Talk:Tutankhamun/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Blood HG was not released for Tutankhamun, R1b unknown. Not revealed in citation.

Citation "7" lacks any finding of R1b evidence in Tutankhamun DNA. No release of HG R1b is on record. I am new to Wiki and do not know how to request a new [Citation needed]. Please help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milackk7 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You can add the template {{citation needed}} next to the statement which you find doubtful, Sadads (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Rewording needed

The article reads: "Although there is some speculation that Tutankhamun was assassinated ..." And then further down: "Several theories have been put forth. As stated above, one was that he was killed by a blow to the head." This latter statement is badly constructed, as the "above" statement does not, in fact, state anything about a blow to the head. Karl gregory jones (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DNA shows western European origins

We need to reopen this, there are new DNA evidence that shows that the child king were mainly of western European origin, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/oukoe-uk-britain-tutankhamun-dna-idUKTRE7704OR20110801 This is big news an shows a different angle to history than the one we one so far. Lets reopen this and get this new information in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.102.125 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove. Royal lineages are typically idiosyncratic, since royal families intermarried with other Royals from across the region, so it proves nothing more than a single common ancestor of many Europeans was also one of Tut's ancestors. Paul B (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Even in this news story, which is bound to get everything to do with genetics wrong, it says nothing of the sort! It says he had a group shared by a large number of Western European men, which is thought to have originated in the Caucasus. This presumably relates to his strictly patrilineal ancestors. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It shows, that he was to a large degree the same type as western European men, and not a "typical" Egyptian in apperance, the news also say that only 1% of Egyptian men share the same line as Tut, but 50% of all western Europeans share this line, and in England its up to 70% of all men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.102.125 (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's an ancestral lineage to some bloke who lived thousands of years ago. It doesn't tell us what Tut looked like. Paul B (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The % is even higher in Ireland, but it doesn't mean he's Tut O'Khamun. Of the hundreds of lines of descent any person has, they can only talk about two - the strict patrilineal & the strict matrilineal. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a total crock. It's a marketing campaign by iGENEA, which is not a scientific research institute but a commercial genetic genealogy company selling DNA tests. Tutankhamun's Y-chromosome data have NOT been published, and the claim that he belonged to the haplogroup R1b1a2 is based on dubious interpretations of some data shown in a Discovery Channel documentary dealing with the attempts to sequence Tutankhamun's DNA. Claims about the mummy's haplogroup were made in the blogosphere last year when the documentary was first aired, and iGENEA has simply taken the idea and run with it, selling DNA tests to gullible people who think the test will tell them if they are related to Tutankhamun[1]. Unfortunately, several major news organizations have fallen for iGENEA's self-promoting story hook, line, and sinker. The claim about Tutankhamun's DNA is not reliable and should not be reported in Wikipedia.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And when did the Caucasus become Western European? [2] which says "Researchers say it's likely that King Tut and Europeans share a common ancestor who lived in the Caucasus region about 9,500 years ago." The article also notes "The researchers didn't evaluate the DNA themselves; they say they made their findings "with the help" of a film made for the Discovery Channel." Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The particular mutation in the Y chromosome that is very common in Western Europe was probably born in the Caucasus region and spread from there; nowadays, it is more common in Western Europe than anywhere else. However, we do not actually know Tut's Y haplogroup, so whether he also had this mutation is unknown.--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

See [3] and [4]. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting information

(Sorry, I don't know how to make a new section, so I added it here) "The tests also confirmed that he was the son of Akhenaten (mummy KV55) and his sister/wife (mummy KV35YL), whose name is unknown but whose remains are positively identified as "The Younger Lady" mummy found in KV35.[7]" This conflicts with the information in the side bar, which states that his Mother is "The Younger Lady." I don't know which information is correct. Tealpanda (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

According to JAMA and several egptologists including Discovery the KV35 cave, containing "The Younger Lady" is in fact Tutankhamuns mother, not sister/wife. This information was available since February of 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter24g (talk • contribs) 18:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The DNA tests conducted in 2010 concluded the foetuses found in Tutankhamun's tomb are daughters of his and a woman found in KV21 (nicknamed KV21A), who is now assumed to be his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.20.254.72 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we talk about the fact he had white (Celt) DNA ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.116.9 (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting Issues of Death

Not sure where to put this, but it should be in film/media: A new book published this year, The Last Heiress: A Novel of Tutankhamun's Queen features Tutankhamun as a main character and deals with his death, and the after affects.

Also, it was said that he had malaria in his system but he died of blood poisoning and gangrene following a severe injury to his left leg. An Italian team found gold fragments in the mummy's knee that they determined were shards of golden armor pushed into the broken bones by some violent impact, possibly a sword wound. They found detailed, tiny decorations on the armor, flowers and birds. There was likely a war in Syria at the time, and travelling through ancient Israel was a wonderful way to contract malaria. There is also some curiosity over why so much resin was used during his mummification, and might suggest that the body was in a state of decomposition when it reached the embalmers. As far as sickle cell I don't know, but malaria (which he contracts in the novel as well) was contracted by many others in his family, to no lethal effect.

-2/10/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.24.19 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The two sentences relating to how Tut had died seem to conflict with one another. Malaria could NOT have been found in his system if he had sickle cell disease. Sickle cell prevents malaria. This article explains it http://www.innvista.com/health/ailments/anemias/sickhist.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.241.26 (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Tutankhamen became the king of Egypt at the age of 9 and reined for 7 years and died at the age of 16, nobody knows how he died and that still remains a mistery, but he is a very important part of Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.96.153 (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

His death may be a mystery, but he is not a 'very important part of Egypt' - he was basically forgotten until his tomb was discovered. He is very important (or rather his tomb is) to Egyptian archaeology. But he himself had no significant impact on Egyptian history - the rejection of the Aten cult was more seriously/completely accomplished by Horemheb. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Significance

All Pharaohs were worshipped as the living Horus during their lifetimes. To claim this as a feature of Tutankhamon alone is an error. For example the Temple of Deir al Bahri shows both Hatshepsut and Thutmose III were also so worshipped, as do the colossi of Memnon.John D. Croft (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but usually a place of worship would be built in the form of a mortuary temple and used when the king died. What was unusual in this instance was buildings dedicated to worship when he was alive in which people could bring their problems and, for example, seek mercy (see Maat). Yt95 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

After checking the sources I have gone ahead and made changes to this section of text. Yt95 (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Help in adding a newly released reference to the article

I request help to add a newly released reference to the article about both daughters of Tutankhamun. The reference can be added at the end of (Life) section following this sentence: (They had two daughters, both stillborn.[7])...I suggest to add this sentence: (CT studies revealed that one daughter died at 5-6 months of pregnancy while the other at 9 months of pregnancy. There were no evidence of congenital anomalies or apparent cause of death in either mummy) (new Reference). New reference: Hawass, Zahi and Saleem, Sahar N. Mummified daughters of King Tutankhamun: Archaeological and CT studies. The American Journal of Roentgenology 2011. Vol 197, No. 5 p. W829-836 Saharnsaleem (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for not adding this yourself? Is it because you don't know the wikimarkup to make the citation of the reference work? If so, here's an example of the code you could use yourself. The reason I'm doing this is because not only is it better if you gain some understanding by doing it yourself, but it's better for the article if the person who actually supports an edit actually makes the edit. I have also made a few tweaks to your suggested text, taking it out of parentheses, making one part a link, and stating that the study was conducted in 2011, which you need to check me on if you're going to use it, since I made an assumption there and don't have access to the source:

