Talk:Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep

message: The article is really confusing (for a non-expert) with regards to possible years of his life (and death). At the very least, can we add estimated century or centuries of his birth and death? Both in lead, in the form of (c.1900 BC - 1800 BC) and categories? I will add :Category:2nd-millennium BC deaths and :Category:2nd-millennium BC births for now, as this is the best I can do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea, but all we can say for sure is that it lived some time between 1900 BC and 1700 BC, with higher probability of him dying c. 1800 BC. However the chronology of the early 13th dynasty is debated and absolute dates even more so... Iry-Hor (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @User:Iry-Hor: I see, in that case perhaps you could transform your comment above into a note we could add to the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @User:Piotrus I added the mention that he was born after 1900 BC and died before 1700 BC, these broad estimates are in agreement with all scholars. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates for birth and death 

message: 188.141.79.83 posted this comment on 11 January 2014 (view all feedback).
more about his life;eg.childhood etc. .......................
Any thoughts?
 Iry-Hor (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader feedback: more about his life;eg.child... 

message: 212.149.183.222 posted this comment on 12 January 2014 (view all feedback).
Horrible jargon
Any thoughts?
 Iry-Hor (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader feedback: Horrible jargon 

message: The Egyptian pharaohs usually didn't include any information about their childhood or upbringing except the names of their parents since it wasn't relevant to their rule. Since this king ruled 3-4 years, there is almost no information for his childhood here except possibly the identity of his father. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: A Pharaoh's childhood

message: Somebody working at the German wiki had written to Jo Wegner and received the following answer: r: "The tomb is very likely Sobekhotep I (Khaankre) based on associated ceramics and other lines of evidence such as close similarity with tomb of Ameny-Qemau. We do not have yet final inscriptional confirmation." best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What ? really ? But that contradicts what the minister of antiquities said. Iry-Hor (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: that is just the message I got. On the German wiki I had the opposite problem to here. They put the tomb under Khaankhre Sobkehotep and I said, you can't do that before anything is confirmed. Indeed, they only found the name Sobekhotep. I do not trust these state statements. They need a sexy message to make a discovery exciting. The website of the University also only says probably Sobkekhotep I: http://www.penn.museum/press-releases/1032-pharaoh-senebkay-discovery-josef-wegner.html.  bw -- Udimu (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so what should we do ? Should we keep the article as it is for the moment until confirmation of the identity of the owner arrives ? Also thanks for the information! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owner of tomb 

message: Newyorkadam posted this comment on 17 January 2014 (view all feedback).
Are there any images of his tomb that can be used on WIkipedia? :)
Any thoughts?
Unfortunately, I don't know of any copyright-free image that can be used on wikipedia. We can only hope that one of the excavators would upload one to wikicommons. That seems rather unlikely.
 Iry-Hor (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked on Flickr and Google image search with filtered results (only searched for WIkipedia-friendly content) and found nothing. -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader feedback: Are there any images of his... 

message: So it has been "positively identified",   but you don't know if this is the first or 20th ruler of the dynasty ?   That sounds pathetic.Tallewang (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's your remark that is pathetic. Do you realise how difficult it must be to identify the precise chronology and dating of a king who rule over 3600 years ago for only a few years?! There is a huge debate in egyptology about wether he was the 1st or 20th ruler. The tomb is positively identified as that of a Sobekhotep, either Sekhemre Khutawy or Khaankhre. Nothing more can be said until further texts are uncovered.  Iry-Hor (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,  I do realise how difficult it is to identify the precise dating and chronology of a king who ruled more than 3600 years ago.   Yes,  I do realise that there is a debate in egyptology about whether he was the 1st or 20th ruler,  or even if such a ruler existed.  And that is why it is lame and pathetic for you to inanely continue to assert that this corpse has been "positively identified".   You do understand what the plain-english phrase "positively identified" means,  do you ?  If it might be A,   or it might be B,   then it is not a positive identification. Tallewang (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  A "positive identification" only means that there is some witness (attestation) that someone or something is a certain something or someone. It does not mean that it is an absolutely correct identification. "Positive" in this sense means there is a claim of a "yes" identification by an assumed authoritative (trustworthy) witness. As an example, if a severely burned body is found that is thought to be a missing husband, and the wife is brought in and she says "yes, that's my husband," that would be considered a "positive identification," however a positive identification does not in itself prove the identification of that burned body as truely belonging to the missing husband (only that the witness, a person being the wife of the missing husband, claims that it is). Additionally, it is possible to have more than one positive identification which conflict with each other. One of those multiple positive identification could be correct, but it is also possible for all positive identifications to be false (ie., all "false positives"). — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a joke. 

message: 108.13.227.25 posted this comment on 17 January 2014 (view all feedback).
Followed the "In the news"-link on the home page and would have expected to read something about those news here...
Any thoughts?
I guess you did not scroll down to the "Tomb" section where the news is discussed in details.
 Iry-Hor (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader feedback: Followed the "In the news"-l... 

message: Twigs_Vorron posted this comment on 16 January 2014 (view all feedback).
Reference to other civilization occurence;Egyptian Second Intermediate Period parallels some other activity; where?
Any thoughts?
Great point. There is not many synchronisms that are known. One that is generally held to be approximatively correct is Neferhotep I = Zimrin Lin = Hammurabi
 Iry-Hor (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader feedback: Reference to other civilizat... 

message: Drawing of a seal reading "The son of Ra, Sobekhotep Amenemhat, beloved of Sobek-Ra, Lord of Shyteru" Can't find anything about this place called Shyteru. Can it possibly be a contraction of šỉ, "lake" and ỉtrw, "river"? Sobek could certainly be described as "lord of the waters". – Alensha talk 22:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: this is Iw-mjtrw, see Gomaa, Besiedlung Ägyptens im  Mttleren Reich, Volume I, pages 122-125. This  is a well attested place in the 4th Upper Egyptian nome. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! – Alensha talk 10:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Drawing of a seal

message: I just edited the father section to clarify the hypothesis that he was son of Amenemhat IV. The point is that this hypothesis isn't a presumption based on lack of information but rather based on the filiative nomen "Amenemhat". While it may refer to the pharaoh Amenemhat IV, it can refer to anyone else with that name. 94.66.59.214 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amenemhat doesn't necessarily mean the pharaoh