Jump to content

Talk:Egyptians/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Portrait of a young man

The article features a portrait of a young man with the caption saying: "Roman-era portrait of an Egyptian man from the Hawara tombs of the Fayum collection, c. 125 − 150 CE." Actually, the man is, most likely, a Roman, not Egyptian, because he wears a beard. As opposed to Romans, Egyptians wore no beards at that time. Beit Or 15:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hawara mummies have actually been tested in the study cited under the Origins section and were found to be of elite Egyptians, not Romans or Greeks. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of you are wrong and right. That portait is not simply a 'native' (African) Egyptian, he is a mulatto and native African(Egyptian) and ruling Roman. It appears as if anything pertaining to the ancient Egyptians on this site are clearly dishuised as fact or at least or lead people's minds away from Africa and black. Just look that the pic of the people in the Article. Where is Nasser of Sadat? They are not arabs( find one for me), they are native Egyptians wit a little something else in the mix. This portrait along with others actually prove the blackness of the ancients because the blackness still comes through. Curled hair does not come out of thin air. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.182.185.117 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

First Nasser was from Arab origin from Banu Morr in upper Egypt , second Sadat looked black because his mother was a sudanese , and modern egyptians are definitly not a Black African people LeCaire

Nasser doesn't look Black to me in the least. Sadat may be dark skinned, but he isn't Black by any definition of the word. Curly hair is a feature of most North Africans whatever their skin color. As to the collage, most of the people included are more on the dark skinned side of the spectrum (Nawal el Saadawy, and Abdlehalim are typically seen as dark). karkaron

This article should be featured

Post response on User Werdnak

I agree. However, it needs just a little more work.
--Meno25 22:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Egypt in Africa

I want to ask a question: someone told me that Egypt should not really be considered as a African country because Egyptians do not really consider themselves to be Africans. How would Egyptians respond to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 100%RSA (talk • contribs)

I am Egyptian. We (the Egyptians) are divided considering the question you asked. Some of us consider that Egypt is an African country more than anything else as we are the founders of the ancient civilization of the Pharaohs. While others consider Egypt to be an Arabic Islamic country because we talk Arabic and 88% of the population is Muslim. I support the first point of view.
--Meno25 22:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Egyptian versus Arabic Egypt is indeed an endless debate, but this has nothing to do with Egypt being an African country. It is an African country simply because geographically it lies in Africa. Since this is an encylopedia, it classifies people/countries according to well-established facts & not according to points of view.--Wedian 15:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I am Egyptian, and I don't think there is an argument about Egypt and Africa. It is a geographical fact that doesn't allow for points of view. Most Egyptians, however, feel more kinship to the East Med and west Asia than they do to Sub-Sahara. The exception here is that there is a definitive identification with Nubians, as well as some identification with Ethiopians. Egyptians, in general, don't classify themselves as Black or White. As to the Arab identity thing, I hate the knee jerk we-are-not-Arabs attitude. I prefer a balanced approach where we are Egyptians and Arabs in that order. karkaron
Yes, Egyptians are geographically African. But no, Egyptians are not Black or White or Arab. It is not a so called "knee jerk attitude", it's the truth simply because we predate the Arabs. To ignore these facts is to ignore our origins and the glaring fact that we are not simply funny-sounding "Arabs". The imprint of our mother culture and common sense say otherwise. The label is not an appropriate one. You don't ever hear the Arabs of Arabia say they're Arab and something else in that order. Why should the Egyptians have to accept something else? We have our own unique identity, it's Egyptian and it's good enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamada2 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

well , most of the people i know - including myself - doenst look at all like Ancient Egyptian people , so the guy who is telling us that we are the sons of the pharoahs he really doesnt know the very long history of Egypt and the different people who settled in it , about that " Egyptian " identity , i suppose offcourse that he meant the Ancient Egyptian identity and culture , which died actually 2,000 years ago with the end of the Ancient Egyptian Civilisation , the language and culture decides , Egypt is indeed an Arab nation not an African one not only in terms of language and culture , but in some places in terms of genetics due to Arab migrations to Egypt and their mix with the settled people . The richness of modern Egyptian culture , Egyptian history and monuments comes from many sources not only the Ancient Egyptians (who were never the only ethnic group in egypt by the way) but also from the Greeks , Romans , Christian Copts , Arabs & Turks . and Yes , most Egyptians doesnt consider themselves Africans but Arabs. "funny-sounding Arabs" : that is really civilised User:LeCaire

