Talk:Blemmyes

message: The keep on AfD was a good result, but the AfD nom is understandable bcz of a fundamental problem: the term is much better known in its mythological/superstitious sense, but it is also a proper historical term. There is a need for disambiguation: there should be two articles, and the degree of confusion exemplified by treating the history buried within the mythology suggests to me that both articles should carry suffixed titles (equal Dab'n), rather than 
# have a supposedly primary topic lk'd by editors who aren't aware of a second meaning, and thus accept the blue lk Blemmyes or Blemmyae or Blemmys or Blemmy as an indication that the needed article is in place, and
# have editors who have become familiar with the existing article count on it to cover whichever sense they are using, not realizing they are instead pointing readers to whichever topic gets designated as primary (the mythological one, i imagine) and in effect hoping those readers to pay attention to the HatNote Dab, when we could assure their getting the more thoro and visible assistance of a Dab page.
Does anyone object to proceeding with this plan? --Jerzy•t 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs more Beja. The German wiki has a list of their known kings. This article has much more. -LlywelynII (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and mythlogy 

message: The reference section is links to the mythological creature.  There should be some source listed for information on the historical Blemmyes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.247.48 (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Reference Needed

message: A duplicate Blemyah article was found to exist.</br>
I have been moving content here piecewise, attributed credit to user:Elledani777 in Edit Summary.</br>
Ready now to make Blemyah a redirect. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Blemyah 

message: Egypt's 25th Dynasty originated from the Kingdom of Kush, in its Napatan period. See the respective article for ample details. This article here, not acknowledging any of that, reads a lot like alternative history. Wefa (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. So why didn't you edit it? Pathawi (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you mean. This article is about the Blemmyes. And it clearly acknowledges that "the kingdom of Napata ... for some time ... controlled Egypt too, supplying its 25th Dynasty". Srnec (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  messed up history - 25th Dynasty 

message: Please discuss your additions here first, before making further unrepairable edit attempts in the main page. You are introducing multiple errors and misrepresentation of the sources which you cite. Consider these:
* – The X Group was identified by George Andrew Reisner in the first half of 20th century. So people in the "late Antiquity" could hardly beleive that the Blemmyes belonged to a concept not known to them.
* – The source actually says:  "For a long time" refers to modern scholarship, not to "Greek and Egyptian sources"; the latter just are sources for the existence of the Blemmyes
* Cushitic is a language family. We only can say that Blemmyes/Beja spoke/speak a Cushitic language (most probably the same language at different stages). "Cushitic" does not mean anything else. Cushitic is not a label for an ethnicity or a material culture. If it were so, scholars wouldn't grope so much in dark about the potential Cushitic affiliation of the A-, Kerma- and C-cultures; they would look at the sherds and say "hey, these look Cushitic".
So please, discuss first, before making another bold edit (WP:BRD).
–Austronesier (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions