text:
CMOS

Complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor (CMOS, pronounced "sea-moss",, ) is a type of metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) fabrication process that uses complementary and symmetrical pairs of p-type and n-type MOSFETs for logic functions. CMOS technology is used for constructing integrated circuit (IC) chips, including microprocessors, microcontrollers, memory chips (including CMOS BIOS), and other digital logic circuits. CMOS technology is also used for analog circuits such as image sensors (CMOS sensors), data converters, RF circuits (RF CMOS), and highly integrated transceivers for many types of communication.

The CMOS process was originally conceived by Frank Wanlass at Fairchild Semiconductor and presented by Wanlass and Chih-Tang Sah at the International Solid-State Circuits Conference in 1963. Wanlass later filed US patent 3,356,858 for CMOS circuitry and it was granted in 1967. RCA commercialized the technology with the trademark "COS-MOS" in the late 1960s, forcing other manufacturers to find another name, leading to "CMOS" becoming the standard name for the technology by the early 1970s. CMOS overtook NMOS logic as the dominant MOSFET fabrication process for very large-scale integration (VLSI) chips in the 1980s, also replacing earlier transistor–transistor logic (TTL) technology. CMOS has since remained the standard fabrication process for MOSFET semiconductor devices in VLSI chips. , 99% of IC chips, including most digital, analog and mixed-signal ICs, were fabricated using CMOS technology.

Two important characteristics of CMOS devices are high noise immunity and low static power consumption. Since one transistor of the MOSFET pair is always off, the series combination draws significant power only momentarily during switching between on and off states. Consequently, CMOS devices do not produce as much waste heat as other forms of logic, like NMOS logic or transistor–transistor logic (TTL), which normally have some standing current even when not changing state. These characteristics allow CMOS to integrate a high density of logic functions on a chip. It was primarily for this reason that CMOS became the most widely used technology to be implemented in VLSI chips.

The phrase "metal–oxide–semiconductor" is a reference to the physical structure of MOS field-effect transistors, having a metal gate electrode placed on top of an oxide insulator, which in turn is on top of a semiconductor material. Aluminium was once used but now the material is polysilicon. Other metal gates have made a comeback with the advent of high-κ dielectric materials in the CMOS process, as announced by IBM and Intel for the 45 nanometer node and smaller sizes.

History
The principle of complementary symmetry was first introduced by George Sziklai in 1953 who then discussed several complementary bipolar circuits. Paul Weimer, also at RCA, invented in 1962 thin-film transistor (TFT) complementary circuits, a close relative of CMOS. He invented complementary flip-flop and inverter circuits, but did no work in a more complex complementary logic. He was the first person able to put p-channel and n-channel TFTs in a circuit on the same substrate. Three years earlier, John T. Wallmark and Sanford M. Marcus published a variety of complex logic functions implemented as integrated circuits using JFETs, including complementary memory circuits. Frank Wanlass was familiar with work done by Weimer at RCA.

The MOSFET (metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor, or MOS transistor) was invented by Mohamed M. Atalla and Dawon Kahng at Bell Labs in 1959. There were originally two types of MOSFET fabrication processes, PMOS (p-type MOS) and NMOS (n-type MOS). Both types were developed by Atalla and Kahng when they originally invented the MOSFET, fabricating both PMOS and NMOS devices with 20 μm and then 10 μm gate lengths in 1960. While the MOSFET was initially overlooked and ignored by Bell Labs in favour of bipolar transistors, the MOSFET invention generated significant interest at Fairchild Semiconductor. Based on Atalla's work, Chih-Tang Sah introduced MOS technology to Fairchild with his MOS-controlled field-effect tetrode fabricated in late 1960.

A new type of MOSFET logic combining both the PMOS and NMOS processes was developed, called complementary MOS (CMOS), by Chih-Tang Sah and Frank Wanlass at Fairchild. In February 1963, they published the invention in a research paper. In both the research paper and the patent filed by Wanlass, the fabrication of CMOS devices was outlined, on the basis of thermal oxidation of a silicon substrate to yield a layer of silicon dioxide located between the drain contact and the source contact.

CMOS was commercialised by RCA in the late 1960s. RCA adopted CMOS for the design of integrated circuits (ICs), developing CMOS circuits for an Air Force computer in 1965 and then a 288-bit CMOS SRAM memory chip in 1968. RCA also used CMOS for its 4000-series integrated circuits in 1968, starting with a 20μm semiconductor manufacturing process before gradually scaling to a 10 μm process over the next several years.

CMOS technology was initially overlooked by the American semiconductor industry in favour of NMOS, which was more powerful at the time. However, CMOS was quickly adopted and further advanced by Japanese semiconductor manufacturers due to its low power consumption, leading to the rise of the Japanese semiconductor industry. Toshiba developed C2MOS (Clocked CMOS), a circuit technology with lower power consumption and faster operating speed than ordinary CMOS, in 1969. Toshiba used its C2MOS technology to develop a large-scale integration (LSI) chip for Sharp's Elsi Mini LED pocket calculator, developed in 1971 and released in 1972. Suwa Seikosha (now Seiko Epson) began developing a CMOS IC chip for a Seiko quartz watch in 1969, and began mass-production with the launch of the Seiko Analog Quartz 38SQW watch in 1971. The first mass-produced CMOS consumer electronic product was the Hamilton Pulsar "Wrist Computer" digital watch, released in 1970. Due to low power consumption, CMOS logic has been widely used for calculators and watches since the 1970s.

The earliest microprocessors in the early 1970s were PMOS processors, which initially dominated the early microprocessor industry. By the late 1970s, NMOS microprocessors had overtaken PMOS processors. CMOS microprocessors were introduced in 1975, with the Intersil 6100, and RCA CDP 1801. However, CMOS processors did not become dominant until the 1980s.

CMOS was initially slower than NMOS logic, thus NMOS was more widely used for computers in the 1970s. The Intel 5101 (1kb SRAM) CMOS memory chip (1974) had an access time of 800ns, whereas the fastest NMOS chip at the time, the Intel 2147 (4kb SRAM) HMOS memory chip (1976), had an access time of 55/70ns. In 1978, a Hitachi research team led by Toshiaki Masuhara introduced the twin-well Hi-CMOS process, with its HM6147 (4kb SRAM) memory chip, manufactured with a 3 μm process. The Hitachi HM6147 chip was able to match the performance (55/70ns access) of the Intel 2147 HMOS chip, while the HM6147 also consumed significantly less power (15mA) than the 2147 (110mA). With comparable performance and much less power consumption, the twin-well CMOS process eventually overtook NMOS as the most common semiconductor manufacturing process for computers in the 1980s.

In the 1980s, CMOS microprocessors overtook NMOS microprocessors. NASA's Galileo spacecraft, sent to orbit Jupiter in 1989, used the RCA 1802 CMOS microprocessor due to low power consumption.

Intel introduced a 1.5 μm process for CMOS semiconductor device fabrication in 1983. In the mid-1980s, Bijan Davari of IBM developed high-performance, low-voltage, deep sub-micron CMOS technology, which enabled the development of faster computers as well as portable computers and battery-powered handheld electronics. In 1988, Davari led an IBM team that demonstrated a high-performance 250 nanometer CMOS process.

Fujitsu commercialized a 700nm CMOS process in 1987, and then Hitachi, Mitsubishi Electric, NEC and Toshiba commercialized 500nm CMOS in 1989. In 1993, Sony commercialized a 350nm CMOS process, while Hitachi and NEC commercialized 250nm CMOS. Hitachi introduced a 160nm CMOS process in 1995, then Mitsubishi introduced 150nm CMOS in 1996, and then Samsung Electronics introduced 140nm in 1999.

In 2000, Gurtej Singh Sandhu and Trung T. Doan at Micron Technology invented atomic layer deposition High-κ dielectric films, leading to the development of a cost-effective 90 nm CMOS process. Toshiba and Sony developed a 65 nm CMOS process in 2002, and then TSMC initiated the development of 45 nm CMOS logic in 2004. The development of pitch double patterning by Gurtej Singh Sandhu at Micron Technology led to the development of 30nm class CMOS in the 2000s.

CMOS is used in most modern LSI and VLSI devices. As of 2010, CPUs with the best performance per watt each year have been CMOS static logic since 1976. As of 2019, planar CMOS technology is still the most common form of semiconductor device fabrication, but is gradually being replaced by non-planar FinFET technology, which is capable of manufacturing semiconductor nodes smaller than 20nm.

Technical details
"CMOS" refers to both a particular style of digital circuitry design and the family of processes used to implement that circuitry on integrated circuits (chips). CMOS circuitry dissipates less power than logic families with resistive loads. Since this advantage has increased and grown more important, CMOS processes and variants have come to dominate, thus the vast majority of modern integrated circuit manufacturing is on CMOS processes. CMOS logic consumes around one seventh the power of NMOS logic, and about 0.00001% of the power of bipolar transistor-transistor logic (TTL).

CMOS circuits use a combination of p-type and n-type metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFETs) to implement logic gates and other digital circuits. Although CMOS logic can be implemented with discrete devices for demonstrations, commercial CMOS products are integrated circuits composed of up to billions of transistors of both types, on a rectangular piece of silicon of often between 10 and 400 mm2.

CMOS always uses all enhancement-mode MOSFETs (in other words, a zero gate-to-source voltage turns the transistor off).

