Talk:History of Ptolemaic Egypt

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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))


 * 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)

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)


 * 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 Sch OOL 09:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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)


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

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * Support I fully support a merger Be Bold J8079s (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Neutral As mentioned above by Parrot, no doubt that History of  may have an article, separate from the . The question is however the amount of information. Greyshark09 (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose aticles need to be synchronized to reduce overlap, not merged.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


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