Talk:Pharaoh

message: There are 2 entries for Amenhotep IV in the 'pedia: Akhenaton and Akhnaten - User:Olivier
: Pick the best name and merge! -- Tarquin
:: I did an extensive Google search to see what the preferred spelling was, and moved the article to that. Ditto for the disambig pages for Ramesses, Tuthmosis, etc. See the individual talk pages for the rationale for each. Noel 01:18, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amenhotep 

message: The Narmer article says that he succeeded Serket, but Serket is not on this list.  Is he "The Scorpion of Egypt"?  Serket was the name of a Scorpion goddess.  RickK 04:45, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Whoever wrote the dates for the year and or Pharaohs - you should tell what particular source you are using for your dates, not just that this is "one of many" possible dating schemes. john 05:46 24 May 2003 (UTC)
This page overlaps almost completely with Conventional Egyptian chronology. This one makes more sense as a "keeper", given the name (of the two, it's where I'd look for a full list). Not sure how to resolve the issue. -- Fab 23:46, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be willing to use the sources I cited on Conventional Egyptian chronology (The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt and http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/) to redo the page, if others agree. However, I think it is pointless to have two pages which give esentially the same information. So before I start, I'd like to resolve that.
There is definitely still confusion over Egyptian dates. E.g. Reeves' "Valley of the Kings" uses the same dates as Wikipedia (which it says come from Baines' "Atlas of Ancient Egypt"), but Clayton's "Chronology of the Pharaohs" (a recent work) gives Tuthmosis I's reign as 1524-1518 (using a system which the author followed from Mumane's "Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt"). Until there is rough consensus among Egyptologists, I think all we can do is pick one (so all the various pages are consisten), document which one we picked, and stick with it. Noel 01:18, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Oops! When I said "dates as Wikipedia", I'd been reading the individual pages for various rulers. I see that Tuthmosis I is given on this page as 1525-1518, whereas on his page he's given as 1504-1492. Sigh. We really need to pick one chronology, and use it everywhere. Noel 01:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptian Chronology 

message: Why do we need a Hebrew translation and transliteration in this article?  Should we include translations of every other language in the world?  What makes Hebrew special?  RickK 05:17, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
:It's possible the word itself is of Hebrew origin; after all, the Hebrews and Egyptians were pretty intertwined back then. From the article: The term derives ultimately from the Egyptian words pr-o, meaning "Great House". It was not commonly used by the Egyptians themselves to refer to their monarchs, but is frequently used by modern historians due to its use in the Bible, especially the Book of Exodus.
:In other words, it seems reasonable to have the Hebrew text, but I agree that the transliterations are unnecessary. When does Wikipedia get hieroglyphics support? ;) --Golbez 05:38, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
::Wikipedia has hieroglyphics support.  RickK 05:41, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I thought I remembered reading that. Kill a joke, why doncha. ;) Ah well, either way, I think the Hebrew text is relevant. Maybe not three different methods, though. --Golbez 05:46, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks that there should be a link to the article on the Biblical book of Exodus, if for no other reason then the massive part that the unnamed pharaoh plays in the book? - Zkion 20:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew 

message: A cleaned up version is in Pharaoh/Temp.  Please add any comments there or in its talk page - I intend to move it to the "live" version later this week. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I disagree that it is an "open question" as to whether or not sibling marriages occurred.  In addition to the historical record, there have been DNA tests confirming the close blood relation.  Sibling marriage was at the core of Egyptian religion (Isis was the sister & wife of Osiris).  When an Egyptian man married a woman who was not his sister by blood, he would formally adopt her as his "sister."  Many such "adoption" papyri exist which indicate that this was a practice not unique to the Pharaohs.  An edict of the Roman emperor Diocletian extended the ancient Roman prohibition against the children of incestuous marriages from inheriting property to the Egyptians.  Why make such an edict if the practice were not widespread at the time?
Well, possible confusion may arrive from the fact that the egyptian words translated to "sister" and "brother" did not neccasarily imply siblings, just love (sibling and romantic). Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sibling Marriage 

message: The "open question" of whether the Pharaohs were viewed as god or divine is like arguing whether light is a wave or a particle.  Our modern delineations would have been nonsensical to the ancient Egyptians.
Ok, Pharaohs were gods when they were dead. They were at least regared as demigods when they were alive. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  God or Divine? 

