Talk:Vizier (Ancient Egypt)

message: Is reference 5 a reliable source - it seems to be a blog not supported by a university or other relevant authority and is used as a reference to a large section of facts? Also there seems to be a need for 
citations for a lot of the comments in the list of viziers section. Mjconlin00 (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: not bad...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.3.4.205 (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've been working on it for a while. Zuzzerack (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not bad

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vizier (Ancient Egypt). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080913094607/http://www.mnsu.edu:80/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/government/vizier.htm to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/government/vizier.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Near the beginning of the article it is stated "In the New Kingdom, there were two viziers, one for Upper Egypt and one for Lower Egypt." Yet in the table of viziers of the New Kingdom (Vizier_(Ancient_Egypt)#New_Kingdom)), it appears that in most cases only the Vizier of the South is identified. Why?
There are a few cases in the table where the comments possibly suggest that the Vizier of the South was also the Vizier of the North. Am I reading the table correctly in this case?
Greg Dahlen (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not one of the editors who worked on the table, and I've never been all that clear on the division of responsibilities in pharaonic government, but I can partially answer your questions. First, archaeological evidence from Upper Egypt (the south) is much, much more likely to have survived than that in Lower Egypt (the north), for a variety of reasons. Therefore, we know the names of more southern viziers than northern. Second (based on just now flipping through a tome titled Ancient Egyptian Administration looking for mentions of the vizier), the north/south division didn't apply in every period of Egyptian history. During parts of the Old Kingdom there was one vizier for the vicinity of the capital and another for more outlying provinces. At the start of the New Kingdom there was one vizier, but early in that period the role was divided into north and south and stayed that way through most of the period. Based on things I've read in the past, it's possible that one regional vizier took over the responsibilities for the entire country when the other regional post was vacant. In any case, the situation was no doubt more complex than this article makes it look. Yet another Wikipedia article in need of improvement... A. Parrot (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Article intro asserts in New Kingdom there were two viziers. Yet in table in section only Vizier of the South is noted?