Talk:Egyptian hieroglyph

The example Ptolmees is annoying. Double EE is never double yodh. It was just a transcription from Greek to Egyptian. How would you explain the hieroglyph writing for Amenophis? It is totally different. Please try to explain the difference between original egyptian and transcriptions like in Manetho's work.

You make a good point 172.177.78.152 (I'm afraid that's how we must refer to anonymous users). I don't think that Ptolomees is the best word to use to give an example of how hieroglyphs work. Manetho's transcription of Egyptian names is a complicated issue: Egyptian pronunciation probably changed more quickly than hieroglyphic writing, so that some phonetic elements of hieroglyphics may not have had real phonetic effect. No one claims that scientific transliteration of hieroglyphs is a true phonetic record; that is not its purpose. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia articles, you might find it useful to create an account: it's free, enables access to more editing features and gives you a presence in the Wikipedia creative community. Gareth Hughes 21:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

- "The earliest known hieroglyphic inscription has been dated to 4240 BC. The first appearance of hieroglyphs is found before the writing of the Sumerian cuneiform was developed."

What is the evidence for this? Probably the earliest accepted usage of hieroglyphs are labels containing royal names from Dynasty 0 which would be at earliest 3200 BC. This is still a bit later than the earliest Sumerian cuneiform tablets.

The date 4240 BC for the earliest known hieroglyphic inscriptions is wrong on several points:

• This date appears to be based on the Sothic cycle, which was used by some of its earliest advocates to show that the Egyptian calendar was created in 4241 BC. One error.
• While I believe that the Sothic cycle is still useful in fixing in absolute terms dates in Egyptian chronology, it isn't useful this far back in Egyptian history. Further, the major argument for stating that the Egyptian calendar started in 4241 BC was that the calendar was established at the beginning of Egyptian kingship, & the next earliest possible date was 2780 BC -- which was too late & would conflict with other chronological calculations. Since then, a number of these chronologies have been adjusted down, & 2780 BC is now considered by almost all Egyptologists to fall either at the beginning or before the Old Kingdom.
• Lastly, I know of no recorded inscription in hieroglyphs that has been associated with this date. The earliest known use of Egyptian hieroglyphs are from tomb U-j in Abydos (discovered in 1988), which have been dated to the Naqada IIIA period -- which converts to c.3300 BC.

Had I known of this claim before this, when I had access to some more detailed sources, I would have changed this. As soon as I find the time to properly research this issue (very early Egyptian history is not too interesting to me), I'll add the proper corrected info. -- llywrch 19:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I've inserted a table of uniliteral signs into the article to give a little more of the flavour of the signs. The notes column could either be expanded, or, probably better, removed. The details are based on Collier/Manley (1998). Gareth Hughes 01:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents

1 Heading 2 Links removed 3 French version 4 Hieroglyphics Music 5 Second time removing GlyphDoctors link 5.1 Thoughts and a proposal 5.1 Response from Glyphdoctors 5.1.1 Response from Lectiodifficilior

Heading

Why is the heading of this article "Egyptian hieroglyph" and not "Egyptian hieroglyphs"? I can't think of any other encyclopaedia or dictionary that uses such a term for labelling this writing system. Should this be changed? —Nefertum17 09:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just took a look at the various non-English Wiki pages linked to this one. With the exception of Danish, they are all the equivilant of "Hieroglyph" (i.e., no reference in the article name to "Egyptian", but clearly, and appropriately, singular) or "Egyptian Hieroglyphic" (which uses the adjective as the noun). In books, however, the plural is used. I just can't see anyone coming here for information on a single hieroglyph, but rather hieroglyphs. —Nefertum17 10:03, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you: an article on Egyptian hieroglyph is about one Egyptian sign, whereas an article about Egyptian hieroglyphs is about the entire system of signs. I much prefer the use of the plural noun hieroglyphs to the adjective hieroglyphic, or its derived plural hieroglyphics. If there is no disagreement, I suggest that this article is moved to Egyptian hieroglyphs in a few days.

