Jump to content

Talk:Ramesses II/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Ramesses II

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 17:50, 25 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2

Request for comments: Ramses/Rameses/Ramesses

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt#Ramses/Rameses/Ramesses. –Hajor 18:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Correction=

It's not the Battle of Kadesh (see comments there at talk) but the Second Battle of Kadesh R. II lead. His dad, Pepi I lead the first. I've changed the text to reflect this correction. --FourthAve 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The Pharaoh of the Exodus

This section states that "The identification is problematic for several reasons", but only one reason is given. Someone might want to do something about this. Tim 23:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like one of the reasons has been deleted along the way, so I have reinstated it.

Shouldn't it be titled "The Pharoah Of Exodus"?

167.135.61.134

No, that's fine - "Exodus" is a book of the bible; "the Exodus" was a historical event. That wording is fine. CastorQuinn 09:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramesses or Ramses

It is Ramesses in the title and called Ramses in the actual page. Make up your mind!!! I think there should be a decision about which name to call him by.

Darth Cow

This article is now called "Rameseses II" although the preferred spelling in the articles is "Ramesses II". Shouldn't this inconsistency be sorted out? Cheers, Jacklee 13:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Death

How did he die?

He died from an infection behined the one ear and severe tooth decay. He probably spent his last days in agony. Harioris 11:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

V0.5 Nom

This article was nominated for V.05 but I failed it because it has inline citation and a mess in refeneing and I don't consider further reading as one, also feels like it's too short, I'm sure it can be expanded. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I just un-inlined the citations, although there are many that probably need to be added as well Markh 11:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

GA status

It has been suggested that this article be de-listed from WP:GA, the main reason is that the lead section. Egypt from either 1279 BC to 1213 BC or 1290 BC to 1224 BC for a total of 66 Years these two sets of dates need to be addressed. The article only supports the 1279 BC to 1213 BC. Please clarify the other dates Gnangarra 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week, what do we do about this? :/ Homestarmy 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
With no knowledgable editors monitoring, actively maintianing this article I think it should be delisted, lets wait until after 25th, two weeks to respond seems reasonible Gnangarra 03:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed dates

I have removed these dates 1290 BC to 1224 BC from the article as the article only supported the other dates, I personally have no knowledge beyond this article that can support this edit). If this edit is an error please rectify the changes and cite reasons..Gnangarra 03:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have cited this date (and a few other things), there are other dates that exist for his reign, so they should probably be added back in, when they can be given a citation Markh 21:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I just learned that there is a question about the chronology of this well-known Egyptian ruler, which threatens its Good article status.I'd like a few days to write up some text explaining the issues around providing Ramesses definite dates. (See Egyptian chronology for an example of the material I'll be using.) -- llywrch 01:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
GA status has been retain as User:Markh had already addressed the major issue and indicated that further edits were ongoing. That being said the article would benefit from the efforts of more than one knowledgable editor thank you. Gnangarra 06:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Automatic peerreview ...

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[1]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, last year might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[2]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[3]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [4]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh 20:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[1]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[3]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [4]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh 20:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Left-Handedness

The list of famous left-handed people includes Ramesses, but this article has no mention of his left-handedness. Anyone have more details? -Nulbyte 04:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On the walls of the temples and other monuments he is often depicted holding objects (burning incences,ankhs and other things ) in his left hand.

RED HAIR?

Any RELIABLE source of Ramses II having red hair? I've seen this claim here and around the internet but couldn't find any credible source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.219.138.180 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Mummification can turn hair red. I have no doubt that his hair may be now red, but I do doubt that he was born with it, and I think you have indeed stumbled over a viral internet rumor. Thanatosimii 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramesses II was indeed a red head from microscopic examination of hos hair fibres. (see Bob Brier, The Encyclopedia of Mummies, Checkmark Books, 1998., p.57) Brier may have indulged in idle speculation over the so-called 'murder of Tutankhamun' but he is a first rate anatomist at Long Island University. This establishes that Ramesses II's family came from the Levant and migrated to the Delta region which was this king's family home base in Egypt. Leoboudv 06:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Some things are confusing. This mummy is above average height for an ancient Egyptian and has a hooked nose when there are no images of Ram II bearing a hooked nose. Pharoahs often shaved their head bald to accommodate their royal headress. Did these locks of red hair grow after death? It's written here in Wiki that the mummy is Berber which means that Seti I would also have had to be Berber when a drawing from his tomb www.catchpenny.org/race.html shows the Libyan (Berber) distinctly different from the Egyptian of which he considered himself. The mummy was discovered in 1881, not from the royal tomb, but from another burial sight as well as a (as reported) decapitated mummy of Seti I. The Berbers learned to write from the Phoenicians around 1000 BC, 300 years after the Rule of Ram II. Hardly in time to intellectually rule Egypt in the 19th Dynasty. Libyans in fact ruled in the 22nd Dynasty. Speaking of the 25th Dynasty Petrie wrote: W.M. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt - Part Three, (1896), p. 308 states: ". . . . the kings of Napata Nubia represented the old civilization of Upper Egypt is clear; and it is probably that they were actually descended from the high priest of Amen, who were the rightful successors of the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties. So far, then, as hereditary rights go, they were the true kings of Egypt, rather than the mob of Libyan chiefs who had filtered in the Delta, and who tried to domineer over the Nile valley from that no-man's land." If in fact this is a Berber mummy as stated here in Wiki, then it cannot be the remains of Rameses II. The blood line and time line don't match up. Go to the picture section below and notice how vastly different this mummy is from any of Rameses II images. Tom 07/21/07

