Jump to content

Talk:Egyptians/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Wording

In the beginning of this article, it says "A large minority of Egyptians belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church." When I hear the phrase "large minority," I think 30-40%, but the number cited later on in the page, and on the CIA factbook, is 9%. It would be better to say the specific numbers at the beginning, or at the very least, rephrase. Perhaps "the vast majority of the remainder belong..." or something similar.

Girlfriend of Merv (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"A large minority" is mainly a reference to the fact that the Coptic community numbers at least 8 million (by some estimates larger), which is a pretty large number. But you're right, maybe it could be reworded to something along the lines of what you suggest or to "a sizable minority". — Zerida ☥ 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with "sizable minority". 9% isn't a "large" minority, but it is certainly "sizable". There are no other religious groups of any perceptible size. CIA has Islam 90%, Coptic Christians 9%, other Christians 1%. So whatever these "other Christians" are, their largest subgroup must account for below 1% of total population. As for Judaism, Religion in Egypt says there are fewer than 200 Jews (out of 70 million people). As for Bahá'í, "the number of Bahá'ís in Egypt is estimated to be between several hundred and a few thousand." dab (𒁳) 07:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming that Judaism has been put in the infobox on the basis of the 80,000 Egyptian Jews who fled to Israel during the Second Exodus.--Yolgnu (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
That has little significance today (nothing personal towards the Jews). There are only 200 Jews compared to about 400 Baha'is (out of 80+ million ppl in Egypt, not 70 M). Thus, putting the Jews ahead, who have a smaller number TODAY, would not be in tune with Wikipedia. ~ Troy (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
So we shouldn't count the Israeli Jews of Egyptian descent?--Yolgnu (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
By that, your still leaving out the Baha'is of Egyptian descent oustide of Egypt. Unless there is absolute proof that there's more Egyptian Jews worldwide than there are Egyptian Baha'is, then its safe enough to just count the numbers in Egypt as those stats are more widely available. Remember, a "Jew" is sometimes considered to be an ethnicity of its own, so it depends on how you put it. ~ Troy (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If we're just counting the ones inside Egypt, we should delete both religions from the infobox. They only make up about 0.00001% of the population, which is extremely insignificant.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The first thing we should do is see if we can find how many Egyptian Baha'is there are in the world. If we don't, then we can go by your last suggestion. If we do, then we'll see if it is compareable with that of the Egyptian Jews worldwide. ~ Troy (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion, names

incidentially, the blanket reverts include the claim that common religions of the Egyptian people are "Bahá'í Faith, Judaism, Atheism", and insist on treating Ancient Egyptian and Coptic designations with priority. Is there any evidence that there are significant adherents of Bahá'í Faith, Judaism or Atheism (according to the CIA factbook, these should figure below 0.5% taken together), or that there are any native speakers of Ancient Egyptian or Coptic in Egypt (according to Ethnologue, languages spoken in Egypt are varieties of Arabic, followed by Domari, Nobiin and Kenuzi-Dongola). Maybe you have some better source? However, unless some source is cited (WP:V) these reverts aren't arguable. I realize Coptic was widely spoken in Egypt 1500 years ago. So was Old High German in Germany. Yet if you look at Germans, the article does not begin "The German people (Proto-Germanic: *Þeuda, Old High German: Diutisci, German: Deutsche)". Ask yourselves why. We have articles on current ethnic groups and nationalities, and we have articles on "ancient peoples. Yes, ancient peoples should be mentioned in "history" sections of their descendant populations. Thus, Germanic tribes certainly are mentioned under the "origins" sections at Germans, and there is even a disambiguation notice to Germanic tribes for people who might be looking for that article under "Germans". The Ancient Egyptians should be treated exactly the same with respect to this article. --dab (𒁳) 07:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And neither does the French people article start with "The French people (Latin: Galli, French: Français)".--Yolgnu (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This can only mean that the Wikipedia article about the French people is lacking. --Lanternix (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a compromise? I'll consent to having the Ancient Egyptian name for Egyptians in the introduction, but I feel that having Ancient Egyptian in the languages section of the infobox is highly misleading, akin to having Latin in the languages section of the Italians infobox. Coptic, as the last stage of the language, should of course remain.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see much point in disputing minor terminology for the infobox (unless, of course, there was an edit war going on). Also, we need to find relevent sourcing in order to show the order of Religions. ~ Troy (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"This can only mean that the Wikipedia article about the French people is lacking" "Galli" doesn't refer to all French though, it refers to Gauls. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Occupation?

According to the article, Egypt was occupied since ancient times by foreign powers, until 1922 when the Egyptians achieved independence. But what makes the Fatimids, for example, occupiers and not Egyptians?--Yolgnu (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the article on Fatimids, the person who started the dynasty was a man from Ifriqiya and claimed to be descended from Muhammad. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So? The first leaders of many dynasties throughout history have been of foreign origin, but their descendants have become so assimilated into the nation they're ruling that they're not considered occupiers. Egypt was the centre of the Fatimids' empire, its rulers lived in Egypt, Egypt flourished under its rule, etc.--Yolgnu (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, then its not an ethnic category. The Ptolemaic dynasty wasn't Egyptian, they where of Macedonian descent. The Ayyubids weren't Egyptians, they where Kurds. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, who am I to say who is to be classified as an "occupier"; but by that logic, England has been occupied for 1000 years.--Yolgnu (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
England has an English majority. Yes, it originally had a Brythonic majority, but later the Anglo-Saxons, Norse, Normans, etc. came and became amalgamated as the "English". Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant the royal family. The person who started the dynasty was a man from Normandy.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Egyptians" (Balkans)

I have removed this sentence: "It is also a matter of dispute whether the Egyptian population of the Balkan states are ethnic Egyptians." It seems that Balkan "Egyptians" are actually Roma people who acquired the name "Egyptian" due to a false assumption of the origin of Roma (cf. "Gypsy", from the word "Egyptian").--Yolgnu (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at that article, it says its a matter of debate whether they're Gypsies or Egyptians. Although I do agree, it shouldn't be in this article. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection.

I've protected the article indefinitely until the edit war is over (request unprotection here). I'd recommend requesting for a mediator here. · AndonicO Engage. 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Condescending Statements

Many Egyptians today feel that Egyptian and Arab identities are inextricably linked, and emphasize the central role that Egypt plays in the Arab world. The Muslim Brotherhood now has a broad following, particularly among the lower-middle class urban population.

This is yet another insulting piece of Arab propaganda. Many reliable sources assert that most Egyptians believe that they are Egyptian and Egyptian only, i.e. not Arab.
If there is no comment about this in a week, I will remove the highly insulting statements. David873 (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be more to the story. See below for details. David873 (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How is that condescending? Who exactly is being condescended to? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Allegation of Serial POV pushing by barred user Zerida

FunkMonk has alleged that Zerida has been making highly biased edits at Egyptians in order to promote a particular point of view, namely that Egyptians are not Arabs. Clearly, this allegation is extremely serious and needs to be dealt with immediately. It is possible that Zerida has managed to fool many editors in the process, given the user's sockpuppetry record. See Talk:Arab for the original allegation. David873 (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Take a look at the discussions I re-added above which had been archived (hidden) by Zerida and her sock-puppets. Half of the users in those discussions are sock-puppets. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Talk: Arab isn't exactly the original allegation; Zerida and her socks were blocked in May[1]. I've seen many sock puppeteers in my time, but Zerida was the smartest. Almost all of the people pushing an Egyptianist POV have been her or her sock puppets.--Yolgnu (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's my personal opinion that not all Egyptians are Arabs—there's no evidence for that. And you can look at my contribs all you want—I'm not a sock, I'm more of a vandalism rollbacker.
As for the "Arab identity", one thing is for sure—you can't label all Egyptians as Arabs without any proof. ~ Troy (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point. No one ever wanted to label all Egyptians as Arabs. The problem with this article is that it made it seem like no Egyptians identified as Arabs, and that it was stated as a fact that all Egyptians constitute one ethnic group. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do know for a fact that almost everyone in Egypt are either descendants the minority which intermarried with the Arabs, or are "pure" descendants of Egyptians, so there is no question about it: the large majority of residents in Egypt can be simply identified as Egyptian, and even those who do call themselves "Arab" do not leave their "Egyptian identity", at most, they have only left their "Coptic" identity. It should be noted that the very few Muslims who do call themselves "Coptic" at least mean that by saying that they haven't "abandoned" the fact they consider themselves as Egyptians. ~ Troy (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH. The article doesn't need to decide whether Egyptians "are" Arabs. It needs to document the dispute. But it needs to stop implying the Egyptians "are" the Ancient Egyptians, which is not the topic of any dispute. dab (𒁳) 15:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is implying that. They are the last remaining descendants for the most part, and with that being a simple fact, I hardly see why there is any point to dispute at all almost. I can assure you that I am not asserting an "Egyptianist POV", although there is no harm in looking at it in its historical sense and comparing it with what it's like today. At the very least, Egyptians themselves can all be regarded as such as I have already explained above—period. ~ Troy (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
no, your continuity claims are far from obvious. The Ancient Egyptians are to the current Egyptians what the Gauls are to the French people. Sure, they should be mentioned as a predecessor population, but that's as far as it goes. Beginning the lead with "Egyptians (Egyptian: rmṯnkm.t)" is a joke. The Ancient Egyptians (even of the Iron Age period) and the current Arabized Egyptians are separated by more than a millennium of Egypt as part of the Hellenistic world. --dab (𒁳) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous. To what extent are they "Arabized"??? How is conversion to Islam change you ethnically? How do you explain FunkMonk's continuous changes without prior consensus? When you say 'Beginning the lead with "Egyptians (Egyptian: rmṯnkm.t)" is a joke', you actually turn it into something that is quite misleading. Be bold, first of all, and second of all, don't accuse me of making 'incorrect' continuity claims. Your claim that Egypt was a "part of the Hellenistic world" is 'far from obvious in it of itself. Byzantine rule is 100% different from Byzantine culture. "Arabized" means intermarriage, but the few Arabs in Egypt were mostly Government "officials" who encouraged "conversions". Oh, and for the record, the beginning is actually: "Egyptians (Egyptian: rmṯnkm.t; Coptic: ⲛⲓⲣⲉⲙ'ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ni.remenkīmi; Arabic: مِصريّون miṣriyūn; Masri: مَصريين maṣreyyīn)", and you should take note that the whole article is meant to cover the Egyptian ethnicity in general. ~ Troy (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to have a civilized conversation, though, for once. In fact, I do have a suggestion: partial merge with "Ancient Egyptian"—but make the section have the main concept of the article and say at the top "Further Information: Ancient Egyptian" or "Main Article: Ancient Egyptian". I would still like to retain information though, because I find it to be an integral part of Egyptian identity. ~ Troy (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To what extent are they "Arabized"??? Um, they are native speakers of an Arabic dialect? Like, 100% of them? Or how many Coptic speakers do you know of? I know there were rumours that there remain three families of Coptic speakers in the desert somewhere. So maybe 99.9999%? "ridiculous" indeed. This is the article about the "Masri" speaking group. For the Copts, we have the Copts article. Obviously, there can be a section summarizing Copts here. Ancient Egypt has nothing to do with it. The "identity" section of course should cover the two-fold division of Egyptian ethnic nationalism, the "Pharaonist" opposition to Nasser's Pan-Arabism etc. That's 20th century history, and doesn't justify spamming this article with Bronze Age history. As for "be bold", are you kidding? I tried to fix the article back in May, which resulted in Zerida coming after me with his sock army, and his buddies making a lame attempt at discrediting my integrity, etc., the boring old pov-warrior tactics the Hindu nationalists have gone through a couple of years ago. I am here to write encyclopedic content, not to babysit political zealots. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. You are apparently labeling me as an Arab. "Arabic speaking" is different from Arabic etnnicity. I'm not Zerida's "buddy" so please DON'T accuse me of being a political zealot. The majority—and I know this for a fact—are usually at least "hybrids" DESCENDANTS of those who inter-married with the Arabs. The Copts are not Arabized at all as it was explained to death in the above sections—if any of the Egyptians don't consider themselves as Arabs—even if they are "Arabic-speaking" linguisticly, then they can't be labeled as such. There is no such evidence that can label them as "100%" Arabized. ~ Troy (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
PS: it was already explained on Talk:Coptic language that there are indeed speakers that remain. ~ Troy (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Click on Arabization :"a growing cultural influence on a non-Arab area that gradually changes into one that speaks Arabic and/or incorporates Arab culture". If you were an Arab, you couldn't be Arabized because you were already Arab to begin with. If you speak Arabic natively but do not consider yourself an ethnic Arab, you have obviously been Arabized. What is there to discuss here? If you spoke Turkish, you'd have been Turkified, if you spoke Persian, you'd have been Persianized, it's as simple as that. Ffs, Egypt is even officially known as the "Arab Republic of Egypt". If any country has ever been Arabized, it's Egypt. This has zilch to do with intermarriage. A population is Arabized if it adopts the Arabic language and/or culture. This can happen by intermarriage, but just as well by superstrate influence. dab (𒁳) 16:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I was never Arab. I am Egyptian and speak a little Arabic, so I can't be labeled as Arab. Unfortunately, I find that you are confusing "Linguistics" as "Ethnicity". Also, giving reliable references would not include referencing other articles in Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia policies and guidlines (just a note). Lastly, I forgot to tell you that only the converts inter-married. The Coptic Orthodox didn't inter-marry—that's what I was saying all along. The only major "Arabic" influence is the language that they speak, and even then Egyptian Arabic was influenced by the use of Coptic by the people and Arabic by the government (that's how it was at the first several centuries). ~ Troy (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
language is one major factor constituting ethnicity. If you lose your language, you lose your ethnicity, as can be observed in any second to third generation diaspora population (the second generation usually becomes rabidly patriotic to make up for their uprootedness, and the third generation doesn't give a shit and blends in with the host population). I see no point in discussing this further. You are welcome to present academic sources for each and every one of your claims, just go easy on the denominational websites. I know the Copts were persecuted by the Mamluks. That's no reason to rely on dodgy partisan sources. Again, if you want to discuss the persecution of the Copts, bloody well do your own homework, go to a library, and dig up some quotable sources. --dab (𒁳) 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You can't prove a negative. On the contrary, if you aim on making claims that all Egyptians were "Arabized", then you will need to add a reliable source for that. ~ Troy (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, Al-Ahram is an unreliable source (see WP:SOURCE) as it is a government newspaper, and in this case, uses a census that is decades-old. If you're going to keep asking for sourcing, then I strongly suggest that you look at what you're doing yourself. ~ Troy (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
PS: there are verifiable sources that mention that the majority of Egyptians are at least partial descendants of the Ancient Egyptians (although it should be obvious). "Sacred Worlds" by Chris C. Parker (as seen on pp 181 on this preview) also clarifies this. In addition, it mentions the persecution of the Copts and other notable religious/denominational persecutions throughout the world. I hope this will be of better help. Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yet again, do we really need a source which states that Egyptians speak Arabic and have an Arab culture? Are you kidding me? That's what arabisation is. Next step is identifying as an Arab, and the arabisation is complete, and then you are an Arab. FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I have explained it to you how many times now? You still feel like mindlessly labelling folks as "Arab"? Feel good about wasting other people's time? Well, if you think that I'm going to fall for that, think again. Your "pharonist" claims look quite baseless as your only argument on that is Zerida's sock puppetry. May be that would work with Zerida, but to me, that is simply a stale argument, as I am not a part of that. That repeated claim is taking us nowhere; there's no point in being redundant.

If you wish to label us as "Arab", then yes, you do need evidence for that (WP:RS). "Assimilation" is not interchangeable with "Arabization", nor does it simply "change" the ethnicity. You claimed earlier on that it is about self identification. Here, it's as if you are saying that they are all Arab regardless. Either way, I am not convinced, and quite frankly, this discussion will do nothing but lose my interest. ~ Troy (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Crucial information removed

The following crucial addition by User:Lanternix as shown here [2] (which included references) was recently reverted in the name of removing edits made by "convicted" sockpuppeteer Zerida. Now, User:Lanternix has not been suspected of anything serious as far as I am aware and I believe that the edit I have just mentioned addresses an issue that most editors would rather avoid. The key paragraph is reproduced below.

Egyptians were forced into adopting the Arabic language, and many Arab rulers sought to implement this by punishing those who still spoke Egyptian by cutting their tongues [1] [2] This came at the expense of the native Egyptian language (called Coptic language by the Arabs), which became mostly extinct by the 18th century, although it is spoken today as a native tongue by a few hundred Egyptians.

Of course, someone will have a problem with it. In this case, we will hear about it. David873 (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that paragraph should be reinserted. It makes the ridiculous claim that people were punished for speaking Arabic with cutting out their tongues, and provides two unreliable sources.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The burden of proof really isn't on me since I wasn't the one who added it, but I do know for a fact that the Copts were heavily persecuted for centuries (ie: the Jizya tax), so it is important to note that simply assuming such historical facts or claims as "ridiculous" just because it sounds crazy to you provides for a very weak argument. ~ Troy (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

our sources for this are islamreview.com and copts.net? Give me a break. How difficult can it be to understand WP:RS? The burden of providing actual references (academic ones!) lies with those who would like to parade around the tongue-cutting stories. Please. You want to discuss the persecution of the Copts? Cite actual academic literature on the topic. "Evil Muslim rulers cut out Copts tongues!! (see copts.net)" isn't the sort of content we are looking for at Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 08:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even look at those sources. You were warned not to make such accusations against me personally. ~ Troy (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Who are you? Did I mention "Troy 07"? If you "didn't even look at those sources", why are you even commenting here? I'm not even talking to you. Please do everyone a favour and either start actually participating, as in, reading up on the sources under discussion, or else stay out of things altogether. This isn't Usenet. dab (𒁳) 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Please avoid the ad homimem criticism. I am free to add one simple comment. ~ Troy (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

no you are not. You are bound to WP:TALK like everyone else. Now stop waving around empty "ad hominem" accusations. I am not criticising you "ad hominem". You may bring up that complaint once you catch me making comments about your mother, your penis size or your intelligence. --dab (𒁳) 17:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop making accusations such as those. I am well aware of that, and I am still free to add my personal opinion whether you like it or not. ~ Troy (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
If I were you, I would have at least initially been far more welcoming. Unfortunately, I hoped that it wouldn't come to this, but it was your choice: I will no longer tolerate your ridiculous methods of reaching any agreement. You decided to continue on with your wilfulness, and so you have chosen to make things harder for yourself. I probably should have told you this a while ago—stop being such a dick. Who are you to feel good about yourself for giving childish lectures? I know full-well about those things—apparently, you are getting nowhere with telling me things that I'm more familiar with. The moment I spot you making such irresponsible comments, then you can say goodbye to any chance at making controversial additions. It wasn't my decision: it was yours, as I am not the one who is attempting (disruptive) edits without correct consultation. No consensus—no additions—period. ~ Troy (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I apologize if that bothers you, however, I highly suggest that you cease edit warring until everything is cleared up. My response to the sources (yes, they are inaccurate) are that you should remove the bad citations and sentence that it supports. On the other hand, simple assuming that the general historical account (Fatimids, Mamluks) is inaccurate as it is cannot rely on personal assumptions or simply because a sockpuppeteer happens to support it. So far, so good?
Now, removing the rest of the paragraph in which that phrase is in is another story. Simply put: unless it is properly consulted, removing relatively large texts should generally be avoided. ~ Troy (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
PS: at that point, I did not bother checking the sources yet as there is no reference section on the talk page. Next time, I expect you to be less uncivil towards other users (on your block log, it looks as though you don't have a good record for edit warring). ~ Troy (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am perfectly calm and civil. You are the one throwing hysterical fits here. I am afraid that you are the one being a dick here. You keep ranting at me even though I am not even in dispute with you. In fact, you avoid bringing up any topical point by substituting empty political noise. I am not interested, ok? You want to document the Copts? Go and play with google books and google scholar for a while. Until and unless you present some point based on quotable you shouldn't even be editing this page. Wikipedia has (gasp) actual content policies such as WP:V and actual user conduct guidelines such as WP:TALK besides the universally applicable warm-and-fuzzy WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL. Any troll can cry WP:CIVIL, who is going to judge? Your rants and empty accusations are ten times more incivil than my requests that you pretty please start delivering encyclopedic sources or go away. If you really think I am in violation of some guideline, complain at WP:ANI. I've been handling wiki disputes for four years. Trust me that I am familiar with our guidelines and policies and that I wouldn't be here now if I had a tendency for violating them. --dab (𒁳) 08:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not to blame. You ignored my attempts at reaching a resolution, and so I am not at fault. Also, you accuse me of being a "political zealot" who doesn't add any sources. Ridiculous. You don't appear to add any reliable ones yourself. Also, if you don't care about the articles that you are contributing to, then don't contribute at all—it's not asking for much. ~ Troy (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not to say that I was right to insult you; however, I did feel taken aback when you basically labeled all Egyptians as "Arabized" a couple of days back. That was simply a matter of miscommunication. ~ Troy (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Obviously there is some controversy or disagreement over the Coptic vs Arabic identity, so why can't this be represented in the article? The ancient history of Egypt can just be a "see also" link, the opening can say "the Egyptian people are a nationality, either seen as Arab-majority (sources), or as ethnic Egyptian-majority. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"why can't this be represented in the article"? I am sorry, have you looked at the article? The "Identity" section? Yes, the "history" section needlessly inflates the article to above 100k. It's an ok overview of the History of Egypt, but virtually nothing in it concerns the "history of the Egyptian people" as opposed to the generic "History of Egypt". This bloated section should be cut to a bare minimum to allow development of the content that actually belongs in this article. --dab (𒁳) 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Egyptians in general. Just to make things clear, it appears to me that Saimdusan is talking about the history of identity of the people, not the history of the country. There is a small, but notable difference between the two. ~ Troy (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Coptic

Ok, I separated the discussion of the linguistic history into a "Languages" section and edited it for encyclopedicity. The sources given for the persecution and decline of Coptic are unacceptable. I recognize for a fact that Coptic was marginalized from the 8th century, and actively persecuted under the Mamluks, but even so I have to insist on WP:RS. Diasporic Coptic websites with an axe to grind have no place as "references" on Wikipedia. I have left the references in place, tagging them with {{verify credibility}}, as a show of good faith, but this needs to be fixed asap. --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources for the Coptic revival:

can those editors wishing to document Coptic persecution and revival please look after this? Please pull your own weight. When your "sources" are criticized as unacademic, the burden is on you to produce something better. If you want to argue that "copts.net" or "islamreview.com" qualify as WP:RS, please take it to WP:RSN and see what happens. Fwiiw, the situation of the Copts in the abstract to the third source linked above reads

Traditionally Islam was the ideology of the state within which the Coptic Christian minority formed a subordinate dhimmi community. For a brief moment from the end of the nineteenth century until the end of the 1920s there seemed to be a process of consensus forming around a secular and liberal Egyptian national identity, as best expressed by the enormously popular nationalist-liberal Wafd party that had pioneered the struggle for Egyptian independence from Britain in the early part of the twentieth century. The rise of Islamic movements since the 1930s, and especially of the fundamentalist resurgence since the 1970s, broke that consensus and pushed Islam again to the fore as the common denominator of the majority, thus leaving the Copts out in the cold.

--dab (𒁳) 09:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, but you don't need to create "Coptic revival". The article is actually Coptic pronunciation reform. Technically, as I explained earlier, I am not responsible for the old sources. The actual issue, however, was that I simply couldn't find the better ones as I am not accustommed to all of them. I do agree that they should be changed, though. ~ Troy (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I would welcome some more detail on the Coptic revival. Even perhaps a dedicated article, compare Sanskrit revival. If you disclaim responsibility for the "old sources", you should avoid restoring them. I agree we just need to find better ones (please help). Persecution of Copts under the Mamluks (not under the "Arabs" in general) is a matter of historical record, and it should be easy to document. --dab (𒁳) 06:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that I always wanted to find better ones. The issue is, I may have to re-write entire articles or sections and it's a very tedious task. Can we just focus on getting sources first before playing around with the articles so that we know what we're doing? ~ Troy (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, regarding the 19th century language "renaisance", there are some sources similar to the ones you gave. This source states that there are people in the diaspora (Australia, specifically) who know some Coptic. But more importantly, I find that sources like this are best at confirming that there was work on reintroducing the language starting from the 19th century, notably with the help of Pope Cyril IV. ~ Troy (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

More Zerida sock-puppets

Watch out for IPs and new accounts pushing the Pharaonist POV, last three were sock-puppets of Zerida, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Zerida FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue, I'm well aware of that. ~ Troy (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, you're hardly the only editor here besides me. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
No need to worry, FunkMonk. I've dealt with IP vandals and socks before, so I will deal with the issue if I come across it. Besides, if I ever have the urge to find out what's going on, I could always use this tool.
It looks as though the IPs go as far back as at least Oct. 2004 with this guy. ~ Troy (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we'll count Lanternix (talk · contribs) as part of this? At least this editor isn't even trying to pretend they have any sort of case or rationale behind the revert warring. --dab (𒁳) 05:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • If it makes you sleep at night thinking of me as a Zerida puppet or whatever, then be it. But you are very naive to think that these senless and very much unfounded accusations will make me refrain from cleaning the garbage you have included in the article. A mon tour, I am warning you that you will be reported to Wikipedia admins if you continue to vandalize the article, and if you continue to oppose edits made by Ghaly, Troy and myself. --Lanternix (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

um, what "garbage"? I have fixed certain issues I tagged back in May (tags were removed without comment by Zerida and socks). I do not care who you are at all, but you are seamlessly continuing Zerida's edit-war, after anonymous canvassing to your talkpage. You are undoing a complex edit without stating what you are objecting to. This includes restoration of completely unsourced material, such as Bahá'í and Judaism being common denominations of Egyptians. I consider this vandalism in the narrow sense of "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", and as such rollbackable. If you want to justify your actions as a bona fide dispute, make an attempt to cite sources or raise actual concerns. You are not speaking for Ghaly or Troy, who are actually contributing constructively to this article in spite of their personal biases, and I do expect them to join me in reverting both sock and meatpuppetry. --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that I am fully aware that I can only speak for myself (of course), my job is only to add sources or try to avoid getting into edit warring. So, with the exception of obvious or intentional vandalism, I expect both Lanternix and Dab to not break the 3rr, as it looks as though you are on the verge of doing so today (both of you have barely missed making more than three reverts in twenty-four hours). As for IP edits by any of Zerida's socks, again that can be dealt with. I can do with discussing the disputes, but we could all do without repeated revert-wars.
Also, to avoid disputing with anyone in particular, I will quote a part of Wikipedia's policy on verifiable sources:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[3] When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references."

...since any of the edits that might be considered "questionable" are substantial differences, as Dab already mentioned, I find that anything that Lanternix wants to permanently restore or anything that Dab wants to add needs:
A: a credible source
B: to be written in conjunction with that source
...and yes, I do acknowldge that the Jews and Ba'hais were not supported by anything that was credible. Again, the differences are substantial, so fixing just one thing on the part of anyone will not suddenly make the issue, so I want to be clear on that. To me, it looks as though Lanternix needs to discontinue edits as they appear to be disruptive. Lastly, in regards to Dab, I kindly ask you to also discontinue taking part in edit warring either and to avoid fanning the flames, even if it looks like "vandalism". ~ Troy (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
If that dude User:Dbachmann cares to debate like a human being, I would be more than happy to provide him/her with explainations for my edits. But to revert the work that people spent years composing, just becuase he/she is haunted by some ghost named Zerida, is not acceptable and I will not tolerate this type of vandalism on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I challenge this user to prove that I deleted anything original he/she had written. My edit was based on the last version of the article dating June 2008, and from which much valuable information has since been removed. As a gesture of good faith, I hereby offer to begin a debate over what this user objects to. However, as I said earlier, continuous vandalism and reverts will be similarily treated. --Lanternix (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Trust me: I know what vandalism is. Dbachmann is saying that he considers Lanternix's edits to be "vandalism in the narrow sense". Vandalism doesn't have to be deliberate or obvious like this. I am not pointing fingers at anyone, but FYI, vandalism is described here.
Also, it doesn't matter whatever the case is: Lanternix is still not entitled to refuse explaning edits as per Wikipedia's guidlines. It specifically says that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". In this case, continuous restoration of previous revisions is not justifiable as it is still considered to be an edit war. If I see anyone rv more than 3 times in 24h again (Lanternix reverted 5 edits today), then I will have to report it at WP:ANI, and I don't want to do that. ~ Troy (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
it does have to be "deliberate", but the nastiest type of vandalism is the non-obvious kind (such as fiddling with numbers in a table), because that's much more difficult to catch. Lanternix' vandalism is the "frustrated pov-warrior" type, we frequently get this sort after an editor has realized they have no case, so they stop pretending to argue and go for plain old disruption ("if I can't play, I'll at least spoil it for the other kids, too"). Wikipedia has become very good at dealing with this type, it's not a problem. In case of violations of the 3RR, a report to WP:AN/3RR is easiest, since discussions of what constitutes vandalism don't even arise there. The next step is typically logged-out reverts (the user edits anonymously to avoid being tracked), which is easily countered by semiprotection. At some point, the trolls usually just walk away. Some take a couple of months before they get bored though. dab (𒁳) 10:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Haha, Lanternix is not frustrated and will not get frustrated. He has dealt with many of your alikes before, whose goal in life is to disrupt things for no reason. And, contrary to your paragraph full of rantings, Lanternix has already offered to begin a discussion on this page, and you chose to ignore it, probably deliberatly since you have nothing to prove. C'est la guerre alors, si tu le désires! --Lanternix (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, I am fully aware of WP:AN3 and I have reported there as well for 3rr violations. However, I should clarify that this edit war appears to have occured at least a couple of articles instead of just this one, thus, I will acknowledge that those article histories will be just as negatively affected if these edit wars continue. I can at least confirm that Lanternix does need to prove and/or verify that all or any of the sources in question are reliable, however, it needs to be done in a way that both of you don't mercilessly continue revert-warring over a content dispute. Even if there is any "vandalism" involved, that does not permit any of you to revert if the only reason is an edit summary that cries "vandalism". The fact remains that you are both reverting over the content itself (ie: what is to be considered neutral or POV). ~ Troy (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, quoting from Wikipedia's policy on resolving disputes, it says the following:
Dbachmann, try not to repeatedly label folks as socks, vandals or POV warriors as you are to comment on the contributions themselves first and foremost. Lanternix, as I have already said, if you support the present state, then you must verify the sources. If no one is willing to give some ground to the other—not even for the benefit of the doubt—then I am simply wasting my time here. I can think of a million bigger and better things than to stick around all day and taking part in an escalating discussion full of rants—there is no purpose in that. To anyone here, feel free to add positive contributions, but do not engage in edit warring as already seen. I can't and will not stand for any of that for any longer. ~ Troy (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Rules of discussion

  • To FunkMonk ; would you mind explaining your way of using the word (Pharaonist) , the way I see it is that you are trying to suppress other's POV by using this word . I am Egyptian and I know what I am talking about when I talk about my Ethnic origin.

In Britain a person can describe their ethnic origin as either British or Welsh, British or Scottish , British or English .

I would like you to explain what you mean by denying that Egyptians are not an Ethnic group and please without intimidation. Ghaly (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about intimidation when you're the one who keeps spamming my talk page with three revert warnings? Ethnicity is about self-identification, a significant number, if not most, Muslim Egyptians identify as Arabs, regardless of their actual genetic origin, and that's what counts. Egyptians are not an ethnicity, but a collection of people who identify as several different identities, just like Cubans or Swiss. As for what pharaonism means, I suggest you read some of Zerida/sock-puppet's earlier talk page comments to see what it means, since he was the archetypal pharaonist. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but that sounds like the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Egyptians are an ethnicity just like other types where there is often a "dual" meaning. Even those who say that they are "Arab" will often say that they are "Egyptian" as well. As I see it, the Copts are most certainly an ethnicity within the Egyptian identity (ie: an English Brit), although usually people can say just one or the other.
I am a Copt, but that makes me no less of an "Egyptian". I am an "Egyptian Copt"—just like some who would say that they are an "Egyptian Arab". And also, you can forget about telling me that I don't know what you're talking about—I have read Zerida's sock puppet cases more than once and know more about sock puppetry than you would imagine. For me, that hardly changes anything. Tell me—if your argument is "no self-identification", then how could you simply ignore those who do self identify themselves as "Egyptian", wether Arab or not? How do you get 50.5 million google page hits with "Egyptian" (no "s") and 203 million with "Arab" (likewise)? There is simply no way to label them all as "non-Egyptians", regardless of your (or anyone's) personal views. ~ Troy (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • To FunkMonk Please mind your language , swear words are not acceptable and I am not going to respond to your intimidations , I have been subject to too many attempts of that kind before and they do not affect me . I think you violated the three reverts rule on the day I told you about it, and my aim was to make you aware of it so you wont violate it, as for your language ; it is not going to get your POV to be more acceptable as reverting to swear and insults is always a sign of a weak POV .

Regarding your logic in conversation , I am not convinced that the way you present your argument is either acceptable or compliant with rules of discussion. Ghaly (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

FunkMonk, if you are so surprised that Ghaly "spammed" your talk page, then may be you should, uh, stop edit warring? It's not rocket science, and quite frankly, your personal opinions are not to be regarded as anything that is superior or consensual. ~ Troy (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The funny thing is that he warned me after I had reverted only twice, when the "allowed" number is three. Then he did it again when I reverted the Zerida socks. Redundant and annoying. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. Regardless, if that really bothers you, then you should still avoid edit warring. As I said a few days ago, I was aware that you didn't notice that there was no consensus. Whatever the case, at this point, I expect less reverts from all of us until there is some sort of agreement. I'm not asking for much - I simply want to be on the same page with you. ~ Troy (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Troy is correct in stating that there often is the "dual" meaning of ethnicity and nationality we see here. Thus, "Germans" may refer both to an ethnic group and to citizenship. On one end of the scale, we have groups like "US Americans" (nationality only, no ethnic group) and, say, "Kurds" on the other (ethnicity only, not a nationality). "Egyptians" like many others fall somewhere in between. This is not a problem. Just describe how the group is being described in various sources. These sorces may be in contradiction with one another, that's perfectly normal. Wikipedia doesn't discuss "the Truth", it documents the range of opinions (within WP:DUE). Just cite your sources, and there will be no need for dispute here. There are lots of sources that treat the Egyptians as an Arab group, and we will cite the opinion, but obviously without implying they are "correct". We will of course also cite the opposing opinion that sees the Egyptians as distinct from Arabs. We will not try to decide who is "right" in this. As far as I can see, FunkMonk has merely reverted Zerida sock edits[6]. This is completely uncontroversial, since Zerida is a banned troll and has no business editing Wikipeda. All of his edits, regardless of content, are to be reverted on sight. This should include canvassing and calls to edit-warring like here. --dab (𒁳) 08:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


  • To FunkMonk , when I reminded you about the 3 edit reverts rule was because I could see were you were going with your edits and it was mainly to make you reaslise that I am not interested in edit wars and to bring your attention to what was going on as I see it , somehow based on my calculations I thought you have already reverted three times the edits before I sent you the first message and the second one was when I thought you have broken the rule , I am not intending to go any further, wether my calculations were correct or not is another issue .

I put a referrence by error then I corrected it with another three credible referrences , yet just because you don't agree with them you think they should be deleted , Please try to explain your point of view about that .

The consensus you mentioned , do you mean what you said that you are happy with an ethnicity that has been forced on your ancestors , to tell you the truth I am a little pit lost here , what consensus exactley and about what , also your comments like No such thing as Masri in English, what do you mean by this, this discussion that you started and if it wasn't for your edits things would have not developed to where we are, .

As for your logic in discussion, attitude towards other editors and your way of trying to put forward your POV, there would be no problem there if you are compliant with rules of discussion. Ghaly (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ghaly, "discussion" on Wikipedia does not mean "idle exchange of opinions", it means "discussing specific WP:RS". No sources, no discussion. See also WP:NOT. Your sentiments regarding an "ethnicity forced on your ancestors" are completely off topic here. These sentiments are referenced in the article, under "Pharaonism". Wikipedia isn't interested in meeting the raw sentiment first hand, it is only interested in reporting secondary sources dealing with the sentiment (WP:TIGERS). thanks. --dab (𒁳) 09:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "ethnicity forced on your ancestors" are not mentined by me first ,it was what FunkMonk has written in one of his edit summaries as he mentioned that the Arabic ethnicity was forced on the Egyptians as part of justifying his edit and I just mentioned it to him as part of asking about the consensus that dab and FunkMonk keep on mentioning.

As for the consensus I can not find it, please let me know what consensus has been reached and where exactly I can find it on the talk page.


To dab and FunkMonk please don't insult me , twisting my words is not going to get us any where.

Regarding the on-going editing war , I have no interest in sharing in it. Ghaly (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not insult you, I patiently explained Wikipedia basics to you. As soon as valid issues are raised, we can discuss them. Until there are, there isn't a dispute. Simple WP:TALK. Random calls of "vandalism" without any rationale to back them up (as you can witness in Lanternix' post below) do not qualify as a dispute, and certainly don't affect consensus. If Lanternix is interested in building this article, let him build some coherent case within Wikipedia content policies. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI for the bunch of vandals who are damaging the article, here's the newest finding from the Wiki masters about my relation to that ghost Zerida who is causing you some serious psychological problems: [[7]]

But the war is not over, and your vandalism WILL be reverted one day. You are at luck that my real life does not currently permit me to indulge in a virtual one. --Lanternix (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I've already voiced my opinion on the recent revert-warring, there's really no purpose for me to take part in this. Also, I'm sure that by now, all of the users are aware of WP:TALK, Dbachmann, so there's no need for repeating yourself any longer. This edit war specifically is still far more liable to WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV dispute than it is to WP:VANDALISM, which is quite vague regarding content disputes and/or edit wars. You can all (specifically dab and lanternix) go around calling eachother "vandals", but you CAN'T overuse the term. I'm sure that we are all familiar with what you have both said, so unless I'm mistaken, you may not continue to label others as such. It lacks civility and will be subject to only more disputes/issues/edit wars, and we don't want that, do we?? ~ Troy (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Troy, if this is about NPOV, you should explain which bit is under dispute, and propose an improved phrasing. If you do that, we have a discussion. If you do not, what can I say, there is no dispute. I hate to repeat myself, but why do you keep ignoring this very simple point? Lanternix hasn't shown he is aware of what "NPOV" actually says, let alone explained what he thinks is the problem. You don't want to take part "in this"? Fine. Then it's settled, because neither do I, nor, by all appearances, does Lanternix. A "dispute" on Wikipedia isn't just people coming to talkpages and calling other people names. That would be Usenet. If nobody has any coherent point to make, what is this even about? Can you now please either discuss the article, or else stop saying you do not want to discuss it. dab (𒁳) 08:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. I said that it is an edit war which is over the content, automatically making it disputable. I never implied that calling names and so forth was the dispute, that's your own mistake to assume that. Also, you're not the only one who's repeating yourself (even as I am aware of how Usenet works, so that's a no-brainer). I have already explained that you may not continue to get involved in edit warring nor repeatedly nametag it as just vandalism. If you keep trying to use disruption and/or game the system, then as I have already said, I will simply report you if necessary. And no, you simply are incorrect if you're going to assume that I have to explain the dispute before the edit war (different but related). The edit war must cease completely before anything else matters. Whether you agree with that or not, I shouldn't and will not care to bother with that as it is a personal bias and may not be used as a guide for reasoning. ~ Troy (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to note that I was never here to make pointed remarks or take offense at anyone. Again, I feel that you should realize that I do not find this edit war to be near acceptable levels. I am more than happy to bring up what bit of content we should be careful with, however, what I had in mind was to discontinue edit warring and stop making any "Usenet"-like remarks (I see that Dbachmann and Lanternix have had their share of taking part in that and I obviously feel somewhat displeasured). ~ Troy (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Troy, I am sorry, but you are wrong. The mere act of mechanically reverting edits does not show that there is an actual content dispute. There is a wide margin separating the outright "vandal" from Wikipedians in good standing disagreeing over something. Within this margin, you find a colourful crew of trolls, cranks, zealots, cholerics etc. who may believe they are "right" because they haven't read or understood what Wikipedia is trying to do. I strongly object to your equating Laternix' behaviour to mine. I have patiently pointed out that Laternix is out of line, and why. I am aware and fully endorse project policy. I am willing to collaborate with anyone who can say the same. I will not, and am not required to, engage in "disputes" with people who cannot. Now, I would be happy to collaborate with you in the further development of this article, but for this you should please, please stop musing over "vandalism" and begin raising some points on the topic of Egyptians. Otherwise I really do not see why you keep editing a page which right at the top has the message This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Egyptians article., in boldface. dab (𒁳) 14:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the article history gets negatively affected when this happens. Also, I will discuss what I want to start with first when I have the time; I'm really not into it right now, although I was fully aware of the recent edits (my recent comments were simply a result of that). ~ Troy (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"History" section

At present, the "history" section is a WP:CFORK of History of Egypt. Is anyone interested in working on this? Otherwise, I suggest we simply reduce it to a brief WP:SS summary for the time being, to be expanded into an actual history of the ethnicity in the future. Solving this is the next step forward with this article because the entire article suffers from the bloat in the historical section inflating it to >100k. Once we've cut down the history section to a sensible size, we may begin balancing section contents with a view to making this a "good" article. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though the tone does need to be more relevent in regards to the ethnicity instead of the the history of Egypt. However, as you said, it needs to be trimmed down before it could possibly be re-written. If there would be any opposition to that, we will probably hear about it sooner rather than later anyway. ~ Troy (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I do invite you to begin with the trimming. I have already worked on this back in may. No coherent opposition was voiced, but there was a revert-war conjured up by the Zerida sock army instead, so I walked away in disgust. At present, Lanternix (talk · contribs) appears to be the only pov-warring account left, which should not prevent us from going ahead with the article. --dab (𒁳) 08:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Dbachmann, I truly wish I could help you, but I am working on a sock puppet case that is so extreme that it makes Zerida's sock puppetry look like it's (relatively) easy for me to handle. I have just filed a report (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benkenobi is a retardate) yesterday and I still need to work on finding a way to completely discontinue any threat of more sock puppetry from that user. That guy is involved in cross-wiki vandalism, so I will have to take some time on that to ease the situation there. Also, I feel far better about less of the edit warring going on, but the issue hasn't been fully dealt with yet. I will do my best to work on it in due time, though. If anything important is going on here, then I ask anyone to notify me if I don't notice—I've been a little busier lately. Good luck, ~ Troy (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, I'll just reduce it to WP:SS again. Since Lanternix + socks doesn't even pretend to be participating in a debate, we may need to call in some uninvolved admin to clamp down on the disruption so the article can proceed without all this vitriolic background noise. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to establish whether User talk:76.16.176.177 is a sock. He's getting annoying. Trim away. Doug Weller (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Would be nice to establish whether Lanternix is a sock too or not. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed! Please find out and let me know! Ad hominem attacks don't quite work with me. --Lanternix (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
One IP who responded similarly turned out to be a Zerida sock, so who knows? FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes sure, you have all the right to investigate. But you'll soon find out that, while Lanternix agrees with many of Zerida's edits, he is not Zerida. And he will continue to revert referenced statements - per Wikipedia's rules - in articles about Egypt and Egyptians, unless these edits are explained and agreed upon! I think it's a little unfair to see the work that people have put years compiling totally removed, simply because some guy out there doesn't like it! --Lanternix (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are you referring to yourself in third person? FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Schizophrenia. --Lanternix (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be dissociative identity disorder, actually. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Wrong diagnosis.
"Dissociative identity disorder (DSM) is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a condition in which a single person displays multiple distinct identities or personalities, each with its own pattern of perceiving and interacting with the environment."
All my "identities" and "personalities" do in fact agree with each other and interact with the environment the same way. After all, they are all using the one and same account on Wikipedia. --Lanternix (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

well, I am having a deja vu here. Lanternix is showing exactly the same irrational opposition to finally getting ahead with the article as formerly seen by Zerida and sock army. I must conclude that Lanternix is likely another Zerida sock. Now they're throwing around vitriol about alleged "ad hominem" attacks, anything to avoid discussing the actual issue. FunkMonk, you should not feed the troll. If they persist, let them be banned over 3RR, problem solved. I do not see any bona fide concerns raised here. My recent edits simply addressed some long-standing issues, tagged for months now. I won't second-guess Lanternix' motives, but it seems clear that they want to prevent the development of an encyclopedia article on the Egyptians. This falls under WP:DISRUPT. dab (𒁳) 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You can have all the deja vu's you'd like. This doesn't change the fact that deleting referenced material is VANDALISM. Good luck with your Zerida ghost thingy. Maybe you need to see a shrink about that. --Lanternix (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
you still haven't actually read Wikipedia:Vandalism, have you. Perhaps now would be a good time to do so, before you make even more of a fool of yourself. I delete "referenced material" every day, and rightly so, under {{offtopic}}, {{trivia}}, {{unreliable source}}, etc. You have a specific point you would like to include in this article? Then the burden is on you to establish that your source is WP:DUE to a discussion of the topic "Egyptians". Prologued discussions of Predynastic and Pharaonic Egypt definitely is not, as should be clear from a glance at the disambiguation notice, or indeed the article lead. Oh yes, and do keep up the labelling of editors as psychopaths, I will be much obliged if it speeds up the warn-block-cycle you're clearly heading for. dab (𒁳) 19:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Move to "Egyptian people"

I think this article should be moved to Egyptian people, that's the norm for articles about modern populations here on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should. Most "people" articles are so titled for reasons of disambiguation. Thus, French people, English people, because French and English are disambiguatino pages. We have Germans, Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, Italians (etc.) no problem. There is no such norm as you are suggesting, and I don't think there should be. --dab (𒁳) 13:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, shouldn't "Egyptians" be a disambig page too then? There already is one, Egyptians (disambiguation), but I was just thinking that we should have some kind of standard way of doing it. Otherwise we could have such differently named disambiguation page for everything which needs one. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow you. French is a disambiguation because it can mean "the French" (French people) or "in French" (French language), or just "of France" in general. "Egyptians" (the plural) isn't prone to any such ambiguity, nor is "Egyptian", because the people are not known as "the Egyptian" as in "the French", "the Swiss" etc. There is Egyptians (disambiguation) because there is a very minor group known as "Egyptians" in the Balkans, Egyptians (Balkans). If you argue we should disambiguate the modern Egyptians from the Ancient Egyptians, you will note that (a) Ancient Egyptians is just a redirect, and (b) we could just link to Ancient Egyptians from the top of this page if necessary. If we really need an Ancient Egyptians article separate from Ancient Egypt (say as in Gauls and Gaul), somebody would need to sit down and write it first. I am really not quite sure whether I catch your meaning, since this is all perfectly obvious. We create disambiguation pages whenever they are needed, that's purely on a case-by-case basis. --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It was more about consistency across articles than for the sake of disambiguation. For all I care, Egyptians could redirect to Egyptian people, but as you say, there might not be a need to add "people", I just thought it was a standard thing, since I've never seen another people article without the word "people" in the title, apart from the Arab article, which I think would be better off called "Arab people" too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
but why? It is the very core of WP:NAME to go with whichever is common English usage. Nobody would normally say "the Egyptian people" or "the Arab people" in English, it's just "the Egyptians", "the Arabs". Ok, so per WP:DAB it should be French (people) instead of French people, but since it is possible to say "the French people", I guess it is our convention to drop the brackets in such cases. If you really cared about standardization, you should push for a move to French (people), English (people), Swiss (people).
A direct corollary of WP:NAME is also that any moves based on standardization issues are probably a bad idea. Always look at the specific case before moving articles. --dab (𒁳) 14:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking around, I see that there a quite a bunch of articles about peoples without the word "people" in the title. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dbachmann on that one. It looks like the naming conventions always point to the most commonly used term, in this case, "Egyptians" (in reference to the ethnicity; ie: the French, the English, the Americans). ~ Troy (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Egyptian people I'm surprised that this subject even has to be mentioned, self identity is a prerequisite for any nationalism...I do believe that the whole world acknowledges that there is an Egyptian identity, quite distinct from Arab, modern Egyptian nationalism was, as all nationalistic movements, a reaction to a perceived external threat/threats...This alone indicates an Egyptian people....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Arab World needs help on question of if Egyptians are Arabs

The Arab World article appears to be suffering from a slow-moving revert war over the question of if Egyptians are Arabs. Since I do not have any particular knowledge of the subject, I cannot really help (I only have the article on my watchlist in order to keep an eye out for socks of a particular banned editor). However I noticed that the Identity section of this article appears to be well sourced and cited with over a dozen references. If any of the editors knowledgeable on this subject could lend a hand on this topic at the Arab World article, I would be very grateful. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kralizec, It is very clear that Egyptians were not and are not Arabs, Egyptians are Egyptians from 7500 years till now, but now we say that we are Arabs as we are now talking Arabic, and 90% of Egytians are Muslims like Arabs majorities « PuTTYSchOOL 19:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

look, this question is a matter of opinion. We are not looking towards "deciding" it, per WP:TRUTH, we just report on the various opinions. Anyone unable to understand this, and trying to impose a statement of how it "really is" is in violation of core policy and consequently has no business editing here and should be entering the warn-block cycle. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Interestingly, here's a statement with a citation from that Arab World article which migh tbe useful here: "Like many other Arabic-speaking peoples, the majority of Egyptians consider themselves Arab on both a cultural and racial basis." Ref: World Book, Inc., The World Book Encyclopedia, (World Book, Inc.: 2001), p.123 Tracey Boraas, Egypt, (Capstone Press: 2001), p.45" FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It is not a matter of opinion, it is according our history, Egyptians were not Arabs, but now we are proud to consider ourselves as Arabs, you can follow Egypt history, at the same time Egyptians choose Arab Republic of Egypt as the country name, now you can revise WP:TRUTH.« PuTTYSchOOL 18:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • look, Putty, there are two opinions on this. So you embrace one of these, congratulations. No, we will not "revise WP:TRUTH". If you cannot accept that Wikipedia isn't interested in your personal views, you should probably just leave. We can use FunkMonk's quote, "the majority of Egyptians consider themselves Arab on both a cultural and racial basis". We can also add other quotes if provided. That's it, there is nothing to discuss beyond that. --dab (𒁳) 20:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Dab, Frankly I don’t know what you are trying to say, even I don’t feel that you are familiar with the subject, are you an Egyptian, can we say that Turkish are not Turkish as Kurdish people in Turkey do not believe they are Turkish.
What do you mean by just leave, Do you want me to leave in order to give a space for Wikipedian unfamiliar with the subject to invent a new history of our own? « PuTTYSchOOL 20:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what he said to me. I've seen him put up his personal views and no one asked him to leave. Would he like me to ask him to shut up? That wouldn't have been provoked, would it? Obviously, I wouldn't stoop down to that level, and neither should Dab. I expect more of him. ~ Troy (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any personal views on this. Putty violated WP:SOAP by airing his personal views, and I asked him to stop it, that's all. If I failed to make myself clear, I am sorry. You don't have to take my word for anything, just go and read WP:NOT, especially WP:TRUTH, and then kindly respect the rules. --dab (𒁳) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok Dab, without violating any thing, Now we are Arabs, but can you please tell me, from 7500 years Egypt#Ancient_Egypt, are we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puttyschool (talk • contribs)
Of course Egyptians are NOT Arabs. They existed thousands of years before the Arabs were even mentioned in history. The fact that Egyptians today speak Arabic does not make them Arabs. Unless you consider Canadians and Americans and Australians and other people who speak English as a first language to be British. --Lanternix (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

sheesh, this is simply a matter of opinion, or of definition. See WP:TRUTH. Egypt is a founding member and seat of headquarters of the Arab League, so we must admit that the Arab character of Egypt does have some notability. Others disagree. We report whatever is notable, not what's "true". --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Egyptians do not belong to one ethnic group, ask the individual Egyptian what he identifies as if you want a definitive answer, generalising doesn't make sense here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's not "simply a matter of opinion" as you say! If I am a Black man from Zambia, for example, but I believe I am Chinese, does this make me Chinese?! Opinion means NOTHING to this discussion. There's biology, history, genetics, linguistics, anthropology etc etc, and all of these point to the fact that Egyptians are Egyptians, NOT Arabs. As for the arab league argument, it's simply laughable. Egypt is also a founding member of the Francophonie, and Boutros Boutros Ghali, an Egyptian, was the first secrétaire général of the Francophonie. Now you tell me, does this make the Egyptians also French? Please let me know because if so then I'd like to apply for an EU passport! Wikipedia is an objective place, not a subjective and opinion-based one. --Lanternix (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

do you have a reading problem? You were pointed to WP:TRUTH. You can read there in plain English that Wikipedai is about notability, not truth. If there is a notable opinion linking the Zambians to the Chinese, Wikpedia will report it. Except that it isn't notable but some random nonsense you made up. Nobody here is interested whether Egyptians are "really" Arabs. All we are interested in is, is the idea that "Egyptians are Arabs" at all notable or held by many people? The answer is yes. Now if you cannot or do not want to follow an argument as simple as this one, I do not think there is any point in your "contributing" here. --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The dictatorship of minority

First of all, English Wikipedia to me became a joke when it comes to talk about Arabs or Islam. You should add a new template here on the top of any Arabs or Muslims article "This is an article about Mars and you must not think that what mentioned here can be compared to any people or religion on Earth"

First joke: "The national identity of Egyptians as it developed in the 19th to 20th centuries consists of overlapping or conflicting ideologies, a Muslim identity prone to Arab nationalism on one hand, versus a secular nationalism that focuses primarily on Ancient Egypt."

Muslim Identity prone to Arab nationalism? Do you really have such ignorance about the historical disputes between Arabism and Muslim movements? Don't you know who put the basis of Arabism? One of the main principles of Arabism is a complete secularism and Arabism can't be linked to religion at any circumstance.

Another amazing joke in this article that the "nationalists" who are actually fascists are not secular.

Second joke: "It was not until the Nasser era more than a decade later that Arab nationalism"

That actually means that Arab nationalism did rise from nothing! And it doesn't have any roots. Like Mamluk states or Mohamed Ali era. What are you talking about man? Who are these Mamluks or Ayyubids? They don't exist!

Third joke (The Top joke of jokes): "Many Egyptians today feel that Egyptian and Arab identities are inextricably linked, and emphasize the central role that Egypt plays in the Arab world. The Muslim Brotherhood now has a broad following, particularly among the lower-middle class urban population"

How do you count guys? Can 1+1=20??? Doesn't any one here know the disputes between Islamism and Arabism? These two things can't be together as ideology! The doctorine of Muslim Brotherhood is Anti-Arabist. You should read more about the aftermath inside Egypt of Six days war perhaops you get persuaded.

Fourth joke: "'We are not Arabs, we are Egyptians,' said tour guide Shayma, who is a devout Muslim."

(...) Perhaps I was that Shaymaa without my knowledge :d

I am sorry that English wikipedia became a place for such fascist minority to spread their evil ideology and their misleading ideas about Egyptians "Perhaps they don't consider me Egyptian??"

Egyptian lion (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, You assumed that you are an "Egyptian lion", you can go and fix, using thousands of available reliable sources, tell me did the English Wikipedia stopped you before from showing facts? Most articles about Arabs or Islam or Christianity in Meddle East needs a lot of work, so you can focus on the articles not on the talk pages. « PuTTYSchOOL 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
a lot of noise about a minor point that could be fixed in a minute. You are welcome to help, but you'll need to find a more detached matter-of-factly tone first. --dab (𒁳) 14:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't need a what's you called matter-of-factly tone first because the article is in a bad need for such tune and this is not a "a lot of noise about a minor point" This is my identity and you try to IMPOSE a minority view on my nation. I put the neutrality template in identity section because that section tries to prove one side and all citations from one side. There is no citations from intellectuals like Mohamed Hassanein Heikal and other pan-arabists. beside the section suggests that Pan-Arabism didn't exist before Nasser. Shaymaa reference doesn't exist it is a fake or a dead link. You need to add a reference or the whole phrase should be removed. Egyptian lion (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I had already suspected this was (stifled sigh) "your identity". You wouldn't be acting as you do if this wasn't personal for you. Please note that Wikipedia isn't for your personal vendettas. It's detached encyclopedicity or out. Since you do appear to know what you are talking about, I would be ever so glad if you could rise above your patriotic emotion for a minute and contribute in an encyclopedic tone (not tune). Especially since we used to be inundated in "Pharaonists", it would be useful to have a reasonable "Arabist" voice for balance. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 15:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
dab Please do not bite the newcomers ! :) « PuTTYSchOOL 15:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
what if they bite first though? I wasn't clamping down on a timid newbie making innocent mistakes, after all, I was calling to order an editor that burst upon the scene in full ranting mode. dab (𒁳) 16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we all don't have to take it personal but actually the article was totally biased and the tone or tune here resemble far-right organizations propaganda's. Identity section favors one side, the amazing linkage between Pan-Arabism and Islamism and insisting on total secularism of "Pharaonists". I won't be happy if you remove the quotation of "Pharaonist" intellectuals but "AT least" if you put 5 in favor of one side so you should put the same for the other side.
  • "I had already suspected this was (stifled sigh) "your identity"" (...)
  • "it would be useful to have a reasonable "Arabist" voice" the "reasonable" voice you call for should be on both sides.
  • "It's detached encyclopedicity or out" That is correct, this is what can make Wikipedia relatively trusted. Not the "good faith" Shaymaa quotaion ! Egyptian lion (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this paragraph "In late 2007, el-Masri el-Yom daily newspaper conducted an interview at a bus stop in the working-class district of Imbaba to ask citizens what Arab nationalism (el-qawmeyya el-'arabeyya) represented for them. One Egyptian Muslim youth responded, "Arab nationalism means that the Egyptian Foreign Minister in Jerusalem gets humiliated by the Palestinians, that Arab leaders dance upon hearing of Sadat's death, that Egyptians get humiliated in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, and of course that Arab countries get to fight Israel until the last Egyptian soldier."[32] Another felt that,"Arab countries hate Egyptians," and that unity with Israel may even be more of a possibility than Arab nationalism(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources), because he believes that Israelis would at least respect Egyptians.[32]" contradicts with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations See the third point (For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment.) In addition, the owner of Almasry Alyoum newspaper is Naguib Sawiris who is famous of being Anti-Arab.
Sources No.41 and 42 are not reliable sources. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources even source no.41 is marked unreliable. See A page in reference 42 website
As I am a newcomer here, what is the usual action in this case? Can these paragraphs be removed or rephrased or these sources should be replaced by reliable sources? Actually I don't want to be involved in a war of editing and undo editing so we have to reach a deal here Egyptian lion (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I remove these exceptional claims until their supporters get reliable references Egyptian lion (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

this was excessive. These claims were not "exceptional", and satisfactorily referenced. What, pray, is "exceptional" about the account of the decline of the Coptic language?
The newspaper references are ok, but the quoting of "one Egyptian Muslim youth at a bus stop" is probably undue. This is valid information, but WP:UNDUE in this article, and would belong exported to an Egyptian nationalism article (to be created). We want to describe both "Pharaonism" and Pan-Arabism in Egypt. If you support one position, you are not to blank expressions of the other, you are welcome to add expressions of your own side. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we need an administrator right here to solve this problem because these refernces are not reliable, promoting religious views and claiming exceptional claims " Unity with Israel??!!" You still live abroad (You are in Zurich, perhaps you are not Egyptian and don't understand Arabic) so you don't know about Egyptian journals and newspapers. Egyptian lion (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
See this http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/arab_conquest_of_egypt.pdf Page 10 (xxvi) Egyptian lion (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
what gave you the impression I was Egyptian? I am not. I am, however, a Wikipedia administrator (although not presently acting as one), and I am acquainted in detail with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I am also not stupid. The passage you object to is clearly labelled as an opinion reported by a news source. I already stated that the full quote is probably undue here, and you are most welcome to go and create a full Egyptian nationalism article, where you will be free to discuss both "Arabism" and "Pharaonism" in all detail, side by side. We get it ok? This is a dispute within Egyptian society. You happen to take the Arabist view. Right above on this page, you will find the exploits of editors taking the "Pharaonist" view. Go figure. We are not going to decide who is "right", we are just going to document both ideologies such as they are. --dab (𒁳) 14:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
So you assume that references like this http://www.islamreview.com/index.htm (Speech of Hatred) and this http://www.copts.com/english/ (Banned extremist organization by Egyptian authorities and Egyptian Coptic church) and the newspaper (Which is a newly founded newspaper, 2005 and it can't be considered a neutral part) are reliable sources? Great! that make us return to square one about Martian Egyptians. If you want to make such "opinion" like "Unity with Israel" You must put them in separated section called " Departed Christian Copts view". You say dispute within Egyptian society?? Can you claim that the Pharaonists can exceed even 15% of Egyptians?? You make it a DISPUTE?
If these are the rules on English Wikipedia. Hateful speech and Extremist organizations references that offended many Egyptians but you still ignore the majority for small minority so I am sorry because I was naive enough to think there is a neutrality or even reference reliability here. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." ! Egyptian lion (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of treating copts.com etc. as a reliable source. The existence of the dispute is properly referenced to academic literature. I don't know how many percent of Egyptians are "Pharaonists", I really have no idea, you show me a reference on that please. See especially the Jankowski (1990) quote. So far, we know that Pharaonism was widespread and notable in the 19th century and up to the 1920s. Pan-Arabism became big in the 1930s. I have no idea which ideology is predominant today, and you are perfectly free to add further material establishing this. --dab (𒁳) 13:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any useful point to this section? The claims made by User:Egyptian lion (whoever that is) haven't been verified, and unless they are, I don't really see any point in this. ~ Troy (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Genetics

Is anyone here aware of the latest studies by Cruciani? Egyptians are really not related to North African Berbers. IN genetics The Paternal "Berber marker" now known as M81 shows a frequency in Egypt under 5%. Egyptians on the other hand DO have large amounts of M78. There are many downstream mutations of Marker M78 noted in many of the Newer studies regarding North East African Genetics. Egyptians are PRIMARY M78 (E1b1b1a) while Berbers are M81. Both M81 and M78 are mutations from Ethiopian Marker M35. Previous studies had grouped M78, M81, M35 and other "E Haplotypes" all together giving the impression that they were the same family. The article could be GREATLY improved with the contribution of some modern genetic studies found in the following wiki article.

Main points from the Wikipedia article below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E3b


Undifferentiated E-V12* lineages (not E-V12 or E-M224, so therefore named "E-V12*") are found at especially high levels (44.3%) in Southern Egyptians, but also scattered widely in small amounts in both Northern Africa and Europe, but with very little sign in Western Asia, apart from Turkey[18]. These E-V12* lineages were formerly included (along with many E-V22* lineages[27]) in Cruciani et al.'s original (2004) "delta cluster", which he had defined using DYS profiles. With the discovery of the defining SNP, Cruciani et al. (2007) reported that V-12* was found in its highest concentrations in Egypt, especially Southern Egypt. Hassan et al. (2008) report a significant presence of E-V12* in neighboring Sudan, including 5/6 Nubians, and 5/5 Copts. E-V12* made up approximately 20% of the Sudanese E-M78. They propose that the E-V12 and E-V22 sub-clades of E1b1b1a (E-M78) might have been brought to Sudan from their place of origin in North Africa after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000–8,000 years ago. Sudden climate change might have forced several Neolithic cultures/people to migrate northward to the Mediterranean and southward to the Sahel and the Nile Valley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.137.28 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Arab identity" archived

Why did that happen? This page hasn't become too long yet... Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored comment by an Egyptian whose opinion was suppressed:

this article is bull shit sorry for my language but it is full of fakes and wrong informations this is really stupid y go on this? GEEKS!! ho said that arabic had been forced on egyptians?!!! and from where did you get that caliphs cut the tonges of egyptians who was using coptic language?!!!and who is considering egyptian arabic as a separate language and what is the difference between massryin and misrion?!!! both of them are used in egyptian life like alot of arabic (fosha) used in the egyptian daily life its not that different and by the way we are arabs and we are proud of being arabs thats our identity now even if it had been forced on us long time ago which by the way a big mistake but now all of egyptians proud of their arab identity[8]

There have been several such comments in the past by angry Egyptians who don't recognise the stuff in this article, and all such comments have been removed to hide this fact. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


There is a clear systematic effort to silence any voice trying to shed some lights on the fact that Egyptians and Arabs are not one and the same, despite all logic and evidence presented. Typical Arabist arrogance and bullying. They endeavour to abolish any identity and erase any memory of true Egyptian culture. They know they can not argue with the facts so they just dismiss your argument and call for it to be silenced. Disgusting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizraim0 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ [9]| Here is only one example of how Abd al Malik enforced his command in Egypt. He ordered punishment for any Coptic Christian Egyptian who spoke his or her language. This language was Coptic, which was derived from ancient Hieroglyphic Egyptian language. The punishment was to cut out their tongues. This is how the Egyptians lost their own language.
  2. ^ http://www.copts.net/history_book.htm%7C A severe blow to the Coptic language followed when El-Hakim Bi-Amr-Illah ordered all Egyptians to stop using the Coptic language in the homes and streets. He also ordered the punishment of those who spoke Coptic by cutting their tongues, especially the mothers who taught their children the Coptic language in their homes.
  3. ^ example ref
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Egyptians/Archive_3&oldid=1142759541"