Talk:Egypt/Archive 1

message: They mention that there are Europeans in Egypt such as Greek, Italian and Armenian. Armenian? Last time I check Armenia was in Middle East, east of Turkey to be precise. Which means that if you are from Middle East, you are European, which in turns means that everyone in Egypt is European.  Well, one may say  that Armenians speak an Indo European language. Iranians, Kurds, Pakistani, Hindu, Pashtuns, and other non Europeans speak Indo European languages. Are they all Europeans too? I don't know why people even such nonsense.
Hey, I really think this article is written badly. "Every green plant is watered by the nile" sounds really stupid. And that one picture of people with the caption "egyptians are one of the most diverse peoples in the middle east" sounds stupid. Its probably some guy who wanted to post a picture of his friends in wikipedia.
: Please feel free to improve the article.  This is a wiki, after all. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt 

message: Err.. I don't know how active this page is, but I made a stubby article on Ayman Nour. It would be cool if more knowledgable parties than myself took a look and filled it out a bit? Graft 16:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayman Nour 

message: In recent bank-and-forth vandalism and reverts, we appear to have lost al-ˁArabiyah from the sidebar and the adjective "Arab" from "Arab Republic of Egypt". I'm assuming that was vandal-doings (think I'd have seen something in the papers if Egypt had changed its name) so I'm putting it back. Perhaps someone who watches this article a bit more closely than I do could check it for other inconsistencies over the past month or so? Thanks, –Hajor 23:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full name lost in recent rounds of vandalism 

message: It certainly is spam, have a look at the sheer bulk of the anon's contribs. It might be a useful link despite that, but it should at least go in the external links. However, I don't think it's an appropriate link. It's an interview with an author who wrote about egypt. That's about as tangential as it gets. The external links are supposed to provide additional information about egypt that are relevant yet not contained in this article, which I don't think the interview counts as. The fact that it's audio instead of text doesn't help either in my opinion. see also --W(t) 07:26, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
:It's an interesting interview on an interesting work, about interesting discoveries. But point taken. El_C 18:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  audio link 

message: I'm traveling to egypt soon and i wonder if anyone had any recomdations of what to do, see and stay away from. Going on a 2 week tour (down to luxor and going to Aswan, Red Sea and cario. Making our way up to Cario by a cruise) any suggestions are welcome. tks 
Loughlin 16:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traveling to egypt 

message: Anyone volunteering to wikify the table would be greatly appreciated. I've written a tool to translate the Infobox template to one in Afrikaans, as I'm busy populating the list of countries in the Afrikaans wikipedia. Unfortunately the Egypt article doesn't use the standard template yet, making my translation tool break. I could do it, but I'll rather move on to Equitorial Guineau - the Afrikaans wikipedia needs all the help it can get :) Greenman 21:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify 

message: From what I can tell the entire CIA World Factbook article has been lifted word-for-word and put here.  I think that's all considered public domain, but it'd be nice to at least cite them as a source.
:Done (though I personally wouldn't have said it was "ripped off"). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article ripped off 

message: The second paragraph of the "Demographics" section says "the Egyptians are a fairly homogenous people" and then a few sentences later says that "The bulk of Modern Egyptian society are heterogeneous." Which is it? The entire paragraph really should be cleaned up; I'm led to think that someone out there is fixated on race and/or ethnicity (this may not be the case at all, but that's the impression I'm given). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found nearly the same paragraph at Demographics of Egypt, but without the contradictions, grammatical mistakes, etc. I have pasted in this paragraph plus one other. I also removed the  tag. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics: contradiction 

message: For the person who keeps on posting Coptic as an "other widely spoken language", I got news: Coptic is a dead language as indicated on the coptic page. As for Armenian, the number of Armenians barely exceeds 100,000 out of 78,000,000 people, and hence it DOES NOT qualify as a widely spoken language.
----
Uh, I believe Coptic isn't dead. Maybe it does qualify.
----
"the number of Armenians barely exceeds 100,000" !!! This is a very big number of a minority in Egypt!
Please give me your source .. it will be the very interesting info for me! Thank you 84.36.6.153 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  COPTIC IS A DEAD LANGUAGE 

message: * to prevent confusion with the page on Ancient Egypt, I have moved this article. Pure inuyasha
* I neglected to mention two other reasons. Firstly, I think it's important to point out that egypt is an arab nation. secondly, I think plain "egypt" is incorrect, sice the modern A.R.E. Extends far beyond the borders of historical egypt. Pure inuyasha 00:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Moved 

