Talk:Anubis

message: That statuette picture looks like Sekhmet, not Anubis. Can someone confirm this?
coyo 00:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anput IS Anubis. "Anubis" is the greek rendering of the egyptian word that was written "ANP"/"ANPT", and is usually transliterated by Egyptologists as "Anup" or "Anput". And penis size has nothing to do with it. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  older comments 

message: Hello!
I read many times, both in books and even more in the internet (and in Wikipedia, too) about Anubis originally being the fourth son of Ra.
But it`s never *clearly* mentioned who the other sons were!
And yet whenever it was, never in a clear, exact tone, but quite vague and whitout a clear number.
But whenever Anubis is mentioned this way, ALWAYS as the third  or fourth!
Meaning there had to have been a first and second, possibly even thir, other son? But who?
I`d suppose Horus and/or Seth. Somebody know more?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.42.17 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sons of Ra? 

message: Trying to find Anubis in Classical Greek to add to the article. I found the Modern Greek Άνουβις in the Greek wikipedia. Perhaps the Classical Greek form is the same as the Modern Greek word.
However, I would transliterate Άνουβις as Hanubis. Was Anubis a mistranliteration to English?Sleigh 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek

message: When I was reading this article, under the "Lord of the Dead" heading was the line "and shu his mother was said to be". This is very awkward in English, so I changed it to "and his mother was said to be Shu". Looking up Shu (Egyptian deity), this doesn't seem right. I don't know, so I'm not changing it. Someone who knows Egyptian mythology should probably check this entire section for accuracy. Garnet avi 15:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anubis's Family 

message: I fail to see why Anubis's page has been reduced to such a short one. A few months ago it contained more info and like a thousand pop culture refrences now...none please put them back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rikudemyx (talk • contribs) 07:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with you. Now the page looks more of a stub then anything; I see that other wiki pages would have such references to culture within them. Daniel (talk)
Indeed.  I agree completely.  Most other mythological pages have a trivia section of some kind.  I see how someone like Anubis would appear in a plethora of places in pop culture, but I don't see a reason to get rid of them all.  Surely we could keep an inexhaustive list of significant references.  Czar Baldy Bald IV 00:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See this WP:TRIVIA. None of these entries have anything to do with Anubis – this is an article about the Ancient Egyptian god Anubis, not about modern culture. Article on the pop references should link here, not have their own entry here. Anyway, that's my opinion. Markh 20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I fail to see why 

message: The "Embalmer" section ended with the following sentence:
:As the Greeks and Christians did not embalm the bodies of their dead (and death itself was considered to be a terrifying thing), they associated the holy Anubis with disease and decay.
I removed this sentence as unsuitable for several reasons. For starters, it says that the Greeks and Christians did not embalm their dead, which may or may not be true (as far as I know), but if true it would require some source. That's a pretty broad statement.
Also, it says that Greeks and Christians considered death to be a terrifying thing. While this may (I'm not sure) have been true of the ancient Greeks, it seems like Christianity concentrates pretty hard on the promise of wonderful things after death, such as the release of the soul from earthly bondage.
It's unencyclopedic to refer to Anubis as "holy" in this way.
And lastly, if we're going to assert that Greeks and Christians associated Anubis with disease and decay, then we'll need a source that indicates that. It certainly doesn't follow that because A (Greeks and Christians did not embalm the bodies of their dead) and because B (death itself was considered to be a terrifying thing), then C (they associated Anubis with disease and decay). —CKA3KA (Skazka) 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsuitable sentence 

message: I found an image on this website: http://www.egyptianmyths.net/wepwawet.htm
It appears to be the original inspiration for the picture in the article. However, the site identifies the painting as being of Wepwawet, not Anubis. Not sure which one is right, so I thought I'd bring it up.  I know the two gods eventually merged, but I'm curious if there are specific features of the iconography which distinguish one from the other prior to the merger besides the difference in color (e.g. the objects being held by the god, etc.)
Macroidtoe 20:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Under Portrayal Section

message: i added some refs, tagged section with "citation needed" (where i 'm convinced that we definitely need a source for this info) and rmvd a totally unsourced claim for which i couldn't find ANY refs for (if ya still want it, pls discuss on articles talk). SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 14:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup, tagging and referencing 

message: Wasn't he god of the underworld  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid xx (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 02:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  God of underworld 

message: ...that Anubis is a popular character in yiffy art? ^^; 79.181.137.73 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really ;) BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 02:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would it be appropriate to mention... 

