Talk:Egyptian pound

message: thumb |1938 One Egyptian Pound
I deleted an assertion supported only by WP:OR reading of the source 
*  
The sentence cited the image (right), but the components of glyph are unclear. Yes, it could be interpreted as "merging  with ". But is far more likely to be a merger of   and  because that is the style used on immediately recent banknotes where they are distinct elements, as on this "One Egyptian Pound" banknote of 1930. It was far too dubious to be left as simply "failed verification", so I have deleted it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Then ℒℰ ought to be considered the sign. IIRC it was once included in the article, but was taken out. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You might think so but your opinion, like mine, is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what Egyptian law says and if it doesn't mandate a currency sign, we have no business creating one. We can observe that this was a style (typeface) preferred in the early part of the 20th century. We can equally observe modern Roman faces being used today. And the £ sign. None with statutory status. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: From my research, it appears LE is used 95% of the time, £E the other 5%, ℒℰ appears in historical contexts, and E£ does not appear to have any notable use at all. I had already settled on LE in the main body of the article. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problem with using LE as an abbreviation (is anyone questioning that?). What we cannot do is assert that it is the currency symbol and I have changed the infobox accordingly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, my brain was using "symbol" and "abbreviation" interchangeably. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Misreading of evidence

message: It will be a real pity if "" has to stay out of the article because it can't be cited. I so wanted it to be true, but it does look rather like a spoof! Citation anyone? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like one of those things "everybody knows" to be true, but just can't be 100% verified. I can't find any sources at all (one seemed promising, but then I realised it had been copy-pasted from Wikipedia!). The Arabic Wikipedia article seems to largely be a direct translation of an earlier iteration of this one. I don't read or speak Arabic and Google translate can only get you so far. The same word was also used for the Palestinian and Israeli currencies in Arabic. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guinea 

message: I have made a protection request in response to the unconstructive reversions that are being made. I implore @MatthewS. to engage in the discussion rather than trying to shunt his preference through like a bulldozer. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is about reaching conclusions using valid sources. It always involves compromise. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @MatthewS. is simply refusing to engage, hoping his blunt force reversions will simply make me give up and let him have his opinion. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection requested 

message: I have tried extremely hard to try to resolve this through discussion. I have to hand it to @MatthewS., he's determined if nothing else! I only wish he would put his obvious tenacity to better use. I want to clear this up once and for all using facts, not opinion.
*The Egyptian Central Bank and the Egyptian English language press usually use  as the abbreviation for the currency
*Egyptian banknotes and stamps generally use , sometimes in a script form () or a proprietary symbol merging the two characters into one 
*When the pound sign is used, it is almost always inserted into the existing  format, replacing  with  (eg. , or )
*The only reliable source using an unqualified pound sign with no disambiguating abbreviation I have been able to find is a single postage stamp from the 1930s
*The styles I have been able to find "in the wild" are:
::, , ,  and  for the pound
:: and  for the piastre
Are any of these points in dispute? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @MatthewS.'s habit of constantly reverting any changes at all to the article (even when they are verifiable and sourced) is extremely frustrating. He appears to regard "consensus" as meaning "when I agree with it". I have made concessions against my personal preferences (replacing  with  for example), but so far MatthewS. has offered no willingness to compromise at all. The original version of the article was full of loose ends, unsourced material and conjecture. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My goodness, I just checked the edit history. MatthewS. has been "sitting" on this article making constant reversions to any changes he personally does not like since 2006. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current edit war 

message: I had added citations referencing the Central Bank of Egypt, the CIA World Factbook, the World Bank Style Guide and several others, but these have since been deleted and substituted with random FOREX sites. The sources I cited are reliable sources, the unsourced approximations cited by these FOREX sites are given WP:UNDUE weight by the current form of the article. I referenced this style and noted that it only appears on FOREX websites, but did not give it an equal status to the forms  and , which have verifiable usage by multiple reliable sources, including the currency issuing body itself. I implore @MatthewS. to actually engage rather than attempt to trigger an edit war. I want to know exactly why you feel more weight ought to be given to a couple of FOREX sites over sources such as the Central Bank of Egypt, the CIA and the World Bank. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The removal of my latest referenced sources 

