User talk:Khruner/Archive 6

Helping Nyuserre get FA status
Dear Khruner, could you help Nyuserre Ini's current bid for reaching featured article status by simply commenting your opinion on the matter here? I have trouble garnering enough comments for the article, so far only A. Parrot has commented, which is a manifestation of the lack of interest that many FAC reviewers have in random Old Kingdom pharaohs (in comparison an article on any bird gets many more comments in no time!). If you accept to comment, you can either directly oppose or support the article by writing Oppose or Support (depending on your opinion) followed by a brief explanation of why, or if you want to see improvements before reaching a decision, you can write them after Comments by Khruner and I will address all of them as best as I can. Your help is very much appreciated: this is the only stage in the article review process which is entirely up to people wanting to give their opinions and where I can't do anything myself.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No prob. Had to admire your perseverance in enhancing these articles. I have promoted a single article to GA status and decided not to do it again because it left me exhausted, so can't imagine FA... Will you have a bit more spare time in the near future? Khruner (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words! I hope to have more time in the near future, but it is unlikely to get much better before a couple of years. That being said, these days I manage to get a few edits, now directed mostly on Neferefre. Since he is not a long reigning pharaoh with lots to talk about, he should take much less time than Nyuserre and Djedkare did. I am also in the midst of a battle with the wikimedia foundation UK and the Ashmolean museum to get a photo of the seal of Sekheperenre, in storage. After long contacts with the curator and the admin responsible for copyright and photographies in the museum, we are looking at 85 pounds fee for a low resolution photo without copyrights. The wikimedia foundation hasn't responded since the fee was announced. I can't believe we live in a world where a museum, a museum, whose whole purpose is to accumulate and disseminate knowledge, can't even agree to release a photo of the only item in the world attesting to a pharaoh's existence, without us having to pay a crazy amount for something that anyone with a smartphone can do in 1 second.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I was aware of that, I lurked the whole conversation. I do not feel to fully blame the museum for the fee if it is in the same situation as those of my country, though. Anyway, is the scarab unpublished? If so, and no wikipedian living in Oxford could take that pic, the best way is to get a copyrighted pic from the museum and make a drawing out of it. A scarab is pretty easy to draw and could be a stimulus for more drawing, since there are still many things to draw. Khruner (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any publication of the scarab and given that Ryholt himself gives no references, I guess it is indeed unpublished. I have found plenty of people willing to go to the museum and take a picture, but after initially saying that the scarab was on display, the museum staff realised that it wasn't and is in storage (roughly two-third of the discussion was by email rather than on wikipedia so Richard's talk page does not reflect the current situation). It is therefore inaccessible to all but a few staff members. The lady responsible for photographies proposed to scan an old photograph (low res) of the scarab which is in the museum archives, for a 20 pounds fee, and to release it under fair-use copyrights, which did not please WMUK. Thus, even if we want to make a drawing, there is still 20 pounds to be paid and convincing WMUK to pay for a scan of an old photo so that a drawing can be made is difficult, I guess they don't think this should cost 20 pounds (neither do I).&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. According to von Beckerath, the scarab is catalogued in Olga Tufnell's Study on Scarab Seals and their Contribution to the history in the early second Millennium B.C., with the number 3465. There may be a fleeble chance that the scarab is also illustrated here. Will search in my university's library tomorrow. Khruner (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well this would be beyond incredible, especially given the dead-end that we have reached with the museum and the wikimedia foundation. My guess is the old photography that the admin lady was talking about may have been taken for/used by academics and thus, could indeed have found its way into some memoir/book/these.