Talk:Egyptians

Wording

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

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

"A large minority" is mainly a reference to the fact that the Coptic community numbers at least 8 million (by some estimates larger), which is a pretty large number. But you're right, maybe it could be reworded to something along the lines of what you suggest or to "a sizable minority". — Zerida ☥ 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with "sizable minority". 9% isn't a "large" minority, but it is certainly "sizable". There are no other religious groups of any perceptible size. CIA has Islam 90%, Coptic Christians 9%, other Christians 1%. So whatever these "other Christians" are, their largest subgroup must account for below 1% of total population. As for Judaism, Religion in Egypt says there are fewer than 200 Jews (out of 70 million people). As for Bahá'í, "the number of Bahá'ís in Egypt is estimated to be between several hundred and a few thousand." dab (𒁳) 07:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that Judaism has been put in the infobox on the basis of the 80,000 Egyptian Jews who fled to Israel during the Second Exodus.--Yolgnu (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That has little significance today (nothing personal towards the Jews). There are only 200 Jews compared to about 400 Baha'is (out of 80+ million ppl in Egypt, not 70 M). Thus, putting the Jews ahead, who have a smaller number TODAY, would not be in tune with Wikipedia. ~ Troy (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So we shouldn't count the Israeli Jews of Egyptian descent?--Yolgnu (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

By that, your still leaving out the Baha'is of Egyptian descent oustide of Egypt. Unless there is absolute proof that there's more Egyptian Jews worldwide than there are Egyptian Baha'is, then its safe enough to just count the numbers in Egypt as those stats are more widely available. Remember, a "Jew" is sometimes considered to be an ethnicity of its own, so it depends on how you put it. ~ Troy (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If we're just counting the ones inside Egypt, we should delete both religions from the infobox. They only make up about 0.00001% of the population, which is extremely insignificant.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The first thing we should do is see if we can find how many Egyptian Baha'is there are in the world. If we don't, then we can go by your last suggestion. If we do, then we'll see if it is compareable with that of the Egyptian Jews worldwide. ~ Troy (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion, names

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

And neither does the French people article start with "The French people (Latin: Galli, French: Français)".--Yolgnu (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This can only mean that the Wikipedia article about the French people is lacking. --Lanternix (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Foreign Occupation?

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

According to the article on Fatimids, the person who started the dynasty was a man from Ifriqiya and claimed to be descended from Muhammad. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So? The first leaders of many dynasties throughout history have been of foreign origin, but their descendants have become so assimilated into the nation they're ruling that they're not considered occupiers. Egypt was the centre of the Fatimids' empire, its rulers lived in Egypt, Egypt flourished under its rule, etc.--Yolgnu (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then its not an ethnic category. The Ptolemaic dynasty wasn't Egyptian, they where of Macedonian descent. The Ayyubids weren't Egyptians, they where Kurds. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, who am I to say who is to be classified as an "occupier"; but by that logic, England has been occupied for 1000 years.--Yolgnu (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

England has an English majority. Yes, it originally had a Brythonic majority, but later the Anglo-Saxons, Norse, Normans, etc. came and became amalgamated as the "English". Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant the royal family. The person who started the dynasty was a man from Normandy.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Egyptians" (Balkans)

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

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

Protection.

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

"Arab identity" archived

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

(Suppressed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP; Wikipedia is not a place for racist rants.)