[[X-ray computed tomography|CT]] studies conducted in 2011 revealed that one daughter died at 5-6 months of pregnancy while the other at 9 months of pregnancy. No evidences was found of congenital anomalies or the apparent cause of death in either mummy.<ref>Hawass, Zahi and Saleem, Sahar N. Mummified daughters of King Tutankhamun: Archaeological and CT studies. The American Journal of Roentgenology 2011. Vol 197, No. 5 p. W829-836</ref>

As I think you'll see, all I really did was add ref tags around your citation listing, i.e. <ref>citations text</ref> Some people use a citation template between the ref tags to make the citation's formatting consistent (here one would probably use {{cite journal}}) but it is not required.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I checked the page before I post my question; it is semiprotected and I am not entitled to edit it. That's why I asked the Wiki Talk page and they advised me to ask someone to do it on this talk page. Please clarify this point if I can edit myself or not in this particular pageSaharnsaleem (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I had considered that but the article is only semi-protected, meaning an editor must be autoconfirmed to edit it, which you are. Specifically, this means that users must have made at least ten edits and their accounts must be four days or more old, both of which applies to you, so you should be able to edit directly. If you are not able to edit there are only two things I know of which can cause that: people editing using a TOR network I have heard may be stopped from editing by semi-protection, and also, there is a bug I have seen where the page only provides the "view source" button, instead of the "edit this page" button, but this is a display error only; if you click on view source, you can edit anyway.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I added the reference. Thanks all for your helpSaharnsaleem (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Bold textTutenkamun did have malaria when he died but because he had sickle cell disease the symtons were smaller and he didn't die of the atual malariaUjy moojy (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Special Characters

What are the special characters used in the table at the bottom? I can't get Firefox for Mac or Safari to display them using any number of Western or Unicode character encodings. Might be nice to include evidence of the correct encoding to use. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The special characters are Egyptian Hieroglyphs encoded in Unicode. You need the font Aegyptus to view them properly. After you install the font, they should automatically be visible in Firefox and Safari. Wikilackey (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Date error

His dates of birth and death are reversed in the information box at the top right of the page. 88.6.77.214 (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Epic fail. Barry Wom (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DNAtribes test

The DNA Tribes paper culled its raw data from an earlier Discovery Channel-financed, Egyptian-led study from 2010 by Albert Zink et al. that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). It was this JAMA study's researchers that actually extracted the DNA from the mummies. The DNA Tribes authors just analysed the raw data, which had been made publicly available for independent analysis:

Plugging the indicated STR values in the table above into one of the various free online population affiliation calculators (such as PopAffiliator), one consistently gets a Sub-Saharan affiliation for all of the Amarna mummies. This is in agreement with DNA Tribes' own analysis of the raw data. On its face, these results indeed suggest Sub-Saharan affinities for the Amarna royal family.

However, the various lines of evidence discussed in the OP that preclude a Sub-Saharan biological origin for the Ancient Egyptians beg the question: Just how accurate is the JAMA raw data to begin with?

The answer to that query is that it is apparently not very reliable at all. As it turns out, many geneticists have already expressed serious doubts about the validity of Zink et al.'s reported findings. These scientists have concluded that the likelihood of the indicated STR values actually being accurate is very low. This is due to a variety of reasons, chief among which is the difficulty of avoiding contaminating the mummy tissue with modern DNA (probably the single biggest obstacle to ancient DNA extraction).

In plain language, this simply means that the DNA attributed by Zink et al. to the Amarna royals may actually be the DNA of people that physically handled/touched the mummies over the centuries and whose own DNA was then mistakenly analysed in lieu of the mummies' DNA. That's potentially a lot of people too. This scenario is highly likely given the lack of precautions that were apparently taken to prevent any such possible contamination. It is also especially likely given the fact that the reported Sub-Saharan affinities of the raw data are completely at odds with the already affirmed affinities shared between a general sample of Ancient Egyptian workers and modern Egyptians (see the Cairo University Medical School quote and link in the OP). By their own admission, the JAMA team didn't even get the same results each time. 178.190.4.53 (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that the section labeled "Discovery of the Tomb" doesn't say anything about the discovery of the tomb. It says the tomb was robbed twice in antiquity, and forgotten about. I looked at this section before anything else in the article, because I wanted to learn the year of the discovery, the name of the discoverer, and a little more background on the excavation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.14.9 (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2012

Gb799877 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Birth 1346 BC

Death 1364 BC

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 November 2012

Here is what I want to add after the last paragraph in the "Death" part of Tutankhamun:

"Another theory, proposed by Josh Bernstein, host of Digging For The Truth, involves chariots. Bernstein realized how hard it would be to break a femur, especially for King Tuthankhamun who had everything done for him by servants. Bernstein investigated closer and learned that King Tut had often gone on chariot rides while shooting at targets with his bow and arrow. This requires steering with the reins wrapped around his waist. This was very risky, and a number of things could happen. It just takes the snap of one side of the axle, and he would be thrown off his chariot. And the reins would still be around his waist, so his horse would be dragging him and the chariot could easily run over him. That is only one example of the things that could go wrong with his chariot riding/archery hobby. Bernstein sticks with this theory of a chariot death."

Thank you for considering, and please reply as soon as possible! My source? History Channel: Digging For The Truth: King Tut's Death: Secrets Revealed.

Thanks again, OMGitzSophie

To the person who questioned about sources, yes. Here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-king-tut.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.4.38 (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Omgitzsophie (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Have any external sources critiqued the quality of that theory? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

leiomyoma or osteomyelitis, a medical query

In the section on Tutankhamun's death, it states that the most common theory of his death relates to a combination of an infected leg fracture and malaria. However, in parentheses it summarizes these conditions as 'malaria and leiomyoma'. A leiomyoma is a benign smooth muscle tumor found in organs like the intestines and uterus. Perhaps it should read, "(malaria and osteomyelitis)". Osteomyelitis is an infection of bone.

I am new to editing on Wikipedia and am hesitant to just go ahead and edit this article. Please advise. Thank you.

Mmowen (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

PBS "Secrets of the Dead: Ultimate Tut", credible enough to mention here?

On 10 July 2013 PBS aired an edition of Secrets of the Dead called Ultimate Tut. The show put forth some interesting hypotheses about Tut's death, mummification, burial and why the tomb was not discovered. Episodes can be watched here: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/episodes/ultimate-tut-watch-the-full-episode/1049/

I came here to see what wiki had to say on it to find no mention of any of the hypotheses. Are they so new of ideas that they have escaped addition here or are they so fringe as to not merit inclusion? I am unqualified to make any sort of judgement on it myself. That said, I cannot quickly find mention of the ideas generally on the internet. If credible some of the ideas might merit mention in the article here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.200.196 (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

There is a song by American rap artists Busta Rhymes entitled King Tut. It is from his 2012 album Year of the Dragon. Comparisons are made in the King Tut song between Busta Rhymes and Tutankhamun in terms of wealth and style. A reference to this could be placed under the "In Popular Culture" > "Other Media" section. Jambroo (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't add anything of value about Tutankhamen to the article. Perhaps you should suggest that be added to Mr. Rhymes' page instead. Thanatosimii (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As you can see, the section in question is a jumble of unsourced tidbits, some noteworthy and some really insignificant. For what it's worth, I rather agree with Thanatosimii, but if consensus is to add it, it shall be added. Rivertorch (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A change in the name of the mother of Tutankhamun

I am requesting for a change on the name of the mother of tutankhamun thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kachi1992 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes? Rivertorch (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: BCE revert - suggestion for a change of BC to BCE in this article, which is not related to Christiandome

Dear friends, editors and admins! Please consider my suggestion of the minor BCE-edits an edit of good faith!
My motivation was to change the christian statement of faith, which underlies the BC / AD notions, into a more universal one, for en:wikipedia is not for Christian recipients only - nor a Christian platform for the unrefined propagation of faith in Christiandome gay

articles, especially article which have religious context in some way (here: ancient egypt gods)! I would say BC fits perfectly in with Christiandome related articles!

