# Talk:Sobekneferu

Does this name means "the beauty of Sobek" OR "she who shows the beauty of Sobek"?1.Erfolg (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If "Sobek" comes last, it means "the beauty of Sobek" (noun (possessed) + noun (possessor)). If "neferu" comes last, the name means "Sobek is beautiful" (noun + verb in the stative, also called old perfective). In the latter case the vowels should be switched around, see my following comment. Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
According to Egyptologist Dominic Perry, it simply translates to "Sobek is beautiful".
Also, shouldn't she be called "king" not "queen"? In Ancient Egypt, a ruler is denoted as king (long before the use of the word pr-aa (pharaoh) to specifically mean the king), regardless of gender. Queen denotes that she would be the wife of a king. JanderVK (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The vocalization of her name should be "Sebeknofru", as given e.g., by Gardiner, not "Sobekneferu". The reason is that the predicate was stressed, so in a name consisting of noun + verb in stative (old perfective), the verb gets the full vowel o, and the noun's vowel is reduced to e or a; for the same reason, Thutmose is more correct than Thothmes. Sebeknofru's name appears in Greek as Skemiophris, a little distorted but showing the e-o vowel sequence.Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am possibly being over-sensitive, but the phrase "reigned as Pharaoh" in the lead paragraph diminishes the stature of Sobeknefru.  I didn't do an exhaustive search, but for several of the male rulers surrounding her reign, they are named as Pharaoh, not "reigned as" or "ruled as".  The article on Hatshepsut also states that she was pharaoh.  Should this be changed to conform to the pattern of other articles?  Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catbirdfan (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sobekneferu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 17:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

An interesting article.  Review coming shortly. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The prose is mostly fine for GA (if this were at FAC, I might be more picky here!), but I still have a few suggestions:

"Notably, Sobekneferu adopted the full royal titulary, distinguishing herself from prior female pharaohs." - WP:WTW doesn't like "notably" in WikiVoice, and nor do I – I would suggest "Unlike prior female pharaohs, Sobekneferu adopted the full royal titulary".
Your proposed rephrase is fine, but I wonder if it'd also work just to drop the word 'notably' or rephrase to 'Sobekneferu distinguished herself from prior female pharaohs by adopting the full royal titulary'.
Looking at the changes you've made, I think just dropping "notably" is fine here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
"Though two kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty, Sobekhotep I and Sonbef, are attested to him" this is pretty awkward.  I assume that what it must mean is that Sobekhotep and Sonbef are attested as children of Amenemhat IV?  "attested to him" is pretty unclear, though.
I meant to write 'attributed', not 'attested' here. It's not clear whether they are actually his sons, the connection between them is in nomen 'ỉmn-m-hꜣt' [Amenemhat]. I don't know if just correcting the error helps.
This is better, though I think still could be clearer.  How about something like: Sobekneferu's accession may have been motivated by a lack of male heir for Amenemhat IV.  However, two Thirteenth Dynasty kings, Sobekhotep I and Sonbef, have been identified as possible sons of his based on their shared nomen 'Amenemhat'.  As such, Sobekneferu may have usurped the throne after Amenemhat's death, viewing his heirs as illegitimate.?
Done.
"Setibhor is suggested to have been a female king regnant".  Another phrasing which reads awkwardly to me.  I would write "Setibhor may have been a female king regnant".
Done with additional tweaking.
"At the time of her accession": I assume that this is Sobekneferu's accession, but the article has mentioned three other women since it last discussed her, and this is the beginning of a new paragraph so we should be clear who we are talking about here.
Done.
"there is limited evidence of the events during his reign": can we say "little is known of events during his reign"?
Done.
"four granite papyrus columns": papyriform?
Done.
I'm also not sure about "the beautiful Nitocris" in Wikipedia's voice.  Even if Nitocris' beauty were relevant to this article, this would be the kind of opinion-based statement that we should be attributing, rather than stating as fact; as it is, I'd cut the extra colour and just say "the kingship of Nitocris", prosaic as that may be.

I meant to put it in quotes, as it's the Greek historians who invented this legendary story of a beautiful woman that got revenge on the murderers of her brother and threw herself into a burning pit so that no-one could exact revenge against her, but without that full context it'd just stick out like a sore thumb, so removed.
Other than these few prose points (and some hopefully uncontroversial minor copyediting in this series of edits), I think this article is well on its way to GA status.  Works cited all seem to be reliable enough; spotchecks of a couple of sources found no issues (either of copyvio or misuse of sources).  Images are all fine.  As an ancient history article, there are the inevitable omissions of things that you would expect to find in a modern biography, but where we just don't know very much the article often explicitly says that, and given the good articles that I write I'm in no position to complain about that! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I completely forgot to add this page to my watchlist after the notification. So sorry. I've addressed your prose comments, though you'll want to take a second look at the first two points you made. Thanks for the review Caeciliusinhorto. Let me know if you have further suggestions or comments (I've added the page to my watchlist now). Mr rnddude (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Suggested a further tweak to the second point, but I'm happy with the change you made in the lead. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Just did a final read through.  This is one of those articles where it feels like there ought to be more that we can say about the topic, but because of the nature of the sources there just isn't any more that we can cover.  So despite my personal wish to know more about Sobekneferu (get on that, Egyptologists!) I think this does meet the GA criteria, and I'm happy to pass it.  Congratulations!  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


### Unsourced text requiring a citation
The following text was added without a source:

Some of the monuments found in the Nile Delta are thought to be in a secondary context, looted by the Hyksos from the Faiyum region.
I also don't see how this material is relevant to a section on attestations for Sobekneferu. Nor is it clear what monuments are even being referred to. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

With regard my last edit summary. I wrote DE without thinking that it might be interpreted as WP:DE. I meant that as a short form for 'dummy edit'. Just in case that clarification is needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


### Desired addition to the cylinder seal section
Raven rs what is it that you wanted to extract from the BM's description of the item that you think is missing from the section on en.wiki? Is it the names that are present on the cylinder, because that can be introduced without duplicating the BM's description. The most detailed option would be a transliterated copy of the whole cylinder text. Her praenomen doesn't appear on the seal, but the other names do. Technically this doesn't constitute original research because it's a translation, though I'd still cite the BM website for it anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I took this to the talk page for a reason. I don't have a problem with you editing the article, but no you may not copy-paste material from a copyrighted website on Wikipedia and your revised wording is WP:CLOP. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


### Statue, supposedly, of Sobekneferu
The image to the right was added to the article by an IP on 20 February 2024 claiming that it is a statue of Sobekneferu from the Louvre. The Louvre mentions only that it is a statue of a woman from the late Twelfth through to Thirteenth Dynasty of Egypt as here. It does not mention Sobekneferu at all. It was re-added today by another IP under the mistaken impression that it was removed during the dispute between myself and Raven rs. IPs cannot be pinged, so I'm opening this talk page thread to invite either that IP or another editor to offer reliable evidence that the statue has been identified as Sobekneferu. The article currently states that no know statue of Sobekneferu with her head depicted has survives, the only one known previously having been lost in World War II. If this is a statue of Sobekneferu, firstly I'd expect the curators at the Louvre to know that, and secondly there would be an academic source discussing its identification with Sobekneferu. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The article has improved with more attestations, and a better sorting of facts and speculations by authors. The prose-style of Mr rnddude is now better implemented in this section upon my additions of items. This makes the article in whole more precise and a source of resource for people curious about Sobekneferu. Raven_rs(talk) 19:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)