Talk:History of Egypt

message: The six daughter articles should be introduced, not as a self-referential table of contents, but with each link accompanying a summary section on that period.  This is not as hard as it sounds - inevitably a summary section needs to be kept short, and thus much content is not present, but for example, the "History of Ottoman Egypt" could at least explain in one or two sentences the fact of Egypt being in the Ottoman Empire (links being important too).
So, I suggest six short sections, of at most a half-dozen sentences each, with the daughter articles being linked to as follows:
:Main article: History of Ottoman Egypt
I'm not going to do this myself, but I thought I'd take a minute to put this here for someone else to do if they so wish.
zoney ♣ talk 08:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introducing daughter articles 

message: many of the history sub-articles have Eurocentric POV problems.  Mostly references to the British and Egypt's fiscal situations.  There's just so much, it's difficult to be consistant in revising multiple articles with the same problems.  --Schwael 17:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite likely because they originally came from the 1911 Britannica. Anything you can do to improve them would be much appreciated. - SimonP 20:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I found a great list of the rulers of Egypt here. I couldn't find a similar list on Wikipedia, so I thought I would put the link here. I am also unsure how much of this can be used (copying lists that take a long time to compile is not really fair, and probably breaches copyright). However, if the list can be recompiled or checked against existing sources, and these sources added to a "Rulers of Egypt" list/article, then that might be OK. And I might have missed an existing list. Also, that list only goes up to 1796, so if it can be extended, that would be great. Carcharoth 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having look round Wikipedia a bit more, I did find these pages: List of pharaohs; Rulers and heads of state of Egypt; Sultan of Egypt and some others. I tried to gather these lists at King of Egypt, which might not be the best name for what I've made the page. Is it worth having one page with all the rulers from ancient time to the present? Or would these separate lists be the best way to present it? Carcharoth 14:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rulers of Egypt 

message: This section: The history of Egypt is the longest continuous history, as a unified state, of any country in the world, seems a bit odd to me. Wouldn't the unity imply a continuous rule inherited from the pharoahs, rather than rule by foreign invaders?
Yom 09:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. Sumer first achieved civilization at least a century earlier than Ancient Egypt.50.111.25.160 (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Unified?

message: i think that the fact that every arabic country has its own individual history is stupid. All it does is sponser further distance between these countries. While I wouldn't argue that all arabic countries all the same, the differences that exist between them arent of the severity that they should be subdivided. Before the british and the french got involved after the ottomen callopse, the arab countries were all one. I'm not sugesting that there should be one HUGE page describing each history- but one page with links to each country. At least this way the arab countries could be together. Seriously when one bothers to consider it, the differences are minute- yes there are lines and borders on a map- but had it not been for these-save the dialects- one couldnt tell a lebanese from a syrian from an iraqi or egyptian. All these countries are arabic they share the same culture. And while their history can differ, for example of course egyptian history and babylonian aren't the same, but it shouldn't be enough to divide them like this.
Whoa !!
U can say; the world has collapsed, the sun swallowed the moon, the earth was turned apart, and the apes have become more superior to men. U cannot say that Egyptians are arabs, u cannot compare the history of Egypt with the history of the combined arab countries, and u even cannot say that the difference is not magnificent.
Egyptians are simply Egyptians. they are not arabs, they are not like arabs, and that means that they are better.
Arabs hate Egypt, but sorry fully Egyptians donot hate arabs -the majority- so good luck with your "arab union" article
.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by One last pharaoh (talk • contribs) 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United 

message: I was just thinking: what happens to the reader who is looking for a summary of the history of Egypt? Does the person need to read 10 different articles about different periods to get a general picture? This page should be transformed into a general article about the history of Egypt. --JLCA 10:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. It is terrible that this article was left as a shell for years. See my comments further down the page. Luwilt (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General History of Egypt 

message: German Wikipedia does not have an article about the history of Egypt in general, the link pointed to an article about the history of the Republic of Egypt, which covers only the time since 1952. I have thus moved this link to History of modern Egypt which, though it covers a longer time period, is the closest that English Wikipedia has.—Graf Bobby (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to German page 

message: So basicly Egypt was under contunius foreign rule for almost 3000 years after the fall of the 21st dynesty starting around 1000BC first by the Libians and Nubians till 670 then by the Asseryans to 600 and persians to 300 then by the greeks under the mecadonian empire then a hellenistic kingdom to 30 BC then by the romens and byzantians to 600 and after that by the arabs first directy in the calpiet then under indipendet arab states and dynesties after 900 to 1600 and then by the ottemen turks first directly from istenble then a quassy independent saltunite in the 19th centry and then by the british first dyrectly as a protecterate then by a pupit turkish dynesty untill the 1940's and then independently by a turkish king to 1956. --J intela (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign rule 

message: I thought the ancient Egypt has nothing to do with Egypt today culture wise. What could be used to support this very affirmative statement?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.115.129 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The history of Egypt is the longest of any country." 

