Talk:History of Ptolemaic Egypt

This article's edit history is not complete. Some of the article text's edit history exists at a different location due to copying and pasting between articles.

This article's edit history includes a copy-paste-without-attribution. This took place on 8 June 2006 and can be seen here. The copied text originally came from History of Greek and Roman Egypt. It was removed on 8 June 2006 with this edit, and the earlier edit history for that copied text can be seen at that page's edit history. Please see Wikipedia:Merge and Wikipedia:How to break up a page for details of when such copying and pasting is acceptable and when it is not, and how to correctly attribute using links in the edit summaries.

Ancient Egypt Mid‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt

Mid

This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece Mid‑importance

	Greece portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Egypt Mid‑importance

	Egypt portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Map

We need an emmidiate template with years (305 BC-30 BC) and a nice map for this one. I can contribute with materials but I am very poor with technical stuff. Please consider this, a template like "Inca Empire" or "Roman Republic" with a map an so.

The first dat that shows up, 125 BC is wrong--Alexander the great was in Egypt around 330 BC

Monarch and Nomarch

This change was made back in May 2006 at History of Greek and Roman Egypt. The text was since moved to Ptolemaic Egypt, but the important point is that nomarch was correct, and monarch was incorrect. I have now changed things so they are correct again. Please can anyone watching the article ensure that a similar well-intentioned mistake is not made in the future. Carcharoth 08:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basilikon Agemata

The section under Basilikon Agemata is confusingly formatted and written. Should someone do something about this or flag it?

Plagiarized Material

A large chunk of this article (Namely, all of the portions discussing the Ptolemaic Army) is lifted from the unit descriptions of the Ptolemaioi army for Europa Barbarorum, a mod for the PC game Rome: Total War. This probably should be corrected. The lifted text can originally be found here: http://europabarbarorum.com/factions_ptolemaioi_units.html Swordwraith 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Why in this article is possible to use two systems ( BC/AD and BCE/CE)? I have been trying to change all of those to BC/AD because most of dates in this article is like that, but Heiro nickname is deleting all of those because its religious poin of veiw (not-theistic). When it is the opposite its good for media elite and they let us to do that (I have done that too). But now no because BC means before Christ. This is clear double standard from wikipedia media elite. Shame on you. You are not logical at all. This empirical test of mine is part of Wikipedia media discussion and anti bias programme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.92.31 (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You failed your test, as Heiro hasn't edited this article. You don't seem to have much clue about Wikipedia or WP:ERA. This article has always been basically BC/AD, you did fix an inconsistency which is fine. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in remembering that unauthorized "tests" to prove WP:POINTs are not allowed on Wikipedia? He iro 17:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

I am afraid "Ptolemaic Egypt" is not an appropriate title for the subject here discussed (with such a title, the article should typically deal with all the things occurring in Egypt under the Ptolemies: agriculture, life of the people etc...). The content however is clearly about the Ptolemaic Empire (or, maybe Kingdom), which by the way did not limit itself to Egypt (parts of the Levant were also protion of Ptolemaic territories). Similarly, other articles on the Diadocri have dynastic rather than geographic names ("Seleucid Empire", rather than "Seleucid Persia" for example). I suggest the article be renamed accordingly. Regards. PHG 16:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't disagree with the logic behind your action; only you must always remember to use the move button for such things, and avoid creating double redirects. As for the name, personally I'd prefer "Ptolemaic Kingdom", as it's more commonly used than Ptolemaic empire; for example see Alexander to Actium.--Aldux 16:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the article did originally deal with Egypt under the Ptolemies, or to be more precise, Alexander, Cleomenes, and then the Ptolemies. Maybe it still does, I haven't checked. But my point is that this is an article that was written, or intended to be part of a series on the history of Egypt. See {{History of Egypt}} for the article series, which is also in the article. Ptolemaic Empire might need another article, or could be covered at Ptolemaic dynasty. Carcharoth 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, I created a Ptolemaic Kingdom article with a large part of the content of this very article. Ptolemaic Egypt should by definition cover Egyptian topics, i.e. society/demographic/culture of Egypt under the Ptolemies, whether Ptolemaic Kingdom should cover all the dynastic and political dimension of this dynasty, which, by the way, is not limited to Egypt (large portions of the Levant were also controlled by the Ptolemies). PHG 10:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. How marvellous to see the energy and the, perhaps Alexandrian, fine distinctions in the creation of a number of articles on what to me seems the same topic. This is one of the reasons I feel overwhelmed in trying to do something on wikipedia. I spend some hours starting to add a little to an article and then find there are several more on the same topic. Feel free to add any info, references and bibliography I put on one to any of the others where appropriate. Gallador (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of subtitle "Greco-Macedonian" to "Greeks"

Small corrections also to the specific paragraph since the dominant group and culture in Ptolemaic Egypt was Greek and not only Greco-Macedonian. (Seleukosa 10:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And to add up further. There is not such a thing as a graeco-macedonian culture since the ancient macedonians were simply one more greek tribe. The culture and the entities appeared after the conquest of the east from Alexander the Great are oficially and universally described as Hellenistic or simply Greek. Italiotis 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra Entry

This entry reads strangely like a narrative, with questions and all. Is that generally accepted for an encyclopedic entry?

I would agree, it reads poorly, fails to cite sources, and is not as far as I'm aware entirely accurate. By "wittnessed the defeat of their guardian, Pompey, by Julius Caesar in a duel", do they perhaps mean the civil war? Pompey was assassinated by Egyptian agents in order to win favour from Caesar, he wasn't kiled in anything one would desribe as a duel.

I have re-written the entry with a more appropriate tone, however, it still needs some fleshing out, as I had to delete several unsubstantiated claims.

Jewish section

the jewish section is interesting but it needs sources, BADLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish section is based on WP:OR, an nothing of its contents is documented in Egypt History or in any reliable source, it represents the editor point of view. Wikipedia is not a place for writing fake stories « PuTTY^SchOOL 09:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

contributions or criticisms what gives

Im disbuting the neutrality of the contributions section it seem the author wrote a biased section the title says contributions but the only positive thing it says they build buildings,it s very suspect and will be removed in short order unless somebody has a problem and would like to to dispute my claims,but i think it is pretty obvious that it is bacisly a criticims section that is called contributions,--Mikmik2953 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this section needs balancing. I'll try to provide some. Gallador (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title again

This article had also discussed about Alexander the Great, while Alexander belonged to Macedonia. So I support to rename the article as History of Greek Egypt. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really an option, we use 'normal' names for article titles, and this period is known by virtually everyone, and in particular Eygptologists, as the Ptolemaic period. Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of "a series"

Can someone correct this (so it is consistant) Alexandra the Great
XsandaOS (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger to Ptolemaic Kingdom

There is significant content overlap between this article and the Ptolemaic Kingdom article, both of which cover the exact same topic. Therefore, a merger is a natural step. However, since both articles are well-developed with significant edit histories, conducting the merger may be tricky, so technical assistance may be needed. --BomBom (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I fully support a merger Be Bold J8079s (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's conceivable that we could have a "history of" article, but we don't have enough material to justify that division right now. Even if we had that article, its title would have to conform to the title of the main article, which this doesn't. A. Parrot (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As mentioned above by Parrot, no doubt that History of <state/polity> may have an article, separate from the <state/polity>. The question is however the amount of information.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose aticles need to be synchronized to reduce overlap, not merged.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support it's the same subject. Flamarande (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agree. Just make a new section called History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.253.153 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]