message: User:Download recently reverted an edit by the anonymous IP 76.78.59.164, apparently assuming that it was vandalism. This edit switched the positions of "Greek" and "Egyptian" when talking about Anubis' name. The just-restored version claims that "Anubis" was the original Egyptian name, while the other names listed are Greek. However, the original text claimed the reverse, and was altered by some other anonymous IP back in March. I am virtually certain that the original text was correct (most of the major Egyptian gods are known to us through Greek distortions, and many of those names end in -is), and that the more recent IP editor was simply correcting the information based on his/her own knowledge. Therefore, I am reverting the revert; I just thought I should explain why first. A. Parrot (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia adheres to a policy of using commonly recognizable names—that is, names that are most frequently used in English-language reliable sources—as article titles. In the case of Anubis, Osiris, and a few other Egyptian deities, the Greek names are overwhelmingly the most familiar to English readers. In other cases, like Anhur/Onuris and Satet/Satis, it's less clear which term is more widespread, and in those cases the article titles are found under a more Egyptian title. I say "more Egyptian" because it's difficult, if not impossible, to fully reconstruct how the Egyptians pronounced words. A. Parrot (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek/Egyptian name 

message: The opening para says Anubis was replaced by Osiris in the Middle Kingdom and the reference is Legacy of Egypt by Freeman.  Osiris was god of underworld by Old Kingdom so I am not sure how accurate this is - who is Charles Freeman and is he reliable?Apepch7 (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a Facts on File book isn't an ideal source, but it's hardly complete garbage. Osiris is the most prominent underworld god in the royal Pyramid Texts, but I believe Anubis was more important in contemporary nonroyal funerary inscriptions. It may not have been until the Middle Kingdom that Osiris was firmly in place as the most important funerary god for all classes of society. A. Parrot (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Freeman 

message: Normally in an article, there's an "edit" link at the top of each section, which, on being clicked, opens an edit box for that section. In this article, there are five edit boxes inside the references section, and none in the sections above. Why? Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit links tend to get bunched up like that when there are a lot of images or other objects crowding them out of their usual positions. I eliminated the bulky Template:Ancient Egyptian religion and replaced it with a bottom-of-the-page version, so there should be enough room now. A. Parrot (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. It looks better now. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit boxes 

message: Apparently, there is no reference in our library that the desert god Set is the father of Anubis, only Osiris (including E.A. Wallis Budge's: Egyptian Religion etc). Can someone confirm that Anubis is, indeed, considered by the Ancient Egyptians (i.e from the 5th dynasty - 31 B.C. or B.C.E.) as the son of Osiris? Or at least in the words of Plutarch? 182.18.206.20 (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: From the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt entry on Anubis: "Anubis's parentage is uncertain. The Pyramid Texts call both the cow-goddess Hesat and the cat-goddess Bastet his mother. Later sources call him the son of Nephthys by Re, Osiris, or Seth. According to Plutarch, his birth resulted from an extramarital liaison between Nephthys and Osiris, but Isis then raised him as her own son. A Demotic magical papyrus calls Osiris and Isis-Sekhmet his parents." So yes, Anubis could be the son of Osiris or Set, among others. A. Parrot (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genealogy 

message: Is it really necessary to include something from Religulous under "Misconceptions in popular culture?" That movie is a comic documentary, and I fail to see why it should really be listed under "Misconceptions" when nobody would ever take it seriously.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thought Police Officer (talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people take everything seriously. That said, I do not object to the section's removal. It's a simplistic rebuttal of simplistic claims, and it's even more tangential here that in the article on Horus, who is the focus of the film segment. A. Parrot (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Hi again ! Thanks for raising this issue. I agree with you and . Even if Religulous were taken seriously as a source of info on Anubis (you never know), there is a nearly infinite number of "misconceptions" of Anubis in popular culture that would take forever to correct, and this is not the job of an encyclopedia. I doubt anybody will disagree with you, so why don't you just be bold and delete the section altogether! Whoever "reverts" will come here and we can have a longer discussion. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Well, that's a three to zero vote. I'll go ahead and do it. Thank you for your input, Madalibi and A. Parrot. A grammar-auditing person (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconceptions section 

message: This website says that prayers to Anubis can be found carved in most ancient temples. It also says a few other things that may not be in it. http://www.touregypt.net/godsofegypt/anubis.htm Do you think I should add some things? I'm trying to be bold as I can. EMachine03 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It says the prayers are in tombs, not temples. Touregypt isn't a very solid source, but I see nothing incorrect on that particular page. A. Parrot (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi ! I'd say just be bold and add it in. Since there's no info on these prayers on the page, and since the website seems to be correct – as  has vouched, and I trust his experienced judgment – there's no reason to wait any longer! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thinking of adding something 

message: I added info on Anubis's hieroglyphic name to the "Names" section. Problem: the version of his name that we have in the infobox only appeared in the late Old Kingdom, centuries after the older one. Question is: should we replace it with the old form – which, according to the wording of my source, kept being used afterwards despite the existence of an alternative version – or should we simply remove hieroglyphs from the infobox altogether and discuss them in the "Names" section? Madalibi (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How about putting them both in? I mean, they both still exist! I don't think removing it from the infobox would be a good idea. EMachine03 (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  That could be a good idea too! Let's see what others think. Madalibi (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

text: I'd favor a solution with only one name in the box. The newer one is more appealing because it has this typical Egyptian image of Anubis sitting on a casket. But from a logical perspective, it should probably be the older one. That would be more encyclopedic. Probably. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good points too! It's true that the jackal on his stand looks a lot like the highly recognizable Anubis Shrine that was found in Tutankhamun's tomb! Madalibi (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anubis in hieroglyphs 

message: The animal Canis aureus lupaster was called "Egyptian jackal" until 2011, and is a subspecies of Canis aureus - the wikilink on the page to Egyptian jackal redirects to Egyptian wolf (Canis aureus lupaster was re-classified as a wolf).
See African golden wolf#Taxonomic history and Egyptian wolf - it's an issue of convergent evolution, where the Egyptian wolf evolved to have similar characteristics to the jackal, but is genetically closer to wolves than jackals.
Not a huge deal, I'll just make a short note in the see also. -- Callinus (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolf/Jackal 

message: Does Anubis being a jackal god have basis in research or is it something that's assumed? It seems just a likely Anubis had been a wolf or dog, perhaps epecially a dog considering the exaggerated face and ears resembling those of a pharaoh hound.
:The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (pp. 188–189) says that Anubis's animal form "bears certain traits of the dog family such as the long muzzle, its round-pupilled eyes, five-toes forefeet and four-toed hind feet, while on the other hand, its tail is wide and club shaped and characteristically carried down more like that of the jackal, fox or wolf." So it's commonly called a jackal, but it may be some kind of composite animal. A. Parrot (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Jackal, wolf or domestic dog?

message: I get that the "Egyptian jackal" was reclassified as a distinct species recently, but the history section constantly talks about wolves in graveyards and all. However I am pretty sure the referenced sources (who are all from the 1980s and 90s) did not state it as such. It even does that with the hieroglyphs. And of course it does not adress the question whether the canine in question isn't a dog, which some researchers have argued for, and which might make more sense (not to mention that the Greeks called Anubis's city Cynopolis and that of another god was called Lycopolis, why should they do that if Anubis was associated with a wolf?). So isn't constantly referring to wolves in the article even if the sources do not state it as such misleading? Shouldn't it be at most putting the word "jackal" in quotes? Was there ever any discussion here about this?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it hasn't been discussed here. People just keep coming in and "correcting" the article by replacing the word "jackal" with "wolf". The Greeks and Romans seem to have consistently called Anubis a dog, and of course he's conventionally called a jackal today. Even before the classification dispute arose, there was already ambiguity over what animal Anubis represents, as I said in the section above. So I recently edited the lead to say "canine" and sidestep the whole mess, but apparently it hasn't worked. A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that even the Egyptians themselves weren't completely sure. According to Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, some of Anubis' epithets were: Hr-n-iwiw, "the one with a face of a dog", sAb-Sps, "the noble jackal", Sr-n-(wa)-wnS-whr, "the child of a jackal and a dog" etc. Moreover in the Book of the Dead Anubis is called Hr-k-m-Tsm, "your face as that of a Tesem-dog". Canine is indeed the term what the article should use... --WANAX (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I sadly won't be able to edit the section completely anytime soon. However I will give Parrot's approach another try and replace the word "wolf" with "Jackal" and put a note on the section explaining it. Lets see whether it works.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What is with all these wolf references in the history section?

