Talk:Yuya

Hieroglyphs
Can someone add the hieroglyph(s) for Yuya and the one(s) for Yusef, as it would illustrate part of the article suitably.

A useful link to do this is
 * How to add hieroglyphs into wikipedia

Here is an example : produces

I haven't seen an illustration of either hieroglyph(s) so I don't know what to put here, otherwise I would do it myself. 21:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what they should look like. --Briangotts (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yuya and Thuya
Hi - I have created a page for Yuya and Thuya (or Yuya and Tjuya, etc). These should be merged together, dont mind which way though (although they seem to come as a pair!) Markh 07:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Can't find that page. --Briangotts (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Should be Yuya_and_Tjuyu. Probably best to delete mine and point to this page. Markh 13:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Have redirected my page here, and merged the articles (actually just added the tomb details here) Markh 13:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool. I think this one is probably easier to find. But we should do a second page for Tjuyu to the extent that there's info available. --Briangotts (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Done a stub for Tjuyu Markh 19:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph
'''This Yuya can't be Joseph because Joseph's bones were carried out by the Israelites from Egypt. During the exodus, Israel carried Joseph's bones across the Red Sea. (book of Exodus in the Bible)'''


 * Well, you know, not everyone thinks that the Bible is 100% true. Paul B 14:05, 25 July, 2005 (UTC)

Question: Don't know if it's appropriate to ask this here, but what if Joseph was really Imhotep instead of Yuya? I don't know much about heiroglyphs but Imhotep's status as a commoner before he became famous and the fact that his bones haven't been found in Egypt makes him a more likely candidate, don't you think?

Also, the article on Djoser who was king during Imhotep's time says that the king is remembered for ending a famine. Heather B 22:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Apart from the lack of any evidence for Imhotep the main argument would be that he's way too ancient, at over a 1000 years before Yuya. Paul B 23:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about him possibly being too ancient to be Joseph, but there are all kinds of different opinions concerning biblical timelines. Also, I found a site that says there is some evidence of Imhotep, though I'm not certain of the authenticity of the site. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/imhotep.htm Heather B 06:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is impossible for Imhotep and Joseph to have been one and the same. Note that chariots were not around at the time of Imhotep, that the dream sequence with Djoser was way off (plus Imhotep was already in his position when he did this), and there were no years of plenty before the famine.  Plus I have taken notice that on the website showing similarities between Imhotep and Joseph with a link on Imhotep's article, there is a lot that seems to have been made up.


 * It's not anymore impossible that Imhotep and Joseph were the same than Yuya and Joseph were the same. In fact, I believe there is more evidence for the Imhotep link. Note the Dream Stelae, the list of titles given to Imhotep, including "High Priest of On (Heliopolis)" (an important one that Yuya did not have), and the fact that Yuya's bones were found in Egypt. In regards to timelines, it's more realistic that Imhotep was Joseph than Yuya, especially when suggesting, as Ahmed Osman did, that Moses was Akhenaten. There were at least 400 years between Joseph and Moses and less than 100 between Yuya and Akhenaten. The Dream Stelae presents the most clues: Imhotep was raised to a vizier position, 2nd in command after Pharoah, was given all the titles listed in the Bible, and advised Djoser to tax 10% of Egypt's grain to prepare for a seven-year famine. You can't say there weren't seven years of plenty just because it isn't specifically referenced. User:Jicannon 02:21, 31 July 2006