message: is there any reason that hebrew translation should be included in the head section? i've deleted it and if anyone sees that there's a reason, plz tell me and I'll put it back.. --Mido 16:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well someone added it back without discussing. But anyway, the Arabic translation however makes sense since Pharaohs are from Egypt which in this day and age primarily uses Arabic. Hebrew I guess is also relevant for similar reasons. Nil Einne 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess Hebrew is relevant because the English word "Pharaoh" derives from use of the word in the Old Testament, which was written in Hebrew. john k 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew??? 

message: Although I appreciate this is just an example list, it would be wise to order them by chronoligical age, if and when possible. E.g. Cleoptra should be last... Nil Einne 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open problems 

message: Reading the etymology section, I noticed that the paragraph was messy, leaping from one time period to another in a kind of random order. So I rearranged the information in a forward chronological order, in order to explain how the word evolved over time from one continuous line from *past to present*. Much better, methinks, and more understandable. Bon apétit. 
I also noticed that the words for "pharaoh" in Hebrew, Arabic and so on are largely immaterial to the topic of pharaoh. We can list 100s of languages if we want to, ancient and modern. So what? We don't need Hebrew or Arabic to explain where the word came from! So I relocated all that to the section for "Pharaoh" in other languages if people feel the need to expand on that. --Glengordon01 23:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least the Ancient Greek and Hebrew words are important for the reconstruction of the pronunciation, however. (Not sure about the Arabic and Ge'ez variants – are they borrowed from Coptic, Greek or Hebrew?) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology, tidying up 

message: Is there any doubt there were female pharaohs in Egyptian history? Certainly not with Hatshepsut. It's been claimed in a recent edit by an anonymous user that "Wikipedia is contradictory" on the matter. However, Wikipedia is not an authority on any subject in itself. The point is what the academic consensus says on this. So while it has been the long-standing chauvanistic view (perhaps even based on biblical bias where female pharaohs are not mentioned) that only men can acquire the title of Pharaoh, there has been recent evidence accepted showing that these views are incorrect. Egyptian culture simply did not have the same attitudes towards gender and sex as we would expect through Victorian-coloured glasses. 
--Glengordon01 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the possible exception of Exodus, all mentions of Pharaoh in the OT are in books discussing what where current events at the time.  Unless there was a female pharaoh when these books were written, there'd be no reason to mention one.  JDZeff (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female pharaohs 

message: That comment about Egyptians not tolerating a black ruler is absurd. The Nubian Dynasties were full of black rulers. As I've always understood it, the women were prized for fairer skin. Why? This was a sign that they did not have to work in the sun. It was a sign of gentility up until roughly the mid-20th century. Illogically, women suddenly want to look as if they spend their whole day working in the fields. Males were constantly portrayed as darker skinned. As to what the Greeks and Romans would have been likely to tolerate: I haven't any idea. There is no reason to believe that prejudice is that modern of a concept, but how much of it was based upon the shading of skin color....
And since when were the Nubians scientifically classified as "black" with no controversies? Wouldn't this statement be racist? In reality the Nubians were a mixture of native Eastern African populations and migrant populations from the Arabic peninsula - not to mention the constant appearance of Egyptian settlements that formed within Nubia throughout its 'colonized' history. Wandrative (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on the Racial issue 

message: You cannot just declare something GA, it needs to be reviewed. Markh 11:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA rating 

message: "Pharaoh" is a difficult term to explain due to the popular misconception that it is the egyptian word for king. If we treat this as if it is formally a reference to the king and then write an article on the Egyptian kings, we do a disservice to Egyptology and what the egyptian words actually mean. If we treat this as if it is formally a reference egyptian kingship, we neglect the fact that it did eventually become a title in the late period. And, if we adress all these aspects of the term, we run the risk of defining it so much that it makes a better wikitionary entry than wikipedia article. What really should this page include, and what should it not? Thanatosimii 05:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to cover this term. 