message: 209.80.157.46 (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DonIago (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2018 

message: Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
As I read through it appears that most of any questions that have arisen from the article are adequately referenced with good sources ranging from dictionaries, books, and encyclopedias. There's a great range of topics focusing on various aspects of the culture and how Anubis fits within it.
Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
The information presented doesn't appear to biased. My personal understanding of the writing depicts the information in a neutral light while also being condensed. Users are able to delve deeper into the subject by clicking on the various links throughout the article which allows for better oversight of the topic in its entirety.
Mr. Allen 23:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Evaluation

message: A 5050-year-old wooden tablet bearing the name of king Aha was used as a tag attached to goods for shipment.
The legend on the tablet reads:
/wpt  r/  /inpw/  /msqt/  /imy-wt/  /m-qAb/  /Hwt-Hrw/
/judge/ /Anubis/ in the /Mesquet chamber/ of the /Animal skin/ /administrator/ of  /Horus’/
 /enclosure/
 Into the Horus’ Enclosure, Cows bearing the sign of the pubic triangle are depicted.
 The goods were either sent to the judge, administrator of the enclosure, or to some recipient by the judge.
 
In the scene of judgment depicted on the papyrus of Anhay (BM 10472, dated to 1100 BCE, younger of the tablet by 1950 years) there is the following legend written close above the head of Anubis:
Words said by Anubis, who is administrator of the god’s enclosureItalic text.
Neither the judge nor the judgment, the enclosures, and the confined Cow women were figments of the imagination of the ancient theologians. What they did, was to obscure the reality of the pharaonic society by attaching funny connotations to every single word that came down to us.  
Dimitrios Trimijopulos (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your interpretation of the texts. But Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources, which in this case means the published work of professional Egyptologists. Previous edits of yours are similar to this talk page comment: you advocate novel interpretations of Egyptian religious concepts, interpretations that you know are not accepted in mainstream Egyptology. This isn't the venue for that. Wikipedia is meant to summarize and explain the work of the extant reliable sources, not to correct the purported errors of mainstream scholarship. A. Parrot (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judge Anubis as a real person 

message: Hi, I'm not going to edit the article, as I've seen that the consensus is just to go by what the Greek sources say (that Anubis' head is that of a dog).
Nevertheless, if at some point in the future it is decided that a section on his disputed species is valid, here are some sources with links provided which could be used:
* We are inclined to believe that Anubis was a fox rather than a jackal, because all of the statuary and heiroglyphs of Anubis are of an animal with the tail of a fox.- Osborn, D. & Helmy, I. (1980). "Canis aureus lupaster (Hemprich and Ehrenberg, 1833)". The contemporary land mammals of Egypt (including Sinai). Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History. pp. 360–371
* To me, the head of the typical Anubis looks very like the head of a Simien jackal, with its long, thin snout and large ears. It does not seem improbable that this canid was known to the Egyptians, and because it was doglike but exotic it became especially revered.- Clutton-Brock, J. (1996). "Competitors, Companions, Status Symbols, or Pests: A Review of Human Associations with Other Carnivores". Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. p. 348
Mariomassone (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth is out there so the lies don't even matter 2600:1700:612C:C010:510F:5218:5EAE:8CA8 (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species according to different sources 

message: There is a quote on this page and it links to the biblical Seth, when I'm pretty sure Isis wasn't afraid of Seth from the bible. Kelpor (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have amended the link to Set (deity). Mr rnddude (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kelpor (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found an error and I need to fix it 

message: The romanization of ⲁⲛⲟⲩⲡ should be Anup, ⲟⲩ here is a digraph for u. Tobias Paul (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanization of Coptic