Completely unrelated to this, I've nicked two templates from the Finnish Wikipedia: Template:Hiero and Template:Hiero/pharaoh. The first presents a unified system for displaying hieroglyphs on article pages (particularly for names of deities). The second provides two cartouches for the praenomina and nomina of pharaohs. The variables are straightforward: variable 1 is the name in 'said' transliteration, variable 2 is the praenomen/name in hieroglyphs (you have to include the tags still), and variable 3 (for the pharaoh template) is the nomen in hieroglyphs. I've changed the order of pharaoh's names from the Finnish system: it seemed to make more sense to have the praenomen first. Gareth Hughes 11:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Links removed

I removed the links to Coptic language and Coptic alphabet from the Related Articles section. They are only distantly related to the concept of "hieroglyph". —Nefertum17 09:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but at least the alphabet contains the only surviving remnants of the hieroglyphs, so doesn't that make it of interest? I'd like to put that link back, as well as a link to the Wadi el-Hol/proto-Sinaitic scripts. kwami 00:22, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

French version

Is there anything on fr:Hiéroglyphe that should be copied here? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The French article has a lot going for it. I don't think we want to copy it: it's better than what's here but could be better. I'll spend some time working with it. Gareth Hughes 23:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this happening? I will be looking at that too PaulDehaye 03:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hieroglyphics Music

Some time soon I want to make an article about the CD label and rap musicians from Hieroglyphics. Unless there is already an article but it can't be found because of the redirect. When I'm done with the article, I'll change the redirect page into a disambiguation page and link to both. --Dinero 01:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hieroglyphics redirects here, but perhaps it should go to hieroglyph instead? I'm not sure how we should deal with the CD label: possibilities include:

• disambiguate at hieroglyphics instead of hieroglyph, or
• put the article on the CD label at Hieroglyphics with a "See hieroglyph for the ideographic writing system."? -- ALoan (Talk) 08:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know — if someone types hieroglyphics into a search or a wikilink, they are most likely wanting to link to hieroglyph or Egyptian hieroglyph. I think the redirect should stay and some thing like For the record label Hieroglyphics, see Hieroglyphics (record label). --Gareth Hughes 17:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Second time removing GlyphDoctors link

Glyphdoctors (http://www.glyphdoctors.com) (Free discussion forums and online courses in hieroglyphs) is a commercial site. The only free aspect seems to be the discussion forum, but that's not worth having a link for IMHO. The author says her link belongs here (and at the very top of the list, no less!) because there are other commercial links on the site. I don't see them. Anyway, I'm writing this because it's not obvious at first that the site is commercial, and this is the second time she's added her ad to this page. kwami 19:47, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

I totally agree it doesn't belong at the top—I moved it once too—but I'm not certain it doesn't belong at all. This isn't Cialis or shoes—Egyptian is not commonly taught, and even less commonly taught to laymen. Knowing where it's taught is useful. Could we subsection it and include links to other programs? I don't feel very strongly about this either way; let's talk it through. Lectiodifficilior 20:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[I answered you on my talk page.] I'd feel okay putting it in a new section, Commercial links or some such.

However, I'm not happy about the dishonesty of Glyphdoctors: first, trying to get top billing over pure reference sites, and second, implying that the courses are free (Free ... online courses: only debating semantics would save them from the charge of false advertising, and as far as I'm concerned, intentional misrepresentation is as good as an outright lie).

I'd have no problem if an author of this page added the link, or even if Glyphdoctors promoted themselves in an above-the-board manner. But do we really want to reward an apparently dishonest commercial site by enshrining their link in our article? kwami 00:16, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:External links What should not be linked to

• Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, and any such operation should be raised at the Village Pump or other such page and approved by the community before going ahead. Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions. See also External link spamming.
• Links to a site that is selling products, unless it applies via a "do" above. --212.239.164.85 05:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Those seem like good rules of thumb, but I don't find them at Wikipedia:Spam (Link now fixed [212.239.164.85 05:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)]). Are they your own, is it from an old version of the page, or is it posted somewhere else? Lectiodifficilior 01:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

PS: Was that User:Kwamikagami?

