Talk:Ipuwer Papyrus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ancient Egypt (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Things to add[edit]

(Currently this article is a stub) The translation and/or a link to the content of the Papyrus is conspicuously missing while everything that is listed is speculation. I would suggest simply listing the text and let it speak for itself.

  • Where is the papyrus currently? see below at official name
  • What is Ipuwer (personal name, place name...)?
  • Who is Jon Van Seters?
  • Is there disagreement about the interpretation of the papyrus?
  • Anyone have a picture of the papyrus that we can use?
I have provided the Van Seters reference (his credentials will not be easy to obtain). There seem to be alternative views on its placement in history.
Ipuwer seems to be the narrator.
I could not find a picture for GFDL use.
There are many online sources discussing its interpretation, but I had not the time to find out an authoratitive view from an established Egyptologist. JFW | T@lk 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Official name[edit]

Leiden Papyrus #344 according to xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/Ipuwer.html. While I don't consider such a web site authoritative I will (at least provisionally) accept their word for the offical name. RJFJR 23:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I could not access the museum's catalogue link from work, but this would confirm its location. JFW | T@lk 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Exodus"[edit]

The identification with the Exodus is not generally accepted by scholars. This Egyptology site refers to the Exodus association as that of "fringe historians."

I think this should be made clear in the article.--Rob117 21:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think "fringe historians" is a POV term. I have replaced it with "some", which indicates clearly that these are in the minority. I have also provided some links supporting my assertion that religious organisations seem to prefer this "fringe" interpretation (no surprise).
As I said above, we need an authoratitive review from a credentialed Egyptologist to be represented. Anyone an idea? JFW | T@lk 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
these "religious organizations" are themselves "fringe". I don't think the Catholic Church has a position on the papyrus. These seem to be American born agains or Bibilcal literalists. Mainstream Christians would not give a damn about whether this papyrus documents Exodus. I am a bit tired of the assumption that it is "no surprise" people are crackpots as soon as they follow the Christian religion. Lots of Christians are perfectly sane. dab () 13:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is the Catholic Church non-fringe and a respectable Jewish author yes-fringe? I'm not sure why you are attacking my comment; I placed it in "quotation marks" because others have labeled this interpretation in that way, not because I was suggesting that the views were fringe. My point was actually that the religious organisations were likely to prefer the interpretation that confirms the historicity of their belief. JFW | T@lk 17:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The Catholic Church represents a billion people. One Jewish author is one Jewish author. If Judaism as a whole didn't think this papyrus important, but Michael Scanlan considered it vital it'd be the same deal.--T. Anthony 10:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramses II not the Pharaoh of the Exodus[edit]

  • Ramses II had a long and prosperous reign. There is not the slightest documentary or archaeological evidence that he drowned in the sea, or that he had to deal with anything like the Plagues of Egypt or a massive slave revolt.
  • The only evidence that ties Ramses to the Exodus is the statement in Exodus 1:11 that Pharaoh forced the Israelites to build the city of Raamses. However, archaeologists know very well that this was built c.1720 BC, 500 years before Ramses II, and the megalomaniac Ramses II changed the name to his own. Thus, Exodus 1:11 is evidence against Ramses II as Pharaoh of the Exodus.Das Baz 15:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Exodus and Thera-Santorin[edit]

Several people have dated the Thera-Santorin eruption to the time of the Exodus. Thus, theories connecting Ipuwer to either the Exodus or to that great volcanic upheaval are quite congenial and compatible with each other. Das Baz 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Date of papyrus[edit]

I read some interesting information on one of the links: "It is impossible to give a date for the composition of this document. The surviving papyrus (Papyrus Leiden 334) itself is a copy made during the New Kingdom. Ipuwer is generally supposed to have lived during the Middle Kingdom or the Second Intermediate Period, and the catastrophes he bewails to have taken place four centuries earlier during the First Intermediate Period." Apparently it is said that the events that happened were during the First Intermediate Period. It should be updated to say so.