This site, PBS NOVA, shows Rameses II and Seti I mummies, and others. here. Hair and nails do continue to grow after death. - Jeeny Talk 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently several inches in the case of this mummy. Notice this did not occur on the example of Seti I or Hatshepsut www.crystalinks.com/hatshepsut607a.jpg. In their cases, what was bald stayed bald after death. Tom 07/23/07

My cousin who is a mortician told me about the hair and nails, but they don't grow forever more. Maybe mummification has something to do with hair not growing afterwards. I don't know. Or, maybe they were naturally bald in real life? I'm just guessing, though. - Jeeny Talk 21:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Though relevant, the bald issue is not the most comment worthy issue here. Tom 07/31/07

Hair grows after death because skin dries up and turns into a lighter layer. This means a layer of skin may lower from the original measure to a fraction and that makes hair and nails appear to be longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.86.16 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Can somenone add more pictures to the article, aspecialy the building and monuments part?

There's plenty of pics freely available for use on Wikimedia Commons, under the category Ramesses II, see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ramses_II. Just make sure that what you use goes with the text, though you can also create "galleries" of like images, see the bottom of the Brussels sprout entry for an example. Cheers! Captmondo 13:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is another page undergoing a lot of vandalism from unregistered IP addresses. Another which springs to mind is Moses. Isn't there anything we can do about this? Robin S 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Length of article

This article is now massive and rambling. Can the works and other stuff that were taken out (again) and put in the articles which already exist for them, this avoids repeating the information and allows this article to flow properly. Markh 11:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

This article has been renamed from Rameseses II to Ramesses II as the result of a move request.--Stemonitis 10:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Rameseses II → Ramesses II — Incorrect rename incorrectly reverted Markh 08:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support – I'm not an Egyptologist and so don't know if there is some special reason why the spelling "Rameseses II" was chosen for the article title, but that appears to be the only place in the article where that spelling is used. Elsewhere in the article, the preferred spelling appears to be "Ramesses II". Unless some explanation is provided as to why "Rameseses II" is an appropriate spelling, in my view the article should be moved to "Ramesses II". Cheers, Jacklee 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support – the most common spellings are Ramesses and Ramses, I don't know why was it renamed to this name. – Alensha talk 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support as per above. All the other pharaohs with the same name are spelled "Ramesses" in wikipedia why not "Ramesses II"? ArthurWeasley 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support this king's name was either Ramesses II or Ramses II as Encyclopaedia Brittanica has him. Definitely not Rameseses II which is plain confusing and definitely wrong! You can bet the people at Brittanica--who hate Wikipedia--are laughing at this situation. I hope Markh can find a way to correct this honest mistake as soon as is feasible. Leoboudv 06:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support this is a very unplesent situation for Wikipedia, and because Rameses II. is certanly not Rameseses this mistake should be fixed. Everyone who looks right now at the article can think of us as idiots because it looks like we do not know even how to write his name properly, but in fact we do. Egyptzo 09:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. I don't know how exactly this name got changed, but it doesn't even seem like it was done intentionally, so it really ought to be able to snowball this. However, if I'm wrong and someone does suggest Rameseses is right, first I would like to say that no sources of note (and probably no sources at all) use this name, and secondly that the name in egyptian, r` ms sw, does not posess enough s's to make Rameseses, unless the terminal s comes from greek the same way we have Thutmosis, Amenophis, Amenemes, and Sesostris. In this case, however, we would only be allowed to use the formal greek name if we even wanted to, and furthermore, we simply don't use the greek names on wikipedia. All of this to say, there is no good reason for this name to remain. Thanatosimii 19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support I know, I'm jumping on the bandwagon. But I've never seen this variant of his name. When I noticed this spelling, I immediately came to the Talk page to find out why it was being used, & found everyone else just as puzzled as I. (I'd say at this point, five days without a "no" vote, the next person to find this discussion ought to just move it.) -- llywrch 01:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

There was an old discussion regarding the article names of all the Ramses/Rameses articles. Somebody should find that and link to it. Gene Nygaard 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • [1] Old discussion
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ramses 11

King of Ancient Egypt (1099- 1069 BCE), the 10th and last ruler of the 20th Dynasty. His name was not Ramses, this was a name/title he took when assuming power. His reign was disturbed by civil wars. It was principally fought between the central authorities and the army of the high priest of Amon, Amenhotep, in Karnak. The high priest was not the victor of these tensions; with his fall Thebes disintegrated into anarchy. Herihor would emerge as new high priest of Amon and is often listed as one of the 20th Dynasty kings, since he took the title of king. There was also a war against the viceroy of Nubia. During the reign of Ramses 11, large parts of Egypt was lost, and towards the last 10 years he ruled over an area no larger than the Nile Delta (Lower Egypt). The consequence was that two new dynasties were formed, one in Upper and one in Lower Egypt. One could say that with Ramses 11 the Egypt of great dynasties comes to an end. Ramses had a tomb built in the Valley of the Kings, but as he lost Upper Egypt he was never buried here.