Lastly, I think we should get past the term commercial. I doubt the proprietor of the site is getting rich off of people looking to learn hieroglyphs. I mean should we stop adding books to bibliographies because HarperCollins and Random House are commercial enterprises? The New York Times and CNN are commercial. Or perhaps we should delete links to official sites of rock bands, also businesses. Business and information are inextricably linked; Guttenberg and Aldus Manutius were businessmen, their importance in the dissemination of culture not dimmed thereby. Surely the criterion should be usefulness and relevance, not whether the link is "commercial." Lectiodifficilior 01:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't post the spam info (I don't know who did [I forgot to sign; now noted; 212.239.164.85 05:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC) ]), but I did find it when I clicked on the link. But like I said, I wouldn't mind if you were expanding the page and thought, hey, this was a useful link, and added it. What I object to is Glyphdoctors repeatedly adding their link to three Wiki pages: hieroglyphs, Egypt, and Egyptian, and always at the very top of the ref list. (I didn't remove the other links. Someone else did.) And then implying it's free. She's clearly using Wikipedia as ad space, that's all she cares about it, and she's not being upfront. How much money she expects to make I don't know, and don't really care. It would be different if the first or second or third time she got deleted, she went to the talk page and said, hey, I think I have something to offer here that's relevant, and people agreed it might be worthwhile. Or even just notified us of what she was doing. But this feels like someone slipping junk mail under my door. kwami 04:52, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion noted above. I posted the wrong link (now fixed) and did not sign my message, mistakenly implying kwami added the information on link policies. This has been noted above. (I have my reasons for not signing in under a username at this time.) --212.239.164.85 05:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts and a proposal

• I didn't know it was happening on Egypt and Egyptian as well. That ups it in my mind, particularly the Egypt one; it wouldn't belong on Egypt under the best of circumstances.
• I'm very persuaded by that, by the fact it was done repeatedly, done without "talk" justification, and very inappropriately put at the top of the list each time. I'm also concerned about the "marketing" flavor of the link text, and worse if the text isn't really true.
• I'm not persuaded that the contributor was consciously acting badly—Wikipedia newbies often do thoughtless things—but it certainly was improper and disrespectful.
• I like how appellate judges, like the Supreme Court, try to speak on only what they have to, deciding on as narrow a grounds as possible. That's my feeling here. I think the "real" merits of including the link are pretty murky, and something others should have a say in deciding. But I'm very convinced by the way it was added.
• Can we therefore agree, that if the link gets added again, it must be added appropriately, addressing these concerns and and with explicit Talk justification. I'm not saying this should be enough, but certainly anything else earns a swift revert. How does that feel to you?

Sounds good to me!

As for the nature of the site, I wrote them, and they said they charge for the course, but the discussion forum is free. Not sure what would be in such a forum. kwami 08:26, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

On the mystery man:

• Without malice, I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy against it, but what are we to make of "I have my reasons for not signing in under a username at this time." Like you're banned? Your name is "Zyzygy" and your Z-key is broken?
• Lastly, maybe it's just me but I rather dislike my talk text being edited by others, even if the edits are clear. So—special request—can we avoid that?

Response from Glyphdoctors

I am Nicole Hansen, the owner of the site Glyphdoctors. I apologize for having stepped over the bounds of Wikipedia etiquette, of which I was unaware. I'm a passive user of Wikipedia for the most part and really am not so familiar with how things work. I would like to correct some misconceptions here. First of all, I never insisted my site belonged here simply because you should allow commercial sites. But at least one of the other sites linked to is selling hieroglyphic learning materials (Great Scott), which is why I saw no reason to not link to my own site. If that is the grounds by which you judge whether a site should be included or not, then perhaps it should be that the other site should also be removed, not that my site should stay.

I made my site for one reason-to offer a service that traditional educational institutions are not interested in providing. I'm a PhD candidate in Egyptology at the University of Chicago but rather than pursue an academic career teaching Egyptology to 3 students who pay tens of thousands of dollars at some university, I have decided to start a Web site offering online courses to the general public interested in ancient Egypt for an a price much lower than a university, and will be adding courses by other Egyptologists in the future. There are very few places in the world where you can study Egyptology, most of them being too far and too expensive for people to attend, and I am going to be providing a service that is basically unavailable any other way. You won't find a non-commercial entity offering what I am offering.

As for my wording "free discussion forums and online Egyptology courses" I in no way was trying to pull the wool over anyone eyes. I meant it as "free discussion forums" AND "online Egyptology courses" and I mentioned the free discussion forums FIRST to emphasize the free forums, because I felt it would be inappropriate to stress the paid part. If you want to see the glass half empty, then I guess you could read it the way you did.