Fiction based on Fiction?[edit]

If the Biblical account of the Exodus is fiction, and Ipuwer is fiction, there could still be a connection between the two. Fiction writers do borrow from each other. But if one of the two is historical, chances are good that the other one also is historical. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on the exodus?[edit]

Hi, while the article mainly talks about the exodus, the importance of this papyrus is certainly not its relevance to that! Cheers! 213.39.210.112 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Talk of Ipuwer/Exodus parallel is now only 1/3 of the content and can hardly be construed as giving undue weight to a positive match. Quite the contrary. The comparison table is provided to clarify to the reader what scholars are looking at and considering after it is stated in the article that they do not support the belief that the two texts in question are describing the self-same event, based mainly on dating and not so much a face-value reading of the texts. That textual parallels on its face do exist is not debated among scholars. See Enmarch's "The reception of a Middle Egyptian poem" for instance.
It's not so much that the Ipuwer/Exodus comparison is too large, but that the other sections may need more information provided. Maybe you can remedy this by contributing sourced material rather than resorting to censorship of other sections in some kind of ham-handed, Marxist policy? 97.106.241.66 (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The connection between Ipuwer and the Exodus is rejected by Egyptologists, and accepted by everyone with any common sense. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Prophetic Theme[edit]

Again we have large section that seems over-emphasised, especially as it references two writers who wrote almost a century ago. Comments? Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. Its prophetic nature is sort of the whole point and purpose of the text. Breasted may be dated, but his work is still highly respected, quoted, and referenced in academic circles. What is sorely missing, however, is the political context of the text. Parkinson (2002) and Simpson (1972) explain it as thus, which I paraphrase in my featured article Ancient Egyptian literature: In Ipuwer, a sage addresses an unnamed king and his attendants, describing the miserable state of the land, which he blames on the king's inability to uphold royal virtues. This can be seen either as a warning to kings or as a legitimization of the current dynasty, contrasting it with the supposedly turbulent period that preceded it. Since this is a Twelfth Dynasty text (although surviving only from a Nineteenth Dynasty copy), the turbulent period described is the First Intermediate Period, which is mentioned in the article, but, again, lacks context.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok. What we shouldn't have is an attempt to make Breasted more important by harping on this 'Dean of Egyptology' thing. I agree about the lack of context. This article would never pass muster in any scholarly forum. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Right. Breasted, although having scholarly credibility, is nonetheless quite dated, so there should be some recent input backing his assertions, preferably from a university press source. I find the enormous focus on the biblical Exodus to be a bit unbecoming for any serious encyclopedia entry on an ancient Egyptian papyrus text.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Exodus and WP:UNDUE[edit]