While I never touched any christian related wikipedia article with BC->BCE edits, the ancient egyptian Tutankhamun is simply not related to Christiandome anyhow, so I consider my BCE edit-suggestion very constructive - as a means to alleviate it from it's christian 'BC'-bias!
Pls. kindly notice further, that BCE could be dually read as : #1 Before Christian Era and #2 Before Comon Era, something which does not need to offend Christians anyway! (But why it does? I would say, because it is a weaker form of propaganda of the Xtian faith!)
In contrast, to state BC, which means Before Christ, is simply an expression of faith, which is false in a neutral point of view and does not apply - at least to me, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists ....
In my religion/faith, there are a lot of Christs: King David and King Cyrus, to mention a few! Why- you may ask. Both could be titled Christ, which is latin for Messiah, which is greek for 'anointed one', because they are anointed one's indeed! You may ask what the heck does before christ mean anyway, then, outside a christian context, in this article?!
The BC / AD notions bear the implicit cultural christian information of before the christian Christ - almost lost in it's traditional christian use - , because Judaism does reject Jesus as a jewish messiah since more than 2000 bloody years now. Ask some Christians how many Christs are in the bible, they certainly will get it false: Jesus, while in fact there are many more Christs mentioned in the bible! ( There is not only the president of USA, Obama, France also has it's own president.)
Sincerely, --Santurwoman (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Policy does not allow for changing date labels one way or another. Even if it did your argument that BC should be used in Christian-related articles and BCE in unrelated articles is not going to fly. BC and AD go with that dating system. Once you use dates calculated backwards from the putative date of the birth of Christ, you don't have a leg to stand on if you don't want to admit that that's what you've just done. Thanatosimii (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually our guidelines to allow changes, see WP:ERA. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

you mran the bit that says: Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Christiandome: Two calanders enter, one calender leaves! (Or did you mean Christendom?) Iapetus (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

wrong title of picture

I changed the description of this pic. It said, it was a funerary bust (of which I have not ever heard or read, you call them "funerary masks") "found at Saqqara". This was evidently wrong as you may find out here. It belongs to the treasure of king Tutankhamun and was found in his tomb. The only known found at Saqqara of the boy is king is him and his wet nurse portrayed on a relief in her tomb. This bust is also titled as "mannequin" sometimes. On display at Egyptian Museum Cairo, JE 60722. --Sat Ra (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Tutankhamun's mummy

I was just wondering whether Tutankhamun's mummy really needs a seperate wikipedia page all by itself? It isn't very long, and surely would be a useful subsection of this article? I wrote on the talk page over there a few months back and didn't get an answer - I guess I should have written it here. I think that when people search for Tutankhamun they expect to find information on his mummy. Would it be sensible to merge it in here? Obviously somebody down the line decided it needed its own article, so perhaps there is a good reason - I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this.--Cutiekatie (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Facsimile of tomb

Under the chapter "Tomb" one should add a section "Facsimile" with the information found in http://en.egypt.travel/news/id/409 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Res Gerber (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2014

RCA 14.141.178.34 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014

There should be a change to the last sentence under the subtitle 'Genealogy', which states, "An autopsy and genetic evidence in 2014 proved that Tutankhamun was the product of a brother-sister marriage.[27][28]". These findings were already discovered in 2010 (as earlier stated in the article) so this is not new information. There is also no evidence to support the idea that Tutankhamun's parents were married. Therefore it should be changed to, "A further autopsy and genetic evidence in 2014 re-confirm the findings from 2010 - that Tutankhamun was the product of a brother-sister relationship.[27][28]".

Please can you change "An autopsy and genetic evidence in 2014 proved that Tutankhamun was the product of a brother-sister marriage.[27][28]" to "A further autopsy and genetic evidence in 2014 re-confirm the findings from 2010 - that Tutankhamun was the product of a brother-sister relationship.[27][28]". Justjack1505 (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I tweaked the wording slightly. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Haplogroup

So what haplogroup did Tutankhamun belong to? --165.165.75.236 (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

King Tut

this is totally false i looked it up on google and got some TRUE info and i looked at all these and there wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.113.105 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It should say, in [some] Anglophone countries, he is popularly known as King Tut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.129.196 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you could be bothered to read the article you will see that it does say just that in the opening paragraph. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note that there were NO men Pharaoh's. Only women could be called a Pharaoh. Per-Aa was one of 5 houses (Per meaning house) and this term was the "high house" where the woman lived. (Per-Aa, Per-Ka, Per-Ba, Per-Neter and Per-Wir) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.176.33 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

So the Egyptologists are all wrong? Tell you what, go change our article Pharaoh to meet your definition - you'll need to explain things such as "The earliest instance where pr-aa is used specifically to address the ruler is in a letter to Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), who reigned c. 1353–1336 BCE, which is addressed to 'Pharaoh, all life, prosperity, and health!" Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Injuries and cause of death

Regarding this part: "Naunton concluded that Tutankhamun was killed in a chariot crash: a chariot smashed into him while he was on his knees, shattering his ribs and pelvis."

The injuries seen on the virtual autopsy showed Tut's left clavicle was undamaged; a wheel traveling over his left side that crushed his pelvis and heart would have continued on to crush his left clavicle. Instead, the actual damage to his pelvis and heart may be from a horse stepping on those parts of his body which would have left his left clavicle intact but his pelvis on the left side and heart crushed. Carecare7 (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The sentence merely describes Naunton's opinion. Read the following paragraph. Paul B (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Burial

It has been found that the face on the middle coffin of King Tut actually matches the face of Queen Nefertiti. (Secrets of the Dead, Ultimate Tut) Carecare7 (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC) carecare7

I think you need a better source than a sensationalist TV show. Paul B (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Ultimate tut-tut"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2015

The date of birth and death are interchanged. Please change it back. Bengalurean1 (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: How so? Reversing them would place his death date before his birth date Cannolis (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Tomb section copied from book

In searching for information about King Tut I found that the Tomb section of this article was taken in its entirety from the book: The Esoteric Codex: Curses by Florencio Zemel. You can see an expert here on page 125: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1329052803 . Not sure what the policy is for this unless Florencio Zemel wrote that section.

User:Danpetitpas, thanks very much for your vigilance. However, that book was self-published this year and it appears that Zemel copied our article. Doug Weller (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2015

The Legacy section has several problems. The city name "Basel" is misspelled as "Basle". The discussion of exhibitions from 2005 onward are written in the present tense -- as it is now 2015, this discussion needs to be updated to be in the past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.77.12 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hyperlink for "mortuary cults" is wrong

The hyperlink for "mortuary cults" is for the article "mortuary_temple", not "mortuary_cult" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhuffman001 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Rhuffman001 thanks. Fixed it. Doug Weller (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Tutankhamun. 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/20141025100942/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_egypt_king_tut to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_egypt_king_tut
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051202105246/http://www.kingtut.org:80/exhibition.htm to http://www.kingtut.org/exhibition.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140828220035/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/specials/tutankhamun/article2624036.ece to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/specials/tutankhamun/article2624036.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071026035620/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5ilm6sCZestVa2WGI2D5pyovNphdA to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ilm6sCZestVa2WGI2D5pyovNphdA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090624025526/http://www.famsf.org:80/tut/ to http://www.famsf.org/tut/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150301134737/http://kingtutmelbourne.com.au/home.html to http://www.kingtutmelbourne.com.au/home.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080921174416/http://www.khm.at:80/system2E.html?/staticE/page3830.html to http://www.khm.at/system2E.html?/staticE/page3830.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} 18:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

edit request - 27 September 2015

Requesting BC and AD abbreviations to be replaced with the more modern BCE(replacing BC) and CE(replacing AD) abbreviations on account that the previous abbreviations hold a Christian bias whereas BCE(Before Common Era) and CE(Common Era) do not. Htmlgxn (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. per WP:ERA. Both notations are acceptable and the guidance is not to switch an article from one to the other without consensus. RudolfRed (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that BCE and CE still mark before and after Christ's supposed birth, even if you aren't referencing him by name he is still the deciding factor, and this is coming from an atheist with if anything a bias against Christianity.