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here we are. Just a plain, 2-minutes drawing, but consider that the original was 2cm large and very plain too. As you can see, a very classic "Hyksos design", not that I expected anything better. Khruner (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * IS THIS REAL LIFE??? I don't know how you do it, but you are an incredible wikipedian. I shall leave you the honor of putting up the picture on Sekheperenre's article and on the list of pharaohs. I want you to know that this and your vase of Nebsenre must enter the record as properly awesome works. How can I thank you? &#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just a decent hunter who enjoys bibliographical researchs. There is a way indeed; if you are planning to go to Paris in the future, could you go to Le Louvre and take a pic of Merkawre Sobekhotep's statue? because I'm struggling to make a decent drawing out of it. (I know this does not make sense at all: only because you're French doesn't mean that you have to go often to Paris, but whatever..!) Khruner (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well you are decently good at it to say the least. Regarding the Louvre, I don't have any plans to go to Paris in the foreseeable future as I live in the UK for the moment and my family is elsewhere in France. However I went to the Louvre in 2013 and took many photos. I will look at what I have and see if, by chance, I took a photo of his statue.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What does the statue looks like? Is it complete, is it missing its head or something? This would help me identify it in the many photos.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So I found this in a 1875 book by Mariette in case we don't find anything better.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The statue is a classic sitting statue, but everything above the navel is lost. For what I can tell from pictures, the statue is made from beautiful alkali feldspar granite, and the inscriptions that you have discovered so quickly are carved on the sides of the throne. Khruner (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt

 * Thanks! :D Khruner (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for Assessment
Hello, I was recommended to you for help from and would like to kindly request that you could assess the quality scale classes of two articles that I destubbed, if it's no bother! The articles are as follows: Twenty-seventh Dynasty of Egypt Twenty-eighth Dynasty of Egypt Thanks, HeathIsling 17:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, well done with the articles. About the quality assessment, I have unfortunately no idea about how to perform it, and even after making significant changes in an article, I have never rconsidered changing the previous assessment in talk page. From WikiProject assessment it seems that only a wikiproject member should perform this; despite Iry-Hor's thought and despite my deep interest in ancient Egypt, I have never been a member of the WikiProject Ancient Egypt. I could suggest to look for some active members WikiProject Ancient Egypt, but check for their recent contributions in order to make sure they are truly active! Khruner (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarenput II
Thanks so much for your fantastic additions and the removal of my mistake on Sarenput II. I love the additional content you put on there. I was going to put "Hello!" in hieroglyphics, but um, Google Translate wasn't having it. I was also thinking as more information emerges we might be able to WP:SPLIT and give Shemai his own home, at least a stub. Would love your thoughts. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  19:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for your kindness. Don't blame yourself for the mistake, the article on Egyptian Streets at first wrongly states that the newly discovered tomb is that of Sarenput II, only to correct itself later. Unfortunately, at the actual state only Shemai's family relationships and burial place are known, while other important informations such as his job or titles are still missing. He may well deserve his own article is more about him will be discovered, as I hope! By reading more carefully the other source you provided, I've just realized that Sarenput II was related to the later Heqaib III via his daughter, an interesting relationship that could lead to the creation of a genealogical tree of those nomarchs at Elephantine. Khruner (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:66.229.58.193
See Sockpuppet investigations/Brad Watson, Miami/Archive and Long-term abuse/Brad Watson, Miami - any IP from Miami posting weird stuff like this will be him. Let me know and I'll block him. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey😜🐼🐸😮 Missy molly (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Khruner (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Need sources?
I noticed that you're waiting on approval for access to JSTOR at the Wikipedia Library. JSTOR currently has a waitlist due to lack of available accounts. In the meantime, the Resource Exchange can help! We connect content creators with reliable sources. If you need a specific article or passage from a book that you don't have access to, drop by and leave a request. We're happy to help you access paywalled and print sources to the extent allowable by copyright law. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about such an opportunity! I appreciate a lot Khruner (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
for your assistance with the recent Pi-Ramesses related edits. I wasn't very happy with them but not sure what to do.