Your Original research is completely irrelevant to the article. You need to learn how to spell and write English. I was being sarcastic with "Funny sounding Arabs", but of course that completely went over your head. Egypt is a 100% Egyptian country. Everything and everyone that came to this country was absorbed but the Egyptians are here to stay. Nothing will change this simple fact regardless of how much people like Nasser try. Hamada2 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
well , ask any fellah from Egypt today , and he will tell you that he is an arab & muslim not an african pharoah , this is the only simple fact. absorbed by the Egyptians ? huh !! and what do u call the Arabizations and the conversion of the population to Islam ? (if u even consider us muslims) if the Ancient Egyptian culture & language was so strong , so why did they change their religion &n language and Culture to Islam & Arabic ? (even if they were forced as u may claim) . and regardless of how much ignorant people try to say Egypt is still the land of the Pharoahs it will remain Arab as it is from 640 A.D User:LeCaire
I see that you are completely brainwashed by pan-Arabism. Of course most Egyptians are Muslim. But an Egyptian fellah will tell you what again, that he is an arab????? Please spare your us the jokes and self-serving rhetoric man, you obviously don't know much about the common Egyptian people. By the way, this page is not a forum to rant. It's a place to discuss the article only. Egyegy 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: Cairo University disagrees with you [1]
Scientists at the University of Cairo tested DNA from the remains of pyramid workers from 2600 BC, and found that the DNA of ancient Egyptians matches that of modern Egyptians. That is, the people living in Egypt now are essentially the same as the people living there thousands of years ago.
DR. MOAMENA KAMEL (IMMUNOLOGIST, CAIRO UNIVERSITY): 'People who are living here, they are the same as the people who had been living 6000 years ago. OK? And now the moderns are the descendants of these ancient Egyptians'.
Egyegy 23:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
i want to have a civilised chat with you , can i ?? and as you said not here because its not a forum , you didnt put an e-mail here so i can send you something , if you dont want to , its up to you & consider me brain-washed. User:LeCaire
Dudes and dudettes, calm down puuuhleeeeaze. Now to Mr. Hamada, there are several definitions of the word "Arab" Egyptians fit the ethnolinguistic definition, not the ethno-racial one. You can't simply ignore a rich pool of commonalities with people in the Middle East and North Africa. It is a fact that we find their sensibilities easier to understand, their music easier to appreciate, and their jokes more accessible. This is a common sub-stratum of culture that you can't simply ignore in a moment of post-9/11 anti-Arabism. Mr. LeCaire, if you ask a fellah who he is he will say fellah, and unless he watched too much TV in Nasser's era he will never ever identify as an Arab. In fact before Nasser nobody in Egypt identified as Arab. Even today, most Egyptians mean "these people" when they say "Arab". In many Egyptian cities you will find areas called "el-Arab" and that's where the true Arabs, the bedwins, who seldom intermarried with Egyptians lived and in some cases still live. As to the genetic evidence talked about above, it is true. Egyptian DNA barely changed since the late Dynastic era. Egyptians are far removed from Arabs and Shawam, closest to Tunisians, Algerians, Ethiopians, and Greeks. But genetics have no meaning. So you see guys, that's what I mean by a balanced approach, realize the realities of the way Egyptians identify themselves, take a long step back, look at the similarities between Egyptians and the rest of the Arab world (as well as peculiarities) and you will realize we are Egyptians first but then we are also Arabs whether you and the we-are-Phoenecians-Lebanese like it or not.karkaron
ok i agree about most what i said except that the Egyptian DNA barely changed since the late dynastic era and that the Arabs seldom married the Egyptians , analysis and tests in the Nile Delta showed that about 52 % of the tested population have Haplotype V which is a characteristic Arab haplotype , and in some places such as al sharkiyya the percentage is even much higher. in all Egypt (Delta , Saeed , Nubia) it was found in 40% of the tested men , also in the Nile Delta Haplotypes VIII, VII, and XV which is characteristic of Greeks & Romans was found in about 20% of the tested population , so clearly you can see the the Egyptians are SO MUCH mixed with other populations : Arabs , Greeks , Romans , Nubians , Berbers , Turks. my point of view in the whole conversation that since we are so much mixed let our culture desiced who are we , Arabs & Muslims or Pharoahs ?? and if you say any fellah wont tell you he is an Arab , ok , then ask him if he is a Pharoah or an Arab Muslim and which identity he will choose.User:LeCaire

