Talk:Ancient Egypt/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"situated in the place that is now the country Egypt."

This is now part of the short description (and is of course in the lead). This makes it look as though Egypt's current boundaries were also always those of ancient Egypt. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Potentially complicated, as it's a matter of comparing two areas. Or it may be quite simple, so tht rephrasing such as "located within the area of the present-day state" would fix it. A map would be a good starting-point! (and the article is a bit short of pix anyway.) Anyone able to contribute one? -- SquisherDa (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

As long as said map is accurate ... large sections of the area were desert, especially in eastern Egypt - while no other nation was in control there, certainly the Egyptians were not, either. It was a barren no-man's land. Shouldn't make the same mistake as some earlier maps Wiki had for the Mongol empire extending into the Siberian taig forest, where the population density was about 0.2 persons per sq. km at the time.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent additions to the History section

@Strik3: You've made some large additions to this article over the past couple of days. While these additions are valuable and well sourced, I want to bring attention to Wikipedia's guideline on summary style and the one on article size. Not blaming you if you haven't read them—Wikipedia has a lot of guidelines!—but it's important to a large article on a large subject, like this one. Before your additions, this article was 11,200 words long, which is longer than the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. After your additions, it's 18,512 words, which is very long indeed, and I think a lot of the text goes into more detail than is necessary in an overview article such as this one. I think these additions might fit better on articles that are subtopics of this one and aren't as well developed as it is. History of ancient Egypt would be a prime candidate. A. Parrot (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Strik3's text turns out to have been copied and pasted from other Wikipedia articles, without sufficient attribution. Given that Strik3 didn't respond to my initial ping, I've left a message on Strik3's talk page. A. Parrot (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2020

I have a few facts to upload 124.148.253.47 (talk) 01:51, 3 September 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. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts under 2 pages?

Under the section Daily Life, it states that children forego clothing until they are mature, around 12 years old. However, underneath the separate page about clothing specifically, it says that children go nude until around 6 years old to help against the heat. --Zoethewinged (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

168.215.139.67 (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC) ntjtjtjtjtujgiuhnbujbujbu thjuhuhujhbujhbuj bin bhbhjbhjhbnhjnbj 9595049859 nu5jhjtinb

 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.. LOMRJYO_{(About × contribs)} 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2021

Please make this topic a featured one, also add voice support like in Han Dynasty. 190.218.30.203 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Its already a featured article and voicing support in not allowed in Wikipedia per point 4 in WP:NOTFORUM Run n Fly (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Um, Run n Fly, I think you may be misreading the anonymous editor's suggestion. Han Dynasty is part of a featured topic, which is different from a featured article. That means its top-level subarticles (History of the Han dynasty, List of emperors of the Han dynasty, Government of the Han dynasty, Society and culture of the Han dynasty, and Economy of the Han dynasty) are also at FA or GA level. Unfortunately, making a featured topic about ancient Egypt would be an enormous task; some of the equivalent articles for AE, like Economy of ancient Egypt, don't even exist yet.

I think "add voice support" means recording a spoken version of the article. That's much more doable, but it's a time-consuming task, and the recording can't be updated frequently the way article text can. This is an old FA that periodically accumulates ill-advised additions and may need updating in some areas, so if a spoken recording is made of it, it should probably undergo a thorough scouring to make sure the current version of the text is good enough for a spoken version to be based upon it. I doubt there are many Wikipedians with the time and expertise to do both those tasks. A. Parrot (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@A. Parrot:, Thanks for the clarifications. I have re-opened the request for others to evaluate and respond. Run n Fly (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Asking for a full narration is a bit more than a requested edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

hi can i please have access to wikipedia because i want to help people learn about egypt because i was born in ancient egypt 09:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)~akila~~ 2001:8003:A03B:CC01:4A7:6BD3:B76B:2151 (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2021 (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. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 10:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The Egyptian Empire during the reign of Thutmose III in 1435 BC..jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2021; regarding the Kushite rulers image caption

Requested edit: in the subsection "1.8 Third Intermediate Period (1069–653 BC)" of the "History" section, the first sentence of the description of this image, which is showing Kushite rulers, should be changed from "25th dynasty black pharaohs and kings" to the accurate description "25th dynasty Kushite rulers who invaded Egypt and ruled for about 80 years^[source]".
Reason: the word "black" here is extremely ambiguous, so it should be replaced by the accurate description of who these rulers were, which is "Kushite". 197.38.34.0 (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Thank you very much for your input! This encyclopedia goes with what the reliable sources say, and the sources refer to the Kushite conquerors from the south as "black pharoahs". Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 08:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

P.I. Ellsworth: I beg to differ, what you are calling a "reliable source" is an online article about a National Geographic documentary that uses a flashy headline, but even the cited article consistently refers to them as Kushites. Besides, that online article, which says "black pharaohs" only in its flashy headline, is not more of a WP:RS than "Török, László (1998). The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization. Leiden: BRILL. ISBN 90-04-10448-8" which explains in detail the origin of the 25th dynasty, in chapter four starting from p.131, and refers to them as Kushites, along with discussing the reign of each ruler, starting with Piye who lead the invasion of Egypt and established the 25th dynasty within ten years from the start of his reign, and whose reign is taken to have started either 747 B.C.E. or 728 B.C.E. Another source is the one that I put in my request, I thought it was enough because it was a clickable link, which is from the British Museum, and is more reliable than that article still. There is not a reliable historical source that would use such political word as "black", unless it was explicitly discussing their skin color, but even the article that does does so only in the headline, and consistently refers to them as Kushites, so I still think that this should be changed, which is in concordance with this encyclopedia's guidelines. Again "black" is extremely ambiguous as I said and brings to mind people other than the actual rulers, which is unfair to the Nubians because what it brings to mind is not historically accurate. Is this decision revisable? Thanks in advance for taking the time. 197.38.61.119 (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive me because I really don't understand your apparent problem with a common term. It's even mentioned in the sources in the Black Pharaoh article. The reliable sources I referred to were found with search engines using the term "Black Pharaohs" in quotation marks. There are many books that use the term to refer to the Kushite leaders. Many authors have written about them and used that term to refer to them. It's a common name and should remain in this article's image caption. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem with the term is that it applies modern racial/ethnic distinctions to two cultures that did not think of ethnicity in the same terms that English speakers use, which can be misleading. The Egyptians did tend to portray Nubians with literal black skin and Egyptians with red-brown, which was a schematic simplification of the actual range of skin colors found in Egypt and Nubia. But in the United States—I'm not sure about other parts of the English-speaking world—social definitions of race tend to be built around a strict "black"/"white" dichotomy that categorizes a lot of not-all-that-dark-skinned people of African descent as "black". Labeling the Nubian/Kushite pharaohs as a distinct group of "black pharaohs" implies that native Egyptian pharaohs were "not black", even though many of them probably looked "black" by American standards. "Egyptian" and "Kushite" were ethnic distinctions that the Egyptians and Kushites themselves recognized, so they matter to who these people were. In contrast, modern racial categories are irrelevant here and have the potential to mislead. A. Parrot (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

A.Parrot has it exactly right. Carlstak (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the caption to say "Statues of several 25th Dynasty kings". A. Parrot (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

A. Parrot has partially decoded what I was trying to say; "black" in anglophone countries is quite racially- and politically-loaded, and if we are being honest it doesn't bring to mind the Nubians at all, it brings to mind African-Americans and sub-Saharan Africans in general; and so, what I mean by "partially decoded" is, I vehemently disagree with A. Parrot that any Egyptian looked "black" by American standards in any way other than the tone of their skin, which is never "black" at all, but it may look "black" to the American eye, modern Egyptians are a reflection of this, the further you go into the south the darker the skin color becomes, but it's never "black" and no one would ever mistake an Egyptian for "black", and not all Egyptians in the south have darker skin either, even Egyptians in the farthest south are clearly phenotypically distinguishable from Nubians in every way, including in their skin color, and the Nubians are clearly distinguishable from other sub-Saharan Africans, this is a distinction that the term "black" is blind to, and indeed the "black-white" dichotomy doesn't apply to the Egyptians at all, neither in the north nor in the south. The color scheme that the Egyptians adopted was adopted by other Mediterranean peoples from southern Europe, and let's not forget that Egypt is a Mediterranean country, and like A. Parrot mentioned, the Egyptians unequivocally distinguished themselves from the Kushites. So, even though I'm quite satisfied with A. Parrot's edit as is, and even though I don't want to obsess over a minor detail, I still think the caption should mention the term "Kushite", i.e.: from "Statues of several 25th Dynasty kings" to "Statues of several 25th Dynasty Kushite kings", in the same manner the Ptolemies and the Hyksos are distinguished, and it will also deter future quarrel over this, since it fairly represents the content of the sources. Also thank you both for taking the time, I understand the limitation of an edit request, specially from an IP-user; I requested this edit because I believe image captions are very important on Wikipedia. 197.38.215.178 (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the caption again, but I made it simply say "Kushite kings". Of the rulers pictured, only Taharqa and Tantamani actually ruled Egypt, so the others (Senkamanisken, Anlamani, and Aspelta) are not counted as belonging to the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. A. Parrot (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the change to the present article, in the sense that referring to the 25th dynasty Kushite rulers as Black Pharaohs is often simply a means of inconspicuously (under the guise of acknowledging the representation of dark-skinned Africans in ancient Egypt) perpetuating the bigoted notion that the representation of dark-skinned Africans in ancient Egypt was inexistent or limited to a single dynasty. I also agree with the addition of 'Black Pharaohs' to the main 25th dynasty article. Some of the claims and biases warrant clarifications,

