This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
This article is too short. The helicopter hieroglyphs are the most important surviving artifact in the world today, proving beyond reasonable doubt that extra terrestrial life visited Earth. Yet the Wiki editors have not modified the article to include more detail. I expect a full article by this time tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I may not agree it proves ET contact, but would like to see more information as well. Surely there is information to explain what the hieroglyphs mean/display if not a helicopter? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Definitely needs more info! I had no idea what this article was talking about, but when I read one of the links at the bottom, it contained very good explanations, and now I see that it is rather a simple thing. Would be easy to rewrite by someone with knowledge in the field! I would write something but I have no confidence in my ability to correctly transcribe the various hieroglyphic standards &c. For the sake of anyone reading this, what happened was they carved hieroglyph, then later someone wanted to change it, so they covered with a plaster and recarved a new hieroglyph. Now the plaster has eroded, so we see a combination of two glyphs. Egyptologists can tell what the glyphs were, they changed one of the titles of one pharaoh to the title of another pharaoh. Pretty simple, but to do the article right, needs someone who has studied the field, to get all the transliteration right &c. I'm drunk now so bye 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The explanation given here (5-7-2015) is horrible and fails to explain why this image very much depicts three futury objects, a helicopter, a tank and some kind of aerial/space vessel. They can simplify much by saying, it's just an amazing coinkydink! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The article makes it clear, but in an obtuse language, that the artifact results from it being used by two generation of Egyptian scribes (engravers), and that the picture representing it has been retouched and does not represent the original.
Because the language is obtuse, it is unclear what it really is for the average layperson. I have no time to edit the article in better wording, but someone should do it at some point, please.
With my best respect, the actual paleidolia explanation is almost funny. I will try to soften it a little. The old explanation maybe explain one figure, but there are 4 resembling odd artifacts: helicopter, plane, submarine and tank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I've seen them closeup. When you see it in person it's much more obviously a palimpsest than some of the photos suggest. Doug Wellertalk 13:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)