Thoroughly incorrect. Haplotype V is a characteristic Berber haplotype. Lucotte & Mercier (2003) used the term "Arab" in the linguistic sense of being Arabized, such as the Arabized Berbers. That study, while a little dated, actually shows that Egyptians are far less related to Arabs, with the characteristic Near Eastern haplotypes (common to Palestinians, Jews, Lebanese, Saudi Arabians, Bedouin, etc.) being relatively low (less than 19% in the north, less than 8% in Luxor). According to that study, the most predominant haplotypes in Egyptians are V, XI, and IV (about 65% in Lower Egyptians and 80% in Upper Egyptians), which are common to Berbers, Nubians, and Ethiopians, and far less common in ethnic Arabs, Jews or Near Easterners in general.

Furthermore, I'd like to reiterate to everyone what Egyegy said earlier about not using the article's talk page to "chat". This is not a forum to chat as clearly indicated by the talk header. If you are discussing genetics because of something in the article, then please address the contents of the article directly. However one identifies oneself is one's choice. The key to group identification is self-identification. There are a lot of Egyptians who do not identify as Arabs, and nothing you or I say will change that. It has nothing to do with genetics, nor with the so-called "Phoenician" orientation of some Lebanese! It would be much easier to accept the range of opinions among Egyptians, and not dictate to others how to identify themsleves. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 19:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well okay, excuse us for deviating a bit, as if you haven't done so before. Wag your finger a bit more. Nevermind, I guess you're right (though preachy). So let's discuss the article, why aren't Ethiopians among the related ethnic groups?

Karkaron 02:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not just for the Kushite Dynasty, but for centuries of Egyptian lineage in general: W.M. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt - Part Three, (1896), p. 308 states: ". . . . the kings of Napata (i.e.Nubian/Ethiopian/Cushite) represented the old civilization of Upper Egypt is clear; and it is probably that they were actually descended from the high priest of Amen, who were the rightful successors of the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties. So far, then, as hereditary rights go, they were the true kings of Egypt, rather than the mob of Libyan chiefs who had filtered in the Delta, and who tried to domineer over the Nile valley from that no-man's land." This would include Taharqa and represents the larger and the vast. In Book II, Section-104, of his celebrated History, Herodotus states: "For my part I believe the Colchi to be a colony of Egyptians, because like them they have black skins and frizzled hair." (See any English translation of The History of Herodotus. Tom 04/17/07

jew as ethnic egyptians?

jews are an ethnic group much as they a religious group. so writing judaism as a religion of ethnic egyptians, or israel as state that populate an egyptian "diaspora" community, is completely absurd.

BTW, i know my english is not the best... Varcety 16:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Egyptian diaspora in Israel is not a reference to Egyptian Jews. It is a community of Egyptians (i.e. Muslim and Coptic) who immigrated there following the signing of the peace treaty or are simply working there [2]. Judaism in the infobox is a reference to the fact that some Egyptians converted to Judaism, and thus it is one of the religions that played role in the history of the Egyptian people. You will notice that the articles on Berbers, Kurds and Persians all mention Judaism as well. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ruby...

