Jump to content

Talk:Egyptians/Archive 4

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

New infobox image needed

The infobox of this article needs a new image, as the previous one was misleading. Ancient Egyptians are seperate people from modern day Egyptians, who are largely of Arab extract. While there likely are modern day Egyptians who have ancestry among the original ANCIENT Egyptians, implying that modern day Egyptians are the same with ancient Egyptians is like saying that modern day Italians are the same with ancient Romans. Both are ancestors of the respective modern day peoples, but not the same. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians are the same as modern Egyptians, in all aspects except for language. Modern Egyptians are NOT of any Arab extract. Go ahead and read the section on Egyptian identity, and let me know if you would like me to provide even more info. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 13:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

i completely dissagree lanternix, egyptians are completely differant from the Ancient Egyptians who lived thousands of years ago...[1], for a start, tens of invaders came in, and changed the ethnicities of Egyptians, and four new religions have entered the country since, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and finally Baha'i, as well as 3 new languages, being Dometic, Coptic and finally Arabic, culturaly speaking, Egyptians adopted the Greek Culture, thus Roman, thus Coptic and finally Arabic culture, as for the race, most egyptians today are semitics, rather then Hamitics as they were in the Pharoes Era, so you can say today that the Pharoes population existing in Egypt are as sizable as the Cherkess...

Arab League User (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Arab identity

Why is it tht the Egyptians have their own article, while other Arab nations don't? The Egyptians are Arabic-speaking Muslims who mostly consider themselves Arabs. Yes, I agree, they where never Arabs before and I hope that they stop seeing themselves as Arabs, but that doesn't mean they aren't almost always seen as Arabs now. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to delete this article, I just want it to at least mention the commonly held belief that Egyptians are Arabs. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The identity section does mention the fact that there are Egyptians who hold that belief, as well as mentioning that it is not taken for granted. There is no evidence that they "mostly" hold that belief so the article must remain neutral on the subject. — Zerida ☥ 01:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Samdusan, their being Muslim has nothing to do with their being Egyptian[2]--Yolgnu (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
An Arab is a native speaker of Arabic, culturally part of the Arab world. A Muslim is an adherent of Islam, regardless of native language or culture. Egypt is a borderline case wrt the "Arab world". This is a real-life dispute, and needs to be presented as such. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Egyptians are in fact Arabic-speaking Muslims in a large majority (90%), and should be presented as such per WP:DUE, but of course the existence of an Arabic-speaking Christian minority (10%) should be noted. I don't know if they "mostly consider themselves Arabs" -- that's precisely the topic under dispute, and we'll need to see references for either position. As I understand it (and present in a referenced discussion (Gershoni 1992)) that keeps getting blanked by the trolls[3][4]), the "Egyptians are Arabs" ideology was pushed during the Nasser period, but has become the view of a (sizeable, 25% or so) minority since, with the majority opting for a "Westernized, Egyptianist", non-Arab national identity. This is open to discussion, provided WP:RS are cited. Discussion is to take place in a civilized manner, without revert warring, hostility and trolling. I understand that the trolling we see here is motivated by the "Egyptianist" desire to deny the existence of the minority view even as a minority view -- clearly against core policy (WP:NPOV) of course. --dab (𒁳) 10:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Egyptians, contrary to popular belief, are not a subgroup of Arabs; but rather many Egyptians are also Arabs, while others are not (since ethnicity is voluntary).--Yolgnu (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good to show in the opening section that "many consider the Egyptians to be Arabs, or a subgroup of Arabs". For example the Egyptian government (Arab Republic of Egypt), the US Census and the Arab League. On the other hand, the CIA World Factbook classifies them as Egyptians. So, I think that both viewpoints should be shown in the opening section of the article. By the way, I agree more with the Egyptianist approach - it makes no sense to refer to Arabic-speakers as ethnically Arab since I speak English as my first language but no-one would be crazy enough to suggest that I'm mostly of English ancestry. I just think that the most common view (at least in the Anglophone world) is that they're Arabs. Oh, and the reason I mentioned Islam was because the Maltese are Arabic-speakers, but are never seen as Arabs. Why? Because they're Roman Catholics. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The official name of Egypt, which came about as a result of the brief "unification" with Syria in the 60s, has no bearing on how Egyptians identify themselves. The subject is not so notable as to make an issue of it in the lead, it should only be mentioned where it's relevant, i.e. in the identity section. Also this is a question of self-perception, not how others view Egyptians. "Many consider Egyptians..." and "I think the most common view..." are weasel words, and in the absence of reliable sources that address those questions, they are original research. For example, the fact that the US census classifies Egyptians, Berbers and Kurds all as Arabs (defined I believe as anyone from an "Arab country") does not translate into "the most common view"; it's the view of the census agency. We can mention it in the identity section, but with the caveat that these groups or many of their members would object to such classification. BTW, I am not sure what you mean by being classified "as Egyptians"--Egyptians are *always* classified as Egyptians. It's a question of whether they are *also* classified as Arab or a "subgroup" of Arabs as you say. The Maltese are not seen as Arabs, not because they are Roman Catholics, but because the Maltese do not regard their language as Arabic, none have adopted Arab nationalism as a mode of self-expression, or are part of a pan-Arab body, so non-Maltese speakers (including "Arabic"-speakers) generally have no idea that Maltese is "Arabic". The Maltese language is not classified as Arabic because it is an independent standard language, the official language of Malta, and does not coexist with Classical Arabic in a situation of diglossia (though it is descended from Arabic, but Maltese speakers generally deny that as well). — Zerida ☥ 02:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no point saying "most Anglophones consider Egyptians a subgroup of Arabs"; that's like saying "most Anglophones consider this to be a dialect of Italian" on the Maltese page. Rather, we should explain why Egyptians are often also considered to be Arabs - primarily because they speak Arabic (Standard as well as Egyptian - we shouldn't deny the diglossia, which is one of the main reasons why Egyptians are sometimes not considered a legitimate ethnic group). The formal name of the country they mostly live in, and its membership in the Arab League, is largely irrelevant - ethnic groups don't have governing bodies.--Yolgnu (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

they speak Arabic (Standard as well as Egyptian - we shouldn't deny the diglossia, which is one of the main reasons why Egyptians are sometimes not considered a legitimate ethnic group) Just to clarify, Egyptians don't "speak" Standard Arabic; that's a written not a spoken language. In reality, the "language" that Egyptians speak is as distinct from Standard as well as the spoken Arabic varieties as is Maltese. Furthermore, what's a "legitimate" ethnic group? Ethnicity is a social construct which, more than anything, takes subjective criteria into account. Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks are today viewed as "legitimate" ethnic groups because that's how they define themselves. At any rate, language is only one factor that goes into determining group membership. If we took language to be the only or primary criterion, then the Irish, who are overwhelmingly English-speaking, would not be a "legitimate" ethnic group. — Zerida ☥ 04:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Understand and write, sorry, not speak. As to their legitimacy, I agree with it, but the examples you've given are bad ones: Serbs and Croats don't claim continuity with a group who spoke a different language from them, and the difference between Egyptians and Irish is that some people still speak Irish, while Egyptian (Coptic) has been extinct for centuries. On the other hand, Egyptian and Coptic are fully attested, with much literature, unlike, say, Gaulish, which is why French people are not considered to have continuity with the Gauls.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all Egyptians actually have a good understanding of Classical/Standard Arabic due to a high illiteracy rate. I pointed out the former Yugoslavs only to show that the concept of "ethnic group" is a fluid one, not to compare or contrast them to Egyptians. As regards the indigenous Egyptian language, it has ceased to be spoken but is not extinct in the sense that Akkadian or Phoenician are extinct. It's also undergoing revitalization and as a result a few families now speak it on a first-language basis. On another side note, many African peoples today speak French as a mother tongue and have no knowledge of any African languages (indeed many indigenous languages of Africa have died out due to a combination of European colonialism and globalization in the last century). Of course, they are still African ethnic groups, not "French" ones. — Zerida ☥ 18:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a great comparison either - Egypt wasn't colonised by the Arabs, was it? Anyway, "legitimate" wasn't what I meant; what I meant was that Egyptians are an unusual ethnic group because of the linguistic situation (just like Palestine is a country, but an unusual one because it doesn't have full autonomy).--Yolgnu (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, Egypt was invaded and occupied by the Arabs, just like the Greeks, Turks, Persians, British and others until the country once again became independent. But *today* there is still what can be said to be a type of Arab neo-colonialism that affects not only Egypt but many other countries in the region. It's an ideology; a type of ethno-chauvinism that is embodied in many Arab-nationalist policies. That is at any rate how many Egyptians and other indigenous ethnic groups in the region like Berbers, Nubians and others see it. Consider this from Egyptian academic Leila Ahmed (1999) who calls this phenomenon "linguistic and cultural imperialism":
The year was 1952, the year of [Nasser's coup d'état] ... I remember how I hated the incessant rhetoric. Al-qawmiyya al-Arabiyya! Al-Uruba! Nahnu al-Arab! Arab nationalism! Arabness! We the Arabs! Even now just remembering those words, I feel again a surge of mingled irritation and resentment. Propaganda is unpleasant... Imagine what it would be like if say, the British or the French were incessantly told, with nobody allowed to contest, question, or protest, that they were now European, and only European... But for us [Egyptians] it was actually worse and certainly more complicated... Egyptians, who in that era [before Nasser] were preoccupied with getting rid of the British, were either uninterested in or positively hostile to this strange Syrian idea of an Arab identity ... Well into the first decades of this century, neither the self-defined new Arabs nor the Egyptians themselves thought that this new identity had anything to do with Egyptians...
...the steady spread and imposition of this culture of [Classical Arabic] literacy throughout the Arab world seems to represent a kind linguistic and cultural imperialism—a linguistic, cultural, and also a class imperialism that is being conducted in the name of education and of Arab unity and of the oneness of the Arab nation. Steadily throughout the Arab world, as this Arab culture of literacy marches inexorably onward, local cultures continue to be erased and their linguistic and cultural creativity condemned to permanent, unwritten silence. And we are supposed to applaud this, not protest it as we would if it were any other form of imperialism or political domination. This variety of domination goes by the name of "nationalism," and we are supposed to support it.
— Zerida ☥ 06:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
"because the Maltese do not regard their language as Arabic, none have adopted Arab nationalism a mode of expression, or are part of a pan-Arab body, so non-Maltese speakers (including "Arabic"-speakers) generally have no idea that Maltese is "Arabic"" and why do you think that is? Again, because they are Catholics, which causes closer ties with Europe, which makes it so that Arabization is impossible.
It doesn't need to be my exact words, I just think that the "Arabist" view to be shown in the opening paragraph, because whether or not it is the most common view, it is still a very common view, and deserves representation in the opening paragraph. Or perhaps we should remove the mentions of "Arab" in the opening paragraphs of Palestinian people, Emirati people and Lebanese people articles? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maltese are not Arabs, not because other people don't consider them Arabs, but because they themselves don't consider themselves Arabs. As to your second point, most Palestinians consider themselves Arabs, while most Egyptians don't; and the Emirati people article shouldn't exist, while the Lebanese people article was created by you.--Yolgnu (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that it should be in the opening section. Is that too much to ask? The Lebanese people article was created by me due to the existence of the Palestinian people and Emirati people articles. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well congratulations then, you just sprang an ethnic group into existence.--Yolgnu (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
To Saimdusan, I think that's a rather bad idea, the creation of more of such articles shouldn't be encouraged, unless they are about actual ethnic groups. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That Maltese don't consider themselves Arabs has nothing to do with them being Catholics, otherwise it would apply to Greek Catholic Arabs and similar too, which it doesn't. And as for Egyptians, if we have a source which specifically states that 25% of them identify as Arabs for sure, it should obviously be included in the article. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I'm fine with the Lebanese people article being deleted, I'm just wondering why the Palestinians have their own article as well. Regarding the Maltese thing - my point was that they have no ties to the Middle East because they are Roman Catholics, and because they have no ties to the Middle East they where not Arabized. Its pretty simple. I guess another factor is that they're an island, so are subject to more isolation, and due to their closer proximity to Italy than to the Middle East. But anyway, we're getting off-topic here. My main point is that the "Arabist" view should be at least be mentioned in the opening paragraph to avoid confusion.Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles about specific populations are fine enough, just not when these populations are wrongfully referred to as "ethnic groups", and should preferably redirect to articles about demographics. As for Maltese, it seems that they're culturally European, and as such, probably wouldn't identify as Arab, due to different aspects of their history. And yeah, the "Arabist" view should be represented, as it is most likely the majority view. Funkynusayri (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, redirect the "Lebanese people" article if you want. But why is there a Palestinians article? By the way, I agree with Zerida, I just think that the alternative view needs to be represented in the opening paragraph to avoid confusion. After all, its not completely uncontroversial that Egyptians are a "nation and North African ethnic group" as the article says. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It won't be in the opening paragraph because the opening doesn't say something like "Egyptians are not Arabs", so there is not need to keep pushing the Arabist pov at any cost. There is nothing controversial about simple facts. Bayoumi (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, Saim, its not really the existence of these pages I'm arguing against, its how the groups are being described in the article, The Palestinian article, and the ones you created, do not state that thee groups are ethnic groups, which is good, but out of lack of a better template, the "ethnic group infobox" is used, which is misleading. A "nationality infobox" would be better, but I doubt such will be created. Anyway, this article claims that modern Egyptians constitute an ethnic group, which is pretty much hogwash. It is one POV among some Egytian nationalists, and shouldn't be presented a s a fact in this article, as it is even in the intro, but only as an idea which today only exists as a reaction to pan-Arabism. Both views are equally valid as POVs, but not as facts. This article is a mess. Funkynusayri (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think they don't constitute an ethnic group?--Yolgnu (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's like asking a racist why he's racist. The article gets trolled by militant Arab nationalists every now and then because it threatens their pathetic worldview. Anti-Egyptian racism is rampant in the Arab world, so if Egyptians are forced to be Arabs or accept Arabism, then we get rid of this "little problem". Egyegy (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
To Yolgnu, it's all about self-identification, if most Egyptians don't view themselves as a distinct ethnic group, and if they aren't classified as such by others, they simply shouldn't be described as such as if it was a fact here. However, it should be mentioned that some Egyptians feel that they constitute a distinct ethnic group. As I've mentioned before, today "Egyptian" just refers to a multi-ethnic nationality, like "Brazilian" or similar. And Egy, please spare us from your nationalist venom. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, did I prick you little Arabist bubble again? The truth hurts, I know. Egyegy (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If only you had been addressing me and not some fictional Arabist militant, that comment might have had resonance. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If the shoe fits... :) Egyegy (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Funkynusayri, please find sources for your views.--Yolgnu (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
What exact views? Funkynusayri (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That most Egyptians don't describe themselves as a distinct ethnic group.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't get to reply to this as I left this page temporarily after getting frustrated by arguing with users who are now confirmed to be sock-puppets. And no, I won't find sources that state Egyptians don't consider themselves as an ethnic group, since there is as little chance as finding this as for finding sources that state the Swiss aren't an ethnic group, in spite of how obvious it might seem. Take a look at negative proof. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yolgnu... that would be proving a negative. Where's your evidence that they do? The Arabist opinion should definitely be in the opening section, since it is definitely a very common opinion. For those who always saw Egypt as part of the Arab world or those who don't know about Arabization or Phoenicianism, Arameanism, Assyrianism, etc. they'll just walk off confused (as I originally did when stumbling onto this article) or walking off seeing Egyptians as an ethnic group being uncontested fact. While I agree that Egyptians should see themselves as Egyptians rather than Arabs, that is not fact and should not be presented as such.Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we have to find sources to state that most French people consider themselves a distinct ethnic group? How is this any different? Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a WP:POINT[5]--Yolgnu (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
And I completely agree with your last sentence - your POV opinions on how Egyptians should see themselves are indeed not fact and should not be presented as such. We work on sources here, not personal opinions.--Yolgnu (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
My POV opinion is being represented as fact in the article. My opinion is that Egyptians are not Arabs. Thing is, thats POV, and not fact. So, even though its my opinion, I think the largest opinion should be in the opening sentence. Yes, we should find sources that the French are seen as an ethnic group. There are plenty. On the Egyptians, not as many. There are tonnes of sources saying that Egypt is an Arab nation - Egypt is part of the Arab League, it is Arabic speaking, it had Nasser, etc. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
What sort of source is there that says "Most French people consider themselves a distinct ethnic group"? It's so obviously the case that no one would bother saying it, and until you find a source showing otherwise, it's equally obvious in the case of Egyptians. As to Egypt being an Arab country, I completely agree - it's official name is the Arab Republic of Egypt, it's in the Arab League, etc. But the definition of Egyptians is "a North African ethnic group with roots in the civilisation of Ancient Egypt", not "citizens of the Arab Republic of Egypt" - not all Egyptians are citizens of Egypt, and not all citizens of Egypt are Egyptians, and above all, ethnic groups don't have representing bodies: indeed there have been many occasions throughout history where an ethnic group has not had its own state (if the Normans had renamed England "the French and Not English Kingdom of New France", would English people officially not have existed?), and many other cases where an ethnic group has been the dominant one in multiple warring states, each claiming to be its true representative and protector (eg. ancient Greece and China). The article says "Egyptian identity is deeply rooted in the region of Egypt", not "Egyptian identity is deeply rooted in the Arab Republic of Egypt" (which has only existed for 54 years). Ultimately, the Egyptians themselves get to decide who they are, not the government.--Yolgnu (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Y'know Yolgnu, the government is part of the "Egyptians themselves". Making a false dichotomy between the Egyptian people and the Arab Republic government is silly, because the Arab Republic government is run by Egyptians. So here's some sources: 1, 2, 3. Of course, there are also many for Egyptians not being Arabs. So both views should be represented in the opening paragraph. While there was no migration of Arabs to Egypt there was cultural assimilation. I'm totally fine with you reviving the old ethnic group, but Wikipedia is not here one does this. Wikipedia is for verifiable facts. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
We're getting off topic with this government talk; we can say that "Egypt, the country where the vast majority of Egyptians live, is a member of the Arab League, and its official name is the Arab Republic of Egypt", although you'll need to find sources if you want to claim that this has made more Egyptians see themselves as Arabs as a result. Thanks for those sources you've provided, but I already knew that Egyptians are often considered Arab; what you need to provide sources for is your claim that most Egyptians themselves consider themselves Arab and not a distinct ethnic group. Claiming that Egyptians were "Arabized" is POV, since Arabization involves the imposition of an Arab identity, and so far I haven't seen any sources that most Egyptians consider themselves Arabs. But what you don't seem to understand is that ethnicity is subjective - there is no straight, verifiable answer to questions like "Do Egyptians constitute a distinct ethnic group?" or "Can Egyptians claim continuity with the Ancient Egyptians?". We should of course state that Egyptians are often seen as Arabs, but mainly the article should discuss the reasons for both views, and what aspects of Egyptian culture are inherited from the Ancient Egyptians, and which are inherited from the Arabs.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The only major things Egyptians inherited from Arabs are Islam and Arabic but even these things became Egyptian. The most popular kind of Islam in Egypt is the Egyptian sufi version. Even the article quotes Naguib Mahfouz who is stating "Egypt gave Islam a new voice. It didn't change the basic tenets of Islam, but its cultural weight gave Islam a new voice, one it didn't have back in Arabia. Egypt embraced an Islam that was moderate, tolerant and non-extremist. Egyptians are very pious, but they know how to mix piety with joy, just as their ancestors did centuries ago." The Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni is renouncing all the extra gifts that the Arabs are trying to export into Egypt like Wahabi Islam and the extremist womens veil. We have an agricultural settled culture which is completely different from the bedouin desert culture of the Arabs. Egyptians were not "arabized" because they don't have a bedouin culture like the Arabians to this day. As for Arabic, you may be surprised by this, because some people believe that modern Egyptians speak Arabic. In fact, this is wrong. Nobody speaks only one kind of Arabic. Different peoples speak different forms of Arabic, which actually bear very little resemblance to one another. The overwhelming majority of Egyptians speak a language that is composed of a mix of Arabic and Egyptian language. The culture : Modern Egyptian culture inherits a lot of traditions from Ancient Egyptian culture. This is most obvious when it comes to funerary traditions : the dead are buried in tombs that are actually small rooms (the City of the Dead (Cairo) is the most striking example). Relatives regularly visit these rooms/tombs and leave food, exactly like their ancestors did during the times of the Pharaohs (this tradition is typically Pharaonic and is found nowhere else in the Muslim world). But it's not only limited to that : Egypt's national festival Sham El Nessim is a pharaonic rite that has been celebrated without interruption for thousands of years, despite the numerous conquests. Culinary traditions are also inherited from Pharaonic times. And these are just a few examples.
THEREOFRE, modern Egyptians are a direct continuation of ancient Egyptians. Egypt also never disappeared from the map like a lot of other ancient nations. The only thing that changed during the centuries was Egypt's political status (from an independent nation, it became a Roman province, then a Byzantine province, then an Arab province, then a Turkish province, etc...). But the borders, the people and a lot of the culture remained the same. Bayoumi (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact, Islam is not considered to be an aspect of Arab culture, since the vast majority of Muslims aren't Arab, and tens of millions of Arabs aren't Muslim.--Yolgnu (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bayoumi, you may want to check WP:V: Your opinions are all very well, as long as you can present them based on academic sources. I am sure you know a lot about this, but you will understand that Wikipedia cannot just take your word for things. You may also check WP:TALK: Article talkpages are for discussion of how to best present the sources we have, not for free exchange of opinions or sermons. I have shown the way to go by coming up with Gershoni (1992) as a quotable source. Of course there is no reason to leave it at that. You are perfectly free to come up with other sources, possibly taking opposing views. It's just that as long as you do not present any source, there really isn't anything for us to discuss here. Zerida is doing well by citing Leila Ahmed. Now if he would insert a discussion of the views of Leila Ahmed instead of just reverting to a version that ignores this whole issue, we might be getting somewhere. I would certainly endorse a citation of Ahmed illustrating the anti-Nasser, anti-Arabist position. dab (𒁳) 07:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bayoumi, I agree with you. I just think that the other opinion should be represented in the opening section. (Although southern Egyptians are Nubians and many would be of partly Arab descent)Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Bayoumi, the thing is, EThnically, most Egyptians ARE Arabs, regardless of some Pharoanic Nationalism, which is In-existant anyways, and the fact is that Egyptians Speak Arabic, and not Egyptians as a independant language, the Egyptian is a Variety of Arabic, and their are several Arabic Varieties in Egypt, such as the Saidi, the Bedawi, and the Arabawe, as well as Levant, Libyan, Sudanese, Judeo-Arabic and Chadic Arabic, the Majority of the Population DO indeed use the Egyptian (Qahrawi Accent/Variety) yet it is not Considered as an INdependant Language by ALL means, and their IS indeed Some Words used from Coptic, and Pharonic LAnguage, yet their is even more adopted from Turkish, Italian and GReek, yet the Majority remains Arabic... thus it IS an Arabic Language, in adition, adopting foreign words in a language doesnt mean it is differant that the core language, such as American English, Australian English and Canadian English, compared to Londondarian English, as for the Culture, Egyptian Culture is far from being Unique then the Rest of the Arab world, THe arab culture in General is DIvided into three types, A Bedouin Culture, A Madani Culture (Which literaly means Urban Culture), and the Falahi Culture (Rural Culture), if you will compare an Arab Region's Culture with another you have to compare them with the same level, you cant compare a farmer's cuture with one living in the city... if your going to compare the falahi culture in egypt with another arab falahi culture, then compare it with a Farmer in Iraq, or in Syria or even Yemen, you will be suprised of how similar they are, now compare them wit a farmer in CHina you will be shocked of how differant they are, and do the same with the rest, Egyptian beduoins with Bedouins in Libya, or Morocco, or Even Saudi Arabia, or a Madani (Urban) CUlture between Cairo, or Alexandria with Damascus or Marrakech, or Beirut... the similarities WILL again shock you... and thats why Egyptians are considered as Arabs rather than a specific Ethnicity of their own, i believe the problem is that people get mixed up between the differance of Race, Nationality and EThnicity, for Egypt Race is (Numerous, Nilo-Semitic-Afro-Asiatic, and others) for Nationality, well, they are ALL Egyptians and finally, as for EThnicity, it is Either Nubian, Berber, Arab, Armenian, Greek, Beja or Dom (Tho Usually Coptic is reffered to as a seperate EThnicity, while Other COpts consider themselves to be Arabs)

Arab League User (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Egyptians as an ethnic group

As mentioned before, the opinion that Egyptians are a distinct, modern day ethnic group is a view only held by ethnic nationalists, and should not be stated as fact in the article, but as an opinion. Modern Egyptians are a nationality which consists of many ethnicities. This[6] is not a credible source, User:Ghaly. Cubans and Swiss are now ethnic groups too, are you kidding me?! FunkMonk (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

But you keep saying that there is a consensus to delete a lot of content but I don't see that. all i see is thousands of bytes being deleted without a justifiable explanation. if you want to make changes do it then, but without these huge unexplained deletions that I don't get at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.192.24 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ghaly has a pretty good point. I see no "consensus"; although I am keeping in mind the fact that FunkMonk's edits were indeed in good faith. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring asserts that a full consensus must be met, preferably using dispute resolution. While the IP's edit summaries appear to be negative, nothing personal FunkMonk, but your edits really have to be reconsidered. ~ Troy (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course Egyptians constitute an ethnic group distinct from all other ethnic groups in the ME. What's your problem with that? --Lanternix (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Since when was "Eastern Hamitic" an ethnic group? As for the other two, 99% "Egyptians" doesn't mean much, since we've already established that Egyptian and Arab are not mutually exclusive terms, and that much more than 0,0 something % identify as Arab. Egyptians are only a distinct ethnic group if they identify as one as a whole. That's what ethnicity is about, self-identification. But identifying solely as ancient Egyptians is a unique feature of the Coptic minority, and surprise surprise, Muslim Egyptian editors who have edited this talk-page have complained about the Pharaonist POV of the article (many of these complaints have later been removed by Zerida and his sock-puppets), whereas the advocates of it have been solely Coptic. 8 million Copts do not dictate how a nation of 77 million self-identify. FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
        • It looks as though there is no way to confirm how many of those "Arabs" in Egypt disregard their ethnic origins. However, if you have something that can reaffirm that all or most of the Muslim "Egyptians" do not consider themselves as non-Egyptian, I'll gladly take a look at it. If you look at other places, you will notice that most Syrians consider themselves as Syrian, and most Lebanese consider themselves as Lebanese. Again, it appears to me that even the Arab Egyptians are often considered as such[7], so unless there's a way to number "self-identification" (polls, if anything) to show what you mean, then there's really no point to ponder over "how many" self-identify as Egyptian. ~ Troy (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Yet again, Egyptian and Arabic aren't mutually exclusive terms, just like Syrian and Arab aren't mutually exclusive terms. You can consider yourself an Arab while being aware of your non-Arab origins, and that's what most Arabised peoples do, unless they have family legends about a specific Arabian origin. FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Well Said FunkMonk, the issue that alot of people do NOT realize is that Being Egyptian is a Nationality, while within this Nationality their are several Ethnic Groups, Whether its Arabs, Or Nubians, Or Beja, or Berbers or Even Copts... We need to solve this Issue, its getting outrageous. Arab League User (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Great Mistake in the article

not all Egyptiuans consider themselves non-arabs, actially, mnst common egyptians consider themselves as Arabs, only a small usually the politicians.. i for one consider my self and egyptians as arabs... Arab League User (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Again: 1. Egyptians are not ethnically Arabs, and this has been proven via genetics, DNA studies, genotyping etc. 2. Some Egyptians may consider themselves Arabs based on a political basis (namely Nasserism). Before Nasser existed as Egyptian president (less than 60 years ago), no Egyptian would have considered himself/herself Arab. 3. To call Egyptians Arabs on a linguistic basis is also a new invention, and it does not exist anywhere else in the world, and there is no nation that defines its national identity based on linguistics. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 23:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

not true, arabism started with Ibrahim Pasha, under the muhammed ali dynasty, in the 1800's, and culturally, egyptians are considered part of the arab world, such as wedding, and funeral ceremonies, also the music, and art in general, even traditional architechture is very similar, if not identical to Houses in Damascus, Baghdad, Basra, Aleppo, etc...Arab League User (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Never heard that Arabism started withIbrahim Pasha! What is your source for this weird information? Ibrahim wasn't even Egyptian, nor was he an Arab. So it's pretty hilarious that non-Egyptians impose on Egyptians an identity that is not theirs. In any case, all Egyptian intellectuals and intelligentsia rejected Arabism in favor of Egypt's true Egyptian identity until the British occupation invented the Arab League and convinced King Farouk to adopt the idea, which subsequently gained further under Nasser's dictatorship. Since Sadat's time, this foreign ideology of pan-Arabism ahas been recognized as erroneous and disastrous for the country, and pan-Arabism has been scrutinized and criticized ever since. I invite to read the latest articles by prominent Egyptian writers like Okasha, Qandil, Gaara, Sisy and Younes, as well as to listen to Amr Adib and Sawires following the latest events between Egyptians and Algerians in Sudan. You will realize that Egyptians no longer believe in pan-Arabism. It's very simple: Egyptians are Egyptians not Arabs. Pan-Arabism has been imposed on Egyptians a few decades ago, and Egyptians are dusting it off nowadays. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1. Genetics, shmenetics. A nation exists only in the minds of its constituents: Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. Whether or not your average Egyptian has the blood of Adnan and Qahtan in their veins is more or less irrelevant. In point of fact, it's virtually impossible for the Arabs to have been in the country for 1400 years without most Egyptians having some (not necessarily very much, but some) Arabian ancestry, but that's merely an interesting population-statistical note and not actually terribly important in determining the Arabness of Egyptians. 2. Who cares if it was Nasser who brought Arabism to Egypt or not? What matters is how Egyptians think and feel now: how successful was Nasser's effort? Broadly speaking, it met with mixed results; no doubt that Egyptian identity remains first in the minds of most Egyptians, but few Egyptians these days would deny an Arab identity (usually a secondary identity, but nevertheless an identity). This is particularly obvious when Egyptians deal with other Arabic-speakers outside of the Arab world; being myself an Egyptian born and raised in the West, I can tell you that the differences between me the Lebanese, Syrians, Yemenis, Palestinians, and so on who live nearby seem ridiculously minute given the massive gap between my ancestral culture (and religion, as I am Muslim) and the European, Western Christian people around me. To be sure, Arab identity among the Egyptians has worn thin since the humiliation of '67 and the splintering of the movement after '73, but Egypt remains firmly part of the Arab world (or have you not noticed that Egypt has had cultural hegemony over the entire Arab world for the better part of the last century and has only started losing it on account of the Gulf's newfound wealth?). 3. Language is the primary defining trait of national membership in most instances, with issues of blood later coming up later, as an excuse to exclude certain groups of people seeking to join the nation. The French historically have defined a Frenchman or Frenchwoman as someone who lives in France, speaks French at home, and is fully engaged with the French culture. Of course, as the black African and North African immigrants to the country have found out, what they really mean is that a French person is a white European who does those things, but that's not really what's at issue here. Nobody calls Nicolas Sarkozy a Hungarian. Nor did they call Patrice de Mac-Mahon an Irishman. A nation is what its supposed constituents define it as. Anderson, again.
well said...Arab League User (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Or, long story short, because there's a case--a strong case--to be made for the Arabness of Egyptians, that narrative and identification cannot be ignored in the article. No matter how "manufactured" it seems to a particular group of people, no matter how recently it appeared, no matter how distasteful some might find it, if there is substantial support for the narrative, then it is a legitimate narrative, and must be included in the article. End of story. And because this narrative carries a great deal of weight, it should not be minimized; it deserves equal time, if not greater time, than the alternate narrative of Egyptian identity. Lockesdonkey (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

it is very simple: "not all Egyptians consider themselves non-Arabs, actually, mnst common Egyptians consider themselves as Arabs" is a claim. It can be introduced into the article if we can attribute it to a credible source (WP:CITE). As it happens, the article states neither "Egyptians are Arabs" nor "Egyptians aren't Arabs", it is already aware of the fact that this is a contentious point in Egypt. Read Egyptians#Identity. The article is fully aware of the history of pro-Arab vs. anti-Arab Egyptian nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) hmn dont think so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.207.178 (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

i know that not all egyptians see themselves as Arabs, yet most do, only liberal politicians usually see themselves as Non-Arabs, and some even argue that Egyptians are ethnically Pharoes, tho they share almost absolutely NOTHING with Ancient egypt, no doubt that Egyptians are differant in some prespectives than arabs in say the levant, yet the differance is merely insignificant to categorize Egyptians as an independant Ethnic group, since culturally the upper Egyptians are more similar to Arabs in The Arabian Peninsula than to egyptians in lower Egypt.. yet the part that says the pro-Arabism prespective is merely insignificant, and almost not found, where MOST egyptians DO consider themselves as Egyptian Arabs, yet it is not mentioned, links to such issue might not be found since it is taken for granted, and no one bothers to talk about it, while the loud voices are the anti-arabism of Egypt, since they are considered wierd, and new... Arab League User (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

look, such assertions are of exactly zero value to the article as long as you cannot base them on quotable sources. What you say may be perfectly true, or then again it may not be. Our job here is not interviewing Egyptian Wikipedians, it is the collation of good scholarly references reporting on the question. --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Egyptians in the UK

Are there really this many Egyptians in the UK as the article says? I know its not a good measuring standard, but I've never met one or known of anybody who has. Obviousy there is the Al-Fayeds, but Egyptians in the United Kingdom says there is under 25,000 not over 100,000. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC) tahea misr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.37.95 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Race

I was surprised that no reference was made at all to the origins of the Egyptians race. The section about modern identity looks unjustifiably expanded - i guess expansion was due to the editors dispute- yet surprisingly no information about race of such an ancient ethnic group. Egyptians belong to the Caucasian race which is usually further subdivided to the Aryan, Semitic, and Hamitic subraces. I am no expert but i think the most common belief is that Egyptians are descendants of Mizraim, the son of Ham and grandson of Noah according to both the bible and Islamic beliefs. According to this, Egyptians are thought to be descendants of Ham and are this considered Hamitic rather than Semitic. As far as i know, this distinguishes Egyptians from their closest neighbors, for example people that were inhabiting what is now mostly known as Syria are thought to be Semitic, the people from Israel/Palestine and Lebanon are the [[Canaanites], descendants of Canaan, the allegedly cursed son of Ham while people from some parts of the Arabian peninsula, Yemen and other eastern African countries are descendants of Cush another son of Ham. Just so that no one understand me wrong, I am not endorsing any racial classifications, on the contrary i think that this particular racial classification contributed to lots of tragedies including slavery and Nazism. However this is an article about an ethnic group, so i do not think race can be overlooked. --164.107.244.175 (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources to back this up? Otherwise we'd have to add a myths and legends section, which doesn't seem appropriate for an article like this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not think the IP is being serious., more likely just trying to pull our collective leg. This isn't the race of the Ancient Egyptians article, it is the article about the modern ethnic group. Norhing to do with race or racialism. --dab (𒁳) 13:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Many Coptic Christians also leave the country due to discrimination and harassment by the Egyptian government and Islamist groups.

there is no proof for such allegation

put a source or delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.237.240.5 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Misleading infobox image

The infobox image is misleading. Nefertiti's origins are uncertain and could be beyond Egypt. Thus portraying her and an unknown Roman man who lived in Egypt as ethnic Egyptians is nothing short of misleading. I don't have a problem with an infobox image being included, but it needs to be redone. --82.181.75.48 (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy mistake!

The article claims that there are 3 languages in Egypt today: 1. Egyptian Arabic 2. Sa'idi Arabic 3. Coptic

This is a holy mistake, Egyptians speak only one language with different dialects. It's noteworthy to mention that the Coptic language is regarded as a dead language.--41.238.185.222 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Coptic Egyptian Christian. I'd like to assure you that we neither speak Coptic in church or in daily conversations. The Coptic language is already dead, though some Copts try to revive it. But it is still extinct. As for Arabic, I think if you checked out this link, you'd find what you're looking for. --41.235.103.42 (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


Check out this link: http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/egypt-country-profile.html --41.235.103.198 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If 300 people speak Coptic today (and communicate more than a few simple words and phrases), as the article says, that would be similar to a few people in the US deciding to revive ancient Sumerian. Coptic has been extinct for centuries except as a religious language. Eleanor1944 (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The American/Sumerian analogy is not helpful. If you gave an example of a Native American tribe that tried to revive its own extinct language, that would be more relevant to the discussion.Nojamus (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Egyptians-15.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Egyptians-15.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

How many articles do we have that discuss the genetics of Egyptians?

Anyone know? I wonder how different they are. Dougweller (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't know, but this article is probably the right place for it. As long it doesn't go off into the whole Egyptians-are-real-Africans direction... ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Searching, we also have Archaeogenetics of the Near East, Population history of Egypt, and DNA history of Ancient Egypt. Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. If I weren't so lazy, I'd place merge tags. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I have placed merge tags. Now all hell's gonna break loose. ♆ CUSH ♆

Recent edits

I've just deleted some material on the Tigray, explaining why in my edit summaries. There were two types of sources used. Two didn't meet our criteria at WP:RS - I didn't read those. The other two were academic papers which didn't discuss the Tigray. These were 1999 and 2007 sources, and some Frank Yurco (who died in 2004), in a feat of magic, " confirmed this finding of historical and regional continuity," in a 1996 paper. Removing that also as among other things he wasn't writing about genetics so he doesn't belong in a section on genetics. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently copied from elsewhere in any case[8] or some other source. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent Genetic Studies on Rameses Dynasty Lineages

Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty of the New Kingdom state that they carried the Haplogroup E1b1a,[1] which "is a lineage that originated and expanded from West or Central Africa[.]" [2]

What is the problem with the above? They are direct quotes and just as relevant as the ABO studies. Do not revert referenced material without cause again in order to push your pov. If you want to add disclaimers than do so with the article as well with the sources you have. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I had serious cause as this is a violation of [{WP:SYN]], for a start. You are combining two sources to make an argument. Secondly, we do not cherry-pick data from scientific articles, we simply use the conclusions, which were " This study suggests that Ramesses III was murdered during the harem conspiracy by the cutting of his throat. Unknown man E is a possible candidate as Ramesses III’s son Pentawere. " Material which violates our policies on sources and original research can be reverted. Disclaimers are irrelevant and would again be original research. You don't understand our policies and guidelines and your response to editors reverting you has been to try to get them blocked or banned. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Updating History section?

I think there should be a new subsection added to the History section to detail the anti-Mubarak protests and the post-Mubarak years. The article is currently lacking in detailed information about recent years.IrishStephen (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Should Omar Sharif be added?

Should Omar Sharif be added to the collage? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Egyptians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. This has been set up to determine the appropriateness of sections such as the "genetic history" section in this article. I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Bad picture choices

It's better to get new pictures of ethnic Egyptians rather than other ethnic populations such as Nubians who are Egyptian citizens. Please show new picture not old pictures. --Unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.201.176 (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

They are ethnically Egyptian, except for the woman in ceremonial dress. She looks like a fellah from the south, but she's apparently Abyssinian. Soupforone (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian ethnicity

The *CIA World Factbook* describes Egypt's ethnic composition as 99.6% Egyptian (based on a 2006 census). It is true that "Egyptians" in the civic sense includes individuals of non-Egyptian ethnicity, but equivalent statements can be made about "Germans", "French", "Italians" or "Turks" and yet these are referred to as ethnic groups in their respective Wikipedia articles. In keeping with this, Wikipedia should refer to Egyptians as an ethnic group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToffeeC (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox/Languages

@Soupforone: If you continue to revert the edits made without making any attempt at discussion you will be reported for edit warring. Please take this as an opportunity to discuss the changes you want to materialize.

Egyptian Arabic is not a dialect of Arabic from an academic standpoint, it is a language descended from Arabic. It is a variety of Arabic in the same sense that Italian is a variety of Latin. Political bias does not change the opinion of linguists on the matter. It has its own language code, as does Sa'idi Arabic. Turnopoems (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course Egyptian Arabic is a dialect of Arabic and not a separate language descended from Arabic. Glottolog certainly doesn't claim the latter because doing so would imply that they are not linguistically mutually intelligible. The two linguistic compendiums it links to are actually on Arabic dialects. That Egyptian Arabic has its own alphanumerical designation on that website also in itself means little since these are assigned to all languoids (families, languages, dialects) [9]. Anyway, I'll give you a week to validate your claim that Egyptian Arabic is a separate language from Arabic rather than just a variety of it. If not, I'll parenthesize the infobox dialects as per the actual template parameter example on Persian dialects. Soupforone (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Soupforone: Lack of mutual intelligibility is not what culminates in a separation of languages. A very obvious example of this are the Scandinavian languages, which are far more similar to each other than these supposed "dialects". Egyptian Arabic has its own Wikipedia, I'm fairly certain this would be rather unique for a "dialect". Of course I could give you a dozen links, like Ethnologue, that refer to it as a language (of Egypt) as well as cite the work of linguists like Bayoumi Andil but I have a feeling that this will be discarded as insufficient for a validation just like you did with Glottolog which makes absolutely no mention of the word "dialect" in connection with its information on Egyptian Arabic. Arabic is clearly labeled as a sub-family, and Egyptian Arabic labeled a language. It is a conclusion you drew on your own based on your understanding that it is a dialect. A dialect on Glottolog is clearly labeled a dialect, as in the case of Österbotten Swedish, for example. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this information is that Egyptian Arabic, per the definition of Glottolog, is a language derived from Arabic, more specifically Egypto-Sudanic Arabic, with dialects of its own. This definition will be used to support the current version. Turnopoems (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Glottolog is a bibliographical log on languages; it doesn't conduct analysis. The linguistic works it links to on Egyptian Arabic are on Arabic dialects, not Egyptian Arabic as a distinct language from Arabic. Egyptian Arabic is also under Arabic on its structural tab, like with other Arabic dialects (Afro-Asiatic / Semitic / West Semitic / Central Semitic / Arabian / Arabic / Egyptic Arabic / Egypto-Sudanic Arabic / Egyptian Arabic [10]). Ethnologue as well (Afro-Asiatic / Semitic / Central / South / Arabic [11]). Anyway, I'll give you a bit more time with the infobox language parameter. Soupforone (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Soupforone: I think you misunderstand the dynamics of this, your authority on the matter is limited to extending me proof, not time. The onus of proof is not unilateral. You're arguing that Glottolog defines it as a dialect yet the site clearly labels it a language, not a dialect, as opposed to Cairene Arabic, which is clearly listed as a dialect of Egyptian Arabic. It is indeed under its structural tab, denoting that is a language belonging to the Arabic sub-family of languages. The links you've provided contain nothing that refute this. Italian is listed under the structural tab of Latin, denoting that it is a language deriving from the Latin sub-family, not that it is a dialect of Latin. I will give you time to refute this with actual evidence, if the dispute continues I will open an RfC. I'm not going to go back and forth over your misinterpretation of labels, the site makes a clear distinction between dialects and languages and Egyptian Arabic is irrefutably labeled a language on the site. The same applies for Ethnologue, which states "A language of Egypt". A language is not a dialect, they are not synonyms or in any way interchangeable. Your claim otherwise is nothing but your own interpretation which rests on the politically motivated understanding that the various varieties of Arabic are one language. If it wasn't politically motivated and it is a consistent view you would have to concede that Italian, French, Spanish, German, Swedish and indeed most languages of the world are mere dialects of their respective sub-family. Turnopoems (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Egyptian Arabic is indeed a a variety of Arabic, not a distinct language from Arabic. Ethnologue and Glottolog class Egyptian Arabic as such too, no different than they do with the Persian varieties Tajik [12] [13] and Dari [14] [15]. As per the actual infobox parameter example, these Arabic varieties must therefore also be parenthesized. Anyway, I can see that this discussion is pointless, so I've asked the user who coded this parenthetical infobox language field to clarify what it is earmarked for [16]. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent mummies DNA study

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694 --وسام زقوت (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Ancient DNA

Doug Weller, I have removed a passage on ancient DNA per your rationale on the earlier Khairat analysis [17]. Like that study, the Schuenemann analysis contains a caveat emphasizing that its results may not be representative of ancient Egyptians in general since its samples were culled from a single site in Lower Egypt and only consisted of three individuals for the genome-wide portion. Personally, I think that both analyses are valuable, but I will defer to your discretion on this matter. Soupforone (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hawass at al. 2012, Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study. BMJ2012;345doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8268 Published 17 December 2012: "Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies; using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a. The testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci provided similar results in at least one allele of each marker (table 2⇓). Although the mummy of Ramesses III’s wife Tiy was not available for testing, the identical Y chromosomal DNA and autosomal half allele sharing of the two male mummies strongly suggest a father-son relationship."
  2. ^ International Society of Genetic Genealogy (3 February 2010). "Y-DNA Haplogroup E and its Subclades - 2010". Retrieved 17 December 2010.: "E1b1a is a lineage that originated and expanded from West or Central Africa[.]"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Egyptians/Archive_4&oldid=1136691863"