Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Osiris myth/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 07:10, 23 August 2012.

Osiris myth

 * Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The best-known and most influential ancient Egyptian myth, demonstrating the Egyptian perspective on subjects ranging from lunar eclipses to sick children. And above all, death and rebirth. The article uses the best sources available to me (all professional Egyptologists) and has been tweaked in response to its peer review (here). A. Parrot (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Opening_of_the_Mouth_-_Tutankhamun_and_Aja.jpg needs US PD tag
 * I'm not sure which of these tags is most appropriate to supplement the PD-Art tag that's already present. Does Template:PD-US-unpublished fit? A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't currently have the PD-Art tag; you could add that, and use PD-old-100 instead of PD-old if you like. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Egypte_louvre_066.jpg needs to account for licensing of 3D work. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How, precisely? The sculpture is 2,800 years old and inherently public domain, and the photographer has licensed the photograph. A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know it seems obvious, but just throw in a PD-old-100 for the sculpture. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Both done. Thanks. A. Parrot (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I was quite impressed when I peer reviewed this article a couple of weeks back. However, although my review was acknowledged, there were no responses provided to individual points; it seems that some of my points have been acted on, others ignored. There may be justifiable reasons for not adopting my suggestions, but I would like to know what they are before I can consider supporting the article here. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I was uncommunicative; I didn't mean to be. I acted on each of your suggestions, taking all of the specific suggestions about wording and trying to clarify the points of confusion that you mentioned. I felt I'd addressed the issues, though I can see a couple of instances where one might think otherwise. For instance, when you asked for the provenance of "The Tale of Two Brothers", I added that it dates from the New Kingdom (I didn't think its original location was relevant here, and now that I look nobody seems to know, but I suppose I could say it's on a papyrus). You asked me to say what stelae are; I thought it would be a bit awkward to describe them specifically, considering that the point of the sentence is to mention a particular type of stela with a specific name, but I did link to stela and mention that they are "inscribed stone" objects. I have no intention of ignoring your input, and we can discuss whatever problems you feel the article still has, here or on the article talk page. A. Parrot (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Leaning support: I've checked out my peer review comments. You appear to have dealt with my issues except for a couple of minor ones:-
 * "Well-known" in the lead still has its unwanted hyphen
 * Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My objection to "entertaining writings" is unaddressed. I think either of Johnbod's suggestions, below, are better than what I suggested, and think you should adopt one of these.

Otherwise I am happy to support, subject to sources and spotchecks clearance. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments by Johnbod:
 * "Episodes from the myth were also recorded in entertaining writings" - my italics. Find an idiomatic phrase: "comic texts", "texts in a lighter vein" etc.
 * I'm not sure what's the best option here. Because the rest of the paragraph describes the tone of the text, I think the first sentence should indicate the text's purpose—like a novel that people keep around the house, rather than a religious tome that's rarely read. I was going to change the sentence to "writings meant as entertainment" in response to the peer review, but apparently the edit didn't take. A. Parrot (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Still not sorted Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for someone to say whether "writings meant as entertainment" would suffice. Does it? A. Parrot (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it's certainly better. I'm not sure the distinction between tone & purpose is all that significant, nor that we know enough about ancient Egyptian literature to be very confident about the purpose of stuff with no ritual use, especially when religion and humour appear to mix, which is a very tricky area. Do we know that  such writings were really "like a novel that people keep around the house", I wonder?  You don't really need to get into that here, & maybe should avoid doing so. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this article isn't the place for great detail about "Contendings", and there is some uncertainty about its exact significance. But, just to give you the background, it was a personal possession, belonging to a scribe who lived at Deir el-Medina. Maybe something like "tales that are more like folklore than ritual texts"? Baines supports that description for "Contendings" and the other stories ("Two Brothers", "Truth and Falsehood") that the sentence encompasses. A. Parrot (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, ok, ""writings meant as entertainment" though this is still rather cumbersome. "writings intended for entertainment" may be better. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is. Done. A. Parrot (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "When searching for or mourning Osiris, the two goddesses are often likened to falcons or kites, possibly because the Egyptians associated these birds with mourning, or because of their connection with Horus, who often is represented as a falcon..." - Nothing to do with the characteristic flying motions of these birds, then? They are indeed searching, for prey. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have one source that suggests that connection (although, at least in the kites' case, they look for carrion, which is more relevant to Osiris' corpse). I've added the source and the statement. A. Parrot (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not sure what the main Egyptian species is - maybe the black kite but most of them go for anything the right size, live or dead. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * more later. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very nearly there - no other points. It is all rather confusing, but no doubt that reflects the reality. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I tried to explain the conflicting versions as well as I could without leaving out important variations on the story. A. Parrot (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 Leaning Support: Read till Synopsis
 * Add date for Old Kingdom
 * Done.