 * It is much more probable that Yuya was Joseph, but remember, the space of time given between Joseph and Moses could not have been 400 years although mentioned in the Bible. Both Jewish tradition and the Bible itself state that Moses was born to relatively young parents, not on the day of his father's death; the distance of time between Imhotep and most reasonable times for Moses are c.1450 years, so, if you ask me, timewise Yuya IS the better candidate.  Also, as to the priest of Heliopolis, it was his father-in-law.  This seems likely in Yuya's case as his son, Anen, was priest of Heliopolis, which was a hereditary title.  As to the "bones", that passage has almost been proven to be a later insertion, so therefor, it shouldn't be heeded.  Imhotep was NOT given the all of the titles in the Bible.  In fact, none of them were given to Imhotep.  Rather, all of the titles mentioned were given to Yuya.  He was first to bear "Master of the Chariotry", and the only to bear "Father to Pharaoh".  There weren't even chariots at the time of Imhotep.  The tax was long after the famine started, and Djoser is said to have been the fourth Pharaoh he served, while Joseph is said to have served two Pharaohs, which Yuya probably did.  Imhotep is said to advise Djoser to worship Hapy, when we also know that Joseph kept his religion in Egypt (priesthood in ancient Egypt did not quite matter, as it was, in fact, more of a political job and is nothing like today).  And I can say that there weren't any seven years of plenty because the dream with Djoser was already well into the famine, and Imhotep did not do any interpreting.  The Pharaoh who is likely to have appointed Yuya, Tuthmosis IV, was known to have been a dreamer, whose story of the Sphinx is very similar to the Talmud account of the Pharaoh who appointed Joseph's life.  There is evidence to the famine occuring in the reigns of Tuthmosis IV and Amenhotep III.  In the tomb of Yuya's oldest son, Anen, it is said he was in charge of graineries built for famine, as was Manasseh, oldest son of Joseph.  Also, at the time of Imhotep, the shepherds would not be an abomination, and we know that Imhotep came from Nubia.  Therefor, it is much more probable that Joseph was Yuya.71.243.140.149 00:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Yuya had two sons and Imhotep had no known sons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robust21 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the hieroglyphs for Joseph as this appears to be Original Research. Markh 11:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was a request for them, but I see that it would make sense that it was original research as there is no way to know EXACTLY how they were written.mikey 02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Image on the left side
There are a few individuals on Wikipedia who will insist that the image placement on the left side of the opening of the article is not allowed or against the style guidelines. Dont believe it, it looks great and is perfectly allowed. This is just a pre-notice as they will probably be along shortly. Nice article. Stbalbach 15:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Reversion tennis

 * Anyone want to discuss why they keep reverting between link (see also Tjuyu)? Markh 12:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * No-one's actually saying so, but one link is to a white supremacist website that tries to prove that Yuya and Tjuyu were blond Nordic Aryan types. It has high quality images but they illustrate a text that many contributors would think it inappropriate to link to. The comments about his "blondness", of course, ignore the chemical changes that affect the colour of his mummy's hair - which was probably white. The other link is not ideologically problematic, but (to be sure) not as visually rich. Paul B 12:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If content of site is inappropriate to wikipedia, then at 1. at least link with same or better quality must be provided. 2. If a site is white supremacist, that does not imply that everything on it is wrong. AlV 13:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What "Chemical changes" specifically? Why is it so ridiculous to believe that some ancient Egyptians were indeed blond? Thuya and Yuya's hair were both blond, according to the images. To assume that this is only due to a "Chemical change" is only indicative of someone else's racism. Besides, the whole "Only Nordic people were blond" hoax is nonsense. For the record, here are the images showing the hair color: https://archive.is/5GbCH/bff1a5e8c868aad9f0c7055b583e3685164b23f1.jpg
 * Mystery of the Blonde Egyptian Mummies Has Been Solved: https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2016/05/mystery-of-the-blonde-egyptian-mummies-has-been-solved/
 * 97.104.181.98 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And there are sea monsters in San Francisco bay: Why are you replying to a post almost 14 years old? Where has she published this in a peer reviewed journal? Doug Weller  talk 12:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictures
I just bought Osman's book, Hebrew Pharoahs of Egypt, which gives much more information about Yuya, along with of course his claims relating the mummy to Joseph, and some pictures of the actual face of Yuya and his wife courtesy of the Museum of Cairo. The first and last I imagine will be of great interest here, and so I shall look to do this probably monday or tuesday, when I have time.

KV 19:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You will find "some pictures of the actual face of Yuya and his wife" on the white supremacist web-page you deleted with the odd, and certainly inaccurate, claim that he wasn't mentioned on it. Paul B 23:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we have pictures..... Wikipedia says to not put external links to anything we can have on the site..... and certainly it not being topical, and we can get our own pictures without them calling the bright yellow embalming fluids, which those who originally studied the bodies acknowledged as such, denoting the real color of the hair, as blonde. The page may have had a picture or two, but there's no need to link to that..... we'd be better off external linking directly to the pictures.


 * KV 06:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You will see discussion of this in the "reversion tennis" section above. The argument in favour of keeping was that the pictures were high quality, though I suspect that the editor in question had other motives, and the blonde mummy nonsense has appeared elsewhere . In the end it was left with a warning aabout the nature of the site. Also, it looks as though your pictures are about to be deleted unless you tag them.Paul B 11:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They've been since tagged, and I've seen the discussion. If there was to be a link to that site, for the pictures, then the external link should be to the picture hosted on the server specifically.  It's possible.  I read the discussion above, and Wikipedia policy disagrees with the rationale for keeping the link.  External links states, in links to avoid, "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)"


 * Surely, the white supremacists are not notable proponents in this category, but I would even say that Wikipedia is being skewed there, it would not be NPOV to neglect such viewpoints because they aren't notable proponents. The problem is that it has factually inaccurate material, which is taken in poor context to make arguments which aren't reasonably backed up at all.  It simply makes arguments that only appease people who are looking to agree with the conclusion.  No discussion is even put forth about how these relate to the Egyptians being white.


 * Furthermore, the link is not topical. Sure, it may have a picture of the two, though it isn't prominent which explains why I missed it on first review, but the page does not give any real information on the subject at hand, Yuya.  If there is to be a restoration of any such link, it should be to the pictures directly, which are the only topical part of the issue.  However, I wouldn't find this link objectionable on Wikipedia's page Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians.  There it would be topical, only a poor resource.


 * http://www.white-history.com/hwr8_files/yuya.jpg http://www.white-history.com/hwr8_files/thuya.jpg are the respective links, if you really feel it necessary to relink it. Both work, there is no external image linking protection on that site, as in accordance with the rule I have found: neo-nazis don't know how to do anything complex with technology.  I discovered this playing a game on DALnet on IRC, where you go into #nazi and say something supporting racial equality, and see how long it takes them to boot you.  It took them about an hour at first to figure out how to kick you, then it took them a month to figure out how to ban someone, and about two extra months after that to figure out how to ban someone in a way that they couldn't change names.


 * Personally, I think that the pictures don't give as good of an idea of the visage as the ones I added to the article directly, and would need some explaining that the embalming process makes hair blonde, which I can prove if necessary. Any link to them, should describe such.  Certainly, they weren't purple-skinned people either :)


 * KV 04:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The links to the images don't seem to work. Still, it's not important.Paul B 11:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, they work only if you've been to the page just prior :/


 * KV 17:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Resources
The resources sections in Wikipedia are usually used as a bibliography, this one seems to be that plus external links...... if someone who knows which of those were actually used in the article wants to weed it out into resources and external links.... it would be greatly appreciated, before I go add in sources.

KV 05:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see someone has done that, and I thank you. I figured some of the external links may have been used, but I guess not.


 * KV 18:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just tidied up the references, and linked the foot notes. Markh 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw...... and it confused me for a minute until I figured out how to work with those. I miss the old days of non-linkable citations used on simple word processors.


 * KV 19:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Honors
I've added this, which while this article is as small as it is, makes sense to stay a part of the article....... however, if the article gets really big, we may want to move it.

I do intend on contributing more to this article in the coming days.

KV 18:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference for Akhmim
The page cited for that citation simply states, "Akhmim clearly rose in importance in New Kingdom times, and is known as the birthplace of Tutankhamun's maternal grandparents Yuya and Thuya." It doesn't say that mainstream Egyptologists don't take the asiatic theory seriously or that he came from nobility, it only states that he is known to have come from Akhmim, there needs to be other citations, especially since the source is very pro-Akhmim. I'll have to add another fact tag where it isn't covered.