Inversion
CMOS circuits are constructed in such a way that all P-type metal–oxide–semiconductor (PMOS) transistors must have either an input from the voltage source or from another PMOS transistor. Similarly, all NMOS transistors must have either an input from ground or from another NMOS transistor. The composition of a PMOS transistor creates low resistance between its source and drain contacts when a low gate voltage is applied and high resistance when a high gate voltage is applied. On the other hand, the composition of an NMOS transistor creates high resistance between source and drain when a low gate voltage is applied and low resistance when a high gate voltage is applied. CMOS accomplishes current reduction by complementing every nMOSFET with a pMOSFET and connecting both gates and both drains together. A high voltage on the gates will cause the nMOSFET to conduct and the pMOSFET not to conduct, while a low voltage on the gates causes the reverse. This arrangement greatly reduces power consumption and heat generation. However, during the switching time, both pMOS and nMOS MOSFETs conduct briefly as the gate voltage transitions from one state to another. This induces a brief spike in power consumption and becomes a serious issue at high frequencies.

The adjacent image shows what happens when an input is connected to both a PMOS transistor (top of diagram) and an NMOS transistor (bottom of diagram). Vdd is some positive voltage connected to a power supply and Vss is ground. A is the input and Q is the output.

When the voltage of A is low (i.e. close to Vss), the NMOS transistor's channel is in a high resistance state, disconnecting Vss from Q. The PMOS transistor's channel is in a low resistance state, connecting Vdd to Q. Q, therefore, registers Vdd.

On the other hand, when the voltage of A is high (i.e. close to Vdd), the PMOS transistor is in a high resistance state, disconnecting Vdd from Q. The NMOS transistor is in a low resistance state, connecting Vss to Q. Now, Q registers Vss.

In short, the outputs of the PMOS and NMOS transistors are complementary such that when the input is low, the output is high, and when the input is high, the output is low. No matter what the input is, the output is never left floating (charge is never stored due to wire capacitance and lack of electrical drain/ground). Because of this behavior of input and output, the CMOS circuit's output is the inverse of the input.

The transistors' resistances are never exactly equal to zero or infinity, so Q will never exactly equal Vss or Vdd, but Q will always be closer to Vss than A was to Vdd (or vice versa if A were close to Vss). Without this amplification, there would be a very low limit to the number of logic gates that could be chained together in series, and CMOS logic with billions of transistors would be impossible.

Power supply pins
The power supply pins for CMOS are called VDD and VSS, or VCC and Ground(GND) depending on the manufacturer. VDD and VSS are carryovers from conventional MOS circuits and stand for the drain and source supplies. These do not apply directly to CMOS, since both supplies are really source supplies. VCC and Ground are carryovers from TTL logic and that nomenclature has been retained with the introduction of the 54C/74C line of CMOS.

Duality
An important characteristic of a CMOS circuit is the duality that exists between its PMOS transistors and NMOS transistors. A CMOS circuit is created to allow a path always to exist from the output to either the power source or ground. To accomplish this, the set of all paths to the voltage source must be the complement of the set of all paths to ground. This can be easily accomplished by defining one in terms of the NOT of the other. Due to the logic based on De Morgan's laws, the PMOS transistors in parallel have corresponding NMOS transistors in series while the PMOS transistors in series have corresponding NMOS transistors in parallel.

Logic

More complex logic functions such as those involving AND and OR gates require manipulating the paths between gates to represent the logic. When a path consists of two transistors in series, both transistors must have low resistance to the corresponding supply voltage, modelling an AND. When a path consists of two transistors in parallel, either one or both of the transistors must have low resistance to connect the supply voltage to the output, modelling an OR.

Shown on the right is a circuit diagram of a NAND gate in CMOS logic. If both of the A and B inputs are high, then both the NMOS transistors (bottom half of the diagram) will conduct, neither of the PMOS transistors (top half) will conduct, and a conductive path will be established between the output and Vss (ground), bringing the output low. If both of the A and B inputs are low, then neither of the NMOS transistors will conduct, while both of the PMOS transistors will conduct, establishing a conductive path between the output and Vdd (voltage source), bringing the output high. If either of the A or B inputs is low, one of the NMOS transistors will not conduct, one of the PMOS transistors will, and a conductive path will be established between the output and Vdd (voltage source), bringing the output high. As the only configuration of the two inputs that results in a low output is when both are high, this circuit implements a NAND (NOT AND) logic gate.

An advantage of CMOS over NMOS logic is that both low-to-high and high-to-low output transitions are fast since the (PMOS) pull-up transistors have low resistance when switched on, unlike the load resistors in NMOS logic. In addition, the output signal swings the full voltage between the low and high rails. This strong, more nearly symmetric response also makes CMOS more resistant to noise.

See Logical effort for a method of calculating delay in a CMOS circuit.

Example: NAND gate in physical layout

This example shows a NAND logic device drawn as a physical representation as it would be manufactured. The physical layout perspective is a "bird's eye view" of a stack of layers. The circuit is constructed on a P-type substrate. The polysilicon, diffusion, and n-well are referred to as "base layers" and are actually inserted into trenches of the P-type substrate. (See steps 1 to 6 in the process diagram below right) The contacts penetrate an insulating layer between the base layers and the first layer of metal (metal1) making a connection.

The inputs to the NAND (illustrated in green color) are in polysilicon. The transistors (devices) are formed by the intersection of the polysilicon and diffusion; N diffusion for the N device & P diffusion for the P device (illustrated in salmon and yellow coloring respectively). The output ("out") is connected together in metal (illustrated in cyan coloring). Connections between metal and polysilicon or diffusion are made through contacts (illustrated as black squares). The physical layout example matches the NAND logic circuit given in the previous example.

The N device is manufactured on a P-type substrate while the P device is manufactured in an N-type well (n-well). A P-type substrate "tap" is connected to VSS and an N-type n-well tap is connected to VDD to prevent latchup.

Power: switching and leakage
CMOS logic dissipates less power than NMOS logic circuits because CMOS dissipates power only when switching ("dynamic power"). On a typical ASIC in a modern 90 nanometer process, switching the output might take 120 picoseconds, and happens once every ten nanoseconds. NMOS logic dissipates power whenever the transistor is on, because there is a current path from Vdd to Vss through the load resistor and the n-type network.

Static CMOS gates are very power efficient because they dissipate nearly zero power when idle. Earlier, the power consumption of CMOS devices was not the major concern while designing chips. Factors like speed and area dominated the design parameters. As the CMOS technology moved below sub-micron levels the power consumption per unit area of the chip has risen tremendously.

Broadly classifying, power dissipation in CMOS circuits occurs because of two components, static and dynamic:

Static dissipation
Both NMOS and PMOS transistors have a gate–source threshold voltage (Vth), below which the current (called sub threshold current) through the device drops exponentially. Historically, CMOS designs operated at supply voltages much larger than their threshold voltages (Vdd might have been 5 V, and Vth for both NMOS and PMOS might have been 700 mV). A special type of the transistor used in some CMOS circuits is the native transistor, with near zero threshold voltage.

SiO2 is a good insulator, but at very small thickness levels electrons can tunnel across the very thin insulation; the probability drops off exponentially with oxide thickness. Tunnelling current becomes very important for transistors below 130 nm technology with gate oxides of 20 Å or thinner.

Small reverse leakage currents are formed due to formation of reverse bias between diffusion regions and wells (for e.g., p-type diffusion vs. n-well), wells and substrate (for e.g., n-well vs. p-substrate). In modern process diode leakage is very small compared to sub threshold and tunnelling currents, so these may be neglected during power calculations.

If the ratios do not match, then there might be different currents of PMOS and NMOS; this may lead to imbalance and thus improper current causes the CMOS to heat up and dissipate power unnecessarily. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that leakage power reduces due to aging effects as a trade-off for devices to become slower.

To speed up designs, manufacturers have switched to constructions that have lower voltage thresholds but because of this a modern NMOS transistor with a Vth of 200 mV has a significant subthreshold leakage current. Designs (e.g. desktop processors) which include vast numbers of circuits which are not actively switching still consume power because of this leakage current. Leakage power is a significant portion of the total power consumed by such designs. Multi-threshold CMOS (MTCMOS), now available from foundries, is one approach to managing leakage power. With MTCMOS, high Vth transistors are used when switching speed is not critical, while low Vth transistors are used in speed sensitive paths. Further technology advances that use even thinner gate dielectrics have an additional leakage component because of current tunnelling through the extremely thin gate dielectric. Using high-κ dielectrics instead of silicon dioxide that is the conventional gate dielectric allows similar device performance, but with a thicker gate insulator, thus avoiding this current. Leakage power reduction using new material and system designs is critical to sustaining scaling of CMOS.

Charging and discharging of load capacitances
CMOS circuits dissipate power by charging the various load capacitances (mostly gate and wire capacitance, but also drain and some source capacitances) whenever they are switched. In one complete cycle of CMOS logic, current flows from VDD to the load capacitance to charge it and then flows from the charged load capacitance (CL) to ground during discharge. Therefore, in one complete charge/discharge cycle, a total of Q=CLVDD is thus transferred from VDD to ground. Multiply by the switching frequency on the load capacitances to get the current used, and multiply by the average voltage again to get the characteristic switching power dissipated by a CMOS device: $$ P = 0.5 C V^2 f $$.

Since most gates do not operate/switch at every clock cycle, they are often accompanied by a factor $$\alpha$$, called the activity factor. Now, the dynamic power dissipation may be re-written as $$ P = \alpha C V^2 f $$.

A clock in a system has an activity factor α=1, since it rises and falls every cycle. Most data has an activity factor of 0.1. If correct load capacitance is estimated on a node together with its activity factor, the dynamic power dissipation at that node can be calculated effectively.

Short-circuit power
Since there is a finite rise/fall time for both pMOS and nMOS, during transition, for example, from off to on, both the transistors will be on for a small period of time in which current will find a path directly from VDD to ground, hence creating a short-circuit current, sometimes called a crowbar current. Short-circuit power dissipation increases with the rise and fall time of the transistors.

This form of power consumption became significant in the 1990s as wires on chip became narrower and the long wires became more resistive. CMOS gates at the end of those resistive wires see slow input transitions. Careful design which avoids weakly driven long skinny wires reduces this effect, but crowbar power can be a substantial part of dynamic CMOS power.

Input protection
Parasitic transistors that are inherent in the CMOS structure may be turned on by input signals outside the normal operating range, e.g. electrostatic discharges or line reflections. The resulting latch-up may damage or destroy the CMOS device. Clamp diodes are included in CMOS circuits to deal with these signals. Manufacturers' data sheets specify the maximum permitted current that may flow through the diodes.

Analog CMOS
Besides digital applications, CMOS technology is also used in analog applications. For example, there are CMOS operational amplifier ICs available in the market. Transmission gates may be used as analog multiplexers instead of signal relays. CMOS technology is also widely used for RF circuits all the way to microwave frequencies, in mixed-signal (analog+digital) applications.

RF CMOS
RF CMOS refers to RF circuits (radio frequency circuits) which are based on mixed-signal CMOS integrated circuit technology. They are widely used in wireless telecommunication technology. RF CMOS was developed by Asad Abidi while working at UCLA in the late 1980s. This changed the way in which RF circuits were designed, leading to the replacement of discrete bipolar transistors with CMOS integrated circuits in radio transceivers. It enabled sophisticated, low-cost and portable end-user terminals, and gave rise to small, low-cost, low-power and portable units for a wide range of wireless communication systems. This enabled "anytime, anywhere" communication and helped bring about the wireless revolution, leading to the rapid growth of the wireless industry.

The baseband processors and radio transceivers in all modern wireless networking devices and mobile phones are mass-produced using RF CMOS devices. RF CMOS circuits are widely used to transmit and receive wireless signals, in a variety of applications, such as satellite technology (such as GPS), bluetooth, Wi-Fi, near-field communication (NFC), mobile networks (such as 3G and 4G), terrestrial broadcast, and automotive radar applications, among other uses.

Examples of commercial RF CMOS chips include Intel's DECT cordless phone, and 802.11 (Wi-Fi) chips created by Atheros and other companies. Commercial RF CMOS products are also used for Bluetooth and Wireless LAN (WLAN) networks. RF CMOS is also used in the radio transceivers for wireless standards such as GSM, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth, transceivers for mobile networks such as 3G, and remote units in wireless sensor networks (WSN).

RF CMOS technology is crucial to modern wireless communications, including wireless networks and mobile communication devices. One of the companies that commercialized RF CMOS technology was Infineon. Its bulk CMOS RF switches sell over 1billion units annually, reaching a cumulative 5billion units,.

Temperature range
Conventional CMOS devices work over a range of −55 °C to +125 °C.

There were theoretical indications as early as August 2008 that silicon CMOS will work down to −233 °C (40 K). Functioning temperatures near 40 K have since been achieved using overclocked AMD Phenom II processors with a combination of liquid nitrogen and liquid helium cooling.

Silicon carbide CMOS devices have been tested for a year at 500 °C.

Single-electron MOS transistors
Ultra small (L = 20 nm, W = 20 nm) MOSFETs achieve the single-electron limit when operated at cryogenic temperature over a range of −269 °C (4 K) to about −258 °C (15 K). The transistor displays Coulomb blockade due to progressive charging of electrons one by one. The number of electrons confined in the channel is driven by the gate voltage, starting from an occupation of zero electrons, and it can be set to one or many.

title: CMOS


text:
Talk:Pharaoh

Moses
There is no mention of Moses, the Exodus, or who might have been Pharaoh at the time on this page, though these matters are discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia.--69.236.186.94 00:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that this is because there is no Verifiable evidence that the events ever took place. (Please note, this is not an attack against J-C-I thought and beliefs.  I would also not agree with adding to Human Evolution a section on the Navajo (and many other native American cultural groups) belief that some humans decended from rabbits, coyotes, ravens, cloud people, etc.)  I am unsure whether this should be addressed in the wiki page or not.  Anyone else have ideas?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IanCheesman (talk • contribs) 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is your definition of verifiable evidence? Having text written on 3000 years old stones is not that strong evidence. As some authoritarian governments try to write their own history in the 21st century, why do you think it was different at that time? Of course Pharos won't write any thing that would hint about they being wrong. Plus, you have Quran + old testament that has the story of Pharaoh with Moses. So, you have 2 relatively independent sources talking about the same thing. Basically, more than 70% of world population think this story happened. This needs to be at least mentioned here. 2001:8F8:1471:EE3:806D:B21F:8213:13B5 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevant articles are at Pharaohs in the Bible and Pharaoh of the Exodus. A. Parrot (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Of course Pharos won't write any thing" Pharos was an island. Islands do no tend to write texts. Dimadick (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Basically, more than 70% of world population think this story happened." No matter how many people believe in the empty lies of the Exodus, lies do not become truths. What counts is what archaeologists found out, not what liars recorded in their silly fairy tales. Dimadick (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My point of "70% of world population" means it should at least be mentioned in the article. You are ignoring the elephant in the room. And again, not only Exodus mentions these stories. Basically, 3 highly adopted religions in the world have this story. The article should at least mention that "Some pharaohs are mentioned in multiple religion texts". Then, the other articles can be referred.
 * Also, your sentence "empty lies" has no logic. Something not found does not mean it is not there. Aliens are not found yet. But there are arguments of their existence. Sorry pal, but you need to remove your emotions when trying to write in wikipedia. 2001:8F8:1471:3447:E021:E511:5EF4:8CCE (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

A few additions
Made a few additions ;-) But still the list is woefully short of complete.  So far I've only put in ones that I can be sure are in chronological order, any others would just be (close) guesswork.  --user:pb

Amenhotep
There are 2 entries for Amenhotep IV in the 'pedia: Akhenaton and Akhnaten - User:Olivier

 * Pick the best name and merge! -- Tarquin

 * I did an extensive Google search to see what the preferred spelling was, and moved the article to that. Ditto for the disambig pages for Ramesses, Tuthmosis, etc. See the individual talk pages for the rationale for each. Noel 01:18, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Name
The Narmer article says that he succeeded Serket, but Serket is not on this list. Is he "The Scorpion of Egypt"? Serket was the name of a Scorpion goddess. RickK 04:45, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Egyptian Chronology
Whoever wrote the dates for the year and or Pharaohs - you should tell what particular source you are using for your dates, not just that this is "one of many" possible dating schemes. john 05:46 24 May 2003 (UTC)

This page overlaps almost completely with Conventional Egyptian chronology. This one makes more sense as a "keeper", given the name (of the two, it's where I'd look for a full list). Not sure how to resolve the issue. -- Fab 23:46, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have some trouble with the Conventional Egyptian chronology page. In the first place, its dates for the 11th and 12th Dynasties are not the conventional dates at all - they are low dates. Those dynasties "standard" dates have been established for a long time, and are still used in fairly recent books. The page also, oddly, says that it's basing its list of the conventional chronology on David Rohl's Test of Time, which is a widely discredited revisionist work. The problem with the page here, as I see it, is that it provides no sources at all for the dates provided. john 20:47, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I would be willing to use the sources I cited on Conventional Egyptian chronology (The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt and http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/) to redo the page, if others agree. However, I think it is pointless to have two pages which give esentially the same information. So before I start, I'd like to resolve that.

There is definitely still confusion over Egyptian dates. E.g. Reeves' "Valley of the Kings" uses the same dates as Wikipedia (which it says come from Baines' "Atlas of Ancient Egypt"), but Clayton's "Chronology of the Pharaohs" (a recent work) gives Tuthmosis I's reign as 1524-1518 (using a system which the author followed from Mumane's "Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt"). Until there is rough consensus among Egyptologists, I think all we can do is pick one (so all the various pages are consisten), document which one we picked, and stick with it. Noel 01:18, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Oops! When I said "dates as Wikipedia", I'd been reading the individual pages for various rulers. I see that Tuthmosis I is given on this page as 1525-1518, whereas on his page he's given as 1504-1492. Sigh. We really need to pick one chronology, and use it everywhere. Noel 01:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, most definitely. I suppose the question is: ought we to use time-worn dating systems which are familiar, but quite possibly somewhat incorrect, or more recent estimates which have not yet been accepted as a consensus? Some sense of what the most frequently used dates are would be helpful here. john 05:21, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hebrew
Why do we need a Hebrew translation and transliteration in this article? Should we include translations of every other language in the world? What makes Hebrew special? RickK 05:17, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * It's possible the word itself is of Hebrew origin; after all, the Hebrews and Egyptians were pretty intertwined back then. From the article: The term derives ultimately from the Egyptian words pr-o, meaning "Great House". It was not commonly used by the Egyptians themselves to refer to their monarchs, but is frequently used by modern historians due to its use in the Bible, especially the Book of Exodus.

