This is an archive of past discussions about Egypt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
MANF : it was egypt's capital starting from 29895 b.c. it was egypt's capiyal for 535 years later. and it was all destroyed, and nothing left from it but some stones ans some statues.
TIBA : it was egypt's capital starting from 2160 b.c. to 1660 b.c. it was egypt's capital for 500 year, the city was not completely destroyed, there is still some remains at luxur.
ALEXANDRIA : in the year 332 b.c. ALEXANDER the geat came to egypt and built Alexandria and made it egypt's capital and it was egypt's capital starting from 331 b.c. to 641 a.b. for almost 972 years. Alexandria was taken from the name Alexander
CAIRO : it is egypt's current capital
Black Named (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Black Named . . .
UAR
Maybe somebody should add something about this episode in Egyptian history from 1958-61: the United Arab Republic with Syria and then Yemen, i think. Or does it deserve its own page?70.22.145.237 (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
External links
I'm trying to get a general list of the best links to use for each country. ODP (Open Directory Project) has all the major websites I think (including that business list that was just removed from External links). The others I think are particularly valuable are World Factbook, GovPubs, and the constantly-updated list of Chief of State and Cabinet Members. Then we have the wiki links such as Atlas, Travel and sisterlinks, of course the main official government sites, and the Perry-Castaneda map link. Anyone have any other favorites? In the case of Egypt, I think the links now listed under Other should be in Further Reading or moved to the History of Egypt article. Thoughts? Flatterworld (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"Military" section - why is 85% of this devoted to Israeli claims about Egyptian military?
Can we please use info from sources on national military strengths, rather than op-eds in Israeli newspapers and public pronouncements by Israeli politicians? This is ridiculous. <eleland/talkedits> 12:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Very much seconded. The whole section is devoted to claims in Haertz and Jerusalem post!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.225.151 (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I too doubt the IDF is a reliable source for information on the Egyptian military. I made some changes, so is it any better now? Astronaut (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Official Languages
Who said that English or French is a de facto language of Egypt , That's completely ignorant because
ONLY SOME OF educated class know SOME English OR french not all of the country , and Especially french is almost not known between Egyptians or very rare
I insist that the one who write that not even visited Egypt!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3d vector (talk • contribs) 10:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Last time I visited Egypt, all the traffic was driving down the right-hand side of the road. The article is correct. Astronaut (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Population estimate
So, this article estimates the population to be 76 millions as of march 2009, while the Egyptians article estimates it as 83 million in 2008. Shouldn't wikipedia use a one reliable source in both articles or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.226.113 (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Semi-Presidant
Just wanted to make a brief clarification: What does "Semi-Presidant" mean? Egypt is a Republic run by an elected president.
" Egypt is considered[by whom?] to be the leading military power in the Middle East. " I removed this. If somebody wants to add it again: cite it. It was also a peacock sentence; so don't brag: show it (preferably by citing stuff, if you can).
Thanks.
GIT-ER Dun.....In the Religion section of this article (Egypt, as at March 15,2008), states that Christians form 10-20% of the the population. This is a very wide range and is very inaccurate. The reason for this confusion is that the last population count done by the government which included a check for religion was in 1997 at which time christians were 6.5 million. Newer population counts don't include religion checks so the actual number is not known. The only Christian population count that is available is that provided by the church which says that Christians as of 2008 are 16 million which out of 80 million citizens, form 20%. Most people are confused and use old figures till today which gives them a much lower percentage. I hope someone corrects this figure by stating that there is no official religion count but the church according to their independent count claim that it 20% as of 2008.
I cannot see how this can be true. The last check concluded that there are 7 to 8% Christians in Egypt, and about 91% muslims. Hobapotter (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget to look at the sources, Hobapotter. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral to satisfy all (ie, some Christians claim 20% while the CIA World Factbook says it's 10%). Also, there are very few "updated" statistics (or accurate ones for that case), so the "wide range" is not actually too wide considering that.
This is my first ever edit, so I hope it is in the right place,
Under the "Religion" section the article states, "This ruling effectively delegitimizes and forbids practice of all but the three Abrahamic religions".
In my opinion this should state, "This ruling effectively delegitimizes and forbids practice of all religions other than three of the Abrahamic religions".
The reason for this is because it appears to unintentionally imply that all the Abrahamic religions are legitimate in Egypt, however the Baha'i faith is not given the same status in Egypt as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yet is an Abrahamic religion if Abrahamic religions are defined as, "monotheistic faiths that recognize a spiritual tradition identified with Abraham" see wikipedia article "Abrahamic religions" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion which states that the term "Abrahamic religion" is used to refer to the Baha'i faith.
The Egyptian health ministry said on Thursday "That the decision to cull quarter of a million pigs was not a measure against swine flu but a general health measure."
"[2]"--86.29.248.49 (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
--86.29.248.49 (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This needs improving -- there is nothing about the French invasion of 1798 except the bare fact that it happened. I removed a completely illiterate couple of sentences that soemone had inserted here, but I'm not competent to insert the appropriate material -- could someone take this on? Liskeardziz (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Date of Arab Conquest
It says in the article that the Egyptians converted to Islam in 639 C.E. This is a mistake. The Arabs invaded Egypt in 640 C.E., but they didn't secure it until 642 C.E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.36 (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
"Egypt possesses one of the most developed economies in the Middle East"
The English name "Egypt" came via the Latin word Aegyptus derived from the ancient Greek word Aígyptos (Αίγυπτος). The adjective aigýpti, aigýptios was borrowed into Coptic as gyptios, kyptios, and from there into Arabic as qubṭī, back formed into qubṭ, whence English Copt. The term is derived from Late Egyptian Hikuptah "Memphis", a corruption of the earlier Egyptian name Hat-ka-Ptah (ḥwt-k3-ptḥ), meaning "home of the ka (soul) of Ptah", the name of a temple to the god Ptah at Memphis.[7] Strabo provided a folk etymology according to which Aígyptos (Αίγυπτος ) had evolved as a compound from Aigaiou huptiōs (Aἰγαίου ὑπτίως), meaning "below the Aegean".
[url=http://www.allwords.com/word-gift.html]Khon ajándéka[/url]
Gift
Etymology: From [b]gipt[/b], cognate with Old English gift Old English, [b]Äift.[/b]
[i][b]Gipt -> AiGipt -> Gift of Moon -> Aigiptosz[/b][/i]
Old Norse gipt is "something given or received" - this is the source of the /g/ of modern English gift. Old English ȝift meant "payment for a wife", but we know it was replaced or influenced by the Old Norse word, because otherwise the modern word would be yift.
ǥiftiz is from Proto-Indo-European *gʰebʰ-ti- from *gʰebʰ- "to give or receive".
