Talk:Turco-Egyptian conquest of Sudan (1820–1824)

Half of Europe
It reads "an empire more than half the size of Europe". Area of Europe is 10180000 km2. The figures for Egypt and Sudan are as follows 1010000 km2 and 1886000 km 2. How can the size of the empire be more than half the size of Europe? I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . The words are actually a direct quote from the source I used, but I think the expression was being used rather loosely in the original text, to indicate 'a very large size' rather than an exact scale comparison.  As you point out it is a bit of an exaggeration since Egypt+Sudan+South Sudan would be about a third the size of Europe (the source reference book was written before the independence of South Sudan in 2011).  If you want to to change it to something more modest please go ahead. Mccapra (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well I've changed it now to something more proportionate.Mccapra (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Moved. See general agreement below to rename these pages from "invasion" to "conquest" as proposed. Not so much for the definite article usage, which is consistent with the guideline, because "the" would not be uppercased in running text. So just as in Ukraine vs. the Ukraine, United States vs. the United States, and so on, the guideline does compel us to omit def. and indef. articles from mainspace titles. And while historically, "The Sudan" might appear to be more correct for articles about past histories, use of the def. article might actually be misleading for our readers due to its slow but evident deprecation in reliable sources. So the renames will be to Egyptian conquest of Sudan (1820–1824) and Anglo-Egyptian conquest of Sudan. Since omission of the def. article "the" does lead to titles that are just a bit different from those proposed, there is no prejudice toward a new requested move at any time to try to garner consensus for its usage in these titles. That also goes for the date-range qualifier (not certain if it's even necessary) as discussed. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  02:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

– First off, I've noticed that sources use "conquest" a bit more commonly than "invasion". For Muhammad Ali's campaign of 1820, see this, this, this, this, this, andmany more. For the Anglo-Egyptian campaign, see the results here. I also believe the term "conquest" is broader, and that "invasion" only covers the initial phase of such campaigns, excluding other aspects like the formal annexation, etc.
 * Egyptian invasion of Sudan 1820–24 → Egyptian conquest of the Sudan (1820–24)
 * Anglo-Egyptian invasion of Sudan → Anglo-Egyptian conquest of the Sudan

Secondly, see WP:THE. The definite article is omitted when it comes to the title of the main Sudan and Sudan (region) articles. Yes, nowadays the is being increasingly dropped in favor of just "Sudan", usually when we're referring to the modern day state (which is, by the way, officially named "Republic of the Sudan"). But even so, we don't write "invasion of Netherlands/United States/United Kingdom"; we have to add the definite article. Same thing goes for Sudan, especially in the historical context. I also feel like History of Sudan (among other subarticles) should be moved to History of the Sudan, but I'll see how things go in this RM first. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 03:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.  bd2412  T 18:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)  --Relisting.  The Duke of Nonsense What is necessary for thee? 14:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, as per reasons given by @Fitzcarmalan.Resnjari (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. ‘Conquest’ and ‘invasion’ describe the same thing from different perspectives. The article is currently titled ‘Invasion’ because it is primarily about Sudan and not about Egypt. We don’t normally refer to the ‘Conquest of Manchuria in 1931’ (by Japan) or to the Russian ‘conquest’ of the Crimea. It is true that most sources refer to the Egyptian invasion as a conquest, but that is because most English language secondary sources are based on near-contemporary Egyptian or Anglo-Egyptian primary sources. Wikipedia is not obliged to echo them.
 * The use of ‘the Sudan’ is problematic for different reasons. In general terms, referring to the country as ‘the Sudan’ is just archaic, and not consistent with standard modern use. It is true that in the context of the full form of the name, ‘the Republic of the...’ it is common but not universal to see ‘the Sudan’ (have a look at ). However if you ignore the specific term ‘the Republic of the...’ and look only for modern references using ‘the Sudan’, (i.e. in other authoritative works of reference) it is rare to find ‘the Sudan’ used anywhere.Mccapra (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thing is, we actually do echo names that are consistently used in the sources (see WP:COMMONNAME). And regarding your "rare to find ‘the Sudan’ used anywhere" statement, I strongly disagree based on all the sources I've provided. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You're right, use of ‘the Sudan’ rather than just ‘Sudan’ is more common than I’d thought in modern sources. However it is plainly very mixed and there is no compelling reason to apply a change of name to these articles. Are you thinking about changing every instance of ‘Sudan’ to ‘the Sudan’ across the encyclopaedia? If not, I’m less clear why you think it’s important here.Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's just see how things go from here. I believe articles covering the entire Sudan (not just the modern states) and the historical region should be titled "the Sudan". If this RM turns out to be successful, I'm probably going to propose renaming the History of Sudan (parent article) series, which includes History of Sudan (1956–69), History of Sudan (1969–85) and History of Sudan (1986–present), to "History of the Republic of the Sudan" in order to distinguish them from History of South Sudan. Additionally, Sudan (region), History of Sudan (1821–1885) and History of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan may have to be moved to versions that include the definite article. And we should probably create a different umbrella article (either article or disambiguation) titled "History of the Sudan", covering the entire history of this region. I also believe that Islamization of the Sudan region should have "region" omitted from the title. I understand those are pretty radical moves. So either we discuss these individually, or I can initiate an RfC on a Wikipedia space talk page. Maybe Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral, but note that per MOS:DATERANGE, it should be 1820–1824, not 1820–24. If the article is going to moved, then at least we should get that part right. — howcheng  {chat} 00:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but fix date range to "1820–1824", not "1820–24", per MOS:DATERANGE. (We might want to also look at other pages that have awkward similarly-styled titles...) Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support instead Egyptian conquest and control of the Sudan (1820–1824). The invasion/conquest was completed in the first year.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the Oxford English Dictionary:"conquest (noun): The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by military force. conquer (verb): Overcome and take control of (a place or people) by military force."