Found By Samantha

I'm concerned about the appearance of Rameses II mummy. His grandfather Rameses' bust displayed here in Wikipedia displays the image of a black African. Found in his fathers tomb was an image showing Egyptians and Nubians as black Africans. The mummy has a pointed chin unlike any image of himself, his father or grandfather. His mummy was also not found in his tomb and not said to be discovered until the 1880s when there was great misrepresentation of Egyptian mummies. I wonder if the mummy's a fraud. Tom 07/04/07

Now this has gotten truely ridiculous... Once again I remind you talk pages exist only to discuss changes to the article. This isn't a forum. You're not allowed to wonder here. Do that on a forum. Those are the rules, which you have been told very many times. Thanatosimii 08:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Following is an entry from the Rameses I article (in Wikipedia) that is in the same spirit of the entry I made. I hope that you don't find them both ridiculous: I would not say that the identity of the Niagara mummy was conclusively established. From what I know, they established that it was a royal mummy of the 19th dynasty, but some Egyptologists would not agree with that. Who determined conclusively that it was the mummy of Ramesses I? If there is no source for this statement, it should go, lest we mislead our readers. --Ghirla -трёп- 20:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC) I have a legitimate concern. Please take time to compare the mummy with other images to at least raise a question. Tom 07/05/07

Talk pages exist only to discuss changes to the article. This isn't a forum. Suggest how you want this article changed or stop filling it with your pov. Thanatosimii 18:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

glyphs

Well, looks like GA without full glyphs of titulary or translations ... if someone is able or willing, can they supply the glyphs, and hopefully translation will be forthcoming. --Cliau 13:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated details

Half of this article is already in other articles. Please stop replacing the deleted text in the Abu Simbel section. Markh 09:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There is now too much on Kadesh, as we have an article on that as well! Markh (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Rework of article

Hi, I was going revisit this article and try and get it back under control (in my opinion). I think that the article is too long, with parts that should be in other articles (ie. Battle of Kadesh), and the content here reduced. I what to split out the 'Pharoah of the Exodus bit, as the article says he isn't it, but then goes on for a further 4 paragraphs about it. Also a tidy up of references (some are footnotes and some are references) is needed. Any comments? Markh (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

After a quick look, I had the following thoughts:
  • The Religion and festivals section seems odd; probably not the place for a description of the festival itself but rather integrate the idea that R II used festivals for political purposes into the rest of the article.
  • More info on legacy, including his immediate legacy with respect to policies and personal cult, but also the lasting legacy in the modern imagination.
  • More on the cultural milieu, including the political and economic situation surrounding his reign both before and after.
  • Probably should include just 1-2 paragraphs on possibly being the pharaoh of the exodus.
  • Trim down external links! After having done the refs, further reading, and layout on ancient Egypt up to FA specifications, I can help with formatting of these.
  • Probably should make sure to include pictures of his most famous monuments (not going overboard, of course).
  • I remember reading that he's been called "the great chiseler," and I'm sure he has other fitting epithets, so these ought to be worked in. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have left {{Fact}} tags on the article where I feel it needs it, and I have also left a list of suggestions below as part of a GA Sweeps program. Although the text below indicates seven days, I have no problem granting extensions if work is continuing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2008 (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.

  • I have left {{Fact}} tags where I feel the article requires them. This is a mimimum to be honest, but I am sure that editors with a better knowledge of Ancient Egypt than I have will be more able to identify where references are required, especially if the article undergoes the overhaul suggested above.
  • The writing standard is extremely low. I mean no offence, but to illustrate the problem I have given some examples below. These are only examples and I'm afraid the entire article has to undergo major copyediting (probably several times) before it is at GA standard.
  • "His only known sibling was Princess Tia, though in the case of Henutmire, one of his Great Royal Wives, she was the younger sister of Ramesses."
  • "The Sherden people came from the coast of Ionia or south-west Turkey, more likely Ionia."
  • "shortly afterwards many Sherden captives are seen in the Pharaoh's body-guard, where they are conspicuous by their helmets with horns with a ball projecting from the middle, their round shields and the great Naue II swords with which they are depicted in inscriptions of the Battle with the Hittites at Kadesh. Ramesses would soon incorporate these skilled mercenaries into his army where they were to play a pivotal role at the battle of Kadesh."
  • "The Bedouins were not telling the truth and were of course employed by the Hittite king in order to make a trap for the Egyptians." (here it appears that the article takes it for granted that one should not trust bedouins).
  • "The battle almost turned into a disaster as Ramesses was initially tricked by two Bedouin spies in the pay of the Hittites to believe that Muwatalli and his massive army were still 120 miles north of Kadesh." (Just two lines after the above sentance we are told the exact same thing again).
  • "called, by the Egyptians, Mwš3nt." (was 3 a letter in ancient egypt?)
  • "Ramesses, now facing a desperate fight for his life, summoned up his courage, called upon his god Amun, and fought valiantly to save himself." (sounds a bit Wilbur Smith to me)
  • Wikilinking is a problem, for example Kadesh is linked at least three times in as many short paragraphs, and the links in "Ramesses formed an army of four divisions; the Amon, Re, Ptah and the Seth" go to the wrong places. These links should go to the divisions (if such articles exist), not the gods the divisions were named for.
  • As mentioned above, some sections (i.e. Battle of Kadesh) are much too long. I would also add that some seem much too short, for example there is little development on his family.

