Talk:History of ancient Egypt

message: 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.
220.237.73.182
: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)
replies: text: 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  ! 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)

text: 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)

text: Quite understandable... but someone has to step up with the time to fix it first. Thanatosimii 04:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very poor quality article 

message: Someone at the IP 203.45.95.212 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)
thread_title:  Article Butchering 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Early Dynastic 

message: 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 dynasty..it 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Copyedit help

message: "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)
thread_title:  conservative or conventional? 

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

message: I believe the recent edit by User:12.197.236.101 was done by the same person who is also . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sock 

message: Classical antiquity in ancient Egypt?
See: :Talk:History_of_Egypt#Classical_antiquity?
:JMCC1 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical antiquity? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trees