Talk:Egypt

Archives

/archive01

Photos and the incessant edit warring

• I've made some changes/accommodations. I've reinserted the postcard of the Fellah girl. The article mentions the different groups in Egypt, and it is useful to actually show that diversity. There is no other representation of the obviously black African element in the country, and for now, the postcard will suffice. It's perfectly serviceable -- and, in fact, comes with a caption verifying the identity of the child as a member of the Fellahin.

• In reinserting the photo of the Fellah girl under "Demographics," I've removed the photo of the farm. It simply doesn't belong there. I've placed that pic under "economy," a more appropriate location, which mentions the nation's agriculture.

• I've replaced the photo of the lion statue that is supposed to illustrate Cairo with the evening photo of the city. It's simply more illustrative of the city. There's no reason to keep the other one; while attractive, it's simply not that useful or informative. (It's just a stone lion with some stuff in the background.)

• I've up-sized some of the smaller photos so that they are more in keeping with the scale of the others. It's purely aesthetic; the article looks a bit more balanced.

Please, let's not continue this silly edit war. Tradeoffs, as well as inclusion, make sense. deeceevoice 21:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you stop vandalizing the Egypt page with your racially-motivated agenda? Why don't you stop your virulent anti-Egyptian and anti-Arab garbage that you've spewed all over this talk page and others before preaching to other to stop edit-warring? You presense on this page has done nothing but to incite the same conflict you like to create everywhere you go on this web site. Grow up! And seek help, this is a sign of mental illness. Egyegy 00:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you try responding rationally, rather than with groundless, accusatory invective and personal attacks? I have no problem with the other photos on the page. The real question is, why are you (and Zerida) so opposed to including a picture of a dark-skinned Fellah girl among them? deeceevoice 05:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Still awaiting a thoughtful, reasoned response to/argument againt the changes I cited above which were reverted wholesale (except, of course, for the changes in image size, which seems to have remained). deeceevoice 10:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.roadtoegypt.com/info_egypt_people1.htm (unsigned post)

Here's another.[1] -- and an enlargement.[2] The fact of the matter is he's an Egyptian -- and there isn't a single photograph in the article of a person who looks like him. And there should be. deeceevoice 16:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your link notes: "Said is tall and black, one of the few black men to be seen in the area, perhaps a descendant of African nomads. http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001974/Rubin/Rubin06/Rubin06.html (unsigned post)

Egyptian man, Old Kingdom

The Fellahin of Upper Egypt - a Response

Not so fast. The man may be an exception in this particular village, but in Upper Egypt, generally, he is not an exception at all. Consider this book review of Shahhat, An Egyptian, by Richard Critchfield, Syracuse Univ. Press, 1986.[3]

While the grandeur of their ancient civilization is a matter of pride for modern Egyptians, in a sense this heritage has overshadowed the vitality and richness of the Egypt of today. Among contemporary Egyptians who certainly deserve greater attention are the fellahin of Upper Egypt, direct descendants of the empire builders of ancient Thebes (emphasis added). Richard Critchfield's Shahhat, an Egyptian presents the true story of a year in the life of a 19-year-old Upper Egyptian. What emerges is a fascinating portrait of the fellahin experience which far surpasses more traditional sociological studies in its emotional intensity.

Although obviously sympathetic to Shahhat and the fellahin way of life, Critchfield injects negative racial overtones into certain points of the narrative. Early on in the book, Critchfield points out that Shahhat's non-African appearance sets him apart from the other men of the village (emphasis added):

"Except for his curly black hair, with its hint of African negro blood, he (Shahhat) looked more Arabian than Egyptian; most of the men in the village were shorter, more heavily built, and had strong cheekbones, thick noses, and heavy jaws (emphasis added). Among their rugged faces, Shahhat's stood out as singularly expressive."