Continued use of "King Tut"

This was discussed on the archived talk pages and the claim was made that the nickname was not used in the article. However, it still is in two locations: "The painful affliction forced King Tut to walk with the use of a cane" "Interestingly, more than one strain of the malaria parasite was found, indicating that King Tut caught multiple malarial infections during his lifetime." Since this is not at all encyclopaedic, pending any disagreement, I'll replace the childish "King Tut" with "Tutankhamun" in a day or two. 86.137.49.151 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

More than 2, fixed. Manual of style says we should use a formal tone. Doug Weller (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Tutankhamun mask

Is there someone experienced with Egyptian history to review, or follow this recent news1, news2? According to recent scholars finding, the royal name stamp (erased and retouched) of the mask reveal initially it was intended for Nefertiti ie. certain Ankhkheprure Nefernefruaten, and not Tutankhamun.--Crovata (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No Source?

This part under the section about the Tomb have no citation and might be misleading:

For many years, rumors of a "Curse of the Pharaohs" (probably fueled by newspapers seeking sales at the time of the discovery) persisted, emphasizing the early death of some of those who had entered the tomb. However, a recent study of journals and death records indicated no statistical difference between the age of death of those who entered the tomb and those on the expedition who did not.[citation needed]

I suggest that this part is to be removed until further discoveries prove it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waffle334 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to sort this out tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 21:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

DNA

The Pharaoh Tutankhamon's DNA is most like the people of Southern Africa's today, where the most dominant haplogroup is E1b1a.

Tutankhamon Microsatellite markers

D13S317: 10, 12 D7S820: 10, 15 D2S1338: 16, 26 D21S11: 29, *34* D16S539: 8, 13 D18S51: 19, *19* CSF1PO: 6, 12 FGA: 23, 23

DNA Tribes describes especially "D18S51=19 and D21S11=34" and points out that these are "alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world".

Image: http://amaprod.silverchaircdn.com/data/Journals/JAMA/4500/joc05008f1.png

Source: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393

Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family FREE Zahi Hawass, PhD; Yehia Z. Gad, MD; Somaia Ismail, PhD; Rabab Khairat, MSc; Dina Fathalla, MSc; Naglaa Hasan, MSc; Amal Ahmed, BPharm; Hisham Elleithy, MA; Markus Ball, MSc; Fawzi Gaballah, PhD; Sally Wasef, MSc; Mohamed Fateen, MD; Hany Amer, PhD; Paul Gostner, MD; Ashraf Selim, MD; Albert Zink, PhD; Carsten M. Pusch, PhD [+] Author Affiliations JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.121. Text Size: A A A

http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

" These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34). MLI for World Region Thuya Yuya KV35EL Amen-hotep III versus the likelihood of occurrence in the world as a whole. " MrSativa (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016

the birth and death date are mixed up it should be

|birth_date = c. 1323 BC |death_date = c. 1341 BC (aged c. 18)

189.84.21.87 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Dates BC count backwards: 1341 BC comes before 1323 BC, and the dats shown are correct. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Recentism in popular culture

Arguably the most enormous impact on popular culture was in the 1920s in the aftermath of the tomb's rediscovery. This has been removed, with bits incorporated IMO awkwardly into "legacy". I don't really see how this is appropriate. Seems a case of Wikipedia:Recentism. Counterarguments? Wondering, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: I'd agree with you re "legacy" – but if we have "legacy" in articles on Mother Teresa (d. 1997), Michael Jackson (d. 2009), or Margaret Thatcher (d. 2013), just to name a few — why not have a legacy section for a well-known figure who died some 3,000 years ago? I may be mistaken, but I'm not quite seeing the recentism nature? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about what the section is called; many titles could be appropriate. I was just pointing out that what was long a quite obscure historical figure suddenly became world famous and a popular culture sensation in the 1920s, but this significance had been chopped out of the article in favor of of emphasizing less influential and significant references from the past few decades. I'm glad to see a good amount of material has been restored. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

King Tut

This is an Americanism and should be recorded as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.83.249 (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

DNA

In 2012, a study was released in the British Medical Journal, signed off on by Zahi Hawass, Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study, that stated that the haplogroup of Ramesses III and his son was E1b1a. E1b1a is the haplogroup mostly associated with the Bantu Expansion of 1000 BC onwards.

Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a.

In 2012, DNA Tribes listed the DNA of the various mummies of this study, using a Match Likelihood Index or MLI, which compares the dna of an individual to dna of people in various parts of the world. You divide the MLI of one region with another to see how much more the individual's dan is like one regions vs another. King Tutankhamon's MLI Southern Africa (1,519.03), African Great Lakes (1,328.01), Tropical West Afrcan (314.00), Horn of Africa (44.35), Sahelian (30.41), Levantine (21.08), Aegean (9.85), Arabian (10.91), Northwestern European (5.33), Mediterranean (6.04), North African (6.55), Mesopotamian (5.27). For example, King Tutankhamon's dna is 1519.03/10.91 = 139 times more like Southern African DNA than like Arabian DNA.

Microsatellite markers

Tutankhamon

D13S317: 10, 12 D7S820: 10, 15 D2S1338: 16, 26 D21S11: 29, 34 D16S539: 8, 13 D18S51: 19, 19 CSF1PO: 6, 12 FGA: 23, 23

Image: http://amaprod.silverchaircdn.com/data/Journals/JAMA/4500/joc05008f1.png Source: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393

About D21S11: 29, 34 and D18S51: 19, 19, DNA Tribes states:

These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34). MLI for World Region Thuya Yuya KV35EL Amen-hotep III versus the likelihood of occurrence in the world as a whole.

Source: http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf MrSativa (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Besides the original research, DNA Tribes fails WP:RS. As has been discussed before in relationship to this company, we should stick to academic sources for this. Doug Weller talk 05:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what level of proof are you really looking for? DNA Tribes uses the data published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. What is soo different about this company that their findings cannot be used or trusted? Also, 'original research' by whom? DNA Tribes? What and whose Original Research are you referring to? Be specific.MrSativa (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't determine the level of proof, we see if a source meets our criteria, eg reliably published. See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. In other words, for genetic information like this we need peer reviewed or academic sources. Not a private company. The OR was about edits to the article. I'm not judging whether DNATribes is right or wrong. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thats correct, because his grand mother Tiye its from Nubia, after that he must have a African DNA. Ramesse II for examle hat red hair what meant that his ancestors are from Libyia Beduind? or Kreto-Syrian(Hyksos or Peleseti)? ancestors. Bynk--195.91.43.138 (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

References

After Life

During part of his after life, following the robbery of his grave, his remains were paraded around the world along with some of his possessions which were exhibited in Baton Rouge, La, U.S.A. Our high school took a field trip to see King Tut. If I recall correctly, the year was 1984. However, I was careful not to get too close to the coffin because I did not know what he had died from. I don't know where the rest of his family was. I thought that if more than one wife, wives were buried with. Sometimes, Pharaohs were embalmed alive. So, it would have been the embalming process that killed him. Of course, the rest of the family is buried with him and everything that they would need in the after life is buried, as well, from what I have heard. However, I do not know what is was the same with every Pharaoh or every Dynasty as it has not been with every King or Monarch or every chief or tribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E94B:5C00:FD04:93A2:68C0:13AD (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2016

Traugt (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC).

Popular Culture

The pop culture section is too long in my opinion and adds content that is only marginally connected to the topic. A pop culture section should not have the same length and so weight as sections which refer directly to Tutankhamun and his life. I'd like to see it trimmed substantially per WP: WEIGHT(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC))

Significance & Legacy

Since all the items cited in the "significance" section are forms of legacy, surely these ought to be a single section rather than two? Furius (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Readd: Pop culture

The pop culture section is too long in my opinion and adds content that is only marginally connected to the topic. A pop culture section should not have the same length and so weight as sections which refer directly to Tutankhamun and his life. I'd like to see it trimmed substantially per WP: WEIGHT(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2017

• Since there has been no objection in over a month to this concern, I'll redo this section in the next few days.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC))
• I've removed the content pending a review of the content and sources. I'll try and clean up the article lay out today or tomorrow.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC))

• • The relevant RfC is here: "The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance." Doug Weller talk 17:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. I wasn't aware of this RfC although I've had this article watch listed for years.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC))

Parked content

I've removed this article content per tag, my cmts and no replies, and pending analysis per weight with potential sourcing. Open to discussion about this move.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC))
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2017 2601:2C3:8880:E80C:E185:3C08:6295:8058 (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC) he ate pppop 'Italic text'he didnt like people' Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gulumeemee (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC) King Tut died at age 19 "King Tut" died when he was 19-years-old." - King Tut's Final Secrets on NatGeoTV 2601:589:4705:C7C0:EDD2:6943:F89C:AE8C (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC) The infobox says "c. 18" and the article body says "c. 19". It is unlikely that anyone can say definitively which it was, but it would be good if it were standardized in the article, and referenced. I'm inclined to think we can do better than a television program for referencing it. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Sarcophagus This article uses the word sarcophagus three times incorrectly. Coffin is meant. A sarcophagus is not a coffin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.1.7 (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC) http://www.yourdictionary.com/sarcophagus sarcophagus (noun) 1. among the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, a limestone coffin or tomb, often inscribed and elaborately ornamented 2. any stone coffin, esp. one on display, as in a monumental tomb Davemck (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC) This usage note may be helpful, as might the last sentence of this page. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC) So what "He is possibly also the Nibhurrereya of the Amarna letters, and likely the 18th dynasty king Rathotis who," Sure maybe. "according to Manetho," An unknown person Where did he get it from? Where did come from before then? "a figure that conforms with Flavius Josephus's version of Manetho's Epitome.[6]" Clearly if he was writing from Manethos writings it would match what it said! How did the unknown Manetho get this info 1000 years latter? read it some where?..... Using this standard of evidence I just proved the Koran and Bible both 100% accurate!--Ev0lved (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC) The Koran and the Bible are unreliable sources. They are not worth the paper they were printed on. Manetho is a 3rd century BC Egyptian priest. Aegyptiaca, his work, is a primary source on Egyptian Pharaohs and their dynasties. Dimadick (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC) Length of reign. The length of reign should be corrected from 1332 - 1323, to 1333 - 1323 BCE, which is the widely accepted length of reign of Tutankhamun as stated in the chronology developed by Professor John Baines and Dr Jaromir Malek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2607:fea8:bca0:bfa:59f1:f7c7:f6f7:259f (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Tutankhamun. 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/20090727093658/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/716/he1.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/716/he1.htm Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129080541/http://dallasmuseumofart.org/Dallas_Museum_of_Art/index.htm to http://dallasmuseumofart.org/Dallas_Museum_of_Art/index.htm Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.khm.at/system2E.html?%2FstaticE%2Fpage3830.html 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) 11:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC) Question about King Tut's DNA results User:Doug Weller, shalom. I understand that perhaps the recent edit on King Tut's DNA was based on non-peer review journals. I agree that it is far better to have sources that are supported by peer review journals. But are there not any reliable sources that verify the DNA sequence of "King Tut" as shown by genetic scientists in Switzerland, and who claim that they saw in his DNA make-up the haplogroup R1b1a2? I'm surprised that this information is not mentioned in the article, even if it is disputed by other scientists.Davidbena (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Not everything belongs in an article, even if it's verifiable. We don't normally used non-peer reviewed sources for DNA and I don't see why we should change that for this article. It fails WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Forgotten? " When at the end of the 20th Dynasty the Valley of the Kings burial sites were systematically dismantled, Tutankhamun's tomb was overlooked, presumably because knowledge of it had been lost, and his name may have been forgotten." You think? considering that the article states earlier that a damnatio memoriae was undertaken by the usurping pharaoh Horemheb against the family, including Tut, I would be extremely surprised if he had been remembered. 184.148.36.152 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Good point. How would you reword? But that claim is currently unsourced and I don't see any mention of the damnatio memoriae at the Horemheb article. In fact, it says this of Horemheb: "However, he spared Tutankhamun's tomb from vandalism presumably because it was Tutankhamun who had promoted his rise to power and chosen him to be his heir"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Character improvements Hello, I would like to improve this article by replacing old "quotes" with more readable “quotes”. I support 🌘. Please allow this. Oppose Actually for me they are harder to read, and they are not normal, perhaps not even allowed, on WP. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Oh, I see Meanwhile, you also arbitrarily delete my legitimate comment about honorific transposition? You make it crystal-clear to the entirety of the planet that Wikpedia is garbage, of garbage, by garbage, and for garbage. Block away! I used to have fun doing that also when I was a fifteen-year-old system administrator in college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4B00:7AB:5D9:F900:4813:7336 (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018 There were more than a few that died that helped Howard carter uncover King Tut's tomb 67.2.36.109 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Syllables of the name Why is the pronouciation given with syllables tu-tankh-a-mun when it should be tut-ankh-a-mun?Linkato1 (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC) In popular culture See also: Ancient Egypt in the Western imagination Film We Want Our Mummy (1939), a film in which The Three Stooges explore the tomb of the midget King Rutentuten (pronounced "rootin'-tootin'") and his Queen, Hotsy Totsy. Mummy's Dummies (1948), a film in which The Three Stooges are crooked used-chariot salesmen who ultimately assist a different King Rootentootin (Vernon Dent) with a toothache. La Reine Soleil (2007), an animated film by Philippe Leclerc which features Akhenaten, Tutankhaten (later Tutankhamun), Akhesa (Ankhesenepaten, later Ankhesenamun), Nefertiti, and Horemheb in a complex struggle pitting the priests of Amun against Akhenaten's intolerant monotheism. For Transformers (2007), the Decepticon character Frenzy repeats the name, "Tutankhamun". Mr. Peabody and Sherman (2014), Tutankhamun is often seen, also in the trailer and in the end credits, as him is dressed with a present day "I Love New York" t-shirt. Videogames The 1981 arcade game Tutankham revolves around King Tutankhamun. The 2003 videogame Sphinx and the Cursed Mummy features a fictional representation of Prince Tutankhamun, who is the victim of an unnamed magical ritual which results in almost instantaneous mummification and extraction of what appears to be his "life force". In the instruction manual, the Mummy is described as young, inexperienced and naive. Literature The novel Tutankhamun (2008) by novelist Nick Drake [not the musician] takes place during the reign of Tutankhamun and gives a possible explanation for his injury and death (and the aftermath) set amid a murder mystery. The novel The Lost Queen of Egypt (1937) by novelist Lucile Morrison is about Ankhsenpaaten / Ankhesenamun, the wife of Tutankhamun. He is a major character, coming in about midway in the story. Here, his name is spelled as 'Tutankhamon.' It's strongly hinted that he was murdered. Music "King Tut" (1978), a whimsical song by (American comedian) "Steve Martin and the Toot Uncommons" (a backup group consisting of members of the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band). "Tutankhamen" (1997), a song referencing Tutankhamun from Angels Fall First, the debut album by symphonic power metal band Nightwish. Television King Tut, played by Victor Buono, was a villain on the Batman TV series which aired from 1966 to 1968. Mild-mannered Egyptologist William Omaha McElroy, after suffering a concussion, came to believe he was the reincarnation of Tutankhamun. His response to this knowledge was to embark upon a crime spree that required him to fight against the "Caped Crusaders", Batman and Robin. The first episode of the 2005 BBC series Egypt: Rediscovering a Lost World focuses on the life and death of Tutankhamun and the serendipitous discovery of his tomb. The Discovery Kids animated series Tutenstein stars a fictional mummy based on Tutankhamun, named Tutankhensetamun and nicknamed Tutenstein, in his afterlife. He is depicted as a lazy and spoiled 10-year-old mummy boy who must guard a magical artifact called the Scepter of Was from the evil Egyptian god Set. Tut, a dramatized three part miniseries loosely based on the reign of Tutankhamun (portrayed by Avan Jogia), premiered on Spike in July 2015. In the Japanese superhero series Kamen Rider Ghost, Tutankhamun is one of 15 famous historical figures' souls residing in mystical items called Eyecons, which can be used by the Kamen Riders to empower themselves. Soul of Tutankhamun is often used by Kamen Rider Specter to transform into a pharaoh-like form called Tutankhamun Damashii. Tutankhamun is a 2016 ITV miniseries focusing on the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb by Howard Carter and his benefactor George Herbert, 5th Earl of Carnarvon.