I've got JSTOR access as a Yale alumnus if you ever want anything from it. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Doug, logic suggested to me that the opinion of a 10-century non-archaeologist rabbi cannot be considered an element of debate for such a theme. Editor may not be satisfied, though. Many thanks for the offer! Working time prevents me from going to my former university's library where I used to have full-access to JSTOR. Khruner (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming your email address hasn't changed, I've sent you a copy. If it has, email me. Doug Weller  talk 19:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Khruner (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Yaserotmani
user:Yaserotmani (and his sockpuppet) were blocked by Fut.Perf. Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see, well done. One of many kinds of editors whose banishment gives me immediate relief. Khruner (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thutmose III
The edit you reverted turns out to be a sockpuppet edit, see User talk:Brython99 - bottom of the page. The key thing, in relation to the new sock and the IP's edits, is stated at Sockpuppet investigations/EddieDrood/Archive, "Similar behavior of falsifying references and making up terminology not present in references, one such neologism". May need some cleanup. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will keep an eye open for such a behaviour. Khruner (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Shabaka before Shabaka - Joe Baker
On 16 May 2017 you removed any reference to me on the subject of the reversal of Shabaka and Shabataka. I remind you that back in 2005 I was the first to outlay 10 reasons for reversing these reigns. This was years before Michael Bányai published his ground breaking paper. See https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.egyptologyforum.org_bbs_Sabataka-26Sabaka.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=opcsBFeNOGibikhitrWp_vvUpAwW-hA4UeIW8Ekh45I&m=2YtAMgzp4-G8DxpnCsEsFCG1QZLgMqks5yDsV8F-xgU&s=L7EaW0pe1T-Gq-IK8mSYMK-2S6VoIfYn5iNrp-lNdek&e= Please reinstate the footnote reference to me. Joe Baker (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My fault,, on 2 June I rewrote a chunk of Shebitku's article basing on the sources stored in my pc. It seems, however, that another person has come to the same conclusion in the same year. Khruner (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this. When Michael Bányai wrote his first paper he did mention my contribution but this was removed by the editors before publication. Michael apologised and made sure I was mentioned in his published second paper. Joe Baker (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Various edits being removed erroneously
I believe some of the edits I've made should not have been removed. The edit I did on Giovanni Battista Belzoni was correct, as he did indeed loot antiquities from the nation they resided. I then linked that adjective to Wikipedia's page that describes archaeological looting. I did error with Ozymandias, since I should have utilised archaeological looting there as well rather than thief, so thank you for catching that. Just because at the time the practice of looting other cultures antiquities was considered acceptable as archaeology, we should call it what it actually is in our somewhat more enlightened age.

Not sure if you are who I need to speak to about another edit, but I [edited Conrad Black's page with citations from his own writing in a major newspaper] saying anti-Semitic and anti-Native Canadian remarks, but this entire edit was removed. Why is provable, cited information being removed by powerful figures when it reflects poorly on them? Krieguerre —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, as you said, these were the very early days of Egyptology, many other coeval archaeologists resorted to methods that were questionable at best: Bernardino Drovetti, Henry Salt, Champollion, or Richard William Howard Vyse who made its way into a pyramid by using explosive. The main problem is that you need a reliable source confirming such direct claim; otherwise, it looks like an original research or simply your personal point of view. Look at Giuseppe Ferlini: speaking frankly, he indeed can be considered a thief and a vandal, but this is backed by reliable sources. Furthermore, usually the article lead isn't the proper place to put informations which could be considered rather "marginal" when compared to the reason why the individual is mostly known. Again, for Ferlini is different, as he is famous only because of his wrongdoings. About the Conrad Black issue, I really don't know, I only saw that your addition caused an edit war which ultimately resulted in its removal. Khruner (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your quick response. I agree, normally I would have included a citation about his removal of antiquities from Egypt, and also would not have normally included it in the article lead, however that he conducted that removal was already included immediately after my edit. Either my edit should stay or that entire section needs to be re-written. Also, since Wikipedia exists under modern cultural norms, those norms should be applied when describing the past, including those archaeologists/adventurers you cited above. I do agree with your points in general but would suggest a serious amount of editing be done to recognise the cultural theft perpetrated by many archaeologists. I am much more concerned about the Conrad Black edit, as that was properly cited and researched, while linked to appropriate Wikipedia pages to explain the slur that was used.--Krieguerre (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would encourage you to find some good sources and expand the articles in question, then. Most of the time it's a matter of using reliable sources and commons sense, and avoiding non-neutral point of view. That would works well for Belzoni as well as for Black. Anyway, I usually don like to get involved in topics I do not know anything about, like Black. Khruner (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Neferukayet
Hello I have just encountered Neferukayet's article. The text says that Neferukayet was most likely the daughter of Intef I, wife of Intef II and mother of Intef III. However, it is commonly assumed that Intef I and II were brothers. Intef III then married his sister or half-sister Iah who, at this point, was Neferukayet's half-daughter or perhaps even her true daughter. While marriage between siblings were normal among ancient Egyptian royalty, a uncle-niece relationship sounds new and quite odd to me. Can someone enlighten me?

