Talk:Women in ancient Egypt

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoeyzhou824.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Mostly translated from the French Wikipedia article Place de la femme dans l'Égypte antique, with a bibiography, images and a couple of subsections added.

OttawaAC (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Women in Ancient Egypt had a status that may seem surprisingly modern because they were when compared to the status women occupied in the majority of contemporary societies."

u wot m8

89.189.19.109 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect use of parenthesis?
Tiyi wife of (Amenhotep III) Shouldn't it be Tiyi (wife of Amenhotep III) instead? There are four such cases.--Adûnâi (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I know this was 3 yrs ago but the way you correct it is grammatically correct. Zachdgowen83 (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Template move
The "History of Egypt" template is located in the middle of a sentence and needs to be moved. I don't know how to make this change, so I'm hoping someone who does will see this! -- Npa213 Talk|Contrib 22:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Why is a template concerning the list of Egyptian dynasties in this article? It does not concern dynastic history. Dimadick (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahmes nefertari2-2.jpg

Bias
I'm no Egyptologist, but from what I can tell the article seems incredibly biased compared to other modern interpretations of Egypt? It seems almost as if the writers were purposefully looking for ways to put the Ancient Egyptians down while ignoring many of the ways in which women and men had considerable equality, cherry-picking examples from specific times such as the Amarna Period to paint all of Egypt in broad strokes. Huge chunks of the article have barely any references and the references which are provided don't paint women as negatively as the writer suggests. In fact, despite the entire article being incredibly negative towards the position of women, most of the sources are overwhelmingly positive about them to the point that you will have an extremely negative interpretation of women, which is "backed up" by a rather positive or neutral source (e.g., Egyptian royalty being patrilineal is portrayed as if it is some great example of female inferiority in Ancient Egypt even though the source doesn't state that while also ignoring more positive or neutral interpretations of why that was the case such as that Ancient Egyptian kings were male because they were the personifications of male deities). It's actually quite funny how many neutral things are incredibly misinterpreted as negative (such as men being served by men and women being served being women), how many negative things have absolutely no source, and how many positive sources are hurriedly skimmed over. I wouldn't even know where to begin fixing it especially since New Kingdom information is lumped in with Old Kingdom information and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.190.167 (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

In need of rewrite
I’m sure this comment is totally useless and if I want something rewritten I should do it myself, but I felt the least I could do was bring attention to it. Large swathes of this article are borderline unreadable, in particular most of the marriage section, most of which strikes a strange tone and some of which is simply nonsensical.

Nearly an hour ago I resolved to improve the wording of the section without changing any matters of fact, but eventually I became so bewildered by the paragraph that I determined my (lack of) knowledge on the subject wouldn’t be sufficient to avoid any potential major errors, and unfortunately I’m not so motivated as to actually read up on the sources to make a ground-up rewrite, especially with the knowledge that as a new contributor, there’s decent odds my changes might be undone.

In short, I’m mostly hoping to let any of you people more responsible or devoted than me know that this is one that probably needs work. It seems to me that (for the most part) the sources are here, but the actual wording of the article throughout is difficult to parse, incorrect in its tone, and in general unpleasant to read. Thanks to whoever is reading this, whenever that happens. Ciao. 2600:1004:B12D:3232:FC85:CBF7:D919:E5A (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)