Deletion of above

Such a section could fit into a subsection of Legacy if explicitly related to Tutankhamun and better sourced, but I don't see why it's on this particular talk page; that's semi-disruptive to the talk page itself and it should either be used or 'discarded' into the page history. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tutankhamun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking forward to doing this review. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have completed my initial review. This page has quite a bit of work ahead for it to reach GA status. Please ping me if you have any questions; I'll check back periodically to see updates. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

References

• Make sure all references have a standardized format. For web pages, make sure an access date is listed.
• Make sure the sources all comply with WP:RS. In particular, I'm looking at the Daily Mail references

There's only one Daily Mail reference, and I'm not sure what's wrong with it.

Per WP:RS, it's not considered a reliable source.

• There are several citation needed tags to address
• There's a broken reference on the page (currently number 42)

Paragraph 5, line 3. The 1972 (and onwards) world tour should include United Kingdom - in fact UK was the first country in which the tour was exhibited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.227.160.87 (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Prose

Lead

• Take out "sometimes the New Empire Period" as that's an unnecessary detail for a lead section

Done! I removed the sentence.

• I changed "the popular symbol" to "a popular symbol"
• Remove the sentence about his artifacts touring the world; the artifacts themselves are not touring, and this is not a pertinent detail for a lead section

Done! I removed the sentence.

• I changed "results of DNA tests" to "genetic testing"
• Take out "the heretical" from "His father was the heretical king Akhenaten, believed..." as that is not a descriptor but a label . The genealogy is correct, but the label is not. To justify leaving the term, you could change it to "the alleged heretic king Akhenaten, believed..." Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.22.30 (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Life

• It's confusing that the lead section states that some believe Tut was the son of Akhenaten, while the "Life" section treats it as fact

Done! I removed the confusion.

• The reign section should follow a more logical flow. State what Tut did during his reign, and then add towards the end of the section about Tut's advisors.

Done! (maybe?), I reordered the parapraghs, I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

• I removed his death age from the "Reign" section
• I would remove the sentence about Klippel-Feil syndrome, as he didn't have it, and the research supporting it (as far as I can tell) was just a Discovery Channel documentary, not scholarly work

The following line explains what you just said... I don't see a reason to remove it since it's not disruptive.

Was there significant evidence of the Klippel-Feil syndrome? All the article states is that it was brought up in a Discovery Channel documentary, but then it was discredited. Was it a common belief about him, or just something they said on the documentary without strong evidence?

• I removed the National Geographic quote, as it is pretty long and simply states that malaria may have been a cause of his death
• The Genealogy sub-section goes back-and-forth on who Tut's mother is. As far as I can tell, the final conclusion is that Tut's mom was also Akhenaten's sister? The paragraph could be streamlined.

I really can't find the back-and-forth you're talking about, his father was Akhenaten and his mother was The younger Lady, Akhenaten's sister. Their parents (Tut's grandparents) were Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye. If you can fix the problem that would be great, because I can't find it.

• Which study is being referenced when discussing genetic testing for the fetuses found in Tut's tomb?
• I changed "final days" to "death"
• Overall comment for the death sub-section is that it should be rewritten to only include viable theories, and the descriptions of the scientific techniques used should be limited to naming the technique itself (CT scans, genetic testing, etc.) rather than explaining the methods.

Done! I removed all disproven info.

• All of the researcher name drops are unnecessary
• The hurried burial information, if included, should be in a different portion of the sub-section. The paragraph starts out saying that the causes of death are debated, and then transitions immediately to stating that the burial was quick

Done! I removed it.

• "death was accidental" implies that there was some event which killed him, when it seems that people attribute it to diseases
• There is a large chunk of this section that delves into the rejected theories of his death; it's not necessary to include

Done! I removed all disproven info.

• I would remove the "Aftermath" section, as it isn't about Tut himself

Done! I removed the section.

Significance

• This section can be removed and/or merged with the "Reign" sub-section

Done! I merged it with the "Reign" section.

Tomb

• The paragraphs in this section are all pretty short; many of them could be combined
• Where is Tut's body? The paragraph starts that his body is in the tomb in the Valley of the Kings, but then says it was displayed in 2007 at the Luxor?

Done! I removed the confusion.

• Remove conversationally-toned worded such as "it seems clear" and "presumably"
• I rewrote a paragraph
• Remove the "study of artifacts" phrase, as that is self-explanatory to say that archaeological research revealed insights into the time period
• Remove and cite "according to Nicholas Reeves." Is Reeves's theory widely accepted among Egyptologists?
• I rewrote the funerary goods. It shouldn't have an "etc." in it.
• I would remove the hidden chamber paragraph

Done! I removed the paragraph.

• Paraphrase the information about the curse from The Lancet

Done! I paraphrased the paragraph.

Legacy

• This section should be shortened. While it's important to note that Tut has achieved notoriety throughout the world, it's unnecessary to list every individual exhibit. I recommend a rewrite, and I'll address the rewrite with comments.

Done! I removed unnecessary extra info.

Copyright violations

• There is a large amount of text that is the same with this page and a National Geographic article, and it isn't just quoted text.
• There is also a large amount of the same text with the Wikipedia page and this page, but I'm not sure if the latter may have copied from Wikipedia.

I think it's copied from Wikipedia; it was published in 2016, this page was published in 2001.

Comment

@Balon Greyjoy: I have just noticed that the nominator has seem to retired from being on Wikipedia. HawkAussie (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: Thanks for the information. His page previously had the retired template, but it has since been removed. @NightBag10: Are you going to continue updating this page? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Hey, I'm still here, Wikipedia has thousands of templated; so I didn't know which one to use. I was just taking a break. I will continue to edit it. If you could please tell me what's left in the article? So I can hit the ground running again. Thanks for understanding, sorry for the hassle. NightBag10 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Updated comments

• Make sure the text has in-line citations

Could you be more specific? NightBag10 ^(talk) 23:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

There are quite a few paragraphs that end without an in-line citation. Some of them have one within the paragraph, but there is still information in the paragraph that is uncited. Make sure that the sources for either the entire paragraph or the uncited sentences are properly referenced.

