![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
I'm going to post all of the material attributed to Gitton below with their current citations. I'll attempt to resolve the citation issues myself, but as Gitton is in French, I'm welcoming input regarding the correct location for the statements. Mr rnddude ( talk) 08:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The mummy emitted such a bad odor that Brugsch had it reburied on museum grounds in Cairo until the offensive smell abated. Exposed to ambient air, the mummy decomposed and was lostcited to Gitton 1973, p.23
La momie débarrassée de ses bandelettes, s'est révélée celle d'une femme âgée (186), à la peau blanche. Mis au contact de l'air, le corps s'est décomposé. La momie mesurait 1,61 m. But cannot see where it says that the mummy (as a whole) was lost, only decomposed.
resolved by Charles
|
---|
|
Michel Gitton notes that while in most artistic depictions of the queen, she is pictured with black skincited to Gitton 1973, p. 84
there are other cases in which she is shown with a pink, golden, [dark] blue,* or dark red complexion'. I can do that, because that is what Gitton actually says about the matter on pp. 74–75. *Gitton says bleu foncé/noir rather than bleu. Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
resolved by citation swap
|
---|
|
There appears to be an error in formatting as well, as 'refname=Gitton 1981' points to Gitton 1973: <ref name="gitton81">{{Cite journal|last=Gitton|first=Michel|date=1973|title=Ahmose Nefertari, sa vie et son culte posthume|journal=École Pratique des Hautes études, 5e Section, Sciences Religieuses|volume=85|issue=82|page=84|doi=10.3406/ephe.1973.20828|issn=0183-7451}}</ref>
.
Mr rnddude (
talk) 08:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
off-topic
|
---|
|
This section has one purpose and one purpose only. To confirm that Gitton says what the article says it does. What fails verification needs to be removed, what passes verification needs to have the correct details in the citation. It does not matter if Gitton is right or wrong for this purpose. That can be dealt with in the above section. Mr rnddude ( talk) 04:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help). There's only one possible citation to the 1973 article. There's an isbn warning, but I've checked several times that I've copied the isbn from
here correctly.
Mr rnddude (
talk) 12:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Hello Mr rnddude, maybe this discussion on my talk page could help with this Gitton quest. Khruner ( talk) 22:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
In the sentence, Gitton never claimed that depictions of A.N. are unknown in her lifetime (as incorrectly understandable from the clumsy Google translation), but rather that A.N. is always depicted as "non-black" during her lifetime- Khruner this causes more confusion than anything, because it raises a new question. Elsewhere, on p. 23 Gitton says
Malheureusement, nous n'avons jusqu'a present aucun portrait contemporain de la reine, which both Iry-Hor and Charles informed us meant that there are no contemporary portraits of the queen. So which is it? Do we have no contemporary portraits of the queen, or no contemporary portraits in black of the queen. Mr rnddude ( talk) 23:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Le fait qu'A. Ν . était de pigmentation claire infirme définitivement l'hypothèse d'une ascendance nubienne fondée sur des représentations, d'ailleurs très postérieures, d'A.N. avec les chairs noires. On aimerait comparer ses traits avec ceux des statuettes votives qui lui sont consacrées. Malheureusement, nous n'avons jusqu'a present aucun portrait contemporain de la reine.which translates in
The fact that A. Ν. was of pale pigmentation definitively invalidates the hypothesis of a Nubian ancestry based on - moreover much later - representations of A.N. with black skin. We would like to compare her features with those of the votive statuettes dedicated to her. Unfortunately we have so far no portrait contemporary of the queen.I don't want to force a conclusion, but it may be interesting to note how in Google translate the French word "portrait" can be translated with the English "statue portrait" which would also fit the context (the votive statuettes). If this were the case, there would be no disagreement between Gitton's claims: 1) We have no contemporary statue(tte)s of the queen; 2) We have not contemporary depictions of the queen with black skin (for example, she is depicted as "pale" as the others in TT15, which dates to the late reign of Ahmose I when the queen was still well alive and kicking). Khruner ( talk) 08:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
However, the earliest known potential queens’ tombs are around Deir el-Bahari, where a long corridor-tomb (TT320 - fig. 20a) ... has been argued to have originally been that of Ahmes-Nefertiry, wife of Ahmose I.82on (p. 79). Footnote 82 points to 'Porter and Moss 1960-64: 383, 658-67; Graefe and Belova (eds) 2010; on original ownership, see Aston 2013, the riposte in Graefe and Bickerstaffe 2013 and Aston’s reply (2015).'. I'll see if I can find any of those sources, particularly the more recent ones. Mr rnddude ( talk) 00:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena has been blocked from this page for a month. Discussion has quieted down in his absence, so the extremely long talk page section titled "Article neutrality" has stopped expanding. I've taken the liberty of archiving it, and the sections that preceded it, simply because this page was becoming too long to navigate. If discussion starts up again once the block expires, as seems likely, the page will then be easier to read. A. Parrot ( talk) 20:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
A photograph of a statuette was added to the section which discusses the mummy and actually replaced the photograph of the mummy itself. The photograph of the mummy is valuable and the identification of the mummy is not disputed. I added a photograph of a statuette in the section beneath instead, where a statue is discussed. I used the statuette reflecting the most common depiction (with black or purplish black complexion). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena ( talk) 02:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I did a spot-check of the major edits that Charles conducted on April 10th, and some are not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Two specific edits that needed reversion are:
this attempt to obfuscate the unreliability of Bernal as a source.
