Talk:Ancient Egypt in the Western imagination

Sources and citations

There's obviously substantial work to be done on the article. The citations are bibliography are also a mess and I am tackling that before making any other edits. I've made a properly formatted Bibliography and Further Reading section. I've created "sfn"s for the citations through the 19th century. Cobalt blur (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

What is the "Western world"?

Unfortunately the "Western world" article is in pretty messy shape. Even if it were better, I believe that as it is presented now the current article ("...in the Western imagination" I mean) simply begs the question: What is the "Western world" we are referring to here?

There are actually some good sources for this very matter on the "Western world article," including the Quigley quote, which while one scholar's opinion, I believe makes an important enough point that it should be acknowledged up front: namely, that the ancients had no conception of themselves as "Western"; and that the concept itself is wrapped up in the Western/Eastern church dichotomy that only became concretized after the Great Schism.

This is of utmost importance as the "imagination" article covers (rightfully, I believe), separate views of Egypt by Greeks, Romans, and Jews in the classical era. While pagan Romans considered themselves as culturally heirs to a Greek past, the Jews (even Hellenized Jews, at least in their written works) most certainly did not, and only with the spread and institutionalization of Christianity did the Roman West or Greek East begin to incorporate these Jewish ideas into their own. This makes the whole enterprise of looking at the ancients as part of an existing "Western world" purely anachronistic, as I intend to claim, and I believe that my claim is justified by the sources provided. On the other had, ancient Greeks, Romans, and Jews certainly viewed Egypt--and Mesopotamia, I presume--as old, mysterious, and "other", a view that (also anachronistically might be described as "romanticized", thus presaging modern "Western" attitudes).

Cobalt blur (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Sfn issues, Harv errors, & Harv warnings

• Ref #9 should be linking to the Encyclopedia Britannica ref sitting in the Bibliography section, but it is not. It is instead (in error) linking directly to the Britannica website.
  
• Ref #7 - {{Sfn|British Museum "Harpocrates"|2025}} - is still throwing a "Harv error" & is not working correctly. The linkage is working from the main text to "Citations" but then it isn't linking from "Citations" to the Bibliography. If one clicks on "British Museum "Harpocrates" 2025" at 7, nothing happens. I've been tryingfor a while today to correct its nomenclature but have been unsuccessful so far. I'm going to post at WP:Village pump and see if someone there can figure out what is going on.
• Ref #2 & Ref #3 are still orphans without a target/complete citation in the Bibliography. - Shearonink (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Ref #2/Versluys is now working. I fixed Peres.

There were some new Harv warnings in the Bibliography section. They are not being used as references, so they all should be moved to Further reading. I moved the Bentley reference. Besserman & Herodotus/Marincola still have Harv warnings. - Shearonink (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

All Harv errors & Harv warnings have been fixed/corrected. - Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again, @Shearonink. I've made further corrections and now know to check all my usage {{sfn}} for errors before publishing. Cobalt blur (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I left the article without any Harv cite issues, with working references but there are now 3 new Harv errors in the article.

This edit introduced

Ref #4 - Harv error {{Sfn|Heidelberg|2024}}...There was no target or complete citation for this Sfn to anchor to.

Plus an embedded link was added in the same edit with the following content - "A journal dedicated to the subject called ''[https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/aegyp Aegyptiaca]. Journal of the History of Reception of Ancient Egypt''. Embedded links are very rare and usually not allowed in the main text or body of Wikipedia articles, see WP:NOELBODY and WP:CS:EMBED.

Then something was tried in this edit which didn't quite work. This can happen, adjustments, fixes can take a lot of tweaking.

But then this edit caused a Harv error in Ref #4 - Harv error {{Sfn|Budka et al.|2024}},

And then this edit corrected the Harv error. Which was great. Subsequent edits didn't cause any new issues until

this edit caused 3 new Harv errors - Ref #8, #9, & #11 - when these 3 refs were converted back to faulty Sfns.

Then this edit converted cite webs etc to Sfn formats and subsequent edits didn't fix those issues...

Cobalt blur - So, like I said at the start of this post...I left this article with working references and no Harv errors or Harv warnings. And now... I am asking you to please please momentarily stop your changes to this article. Sfn cites can be quite tricky to get correct and they are not necessarily any better than cite web or cite journal or whatever. The main thing is that the referencing has to work. It needs to be correct. Again, when you are trying to fix an issue, before you hit Publish changes, first click on "show preview" near the bottom of the editing window. You can then see, in preview, if your changes worked. Or not. Using the instructions found on User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors, consider installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. This script makes it easy to see issues with Harvard referencing.

I want you to understand something. I am not trying to hector you, I am trying to teach you. But I had to go through all of your recent edits on this article to figure out what the timeline was and what specifically needed to be adjusted or corrected. I do applaud your zeal for this subject and your continuing efforts on this article. But please..,slow down and take some time to learn the language of how this place and its articles are constructed.