message: Why does this article need such a huge section on "military"? It is one of the few countries to do so, I recommend it is reduced, but I know if I were to do so people like those arguing about troop sizes would object...—the preceding comment is by 85.18.136.106 - 1 April 2006: Please sign your posts!
:I'm glad someone else noticed this. This section is giving the article an unnecessarily militaristic bend. There is already a separate article on the topic, so please feel free to truncate. — Zerida 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MILITARY 

message: The article is not referenced enough, especially the History section.
The article takes an Egyptian POV on controvercial subjects: 
* the population is presented as descendants of ancient Egyptians without proper justification or mention of opposing views; 
* 1973 war is treated as a political and military success, with no mention of opposing views;
* human rights questions are not addressed appropriately (for example, article mentions increased freedom in criticizing the president, but fails to describe any past or present problems with freedom of speech);
* Expulsion of Jewish population is glanced over, etc.
Some of the examples above also illustrate that the article is not broad enough.
However, it is well written and illustrated, and shows promise. 12.15.136.26 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with number 3. There have been previous attempts at revision, but I think the History and Politics sections need more work as they are still reading like pro-government propaganda. Number 4; earlier today I wikified the part about Egyptian Jews to link to History of the Jews in Egypt, where the situation is described there. I don't think the article needs too much detail about that topic if there is a separate article about it. Finally, number 1—again! The "controversy" is detailed in Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians, and already it's a poorly written article. Meanwhile, I'm going to add references to what's already mentioned about the population. Whatever information or sources added about that particular topic need to be part of peer-reviewed academic scholarship, not representing fringe opinions — Zerida 00:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: I think something needs to be added about Napoleon Bonaparte's campaign in Egypt from 1798-1799.  He did a lot of things for science and the arts while in Egypt and the history section makes no mention of his name or anything he or the savants accomplished on their expedition.  The history skips the years from about 1600 to mid-1800's.(comment ends)
I agree French presence affected Egypt quite strongly even more so than British presence I think, our passports used to be French and Arabic, our consitution, law school was available in French before English. Zakaria mohyeldin 03:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoleon 

message: The CIA Factbook was recently updated  to reflect the most recent estimate of Muslim and Christian population figures in Egypt, giving 90% and 10% respectively. I am therefore changing back accordingly. — Zerida 19:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim/Christian population figures 

message: What's with the exclusion of Egypt as a Middle Eastern state? Nearly every media outlet, Egyptian leaders and people themselves, and publications place Egypt in the region. Kind of important to mention it at the beginning and yet some anon keeps deleting it. Tombseye 00:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt is  universally placed in the Middle East 

message: If you want to include that, link it at the bottom of the page, but don't take up a relatively big part of the main page with an article that is not integral to the topic of Egypt ITSELF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johndoe0307 (talk • contribs) .
:I've included a much shortened version.  It is important to note the rights of religious minorites in Egypt in the section on religion. -- Jeff3000 02:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persecution of Bahaais 

message: In the Egyptian Holidays section there is no mention of Sham el neseem and no mention of Christian holidays except Christmas can someone fix that.Zakaria mohyeldin 03:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life in Egypt 

message: Should the "3200 BC" really be kept up there? The dates of Egypt's history that far back are pretty variable AFAIK.
Yom 16:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Establishment date" 

message: I have no sources right now, but the name Egypt might very well be derived from Greek Αίγυπτος. The etymology is Αιγαίο(=Aegean sea)+ύπτιος(=below), which means "below the Aegean_Sea".
62.1.129.116 14:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the source for the statement from Hebrew.  -- Jeff3000 19:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name. 

