Talk:Ra

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 15 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cleo120. Peer reviewers: Blazingstar24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Mangust

I tried to make sense of mangust, and I came up with two possible meanings, perhaps related. First, is mongoose, and second, is a pharoah hat or crown. Since ichneumon is also mentioned, I wonder if mangust might simply be deleted. --Jose Ramos 03:40, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering what is Ra's symbol?it may be the falcon but I am not sure since it is supposed to be a hat or item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.205.21 (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Stargate

Shouldn't it be mentioned on this page that Ra was also a character on stargate. I know it's in the disambiguation page, but the stargate character was based on him (either in part or entirely). I don't know how much the Stargate one was inspired by this one, and I think that it caused some controversy in Egypt (because it depicted Ra as an alien) Tydamann (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice not to have a trivia section. Maybe if we could find sources about the controversy. Doug Weller (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of Stargate and can say with reasonable certainty that that Ra is the supposedly the same as this one. As for the controversy, I don't see why. They don't worship Ra anymore, so why should they care? --75.181.67.130 (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Because there is an academic community of Egyptologists would prefer that their very serious discipline be kept separate from the image of it depicted in the media. 128.135.121.165 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a hollywood cross puzzle. Good Grief. Does modern day illiteracy know no boundaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.55.236 (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sons of Ra

As written in some books (and in Wikipedia too), Horus originally was Ra's son. As wirtten in some book (again, Wikipedia too), Anubis originally was thought to be "the fourth son of Ra". But it`s never written in some kind of list, it`s never clearified how many sons there are, when and where, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.15.163 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In the newly discovered tomb of Woseribre Senebkay, archaeologists found texts that refer to him as "king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Woseribre, the son of Re, Senebkay". I'm still waiting for better sources. But his inclusion in the Offspring's list should be considered. Wilro (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Egyptian rulers claimed that they were descended from Ra, thus "Son of Ra" is a common title for an Egyptian pharaoh. It refers to the birthname of the king. See Ancient Egyptian royal titulary. Those names in the list are deities who at one time or another were believed to be Ra's children and no historical person should be included there. --WANAX (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Radium

Ra can stand for the element Radium, no? So shouldn't the page for Ra be one of those splitting pages asking a user if he/she meant the deity or the element?

   I guess if you want Radium, you search for Radium, not Ra.

(One may approve of this forking link, in light of connecting the two. Radium, Radiance, Ra... there is a conceptual connection worth considering, and such links and associations are the best non-articular information on the site, as they speak for themselves.)

Ra's many names

there is a mistake in the article under Ra's many names, which says "Geband and Nut" should say "Geb and Nut" also the name of Isis is in all caps as "ISIS"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsmite79 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hebrew Meaning

I am wondering if there's a point to include the hebrew meaning of Amon-Ra to the article. In hebrew "amon ra" means "lots (of) evil". --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 04:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unless you could find a very strong etymological link (which seems entirely possible, since the ancient Egyptian language was likely related to the Semitic languages), this remains just an interesting coincidence and should not be included, in my opinion. --Shotput 19:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew is quite related to Egyptian, about the same as french is to italian, for example. But I doubt that the egyptians would have called their chief god "evil". I.e. "the sun is Ra" translating as anything like "the sun is evil" is really rather unlikely.

It is possible that the hebrews (whoever they were) added the word into the language, and, resenting egyptian rule, used it derogatively, i.e. "the chief god of them - the egyptians - is evil", thus "Ra" being, to the hebrews, a synonym for "evil", and thus over time, the connection being lost. This is a more likely explanation.

~~~~ 20:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. The Hebrew expression starts with H and ends with Ayin. The folk etymology cited above is utterly unbelievable.

Regarding the statement, "Hebrew is quite related to Egyptian, about the same as french is to italian": Hebrew is a Semitic language, and Egyptian a Hamitic language; they thus belong to separate langauge families. Even within the same family, Arabic, a fellow Semitic language, is far closer to Hebrew than is Egyptian, and yet Arabic and Hebrew are not inter-comprehensible (as are, to at least a limited degree, French and Italian). The Semitic and Hamitic languages are related, forming the Hamito-Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic language phylum. Thus, the relationship between the two is more like that between, say, Gaelic and French, or Farsi and Urdu. That is to say, recognizably related (especially on close inspection), yes; closely similar or inter-comprehensible, definitely no. ---Turmarion, 22:38, 5 Jan 2007

Isis, Ra, and Saturn. Key figures in myth and lore. How they relate to Hebrew, not sure. ---Neil Golden

Eye of Ra

The Eye of Ra is facing the wrong direction, the eye shown in the article (left eye of Horus) is actually the Eye of Thoth. The Eye of Ra is the right Eye of Horus. very very good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.114.196 (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sun-god

Some say that Ra is a sun-god and others say he is not. What is true about this and what is not?