message: There was a misunderstanding in April when I was mistaken for TheCurrencyGuy and my edits to the history section were reverted.The matter has now bee resolved so I have tried as best as possible to restore it. Some minor tweaks may however be necessary. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of citations is a serious problem. If you can't fix it within a week or so, you will have to transfer it to your wp:sandbox (User:Specialrequestaccount/sandbox) and work on it offline until it is ready to reinstate. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the citation requests at the beginning of the article, I got the information from here,
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Handbook_of_World_Exchange_Rates_1590_19.html?id=2T7l7Wi2ESsC&redir_esc=y On page 599 a chapter begins about Egypt 1869-14 and all the relevant information can be found there about the historical linkage with the Turkish piastre. If you show me how to insert such a reference, I will study the format and then I should be able to add more references further down the section. Also, how would I post a screenshot of page 599. I do have such a screenshot available. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section Restored to April version

message: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315253664/handbook-world-exchange-rates-1590%E2%80%931914-markus-denzel
Chapter 32|8 pages
Egypt (1869–1914)1
Abstract 
Sources: The Economist, London (1869-1890); Egyptian Gazette, Alexandria & Cairo (1884, 18931914). Concordance: WdW VIII, pp. 135-167
Currency: The basis of the Egyptian currency in the 19th century was the piastre (kurus) of 40 para. After the Turkish-Egyptian treaty of 1840, the piastre of both Turkish and Egyptian strikes should be equal by value, but the piastre of the Egyptian currency was commonly regarded as being of higher value than the Turkish one (see Chapter 13). Therefore 10 Egyptian piastres were equal to 11 Turkish piastres in Alexandria around the mid-19th century, whereas 10 Egyptian piastres were equal to 11.71 (since 1839) and later on to 11.27 Turkish piastres. In 1834 Egypt adopted the bimetallic standard on the basis of the Marie Theresa thaler, the famous Austrian trade coin for the Levant which was called abu taqa in Egypt, as the main coin unit equal to 20 piastre (confirmed by the Coin Act of 1842 and the government tariff of February 15th 1859). The piastre of 1839 contained 1.146 grammes of fine silver, the piastre of 1801 approximately 4.6 grammes of fine silver. The most important Egyptian coins, the bedidlik in gold (= 100 piastres; 7.487 grammes of fine gold) and the rial in silver (20 piastres; 23.294 grammes of fine silver), were minted since 1836/39 in the wake of the currency reform of December 1835, in force from May 1836. In addition, official money rates were fixed for these foreign coins whose circulation was allowed, but all these coins were undervalued, such as the British sovereign with 97½ piastres. This reform brought little improvement, because “foreign coins circulated much above the tariff rate, their value often fluctuating greatly from one part of the country to another” (OWEN [1969], p. 384). To make the quoting of the exchange rates independent of the devaluations of the Egyptian government, during this decade and those that followed the quotation was either done in Marie Theresa thalers or in piastres Egyptian money, as Egyptian money, both the actually minted Egyptian silver coins and the internationally accepted trade coins were understood, each at their daily price. Due to the pressure imposed by the British occupying power, the fall in silver prices from the end of the 1860s and the unsuccessful coin policy of the Egyptian government led to a currency reform in 1885. So bimetallism was superseded by the gold standard. Based on the model of the British sovereign and the Turkish lira, the Egyptian pound or lira (guinée el maes; 7.4375 grammes of fine gold) of 100 piastres became the basic monetary unit. Pieces of 10 piastres, the so-called Parisi, were minted in silver (11.25 grammes of fine silver) and 20 Egyptian piastres were equal to the 5-francs piece (the so-called real franca) or 1 piastre (1 1/8 grammes of fine silver) was equal to ¼ franc. Therefore the Marie Theresa thaler was fixed at 21 piastres and the sovereign at 97½ piastres as was done since 1835 (cf. ISSAWI [ed.] [1966], p. 523). This decree of November 14th 1885 remained in force even after the period documented here: “On the outbreak of the First World War Egypt shifted to a sterling exchange standard, and the link between the Egyptian pound and sterling was maintained until 1947” (ibid., p. 524).Specialrequestaccount (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please show me how to insert the above reference into the history section at the places were it says, citation required. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK, it's all sorted. The source came back again automatically when I used the original template to restore the brackets. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is the Main Source for the History Section