message: If those don't convince you it's because you don't want to see.  And there are plenty others.  Try the links.  Try doing some serious reading on the subject instead of the usual whitewashed pap.  The contemporaneous and archaeological evidence were certainly definitive for Herodotus, Petrie and several others far more learned than either of us.  Ignoring the clear historical record because it takes you out of your intellectual comfort zone isn't advisable if you're really interested in the truth.  Further, what?  No comment on the book review?  You haven't responded that at all.  It's clear you aren't serious about this discussion, with your insistence on the oversize image and childish nastiness.  You don't even sign your posts.  You're simply stubbornly, pigheadedly stating an opinion without foundation.  A complete waste of my time, a complete waste of space.  deeceevoice 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion?? You mean the one you're having with yourself? About a fiction novel? And serious?!! Hardly anyone on this site takes you seriously. But you're always good for a laugh or two.
A "fiction novel"?  Aside from the obvious redundancy, you clearly didn't read the excerpt -- or failed to comprehend that it is the "true story of a year in the life of a 19-year-old Upper Egyptian."  I've corrected the link, so that you may access it yourself -- if you care to.
Further, I'm afraid your ignorance is showing.  No one with any credibility has tried to maintain that Ramses II was anything other than a black African; he was Nubian, for God's sake.  The pigment must have worn away from the specimen in the photograph.  Further evidence of Ramses's ethnic identity (though not needed) is his profile, which is classic Africoid:  facial prognathism and a receding chin line (like that of King Tut).  I invite you to also check out a link to a depiction of Ramses at Abu-Simbel. Note the face, wide across the cheekbones, broad nose and full lips. Here's another. I also direct you to a PBS website, "Black Kingdoms of the Nile."  Honestly, I'm embarrassed for you.  (I'd blush beet red if I could.)  You need to do some reading!  deeceevoice 15:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Ramses II was anything other than a black African; he was Nubian, for God's sake."ROFLOL! (unsigned post)
Uh, reread the sentence.  And an important self-correction on my part.  While Abu-Simbel is in Nubia, Ramses II was not Nubian -- though I'd always assumed he was.  The evidence presented, as well as the commonly accepted scholarship stand.  And, yes.  You need to pick up a book and open your mind.  deeceevoice 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: :I have added a modern image of darker skinned (non-Nubian) Egyptian kids to the demographics article. There is also a lighter skinned Egyptian in the sub-section, so I think this is a fair way to show the diversity of Egypt's population. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 20:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm reverting it. I can't find the original source of the picture at the moment, but I happen to have seen it before and it is certainly of mostly Nubian and, if I recall correctly, Sudanese children. Besides, this article is not going to turn into another battlefield for every person wanting to make a point about the "race" of the Egyptians. The pictures as they are are representative of the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian population. Take it to the controversy page. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 21:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the photo, Yom.  If this was taken of children living in Egypt, it doesn't matter whether they're Nubian, or possibly Sudanese, or not.  (Anwar Sadat was himself half Sudanese.)  The article mentions all such groups as living in, and comprising the population of, Egypt. I've restored it.  I've also left a note on Yom's talk page asking about the source and more specific info re the photo's copyright status.  As with all photos where such information is in question, it will be deleted automatically within a certain period of time unless the info is provided.  Unless and until then, there's absolutely no reason to delete it. deeceevoice 22:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're okay with both, but if the children are refugees, it should probably be noted as I did on the Azeris article where we had similar issues with photo accuracy. Ultimately, we removed pictures of kids who were deemed as possibly non-representative of the population and went with street scenes, famous people and a picture of refugees (specifically noted) from Nagorno. Now no one has any disputes as we've included a wide range as that page's history of disputes makes this page look like a love fest. If the issue of 'dark' Egyptians is a problem, I'd go with street scenes or include all types of Egyptians. The two extremes (very European and very African) are in the minority in Egypt (such as blondes which are rare, although blue eyes pop up more than I expected). Many Egyptians who would be considered 'black' in the US are found throughout Egypt and in the streets, govt. etc. A street scene would thus give you a wide range and avoid these conflicts. If this article's writing improves and you get a shot at featured article status, people will ask what exactly each photo is of etc. Street scenes with people near landmarks or streets people know exist are, on the other hand, simply taken as acceptable unless they have copyright issues. Just a few suggestions as you have two different views here. We, in the US, have looked at Egypt often through stereotypes, whereas Egyptians have a way of looking at themselves which can also be somewhat idealized. Tombseye 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Egyegy, please provide a rationale for your deletion. They're not refugees. I will place them in the article again but without displacing the Egyptian farm image this time. You've offered no resistance to the image other than it being of refugees (which it is not), but you reverted after I made it clear that it wasn't, so I can only logically assume that you wish to keep the farm picture. I doubt this is the case from your comments to deeceevoice above and pure intuition, but until you provide some reasoning, there's no reason to delete the image. I am reinserting the picture for now, but I will accept a deletion of the picture if you provide a good rationale. If you do not, however, then it seems like you're just POV pushing (note, I'm not accusing of that now), which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 03:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not dignify this blatant and deliberate attempt at misrepresentation. You are the last person to speak about POV pushing