Talk:Shishak

Separate

This topic deserves treatment it is own right, separate from the entry on Shoshenq I. In particular, the name in Hebrew, and the issues raised by David Rohl are better treated here.

Why "Shishaq" and not "Shishak"? Unless the reader understands that the Hebrew only uses /q/, all kinds of misinterpretations can be made, particularly when taking Rohl's views into consideration. --Nefertum17 11:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shishak

I have changed the redirect at Shishak to point here, rather than to Shoshenq I, on the grounds that this will be less confusing to readers. Feel free to discuss the change in this space; please justify it here or at Talk:Shoshenq I if you feel it necessary to revert the change. Chick Bowen 04:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well done. Shishaq may be very well Ramesses II, who also made a campaign to Kenaan, that actually matches Shoshenq much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs) 13:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I hold the view that he was Tuthmosis III, why is that one not mentioned here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Shishak Inscription: City lists

Can someone give me some good sources on the Shishak/Shoshenq I inscription of his campaign in Judah/Israel?

Reading of the inscription is openly explained in The Biblical Exodus... Fairytale or Historical Fact? (by David Rohl). --AsiBakshish (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It's worth listing all the cities, and fleshing out the political significance of humiliating your defeated enemies by reducing one of their most important cities to a "town" (Jerusalem) on your (Shishak's) mortuary inscription(?) as based on your article. apologies...don't have time to find the article(s) myself right now. Hkp-avniel (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

We use the most common name/spelling. Google Scholar, 53 'Shishaqs', 2010 'Shishaks'. Google Books, 314 'Shishaqs'. 1620 Shishaks,. Seems pretty obvious we should call the article Shishak. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

But it is spelled with a qoph... CUSH 20:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Article names should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." And those sources spell it Shishak. Thus that should be the name of the article but of course we point out the alternative spelling(s). Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Shishak redirects here. So I assume that in the past there was a moving discussion. But if you wish, just go ahead and reverse the redirection and make Shishak the main article. CUSH 00:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Shishak" is incorrect; as pointed out by CUSH the final letter is a /q/ not a /k/. It should be spelled "Shishaḳ" if you insist on using an old-fashioned /k/. However, seeing as you wish to foster further inaccuracy on Wikipedia, go ahead. And please also update all of the spellings of "Shishaq" to "Shishak" while you are at it. And in fact, all instances of "Shoshenq" should be spelled "Shoshenk", or rather "Sheshonk" by your standard. Anyhow thanks for reminding me why I stopped editing on Wikipedia. The mindless rule-nannies were always a drag. Nefertum17 (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So, the main spelling used by academics is wrong because of some rule? All the articles here [1] are wrong? Who is the rule nanny, the person who thinks all those authors are wrong or me for pointing out the common spelling? Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the spelling is wrong because the actual name is in fact Shishaq although only in recent years the more accurate spelling is used. How common a spelling is not a criterion for it being an accurate spelling. But all is changing to be more accurate. Just like switching from Jesus to Yeshua, or from Jehovah to Yahweh. It is all a question of getting close to the spelling in the original language. And in the case of Shishaq the Q is not necessarily a Q or any K sound at all, as Mr Rohl likes to point out. CUSH 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult, but Google Scholar shows up 524 articles with Shishak since 1999 and 22 with Shishaq, 172 to 6 since 2007. Articles shouldn't be titled to make a point. I just don't see any evidence that Shishaq has somehow become the current most common spelling. It isn't a case of getting closest to the spelling in the original language, the question is what is the most "consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." I've tried to provide evidence that it is Shishak, all I get back from those who disagree is 'that's the wrong spelling'. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Shishak is not an English word. So what "reliability" do English-language sources have? I don't even see that "reliability" has any meaning in this context. What is the WP policy on foreign names? Just frequency or some kind of educative accuracy?

Well, personally I don't care how you spell that, as long you don't equate him to Sheshonq. Because although that identification is the most common it has no whatsoever accuracy. But the rule-riders here don't care for accuracy, just for appeal to the masses. CUSH 19:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tuthmosis III

Is far mroe popular among Revisionists then Rhol's theory is, but regarldess whoever added the comment about Pun in hebrew being "More rare" then Rhol implies is clearly ignorant, I've studied the Old Testament enouhg to know that t's author could barely go a Chapter without useing a Pun somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.234.42 (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Rounded?

The article has the following two statements:

Texts written in various ancient languages seem to indicate that the first vowel was both long and round, and the final vowel was short. For example, the name is written in the Hebrew Bible as שישק [ʃiːʃaq].

This "for example" contradicts the the preceding sentence as the durative-long-i is not rounded. The "for example" here should be giving the "šu:šaq" version (here, the durative-long-u is a rounded vowel) mentioned after this 'example' here. — al-Shimoni (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Indiana Jones

I know this is trivia, but some people might find it interesting to know that this was the Pharaoh referred to in Raiders of the Lost Ark. --DanielCD (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a fresh proposal to merge Sack of Jerusalem (10th century BC) to here. This appears to have been done before and reversed, it's not clear if the correct procedure was followed. PatGallacher (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)