this misrepresentation of Gitton as a source (the claim that Gitton backs Davies has been repeatedly debunked, see the above section).. There are other edits after these that do not appear controversial, however I was forced to use a manual rollback as the issues that were introduced could not be undone without it. I will attempt to reinstate those.
Mr rnddude (
talk) 02:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Supposing the queen to be Kamose’s daughter instead of the later prevaling view that she is Seqenenre Tao’s daughter- Needs an inline citation, as this can't obviously be cited to Gardiner himself. Any edits in which references were removed, these were only partially reinstated to include the added citations. Mr rnddude ( talk) 02:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
More problematic was the increasing tendency to deny profundity and insight to the Egyptians in contrast with the Greeks, a development that has been explored in Martin Bernal's controversial work (1987)pg.450 and
Afrocentrist claims have recently received a detailed and sympathetic discussion by Martin Bernal in his controversial work Black Athena, and in the late 1980s and 1990s Afrocentric issues are being addressed by mainstream Egyptologistspg. 455 of the entry on Egyptology by Edmund S. Meltzer. A much less charitable discussion of Bernal's work is made by Rene van Wanselm on pg. 177-178 of the OEAE in the entry 'Interpretation of Evidence' which reads:
Afrocentrism is one of the most influential but disputable off-shoots on the burgeoning tree of pseudo-Egyptology, and the most recent and manipulative in this respect in Martin Bernal's Black-Athena thesis, which claims that Greece was twice "colonized" from Egypt and that, consequently, the Greek civilization originates from "black" Egyptians. Such assertions are based on interpreting out-of-context materials and attaching unbalanced weight to select passages of, for example, Herodotus.This continues further but is no longer about Bernal. There is also the entry on 'Afrocentrism' where Ann Macy Roth (an Egyptologist I am eminently familiar with because of her contributions to works on the topic of Hatshepsut) describes Lefkowitz and Roger's compilation (1996) as
an uneven but cumulatively devastating collection of critiques of Bernal's argumentspg. 30. Mr rnddude ( talk)
Citing works or passages of works which make no mention of AN or her kin, dealing exclusively with Bernal (whether for or against his work), then of course WP:NPOV should prevail, including content
exclusively dealing with, Lefkowitz, criticising her work as well. Likewise, attempts to edit characterization of criticism of Bernal's work out of the article proper and into a footnote and then proceed to delete the footnote to invite reintroducing irrelevant criticism of Bernal's work into the article proper should be discouraged. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena ( talk) 05:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Citing works or passages of works which make no mention of AN or her kin, dealing exclusively with Bernal (whether for or against his work) is inappropriate in the context of the article- Everything you added to the article about Lefkowitz, is citing sources not mentioning, but exclusively dealing with, Lefkowitz. According your statement, this is not appropriate for the article and should be removed. To be clear, the footnote may not have been necessary at all, if you'd stop presenting Bernal's work as a legitimate scholarly source. It has been rejected by Egyptologists. It is present in the article because his view is still notable and comes with the caveat that it is not a mainstream view. I would ideally prefer that the article simply states Bernal's view and clarifies that it is a controversial one. Mr rnddude ( talk) 06:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
(UTC)
The photograph of what some claim to be the mummy of the Queen is imo very bad taste. In my own culture it is considered by many people as gross desecration. Anyone who wants to see such imagery can be directed to the media section of wikipedia. Would anyone object to its removal?