 * "His queen is Isis, who, like ... Set, ..." We are not introduced to Set yet in the Synopsis. "like Set" seems awkward.
 * I changed "like" to "along with" and added that Set is Osiris' murderer.


 * Sometimes "Contendings", sometimes "The Contendings of Horus and Set". Make it consistent.-- Redtigerxyz  Talk 06:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the full title is awkward to say repeatedly. Currently the article says the full title on the first mention within a paragraph and "Contendings" on subsequent mentions. Maybe the full title should be limited to the first mention within each section? A. Parrot (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I will suggest using the full title in "Sources" with something like (referred to as "Contendings" further), then only using "Contendings". In "Conflict of Horus and Set", the full title is used thrice then suddenly the short one.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. A. Parrot (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Completed the read. Looks good. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there are no reliable sources for this, but I was once told that it is possible that Osiris, Set, and Horus were real figures, and the myth was based on real events. Could this be explored? ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 00:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, "Origins" covers this POV that the deities were pre-historical Egyptian figures.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article mentions Kurt Sethe's old notion that Osiris (but not Set or Horus) was a historical ruler. His perspective is very outdated today, and I mentioned it only as an example of the kind of interpretation that early Egyptologists put on the story. Nor did people in ancient times, when the myth was a living tradition, generally claim that its characters were human. Although I don't think my sources say this explicitly, I get the strong impression that the Egyptians always thought the characters were gods and not humans. Some Greeks and Romans argued that mythical figures from many cultures were deified humans (see euhemerism). But Plutarch is the Greco-Roman voice that has most influenced perceptions of the Osiris myth since his time, and he explicitly rejected the euhemerist viewpoint. A. Parrot (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'd like to see an indication that the Pyramid Texts were carved on the walls, I think that helps to put them in context. Why not include the image of the Pyramid Texts?..Modernist (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting long read - crazily contradictory - although that's the crux of the complexity and quality of your effort. I'm troubled by the Set - Seth? duality and the Re - Ra duality - you use Re-Horakhty and Ra - I think it should be one or the other and/or have an explanation for the duality...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've specified that the Pyramid Texts are on the walls. I could use an image of some Pyramid Texts, or of some portion of the Book of the Dead. But both of those just look like columns of hieroglyphs with nothing particularly interesting about them. (If there were a proper photo of a whole pyramid chamber on Commons, that might be different.) If you really want an image there, Pyramid text Teti.jpg is my preference.


