Talk:Tutankhamun/Archive 4

message: Winifred's painting technique for the pharaonic portraits:
. . . I turned to the statutes and reliefs. These would show me how the sitters impressed the artists of those days, and the work of an artist's chisel or brush is at least as good evidence as the sworn word of a witness in a court of law, at any rate when the artist is as literal-minded as were the Egyptians. Do we not know the honest mistakes a man in the witness-box can make? And shall we not concede the difference between a trained and an untrained observer?
The ancient artist was a trained observer; I would examine his trained evidence on what he saw, and compare it with what I could see today of the Pharaohs. This done, discrepancies appeared which could not be disregarded. And besides, the various artists who portrayed a Pharaoh did not all agree in detail among themselves. This added to the difficulty! It was evident that some detailed and perhaps laborious comparing would have to be done. I had recourse again to the mummy, and took the face carefully back through the process of mummification.
Certain confirmations appeared of the artists' evidence; these I accepted and retained, especially as they seemed to me to agree with the king's known character. Discrepancies on the other hand could be partly accounted for by the changes in the subject between youth and old age, and partly by the deference due to kings. Finally I did construct a firm scaffolding on which to build my portrait, and so the picture of Sety I was begun.
The costume was a simpler problem. One had only to consult the monuments and the jewel-room of the Museum, and to be careful to avoid howlers such as a dinner party parure with a field-service helmet, and so on. Ramses II was next attempted, and I was greatly cheered by the recognition of my resuscitated kings by several eminent archaeologists. Not all the Egyptologists who recognised my portraits realised the method in my madness, the slow sifting of evidence and the laborious brick-making. To many they seemed flights of a fancy only slightly, if at all, controlled by research.
But one of the most famous of them all, namely Professor Breasted, gave me enormous encouragement. Whatever was to be thought of these particular portraits, he admitted that this was a line of research not hitherto tried, but perfectly legitimate and which might conceivably yield valuable results. His kind words so stimulated me that I made similar attempts with other defunct royalties, and gradually completed the series of kings and queens which appear in these pages. 
:Google will tell you what happens if you ask deeceevoice to be nice. Jim Apple 19:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just telling Dark Droid that he's wasting his time asking you to be nice. If you disagree, that's fine, but I don't think you do. I'm not criticizing you or calling you out or casting any votes about your behavior. I'm just trying to tell Dark Droid to spend his time in more productive ways than asking your for some courtesy. Jim Apple 15:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Jim Apple 13:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winifred Brunton (Wikiquette, good faith, be nice...)... 

message: Last week, I went to the neighborhood Rite Aid in search of a few things.  As I was rounding an aisle near the vitamins section, I came upon this tall, lanky brother.  He was black -- or about as close to it as I'm ever likely to see in the human form.  His skin was mahogany with blueish, reddish undertones (purple?).  He had a very pronounced alveolar prognathism and really large (somewhat yellowed) front teeth.  Classic Nilotic.  I said to myself, "This brother's got to be from Sudan."  (He didn't quite look Somali; I know the general look of Somalis quite well.) 
"Excuse me," I said.  "I hope you don't mind my asking, but where are you from?"
"Sudan," he said with a toothy smile, "East Africa."
"Oh," I said simply.  "I was thinking Sudan."
We smiled at one another, and that was that.  As I passed him by, I noticed his head:  definitely dolichocelphalic.
As I walked away, I chuckled and said aloud to myself, "Nice to meetcha, Tut, my brutha." Aw, yee-ah, bay-bee.  A gen-yew-wine Tut sighting.  Somebody alert the media!  :p deeceevoice 14:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page would be more helpful if you stuck to discussing the article instead of using silly anecdotes as if they showed anything useful. DreamGuy 21:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The fundamental problem: "black" does not = African, African does not = "black." (64.169.160.7 23:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Elvis ... uh, I mean King Tut has left the building (and is working at Rite Aid)

message: I have put the National Geographic cover image back, because the section discusses National Geographic and the recreated likeness, and this is in accordance with Wikipedia's fair use policies.  That said, if the section does not discuss National Geographic's role in the recreation, using the image would not be considered fair use.  Please keep that in mind when you make changes to the section.  :)
Also, the image I replaced was :Image:Tut mask closeup livinghorus.jpg, which has unknown source and copyright.  Foofy 07:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Geographic image 

message: From the article, the following sentence describing Carter's dismembering of Tutankhamun's mummy is a bit confusing: quoting from the article "... the torso cut in half and the head was severed, then removed from the golden mask to which it was cemented by means of hot knives"
Did Carter remove the golden mask using hot knives? Or was the golden mask cemented using hot knives? Can the author clarify / rephrase the sentence so that it is clear? 
Thanks,
--Das
:It was removed with knives. Paul B 09:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence describing dismembering the mummy 

message: Should we mention that his mask is featured in the promotional material of the Deluxe Paint series?
:In the Deluxe Paint article, sure. Here, no, it's probably too tangental and trivial, in my opinion. Jonathunder 05:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deluxe Paint 