::Does this mean you object? May I ask why? - preferably not just on wiki legalistic terms - as I would genuinely like to understand what are the ethical and moral issues a person may object to this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:1641:FF00:241D:175A:A311:CA9F ( talk) 18:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
A photograph of the presumed mummy appears in the movie. This could be reflected within the article under an In popular culture section. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena talk 15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
I'm going to post all of the material attributed to Gitton below with their current citations. I'll attempt to resolve the citation issues myself, but as Gitton is in French, I'm welcoming input regarding the correct location for the statements. Mr rnddude ( talk) 08:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The mummy emitted such a bad odor that Brugsch had it reburied on museum grounds in Cairo until the offensive smell abated. Exposed to ambient air, the mummy decomposed and was lostcited to Gitton 1973, p.23
La momie débarrassée de ses bandelettes, s'est révélée celle d'une femme âgée (186), à la peau blanche. Mis au contact de l'air, le corps s'est décomposé. La momie mesurait 1,61 m. But cannot see where it says that the mummy (as a whole) was lost, only decomposed.
resolved by Charles
|
---|
|
Michel Gitton notes that while in most artistic depictions of the queen, she is pictured with black skincited to Gitton 1973, p. 84
there are other cases in which she is shown with a pink, golden, [dark] blue,* or dark red complexion'. I can do that, because that is what Gitton actually says about the matter on pp. 74–75. *Gitton says bleu foncé/noir rather than bleu. Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
resolved by citation swap
|
---|
|
There appears to be an error in formatting as well, as 'refname=Gitton 1981' points to Gitton 1973: <ref name="gitton81">{{Cite journal|last=Gitton|first=Michel|date=1973|title=Ahmose Nefertari, sa vie et son culte posthume|journal=École Pratique des Hautes études, 5e Section, Sciences Religieuses|volume=85|issue=82|page=84|doi=10.3406/ephe.1973.20828|issn=0183-7451}}</ref>
.
Mr rnddude (
talk) 08:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
off-topic
|
---|
|
This section has one purpose and one purpose only. To confirm that Gitton says what the article says it does. What fails verification needs to be removed, what passes verification needs to have the correct details in the citation. It does not matter if Gitton is right or wrong for this purpose. That can be dealt with in the above section. Mr rnddude ( talk) 04:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help). There's only one possible citation to the 1973 article. There's an isbn warning, but I've checked several times that I've copied the isbn from
here correctly.
Mr rnddude (
talk) 12:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Hello Mr rnddude, maybe this discussion on my talk page could help with this Gitton quest. Khruner ( talk) 22:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
In the sentence, Gitton never claimed that depictions of A.N. are unknown in her lifetime (as incorrectly understandable from the clumsy Google translation), but rather that A.N. is always depicted as "non-black" during her lifetime- Khruner this causes more confusion than anything, because it raises a new question. Elsewhere, on p. 23 Gitton says
Malheureusement, nous n'avons jusqu'a present aucun portrait contemporain de la reine, which both Iry-Hor and Charles informed us meant that there are no contemporary portraits of the queen. So which is it? Do we have no contemporary portraits of the queen, or no contemporary portraits in black of the queen. Mr rnddude ( talk) 23:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Le fait qu'A. Ν . était de pigmentation claire infirme définitivement l'hypothèse d'une ascendance nubienne fondée sur des représentations, d'ailleurs très postérieures, d'A.N. avec les chairs noires. On aimerait comparer ses traits avec ceux des statuettes votives qui lui sont consacrées. Malheureusement, nous n'avons jusqu'a present aucun portrait contemporain de la reine.which translates in
The fact that A. Ν. was of pale pigmentation definitively invalidates the hypothesis of a Nubian ancestry based on - moreover much later - representations of A.N. with black skin. We would like to compare her features with those of the votive statuettes dedicated to her. Unfortunately we have so far no portrait contemporary of the queen.I don't want to force a conclusion, but it may be interesting to note how in Google translate the French word "portrait" can be translated with the English "statue portrait" which would also fit the context (the votive statuettes). If this were the case, there would be no disagreement between Gitton's claims: 1) We have no contemporary statue(tte)s of the queen; 2) We have not contemporary depictions of the queen with black skin (for example, she is depicted as "pale" as the others in TT15, which dates to the late reign of Ahmose I when the queen was still well alive and kicking). Khruner ( talk) 08:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
However, the earliest known potential queens’ tombs are around Deir el-Bahari, where a long corridor-tomb (TT320 - fig. 20a) ... has been argued to have originally been that of Ahmes-Nefertiry, wife of Ahmose I.82on (p. 79). Footnote 82 points to 'Porter and Moss 1960-64: 383, 658-67; Graefe and Belova (eds) 2010; on original ownership, see Aston 2013, the riposte in Graefe and Bickerstaffe 2013 and Aston’s reply (2015).'. I'll see if I can find any of those sources, particularly the more recent ones. Mr rnddude ( talk) 00:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena has been blocked from this page for a month. Discussion has quieted down in his absence, so the extremely long talk page section titled "Article neutrality" has stopped expanding. I've taken the liberty of archiving it, and the sections that preceded it, simply because this page was becoming too long to navigate. If discussion starts up again once the block expires, as seems likely, the page will then be easier to read. A. Parrot ( talk) 20:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
A photograph of a statuette was added to the section which discusses the mummy and actually replaced the photograph of the mummy itself. The photograph of the mummy is valuable and the identification of the mummy is not disputed. I added a photograph of a statuette in the section beneath instead, where a statue is discussed. I used the statuette reflecting the most common depiction (with black or purplish black complexion). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena ( talk) 02:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I did a spot-check of the major edits that Charles conducted on April 10th, and some are not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Two specific edits that needed reversion are:
this attempt to obfuscate the unreliability of Bernal as a source.