when the ONLY reason you uploaded this picture was to shove your POV in our face and totally insult our intelligence, when anyone who knowns anything of any kind about the Egyptian people knows that these kids in no way whatsoever reflect the people accurately. If you insert it again and I will delete it again. Egyegy 03:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop being so hostile and assume good faith. Wikipedia is a collaboration to create an encyclopedia, not a place to fight. I am including the image because I feel as if it shows the diversity of Egypt's population, which is important for a section on demographics. As I said in my edit summary, I'm not (and neither is the picture, which was conveniently placed next to the section on Upper Egypt) implying that Egypt is generally that dark (which seems to be what you're taking offense to), and I'm not insulting your intelligence. The kids are not meant to represent the Egyptian population as a whole but rather simply a segment of it. If you'd like you can add a picture of lighter Egyptian kids (perhaps urban to contrast the fellah) in the beginning of the section (and move the farm image to economy, where I think it's better placed), and then we can have the Upper Egyptian image next to the Upper Egyptian section and the fellah next to the fellah section to show the entirety of the Egyptian population. If Armenians are indeed a significant foreign population as I've heard, then it may even be appropriate to include a small image of them towards the bottom of the section or wherever it's addressed. The overall goal is not to present that image as representing all of Egypt but rather to use it to portray a certain part of Egypt elsewhere not portrayed and to demonstrate the full diversity of the country. I'm not going to reinsert the image this instant since you're so adamantly dismissive of it, but I do expect a polite and thought out reply. If you can't provide one with a good reason not to include the image attached (again, not demonstrating the entirety of the population - we can include some sort of description making not of that, or it can be noted in the section we have a scholarly source on this), then I'm afraid there's no legitimate reason not to include the image. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, no reason to accuse me of some agenda here. I did assume given the comments above that if Zerida claims to have seen it elsewhere and they are SUDANESE, then they would be refugees or immigrants as opposed to Nubians who are natives. Egypt has a large refugee population as does Pakistan, Albania, France, the US, etc. I wouldn't even argue to remove the picture, but if they do turn out to be refugees it's fine to keep them as it does reflect a segment of the population, but you'd have to note that. Or that they're Nubians or more importantly self-identify as Nubians as opposed to just Egyptians of Upper Egypt. That's all I meant. And no, it's not easy to make suggestions for pictures clearly, but the point is to not push to have your own way, but to compromise if possible or at least look for compromises. Thus, a street scene typical of Egypt would show the diversity you're looking for anyway and if the pictures can't be verified, then they will, at some point, be taken down. Not by me, but by an admin. I've had lots of pictures taken down that I thought were okay, but some editors, RIGHTLY, told me that pictures of the general population were preferable because there was no way to be accused of POV pushing, which is true. This can include putting up the most attractive people or controversial nationalist figures or idealized segments of the population or whatever. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down and discuss a compromise. There's no reason not to include all the different types of Egyptians and to do so with verifiable sources that don't violate copyrights. That's what you should all be going for. Now whichever pictures can't be verified should be replaced with pictures that can. The previous picture of the girl looked okay to me for example. Some recognizable people like Sadat, Boutros-Ghali, Mubarak would also probably go well with the article. You don't have to keep the pictures you have as with a little effort you can probably get pictures that people can agree upon. A street scene could do just that. Tombseye 06:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid that the imageshack page owner did not own that image, so it's licensing does not work and will be deleted. I still feel that some image reflective of Egypt's diversity should be included. Again, not implying that all Egyptians are dark-skinned, nor that they are all light-skinned with blonde hair and blue eyes. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I have a solution to this problem. Most country articles that are featured articles don't particularly go into posting numerous pictures of the diversity of its population, but rather have general shots of cities and relevant matters. See Canada, India, Nepal, Hong Kong or South Africa. Thus, the current selection with the farmer and entertainers is actually enough there. What you might want to do then is to put pictures of Sadat and Boutros-Ghali as they would be relevant to the article and show the diversity of Egypt. Now the place to note and illustrate the wider issue of diversity in Egypt's population would actually be Demographics of Egypt where you can put up a wider range of people from African types to European types etc. to the more common fellahin. Given the space limitations these are really the only options available. Tombseye 20:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nubian 

message: Youssra's image got tagged again , so I'm replacing it with one of another celebrity. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 08:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youssra 

message: FYI, I just filed a formal complaint against the user deeceevoice in the arbitration case that was brought against her by a groups of users for her unruly behavior, vandalism, and frequent racist comments (now talk about blatant racism !) Egyegy 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote of your "seemingly" racist edit warring against the inclusion of a photo of a dark-skinned Egyptian in the article.  If you have another reason for your apparently completely illogical opposition to representing the diversity of the Egyptian people, then I'm open to reading it.  In fact, I've invited you here to explain yourself.  Instead, you've offered nothing but personal attacks and nastiness.  And you filed a complaint against me?  That's pretty amusing.  deeceevoice 09:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deeceevoice 

message: Substituted at 20:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment