Talk:Ancient Egypt#Article ancient Egypt

I'm trying to rework some of the history section, but one of the obstacles is Shaw 2003 (The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt), the most frequently cited source in the article. The citations don't seem to be wrong, but their pagination is slightly off from the edition I have—e.g., the current Citation 17, about the expansion of the Protodynastic state based at Nekhen, is listed as p. 62 but is at 64–65 in my edition, while Citation 65, about Alexandrian mob violence, is listed as p. 410, but I found it on p. 418. Obviously, the article doesn't need to use the same edition that a random editor happens to have, but the Archive.org link given in the template for Shaw 2003 seems to have the same pagination as my edition, meaning the article links to an edition that doesn't actually verify the current citations. A. Parrot (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:Naively, I wondered if this was an issue with the isbn used but when I checked the version of this article that went FA back in 2009, the isbn for Shaw was actually for Clayton's Chronicle of the Pharaohs. (The citations are given as Shaw (2002) but the source is given as Shaw (2003)). I wondered if maybe [https://archive.org/details/oxfordhistoryofa0000unse_u4p1/page/n5/mode/1up a 2002 version] would be fine but nope, the pages are still a little out. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Egypt&oldid=818984346 citation 39 of this 2018 revision] says Shaw p.188, which is partially supported by p.188 of the 2002 version, but not entirely; the rest is on p.169. The archive.org link no longer works but I have a copy so I can help page corrections : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for your help. I'm hung up on citations 164 and 168. They're such broad statements that I can't see how they could ever have applied to a single page, or even a reasonable range of pages. Shaw's book never mentions Sile and Buhen on the same page, for example. This text and these citations were present in the original FA version in 2008/2009, so they make me worry that there was never a tight correspondence between text and source. And if that's the case, all the citations need to be checked. A. Parrot (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I think your fear is very well founded, if what we've seen with Shaw is anything to go by. Out of (morbid) curiosity, I decided to check citations 165, 166, and 167. Straight off the bat, citation 165 has an incorrect author (should be Manfred Gutgesell) and should be page 365, not 366-7 (from what I can tell, the edition on archive.org has the same pagination as the original 1998 edition - thanks eBay). Page for citation 166 is correct but the article text is not reeeeally supported, especially the general statement in the first half; all it says about Seqenenre II is that he was probably killed in battle, implying, I guess, that he was leading the army. Citation 167 is correct! It just needs a page number - the quote is from the abstract. Merytat3n (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Merytat3n}} I have to ask: should this article be delisted? Fixing up an article through the FAR process generally takes less effort than FAC, so if an article is salvageable, it's better to salvage through FAR than to delist and then hope it's FAC-eligible at some later time. But if the source-text integrity is as loose as this, the only choices are to go through the article sentence by sentence and find citations for every single statement, or to delist. I don't know about you, but I don't have time for the former (and probably not the sources, either, for non-religious topics that aren't covered by general reference works on AE). A. Parrot (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Unfortunate as it is, I too am short on spare time for the immediate future. Just now I tried to reassure myself that its not that bad, and then checked a couple citations to find that the info is spread over more pages that are currently cited and the chapter author isn't given (Egypt: The World of the Pharaohs). Let's delist. We can always chip away as we get time. Merytat3n (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Throughout the entire article, the Roman era is shown as a part of ancient Egyptian era. However, in the general template box, the era stops after the fall of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Should the Roman Egypt be considered as a successor of Ancient Egypt or the Rashidun Caliphate BlackRider90 (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:The problem here is that the fall of the Ptolemaic dynasty marked the end of ancient Egypt's political independence, but its distinctive culture (its religion and writing systems) survived, dying out centuries after the Roman conquest but centuries before the Rashidun one. As far back as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Egypt&diff=prev&oldid=10052924 early 2005], when it was really just an outline, this article has encompassed the Roman period. But the extinction of ancient Egyptian culture doesn't have a hard end date—it's a gradual process that mostly took place between AD 300 and 500. Templates like the one at the top of the article push editors toward the well-defined and quantifiable, so they tend to go with the loss of independence in 30 BC. A. Parrot (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Ancient Egypt|answered=yes}}

162.253.46.2 (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

do a better

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Cannolis (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:"Ancient Greece (Ancient Greek: Ἑλλάς, romanized: Hellás)"

That's the normal start of an art. lead on similar subjects. How did ancient Egyptians call their kingdom? Did the name evolve? Fully missing from the lead. The hieroglyphs in the infobox are kind of a joke. Arminden (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree. I believe the name was quite stable (something like Kemet) so adding it to the lead shouldn't overburden it. – Joe (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::Kemet is already in the native name parameter, but only in heiroglyphs. I'll add the transliteration Kowal2701 (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Please decide: are periods to be capitalised, or not? Now we have chaos (Predynastic Period/predynastic period, Early Dynastic Period/early dynastic period, Roman Period/Roman period, etc.)

What is the current preponderent, mainstream academic rule? Arminden (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)