 * In other words, it seems reasonable to have the Hebrew text, but I agree that the transliterations are unnecessary. When does Wikipedia get hieroglyphics support? ;) --Golbez 05:38, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has hieroglyphics support. RickK 05:41, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought I remembered reading that. Kill a joke, why doncha. ;) Ah well, either way, I think the Hebrew text is relevant. Maybe not three different methods, though. --Golbez 05:46, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that there should be a link to the article on the Biblical book of Exodus, if for no other reason then the massive part that the unnamed pharaoh plays in the book? - Zkion 20:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
A cleaned up version is in Pharaoh/Temp. Please add any comments there or in its talk page - I intend to move it to the "live" version later this week. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the bullet point mentioning Cleopatra there is this: "...and the fact Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans would probably not tolerate a black ruler." Which came as a bit of a suprise to me. Could someone expound on why this would be the case? I've never heard that romans, greeks or especially egyptians of antiquity would treat blacks differently than whites. The wikipedia article on racism also mentions nothing prior to the colonial period on the subject but of course thats no failing of clarity here. -- xiaou

Sibling Marriage
I disagree that it is an "open question" as to whether or not sibling marriages occurred. In addition to the historical record, there have been DNA tests confirming the close blood relation. Sibling marriage was at the core of Egyptian religion (Isis was the sister & wife of Osiris). When an Egyptian man married a woman who was not his sister by blood, he would formally adopt her as his "sister." Many such "adoption" papyri exist which indicate that this was a practice not unique to the Pharaohs. An edict of the Roman emperor Diocletian extended the ancient Roman prohibition against the children of incestuous marriages from inheriting property to the Egyptians. Why make such an edict if the practice were not widespread at the time?

Well, possible confusion may arrive from the fact that the egyptian words translated to "sister" and "brother" did not neccasarily imply siblings, just love (sibling and romantic). Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

God or Divine?
The "open question" of whether the Pharaohs were viewed as god or divine is like arguing whether light is a wave or a particle. Our modern delineations would have been nonsensical to the ancient Egyptians.

Ok, Pharaohs were gods when they were dead. They were at least regared as demigods when they were alive. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew???
is there any reason that hebrew translation should be included in the head section? i've deleted it and if anyone sees that there's a reason, plz tell me and I'll put it back.. --Mido 16:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

or arabic for that matter
 * Well someone added it back without discussing. But anyway, the Arabic translation however makes sense since Pharaohs are from Egypt which in this day and age primarily uses Arabic. Hebrew I guess is also relevant for similar reasons. Nil Einne 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I would guess Hebrew is relevant because the English word "Pharaoh" derives from use of the word in the Old Testament, which was written in Hebrew. john k 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Open problems
Although I appreciate this is just an example list, it would be wise to order them by chronoligical age, if and when possible. E.g. Cleoptra should be last... Nil Einne 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section, which was totally weird. The problems listed seem to be completely random. We don't even know the order of kings or have any idea of the length of their reigns for centuries of Egyptian history. Even for dynasties we know well, like the 18th, there's no fully agreed upon chronology. Relationships among monarchs are frequently not known. Over all, it would probably take far less time to say what we do know about the pharaohs than what we don't, because we barely know anything at all about even a well known pharaoh like Ramesses II, as compared to, say, a modern figure of comparable importance and longevity like Louis XIV. The list given was completely arbitrary, and gave no idea why these problems, out of all the huge number of things we don't know, were being listed on the main Pharaoh page. I think it's best for it to not be here. john k 17:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

what's with the "The Pharaoh of the Oppression and of the Exodus" it has a very righteous and propaganda feel. I suppose someone wants a list of anti-semitic pharaohs.

Etymology, tidying up
Reading the etymology section, I noticed that the paragraph was messy, leaping from one time period to another in a kind of random order. So I rearranged the information in a forward chronological order, in order to explain how the word evolved over time from one continuous line from *past to present*. Much better, methinks, and more understandable. Bon apétit.

I also noticed that the words for "pharaoh" in Hebrew, Arabic and so on are largely immaterial to the topic of pharaoh. We can list 100s of languages if we want to, ancient and modern. So what? We don't need Hebrew or Arabic to explain where the word came from! So I relocated all that to the section for "Pharaoh" in other languages if people feel the need to expand on that. --Glengordon01 23:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * At least the Ancient Greek and Hebrew words are important for the reconstruction of the pronunciation, however. (Not sure about the Arabic and Ge'ez variants – are they borrowed from Coptic, Greek or Hebrew?) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Female pharaohs
Is there any doubt there were female pharaohs in Egyptian history? Certainly not with Hatshepsut. It's been claimed in a recent edit by an anonymous user that "Wikipedia is contradictory" on the matter. However, Wikipedia is not an authority on any subject in itself. The point is what the academic consensus says on this. So while it has been the long-standing chauvanistic view (perhaps even based on biblical bias where female pharaohs are not mentioned) that only men can acquire the title of Pharaoh, there has been recent evidence accepted showing that these views are incorrect. Egyptian culture simply did not have the same attitudes towards gender and sex as we would expect through Victorian-coloured glasses. --Glengordon01 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 * With the possible exception of Exodus, all mentions of Pharaoh in the OT are in books discussing what where current events at the time. Unless there was a female pharaoh when these books were written, there'd be no reason to mention one.  JDZeff (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

On Chronology and Female Pharaohs
I'd like to suggest that all dates link to a page discussing the major dating schema for Ancient Egypt. That might be the most comprehensive way to deal with the matter.

As to female pharaohs: Such a thing could never exist. Pharaoh was an inherently masculine concept. Hatshepsut was portrayed with a beard for a reason. That there were females who functioned as a Pharaoh is undeniable. I think perhaps the issue should be reworded to reflect this more exacting phraseology. To be something and to function as, or in the capacity of, something are two different things. I may function as a father, but I cannot be one. It is also an inherently masculine concept.

It seems to me that this issue is being viewed through reverse-chauvanistic glasses of our American culture. The Egyptians recognized that the blood was pasted through the female, but if a female could have become Pharaoh, why weren't there a great many more of them? The female's power lay in the royal blood coursing through her veins. The male had to marry a female of royal blood to pass that royal blood to his children. I have no doubt that there is now debate over this issue in our culture where everything is he/she, him/her encumbered, and where everyone is so afraid of offending anyone that they allow our so-called 'modern' views to be fobbed-off onto ancient cultures. We will never know the 'truth' unless we can divest ourselves of our cultural biases - and any Anthropologist worth their salt will tell you that this is impossible.

Perhaps we could represent both viewpoints on the pages which make reference to this issue?

A note on the Racial issue
That comment about Egyptians not tolerating a black ruler is absurd. The Nubian Dynasties were full of black rulers. As I've always understood it, the women were prized for fairer skin. Why? This was a sign that they did not have to work in the sun. It was a sign of gentility up until roughly the mid-20th century. Illogically, women suddenly want to look as if they spend their whole day working in the fields. Males were constantly portrayed as darker skinned. As to what the Greeks and Romans would have been likely to tolerate: I haven't any idea. There is no reason to believe that prejudice is that modern of a concept, but how much of it was based upon the shading of skin color....

And since when were the Nubians scientifically classified as "black" with no controversies? Wouldn't this statement be racist? In reality the Nubians were a mixture of native Eastern African populations and migrant populations from the Arabic peninsula - not to mention the constant appearance of Egyptian settlements that formed within Nubia throughout its 'colonized' history. Wandrative (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

GA rating
You cannot just declare something GA, it needs to be reviewed. Markh 11:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How to cover this term.
"Pharaoh" is a difficult term to explain due to the popular misconception that it is the egyptian word for king. If we treat this as if it is formally a reference to the king and then write an article on the Egyptian kings, we do a disservice to Egyptology and what the egyptian words actually mean. If we treat this as if it is formally a reference egyptian kingship, we neglect the fact that it did eventually become a title in the late period. And, if we adress all these aspects of the term, we run the risk of defining it so much that it makes a better wikitionary entry than wikipedia article. What really should this page include, and what should it not? Thanatosimii 05:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that pharaoh is only applicable to native Egyptian rulers. Greek rulers of Egypt, such as Cleopatra and Ptolemy XIII should not be referred to as pharaohs. 96.229.179.106 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Many of the foreigners who ruled Egypt late in its history had themselves portrayed as pharaohs. I don't know that all of the foreign rulers did that (the Persians, for instance), but the Nubians and Ptolemies certainly did. A. Parrot (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The absolute monarchs of Egypt weren't mere 'kings'. And the Persian Emperors used the term, "Xayathia and Pharaoh" (Xayathia, being the Emperor of Persia). Wandrative (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
I propose we merge the article List of fictional Pharaohs into this article. The list is very short, and has little chance of getting any bigger. Plus it is an orphaned page.
 * Merge --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeframe
The lead paragraph says that the term "pharaoh" is specific to the New Kingdom. However other articles give me the impression that it relates to all three egyptian kingdoms, if not the whole of ancient egypt. Perhaps somebody with more expertise could come up with a more accurate definition. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Pharaohs in the Bible
This needs sources if it is to stay in. When I return home in 10 days I'll see what this says, if no one else can: The Identity of "King So" in Egypt (2 Kings XVII 4)    Duane L. Christensen          Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 39, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1989), pp. 140-153 Doug Weller (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm intrigued - how is it that this section completely fails to mention the Pharaohs of Exodus, surely the most prominent such to appear in the Bible? 116.240.181.125 (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