This was raised above by an IP, and I and another editor have also commented on this more recently. Our policy states that "Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". Although we now have at least 3 editors this year agreeing that there is too much emphasis on the Exodus, one editor is continually replacing any material on this that I remove. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What is this "undue" weight? It's a valid area of interest regardless of personal opinions. The article admits Egyptologists "generally reject" that Ipuwer Papyrus and Exodus are describing the same event, not that noteworthy parallels do not exist if read at face value, which evidently shows that it is indeed a part of the discourse among scholars. How else can synchronizing the texts be generally dismissed if it's not being looked at? Nowhere was the side-by-side comparison taking sides one way or the other, but merely showing what scholars see. It's just raw information so why hide it? That you wish to remove the actual comparison from being looked at is a huge red flag and a blatant act of censorship. If the scholars can look at it and make up their mind, why shouldn't wiki readers? Your motivation to hide this valid area of study is questionable. And your reference to "several" editors also shows that you play loose with the facts. Unfortunately, you undermine the credibility of Wikipedia and only help to reaffirm the popular belief that it is a biased source of information. (User talk:97.106.241.66) 22:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this. You clearly haven't read WP:UNDUE however. Several is 3, as I've written above. Emotive ords like 'censorship' and attacks on my motivation don't deal with our policy and guidelines and your latter statement is almost an accusation of vandalism. I suggest you read WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually I have read WP:UNDUE and it clearly doesn't apply here. Maybe you should go back and re-read it and then what I wrote above and here. Perhaps you would you like to respond to any of the core issues I raised about how this subject is of interest to scholars, hence the citation about the general views of Egyptologists on it? Whether for or against is not the point. Censorship is censorship until you provide valid reasons for its exclusion, but now I see you have sent me a threat of being blocked (dressed up in flowery language of course). I have already provided valid reasons, and neutral, for its inclusion; again it is an area of interest in scholarly circles and is still discussed today, see Enmarch's "The reception of a Middle Egyptian poem: The Dialogue of Ipuwer ..." who, while rejecting synchronizing the texts himself, still discusses clear textual parallels (which he admits to) and the views held by other scholars (i.e., Kitchen, Velikovsky) and theologians; he did NOT exclude this aspect simply because he and other Egyptologists do not share the views of such scholars/theologian and neither should we here at WP - that's my point. This can be discussed with neutrality as I have done, no censorship necessary unless one has an agenda. That's why the "WP:UNDUE" theory falls flat, is invalid and suspect, and now you are threatening me with being blocked. Do not confuse inclusion with endorsement (non-neutrality). Personally, I take a more nuanced view, but this isn't about me. Your motivations are further suspect when recently someone had the audacity to remove large amounts of valid, neutral, scholarly material I had collated and you were nowhere on the scene for an hour 20 min, but within just 20 minutes of my reverting back to the info with the comparison table, you were back to deleting it. Very suspect indeed, but perhaps you have a valid reason. "Several" others have viewed the page since I added the table and had no problem with it either, so comparing numbers means nothing - it's about validity and accuracy, and even in a minority of one it must take precedence. 97.106.241.66 (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You still have some basic misunderstandings of our policy and guidelines, among other things, the need for consensus. Minorities of one very rarely take precedence (an exception might be violations of WP:BLP. See WP:Consensus. Your comments about timing overlook the fact that I was simply editing after I woke up (earlier than normal today). I have no idea why you call a content dispute censorship - although you say this isn't about you, you keep making it peronal. As for the 'thread of being blocked', 3RR is a 'bright line' rule you can't just dismiss. It's just a statement of consequences, not a threat. If you exceed it you will probably end up blocked, but not by me of course as I'm involved on this article. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It's the table that is the problem. We don't need 18 parallels to make the point that there may be parallels, and I'd challenge Becher as a source for this - very few web hits on his commentary, most stemming from this article, nothing I can find in any books or peer reviewed journals. This section should not rest on fringe or non-notable authors. That it does, and the size of the table, is why WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are relevant. If it's significant enough then you should be able to find reliable sources and not rely on the table. Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Becher's website from which the table derives is cited on page 6 in the very scholarly article I cited from Dr. Enmarch just above. You obviously didn't read it. Another invalid excuse. How many more will you try? You only become an issue when your actions become questionable and your reasons invalid excuses to cover your agenda. And now, having just looked over Kenneth Kitchen's Wikipedia page, I happened to browse the history and was absolutely appalled to see how someone last year had thoughtlessly deleted a perfectly valid, sourced description of him, K.A. Kitchen, as "the architect of Egyptian chronology" by one of the most reputable newspapers in the world - and lo, the person who recklessly edited it out because of an unsourced personal opinion, (not unlike the one you tried for deleting the description for Henry Breasted), was - as you know - YOU, Dougweller. That's disturbing. Quite frankly, you should to be investigated as you have compromised your status as an "admin"-- you seem to be a fulltime wikipedia activist with a particular interest in minimizing/censoring information touching on biblical scholarship and related public discourse, not to mention how you were (are?) stalking me, looking for any other information you could delete as you did, quite a large volume in fact from the 'Global Brain' entry. Again, disturbing. Makes me wonder who your employer is. Now you see why it has gotten personal? 97.106.241.66 (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I admit I'd only read the Enmarch article referenced in our article, but all article says is "Numerous online examples, e.g. from a Jewish perspective M. Becher," - a trivial mention which doesn't justify the table. Why don't you take up my actions at WP:ANI if you are unhappy with me. I'm getting tired of your personal attacks. As for you claim I remove something from the Kitchen article saying it was unsourced, my edit summary made my reason crystal clear, I wrote "dl some hyperbole from The Times - misleading and not true - he may be the most prominent of those Christian writers who accept the Bible's historicity, but there are others with differing perspectives at least as prominent, eg Redford & Parker"l Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
And if you think I've abused my Admin rights, go ahead and complain at WP:ANI. Put your money where your mouth is, as they say. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes I saw your reason, that's how I knew it was unsourced and just a person POV; it was what grabbed my attention to it. If we believe that uncited personal POVs should trump a valid, publicly sourced entry, then nothing is safe on WP. Even if such a personal POV was sourced, that would only give fair rights to enter that POV into the article, not that the opposing sourced entry should be deleted. 97.106.241.66 (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, the citation in Enmarch's article includes the name of the web page and the very URL from which the table is found (you forgot to mention that part); Enmarch found it relevant enough to point people to the table I included on WP to clarify the issue being discussed - if it was "trivial" as you would like us to think, it wouldn't be pointed to with a URL in a scholarly article. I think I'll side with a scholarly article publicly published rather than a wiki activist with an axe to grind. Again, your personal opinions don't determine censorship of this relevant issue. You would do well to refrain from asserting your opinions to make this discussion less about you and more about the facts. 97.106.241.66 (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
More astonishing dirty tricks from Dougweller. Dougweller, as of June 23, 2010, added tags to the WP page associated with Rabbi Mordechai Becher (Gateways organization) to make it look dubious and in need of deletion/editing so that any citation of his name (as I have done above related to the present discussion) will come under suspicion (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gateways_%28organization%29&action=history). Very manipulative and speaks volumes about one's character. Are you, Dougweller, employed by an intelligence agency or activist organization or receiving funds from any foundations? Are you a disinformation agent? Are you part of a massive internet/media campaign to undermine any historical information related to Israel's foundation as a state as recorded in their national holy books by editing/removing from the public any outside evidence and related sources to it for a political agenda effecting middle-east policies? Your actions are highly suspect yet you seem confident that you will not be disciplined by your superiors at WP, perhaps because, as seems to be the case, it's run by more spooks who give you immunity for your criminal behavior. Very very disturbing, but not at all surprising, just another case of the fox guarding the hen house. 97.106.241.66 (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Criminal behavior? Amazing. Are you just going to fulminate here about me (ironic that you seem to accuse me of making the discussion about me) or are you going to be courageous enough to complain about me at WP:ANI, the appropriate place for complaining about Administrators or asking Administrators to take action against someone? Or are you just going to continue to whine here in a fairly isolated part of Wikipedia? Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I should have noted that my edits at Gateways (organization) were in support of another editor's comments on the article's talk page, an editor who has just now posted to the talk page supporting me. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Criminal vis-a-vis the WP guidelines you selectively enforce on others but apparently have no compunction in violating when convenient and your thinly-disguised agenda hidden behind said guidelines. Courageous enough? Or do you mean naive enough? WP's bias is infamous, and I know from first-hand experience years back. It's a known spook hive and you've helped to reaffirm that.
Crime: 1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law

