Talk:Dakhamunzu

better references

could someone provide references for the fact that suppiluliuma and his son died from the plague carried by the egyptian prisoners and for the draft letter to the unnamed pharaoh which are better than the online sources given now? --!linus (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion / Merger with Supiluliuma I

OPPOSE WP:RUSHDELETE. Dakhamunzu is, along with many other Amarna period figures, a highly contested figure amongst Egyptologists. Her datation, genealogy, motives and identity are all extensively discussed in literature and therefore she is a notable figure and that alone is reason enough for her own article. Until such time that there is consensus regarding her identity, when at such a point this article should be merged with the identified figure, I think it's too soon to delete it.

Besides, to add to that, the Zannanza affair is a record of another record of a political event involving an ensemble of historical figures that probably suits notability criteria for an article in and of itself, instead of in the Supiluliuma I article, esp. considering it was recorded by a relative of his, not himself. The Zannanza affair section is considerably long (the Zannanza affair subsection accounts for almost half the article, which lends it undue weight when it most probably isn't the most notable event of Supiluliuma's life), quite prose-like, excessively detailed, and shows historical bias (author takes a side here, whereas in actuality the identity of Dakhamunzu is far from settled fact).

In short: I'd sooner propose a "Zannanza affair" article than delete "Dakhamunzu". I think, however, that all the interrelated articles are in need of serious improvement. Neatly95 (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

To add, I've re-read the article contents and compared it with the Supiluliuma I article again, to make sure I'm not missing anything. There is a considerable discussion re: debate over her identity, which is reasonably sourced. It consists of over half the article here, and almost none of this discussion is covered (which it rightly shouldn't be) in the Supiluliuma article. Neatly95 (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree.

1. You claim that Dakhamunzu's identity is highly contested. All of the egyptologists I know that made a statement on her identity have identified her with Ankhesenamun. The only egyptologist I know that has explicitly argued against this is Kara Cooney, and she was staunchly criticized by egyptologist Colleen Manassa for it. Dakhamunzu not being Ankhesenamun is more of a fringe theory not encyclopedically noteworthy

2. The Zannanza affair could be its own article, but any significant historical content in such an article would be the conversation between Šuppiluliuma I and Ankhesenamun, which is already in the Šuppiluliuma I article, where it belongs. The other minor issues with that section you mention (length, prose-like, detail etc.) all belong on the Šuppiluliuma I talk page. You could rename this Dakhamunzu article 'Zannanza Affair' instead of Dakhamunzu if you like, but I think its best to keep everything in one place on Šuppiluliuma I's page, since he is the main character of, and involved in every event in, the entire affair.

3. The discussion of Dakhamunzu's identity debate in this article is very old - over a decade. The latest published works identify Dakhamunzu with Ankhesenamun. For example, see Bob Brier's latest book, 'Tutankhamun and the Tomb that Changed the World'. Cerebrality (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Currently, Dakhamunzu's identity is conjectural. There is no new evidence to associate her with anyone since the annals were discovered. Though there may be a lean in the literature toward a particular side these days, this is still conjectural. It is the job of Wikipedians to represent that there is not an academic consensus. Even if Kara Cooney (which I am sure is not the only authority of that opinion) is the only one who disagrees, she's still a respected authority whose publications are peer reviewed. She is not "fringe", and even if she were, she's published, and it should be mentioned, with sources that discredit her. We are not the authority.

The discussion of Dakhamunzu's identity, even if one day it becomes unanimously agreed upon, is still noteworthy to document on Wikipedia. She is a historical figure whose identity is not known beyond doubt and had interactions with people outside of Supiluliuma I. It is out of the scope of Supiluliuma I.

And finally: "old content" is not a reason to delete an article. Mark it for improvement if you wish, and I can testify my willingness, but this article should not be deleted. There is scope for it to be merged with a new article "Zannanza affair", and discussed seperately along with other figures such as Zannanza and Nipḫururia, or for Dakhamunzu to be merged with the true identity when there is true consensus or new evidence.

Let me give you an example: most people think Nefertiti was Neferneferuaten, based on logical assumptions. However, this is still to this day a subject of disagreement among a small portion of dissenting scholars. Nefertiti has a "Neferneferuaten" section, but there still exists a Neferneferuaten page, for good reason. This is almost a cut and dry identical example. Neatly95 (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you believe there is new evidence since the annals were discovered, the point I am making is that the view that Dakhamunzu's identity is not Ankhesenamun has fallen out of favor. By the way, Kara Cooney has been noted for purporting blatantly historically false information before. Look at her book quote about the Kenosha shooting shown in the image.

Consider this. In the fields of cognitive science and philosophy of dreaming, there is an idea of dream skepticism, originated by philosopher Norman Malcolm. There is a substantial portion of the cognitive science researchers that actually agree with this absurdity. However, we don't begin the dreams article with some neutral position on whether or not dreams are experiences, because that would be out of the scope of an encyclopedic Wikipedia article. Dakhamunzu's identity should be treated the same. Cerebrality (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

A quick check of Google Scholar shows there are very recent published and peer reviewed articles discussing the identity of Dakhamunzu.

In short;

• The identity of Dakhamunzu is not settled
• The long historical discussion amongst academics is noteworthy (of particular interest is the multiple linguistic analyses undertaken, and new evidence discovered that pushes around the identities and timelines of Nefertiti and the late Amarna period), all of which is reasonably well sourced in this article, and nothing to do with Supiluliuma I
• The proposition to delete this article is based on the comment that the information here is discussed in Supiluliuma I. Most of it isn't, and rightly shouldn't be.

If it helps, I personally really believe that Dakhamunzu was Ankhesenamun. I just disagree that we here at Wikipedia should ignore academic debate or presume a conclusion which cannot be made with current evidence (theories are not evidence). Neatly95 (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)