The reader might conclude from such a description that Critchfield's initial attraction to Shahhat was due to the fact that his features were much less African than those of the majority of Upper Egyptians. Ironically, that is the attitude of some inhabitants of northern Egypt, who refuse to acknowledge Upper Egyptians as Arabs, and consider darker skin to be a negative trait. Such prejudice is the second challenge which faces Upper Egyptians, in addition to poverty: racism (emphasis added).

Although I did take issue with the presumably inadvertent racial implications of Critchfield's observations, Shahhat, an Egyptian is an entertaining and vivid introduction to the richness and diversity of rural Egyptian life.

Critchfield, by his obvious racism, as well as the author of this book review, Uzra Zeya, makes it abundandly clear that dark-skinned, clearly Africoid Fellahin are the norm in Upper Egypt. Further, he makes it clear that people like Shahhat look more Arab than Egyptian. So, now, what does that tell you about the average indigenous Egyptian? It tells me that De Volney was correct. It tells me they look "Negroid." And why? Because indigenous Africans are black. And Egyptians who do not look black in some way either have been very highly miscegenated over the millennia (more so than even the average northern Egyptian) with Arabs, or they simply are Arabs and not indigenous Egyptians -- regardless of how long ago their ancestors may have arrived there. And these fair-skinned Semitic- (or European) looking Egyptians are not in the majority. Quite the contrary.deeceevoice 20:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Egptian head in profile, fresco, Amarna period.

And your photo (above) means nothing. It is commonly acknowledged that even in ancient times, there was ethnic/racial admixture in dynastic Egypt. However, particularly during the Old Kingdom, dynastic Egypt was (and remains today, still) an obviously black, African nation. Historians of antiquity, including Herodotus, wrote of this fact, as did Petrie, a European universally acknowledged as the Father of Egyptology. It's very easy to produce black African images from the dynastic period, as well -- as they are in the majority.[4],[5],[6] And then there is the very clearly and undeniably huge, honking Giza Sphinx with the classic Dinka profile. [7] :p deeceevoice 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh....If you think the two images you posted above show "black Africans", then your thinking is even more sad and delusional than it

appears. Keep on wishing (unsigned post)

Egyptian man, Old Kingdom

Ramesses II

If those don't convince you it's because you don't want to see. And there are plenty others. Try the links. Try doing some serious reading on the subject instead of the usual whitewashed pap. The contemporaneous and archaeological evidence were certainly definitive for Herodotus, Petrie and several others far more learned than either of us. Ignoring the clear historical record because it takes you out of your intellectual comfort zone isn't advisable if you're really interested in the truth. Further, what? No comment on the book review? You haven't responded that at all. It's clear you aren't serious about this discussion, with your insistence on the oversize image and childish nastiness. You don't even sign your posts. You're simply stubbornly, pigheadedly stating an opinion without foundation. A complete waste of my time, a complete waste of space. deeceevoice 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion?? You mean the one you're having with yourself? About a fiction novel? And serious?!! Hardly anyone on this site takes you seriously. But you're always good for a laugh or two.

Nubian

I have added a modern image of darker skinned (non-Nubian) Egyptian kids to the demographics article. There is also a lighter skinned Egyptian in the sub-section, so I think this is a fair way to show the diversity of Egypt's population. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 20:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm reverting it. I can't find the original source of the picture at the moment, but I happen to have seen it before and it is certainly of mostly Nubian and, if I recall correctly, Sudanese children. Besides, this article is absolutely not going to turn into another battlefield for every person wanting to make a point about the "race" of the Egyptians. The pictures as they are are representative of the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian population. Take it to the controversy page. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 21:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the photo, Yom. If this was taken of children living in Egypt, it doesn't matter whether they're Nubian, or possibly Sudanese, or not. (Anwar Sadat was himself half Sudanese.) The article mentions all such groups as living in, and comprising the population of, Egypt. I've restored it. I've also left a note on Yom's talk page asking about the source and more specific info re the photo's copyright status. As with all photos where such information is in question, it will be deleted automatically within a certain period of time unless the info is provided. Unless and until then, there's absolutely no reason to delete it. deeceevoice 22:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I returned to the page and did a little clean-up of the caption under the pic of the actress, which was unnecessarily wordy -- and then realized that its addition screwed with the bulleted list of Egyptians. I tried a few things to get it to work, but without success, so I simply deleted it altogether. The only thing I can think of is if and when someone beefs up the "Culture" section with enough additional text, then the photo likely can be reinserted without formatting problems. deeceevoice 22:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't like the pic with the lions. It doesn't show enough of the city. I think the aerial shot of the city at dusk is much more illustrative. What? No one agrees?

