Talk:History of ancient Egypt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
May 24, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted

Very poor quality article[edit]

This article is full of inaccuracies, is poorly organised, and its choice of content is erratic. There are no references at all.

Why the long discussion of Mummies and Embalming in an article on history?

Why the references to the Judaeo-Christian bible (2/3 of the FIP section is about the bible!)?

The section on "open problems" is not about open problems at all - see the definition in open problem. All historical questions, particularly over 3,000 years ago are subject to debate and revision.

The "See Also" list is also quite odd. Why "Egyptian Mythology", and "Egypt in the European Imagination"?

There is a lot more, but this article needs serious revision.

These comments were prompted by one of our egyptology tutors using the errors in this article as a definitive example of why we should stay away from wikipedia. Although I am a supporter of wikipedia in general, I was forced to agree with her after reading the article.

Keep in mind this article is rated a "start" and has not recieved extensive attention. However I fail to see how this tutor claims this is wildly factually inaccurate. Your qualms appear to only concern weight and relevance, not accuracy. Thanatosimii 23:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that was a troll, I just caught it. The most repulsive and uninformed whine that I often hear about wikipedia is that it's "factually inaccurate" and "full of errors". It's as if people who open it expect it to be expert-verified and fully complete. Of course it is! It's the best effort of a crowd to patch together the sources available in the internet or otherwise publicly into a coherent whole, with occasional attention from experts. Staying away from it is the worst an expert can do for the public! Thousands of people rely on Wikipedia for their every-day general knowledge and curiosity. When you see a small factual error, correct it! When you see an unreferenced dubious claim, mark it {{cn}} [citation needed]! When you see outright bullshit or marketing, remove it (try to be constructive though). On your user page, write that you are an expert in subject matter and give a reference to something you have published for extra credibility. Most people who frequent here try their best to get expert opinion in. Another common one is that Wikipedia "isn't a source". Of course it isn't! It's a reference that points you to the sources. People should just learn to use this thing, it's wonderful. And we need more experts here. And why wouldn't experts come here? Here they can really have an impact and contribute. --Sigmundur (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry but I wasn't clear. The context is - I am a user, and advocate, of wikipedia. I am only a user, and am not familiar with the editing side (e.g. I didn't know what a "start article" was until just now). I was promoting using wikipedia as a link behind terms such as "middle kingdom" in my web pages, and was given the opinion that it wikipedia was very poor and should be avoided. This article was the example given.

My original comments were my reaction to reading the page - which were more about the form and general content than factual errors. I have already corrected a few errors, but tutor's list (from what she called a five minute perusal) is as follows, all are important omissions or basic errors of fact.

Start of list:

Predynastic Period no mention AT ALL of important predynsatic culture – Badarian, Naqada 1&2 etc

Early Dynastic Period Abydos? Saqqara? Any people? Tombs?

Pyramids Djozer? ‘The Pharaoh Khufu was also responsible for sending expeditions into Nubia for slaves’

First Intermediate Period ‘it was Mentuhotep I, fourth king of this Dynasty, that started the Middle Kingdom.’

Middle Kingdom ‘Around 2055 BCE, Mentuhotep II from Thebes ended this period of unrest and united the country again.’

‘Amenemhat I moved the capital to North Egypt (Lower Egypt)’

Amenemhat II? Senwosret II?

‘During the Middle Kingdom, the next phase in tomb design was the rock-cut tomb. The best examples of these can be seen in the Valley of the Kings.’

Nineteenth Dynasty ‘Seti I and his son Ramesses II are the only two pharaohs known to have been circumcised,’

Middle Kingdom of Egypt 'from the establishment of the Eleventh Dynasty to the end of the Fourteenth Dynasty’

End of list.

If "start" articles are of unknown quality, why isn't this flagged on the web page itself? It would help newcomers to judge wikipedia content more accurately.