KV(Talk) 16:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomb
Should someone add a section about his tomb? It was a huge discovery, one of the biggest finds in the Valley of the Kings.mikey 20:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This statement
Yuya is the only person in Egyptian history known to have been granted the title "Beloved Father of Pharaoh" other than Joseph. Could someone find a source for Yuya's being called Father of Pharaoh in a (preferably not Osman) source? I seem to recall reading that the term rendered Father of Pharaoh for Joseph was probably a rendering of the egyptian quite common It-Ntr, father of the god. Thus I am suspicious as to if Yuya was ever legitimatly called It-Pr-Aa. Thanatosimii 18:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.specialtyinterests.net/the_many_faces_of_ashurnasirpal_and_his_son.html this says it. Theodore Davis also mentions his title in his accounts of the founding of Yuya's tomb.  In addition, another title is expanded from It-ntr into It-ntr-n-nb-tawy, Holy Father of the Lord of the Two Lands, yet another way to say "father to Pharaoh", Yuya also being the only to bear this title as well.  While Osman's theories are not commonly accepted, he does always cite his sources, and even if you don't agree with his theories, all of the info in his books that he uses to support is factual.

mikey 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Judaism
Should Category:Judaism be removed? I mean, it's sort of POV. mikey 21:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Osman Content
The discussion on Osman within one Wikiproject, not the actual page, states that Osman's theories are rejected by mainstream Egyptologists (of course, not all egyptologists). They do not disagree with some hard facts about Yuya that Osman mentions. They only disagree with the interpretation. I've readded much there as it informs more on Yuya, and quite frankly, as it stands, the article doesn't even begin to suggest that Yuya = Joseph. The idea isn't presented.

In the future, I'll probably readd some information on that, as it should not be excluded as per WP:ATT which stresses that it is notable if mainstream scholars mention it, even degradingly, which the discussion over at Wikiproject:Ancient Egypt admits. Quite frankly, I see people taking a controversy that is perhaps the most notable thing about Yuya, and removing any reference to it rather than adding more information to NPOV it. That is sad. And I would like to note that I have not added any information on this article in the past or currently on that actual discussion, only the hard facts.

KV(Talk) 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should add some information about the possible connection to Joseph. I've recently acquired an interest in Egyptology through the Teaching Company's course, looking for some of the newest research I found this entry in wikipedia and googled the possible Joseph connection. It is to my uninformed mind an interesting connection, and enough seems to be there to warrant inclusion, with appropriate skepticism, of course.

Rleibman 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Its not credible, also see WP:FRINGE, and discussion above. Markh 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Though his theories may be fringe, his facts are not. KV(Talk) 01:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Was Yuya the Biblical Judah?
Hi,

I'm curious to find out if anyone else believes that Yuya may have been the Biblical Judah and that Amenhotep son of Hapu was Joseph.. Would love to chat with someone about this.

Hathorpe (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Hathor

Yuya as Joseph again
I added the opposing point of view based on Redford and Sweeney's article. I removed the comment that this theory is supported by Ronald E. Clements, Professor of Old Testament Studies at King's College in London. I cannot find any source that states anything like this. The reference for that statement was not verifiable as it only stated AP (not sure what that refers to; Associated Press?) and the date of October 24, 1987. This supposed support is mentioned all over the internet, but I have not been able to trace it back to any real publication. --AnnekeBart (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sweeney on Osman
The edits claiming that the text was misrepresenting Sweeney were removed by me. There is no attempt to make Osman look worse than he is. This is exactly how bad the arguments are. Sweeney is highly critical given some quotes:
 * What about the linchpin of Osman's theory? Usual as it may seem at first sight,
 * Yuya's title "God's father of the Lord of the Two Lands" is simply a more
 * elaborate version of "God's Father," a title which was held from the Old Kingdom
 * to the Nineteenth Dynasty by a number of people related by blood or by marriage
 * to the king (= the "god" of the title), and from the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty also
 * by royal tutors and certain priests. The title cannot equate Yuya with Joseph.

So yes, the whole it-netjer argument is dismissed. Removing this type of counter argument appears overly apologetic to me. --AnnekeBart (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And re edit comment: After reading the Sweeney article, she expressed more doubt than actual rebuttal of the theory. That is just patently false. Given statements from the article: These are not statements of doubt. These are pretty blatant comments stating Osman is wrong in many of the arguments he uses.--AnnekeBart (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Osman reinterprets the whole narrative of Isaac's conception (Gen 18:1-15; 21:1-7), which clearly takes place many years after Abraham's return from Egypt (in Gen 12:20. Were I to follow Osman's line of reasoning, I might cheerfully argue that Isaac is the son of Abimelech of Gerar!
 * Some of the egyptological theories on which Osman rests his arguments have now been disproved, such as the view that during the Eighteenth Dynasty the right to inherit the throne descended in the female line, and the Pharaoh thus had to marry the royal heiress to become king.
 * Many of Osman's attempts to establish the Eighteenth Dynasty as a terminus post quem for the Joseph story are not accurate.
 * etc
 * Trust me, the examples you've shown here are true. However, this article doesn't deal with Osman's ideas on Isaac (which are certainly reaching and bizarre) or the view on the female line (which was, at one point, the accepted view and only comprehensive view).  While the author doesn't agree with the identification of Yuya and Joseph, the article further misrepresents both Sweeney's quote regarding the God's Father title and Osman's assertion regarding Joseph's burial (which, despite all the craziness going on in his book, is surprisingly well-supported).  Though I don't agree with Osman, I certainly don't seek to defame him even more than he has been just because I'm not sold.  I'm not being apologetic.  I'm being fair by making sure the rebuttals to Osman's claims are represented while not misrepresenting him. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 03:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I certainly don't want to start a reverting war. That really doesn't help anyone.  However, I feel it may be best to revert to my most recent edit (though I will certainly give it another look over to make sure I didn't mess up anything from Sweeney). Dr. Hannibal Lecter 03:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the last edit you provided. The one before that (the one I reverted) I felt did not really reflect what was in the literature. My reading of the article was that the pretty much ripped up the book. She questioned the methodology, and pointed out use of outdated (and worse disproven) theories, factual errors, etc. Thanks for the thoughts and efforts btw. The last edit is an improvement over what was there before (including mine). Cheers --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete the Jospeh section
It is not accepted by mainstream egyptology, it is speculative at best, there is no evidence to support it but a vague name. And what the hell are semitic features as opposed to Egyptian ones. Semitic is a sub-linguistic group of African-asiatic languages. Meaning looking semitic can mean anything from looking Hausa Nigerian to Berber Algerian to Syrian Arab or Israeli jew or Somalian. No one can look semitic, its not a race. You have black, white, multiracial, asiatic etc type semites. this is really a fringe theory. If you include this then you are going to have race debates in every article off what some whacko thinks this mummy looks purple, that mummy looks blue, this mummy looks orangutang. Hernanday (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)hernanday

Unicode
vandalism?? ==

I strenuously object to having unicode characterized as vandalism. Why is it that I've been reverted with such an invalid edit summary?

Unicode codepoints exist for Egyptian heiroglyphics, meaning one can add it directly to the article without using images.

-- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm using Internet Explorer 11, and your inserted code is coming up on the article and on the talk page as a mess, not as hieroglyphics. What browser are you using? Wdford (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to install Heiroglyphic font support ; this is what happens with rare languages, you can't display them unless you install the proper fonts. This is why many articles on Wikipedia have things such as


 * Try this webpage it tests if you have the correct fonts installed.
 * -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Warning template is now implemented : Contains Egyptian Hieroglyphic text
 * per discussion at WP:AE. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Citing then discrediting Osman
One citation uses Osman's one book, though it doesn't name him (Hebrew Kings of Egypt), then discredits another book of his and his own personal interpretation and stated mission of accounting for both theorized history (because accepted theory is all history really is) and what may be historically correlative in the Old Testament (why would Joseph be so important to not be mentioned at all throughout Egypt). The article also doesn't account for the long list of titles both Joseph and Yuya were given, nor state substantive arguments against Osman while trying to discredit his theory: 'factualizing' anything stated in the Bible without archeological evidence is not a proof that something to the contrary actually occurred (i.e. if a proposed site or evidence of the remains of Joseph actually exists in Israel); no persons are named in the article who were granted any version of the 'father of god' title (let alone the additional other titles given to Yuya AND Joseph) to support the contradiction of Osman's statement, so in itself, it holds no water within the article itself.

As previously mentioned - Osman cites his sources and is obvious about his interpretations and suggestions as being just that. Sources offering evidence, rather than summations or generalizations, are a proper counter to the interpretations of actual, sourced facts. There are a lot of seeming 'coincidences' that historians like to overlook because it's inconvenient, but unless they can be proved coincidence, they remain plausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.61.82 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)