(1) The word black is not ambiguous, it is a useful term which can refer to dark-skinned individuals of African genealogy. In this sense, here it is especially not ambiguous. The characters fit the definition, i.e., they are undeniably dark-skinned individuals of African genealogy. A more appropriate characterization would be: very black.

(2) Reliable historical sources have used the term when referring to many ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Nubians to Romans, Ethiopians to Greeks) in general (No doubt, many darker-colored Egyptians would be called black—Yurko, 1989), even if some bigoted historians avoided it in the past and in modern times, or have regarded reliable sources using the term as unreliable.

(3) Skin-color and other phenotypic traits such as hair should be distinguished from ethnicity. When used in this sense, the term black is not a modern ethnic distinction or social or political construct, it simply reflects biological realities. It does lack specificity. Again, here specificity is especially not an issue. The caption could have read "25th dynasty very dark-skinned Kushite kings of African genealogy".

(4) As it was highlighted, outside of pre-New Kingdom artistic canon, the Egyptians did tend to portray Nubians with literal black skin AND red-brown skin (not just black), and Egyptians with red-brown skin. There are cases of ancient Egyptians depicting themselves distinctly from Nubians. There are also cases of ancient Egyptians being portrayed with literal black complexion (like some Nubians), and also light skin complexion (literal pink, see the feet in the top row of one of the paintings of TT359). The term black is a problem only insofar as its use certainly has implications which are inconvenient to many, i.e., that "many Egyptian pharaohs probably (not only looked) were black by (not only American) most standards".

(5) The term black is not irrelevant, especially given that some authors even suggested ancient Egyptians have used it to refer to themselves generally (entirely plausible given (4), perhaps inconvenient to many, but not irrelevant). I do agree that it has the potential to mislead here specifically, in that it may serve to perpetuate the bigoted notion that the representation of dark-skinned Africans in ancient Egypt is limited to the 25th dynasty.

(6) That the ancient Egyptians unequivocally distinguished themselves culturally from the Kushites has no bearing whatsoever on phenotype. Ancient Egyptians have been described as demonstrating the ability to "ignore race and absorb foreigners". Ancient Nubians have been described as the closest culturally to the ancient Egyptians, and it has been said that they shared the same culture in the late predynastic period, and developed the "same pharaonic political structure".

Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the racial POV, the issue is actually that these Kushite kings were invaders, they were not Egyptians. Like the Hyksos and the Assyrians etc, they invaded, they ruled for a while, and then they faded out. In addition to the accurate term "Kushite", it would be useful for the caption to incorporate the term "invader" as well. Wdford (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The rhetoric of unsolicited invocation of “race” when biological realities are being discussed, and “POV” when literature or historical evidence are being referenced is unnecessary (and getting tiresome, frankly). I can only be thankful there hasn't been a regression back to perilous artistic canon over-generalizations (and other behaviors). I am not convinced of the wisdom of calling 25th dynasty kings invaders. By that same token, a different caption would read "Portrait of invader Ptolemy VI Philometor wearing the double crown of Egypt". Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: The premises of your remarks are quite untenable and baseless. I don't think this is the proper context to discuss these issues, since you are remarking on things that were mentioned peripherally to illustrate on the main point, and the changes that were made, which you agree with, were to make the description accurate, which they did, they are not directly related to issues of "race", but to address your remarks, let me first say this, if there were a description of the Ptolemies as "white pharaohs", it would be objected to on the same grounds on which I objected to the description of the Kushites as "black pharaohs" here, i.e.: the term "white" is extremely ambiguous and brings to mind Europeans in general, and it brings to mind the Russians too; same goes with the Nubians, where the term "black" is extremely ambiguous, and in this article lacks accuracy. Also, calling something "bigoted", for whatever personal reason, doesn't bear much on its verity.
So, regardless of your points not being focal points, to address them without taking into consideration the Wikipedia guidelines that they would violate if incorporated in a context where they are the focus:

1. In order to claim that the word "black" is not ambiguous, you have attempted to make it seem "not ambiguous" in a very meagre way, and you also introduced the word "African" as some kind of a monolithic term. Any word can be seemingly disambiguated by moving the goalpost and introducing whatever definition is fit for the task, which is what you did, but that is not at all how the word is utilized by everyday speakers in the anglophone world, it has a very specific utilization, and when you attempt to impose it where the semantic utilization doesn't fit, it becomes ambiguous, since the semantic utilization is not magically divested from it because you have "redefined it"; "black" is almost always synonymous with "African-American/sub-Saharan African" in its semantic utilization in the anglophone world, that is a fact of the matter, and to claim otherwise is to mislead; introducing a definition is an entirely different matter from the factual semantic utilization. This is what is meant by "ambiguous", which doesn't mean that it is ambiguous in its regular utilization in the anglophone world.
   What is one supposed to take from the fringe term "dark-skinned African"? Do you mean a Nigerian or an Ethiopian? Why is their skin color more important than their country of origins and their national identity? Let alone that "Nigerians" and "Ethiopians" are distinct from a population genetics standpoint, but both of them fit the description "dark-skinned African", being fringe notwithstanding, meaning that you have introduced an equally ambiguous term, but ambiguous in a sense different from "black", in that you need to set the parameters before even disambiguating. Why this monolithic use of the word "African"? Can the Germans claim the achievements of the Italians because they both exist on the same continent? Can Norwegians claim the achievements of the Germans because they are both "white"? This is the problem with this monolithic use of the term "African", or ambiguously using words such as "black", both these usages, specially the monolithic use of "African", are primarily intended to appropriate the history of one very accomplished nation to other less accomplished ones. Again, no one would ever read "black pharaohs" and think: "Nubians"; Nubians should be called Nubians, that shouldn't be controversial. So, the phrase "dark-skinned African in ancient Egypt" is one of the most ambiguous phrases that I have come across, and such ambiguities are primarily intended for what I have just mentioned.
2. The Egyptians were not referred to as "black" in any historical period. A lot of the claims you are making are permeated by Afrocentrist (or more accurately: blackcentrist) babble. You also keep employing passive referencing, probably to mask the unreliability of certain claims. The quote you added after I already replied, the quote by F. Yurco from "Were the Ancient Egyptians Balck or White, 1989", actually reads like this: "No doubt, many darker-colored Egyptians would be called black in our modern, race-conscious terminology." You omitted the last part that says "in our modern, race-conscious terminology". One should always strive to be honest by not omitting essential parts of the quotes. So, this is not tantamount to ancient Egyptian being referred to as "black" in any historical period. And the quote doesn't say anything more than what I'm saying in my (4) below. Yurco also says in the same source: "The whole matter of black or white Egyptians is a chimera, cultural baggage from our own society that can only be imposed artificially on ancient Egyptian society. The ancient Egyptians, like their modern descendants, were of varying complexions of color, from the light Mediterranean type (like Nefertiti), to the light brown of Middle Egypt, to the darker brown of Upper Egypt, to the darkest shade around Aswan and the First Cataract region, where even today, the population shifts to Nubian." This quote is self-explanatory. You made other edits after I have responded, and you have used one of the images that I provided, the image of the Kushite captives below in my (4). Please try not to edit your replies after someone has responded to them because it is confusing to the readers and may offsets the responses to your reply, next time respond instead in a new reply.