message: This article quite confidently declares that Egypt has been a "state" for 5,000 years. Given that we rarely date the modern idea or states further back than 500 years. I'm going to label it as original research and as lacking sources. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: State is the wrong word, but it is true that Egypt has existed as an entity for that long. I'm not sure what the best term is for it. Encarta calls it a "coherent political entity with a recorded history since about 3200 BC" while Britannica calls it "one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations." - SimonP (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research + Sources 

message: This is essentially a disambiguation page. History of Ancient Egypt is already a huge WP:SS article, and there is simply no benefit of giving another summary of that here and combine it with summaries on modern Egypt. 
:That is absolutely wrong. You are forgetting that this article exists to serve readers. The destruction of this basic article is a lamentable example of the failures of the wiki approach at their worst. Luwilt (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: scope

message: This is a basic topic, and the article simply must exist. Wikipedia's purpose is to serve the general reader. The general reader is likely to be looking for a basic introduction to the topic. Being informed that there are twenty more detailed articles available is not an acceptable substitute. It may seem that it is to an academic, but for the general reader it is not. I will start the repair of this editorial disaster by cutting and pasting the history section of the main Egypt article and adding an expansion notice. This article exists to serve readers who want an overview of the history of Egypt. It should be longer than the section in the main Egypt article, which is exists to serve readers who want a rounded overview of the country, and less detailed than breakout articles. This is not strange, it is the way the whole of wikipedia should work. It must not lose sight of its audience. It is not a database that simply accumulates facts, and it is not aimed at academics, who only attach status to extreme detail. It is an encyclopedia. Luwilt (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree. Great work getting this started. - SimonP (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense to me. I agree with your point about people adding random material to almost arbitrarily chosen articles (usually probably without knowing there are related articles. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This article must exist!

message: you are a fool !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.66.120 (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  dramas 

message: This page is a copy of the history section of Egypt, it should be so much more than that. Egypt has an 7000-year old history, give it some real coverage guys! Charles Essie (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Egypt's history is describable in such detail that it's spread across many specific pages, e.g. History of Ptolemaic Egypt. This is just a summary article, describing the overall trend and providing links to more specific articles. It should be longer than the History section in the Egypt article, of course, but it shouldn't include all of Egyptian history. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand! 

message: How can you have a History of Egypt that totally omits the world-changing events of the desert campaign of 1940-43? Valetude (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW2? 

message: This article is meant to give the reader a quick overview of the history of Egypt (obviously). It is not meant to cover current events on a month by month basis. We have History of the Republic of Egypt and History of modern Egypt. At the moment the pre-Republic bits have just over 2000 words, and the part covering the Republic is just less than that - almost half. Editors need to move material to the articles covering contemporary Egypt to give this article more balance. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150120043535/http://newshopper.sulekha.com/malaysia-egypt-protest_photo_1689167.htm to http://newshopper.sulekha.com/malaysia-egypt-protest_photo_1689167.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214084636/http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/africa/nile_valley/6000-4000BC to http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/africa/nile_valley/6000-4000BC
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130924131816/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/741/eg1.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/741/eg1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should it not mention more? What about connections with american stone buiders? Pyramids, precision drilling, stone clamps, giant stones, elongated skulls, similar gods... Similar items for a never explained ancient high technology. You can think this is nonsense, but the questions remains unanswered.--79.148.182.23 (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutilated history? 

message: It because it would not make it easier than to do u and pay me to do the work I did for my kids this 
Alfred 102.220.210.81 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History the Nile River and how it influenced settlements 

message: According to the text, after the Arab Islamic conquest in the 7th century, 'Muslim rulers nominated by the Islamic Caliphate remained in control of Egypt for the next six centuries, with Cairo as the seat of the Caliphate under the Fatimids. '
I don't see how this makes sense. The Fatimids, who took control of Egypt as early as the 10th century and ruled until the mid-12th century, were not 'rulers nominated by the Islamic Caliphate', they rebelled against the Sunni Caliphate and established their own rival Shia Caliphate. So Egypt was controlled by the original Caliphate for only approximately three centuries, not six as the text says, and was then independent from it for about two centuries. Also, Egypt was de facto independent for a period before that, under the Tulunids (868–905), making the period of true Caliphate control even shorter. And even after the Fatimids, from the 12th to the 16th century, the Ayyubids and the Mamluks may have recognised Abbasid rule nominally, but in practice these were independent states and the rulers weren't actually chosen by the caliph or controlled by him. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim rulers nominated by the Islamic Caliphate?