Unless you object on the basis of policies and/or guidelines, I intend to change all the cites back to their previously-working forms within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Shearonink

Thank you for your most recent message. I now understand the necessity of checking the preview page, especially for SNFs, limiting the frequency I hit "publish" so that changes can be readily tracked, and I acknowledge the issues with my recent edits.

I must admit, the level of immediate scrutiny on this article has been unexpected, as I haven't encountered such close real-time monitoring on other pages where I've made similar contributions. It has certainly been a valuable learning experience for me. This experience has particularly brought to mind your comment about "learning the language of how this place and its articles are constructed." In that context, I would greatly appreciate your assessment of an earlier article I drafted and published, Aegyptiaca (Manetho), to determine if I met those standards there.

Regarding the current page, I see only the unlinked British Museum SNFs. If this format truly doesn't function here (and as you can see, I've made several attempts to get them to), I certainly agree that they should be reverted.

I respect your commitment to maintaining high standards and ensuring functionality for users. Going forward, I agree to:

1. Make all my edits with more deliberation and less frequency.
2. Always preview my edits before publishing.
3. Follow the citation format you deem necessary for this page's functionality.

Could you please post a message on the Talk page once you've made the corrections you feel are needed?

Respectfully,

Cobalt blur (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Cobalt blur - I have lots of articles on my watchlist, so I notice when changes are made, plus I've been trying to help clear the Sfn errors Category. I mention Preview because it's saved me from publishing mistakes many times...and when I have neglected to use it, oh the errors I have Published! I've asked on Village Pump:technical to see if any of the experts over there might know how to make Sfn cites work for the Brittanica and the British Museum cites - Refs #8, #9, & #11. I've tried myself to make the Sfns work correctly and haven't succeeded so I would like to learn what is going on with the code for the next time this type of situation pops up.

Re:scrutiny: Sorry if it was a little too immediate. I like things around here to be correct. I like readers being able to verify statements in articles. I like verifiable facts and keeping cites & refs easy for readers to use. So, sometimes editing is a lonely business and sometimes there's a lot of interest & changing edits & editorial consensus to gain. Don't get discouraged, I hope you don't think I was hard on you. I'll come back here and update talk or you might see someone else pop in and fix things. I've asked for whomever answers the call to post the how & why for those cites on this talk page. - Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Coming here from WP:VPT. {{Sfn|British Museum "Harpocrates"|2025}} presumes that the author is British Museum "Harpocrates" (that is not an author) and {{Sfn|British Museum "Serapis"|2025|}} presumes that the author is British Museum "Serapis" (this one has an extraneous pipe). Both presume that the publication date is 2025 yet neither source is dated. These are supposed to link to:

{{Cite web |title=Harpocrates |url=https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG53587 |url-status=live |access-date=11 June 2025 |website=The British Museum}}

"Harpocrates". The British Museum. Retrieved 11 June 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

{{Cite web |title=Serapis |url=https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG60374 |url-status=live |access-date=11 June 2025 |website=The British Museum}}

"Serapis". The British Museum. Retrieved 11 June 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Neither of these {{cite web}} templates name an author and |access-date=11 June 2025 does not qualify as a publication date.

{{sfn}} and the related {{harv}} family of templates are Author-date references. These templates expect author surnames (up to four) and the source's publication year. From those it creates a link to a matching cs1|2 template that has the same surnames and publication date. Because not all sources have 'authors' or publication dates, cs1|2 templates support |ref= so that they can become targets of {{sfn}} templates that do not have authors and/or a publication date.

Were it me, I might write {{Sfn|"Harpocrates" at ''The British Museum''}} and |ref={{sfnref|"Harpocrates" at ''The British Museum''}}. {{sfnref}} creates properly matching target for {{sfn}}.

Unrelated, but should be fixed: |url-status=live live is inappropriate in the above two {{cite web}} templates. There is mismatched (incomplete) italic markup in Ancient Egypt in the Western imagination § Roman Empire.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank yooooooou. Was able to fix the 3 Harv errors & removed the "live" parameters,- Shearonink (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Trappist the monk Is there maybe a gadget for the incomplete italic markup you're referring to in that section? I am having trouble finding it... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

''ex Africa semper aliquid novi" Presumably that's Latin so ought it not be written {{lang|la|ex Africa semper aliquid novi}} → ex Africa semper aliquid novi per MOS:FOREIGN? I noticed it because the syntax highlighter that I use colors everything after the '' gray.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Trappist the monk - I think I fixed it? Not sure though so would appreciate it if you checked my work. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, and of course for taking the time and effort to troubleshoot! I like the Snf format (as you've noticed) and the Cite issues with the websites are new ones for me. I attempted @Trappist the monk's solution on my sandbox and I can't get it to behave correctly.

Cobalt blur (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Where? When? You haven't edited your ~/sandbox since 2025-06-10...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

My mistake. I meant my Draft:Mnemohistory. Which no longer has any of the citations we've been discussing. Thank you again. Cobalt blur (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)