3. Phenotypic characteristics do figure into the concept of ethnicity, and it is in this sense that "black" in the anglophone world is synonymous with "African-American/sub-Saharan African"; they are distinguished, but not unrelated. As for the biological realities, if outside of its factual utilization we take the word "black", in its basic sense, to refer to skin color, then it has nothing to do with the biological realities; certain diseases for instance are more frequent in or affect "black people", but not because of their skin color, it has to do with their genetics in general. I think you have just contradicted yourself here, because if you maintain that "black" reflects biological realities, then you clearly know to whom this word refers, since now you're in the territory of the genetics responsible for these biological realities and not just how these people look or their manifest phenotypes. If you restrict the word black in this sense, then you have only made the ambiguity that results from the misutilization stronger. Specificity here is an issue, and you have made it more of an issue. Regarding what you think the caption could have read: Why should their skin color be stressed as "very dark-skinned" in a context where skin color is not the focus at all? What is the difference between "Kushite kings", as it is right now, and "Kushite kings of African genealogy"?
4. It wasn't just a matter of skin color in the Egyptians' portrayal of the Kushites, the Egyptians portrayed the features of the Kushites vividly, and these features were utterly and incontestably different from those of the Egyptians. So, your implicated claim that "many Egyptian pharaohs probably (not only looked) were black by (not only American) most standards" is utterly baseless. By American standards an Egyptian would never be mistaken for "black", that might happen only in reference to their red-brown skin color, because some take "not-white" skin to be the primary feature of "black", and it's why to an American eye some Egyptians may be referred to as "black", even though their skin color is nowhere near black. The consensus is that black was used in Egyptians' portrayals to symbolize deification/for religious reasons when it was used to portray an Egyptian; otherwise it was used for foreigners like the Kushites. Again, it is not just a matter of color, the Egyptians were/are distinguishable from the Nubians in every way, this is not an insult to the Nubians, it is not "bigotry". If you, for some unstated reason, take that statement to be "bigoted", then so be it, what matters is its verity: here is the Egyptians' portrayal of black African captives as opposed to Egyptians' portrayal of Egyptians, and doubtless, the implication of this verity is inconvenient to many; do you think it's proper that I called them "black African captives" now instead of calling them "Kushite captives"? Or do you consider that "bigoted"?
   By american standards, if they are careful, they wouldn't be confused what an Egyptian looks like, if we take the color that was most often applied to Egyptian men to be literal, then it is clearly reflected in the modern Egyptians: here is a red-brown Egyptian, and there are other Egyptian red-brown skin tones, some of them are darker, but none of them is anywhere near "black".
5. Sub-Saharan Africans, which are the ones that "black" refers to in the anglophone world, did not have anything to do with the Egyptian society, your attempt to replace "black" with "dark-skinned" does not change this, and the Kushites were invaders that conquered Egypt and ruled for some 80 years, then were defeated back to their homeland, this is not a matter of "bigotry". The Egyptians never referred to themselves as "black"; I don't know what author you're referring to! What kind of author? Because a linguist studying the ancient Egyptian language would find this claim risible; in particular, he/she would point out that the person making this claim does not understand certain syntactic features of the ancient Egyptian language; regarding the use of adjectives in particular. Again, this is permeated by Afrocentrist/blackcentrist babble.
6. The ancient Egyptians did not just distinguish themselves culturally, they also distinguished themselves phenotypically, see the picture in my (4) above. And I agree that the Nubians "became" culturally close to the ancient Egyptians, which is due to Egyptian influence, since the Egyptians conquered and ruled Nubia for a continuous 500 hundred years and sporadically for 300 years, way before the 25th dynasty, and indeed before the kingdom of Kush were to take shape.
7. Everyone agrees that the Ptolemies were outsiders to Egypt, just like the Kushites! The correct analogy here is that saying "Ptolemies" is analogous, in a way, to saying "Kushites"; but the situation with the Kushites was much closer to the situation with the Assyrians than it was to the Ptolemies; the Egyptians were struggling with both the Kushites and the Assyrians simultaneously.

