Talk:Egypt/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

[Vandalism]Halo... hello I mean

In the history section of the article there is mention of 'halo' and 'halo roxs'.
Version comparison: [2].
The differences between those two versions number four: two inclusions of the number 117, the inclusion of the word 'halo' and of the two words 'halo roxs'.
Googling 'halo 117' tells us all about the life and times of Master_Chief_(Halo) , the main character of the Halo video game. It is therefore evidently a vandalism and should be reverted. I registered only to notify of this, so anyone older than 4 days could revert it, while I learn the ropes.

Best regards, Sébastien

Seb.mag (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

There is no mention of the alternate English spellings: Aegypt & Ægypt. Although rare, these spellings are in the dictionary and perhaps should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjb1981 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslims

The Egyptian peoplation is 91% muslims , 7% christians and 2% athiests or and other religions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud-Megahid (talk • contribs) 02:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem I have with some Wikipedians who simply claim population sources for any religion and/or demographic figures.

1. at least sign your comments

2. cite reliable sources (even if they're biased, balance them with other sources). For example (according to sources I've read), if the Egyptian Gov. says muslims form over 90% of Egypt's pop. and all other sources claim 90%-or-under (the lowest of which is about 80%), then you shouldn't JUST claim "Oh, hey, it's over 90%," or vice versa.

3. Last I checked, the atheist population was slim-to-none in Egypt, and that's probably what most folks would assume. In the case of your opinion being contrary to the opinion of the majority, you would have to cite reliable sourc-ES (if there's one crackpot source which is put forward, then no one is going to buy it).

If you don't include good sources, then I'm afraid I'll have to undo any unsubstantiated edits on any population figures, such as Egyptian ones. Remember, there's the argument that the Egyptian government deflates non-muslim figures for political reasons, and there's also the belief that the atheist figures are inflated as they would like to have their fair share of power in several modern civilizations. You have to prove these allegations to be correct.

Until then, I simply don't buy it: evidence is one of the morals for good peer-review editing.

Regards,

• ~ Troy (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Troy, Egyptian government reports are neutral sources especially they are prepared by both Muslim and Christians employees, and all WP:RS said that Christians are only 10%, and all Egyptians; Muslims and Christians; can clearly see this, Egypt is a place for all religions, and employees are not selected according to their religion. I don’t think your words about the Egyptian government represents a WP:NPOV , Regards« PuTTY^SchOOL 19:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not actually. If anyone here is simply going to assume that it's reliable by itself, then that would ignore all of the other sources. It has faced much controversy, allegations and so forth. Most importantly, government censuses don't even include religion findings anymore due to that controversy, so there's no way to prove it retains any of its legitimacy—period. ~ Troy (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Quotes

Ordinary Egyptians frequently express this sentiment. For example, a foreign tourist said after visiting Egypt,"Although an avowedly Islamic country and now part and parcel of the Arab world, Egyptians are very proud of their distinctiveness and their glorious Pharaonic past dating back to 3500 BC... 'We are not Arabs, we are Egyptians,' said tour guide Shayma, who is a devout Muslim."[20]

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."[21] Another felt that,"Arab countries hate Egyptians," and that unity with Israel may even be more of a possibility than Arab nationalism, because he believes that Israelis would at least respect Egyptians.[21]

Surely the point being made by the "Identity" section can be adequately expressed without the kind of anecdotal evidence quoted above? If these were opinion polls or assessments made by academic scholars that would be one thing, but quoting unnamed tour guides and two people at a bus station seems very unprofessional and doesn't reflect very well on the balance of this section. I mean what's the difference between this and just cherry-picking quotes from a few blogs? The quotes themselves don't prove much anyway; I can point to similar "anti-Arab" quotes from Kuwaitis, Iraqis, and Saudis, that doesn't mean they don't consider themselves Arabs. On the flip side, I can also gather some quotes from ordinary Egyptians that express the exact opposite sentiments and wouldn't make Egyptians more Arab either. I know this and the "Egyptians" article have been very contentious in the past, but I hope the other editors would show an open mind about this particular point I'm trying to make here. -- Slacker (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. As an Egyptian, i can affirm what you say. The whole "we are not arabs"-thing is a minority opinion among egyptians, mainly among upper class people. Most people in Egypt do not see a difference in being both Egyptian and Arab. I am one of those. Hamid-Masri (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Like a lot of people in Egypt, I resent being called Arab or anything that I am not. Any Egyptian (regardless of his social background) would not accept adding the term "Arab" to his/her description. Saying that Egyptians are Arab is a big lie promoted by the nasserites. There is a huge difference between being Egyptian and Arab. 209.59.46.80 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

are u people kidding or some thing? I can point to similar "anti-Arab" quotes from Kuwaitis, Iraqis, and Saudis, that doesn't mean they don't consider themselves Arabs. well i tell u what, do it.

as long as u dont get a source to aid that the majority of egyptians think them selves arabs, u've got no chance to revert that claims, if u like. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

April 6th

How come the 6th of April strike isn't mentioned here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewberry (talk • contribs) 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It will be, thanks for pointing that out. Please feel free to add it yourself also. — Zerida ☥ 23:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The idenity section is useless

Egyptian are proud to be Pharaoh and Arab because they ancestor are both Arab and Pharaoh , that's also according to several studies made in Egypt , so that section is completely trivial and i suggest removing it 3d vector (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. also for the reasons stated in "Inappropriate Quotes" above. either deletion or making it somewhat more objective. if there are three dominant views of egyptian identity(pharaonic, arabic, islamic) then this part seems to be entirely geared towards supporting the first one.78.29.210.205 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

u cannot mix the religious identity with the other two. what is the problem with believing ura muslim, and an egyptian, but there IS a real problem when saying that u are an egyptian, and an arab, since u gotta choose one of the 2 identities. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Egyptians have been already arabized. Refering to Arab: "An Arab is a person who identifies as such on genealogical, linguistic, or cultural grounds." Because Egypt has been an Arab country for a long time, it is very reasonable to say that you are Egyptian and Arab, since identifying yourself as an Arab requires only one of the three ground mentioned above; and of course most Egyptians share at least the last two, they are both culturally and linguistically Arab. Egyptian sometimes do not identify themselves as Arabs because they are of other descents such as Greek, Copt, or Armenian. I am personally Egyptian from mostly Ancient Egyptian but also from Arab descent, and I identify myself as an Arab. 65.92.212.115 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That is true for some Egyptians, but there are millions of pure Copts who are purely of Coptic ethnicity and cannot be considered "Arab" as they did not inter-marry with the Arabs. ~ Troy (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain, which period you are talking about, now Arabic is the mother tongue of all Egyptians and the only official language in Egypt, Arabs are defined according to the mother tongue, may be you can find few in range of hundreds who can’t speak Arabic as they are in a very far places for civilization, so they did not attend school, Or even did not know what a school is, but if this is the case you are talking about 0.0001% or less « PuTTY^SchOOL 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Media

does anybody know what is the format to put as an audio .ogg file the native term of Places/Subjects in articles?150.140.226.74 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

History

The Persians did not invade in 343 BC. They invaded first in 525 BCE under Cambyses, and the so-called "27th Dynasty" lasted until 404. The Persians then returned in 341 BC under Artaxerxes III and lasted until 331 when Alexander the Great marched in and founded Alexandria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.224.26 (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

GDP

hello dudes, why didn't anyone update the country's gdp since 2008?, the gdp now is 431.9$ billion.

source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/eg.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.10.192 (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Flora and Fauna

I don't know if a flora and fauna section is a good idea for a country page, but I'd find it useful.

