This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article implies that the British Resident Minister in Egypt during WW2 was some kind of colonial governor. This is quite untrue. The Resident Minister was Britain's Cabinet-level representative to the Allied High Command and the post was essentially diplomatic. It had nothing to do with running Egypt. By WW2 Egypt was an independent country, although under various treaties Britain had the right to base troops there. I am going to remove this section. Adam 07:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No move, discussion on merge continues Mike Cline (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Merge -- The article largely duplicates List of diplomats of the United Kingdom to Egypt. This article is in a newer (and better) format, but the diplomats article has the better title. This will require the removal of the Napoleonic governors to a separate article, but that is necessary because the article does not deal with Baring's French fellow controller. The article will also require a break in the list where the High Commissioner ceased to be more than a diplomatic representative. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree and have added merge tags to both articles. Srnec (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with merging to that article. The second half of the list is related to that, but the commanders of the earlier British and French administrations are obviously not so. If the title (colonial heads) is the issue, perhaps a simple wording change (foreign administrative heads, foreign governors)? What we really need is to merge all these incongruous lists into a sinlge List of rulers of modern Egypt, but that looks like something for another day. Rennell435 (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Why would it be something for another day? Srnec (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Please, if you are up to the task, by all means! :) I just meant not part of this nomination. Most of the lists are short, so merging them in my opinion is a good idea. Although the king and current (presidents) list should probably be kept separate, we can have sections with hatnotes linking to them from this new parent list. How do you feel about "rulers" though, there maybe a better term for foreign governors? Rennell435 (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the British never had suzerainty over Egypt. It was under Ottoman suzerainty until 1914, when Britain unilaterally declared a protectorate, which I suppose the Ottomans and their allies never recognised. It remained a British protectorate until 1922 (i.e., for 8 years), when they declared it independent, and by that time nobody was left (no Ottomans) to claim suzerainty over it. Since that time Egypt's relations with Britain have been essentially diplomatic. There has never been a British "ruler" of Egypt, to my mind, in the ordinary sense of the word. I do not know the best way of describing the unique history of Britain's relationship with Ottoman and post-Ottoman Egypt. It was all "informal empire" and "sphere of influence". Srnec (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Hm, so what word would you use to replace "ruler"? Rennell435 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it would just be best to merge it to the diplomat list after all. I'm just worried about the post-1882 part of the list since there's definitely some administrative role to those offices. The first part of the list, to do with the French occupation and aftermath could (if needed) be merged into the Ottoman wali list, although they might not even be needed at all... Rennell435 (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I still say Merge. There may be a need to exclude a few people, particularly French individuals, but that can be dealt with by having a "see also" cross-reference. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.