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) 11:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks for that. Markh (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have now finished the {{Fact}} tags and I have a few other points which should be addressed.
  • The discussion of the Bible needs reworking, probably into a single sourced sentance which discusses the debate on this issue.
  • The Popular Legacy is a list and shoul be totally reworked into prose, or given the size of the article, perhaps given its own article.

Hope this gives food for thought. As long as work is continuing I'll be happy to leave this up and all the best to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked the legacy section (and the Exodus section) and savaged the Battle of Kadesh part - the actual article is great, so it doesn't need to be all here, just the results I feel. Thanks for doing the above Markh (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Auto peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1000 tons, use 1000 tons, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1000&nbsp;tons.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), harbour (B) (American: harbor), meter (A) (British: metre), paralyze (A) (British: paralyse), traveled (A) (British: travelled), skillful (A) (British: skilful), curb (A) (British: kerb).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • “In the year [of] 1255”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite a bit copied from other Wikipedia articles

I don't know how others feel, but quite a bit of this is copied from other Wikipedia articles by Egyptzo, and that is actually copyvio if no link is made.Doug Weller (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review

Hi, I reviewed this article for GA sweeps and left a list on the talk page of issues that needed addressing. This list appears to have been archived before it was completed (partly my fault, I have been immensely busy recently), but since the work has not been finished I should demote the article. The list is still present in the archive linked to above and I'll leave a few days in case anyone is willing or able to come back to this (I notice that there are still several unaddressed [citation needed] tags around for starters). If nothing has happened by next week I will have to delist however.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to cleanup the article - and have removed the "citation needed" tags (obviously also hidden the facts that need citation) 194.223.156.1 (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


I have reviewed the article once more, and left comments below. As long as the new or outstanding #[citation needed] tags are dealt with, I will let this article pass. Its a bit shaky in places, with some poor prose, patchy sourcing and a tendency to not explain itself to people without background knowledge, and I recommend a thorough going over by someone with good background knowledge. It will pass however as long as the tags are cleaned up.

  • I have replaced or added a few [citation needed] tags where they are necessary, although sourcing needs to be increased right through the article. There is also an outstanding [who?] tag.
  • The following passage "As king, Ramesses II led several expeditions north ... also where the Temple of Seti was located." looks like it is probably more suited to the lead than the family life section.
  • "There must have been a naval battle somewhere near the river-mouths" - The River Nile? If so, say so.
  • "and the ally of Ramesses." - Its not clear exactly who this is.
  • All measurements need to be given in metric and imperial figures.
  • Make sure all web sources are properly cited, with title, publication, author, date written and last access date.

Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just realised that I may have come across too harsh above. While it is true that the article has some significant problems in places, I have noticed and am impressed by the huge improvements it has made in the last few weeks. At one point I was ready to fail this and now it is only two ((fact}} tags from retaining GA status. Well done to all concerned. Yes, there is a lot of work for the future, but congratulations for its current state.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramesses the grave exchanger

When I visited in Luxor quite a long time ago, our group was lucky to have our guide one of the leading Egyptian Egyptolog. He was really exellent in pointing out some details missing from general knowledge outside Egypt I suppose. Some examples to follow:

  • Ramesses stole his father´s grave (tomb) in the Valley of Deaths (Valley of Kings). He tranferred his father´s Seti mummie out of his grave an replaced it to be his own grave. But the workers become so fed up to this that they did not clean the name Seti from all places where it was shown in hieroglyfs.
  • Then he ordered to cover his name of the (then under construction) new grave which, in fact was idented to be smaller than his father´s grave. But even this was not done properly and his name can still be seen in the hieroglyfs.
  • The little known original side covered picture of Ramesses is shown at Luxor Karnaki Temple wall. Not easy to find, but there it still is just nicely out of the sight behind one corner in the wall. Ramesses is shown with full erection of his penis. The lenght is 28 cm. By the time when Ramesses ruled the average lenght of ordinary sons of Nile was little more than 153 cm and the average length of women was just over 145 cm. Ramesses was 196 cm long, a great bull to a ancient time man indeed. No wonder that he was told to have had at least 200 children, most of them with slave women of different ethnic backround from nearly yellow-white hear white skin to curly heared deepest of deepist dark skin. Quite a group of descendats without any change to be a Farao (Pharae) of Upper and Lower Egyptlands.
  • Nobody can say how the language which the ancient Egyptians spoke sounded and how it was pronounced. The written language with symbols of hieroglyfes is well known thanks to transliterated hieroglyfes to Greek language, but the spoked language remains a mystery. Our Dr used as an funny example of other language word "mukkelismakkelis" (to fell upside down) to describe the position of ancient Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt compared to present geography comparing it to the naming of Finno Ugrian to Lower, Mid, and Upper starting from downstream of river (Nile) going upward the river toward its source waters despite the air directions. (Effects of Mika Waltari`s novel Sinuhe the Egyptean).
  • The two whistling or whispering statues (Kolosses of Memnon) which are on the route to the Valleys of Deaths were spoiled not to whistle or whisper any more by the visiting Greek tourists by the time when Herodotos visited in Theba. In one is written in Greek writing tourist souvenir marks as Filippos love Euripedeia, Achilleus from Athens was here, Midos from Tyros, Balibarnab from Babylon, etc. This in 420 BC. Offical version is the earthquake which caused the damages to statues.
  • Most of the grave diggers in the Valleys of Death (Valey of Kings and Valley of Queens) were from nearby village. During the nights they become grave robbers. They sold robbed treasures as souvenirs to visiting Babylonian, Greek, Syrian, Persian and Phoennican tourists. The priests of Ammon-Ra temple knew about this and took their share of the rewards, and let this habit continue from fathers to the sons. Ones one farao decided to stop this habit and all the villagers were senected to death. But the next village which was selected to continue the working adopted the same method.
  • When Ramesses died at very old age above his 90 th birthday his lenght had been falling down due sickness more than 20 centimetres from 196 cm as recorded at his best manhood age. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.116.245 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