Both. It depends on WHEN in egyptian history you are talking about. Egyptian religion covered 3000 years. It changed a bit over this time. --Victim of signature fascism 09:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. It would still be nice to know more details, and their sources. In school my teacher told us that we know Ra was a Sun-God bc he has a yellow disc above his head. Wasnt the disc actually carved in stone and yellow painted by scientists bc it was believed to be a sun? Wouldnt that mean that it could actually be anyting?

The truth is that though sometimes the colour wa added afterwards, in some protected corners, of some temples, traces of the original colours still remain. Besides, representations of Ra -and other gods- were also done in papyrus that, thankfully, still survive. There's such a papyrus dated c.1350 BC that depicts Ra in falcon form with seven gods of the Ogdoad. The falcon has an orange disk above his head, so at least by this time he was already a solar deity.Lexie Herrera 13:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "Ra" or "Re" means "Sun". His occupation is written in his name! Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

At a distant time in Egyptian history, a fella became so angry that he turned himself inside out and became a nuclear explosion. This is the beginnings of Ra and the Sun. Egypt was the first to detonate a nuclear device. They have been baked by the Sun since that time. Gnostics (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hathor and Ra

Hathor was Ra's daughter who happened to be in the role somehow of the EYE OF RA. One point in Hathor's life she was in deep trouble for almost wiping out mankind but Ra stopped her just before anyhting worst happend that she killed yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.77.68 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In that story, Hathor is sometimes said to be the same godess as Sekhmet. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Other than budge

Budge's works are ubiquitous but not worth very much- his own old employer, the british museum, has gone so far to denounce them. Additionally, nothing that old should be the basis of an article. Budge's monotheism beliefs are more or less totally thrown out and this article really needs a rewrite with better sources cited. Thanatosimii 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Budge's work is just fine. He has been attacked in a battle so old, the roots have long been forgotten. Certainly, he shouldn't be the only source, but that means that someone, perhaps you, should add in other perspectives. The British Museum began bashing Budge when his rival took over. That's where that comes from. And from what I read of the feud, it essentially is that Budge didn't believe that the Egyptians were complete idiots because they were pagan.

KV(Talk) 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please rethink this, KV. Any feud was a very long time ago and I doubt has much if any impact on modern Egyptologists. It is also important to recall that the position and importance of gods varied over the many centuries of dynastic Egypt. It is ok to discuss the history of the development of modern thinking about Egyptology, and if there are still supporters of Budge's view on monotheism to give them their due, but we need to rework these articles as I think we've agreed. It isn't just that Budge wasn't always right, but he also (according to an Egyptologist friend of mine) stated things with a certainty that today's scholars would agree isn't warranted. She also says "Budge's translations and transliterations of ancient Egyptian texts are considered outdated by most serious scholars in Egyptology, and most students would not rely upon Budge's works in most serious research." Best wishes, Doug Weller (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this isn't academic research and we have a lack of other sources. I do believe that the way it is phrased it purports it as Budge's theory. The feud does carry on through the British Museum, however, and the intention of the original poster was to remove the one cited source this article has. Now, Budge can legitimately be reduced to a footnote with good sources, but we dont' seem to have those sources at the current time. Your Egyptologist friend might be able to help with that though, allowing for a massive expansion in the article. KV(Talk) 15:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be following this debate about Budge around. Budge did a great service to Egyptology by publishing so much material, including the Papyrus of Ani which is and was a much celebrated Book of the Dead from the British Museum. But he just needs to be read with some reservations and to remember that some of his interpretations have been superceded. I wouldn't say that there is still a feud about him but because his books are widely and cheaply available most people start by reading his 'Gods of the Egyptians' and so on. The thing is that Egyptology as a science has taken great strides since his day - they understand so much more and can translate much more accurately than at first (hieroglyphs were only first translated at all in the 19 century). The understanding of the religion has grown but it is still the case that various writers project on to it what they themselves understand or believe. For instance some Egyptologists deny any mystical thought in Ancient Egypt but this has been countered by people such as Naydler in his "Shamanic Wisdom in the Pyramid Texts" ISBN 089281755-0 which is worth a read if you get the chance. To understand what the Egyptian texts are on about we need to get into their way of seeing the world which in my view is only possible if we grasp the magical/mystical perspective on reality. Apepch7 (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Expert?

I would like to help out with this article. I will therefore add information as and when as well as citing resources. I can do this as time permits. If any quires please contact me at my talk page.

Apex156 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ra in Arabic

Just out of curiosity, why is Ra's name given in Arabic, given that he was an ancient Egyptian god?