message: I propose we merge the article List of fictional Pharaohs into this article.  The list is very short, and has little chance of getting any bigger.  Plus it is an orphaned page.
*Merge --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: The lead paragraph says that the term "pharaoh" is specific to the New Kingdom. However other articles give me the impression that it relates to all three egyptian kingdoms, if not the whole of ancient egypt. Perhaps somebody with more expertise could come up with a more accurate definition. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeframe 

message: This needs sources if it is to stay in. When I return home in 10 days I'll see what this says, if no one else can:
The Identity of "King So" in Egypt (2 Kings XVII 4)     Duane L. Christensen          Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 39, Fasc. 2  (Apr., 1989), pp. 140-153 Doug Weller (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pharaohs in the Bible

message: The last paragraph of this section ending with - The absence of proper names in the first books of the Bible is no indication of the late date of their composition and of writer's vague knowledge of Egyptian history, rather to the contrary. The same is true of the use of the title Pharaoh for rulers earlier than those of the eighteenth dynasty, which is quite in keeping with Egyptian use at the time of the nineteenth dynasty- needs to be verified. Not everyone agrees with this statement: it requires that everyone agree the Bible was written during the 19th dynasty, it requires that the Pharaoh or King's name was unknown, and it in no way invalidates the argument that it helps prove a late composition of the Bible. So at least a reference to an reliable expert on ancient Egypt is required. 
And the whole paragraph should probably be moved out of this section. Nitpyck (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: is there any evidence that nsw.t "king of Upper Egypt" was used for the pharaoh of all of Egypt? That is, as opposed to nsw-bjtj "king of Upper and Lower Egypt". --dab (𒁳) 11:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: nsw.t

message: I'm removing the category since this list is about a title, not about a specific person and that category includes mostly specific persons. There is a nice article titled Pharaoh of the Exodus which goes into details about the possible pharaohs and the problems about his identification, and it is already included in the category.
Possibly it would be better if Pharaoh of the Exodus was renamed Pharaohs in the Bible, and then the section from this article could be moved there, keeping all Bible- and Pharaoh-related information together. – Alensha talk 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good idea, it would have to be discussed there of course. Post your suggestion there, I'll reply, if we don't get any disagreement we can do it. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torah people 

message: Is there any basis for the claim that the Red Crown represents the womb and the White Crown represents the thymus? Googling only comes up pages quoting wikipedia, and a few crackpot original research sites. Added "citation needed" for these. 203.96.148.71 (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crowns represent the womb and the thymus? 

message: I've asked on page Talk:Pharaohs in the Bible whether the word "Pharaoh" is understood as a proper name, rather than as a title, in the Bible. In case you're interested in the topic, please discuss there. Not sure whether this should be mentioned in this article too. -- 21:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Usage in the bible is not relevant. Pharaoh is not a proper name, no matter how religious sources misuse it. This is an article in the context of Egyptology, not ideology. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pharaoh used as a proper name? 

message: It's so distracting it actually made the article hard to read.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.31.254 (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Likely driven by religionism. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I also do not understand the point. BCE is drived my anti-religious atheism. Wandrative (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we cut it out with the BCE nonsense already? 

message: "in the middle of the [[first ....." middle is an indistinct time; indistinct measurement is not suitable for an encyclopedic work. it should be "during" unless a specific general year(s) can be provided which may not be "in the middle".66.74.176.59 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. A. Parrot (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2014 

message: What is going on here? I haven't looked at this article in a while, but it reads as if written by a 12-year-old. What the heck is the lead paragraph trying to convey? ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now stripped it to the first sentence. Please only put informative and explanatory passages about the subject matter in the lead paragraph, not random trivia. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph	? 

message: Per WP:IANAE (I Am Not An Egyptologist), I query this edit on 9 October by an IP editor. changed "Nesw Bity" to "Nesu Bity" 220 of Borg 01:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit query 

message: The text currently says that "Pharoah" began to be applied to the king during the "New Kingdom", "Second Intermediate Period" as if the new kingdom were part of the Second Intermediate Period. I'm guessing an editing lacuna caused this. I could read this as either
 - "New Kingdom, _after_ the Second Intermediate Period"
 - "New Kingdom, _or possibly_ the Second Intermediate Period"
I suspect the former is actually correct (no evidence for the latter is suggested), but then what would be the point of mentioning the Second Intermediate Period? Casu Marzu (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the reference to the Second Intermediate Period. The text originally said "During the reign of Thutmose III (circa 1479–1425 BCE) in the New Kingdom, after the foreign rule of the Hyksos during the Second Intermediate Period…" and was later mis-edited (diff). But there's no reason to mention the SIP here in any case. A. Parrot (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify "New Kingdom", "Second Intermediate Period" 

message: Talk about amun ra,anubis and more there stories and such 41.13.24.138 (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Egyptian gods 

message: Hello, usually I will use Wikipedia without an account, but I noticed a spelling mistake "Pharohf", and I want to edit it! Rayzaz (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Could not find the error. Liu1126 (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2024