Mentuhotep I = Neferu |        +++         |                     |      ? = Intef I                 | |                        |     +--+          |                    |          |               Neferukayet = Intef II                           | +---+-?-+                      |       |                  Intef III = Iah |                           |                            |                       Mentuhotep II

I have Dodson & Hilton where it is said that she was a daughter and a wife of an unknown king, and that's it. I don't have Grajetzki's book, yet I know that this author usually never speculates about something which cannot be proven by archaeological evidence. Udimu, I believe I have noticed that you sometimes source your edits with Grayetzki, so is it possible that you have this book? If yes, could you tell me what Grajetzki says about this princess? Khruner (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of her, I will look up in my sources. I don't have Grajetzki's book so I can't tell if it has been properly quoted. In particular, I am wondering if Neferukayet could not instead have been Intef I's wife and a daughter to Mentuhotep I ? I note that her article as well as that on Neferu I both say that the two figures might be the same person. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Gratetzki's book is summarized in the article. He cites Roth, Die Koenigsmutter im Alten Aegypten (the king's mother in Ancient Egypt). So far as I know, there is no firm evidence that Inref I and Intef II were brothers. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The Intefs being brothers is conjectural indeed, based solely on an inscription on Mentuhotep I's non-coeval statue on which he is called "father of the gods", and the Intefs being the most plausible candidates to fill the "gods" placement. Yet, it seems to me that Neferukayet's placement is conjectural alike, placed conveniently where her existence would give the least possible nuisance to the dynastic genealogy.
 * At first I believed that she could have been Mentuhotep I's daughter, yet I remembered that Mentuhotep I never achieved kingship in his life, a needed requirement for being considered a king's daughter, unless Mentuhotep's fake status as king was established much sooner than usually believed, just in the subsequent generation.
 * Neferukayet's being equated to Neferu I is even less likely to me, since it would require that not only Mentuhotep I, but even his predecessor, likely the old pal Intef the Elder, would have achieved the royal status in life. The less problematic identification is with Neferu II, daughter of Intef III and sister-wife of Mentuhotep II, but mother of no-king. Obviously I am original-researching right now. Khruner (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you check Lana Troy? She has a list of queens too. The stela is shown here: https://archive.org/stream/dendereh17petr#page/n119/mode/2up on plate XV. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But when was the stele made ? Was it made during the reign of Neferukayet's husband or the following one ? I mean that she could for example have been attributed the title of king's wife by a son wanting more legitimacy [EDIT : this is unlikely given the private commission of the stele]. Also the father of the gods title could perhaps refer to the subsequent kings of the 11th Dynasty, that is not just the immediate sons of Mentuhotep I ? Finally, I note that while we should not put original research on wikipedia, we are free to speculate and put forth hypotheses in user talk pages. Furthermore, such speculations may lead us to find the right sources that end up establishing a fact for wikipedia, just as what happened when Udimu pointed out a little known stela proving that Mentuhotep II was Intef III's son.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Neferukayet is mentionned as a king's wife at the end of Line 7 (i.e. on the left of the line). AH ! I realise that she is also given the epiteth wrt ! Checking the references, it seems that great royal wives were given a title expressed as Hmt nswt XXX wrt where XXX is the name, which is exactly how she is referenced on the stele. That is Neferukayet is said to be not just a king's wife bu a Great Royal Wife. I believe this makes her equation to one of the Neferu queens all the more likely.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Holy hell the article on great royal wives says that Meretseger, wife of Senusret II is "Apparently the first holder of the title, but not definitively attested to in contemporary sources". I am no expert but I mean I can read Egyptian hieroglyphs sufficiently well to assert that the stele says wrt for sure at the end of line 7. Would it be an earlier attestation of great royal wife ?Iry-Hor (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Meretseger: well, she is not attested in contemporary sources. She is most likely a creation of the New Kingdom. -- Udimu (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok so I will at least remove the comment that she is the earliest attested one, because it is plainly wrong.