 * According to the Cambridge Dictionary:"conquer (verb): to take control or possession of foreign land, or a group of people, by force"


 * Given these, "control" doesn't seem to add much to the proposed title and it is not specified by those dictionaries whether the assumption of control takes place gradually over the years or swiftly during the initial military invasion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Taking control" and "exerting control" are two different things, though. Dekimasu よ! 04:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They did not spend the 4-5 years "conquesting", or "taking control". After they took control, they then controlled for the remainder of the period.  We could go to Egyptian control of the Sudan (1820–1824), as the exerting or holding of control necessarily had a starting phase, the conquest can be naturally read as a prelude to the period of control.  A 4-5 year period of conquest sounds more like the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire example, which was a period of marauding and pillage and destruction.  Occupation could also be a better choice or word, Egyptian conquest and occupation of the Sudan (1820–1824).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not just create a separate article for that? There's an abundance of literature dedicated to this alone and to other Egyptian administrative/military campaigns in the Sudan and East Africa throughout the 19th century. We can just let this article deal with the conquest and summarize the following years' consolidation of the region in an 'Aftermath' section. Adding "and control/occupation/consolidation/colonization" would excessively stretch the current and proposed titles IMO. It is not the title's job to describe a subject, and the sources linked above in the RM statement simply refer to this as the "conquest of the Sudan". Also, having both "control/occupation" and the date range in the title may suggest to some readers that the Egyptian administration in the region came to an end in 1824, which is clearly not the case. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So, rename to Egyptian_conquest_of_the_Sudan_(1820), and leave the occupation to History_of_Sudan_(1821–1885)? It is already forked, which is a bad thing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, but it should be 1820–1821. The conquest reached its final extent in 1821. And by "forked" you're just referring to the "control" part of this campaign, right? Because the conquest itself and its background are legitimate WP:SPINOFF material. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Egyptian_conquest_of_the_Sudan_(1820-1821) yes. By "forked", I meant that coverage of the years 1821-1824 can be covered on two different articles.  Maybe this is not a terrible thing, but if this article were titled "Egyptian_conquest_of_the_Sudan_(1820-1821)" there would be no issue.  I think "forked" is probably over-strong a word here.  I should explicitly note that I support your initial nomination, but I think it is made even better with my suggestions.  I agree "conquest" over "invasion".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Egyptian/Turkish
There was a discussion (above) on the name of this article and the consensus included the fact that the topic is about an Egyptian invasion. Since then the word ‘Egyptian’ has been replaced in the text of the article with ‘Turkish’. I am reverting these. If anyone thinks ‘Turkish’ should be restored please discuss here so we can see what the consensus is. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

References: Page 71 Andrew James McGregor, A Military History of Modern Egypt: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Ramadan War, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006
 * Muhamed Ali Pasha was an Ottoman ruler not an Egyptian ruler sir. Every history books clearly mentioned that. I'm curious on why you are not including a supporting sources to your claim instead of trying to rally every one to vote on your changes. Egypt was under the Ottman rule during that time along with so many countries.


 * Thanks for your note.There are many sources to support every statement I wrote in the article - the only one who has added unsourced content is you. You have added a paragraph of your own suppositions and interpretations, and you have directed my attention to a work by Andrew James McGregor to support this. But what does McGregor say on page 71, where you direct me to look? 'The Egyptian army passed through Lower Nubia'..... and then on page 72 'the Egyptian front ranks began to disintegrate', 'Fired by a burning resentment of Egyptian brutality'... and so on.  So if you want to rename the article and change the text throughout you are going to have to come up with something better than this.  Mccapra (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * if you want this name change/content to stay you're going to have to provide sources for it. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Well if there are no sources forthcoming I will change it back. Mccapra (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the sources are updated. Thanks!

I think extracting part of a book saying that this whole campaign is controlled and initiated by egyptian prower is wrong. Offcourse there going to be some egyptian who help the ottman armies and many from other nations. However the labeling was not correct. Muhamed Ali Pasha wasnt born in Egypt His main army wasnt from egypt His appointment to Egypt was by the ottman In the summary of History of Modern Sudan books https://muse.jhu.edu/article/262091/pdf Quoting The invading Ottoman army met little resistance except from the Shayqiyya confederacy” (p. 11). It was at that time that foreign interests persisted in Sudan: there were, in fact, two prominent scenes that, in Collins’s opinion I dont want to come up with any thing better but rather than improving the trustworthiness of this article


 * Firstly, perhaps something we may be able to agree on. You’ve added a source that describes the invasion as the Turco-Egyptian invasion. I think that’s actually a very good description, and if you agree I think that would be a good title for the article.


 * 2. This article is not a translation of the ar.wiki article. It is written directly from various sources. The ar.wiki article is, I believe, an adaptation of this en.wiki article. (This article was written first). If the sources on which the article is built referred to this event as the Turkish conquest of Sudan, then that’s what the article would be called. But the sources don’t call it that at all. They refer to it throughout, pretty consistently, as Egyptian. Some, like the one you found, describe it as Turco-Egyptian, and you’ve found one that describes it as Ottoman. We are supposed to work with what the main body of sources say.


 * 3. The ar.wiki article is not called the Turkish conquest either. The references to a Turkish invasion appear in the ar.wiki article but they are not sourced, so they don’t matter and don’t provide any basis for changing this article, which is based on sources.


 * 4. Just announcing that one name is correct and another is wrong is no use. We have to base our work on sources. Despite all you’ve said about the term ‘Turkish’ you haven’t produced a single source to justify it.


 * 5. The source you suggested to me above does not support your case, because it consistently refers to an Egyptian army. Having used this source for your argument, you now say that extracting part of a book is wrong. Clearly it’s wrong if it doesn’t agree with you, I guess. Actually everything we write here has to be ‘extracted from a book’. That’s literally what we do. We don’t improvise what we think we know or what seems to be common sense.


 * 6 The new source you’ve added doesn’t anywhere refer to a Turkish invasion. It talks about a Turco-Egyptian invasion in some places and an Egyptian invasion elsewhere. The number of sources supporting the ‘Turkish’ title so far is zero.


 * 7. Yes I know Muhammad Ali was Albanian. Maybe we should call this article the Albanian invasion of Sudan? Do you think that Albanians and Turks are the same people? What does it matter where he was born? He was the ruler of Egypt. The Fatimids came from Mahdia, so do we now have to refer to their wars as ‘the Tunisian invasion of....?’


 * 8. Yes I know his army did not include many Egyptians. I discussed this in the article itself, with proper sourcing. So what? Britain used an Indian army to invade Iraq in 1917 so should we call that the Indian invasion because the soldiers came from there? The fact is that the ruler of Egypt invaded his neighbour. Where he was from or where his soldiers came from is important detail, but does not define the event.

This is not my opinion. This is reliance on sources. So I’ll ask you again to produce any sources (ar.wiki is not a source) to support your personal preference of a title. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You’ve added a source that describes the invasion as the Turco-Egyptian invasion. I think that’s a good description. Do you agree we should change the article name to this? Mccapra (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The original article on wikipedia about Mohamed Ali pasha history can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_of_Egypt please check the info box for where he was born his campaign from turkey who appointed him and his history. I'm in favor of naming it Turkish-Egyptian lets keep in mind :
 * 1)   The ruler Mohamed Ali pasha and his heir are not from Egypt
 * 2)   The ruler Mohamed Ali pasha  was born outside Egypt  and he was appointed  by the ottomans not by any Egyptian government
 * 3)   The ruler Mohamed Ali pasha  was working for long time under the flag of ottomans empire not the flag of any Egyptian government or governor
 * 4)   The ruler Mohamed Ali pasha decided to remove him self from Ottman control and claim egypt for himself
 * 5)   The ruler invasion was during the time when he was a loyal to Ottmans
 * 6)   The ruler had his own well trained Albanian forces and Some of the Mamluks  to support him but to my understanding he may be surely used Egyptian men later in some of his campaigns.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Allamiro (talk • contribs) 00:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. They are not in dispute. The question we are determining is “what do the sources refer to this topic as.” The sources I used call the invasion “Egyptian”. You have not produced any sources that call it “Turkish.” You have produced one source that calls it “Turco-Egyptian” so my proposal is that we change the title to this, thanks Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)