Talk:Religion in Egypt

message: Starting a discussion here to head off some of the edit warring going on. As it stands, I think I'm actually inclined to agree with , if not their tone or specific line of argumentation. While Arab Barometer is a generally reliable source, the citation here is a link to a download page for their most recent survey of the Middle East. However, rather than reporting interpretable results, what we have here is a largely unformatted spreadsheet which I honestly do not trust us as Wikipedia editors to be able to interpret directly, and I believe that attempts to do so constitute original research. Pinging other involved editors  and . signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we can both agree that this article needs a reliable, self-identification based main source, and I believe that the Arab Barometer is the best source we've got here. It doesn't seem biased and it is in between with the 5% of christians the authorities report and the 15% the church reports. I think 10% is a good compromise. Similar percentages are found in the 2016 Afro Barometer. The page redirects to a download page where you can download the SPSS dataset you can analyze with SPSS or other programs (for example the free SAV viewer I personally used with this dataset). You can check the factuality of the data reported at the online data analysis tool the arab barometer website provides here ( https://www.arabbarometer.org/survey-data/data-analysis-tool/ ). If you select the Wave V for Egypt and then the question Religious sect you will basically find the data I reported in the pie chart. I preferred to use the SPSS dataset since the 0.1% of Atheist is apparently split into sects, which is a survey error and the online analysis tool didn't separate unspecified Muslim with unspecified christian denominations. If you got any other questions, I'm happy to solve your doubts. FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize with your concerns about needing more reliable sources, but I still feel like providing a source that requires a reader to feed data into an analysis tool is falling short of verifiability standards (although I did find this new link that you've provided here to be relatively easy to use, and a marked improvement over the link provided in the citation when I started this discussion). I'm still undecided as to what to do with this source right now, but I think our long term solution should be to provide a reference to a prose overview of the Arab Barometer survey once it one published (which will almost certainly happen sooner or later). signed, Rosguill talk 19:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add it again, since I don't really think they'd make a report on every country including the detailed statistics on every question including cross sections. I think what we've got here is one of the most reliable sources at the moment, such a shame they've removed it. FrankCesco26 (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be willing to format a citation that includes both the data set and the visualization tool? signed, Rosguill talk 22:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, tell me what you think. -FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think the citation is adequate as currently formatted, but the pie chart graphic should probably be moved below the Religion in Egypt and Life in Egypt sidebars (I'm going to try to do that myself shortly). I'm also not sure what ".nfd" stands for, and the "Just a Muslim" entry should maybe be rephrased in a more encyclopedic manner (e.g. "Muslim, no denomination specified"). More importantly though, the demographics section should be rewritten to take into account the availability of this new survey. signed, Rosguill talk 20:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've moved the pie chart down. Unfortunately, due to the amount of images and sidebars, placing the pie chart in the "Demographics" section makes the chart show up lower down on the article. I think this is preferable to having it at the top, but the article could probably stand to have its images reorganized. signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Actually, one concern that I do have is that the pie chart visualization provided in the citation does not include the level of detail that we report in the article. This is a problem. One solution would be to simply report the simplified 90%/10% split used in the visualization. signed, Rosguill talk 22:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We can sure do add more information in the article, the same as reported in the pie chart if hopefully the article isn't reverted every time I add the chart. What are we going to do? Everytime someone does a edit newly registered possibly sockpuppets revert the article... FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We can request for page protections, and if need be take offenders to administrator intervention. The only reason that I haven't initiated this process already is because I don't think we've quite reached a consensus for what should be in the article. I think that using the non-denominational reporting from the visualization for the pie chart is an acceptable compromise, but I think that ultimately there is a valid policy-backed concern behind refusing to include the fully detailed chart from the reverted edit, even if the editors articulating their opposition have done so in less-than-civil manners. signed, Rosguill talk 20:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the pie chart being detailed is the problem. As I could understand from the explanations for their reverts, they argue that the share of christians may be higher than 10%, which is understandable as we don't have any unbiased census or large scale survey to provide any completely reliable percentage. Putting the pie chart in that way might in a way put this source above the others, even if other sources are mere estimations not based on any self-identification approach. At the end, I believe that the Arab Barometer survey, even if it's based on a 2.500 respondents sample which is not low but not even robust, is the most reliable source to date, and provides important data (for example for Shafi'i or Catholics) that any other source could not provide. I think that the article should be rewritten or changed for the good in order to make it clearer. At this actual state, it's a mess of percentages thrown away with a needlessly high amount of sources lumped together. -FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I was unclear: upon reviewing the source again following the most recent revert, it is my opinion that we shouldn't include the fine grained denomination data in the pie chart because the only available source to support it is the raw data sheet, which I still have OR and verifiability concerns about. The other editors reverting edits are in a "broken clock strikes right twice" scenario, IMO. However, I would lend my !vote to form a consensus to include the 90/10 pie chart which is supported by the visualization tool, and to edits to the prose that don't require us to pick through the data set. signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab Barometer and religious census 

