Talk:Egypt

Shia Minority

It's clear that this section is not neutral. It contradicts all the lines in the same page that come beforehand, and it has also been written without giving any references. So, it's not only a non-neutral issue, but also an invalid argument that contradicts itself, as well as contradicting the other contents (which has been given along with their respective references) in the page.

I guess it's intended to say that the "Shia Minority" and Christians need more rights in Egypt (((than Muslims majority themselves have!))), although the Muslim majority call them: "The lucky minority"... they don't live like minority at all, although they didn't even reached that 10% written in this page!

For example, what country on earth (other than Egypt) gives its citizens a "holy"-day (because the "minority" in such country has some vacation), where all governmental services and schools are closed in such holyday? (e.g. 7th-Jan in each year is a vacation in Egypt for all Egyptians, and, on the other hand, the Christian vacations are celebrated only by Christians and not by the majority, although Christians take vacations with the majority as well).

As an Egyptian who has been born, raised and lived for 34 years in Egypt, I've NEVER met a "Shia" in the streets or in the civil communities... I've NEVER talked to one of them, although I've many, many connections (as a lecturer in 2 universities and a member in other social communities). "Shia" don't declare themselves easily, and this is not because they don't practice their rights, but because (many of them) don't dare to face "normal" Muslims in Egypt and avoid any kind of logical debates and escape from handling such logical talks; even in media; especially that (many of them) don't satisfy some conditions of being Muslims in the first place! [Al-Azhar itself has many references proving the last statement].

The existence of "Shia" might be increased in Egypt just as a result of Wikipedia allowing such non-authenticated texts be written without greater review (I don't want to say that it's intended!)

Another weak point here is that, it's been mentioned, as an example, that: ["Shia" students are not admitted into the al-Azhar University in Cairo.], which is a very non-logical issue/request to talk about. It seems like some Muslims are asking the Church to be enrolled as Priests! If "Shia"'s request can be considered as one of their "rights" it should also be possible for Christians to ask to be admitted in Al-Azhar university as well, and, consequently, be "Muslim Imams in Masjids/Mosques" without being Muslims... which is a clear contradiction that proves it's not one of the "Shia"'s right to be admitted into Al-Azhar... or at least, it can't be considered as a "minority-resistance" issue. [Ahmed Ashry(A. Ashry (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC))]

This section does not adhere to a neutral point of view and gives no references. --Voiceofplanet (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This may be a good start. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/817/sc1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.52.80.24 (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Who the Fuck wrote this section???? "It is sad . . . " sounds to me like editorializing rather than unbiased reporting of facts which is the mission statement of an encyclopedia. Until Wiki roots out lock, stock, and barrel the anti-Muslim bias that seems to pervade it, it can NEVER be equal to a reputable encyclopedia! Hear That, MR. WALES??????? Fuck all Anti-Muslims.WittyMan1986 (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Immaterial.uk, 19 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Can someone please tidy the references up here (it's getting unreadable & contains duplicates) :

There is a large minority of Christians in Egypt, who make up around 10% of the population.[85][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][100][101][106][107][108][109][110][111]

That, or unlock the article ;-)
Immaterial.uk (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done The amount of references was quite ridiculous. Removed all but a few major references. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

coptic persecution

I think there should be a section for coptic persecution which is an important part of Egypt's current problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimokono1990 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The article lacks any mention of this very important subject.Teriyaki1 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the recent news of Egypt, there are a lot of problems caused by the christian side in Egypt in which the main church is involved. You have to refer to the stories of "Wafaa Kostantine", "Kamilia Shehata" .. who converted to Islam and then have been punished by the main church etc. I think it is very important to refer to those stories. Also, I think you have to refer to the great authority of money which is owned by few christians in Egypt, what about Sawiras family of business men. Moreover, I think that the part about "coptic persecution" subject to too much exaggeration, please review and refer to authenticated cases where for example building new churchs or renewing old ones was prevented, please give authenticated cases with dates unless the overall neutrality of the document is suspected. In addition, why you did not provide any estimated number of the rate of conversion to Islam and Christianity among Egyptians. What about the external funding sources of christian Egyptians, why nothing is mentioned about that?? 137.226.36.84 (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as persecution of Copts, it has been some hard few situations which was condemned by both Muslims and Christians and i have to mention that the Muslim victims of terrorists in Egypt are way more than Christians The radical Muslims who attacked Copts are treated by both the Government and people as terrorists whose targets include primarily other Muslims and then Copts. Far from Mr. Rosenthal's charges against Egypt, the Government has been locked in a fight to the finish against the terrorists. The terrorists have been insulated and rendered largely ineffective, save for acts of desperation like the recent attacks on Copts and Muslims. </http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/07/opinion/l-egypt-condemns-persecution-of-its-copts-970085.html> and one other thing is that the Egyptian Christians are about 6% of the whole Egyptian community and they possess more than 30% of the Egyptian fortune. In the arab region there has been over ten business men in the Forbes richest men of the world, four of them are Egyptians and these four are Christians ,, after all that is it true that Copts are persecuted in Egypt? </http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_The-Worlds-Billionaires_CountryOfCitizen_6.html> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdeer (talk • contribs) 10:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction

The Sharqia governorate is in lower Egypt,not in upper Egypt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.208.111 (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Essam.sorour, 14 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

specific text that should be removed:

In addition, Coptic girls are victims of abduction and forced Islamization by Islamic fundamentalist groups. The Egyptian government is very passive when it comes to human rights of Copts. Some local government officials actually share in these human rights violations against Copts.

A verbatim copy of the text that should replace it:

A great number of Coptic Christians in Egypt embrace Islam on a yearly basis at no compulsion for example Kamilia Shehata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamilia_Shehata), Wafaa Constantine who was handed over to the church by the Egyptian government and till now she never appeared (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/721/eg7.htm)

The religion of Islam never permits forcing others to embrace it under any circumstances and the Glorious Qur'an confirms that in multiple verses: Al-Kahf 18:29 And say: "The truth is from your Lord." Then whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve. Verily, We have prepared for the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers.), a Fire whose walls will be surrounding them (disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah). And if they ask for help (relief, water), they will be granted water like boiling oil, that will scald their faces. Terrible is the drink, and an evil Murtafaq (dwelling, resting place.)!

Al-Baqara 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

translation of the Glorious Qur'an by Mohsin Khan www.searchtruth.com

Essam.sorour (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done. A change this big needs to be discussed first, which can happen right here. The current version also needs to be sourced or be removed. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Current version removed pending discussion on this talk page. The article is about Egypt as a whole and should not contain a section about persecution since it's not a main topic of Egypt. Information regarding that may be in the Human Rights section if it's well sourced.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad 'Abduh was Definitely Not a Secularist

Just a minor note. In his al-urwa al-wuthqa, M. 'Abduh showed his stripes as a reformer NOT a secularist. It would be excellent that the section on reformers in Egypt addressed that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.140.212.202 (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Persecution of Copts section

I have removed the following section from the article:

Coptic Christians suffer persecution at multiple levels in Egypt. At the state level, Copts suffer organized persecution. They are victims of discriminatory religious laws, anti-Christian judges, and discrimination by state police. Anti-Christian laws include the law governing churches. This law requires Presidential permission to build a church, and the governor’s permission to renovate one. Other laws also discriminate against Copts. Anti-Christian judges "legislate from the bench". A good example is the courts' refusal to give Egyptians who convert to Christianity identity cards that display their new religion. Converting to Islam does not even require going to court.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aina.org/news/20090701003916.htm |title=The persecution of Coptic Christians continues |publisher=The Assyrian International News agency}}</ref>

Copts are denied equal opportunities in recruitment and promotion. Very few are appointed to key positions in the Government or are candidates for parliament. Enrolment of Copts in police academies and military schools is restricted, and very few are teachers and professors.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.arabwestreport.info/?q=node/18302 |title=Discrimination against copts |publisher=Arab West Report}}</ref>

Copts have been victims of violence, especially since the 1970s. Since President Mubarak took office 1,500 violent attacks against Copts killed or injured thousands. In most of these attacks, the perpetrators did not face justice. The most significant recent attack was in Elkosheh in 2000 which killed 20. All the assailants were set free.

The violent attacks in El-Minya governorate in the 1990s forced thousands to flee to bigger cities in Egypt or to immigrate; a form of unrecognized ethnic cleansing.

Coptic girls are victims of abduction and forced Islamization by Islamic fundamentalist groups. The Egyptian government is very passive when it comes to human rights of Copts. Some local government officials actually share in these human rights violations against Copts.

The section is controversial, doesn't contain any reliable sources and is not a main topic of Egypt to have its own section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the section. If you have discrete objections, please discuss them first before unilaterally removing this section from the article. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 20:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, putting this section in the article was not a consensual decision to begin with. This unsourced section was unilaterally created barely a month ago (without even an edit summary) by Kimokono1990, a newly registered user who had created his Wikipedia account only four days earlier. I agree with Diaa's decision to remove this section, for the following reasons:

• Having a "Persecution of Copts" level-2 heading in a general article about Egypt is a clear violation of WP:STRUCTURE and WP:UNDUE. We already have a Persecution of Copts article where such issues are discussed at length, and there is a hatnote linking to this article in the "Christianity" sub-section. The discrimination faced by Copts is also discussed in the "Human rights" section. Having such information discussed three times in the article gives it undue weight.
• Such a section is a total departure from the standard sub-division of country-related articles. It is generally agreed upon at Wikipedia that country articles should only have sections covering top-importance topics, such as "History", "Geography", "Economy"... Without belittling the difficulties faced by some Copts in Egypt, the "persecution of copts" is not a major topic to be discussed so prominently (by prominently, I mean by having a section devoted solely to it) in a general-interest article about Egypt. There are other countries where minorities fare far worse than in Egypt, yet we don't have specific sections in those countries' articles dealing with such issues. For instance, there's no "Persecution of Arab-Israelis" section in the Israel article, no "Persecution of Tibetans" in the People's Republic of China article, no "Persecution of Shi'a Muslims" in the Saudi Arabia article, no "Persecution of Roma" in the Hungary article, no "Persecution of Kurds" in the Turkey article... In fact, the persecution of minorities is not mentioned at all in any of these articles (some of which are/were FAs), let alone in a separate section. Therefore, compared to other articles, the Egypt article's dicussion of the discrimination faced by Copts is already quite sufficient and does not justify a separate section.
• The section is a clear violation of WP:UNSOURCED, which explicitly says that "any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." The section makes extremely grave and serious accusations, such as claims of ethnic cleansing and accusations of complicity on the part of government officials in the persecution of Copts, without citing any source whatsoever, let alone a reliable one. By removing this section, Diaa didn't do anything wrong, since WP:UNSOURCED explicitly says: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations."
• I disagree with Lanternix's assertion that "there is nothing controversial about the section." In its current form, the section is clearly biased and in violation of WP:NPOV. Here are some examples:

• The word "persecution" itself is highly charged. The Arab-West Report, which the section cites, speaks not of persecution but of discrimination, which is a more appropriate concept to describe the Copts' situation. The U.S. Department of State's International Religious Freedom Report (a highly reputable and non-partisan source) enumerates several examples of discrimination faced by Copts, yet it uses the verb "persecuted" only once, in reference to converts from Islam to Christianity. This is due to the fact that persecution requires some degree of systematic state-sanctioned violence, and only converts are systematically targeted and surveilled by the Egyptian police. While Copts undeniably face discrimination in Egypt, whether or not they "suffer organized persecution" as claimed in the section is a matter of serious contention. The issue of conversion, which is cited as an example of Coptic discrimination, is actually an example of discrimination against Muslims, since it is Muslim citizens' right to change their religion that is being infringed upon. Coptic-born citizens are unaffected by the controversy surrounding conversions.
• Some of the issues described in the section are presented as straight facts, when the reality is in fact far more nuanced. For instance, the section plainly states that "Coptic girls are victims of abduction and forced Islamization by Islamic fundamentalist groups". However, this is what the International Religious Freedom Report has to say about the issue: "As in previous years, there were occasional claims of Muslim men forcing Coptic women and girls to convert to Islam. Reports of such cases were disputed and often included inflammatory allegations and categorical denials of kidnapping and rape. Observers, including human rights groups, found it extremely difficult to determine whether compulsion was used, as most cases involved a female Copt who converted to Islam when she married a Muslim male. Reports of such cases almost never appear in the local media. In recent years, there have been no independently verified claims of forced conversions of this nature."
• Some sentences are tweaked in a dishonest way. Example: "Since President Mubarak took office 1,500 violent attacks against Copts killed or injured thousands." Not only is this statistic unsupported by any reference, but also the way it is phrased makes it seem as if Mubarak's government is the instigator (or at least a passive supporter) of these attacks. What the section doesn't mention is that most of these attacks took place during the 1992–97 wave of terrorism in Egypt, which equally affected hundreds of Muslims.
• Some sentences express unsubstantiated opinions, such as describing the Egyptian government as "very passive when it comes to human rights of Copts."
• Finally, the section is highly biased since it fails to mention any positive development. An uninformed reader would get the impression that Copts in Egypt are in an extremely dire and desperate situation. It omits mentioning that Egypt's finance minister (a top-importance position in most countries) is a Copt, that Egypt's richest family is Coptic, that some Coptic churches have been renovated by the government using taxpayer money, that in recent years Coptic Christmas has become a public holiday that is broadcast on public television, that sectarion tension and incitement to hatred are being discussed with increased openness and are unanimously condemned in the media, etc... I am not saying this to suggest that the Copts' situation in Egypt is perfect or ideal, but to show that the reality is far more nuanced than what is depicted in this section.

Sorry for being so long. --BomBom (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea of not having a level 2 header for the topic, but I think that totally removing this section is inappropriate. I think a better place may be moving this info to the Christianity section of the article. That being said, I also think that many points that Bombom raised are lamentable, to say the least:

Who cares what the Arab-West Report says? Who exactly is the Arab-West Report to say whether or not this is persecution? If you have one source that states it's only discrimination, there are tens of other more reliable and first hand sources that call this persecution. When you systematically protect killers and perpetrators of violence against the Copts, this is not just discrimination, this is exactly what persecution and ethnic cleansing means!

When the government tortures and kills Muslim converts to Christianity, this is NOT discrimination against Muslims as Bombom claims, because these people are now Christians and no longer Muslims. Had they remained Muslims, there would have been no persecution, which very simply argues against your point.

Most of the violence against the Copts did NOT occur in the 1990's as Bombom claims. The Kosheh massacre happened in 2001 and the Nag Hammadi massacre took place in 2010, and anyone who follows the rate of sectarian tensions in Egypt can clearly note that the rate of anti-Christian hate speech and anti-Coptic violence has been dramatically increasing for the last 10 years. And yes, the Mubarak regime and the corrupted Islamist-dominated Egyptian judicial system are usually complacent in the crimes and occasionally passive towards the criminals.

The Copts in Egypt ARE indeed in a dire and desperate situation. The fact that the finance minister is a Christian or that the Sawires family is Christian has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that Copts are persecuted, and just using this argument points to the medieval way of thinking that Muslims are employing when it comes to treating minorities. If anything, for a population that makes 15% to 20% of the population, having 2 ministers out of 36 ministers is pure discrimination. And the fact that one or two or even 100 Christian families were smart enough to succeed in the private sector (which is less affected by government domination than the public sector is) does NOT mean that there is no persecution against the remaining 15 million Christians in the country!

Churches in Egypt are NOT renovated with taxpayer money. In fact, churches in Egypt are NOT renovated at all! And when Christians try to renovate a bathroom in a church (let alone building new churches), they are faced by rioting Muslims and are eventually arrested by the security service police, imprisoned, tortured, humiliated etc etc. And at the end of the day, the bathroom never gets renovated anyway. And in the rare case when the president of the republic (or the governor since 2005) issues a decree to repair the bathroom, the entire Egyptian media keeps reporting this awesome news for weeks to prove the wonderful peaceful coexistence that exists between the two components of the Egyptian society, and to demonstrate that there is absolutely no discrimination whatsoever against Christians. After all, the government let then repair a bathroom in the church. What more do they want, these greedy Copts??!!! Again, lamentable! And the one example you bring forward of the ministry of antiquity making restorations in the Hanging Church in Egypt, this is because it is listed as a historical site, and is thus visited by millions of foreign tourists every year. So the restoration has nothing to do with the fact that it's a church! If anything, the taxpayers money goes to the Islamic universities and school, the Islamic mosques, and the Islamic programs in the media (newspapers, radio, TV, etc), while NONE of that goes to any Christian educational institutions or to finance any Christian programs in the media etc. So please, don't talk about taxpayers money!!!

