Talk:Osireion

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

???

This article has not yet received a rating 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.

weight contested

The following is a quote from http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/setiabydos.htm :

"Upon the island were built massive pillars made of five Aswan rose colored granite monoliths about 2.4 meters square by a little over 3.5 meters high and weighing, on average, around 100 tons, to support the ambulatory atop the equally massive architraves."

They provide dimensions and wieght however the math is wrong. The density of Granite is about 3 tons per cubic meter. These dimensions add upto about 20 cubic meters or 60 tons. They also cite John Anthony West as a source. I have seen pictures that seem to confirm the dimensions but the wieght is wrong.

Zacherystaylor (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the article a bit, and removed the weight claim. I can't find a source right now for the weights and West is not a reliable source. dougweller (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any other estimates either however I suspect the estimate I made is close. I can't rule out the 100 ton estimate but the dimensions he used to arrive at that estimate don't add up as I said. If JA West isn't reliable Ancient mysteries probably isn't either since he is their source as well. So if there are no objections I'll just remove it. Unfortunately I don't have time to expand this now either. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art and architecture Egypt ISBN 3-8331-1935-7 originally Kunst und Architektur. Agypten ISBN 3-8331-1424-X by Matthias Seidel and Regina Schultz c Tandem Verlag GmbH 2005 p293 - The Osireion - states - "two rows of five enormous granite pillars each weighing 55 tons". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin-UK (talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reference deleted

The volume by Amélineau, Le tombeau d'Osiris, is not concerned with the cenotaph of Seti I but rather with the tomb of Djer at Umm el-Gaab. The reference has been deleted. For the discovery of Seti's cenotaph, see Petrie's "Preface" to M. Murray, The Osireion at Abydos.Bespantheos (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Osireion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724170034/http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/html/osireion_index.html to http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/html/osireion_index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

temple?

Nobody disputes that this is an ancient Egyptian building. Nobody agrees it was an ancient Egyptian temple. 2001:8003:6E25:300:923D:10AF:1AAA:5135 (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added external link

I added this link to offer some recent info on the Osireion. So little recent info on the site. Hope this meets wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Bfsplk (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Osireion "is possibly built to resemble an 18th Dynasty Valley of the Kings tomb.[1] "

How so and which tomb exactly? This is speculative information lacking any details of the presented theory and thus not being informative at all. Until 2017, this article contained hypothetical information that was correctly presented in a hypothetical manner and then deleted due to its hypothetical nature. This was clearly a political act (not necessarily intentional though) against the likes of alternative historians, or "pseudo-historians" as Wiki insultingly labels them, as Graham Hancock. The theories in these deleted parts were no less scientific and no more speculative than those presented in the reversed version. For a site that lacks any confirmable historical information, you have to present either any science-based theory or none.

Now, in essence, this article is a representation of what someone thought to be true – with that someone being a person who likes to blank out opposing views. Why not present both/all views including their respective concrete arguments and let the reader make up his or her own mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3032:407:20C4:EC69:5EFA:77C:E577 (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a joke

The data is very contested if not clarly wrong. The floor level was not there at the time of the suposed construction. Nothing about the laser like figures or the strange heavy blocks. Again, info is stuck in XVIII century. A pity. JKim (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will make some changes even that they probably will be deleted. Its interesting to see who blocks current knowledge JKim (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]