2 : a grave offense especially against morality 3 : criminal activity <efforts to fight crime> 4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful <it's a crime to waste good food> Source: merriam-webster.com 97.106.241.66 (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Distortion of what Enmarch says[edit]

In the cited article at [1] Enmarch does say "On a literal reading, these are similar to aspects of the Exodus account", but you wouldn't know from the current state of the article that he goes on to write "However, it is more likely that Ipuwer is not a piece of historical reportage,45 and that historicising interpretations of it fail to account for the ahistorical, schematic literary nature of some of the poem’s laments. Ipuwer is comparatively lacking in specific historical data: it contains no preserved historical setting, no kings’ names, very few and generalised toponyms and ethnonyms. The majority of its laments are timeless portrayals of a world turned on its head; even those which conceivably might refer to specific events (e.g. rebellion against the king, and despoiling royal tombs: Ipuwer 7.1–4) are presented in vague terms, and such activities are likely to have happened numerous times in Egyptian history. For these reasons, attempts to link the poem to a historical event that might also be recorded in Exodus are unconvincing. The same is true of attempts to identify the impact of the Theran eruption in the poem’s laments. Consider the most extensively posited parallel between Ipuwer and Exodus: the river becoming blood. This image cannot to be taken absolutely literally as a description of a historical occurrence" and continues to discuss this, eg "As Kitchen has noted, Ipuwer and Exodus would both then refer to the same kind of natural phenomenon." (I haven't copied the entire section, copyvio applies here also if you copy too much, but it's easy to check.)

As for citing Becher, here's the 'cite' (I'd say mention):"Numerous online examples, e.g. from a Jewish perspective M. Becher, The Ten Plagues – Live from Egypt, <http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/838> accessed 01.01.2007. Similar interpretations are also found from the Christian perspective: J. Lloyd,Escape from Planet Egypt – Part 2, <http://www.christianmediaresearch.com/cmc-47.html> accessed 01.01.2007; also from an Islamic perspective: H. Yahya, The Historical Miracles of the Qur’an. The Troubles which Afflicted Pharaoh and Those about him, <http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/historical_03.html> accessed 01.01.2007."

