Talk:Mummy

message: I propose that the section "In popular culture" should be split to a new article called "mummy (undead)". It is the only section that talks about fictional, undead mummies where the whole rest of the article talks about real, quite very dead mummies. Additionally, it would allow for greater expansion on fictional mummies and remove the quite out-of-place category :Category:Corporeal undead from this article. JIP | Talk 16:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you make a good point about a split to distinguish between real mummification and the fictional representation of mummies. I think there are a lot more points that could be included in an article about fictional mummies and how they relate to the popular culture of the eras in which they gain popularity. Could make an interesting page, if there is enough verifiable data. I would suggest an article title more along the lines of mummy (fiction) since it seems more academic. Saint Soren (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think that is a good idea. The article on actual mummies should also have a section on how they have been represented. Written in summary style and with a "main article" link to an article about the fictional kind of mummies. It is not as if there isn't a relation between the two. The former inspired the latter.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If the page for the undead version of is created, it should also be reserved for the mummies that have appeared in reanimated form like the ones seen in TV shows and movies. They already got a page made for the skeletons. Any objections? --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: After spending some time trying to edit this article, it is obvious that it needs some major overhauling. Looking at the talk page makes it even more obvious. There are suggestions made years ago that have yet to be addressed. This is a very important subject that I believe needs a much better page. I am willing to take up this work, but I would love to have some collaboration and guidance on what needs to be done. Specificity of what needs to be done to each section would be great. Please let me know if I'm overstepping any boundaries as a contributor, I just want to make this article the best it can be! Saint Soren (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire section on the Egyptian mummification process is a huge mess. I think the only way to consolidate it is to rewrite it, which I am now in the process of doing. This section is linked to by several other articles on Ancient Egypt and it definitely needs to be the best it can be. Saint Soren (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a list of done/to-do activities related to the current overhaul on my userpage. Saint Soren (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the major elements of the overhaul complete as of today -- Saint Soren (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The '"Most Perfect" method' section says brains were removed via iron hooks, as per Herodotus' writing on the subject; the Egyptian Mummies section directly contradicts that assertion, directly saying Herodotus was incorrect: "This discovery helped to dispel the claim within Herodotus' works that the rod had been a hook made of iron.[26]" Do you want to handle that? I know you put a lot of time and effort into rewriting the article. Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Major overhaul needed

message: In the seventh paragraph (starting "Through various methods ... ") it is stated "The only organ left behind was the heart ... " yet in the subsection "Most Perfect" method it only refers to the removal of the brain and the abdomen, either by liquefying or direct removal.  There is no mention of going beyond the abdomen into the thorax, so it would appear that the lungs remained intact, as well.  If the liquefying agent dissolved the diaphragm and lungs as well, would not the heart be at least badly damaged, if not liquefied, as well?  If the direct removal technique is used, it would appear a much larger incision would be needed, and a more detailed knowledge of internal anatomy.  This reflects on the larger question I'm looking for which is: just how detailed was the ancient Egyptian knowledge of anatomy?  Based on what I see so far, it would appear to be far less than what I expected.
Yet again, the article Canopic jar states that there were four jars per body, and that they included lungs.  This seems to make more sense, with a jar for each lung, one for the digestive organs, and the fourth for remaining organs, liver, spleen, etc.  This implies the more extensive knowledge of anatomy that I associate with the Egyptians, but is incompatible with the preservation techniques described.  Also, it would seem that the liquefying technique would be incompatible with the use of canopic jars ... there would be nothing left to dry out and preserve.  Presumably this technique would belong to the "Avoiding expense" subsection.
Could an Egyptologist review this and rewrite this section accordingly?
73.219.226.54 (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed on section Egyptian mummies 