message: Can a administrator please look at the source it doesn’t say 10 million Egyptians are atheist/agnostic while the Kent university and the Arab barometer study don’t say non religious is the same as being atheist/agnostic and the word irreligious is not even used this is POV pushing. 213.107.51.175 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone over the sources in question and rewritten claims to more accurately reflect their content. Previously, the content in the Wikipedia article consistently misrepresented upper bound estimates and dubious reporting (as described in the RS) as  actual accurate counts. N.b. although I am an admin, this is not the kind of editing that requires an admin, and my opinion here only has as much weight as any other editor's would. signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, Rosguill, for chiming in. You have indeed made the statement from The 2017 US report more precise in your first edit, but your second edit doesn't seem more accurate, I'll get to that below. But first, a few remarks. The user 213.107.51.175 (who is the same as 213.104.126.48 and 213.107.2.41) keeps removing well sourced content from WP:RS and erroneously saying that the sources are not saying this and that, which is very weird, since evidently the user can read! And the user has been told several times that what is stated does indeed exist in the sources, here and on the page "Irreligion in Egypt" (where the user is also making the same edits), but the user keeps insisting and even called it a "lie" in the last edit here (which is not very civil), this is, again, very weird, because evidently the user can read, as can all of us, and as can you, Rosguill, when you made it more precise, let's see if the user will call you a "liar" and revert your edit. The user also keeps copy-pasting that same edit summary over and over, the user is even using that edit summary here on the talk page, instead of saying anything of substance. It is tiring really to deal with users like 213.107.51.175, who keep insisting on their erroneous claims in a facile manner hoping that they might fool other editors, which never works on Wikipedia, and such things are very easily checked.The user keeps trying to interpret "not religious", which is typical WP:OR; the user should note that these terms are used in reports and studies that are precisely about nonbelievers in Egypt, and not some random use. For instance, the Kent university study is titled "Understanding Unbelief in Egypt", and states at the outset, in the "Preface" and "Introduction", that this is about unbelief in Egypt, and many atheists and agnostics were interviewed, where the statements from them are the crux of the study. The "Arab Barometer" report is about that too. To say that this and that report "don't say X is Y" or "don't mean" that and this, is to essentially say nothing and is a meagre attempt at WP:OR-ing well sourced content out of the article. All the terms used in both the study and the report are in the context of nonbelief. The Kent university study even goes into the details of the bodily acts that leaving a particular religion entails, and how some Egyptians try to hide these acts in fear of prosecution. But, talk-page explanation and clarification aside, the user is making a very poor attempt at OR:interpretation, as has been mentioned in the edit summaries, and as long as what is said in the sources is accurately stated in the article, the user 213.107.51.175 (who is the same as 213.104.126.48 and 213.107.2.41) cannot just remove well sourced content from WP:RS, and tell us that we are "lying", this is insulting to everyone, not just to the editors that reverted the user's erroneous claims; the user's edits have been reverted several times. Noting also that the user's edits are nothing but removing well sourced content from WP:RS, and it is approaching vandalism at this point, which I believe should eventually prompt a filing at the AN/I if the user persists; as it stands right now, it is at the very least disruptive editing. Besides, perhaps the user should learn what "POV pushing" is before throwing it around in the edit summary? It is not hard to guess why the user doesn't like the statements from the sources, but a statement that the user doesn't like is not automatically "POV pushing"; accurate and well sourced content is not POV pushing. The user should not try to heedlessly quote the guidelines.As to the user's OR claims about reliability, it has been mentioned to the user in an edit summary that "reliable" on Wikipedia is evaluated in accord with the Wikipedia guidelines, not with what the user 213.107.51.175 thinks is reliable; this is, again, a typical WP:OR attempt about what the source means or the intention of the source.Now as for your second edit, Rosguill, which is revision 1074004447, I don't think your rewording is more accurate, specially the last part of it, you have changed the statement "The study states that there is reportedly a tremendous increase in the amount of nonbelievers and atheists, and that there is noticeably an increase in the number of Egyptian youth coming out for nonbelieving and publicly testifying they have left the faith" to the statement "Egyptian news media has reported on a massive increase in the amount of nonbelievers and atheists following the the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, and particularly following the ouster of Mohammed Morsi in 2013, although the accuracy of this reporting is unclear". The first statement, before your edit, is an actual word for word quote from the study (from two paragraphs), where I left out the part about the 2011 Egyptian Revolution because that part is stated with another source in the following fifth paragraph in the subsection "Atheism and agnosticism", so there is no need to repeat it. So, since the first statement, before your rewording, is more accurate in following the source, and "reportedly" is to indicate that the study itself is quoting the media, this first statement should be the one retained here, whereas the part "and particularly following the ouster of Mohammed Morsi in 2013" should be appended to the part that already exists in the fifth paragraph, which reads "... have become increasingly vocal online since the Egyptian revolution of 2011". As for the part "although the accuracy of this reporting is unclear", this part doesn't reflect what is stated in the study, the study is making a remark to the reader saying "whereas we have to be cautious to uncritically reproduce this media frame, it is a highly interesting contestation that enables us to examine the importance and nature of unbelief", which is not a statement about the clarity of the media report, it is a remark to the reader that the study is not uncritically reproducing this media frame, and it should not be incorporated in the article here as a statement on the media quoted. So, I'll make the following edits: I'll restore the first statement, i.e.: "The study states that there is reportedly a tremendous increase in the amount of nonbelievers and atheists, and that there is noticeably an increase in the number of Egyptian youth coming out for nonbelieving and publicly testifying they have left the faith", which is, again, a word for word quote from the study (from two paragraphs). I will make the aforementioned appending in the fifth paragraph, so that the statement "... have become increasingly vocal online since the Egyptian revolution of 2011" becomes the statement "... have become increasingly vocal online since the Egyptian revolution of 2011 and particularly after the ouster of Morsi in 2013". I will also add the 2017 population estimate of Egypt in the statement from the 2017 US report, since it is stated in the that report right before the numbers, and gives the reader a clearer picture, I'll add "concerning Egypt", since the report is exclusively about Egypt. I'll also make these same edits on the page Irreligion in Egypt, and hopefully the user 213.107.51.175 does not heedlessly edit-war with misleading, erroneous edit summaries. 197.38.24.106 (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your interpretation of the second edit and the change proposed here. The study's warning about not reproducing the media's frame is enough to support a statement of uncertainty regarding the veracity of the phenomenon, and the "reportedly" phrasing is not sufficiently clear in explaining to the reader where the reports are coming from. We need to fully attribute the claim to Egyptian media, as the source does, particularly if you want to use its wording of "tremendous". signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and made further changes, as the general organization of that section left a lot to be desired. I think that with my changes the section is now much more straightforward to read and follows the cited sources more closely. Glancing at Irreligion in Egypt, that whole article needs to be reorganized as currently its lead is far, far too long relative to the length of the rest of the article. Trying to coordinate changes across two articles at once is going to be a mess if we still have disagreements, so I'd like the dust to settle a bit here first before I go to edit that article. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your edits seem fine to me, I have only minor suggestions. I'm going to create a new talk page section to discuss the organization of the subsection "Atheism and agnosticism", because I don't like the misleading title of this talk page section. I'll also propose minor additions. 197.38.24.106 (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation of numbers of atheists and false figures by IP 