alternatively transcrivfasffbed as Ramses

I noticed this line:

alternatively transcrivfasffbed as Ramses

anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.249.6 (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

I think the style of this article is more like a "story-biography" 59.60.2.33 (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Undid vandalism

on Tue 16-12-08. Suggest lock of page.

77.116.116.113 (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC) xymx


More vandalism cleanup

Removed vandalism which stated Rameses II was gay - since he had over 50 kids, might need a little bit of evidence for that particular claim LudBob (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

built porn stores?

established the internet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.139.210 (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nose

I read in a mummy book as a kid that his nose was stuffed with peppercorns to keep its structure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.180.76 (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death of Merneptah

In the section "Interpretation of reign - Pharaoh of the Exodus" it is mentioned, without proper quotation, about Ramesses II's son Merneptah, that "Research has shown that this Pharaoh's cause of death was drowning." However, in Merneptah's article it is specifically mentioned, in the section "Mummy", that the Pharaoh "Merneptah suffered from arthritis and arteriosclerosis in old age and died of natural causes after a reign which lasted for nearly a decade.", with a quotation from "Grafton Elliot Smith, The Royal Mummies, Cairo (1912), pp. 65-70". So I believe it would be best if the claim that "Research has shown that this Pharaoh's cause of death was drowning." be removed from the Ramesses II's article. Zephirothmx (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the following extract from Peter Clayton's Chronicle of the Pharaohs explains the confusion nicely:
Merneptah's mummy was not found in the tomb, parts of which may have been open from antiquity, neither was it in the great cache of royal mummies discovered in 1881. His absence led many Biblical scholars to underline the fact that he must have perished in the Red Sea; his tomb was merely a cenotaph since the body was not recovered. These arguments were confounded in 1898 when the mummy of Merneptah appeared amongst the 16 bodies found in the royal mummy cache concealed in the tomb of Amenhotep II (KV 35). (p. 158)
So it's Victorian-era Biblical scholars jumping to conclusions when they say that he must have drowned. So you can safely remove the line saying he died of drowning. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cocaine and tobacco

There are several facts about finding trace amounts of cocaine and tobacco inside the mummy of Ramesess II. Is this fact to be considered?

Cocaine and tobacco didn't even exisit in Egypt until well after 1500AD. So, no.216.68.200.5 (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

study

I have been studying bible since i can remember and well i now happened to find it more interesting for the simple fact that ramsses II it seemed not to be that of the bible so ( have you searched for mass graves and cementaries for slaves and stuff relating for slaves ) it is just one asppect i seemed to remember about well...mass graves in those areas have been in many instances so can you do some word spreading..... thanĄk you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.165.115.129 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just fyi, over the years over a dozen pharaohs have been nominated as being the possible Pharaoh of the Exodus. Ramesses II has long been a "favourite", but is not necessarily the most-likely candidate. Might want to check out the wiki-linked article for more info on that if interested. Captmondo (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pi-Ramesses and Pithom

There seems to be conflicting (that, or not clearly explained) information in various Wiki articles. This article speaks of Ramesses II building Pi-Ramesses, however, a number of other Wiki articles (such as Ramesses I, and Pharaohs in the Bible) each say that Pi-Ramesses and Pithom were built during the reign of Horemheb by order of Pariˁamessu (id est, Ramesses I — grandfather of # II — before # I was elevated to the kingship at Horemheb's death) while he was mayor of that region. — al-Shimoni (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm, Pithom seems to be 7th century BCE. [2] and [3] - some inadequate research in some of our articles it seems. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback on 18th Jan 2011

I removed the hiero as the full titulary in hieros is already part of the side panel at the top of the article - just click on 'show' next to the words 'royal titulary'. Hope you're not offended - it's just that it's duplication and I couldn't see why that image was relevant to a section on religious impact.

Tattooed Librarian (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 62.40.60.208, 12 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change the line that says he was below average height for an ancient egyptian. he was 5ft 7 which was tall for the time so it shoudl say he was above average height for an ancient egyptian. Its under the heading MUMMY 62.40.60.208 (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Mhiji (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

BC/AD and BCE/CE

WP:MOSNUM states, "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation, but not both in the same article," and "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." However, around this time last year user Graysie (talk · contribs) began to change the notation without first reaching consensus. See edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ramesses_II&diff=365318289&oldid=365260487
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ramesses_II&diff=365318543&oldid=365318398
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ramesses_II&diff=365318398&oldid=365318289

This particular editor seemed to have only one agenda in mind, and continued the disruptive editing of other articles. He has since been banned indefinitely. Because the BC/AD notation has been used in this article since its beginning, and because there is no compelling reason for the notation change, I've reverted Graysie's edits. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ozymandias

  • The source for the claim that Ramesses II is also known as Ozymandias doesn't really make a strong association between the two. I suggest that another source be found or the item be removed from the article entirely. bwmcmaste (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/1C*.html para 47 might do.Ewx (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Common name

Per WP:COMMONNAME the most well-known name of a person should be used. So surely the article should be named Ramses II instead of Ramesses II. The Encyclopedia Britannica lists him as Ramses II. SpeakFree (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Use in EB hardly demonstrates popularity, unless they have the same policy.Ewx (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well both a google and a gscholar search suggest that Ramses is more common than Ramesses. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Er, so is there any reason not to move this page to "Ramses II"? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

90 less than 40?

This sentence under the "Life" heading doesn't make sence, anyone have correct numbers?

"The writer Terence Gray stated in 1923 that Ramesses II had as many as 20 sons and 20 daughters; more recent scholars, however, believe his offspring, while numerous, were far fewer, somewhere around 90." no he had 100 children and 100 wives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.211.140 (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Well, actually this is just better closed and reopened if needed to make sure that we do the move (if it happens) to the best name. An immediate renomination for this one is OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ramesses II → Rameses II – This move was discussed by a few editors in the section immediately above. This proposal is basically a spelling change and is based on WP:COMMONNAME. Both spellings are certainly used often, with "Ramesses II" actually having more google hits (possibly due to WP and its mirrors). But searches in google scholar and google books indicate that "Rameses II" is the more common spelling in articles and books at least, which makes me think that a rename would be a good idea. Britannica uses "Rameses II" "Ramses II". To the best of my knowledge, this is not a WP:ENGVAR issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Support as per my comments above. But you mean Britannica uses Ramses II (which they do)? SpeakFree (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Er, yes, sorry—there is that third spelling, "Ramses II". That is the Britannica spelling, as you say. An argument could be made for that spelling, too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment (or really, a Question): Will this mean that all of the other pharaohs named Ramesses/Rameses will need to be renamed as well, not just Ramesses II? Captmondo (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I suppose case-by-case it should be looked at. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Support: A Google search with "-wiki" gives about 50% more for the proposed name. It also has a slight edge on Google Books. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Support: This is the first time I've ever seen it spelt with two esses. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Red-faced comment. Sorry, I just now realized that "Ramses II" is by far the most common form over both "Rameses II" and "Ramesses II". I didn't want to change the nomination by one letter after several users had expressed support for "Rameses II", but I suppose there is a strong argument now in favor of "Ramses II". If this is renamed to "Rameses II", I suppose it could be nominated immediately for renaming to "Ramses II" because of my oversight. I would have chosen "Ramses II" had I had my wits about me when I started the nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Withdraw this one; do a diligent check of all similarly named articles, do Google searches like those I show below for all relevant variations, and relist as a multiple RM for all affected pages as necessary (for all monarchs who bore the name). "Ramses II" is indeed more common in English-language book publications since 1990: on Google books, {"Ramses II" "19th Dynasty"} gets 214 genuine hits (check last page of hits); {"Rameses II" "19th Dynasty"} gets 122 genuine hits. However: {"Ramesses II" "19th Dynasty"} gets 242 genuine hits. NoeticaTea? 06:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge

This should probably be merged with Rameses II and one made into a redirect. Dates need to be straightened out? -- Infrogmation 07:22 23 May 2003 (UTC) he killed himself to kiss a angel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.26.121.44 (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

How many years he ruled?

In the second paragraph it is mentioned as "and is known to have ruled Egypt from 1279 BC to 1213 BC[8] for 66 years and 2 months". How come 1279 BC - 1213 BC became 66 years. Shouldn't be 56 years? Please Clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.139.83.50 (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ramesses I

Shouldn't Ramesses I be mentioned in the article, at least in some form? It just seems logical to me. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved with some conditions. The remaining articles in this series must be nominated for a rename. If that rename does not gain consensus, then this one should be renamed back without additional discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


Ramesses II → Ramses II – I screwed this nomination up above, and I'm intending to re-nominate it for the same reasons. I'm suggesting that for this person, "Ramses II" is the common name. Britannica uses "Ramses II". (There are other ennumerated Ramses, but I'm not including those articles in this nomination as one user proposed in the previous discussion because it is entirely possible that the common name for each might be different.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose We should at a minimum be consistent about this: They're the same dynasty; it's the same name. There is no reason whatever to spell it different ways in related articles, and imposing that minor confusion is a cost to the reader.
  • Which spellings we should use in the entire set is another question. As the article will show, the contemporary pronunciation is a guessing game, but neither of these is the best bet. Which of the several representations in other ancient lanugages is most recognizable to somebody familiar with the subject is not clear; but the present title is as good as any. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • There's no reason the other ones couldn't be changed as well following any change; it would just need to be in a follow-up nomination. Since this person is the most written about of all the Ramses/Ramesses, it is the best place to start. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It's hard to nail down the most common spelling for ancient Egyptian names; in many cases, including this one, I think it's a waste of time to try. But any source that uses a particular spelling for Ramesses II will apply that same spelling to other monarchs of the same name, so if one name is moved, they should all be moved. Essentially, I agree with Pmanderson, although being indifferent to which spelling is used, I'm not opposing outright. A. Parrot (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
What I disagree with is the use of the Britannica as some sort of benchmark. I'm not sure about the spelling issue at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
It was cited as an example and was not intended as a benchmark. I could have set out the standard google-type comparisons to show that Ramses II, is many times as common as Ramesses II in straight-up hits, but I rather just made the statement that Ramses II is the common name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Follow-up discussion at Talk:Ramesses

Does anyone know the source for his birthdate?

I haven't found the year of his birth in any of my 10 books. Which book did whoever put his date of birth of 1302 get it from?

I know he ruled from 1279 to 1213 B.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.48.177 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

First Syrian Campaign

I'm not satisfied by the source of information here, I don't have access to Grimel's book. I want to know particularly the basis for "His records tell us that he was forced to fight a Palestinian prince who was mortally wounded by an Egyptian archer, and whose army was subsequently routed. Ramesses carried off the princes of Palestine as live prisoners to Egypt." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.229.89 (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus request for term correction

Term corrections proposed

1) Two references to a territory by the term "Palestine" ought to be replaced by "Canaan".

2) Two references to historic royal titles as "Palestinian prince" and "princes of Palestine" ought to be corrected to "Philistine prince" and "princes of Pleshet" respectively.

Reasoning

All references to a land called "Palestine" in the article are erroneous because the questioned territory was named "Canaan" at the respective time.

There are two main arguments for this:

1) Chronological reason:

According to wikipedia on page History_of_the_name_Palestine 

The name "Palestine" is derived from earlier forms of the root "P-R-S-T" which are only found
in historical (hieroglyphs) records from the 20th dynasty of Egypt, ca. 1150 BCE,
while this page concerns Ramses_II who was of the 19th dynasty and died in 1213 BCE,
PRIOR to the first records of the origins for the name "Palestine".
Only centuries later the Greeks (Herodotus) referred to parts of Canaan as "Palaistinê" (see first Wikipedia page
to which I referred) and the Roman Empire changed the name to the more modern sounding "Syria Palaestina".

[Comment:

It seems a bit redundant to consider a time difference of not even 65 years "anachronistic". Also note the following:

"1175 BC: Ramses III defeats the Sea Peoples including Philistines and settles captives in fortresses in southern Canaan (alternatively, Philistines invade and settle the coastal plain for themselves).[9]" (From Wikipedia entry on Philistines)]

2) Geographical reason:

According to the Wikipedia page about Canaan (specifically on section Canaan#Iron_Age) 

The name "Canaan" refers to an area that INCORPORATED that of the territory
of the Philistine city-states. When discussing the area of Canaan, it is redundant
to write "Canaan and Palestine". (And sounds purposefully misleading out of modern
political agenda).

Concordantly, uses of the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" as a referral to the ancient Philistine people (see Philistines), should be corrected to the term "Philistine", to avoid confusion of the readers between the ancient Philistines who inhabited parts of Canaan in the aforementioned time, and the current time modern nations who inhabit the same territory, called Palestinians.

[Comment:

Seeing as the ancient Philistines were the namegivers both of Palestine and Palestinians, this seems womewhat redundant.]

Correction details:
1) In the first paragraph of section "First Syrian campaign" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramses_II#First_Syrian_campaign):
   1.1) The use of the term "Palestine" in addition to the term "Canaan" is redundant and erroneous
        The words "Palestine and" ought to be deleted (no additional text is needed in their place).
   1.2) The term "Palestinian prince" ought to replaced by "Philistine prince"
   1.3) The term "princes of Palestine" ought to be replaced by "princes of Pleshet" or "Philistine princes".

2) In the first paragraph of section "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramses_II#Pi-Ramesses"
   the term "Palestina" is erroneous and ought to be replaced by the term "Canaan".

Since this is a matter of ancient history, there should be no cause for controversy, unlike discussions concerning modern terminology for territories. Historical documentation ought NOT to anachronize (misplace terms chronologically). And since history NECESSITATES factual accuracy, there should be a consensus over correction of the specific errors in the text.

Respectfully and fastidiously yours, Fastidipedia

Fastidipedia (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Moses?

There are many sources and numerous other wikipedia articles which site Ramses II as the pharaoh associated with Moses but no mention of it in this article. --70.246.140.4 (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, the article says "Ramesses II is one of the more popular candidates for the Pharaoh of the Exodus." Dougweller (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This is an historical article. The fact that "many sources" (which ones?) associate Ramesses II with the nameless pharaoh associated with Moses (an Egyptian name, by the way) does not make it historical fact. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the two are the same.

