Talk:Pepi II Neferkare

The Ipuwer Papyrus

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) 23:34, 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he concludes that the value of the Admonitions of Ipuwer (which was thought to refer to the time of Pepi II) as an 'historical document' was established."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 (in the Ipuwer article) a reference where Lichtheim suggest it's fictitious is ironic. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

76.216.196.209 (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Van Seters' personal opinions are irrelevant. What is being suppressed here is any connection between Pepi II Neferkare and the Ipuwer Papyrus mentioned in various sources including Encyclopaedia Britannica.76.216.196.209 (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is going to be here, it needs to show clearly that this is a disputed subject, that the date and even the purpose of the Admonitions isn't known, that it may even be fiction, and your edit doesn't do that. I've taken this to WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rothe et al clearly associate Pepi II Neferkare with Ipuwer Papyrus, "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." -- Rusell D. Rothe, et al., Pharaonic Inscriptions From the Southern Eastern Desert of Egypt, Eisenbrauns, 200876.216.196.209 (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.196.209 (talk)

4.2 Kiloyear Event Signifies Beginning of First Intermediate Period During Pepi II Neferkare's Rein

An attempt is being made to censor the following fact, "The end of the reign of Pepi II led into the First Intermediate Period" http://books.google.com/books?id=jF2jq5JrkS4C&pg=PA302&dq=pepi+ii+neferkare+first+intermediate+period&hl=en&ei=p96DTam6E4-0sAO-m5WHAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=pepi%20ii%20neferkare%20first%20intermediate%20period&f=false 76.216.196.209 (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rothe et al (2008) associate Pepi II Neferkare with the Ipuwer Papyrus when they write and I quote, "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." -- Rusell D. Rothe, 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 76.216.196.209 (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you've added this more or less properly to this article, but you need to provide a page number. And then replace it at the papyrus number with the p. number Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dispute

I have been asked to look into the dispute on this article. However, it appears that the issue is being appropriately discussed here on the talkpage, wider community input has been sought, and a solution has been found. It appears that everything is as it should be, and the open, collaborative ethos of Wikipedia has been satisfactorily followed. My only comments would be: 1) It is helpful when making an enquiry on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to title the query with the article or source under question rather than the generic "Are these reliable sources?" - this helps others to trace the discussion. And 2) When looking through the history of this article there have been a number of reverts of IP editors - does the article need semi-protecting? This would mean User:76.216.196.209 having to register in order to continue editing - but that is a simple matter, that doesn't even require an email address. SilkTork *^YES! 09:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've humbly apologised at RSN for a really stupid section header, I hate headings like that and there I go adding one. Thanks for you comments. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I just noticed that large sections of the article were lifted verbatim from "Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt By MobileReference" which is on google books [1]. I think this may also have found its way onto other pages? This clearly a case of plagiarism. --AnnekeBart (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You have this backwards. Mobile Reference's Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt is largely an aggregation of Wikipedia articles. Unless you can establish conclusively that its publication predates the appearance of any corresponding text on Wikipedia you should assume it's the former that has used the latter as a source, rather than the other way round.

David Wilson (talk · cont)

Thanks for pointing that out. The other problem was that the text was not sourced (at least no inline sources). But I was not aware that the Encyclopedia was to some extent pulled form Wikipedia. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See here. In short: MobileReference produces ripped-off crap. Whenever you spot something by them, kill it with fire. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism99.43.165.207 (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"He is mentioned in inscriptions in Byblos in ancient Palestine.[13]" This statement is incorrect and misleading. There was no "Palestine" in any form at the time of Pepi II. There were the Phoenicians in the Levant (Byblos) and the Cananites in what is now Israel. The Philistines did not settle in the region until circa 16th century BCE. The term "palestine" was coined by the Romans (a corruption of the word "phillistine) after the conquest of Judea in the first century CE in an attempt to eradicate the Jewish people's connection with the land. The Phillistines were destroyed and eradicated as a people by the Assyrians in the seventh century BCE.

Reworded, linked Byblos, gave it a new source as I couldn't find this in my copy of Shaw. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand this. Bybos is a Phoenicain city and does not lie in Palestine - quite aside from Palestine not having exited in the third millennium BC. Reader33333 (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Signed Reader33333.

That's a matter of definition. Reliable academic sources, including the Encyclopedia of Egyptian Archaeology, use the term for that area during the Old Kingdom, eg "Such evidence in southern Palestine is missing during the 2nd Dynasty, however, and active contact may have broken off by then, as the sea trade with Lebanon intensified". The source clearly implies that's where Byblos is located, but as it isn't explicit I've removed it. See Time periods in the Palestine region. It's an historical region. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Uprising of the Hungry

There was a revolt during his reign, apparently. Anyone know about this? --عبد المؤمن (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Purports/ Reports

Dougweller - I admit to being slightly baffled by your recent edit summary about the synonyms "purport" and "report". As far as I'm aware my recent edit didn't change any words. Can you clarify what you mean please? You are, however, right about removing the link to the blog. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, looking back I'm baffled, consider me trouted. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. No offence taken. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification (suggestion)

"Pepi II (also Pepy II; 2284 BC – after 2247 BC, probably either c. 2216 or c. 2184 BC[2][note 1])"

Don't want to insert my edit into the middle of some previously resolved dispute, but the above phrase dating Pepi II's reign could be rewritten thus:

Pepi II (also Pepy II; 2284 BC – after 2247 BC, probably c. 2216, possibly as late as c. 2184 BC[2][note 1]).

As presently written, it is needlessly confusing. (I know, I know, welcome to Egyptology.) GeeBee60 (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Minor linguistic explanatory addition maybe?

The beginning of the second paragraph starts as:

"He was traditionally thought to be the son of Pepi I and Queen Ankhesenpepi II but the South Saqqara Stone annals record that Merenre had a minimum reign of 11 years."

This is very confusing, at least to me, and it took me a little bit to understand that Pepi II cannot be Pepi I's son because, as it says, Pepi II began his reign at age 6, whereas his predecessor (as recorded in the annals), Merenre, reigned for 11 years. And there were no coregencies (apparently?). So perhaps, a better way to phrase the sentence would be:

"He was traditionally thought to be the son of Pepi I and Queen Ankhesenpepi II but the South Saqqara Stone annals record that Merenre, who succeeded Pepi I, had a minimum reign of 11 years, so Pepi II, who began his reign at age 6, was born 5 years after Pepi I died."

Or something of the like (I feel the end of my version is a bit wordy)? Cornelius (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)