message: Looking at this article, we can see that there has been an abundance of work done to cover most, if not all, of the aspects that surrounds the subject of mummies. With all the information, this article accomplishes its purpose on Wikipedia, to combine and present knowledge by using several channels. This Mummy article covers the meaning behind the term to the history and popular culture. The article does a great job in covering mummies in different parts of the world as well as informing the audience about discoveries made without being biased. The diction presented in the article maintains the neutrality that Wikipedia greatly endorses.  The article simply lays out the facts and is able to display their scholarly sources and provide links to these sources which allows the article to be verified and enforce reliability. 
To go on, with the plentiful information presented in the article, I would suggest to create an enhanced layout in order to better navigate the topics of the article. Implementing a better layout would in my opinion create a better consistency for the article and prevent confusion and frustration for Wikipedia readers. Also by creating a better layout for the article, it would allow all kinds of readers to follow along easier. 
Another area of improvement would be to expand on the modern use or ideas of mummies. This would help readers better analyze how times have changed and altered through the years. Britogis (TALK) 11:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article does have a pretty extensive coverage, though the section on Egyptian mummies does contradict itself, which is certainly a major problem.  It can also use better presentation, and it probably is a bit too big, as it sits, and should be broken into sub-articles.  I'm looking into this article, and will be editing / re-structuring it soon, as part of a larger project.  Do you have any specific ideas in mind??  Thanks!  Hi-storian (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mummy Article Evaluation  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mummy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113091947/https://www.routes.co.za/naturereserves/baviaanskloof/ to http://www.routes.co.za/naturereserves/baviaanskloof/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the In popular culture section, it mentions that "mummies are more dead than zombies". How important is this (not to mention how can something possibly be "more dead" than another dead thing). Should it be removed? NightlyG (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. That sentence seems like a bit of a prank to me. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exactly how important is it that "mummies are more dead than zombies"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mummy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103051319/http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/khoi.htm to http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/khoi.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112060653/http://archaeology.asu.edu/teo/notes/JL/notes1_3.htm to http://archaeology.asu.edu/teo/notes/JL/notes1_3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mummy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023202442/http://www.utexas.edu/courses/medworld/herodotus_mummies.html to http://www.utexas.edu/courses/medworld/herodotus_mummies.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208160451/http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/greenland.htm to http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/greenland.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015193124/http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/melanesia.htm to http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/melanesia.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204030056/http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/mummified-maori-head-returned-to-nz-after-136-years.htm to http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/mummified-maori-head-returned-to-nz-after-136-years.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I am seeking information about this topic but I find it nowhere in the Wikipedia universe ... ? Do I have the wrong search terms? This is what I mean:
*
*
*
Greetings from Germany, --Mateus2019 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If no soft tissue was preserved, they are not mummies. —Tamfang (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  corpses encased in plaster casts /  Plaster corpses (of Pompeii) 

message: What about Yemeni mummy? There are some things that discovered since 1983 رياض الفرح (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mummy 

message: Mummies should never be removed from their places of rest. If it has to occur for some reason, they should be burried back with respect. Why are the people doing it? Would they like their relatives bodies to be removed from the graves and exposed to the public? It should be forbidden. Is there any one person who would like to be put after his death to the museum  and be presented to the public forever?
It is unhuman, it is a crime. If a human remains are removed/stolen from a cemetery today it would be punished as a crime.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.87.33 (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unhuman 

message: I'm suspicious of that section possibly being a hoax. It sounds like something out of fiction to me. InvalidOStalk 12:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gottfried Knoche section 

message: The Canary Islands are off the coast of Africa so the paragraphs about mummies there should be placed in the Africa section, especially since the people doing the mummification were Africans.   I'll move them in a few days unless someone provides a good reason not to.
Lenbrazil (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Canary Islands are a unique part of Spain. Geographically, the islands are part of the African continent; but, from a historical, economical, political and socio-cultural point of view, they are completely European. As I believe more in Geography than in Politics, go ahead!!! He-he-he! George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canary Islands in Africa not Europe 

message: change every continent to every continent besides antartica 66.211.228.226 (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Animal mummification by natural extreme cold processes on Antarctica. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2023