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Dodson & Hilton it seems that it was Intef II the commissioner of Mentuhotep I's statue on which he is called "gods' father"; strange, I was sure it was one of the early kings of the 12th Dynasty, but whatever. From the text of the stela, which according to Lichtheim is datable to the late reign of Intef II, Neferukayet is called a royal daughter and wife, but never a royal mother as her article suggests. I noticed that a source of confusion is the identity of Neferu II which is alternatively considered Intef III's daughter and Mentuhotep II's wife (Dodson & Hilton) or Intef II's wife and Intef III's mother (Lichtheim; Bunson). EDIT. I got it, maybe there were 3 different queens Neferu instead of two, as reported by Rice's Who's Who in Ancient Egypt and by Winlock before him. Khruner (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked Roth, Die Koenigsmutter im Alten Aegypten, who has a whole chapter on Neferukayet. Roth assumes that Neferukayet must be the mother of Intef III. According to her, Neferukayet is identical with Neferu, who is the mother of Intef III (he is often called born of Neferu). Roth also discusses a stone fragment from the tomb of Intef III, where there is mentioned a woman called Neferukau. Roth thinks that Neferukau appears here in a filliation and reconstructs the text as: Intef (III) born of Neferukau. Roth assumes that Neferukayet and Neferukau are the same women. Neferu would be then a short version of this name. (nothing of that is really certain). -- Udimu (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is interesting, at the very least Roth's hypothesis should be mentioned on Neferukayet's article.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So, I guess that, comprising a certain degree of conjecture, the genealogical situation is more or less the following:

Mentuhotep I = Neferu I                           | +---+?+   |                       |                         |  Intef I               Intef II =-+-= Neferu(kau/kayet) |                                  +-+--?--+                                 |           |                                        Intef III = Iah |                                +---+---+                                 |               |                             Mentuhotep II = Neferu II/III For me, that means that 1) two Neferus aren't indeed enough, and our Neferu(kayet) fits the placement in the middle; 2) Mentuhotep I got his forged royal status just a generation after his, otherwise I can't see why Neferu(kayet) was called a royal daughter by a coeval source; 3) Mentuhotep II was quite lucky for having enjoyed a relatively long life and for being able to procreate, given the accumulation of imbreeding depression in his family, but that's of relatively little concern for us. Khruner (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * you might add Tem (queen), wife of Mentuhotep II and mother of Mentuhptep III. -- Udimu (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but she is part of the "unaffected" branch of the Eleventh Dynasty of Egypt family tree, here I put only the contested part which, eventually, could be inserted into the main article. Khruner (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So I asked Grajetzski his opinion on the matter of Neferukayet and if she bore the title of great royal wife. Here is his answer : "for Neferukayet: she ist not a "great king's wife", The text in line 7 to line 8 reads ...the king's ornament Neferukayet, the one GREAT in her kas (souls).... A translation appears on page 52 in Petrie's volume too. I do not remember any full discussion about the first appearance of the title "great king's wife". Meretseger is somehow a mystery. She is only know from a few New Kingdom sources. If she existed, her title "great kings wife" might be given to her posthumously. However, for the title "great king's wife" you might look at Julien Suisse, An unpublished Scarab of Queen Tja (Thirteenth Dynasty) from the Louvre Museum (AF 6755), published in (well edited partly by me;-): G. Miniaci, W. Grakjetzki, The World of Middle Kingdom II. London 2016, page 245)." He provided a link to an article which will be important for Tja : here. I am now asking him about the equation Neferukayet = Neferu I and her filiation and royal titles of Mentuhotep I.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Grajetzki must be a very kind man, answering to requests not directly related to his work, made during the Easter day. And as a great admirer of the Middle Kingdom, I have to get my hands on his work with Miniaci, sooner or later. Khruner (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Academics are usually inclined to discuss their area of interest, although it is true that not everybody would have responded. That said, I consistently have had good returns on requests related to wikipedia in Egyptology : Filip Coppens provided resources on Menkauhor Kaiu and John Baines on Ramesses VI.