this misrepresentation of Gitton as a source (the claim that Gitton backs Davies has been repeatedly debunked, see the above section).. There are other edits after these that do not appear controversial, however I was forced to use a manual rollback as the issues that were introduced could not be undone without it. I will attempt to reinstate those.
Mr rnddude (
talk) 02:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Supposing the queen to be Kamose’s daughter instead of the later prevaling view that she is Seqenenre Tao’s daughter- Needs an inline citation, as this can't obviously be cited to Gardiner himself. Any edits in which references were removed, these were only partially reinstated to include the added citations. Mr rnddude ( talk) 02:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
More problematic was the increasing tendency to deny profundity and insight to the Egyptians in contrast with the Greeks, a development that has been explored in Martin Bernal's controversial work (1987)pg.450 and
Afrocentrist claims have recently received a detailed and sympathetic discussion by Martin Bernal in his controversial work Black Athena, and in the late 1980s and 1990s Afrocentric issues are being addressed by mainstream Egyptologistspg. 455 of the entry on Egyptology by Edmund S. Meltzer. A much less charitable discussion of Bernal's work is made by Rene van Wanselm on pg. 177-178 of the OEAE in the entry 'Interpretation of Evidence' which reads:
Afrocentrism is one of the most influential but disputable off-shoots on the burgeoning tree of pseudo-Egyptology, and the most recent and manipulative in this respect in Martin Bernal's Black-Athena thesis, which claims that Greece was twice "colonized" from Egypt and that, consequently, the Greek civilization originates from "black" Egyptians. Such assertions are based on interpreting out-of-context materials and attaching unbalanced weight to select passages of, for example, Herodotus.This continues further but is no longer about Bernal. There is also the entry on 'Afrocentrism' where Ann Macy Roth (an Egyptologist I am eminently familiar with because of her contributions to works on the topic of Hatshepsut) describes Lefkowitz and Roger's compilation (1996) as
an uneven but cumulatively devastating collection of critiques of Bernal's argumentspg. 30. Mr rnddude ( talk)
Citing works or passages of works which make no mention of AN or her kin, dealing exclusively with Bernal (whether for or against his work), then of course WP:NPOV should prevail, including content
exclusively dealing with, Lefkowitz, criticising her work as well. Likewise, attempts to edit characterization of criticism of Bernal's work out of the article proper and into a footnote and then proceed to delete the footnote to invite reintroducing irrelevant criticism of Bernal's work into the article proper should be discouraged. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena ( talk) 05:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Citing works or passages of works which make no mention of AN or her kin, dealing exclusively with Bernal (whether for or against his work) is inappropriate in the context of the article- Everything you added to the article about Lefkowitz, is citing sources not mentioning, but exclusively dealing with, Lefkowitz. According your statement, this is not appropriate for the article and should be removed. To be clear, the footnote may not have been necessary at all, if you'd stop presenting Bernal's work as a legitimate scholarly source. It has been rejected by Egyptologists. It is present in the article because his view is still notable and comes with the caveat that it is not a mainstream view. I would ideally prefer that the article simply states Bernal's view and clarifies that it is a controversial one. Mr rnddude ( talk) 06:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
(UTC)
The photograph of what some claim to be the mummy of the Queen is imo very bad taste. In my own culture it is considered by many people as gross desecration. Anyone who wants to see such imagery can be directed to the media section of wikipedia. Would anyone object to its removal?
::Does this mean you object? May I ask why? - preferably not just on wiki legalistic terms - as I would genuinely like to understand what are the ethical and moral issues a person may object to this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:1641:FF00:241D:175A:A311:CA9F ( talk) 18:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
A photograph of the presumed mummy appears in the movie. This could be reflected within the article under an In popular culture section. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena talk 15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)