Good point; in this case the arabic version is not relevant.Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Loss of Citations

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra&diff=103615296&oldid=103490269

That is where the article was completely rewritten and all sources were removed (most of them I had entered). How does everyone think we should rectify this? Revert or reentering the text and sources?

KV(Talk) 23:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait at least until the weekend before deciding to act unilaterally.

KV(Talk) 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, and I must say that this, the most important of the Egyptian Gods, has a completely terrorized article. I'll have to do some major editting, and probably before I mess with Ma'at.

KV(Talk) 23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Already began compiling sources, I'll put it in all at once in a major rewrite. This time I won't wipe out all the heiroglyphs, pictures, citations, and information like that anon.

KV(Talk) 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The english spelling of ra?

Why does Ra spelled with an "a" sound wrong. I keep saying it my self and it just doesn't sound right. Try it first with a soft "a" then a hard "a" it just doesn't sound right.

spelling and pronunciation

As the Wiki-managers have noted, this article is indeed in need of documentation for its statements. At the very start we are told the earliest known form of the god's name was *ri:ʕu, but where does this reconstruction come from? It's also not very clear from the font that the second consonant is supposed to be a voiced pharyngeal, as at the beginning of the word "Arab" when pronounced by many Arabs. From Peust 1999 (Egyptian Phonology) p.47: "< ʕ > is a symbol for an original dental stop /d/. The pronunciation during the Middle Kingdom may have been something like /'riddV/ or /'liddV/ (V = unknown vowel). By the New Kingdom, several phonetic developments including the shift /d/ > /ʕ/...had taken place. The word was now pronounced as /'reʕə/...by the Roman period...contracted to /'re/" The last pronunciation is similar to English "ray", especially as pronounced by the Scots or Irish. This was how it was pronounced in most of the ancient Coptic dialects, although the conservative southern Akhmimic dialect still kept the old vowel: /ri/(as in first syllable of "reason"). The form used by the Romans and Greeks is in line with the northern dialects' /re/. In modern-day English-speaking environments, one can either preserve the old way with the "ray" pronunciation, or use an Anglicised form, which would be "ree"(cf. the Greek goddess of youth, Hebe, usually pronounced as "heebee" in English). There seems to be no reason for the "rah" pronunciation. If, however, the spelling "Ra" has its origin perhaps in the 19th century, the self-centered English at that time may have felt that "A" was just the right symbol to use for the IPA /e/ sound, in which case they actually meant "Ra" to be pronounced /re/, and then this connection was forgotten in a later age. This has happened before: the zodiac sign Libra used to be pronounced like the first syllable in "library", but (during the 60s?) when it came into popular usage, poorly educated people assumed it was Italian or something, and started saying "leebra", which is now the new standard. In any case, I would not recommend using the "rah" pronunciation unless its origin can be documented.Jakob37 (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The spelling Ra is based on the traditional Egyptological pronunciation (note that [ra:] is also used in German; I don't think it has anything to do with the spelling of English), while Re is indeed based on the Coptic pronunciation. The reconstruction */ri:ʕ(u)/, even if it may be valid only for Middle or Late Egyptian of the New Kingdom, is based on Akkadian transcriptions of proper names, as explained on this website. Why don't you add Peust's reconstruction instead? However, I'd like to point out that Egyptian language#Consonants says nothing about a shift /d/ > /ʕ/. Instead, Egyptian language#Classification dates this change back to the separation of Egyptian from Afro-Asiatic, implying that it had already happened when the attestation starts. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

...but (during the 60s?) when it came into popular usage, poorly educated people assumed [Libra] was Italian or something...

Also known as Latin, which... er... it was. I'm sure you're not usually this rude and laughably maleducated in person, but—if you didn't already figure this out on your own—go ahead and take this as a reminder to take the uninformed pompousness down a notch. You'll get a lot further and the ride will be a lot more pleasant. Now, that said, the current article gives the transliterated Egyptian as Rˤ with no other vowels and links to a Wiktionary entry informing people that Ra is the correct pronunciation and Re is a Coptic-based malapropism. I assume that's wrong but, if you'd like to help fix it, kindly add some reliable sourcing with your statements so we can be sure you've got it right this time. — LlywelynII 09:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Religious prejudice

The phrase in the text that says "resembled what would become the Christian deity" needs to be changed or taken out all together. This phrasing implicitly states that at one time or another the "christian deity" did not exist and that something, another diety or a thought or idea "became" that deity.

Now you can disagree with Christianity if you want. You can worship your own god, no god or yourself if you want but it is just plain wrong to put this kind of obvious NPV violation in this text.

I suggest changing the sentence to say "resembled the Christian Deity" and leave the rest alone. In this way we not only shorten the article, have a better grammatical structure in the sentence but also not offend the Billions of people who have believed in the Christian deity in their ages past as well as the Billions who today believe in the Christian deity. Also, considering that Jews, Muslims and protestants all also claim to follow the Christian deity along with Christians, that is fully over half of the earth's population.

I hope I am not asking for too much here. It isn't like I am forcing you to say that God exist or anything. Just don't put it out there that he doesn't since this violated Wikipedia's published rules. I know that someone is going to want to argue about this but Yes, in its current form the article does implicitly state that the Christian Deity does not actually exist.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.194.110 (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about offending people. It's accurate to say "resembled WHAT WOULD BECOME.." because at one time or another the "christian deity" did NOT exist and did evolve from another diety. What's wrong with history? You sound like you're the one with the POV. - mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.135.53 (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "my POV is not a POV but fact" is the classic case of POV pushing. What you are talking, 68..., is not "history" but ideology! The problem is not that it offends but that it violates the rules of Wikipedia. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the Christian god exists at all, has ever existed or will ever exist is very much POV. (To me as an ignosticist since my teenage years, before I even knew of a term for this stance, the assertion is simply meaningless, or vacuous.) However, the phrase does not imply that the Christian god did not exist in a physical or spiritual sense at the time of the eleventh dynasty (if one believes in an eternal Abrahamic single god, of course he did), just that he was not existent as a conscious idea in the minds of people, as they did not yet know of him, recognise or acknowledge him (or had not created him yet, in the atheist view). The statement is purely meant in a religious-comparative sense: As a cultural or religious concept, the Christian god did not exist yet. Given that no Semitic people seemed to follow a monotheistic religion at the time, it is certainly correct to say that the Abrahamic god Yahweh did not exist yet at the time, in a cultural sense, although the cultural concept of a single Abrahamic deity may have derived from older Semitic (such as *’Ilu, see Ancient Semitic religion) or Egyptian deities (such as Ra or Aten). (This recalls the old philosophical conundrum: What is a god without followers? Is a deity dependent of worship, like an entertainer cannot be called a star without a following?) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Founded Abbas.

Abbas is the God of the sun Ra, the opposite is Aphophis. New trinity: Aphophis-"God" Father/Allah-Ra.--79.52.171.137 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Alpert = Ra?

There's nothing in the Lostpedia or Lost Wiki links that explicitly says that the character "is said by creator J.J. Abrams to be based primarily on Ra." Could you link to the direct source? Anthony71 (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Totem of Ra.

I am arguing that the actual animal that was associated with god Ra is the Hawk, not a Falcon. It is only in the form of the composite deity, Ra-Horakhty, that they are identified as a falcon, with Horus being the falcon. Many writers, mythographers and Egyptologies (apologies for the lack of citation) generally accepts Ra as the hawk-god of Egypt. Remember the story where humanity was said to have been formed from the 'Tears of Ra'? Hawks possess dark markings on their faces that resembles tear-drops. This observation inspired the ancient Egyptians into thinking that their Hawk-god Ra is their creator, add the fact that Hawks were very swift flyers, perfect to represent their glorious god. You should check this information from Encarta 95-98. Let me add: Yes, I am aware that for the Ancient Egyptians, where were little distinction/difference between otherwise similar-looking yet distinct species (the same goes with Anubis whose identity was confused by their believers/writers as either a jackal or black dog.)

Shall I edit this already? --110.55.191.131 (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How are you distinguishing between a falcon and a hawk, given that in North America the word hawk is often applied to what may otherwise be called falcons, and of course we need to take into consideration what species of birds might have existed at that time in Egypt. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sun Ra

I think Jazz artist Sun Ra should be add to the In Popular Culture section. He uses a lot of the imagery on his album covers and in his videos.--70.142.47.99 (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Daughters of Ra

In the extended versions of Egyptian mythology, Ra was said to have fathered many children, most of them were daughters - although the exact identity of his consort or consorts remains vague and ambiguous. This is because when the different city states of Ancient Egypt began to unite under one rule, the followers of Ra attempted to assimilate the identity of their own chief god with the other divine identities. This led to the development of a system of belief where Ra alone was said to have fathered the many children gods and goddesses from different religions.

I suggest that perhaps there should be a section in this article that is dedicated to this topic - both in terms of the actual ancient religion and the narrative mythology. Reference may be researched and later added if this is accepted and then verified

List of possible offsprings:

• Bast / Bastet - daughter of Amun-Ra (from the religious text of the New Kingdom - please wait for reference)
• Selket / Serket - a minor daughter of Ra (from the Westcar Papyrus)
• Hathor and Sekhmet - referred to as the creation of Ra from his fiery eye arguably his daughter literally (The Destruction of Mankind story from the narrative tales of the Middle Kingdom)
• Maat - A daughter of Ra. She is referred to as the personification of order that was called forth by Ra during his birth from Ocean Nun (from Story of Creation in the Beben temple in Heliopolis)
• Mafdet - a very ancient and minor goddess that was many-times suggested as another form the the feline-goddesses Bast or Sehkmet.