Anyway, this is all besides the main point of the edit, but I felt your claims needed to be addressed. Also, I have read the talk page of Ahmose-Nefertari (sections 4, 5, and 6), maybe you think it is unsolicited because it is not obvious to you, but it is obvious to others what racial POV you are trying to push. 197.38.200.187 (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not racial POV to use terms that reliable sources use, so I still think the edit was inappropriate. Sources use the term "black pharaohs", and so should Wikipedia. Anything else is the essence of "POV"! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@P.I. Ellsworth: I was referring to his (Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena's) entire reply and the broad remarks and claims he made about ancient Egypt and about the ancient Egyptians, this is what I was responding to, along with his use of epithets like "bigoted", which I believe is often an attempt to preemptively suppress the dissent to one's erroneous claims. Also, A. Parrot pointed out that, moreover, not all of the rulers pictured were members of the 25th dynasty. 197.38.200.187 (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

197.38.200.187, Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: Please note that talk pages are not forums, and it's best to stay on track. This discussion is about a single image caption, and I'd rather not see it broaden into a general discussion of the ancient Egyptian race controversy, which can quickly become unmanageable.

Paine Ellsworth: Yes, some sources call the rulers of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty "black pharaohs". That does not require us to use the term, especially because most of the sources that use it are generalist sources like National Geographic, rather than specialists in Egyptology or Nubiology. And as soon as an editor questions the term, we get arguments over what counts as "black", which goes to show that the word is dangerously subjective and ambiguous. I just don't see a good reason to include it, and apparently no one in this discussion except you wants to do so.

Wdford: I don't see why the caption should emphasize that the Kushites were "invaders", when that's clear enough from the article text and isn't a distinguishing characteristic of the Kushites, as opposed to the many other non-Egyptian rulers who took control of Egypt in the first millennium BC. A. Parrot (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's important generally to remember to commment on content, not editors and indeed talk pages are not forums. While evidently inconvenient to many, there is nothing controversial or ambiguous about biological realities (skin complexion and genealogy), and there is no need to attempt to direct the conversation towards to the topic of race. If there is support for editing the term back into the article based on sources using the term I will also support it. I can agree that its removal on the basis of POV was inappropriate. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: You said "referring to the 25th dynasty Kushite rulers as Black Pharaohs is often simply a means of inconspicuously perpetuating the bigoted notion that the representation of dark-skinned Africans in ancient Egypt was nonexistent or limited to a single dynasty". I agree with that, and it was one of my reasons for removing the phrase from the caption. You seem to have reversed your position for opaque reasons. You also restored "Twenty-fifth Dynasty" to the caption, which, as I said, is misleading because only two of the five kings portrayed in the photo were part of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. A. Parrot (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I am glad there is agreement (I maintain my initial remark/premise) and yes, on second thought (and in case motivation was not clear previously): removal on the basis of POV (I am referring to any POV, sources support the caption) was inappropriate. The word several was kept which makes the caption consistent. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: What POV are you referring to? A. Parrot (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The user Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena edited his comment instead of replying to A. Parrot, this is confusing, he should have just put a new reply. He answered in parenthesis and vaguely said "any POV", which is not an answer, I second A. Parrot's question: what POV? As I said below, I don't believe A. Parrot removed it on the basis of POV! He was clear on why he made the change: ambiguity, inaccuracy, and the quality of sources, and I want to add to that the content of the sources as well, which unambiguously refers to them as "Kushites", even the ones with flashy titles, and their skin color is a different matter altogether if discussed, just like I have been saying from the start! 197.38.200.187 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: A. Parrot addressed that in his reply that immediately precedes yours and again in the reply that precedes this one of mine, and I did too in my reply that precedes A. Parrot's. But it is quite notable that you are now dropping your initial remark/premise that it is "often simply a means of inconspicuously perpetuating the bigoted notion..."! This makes somethings you said seem quite fatuous. 197.38.200.187 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A. Parrot: Is it considered an appropriate behavior for a user to put their replies on top of another's when the other user has replied before them? I believe the user Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena is ignoring my replies, something which I have no problem with, it's his prerogative; actually he is trying to act like he is ignoring them, since the edits he made to his first reply after I responded to him show that he is not. However, by putting his reply on top of mine, he will offset my replies to the bottom, in a perplexing manner, I believe this is not a proper behavior on talk pages, am I correct? 197.38.200.187 (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

197.38.200.187: I don't know of a rule against it, but I agree that it causes confusion. A. Parrot (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: Okay, I noticed that we were replying to two different replies, so it is not causing much confusion in this instance. Also, the user Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena vaguely said in his reply to you, and I quote, "I am glad there is agreement", and then reverted the change; I don't believe you removed it on the basis of POV! You were clear on why you made the change: ambiguity, inaccuracy, and the quality of sources, and I want to add to that the content of the sources as well, which unambiguously refers to them as "Kushites", even the ones with flashy titles, and their skin color is a different matter altogether if discussed, just like I have been saying from the start! 197.38.200.187 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Well... I did not expect to find this just coming by to see when the article became an FA (I figured it had to be a while ago, since the high-level articles are notoriously difficult to bring up to that level). Far as I can see, everyone here (except Ellsworth) is agreed that the term Kushite is more specific. I did note that most of the figures in the image were not pharaohs of Egypt or members of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. The caption is, in that regard, in error. I have modified the caption to clarify. But, I have otherwise not modified the disputed 'Black Pharaohs', largely because I doubt this dispute is over. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: But don't you think that saying "Black Pharaohs and Kushite kings" has the vague implication that the two of them that ruled over Egypt were something else other than Kushites? I think it's an unneeded redundancy, and I think the edit that A. Parrot made was the most appropriate (i.e., "Statues of several Kushite kings"), since they are all Kushites, and it's quite accurate and concise; I don't see why their skin color should be explicitly stated in a context where it is not the focus. The other reasons why I think A. Parrot's edit is the most appropriate are mentioned in my last two replies above. Perhaps the addition so that it becomes "Statues of several Kushite kings, including two members of the 25th dynasty" makes things clearer and even more accurate? I edited the title of this request and added "regarding the Kushite rulers image caption" to it to maybe attract more comments from other users, I hope its okay that I edited the title of the request. 197.38.44.219 (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd support 197.38.44.219's proposed edit. A. Parrot (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Even more accurate would be "Statues of several Kushite kings, including two who were also pharaohs of the Egyptian 25th dynasty". Wdford (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I had no qualms with A. Parrot's original edit. I favour whatever is favoured by modern Egyptological sources. General overview sources use either Kushite or Nubian kings. That's what I would have used were I writing the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I firmly agree with Mr rnddude's remark on the sources, noting again that even the ones that use what I consider a flashy title (like the National Geographic link) still consistently refer to them specifically as Kushites/Nubians throughout, that's because if they didn't, it would indeed be ambiguous. Wdford's suggestion is slightly more descriptive than mine. 197.38.26.142 (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