In comparison to the other problems, the sentence "Some of the texts in this area of interest that scholars with opposing views have weighed in their considerations are included for public consideration below" is a trivial one, but clearly neither encyclopedic or referenced (to be specific, "Some of the texts in this area of interest that scholars with opposing views have weighed in their considerations" is not referenced and my reading of 'some of the texts' is that there are others. I shall probably add some of what Enmarch says and remove the table again (there is, after all, the option of just having a link to it). Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done that. And just discovered something pretty hilarious. The IP claims Becher is a reliable source because Enmarch mentions his website. But in the same note he mentions Lloyd's 'Escape from Planet Egypt' website, and that website says, for instance, "the fallen angels are masquerading as extraterrestrials" (with the comment on another page "Anecdotal evidence indicates a long term plan to re-introduce the Nephilim as visitors from another world is a significant part of the tribulational cycle", "the Antichrist is an Egyptian", discusses Egyptian artefacts on Mars, etc. So if Enmarch can be used to show Becher is a reliable source, isn't Lloyd? And please note I am not saying that Becher is a kook, I am just saying that Enmarch is clearly not saying that Becher is a reliable source and can't be used as a reason to include Becher as an example. I have, however, added him as an external link. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The section is not for discussing the historicity of the poem, that belongs in the 'genre' section. But yes, I did add a brief mention that Enmarch himself rejected synchronizing the texts based on his thoughts of the historicity so as not to misrepresent him, but what he says about obvious textual parallels I elaborated on because this is the section to do that. The whole point of adding his comments was to show how your challenge of this area of discussion being of no concern and only a fringe issue was invalid and that even though he may disagree, Enmarch still disucusses the parallels and still pointed readers to Becher's work and his webpage with the URL where the table is found for clarification - the same table you have tried every excuse in the book to hide from readers. I undid your inexcusable censorhsip of the table Wikipedia:Vandalism.
Do you have a point to make about Lloyd's website? How do your personal views on Nephilim and extraterrestrials play into the current discussion or invalidate other peoples' views on them? This is about the Ipuwer Papyrus, not your emotions about ETs. This just shows how you cant possibly be objective on this subject. Perhaps you should stick with secular topics? The authors of both the Ipuwer Papyrus and the Book of Exodus make clear they do believe in some transcendent being(s), the majority of people on earth do too and have all through history up to today, be it "angels," "gods" or "space aliens", including many famous scientists (Stephen Hawking recently warned against communicating with ETs, and that some may even exist in the center of stars. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece). Again, you think to make decisions of censorship based on your narrow, biased views, not on scholarship or facts - what you find to be hilarious means nothing. This just illustrates perfectly how you can't possibly be a fair arbiter on this topic, you bring far too much baggage to the discussion and constantly fall back on your personal opinions for censorship dressed up as enforcing wiki policies. What's so "hilarious" are the airs of self-importance you put on. You have proven that you should be the last person to weigh in on this issue I'm afraid.97.106.241.66 (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC) -edited
The contention that Becher isn't reliable is itself unreliable - where is the source for this assertion? Becher has been published by Artscroll and "He received his rabbinic ordination from the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem. Shortly thereafter, he started lecturing at Neve Yerushalayim, Darchei Binah[30] and Ohr Somayach College, remaining at the latter for 15 years. He also served as a senior lecturer at Ohr Somayach Thornhill for four years in Toronto, Ontario, from 1992 to 1996. [31]" - that's a quote from the wiki page with his info at Gateways (organization), the same page you, Dougweller are now suddenly interested in censoring, recently adding tags to make it look dubious (see discussion). Very interesting. At any rate, none of the data used from his article (the table) are actually Becher's own words, he simply compiled some textual parallels, which Enmarch cited, using direct quotes from the Papyrus and Exodus texts. I suspect if I were to do this myself, a contrived WP:OR would be employed to censor the information once again. This whole enterprise has become a history of abuse and mockery of wiki's guidelines to camouflage blatant censorship of the comparison table, which is completely neutral and put into context as far as scholarly assessments.
Dougweller said, "(to be specific, "Some of the texts in this area of interest that scholars with opposing views have weighed in their considerations" is not referenced" Actually it is already referenced in the article itself, such as Dr. Velikovsky and Prof. Garstang. There are also at least 3 scientists (Geologists) who also support Velikovsky's interpretation that the parallel texts are describing the self-same event; this will be incorporated into the article. Dougweller cont, "and my reading of 'some of the texts' is that there are others." Of course there are others, Enmarch himself mentions "frequent references to servants abandoning their subordinate status (e.g. Ipuwer 3.14–4.1; 6.7–8; 10.2–3)" See those numbers in parentheses? Those are chapters and verses of passages being discussed; notice how "some" of those cited verses are not included in the table, hence "SOME of the texts" is accurate. Please review the material before filing complaints based on elementary errors. 97.106.241.66 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The thuggish threat to block me for undoing your inexcusable vandalism is beyond the pale. The section with Enmarch's expanded statements about historicity does NOT belong in the section discussing the parallels, and it is already acknowledged in the section anyways for clarification purposes - extended discussion on historicity belongs in the section on GENRE. How hard is that to understand? 97.106.241.66 (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There are two issues about the table. One is that I still don't see evidence that Becher meets our criteria as a reliable source. Being a lecturer isn't enough, and you were claiming that Enmarch's mention of his website was enough earlier, something I think I've shown is wrong. The other is the WP:UNDUE issue, and I've now put an NPOV tag on the article and am taking it to WP:NPOVN.
As for the 2nd complaint, I may have been wrong about that. But your removal of Enmarch's comments and suggestion you are going to add more supporters of Velikovsky is going to make the article even more unbalanced.
If you don't want to be warned about WP:3RR there's an obvious solution. The bit I added from Enmarch is, as I've said, from the same section as the quote "The broadest modern reception of Ipuwer amongst non-Egyptological readers has probably been as