message: Why is there nothing on the infamous Curse of King Tut?
:Because there isn't one, I guess. Paul B 00:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: King tut's tomb had no curse text. Therefore there was no curse. Everything about that nonsense curse is already in George Herbert, 5th Earl of Carnarvon Thanatosimii 06:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Curse 

message: The main article contianed a half-paragraph reference to an upcoming J.P. Allan article "The Amarna Succession". Here is the text I removed and the justification:
:However, Professor James Allen in an upcoming 2007 article titled "The Amarna Succession"--written to honour the memory of the late William Murnane--argues that Tutankhamun was more likely to be a son of the short-lived king Smenkhkare rather than Akhenaten. Allen notes that Akhenaten consciously chose a  female coregent named Neferneferuaten to succeed him rather than Tutankhamun which is untenable if the latter was indeed his son.    (see pp.7, 12-14)
I have a deep respect for Professor James Allen, and his book on Middle Egyptian is one of my favorite books. I have not read this article (indeed, it is not even in print yet!) but the discussion seems to have no place in a Wiki article. Wiki has a No Original Research policy, and clearly this constitutes original research, or at least it is simply speculation. Anyway, this complicated discussion doesn't seem relevant for this section, as a simple "we don't know for sure" can suffice until conclusive evidence emerges (if ever).
So sorry if it hurts anyone's feelings, but I think this little section should be cut, but I would be happy to discuss further.
--Jeff Dahl 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is genuinely forthcoming, then it's a grey area. As you know forthcoming publications are often cited in academic literature. But we certainly don't need the tribute to Murnane. It could be shortened to "Professor James Allen argues that Tutankhamen is more likely to have been a son of Smenkhkare". The rest can go in a footnote. Paul B 04:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: James Allen may or may not have written the forthcoming article that is mentioned, but there is no way to verify that such a forthcoming article exists or what it says.  From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a place to publish ... new information not heretofore published." It hasn't actually been published yet, so I think it's too early to include it. Canadiana 16:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am of course well aware of NOR policy, but it's not applicable here. There is no doubt that he wrote the article. It is posted on the university of Memphis website. Jeff Dahl has already provided the link. Here's the site again.  The existence of the article and the notability of Allen is not in question. It's really only an issue about footnoting a forthcoming hard-copy publication. Paul B 16:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am restoring a shortened version of the passage. It's a significant article, and directly accessible to online readers. 212.219.28.94 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am happy with the shortened version of the passage.  The only really grey area is whether the web version on the University of Memphis site is the final peer-reviewed version or not.  I can't tell. Canadiana 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sentences about "Amarna Succession" article 

message: I have removed the following text which was added by an anonymous AOL user on June 2, 2006:
:Tutankhamun's seat
:The golden throne that Howard Carter discovered in the Antechamber beneath the hippopotamus couch is similar to the chair belonging to Sitamun. The style was popular for royal chairs of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Instead of female torsos protruding from the seat, however, the more traditional lions are in their place. The armchair is carved from wood, but covered in gold with some silver overlay. Coloured glass, faience, calcite and semi-precious stones are used for the inlays.
:The carved plant motif between the feline-form legs was removed by thieves, but the delicate openwork design of the arms remains intact. On either side, a winged cobra wears the double crown and rests on a basket. Its outstretched wings enclose the hieroglyphs for the "king of Upper and Lower Egypt" followed by the sign for infinity (shen). A cartouche of the king is at the end of her wings on either side of the chair.
:The back of the chair is supported by three vertical struts; the outer two are carved with the king's Aten name, the middle one with that of the queen. Four hooded cobra with solar disks rise up in pairs between each of the supports. A carved and gilded scene with birds in a thicket appears on the outer surface of the back of the seat. In the triangular opening formed between the diagonal of the back and the vertical support on each side is a hooded cobra. The one on the left wears the red crown of Lower Egypt, while the one on the right has the white crown of Upper Egypt.
:The iconography relates to Atenist doctrines, but the names of the king and queen appearing on the chair use both the earlier (Aten) and later (Amun) forms. Such a combination indicate that the chair was probably produced rather early in Tutankhamun's reign, during the period of transition to the orthodox religion.  Indeed, the queen's head appears to have been shortened to dilute the bizarre naturalism of Atenist art.
The original version of this section appears to have been copied directly from Tut Exhibit - King Tutankhamun Exhibit, Collection: Furniture and Boxes - Tutankhamun's Gold Throne, before undergoing several style edits beginning with one on June 5, 2006 by User:Master Spiky.  Besides being a probable copyright violation, it doesn't seem to warrant four paragraphs to itself, when almost none of the other artifacts from the tomb are even mentioned in the article. Canadiana 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Tutankhamun's seat section 

message: I have removed the section "Recent theories that link Tutankhamun with early Christianity", added August 19, 2006 by User:Rnolst.  It makes some rather unusual claims about Jesus being Tutankhamun and treats them as if they were established fact.
This text was written by Charles N. Pope and appears to be taken directly from a section of http://www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/osman.html. Unless Rnolst is or has permission from Charles N. Pope, this is a copyright violation and cannot be permitted to remain.  For the original addition record, see  Canadiana 04:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Recent theories that link Tutankhamun with early Christianity" 