Old Norse: gipt, g��0000">ift
Paradigm: st. F. (i)
Meaning (German): Gabe, Glµck
Compare: gipta (1), gipta (2)
Proto-Germanic: *gefti-, *geftiz
Etymology: germ. *gefti-, *geftiz, st. F. (i), Gabe; s. idg. *ghabh-, V., fassen, nehmen, Pk 407 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.146.141.66 (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
link: http://www.touregypt.net/magazine/modernegyptculture.htm]ha kapta...
The word COPT is an English word taken from the Arabic word Gibt or Gypt. The Arabs after their conquest of Egypt in 641 A.D. called the indigenous population of Egypt as Gypt from the Greek word Egyptos or Egypt.
http://www.mideastweb.org/egypthistory.htmancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote that Egypt is the gift of the Nile /Kagipt/
Under the Holy-sea:
"This is from Wikipedia,
"From ancient Greek (attested in Mycenean) Αίγυπτος, or Aígyptos, which according to Strabo, derived from "Αιγαίου υπτίως" (Aigaiou hyptios - "the land below the Aegean sea"). "
The "gift" is "hiba" in arab, "doro" in greek, "nathan" in hebrew...
The Arab invaders of 649 found well-established Coptic communities and referred to the conquered land as dar El Gibt, 'home of the Egyptians'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.146.141.66 (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
RE locator map
Hello. Recently, an editor added a locator map to this article (with orange highlights and a horrid Mercator projection) which is of a style that is not only inconsistent with the locator maps in most country articles but has done so without any discussion or consensus. This map is disagreeable and not an improvement over the prior one; consequently, I have restored the prior long-standing map. I believe a renewed consensus needs to be demonstrated before the map is changed again. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you in not liking the new orange map. If someone can do something like the following for Egypt, this would be really awesome! . --Lanternix (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. In fact, I have been in discussions with one editor in particular about consistent map formats for continents and countries: this type of map is my favourite for both and harks of the simple green PNG maps which are still commonplace in Wikipedia (see my talk page). I could help out, but time is my issue. Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Great! It would be awesome if you could help. If time is an issue for you, you could give me instructions on how to do it, and I'll try to do it myself. Cheers! --Lanternix (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The modern Egyptian state is not truly a continuation of Ancient Egypt, nor is there any real connection between the civilization of Ancient Egypt and the current Arab Republic which assumed its mantle. When referencing the timeline of the modern state's history in the "established" section on the right hand side of the screen (in the reference box), Wikipedia places the approximate date of the founding of the First Dynasty, but should we not begin with a timeline of the Arab conquests of the Middle Ages? This would make more sense, as there is a continuity of events in this timeline which leads up to the contemporary unification of the Egyptian state as it exists today. Arab Egypt is not Ancient Egypt, as the peoples who existed in Ancient Egypt were not of Arab descent; the modern republic's history begins with the Arab conquest, not before. One would not interchange the Anatolian civilizations of the Bronze Age with modern Turkey, for instance.
hi did you now eygpt was called the head of doom for being mystries legened has it that i f you touched a king without p ermission you hhhhave to di e for more informatoin go on gaia online and press regaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.99.154 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
In several (four?) places, "Nile River" is referenced. In British English, this would be said as "River Nile". I believe that in all places it would not be at all confusing to write simply "Nile", i.e. pipe it, which then makes the point moot. Does anyone agree or disagree?
I appreciate this article is written in American English, but there seems little point in writing something that, even momentarily, throws off readers from other parts of the English-speaking world, especially when the fix seems so simple. The only objection I could see would be that, at least at first use, it should be made clear that the Nile is a river, but although we have to be encyclopaedic I doubt many people would not know that; perhaps only readers who do not have English as their first language and for whom the word is not even close to Nile in their own, but even then, the same applies e.g. to Misr.
It says in the demographics section that Egypt has the highest population of any country in the middle east. Does Pakistan count as the middle east? If so, Pakistan has twice the population of Egypt. Hicksy 1993 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Etymology
Thanks for this section, it is bizarre really as I lived in Cairo a couple of years but it only just occurred to me that I did not know how the word "Egypt" came to be. Two points:
What are those "t3"s doing there? Is that intentional, or is it a transliteration error from e.g. Arabic or in IPA? It looks a bit odd and I don't understand what it is supposed to signify: and if I don't, then perhaps it needs to be made clearer?
Is it worth mentioning that the word "gypsy" is derived from this, i.e. cross reference it? Perhaps on (I believe) the false assumption that "gypsies" (Romany of course) came from Egypt? It is mildly interesting because in Hungarian the same word exists, spelt "dzsipszi" and pronounced the same, and got into Hungarian from English – I imagine this is the same in other European languages, too.
Please don't take this as at all racist, I have several Romany friends, I am just interested in the etymology.
I also wonder what the "t3" is doing there. And I lost the train of thought towards the end, so still don't understand how "Egypt" came to be, beyond the Greek root. Maybe someone can improve that? —Długosz (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Egyptians as Ethnic group
egyptians is a nationality not a a race..so we cant say 99% egytians,0.9% Nubians,... Nubians is also egyptians, and there is nothing called egyptain race but there is alot of races in egypt.(82.201.228.84 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)).
Quoting from the history section of the article, " ...after the 15th century, the threat of military European Crusaders and Central Asian Mongols set the Egpytian system into decline...". Surely this isn't correct? The last crusader action against Egypt's Mamelukes was defeated in 1250 at the Battle of Fariskur. So any 15th Century decline must have other causes - most notably (as the article points out) the effects of the Black Death and subsequently decline under the Ottomans. Is the article trying to point the finger of Islam's late-medieaval decline at the Crusades? If so, it is incorrect. 86.128.225.29 (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The "Arab / Ottoman Occupation" heading really needs to be changed. Egypt became part of the Arabic/Islamic world in 639, and remains so until this day. Claiming it was an occupation is just ludicrous, and if so, it'd have to be the longest occupation in history.
Bir Tawil/ Hala'ib on Maps
Maps in the Egypt article show Bir Tawil, but not the Hala'ib triangle along the Sudanese border as part of Egypt, both Egypt and Sudan claim Hala'ib but neither claim Bir Tawil
I would like to know the reasons of this article's delisting from the good articles criteria. In addition, it would be really helpful to know what is needed to make this article a featured one. It would be great if suggestions and criticisms are mentioned in order to enhance this article's quality. --Mohamed08:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Unicode Hieroglyphs
To anyone having trouble viewing the Unicode Hieroglyph Characters: You must download and install the font "Aegyptus" and view the page in either Firefox or Internet Explorer. Support in the Opera browser is not good at the moment. Wikilackey (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Emergency Law
From the info box: "Semi-presidential republic under Emergency Law (Law No. 162 of 1958)[1] since 1967, except for an 18-month break in 1980."