I got this list from the bbc (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/animal_gallery.shtml) of animals featured in egyptian artwork as sacred - it's a start. Click on an image below to enter the gallery ram Hippo cheetah dog cat crocodile jackal god Anubis Scarab beetle frog dragonfly horse cattle cobra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.36.61 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Egypt is a place filled with avid soccer fans people all over Egypt gather to watch and play this famous spot. Although sum times people start fighting one another to fight over silly things such as whos going to win tomorow nights game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.5.217 (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Egyptians religion

There religion is very diffrent than ours today but still people go by theres if needed. Still today for us we worship a god who we can not see or here but he is the only one. Others pick gods like Cleoropatra or king Tut. That we read about in history books or you see in a movie or series of shows. But they made statchus of there gods. Like people did in way back when, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.113.14 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

every country is unique by itself, and EGYPT is unique, almost in everything. there is no religiong called egyptian religion, most of Egypt's citizen are muslims but there are also some christians and there is some other religions, in other hand we will find that America's citizen are mosly christians , we cant call christian religion as America religion just because they are mosly christians. Same in EGYPT , we cant call islam egyptians religion just because most of egypt' citizen are muslims. at that time, there is no more people who pick gods like cleopatra or king tut.

with all of my respect Black Named (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Black Named . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Named (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sports section

While, Egypt's national team has not qualified for the FIFA World Cup since 1990, the Egyptian team won the Africa Cup Of Nations an unprecedented six times, including two times in a row in 1957 and 1959 and again in 2006 and 2008, setting a world record.

I think the bold text needs to be deleted. I think it is too based and irrelivant. My soccerclub won our national league five times in a row, that might be a record but definitly not a world record. 85.159.97.1 (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC) When the Pharohs died they were taken to a secret room and their organs were cut out and were p[ut in sacred Canopic jars. Where they were buried with them in their Sarcofogus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassist531 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fashion of Ancient Egypt:

There is no mention of the fashion of Ancient Egypt. How was the wigs and cloths worn? Obsessions28 (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Egypt the Arab headquarters

Egypt have good place in the middle east, it is the meeting point for all Arab.Egypt lie on two seas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.106.205 (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of that? I see no relevance on how your comment may contribute to Wikipedia. You should avoid being to generalized in reference to an entire nation.

...come on, let's be rational here. ~ Troy (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not your personal diary. No one cares about opinions or personal pride. Get real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahm2307 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed tags stemming from bias inherent in the article

I've removed the "citation needed" tag that was attached to the claim that "Often corruption is blamed by Egyptians as the main impediment to feeling the benefits of the newly attained wealth" and replaced it with three sources. I don't see why this specific fact needs any citation though; Egypt is well-known for its pervasive corruption...it ranks 105th in the CPI index.

I've also removed the tag attached to a sentence in the Economy subtext: "A rapidly-growing population, limited arable land, and dependence on the Nile all continue to overtax resources and stress the economy," because the claim made here is a logical inference, very easily verifiable. However, I attached a source for good measure.

Next, the claim that "Egypt is slated to overcome South Africa as the highest earner of FDI on the African continent in 2007" is false. FDI has surged in Egypt since the turn of the millennium, but still falls well short of South Africa's. As such, I shall correct that statement as per the citations below...I will also correct the understated figure of $6 billion, which itself wasn't cited. The actual FDI was $11 billion. citation:

• http://memrieconomicblog.org/bin/content.cgi?news=875
• http://www.sagoodnews.co.za/africa/fdi_into_africa_doubles.html

As for the entire 2 paragraphs of fantasies and false presumptions about Etisalat, Orascom, Raya and revamping Egypt's ralroad system, I believe the 'citation needed' tag is well-placed. I actually think this whole section on Egypt's Economy needs to be rewritten as it does not meet Encyclopedic standards. It is marred with praise and glare no different from the government propaganda which bombards at my fellow Egyptians back home.

11:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration of Gimel

Since Egypt speaks Arabic, therein lies a problem: gimel is normally said like the "j" in "judge", but in Egypt it is the "g" in "gate". If Egypt primarily spoke a dialect of English, then I would know the answer to my question; however, in this case, should we use Modern Standard Arabic or Egyptian Arabic? Mouse is back 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

date format choice

I've audited the dates; they were mostly US, with a few international. If you want all switched to international, give me a buzz. Tony (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Christian populations in Egypt

I don’t know why some Wikipedians are trying to insert a Claims that Egyptian Christians are more than 10% which is far away from the truth, as we can see from inside Egypt and according to all references, and official governmental reports, Christians are 10% out of the total population of Egypt, Here we write in WP:NPOV what is WP:TRUE from WP:RS, and we are not concerned with WP:OR, also revise WP:WTA as Wikipedia is not a place for unverified claims « PuTTY^SchOOL 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You've put pretty much the exact same thing on my talk page, so I'll just make it quick and transfer/edit what I have just said (same question=same answer, I suppose).

My ref is from the Washington Institute and, after having discussed it several times before, it seems like a sound source. I don't know how anyone can say that it says only 10% when it specifically applies a given range. Your opinion is that it's far away from the truth, and yes, we are in fact concerned with WP:OR. I will absolutely not allow repeated deletions on the basis of original research.

---

"Christians make up 10-20 percent of Egypt's population of seventy-seven million, though precise estimates of the number of Copts vary widely. By any account, they represent by far the largest Christian community in the Middle East."

---

As there are many views/POVs/disagreements, no one figure would seem to be the best solution. For example, the Christian Churches in Egypt (specifically the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria) estimates 15-20%, the old censuses said about 6% and other sources claim approx. 10%. Really, there is abosolutely no such claim that this one figure is fully "verified" when you keep in mind that these are only estimates (controversial ones to say the least). Also, if you look at the talk page, I have replied in more than one section, only to be ignored by several IPs for multiple times. When a reliable source is given and it says what more than one side claims, that is not to be unexpected. According to WP:NPOV, if there is more than one argument on controversial figures and/or data, then it can be balanced by multiple sources, which is what I'm ultimately aiming for. Otherwise, I'm simply be wasting my time by allowing lopsided reverts (a lot of which were baseless and were repeatedly committed by IPs) that totally ignore what I've been saying all along. ~ Troy (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Your reference is from a private Organization accepting DENOTATIONS, not a governmental Organization, and the article is like any newspaper article, What they wrote is not based on studies, it a POV, I can collect thousands like references using Google« PuTTY^SchOOL 06:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Troy please check your pro-Israel reference, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is regarded by some as having a pro-Israel tilt, I Think this is a sufficient reason of providing wrong inaccurate information, Do you still believe that we have to ignore the Egyptian government reports and take our population records from a pro-Israel Institute « PuTTY^SchOOL 18:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

your reference is "pro-Israel" Institute « PuTTY^SchOOL 18:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No proof on that. That comment right there didn't have any relevance. I did not ignore it if you say that it says 10%, I'm including it. Moreover, you ignored all of the other references and figures by excluding the range. ~ Troy (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an official report? « PuTTY^SchOOL 06:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Official reports are not reliable by themselves, as we all know. ~ Troy (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as the raw figures are concerned, I have to agree with PuttySchool. There doesn't really seem to be much if any disagreement as to the percentage of Christians in Egypt except among the Christian groups in Egypt themselves and that one Washington Institute article. The CIA estimates that Christians represent about 10% of the Egyptian population. Ditto the US Department of State, the British government's Foreign Commonwealth Office, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network, and MSN Encarta Encyclopedia. The United States Library of Congress also estimates that in 1990, Christians represented only 8.5% of the Egyptian population. So I think, given the variety and number of authoritative sources that uphold the 10% figure, that the 10%-20% figure from the Washington Institute article is perhaps something of an overstatement or, at the very least, heavily skewed toward the 10% end of the spectrum. Middayexpress (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what lead to us here is more than what you might expect. It was totally uncalled for when those IPs went after me. This whole thing is wasting my time when I should really be contributing here. Also, there are estimates which aim higher and lower than 10 percent. I don't care if I have to put down 6-20% (see the intro on "Copts"), but what matters is that people don't repeatedly revert my contribs without discussing it. It was going on for too long for me to actually consider it. Some sources go as low as 6% or as high as 23%, so in any case, that bunch of sources that you gave are mostly just influenced by the Egyptian government (Putty said that some gov't records do say 10%, as you can see in the page history). This page on Egypt says 15% of the population, and so does the Christian Post. Sources like this and this book entitled "The Australian People" (on ethnicities) both suggest a range of about 10 to 20 percent. Quite frankly, it isn't my job to find every single source to prove my point, but at this point, most people would get the idea that there really isn't one single figure. The fact of the matter is that while the media may be heavily affected in one way or another (by the Church or State, the latter more likely), there are still views that are controversial enough to allow for avoiding specific figures, which is not uncommon. ~ Troy (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Troy 07, please remember that this page is about Egypt, not about Christianity, or Christianity in Egypt! « PuTTY^SchOOL 06:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I already know that. Please avoid making such assumptions. ~ Troy (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please check the top of talk page “This is not a forum for general discussion of Egypt.”, when we talk about population, we don’t talk about estimations, we talk about accurate numbers made by governments (and is case of Egypt the government is composed of both Muslims and Christians), what we have here is according to the last population done in Egypt, the percentage was about 10%, so we must write this(Like all wiki articles about countries the population % is according to government reports Not according to estimations, or from searching the web), when we have a new Egyptian governmental report about a new population, which most probable will be near to this percentage (as the numbers increase but the % always remains the same), then we can update the page, but for me it is the first time to hear about A MODERN COUNTARY WITH ESTEMATED POPULATION.« PuTTY^SchOOL 06:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Putty, I'm well aware about the talk page guidlines, and please avoid pointing out the obvious by typing in all caps (it doesn't win lots of friends here, so you know now). It appears that you are a newbie from just a month or two, so I will try to be fair with you. Please reply at the bottom of the page from now on to avoid confusion. Yes, this about Egypt: I already know that. The Egyptian government—even if someone erroneously thinks it's reliable source by itself—is a government that has faced human rights scandals and also wouldn't have the only say in things—there's more than one POV, and they should all be included. Also, government sources are not the only reliable ones. I have included religious sources as well as non-religious sources. You have apparently excluded them and claim that all articles must be according to government records alone, without citing any of Wikipedias policies and guidlines. Please don't remove referenced information until we have reached a consensus here. I have been very patient for a while now and it looks like there's no reason in saying that I'm ignoring anything when I included the 10% figure as well. Lastly, if you notice in the history, I have been reverting undiscussed/uncited edits, all of which either raised the numbers or lowered them (both are usually unfair if no one discussed them). Please understand that I was doing that in the best interest of anyone—I didn't go around claiming that the sources for 10% figures are all wrong in terms of how the article should be written, and neither should you for all of the other figures—there is controversy and in that case, all POVs should be inclusive. ~ Troy (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, since no consensus was reached, I should warn you to please stop removing references—if there is going to be an agreement, then it will be easier to keep track of what there is (whether you personally think it's biased or not doesn't change how ranges should be cited; there are many sources in the end). ~ Troy (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry Troy My Comment about Washington Institute for Near East Policy was not of my own, it was from the Wikipedian article about the institute, at the same time the article was stable and accurate until your last few edits without any improvements to the article. all reliable sources said that the % is around 10, and your number [20%] can’t be a value for tolerance, did you heard about 100% tolerance before. Yes I'm new hear but I can read and I can think a little, also I know all details about my country, and I know what information is correct and what is completely wrong « PuTTY^SchOOL 19:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No original research. My contributions are in good faith, and obviously I have been fair with trying to include all POVs (here, in Wikipedia, that's how it works). Also, that wasn't the only source I gave. Even if it was, the "pro-Israel" statements are not relevant to Egypt, and also, if a Wikipedian article says something, it isn't considered to be a proper citation as no one can cite from another Wikipedia article (according to policy, if not common sense). ~ Troy (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Troy, please don't force your point of view, nor build the article on a single unreliable source, Population records are not according to estimations, or from X or Y POV, Please stop vandalizing the article, and write accurate information for sake of article stability « PuTTY^SchOOL 19:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm trying to be fair and I have to redundantly say the same thing over and over again. Why are you accusing me of vandalism? Either you don't know the meaning, or you are being disruptive. I sincerely hope it is the former. ~ Troy (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No I mean adding wrong information, ignoring other editors point of view, insisting on your point of view, Can’t you spend more time following the discussion in this talk page « PuTTY^SchOOL 20:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is not on my part, and if you don't know the meaning or, worse, intentionally confuse the issues, then this will only delay any useful discussion. "ignoring other editors point of view, insisting on your point of view"—I wouldn't be ignoring your point of view if I already included it more than you did on the contrary. ~ Troy (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You also reverted another edit of mine Religion_in_Egypt and Ignored the talk page Talk:Religion_in_Egypt !!!!. Troy there is a lot of article that needs improvement, but this article is about Egypt and the talk page is about improving the article, not a forum for side discussion. « PuTTY^SchOOL 20:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, no exclamation marks. I didn't ignore it because I honestly didn't know it. I don't remember anyone saying that it was on the talk page. Also, I suspect that you are those IPs if that's how you put it. You need to know that I have edited in good faith. It's quite obvious. What can't you understand from that? ~ Troy (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, you claim that I think that this is a forum. I know how it works. I've been around for a year, and I knew from the beginning that the discussion is supposed to be relevant to the articles. If I already told you that I knew that this wasn't a forum, why are you repeating yourself as if I'm to stupid to know these obvious things? Why do you type in all caps? Why do you use IPs to make sure that you don't have to properly discuss your changes? In retrospect, it appears that this behaviour is either abusive or a little lacking in knowledge. I have dealt with several other disputes/edit wars/"vandalism" before, so please, don't distort things as if I don't know how it works (after all I've been through). I have already added the sources and you say that they are broken links. If there are several of them, then that can't possibly be true for all of them and there's no reason to exclude them. That's all I have to say. I'm not counting on repeating myself. ~ Troy (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

PuttySchool, if you don't cease being disruptive (or revert-warring, to say the least), then you better have a good reason. Please, enough of the "broken links" excuse—I know for a fact that they work. ~ Troy (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Troy, any one can revise the article history, the 20% is a wrong inaccurate information you are insisting to insert in the article using a biased unreliable source and never was in any stable version. I’m using caps like many other wiki editors to show the important points. I don't use different IPs and I don't have socks; any administrator can check both of us for using IPs and socks, and I’m requesting so ASAP. At the same time I'm a neutral editor and after following you contributionsand I don’t think you are so « PuTTY^SchOOL 21:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am neutral. Do you want all caps? The major point: I GAVE A RANGE OF SOURCES. There, I said it. Please understand that I have added several sources, in turn, making it fair. I feel that it actually is reliable as it is inclusive of your source, is it not? ~ Troy (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Puttyschool (talk · contribs), I'm willing to reach a compromise with you as long as you acknowledge that I am free to fairly contribute here, and that what we did was not synonymous with what "vandalism" actually is, being the fact that it's a content dispute. Usually, if I am stuck in these situations, I'm able to have a part in solving it as an end result, and I don't want this case to be treated like it's "special" or anything. Actually, looking back at previous situations and where everything stands now, I could tell that this is kind of silly. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't be that bad at all if people would have at least considered what the other person was saying. ~ Troy (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text

I am aware that things didn't work out too well, but may be you could look at what I've got here. Of course, in the case of any disagreement, you could always "amend it". Also, I would like other users to look at this and say what they think if possible:

*Former text (this version was by Troy 07 (talk · contribs))

Christians are estimated to represent around 10-20% of the population, more than 95% of whom belong to the native Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Other native Egyptian Christians are adherents of the Coptic Catholic Church, the Coptic Evangelical Church and various Coptic Protestant denominations. Non-native Christian communities are largely found in the urban regions of Alexandria and Cairo, and are members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East, the Maronite Church, the Armenian Catholic Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, or the Syriac Orthodox Church.

*Current text (this version was by Puttyschool (talk · contribs))

Christians represent around 10% of the population more than 95% of whom belong to the native Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Other native Egyptian Christians are adherents of the Coptic Catholic Church, the Coptic Evangelical Church and various Coptic Protestant denominations. Non-native Christian communities are largely found in the urban regions of Alexandria and Cairo, and are members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East, the Maronite Church, the Armenian Catholic Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, or the Syriac Orthodox Church.

*Text proposal by Troy 07 (talk · contribs) (with citation prompts)

Christians represent around 10% of the population, according to most findings, particularly by the CIA World factbook and government records <insert sources here> (ie: ) more than 95% of whom belong to the native Coptic Orthodox Church. However, as these proportions vary to a considerable degree, some of the published sources and Coptic figures indicate figures as high as 15 to 20% of Egypt's population. <insert sources here> (ie: ) Among the notable minority Egyptian Christians who do not adhere to the faith of the Coptic Orthodox, their respective denominations include the Coptic Catholic Church, the Coptic Evangelical Church and various Coptic Protestant denominations. Non-native Christian communities are largely found in the urban regions of Alexandria and Cairo, and are members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East, the Maronite Church, the Armenian Catholic Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, or the Syriac Orthodox Church.

--- References

So ...see what you think, feel free to compare and experiment on my public sandbox if needed, and make sure to add some positive input so that this can be agreed upon. The bizarre part of all of this? These texts are all intimately related. Actually, my proposal is likely what's the most different from the other two, and that would still be in the opening sentences. Any comments in regards to this would be highly appreciated. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok Troy, nice deal to adjust all Egyptian articles

Troy, nice that you are trying to reach a fair deal, but let me clarify my point of view, as I wrote before in your talk page I only take action when I found something far away from facts, and I don’t have a case here to support, also I’m not a religious editor but I can think a little. But for both of us let’s take a neutral point of view while handling this issue.

1. You comment about the Egyptian government which makes it looks like a tyrant, is not accepted at all, especially the Egyptian government is composed of both Muslims and Christians. And all claims about violating humans rights are not about Christians in particulars. At the same time I believe that you are most probably an Egyptian.
2. Lets also search Google for “Muslim population by country” and compare the results [3] you will find 700,000 results, most of them talking about 6% and if we took the average of all sources using statistical rules, we will return back to a % near the 6%, as recorded by the last completed census which was done by both Muslims and Christians. At the time of that census I was in Egypt and the governmental employee who visited me at home for counting was a Christians.
3. As anyone can see, I did not depend on the last completed census; As it is out dated, I depended of CIA - The World Factbook, here is the definition of CIA, "The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an independent US Government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence to senior US policymakers". No one can imagine that they build reports based on governmental reports, as you said.
4. You are always posting that the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria had estimated 15-20%, please keep in mind that your posts will not do more other than embarrassing the Coptic Orthodox Church, in addition it is WP:OR, I have an account on the church web site, I searched the site I never seen such claims. At the same time the Coptic Orthodox Church supports the government and never been against before. And your claim is not more that WP:OR unless you have an official reference from the Church, so please till you have can find such a reference don’t speak instead of them, as you are not obligated to do so.
5. Few countable Coptic sources are claiming about 10 to 15%, Pro-Israeli sources like Washington Institute for Near East Policy is claiming about 10 to 20%, Governmental sources (other than the Egyptian government), Neutral Sources, encyclopedic sources, Islamic sources, and some Christian sources are talking about 6 to 10%. At the same time the Christian Post in another article said “The Coptic Christian population in Egypt, with an estimated population of six to eight million, is the largest Christian community in the Middle East.” i.e from 7.5% to 10%.
6. Your are suggesting to show all points of views and add references, ok fine, but if we did so, we will find thousands of references talking about 6%, some references talking about 6~10%, few countable biased references talking about 10~20%. At the same time all references talking about the Muslim population are using a percentage from 90 to 94%, and as a neutral editor I can’t subtract by myself as you did.
7. What I’m doing is as follows, for the article Religion in Egypt using a neutral point of view, I’ll show all claims from 6 to 20%, beside all reliable neutral sources talking around the 10%, not the 6 or 15 or 20, as “around” holds a value of tolerance, but in other articles specialty the article Egypt, the religion section must hold a summary, not un-verified claims, and already there is a reference that this section is a summary from the main article, and I’ll use the round 10% for all Egyptian articles with references to the article Religion in Egypt.
8. Following is a sample of references, we can add thousands if you want, but will they add more?

http://www.factbook.net/muslim_pop.php

http://menic.utexas.edu/cairo/modern/religion/religion.html

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/egypt_4.htm

http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/egypt.htm

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4316258.stm

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/egypt

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557408_3/Egypt.html

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/29188070

http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm

http://www.iiie.net/node/65

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080708/egypt-s-christian-muslim-gap-growing-bigger.htm

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+eg0076)

http://www.asiarooms.com/travel-guide/egypt/culture-of-egypt/religion-in-egypt.html

http://www.cmi.no/file/?481

http://www.hajinformation.com/main/d21c.htm

http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm

Sorry, I forgot to sign « PuTTY^SchOOL 22:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Putty, there's a few things to go over. First of all, I will only ask you this once (and not again). Please do not label me anything ever again (ie: "POV" editor, you've said that more than once). I'm not considering myself as a "religious editor" as I have several interests as well (ie: Turbo Pascal and other computer programming). Also, you've given sites such as "islamicweb.com", "hajininformation.com", so I don't see how they're much more reliable, so, it's quite simple: give a range, at the minimum, is what I'd say. The Copts Association in the US does cite 15%, which is arguably one of the more reliable Coptic sources (obviously). I'm glad that you've considered it to a reasonable length, but also, remember that the "muslim population" is different from the "christian population", all of which make up the total pop. of Egyptian citizens, so it's not as good to rely on whatever unless there is direct reference to what you are talking about. My most easily obvious opinion is probably that anyone with a brain the size of a bread crumb could tell that you have the pro-Isreal "influence" as a reason by now, based on another Wikipedia article, so no need for me to go over that again (more likely than not, I responded more than once). Actually, I think that it would only be fair to contact other folks to see what they think. I'd really like to get closer to reaching an agreement, so we should give someone else a say and go over it once more—hopefully. ~ Troy (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Troy, putting your method of reversing facts aside, I gave samples from reliable neutral sources, governmental sources, encyclopedic sources, then gave sample from Coptic, Islamic and Christian sources, according to the Egyptian government population records, the Christians percentage is 6%, and I dropped this percent which by all means the only official percentage we have here, the Copts Association in the US (which by all means can’t be a reliable source as from their About page they are a private organization having conflict of interest regarding this subject.
Another point the total number of Egyptians in the states (Muslims and Christians) are in the range of 300,000 to 400,000 i.e. 0.005% of the total populations of Egyptians, if we have this trivial percentage out of the total Egyptians population, then haw we can build all Egyptian articles based on one report form a slice of this percentage which my all means less than 0.005% (when we drop Muslims and moderate Christians from this percentage)
OR as you are suggesting from another pro-Israeli report Or from another reference Talking in general language and did not mention Egypt in the statement ignoring about 700,000 references, and using your only two ot three references
Taking the Christian Post as an example, the Christian Post wrote in Dec. 07 2004 that the Christians percentage if from 10% to 20% and in Jul. 08 2008 wrote Christians percentage if from 7.5% to 10% and you are insisting to take the 2004 article as a reference, dropping the 2008 article.
At the same time I can’t imagine how much you are assuming people are stupid enough as you tried to show them that I have pro-Isreal "influence" Me the one who was described before by a group of the Jews editors as anti-Semitic editor cause of this edit of the JDIF when I was trying to make the article looks like a neutral point of view, then they took me to the AN/I board twice with a complete section in the Jewish Internet Defense Force talk page Created by Einsteindonut trying to prove that I’m anti-Semitic editor, in order to prevent me from writing the JDIF article using a neutral point of view, or YOU as Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) (the user who described me as an anti-semantic editor and who dedicated the JDIF site for me for three days when He/She was blocked for one week cause of using 7 socks, and most probably runs the JDIF site, the Zionists organization) offered you support as [he/she wrote in your talk page. you know you don’t see me kvetching about your "influence" comment.
Do you want to know my POV about you now; you are twisting Wikipedia to your point of view and by all means you can’t be a neutral editor.
Finally it seems I’ll repeat myself for ever with you, I’m a neutral editor, I only contribute when I find something completely un-true, I’m not anti-semantic as Einsteindonut described neither a pro-Israeli as You described, I’m only contributing to make Wikipedia a great site holding facts, not a site written according to each group or minorities points of view. « PuTTY^SchOOL 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you asked for a Coptic source—you should never take that back as I have said that it is one of the more reliable Coptic sources. If that's not enough for you, even though you asked for that, too bad. Second of all, you may NOT say "you are twisting Wikipedia to your point of view and by all means you can’t be a neutral editor" to win the argument. See Wikipedia:NPA. "Comment on the contributions, not the contributers". IF you do that again, then that's when there's a reason to disregard your opinion. I have never done that, but I will if I have to. A "Pro-Isreal tilt" is 100% irrelevant as it has no reference to the actual source. Also, since you depended on another Wikipedia article for that, it's no reason to just assume that it is related to this. "not a site written according to each group or minorities points of view" ...the whole basis of making it neutral, see WP:NPOV. You simply can't have one POV while leaving the rest out, and thus, I have included your version in my proposal, have I not? Now, I know that you will want to add several repeating comments in response to this, but as long as you're going to attack me as a contributer, FORGET IT. You have already clarifyed your point of view, and I'm not asking for you to get Einsteindonught involved. Moving on, as I have already heard from you, it's time to see what another editor with meaningfully new ideas has to say. ~ Troy (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait for what or what new ideas we can bring, do you mean waiting for new WP:XX rules. Can’t you follow the previous discussions in talk page and archives and in Talk:Religion_in_Egypt no one is claiming other than you, and such discussions are what makes me follow the issue, at the same time Wikipedia is not a democracy, here we have a condition like a tempest in a tea pot, we have a plenty of reliable sources(other than the Egyptian government, or Christian, Coptic’s, Muslims sources) all of them are un-biased reliable sources giving a definite percentage of around 10%, you have three biased sources nothing of them can be considered reliable related to the population issues but on the other side have conflict of interest, at the same time your sources are claiming not giving actual figures and it is not one of their duties to give population figures. Okay you want to use them for claiming, which definitely has no meaning in this situation, at the same time I left your claims, but I’ll do so for only one article Religion_in_Egypt, the most relevant one, and reference this article from other articles, as inserting un-verified claims in all articles has no meaning regarding a population issues, and can’t be viewed as neutral at all. « PuTTY^SchOOL 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would just like a little input from a person who takes a fair look at this discussion—I'm not asking for much. All of the claims vary, and so I think 6 to 20 percent can be fair in some respects:

---Wikipedia: NPOV---

To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Puttyschool, I respect your personal opinion and yes, I do consider it. But also, keeping that in mind, I'd like you to remember that as long as I don't put too much emphasis on things that you may disagree with or view differently, I would like to edit freely on Wikipedia. I am not a Coptic-related only editor, as you can see, so it's only fair to let go of the "who's POV", or "who is more correct". I think that it is more of a matter on "what do we have in common", or "how should we re-word this"? ~ Troy (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Troy it is a good practice to write your own comment other than Changing other editors comments, you may be blocked for such bad habit. At the same time I’m not posting my opinion I’m depending on reliable sources, and I can judge and I can think. And yes you can edit freely only if you used a neutral point of view and stopped inserting unverified claims and talking instead of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the main Egyptian Church, trying to show your personal point of view using the Church power without providing a single referance from the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. as I told you, if they have claims they will publish, in Egyptian media and on the web site, and no one can stop the Main Church from publishing « PuTTY^SchOOL 01:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm not interested in your threat to block me. I know that, but I have a reason: leave my talk page out of it. Also, you removed refs yourself, which doesn't prove to be any better at all. I have already proven my point, and if you're not going to contribute or add to my proposal, I see no point in your comments. You may positively add to the discussion. You may not constantly point fingers at me just for the sake of it. ~ Troy (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Troy 07 (talk · contribs), is this kind a drama common among a group of Wikipedia editors, I removed only one references as It was un-relevant to the subject, and I showed the reason before. And this is my last warring for you about changing my comments « PuTTY^SchOOL 01:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Putty, I'm only changing the template, it's nothing in regards to your comment. And for the record, you removed two references that were relevant to the subject (on Religion in Egypt). Your earlier reason was "broken link", and now, it is "irrelevant". I respect your opinion, but I still think that you should stop musing about my contributions. You probably wouldn't like it if I did that to you, anyway. ~ Troy (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Because you're so ridiculously obsessed with putting that template down EVERY time, I will not bother wasting my time with you and changing it. However, this is a talk page in regards to the article, and so I will thus only discuss that specifically. ~ Troy (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the meaning of "ridiculously", You are not changing the template only, you are changing my comments from the second day I started to write in this talk page and the template is used but many many wikipedians, and changing my comments is like speaking instead of me, as you speak instead of Main Church. from my POV removing the template has no meaning other than hiding your contributions « PuTTY^SchOOL 02:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And about the link "Article in the local Al Dustur Newspaper dated Wednesday 12th March 2008." yes it is a broken link, can you show me how I can reach it « PuTTY^SchOOL 02:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant ISP news or the other ref, not Al Dustur (which I am not responsible for as I didn't add it). ~ Troy (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

(Note: I've read the discussion above and will assume that the requested opinion is whether or not Troy07's proposed text is acceptable.) Simply put, WP:NPOV requires that articles represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This requirement that all significant views is balanced somewhat by WP:UNDUE, that views should be weighted by the degree to which they are accepted and supported by reliable sources. In this case, I find Troy07's formulation acceptable. The main thrust of the para is on the generally accepted view that the christian population is about 10% (note the 'most findings'). The rest of the para qualifies the 10% by indicating that there are some views that the christian population is understated (and clearly points to christian sources as the primary source of these views). I suggest rewriting the second sentence as "However, some published sources state that the proportion of Christians is higher, possibly as high as 15-20% of the population'. That way, the coptic claim is removed (I don't see a source for that), and the ambiguity in the statement 'However, as these proportions vary to a considerable degree' is removed (that statement is unsupported and does not follow from the previous sentence anyway.). Regards. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 02:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I Sorry, but if you followed the discussion you will notice that I Kept his point of view in the main article Religion in Egypt and I did not removed it, At the same time we have thousands of references against three references and nothing of the three can be considered as a reliable source, related to this subject. « PuTTY^SchOOL 02:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also if you followed the discussion, you will find according to google return resulats, thousands of referances return 6%, few return 10%, and 3 claims about 10 to 20%, and I used the 10% not the 6% « PuTTY^SchOOL 02:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion needs at least 30 min to follow, and you posted your comment in few minutes, I hope I can be so fast like you « PuTTY^SchOOL 02:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

3O AddendumI read the discussion first and then decided to give a third opinion (as a matter of practice, I don't give a third opinion without first forming an opinion!). I understand that you feel that you are right and are disappointed that my opinion is not the same as yours, but do understand that a third opinion is a neutral look at a dispute and is an opportunity to reexamine your own views on a subject. Simply put, in wikipedia, we don't ignore minority opinions unless that opinion is totally meaningless. In this case, I don't think that the alternative viewpoint on the proportion of Christians in Egypt can be characterized as meaningless. My suggestion is that you work with Troy07 in ensuring that the minority opinion is not given WP:UNDUE weight. It is my impression (on reading the discussion above) that Troy07 is more than willing to do that. (Do also note that it is not surprising that google predominantly reports 10% since most sources will simply report the official government figure.)--Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 07:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RegentsPark (talk · contribs) According to the last government official report, the percentage was 6%, and most Google return results predominantly reports the 6% taken from official government figure, not the 10% which was mainly from the CIA
I used the 10% not the 6%, and my POV was as Egyptians Christians are minorities then give them the biggest reasonable figure, but at the same time Christians can’t increase by 7 millions in one day according to an article from a pro-Israeli un-reliable source(without giving any definite figures) which makes no sense.
I did not drop Troy 07 (talk · contribs) POV at all, but I’m against inserting unverified claims from only 3 unreliable sources in all the Egyptians article, the main article Religion_in_Egypt is enough, and all article can reference this article
And the most important point which I’m totally against, is that Troy is speaking instead of Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (The Main Church in Egypt and Middle East) without providing any reference, and he should take care when speaking instead of the Church and provide his reference.
So please next time spend more time following and understanding the discussion before giving a third opinion, so that we can use it, else it is a waste of your time before our time.« PuTTY^SchOOL 21:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

With due respects, PuTTY, a third opinion is the view of a neutral party based on whatever he or she can make from the discussion. It is up to you what you want to do with the opinion. I've suggested a possible direction which you can take (working on the wording with Troy07 rather than getting bogged down in POV allegations) but you don't have to do that. The dispute resolution process is fairly well defined, if rather long, and you can take this to the next step, an RFC, if you feel any claim of more than 10% christians in Egypt should be excluded from the article. Finally, do note that wikipedia is not about accommodating minorities by giving them 'the biggest reasonable figure'. Rather it is an encyclopedia and it should provide all information that is backed up by WP:RS even when that information conflicts with other WP:RS or official figures. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 21:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think my language is simple and any one can understand it, I did not say that I’ll remove Troy claims as you said, I said we have a main article about Religion in Egypt, this one can covers the claims from Troy three sources as well as the 6%, all in details with a brief about each source, covering all points of view, and other article use the 10% and we can refer to the main article.
And as I noted above we have thousands of reliable sources against three un-reliable sources (not WP:RS but with WP:COI),(do you know what thousands mean?), so there is no reason to add a section about that claim in each of the Egyptian article, which looks very silly! Isn't it?
The other point of conflict with Troy is inserting claims as if from the Main Church without any reference. On the opposite it is a well known fact the Church never claimed before nor been against the government. So why to embarrass the Church?
And yes it is a rule, if you don’t have up to date data then give minorities the biggest reasonable weight, and this is what “respects” means.
Now in order not to waste more time, if you don’t agree we can move further to the next step, an RFC « PuTTY^SchOOL 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The steps to do that are outlined at WP:RFC. It's probably good to attempt a compromise first, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if it will save our time enhancing articles other than wasting time and space writing talk pages, then why not, as I note above I’m using a neutral point of view and this situation is like a tempest in a tea pot. But I’m not the one who requested a WP:DR and I think Troy agreed about “some methods of weighting different POVs“, so if RegentsPark (talk · contribs) found and RFC a good compromise, we can proceed « PuTTY^SchOOL 23:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I'm not sure on were to start on what I've just read now (I was a little busy), but first of all, the conditions for reaching a reasonable agreement should not be too bad as long as we don't focus on the same thing for the whole time. I never "spoke for the Church" in any instance, and also, to say "it is" or "is not" in support of the government is an opinion, technically (and I don't really care about what Putty or myself thinks about it because that is not the issue right now). Also, in regards to the Religion in Egypt article, there was a concern a couple of years ago on the similarities between that whole article and the section in this one. While that was quite some time ago, I still consider Religion in Egypt to be somewhat of a WP:POV FORK ...not much different. Any thoughts? ~ Troy (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This style is used by all Wikipedia articles about countries UK#Religion United_States#Religion France#Religion , the main article holds a short summary about main religions in the country, then a separate article about the religions in the country holds all other details, Now a days, not all peoples are interested to view counties by religions, but for the user who wants to go deep in details about religions, he can follow the main article about religion. « PuTTY^SchOOL 01:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the difference seems comparitively small here. The article may have to be expanded (I could try to help with that at some point). Actually, it looks like it wasn't deliberately made, but still counts as a type of WP:Content forking, more like. Oh, and BTW, the content that is noted in both that article and the section should still be similar enough (as in, they shouldn't contradict eachother). Of course, the section on this article should be written as a summary, but you're probably already aware of that. ~ Troy (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for the mess that just went on now. This has beeen quite a long discussion. Also, I didn't exclude the possibility of including 6% as I said before, so the main issue might be other how to prompt what. The grammer can be dealt with, so that's not a huge issue (I think). I'm certain that you will find that some methods of weighting different POVs are more appealing than others—we just have to find the best/most agreeable method. ~ Troy (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's true that Wikipedia has a policy guarding against undue weight. However, that policy is predicated on the condition that the article should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It seems to me that the proposed draft above does not do that when it cites four different references in support of the 15%-20% figure which the Christian sources endorse versus only one reference from the CIA for the actually dominant, officially surveyed 10% figure. There's also a gross disparity in the quality of sourcing between the two competing figures: Whereas the 10% figure is the official number put forth by the non-religiously affiliated CIA, the US Department of State, and the British government's Foreign Commonwealth Office -- all official government sources -- the 15%-20% figure is supported by the AIPAC-affiliated Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an ad-hoc article on a low profile news website with Google Adsense ads on it (never a good sign), an article from a Christian source that is contradicted by another article on the same website, and a "registered seller of travel in California, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, and Washington under each state's seller of travel regulations". None of the references for the 15%-20% are buttressed by the stamp of governmental or official authority and approval. Also, if we take a look around Wikipedia, most other pages use official government sources for their populations figures. In other words, they rely on information from governmental institutions that are actually capable of carrying out large-scale censuses and thereby ensuring accuracy or something approaching it. Most people on, say, the England page would also balk (and quite rightly) if someone were to replace the official 3.1% governmental census figure for Islam that's currently on the page with a 13.1% figure someone were to find on some Muslim-related website. Actually, many Muslim websites would likely also balk, since they too also appear to go by the official figures from the British government's census. Why should the Egypt article be any different? Middayexpress (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, most references seem to agree that figures vary:

• http://www.middleeastinfo.org/commentary.php?id=2127
• http://www.secid.org/usefsociety/pdf/froy.pdf
• http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1097/9710087.html
• http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:0Uvpxx6bZpwJ:nationalamericancopticassembly.org/showart.php%3Fmain_id%3D610estimates+egypt+-wiki&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11
• http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/Default.aspx?tabid=346

And, also, I would like to remind you that estimates in the middle east (in general) seem to have comparatively large gaps, understandbly. ~ Troy (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The condition here is more messy than you tried to explain, we have unreliable sources which did not give actual figure that we can depend on, or any one can ask them about, they speaks in term 10% to 15% or 10% to 20%, and they did not give a definite number, or any referance, using the same techniques of Yellow journalism « PuTTY^SchOOL 02:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

...that's a lot of edit conflicts (I've had my share of them too). Anyway, I am not speaking for the Coptic Church, but as far as I'm concerned, I did give you a Coptic source. This article cites the Coptic Association and says about 15%. This news source doesn't seem that invariable itself (8 to 15%, it's a common range given by Coptic and a few published sources that I see once in a while when looking at the news). These, in my mind, prove that there is not necessarily a definite number for every figure. ~ Troy (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont see how any of the above references disprove anything I've written. Not one of them is from an official governmental source, but rather primarily from Christian sources. One article was even written by a reverend. The last Arab Media Watch link also quotes a 9% figure for Copts, which it credits to the CIA. And the CIA of course upholds the 10% figure. Middayexpress (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to disprove anything you've written. The last source said "Overall though, Copts remain under-represented in Parliament, claiming only six seats at the last election - disproportionately few compared to their share of roughly 9% of the 79 million population[4] (though estimates vary between 8% and 16%)." This is exactly my point—I'm simply trying to say that the numbers certainly vary. ~ Troy (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The numbers only vary according to Christian sources, AIPAC-affiliated websites, a cruise ship company, and random articles on low profile news websites that have no way of knowing on their own the exact percentage of Christians in Egypt since they are of course incapable of carrying out large scale primary research. Only official governmental authorities such as the Egyptian government itself, the CIA, and the British government are capable of doing that. Middayexpress (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How many Islamic seats in the Congress? I never heard about a Christian or Islamic seat before, but this example can only justify a less % of population. Egypt have a condition uncommon to most countries, the President have some seats to select by himself, and always select Christians to increase the number « PuTTY^SchOOL 02:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, excuse me if I'm wrong, but it was like, what? 5 or 6 seats? That's less than 6 percent already—there's hundreds. It's certainly misrepresented. In response to Middayexpress, I was definitely asked for a Christian source. There should be a way to properly incorporate it, and if I don't get any help on working on the proposed text at all, then I don't know what to say, really. ~ Troy (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Troy, not every page on web can be used as a reference, I think I gave a Google search example before and if we took the average we will return back to near the 6%. at the same time you brought again another new pro-Israeli reference, now we have two points.
a) Do you agree about removing statements like the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria Claims..... as such statement is not supported by any reference(Yes/No)?
b) Do you agree about collecting all claims in one article Religion in Egypt and use the 10% in all other Egyptians articles (Yes/No)? « PuTTY^SchOOL 02:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Troy: Whoever asked you to quote from a Christian source was mistaken. In this particular case, a Christian source is the very definition of a questionable source since it constitutes a conflict of interest. It's in the interest of Christian groups and indeed expected of them in this situation to overstate their numbers and otherwise behave self-servingly. The CIA or the British government, by contrast, stand nothing to gain from understating the number of Christians in Egypt. Middayexpress (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the source is Christian does not make it unreliable or mean that there is a conflict of interest involved. One could, for example, argue that the government of Egypt has an interest in promoting a lower percentage of Christians because of its troubles with Islamic fundamentalists. Where will that leave us? No, the point is, and should be, that there are reasonable sources, if in the minority, that point to a higher proportion of Christians than is officially stated. Since that does seem to be the case, wikipedia should provide the alternative figures, stating clearly that this is a minority view and is primarily coming from Christian organizations. Let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. (Note that the conflict of interest article quoted above refers to the conflict of interest between the aims of editors and that of wikipedia. Unless Troy07 is a representative of a Christian organization that promotes a greater than 10% proportion of Christians in Egypt, that article does not apply here.) --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the source is Christian in this situation most certainly does qualify as a conflict of interest. Per WP:QS, bolding added for emphasis:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

An article written by a reverend or published by a Christian source (i.e. folks with a high level of personal commitment to Christian causes) that just so happens to put forth a figure for the number of Christians in Egypt which runs counter to every officially published government source (e.g. the CIA, the US Department of State, the British government's Foreign Commonwealth Office) -- sources that do, by contrast, have the resources to carry out large-scale primary research -- is the very definition of a biased, questionable source. Again, it's in the interest of these Christian sources to overstate their numbers. It's not in their interest to quote from the CIA or the US government or the British government since all of the aforementioned official governmental institutions report a low 10% figure for the number of Christians in Egypt. As for the Egyptian government allegedly being interested in promoting a lower percentage of Christians because of its troubles with Islamic fundamentalists, that's pure speculation. The Egyptian government, for one thing, has many Christians that work within its ranks; it's not just Muslims. The situation in this regard is no different to, say, the Canadian government, which also counts many Muslim civil servants and likewise still publishes figures in its census for the number of Muslims in Canada. The Egyptian government is also irrelevant to our present circumstances since PuttySchool hasn't even cited its 6% figure, but rather the more conservative 10% figure put forth by the CIA, among other official governmental institutions. Middayexpress (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps then, the way out is to find a WP:RS that says that these Christian sources may be inflating the figure. Then the article could quote the higher figure (some Christian sources say that the proportion of Christians may be as high as 15% but according to XXXX these numbers may be inflated). Or, if the source (the one claiming that the christian sources are unreliable) then it would be ok to drop the higher number and relegate the info to the religion sub-article. However, failing an external WP:RS confirmation of the motivations of these 'Christian' sources, it is WP:OR to state that 'it's in the interest of these Christian sources to overstate their numbers'. At best, it is as speculative as 'the Egyptian government allegedly being interested in promoting a lower percentage of Christians because of its troubles with Islamic fundamentalists', which, BTW, I did not say is true or even my view, I presented it as a counter hypothesis to the speculation of biased christian sources. The point is that we can't speculate about motives because we don't do WP:OR. We need to look for external sources to guide us on the veracity of information out there. If we can't show that a source is unreliable, and the source is reasonable, we should present their statistics with the appropriate caveats. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems like Regents Park put it pretty reasonably. However, I would like everyone here to know that I'm gonna loosen up on the Christian sources in the subsection here ...I still think we can all agree that there should be something that recognizes the variability of these figures. If someon like Puttyschool still thinks that "estimates" are uncommon or unheard of, look at the CIA Worldfactbook's field on religion where, similarly to several other topics, there is quite an important reliance on the estimates themselves, let alone the reliability of them (in some places, it's easier to tell than others). I guess the proposal is quite void as it is otherwise, unless I've missed something here (correct me if I'm wrong). ~ Troy (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Troy 07 (talk · contribs) What is your new point, comparing the results from your new sources, CIA Worldfactbook's field on religion for example for India Hindu 80.5%, Muslim 13.4%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.1% (2001 census), they declared that they depend of the 2001 census, i.e. they did not depend on the Central Intelligence Agency resources, on the other side for Egypt Muslim (mostly Sunni) 90%, Coptic 9%, other Christian 1%, which is very clear that they depended on the Agency resources not on any governmental reports like India, And I think this is why the 10% is used by the UK government as well. « PuTTY^SchOOL 02:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RegentsPark (talk · contribs) without trying to move the discussion in a wrong direction, and in order not to waste more time, and to insert wrong point of views in this talk page

1. Check all troy 07 (talk · contribs) sources, most of his sources are Pro-Israeli AIPAC-affiliated and created by APIC directors sources like Washington Institute for Near East Policy and sure they have conflict of interest and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria is totally against AIPAC, at the same time I kept of Troy POV, and inserted an estimation from and APAIC source, as the WINEP was the only notable source to be in included in Wikipedia, but I’ll do this for only one article.
2. Another source from Troy was from Inter Press Service which is slightly shifted from reporting towards Lobbying and I also used it as it is also has a Wikipedian article.
3. Also I used an article from Christian Post.
4. Other troy sources are either travelling agencies or like sources, never included as a reference in Wikipedia before, as not every web page can be used as a reference. Or private, home based web sites think that denotations will turn them rich.
5. Stop your WP:OR the Egyptian government never promotes a lower percentage, it is a well known facts when the government published the last percentage which was 6%, Copts thought they will be underestimated so the government stopped to publish population results according to religions and stated that all of us are Egyptians.
6. I did not use the 6%, at the same time I did not mention that the 6% was from the last governmental report we have. But I mentioned that it is not uncommon to have sources talking about 6%, at the same time a lot of sources that publish the 6% are reliable sources without conflict of interest also I did not mention this.
7. You asked for a WP:RS that says that these Christian sources may be inflating the figure, I can bring you thousands using Google, at the same time Troy sources are pro-Israeli sources not a Christian sources.
8. What about Reversing the discussions about Muslims population in India, and then give true examples that they are underestimated in all populations records, but remember that Egypt is not like India, In Egypt we were all Egyptians, left the Ancient Egyptian religion then followed Christianity, then followed Islam, neither Muslims nor Christians came from another Egypt. We are a single family.
9. Now You can go deep in research to know why all Troy sources have Conflict of Interest after following the above Google search results and hear is a short sample

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/05/tarek-heggy-if-i-were-copt.html

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/853/op2.htm

http://liberalwall.blogspot.com/2008/02/coptic-church-and-anti-semitism.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1969542.stm