message: I was quite surprised by this article that none of the Ancient Egyptian religion has survived or had an influence on the current population and religions. I then had to find the articles Decline of ancient Egyptian religion and Islamization of Egypt to understand what happened. So I thought maybe this article could have a brief description of the Christianization and Islamization events and their respective wikilinks and timeframes? —Arthurfragoso (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like an excellent addition, and would be in line with other country-religion articles such as Religion in Germany signed, Rosguill talk 15:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the article have a bit of history of religion in the region? 

message: I will go by point by point as my last edit was undone I removed this as it was dishonest to put it here as according to wave V or wave 5 of the Arabbarometer survey only 0.1% of egyptians said they were atheist while 9.6% said they were christian and 90.4% said they were muslim here is way to access the survey go to wave V or 5 select egypt then type religion https://www.arabbarometer.org/survey-data/data-analysis-tool/ LionAjk (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the issue is the differing results of the "What is your religion" question vs. "Level of religiosity". You are correct that only 0.1% of Egyptians respond that they are atheist, but the "Level of religiosity" does state, as affirmed in the U of Kent source, that about 10% describe themselves as "not religious".  I'm not sure the current prose captures this nuance adequately, although it's worth noting that the U of Kent source discusses this phenomenon in detail and could likely be used to flesh out descriptions of the state of people's beliefs in Egypt (particularly in "Chapter 2 Debating the Nature of Unbelief in Egypt"). Additionally, as the Arab Barometer source is WP:PRIMARY in nature whereas the U of Kent article is secondary in nature, we should prefer the latter as a source over attempting to interpret survey results ourselves. signed, Rosguill talk 15:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I think a better way forward would be to rewrite the claim to better describe the U of Kent study's claims regarding levels of religiosity, as it is relevant to the general topic of the section, phrased so as to better represent the U of Kent study's claim and clarify the distinction between "not religious" and "atheist" in its research. signed, Rosguill talk 15:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement needed for my edit on removing a source that is misplaced and misleading. 

message: As stated on the Al-Azhar University Wikipedia page, it is a Sunni Islamic university. And since Shi'a Islam is very different from Sunni Islam, it is normal for Shi'a Muslims not to be eligible for it, as Shi'a Islamic laws dramatically differ from Sunni Islamic ones.
So a Shi'a Muslim attending Al-Azhar would pretty much be like a Hindu regularly attending prayers in a Christian Catholic church. You imagine that. nutzboi (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Shi'a being barred from admission to Al-Azhar University. 

message: This is deliberate misinformation and bias by removing my edit when I have 2 recent reliable sources that back my edits information. That is wrong not right when there is proof to support my edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saynotobiasim (talk • contribs) 
:Saynotobiasim, while I personally have no opinion either way here, you need to establish why the current note regarding demographics is insufficient. The note, which is included in the second-to-last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, reads:
::
:Could you explain why you find this description insufficient? signed, Rosguill talk 00:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Saynotobiasim's comment

message: Hello I have explained the reason of my edit and why as the there are sources or references that back up my information and edit. Which is clearly evident with recent returnable researchers and conformed and backed by google culture which states 30 million world wide and researcher and analyst stating 10 to 25%. The whole of the Middle East is 5% which equates to 20 plus million and most are from Egypt. That is enough proof and facts with recent sources as proof as these old sources can be wrong due method or inaccurate. However, I would understand your point of view if it was my own information without any references or sources to back up my edit but that is not the case with my information such as google culture backing my edit as a sources as well. Saynotobiasim (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , , you are expected to hash out your disagreement here before continuing editing. You're both in violation of WP:3RR right now, but blocking both of you for 24 hours would just kick the can down the road. Further edit warring will result in blocks. If you reach an impasse in discussion, you should escalate the discussion to WP:3O, WP:DRN, or WP:RfC. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edit has recent information to back my edit 

message: "In Egypt, Muslims and Christians share a common history, national identity, ethnicity, race, culture, and language." - Is this meant to be a joke? Up until 2014 it was legal to hunt the Coptic Christians. Only in 2014 was it replaced by Association Football as the national sport. 2A02:14F:1F2:7D52:0:0:59E0:D087 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religions of Egypt