Talk:Lists of rulers of Egypt

I don't have the skills, but I think this page would look good if it was in the form of a chart.... with the British rulers in one column, and the native kings in a second. So we can see at a glance how their rules overlapped.--J.J.

---

"rulers" is a description, not an official title. page moved to lowercase r. --Jiang 07:24, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is "Modern Egypt" an official title? If not, it ought to be moved to lowercase m as well. -Sean 07:28, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not official at all—the country isn't even called Egypt officially, but Maşr. It probably should be downcased. —Tkinias 20:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why did you remove the mention of "modern" in the title of the article? The article does not list pharaohs, or Ptolemaic Kings, or Fatimid caliphs. Also, why should we use up so much space listing Ottoman governors? That should be its own article, at best. john k 18:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, why have you removed the British colonial quasi-governors, who are far more historical significant than 18th century Ottoman walis? john k 18:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Both the terms 'ruler' and 'head of state' are used in their generic sense in the page titles, and whilst they are not necessarily the actual title I felt it pertinent to capitalise them where they appeared in the titles as it gives body to the appearance of the title to highlight the nouns with capitals.

The removal of the word modern was for uniformity sake - there is not a standard of using modern, ancient or medieval in the lists of countries which have lists spread across those 'epochs', and to introduce this as a standard would split lists which should be in one piece.

The British Colonial governors have not been forgotten: they appear in the Colonial Heads of Egypt as they are consecutive in that list whereas they were concurrent in this list. This does not mean however that I am in doing so making any judgement on the importance of their office - rather on the nature of their tenure.

I would like see all the rulers of Egypt from pre-dynastic onwards included in this list but I think there would be too much of a backlash from a) Egyptologists, b) those who revile duplication and/or c) those who dispute the format/content. --JohnArmagh 19:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The word "modern" is key, because this does not list Pharaohs, Ptolemies, Fatimids Caliphs, or Mamluk Sultans. john k 04:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copy of my reply posted on k's talk page.

Thanks for the reply - a word like modern can be used in a subjective manner, but that may be misconstrued - especially as time goes on. The Wikipedia is above all intended as a compendium or source of information for readers in the future (whether that future is five minutes or a thousand years hence). In this context the word gains ambiguity. Unlikely I know, but supposing Egypt returns, for instance, to a state under the successors of the Mamluks: does it then cease to be 'modern Egypt', and requiring another separate list?

I think that if the region is a recognisable entity throughout with heads (whatever the nature or remit of that headship) having a distinct remit for that region, and the lists are more-or-less consecutive (give or take recognised breaks) then a single list should be used.

I really did not like splitting the Colonial Heads of African countries from the Heads of State list, but I feared a servere reaction if I combined them.

In this instance though the independence of Egypt was a more evolutionary affair - Muḩammad ‘Alī Pasha was important in the formation of 'modern' Egypt, but the country was still de jure under the Ottomans for the next century. And although he was so instrumental, he was not the first of a consecutive list of Wālīs.

At the end of the day, a list of incumbents does not per se care how important a person was - merely where they came in the list. --JohnArmagh 05:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted with regards to the following lengthy discourse between myself and the user known here as Gzornenplatz that the latter has been discredited as an editor and has been blocked indefinitely by the Administrators. --JohnArmagh (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

JohnArmagh, no offense, but can you please work on something you're actually competent about? You keep mindlessly copying leaders lists from an illiterate website which is just no acceptable source. For example, it makes no sense to list cases like Ebeid - i.e. brief substitutions for an incumbent (as opposed to people acting during a vacancy, like Sufi Abu Taleb) - there are myriads of such cases, and that site is not even remotely complete about them. In fact, you could find cases where the same stand-in acts for the same incumbent on over 20 separate occasions. This is irrelevant and in any case can never be complete, so it is not useful to list a few random cases. Only particularly lengthy or otherwise politically significant substitutions of this kind should be listed, but not every substitution when a president leaves the country for a foreign visit, as was the case here. Another example of incompetence copied by incompetence that made me cringe just now is your listing of "superindents" (sic!) on Equatorial Guinea. I mean, really, this is NOT FUNNY. Gzornenplatz 09:19, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I have been compiling such lists probably since before you were born and I think your judgement on competency and reference to incompetence to be, in view of your repetition of the wording and despite your opening comments, somewhat offensive.

As I have said where I spot errors I correct them - and this includes spelling mistakes - however the general level of spelling and use of grammar by so-called educated people these days (not to mention the standard often displayed across the internet) leaves something to be desired.

Any page is potentially a work in progress. Lists of this nature are even more so.

Furthermore my work is not intended to be FUNNY.