I added some improvement tags to give you guidance on what to fix here. Please address them before removing them. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know every parapgraph needs a citation at the end. I'm working on them currently though. NightBag10 ^(talk) 17:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. NightBag10 ^(talk) 00:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Fix the broken citation

Done. NightBag10 ^(talk) 23:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• There's a lot of similarity with the National Geographic article. Compare the two, and paraphrase the copied text

I found one paragraph, which I paraphrased. If there are others please let me know. NightBag10 ^(talk) 23:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• The lead section has information about alternate identities that aren't mentioned again throughout the page, which they should be, per WP:LEAD

Acutally I've just checked the lead section and it only mentions alrenate names, not identities. If there's something I'm missing please let me know. NightBag10 ^(talk) 22:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"likely the 18th dynasty king Rathotis who, according to Manetho, an ancient historian, had reigned for nine years—a figure that conforms with Flavius Josephus's version of Manetho's Epitome" There is no other mention throughout the article of the name Rathotis, or the source material of Manetho's Epitome

@Balon Greyjoy: Basically, from my understanding, Manetho was an Egyptian priest, he wrote about the history of Egypt in the Greek language. So "Rathotis" is Tut's name in Greek, Tut reigned for 9 years which is what Manetho said. See this. "But the copies were poorly transcribed and contained many inconsistencies. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century AD, for example, indicates that he had two different versions that differed on some details." Apperantly copies were poor, but Josephus's two copies concured about Tut. (sorry for the bad and very unprofessional English) NightBag10 ^(talk) 02:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay; I thought that I had already responded to this, but must have not saved it. The issue is that information in the lead section is not mentioned throughout the article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is for summarizing the information found in the article below; there should be no information in the lead that isn't mentioned below in the page. That's the reason that reference tags in the lead section aren't required.

@Balon Greyjoy: I'll do my best, but don't expect 5 paragraphs about this. NightBag10 ^(talk) 18:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Done, see names section. NightBag10 ^(talk) 19:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• My direction was too vague when I said to not name-drop researchers. The organizations they represent should still be mentioned, but the individual researchers that were involved don't need to be mentioned. *There are multiple vague reference to "a research team," "several experts," and the like.

Done, I added what I removed. NightBag10 ^(talk) 00:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would shorten the description of the travels of the exhibit. Additionally, I would be consistent on the inclusion of the dates for where the tomb was.

I've already shortened it a lot, if it's not absolutely necessary then I think it should stay. I've already removed a lot of paragraphs from the article as per your request, any more and the article will be too short. Also, where exactly are the tomb dates? NightBag10 ^(talk) 00:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's inconsistent that the dates for some stops on the exhibition tour are given: "returning to Egypt in August 2008," "An encore of the exhibition in the United States ran at the Dallas Museum of Art from October 2008 to May 2009." In other areas, no dates, or even specific locations, are given: "The exhibition started in Los Angeles, then moved to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Chicago and Philadelphia. The exhibition then moved to London," "The tour continued to other U.S. cities." I'm guessing you don't have dates/locations for each individual stop, so I would just list start/end dates for the tour, and then include in one sentence the cities to which it went.

Done. NightBag10 ^(talk) 18:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@NightBag10: There are still quite a few things that need to be changed, mostly related to speculation/vague referencing individuals. Rather than playing a telephone game with my comments, I'll make edits directly to the article. I'll be requesting a second opinion once I am complete with my edits (some of which I've already made) to ensure fairness in this process; I don't want to revamp the article and then effectively approve my own edits for GA. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

To the second reviewer, NightBag10 has made significant improvements to this article. I'm requesting a second opinion because I made some substantial changes to the article as well, and primarily removed speculative material and reworded sentences to refrain from either namedropping individual researchers or vague references to people. Please reach out to myself or NightBag10 if you have any questions or request any changes. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the article is almost ready for GA. However, there was an existing citation needed tag, and I've added two more in "Names", one for the table, which is wholly uncited, and one for the paragraph after it, ditto. Once those are fixed, I'd say it is good to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to say that a second reviewer has looked at the article in the template? I clicked on the review button expecting to help but it looks like this is covered. Kees08 (Talk) 23:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional sourcing comments

There seem to be two non-working links: Hieroglyphs Without Mystery and How were the Egyptian pyramids built? Haukur (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion review

Initial concerns have been addressed  Done
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The name of the article and the first use in the lede seems to indicate that there are two spellings. The actual source for reference 3 is for the word "Tutankahmen" with the e spelling, so this reference is only for the explanatory note (which itself does not clarify that the alternative spelling is British) and the article, as yet, has no source for the spelling used. Done As part of trying to fix this portion of the article, as well as the footnote on the reconstructed pronunciation, I am going to be using the article; Ahmose I as comparison.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC) There are a large number "citation needed" tags. This was a red flag so I thought I'd check the remaining quick fail criteria just to be sure and; An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review: It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria It contains copyright violations It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}}) It is not stable due to edit warring on the page</l While the quick fail criteria states that you may fail any article which includes any of the above...the article shows 3 of the 4 criteria for quick fail, copyright being the most serious. At a glance, I also am a little concerned with the digital hieroglyphics as they do not seem to be supported by sources and I am concerned about other formatting issues this may cause as well as seeing impaired access.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Footnotes - The first footnote has a citation but more information follows the citation. Everything must have a citation or you must lose the content. Done The second footnote apears to be entirely citing non English sources. What is the strength of these non English sources and how accurate are their claims? In order to allow readers some way to understand the strength of the sources and claims, a translation of their quotes is strongly suggested for the English Wikipedia. See WP:RSUE; "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page". With such a contentious claim as this, not having more explanation in the notes is a glaring omission. Ok, this is partially  Done but we need to get assistance from the original editors from the article Egyptian language to help with adding page numbers on some sources and fix the source stacking to put the citations next to their claims.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with citing non-English sources. There might possibly be a question whether reconstructing the pronunciation based on a number of different pages from these sources is too SYNTH/OR-y but we'd have to look at them to develop an opinion on that. But having to read a bit of French or German should be the least of our worries. In fact, I'd fully expect an excellent article on Tutankhamun to cite a few sources in French and German and I would be suspicious of one that didn't. As for the article as a whole I certainly don't think it meets the GA criteria and I'm glad you're going through it so thoroughly. Haukur (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Thank you. Of course, no, there is nothing wrong with using Non English sources and yes, for this article one would expect some non-English sources if there are no other sources of equal strength in English. As I understand these sources they are citing an explanatory note explaining the reconstruction of the pronunciation. According to; Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines (linguistics and Archaeological science); "Wikipedia's no-original-research policy allows routine calculations based on data from reliable sources." and "Routine calculations frequently involve converting units, rounding to appropriate levels of precision for the article, describing quantitative relationships in words, and other simple methods that both accurately describe the information from the source(s) and do not tend to advance a novel argument." And suggests; "If a calculation, although routine, takes more than one or two steps, it may be helpful to present the details of the calculation in a note to the text.". Because of this and the explanation and suggestions at RSUE, I am basically disputing the content and requesting English explanations of what the sources actually say or an added quote from each book in the citation translated into English so English readers are able to verify the content in a reasonable manner. I would also accept that translation or explanation placed here and I can simply work from there. If the books had previews or were more widely available in libraries, I could do the translation myself but these are from 1960 and 1983. I need assistance in understanding the claims of the authors.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC) I suspect whoever knew enough to use these three sources also knew enough to get this right. But it would be fun to follow this up so let's see what we can do. Vycichl seems to be available online so I'll start there. Haukur (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Yes. Thank you for any assistance. That would be awesome! I'll dig through the history and fond the contributor if you haven't already.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC) The Vycichl citation apears to have been added as a short citation -Vycichl (1983:10, 224, 250) but you do not have a reference section to correspond with the short citation, which is also an MOS violation. Stick to one format. Because of this, the citation is not verifiable. has been converted into a full inline citation with the name of the book as well as a convenience link to the book and author. Done--Mark Miller (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Reference #7 has a convenience link to something entirely unrelated to "Hieroglyphs Without Mystery" when there is a free preview of the actual book on Google books. Citation #8 is a web travel log and does not apear to be a reliable source with editorial oversite and a reputation for fact checking. To be honest, I cannot see using obscure websites to source historic facts when there are easily hundreds of book sources covering many decades that are easily located in public libraries. So far, this looks sloppy and unconvincing. At this point I pretty much feel inclined to fail but will run through the most glaring issues I see. *Image File:The Moment Carter Opens the Tomb.JPG dated 5 November 1922 or 27 November 1922 ~ The copyright of this image is in question. Copy right law; Automatic Extension for Works in Renewal Term Works originally copyrighted after 1922 and renewed before 1978. These works were automatically given a longer copyright term. Copyrights that had already been renewed and were in their second term at any time between December 31, 1976, and December 31, 1977, inclusive, do not need to be renewed again. They have been automatically extended to last for a total term of 95 years (a first term of 28 years plus a renewal term of 67 years) from the end of the year in which they were originally secured. For more information about renewal of copyright, see Circular 15, Renewal of Copyright. The New York Times certainly re-registered their copy right on their image/or it can be assumed they did, for such historic events and works. In checking the source for this image at Commons, it is clear this was taken from the online store of the NYT where they sell their copy protected work. The image has been removed as a potential, if not sure copyright issue. The math seems clear. Public domain began in 2017 (28 years from 1922 plus 67 years).--Mark Miller (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC) The Ancestry section is using the wrong template. That is an ascending family tree/history. You could simply add the proper pedigree template or change the header to family tree however, it needs to be referenced with inline citations. Yes, the family tree is supposed to have a reference or several if a contentious claim or uses multiple sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion review checklist