• Wadjet and Nekhbet - the two ladies who were the protectors of Lower and Upper Egypt respectively - therefore the whole Egypt in general. They both share the title as the Eye of Ra similar to Bast, Sekhmet, Hathor, Tefnut etc who are all considered as the feminine protector of the country and sometimes as daughters of Ra also. Arguably, in terms of narrative mythology, we can conclude that all protector goddesses of Egypt may be linked in the linage of Ra. 203.87.203.190 (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide references/citations for this information - if you can there is no need to put it in 'talk' you can amend the main article yourself.Apepch7 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

According to A Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, Bastet and Sekhmet are daughters of Ra. ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 17:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Several other gods were also sometimes children of Ra- early Horus and Isis (not fully sure), and, through a from as Atum, Shu and Tefnut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.67.130 (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Coptic

in Coptic language "Re" means sun. Böri (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC) 三遷

Māori language: Sun = Rā

Is it a considence that the Māori word for the sun is Rā? Could the Egyptian culture have been influcenced by polynesians? I always had the impression that the Egyptian pharaos depicted on the hyroglyphs and statues had asiatic features. This may also explain their facination with pyramids and Astronomy. Particularly the later aids in naval navigation. The Māori (and the polynesians in General) have in their mythology a bird man, which is the embodiment of God the great spirit. In Māori, the Man-Bird or Bird-Man, is called kaka-ra, or "The Divine Bird". Kaka or kaku mean bird and ra means God or Sun. An interesting reading on this topic is "Maori Symbolism" by Ettie A. Rout, which links polynesian culture to most pyramid building empires around the world, and the similarities in their mythology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.75.222 (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi - interesting, but this isn't a forum to discuss speculation. If you have sources that meet our criteria at WP:VERIFY (sources must discuss Ra and the Maori word, not just one), then bring them here. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi - Ok, did not know that. Two facts:

1) Rā is the Māori name for Sun 2) A common polynesian deity is the Bird-man, who in Māori is called We-tiara-Ko-Atara (The Man-Bird or Bird-Man). Close inspection of the Egyptian god Ra would make a reasonable man conclude that he also is a bird man. The following reference is an excellent treatize on Maori culture and legend and their role in Pyramid building: http://books.google.ca/books?id=gemgFqF831QC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=maori+symbolism+man-bird&source=bl&ots=iWtim3X2aG&sig=qFO8QQ8aLfA_Xr55HIReaSiVGq4&hl=en&ei=080bTu7kL_HKiAL1qvySCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pyramid%20builders&f=false". The book is called "Maori Symbolism" by Ettie A. Rout. I am to lazy to research this topic to an academic level, but I invite you to do so.

It's pure coincidence. See Tama-nui-te-rā, which gives the Proto-Polynesian reconstruction in a footnote. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe coincidence, but... The Egyptological transcription is based on the Coptic writing, but there are several Coptic dialects. In Sahidic it's "rä" or "ri", in Fayyumic "lä" or "li". Coptic represents the latest state after the introduction of Christianity, written in Greek letters. This word is written with Eta. The pronouciation can be "i" or "ä" at this time. The cuneiform version is based on the way it was pronounced between 1500 and 1200 BC in the royal court (especially Amarna). This pronouciation was something like "ria" or "riʕ". In the Old Kingdom (according to Hannig) the pronouciation of the "r" again was more like "l". So that it could have sounded like "liʕ". The interesting point is, that Egyptian is a sister language to the Semitic languages, that all have forms like "shams" or "shamash" for "sun". So we have to find an explanation for this different word. The Chinese word for "sun" is written with the same character as in Egyptian, even the stroke or point in the centre. The pronouciation is in Pinyin "ri" and in Japanese "nichi" (Sino-Japanese), what gives a hint to the Ancient pronounciation. The Proto-Polynesian form "laqaa" or "laʕaa" is not so far from these forms. Proto-Polynesian can be traced back to Taiwan and this could be the centre from where the Chinese and Japanese forms spread. How the Egyptian form is exactly connected is not clear, but there is no connection to any other language. l and r are shifting all the time in these languages, neither the Chinese nor the Egyptians could pronounce it clearly.--183.182.119.148 (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ra → Re (god) – I believe that the article should be moved because "Re" is the more commonly used spelling in reliable sources (which to me is either a source by an Egyptologist or that has been recommended as a useful resource in an Egyptological work). To see which spelling is more common, I looked through all the sources to which I have access whose authors' primary language is English. (I did not include non-Anglophone Egyptologists because Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names specifies English-language reliable sources. For the record, though, French and German Egyptologists, who make up most of the non-Anglophone Egyptological community, seem to almost universally use "Re". I'm not sure about Arabic speakers.) - A. Parrot (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Below is the list of sources I surveyed.

Extended content

Donald B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt Richard H. Wilkinson, Symbol and Magic in Ancient Egypt George Hart, Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses Rosalie David, Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt Rosalie David, Cult of the Sun John D. Ray, Reflections of Osiris James P. Allen, Middle Egyptian James P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt Carol Andrews, Amulets of Ancient Egypt Emily Teeter, Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt Mark Lehner, The Complete Pyramids E. A. E. Reymond, The Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple Byron E. Shafer, Religion in Ancient Egypt Byron E. Shafer, Temples of Ancient Egypt Angela P. Thomas, Egyptian Gods and Myths Barbara Watterson, Gods of Ancient Egypt Bob Brier, Ancient Egyptian Magic J. Gwyn Griffiths, The Origins of Osiris and His Cult J. Gwyn Griffiths, The Conflict of Horus and Seth J. Gwyn Griffiths, Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride David Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt Leonard Lesko, Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker Robert K. Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Ritual Practice R. T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature Nicholas Reeves and Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Valley of the Kings T. G. H. James, Myths and Legends of Ancient Egypt John Baines, "Myth and Literature" in Ancient Egyptian Literature, edited by Antonio Loprieno Raymond O. Faulkner, Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead Patricia Spencer, The Egyptian Temple Edna R. Russmann, Eternal Egypt Geraldine Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt Geraldine Pinch, Egyptian Mythology Stephen Quirke, The Cult of Ra Stephen Quirke, Ancient Egyptian Religion Stephen Quirke (ed.), The Temple in Ancient Egypt Gay Robins, Women in Ancient Egypt Gay Robins, "Women and Votive Stelae in the New Kingdom" in Studies in Honor of Martha Rhoads Bell, edited by Jacke Phillips Robert A. Armour, Gods and Myths of Ancient Egypt Veronica Ions, Egyptian Mythology Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Vincent Arieh Tobin, Theological Principles of Egyptian Religion Ian Shaw, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt Donald O'Connor and Steven Quirke, Mysterious Lands Paul Nicholson and Ian Shaw, The Princeton Dictionary of Ancient Egypt Plus about 1,200 studies related to ancient Egyptian religion collected from The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Journal of the American Research Center in Cairo, The Journal of Near Eastern Studies, and various other journals on JSTOR.

Some of these articles, and a few of the books, use the variant spellings "Rê", "Rē", or "Rēʿ", but because these spellings are too rarely used to move this article to, I thought it reasonable to count them as just "Re".

Counting the books and articles in books, there are 34 that use Re and 14 that use Ra. The choice of spelling seems to be a personal preference by the author or the editor of a book, so counting that way, there are 26 authors who favor Re (Redford, Wilkinson, Hart, David, Ray, Allen, Andrews, Teeter, Lehner, Reymond, Shafer, Thomas, Watterson, Brier, Griffiths, Frankfurter, Lesko, Ritner, Clark, Lichtheim, Reeves, James, Baines, Faulkner, Spencer, and Russmann) and 10 who favor Ra (Pinch, Quirke, Robins, Armour, Ions, Kemp, Tobin, O'Connor, and Nicholson).

With the journals, I looked at twenty randomly selected articles from each of the three Egyptological journals and from my collection of articles from other journals. In JEA, 19 articles used Re and one used Ra. In JARCE, the ratio was 19 Re to 1 Ra; in JNES, 17 Re to 3 Ra; and in the collection of other journals, 17 Re to 3 Ra.

If my collection is any indication (and given its size, it probably is), the large majority of sources use "Re", and "Ra" is limited to a sizable minority.

Because there are so many other meanings of the letters "re", if the article is moved it will need parenthetical disambiguation. "Re (god)" seems the most concise and straightforward option. A. Parrot (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment though there are many popular works about this particular god, usually spelled Ra (sometimes Rah)... and since "Ra" is not disambiguated while "Re" would be, isn't it preferable to have the undisambiguated title? 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Article titles: "when a topic's most commonly used name, as reflected in reliable sources, is ambiguous… and the topic is not primary, that name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated." The basic form of a title is dependent on the common name alone. Disambiguation does not factor into that decision.

