Talk:Astronomical ceiling of Senenmut's Tomb

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Who is Joanne Conman ?!!

In the chapter:

[[1]]

We make a reference in certain one Joanne Conman, as if this one is an Egyptologist or a scientist, but after an in-depth research, Joanne Conman was never published !

She publishes articles, and proposes digital books but without publisher !

I thought that Wikipedia chased this personal attack redacted, but it seems that the American or English version of Wikipedia is less scrupulous than the French-speaking version.

I hope that this imposture will be fast considered to be erased, because this Joanne Conman does not hesitate to take himself by putting back the work of authors who were published at real publisher's, like Otto Neugebauer.

Joanne Coneman is an astrologer who apparently has to make nothing in an article on the Egyptology.

But the fact that its name represents in Wikipedia, will doubtless allow him(her) to sell more digital books than if she(it) was not there...

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.253.236 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is utter nonsense. The source is an article published in Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur. That's obvious in the article. It's a peer reviewed scientific journal - are you really claiming the French wikipedia doesn't accept peer reviewed material? And perhaps this is a language problem, but studying and writing about astrology does not make one an astrologer. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've looked more into this - her article doesn't seem to have been used in academic publications (except one saying Neugebauer is still debated), so as she isn't an academic (nor is she an astrologer), I'm removing it. I must find out what's happened to access for this. When I saw it a few years ago there was no public access and a reconstruction was planned. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Conman has published in Discussions in Egyptology vol 64 (2006-9) and Apuntes de Egiptologia (2007). She has also published a book, Ancient Egyptian Sky Lore: Rethinking the Conventional Wisdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bang bee (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it's that book that's part of the problem - she couldn't get anyone to publish it I presume since it's self-published. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Apuntes de Egiptologia was a non-peer reviewed free e-journal. Discussions in Egyptology is a popular journal also lacking peer review. All going to show that she doesn't meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Bang bee is busy adding Conman to other articles - maybe a WP:COI. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the standard for being an "official" Egyptologist? Conman's is a differing perspective that may shed light or help others clarify their views. I do not see the point of removing references to her work. User:SiannaTyrrae —Preceding undated comment added 03:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"celestial diagram"

What method was used to determine that this is a celestial diagram? Specifically, how do they identify the orbs with planets? Especially the bit about Mars. Seems like conjecture and wishful thinking was used to interpret these and this interpretation is a matter of opinion or seeing what they want to see.