Well-written:

1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

• 2nd reviewer comment - There are still some issues needing to be addressed but far less after removing redundant mentions and incorporating other contributions into other sections etc. but almost there. not yet. Done--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• 2nd reviewer comment - Article complies with manual of style guidelines for layout, words to watch and fiction  Done but still needs review for lead sections and list incorporation. not yet Done--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research:

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   • 2nd reviewer comment - Complies with presentation in accordance with the layout style guideline.  Done--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
   • 2nd reviewer comment - Article almost complies with the above. Most scientific claims are in accordance to MOS but not all reference have been reviewed. Nearly there. not yet Done--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
3. it contains no original research; and
4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

• 2nd reviewer comment and assistance requested from original reviewer Balon Greyjoy. "My lord", I have paid the iron price and seek a quick copyright check as you initially ran earlier in your review, please/ Because this isn't the seven kingdoms and please and thank you still go a long way. But that would actually help me a lot. Done--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• 2nd reviewer comment for NightBag10 - The digital hieroglyphics could not be verified entirely. There is some discrepancy with the fist Horus Falcon and its use as well as how the template forms the Horus name in particular. It appears from the sources that, by description, the Horus Falcon should be seated atop the rudimentary plan of the palace. I am not entirely sure about the long brackets but the description calls for the palace floor plan to be on top and the "niched enclosure wall across the bottom". This describes a set protocol intended for top to bottom reading for symbolic, religious and royal titular protocol. Sources depicting the name reading left to right do not show the "rectangle incorporating two views of a place compound". So, I am unclear if this indicates a less formal use of the Horus Name in that manner or not. The other issue is that the Horus Falcon must have the dual crown of Upper and Lower Egypt as part of the Two Ladies reference. But...when I tried to use our digital hieroglyphics, I discovered that we don't yet have that symbol. Would you settle on SVG recreations that can be used without a background? They would be illustrative only but could be created for each of the five main names and in what I believe is the proper top to bottom form.?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: Hi, I've been inactive for quite a while, waiting for a 2nd reviewer, I will get back to editing now. Could you please link the sources that you found, so I could better understand the porblem. Thanks, NightBag10 ^(talk) 12:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

NightBag10 I didn't get that ping but don't worry most of the above has been taken car of.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Mark Miller I feel like I didn't do anything because the article has changed so much, but thank you Mark Miller, thanks Balon Greyjoy. I know I shouldn't have nominated it in the first place, and I am sorry for that. Thanks again, NightBag10 ^(talk) 17:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There was no support for closing the review and support for continuing to improve towards GA. Instructions for GA review allow some discretion for reviewer to fix problems on the article if they feel they are easy enough to accomplish. It wasn't that difficult but there was a substantial amount of changes so it might look like a complete re-write. It retains the core of the article as I found it but required changes in summary of sources, citation formatting and checking data from references etc.. It was time consuming but I enjoy that sort of thing on occasion. Experienced editors helped a great deal so the nomination, while perhaps ill conceived at first, was important enough to others to help with the more technical translations and interpretation of hieroglyphics and sources themselves explaining those hieroglyphics. So thank you to Balon Greyjoy for accepting the review and requesting assistance from editors with more knowledge of the subject. Thank you to Merytat3n for all of their support and contributions, some of which really made this article accurate, not to mention cleaning up a few of my mistakes. While we did not always agree on sourcing and content, they were patient and extremely detailed. For a new editor, this was a positive experience in collaboration. Also, thank you to Haukur for their assistance in rescuing information and mention of a difficult to source part of the article.

Articles are never finished. Now I will work on shortening all the book citations so multiple claims can be cited to the same reference to help expand more details. The subject is handled as broadly as the majority of all sources however, (isn't there always a "but...") the reason the Egyptian Museum in Cairo is not mentioned as yet, is because there is very little documented about it, in regards to its acquisition of the Tut artifacts. It apears there was a controversy and some legal issues that caused Carter to close down the tomb in 1924. It apears it had something to do with the amount of the share of Carter and Carnarvon's part in the Tutankhamun finds. Up until this point, archeology in Egypt was being carried out by license of the Egyptian government to wealthy foreigners (who also held positions within the government) allowing by contract, a 50 -50 split of all finds to go between the Egyptian Government and the funding patron of archeological excavations~ Davis and Carter and Carnarvon. None of them took anywhere near 50% of their finds as they wanted to be generous but after inventorying Carnarvon's collection after the Earl's death there was more controversy. Carnarvon left his entire collection of Egyptian antiquities to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (including all of the Tut finds) for them to purchase and bequeathed that Carter be sole agent and receive the full commission of its sale. This angered the 6th Earl and there is some interesting history of note about Highclere Castle and the new Earl's reaction to his father leaving everything to others that leads to current day. I need to pick up book sources for more details but it seems this was what ended archeological free enterprise in Egypt.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Debate about Tutankhamun's father

It's misleading to say that because Mummy KV55 was confirmed to be Tut's father that that means his father is Akhenaten. Many scholars believe KV55 to be much more likely to be Smenkhkare. Depictions of Akhenaten and his family show only daughters, no sons. (unless some of the children died at birth)

DNA analysis has confirmed that the KV55 mummy is the father of Tutankhamun. The identity of the KV55 mummy is still debated but the fact that the KV55 mummy is a son of Amenhotep III and Tiye matches what we know of Akhenaten. We know nothing of Smenkhkare's parentage. The absence of depictions of royal sons is not unusual for the 18th Dynasty. They were never depicted with their parents and sisters on statuary and were otherwise invisible unless they were appointed to the priesthood. Merytat3n (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

References