Finally, the fact that Coptic Christmas is now an official holiday is another example of the discriminatory mentality that Copts in Egypt are facing. While this should be the norm, it is being treated as a privilege that the Egyptian government is bestowing upon the Christians!!! NO SIR, this is one of their basic rights. And while Muslims in Egypt have 9 days of Islamic holidays (not to mention every single Friday of the year), it is the basic right of Christians to have a couple of days off as well for their holidays! Moreover, this logic (or lack thereof) fails to explain why Christmas and NOT Easter (the much more important Christian holiday) was granted as a public holiday!! Of course because the Islamized decision makers in the country do NOT believe in the Resurrection of Christ (because Islam denies this fact), and therefore only contended in offering Christmas as a holiday!

At any rate, I will move the section and will work on improving it.--λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 17:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix, I strongly advise that you read and abide by WP:CIVILITY, WP:SOAP and WP:OWN, especially in light of your past behaviour and numerous repeated blocks. My above post was not aimed to be an argument about anything (this is an encyclopedia, not a forum), it was simply aimed to show the numerous flaws in the section. This was done at your request, since you yourself had asked for "discrete objections" (by which I assume you meant concrete objections) to be discussed here. Such a long outburst punctuated with borderline insults (such as telling me I have a "medieval way of thinking") is highly inappropriate. Article talk pages are not the proper place to vent your real-life frustrations. I thoroughly recommend that you work on improving the content of the article through reliable references instead. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Bombom, I suggest you mind your own business and not give me advice on how to talk, because I can talk anyway I want and if you don't like it, you can report me or ask for arbitration or whatever. Trying to evade the main topic by reverting to Ad hominem arguments won't work with me. As for "borderline insults", maybe you should reread and reconsider your comments about "outburtsts" and "real-life frustrations". So, I suggest you focus on the issue at hand and try to respond to the points raised above, rather than trying to escape the corner by yelling at Wikipedia users. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 18:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Flaws in section

I have re-read my comments, and I can hardly find anything in them that can be considered an outburst, an expression of real-life frustration, or a sign of yelling (yelling, by the way, is something that is done orally, not in written words, unless capital letters and bold font are used). I am not trying to "evade" or "escape" anything. The reason I did not answer further is because I have a sense this conversation is going down a slippery slope. You seem to have misunderstood my intentions. You want to make it seem as if I am trying to downsize the discrimination faced by Copts or to defend the Egyptian government. I have no interest whatsoever in either. I couldn't care less about defending or attacking the Egyptian government, defending or attacking Copts, defending or attacking Egyptian Muslims. In fact, I am not trying to prove or disprove anything about the Copts, which is why your long response was totally unnecessary. The reason I am here is because I came to this article, found a long section making wild claims with no references whatsoever, waited for someone to bring up the discussion on the talk page, and politely explained why it is flawed and should be removed. I was specific in my objections because you are the one who asked for specifics. You wrongly imagined that I cited the Arab-West Report to prove there wasn't persecution against Copts. As stated above, I am not interested in proving or disproving anything. In fact, I didn't even know what the AWR was before coming here. The reason I mentioned it was because the author of the section chose to use the AWR as a source to support the existence of persecution, even though the AWR that does not make such a claim. I also cited another extremely reliable source (the International Religious Freedom Report) that, while confirming the numerous examples of hardships and violence that you describe above, does not go as far as to refer to the overall situation as persecution. What I wanted to say is that persecution is a highly controversial word, and should be used with extreme caution and backed up by rock-solid references. Whether I (or you or any other user) considers it to be persecution or not is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is what external, reliable sources say. If you believe that there are "tens of other more reliable and first hand sources that call this persecution," then by all means go on and include them (and by reliable I mean reports by respected international human rights organizations, studies by reputed scholars... not blogs or partisan websites). Regarding the statistics, I am again not trying to prove anything. What I meant to say was that the section made wild claims (e.g. "thousands of Christians killed and injured") without backing them up. Not only is this a violation of WP:WORDS ("thousands" could be anything from 1,000 to 9,999) but it appears self-contradictory with the rest of the section, which cites the Kosheh massacre and the Nag Hammadi massacre. By your own admission, these are some of the worst examples of anti-Coptic violence in Egypt. However, their combined number of victims is around 30 (I am not trying to belittle these crimes, just pointing to a statistical fact), so by what strange calculation did the article arrive at the conclusion that there have been "thousands of Christians killed and injured"? Dozens is not the same as hundreds, which is not the same as thousands. As for the claim that violence has increased compared to the 1990s (when victims of Islamist violence were measured in the hundreds), it can only remain in the article if a year-by-year chart or graph from a reliable source confirms the existence of such a trend. As for my last paragraph, which according to you "points to the medieval way of thinking that Muslims are employing when it comes to treating minorities" (by the way, it is best not to make assumptions about other users' religious beliefs, since such assumptions generally turn out to be wrong), it was not at all aimed at showing that the situation of Copts in Egypt is all rosy, and I made this explicitly clear. I meant to say that the article should be more nuanced in the way it presents the situation of Copts in Egypt. Yes, there are massacres, but there are also Christian ministers in government (albeit under-represented), and that's not something to be taken lightly (in some democratic countries such as France or Israel, there are no Arab ministers whatsoever, even though Arabs represent 10% and 20% of the population respectively). Yes, it is very difficult to repair churches, but Coptic Christmas also happens to be a public holiday and Coptic Christian Mass is broadcast on public television. That's not something to be dismissed just because Easter has not been made a public holiday; many secular democratic countries do not recognize the religious feasts of their minorities as public holidays, but only choose to honor those of the majority religion (France, Israel, the UK, the US...). I am not trying to argue that the situation of Copts in Egypt is either good or bad. Saying that the situation of Copts in Egypt is very well like the government does is ridiculous. Saying that the situation of Copts in Egypt is totally catastrophic like the article currently seems to suggest is equally ridiculous. What I am trying to say is that a serious encyclopedia article should strive for nuancy, backed up by reliable references. Finally, copy-pasting the entire section and moving it exactly as it is to the "Christianity" sub-section is not a solution. A lot of the problems, such as the unsourced statements, have not been addressed. Moreover, we still have a problem with WP:UNDUE. Like I already said, no other general-interest article delves with such detail into the status of minorities, even for countries whose minorities are both larger and more mistreated than Copts. The article in its current form is thus inconsistent with other country-related articles. Moreover, now that the information is in the Christianity sub-section, we have a new problem, one of recentism. A sub-section about Christianity in a general-interest article about Egypt should discuss issues within a broader historical context. For instance, it should state that extreme violence against Copts such as in Kosheh and Nag Hammadi is, historically speaking, an exception rather than the rule (cf. renowned Coptologist Aziz Suryal Atiya); that even though Copts are under-represented in Parliament today, this wasn't always the case as they were in fact over-represented a few decades ago. By focusing disproportionately on recent massacres (and I am not suggesting that they should be totally omitted), we have a problem of WP:RECENTISM.

Sorry for being so long again, but there are just too many flaws with this section. --BomBom (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The "sources" added either do not back the material or are of extremely low quality. Further, the tone of the section is one of blatant POV pushing. I have again removed the section. nableezy - 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific and discuss each source separately? Which one you find unreliable and why?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Also could you please give the reasons why Nag Hammadi massacre and Kosheh Martyrs should not be talked about in the article? --Mbz1 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues with sources:

• MEQ - opinion of Magdi Khalil presented as unattributed fact.
• Elaph op-ed - used to source unattributed fact
• Website - I cannot find any indication that this is a reliable source
• Mirror from compassdirect.org, unreliable source
• Website with no indication that it is a reliable source