A considerable amount of time and effort is being spent on this information and I am convinced I am working for the general good of the project. --JohnArmagh 09:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quite obviously you don't spot even the most blatant errors like "superindent", which you copied dozens of times, adding it to each individual, so it wasn't just a single oversight. And those blatant misspellings are the harmless things - what you can't possibly spot are the errors in the dates and names which are just as frequent in that site's data. You're quite simply spreading misinformation. I can't prevent you from doing what you're doing, and I won't clean up after you. If you don't recognize your incompetence here, you will just simply have my contempt. Gzornenplatz 11:33, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well thankyou for that.

Contempt for someone about whom one knows so very little is a very unattractive trait.

You have amply demonstrated how easy it is to make criticism, and how much more difficult it is to make constructive criticism.

All I will say in my defence is:-

a) With such a lot of data, fine-tooth-combing is an arduous excercise. I don't expect anyone to clean up after me.

b) By its nature the internet is a minefield of misinformation - without warning as to which is true and which is false, falsehood can easily look like truth (and in some cases can actually become truth).

I forgive your human failings - even though you find mine unforgivable. --JohnArmagh 11:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It gets worse and worse. What kind of excuse is this - "the internet is a minefield of misinformation"? Yes it is, that's why you have to analyze the reliability of any source before using it; obviously you have not done that, and refuse to do it still even when a source of worthless misinformation is pointed out to you. And how does falsehood become truth? A historical date is either true or false. Do you think if false data is perpetuated enough it's as good as if it were correct? You seem to think Wikipedia is a suitable place to dump garbage, where the good parts can be slowly sorted out later. At this point the only constructive criticism I can give you is to stop. Stop all editing of political history and write about abbeys and cathedrals or whatever you may be competent in. My bluntness here, if that's what you mean with my "human failings", is necessary only because I consider the quality of the encyclopaedia more important than not hurting your feelings. Gzornenplatz 12:00, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I am merely a contributor trying to compile such information as is available.

The Wikipedia is bigger than an individual's feelings - my feelings do not enter into the matter (though it would appear yours do).

You could put a caveat warning of inaccuracies and misinterpretations, but this would have to be put on every page in the Wikipedia - by-and-large the truth is a perception and not an absolute.

As for dumping garbage into the encyclopaedia - I seem to recall that once-upon-a-time it was a scientific fact that the world was flat and at the centre of the universe - and that issue was "slowly sorted out later".

I can see how wars start over trivial issues - people would rather bash someone over the head to get their own way than to give an inch to reach a concord. --JohnArmagh 12:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a place to compile accurate information, not just "whatever is on some website". That there is, inevitably, enough inaccuracy on Wikipedia is no excuse for you to knowingly add even more. A list where it can be statistically expected (based on the many errors that can be directly spotted) that significant parts of it are inaccurate, is less useful than nothing. You should only add information that you can reasonably believe to be accurate. And here you come with another shocking statement - "The truth is a perception"! No, the date when e.g. a certain president took office is an absolute. There is one true date, and any other date is false. Gzornenplatz 12:27, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Not a shocking statement at all: this is totally an aside, but as an illustration, Relativity Theory itself states that time and the passage thereof is dependent on the comparative states of the observer and the observed. And even in normal experience - something which happens on one side of the International Date Line occurs at the same instant but is perceived as being on a different date (and time) from those on the other side of the IDL. And again there is the famous instance at the time of the staggered change from the Julian to Gregorian calendars, where William of Orange landed in Britain on a date prior to that on which he departed from Holland.

Another for instance: I wasn't at the Battle of Hastings personally but those sources I have had access to tell me it was in 1066. And although nothing tells me so, I deduce that it was not called the "Battle of Hastings" at the time. Do I therefore disregard all references to it pending proof (whatever that may be). --JohnArmagh 12:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More irrelevancies. The date when, for example, William of Orange landed in Britain is fixed. Different calendars are just different ways to express that same date. I don't see what the point is about what the "Battle of Hastings" was called at the time. It's a historical term, which does not imply it was called that at the time. Obviously World War I was not called "World War I" at the time. So what? Gzornenplatz 13:25, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant, possibly - but it was just to illustrate a point.

Yes, exactly, and WWI was called The Great War and The War To End All Wars - and that has clearly been superceded by events. --JohnArmagh 13:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alright, a couple of questions. Firstly, as someone who's been guilty of using worldstatesmen.org in the past (and being burned by it), does Gzornenplatz have any suggestions for other websites to look for this kind of information? I've generally found rulers.org to be more accurate than worldstatesmen for facts on which they differ, but the two are very similar, on the whole. Secondly, JohnArmagh, Gzornenplatz is right that you shouldn't knowingly put in information that you know is likely to be false, or misleading. Thirdly, I think the biggest problem with these things is aesthetic - they're huge and confusing, and you have to look at them for ten minutes before you figure out what's going on...anyway, I'm off for now john k 16:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, rulers has a vastly different sense of accuracy. It's hard to find a single misspelling on that site, whereas on worldstatesmen it's hard to find a single page without a misspelling. The superficial similarity is because worldstatesmen when it first came up in 2000 started as a wholesale ripoff of rulers (which had been around since 1995) and therefore still uses largely the same format, although it seems incapable even of formatting the lines correctly (note the lack of proper indentation of year-only dates). And it has since added lots of erroneous data, because every source is good enough for it, making it a trash heap without any reliability. Someone who has no sense of accuracy himself obviously can't judge the accuracy of other sources, which is absolutely elementary in a field like this. Rulers in its turn does not seem to be copying anything from worldstatesmen, for good reason. Gzornenplatz 00:27, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks john - I would be only too happy to use a source of reliable information if I could be pointed in the direction - I have spent a lot of time searching the net for reliable sources - but unreliable sources are not cited as such. Even in printed material there is no guarantee as to the authenticity of the data. And in the absence of corroboration (which often cannot be verified as reliable) how do you tell one date/fact is correct and another false? Then again how do you judge the likelihood of information being correct?