How does an 18-month break fit into one year? --92.230.100.174 (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The Gift of the Nile is from Herodotus
In the section on climate, the famous phrase The Gift of the Nile is a paraphrase of the Greek historian Herodotus, who called Egypt "the gift of the river". The entire sentence reads as follows:
“For even though a man has not before been told it he can see at once, if he has sense, that the Egypt to which the Greeks sail is land acquired by the Egyptians and a gift of the river.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to include the following line in the religion section please:
There are some researchers that claim the percentage of Christians in Egypt 8.2% among them 6.9% copts [2]. It is also worth noting that the census of 1976 showed that Copts constitute 6.31% of the total population, which was in line with previous censuses.
Mohamed Hassanien Heykal and Anwar el Sadat were not shia muslims...this is speculation from the editor please remove it or allow me to challenge its authenticity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.79.99.69 (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Per the above comment, I removed the following section:
Important figures in the current Egyptian society seem to have been Shia in their faith, but practicing taqiyya or religious dissimulation for their own protection and ambitions. These include president Anwar el-Sadat and former editor of the Al Ahram newspaper, Mohammad Hassanein Heykal, among others. There is no possibility to prove or disprove such claims, given the currently charged, anti-Shia atmosphere in that country.
WP:BLP doesn't apply here (both individuals are deceased), however the paragraph was uncited, and I believe falls into the "extraordinary claims require exceptional sources" category.
Why are 25 citations necessary for the single sentence "There is a large minority of Christians in Egypt, who make up around 10% of the population."? Is this not a little superfluous? --Ahuja91 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
"In land area, it is about the same size as all Central America"
Egypt is actually almost twice the size of Central America. It is more comparible in size to Bolivia or Colombia, a bit smaller. Or slightly larger than Venezuela.
i dont understand why their needs to be over 5 names for the word Egypt, one in Coptic, another in Ancient Egyptian, another in Egyptian Arabic, another in Standard Arabic, another in Arabic, but with a differant font, (same font used for Egyptian Arabic Dialect)... and ofcourse the ENglish one.... i dont think that Ancient Egyptian and Egyptian Arabic should be included in the first part, simply because Ancient Egyptian is mentioned furthur on in the article, and because the Egyptian Arabic is Identical to the Arabic... coptic is neccessary tho, because it describes a large portion of Egyptians, and Arabic, well, because it's the countries language...
what do you guys think??
ill be removing the Egyptian Arabic font for Egypt in Standard Arabic... because im guessing it was done as a mistake to begin with..
Arab League User (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Shia Minority
It's clear that this section is not neutral.
It contradicts all the lines in the same page that come beforehand, and it has also been written without giving any references. So, it's not only a non-neutral issue, but also an invalid argument that contradicts itself, as well as contradicting the other contents (which has been given along with their respective references) in the page.
I guess it's intended to say that the "Shia Minority" and Christians need more rights in Egypt (((than Muslims majority themselves have!))), although the Muslim majority call them: "The lucky minority"... they don't live like minority at all, although they didn't even reached that 10% written in this page!
For example, what country on earth (other than Egypt) gives its citizens a "holy"-day (because the "minority" in such country has some vacation), where all governmental services and schools are closed in such holyday? (e.g. 7th-Jan in each year is a vacation in Egypt for all Egyptians, and, on the other hand, the Christian vacations are celebrated only by Christians and not by the majority, although Christians take vacations with the majority as well).
As an Egyptian who has been born, raised and lived for 34 years in Egypt, I've NEVER met a "Shia" in the streets or in the civil communities... I've NEVER talked to one of them, although I've many, many connections (as a lecturer in 2 universities and a member in other social communities).
"Shia" don't declare themselves easily, and this is not because they don't practice their rights, but because (many of them) don't dare to face "normal" Muslims in Egypt and avoid any kind of logical debates and escape from handling such logical talks; even in media; especially that (many of them) don't satisfy some conditions of being Muslims in the first place! [Al-Azhar itself has many references proving the last statement].
The existence of "Shia" might be increased in Egypt just as a result of Wikipedia allowing such non-authenticated texts be written without greater review (I don't want to say that it's intended!)
Another weak point here is that, it's been mentioned, as an example, that: ["Shia" students are not admitted into the al-Azhar University in Cairo.], which is a very non-logical issue/request to talk about. It seems like some Muslims are asking the Church to be enrolled as Priests! If "Shia"'s request can be considered as one of their "rights" it should also be possible for Christians to ask to be admitted in Al-Azhar university as well, and, consequently, be "Muslim Imams in Masjids/Mosques" without being Muslims... which is a clear contradiction that proves it's not one of the "Shia"'s right to be admitted into Al-Azhar... or at least, it can't be considered as a "minority-resistance" issue.
[Ahmed Ashry(A. Ashry (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC))]
This may be a good start. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/817/sc1.htm—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.52.80.24 (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Who the Fuck wrote this section???? "It is sad . . . " sounds to me like editorializing rather than unbiased reporting of facts which is the mission statement of an encyclopedia. Until Wiki roots out lock, stock, and barrel the anti-Muslim bias that seems to pervade it, it can NEVER be equal to a reputable encyclopedia! Hear That, MR. WALES??????? Fuck all Anti-Muslims.WittyMan1986 (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Immaterial.uk, 19 August 2010
{{editsemiprotected}}
Can someone please tidy the references up here (it's getting unreadable & contains duplicates) :
There is a large minority of Christians in Egypt, who make up around 10% of the population.[85][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][100][101][106][107][108][109][110][111]
According to the recent news of Egypt, there are a lot of problems caused by the christian side in Egypt in which the main church is involved. You have to refer to the stories of "Wafaa Kostantine", "Kamilia Shehata" .. who converted to Islam and then have been punished by the main church etc. I think it is very important to refer to those stories. Also, I think you have to refer to the great authority of money which is owned by few christians in Egypt, what about Sawiras family of business men. Moreover, I think that the part about "coptic persecution" subject to too much exaggeration, please review and refer to authenticated cases where for example building new churchs or renewing old ones was prevented, please give authenticated cases with dates unless the overall neutrality of the document is suspected. In addition, why you did not provide any estimated number of the rate of conversion to Islam and Christianity among Egyptians. What about the external funding sources of christian Egyptians, why nothing is mentioned about that?? 137.226.36.84 (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as persecution of Copts, it has been some hard few situations which was condemned by both Muslims and Christians and i have to mention that the Muslim victims of terrorists in Egypt are way more than Christians
The radical Muslims who attacked Copts are treated by both the Government and people as terrorists whose targets include primarily other Muslims and then Copts. Far from Mr. Rosenthal's charges against Egypt, the Government has been locked in a fight to the finish against the terrorists. The terrorists have been insulated and rendered largely ineffective, save for acts of desperation like the recent attacks on Copts and Muslims. </http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/07/opinion/l-egypt-condemns-persecution-of-its-copts-970085.html>
and one other thing is that the Egyptian Christians are about 6% of the whole Egyptian community and they possess more than 30% of the Egyptian fortune. In the arab region there has been over ten business men in the Forbes richest men of the world, four of them are Egyptians and these four are Christians ,, after all that is it true that Copts are persecuted in Egypt? </http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_The-Worlds-Billionaires_CountryOfCitizen_6.html> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdeer (talk • contribs) 10:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Egypt is the 2nd strongest military power behind Israel in the middle east.. ACCORDING TO ISRAEL.
Is there no FACT about it? Has nobody got numbers on a paper, telling you the real thing?
I for one do not trust Jerusalem Post alone. The whole article is about the speculation of Israeli officials, and therefore it's not relevant to the article. It's about Egypt, and Egypt's military. Not Israel's view on Egypt and Egypt's military. --91.156.224.203 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
In addition, Coptic girls are victims of abduction and forced Islamization by Islamic fundamentalist groups. The Egyptian government is very passive when it comes to human rights of Copts. Some local government officials actually share in these human rights violations against Copts.
A verbatim copy of the text that should replace it:
The religion of Islam on a regular basis permits forcing others, especially Coptic Christians,to embrace it under any circumstances and the Glorious Qur'an confirms it. Coptic Christians suffer persecution at multiple levels in Egypt. At the state level, Copts suffer organized persecution. They are victims of discriminatory religious laws, anti-Christian judges, and discrimination by state police. Anti-Christian laws include the law governing churches. This requires Presidential permission to build a church, and the governor’s permission to renovate one. Other laws also discriminate against Copts. Anti-Christian judges "legislate from the bench". A good example is the courts' refusal to give Egyptians who convert to Christianity identity cards that display their new religion. Converting to Islam does not even require going to court.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aina.org/news/20090701003916.htm |title=The persecution of Coptic Christians continues |publisher=The Assyrian International News agency}}</ref>
Copts are denied equal opportunities in recruitment and promotion. Very few are appointed to key positions in the Government or are candidates for parliament. Enrolment of Copts in police academies and military schools is restricted, and very few are teachers and professors.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.arabwestreport.info/?q=node/18302 |title=Discrimination against copts |publisher=Arab West Report}}</ref>
Copts have been victims of violence, especially since the 1970s. Since President Mubarak took office 1,500 violent attacks against Copts killed or injured thousands. In most of these attacks, the perpetrators did not face justice. The most significant recent attack was in Elkosheh in 2000 which killed 20. All the assailants were set free.[citation needed]
The violent attacks in El-Minya governorate in the 1990s forced thousands to flee to bigger cities in Egypt or to immigrate; a form of unrecognized ethnic cleansing.[citation needed]
Coptic girls are victims of abduction and forced Islamization by Islamic fundamentalist groups.
The Egyptian government is very passive when it comes to human rights of Copts. Some local government officials actually share in these human rights violations against Copts.[citation needed]
}}
There is nothing controversial about the section. If you have discrete objections, please discuss them first before unilaterally removing this section from the article. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk]20:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, putting this section in the article was not a consensual decision to begin with. This unsourced section was unilaterally created barely a month ago (without even an edit summary) by Kimokono1990, a newly registered user who had created his Wikipedia account only four days earlier. I agree with Diaa's decision to remove this section, for the following reasons:
Having a "Persecution of Copts" level-2 heading in a general article about Egypt is a clear violation of WP:STRUCTURE and WP:UNDUE. We already have a Persecution of Copts article where such issues are discussed at length, and there is a hatnote linking to this article in the "Christianity" sub-section. The discrimination faced by Copts is also discussed in the "Human rights" section. Having such information discussed three times in the article gives it undue weight.
Such a section is a total departure from the standard sub-division of country-related articles. It is generally agreed upon at Wikipedia that country articles should only have sections covering top-importance topics, such as "History", "Geography", "Economy"... Without belittling the difficulties faced by some Copts in Egypt, the "persecution of copts" is not a major topic to be discussed so prominently (by prominently, I mean by having a section devoted solely to it) in a general-interest article about Egypt. There are other countries where minorities fare far worse than in Egypt, yet we don't have specific sections in those countries' articles dealing with such issues. For instance, there's no "Persecution of Arab-Israelis" section in the Israel article, no "Persecution of Tibetans" in the People's Republic of China article, no "Persecution of Shi'a Muslims" in the Saudi Arabia article, no "Persecution of Roma" in the Hungary article, no "Persecution of Kurds" in the Turkey article... In fact, the persecution of minorities is not mentioned at all in any of these articles (some of which are/were FAs), let alone in a separate section. Therefore, compared to other articles, the Egypt article's dicussion of the discrimination faced by Copts is already quite sufficient and does not justify a separate section.
The section is a clear violation of WP:UNSOURCED, which explicitly says that "any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." The section makes extremely grave and serious accusations, such as claims of ethnic cleansing and accusations of complicity on the part of government officials in the persecution of Copts, without citing any source whatsoever, let alone a reliable one. By removing this section, Diaa didn't do anything wrong, since WP:UNSOURCED explicitly says: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations."
I disagree with Lanternix's assertion that "there is nothing controversial about the section." In its current form, the section is clearly biased and in violation of WP:NPOV. Here are some examples:
The word "persecution" itself is highly charged. The Arab-West Report, which the section cites, speaks not of persecution but of discrimination, which is a more appropriate concept to describe the Copts' situation. The U.S. Department of State's International Religious Freedom Report (a highly reputable and non-partisan source) enumerates several examples of discrimination faced by Copts, yet it uses the verb "persecuted" only once, in reference to converts from Islam to Christianity. This is due to the fact that persecution requires some degree of systematic state-sanctioned violence, and only converts are systematically targeted and surveilled by the Egyptian police. While Copts undeniably face discrimination in Egypt, whether or not they "suffer organized persecution" as claimed in the section is a matter of serious contention. The issue of conversion, which is cited as an example of Coptic discrimination, is actually an example of discrimination against Muslims, since it is Muslim citizens' right to change their religion that is being infringed upon. Coptic-born citizens are unaffected by the controversy surrounding conversions.
Some of the issues described in the section are presented as straight facts, when the reality is in fact far more nuanced. For instance, the section plainly states that "Coptic girls are victims of abduction and forced Islamization by Islamic fundamentalist groups". However, this is what the International Religious Freedom Report has to say about the issue: "As in previous years, there were occasional claims of Muslim men forcing Coptic women and girls to convert to Islam. Reports of such cases were disputed and often included inflammatory allegations and categorical denials of kidnapping and rape. Observers, including human rights groups, found it extremely difficult to determine whether compulsion was used, as most cases involved a female Copt who converted to Islam when she married a Muslim male. Reports of such cases almost never appear in the local media. In recent years, there have been no independently verified claims of forced conversions of this nature."
Some sentences are tweaked in a dishonest way. Example: "Since President Mubarak took office 1,500 violent attacks against Copts killed or injured thousands." Not only is this statistic unsupported by any reference, but also the way it is phrased makes it seem as if Mubarak's government is the instigator (or at least a passive supporter) of these attacks. What the section doesn't mention is that most of these attacks took place during the 1992–97 wave of terrorism in Egypt, which equally affected hundreds of Muslims.
Some sentences express unsubstantiated opinions, such as describing the Egyptian government as "very passive when it comes to human rights of Copts."
Finally, the section is highly biased since it fails to mention any positive development. An uninformed reader would get the impression that Copts in Egypt are in an extremely dire and desperate situation. It omits mentioning that Egypt's finance minister (a top-importance position in most countries) is a Copt, that Egypt's richest family is Coptic, that some Coptic churches have been renovated by the government using taxpayer money, that in recent years Coptic Christmas has become a public holiday that is broadcast on public television, that sectarion tension and incitement to hatred are being discussed with increased openness and are unanimously condemned in the media, etc... I am not saying this to suggest that the Copts' situation in Egypt is perfect or ideal, but to show that the reality is far more nuanced than what is depicted in this section.
I agree with the general idea of not having a level 2 header for the topic, but I think that totally removing this section is inappropriate. I think a better place may be moving this info to the Christianity section of the article. That being said, I also think that many points that Bombom raised are lamentable, to say the least:
Who cares what the Arab-West Report says? Who exactly is the Arab-West Report to say whether or not this is persecution? If you have one source that states it's only discrimination, there are tens of other more reliable and first hand sources that call this persecution. When you systematically protect killers and perpetrators of violence against the Copts, this is not just discrimination, this is exactly what persecution and ethnic cleansing means!
When the government tortures and kills Muslim converts to Christianity, this is NOT discrimination against Muslims as Bombom claims, because these people are now Christians and no longer Muslims. Had they remained Muslims, there would have been no persecution, which very simply argues against your point.
Most of the violence against the Copts did NOT occur in the 1990's as Bombom claims. The Kosheh massacre happened in 2001 and the Nag Hammadi massacre took place in 2010, and anyone who follows the rate of sectarian tensions in Egypt can clearly note that the rate of anti-Christian hate speech and anti-Coptic violence has been dramatically increasing for the last 10 years. And yes, the Mubarak regime and the corrupted Islamist-dominated Egyptian judicial system are usually complacent in the crimes and occasionally passive towards the criminals.
The Copts in Egypt ARE indeed in a dire and desperate situation. The fact that the finance minister is a Christian or that the Sawires family is Christian has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that Copts are persecuted, and just using this argument points to the medieval way of thinking that Muslims are employing when it comes to treating minorities. If anything, for a population that makes 15% to 20% of the population, having 2 ministers out of 36 ministers is pure discrimination. And the fact that one or two or even 100 Christian families were smart enough to succeed in the private sector (which is less affected by government domination than the public sector is) does NOT mean that there is no persecution against the remaining 15 million Christians in the country!
Churches in Egypt are NOT renovated with taxpayer money. In fact, churches in Egypt are NOT renovated at all! And when Christians try to renovate a bathroom in a church (let alone building new churches), they are faced by rioting Muslims and are eventually arrested by the security service police, imprisoned, tortured, humiliated etc etc. And at the end of the day, the bathroom never gets renovated anyway. And in the rare case when the president of the republic (or the governor since 2005) issues a decree to repair the bathroom, the entire Egyptian media keeps reporting this awesome news for weeks to prove the wonderful peaceful coexistence that exists between the two components of the Egyptian society, and to demonstrate that there is absolutely no discrimination whatsoever against Christians. After all, the government let then repair a bathroom in the church. What more do they want, these greedy Copts??!!! Again, lamentable! And the one example you bring forward of the ministry of antiquity making restorations in the Hanging Church in Egypt, this is because it is listed as a historical site, and is thus visited by millions of foreign tourists every year. So the restoration has nothing to do with the fact that it's a church! If anything, the taxpayers money goes to the Islamic universities and school, the Islamic mosques, and the Islamic programs in the media (newspapers, radio, TV, etc), while NONE of that goes to any Christian educational institutions or to finance any Christian programs in the media etc. So please, don't talk about taxpayers money!!!
Finally, the fact that Coptic Christmas is now an official holiday is another example of the discriminatory mentality that Copts in Egypt are facing. While this should be the norm, it is being treated as a privilege that the Egyptian government is bestowing upon the Christians!!! NO SIR, this is one of their basic rights. And while Muslims in Egypt have 9 days of Islamic holidays (not to mention every single Friday of the year), it is the basic right of Christians to have a couple of days off as well for their holidays! Moreover, this logic (or lack thereof) fails to explain why Christmas and NOT Easter (the much more important Christian holiday) was granted as a public holiday!! Of course because the Islamized decision makers in the country do NOT believe in the Resurrection of Christ (because Islam denies this fact), and therefore only contended in offering Christmas as a holiday!
Lanternix, I strongly advise that you read and abide by WP:CIVILITY, WP:SOAP and WP:OWN, especially in light of your past behaviour and numerous repeated blocks. My above post was not aimed to be an argument about anything (this is an encyclopedia, not a forum), it was simply aimed to show the numerous flaws in the section. This was done at your request, since you yourself had asked for "discrete objections" (by which I assume you meant concrete objections) to be discussed here. Such a long outburst punctuated with borderline insults (such as telling me I have a "medieval way of thinking") is highly inappropriate. Article talk pages are not the proper place to vent your real-life frustrations. I thoroughly recommend that you work on improving the content of the article through reliable references instead. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Bombom, I suggest you mind your own business and not give me advice on how to talk, because I can talk anyway I want and if you don't like it, you can report me or ask for arbitration or whatever. Trying to evade the main topic by reverting to Ad hominem arguments won't work with me. As for "borderline insults", maybe you should reread and reconsider your comments about "outburtsts" and "real-life frustrations". So, I suggest you focus on the issue at hand and try to respond to the points raised above, rather than trying to escape the corner by yelling at Wikipedia users. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk]18:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Flaws in section
I have re-read my comments, and I can hardly find anything in them that can be considered an outburst, an expression of real-life frustration, or a sign of yelling (yelling, by the way, is something that is done orally, not in written words, unless capital letters and bold font are used). I am not trying to "evade" or "escape" anything. The reason I did not answer further is because I have a sense this conversation is going down a slippery slope. You seem to have misunderstood my intentions. You want to make it seem as if I am trying to downsize the discrimination faced by Copts or to defend the Egyptian government. I have no interest whatsoever in either. I couldn't care less about defending or attacking the Egyptian government, defending or attacking Copts, defending or attacking Egyptian Muslims. In fact, I am not trying to prove or disprove anything about the Copts, which is why your long response was totally unnecessary. The reason I am here is because I came to this article, found a long section making wild claims with no references whatsoever, waited for someone to bring up the discussion on the talk page, and politely explained why it is flawed and should be removed. I was specific in my objections because you are the one who asked for specifics.
You wrongly imagined that I cited the Arab-West Report to prove there wasn't persecution against Copts. As stated above, I am not interested in proving or disproving anything. In fact, I didn't even know what the AWR was before coming here. The reason I mentioned it was because the author of the section chose to use the AWR as a source to support the existence of persecution, even though the AWR that does not make such a claim. I also cited another extremely reliable source (the International Religious Freedom Report) that, while confirming the numerous examples of hardships and violence that you describe above, does not go as far as to refer to the overall situation as persecution. What I wanted to say is that persecution is a highly controversial word, and should be used with extreme caution and backed up by rock-solid references. Whether I (or you or any other user) considers it to be persecution or not is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is what external, reliable sources say. If you believe that there are "tens of other more reliable and first hand sources that call this persecution," then by all means go on and include them (and by reliable I mean reports by respected international human rights organizations, studies by reputed scholars... not blogs or partisan websites).
Regarding the statistics, I am again not trying to prove anything. What I meant to say was that the section made wild claims (e.g. "thousands of Christians killed and injured") without backing them up. Not only is this a violation of WP:WORDS ("thousands" could be anything from 1,000 to 9,999) but it appears self-contradictory with the rest of the section, which cites the Kosheh massacre and the Nag Hammadi massacre. By your own admission, these are some of the worst examples of anti-Coptic violence in Egypt. However, their combined number of victims is around 30 (I am not trying to belittle these crimes, just pointing to a statistical fact), so by what strange calculation did the article arrive at the conclusion that there have been "thousands of Christians killed and injured"? Dozens is not the same as hundreds, which is not the same as thousands. As for the claim that violence has increased compared to the 1990s (when victims of Islamist violence were measured in the hundreds), it can only remain in the article if a year-by-year chart or graph from a reliable source confirms the existence of such a trend.
As for my last paragraph, which according to you "points to the medieval way of thinking that Muslims are employing when it comes to treating minorities" (by the way, it is best not to make assumptions about other users' religious beliefs, since such assumptions generally turn out to be wrong), it was not at all aimed at showing that the situation of Copts in Egypt is all rosy, and I made this explicitly clear. I meant to say that the article should be more nuanced in the way it presents the situation of Copts in Egypt. Yes, there are massacres, but there are also Christian ministers in government (albeit under-represented), and that's not something to be taken lightly (in some democratic countries such as France or Israel, there are no Arab ministers whatsoever, even though Arabs represent 10% and 20% of the population respectively). Yes, it is very difficult to repair churches, but Coptic Christmas also happens to be a public holiday and Coptic Christian Mass is broadcast on public television. That's not something to be dismissed just because Easter has not been made a public holiday; many secular democratic countries do not recognize the religious feasts of their minorities as public holidays, but only choose to honor those of the majority religion (France, Israel, the UK, the US...). I am not trying to argue that the situation of Copts in Egypt is either good or bad. Saying that the situation of Copts in Egypt is very well like the government does is ridiculous. Saying that the situation of Copts in Egypt is totally catastrophic like the article currently seems to suggest is equally ridiculous. What I am trying to say is that a serious encyclopedia article should strive for nuancy, backed up by reliable references.
Finally, copy-pasting the entire section and moving it exactly as it is to the "Christianity" sub-section is not a solution. A lot of the problems, such as the unsourced statements, have not been addressed. Moreover, we still have a problem with WP:UNDUE. Like I already said, no other general-interest article delves with such detail into the status of minorities, even for countries whose minorities are both larger and more mistreated than Copts. The article in its current form is thus inconsistent with other country-related articles. Moreover, now that the information is in the Christianity sub-section, we have a new problem, one of recentism. A sub-section about Christianity in a general-interest article about Egypt should discuss issues within a broader historical context. For instance, it should state that extreme violence against Copts such as in Kosheh and Nag Hammadi is, historically speaking, an exception rather than the rule (cf. renowned Coptologist Aziz Suryal Atiya); that even though Copts are under-represented in Parliament today, this wasn't always the case as they were in fact over-represented a few decades ago. By focusing disproportionately on recent massacres (and I am not suggesting that they should be totally omitted), we have a problem of WP:RECENTISM.
I agree. The "sources" added either do not back the material or are of extremely low quality. Further, the tone of the section is one of blatant POV pushing. I have again removed the section. nableezy - 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you please be more specific and discuss each source separately? Which one you find unreliable and why?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I strongly believe that a piece about persecution of Copts should be included in this article. Christian Copts make up a sizable minority in Egypt. If it were only about discrimination, then I might have agreed with you. But this is not just a discrimination. We're talking massacres here. Nableezy, if you are not happy with some sources please take them to reliable sources noticeboard, but do not dismiss them like that. Besides there are many reliable sources that could be used to add a few sentences section that will link to other articles. Here are some sources on the subject I found: BBC;museumstuff.com;americanthinkeassociated press;ABC News and Spigel. BTW while we at that topic (violence that is) I believe the massacre in Luxor also should be mentioned in the article. The Luxur attack severely affected tourism in Egypt, which experienced a marked decline in Western tourism following the attack for quite some time. This had negative effects on the economy. The attack also showed that Egypt was vulnerable to insurgent groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaida and demonstrated just how insecure the regime itself was. After all there's a section in Israelabout so called International criticism. Why not to add a section about religious violence in Egypt to this article? --Mbz1 (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a top level article for the country, it would be undue weight to include a single attack in which 7 people were killed. A true story for you, a few years back an aunt of mine was killed when an apartment building collapsed in Alexandria. That collapse killed 16 people, 12 related to me, and was due to the landlord illegally adding several stories to the building. This was covered in BBC and a few other places outside of Egypt. The fact that I can find sources discussing this, discussing building codes and the disregard for them in Egypt, does not mean that this top-level article should mention building codes, much less that it should mention the specific collapse of an apartment building. A line on Egypt's ranking according to so and so in terms of freedom of religion belongs in this article. Thats it. nableezy - 03:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not comparing the topics as topics, only looking objectively at how weight should be given to a specific incident using this example. Part of the last source is plainly wrong, Copts have served at high level government posts in Egypt (eg Boutros Boutros-Ghali). How about this, look for sources talking about Egypt as a country and everything that involves. See if any of those sources discuss some specific action that you think should be in here and see how much they discuss it if they do at all. If you cant find sources talking about a topic as wide as "Egypt" that even bring that event up that should be a decent indication that event doesnt merit inclusion in this top level article. nableezy - 04:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Funny you mentioned Boutros Boutros Ghali. You may or may not know that Boutros Boutros Ghali served as Egypt's acting foreign minister (NOT foreign minister) twice under President Anwar Sadat (1977 and 1978 - 1979). This is in spite of the fact that he was well qualified to be a UN secretary, but of course this appointment of Ghali as an only acting foreign minister is a reflection of the Egyptian government's policy of systematically eliminating Copts from all influential governmental positions. You may also not know that while the foreign minister is required to attend meetings of the Highest Political Committee, which basically determines the politics of the country regarding various issues including politics towards the Christian minority, the acting is NOT allowed to attend those meetings. Understandably, with governmental policies aimed at making of Copts 2nd class citizens, it makes perfect sense to have Ghali appointed as just an acting foreign minister. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk]23:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
And yet another credible source in the news today: CNN! The paragraph on Egypt reads In Egypt, where Christians constitute 10% of the population, Christian girls are being kidnapped by shadowy Muslim groups and lured into Muslim marriages, with the state looking the other way. Christians in Egypt have no problem converting to Islam, but if Muslims want to convert to Christianity, they are refused permission to register as Christians on their ID cards, where religion must be stated. Riots are common, and Egyptian Christians live in fear for their lives. I am restoring the paragraphs with addition of new references in light of my and Mbz1's contributions. If you don't like some of the sources, you are more than welcome to refer to RSN. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk]23:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Another example of you bringing opinion pieces and presenting them as fact. That piece is an op-ed, which even says The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writers. You have failed to address the serious concerns regarding undue weight. You have also restored the blatantly non-neutral, and non-factual, POV issues identified by User:BomBom in the collapsed section above, as well as restoring several unreliable sources to the article (AINA, Elaph op-ed, ChristianityToday, ...). nableezy - 00:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
General statistics about Egypt's lack of religious freedom, properly sourced, is of course highly relevant and appropriate - I don't think a serious "undue" argument can be made against something like " in terms of religious freedom, Egypt ranks as the fifth worst country in the world, after Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan and China.[4][5][6] In addition, Egypt ranks among the 12 worst countries in the world in terms of religious violence against religious minorities and in terms of social hostilities against Christians.[7][8]", when top level country articles are always full of such rankings - indeed, even the "Egypt" article has its rankings on human rights, from Freedom house. Please see this and thisas examples of top level articles in addition to two I provided above.I don't see why a short mention of the Copts' persecution would be undue weight, or different from the sentences in the above two sample articles. Something like "Christian Copts face discrimination and marginalization, and violent anti-Christian attacks in Upper Egypt during the 1990s forced thousands of Copts to flee" - quite similar to what we have in teh SA article " Religious freedom is virtually non-existent in Saudi Arabia. The Government does not provide legal recognition or protection for freedom of religion, and it is severely restricted in practice. " or the Iran article "the Bahá'í Faith, Iran's largest religious minority,[193] is not officially recognized, and has been persecuted during its existence in Iran. Since the 1979 revolution the persecution of Bahá'ís has increased with executions, the denial of civil rights and liberties, and the denial of access to higher education and employment." I believe the massacres articles should linked to from Egypt too.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Lanternix, you have failed to address the issues raised here and have reinserted unreliable sources and non-neutral language, as well as completely ignoring the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. I am reverting the addition of this material once again and request that instead of seeking to force the material in over the policy based objections of several editors that you follow the procedures laid out at WP:DR. nableezy - 20:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
These are clearly reliable sources. I think multiple users have agreed on this so far. You're the only one who disagrees here. If you continue to disagree, I invite you to use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Also, there's nothing on [[WP::BAN#Enforcement by reverting]] that allows you to dash user's contributions on this page. I am thus restoring ICA1916 above. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk]21:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
And I have removed it, your meatpuppeting for a banned user is noted and has been reported, but it wont be tolerated. nableezy - 21:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I cannot believe that this article still says that Copts "usually live in fear for their lives", though thankfully this is now an attributed statement. This is an absurd claim to include in the article. There is certainly discrimination, even intolerance, directed towards Copts, but the statement in the article now needs more than an op-ed backing it up. I'll rework what material is salvageable, but I will be removing the more asinine statements our article makes, especially those sourced to such beacons of truth-telling as AINA. nableezy - 23:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Error in the Governorates map?
There are differences between the map on this page and the ones in the pages of the separate governorates. Would someone please make the corrections? (I don't know how to fix maps)
-In spite of the presence of the word 'Giza' on the map, the true boundaries of the governorate are not shown. According to its own page Giza is a tiny governorate due west from the city of Cairo (here it is not distinguished from 6th of October)
-The governorate of Cairo was divided in 2008 into two, Cairo and Helwan, but the boundaries of the two do not correspond to what is shown in the map. Now, the governorate of Cairo includes not much more than the city itself, it is much smaller than what the map shows. The name of Helwan is not shown, and its boundaries are incorrect (it includes a large majority of the area of what is labeled 'Cairo')
-The governorate of Luxor is slightly south of where it is labeled (why is it in italics?). The blue diamond in the map should be removed. Jsaldarr (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Opening section flaw
The opening section states Egypt flourishes due to political stability. Due to the nature of the massive protests against the government right now, I suggest this be taken off until a conclusion is reached concerning the previously mentioned protests. Gaandolf (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM. We can just state that Egypt has a record of flourishing due to political stability over the past 20 years or so. Stability, of course, due to Mubarak's keeping the population under the whip. We shouldn't make major changes to the article while these riots are ongoing. --dab(𒁳)21:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
No it shouldn't. This is an encyclopedia article, not a news ticker.
What it should emphasize, however, is that this "presidental republic" has been under a state of emergency for 40 years. This means that it is a republic only in theory, because the perpetual "emergency" conveniently allowed the regime to act as it pleased anyway. --dab(𒁳)09:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The 2011 riots
In the current riots section there is this sentence "as well as linking the local police with Israel." but there are no references or any details on what kind of connections with Israel.
It should be added that this is done probably in order to incite the crowd against the police and the authorities, since there is not any known connection between the police that fight the riot and Israel, if there is one, a reference is needed otherwise it is not serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megashock (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Great Britain
The revolt led Great Britain to issue a unilateral declaration of Egypt's independence on February 22, 1922.[30]
Great Britain is an island not a country. It is the name of the island which contains England Scotland and Wales.
Yes, yes. But I doubt that the Egypt#2011_protests section is really helpful in this article. It cannot be more than a poor ad hoc summary that needs to be updated every couple of hours. It is enough to just link to the main 2011 Egyptian protests article for now. We can try to incorporate a summary once the situation settles down and the article becomes stable. --dab(𒁳)14:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The present summary text is a mess, a mix of yesterday's news, muddled tenses and glaring incompleteness for something that is supposedly current. I think Dab is right and we should vigilantly get rid of all or most of it until things have calmed down. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Now it's protected, can I suggest we rewrite as follows, getting rid of the second sentence which is opinion and not referenced by the second-rate Malaysian picture stream offered as a cite. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
On 25 January 2011, widespread protests began against Mubarak's regime. By 29 January it was becoming clear that Mubarak's regime had lost control when a curfew order was ignored, and the army took a semi-neutral stance on enforcing the curfew decree. The situation has continued to develop rapidly and on 1 February President Mubarak made a broadcast stating that he would not be seeking re-election as President in September 2011. It is not yet clear if the protesters will accept this offer and internal political negotiations and international pressures are ongoing.
I agree that existing cite is not ideal; can you suggest a better one (especially one that covers everything in the above paragraph)? OhNoitsJamieTalk00:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Minor edit proposal
The section "Politics" contains the sentence "(See link at top of page)." I propose that the sentence be replaced with a link; specifically, that the sentence be removed and the phrase "the civil unrest of January 2011", in the previous sentence, be made into a link to the article 2011 Egyptian protests. --Tanner Swett (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Requesting edit to add sourcing
{{Edit protected}}
For the first citation needed tags on the politics section (sorry this is all out of order):
(no-wiki'd for copy and paste)
<ref name=fidh>{{cite web|last=The Emergency Law in Egypt|url=http://www.fidh.org/THE-EMERGENCY-LAW-IN-EGYPT|work=International Federation for Human Rights|accessdate=2 February 2011}}</ref>
For the last cite needed tag in the politics section:
<ref name=factbook>{{cite web|title=Egypt|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/eg.html|work=CIA- The World Factbook|accessdate=2 February 2011}}</ref>
Also for the History#Kingdom cite needed:
<ref name=factbook-history>{{cite web|title=Egypt|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/eg.html|work=CIA- The World Factbook|accessdate=2 February 2011|quote= Partially independent from the UK in 1922, Egypt acquired full sovereignty with the overthrow of the British-backed monarchy in 1952.}}</ref>
For the first economy cite-needed:
<ref name=IMF>{{cite web|last=Enders|first=Klaus|title=Egypt: Reforms Trigger Economic Growth|url=http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2008/car021308a.htm|work=Internation Monetary Fund|accessdate=2 February 2011|quote=In its most recent review of Egypt's economy, the IMF says the expansion has broadened from energy, construction, and telecommunications to such labor-intensive sectors as agriculture and manufacturing.}}</ref>
I'm assuming that no comments to this request means that it is uncontroversial. So I will implement the request shortly unless anyone objects. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
all added. The first tag in the politics section was actually clarification needed not citation needed, so I left that there for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Full protection?
I don't understand why this article has been fully protected. Maybe semi-protection would do better. There is a lot of editing necessary that registered Users want to make. Please downgrade full to semi-protection. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's only for a week; maybe in that time that political situation will have stabilized and certain users won't feel compelled to use the page as a news ticker. Please feel free to make suggestions for changes (don't forget to provide sources if you're suggesting new info).
As far as I can see there was exactly ONE User who "disapproved" of the edits of some other users and kept reverting them. I suppose this single user could have been talked to. I think the full protection should be lifted immediately. --Krawunsel (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that semi-protection should remain. But the full protection needs to be lifted. And it WAS just one user who "disapproved" of the edits of many others and kept undoing them, Ohnoitsjamie. --Krawunsel (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be helpful if one of those boxes were placed up top regarding characters without uniform support. Some of the Linear B and Egyptian scripts don't render on my Vista/Google Chrome machine. 68.45.210.104 (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I know that they would work, I'm asking for an infobox to be placed up top regarding the text as is common practice with most Wikipedia articles. 68.45.210.104 (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Name
The third paragraph uses unicaode to display egyptian hiroglyphs, which is unlikely to be supported by most users and so is a bad idea. It may be a better idea to simply use pictures as with other glyphs on wikipedia - I believe the following is correct:
Suleiman has been listed as 'de facto' Head of State. As the public is unclear what powers have been transferred to him, and as Mubarak is still making speeches as President, should Suleiman really be listed as 'de facto' Head of State? The only person that claims this is the Egyptian Ambassador to the US on CNN (link) and this seems to be just hyperbole. 90.199.254.110 (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
At this point, it now seems clear that Mubarak is out of power, but what exactly is going to happen next is rather unclear. Banaticus (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Republic, but what type of republic?
Re the Egypt#Republic section, what type of Republic did Egypt have (or was it supposed to have)? A presidential, semi-presidential, or a parlimentary republic? Do we have a source on this from anywhere? Banaticus (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Calling the recent events a "Revolution"
This page calls the recent change in Egypt's government a "revolution", as does the page dedicated to this event. While many in the newsmedia are using the same word, I believe that there is a good case to be made that what has happened is not a revolution (see Stratfor's article). What has happened in Egypt is the following: protests by a segment of the population (certainly not a majority), followed by removal of the president and assumption of control of the government by the military. Using the term "revolution" implies a change in the group of people who govern the country, but this has not happened: the military has been in control of Egypt since the 1950s, just not explicitly. Besides, when one faction in a government removes another from power, the term usually applied is "coup". I believe that using the term "revolution" assumes the interpretation that a popular protest movement has taken control of the government, and this is not the case.
First, we should use the term being used by reliable sources. As you stated, this is generally being called a revolution. That is what we must do as well. Second, that's a pretty narrow definition of "revolution" and a pretty skewed interpretation of events. How do you know what segment of the population was represented by or supported the protesters? Are you aware of other "revolutions" that do not match the criteria you have listed, such as Ukraine's Orange Revolution, or Lebanon's Cedar Revolution?
Currently the "Establishment" section of the side panel lists several important events in the establishment of Egypt's government(s). I request that a new item be added at the end:
Junta established: 11 February 2011
Shouldn't be done, in my opinion. We'd have to put in references for that -- right now it's a military junta, but perhaps this is just a transitional event to another dictatorship or to a democracy or to something else. Let events settle out and in something like a month or two we can see what the establishment really is. I'll leave the edit requested template up to see if anyone else wants to comment. Banaticus (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 196.205.142.253, 26 February 2011
{{edit semi-protected}}
Please change the line in the 3rd paragraph in the section "Republic" from "While the war ended with a military Israeli victory" to "While the war ended with a military stalemate" as per the source cited, in the conclusion section
Thank you
196.205.142.253 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
.svg)
Done The amount of references was quite ridiculous. Removed all but a few major references. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Already done Looks like another editor handled it. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)