 * It's about named Pharaohs in the Bible, no named Pharaoh is connected with the Exodus in the bible. Doug Weller (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Even if Exodus doesn't mention the pharaoh's name, if you're going to have a section on pharaohs in the Bible, you have to talk about the passages in Exodus. Yes, I realize that there's no corroborating evidence for the Exodus story, but say so in the article. It's too important to leave out. A. Parrot (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Titles
The last paragraph of this section ending with - The absence of proper names in the first books of the Bible is no indication of the late date of their composition and of writer's vague knowledge of Egyptian history, rather to the contrary. The same is true of the use of the title Pharaoh for rulers earlier than those of the eighteenth dynasty, which is quite in keeping with Egyptian use at the time of the nineteenth dynasty- needs to be verified. Not everyone agrees with this statement: it requires that everyone agree the Bible was written during the 19th dynasty, it requires that the Pharaoh or King's name was unknown, and it in no way invalidates the argument that it helps prove a late composition of the Bible. So at least a reference to an reliable expert on ancient Egypt is required. And the whole paragraph should probably be moved out of this section. Nitpyck (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

nsw.t
is there any evidence that nsw.t "king of Upper Egypt" was used for the pharaoh of all of Egypt? That is, as opposed to nsw-bjtj "king of Upper and Lower Egypt". --dab (𒁳) 11:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Torah people
I'm removing the category since this list is about a title, not about a specific person and that category includes mostly specific persons. There is a nice article titled Pharaoh of the Exodus which goes into details about the possible pharaohs and the problems about his identification, and it is already included in the category.

Possibly it would be better if Pharaoh of the Exodus was renamed Pharaohs in the Bible, and then the section from this article could be moved there, keeping all Bible- and Pharaoh-related information together. – Alensha   talk  20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good idea, it would have to be discussed there of course. Post your suggestion there, I'll reply, if we don't get any disagreement we can do it. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Source references about ancient Egypt & matrilineality
I failed to find source references for the topic, matrilineal succession to the throne in Ancient Egypt, and so had to remove all mention of ancient Egypt from the Matrilineality article. (I'm now placing this identical section on the Talk pages of these two articles plus a third, the Pharaoh article below.)

Then I learned the above topic was in the article Pharaoh, a whole paragraph in the latter's section Pharaoh. When the link in the last sentence of this Titles paragraph is followed, which verifies said sentence, then in my opinion the whole paragraph becomes self-documented by its own integrity and factual details. But WP needs actual sources for important content, instead, which are unfortunately not there.

I'll be able to add this content (matrilineal succession to the throne in ancient Egypt) in both articles, Ancient Egypt and Matrilineality, if someone can find and insert such source references into the article Pharaoh (and notify me on my talk page).

Someone, please find and insert them.

We're all working together to help WP readers,    For7thGen (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The debate can be included, and it's clear that some people have though there was a matrilineal succession (particularly Afrocentrists). However, see the Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt

The living king was associated with the god Horus; his predecessor was associated with Horus’s father, Osiris, the main deity of the afterlife. According to this mythic succession, each king was considered to be the son of his predecessor, regardless of actual filiation. Therefore, the Egyptians considered the line of kings to be unbroken from the beginning of time....

Generally, the eldest son of the primary wife (“queen”) of the previous king succeeded his father. However, the succession in the reign of Ramesses II, confused by a myriad of male offspring, indicates that strict primogeniture was not always followed. The idea that the inheritance of the throne was passed through the matrilineal line (the “heiress theory”) is disproved by the fact that the chief wives of Tuthmose III, Amenhotep II and Amenhotep III were not themselves of royal blood, yet their sons acceded to the throne. The important role of royal daughters in the succession of the 18th Dynasty may be due to the lack of sons among the chief queens of this dynasty, through whom the royal legitimacy was passed, rather than being a reflection of any matrilineal tradition. From the 12th Dynasty onward, coregencies were instituted whenever there was a possible cause of instability surrounding the succession.

Potentially disputed succession was confirmed by oracle (Tuthmose III), by a claim of divine birth (kings of the 5th Dynasty in the Papyrus Westcar; Hatshepsut; Amenhotep III; Ramesses II), or by military intervention (Psamtik I and Amasis of the 26th Dynasty). In cases where there were no surviving heirs, the king could be elected from among the highest echelon of the administration (Ramesses I), or from the military (Horemheb), who traditionally married into the extended royal family.

 * So we can't say that AE was a matrilineal society. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 * A reference for the problem with the matrilineal theory is:
 * Robins, Gay, A Critical Examination of the Theory that the Right to the Throne of Ancient Egypt Passed through the Female Line in the 18th Dynasty, Gottinger Miszellen, 1983, no62, pp. 67-77.
 * In a review of a book by Gitton, Robins actually mentions that the theory can be traced back to work by Sander-Hansen and is based on a misunderstanding of the title God's Wife (of Amun) and an idea that the woman with this title was the "heiress". People like Yoyotte, Gitton and Robins herself argue against the "heiress theory". --AnnekeBart (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowns represent the womb and the thymus?
Is there any basis for the claim that the Red Crown represents the womb and the White Crown represents the thymus? Googling only comes up pages quoting wikipedia, and a few crackpot original research sites. Added "citation needed" for these. 203.96.148.71 (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Never mind, someone's deleted them. Probably for the best. 203.96.148.71 (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pharaoh used as a proper name?
I've asked on page Talk:Pharaohs in the Bible whether the word "Pharaoh" is understood as a proper name, rather than as a title, in the Bible. In case you're interested in the topic, please discuss there. Not sure whether this should be mentioned in this article too. -- 21:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.89.16 (talk)
 * Usage in the bible is not relevant. Pharaoh is not a proper name, no matter how religious sources misuse it. This is an article in the context of Egyptology, not ideology. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's extreme irony. In fact, the word 'Pharaoh' was ONLY used in the Bible. There are no contemporaneous accounts from Egypt wher their Rulers are referred to as 'Pharaoh'. if we had never had a Bible, then this article would not exist, or it would be called by its correct title(Teti or Seneptre). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.26.252 (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we cut it out with the BCE nonsense already?
It's so distracting it actually made the article hard to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.31.254 (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Likely driven by religionism. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also do not understand the point. BCE is drived my anti-religious atheism. Wandrative (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Special characters?
In the Etymology section, there appear some special characters that fail to render in my browser even when the character encoding is set to UTF-8, which should cover nearly anything. What are these characters, and how would readers view them? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I'd guess you're referring to the Egyptological alef and ayin in the word "pharaoh". (That section really needs to get its transliterations straight; every time the transliteration of "pharaoh" is written, it's spelled slightly differently, sometimes with and sometimes without the special characters. The differing transliteration systems have caused trouble all across the ancient Egypt wikiproject.) I assume UTF-8 covers Greek and Hebrew, but it might not cover the Coptic letters in the last paragraph.

 * Reading Coptic often requires the Antinoou font, which I found somewhere online a while back. I'm not sure why alef and ayin show up on my screen these days—they didn't when I was on a much older computer—and the characters may have just come along with my current browser (Firefox 32). A. Parrot (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2014
"in the middle of the 66.74.176.59 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Done. A. Parrot (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph	?
What is going on here? I haven't looked at this article in a while, but it reads as if written by a 12-year-old. What the heck is the lead paragraph trying to convey? ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now stripped it to the first sentence. Please only put informative and explanatory passages about the subject matter in the lead paragraph, not random trivia. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit query
Per WP:IANAE (I Am Not An Egyptologist), I query this edit on 9 October by an IP editor. changed "Nesw Bity" to "Nesu Bity" 220  of  Borg 01:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2016
I wanted to upload a photograph showing a figure making an offering, and the cartouches in front of the figure contain the words 'Per-Aa'. The photograph was taken by me at Karnak Temple RP1a (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

To do that, click "Upload file" in the left hand column then "Commons wizard" then follow the instructions. Once the file is uploaded (please be sure to copy the exact title) then come back here, give the name of the file and your proposed caption, and re-activate your request by changing "answered=y" to "answered=no" on the first line of this thread. There are lots of photos of Karnak and we cannot use them all, it will depend how good your photo is, as to whether it is used or not. - Arjayay (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: If you are prepared to issue the photograph on a suitable Creative Commons copyright license - allowing anyone to use it for almost any purpose, including charging for it - then you should upload it to Wikimedia commons.