In addition to the above issues, this is the top level article for the country Egypt. There is a sub-article Religion in Egypt and that even has a sub-article Freedom of religion in Egypt. To go in to such detail on these events in an aritcle that covers thousands and thousands of years is the very definition of undue weight. nableezy - 20:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly believe that a piece about persecution of Copts should be included in this article. Christian Copts make up a sizable minority in Egypt. If it were only about discrimination, then I might have agreed with you. But this is not just a discrimination. We're talking massacres here. Nableezy, if you are not happy with some sources please take them to reliable sources noticeboard, but do not dismiss them like that. Besides there are many reliable sources that could be used to add a few sentences section that will link to other articles. Here are some sources on the subject I found: BBC;museumstuff.com;americanthinke associated press;ABC News and Spigel. BTW while we at that topic (violence that is) I believe the massacre in Luxor also should be mentioned in the article. The Luxur attack severely affected tourism in Egypt, which experienced a marked decline in Western tourism following the attack for quite some time. This had negative effects on the economy. The attack also showed that Egypt was vulnerable to insurgent groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaida and demonstrated just how insecure the regime itself was. After all there's a section in Israel about so called International criticism. Why not to add a section about religious violence in Egypt to this article? --Mbz1 (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a top level article for the country, it would be undue weight to include a single attack in which 7 people were killed. A true story for you, a few years back an aunt of mine was killed when an apartment building collapsed in Alexandria. That collapse killed 16 people, 12 related to me, and was due to the landlord illegally adding several stories to the building. This was covered in BBC and a few other places outside of Egypt. The fact that I can find sources discussing this, discussing building codes and the disregard for them in Egypt, does not mean that this top-level article should mention building codes, much less that it should mention the specific collapse of an apartment building. A line on Egypt's ranking according to so and so in terms of freedom of religion belongs in this article. Thats it. nableezy - 03:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am really sorry about your relatives, but any reasonable person, as I know you are, should agree that the persecution of the Copts, the massacre in Luxor cannot be compared to a collapsed building. Copts are important part of Egyptian society. I am not saying that the whole section that you deleted should be included, but a few sentences should. Here's an extract from Speigel: "Copts make up the largest Christian community in the Arab world and around 8 million Egyptians belong to the Coptic Church. They're barred from high government positions, diplomatic service and the military, as well as from many state benefits. Universities have quotas for Coptic students considerably lower than their actual percentage within the population.Building new churches isn't allowed, and the old ones are falling into disrepair thanks to a lack both of money and authorization to renovate. When girls are kidnapped and forcibly converted, the police don't intervene. Thousands of pigs were also slaughtered under the pretense of confining swine flu. Naturally all were owned by Christians. The same with Luxor's massacre. For example see article Spain. It talks about bombing in commuter trains in Madrid, Spain on 11 March 2004. Egypt should have a few sentences about the massacre in Luxor's too. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not comparing the topics as topics, only looking objectively at how weight should be given to a specific incident using this example. Part of the last source is plainly wrong, Copts have served at high level government posts in Egypt (eg Boutros Boutros-Ghali). How about this, look for sources talking about Egypt as a country and everything that involves. See if any of those sources discuss some specific action that you think should be in here and see how much they discuss it if they do at all. If you cant find sources talking about a topic as wide as "Egypt" that even bring that event up that should be a decent indication that event doesnt merit inclusion in this top level article. nableezy - 04:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny you mentioned Boutros Boutros Ghali. You may or may not know that Boutros Boutros Ghali served as Egypt's acting foreign minister (NOT foreign minister) twice under President Anwar Sadat (1977 and 1978 - 1979). This is in spite of the fact that he was well qualified to be a UN secretary, but of course this appointment of Ghali as an only acting foreign minister is a reflection of the Egyptian government's policy of systematically eliminating Copts from all influential governmental positions. You may also not know that while the foreign minister is required to attend meetings of the Highest Political Committee, which basically determines the politics of the country regarding various issues including politics towards the Christian minority, the acting is NOT allowed to attend those meetings. Understandably, with governmental policies aimed at making of Copts 2nd class citizens, it makes perfect sense to have Ghali appointed as just an acting foreign minister. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And yet another credible source in the news today: CNN! The paragraph on Egypt reads In Egypt, where Christians constitute 10% of the population, Christian girls are being kidnapped by shadowy Muslim groups and lured into Muslim marriages, with the state looking the other way. Christians in Egypt have no problem converting to Islam, but if Muslims want to convert to Christianity, they are refused permission to register as Christians on their ID cards, where religion must be stated. Riots are common, and Egyptian Christians live in fear for their lives. I am restoring the paragraphs with addition of new references in light of my and Mbz1's contributions. If you don't like some of the sources, you are more than welcome to refer to RSN. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Another example of you bringing opinion pieces and presenting them as fact. That piece is an op-ed, which even says The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writers. You have failed to address the serious concerns regarding undue weight. You have also restored the blatantly non-neutral, and non-factual, POV issues identified by User:BomBom in the collapsed section above, as well as restoring several unreliable sources to the article (AINA, Elaph op-ed, ChristianityToday, ...). nableezy - 00:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

