From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Since the actual word for "Egyptian King" (nswt) is a male gender word, when women ruled the Kingdom, Pharaoh (gender neutral) was the linguistically necessary term."

Can we get a citation for this? The usage of the term pr-aA to refer to the person of the Pharaoh is only noted from the 18th Dynasty onward. However, there were female rulers before this, i.e. Nitiqret (6th Dyn), and Neferusobek (12th Dyn). In addition, ideologically the Pharaoh is always male. He is always the son of Ra, even in the case that the ruler is female. This theory doesn't add up, IMHO. --TheEgyptian 21:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


I deleted this, but PFoster mentioned there was no discussion, so I brought it back from the dead. I can do that. So anyway, I think we should delete this, since it's just a dictionary entry with no connection to rationalism, woo, politics, or whatever it is we do here. Mei (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, as it is awful in its current state. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 02:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I second, for what it's worth...I see no reason for this article's existence...something to link to, maybe...PACODOGwoof, bitches 04:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I say keep and expand, but as more about how the pharaoh related to the bible in the Old Testament than about the historical facts. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 04:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Passes that, just. I think this is just keepable if it gets missionified a bit more (ie, not simply an encyclopedia entry). Maybe add something about the pharaohs claiming divinity? and, um, marrying their sisters. ew. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I can do that. I was going to rework the whole thing anyway, and tie it into Biblical myths. If the mob thinks its worthwhile, I'll be happy to put it on my to-do list. I've got to starve off boredom till autumn.... --TheEgyptiansig001.png 17:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Barely on-topic enough and no consensus, so I've removed the delete tag - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Something worth including?[edit]

Something that seems related and worth mentioning in the article if true: I remember watching a thing on the History Channel back when it was worth watching that said that the word "Pharaoh" is not actually referring to the king himself, but to his house. Like his literal house. I don't know if this is true, or where to search for this, but it seemed like it was related if true. I figure if nothing else, someone can come in and call me an idiot and correct me.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: "I don't know where to search for this": wp:Pharaoh#History of the title.--ZooGuard (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)