyptian place names uniform. Even if we used the previous guidelines, it would not comply with WikiProject Arab world rules for romanization. I also would like an explanation as to why you've reverted my removal of Italian and German translations in an article about an Egyptian site. It makes as much sense as adding an Arabic translation in the Berlin and Rome articles. Turnopoems (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On the first issue, I checked. You and a new editor alone made this decision in the last few days in the project for modern Egypt. This is not consensus. I think we should hear from many more editors. I would particularily like to hear from professors on this transliteration issue. Frankly, is this really important? We need input also from those that edit Ancient Egypt articles of which this archaeological site is one topic.
 * An article is not to be renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another. This is already a well established procedure in Wikipedia by overall community consensus and in the corresponding Manual of Style.
 * The U.S. Library of Congress has a library preferred use of the term for this site. A substantial level of references in the English language do so. Go to the “authority control” at the bottom of the page and click on the “LCCN” number.
 * Please review: WP:CONSENSUS, MOS:ENGVAR, MOS:COMMONALITY, MOS:RETAIN.
 * On the second issue, the Italian and German forms are important in this case as archaeological teams made significant contributions and cite this site in their respective scientific literature. Information of importance is also conveyed to the reader as to its translational meaning in context, and to any traveler wishing to improve Egypt’s tourism up the Nile. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On the second issue, the Italian and German forms are important in this case as archaeological teams made significant contributions and cite this site in their respective scientific literature. Information of importance is also conveyed to the reader as to its translational meaning in context, and to any traveler wishing to improve Egypt’s tourism up the Nile. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken, that is indeed consensus. "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." We do not need to hear from many more editors, but if many more editors would like to chip in with their opinions I would be more than ready to accommodate their perspective and discuss the issue, even abandon it completely. The discussion has been open for weeks now. Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)." and "Most of the time, you will find that it's fine to assume consensus, even if just for now, as it's more important to keep editing and cooperating smoothly in good faith as much as possible." Contributions from new editors are not, in any way, less valuable then that of a veteran editor. Such a suggestion would border on WP:OWN territory.

Now in regards to the actual spelling, even without consensus for this particular spelling, the current spelling fails to comply with the Arabic naming conventions outlined in WP:MOSAR. Gebel el-Silsila is not an official translation of the name, nor does the U.S. Library of Congress have any real authority in determining the name of Egyptian sites, there is no reason why this spelling should be shown preference on Wikipedia. Nor does WikiProject Ancient Egypt have any preferences in regards to spelling, it is a daughter project of WikiProject Egypt and any consensus on naming conventions in the latter would apply for the former as well unless otherwise agreed upon.

I also, strongly, disagree with your last point. If the German and Italian names/information have to be included due to historical circumstances then they are better suited in an etymology section where the name can be discussed in greater depth and their mention can be justified in the text. Turnopoems (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I would also like to point out that we're not actually changing the spelling, as the letters are the same. The only change will be capitalizing the "E" and removing the dash to achieve greater uniformity throughout WikiProject Egypt.Turnopoems (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Map of the nomes
why is there a map of nomes?? not relevant, should be removed... Moughera (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)