Talk:Yuya

message: 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 : M1-s:s-in:g produces M1-s:s-in:g
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)
thread_title: Hieroglyphs

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Yuya and Thuya]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image on the left side 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of Honors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference for Akhmim 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tomb 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This statement 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Its not credible, also see WP:FRINGE, and discussion above. Markh 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though his theories may be fringe, his facts are not.  KV(Talk) 01:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Osman Content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Was Yuya the Biblical Judah? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yuya as Joseph again 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Sweeney on Osman 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delete the Jospeh section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citing then discrediting Osman