"Ra" is likely more common in popular culture, and I wouldn't have suggested the move if the preference of most Egyptologists did not seem so overwhelming. I'm not sure, though, how the spellings would break down in non-Egyptological works that could be considered reliable sources. I have two such sources in my possession that I didn't count, and they both use "Re". A. Parrot (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm simply not qualified to decide if Re is the most commonly used in reliable sources (and I'm willing to take your word for it). BUT to be honest Ra seems (to me at least) to be the most common name as far as the average public is concerned [1]. Flamarande (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Reliable source" does not necessarily mean a scientific source on the subject. According to WP:COMMONNAME, the most commonly used name takes precedence over a less common technical/official name. A newspaper or general history book is more indicative of common usage than books specialized in Egyptology and mainly read in higher academic circles. It seems to me that "Ra" is certainly the preferred spelling as far as the general public goes. This usage can be seen here, here, and here, the last one being a history of Ancient Egypt. Knight of Truth (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. My thoughts similar to Flamarande's. Perhaps "Re" is the common name in high quality reliable sources, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that the large majority of laymen would expect the article to be at "Ra". Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we disagree with what makes for a reliable source. A book on Egyptology or a peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source on what the "best" way to write it is, but it's about what is used most commonly in this case, and well-established newspapers and magazines are reliable sources when it comes to showing evidence of common usage. I think the current note in the lead about alternative spelling and proper transliteration suffices; it's informs the reader of all the details but the article's title remains in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose "Ra" is what the readers are looking up by an overwhelming margin, according to Google Insights. (See the bar graph on the right.) That "Re" would require a parenthetical disambiguator is a serious disadvantage as well. WP:PRECISION says to use an "alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English" if necessary to avoid parenthetical disambiguation. Kauffner (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why has beginning of page gone squiffy

I tried to edit out boxes at top of page but couldn't work it out - too rusty with wiki I'm afraid. Apepch7 (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism. When you see that, it's usually because of a leading space at the beginning of a paragraph. In this case the first word, 'Ra', was removed and not replaced. I went to the edit history, compared the version before the Riley editor to the current, and then restored that one. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks I get it now.Apepch7 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture Change

I suggest that the picture in the infobox changed from the image on the top, File:Re-Horakhty.svg, to the image on the bottom, File:Sun god Ra2.svg. The reason that I am proposing this is because the current image is of one of Ra's merged forms, Re-Horakhty, whereas the proposed new image is Ra in his unchanged form. I want to get everybody's opinion before doing anything drastic, though. ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 00:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There isn't any clear iconographic difference between Ra and Ra-Horakhty, and both images have the same distinguishing attributes—sun disk on head, ankh in the left hand and was staff in the right. It's really just a difference in the title of the images, and the current image can be moved to a different title if you think it's really necessary (because it's on Commons, renaming is a bit more complicated than it would be here, but I have an account there and could make the request).

Besides, the current image is part of User:Jeff Dahl's set of Egyptian god images, which are used in most of the Egyptian deity articles. They're based on a set of stock image elements—like the male kilt, the female dress, the broad collar, and the was staff—that reflect the mix-and-match iconography in Egyptian art. (Details in the style of depiction differ from one place to another, but in the same site, like one temple or one tomb, the gods and goddesses are based on a common pattern, with only a few attributes to distinguish them from one another). Changing the image in this article, when the Dahl images are so widespread, might actually be misleading. It's effectively changing from one style to another, but readers might think that the difference in style between Ra and other gods actually represents differences in his iconography. A. Parrot (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Request protection?

Should we request at least semi-protection on this page? Just looking at the page history and you see how many times something has had to be reverted. While it may not be as frequent vandalism as some other articles that are controversial and/or "humorous" such as Jesus (the prior) and Fucking, Austria (the latter), it's definitely there, sometimes in a gruesome tug-of-war between vandalism and reverting. Because this is a moderate problem, I thought that I would get a general consensus on it before asking. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally, WP:Requests for page protection only grants semi-protection if there are multiple acts of vandalism in a day. There have been two instances in the last two days, and there was a gap of a few days before that, so I doubt the request would be granted. I know it seems kind of stupid—I asked this same sort of question years ago, when I was still rather inexperienced—but the page protection rules really are that stringent. Until policies change, the way to stay sane on Wikipedia is to think of vandalism as background noise rather than reacting to its gruesomeness. A. Parrot (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Anum?

In the section "Ra in the Underworld", it says "the Egyptians believed that Ra set as Anum or in the form of a ram."

The link to "Anum" takes us to a page on a village in Ghana. Shouldn't this be "Atum" instead?

MrGraphis (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It originally said that, but somebody mucked with it back in January (trying to change instances of "Atum" to "Amun" and, in this instance, making a typo). I fixed the issue. A. Parrot (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014

My request is to change some of the info on Ra for it has come to my attention that some of the info is faulty.

Dakota671 (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: State what you wish to change, and what you wish to change it to. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2015

"When she became bloodthirsty she was pacified by mixing beer with red dye." This is absolutely incorrect. She was stated to be pacified by being tricked into DRINKING the mixed beer and blood-coloured dye. Mixing it itself does nothing. She has to drink it.

