Talk:Dendera light

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Ancient Egypt This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Unsolved problems?

It looks to me like this page should not be listed as an unsolved problem in Egyptology. From reading the page, I gather that there is a consensus among Egyptologists that the ancient Egyptians did not build or draw light bulbs. --Allen 23:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe move it to Pseudoarchaeology? -- Limulus 03:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

this article needs a picture! --Awiseman 04:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Categories: Pseudoegyptology?

Why is this in the Category Pseudoegyptology? If no reason, will be removed. J. D. Redding 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it is Pseudo Egyptology! The Dendera light is known because some people outside mainstream Egyptology interpret it as an electric lamp. Otherwise it would be just another of the million other figures on walls in Egypt. Twthmoses (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just another of the million other figures on walls in Egypt? What?
All historical artifacts are important. Egyptology is a large field.
J. D. Redding 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course all historical artefacts are important, that is not the issue here. Pseudo science does not mean that an object is unimportant; it simple means it’s being interpreted or applied an importance outside the mainstream established direction. Pseudo archaeology often makes an objects seem groundbreaking in its field, which the Dendera light certainly is, if it indeed is an electric lamp. It would shake the very foundation of the history of science and a whole generation of history books would have to be rewritten. Since mainstream science does not accept this idea in any way shape or form, it is Pseudo science. Twthmoses (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No... not Pseudo science. Perhaps fringe science, but definitely not pseudoscience. Engineers, those that practice applied science, do accept the possibility. Mainstream science does recognize this idea, though it does not embrace it wholeheartedly (change takes time). There have been documentaries on the Science Channel that have brought this out. J. D. Redding 20:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, fringe science is based on taking many (may or may not be well established) threads on a subject and developing a theory that goes in a radical different direction than then current mainstream held one. Pseudo science is basically jumping to conclusion. Taking an object or subject, then go find supporting evidence for that conclusion. The main “evidence” in this will remain the object or subject itself. In this case, the Dendera light, the image looking like a 20th century light bulb. There is no other artefact found in ancient Egypt or even literature that supports that this should be a light bulb – other then the image itself, because it looks like this for us today = Pseudo Egyptology. Twthmoses (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Removed proposed deletion template

I removed the delete tag slapped on the article, for the simple reason that the reason stated simple is not correct. There is more than one source in the ref list already. 2nd you search Google for Dendera light/lamps/reliefs you get plenty of hits, and it’s fully irrelevant whether it’s real or not, it’s a culture/pseudo science phenomenon that is known, talked, and written about. Thus “non-notable” is not a plausible argument in this case. I know first hand that tour guides, guards and locales will guide tourist to these specified reliefs (along with the Dendera zodiac, which is a reproduction) Twthmoses (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree, although I'm not sure if the weight given to the fringe claims is WP:Undue or not.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Righto. Technically this should go to AfD, but if both of you think its notable I won't bother. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)