Talk:Twenty-fifth Dynasty of Egypt

[Untitled]

I believe there is a good case for removing the 25th Dynasty from this Third Intermediate Period and allocating it to the Late Period.... Intermediate Periods generally speak of division and weakness. The 25th Dynasty, in fact, re-unified the country, even if it was under 'foreign' (Kushite / Nubian) rule.... In fact, the Nubian kings prided themselves on being more Egyptian than the Egyptians! As regards weakness, the 25th Dynasty, amongst other things, led a valiant resistance to repeated Assyrian incursions. Such a re-allocation, although not shared by all modern chroniclers, would therefore better reflect the themes of Egyptian history - this schema is supported by Baines and Malek, however, in their authoritative Atlas of Ancient Egypt.... Comments? Pjamescowie 14:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:First dynasty of Egypt - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Will smith movie project?

In the article, it is mentioned: "Taharqa remains an important historical figure in Sudan and elsewhere, as is evidenced by Will Smith's current project to depict Taharqa in a major motion picture.". I propose to remove "as is evidenced by Will Smith's current project to depict Taharqa in a major motion picture". There's an issue of WP:Weight. Maybe the movie project can be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but I think it's more relevant if the project is at a much more advanced stage of development.

Also there's no sourced information linking Will Smith's alleged project with the importance of Taharqa as an important historical figure. Maybe another way to mention the alleged movie project can be found.

Is there any 2012-2013 reliable source about the development of Will Smith's project? DrLewisphd (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Issue of WP:Weight? If it ran on and on for paragraphs about Will Smith's movie, when this is an article about something else, it would be most appropriate to invoke WP:Weight. But you are invoking WP:Weight to question if there is enough room or bytespace available for even a mere one-sentence observation. But I am also interested in seeing an updated source if anybody finds one. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not the length of the sentence. Just the relevance of it. For one there's no reliable sources linking Will Smith's project with Taharqa's historical importance. Second, there's no update on Will Smith project so the inclusion in this article is a bit premature (it's less premature on a Will Smith article which can include some updated reliable sourced speculations). I propose to remove that part of the article (while maintaining Taharqa historical importance without linking it with Will Smith alleged movie). Maybe other sourced information can demonstrate Taharqa's historical importance. DrLewisphd (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Taharqa has been important in historiography because not only does he appear in the Bible, but Strabo represented him as campaigning as far as the Pillars of Hercules in Hispania. In fact, there is a lot of traditional Spanish historiography that gives detailed accounts of Taharqa's purported campaigns in Spain. Modern historians don't believe this is true, which is understandable, but I can't understand why some self-appointed censors of the Taharqa article do not even allow me to mention that traditional Spanish histories have detailed accounts of him because this is what they once "used to" believe. Even though this is an encyclopedic past historiographic belief that many readers would be surprised to learn and find interesting, apparently they are afraid of anyone even finding out that people "used to" think that. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute Taharqa's historical importance here. Just the relevance of using Will Smith alleged movie about him as evidence of his historical importance. Will Smith's alleged movie is hardly an important historical event. It is hardly an evidence of his historical importance. Although, especially if the movie is confirmed, it may be relevant to mention the upcoming movie about him. So I still propose to remove that part of the text linking Will Smith's alleged movie with Taharqa historical importance as stated above. DrLewisphd (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I see references are already given at Taharqa for the movie, which has apparently been scheduled to be released this year after five years in the making. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, for the 2008 sources about that movie, but is this upcoming movie project evidence of Taharqa's historical importance? DrLewisphd (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is, is that not obvious to you? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I will leave the article as it is but a movie can be made about real people who have less historical importance. Other editors input are welcome. DrLewisphd (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

But this couldn't be one of those cases, if as you already conceded above, "I don't dispute Taharqa's historical importance here." If a major movie is being made about a figure who is historically important, the historical importance obviously has something to do with choosing that figure to make the movie about. If they had picked Shabaka to do a movie about for instance, that would presumably witness to Shabaka's historical importance, but they didn't - they chose to emphasize Taharqa's historical importance. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted recent edits

I have reverted these recent edits to this article, which claim, among other things, that Alara held sway over the First Cataract, that the dynasty should be counted as beginning in 790 BC, and that at its height the dynasty controlled parts of the Levant. These claims are unsourced, and some were inserted in front of existing sources so they appeared to be supported by sources when they weren't. That's enough grounds for the claims to be removed, though of course they can be restored if sourcing is found. I may find time to look in the near future.

That said, the consensus on the Twenty-fifth Dynasty is changing rapidly, and long-standing assumptions that underestimated the dynasty's significance are being overturned. For instance, the chronology for the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology doesn't consider 790 BC as the starting date for the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, but it does put the start date at 770 BC, the approximate accession date of Kashta, instead of at 744 as our article has it. A good starting point for future revisions would be that encyclopedia's article about the dynasty, which is from three years ago and thus more up-to-date than most book sources. A. Parrot (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)