184.76.67.233 (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, of course. That whole paragraph is a bit out of place in the lead section, but for now I just corrected the error. A. Parrot (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:ERA

Per this edit, the usage of this page was established as BC/AD. Kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 08:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hathor

Hathor was never Ra's sibling. She was only his daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.12.25 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2016‎ (UTC)

She was both his daughter and his consort (it's complicated), but I removed her from the list of siblings because it's more dubious. A. Parrot (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2016

{{edit semi-protected|Ra|answered=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.140.216 (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

stuff that needs editing in RA page!!!!!

okay I noticed a few things that are weird about the Ra page. First under names of Ra it says "Geband and Nut" when it should say "Geb and Nut" also the goddess Isis' name is in all caps as ISIS in that section. someone please fix this. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsmite79 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The material added also reads like it was copied straight from the sources cited. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, looking over other edits by the user, does not seem to be a copyright violation, though the text was still rather unencyclopedic. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2016

I just want to add Neith as one of the parentage versions for Ra. Marlonball (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. A. Parrot (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2019

Please add the following link to the See Also section of the page: https://www.llresearch.org/library/the_law_of_one_pdf/the_law_of_one_pdf.aspx 72.13.191.242 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:LINKSPAM Orville1974^talk 23:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The real meaning of Ra

Amen - Ra(d te imam) (Slovenian) In English: I love you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Redenšek (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph needs splitting

The paragraph which entirely comprises the section [t]he sun as a creator is overly long and needs splitting. I'm not sure where to split it, so could someone please tell me where to do so?--Thylacine24 (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Thylacine24: I split it, at what seemed like a natural place. A. Parrot (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2020

requset 117.217.181.213 (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

It is "RA AMON" not Amon RA.....The RA comes first. 2600:1700:1DC0:AC0:B958:414D:EC8D:AB9C (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -ink&fables «talk» 10:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Improve lead section as per MOS Lead Section standards 30 July 2021

Please see the discussion on MOS Lead Section talk page.

Change:

Ra (/rɑː/; Ancient Egyptian: rꜥ or rˤ; also transliterated rˤw /ˈɾiːʕuw/; cuneiform: 𒊑𒀀 ri-a or 𒊑𒅀ri-ia)

To:

In Egyptian mythology, Ra (/rɑː/; Ancient Egyptian: rꜥ or rˤ; also transliterated rˤw /ˈɾiːʕuw/; cuneiform: 𒊑𒀀 ri-a or 𒊑𒅀ri-ia) UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done There is no consensus for your position in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Articles stating with 'In_physics', for_example. The suggestion is redundant, because the same sentence already states that Ra is an ancient Egyptian deity. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021

Change:

Ra (/rɑː/; Ancient Egyptian: rꜥ or rˤ; also transliterated rˤw /ˈɾiːʕuw/; cuneiform: 𒊑𒀀 ri-a or 𒊑𒅀ri-ia) or Re (/reɪ/; Coptic: ⲣⲏ, Rē)

To:

Ra (/rɑː/; Ancient Egyptian: rꜥ or rˤ; also transliterated rˤw /ˈɾiːʕuw/; cuneiform: 𒊑𒀀 ri-a or 𒊑𒅀ri-ia) or Re (/reɪ/; Coptic: ⲣⲏ, Rē) Is a diety, specifically it UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done That would be ungrammatical. The sentence is fine as it is. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The suggestion expands on the definition of the word UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The sentence (omitting the parentheses) currently reads "Ra, or Re, was the ancient Egyptian deity of the sun." Your proposal would change that to "Ra, or Re, Is a diety, specifically it was the ancient Egyptian deity of the sun." Leaving aside the improper capitalisation and the questionable choice of pronoun, it also switches from present to past tense, which is ungrammatical. That could all be easily fixed, but the suggestion repeats information which is already in the sentence, which is plain old bad writing. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023

Delete the following text: "While some believed that Ra is self-created, others believed that Ptah created him." The reference ([42] The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2011. p. 708.) states that Ptah is the creator of Atum, not Ra. LemonBirthdayCakeCat (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done A. Parrot (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Receiving of Ra - credibility check?

The holiday of "The Receiving of Ra" was celebrated on May 26 in the Gregorian calendar.[24]

The source for this looks to be a self published neopagan calendar book. Is this really accurate information? If so, is there a better source that can be cited? 173.72.33.98 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look at all like a reliable source; I see no reason to give it the benefit of the doubt. I've removed this claim. Thanks for pointing this out. A. Parrot (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023

{{subst:trim|1=

In some myth's Ma'at was created by Atum when we sat down on the hill. So I would specify (in some myth's) for her. Also in some myth's Satet was created by Ra through Heka for his own pleasure, So I would do the same for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netjerudua (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)