Talk:History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Egypt Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

I believe it is a Euro-centric point of view that it was Ismail's "personal extravagance" led to the country's financial problems. According to the Library of Congress Country Study by Helen Metz: "the anti-Ismail view was held mainly by British administartors... who depicted him as squeezing the peasants for money by oppressive taxation and the whip, and 'ruining Egypt' by his lavish spending and despotic ways. Journalists and the American consuls in Egypt such as Edwin de Leon held a more balanced view, arguing that Isamail inherited an unfavorable Suez Canal agreement and a significant public an d private debt from his uncle, Said. They noted that although Ismail spent lavishly, mcuh of the money he borrowed from European bankers was used for building or repairning the country's infrastructure. They also pointed out that European bankers and fanaciers lonaed money to Egypt at usurious interest rate" (pg 35-36). Could the article be changed to show Metz's perspective? --Schwael 17:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-centric

I've just read this quickly, while linking to it, but the whole article seems unbelievably Anglo-centric (not even British - but English). Maybe from Britannica or the like, and could do with a thorough overhaul! (Not volunteering, alas - so much Wiki to do...) JackyR 11:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article is almost all from the 1911 Britannica and is pretty bad. - SimonP 15:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re write

I was going to say the same thing as above. The entire article seems to have been copied and pasted from an old english textbook of somekind (maybe the original Britannica as the person above suggests). It is written in an incredibly old fashioned style, complete with a reference to 'every last farthing'. Considering that the farthing is an old english type of money that hasnt been in use since the 1950s, this would suggest that the source this material has been stolen from is incredibly out of date. Someone needs to do a severe clean up job to make this a reliable page.

82.3.151.5 23:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)