Talk:Shoshenq II

{{cleanup}}

Article is confused. -x42bn6 03:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The article is a fact based approach towards Shoshenq II based upon objects which were found in his intact tomb. It also touches on the shortcomings of certain theories about his exact identity but doesn't make any outlandish claims beyond those that can be inferred from the evidence of objects in his tomb. Finally, the article contains some information from Von Beckerath's more current 1997 German language book, Chronology of the Egyptian Pharaohs, which few non-German speaking readers can easily access. This web link below also notes the specific presence of items from Shoshenq I's time in Shoshenq II's tomb. [[1]] --Fabian Boudville 08:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I was just acting on the fact the revision at which I saw this article had Shoshenq, Sheshonq and a few other variants, conflicting ideas (apparently) and some weird structure. I just thought I'd stick the {{cleanup}} reason here. Oh, I'm no expert on Egyptian anything either.  :) -x42bn6 08:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe these difficulties have now been rectified with only the term Shoshenq being used to mention this king.

Dear UserX42bnb6,

• I've followed your suggestion and regularised the spelling of this Pharaoh's name to 'Shoshenq' as Wikipedia follows and provided full academic sources for my points. I hope this passes muster with Wikipedia's editors. With kind Regards--Fabian Boudville 23:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Original Research

There is a whole lot of uncited, or poorly cited (no page numbers, footnotes, and so on), material here. Worse, the article is blatantly arguing a point rather than just giving the facts and/or citing the published arguments of Egyptologists (i.e., it is original research) Klompje7 14:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am doing my best to cite clear references for the article on Shoshenq II. The view that Shoshenq II was not the son of Osorkon I is NOT original research and was argued by Helen Jacquet-Gordon as early as the mid-1970's in a strongly worded Bi Or Book Review. Jacquet-Gordon is one of the foremost Egyptologists on the Third Intermediate Period--having discovered a new king from this era named Ini in 1979. The prominent German Egyptologist Von Beckerath has also dissented against Kitchen's orthodox view here on strong grounds in his popular 1997 German language book, Chronology of the Egyptian Pharaohs. Unfortunately since both author's work are in German or French, it is not easily accessible--or understood--in the English speaking world. --Leoboudv 11:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

All references and footnotes have been added by me now from Kitchen's standard TIPE 1996 book. The article includes evidence from Von Beckerath's more recent 1997 Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten book which states that the High Priest Shoshenq C was not Shoshenq II but somebody else. It also gives clear footnotes from Beckerath's book. This is not original work at all. --24.87.128.182 21:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shoshenq II. 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/20070307040712/http://www.holos-verlag.de/books/540.htm to http://www.holos-verlag.de/books/540.htm

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) 07:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)