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is Mr. Grakjetzki's second answer, which I find very enlightening queen Neferukayet remains indeed a problem and I do not think we can solve this problem without further evidence. Silke Roth suggests that she is identical with Neferu, the mother of Intef III, This seems to me the best solution in the moment. Her husband would be Intef II. Her father is more problematic. Evidently, Montuhotep I and Intef I are two possible candidates. However, there is third, perhaps less likely, option: she might be the daughter of a Herakleopolitan king. King Montuhotep I is somehow problematic . He is not yet attested in contemporary sources. There is even the discussion whether he is a fictional figure to give the 11th Dynasty a royal ancestor: http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/nilus/net-publications/ibaes5/publikation/ibaes5_morenz_menthu-hotep.pdf and http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/nilus/net-publications/ibaes5/summary.html (check the Morenz article with English summary). I think we need to add a discussion on all of this in the relevant pages : Intef II, Intef I and Mentuhotep I. The question of the actual existence of Mentuhotep I is important.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hell, I can't understand a thing. What are the paper's conclusions? Intef I being Neferukayet's royal father returns back to my very first post in this discussion. The Herakleopolitan descent theory is as fascinating as ironic: according to it, the Herakleopolitans were obliterated by Neferukayet's grandson who belonged to their bloodline. I wasn't aware that Mentuhotep I's existence was doubted, only his kingship. But I can't see why someone should forge an illustrious ancestor when you already have the 100% real Intef the Elder among your forerunners. At this point, it would be more logical to appoint a fictitious kingship to him instead of creating a whole new figure to be placed between him and the first theban king. Khruner (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that Intef the Elder was a Theban nomarch who most probably obeyed the orders of an Herakleopolitan king. Hardly an ideal ancestor figure since that really means that at some point the ancestors of the 11th Dynasty did betray their king. Tha said, we cannot know what happened nor how it happened, all we can do is to update Wikipdia accordingly and record all hypotheses and all the views currently held in Egyptology. As for the genealogy of the 11th Dynasty, it might be that we cannot honestly present a family tree, all we can do is discuss the possibilities in the relevant articles. It remains weird to propose that Mentuhotep I would have been invented altogether. There is clearly a gap between Intef I and Intef the Elder. Yet, thinking about it, it is even weirder that no contemporaenous sources have survived dating to this gap. I mean both Intef I and Intef the Elder are attested to after all. Finally, I keep wondering who was in Thebes when Ankhtifi beseieged it briefly ? Iry-Hor (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess not yet a king; othervise, enemy or not, I believe that at the time he should have been mentioned anyway. I guess that he could have been someone between the Theban volte-face and the official declaration of an independent reign. Let's say: Intef the Elder towards the end of his rule, or Mentuhotep I, or Intef I at the beginning of his rule. Obviously all of that is conjectural. Khruner (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: about asking something to academics: you have been lucky indeed, in late January I mailed the curator of the Middle East collection of the BM for an info about an artifact; according to the site, it should take up to 10 working days to having an answer: I'm currently still waiting for it. Khruner (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would place my bet on Mentuhotep I. From the stele of Intef, it seems he was living in relative peace so may have remained a nomarch. Later, Intef I seems to have been involved in a war with the nomarch Tjauti. I really doubt that the Intef mentioned by Tjauti was Intef II who rather made war more to the north. Since Ankhtifi is before Tjauti, I think besieged Intef I's predecessor, i.e. Mentuhotep. Uncertainties around Thebes at the time could also explain why Mentuhotep left no contemporaneous evidence to this day. As for your curator, I think you are right, it is all a matter of (bad) luck.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Pharaohs in the Bible
See WP:FTN and WP:AN3. Doug Weller talk 05:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Just got back from work. It seems like a solution has already been found; I'm still waiting my first time to be called a Zionist, Jew, conspirator, godless, hired by Big Pharma or whatever, although it seems fun only at the beginning. Anyway, after the decision I believe that Pharaohs in the Bible contains other somewhat questionable claims, the one for Amenhotep II for example. Khruner (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Ramesses II
I may have jumped the gun in removing the information about him being a red-head. So much of the stuff about the phenotypes of individual pharaohs is poorly sourced and tendentious. But you appear to have an RS.