a result of the use of the poem as evidence supporting the Biblical account of the Exodus" which is the opening sentence of the section. Thus it belongs in the same section of our article. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You just keep repeating yourself saying "I don't think he's reliable" but you cannot provide a single shred of proof as to why. Because you had a giggle earlier at something the majority of the population and even top scientists believe in? That's why? Because of your minority views? Reality doesn't work like that. All you have proven with this is how you cannot possibly be objective on this issue and should stick to secular subjects. Becher is not just a lecturer, he is well-credentialed and published, again: Becher has been published by Artscroll and "He received his rabbinic ordination from the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem. Shortly thereafter, he started lecturing at Neve Yerushalayim, Darchei Binah[30] and Ohr Somayach College, remaining at the latter for 15 years. He also served as a senior lecturer at Ohr Somayach Thornhill for four years in Toronto, Ontario, from 1992 to 1996. [31]" - that's a quote from the wiki page with his info at Gateways (organization), the same page you, Dougweller are now suddenly interested in censoring, recently adding tags to make it look dubious (see discussion). Very interesting. At any rate, none of the data used from his article (the table) are actually Becher's own words, he simply compiled some textual parallels, which Enmarch cited, using direct quotes from the Papyrus and Exodus texts. I suspect if I were to do this myself, a contrived WP:OR would be employed to censor the information once again. This whole enterprise has become a history of abuse and mockery of wiki's guidelines to camouflage blatant censorship of the comparison table, which is completely neutral and put into context as far as scholarly assessments.
Including the expanded discussion by Enmarch should not be a problem, but you picked the wrong section to insert it making it one. This wiki page has a clear format with delineated sections, it would be reckless to violate that now because one source for some quotes has a different format; with that logic, all the different authors would now have all their separate quotes on different topics crammed into their original format along with other author's formats regardless of the section. That's not how WP works and you know it.
your removal of Enmarch's comments and suggestion you are going to add more supporters of Velikovsky is going to make the article even more unbalanced. My removal was to keep the page in order and prevent your inexcusable vandalism. Scientist's views are now considered "unbalanced" because they disagree with your highly biased and narrow views? The texts give extensive descriptions of geological phenomena and Geologists offer a specialized assessment that Egyptologists, Theologians and other scholars simply cannot provide. This is a multi-disciplinary issue because the text is multi-faceted, and all sides must be heard for a balanced assessment. Does that shock? And I love the contradictory excuses that first you need to censor the info because it's fringe (not enough support), then when more professionals are to be added in support, it's suddenly unbalanced. Simply astonishing! More proof you simply CANNOT be objective on this issue and are just desperately working every angle in a schizophrenic frenzy. And when I do add the views of these geologists later, it will at least be in the proper section as any decent person would do..assuming you haven't blocked me.
"If you don't want to be warned about WP:3RR there's an obvious solution" That's the kind of shameless in your face thuggery that is simply beyond the pale. Basically you can't argue your points with sound reasons or logic, so you're just going to censor the other person. That's as close to an admission that all those flimsy excuses, ever mutating and self-contradictory, they were all just a big smokescreen to censor information you don't like being discussed because of your own fringe views. Ironic that this is the kind of spirit of corruption institutionalized into society that Ipuwer was faulting for a broken world. In that respect, it is indeed timeless. 97.106.241.66 (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Becher may have credentials in the field of Jewish studies, but he has absolutely no background or even credibility in the field of Egyptology. The Ipuwer Papyrus is a classic example of an Egyptian Middle-Kingdom lament. Becher is simply unqualified to analyze this text, since he holds no degree relevant to ancient Egyptian literature. It comes as no surprise that real experts in the field, such as Richard B. Parkinson (2002) and William Kelly Simpson (1972) make absolutely no mention of the biblical Exodus in their discussion of the Ipuwer Papyrus. The weight given to Becher as opposed to people who are qualified to weigh in on this issue is quite unbalanced.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag[edit]