The cartouches contain the words 'Per Aa' The carving is located on the wall behind the three small temples of Amen, Mut and Khons between the 1st and 2nd Pylons RP1a (talk) 11.07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Per-Aa.jpg

Thank you for uploading the file I have reinstated your original request so this thread makes sense, and added your signature. I have also formatted the file name and made it a thumbnail image so others can see it (on the right) I'm not totally convinced that it would add significantly to the article - but let us see what others think - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi RP1a
 * Please consider specifying where you think this image is appropriately added. If it makes sense, we can enact the request. It's a bit unclear at this stage — Andy W. ( talk ) 00:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction in initial usage dates
From the lead: "the actual term 'Pharaoh' was not used contemporaneously for a ruler until circa 1200 BCE." From Etymology: "During the reign of Thutmose III (circa 1479–1425 BCE) in the New Kingdom, after the foreign rule of the Hyksos during the Second Intermediate Period, pharaoh became the form of address for a person who was king.[5] The earliest instance where pr-ˤ3 is used specifically to address the ruler is in a letter to Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), who reigned circa 1353–1336 BCE, which is addressed to 'Pharaoh..."[6] During the eighteenth dynasty (16th to 14th centuries BCE) the title pharaoh was employed as a reverential designation of the ruler." Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host  (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are completely right, but the article is not entirely about the phonetic usage of the title "Pharaoh", but rather about the position of absolute monarch that the word, "Pharaoh" represents (Typically shown by a Serekh or Cartouche). The position was clearly the same thing before the usage of the word. Wandrative (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are partially right, but the sentence in question is not talking about the modern English usage of the word "Pharaoh", The specific topic of that sentence is in regardas to how it was used by Egyptians at that time. The dates in Egyptology are all muddled, but the idea that all Egyptian rulers are called "Pharaoh" is something maybe for Simple Wiki, but we, as encyclopedic writers should use accurate data: i.e. calling them "Kings" until the time when Kingship was no longer retained and the [lesser] substitute "Pharaoh" was instantiated and employed. I have asked about the use of "Kings" vs "Pharaohs" on another talk page as well. Wcichello (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 * "…when kingship was no longer retained and the [lesser] substitute 'Pharaoh' was instantiated and employed." This seems to me a major misunderstanding. The main word for the ruler of Egypt was nswt, which, as far as I'm aware, never fell out of use. It was a term exclusively used for the king of Egypt, not any foreign ruler, because the Egyptians didn't consider their ruler to have an equal. So "king" isn't a perfect translation of the term. The word from which "pharaoh" derives, pr-ꜣ, was an additional term; it didn't replace nswt. It was a metonym, referring to the ruler indirectly, the way "the White House" can be used to refer to the president of the United States. Just because the Egyptians started sometimes using this phrase to refer to the nswt does not mean that there was any fundamental difference in the way they thought about him.

 * The Hebrew rendition of the Egyptian phrase pr-ꜣ was used in the Bible, and through transmission through various languages, the word ended up as "pharaoh" in English. "Pharaoh" really isn't the same term as pr-ꜣ. It doesn't carry the specific connotations of the Egyptian term that gave rise to it; nobody reads "pharaoh" and thinks first of a palace. In English, "pharaoh" means "king of ancient Egypt". Thus, in some ways it's more reflective of the ancient meaning of nswt: it's a term for a ruler that is exclusive to ancient Egypt, not generally applicable to any sovereign.

 * In any case, Wikipedia's terminology is primarily based on reliable sources. Egyptological literature uses "pharaoh" and "king" interchangeably, and they don't distinguish between time periods when doing so. See, for a fairly accessible and recent example, The Pharaoh: Life at Court and on Campaign by Garry J. Shaw. At one point (p. 15) it says: "Archaeology provides evidence for a different picture of pharaonic kingship's evolution. Kingship over a unified Egypt first occurred by around 3100 BC…" This passage implies that "pharaonic" is a uniquely Egyptian style of kingship—either that, or he's referring to kingship in the "pharaonic period", a term that is widely used in Egyptology to refer to the history of Egypt from the original unification of Egypt to the conquests of Alexander.

 * In short, "pharaoh" and "king of ancient Egypt" are synonyms, no matter what the etymology of "pharaoh" is, and there's no reason Wikipedia can't use them as synonyms. A. Parrot (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Thank you, A. Parrot for the clarification. Using them interchangeably makes some sense, since the definition of both is relatively the same; both are supposedly chosen by God/gods to be supreme ruler of their territory. I may have been partially mislead by a pro-masonic book called "The Hiram Key". I do find it entertaining that they have an "Old Kingdom", "Middle Kingdom", "New Kingdom" and a "Valley of the Kings", but we tend not to call the rulers "Kings". Wcichello (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

 * ""the term "pharaoh" was not used contemporaneously for a ruler until Merneptah, c. 1210 BCE, during the Nineteenth dynasty, "king" being the term used most frequently until the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty.""

 * Interesting. I didn't know the ancient Egyptians used a word from Middle English to refer to their rulers.Does anyone else see the problem in this phrasing? 100.40.12.15 (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Etymology in Hebrew
Since the term "pharoah" emerged during the reign of the Semitic Hyksos, we should consider a Semitic root of the term. Hence, I suggest this meaning "voice of Ra (פַּ רְעֹ ה "ph-ra")" where the ending (-on) in Syriac (ܦܪܥܘܢ) is used for minimization purposes in general. you can read some interesting arguments here.
 * refs

 * The standard etymology for the word pharaoh derives it from the Egyptian phrase pr-ꜥꜣ, meaning "great house", and as far as we know it doesn't date back to the Hyksos period, only to the late Eighteenth Dynasty. The first page you link, the Jewish congregation page, gives pharaoh a meaning in Hebrew similar to the one you're proposing, but it's not a reliable source for the etymology of ancient words, and therefore we can't base anything in our articles on it—please see Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources. (I'm not even sure that the page means to claim that these Semitic words are the origin of pharaoh; it's just playing with a word to derive a new meaning from it, which, incidentally, was a common practice of both the Egyptians and the ancient Hebrew authors of the Bible.) The second page you link is by Gareth Hughes, someone knowledgeable in linguistics, and it actually gives the conventional etymology for pharaoh. In the comments section of that blog post there's an argument about a Semitic etymology, although not the one you're proposing, but Hughes rejects this etymology as making little sense. I don't see any grounds to incorporate a proposed Semitic etymology into the article. A. Parrot (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much for your response (and for your politeness because most editors here are rude). However, in the article, it is written: "From the Twelfth Dynasty onward, the word appears in a wish formula "Great House, May it Live, Prosper, and be in Health", but again only with reference to the royal palace and not the person ... after the foreign rule of the Hyksos during the Second Intermediate Period, pharaoh became the form of address for a person who was king."

 * The Hyksos were living there before they ruled starting from the 14th dynasty. Logically speaking, the term came to Egypt from a foreign origin, I do not believe that term which came with the Hyksos would be from an ancient Egyptian root (it is like calling a Persian ruler of Greece a "Shah", then finding a proposed origin from the Greek language since he ruled Greece). The people are attached to the bible which called the Egyptian "nswt" a pharaoh, then tried to justify that from the native Egyptian. 124.18.19.219 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't see why it's necessary to posit a foreign origin. The term began as a reference to the palace and its institutions and came to refer to the king himself. This kind of linguistic drift is very common in languages worldwide, and authors discussing the topic invariably compare it with a similar practice in modern English: the use of "White House" to refer to the office of the president of the United States. Granted, it's generally used to discuss the office and the people in it, collectively, rather than the president as an individual, but give it a few more centuries, like the 400 years that separate the Twelfth Dynasty from the late Eighteenth, and that distinction may well disappear. Moreover, it's not true that modern authors are straining to find justification in the Egyptian language for the biblical term. As the blog post in your second link states:

 * "…I was reminded there of the Coptic word ⲣ̄ⲣⲟ (rro or erro) meaning 'king' or 'emperor'. It's an odd word, but its origin becomes clearer when the Coptic definite article is appended, ⲡ-ⲣ̄ⲣⲟ (perro), 'the king'. The word is taken from the Ancient Egyptian 'Pharaoh'. In spite of the fact that Coptic is the direct descendant of the Ancient Egyptian language, the initial 'p' of the word became mistaken for the definite article at some point in the word’s history, and Copts began to take the 'p' out of 'Pharaoh'."

