Talk:Apries

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Ancient Egypt This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list: edit history watch purge Needed articles A page with a list of desired articles / wishlist Current: Most nomes, government / administration or alternatively Organization of the ancient Egyptian State if those aren’t separate topics, State development in predynastic Egypt, Predynastic hunting, Kleinkönig (Egypt), Predynastic marine (egypt), and Disability in ancient Egypt Redirects that could be articles: Economy of ancient Egypt Could also do with a list of articles that are in urgent need of some TLC Needing attention Articles needing some TLC Current: Fifth Dynasty of Egypt has a lot of details missing Project page could use some work, specifically the aimless links in the header. Whether those get directed to destinations or removed is up for debate The Religion work group has a separate To-Do that could always use some love All stub and start class articles, always Misc Standardized chronology Currently a difficult task due to the lack of consensus in the greater community over an accurate chronology, but definitely something to keep coming back to In the meanwhile: it’s a good policy to have a survey of dates from sources in articles about time periods; for smaller mentions (ex. at the start of “Atenism under Akhenaten” here: “Amenhotep IV, the son of Amenhotep III, was crowned king c. 1353 BC.”) circa is your best friend Discussion Creating a separate article for Predynastic Egypt from Prehistoric Egypt starting with the Badarian culture where many overviews begin Data sorting Looking through sources for quotes and data that can be added to relevant articles

The name Apries is the name bestowed on this pharaoh by Ancient Greek scholars, but he was known natively as Wahibre. Given that the general convention for naming pharaohs on Wikipedia seems to favour the native naming conventions (other examples: Khafra over Chephren, or Sneferu over Soris, or, another member of this dynasty Psamtik II or Psammetichus), I propose that this article be re-named to Wahibre in keeping with the naming convention used by other pharaohs of this era.

Similarly I would also argue that the only other Greek-named pharaoh of this dynasty, namely Necho, be renamed Nekau instead.

I note that modern Egyptological scholars like Aidan Dodson and Dyan Hilton in their recent The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt and Peter A. Clayton in his Chronicle of the Pharaohs use this form of the name, and I believe these represent a growing trend favouring the usage of this form of the name. Captmondo (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I strongly oppose any such move; we are optimized for general readers, not for specialists. He is called Apries, because Herodotus and Diodorus are the principal sources for his reign; similarly, the contemporary Queen of the Scythians is called Tomyris, although the Iranic form is not beyond conjecture.

he was known natively as Wahibre. The implicit argument here that there is some superior virtue in a "native" form is political correctness to a degree beneath contempt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I resent your characterization of the argument as being one of political correctness -- from the beginning I have argued for the name change on the basis of consistency of the naming scheme rather than anything else.

That aside, I otherwise respect your opinion and vote. Captmondo (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

To quote Emerson again: A foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of little minds. This consistency is foolish: it would mean abandoning Menes and Ramesses, which are also both Hellenizations and usage. Indeed, I see no reason to do this that would not also impell us to use the hieroglyphic form of Ptolemy, available from the Rosetta Stone, but surely unintelligible to our readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are extending my argument a few steps too far, as I would never advocate the hieroglyphic approach you mention which is entirely impractical. And I also explicitly agreed with your earlier comments on the Village Pump that we should keep a few exceptions to the rule for names of those pharaohs who are far better known from their Greek origins, such as Menes and Ramesses. I think that Apries is an arguable exception to that rule however, though at the moment I seem to be getting little support from the community for the change, though I prefer Leoboudv's reasons rather than your repeated mis-characetrizations of the argument. So be it. To paraphrase Whitman: "Wikipedia is large, so it can contain multitudes." ;-) Captmondo (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I agree the approach is impractical. That's why this reduces to absurdity.
• But as long as we agree that Menes should stay where he is, we have no real disagreement in principle. The disagreement in practice is at most that I think it is even more sensible to use Apries, which is the usage of contemporary principal sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oppose reluctantly for Apries. In this individual case, 'Apries' is the most popular and recognizable name for this king. Brittanica uses it to refer to him (I checked my local public library for information in this encyclopedia on this king) whereas Wahibre is a currently obscure name for him. Wahibre might also be confusing since it is the prenomen of Wahibre Ibiau, a 13th dynasty king. Finally, even the Metropolitian Museum has no problems referring to Apries here Naturally one prefers to use a native king's name for an article but I think it is better to stick with Apries for now rather than Wahibre. Even Egypt Sites doesn't have a problem referring to Apries: [1] As for Necho, I would support renaming their 2 articles into Nekau because their names (Necho vs Nekau) are very similar in Greek and Egyptian anyway. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Article states: "Apries (Ancient Greek: Ἁπρίης) is the name by which Herodotus (ii. 161) and Diodorus (i. 68) designate Wahibre Haaibre, Ουαφρης, a pharaoh of Egypt (589 BC – 570 BC), the fourth king (counting from Psamtik I) of the Twenty-sixth dynasty of Egypt.[3] He was equated with the Waphres of Manetho, who correctly records that he reigned for 19 years. Apries is also called Hophra in Jeremiah 44:30.[4]"

As written, the insertion of Ουαφρης does not make sense. H & D call him Apries. Presumably "Wahibre Haaibre" is a transliteration of Egyptian. But then Ουαφρης is stuck in, looking like a appositive to the Egyptian -- but how can that be? Is Ουαφρης not in fact only from the Greek Old Testament (erroneously called the LXX)? I moved Ουαφρης to a parenthesis after "Hophra" / Jeremiah. (EnochBethany (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC))Reply