Putting Ruby alongside people like Abdel Halim and Naguib Mahfouz...am I the only one who feels offended here?--195.229.242.88 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the picture is meant to portray a diverse group of Egyptians. That you are offended by its inclusion reflects merely an opinion since great many other Egyptians disagreed with the opinion when a they voted Ruby as one of the two most interesting Egyptians in 2005. The collage should show one aspect of contemporary Egyptian pop culture. I have been told that Ruby is no longer as notable, so it might make sense to replace the picture with another, but not simply because it offends conservatives. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 18:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh, conservative who? I'm trying to point out that she's merely a nobody who has overall contributed zero science/culture to Egypt and will mostly likely be forgotten in a few years unlike legends like Abdel Halim. What a joke! Just because they're popular now they're getting more attention in articles, for example compare the article for Nageeb Mahfooz and Amr Diab. Yeah. I rest my case.--195.229.242.88 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Ruby is as Egyptian as anyone else. I also think the collage should have as many females as males. I think less controversial examples include: Soad Hosny, Faten Hamama, Angham, Mona Zaki, etc.. Oh and BTW where's Um Kalthoum?karkaron
Of course, there could be so many other people in that collage, but lack of space and copyright issues set significant limits. There still seems to be a value judgement placed on who should be in it though. The Roman-period Fayum portrait is of a pretty random man, but it's interesting to include because of the time era, and like you said about Ruby, he's Egyptian. I considered including the picture of the Fellah, but thought I might run into a similar situation. It would be nice to have as many women as men, but perhaps not all singers/actors. Outside of the entertainment industry or feminist activism, who else would you suggest? — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 05:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, beyond the arts you'd have to be more random, in which case it gets even harder. I remember a couple of famous athletes, a famous physician, and a very popular ex-minister of environmental protection. But I don't even remember their names, let alone have pictures of them. Sooo ... I guess the collage is good enough now, if I find anything of interest not loaded with copyright questions I will let you know. BTW, I think the Fayoum portrait definitely belongs there.
The problem here is that we don't have pictures for every important Egyptian. When she is forgotten, we will remove her picture. As for now, she is popular. Also, this is not the hall of fame of Egypt. We don't classify people according to their contributions to Egypt or else all of the pictures would be of Pharaohs who made Egypt the most powerful country in the world. These pictures are just random examples to cover a wide range.
--Meno25 05:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Rubi's photo!!!!!

SAINT Abraam Bishop of Fayoum - with these people and Rubi????????????????? Please Remove these pictures NOW!!!! >:( Who organized this photo?????????

You're not the only one who feels offended here!!!

It's insulting our Holy Coptic Orthodox Church by putting this kind of people like as "Rubi"!!!!

Putting a Holy Saint as Saint Abraam Bishop of Fayoum together with sinners is really offending!!!

U have to delete so soon!! in other words NOW!

Athanasius 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In other words, we should give in to pressure by religious fundamentalism. Ummmm.... Nope, sorry... Those "sinners" are Egyptians whether you like it or not. This is an encyclopedia. Rubi is a singer, not a mass murderer. Besides, if Rubi's pic goes down, who is to say that another pop icon shouldn't be in its place? It's only fair to show a wide range. Egyegy

At least, can u choose another photo for her!!! it's really offending Egypt~! (her style really provoking!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athanasius 77 (talk • contribs)

First: What is your problem with the photo? I am Muslim and the photo of Muhammad Abduh the well known sheikh is directly after Ruby's picture, yet I don't object. We don't evaluate or judge the religious state of anyone here. We here put pictures of notable people i.e. famous and Ruby is certainly famous.
Second: Zerida made the image.
Third: The photo is not offending Egypt (I am Egyptian by the way). Egypt is much greater than to be represented by anyone whoever he is.
--Meno25 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I am Egyptian and I don't find the photo offensive in the least. First, I have seen this picture on the cover of a national magazine before, so your comment that it's offensive to Egypt is bizarre. Second, you sound just like the Muslim fanatics who tried to cover pictures of ancient Egyptian women in school books because they didn't think they were dressed "properly"!!! This is basically another attempt by religious fundamentalists to pressure the country into giving up its liberal culture, just like they are trying to do with the Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni. Sorry buddy, but a lot of Egyptians disagree with you. Egyegy 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I am Egyptian and Muslim and I ador sheikh Mohammed Abdou, and I don't feel at all insulted by Rubi's picture there. The collage is not a judgement on the value of these people, it's a collection of a representative section of Egyptian society, and if you don't think Ruby is representative of a section take a walk in City stars. I was sort of on the fence about Ruby there, now I insist she stays where she is. Kefaya fundamentalism from everyone.karkaron
I'm for deleting it, not for how it looks or how dressed. but this garbage isn't a representative of Egypt, come on, couldn't you find another character to add? you should add the best of Egypt, at least in this picture.--Alnokta 12:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Even though I don't agree with what you said, I took it upon myself and changed it to Sherine since she is now the no. 1 selling artist. I don't think anyone can argue about Sherine. Egyegy 21:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rating of this article

Why is this article rated as A as can be seen here? It should have been nominated first as GA. It is not listed at Wikipedia:Good articles, Category:A-Class Ethnic groups articles or Category:GA-Class Ethnic groups articles.

--Meno25 02:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It says here [3]: "having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class." I also checked at Template talk:Grading scheme and found that basically A-class articles are rated by members of the WikiProject itself, whereas GA is done outside. Since I'm a member of WikiProject Egypt, I rated the article and left a comment, but other members might have comments also. Egyegy 09:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response.
--Meno25 14:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Origins

I notice that some of the issues discussed earlier on the Ancient Egytians article as to length and focus have reappeared in the "Origin" section of the "Egyptians" article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Egypt&action=edit&section=2 Quote:

"I'd further like to point out that spending oodles of megabytes editing the one small section about the people of ancient Egypt just to add information about their biological affinities is quite beyond the scope of this article and what it needs.." Zerida
"no more baroque discussions of the ethnic essence of the Ancient Egyptians here, please, this is out of proportion. This is our Ancient Egypt article... Compare "Ancient Egypt" entries in any respectable encyclopedia, and you will be sure to find they don't get sidetracked over dental studies.. dab
The less dental study cruft we have on this article, the happier I will be. [[User:Dbachmann|..

I believe these issues can be settled quickly as discussed earlier rather than start yet another weary round of multiple edits, supporting casts, RFCs, neutrality tags, etc. Namely:

  • Move the long dental study quote to a footnote. It will be picked up by Google's indexer anyway, so those who like the quote have lost nothing
  • Balance out or harmonize the section to reflect the views of a number of other scholars, to stand beside Brace and Irish. This has already been done in part
  • The Origins section will thus be more balanced, and shorter, which is in keeping with the overall scope of the main article.

I think this is a good solution and would be agreeable to others. Thank you. Enriquecardova 06:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the discussion here. With regard to your recent edit, saying that "there was a significant range of variability between the northern and southern populations", and basing that conclusion on Keita, is not correct. Keita (1992) states that "[the] northern [Egyptian] modal pattern, which can be called coastal northern African, is noted in general terms to be intermediate, by the centroid scores of Function I, to equatorial African and northern European phenotypes... On the other hand, early southern 'Egyptian' metric phenotypes (Badari, Nakada I) overlap those of Kush/Nubia." This does not constitute "significant" difference. Furthermore, according to him this was true only during the predynastic period:

The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos [First Dynasty] royal tombs is "southern" (tropical African variant)... However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also... The centroid values of the various upper Egyptian series viewed collectively are seen to vary over time. The general trend from Badari to Nakada times, and then from the Nakadan to the First Dynasty epochs demonstrate change toward the northern-Egyptian centroid value on Function I with similar values on Function 11. This might represent an average change from an Africoid (Keita, 1990) to a northern-Egyptian-Maghreb modal pattern.

Irish (2006) shows that there was continuity among the different time eras, though he does suggest that, while the Gebel Ramlah "Nubian" sample was different from all the samples, it was "closest to predynastic and early dynastic samples from Abydos, Hierakonpolis, and Badari". Therefore, there is no major disagreement as you contend.
I'll revert and reword, with Yurco (1996) in context. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. There are number of points- variability for example means in physical types that were indigenous in character- but in essence you have balanced it, removing certain questionable items and binding it with the Yurco quote. That is a fair approach, much better, more professional and more scholarly than I have seen elsewhere on related articles. Thanks. Enriquecardova 04:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad this worked out. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 06:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the structure of this article

I don't know if this was discussed before, but the history section is extremely long, I don't really wanna see it gone, but I guess a page about an ethnic group should contain a bit more than history. As EgyEgy said in the ratings page, we need more about culture here. I can write some, but I have no structure, so I'll need someone to administer how this is gonna go. How are we gonna expand the culture section? Cuisine? Arts definitely could use some expansion. Habits and traditions, as in what? As in family life or as in what? I hope my point is getting across. We need a bunch of stubs that we can fill in, someone needs to see the big picture though, and I suck at that. Anyone get what I am saying because it's late here and I think I'm incoherent. Karkaron 02:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to US census back in 2000, their was 142,000 Egyptians [[4]], I think its crazy to bump the number up to 900,000. Chaldean 04:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Joel Irish study misrepresented

This quote right here in the origins section misrepresents the study, he never concludes any such relationships between Ancient Egyptians and South/West Asians.

"A 2006 bioarchaeological study on the dental morphology of ancient Egyptians by Prof. Joel Irish shows dental traits characteristic of indigenous North Africans and to a lesser extent Southwest Asian populations"

Not true, this is from the study.


CONCLUSIONS

The determination of trait frequencies, identification of highly discriminatory traits, and computation of phenetic affinities among the 15 samples yields a more comprehensive dental characterization of ancient Egyptians than presented in previous reports. These findings were, in turn, effective for estimating the synchronic and diachronic biological relatedness that was used to test the viability of several long-standing peopling hypotheses and less formal assumptions.

Concerning estimates of relatedness, many samples appear dentally homogeneous. That is, with the exception of four or five outliers, most are phenetically similar enough to imply population continuity from predynastic to perhaps Roman times. Whereas the more divergent samples exhibit extreme frequencies of nine traits identified as most influential, the others share relatively moderate expressions of these traits and comparable frequencies of the rest. If these samples are indeed representative of the populations from which they were derived, then this homogeneity is also important in addressing the various peopling scenarios. Beginning with Gebel Ramlah, its relative proximity to three of four early Upper Egyptian samples, including Badari, provides some indication of the lat

� J.D. IRISH ter’s origins. Affinities among the predynastic and most dynastic and postdynastic samples are then supportive of: 1) continuity between the Naqada and Badarian peoples, 2) an indigenous outgrowth of the dynastic period from the Naqada, 3) with some exceptions, biological uniformity throughout the dynastic period, and 4) continuity between the latter and subsequent Ptolemaic and Roman periods.

Lastly, beyond these relationships, additional intersample variation was identified by the distance analyses. However, without reference to pertinent existing hypotheses, the discussion of such affinities is beyond the scope of this paper. Still, the patterning illustrated by the MDS and CA diagrams is of interest, and will receive attention in future studies comparing Egyptians to samples from elsewhere in northeast Africa, greater North Africa, sub- Saharan Africa, and the western Mediterranean area. Such comparisons will also facilitate analyses of these 15 samples in a broader, more region-oriented perspective that may help shed additional light on the ultimate origins of the Egyptian peoples.


^^No such comparisons are made among Southwest Asians.

This is what he says about Dental affinities..


Egyptian samples. Specifically, the clustering of 11 or so samples is reminiscent of that observed among post-Paleolithic Nubians in a previous regional dental study (Irish, 2005). In the latter case, homogeneity was thought to be suggestive of population continuity. Similarly, the potential Egyptian continuity extends across time (as evidenced by affinities among the three predynastic, five of seven dynastic, and two or perhaps three Roman period samples) and space (as indicated by the mostly random distribution of points denoting Upper and Lower Egyptians). If true, the present findings vary from those based on cranial morphometric data that suggest biological heterogeneity, at least in predynastic times (Prowse and Lovell, 1996; Keita, 1996), and a broad clinal variation between populations in the north and south (Keita, 1990, 1992).

The source of any heterogeneity is thought to have stemmed from the makeup of the ‘‘proto-predynastic’’ (Keita, 1992, p. 251) founding population that may have comprised many biologically distinct peoples, including Saharan, Nilotic, and Levant groups (Hassan, 1988; Keita, 1990, 1992; Prowse and Lovell, 1996). This amalgam is still evident in Egypt’s modern peoples (Manni et al., 2002). However, the overall diachronic homogeneity indicated by the dental and other data (e.g., Brace et al., 1993) is likely due to extensive interaction via trade, population movement, and genetic exchange among communities along the Nile between Upper and Lower Egypt (Hassan, 1988). As Hassan (1988) observed, the narrow river valley and its thin strip of habitable land would quickly be populated during the late predynastic expansion. In other words, Egypt ‘‘became a melting pot’’ for the founding groups (Hassan, 1988, p. 135) by the predynastic period and beyond. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/who_were_egyptian.pdf

Compares the samples to post paleolithic Nubian samples, but no mention of relatedness to south west asia, that was not a conclusion. So I'm rewording the quote to match the study's result.Taharqa 02:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Coptic vs Chrsitian

The term "Coptic" virtually means "Egyptian". To borrow from the Wikipedia page talking about this word's etymology:

The etymological meaning of the word therefore pertains to all people of Egyptian origins, not only those who profess Coptic Orthodoxy. Medieval writers before the Mamluk period often used the words Copts (Arabic: قبط) and Egyptians (Arabic: مصريون) interchangeably to describe all the people of Egypt whether Christian or Muslim. After the bulk of the Egyptian population converted to Islam, the word Copt came to be associated with Egyptians who retained their Christianity. In the 20th century, some Egyptian nationalists and intellectuals began using the term Copts in the historical sense. For example, Markos Pasha Semeika, founder of the Coptic Museum, addressed a group of Egyptian students in these words: "All of you are Copts. Some of you are Muslim Copts, others are Christian Copts, but all of you are descended from the Ancient Egyptians". (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts)

Thus, having something called "Coptic Period" is like having an "Egyptian Period" in the history of Egypt, which makes no sense. Similarly, if we have a religiously-identified period (Arab and Islamic period), the change to (Byzantine and Christian period) is a justified case. Thanks. --Lanternix 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The above quote was added in relation to a similar discussion, but it states that some Egyptian nationalists and intellectuals used it in the *historical* sense (as a means to bring Muslims and Christians together, different matter), so there is no contradiction there. But in fact, it is not very relevant what the word meant centuries ago in Classical Arabic. The original meaning of the word is different from modern-day reality. Words undergo semantic change over a long period of time, that is a given. Coptic today means Egyptian Christian, not Egyptian. It does not mean Egyptian in any living language. Coptology and Egyptology are separate disciplines. This is why the Coptic Museum does not house general Egyptian antiquities, this is what the the Egyptian Museum is for. This is why the commemorative stone tablet at the entrance of the of the Coptic Museum reads in part: ⲛⲛⲉⲥⲃⲟⲟⲩⲉ ⲛⲛⲉⲣⲙⲛⲕⲏⲙⲉ ⲛⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ ("Egyptian Christian antiquities", which in the accompanying Arabic and English reads simply "Coptic antiquities").
Describing the etymology of a word is one thing and its modern lexical *meaning* is a different matter. The word "bead" in Middle English originally meant prayer; today it does not *mean* prayer, that is its *etymology*. Today, there is only an association with the word prayer. The vast majority of Egyptians today have no awareness of the etymological history of the word in Arabic, despite Semeika Pasha's proclamation, and would probably be surprised to find out that the word has any other connotation besides Christian. And regardless of how you personally feel about the issue, a lot of Copts would like to see a distinct Coptic era recognized as part of Egyptian history which is either glossed over or completely eliminated in Egyptian curricula. It is not sufficient to say Christian because the Byzantine era is Christian, but that doesn't say anything about native Egyptian Christianity. I am leaving the word Christian, but re-adding Coptic. — Zerida 23:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
While I disagree to use the word in its modern day usage as opposed to its original one (since I believe an encyclopedia should "enlighten" people and change wrong realities as opposed to just going with the current), I think that saying "Byzantine and Coptic Christian period" is a fair compromise. Thanks. --Lanternix 02:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Egyptians/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Very comprehensive article about an important subject. Well-sourced. Maybe needs a little more info on culture and shorten history a little. Should eventually reach Featured status. Egyegy 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
An excellent article. It contains every thing that an article should have. --Meno25 02:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Egyptians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Citizens or Ethnic Group

An editor changed the page so that the focus was Egyptians as citizens of Egypt. Another editor put it back was it was with focus on the ethnic group. The first editor reverted THAT so we were back to citizens. Before reverting the change to the stable version, I had a look at page history and found that the page used to say that it was about citizens AND the ethnic group (some years ago). Thus it is hard to take sides on this, but as per WP:BRD it is time we discussed what the focus of the page should be. Is this page about Egyptians as an ethnic group? Is it about Egyptians as being exactly those who are citizens of Egypt from any ethnic group? Or is it both? There doesn't seem to be any guidance on the matter on this page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

there isn't really an Egyptian ethnic group per se as there isn't a Libyan ethnic group or a Tunisian ethnic group or Jordanian ethnic group. I say we change it back to citizens. 85.75.213.201 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you did the right thing. The page is about Egyptians as an ethnic group. Nubians do have their own separate page. Fragrant Peony (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It is best to correct it because this is offensive

We need a single scholarly source that provides a different point of view in order to change the article. Remsense诉 00:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Egyptians are not an ethnic group, they are part of the world and the Arab people, and this is even present in the Egyptian constitution, so why is it here that they are an ethnic group? Why do you isolate us from the rest of the Arabs? 91.186.229.101 (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

We write based on what the total sum of reliable sources have to say on a topic. There's a superscripted number right after the part you find objectionable that points to a source on which we base our characterization. Remsense诉 22:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I have seen the source and there is no basis for the claim. Secondly, I told you that the Egyptian constitution itself says that the Egyptian people are part of the world and the Arab peoples, and this is basically known to everyone, so bringing a Western source that isolates us from the rest of the country is a bad thing. I have seen some articles that You talk about the population of the Arab world, but I did not find anyone like this article. I would like to just remove the sentence (they are an ethnic group) because this is not true and it is very clear that it is so. 91.186.229.101 (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
That would be unacceptable for the reasons I've already stated. Wikipedia does not take the word of specific individuals or follow the preferred terminology of specific governments. Please do not remove sourced content without first having a discussion where you provide your own reliable sources (e.g. a scholarly, secondary source, not a primary source like a country's constitution) to establish what would be the neutral point of view for the article. Remsense诉 23:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
From what I see now, it is very clear that it takes the words of specific people and isolates a people from those around them without any logic. The source that exists in the first place is not scientific, and how can the constitution of the state itself become a preferred term for a government, even though this explains the nature of the country and its population, but you reject it and put a source? At your whims, it is illogical, and it isolates the Egyptians from the rest of the surrounding countries
Isn't he meant by (Demonym)?
What you are doing now is what non-neutral people say about it 91.186.229.101 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
For example, in the book (Kertzer, David I.; Arel, Dominique (2002).https://books.google.com/books?id=qMxbzF4NdFUC) he described the Tunisians as an ethnic group as well, but they are not that. The great majority are Arabs, and there are Berbers. Doesn’t this mean that you are using the term without thinking, kindness, care, or logic? 91.186.229.101 (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I have my own suspicions about the use of the term, but you need to provide your own sources for your argument, or else nothing can be done honestly. If you don't provide sources for your preferred viewpoint, I will not be replying further. Remsense诉 23:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
It is known that Egyptians are Arabs and are not separate, and they are part of the Arab world. You can search for this while they are in the Arab League. Rather, it was founded in Egypt and its center is Cairo. We share language, culture, lineage and history, and we also do not forget the constitution of the state itself. He says wrong, but the words of the person who used the term ethnic group incorrectly remain? This mistake also occurred with regard to Tunisia, and I spoke about it before. Why is the error in this article if it is mentioned? You're the one who has a problem here 91.186.229.101 (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Per previous reply. Remsense诉 00:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Didn't you read the words or what? Or did you not find a response so you evaded this way? It is assumed that the term Egyptians means those who live in Egypt, not an ethnic identity. I saw the history of the amendments and it was like this before it was vandalized by someone who was not on Wikipedia in the first place. 91.186.229.101 (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Egyptians/Archive_1&oldid=1226112473"