 * Aside from all that, if reliable sources don't make a claim, Wikipedia should not incorporate it. Unless you can supply reliable sources for your proposed etymology, this discussion won't affect the article text. A. Parrot (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with what you've written, but I still wonder why that certain term (which has barely or never been used before the Hyksos) became prominent to describe the Egyptian rulers from the 14th dynasty onward. However, as you said, if there are no reliable sources, we can't write anything, that is why I wrote here in order to get some convincing answers. 124.18.19.219 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarify "New Kingdom", "Second Intermediate Period"
The text currently says that "Pharoah" began to be applied to the king during the "New Kingdom", "Second Intermediate Period" as if the new kingdom were part of the Second Intermediate Period. I'm guessing an editing lacuna caused this. I could read this as either

- "New Kingdom, _after_ the Second Intermediate Period"

- "New Kingdom, _or possibly_ the Second Intermediate Period"

I suspect the former is actually correct (no evidence for the latter is suggested), but then what would be the point of mentioning the Second Intermediate Period? Casu Marzu (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I removed the reference to the Second Intermediate Period. The text originally said "During the reign of Thutmose III (circa 1479–1425 BCE) in the New Kingdom, after the foreign rule of the Hyksos during the Second Intermediate Period…" and was later mis-edited (diff). But there's no reason to mention the SIP here in any case. A. Parrot (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian gods
Talk about amun ra,anubis and more there stories and such 41.13.24.138 (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Pharoah vs king
While the article title is pharoah, I note that in the lead and elsewhere the title predominantly used is 'king'. This seems confusing, and I note that there have been discussions here on the subject in the past. , you seem to be the most frequent contributor to the talk pages: can you explain this choice? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 * I haven't been much involved in the article itself—it's one of the many that I would like to rewrite entirely. But alternating between the words "pharaoh" and "king" is not unusual. It's a way of varying wording and thus reducing repetition. I don't think the current lead handles it especially well, but that's not at the top of my list of problems with the article.
 * Egyptologists use "pharaoh" and "king" interchangeably, or nearly so. My impression is that they're more likely to use "pharaoh" in works that are aimed at the general public, whereas in scholarly contexts they're more likely to use "king", but there's no hard-and-fast rule. For instance, Joachim Friedrich Quack wrote a study in Concepts of Kingship in Antiquity: Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop, held in Padova, November 28th–December 1st, 2007 (2010)—not exactly casual reading for the layman—and titled it "How Unapproachable Is a Pharaoh?".
 * The beginning of this study is an example of how interchangeable the terms can be: "There has been a vast amount of study on the Egyptian concept of kingship. The question of his divinity has been one of the principal problems. Earlier studies normally attribute a specific divinity to the Egyptian King. Highly influential in bringing down such an approach was a study by George Posener who presented evidence which, in his eyes, spoke against an authentic divinity of the Pharaoh." And for another example, the much more layman-friendly book The Pharaoh: Life at Court and on Campaign (2012) by Garry Shaw says "The cosmos as perceived by the Egyptians was divided between the gods, the king, the spirits of the dead and humanity, with the pharaoh acting as intermediary between the divine and human spheres."
 * Note that there's a long history of people on Wikipedia complaining that the phrase from which our word "pharaoh" derives wasn't in use until the middle of the New Kingdom and shouldn't apply to rulers from earlier times, but Egyptologists themselves are not so pedantic (and it's quite a feat to be more pedantic than an Egyptologist). The term "pharaonic", in reference to ancient Egyptian kingship or to the eras of Egyptian history in which pharaohs ruled, is ubiquitous in Egyptology. The rulers of the First Dynasty are often called the "first pharaohs", and one of the major books about the Predynastic Period is title Egypt before the Pharaohs (1979). A. Parrot (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clear and concise explanation. What I think everyone forgets in this discussions, is that the word pharaoh actually comes from the Hebrew Bible, and only later it was somehow dug out of Egyptian paleography. I can never stop myself from wondering, in these discussions, if the word wasn't there so clearly spelled out in the Hebrew Bible, would Egyptology really have come up with it all by itself? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It almost certainly would not. The overwhelming majority of terms for non-European rulers are simply translated into English with a term from the European system of monarchy, usually "king" and very rarely "emperor". The native term is almost never adopted into English; the only other examples I can think of are "caliph", "sultan", and maybe "shah". ("Inca", rather oddly, became a term for the state and the people but not the ruler to whom the term originally referred.) A. Parrot (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this important insight again. I still need to think about all the possible implications for it that you hint at. But also, since you mentioned above something about the discussion about the divinity of the Pharaoh being so important to Egyptology: doesn't this concern also comes straight from the Hebrew Bible narrative, where God and the Pharaoh are described as being in a sort of contest? Would Egyptology by itself had come to such a concern, if it wasn't first so clearly outlined in the Hebrew Bible narrative? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 22:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Egyptian texts themselves would make the pharaoh's divinity a debatable question no matter what the Bible said. A. Parrot (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Very interesting insights. I might add "khan" to that list, but I think that's about it, for king-equivalents and above. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Etymology and fringe theory
All the scientific studies should be included even if they differed from old egyptologists like champolion. The fact the Sedge sign means branch of tree or plant not the Sedge plant Zahida2013 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I'm just noticing this. I apologise that I didn't see it before posting the section below. That was not intentional. What I have to say below is essentially the position I'm putting forward, but I do want to respond to a central idea in what you're saying above, followed by one smaller point: First, in Wikipedia (at least in English Wikipedia) we don't include all studies. We work from reliable sources, principally secondary, to represent what is notable within a field. If 'Aḥmad īd were undeniably right, but absolutely no one else in the field of Egyptology were aware of his study, then it wouldn't have a place in Wikipedia. Part of the nature of Wikipedia is that we'll always be a step behind scholarship. If 'Aḥmad īd were giving an overview of perspectives in the field, we could cite his book with no problem. But the fact is that he is putting forward a novel theory. We need independent sources to gauge its notability.
 * The smaller point: This has nothing to do with Champollion. The reading of M23 as (n)sw(t) (or possibly nzw or ntsw) doesn't represent one scholar's view from 201 years ago. It represents a rough consensus (with some variation) developed over two centuries of Egyptological scholarship. I don't know what Champollion thought this sign was. What's actually at issue is that a huge number of scholarly sources have a (roughly) shared opinion of its reading today. Pathawi (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (I was curious, so I dug a little. Champollion—two centuries ago—thought M23 was ⲥⲧⲛ stn. Pathawi (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC))
 * Those European egyptologists had eurocentric agenda of denying Bible stories historical evidence and to disconnect Egyptians from their past by claiming discontinuity of people and language of Egyptians to prepare colonizing their country. Most important is denying the existence of the word pharaoh and bible Moses and Exodus story. When they chose Sedge for m23 sign instead of phar'ao ( dominant branch of plant or tree aka leader), even when using sedge they used the Arabic semitic word of that plant AKA sud سعدى سعد. All the letters they derived from pictograms are letters of Arabic semitic words like yd for hand ( d ), s(ain)d for forearm and so on as Ahmad Kamal mentioned in his large encyclopedia of hieroglyphs in Arabic.please see the next topic you made diverted for books and citations Zahida2013 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Pharaoh < فرع
I'm starting this Talk discussion to address a back-&-forth in the edits. On 23 August, added a paragraph concerning an alternative theory for the etymology of the word pharaoh drawn from 'Aḥmad Īd's book جغرافية التوراة في جزيرة الفراعنة, The Geography of the Torah in the Island of the Pharaohs. (It should be noted that there is a small error in the title in the original & restored edits which should be corrected if we ultimately decide to include the citation.) On 27 August, I reverted that edit, claiming that it was a fringe theory & thus needed independent sourcing. On 28 August, Zahida2013 reverted my reversion with the claim that this was in fact not a fringe theory for Egyptian Egyptologists & that such other sources existed. I have since reverted the reversion of my reversion with the comment that if such sources exist, they should be cited. This comment is meant to start a conversation in order to avoid an edit war.

The book's central claim is that the ancient Egyptians were the Biblical Amalekites after their displacement from Yemen, & that they carried with them the names from their former land. 'Aḥmad Īd in fact claims that the ancient Egyptians were "true Arabs" (30). The etymology which Zahida2013 wishes to include proposes that hieroglyph M23 𓇓, usually understood as an ideogram for nswt king actually represents a Semitic word for branch—in Arabic فرع —with an extended semantics of prince or leader. (Zahida2013's paragraph is longer than this & has more detail. I'm just giving the core.) Thus, pharaoh is in fact in origin a Semitic word (just as the ancient Egyptians were a Semitic people).

The opening sentence of WP:FRINGE reads: 'In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.' I believe that this is true of this etymology in general—both internationally & in Egypt. Fringe theories can appear in Wikipedia articles, but in order to ensure that they aren't given undue weight, they should be independently sourced WP:FRIND. The mainstream view in both Anglophone & Egyptian scholarship is that the ancient Egyptian language was Afro-Asiatic, but not Semitic. I believe that 'Aḥmad īd's view is outside the mainstream in both contexts.

