Talk:Dendera light

Hate to sound Freudian

But come on, really. There is just as much a passing resemblance to a light bulb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.178.9 (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsolved problems?

It looks to me like this page should not be listed as an unsolved problem in Egyptology. From reading the page, I gather that there is a consensus among Egyptologists that the ancient Egyptians did not build or draw light bulbs. --Allen 23:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe move it to Pseudoarchaeology? -- Limulus 03:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture

This article needs a picture! --Awiseman 04:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Pseudoegyptology?

Why is this in the Category Pseudoegyptology? If no reason, will be removed. J. D. Redding 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it is Pseudo Egyptology! The Dendera light is known because some people outside mainstream Egyptology interpret it as an electric lamp. Otherwise it would be just another of the million other figures on walls in Egypt. Twthmoses (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just another of the million other figures on walls in Egypt? What?

All historical artifacts are important. Egyptology is a large field.

J. D. Redding 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course all historical artefacts are important, that is not the issue here. Pseudo science does not mean that an object is unimportant; it simple means it’s being interpreted or applied an importance outside the mainstream established direction. Pseudo archaeology often makes an objects seem groundbreaking in its field, which the Dendera light certainly is, if it indeed is an electric lamp. It would shake the very foundation of the history of science and a whole generation of history books would have to be rewritten. Since mainstream science does not accept this idea in any way shape or form, it is Pseudo science. Twthmoses (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No... not Pseudo science. Perhaps fringe science, but definitely not pseudoscience. Engineers, those that practice applied science, do accept the possibility. Mainstream science does recognize this idea, though it does not embrace it wholeheartedly (change takes time). There have been documentaries on the Science Channel that have brought this out. J. D. Redding 20:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, fringe science is based on taking many (may or may not be well established) threads on a subject and developing a theory that goes in a radical different direction than then current mainstream held one. Pseudo science is basically jumping to conclusion. Taking an object or subject, then go find supporting evidence for that conclusion. The main “evidence” in this will remain the object or subject itself. In this case, the Dendera light, the image looking like a 20th century light bulb. There is no other artefact found in ancient Egypt or even literature that supports that this should be a light bulb – other then the image itself, because it looks like this for us today = Pseudo Egyptology. Twthmoses (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-skepticism [aka., psedoskeptics] is not mainstream. There is a definate history of speculation by mainstream [core and "fringe" of science and engineering], before the 1920s. And, no it does not look like a "light bulb". It does look like a primitive dual-node and single-node arc lamps (depending on the relief referenced), but one must know more history than just of Ancient Egypt (like a professional historian, and not just an Egyptologist). --J. D. Redding 21:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed proposed deletion template

I removed the delete tag slapped on the article, for the simple reason that the reason stated simple is not correct. There is more than one source in the ref list already. 2nd you search Google for Dendera light/lamps/reliefs you get plenty of hits, and it’s fully irrelevant whether it’s real or not, it’s a culture/pseudo science phenomenon that is known, talked, and written about. Thus “non-notable” is not a plausible argument in this case. I know first hand that tour guides, guards and locales will guide tourist to these specified reliefs (along with the Dendera zodiac, which is a reproduction) Twthmoses (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree, although I'm not sure if the weight given to the fringe claims is WP:Undue or not.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Righto. Technically this should go to AfD, but if both of you think its notable I won't bother. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the article should exist if it is an acceptably encyclopedic topic, but would like to note that per below, significant revisions are needed before it is acceptably critical --HarrisonNapper (talk)

Issues with article

The article mixes several things in an unfortunate manner: It begins as an article about the existing object, give it a paragraph, and then spends the lion's part of the article discussing pseudo-archeological interpretations. (The article is also referenced from such lists.)

Either the article is about the object, and NPOV-proportions between the interpretations must be kept; or it is about the pseudo-archeological interpretations, and the article should be renamed and/or reformulated accordingly.

94.220.243.113 (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with the above. Mislabeling an article can lend false credibility to the content. An article about the opinion of the scientific community on the interpretation of a single piece of art has a much higher burden of proof than an objective description of the depictions therein. For instance, the sources cited for the "mainstream view" section espouse a particular view, but offer no evidence that the view espoused is shared by the statistical majority of the cited (archaeological or egyptological) community. In general, any use of the term "mainstream view" has a high burden of proof and should be avoided in favor of another way of communicating the level of acceptance an idea enjoys in the space of ubiquity. For this reason, I would argue that it is more effective and more becoming of an encyclopedia simply to remove any ideas which lack proper evidence and sourcing rather than to keep them and label them as "fringe". If there is evidence for both sides, the audience should decide on the basis of available information rather than value judgments of the underlying argument. Therefore, I will look for a way to simply tag the article to provide indication that an update is sorely needed. --HarrisonNapper (talk)

JAR WITH SNAKE

THESE R JARS TO HOLD SNAKES. U CAN CLEARLY C THE SNAKES IN THE JARS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.253.44.42 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dendera light. 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/20050408190622/http://doernenburg.alien.de/alternativ/dendera/dend00_e.php to http://www.doernenburg.alien.de/alternativ/dendera/dend00_e.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Where is the neutrality in this article?

Wikipedia's policies impose that "All encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".

No matter what your views on the topic are "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus".

There should not be sentences like "The motif became famous when the History Channel claimed it depicts an ancient light bulb, something that the text around the motif disproves". It has no sources, it's biased, and is even incorrect: History Channel wasn't the first to talk about it nor the one that made it famous among researchers of "fringe theories" and "OOPArts", and finally how do the inscriptions "disprove" the "fringe" interpretation exactly?

The inscriptions describe the represented objects, giving their sizes and materials. One could say that this kind of scientific description hints at a practical use of the object, and not simply symbolic. If the descriptions didn't contain any information to the size and materials you could say these were not scientific instruments, as we wouldn't even know how to replicate them, since no size and materials are given. But they are given. It is exactly what one expects to find if these were descriptions of scientific instruments. For the most part the inscriptions don't give any interpretation and just describe the object. Most words are of uncertain translation.

Later the article itself acknowledges that these motifs were symbolic representations, and it also admits that the interpretations could be wrong when it says for example "an oval container called hn, which might represent the womb of Nut"... Many egyptologists in publications agree that the egyptians themselves had lost the meaning of many hieroglyphs, and the meaning of the oldest rituals, it happens with all civilizations. Add to that the fact that representations were made to be cryptic and symbolic on purpose, with all this in mind how can we say "this interpretation is right", "this one is disproven"?

At the end of the day, we are all just modern people trying to interpret drawings on a wall... Xclamationmark (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Late answer, I only saw this now.

About WP:NPOV: It seems you did not read all of it. WP:FALSEBALANCE is also part of it.

About "biased": See WP:YWAB.

History Channel wasn't the first to talk about it The article did not say it was.

nor the one that made it famous among researchers of "fringe theories" and "OOPArts" The article did not say it was. "Famous" is different from "famous among a certain group of crackpots".

But you are right that the sentence was unsourced, and it was deleted since then.

we are all just modern people trying to interpret drawings on a wall But some of us are far more competent to do that than others. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Dendera Carving

Would it be possible to rename this article to the Dendera Carving?

Referring to the carvings as the disproven and incorrect terminology used by the conspiracy fringes only serves to give them more strength and staying power. 74.110.188.69 (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

A perfectly understandable intention, but I think doing that would fail WP:COMMONNAME. Lone-078 (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)