--Gwatgwat 00:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if we did that, the whole encyclopedia would be full of such flags. The group of people who write and maintain these Egypt-related pages numbers less than a half dozen, and almost all of us devote our attention to the 2nd Intermediate Period and New Kingdom. This article isn't high on our list to fix – we generally stick to pages about pharaohs, most of which are far better sights compared to this page. However, if you think this should be a priority, keep up the good work. This is how wikipedia pages do get fixed up, after all. Thanatosimii 01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"if we did that, the whole encyclopedia would be full of such flags" - in some ways that would be a very good thing! At present some pages are excellent (I agree with you about the series of pages on individual Pharaohs), some are brief stubs, and some are a mess awaiting someone to fix them up. There are at least two "audiences" for wikipedia - users just wanting information, and enthusiasts who want to contribute. The latter know what is going on, but the former can't differentiate easily between the different levels of content quality.

Is the wikipedia philosphy that you only cater for the latter and ignore the former?

Why I was concerned about this issue (and this page) is that my study course in Egyptology is "distance education" with moderately computer literate students. Recently there was a thread about students "giving something back" for the benefit of future students of Egyptology. Contributing to Wikipedia wasn't raised as an option. This was mainly because it had already been given the thumbs down by the tutors, who reported bad experiences with it - e.g. this page, which seems a pretty likely "first point of enty" for anyone looking at its pages in ancient Egypt. This means that possible future contributors have been put off right from the start.

Quite understandable... but someone has to step up with the time to fix it first. Thanatosimii 04:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that "Ancient" shouldn't be capitalized in the title. Should Egypt in the European Imaginationthe page be moved? Quadell (talk) 17:27, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Article Butchering[edit]

Someone at the IP vandalized a the top couple sections of the article. I'm not familiar enough with the revision system to effectively restore what he messed up, but a pretty decent amount got removed. I just wanted to point that out so someone can fix it. Thanks. PierceG 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Early Dynastic[edit]

The section on the Early Dynastic is, IMO, very poorly written as it stands and contains erroneous information. It really needs a complete rewrite. —Nefertum17 09:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit help[edit]

Over time, I will be attempting to "clean up" the Egyptian pages that are interlinked, but with so many contributors, there is a lack of cohesion in the way common terms are written. For example: pharaoh should not be capitalized unless it proceeds the pharaoh's name, as in his title. Otherwise "pharaoh" is a a general term. Also, the term "dynasty" (and the number associated with it) is written in a number of ways...I prefer to use the proper name spelled out. Instead of 5th is Fifth Dynasty (though the "master" wikipedia pages regarding each dynasty are spelled with a lowercase "d"). At some point, I would request a change for a capital on the masters, as the official and/or proper name for any dynasty includes the word "Dynasty." Lastly, use the character of a number when referring to years (2, 3, 4)(except one, which is always spelled out). Spell out all other numbers in sentences up to 99. At 100 or more, use the characters (100, 101, 102). I would appreciate everyone's help in getting the Egyptian pages under control with a more consistent format. Thanks Brina700 01:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"What links here" will give you the list of redirects to correct for each Dynasty, should moving pages be on your agenda. As long as there are redirects, article titles are mostly a matter for those who care. --Wetman 02:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

conservative or conventional?[edit]

"The conservative dates are not supported by any reliable absolute date for a span of about three millennia"

Should this read: the conventional dates... ? Gakrivas 15:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ancient Egyptian solar ships[edit]

Need someone to review the page Ancient Egyptian solar ships.--Ashashyou (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I believe the recent edit by User: was done by the same person who is also Jkhisa1996. In their fourth edit they left a note on my talk page. I don't remember ever editing anything Egypt related and also not sure whether to open a checkuser or not. I am pinging someone who edited this article before and is also a checkuser. Solomon7968 15:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't bother. I've warned both and this is on my watchlist anyway as you know. Thanks for contacting me. I'll block if there are further problems. Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classical antiquity?[edit]

Classical antiquity in ancient Egypt? See: Talk:History_of_Egypt#Classical_antiquity?

JMCC1 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was wondering if anyone could tell me where they got all their wood from.there seems to be a lack of trees in egypt. 2001:8004:1100:F680:ECE3:EC5E:78FD:E8B4 (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]