General statistics about Egypt's lack of religious freedom, properly sourced, is of course highly relevant and appropriate - I don't think a serious "undue" argument can be made against something like " in terms of religious freedom, Egypt ranks as the fifth worst country in the world, after Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan and China. In addition, Egypt ranks among the 12 worst countries in the world in terms of religious violence against religious minorities and in terms of social hostilities against Christians.", when top level country articles are always full of such rankings - indeed, even the "Egypt" article has its rankings on human rights, from Freedom house. Please see this and thisas examples of top level articles in addition to two I provided above.I don't see why a short mention of the Copts' persecution would be undue weight, or different from the sentences in the above two sample articles. Something like "Christian Copts face discrimination and marginalization, and violent anti-Christian attacks in Upper Egypt during the 1990s forced thousands of Copts to flee" - quite similar to what we have in teh SA article " Religious freedom is virtually non-existent in Saudi Arabia. The Government does not provide legal recognition or protection for freedom of religion, and it is severely restricted in practice. " or the Iran article "the Bahá'í Faith, Iran's largest religious minority,[193] is not officially recognized, and has been persecuted during its existence in Iran. Since the 1979 revolution the persecution of Bahá'ís has increased with executions, the denial of civil rights and liberties, and the denial of access to higher education and employment." I believe the massacres articles should linked to from Egypt too.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I already said a line on freedom of religion in Egypt should be included. nableezy - 01:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW you've never commented about inclusion of the Lyxor massacre with the link to the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you say "Whitewash"? Sectarianism and ethnocentrism should ALWAYS be exposed for what it is - not hidden away in the depths of the article. ICA1916 (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Military

السلام اليڭم

Under the military section, it states that Egypt has the similar armed forces such as Israel~ ACCORDING TO ISRAEL.

Egypt is the 2nd strongest military power behind Israel in the middle east.. ACCORDING TO ISRAEL.

Is there no FACT about it? Has nobody got numbers on a paper, telling you the real thing?

I for one do not trust Jerusalem Post alone. The whole article is about the speculation of Israeli officials, and therefore it's not relevant to the article. It's about Egypt, and Egypt's military. Not Israel's view on Egypt and Egypt's military. --91.156.224.203 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

help

can someone post more about the climate thanx (Crazy cool cid (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy cool cid (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Error in the Governorates map?

There are differences between the map on this page and the ones in the pages of the separate governorates. Would someone please make the corrections? (I don't know how to fix maps)

• -In spite of the presence of the word 'Giza' on the map, the true boundaries of the governorate are not shown. According to its own page Giza is a tiny governorate due west from the city of Cairo (here it is not distinguished from 6th of October)
• -The governorate of Cairo was divided in 2008 into two, Cairo and Helwan, but the boundaries of the two do not correspond to what is shown in the map. Now, the governorate of Cairo includes not much more than the city itself, it is much smaller than what the map shows. The name of Helwan is not shown, and its boundaries are incorrect (it includes a large majority of the area of what is labeled 'Cairo')
• -The governorate of Luxor is slightly south of where it is labeled (why is it in italics?). The blue diamond in the map should be removed. Jsaldarr (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.229.252.217, 24 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The paragraphs dealing with the persecution of Christian minorities is in general exaggerated and biased.

Though persecution on some level occurs, Christians in Egypt are ministers, high ranking officials, University professors, members of parliament, and generally are afforded all the freedoms that the average Egyptian has. The richest man (and family) in Egypt (Sawiris) are Christians.

In particular, the sentence depicting young christian females to be forced into Islam is outright ridiculous. The only semi-trustworthy source is a CNN article written by one person, neither an Egyptian nor has he lived in Egypt, who is giving an opinion without stating any evidence.

It is unfortunate that a minority of Coptic Egyptian Christians try to exaggerate and twist these issues for personal gain, particularly in regards to support (financial or otherwise) from the U.S. It is these voices that are being heard, not the truth. The far, far majority of Muslims in Egypt do not tolerate persecution of Coptics, nor would allow it.

99.229.252.217 (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be specific (ie 'please change THIS to THAT), and they must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources. Chzz  ►  18:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done