Talk:Ahmed Osman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Archives

1 2

[edit] Last Line of Article Cite

This is a good cite because other people state that no reason has been brought up not to believe his contentions, which is true.mikey 01:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC) moved from archive

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this statement, but talk doesn't go in the archives. Those are, as the name suggests, for archiving. Thanatosimii 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "None have come up with a satisfactory reason to reject them."

There are two problems with this sentence:

1. Satisfactory according to whom? I mean, surely anyone who has come up with any reason at all has felt their reason was satisfactory. This statement is inherantly POV.
2. Even if #1 was addressed, in order to support this statement you need proof that there has NEVER been ANYONE to have done this. The articles you are citing, as far as I can see, just has Osman talking about his detractors. The articles do not provide an academic review of all papers about Osman's theories

I would recommend that instead of trying to cite this sentence, you change it or simply remove it. In fact, with the new quote from Osman it may not be necessary -- cmh^TC 14:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, I see. The articles do say that, but yeah, obviously they are POV, and being said by Osman himself, it makes it a bit more POV. I will remove the sentance and leave the quote.

mikey 22:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who, exactly, supports this?

The ambiguity this article employs to explain the support/rejection of Osman's theories currently is a little weasel-wordish. Opinions should, as a general rule of thumb, have specific adherants listed. This is underscored by the Reliable source page which says that it should be easy to pick out the major proponents of a minority thesis. My specific qualm is, who are the specific positive reviewers who support his work? Even more specifically, who are these few egyptologists who support this theory, so that the statement "egyptologists reject his work" must be changed into "most Egyptolgists reject his work"? I've gone through the smattering of reviews done by actual egyptoligsts for stranger in the valley of the kings and I have yet to find a single person with a Ph.D in egyptology or even Near East Archaeology at all who concedes even one point to Osman. Ususally they reject what he says, and make a sport of mocking him. Redford, in a manner reminicent of the way he evicerated the coregency theory in seven studies, tears him to pieces. Osman seems to be reviled by the entire egyptological community. For the sake of argument, assuming that he is in fact right, it still ought to be written on the main page that he has (unless support can be produced) no support whatsoever. Thanatosimii 02:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)