message: Isn't the tone in the first paragraph of this section just a tad too informal?  Asking questions to the reader probably isn't the best format.  Just a thought. Justinmeister 23:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the claim by 89.172.168.25 that Tut may have been poisoned. The better reports apout the Spanish research do not suggest this, and even the blog he cites is very sceptical. The story is, anyway, odd - as it implies that the "poison cup", unwashed, would be put in the tomb. Other reports suggest that it was sealed amphorae that were tested. Paul B 12:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of Death 

message: I think there's a bit too much repetition between sections in this article, for example in the sections describing the role of Ay and the religious changes in Tutankhamun's time.
Samdutton 16:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  I had a plan back in August to re-organize the article, which would really help to cut down on the repetition.  I'll try to pull out my plan and do something about it within the next week. Canadiana 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: The article is now semi-protected at my request, which means it can't be edited by users who are not logged in.  Sustained vandalism by anonymous users, especially over the last 11 weeks, have made it difficult to keep track of real edits and have meant that the article contains silly fallacious comments more often than not, nearly always from various anonymous IP posters. There has really next to nothing (maybe nothing, period) useful added by anon users during this time.  Canadiana 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: One minor difference was that Tut was 5'11" Brian Pearson 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A second 'first ever' CT scan? 

message: How can anyone say that he was certanly not murdered.His burial was certanly very hasty and I´ve seen it my own eyes.Why such an dirty burial if he died from a natural cause?Why did Ay and Horemhed distroy all records of the pharaoh´s name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:ihuhkugiu (talk • contribs).
:For one, Tut's name was erased by Horemhab for the same reason Ay's was. Both were associated with the Amarna heresy. For two, we can't really say that the burial was hasty, since it's the only unmoved pharaonic burial existant. The only possible comparison is that of Queen Hetepheres, but that's a good thousand years earlier in the fourth dynasty. For three, scientific forsenic experts reexamied the body and said he was most probably not murdered. Regardless, if you have a dissent, feel free to put it on the page with it's appropriate citation from a hard, peer reviewed source. Thanatosimii 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence as I said, Hetepheres is the closest thing we've got to compare it to, and it's a far cry away. Still, it was largely intact compared to most tombs. Now, I don't pay attention to the news, but I read academic literature, and they don't like the murder theory anymore. If you can Cite a poison theory, feel free. Thanatosimii 16:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's up to you to find academic literature. If you don't know of anything scholarly which supports poisoning, perhaps there isn't any. In that case, the theory would be fairly inadmissable to talk about, although nonscholarly literature could be used as a reference that some ameteurs or laymen have come up with a mostly unaccepted theory. Thanatosimii 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: None of this is academic in any meaningful sense, and speculation is not evidence. Please sign your posts by adding ~~~~Paul B 12:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please sign your posts. It is virtually impossibe to "rule out" murder. Academic literature would be literature published by an academic press or in a peer-reviewed journal. That might also include scholarly websites hosted or supported by universities. Paul B 13:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a talk given last year by Bob Brier, author of the 1998 book, the findings of which were invalidated by the 2005 scan! Paul B 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sir, it's impossible to rule out the possibility that Tut was an alien from Mars. We don't disprove things, we examine probabilities when writing history. The claim that he probably was not murdered has substantiated evidence behind it, and implies that it is still possible that he was, although the experts no longer lean that way. You don't need to insert extra sentances into the article to say, "it is still possible that he was murdered." Saying "Experts think he was not" both points out that there are two positions, and that the experts have largely abandoned one for the other. If you can find a vehement expert arguing for murder specifically against the 2005 CT findings, feel free to add. If noone actually does still believe murder and argue for it in the professional field, then the fact that old literature and web pages still argue for murder is irrelevant. Thanatosimii 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The book seems to be rather sensationalist, and certainly not academic, but if someone has read it then its arguments can be included. No-one says he was riding a chariot. He may have fallen down stairs. The chariot-riding is just a guess about how an accident might have happened. As it happens I have metal plates from breakages in both arms from two separate incidents. Neither involved chariots. Had I lived in Tut's day the second one would probably have killed me, since it became infected. I don't know what you would consider to be a "cold winter's day" in Egypt. Paul B 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That presumes that the times were Chaotic. They don't seem to have been. Outside of the possibility of Tut's murder, there does not seem to be anything to warrent an assumption that the power wrangling going on in Egypt at the time was anything more than subtle excercises of influence.What it all comes down to is this, however. A good article is going to cite solid academic work. The "No Murder" findings were conducted academically and with the blessings of and reviewal by Hawass's cronies. I don't particularly like the Supreme Counsil or whatever they call it, but they are producers of academia. If there is a dissent of equal quality, then the dissent will be given and the reasons pro and con murder in detail. This book you've provided seems quasi-academic, but not crankery, so if they, for instance, have an arguement pro-murder, their main point could be briefly summarized. However, the murder position is now largely held by the masses, who proliferate low quality literature left and right, and none of that can be admissable. Wikipedia has rules about giving undue weight to less reliable sources. Thanatosimii 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death.