As for the accusations that I repeatedly added links after they were deleted-if I did so, it was unintentional. I'm not a spammer and if I added a link more than once it was simply because I didn't remember that I had posted it there before and so didn't realize that the link had been deleted in the first place. And as for my posting in other forums besides Egyptian hieroglyphs, the site is not simply devoted to hieroglyphs, it is devoted to Egypt and Egyptology in general. When someone emailed me objecting to my posting links, I didn't post anymore.

As for my not coming to this talk page before, that's because I didn't know it existed nor that my site was being discussed here. I was just doing a search on the internet now for something else and came across this discussion now. If you had really wished to understand what my motives were, you could have invited me here to answer your questions and I would have been happy to do so, but no one did.

For your information, I was hoping to be able to contribute something to Wikipedia in the form of improving the code of Wikihiero (at my own expense), and contributing it back here. If you go look in the talk page for Wikihiero, you will see that I posted something about that just yesterday. But after being called dishonest and disrespectful here I have to admit I am having second thoughts about that.

Response from Lectiodifficilior

Dear Ms. Hansen,

Thank you for your thoughtful response, and welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate the time it took.

Let us all lower the temperature a bit on this one. As frequent Wikipedians, we assume that people how the system works (eg., talk pages), and what the rules are. This is a little myopic, but perhaps you understand how it comes about. Perhaps too you can also understand why Wikipedians have short fuses about link additions. Wikipedia is a valuable link, and gets "hit" all the time. That your post was anonymous, unexplained, repeated and always on top pressed all the wrong buttons here. I am glad there is an innocent explanation, and that you are no spammer; please accept my apology for thinking you one.

As stated above, my main problem was with the way it was done. Now that you have explained yourself at such length, I have no more objections to some sort of link. I said before what you said now, that you are offering a unique service, with great potential value. That you will make (small) money directly from people instead of through the mechanism of a university doesn't bother me in the least. Indeed, I find it inspiring.

So, count me on the side of adding a link. I cannot speak for others. Perhaps we can discuss the right link description here before you post it? This will also give others a chance to agree or disagree with it and the link generally.

Best, Lectiodifficilior 18:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Same here. Ad links in Wikipedia get to be a bit like junk mail. As I go through my mail standing over a trash can, perhaps you'll forgive my abruptness in dealing with you. I left GreatScott on for two reasons: I hadn't explored the site far enough to discover it was commercial; and it was at the bottom of the list, which seemed appropriate for the rather basic level of information it provided. But I have no objection to linking GlyphDoctors. I would like, however, for it and GreatScott (assuming we approve of GreatScott, that is) to be listed in a Commercial Links category, or maybe Commercial Education Links or some such (Professional Education Links? but that wouldn't fit GreatScott), perhaps with a clarificaton of what is offered free and what is for sale.

Also, if you wish to contribute to the article, either by fact checking or by filling in a few of the gaps, that would be wonderful. There's no reason it can't be much more than it is now.

Lectiodifficilior, I think the only other people involved in this signed in anonymously. Should we consider the two of us a consensus then? kwami 19:39, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Lectiodifficilior Let's agree on the link text here first. That will give others a chance to contribute if they want. The slower we do it, the more secure the consensus, I think. I'm on this thing every day, but others have slower cycles.

Second, who else offers hieroglyph classes to the masses. I distinctly recall someone else does—Chicago? If we list GD, we should list them too. I have a feeling Ms. Hansen would know.

Response from Nicole: The Oriental Institute at the U of C does from time to time offer snail mail hieroglyphs courses (I actually taught this course for them some years ago). They aren't offering any at the moment though. These courses consist of mailing in your homework by snail mail, and getting corrections back in the same manner. Part of the reason I wanted to start my online courses in hieroglyphs was due to my dissatisfaction with that method, feeling the students weren't getting a fraction of the support and interaction they should be getting for the money they were paying and they were expected to finish it in an unrealistically short amount of time. I taught an online course for the OI too in 1999 (on Egyptian folklore), but I really couldn't get them interested in doing more courses that way because the powers to be are limited in their interest in such public outreach. But the technology (especially since I am using open source solutions) has reached a point where it is financially and technologically feasible for me to start offering courses online without having to associate with an already existing institution. I am going to be teaching a classroom course for the OI on mummies and medicine though in the fall and perhaps another classroom course on the Valley of the Kings next spring, but I don't know if they have any hieroglyphs courses planned in the fall, as I haven't seen the full schedule yet.