Template:Did you know nominations/Horus Sa
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 18:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Horus Sa
[edit]... that the tomb of Horus Sa may have been reused some 1500 years after his death by a high priest of Aten?
ALT1:
- ... that the existence of the early Egyptian 2nd dynasty pharaoh Horus Sa is still disputed?
Created/expanded by Iry-Hor (talk). Self nom at 16:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Reviewed: Capitulum mitella
Long enough, new enough, hook is in article, and you're using what look like solid print sources. However, I'm concerned about your online sources — one is dead, and the others look like personal websites. Please explain why they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" despite their appearance, or please remove them and the information based on them that you can't attribute to reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- The site that look like a personal website is actually the website of Francesco Raffaele who is an egyptologist specialized on early dynastic egypt. See for example, a recent research book on the subject which he edited: Proceedings of the First Napolitan Congress of Egyptology. Furthermore, note that I only provide links to his website for complementary informations and the facts of the article are all backed up by published materials (articles and books). Finally, I did not find any deadlinks in the references I put in the article. I hope this addresses the issues you raised regarding the sourcing. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Citation #1, the "Photo of original", is the dead link; I'm getting a 404-error page in Italian, and after a minute or so it sends me to a Create Your Own Page site. As far as Raffaele, I'm not at all certain that he's an established researcher. First, when you publish a book with a mangled title ("Researches"), it's not helpful. WorldCat shows me about forty academic or governmental libraries holding copies of one or the other, but academic libraries sometimes purchase unreliable books, perhaps for the study of the publishers; I recently had a copy of this book, which is 100% in disagreement with scholarly consensus on the archaeology of the eastern USA. Searching Google for "Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology" produces few results except for this book, and "Convegno Napoletano di Egittologia" produces results mostly from forums and blogs, with exactly one relevant hit (a Yale professor's CV) from a .edu site, and it's a documents-sharing website. If this were the high-profile conference that it seemingly asserts itself as being, I'd expect to see something from Egyptology, anthropology, or archaeology departments of major universities. Finally, as far as the article itself, I'm getting dozens of hits when I search Google for <"horus sa" pharaoh -wikipedia> and dozens for <"horus za" pharaoh -wikipedia>, while <Nynetjer pharaoh -wikipedia> and <weneg pharaoh -wikipedia> both give me over ten thousand. I'm going to request a third opinion on the printed sources. Nyttend (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- The site that look like a personal website is actually the website of Francesco Raffaele who is an egyptologist specialized on early dynastic egypt. See for example, a recent research book on the subject which he edited: Proceedings of the First Napolitan Congress of Egyptology. Furthermore, note that I only provide links to his website for complementary informations and the facts of the article are all backed up by published materials (articles and books). Finally, I did not find any deadlinks in the references I put in the article. I hope this addresses the issues you raised regarding the sourcing. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is not suprising : Horus Sa is a shadowy ruler whose existence is ascertained through few vessel fragments found at Saqqara. You compare this to Nynetjer, the best known pharaoh of the 2nd dynasty who reigned over 40 years and to Weneg who is also much better attested and which was recently the object of renewed interest after J. Kahl's book "Ra is my Lord" where the egypotlogist exposes the theory that Weneg is the same as Raneb, again a well known pharaoh of the second dynasty. If you want to compare, look at shadowy rulers of the period such as Sneferka or Horus Bird (Pharaoh). I understand that one may cast doubt about F. Raffaele's expertise and again I repeat that I only provided links to his website for additional informations and not to back up claims made in the article: these references can be removed from the article without endangering the quality of the sourcing. Note that F. Raffaele's book contains articles from well established and better known egyptologists such as Vassil Dobrev. See also an article he coauthored with better known egyptologists here. On a side note, remark that the theories exposed on his website are mainstream and referenced and not controversial. Finally, I am sorry to say that the photo of the original does not appear as a dead link for me, it works very well. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- This whole situation is the reason that I asked for some other opinions — I know almost nothing of ancient Egypt, and Na'armer is the only early Old Kingdom monarch whose name I know. I'd much rather get input from others who are more familiar with the subject. I'll be leaving for a Christmas celebration before long, so please don't expect any more input from me until late tonight or tomorrow; it's almost 10AM my time right now. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- J. Kahl's book "Ra is my Lord" does note the theory of Weneg being Raneb, but the theory is not established and is contested. If we have a primary source states that Za could not have been the interim leader, the basis for that is strongest. The whole identity section provides theories but not one recognition of the reign and instead provides a refutation of it or the shortening of a name where such shortening would most likely be improper. I do not think 'http://xoom.virgilio.it' for which you reference 3 times in the article is a reliable source, and is essentially pushing original research on a personal webpage. Its basically the same thing as Ancestry.com at this point, no primary sources cover it and the secondary sources are all conjecture and theory. There is nothing substantial to even denote the existence of Sa at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with removing references to F. Raffaele's website (I just did). Furthermore, I wrote the article to discuss the various identity hypotheses that exist and you will notice that I never say in the article that a given hypothesis is the correct one. Thus I entirely agree with what you write. There is indeed a primary source for Za being a short lived ruler between Khasekhemwy and Djoser: Peter Kaplony: Die Inschriften der Agyptischer Fruhzeit, O. Harrassowitz, 1963, pp. 380, 468, 611. However I also note in the article that this hypothesis is challenged by the now widely held hypothesis that Djoser directly succeeded Khasekhemwy, see the articles on these pharaohs. Now you say that There is nothing substantial to even denote the existence of Sa at this point. . This I believe is beyond the mark, the existence of Za being attested by the finds mentioning his Ka house. What is disputed is that Za is a horus name, not that the inscriptions refer to an actual ruler (who may be better known under another name). Please see the references I put in the article for solid references establishing the existence of Za (as opposed to his identity). Iry-Hor (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- J. Kahl's book "Ra is my Lord" does note the theory of Weneg being Raneb, but the theory is not established and is contested. If we have a primary source states that Za could not have been the interim leader, the basis for that is strongest. The whole identity section provides theories but not one recognition of the reign and instead provides a refutation of it or the shortening of a name where such shortening would most likely be improper. I do not think 'http://xoom.virgilio.it' for which you reference 3 times in the article is a reliable source, and is essentially pushing original research on a personal webpage. Its basically the same thing as Ancestry.com at this point, no primary sources cover it and the secondary sources are all conjecture and theory. There is nothing substantial to even denote the existence of Sa at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- This whole situation is the reason that I asked for some other opinions — I know almost nothing of ancient Egypt, and Na'armer is the only early Old Kingdom monarch whose name I know. I'd much rather get input from others who are more familiar with the subject. I'll be leaving for a Christmas celebration before long, so please don't expect any more input from me until late tonight or tomorrow; it's almost 10AM my time right now. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is not suprising : Horus Sa is a shadowy ruler whose existence is ascertained through few vessel fragments found at Saqqara. You compare this to Nynetjer, the best known pharaoh of the 2nd dynasty who reigned over 40 years and to Weneg who is also much better attested and which was recently the object of renewed interest after J. Kahl's book "Ra is my Lord" where the egypotlogist exposes the theory that Weneg is the same as Raneb, again a well known pharaoh of the second dynasty. If you want to compare, look at shadowy rulers of the period such as Sneferka or Horus Bird (Pharaoh). I understand that one may cast doubt about F. Raffaele's expertise and again I repeat that I only provided links to his website for additional informations and not to back up claims made in the article: these references can be removed from the article without endangering the quality of the sourcing. Note that F. Raffaele's book contains articles from well established and better known egyptologists such as Vassil Dobrev. See also an article he coauthored with better known egyptologists here. On a side note, remark that the theories exposed on his website are mainstream and referenced and not controversial. Finally, I am sorry to say that the photo of the original does not appear as a dead link for me, it works very well. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I should write something, too. In de.Wikipedia (the German page) we are also very careful with xoomer.virgilio.it.! This site contains lots of personal theories and assumptions, only a few paragraphs are actually from egyptologist's sience books. Additionally, F. Raffaele intermingles lots of literature and magazine titles and page numbers, which is highly problematic, if you wanna proof his informations or wanna find the books and zines to gather additional infos. Therefore, we (in de.Wikipedia) use the site only for drawing objects and inscriptions, IF we mention it, then merely under the section "external links" as an entertainig site. But we never use it as an active reference. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine by me, I removed references to his website from the article. As I already indicated the other references are enough for all hypotheses discussed in the article and F. Raffaele's website was only cited for additional information. Iry-Hor (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was about to put in a {{DYKno}} template because this article was so thoroughly coming from the point of view that he was an actual king, despite the dispute over his existence. However, I see that the article has been overhauled to present multiple points of view. As a result, I think we're ready to go except for the hook, which still presumes his existence. Once a good new hook is presented, I'll be ready to approve this. Nyttend (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I think Iry-Hor made a good job and the article should be presented at the DYK-page. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, because the current hook assumes that he existed. We need something from the current form of the article that is compatible with the dispute over his existence: either it mentions the dispute or relies on something that's not disputed. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nephiliskos has proposed a new hook (ALT1 above), but it isn't drawn from the article — the article says that a possible Horus Sa inscription was found near Maya's tomb, which was reused from the 2nd Dynasty, but it doesn't say that Maya was buried in Horus Sa's tomb. Couldn't you go with a simple thing, such as "Horus Sa may have been a pharaoh of Egypt"? Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