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/oaw98/egycopts.htm

Christian Zionism

Christianity and Judaism

Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom

« PuTTY^SchOOL 02:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Puttyschool: you obviously have no understanding of what I said. I was trying to say that I won't include the different percentages in this article. Please stop with your childish rants on how I'm wrong and so forth. At this point, we're certainly past that. ~ Troy (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)(outdent) (Why am I getting involved in this!) PuTTy, I googled "Percentage of christians in Egypt" and found a mixed bag. Several reports, mostly from Christian organizations, state that the proportion of Christians is much higher than 10%. This report from the New York Times says 17% in 1993 without specifying where the number comes from. this washington post article and this blog speculate that the counting of Christians is a sensitive issue in Egypt and that the government may not be counting them properly (all this is after my purely rhetorical hypothesis that it the government of Egypt may not be an unbiased estimator). This report says Estimates of the size of Egypt's Christian population vary from the low government figures of 6 to 7 million to the 12 million reported by some Christian leaders. The actual numbers may be in the 9 to 9.5 million range, out of an Egyptian population of more than 60 million. Note that the latter puts the proportion at about 15% while the Christian leaders number is closer to 20%. Clearly, your 'look at google' challenge shows that there are reliable sources (the New York Times and the Washington Post) that either use a higher number or question the numbers estimated by the Egyptian government. There also are many other sources which report around 10% but provide the higher estimate as well as a possibility. I cannot see why you are so averse to adding a caveat to the 10% number given that there are many sources that add the caveat as well. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 02:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RegentsPark (talk · contribs) what is your new points other than wasting more time, and enforcing my point of view, the New York Times which is a member of the Israel lobby in the United States and acquired the name of Jews York Time, an unknown home site which looks exactly like this site and if you traced the IP you will know the country the hosts this site, and another un-notable pro-Israeli reference. from the About has WP:COI then the washington post article which give a round figure from 7.5% to 10% as the Christian Post. « PuTTY^SchOOL 03:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Putty, are you serious?

1. The New York Times is NOT part of the "Israel lobby" - anyone who studies their biased leftist reporting on Israel would know that.
2. The New York Times has not "acquired the name of "Jews York Time"
3. The Washington Report is NOT "un-notable" and I don't think you understand what COI is, since they are not editing their own WP entry or anything
4. "Fustat" looks nothing like the JIDF site

I mean, seriously, Putty. Are you serious? I mean, "wow." It's obvious that good Christians and secular liberals are increasing in number in Egypt (for good reason.) I'm going to start getting some of them involved here actually because this is absurd. There should be rules as to whom can and cannot edit WP. Common sense and a certain level of basic understanding of basic things should be required. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

ED are you serious or Kidding, Can’t you simply click the links and check by your self, Specially the Wikipedian links, or click on other links and also check, this report and for the name "Jews York Time" simply I got the name for M. Sofyan « PuTTY^SchOOL 05:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There must be something wrong with your reading comprehension, Michael clearly stated in the diff you provided above that: "articles are prime examples of these sorts of anti-Semitic diatribes." Yet apparently you now go to visit them to get your information. Guess you missed the point (again.) Jewwatch is a hate site which is known for antisemitic propaganda and Jew hatred? No wonder why you hold certain views. I can't believe you apparently believe everything you read and lack the ability to discern. --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) I think from the name it is a Jewish site, so this is why I selected it as a referance from what was returned by Google while searching for “Jewish control the media”. « PuTTY^SchOOL 05:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP itself notes that it is "widely categorized as an antisemitic hate site."[4] So nice that you are searching for "Jewish control the media" on Google. I guess this is what happens to people in Egypt when the government controls the media to put out the stuff like you find here--Einsteindonut (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

if so, then sorry for this poor choice, but it name is misleading as it is start with "J", and we need to search Google again for another site starting with "J", but what is the relation with the pro-Israeli site, but tell me Einsteindonut (talk · contribs), how Egypt government can controls the media with more than 400 satellite channels propagated from outside Egypt, with only about 10 channels owned by the government« PuTTY^SchOOL 05:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In regards to this "Jews York Times" reason, it doesn't sound objective in terms of the source (NY Times)—certainly not in cases like this (what does Israel have to do with it?). Regarding the reference, I concur with Regents Park. Also, why is it that "Jews York Times" can be used as an argument against this New York Times reference? If it is, then it would be acknowledged as a reasonable point in terms of any NYT ref, and that, I know for a fact. PS: I've replied to PuTTy's concern other ED. As long as you try not to get too carried away with him, you should be fine ;) ~ Troy (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Israel lobby in the United States check this wiki article, At the same time I used claims up to 20% not 17%, also it is a very old article, with less impact related to the articles I choosed « PuTTY^SchOOL 00:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on this one is basically in agreeance with what Regents Park said. As for the NYT article, my view stands that the "Jews York Times" is not related to this. ~ Troy (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

An article written by a journalist that proffers a figure for the number of Christians in Egypt from fifteen years ago yet never states where the author got that figure from in the first place (since it's obviously not from any primary research on his part) is no substitute for official modern governmental sources -- sources that are by contrast capable of conducting large scale primary research. For one thing, the author could very easily have relied on Christian sources, but readers would never know it since the former never states where he got the numbers from. Moreover, the Washington Post article only states a vague estimate of 6 to 8 million (8.6%-11.4%), and likewise never identifies where the journalist got that figure from to begin with. Self-published sources like blogs are unreliable sources, and an article written by a reverend purporting to offer an authoritative, unbiased account of the number of Christians in Egypt is likewise a questionable source. The fact remains that Christian sources are in this situation tendentious, unreliable references, and therefore inadmissible source material. From adherents.com, regarding the trustworthiness of reporting from religious organizations versus actual census data:

Organizational reporting: Religious bodies (such as churches or denominations) are asked how many adherents or members they have. This is the simplest and least expensive method, but it can be highly unreliable. Different faith groups measure membership differently. Some count as members only those who are actively attending services or who have passed through a lengthy initiation process. Others groups count all who have been baptized as infants and are thus on the church records, even though some of those people may have joined other faith groups as adults. Some groups over-report membership and others under-report membership. When asked what religion they consider themselves to be a part of, many may name a religion that does not have them on their rolls. In the United States, for instance, three times as many people claim to be Unitarian Universalists than are actually on church records.

Census records: Many countries periodically conduct a comprehensive household-by-household census. Religious preference is often a question included in these census counts. This is a highly reliable method for determining the religious self-identification of a given population. But censuses are usually conducted infrequently. The latest census may be too old to indicate recent trends in religious membership. Also, many countries either have no accurate census data, or do not include questions regarding religious affiliation. It has been over fifty years since the United States included such a question in its national census, but Canada, India, New Zealand, Australia and other countries have very thorough, recent census data on the topic

Middayexpress (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I was following the above discussions, and then I found one of the participants, Troy 07, dropped all discussions then changed the document. This is my nation, and one evil editor can’t expose Egypt to the word according to his point of view, I’m new here, can any one help me how to evaluate his sources, who is this Troy 07 who gave himself the right to expose my country according to his opinion while dropping all facts. --Great Sphinx (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You may not insult other users or make inobjective comments like that. See WP:NPA and make sure you actually know what you're talking about instead of making such vile accusations. ~ Troy (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know who is responsible here, and who gave you the right to talk about my nation, and how officials managing this site are leaving you to pervert my nation --Great Sphinx (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to dictate that, especially not after you directed that insult at me. Admit it: you don't own the articles, so for all of our sakes, suck it up. We can all have a say (except for socks, if there's any), so there's no need to go POV-pushing or edit disruptively. I kindly asked you to be fair. ~ Troy (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don’t own the article, but we own our country, so go and write about your country instead of distorting our country --Great Sphinx (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We're all allowed to freely contribute (under certain conditions) and I've already fairly discussed this—without the personal attacks. Also, I'm not interested in discussing with the same person over and over again, so just to make it clear, I will not go over this again as long as there is sock puppetry involved. Putty was blocked this morning at 3:40 UTC. Great Sphinx's account was created at 10:48 UTC. It's considered to be abusive, and is called block evasion. We don't have a place for that here. ~ Troy (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)