I would also like to say that I would never knowingly put a piece of information which I knew to be false onto the Wikipedia. I have never even liked playing tricks on people - so the knowing propogation of a deception certainly is not in my nature.

Yes, some lists are huge - but they are always only lists of dates, names, politics and minimal other comments as felt necessary to 'illustrate' the list. I put the column which defines the order of the entries first - in the case of a list of successive incumbents this is naturally the date column.

Part of the fascination is just scrolling through them (almost seeing history unfurling). A simple 'Find..' should locate specific text. As the lists are a standard format then once you have spent the 10 minutes examining them to see what is what then the same rules apply for each - which is better than having a number of different rules for different lists, and having to work out the rules for each first depending on which list you are looking at.

Anyway I am off to sleep on it - in my timezone it has been a long hard day at work and I need a rest. Until tomorrow, goodnight --JohnArmagh 17:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you need pointers and can't evaluate sources on your own, then let others do it in the first place. And in some cases you might simply not find a reliable source, that's still no excuse to take an unreliable one! Yes, printed material can be unreliable too and has to be evaluated likewise (although printed sources in general tend to be more reliable than websites). How do you judge the likelihood of information being correct? Precisely by the reliability of the source. If you can't detect any errors in a source (provided, as I told you before, that you have a basic knowledge of the subject), then you will trust it. If, on the other hand, there are lots of directly apparent errors in a source, you can safely assume that there are even more errors in it which you can't detect. Gzornenplatz 00:27, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hi again. Of course what you say here cannot really be disputed. (Though it may not always be wise to assume that one error renders the rest totally unreliable. I can think of an error in the text of the Bible, but that does not mean the whole lot is wrong). Nevertheless if the others do it for me in the first place then I would like to have access to that information to pass it on as common knowledge (which is the aim of the Wikipedia). It is no exaggeration to say that I have strived for decades to do so (whilst leaving some time for a life, of course). Earlier through libraries etc., then the net came along. Ultimately the only reliable information would be by someone who was actually there at the time and who was actually recording the facts rather than propoganda - and that would be a very scarce source as by-and-large history is written by the winner. I think there is a lot of common-ground between us, and our aims for the Wikipedia are ultimately the same, it is just that we have different ways we would like to see it expressed. The aims of completeness and reliability very difficult to achieve as they are contradicted by the available 'sources'. --JohnArmagh 07:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fuad II of Egypt.jpg

Image:Fuad II of Egypt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The guy between Sadat and Mubarak

Sufi Abu Talib] Was acting president of Egypt for six days. During that time, he actually ruled Egypt as there was opposition to Mubarak's taking over, and that's why Mubarak didn't take over immediately. He held more power than Najib did.

Fuad II pic

Fuad II was an infant during his brief spell as king, but the pic of him is of an adult (it's probably current). I know it might be weird to run a baby picture of him, but isn't it equally weird to run a pic of him decades after his kingship? --Jfruh (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think pic should be of him while infant.Samsam22 (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please put the picture of him as an infant. That is what he looked like when he ruled. If you put a picture of him as an old man people get the idea in their head that he was a grown man when he ruled.Isa Alcala (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Y Done! I put a photo of Fuad II while he was still an infant. I also put a photo of Sufi Abu Taleb. This summer, I will start seriously working on this list, hopefully to try and elevate it to FA status. I was thinking it would be nice to have each ruler's native name besides his English one: for instance, the cartouches for the Pharaohs, the tughras for the Ottoman sultans, etc... Any thoughts about that? BomBom (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Shajar al-Durr

• Hi friends, I do not see Shajar al-Durr in the list. She ruled before Aybak.Samsam22 (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I added Shajar al-Durr Samsam22 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

al-Mustain Billah Abu al-fadl al-Abasi

• I also added al-Mustain Billah Abu al-fadl al-Abasi the caliph who was proclaimed a ruler of Egypt after dethroning Sultan Faraj Samsam22 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

king tut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.79.65.238 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC) DFKUERFJ —§≥T54Y6PY36362222876

″HU7UUJ″