There has been no further comment for over a week now. There has been no contest that Kushite kings is both unambiguous and specific. It appears to be the preferred term among scholars, as I checked against Grimal, Clayton, OEAE (2001), Shaw, and Dodson&Hilton before effecting the change and each Egyptologist uses Kushite or Nubian kings [often both]. I am also taking into account that using two terms that are not clearly related has the potential to mislead the reader. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I also removed the citation to KBPS radio as the author is none of: an Egyptologist, a historian, or an academic in any related field. There-in, it is not a high-quality reliable source, a prerequisite for FA criterion 1c. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I added a reliable source. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The presence of a low quality source is not the reason for the change. The change was made to effect consensus. Adding a new citation does not change this, nor does it form a scholarly consensus. The KBPS citation was removed separately for being below the FA1c standard. There should not, generally, be a citation in an image caption at all, and particularly not to the entire contents of a book. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Evidently, there are citations in image captions including in the present article. In light of the fact that there seems to be concern over the use of the appellation Black Pharaohs (which finds use in academic literature), indeed citing the entire book by an academic conveniently titled, 'The black pharaohs' seems particularly suitable. I agree that there should be consensus before removal of the appellation. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Good. I am glad that you agree that consensus should be respected. As a consensus has already been achieved, the removal will be reinstated. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: In regards to citations in images, there are exceptions, which is why I said generally. In the image in question, I don't see it as necessary to include a citation because the caption only states what is in the image itself. The Rosetta stone image makes a claim beyond what is demonstrated by the image, hence cite 118. Then again, the citation in that image is still unnecessary because the accompanying article text already both makes and cites the same claim, to the same source incidentally. See cite 123. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no problem at all with citations in captions. Where does this idea come from? But, yes, a citation to a whole book is generally best avoided. On the general issues I agree with A. Parrot. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been told to avoid placing citations in the image caption, unless necessary. Is this advice false? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Not completely, but in general the WP idea of where citations are "necessary" is "everywhere". If the citation would repeat one in the text for essentially the same text, then it's not needed. But if it is a new citation giving relevant info, then it can/should be added. What you rarely get is people demanding cites for captions in the way they do for text. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

If there is no support for keeping the appellation other than my own support, I won't seek to make the change through editing. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

