Talk:Shoshenq IV

== Was "This Pharaoh's existence was first argued by David Rohl in 1989"? ==

I've just reverted David Rohl's edits here, as COI and promotional. I'm going to remove the claim above as it is mentioned in The Cambridge Ancient History 14 Volume Set in 19 Hardback Parts: The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 3, Part 1: Egypt: Kings from the Twcnty-sccond to the Twenty-fourth Dynasty. Tutniy-third Dynasty (e. 818-711 » C.)

I xrm*rc-&ctepcMtruin Pedutmi 1' 1.818-79) ,c

usermare-meryamun Shoshenq IV t. 795-787 B.C. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Doug, what you are doing is denying the truth. And you have become very confused in this instance as you have not read the published material. The Shoshenk IV in CAH is, as you say, an 'Usermaatre-meryamun' Shoshenk, not a 'Hedjkheperre' Shoshenk. They are two different kings! Do you not understand that before my discovery scholars placed an Usermaatre Shoshenk IV between Shoshenk III and Shoshenk V. I then proposed a second Hedjkheperre Shoshenk between Shoshenk III and Shoshenk V. As a result the old Usermaatre Shoshenk IV was renamed Shoshenk VI. By removing my edit and the original direct quote from my 1989 paper, you are denying the proper and attested priimacy. You are in fact perpetuating a piece of misinformation published in Wikipedia. What kind of editing is that? What happened to fair play? It is not a COI or self-promotion to correct a well-attested and indisputable fact, acknowledged by Aidan Dodson himself. He was informed of the discovery by myself in several discussion at university and by subsequently reading the paper I published in 1989 (which is referenced in his own paper on the subject). Please reinstate the edits in the interest of truth and honesty.David Rohl (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Does Dodson say that in a publication? If he does, I'll get hold of it and read it. But someone other than you has to attest to this, that is the way we work. We need sources other than you explaining that the king mentioned in 1982 was renamed to Shoshenk VI. This should be possible to find and if we can find these sources I'll happily add them myself. And it was COI, the proper way to deal with this is this way, on the talk page, or even at the Ancient Egypt Wikiproject if no one replies on a talk page, as someone would certainly reply there. In fact, I'll post there about this now to see if anyone has more sources, although I assume you know them all. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Doug, the answers to your questions are in the Sheshonk IV Wikipedia article where it states (a) that I first came up with the discovery and (b) to quote: "NOTE: The original king Shoshenq IV in pre-1993 books and journal articles has been renamed Shoshenq VI by Egyptologists because he was a Theban king who is only attested by Upper Egyptian documents. He was never a king of the Tanite 22nd Dynasty of Egypt." So why didn't you question that and the editor who wrote it? Yes, Dodson does refere to my discovery in hs paper and references my 1089 paper. I also question your position on COI. Wikipedia states that anyone has the right to edit an article or contribute to it. And to correct errors of fact or the absence of truth is surely desirable? Do you have a problem with published works held in the British Library and at various universities? How can a journal or publication which is in print and lodged with these bodies be an unreliable source? Is it less reliable than an internet article? Do you think your position would be accepted in a court of law? Why are you doing this?David Rohl (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You have, in fact, edited out the original reference in the article (before my edits) which gave my primacy in the discovery: "This Pharaoh's existence was first argued by David Rohl[citation needed] but the British Egyptologist Aidan Dodson settled the issue in a seminal GM 137(1993) article." The sentence which now sits there after your edit makes a nonsense.David Rohl (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)