It belongs on the Ramesses II page but not on the black Egypt hypothesis page, from which I removed it. There were 'black' (Nubian) pharaohs too; this kind of anecdotal evidence about one pharaoh doesn't bear on the black Egypt hypothesis. What's relevant there is scholarly consensus and representative genetic studies. Steeletrap (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, I agree that it does not belong to black Egypt hypothesis page where it could have been considered a statistically insufficient sample of sort, yet at the same time for obvious reasons it fits perfectly into Ramesses' article. Moving the source from the former to the latter seemed to me the most logical thing to do. Khruner (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Papyrus
I recently did similar at another article and reverted cluebot, restoring vandalism. — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I'm still not used to it, as I turned it on just a couple of weeks ago. Since the majority of my changes are by now just reverts, it's a great tool for me, but it also needs practice. Khruner (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Apis (deity) : dwarf-Ptah
i just want to explain that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apis_(deity)&oldid=858024865] provide quick-info explaining that Ptah is a dwarf. Apis-bull represents dwarf-Ptah, which is being worshiped by novo-nordisk the insulin-maker for diabetes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.209.214 (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You need a reliable source for such a change, please read WP:RS; I can't read anything related to Ptah in neither Dwarfism nor Novo Nordisk. Khruner (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

i found a wikipage which says ptah is a dwarf : User:Arnon81 12 sep 2018 10:23 am edt
 * 1) Dwarfs_and_pygmies_in_ancient_Egypt from google (ptah-dwarf) says 'A further deity with nanism, but rarely depicted, was Ptah-Pahtaka ("Ptah, the strong"). He was worshipped as a special form of Ptah, the god of art, crafts and creativity. Another form of Ptah that was also depicted as a dwarf was Ptah-segem-panem ("Ptah, the listener").'.nanism means dwarf.source : [https://www.thefreedictionary.com/nanism]
 * 2) Ptah wikipedia-page says 'Sometimes represented as a dwarf, naked and deformed, his popularity would continue to grow during the Late Period.'

New editor
was created 9 months ago, only started editing in the last 24 hours. And is proficient at citations. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Did I do something wrong? The user seems to be a sockpuppet. --Khruner (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. And I agree with you. Another editor gave them a suspected sock template. But I don't know whose sock they might be. Doug Weller  talk 12:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * @ Thanks, I just can't tolerate such anachronisms which, I believe – although one must always assume good faith – are just product by some kind of sterile nationalism. Unfortunately, many articles about achaemenid people still contains modern, often unsourced translations. Khruner (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous. Have you seen Urartu-related articles btw? Almost all of them include transliterations in modern Armenian. SSDD (Same Shit, Different Toilet). It'll be easier to deal with this issue once we get more of these articles to GA/FA. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, while we're at it: could you leave a comment here? Thanks much, - LouisAragon (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand the issue. It seems that, as Attar-Aram syria said, a standardised map from an atlas for an ancient empire simply can't exist. I don't feel in the situation of such knowledge - apart of the Egyptian satrapy and a bit of Alexandros' invasion - for giving an opinion on the subject. But if I had to, I guess I'd stick on the updated 2015 map. Khruner (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can I copy-paste your comment? - LouisAragon (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course you can, if you wish so. Khruner (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You might be interested
- LouisAragon (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Well done, you may add this, the addition of the completely unrelated term "Armenian Renaissance", obviously because the purported Armenian origin of the dynasty, and his failure to provide an argument in relation of the first point you raised, here. Khruner (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)