Talk:Serket II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).			Egyptology Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Historical basis of movie 2 "Scorpion I" 3 Serket II 4 Requested move 4.1 Survey 4.2 Discussion

[edit] Historical basis of movie

There's a claim in the article that The Scorpion King movie was loosely based on this person. I didn't see the TV special that was cited, nor could I find any such claim on the film's website. Since the movie appears entirely unrelated to anything in history at first glance, is there another source for this claim? Otherwise I'll be removing it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Scorpion I"

I reverted the recent addition of Scorpion I to the intro. I was unaware at the time that some theorize that there were two predynastic King Scorpions -- the impression I had was that the Abydos tomb was that of the Scorpion of the macehead, not that there were two Scorpions -- but this article is about the one depicted on the macehead, and according to most sources this is Scorpion II, not I. I wonder if someone more up-to-date on the subject than I am knows if this is definite enough to put in the intro? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is definitly Scorpion II, not I, assuming that there are two. It is believed that Narmer would have had to have been the next king immediatly after Scorpion, so the other references to a different scorpion must go before him. Thanatosimii 15:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serket II

The corrected title makes more sense. Some people know Thutmose as Thutmosis; same here. Respect the Scorpion! (Sorry -- last sentence a bad joke.) George "Skrooball" Reeves 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We do not know that scorpion was pronounced srqt. It has no phonetic signs to help and is one of the oldest hieroglyphics extant, thus transliteration is questionable. Thutmose and Thutmosis are different becuase of strange greek idiosyncrecies, and we know for a fact it to be better as Thutmose, though Djhutymes is still better yet. However, we do not know even the consonants behind Scorpion for an undisputed fact. Thanatosimii 04:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See my post at your user talk page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Serket II → King Scorpion —

"King Scorpion" is the established name. Serket itself is a problematic transliteration because the sign does not read,

but rather reads the scorpion sign outright with a single idiogram stroke. Thus, experts take issue with making it read srqt, or Serket. The problems that this has raised in interpretation are explained in length in the Cambridge ancient history. Certain scholars would prefer to read the scorpion sign as Sekhen. We simply cannot know.

Therefore, Scorpion's name is almost invariably left as scorpion. Shaw's Oxford History of Ancient Egypt leaves it as Scorpion, Grimal's history leaves it as Scorpion, Gardiner leaves it as scorpion, and a plethora of other works on the predynastic from the days of Petrie and Emery all the way to Spencer's history. There seems to be some dispute as to what is the proper name on Wikipedia, but there seems to be no such dispute among scholarship. Thanatosimii 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Thanatosimii 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support as per my comments Thanatosimii 17:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- I can't ever remember one other page on this Wiki using the English translation of an Egyptian name. This page, sad to say, would stick out like a sore thumb if you reverted it. Just my $0.02. George "Skrooball" Reeves 21:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Then we get to change the rest of them. Wikipedia is not a reliable source unto itself. There is no such person as a king Serket II in academic literature. There is a King Scorpion. (edit) sorry, I misunderstood you. There are no other pages on wikipedia that use tranlations of Egyptian's names because we do know their names. Amenhotep reads imnhtp. Thutmose reads Dwtms. Ramses reads R'mssw. Senusret reads snwsrt. However, Scorpion doesn't read Srqt. It doesn't have any alphabetic symbols going with it, and could concievably be any myriad of possible different names. Thanatosimii 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. I have never seen this king referred to as anything other than "Scorpion" in the literature. In fact, most of the predynastic kings before Narmer are identified by their ideograms in the vernacular, so we speak of "Double Falcon", "Lion", "Elephant" See xoomer.alice.it/francescoraf/hesyra/dynasty00.htm. Iry-Hor and Ka are exceptions to this, but Scorpion is not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Support per Thanatosimii & TCC. - Evv 15:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

There is a Serket I listed on this Wikia, thereby nullifying your argument. QOD George "Skrooball" Reeves 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

All that proves is that there are two pages that need moving. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Scrooball, I went through every book in my college library which might refer to this guy, and I found zero references to a Serket II, let alone for a Serket I. King Scorpion after King Scorpion after Scorpion after Scorpion. Do you have as much as one reason to disregard the unanimous decision of egyptology at large? Thanatosimii 02:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)