 * The article text consistently uses Set and Ra, reflecting our article titles, except in the Sources section, in the quotation from Redford. Modifying quotations isn't good, except when there are brackets to indicate editorial insertions. I can change the quote like this: "…Seth [Set] as a strong-man buffoon of limited intelligence, Re-Horakhty [ Ra ] as a prejudiced, sulky judge…" A minor inconvenience is that this is the first appearance of Ra's name in the article and therefore should be linked, but I have to put nowiki tags around the outer brackets so they don't interfere with the link syntax. A. Parrot (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Leaning support see below by the way...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the image that you found - it's helpful IMO to see what you refer to, and I agree with these changes - Re-Horakhty [ Ra ] and "…Seth [Set]...Modernist (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the image and adjusted the quotation. A. Parrot (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support good work...Modernist (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- given the interval since the nominator's last FAC, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources here before promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think many Wikipedians have these sources on hand, but some of them should be checkable online. The UCLA Encyclopedia entry is linked in the Works cited section of the article, and in my (North American) region, I found Google Books previews for Hart 2005, Meeks and Favard-Meeks 1996 , te Velde 1967 , Griffiths 1980 , Assmann 2001 , and Lichtheim 2006a . All of them seem to match the pagination in my copies of these books. A. Parrot (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * tentative support Looking promising  on prose and comprehensiveness - reading and copyediting as I go. No deal-breakers thus far but I do wonder whether the prose can be tightened a little... .I'll jot queries below My concern isn't great enough, nor can I find any prominent enough examples to be actionable - interesting read: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Set sexually abuses Horus - maybe "...sexually assaults..."? is better...?
 * It might be. That wording was influenced by yet another version of the myth, in which the sex is sort of voluntary—Set wants Horus to sleep with him, Horus agrees if Set will give Horus some of his magical strength, Horus foils Set by catching the semen, and then the text breaks off. Should I include that version too, change the wording, or both or neither? A. Parrot (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I think I'd spell it out as the two words are rather clumsy in encapuslating the dual stories (one coercive, the other seductive) - I'd describe both versions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the "coercive" version isn't so much a version. The wording in "Contendings" is so spare that there's no telling whether Horus is coerced or assaulted. I've explained the "seductive" version and avoided "assault" wording, though I think "violation" is justified—Griffiths refers to it that way and regards says the episode represents "ignominious treatment" . A. Parrot (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, interesting conundrum - meh - not a dealbreaker as it is hard to see anything else that would be significantly better and is spelt out in following sentences....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

sportchecks unfortunately my library searches have been somewhat unproductive, and have only produced the Plutarch reference. I'll work though that anyway and see how we go.
 * Citation 18 - supporting the text "About a century and a half later" is a couple of pages of dicussion on when Plutarch wrote his work, I personnally think it would be more accurate to say something like "towards the start of the second century", but I don't think it's really worth arguing over...
 * I changed it, but I also changed the preceding sentence on Diodorus, as I don't want to say "in such-and-such century" in three sentences in a row.


 * Citation 21 - supported by page 51 - the reference can be narrowed a bit.
 * Page 51 supports the influence of Greek philosophies, but not really the other parts. I narrowed it to 51–52 and 98, which still covers everything.


 * Citation 31 - to support the text "By the New Kingdom, a tradition had developed that Set had cut Osiris' body into pieces and scattered them across Egypt. Cult centers of Osiris all over the country claimed that the corpse, or particular pieces of it, were found near them." although the pages are about this part of the myth - I can't find mention of Set (and the mention of Typhon, is unrelated) - I suspect the first sentance needs it's own citation.
 * Fair point. I realized that the citation to Pinch, p. 79, can support both sentences with a slight adjustment. Unfortunately that text can't be spot-checked, but it does mean less citation clutter in the text.


 * Citation 40 - source would support 'chest' rather than 'coffin' I think
 * Done.


 * Citation 41 - fine
 * Citation 42 - fine
 * Citation 44 - fine
 * Citation 110 - fine.

Fayedizard (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're up for yet more spotchecking, you can look at the Google Books links I provided above; I don't know whether the delegates will think it's sufficient to check eight citations out of 110. A. Parrot (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Add'l spotchecks -- Fayedizard and my fellow delegate, Graham, have been doing such a sterling job of spotchecking FACs lately that it seems only fair to step in to do some myself here, one each from Hart 2005, Meeks & Favard-Meeks 1996, te Velde 1967, and Griffiths 1980:
 * FN56 -- no issue.
 * FN73 -- no issue.
 * FN79 -- no issue.
 * FN85 -- I would include p. 158 in the citation range, as it provides more context, but aside from that, no issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I added that page to the range. A. Parrot (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.