In future, it'd help if you'd lead with that. I've been in many discussions that end against my position and I just have to accept it. I effected the change a week after all discussion ended and three weeks after your last comment. You can disagree with the outcome, but you can't block it from being effected. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I am glad there is consensus that the very black pharaohs were pharaohs, like other pharaohs with strongly Nubian features whom one can usefully call black. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: Please refrain from misleadingly saying "I'm glad there is consensus that X" in such a manipulative manner to make it seem like there is justification for another contra-consensus edit (besides the one you just made, which I object to below), just like you did before with A. Parrot; the arguments leading to the actual consensus that has been reached are, in effect, contrary to the statement that it is useful here. You are also showing an edit-warring attitude seeing from the reverts you kept making until you received a 3RR warning. 197.38.180.7 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Mr rnddude: The user Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena just made an edit, i.e., "Statues of two pharaohs of Egypt's Twenty-Fifth Dynasty and several other Kushite kings", which I strongly disagree with, in that its phraseology is in no way better in, and much less clear in, introducing the two that were pharaohs as a proper subset of the Kushite kings, since they are all Kushites (one may even argue that it is intended to make the very same vague distinction that I objected to before); whereas the edit that gained consensus and was effected, i.e., "Statues of several Kushite kings, including two who were pharaohs of Egypt's Twenty-Fifth Dynasty", accurately and much more clearly introduces the two that were pharaohs as a proper subset of the Kushite kings in the image, and that they are all Kushites is clearly captured by it. This is not about which one comes first (as the user Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena is trying to justify in his edit summary), it's about accuracy and clarity; there is no need for such otiose manipulations/tweaks. The edit that gained consensus and was effected, i.e., "Statues of several Kushite kings, including two who were pharaohs of Egypt's Twenty-Fifth Dynasty", is quite carefully phrased and that's why it gained consensus, which should be respected, and edit-warring attitudes, on the part of the user Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena, should be avoided. 197.38.180.7 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2021

"...leaving Egypt under the control of a satrapy." ought to be "...leaving Egypt under the control of a satrap" as a satrapy is just the territory governed by a satrap Basedhegel (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Done, Thanks. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ancient egyptians

What was unique about the agricultural practices? Why was the river nile so important to the egyptians? What did ac8ent egyptians think what happened after they die? What is the process? What is mummification all about? Why did the mummificate? What was the egyptians writing style? Where there diffrent writing styles or just one? Ehy were some animals holy and wich animals? What technology innovations did the egyptians create?

I hope you have these questions next time in an article about the acient egyptians

Have a great day wikipedia ! ( or who is reading this) 79.224.160.132 (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Honestly it sounds like you just picked out a bunch of sections from the navbox at random to ask about. Agricultural practices is section 2.4 ; Nile river is still 2.4 ; Religious beliefs is 4.5 ; Mummification is 4.6 ; Literature is 3.4 ; Writing styles is 3.3 ; Technological innovations is 6 to 6.5. Most of these have their own dedicated articles and those are linked under the appropriate header. These questions were considered. You'd have to be far more specific as to what information you are after for any more cogent a reply. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Keita, Gourdine Publication

The genetic evidence cited in this academic source was rejected on previous grounds because it was stated that the source was not published in a peer-reviewed publication. However, the authors list the journal ANKH and publication date 2019-2020 in the footnote sections. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327065612_Ancient_Egyptian_Genomes_from_northern_Egypt_Further_discussion

https://www.academia.edu/43955341/Ankh_n_28_29_JP_JL_Gourdine_SOY_Keita_A_Anselin_Ancient_Egyptian_genomes_pp. (The journal Ankh and the publication series n28-29)

This is the journal link (ANKH Journal of Egyptology and African Civilisations): http://www.ankhonline.com/revue.htm

The article is listed here: http://www.ankhonline.com/ankh_n_28-29_cover%204.pdf

Hence, the genetic evidence provided should be included in this article and related articles.WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As I’ve said at Talk:Ramesses III I see no evidence of peer review. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliability is not the default. Feel free to go to WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The publication is also featured in another journal, Cahiers Caribéens d'Egyptologie, this is co-founded by one of the contributors, Anselin and is listed as peer-reviewed in the Keita study. http://www.culturediff.org/english/ccde.htm The journal also publishes Gourdine's 2020 article here in issue n24/25 (2020): http://www.culturediff.org/english/ccde24-25.htm

The Keita study states:

"Alain Anselin, Ph.D was the editor of the peer reviewed Egyptological journals Cahiers Caribéens d'Égyptologie & electronic papyrus i-Medjat"-p160.WikiUser4020 (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

Add "(officially Kingdom of Kemet)" between "Ancient Egypt" and "was a civilization of ancient Africa, concentrated along the lower reaches of the Nile River," Crownbask (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

beer

should be [beer|beer] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.83.125 (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: It is not clear what you want to change in this article.
Please request an edit in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". SKAG123 (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Egyptian Language

The Egyptian Language is made up of 3 other languages. African, Chinese, and Egyptian. The word Egypt its self comes form japan. Polizoma (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

How do you know the word “Egypt” originated in Japan? And if it did, were we the ones who named Ancient Egypt and did the Egyptians call their civilization something else? Because Africa and Japan are miles away from each other. FlapjacksWithStrawberryJam (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

He's

How aincent eygpt viewed the world they thought the world was just a pancake 100.40.10.75 (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)