I perhaps should have added the tag earlier. The two sections above should show why I think there is a NPOV problem in this article. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think the key piece of information here is "The association of the Ipuwer Papyrus with the Exodus as describing the same event is generally rejected by Egyptologists". As Dougweller correctly writes above, how much space is devoted to a certain viewpoint is determined by the "market share" of that viewpoint in the reliable sources. The reliable sources here are egyptologists, and since we happen to have information that the "Exodus" link is not a mainstream idea it places a quite strict upper limit on how much space the exodus link gets in the article. IIRC most historians don't consider the Exodus to be a historical fact at all, which is another factor limiting the space it deserves here. On a practical note, I'd suggest that the Exodus idea would be discussed only in the Exodus chapter, not e.g. the Chronology or Genre chapters. The Exodus chapter should also be reformulated in a shorter form which makes plain that the Ipuwer-Exodus link is rejected by mainstream egyptologists. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Association With Pepi II Neferkare[edit]

For some reason the following information is being censored in violation of NPOV.

"Once the choice was made for the First Intermediate Period reasons were found to date it to the beginning of the period or even to the last years of Pepi II in the Old Kingdom." -- John van Seters, archaeologist, December 1964

"Ipuwer had been understood by earlier scholars to be an attack by Ipuwer on a ruler, probably Pepi II." -- R. J. Williams, professor, 198176.216.196.209 (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the New Encyclopaedia Britannica Volume 6, "Ipuwer ... served as a treasury official during the last years of Pepi II Neferkare (reigned c. 2294 - c. 2200 B.C.)."

http://books.google.com/books?id=9IRUAAAAMAAJ&q=%22pepi+ii+neferkare%22+ipuwer&dq=%22pepi+ii+neferkare%22+ipuwer&hl=en&ei=FW11TZ_VC5S2sAOLiPHJBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ 76.216.196.209 (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"H. Frankfort, in an article published in 1926, brought together in support of this interpretation, archaeological evidence for many Syrian related button seals which first appear in Egypt, according to Frankfort, during the Sixth Dynasty about the time of Pepi II .... On the basis of the button seals, he concludes that the value of the Admonitions of Ipuwer (which was thought to refer to the time of Pepi II) as an 'historical document' was established." -- Thomas L. Thompson, historian, 2002

http://books.google.com/books?id=lwrzapZYqFAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false 76.216.196.209 (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It is not censorship or a violation of NPOV to object to the use of an article by Van Seters which argues that the Admonitions were not written during the period of Pepi II but "late in the Thirteenth Dynasty" to support the suggestion that this was written as a plea to Pepi. You can use Van Seters to point out that this was an old view. Then we have "Ipuwer had been understood by earlier scholars to be an attack by Ipuwer on a ruler, probably Pepi II." But note 'had', and that this is taken out of context as the rest of the paragraph reads: "J. Spiegel reinterpreted this as an attack by a member of the ruling class at the end of the Old Kingdom on a supposed usurper who gained power after the revolution which toppled the Old Kingdom (Spiegel, 1950). This reconstruction failed to gain general support, but is still confidently maintained in an article Spiegel contributed to the most recent encyclopedia (Spiegel, 1975). Thompson is also pointing out that this is something believed in the early part of the 20th century. So yes, we can mention Pepi II as an old idea that "failed to get general support" so long as we don't suggest it's current thought in mainstream academia. I note that your quotes come from "http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2010/01/ipuwer-and-exodus.html", someone's blog trying to associate Ipuwer and the Exodus. By the way, crying censorship and deleting a reference where Lichtheim suggest it's fictitious is ironic. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal views and the opinions of Mr. Seters, the fact remains that multiple corroborating sources including Encyclopaedia Britannica refer to the association of the Ipuwer Papyrus with Pepi II Neferkare. If an academic disagrees with that fact, or a blog agrees with that fact, it is absolutely irrelevant.76.216.196.209 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It's hardly irrelevant when academics disagree. You are trying to force one viewpoint on these articles against our NPOV policy. And this is clearly to do with Pepi as a possible Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible#Pharaoh of the Exodus, for which you are still apparently unable to back without more than a couple of minor websites. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to Exclude Citations In Violation of NPOV[edit]

