Talk:Thutmose I

Old comments

There is definitely still confusion over Egyptian dates. E.g. Reeves' "Valley of the Kings" uses the same dates as Wikipedia (which it says come from Baines' "Atlas of Ancient Egypt"), but Clayton's "Chronology of the Pharaohs" (a recent work) gives Tuthmosis I's reign as 1524-1518 (using a system which the author followed from Mumane's "Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt"). Noel 01:06, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

None of the other pharoahs use "of Egypt," so I am moving this page. -- Emsworth 00:00, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

GA Nomination

This article looks to be in fair shape to me as a student of this discipline, so now I think it's time to run it past the laypersons. If it fails, at least it can be shaped up in thin areas. Thanatosimii 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've passed it (after some minor copyrighting). Well-written, well-sourced, and deserving of Good Article status. --JerryOrr 02:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thutmose I Paternity

There has been DNA testing done on eighteenth Dynasty mummies. The conclusion was that it is highly probable that Amenhotep I is the father of Thutmose I.

http://www.egyptologyonline.com/using_dna.htm Welsh4ever76 06:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything I'Ve read is the to the contrary, he clearly was not of the existing Royal family, he just married into it.

Thutmosis I Mummy Image

The mummy that was thought to be Thutmosis I is not him. This mummy died when he was thirty, he died of an arrow wound and his arms were not crossed as a King's position. This was the conclusion of Dr. Zahi Hawass. There is a DNA match between Amenhotep I and Thutmosis II and III indicating that they share a common ancestor. Welsh4ever76 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, mind adding that info to the article instead of just removing the mummy image? Captmondo 10:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• The only issue here is the unsourced final sentance about the mummy. Can someone please source and expand this? Once done I'd be happy to pass.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a source for this. Give me a day or two. -- Secisek (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I cited it but I think the lead needs to be improved for this to stay GA. Please look over WP:LEAD. -- Secisek (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking a peek at the section in question, there is insufficient context to understand the transition from Maspero's initial findings to the latest development. I think we need to add information regarding the subsequent examination by G. Elliot Smith which cast doubt on Maspero's identification, as well as the study conducted by Harris and Hussein (1991) on all the cached mummies. Also, I believe the mummy was finally withdrawn after the last CT scans in connection with Hatshepsut's mummy were made (at least that's how I'm interpreting the information in that link). — Zerida ☥ 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to keep this at GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)