From Wikipedia entry on the History of ancient Israel and Judah:

"The name Israel first appears in the stele of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah c. 1209 BCE, "Israel is laid waste and his seed is no more."[17] This "Israel" was a cultural and probably political entity of the central highlands, well enough established to be perceived by the Egyptians as a possible challenge to their hegemony, but an ethnic group rather than an organised state;[18] Archaeologist Paula McNutt says: "It is probably ... during Iron Age I [that] a population began to identify itself as 'Israelite'," differentiating itself from its neighbours via prohibitions on intermarriage, an emphasis on family history and genealogy, and religion.[19]"

There is no mention of Israelites prior to this in Egyptian records, and certainly not during the rule of Ramesses II, who campaigned repeatedly in Canaan. (In other words, Ramesses II had never heard of Israelites.)

Edit request on 2 September 2012

Further to edit request re. Ramesses II being attributed actions of Necho II please note ref. 20 is to Grimal 1994 which is not listed in bibliography. This is evidence of insertion of a deliberate spoof. 92.28.92.9 (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You appear to be referring to an earlier edit request. Can you provide a link or at least the exact name of the thread? If you're not asking for a specific change to the article, you don't need to make an edit request; you can just begin a new section and make your point. Rivertorch (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 October 2012

This article is no longer FA in Italian. Please remove Link FA-it. Fabyrav (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done and verified on it.wikipedia. Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 03:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2013

The author of the book on egyptology is called 'James Putnam', not 'James Putnan'. See both notes and bibliography. 86.80.182.30 (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Ramesses_II#cite_note-61 - Stephanie Pain. "Ramesses rides again". New Scientist. Retrieved 2008-05-15. - no longer works and redirects to the homepage. It looks like http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18424736.400-ramesses-rides-again.html is the new URL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:D10:2:1:74B8:963F:AFC7:2B66 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

L'Oreal claim should be reomved

"However, a website run by the L'Oréal Group states that microscopic inspection by L'Oréal researchers revealed that "the pharaoh was naturally blond and that he used a coloring agent (probably henna) to give his hair red highlights".[68]" The source cited is not reliable, and it's offensive to have this claim bookended with real research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslot38321 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2013

x:On his death, he was buried in a tomb in the Valley of the Kings;[12] his body was later moved to a royal cache where it was discovered in 1881, and is now on display in the Cairo Museum.[13] 39.41.225.148 (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC) y:please change the above sentence about pharaoh death and discovery. Because the Pharaoh was drowned in the red sea while he was behind the Prophet Muses. And his dead body was discovered in 1898 from the water without any mummification. Because Allah preserved him as a sign for the onward coming mankind. Sources: (Qur'an, 10:90)

(Qur'an, 10:91-92)

"The Bible, The Qur’an and Science… THE HOLY SCRIPTURES EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE" by Dr.Maurice Bucaille — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.225.148 (talk) 7:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I suspect, however, that consensus for your proposed change will not be achieved. If you're serious about this, you should read the guideline on fringe theories. Rivertorch (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Prenomen: Usermaatre Setepenre

In the infobox, the translation of Ramesses's prenomen is given as 'The justice of Rê is powerful – chosen of Rê', but in the last paragraph of the lead it is given as 'Ra's mighty truth, chosen of Ra'. Which one is correct? I can see how they've vaguely connected and both could be considered correct, but for the sake of continuity we should chose one. Sotakeit (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sotakeit, both are translation of Usermaatre (= "Powerful is the Maat of Ra", where Maat was the idea of truth, justice and cosmic order). However, "Ra's mighty truth" sounds a bit odd for me: dozens of pharaohs chose the praenomen Usermaatre and I never heard this rendition before. Khruner (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead has in excessive detail

Is this needed " He was once said to have lived to be 99 years old, but it is more likely that he died in his 90th or 91st year. If he became Pharaoh in 1279 BC as most Egyptologists today believe, he would have assumed the throne on May 31, 1279 BC, based on his known accession date of III Shemu day 27.[9][10]", should this not be in the body? Per WP:LEAD it should summarize not have in this kind of commentary?--Inayity (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Inayity regarding the lead. I've thinned the paragraph mentioned above, and the following one, down somewhat conservatively. It could, however, do with a more thorough rework. Sotakeit (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

The L'Oreal-cited line regarding his supposed blond hair is historically and scientifically inaccurate, and should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.118.44 (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is it still in the article???--71.177.31.77 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Because you didn't remove it. Now it's gone. Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
he had 100 wives and 100 children  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.140.77.94 (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ramesses is also depicted in the 2014 movie Exodus: Gods and Kings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.116.13 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

.

I would like to change: "the Sherden people probably came from the coast of Ionia or possibly south-west Anatolia". with "The origins of the Sherden people are still debated, for some archeologists, they came from Sardina, for others from the coast of Ionia or perhaps south west-Anatolia." This are the sources: http://www.sardiniapoint.it/5085.html , ^ Vere Gordon Childe -Bronze Age , Sardinia

Giacomopozza (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)GiacomopozzaGiacomopozza (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ramesses II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
  3. ^ a b See footnote
  4. ^ a b See footnote
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramesses_II/Archive_1&oldid=1079222897"