I cannot identify any academic sources that cite 'Aḥmad īd's book in Google Scholar. If the claim he makes is significant, it should be possible to find reliable independent sources. While I can find books in Google Books that acknowledge the existence of the book, I haven't yet been able to find any that reproduce its claims. Pathawi (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Mr Aid sourced early books by Egyptian egyptologist Ahmad Kamal circa 1902 who worked with Maspero.
 * He also cited al-Masudi in " prairies d'or / Muruj Al zahab) who lived 20 years in Egypt and historian Al-Dhahabi /Zahabi. Mr Kamal even claimed that European egyptologists he worked with got the words for pictograms from Arabs since champolion. He claimed that they purposely read cartouches of kings backwards to hide the Arabic words in kings names since old kingdom.
 * Mr Aid book is prefaced by Mr al- masri who was the director of egyptology ministry in Egypt for 20 years. You can find his preface in the first pages of the book" island of pharaoh" It is impossible to refer to the tyrant kings of Egypt to the lowly Sedge plant that grows every where in the world especially around swamps and human sewage and it's found in both upper and lower Egypt extensively as he said.
 * I will add references from Ahmad Kamal and Al masudi and dhahabi who all claim Arabic ( rather amaleq from Yemen when Arabia dried after the deluge and had to immigrate to better lands in the very ancient past. Zahida2013 (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As for the main stream in Egypt is that ancient Egyptians were Amaleq Arab ( jababirah or jabbars) in the populace of over a hundred millions and in books unnumbered over thousands who say ancient Egypt was Arabic. As for independent sources the books of Ahmad Kamal circa 1902.
 * His bringing of circulating Arabic names for hieroglyphics pictograms of all alphabet and many word pictograms is listed below:
 * And the fact both Arabic and ancient Egyptians chose consonant script with no vowels and both had the Hamzah Gluteal stop in close range must be same language speakers. Zahida2013 (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As per Ahmad pasha Kamal:
 * Alphabet
 * G1 eagle alef,A
 * B
 * C v31 k ك koub-cup كوب, كأس ك kaas
 * D d46 𓂧 d yad-hand يد,
 * E feather Reesh ريش, Hebrew י
 * F snake aF'aa افعى, Hebrew פ
 * G
 * H
 * H deep h v28 wick rather Rope ح of حبل Habl-rope,
 * Kh sieve- nuKHul نخل منخل خ
 * I same as e and Y : rEEsh feather ريش
 * J W11 jar Jarrah ؟جرة ج Jarrah-jar
 * K as c : v31 k ك koub-cup كوب, كأس
 * L L Laith-Lion, ليث
 * M owl bouMa بومه
 * N n35 N 𓈖 n ن of Nile! or Nahr-river نهر ,نيل
 * O g43 wšꜣ	𓅱 w or O of sOOs صوص-chick
 * P same as B
 * Q Q letter is ق Arabic قبة Qub-dome or qal’aa-fort – Hebrew ק
 * R d21 𓂋	 r it is actually an eye pictogram not mouth! Ra’a-see in Arabic رأى,
 * S
 * S s39 aSa-a stick/cane of elderly عصا normal, Hebrew ס
 * T Tal Hill تل t ت, Hebrew צ or Tabj طبج top of hill. Verb طب
 * T v31 is heavy t Arabic Tawq- collar,, Hebrew طوق ,ט
 * U same as O
 * V same as F
 * W same as O, Hebrew ו
 * Y same as e and i
 * Z O34 z of arabic zanqa-knot-tie زنقة زمام-tie rein of horse- زناق- Zinaq-zimam zimam also used for leader!.
 * Arabic (Ain) letter D36 𓂝 forearm- sa'Aed ساعد Arabic (Ain) letter ع from Arabic ساعد, ع
 * Th i14𓆓 th ث of THu'aban th ثعبان ث non venom snake. Zahida2013 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't the sources that 'Aḥmad īd draws from, but the reception that his book has received in subsequent Egyptological scholarship: almost the opposite issue, actually! (Not who he cites, but who cites him.) But I'll note: 'Everyone is deliberately deceiving you & I'm here to reveal the truth!' really strongly smacks of fringe theory. The real issue is: Have the arguments of this book been repeated in reliable sources? That information cannot be found in the book itself. You don't need to convince me or anyone else that 'Aḥmad īd is right: You just need to show that independent reliable work has taken note of it. I strongly recommend taking a look at WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:FRINGE. Pathawi (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the book of 'Aḥmad ʻīd is very popular and is mentioned by several books as in this webpage which mentions Tabari Masudi and others
 * Also note that recent DNA study of mummies proved beyond doubt that genetic make up continued unchanged from 1400 BCE till present and was closely tied to people of the levant.
 * Finally 'Aḥmad ʻīd reference Ahmad Kamal the founder of the Egyptian ministry of antiquities in his 12 book encyclopedia of hieroglyphs affirming its relation to Arabic and its sister semitic akkadian Assyrian Aramaic dialects where the Assyrian king addressed Egypt king with the word and akkadian letters ( pharaoh) . Mr Ahmad Kamal also claim that the M23 sign of Gardiner's should be read far'ao فرعو not swd سعدى.
 * Here are the citations Zahida2013 (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This huge 12 books by
 * Ahmad Kamal Pacha ( founder of Egyptian ministry of antiquities:
 * Manuscrit Lexique de la
 * langue Égyptienne Ancienne
 * Also published :
 * أحمد كمال كمال أحمد حواس زاهي and مصر. 2002. مخطوط معجم اللغة المصرية القديمة. الجزء االثاني عشر.
 * Al-maǧlis al-aʿlá li-l-aṯār, 2002
 * ISBN	9773053474, 9789773053475
 * Length	496
 * Reveals the genuine relationship Arabic/semitic language and ancient Egyptian language to pre dynasties times.
 * His works on hieroglyphics is cited many times.
 * As for the Ahmad Eid book "pharaonic island" is cited in many Arabic language books such as this including many books citing Eid book:
 * https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/157855/%D9%87%D9%84-%D8%A3%D8%B5%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8 . Zahida2013 (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So, 'Aḥmad Kamāl is really beside the point: He died in 1923. He's not a source that cites 'Aḥmad īd—he's someone who says something similar. The link you've directed us to is certainly not a reliable source: Someone has requested a fatwa on whether or not the ancient Egyptians were Arabs, & the poor sheikh who's been asked this non-fiqh question notes that it's not a matter for fatwas, provides a few sources, & ends with والله أعلم—'& God knows best'. All he says with respect to 'Aḥmad īd is that he wrote this book trying to show that the Egyptians were Arabs. He does not present the arguments that you want to include in this article. But most importantly: An anonymous Internet mufti—however knowledgable in his field!—is not a reliable source for Egyptology. Please, before continuing this conversation, take a look at the Wikipedia guidelines I linked you to. The core issues are source reliability & independence. Most of what you're saying is about trying to show that these claims are true, but that's not for us to decide. Pathawi (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If any other editors are watching this page, it might be helpful to have additional voices weigh in. Pathawi (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not commenting earlier, but, Pathawi is entirely correct. You need to demonstrate that this hypothesis is supported by a significant number of present-day Egyptologists. A. Parrot (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * it is supported by Ahmad Kamal a great egyptologist, and Mr Fakhri, and Mr Eid, there are many egyptologists who valued Mr Eid work and their books. You can query the island of pharaoh book in Arabic and you see many egyptologists commend it. I also have the Arabic dictionary books claim lingually Pharoah is derived from Arabic word for branch فرع and it's adjective فارع meaning dominating and looking over. Also many ancient Yemen kings were titled phar'an فرعن of the branch of Himyar who the Amaleq came from to live in Egypt according to Tabari a Persian scholar who converted to Islam at a late age mentioned by the Mufti website I provided.
 * The Sedge sign looks a high branch of a plant or tree to any one looks at it. As per egyptologists the pictograms of hieroglyphs were first made this way by using the prominent letter in the word that describe the pictogram at first glance ( in the old kingdom period) Ahmad Kamal noted that all the main alphabet letters of hieroglyphs are of things uttered in Arabic and not any other language. For example hand sign was d because yd is the Arabic word for it. The waves sign is n because it looks like river Nile which is Nahr Arabic for river and Nile for the Nile river!
 * Sieve sign is kh of Arabic nakhl نخل منخل of same meaning. The ancient Egyptians from even pre dynastic ties were Arab Amaleq tribes from Yemen or rather Oman and Hadramut. Zahida2013 (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * the encyclopedia of Ahmad Kamal is even a better secondary source for the claim that the Sedge sign is about a branch sign where in Arabic a branch of his people means their leader and so is so in many other civilizations! The Sedge sign actually it says the dominant branch on top of other smaller branches as in sedge sign aka saying the branch of branches aka prince of princes or leader of leaders. If you show the sign to a child and ask him what do you see? He will say branch. He is not going to say " oh that's the Sedge plant of course!?.
 * The Sedge sign looks like many other plants besides the Sedge plant and it's spread all around the world.! And it's in both upper and lower Egypt! Not only in upper Egypt to represent upper Egypt!?
 * And it's a lowly plant that grows around swamps and sewage drains areas doesn't fit to title a king with it!
 * The Sedge branch is always found on the top raw of inscriptions and in prenomen cartouche of the king by itself alone without any other signs representation of king hundreds of times and besides the other hieroglyphs kingly signs such as the crook and others. Above you can see the Arabic words for all main hieroglyphs main alphabet signs All of them. Or else what is the statistical possibility of another language having other words that match what in the Arabic words. Statistically that's impossible. Plus it's the burden of proof on European egyptologists to bring those words and show us where did they come up with those words! From what language? There is non. Zahida2013 (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the links on Wikipedia guidelines I provided above. Blurbs in the opening pages of a book are not a source. What is needed is a reliable source that says: 'Aḥmad Īd hypothesises that the sign M23 was the Arabic word فرع far, meaning "branch", and by metaphorical extension from "top branch", "prince", giving us the word "pharaoh".' That's it. Again, please read those guidelines. You don't need to post all this argumentation for the hypothesis here. You just need reliable secondary sources. Pathawi (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the links on Wikipedia guidelines I provided above. Blurbs in the opening pages of a book are not a source. What is needed is a reliable source that says: 'Aḥmad Īd hypothesises that the sign M23 was the Arabic word فرع far, meaning "branch", and by metaphorical extension from "top branch", "prince", giving us the word "pharaoh".' That's it. Again, please read those guidelines. You don't need to post all this argumentation for the hypothesis here. You just need reliable secondary sources. Pathawi (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2024
Hello, usually I will use Wikipedia without an account, but I noticed a spelling mistake "Pharohf", and I want to edit it! Rayzaz (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Could not find the error. Liu1126 (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Pharaoh