An attempt is being made to exclude the following citation because it associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Ipuwer Papyrus: Rothe, R.D., et al., Pharaonic Inscriptions From the Southern Eastern Desert of Egypt, Eisenbrauns, 2008 http://books.google.com/books?id=L-kijfFNiiMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false It contains the following quote which is being censored and suppressed in deliberate violation of NPOV, "There are many petroglyphs which depict ostriches and a few that depict giraffes. Butzer (1961) has used relative frequencies of the appearance of these animals in petroglyphs to gauge the changing climate. This evidence fits well with the three OK inscriptions, at least one of which is from the reign of Pepy II, which tell of digging wells (inscriptions DN28, ML01, ML12). While it is possible that these people could be simply pioneering a new route, it seems more likely that the old sources of water were drying up. Additional weight is given to the latter argument by a passage from a document known to Egyptologists as the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer,' which described conditions during the First Intermediate Period."

I would like to include this citation, however forces of censorship wouldn't like to include this for obvious reasons -- too much reality and truth for them to handle!76.216.196.209 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Pepi II Neferkare for problems with above IP. Inaccurate use of sources in one of several problems. --AnnekeBart (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/838. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Bible translations are copyright material. The juxtaposition of the two texts on the source page is also subject to copyright. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thera[edit]

I see mention of the Thera interpretation, and that it has been combined with the Exodus interpretation, but then I see no further treatment of the Thera interpretation, not even an explanation of what it is, while the Exodus interpretation has its own section. Has something gone missing? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What language was the papyrus written in?[edit]

Some basic info on the subject would be nice. Yes we all know the exodus actually took place, can we get back on topic now?75.82.59.19 (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It is probably Middle Kingdom Heiroglyphics. Google "Middle Kingdom papyrus" and compare the images. You might be interested in the documentary on Netflix called "Patterns of Evidence: Exodus". At 1:05:00 it discusses the Ipuwer Papyrus. Lehasa (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Picture Mirrored![edit]

Hieratic connoisseurs will recognize that the picture shown is a mirror image of the papyrus, i.e. right and left are interchanged! Will somebody please correct that!--Nfr-Maat (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The Exodus of the Jews from Egypt[edit]

About this removal and this one - IP address, would you please state you objections here? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel empowered that Wikipedia feels so threatened by the evidence of the Ipuwer Papyrus that it has to change the subject – the Ipuwer Papyrus – to discredit the whole Biblical/Jewish account of the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. This subject is well covered under that title and there is no need to repeat it here. If Wikipedia feels so threatened by this Papyrus then there MUST be something in it. Thank you Wikipedia for your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.111.56 (talkcontribs) 12:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Please, do not pull out non-existent conspiracies which are violations of Wikipedia policy (and which are the reason your previous comment was removed). Ipuwer was once considered a reliable source for the events happened during the First Intermediate Period of Egypt. Someone has also believed to read in it some references to the Exodus, and subsequently it became an anchor for the supporters of its historicity. Actual consensus is that Ipuwer is a literary work about themes well known by ancient Egyptians such as the struggle between order and chaos and the pseudo-prophecy of a future king who will triumph over chaos (an important precedent being the Prophecy of Neferti). Since Ipuwer has no longer any historical reliability, it cannot be used by supporters of the Exodus' historicity as well. IMO the contested parts fits perfectly in the article, although it's somewhat understandable that someone, in the name of his beliefs, is disturbed by this prose; but this is the reality of the facts. Anyway, you should wait for Jytdog's reply. Khruner (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply.

"Actual consensus" is that Bible critics and atheists (this includes most Wikipedia editors) are deeply disturbed by the message of the Ipuwer as it undermines their beliefs by raising too many questions. "This is the reality of the facts" as per my message above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.111.56 (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please base your comments about Wikipedia's articles on the policies and guidelines. I'll remove future posts that just give your opinion. Do see WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-ten-plagues.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 02:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)