Also, I miss the photo of the farm. That is a nice photo. Again, I think it should be inserted in place of the aerial shot (hopefully, moved up to replace the lions pic) in "Economy." deeceevoice 23:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. Rather than selective photos, you'd all be better off using pictures from a street in Cairo or Alexandria or at a university, government meeting etc. Also using famous people is often a good representation as well (not exclusively but in parts). That way there won't be any calls of unfair depictions of Egyptians as either too 'African' or too 'white'. As someone who has been to the region, Egyptians greatly vary and probably the most representative is the fellah farmer. Just trying to help mediate the dispute. Tombseye 23:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Tombseye! :) I guess I was too focused on preserving the bullets. (It's been a long day.) Downsizing the pic of the musicians works fine without the bullets. And I appreciate your comments. I actually think the array of photos is good. It's a shame some people are so opposed to the inclusion of a single depiction of dark-skinned Egyptian children, while allowing a pic of a very white-looking, blonde actress. deeceevoice 23:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You're okay with both, but if the children are refugees, it should probably be noted as I did on the Azeris article where we had similar issues with photo accuracy. Ultimately, we removed pictures of kids who were deemed as possibly non-representative of the population and went with street scenes, famous people and a picture of refugees (specifically noted) from Nagorno. Now no one has any disputes as we've included a wide range as that page's history of disputes makes this page look like a love fest. If the issue of 'dark' Egyptians is a problem, I'd go with street scenes or include all types of Egyptians. The two extremes (very European and very African) are in the minority in Egypt (such as blondes which are rare, although blue eyes pop up more than I expected). Many Egyptians who would be considered 'black' in the US are found throughout Egypt and in the streets, govt. etc. A street scene would thus give you a wide range and avoid these conflicts. If this article's writing improves and you get a shot at featured article status, people will ask what exactly each photo is of etc. Street scenes with people near landmarks or streets people know exist are, on the other hand, simply taken as acceptable unless they have copyright issues. Just a few suggestions as you have two different views here. We, in the US, have looked at Egypt often through stereotypes, whereas Egyptians have a way of looking at themselves which can also be somewhat idealized. Tombseye 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There's been no indication whatsoever that the children are refugees. That's mere speculation on your part. It's pretty easy to make general suggestions about what kinds of photos to include. What we need are actual photos. This one has been produced and, assuming the identification of the children is accurate (just as we've assumed the identification of the subjects in the other photos is accurate; there's no reason to suspect otherwise), then this one is perfectly fine. deeceevoice 02:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Egyegy, please provide a rationale for your deletion. They're not refugees. I will place them in the article again but without displacing the Egyptian farm image this time. You've offered no resistance to the image other than it being of refugees (which it is not), but you reverted after I made it clear that it wasn't, so I can only logically assume that you wish to keep the farm picture. I doubt this is the case from your comments to deeceevoice above and pure intuition, but until you provide some reasoning, there's no reason to delete the image. I am reinserting the picture for now, but I will accept a deletion of the picture if you provide a good rationale. If you do not, however, then it seems like you're just POV pushing (note, I'm not accusing of that now), which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 03:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not dignify this blatant and deliberate attempt at misrepresentation. You are the last person to speak about POV pushing when the ONLY reason you uploaded this picture was to shove your POV in our face and totally insult our intelligence, when anyone who knowns anything of any kind about the Egyptian people knows that these kids in no way whatsoever reflect the people accurately. If you insert it again and I will delete it again. Egyegy 03:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop being so hostile and assume good faith. Wikipedia is a collaboration to create an encyclopedia, not a place to fight. I am including the image because I feel as if it shows the diversity of Egypt's population, which is important for a section on demographics. As I said in my edit summary, I'm not (and neither is the picture, which was conveniently placed next to the section on Upper Egypt) implying that Egypt is generally that dark (which seems to be what you're taking offense to), and I'm not insulting your intelligence. The kids are not meant to represent the Egyptian population as a whole but rather simply a segment of it. If you'd like you can add a picture of lighter Egyptian kids (perhaps urban to contrast the fellah) in the beginning of the section (and move the farm image to economy, where I think it's better placed), and then we can have the Upper Egyptian image next to the Upper Egyptian section and the fellah next to the fellah section to show the entirety of the Egyptian population. If Armenians are indeed a significant foreign population as I've heard, then it may even be appropriate to include a small image of them towards the bottom of the section or wherever it's addressed. The overall goal is not to present that image as representing all of Egypt but rather to use it to portray a certain part of Egypt elsewhere not portrayed and to demonstrate the full diversity of the country. I'm not going to reinsert the image this instant since you're so adamantly dismissive of it, but I do expect a polite and thought out reply. If you can't provide one with a good reason not to include the image attached (again, not demonstrating the entirety of the population - we can include some sort of description making not of that, or it can be noted in the section we have a scholarly source on this), then I'm afraid there's no legitimate reason not to include the image. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yom, of course there's no legitimate reason not to include the photo. What we seem to have here is a case of afrophobia -- a concerted effort to hide the (obviously) black presence in Egypt from sight. They see the pics of the children as extreme, but don't object to the photo of a fair-skinned bleached blonde? And how is she representative of the nation's population? The point you make is absolutely on point, that of diversity. There is no single "Egyptian (physical) type." It is a diverse nation (a point which Zerida denied from the very beginning and repeatedly edit warred, deleting language which acknowledge it), and so the range of peoples of Egypt properly should be represented here. I think it's time we took this to a "higher court," so to speak. They have no intention of listening to reason. deeceevoice 04:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no reason to accuse me of some agenda here. I did assume given the comments above that if Zerida claims to have seen it elsewhere and they are SUDANESE, then they would be refugees or immigrants as opposed to Nubians who are natives. Egypt has a large refugee population as does Pakistan, Albania, France, the US, etc. I wouldn't even argue to remove the picture, but if they do turn out to be refugees it's fine to keep them as it does reflect a segment of the population, but you'd have to note that. Or that they're Nubians or more importantly self-identify as Nubians as opposed to just Egyptians of Upper Egypt. That's all I meant. And no, it's not easy to make suggestions for pictures clearly, but the point is to not push to have your own way, but to compromise if possible or at least look for compromises. Thus, a street scene typical of Egypt would show the diversity you're looking for anyway and if the pictures can't be verified, then they will, at some point, be taken down. Not by me, but by an admin. I've had lots of pictures taken down that I thought were okay, but some editors, RIGHTLY, told me that pictures of the general population were preferable because there was no way to be accused of POV pushing, which is true. This can include putting up the most attractive people or controversial nationalist figures or idealized segments of the population or whatever. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down and discuss a compromise. There's no reason not to include all the different types of Egyptians and to do so with verifiable sources that don't violate copyrights. That's what you should all be going for. Now whichever pictures can't be verified should be replaced with pictures that can. The previous picture of the girl looked okay to me for example. Some recognizable people like Sadat, Boutros-Ghali, Mubarak would also probably go well with the article. You don't have to keep the pictures you have as with a little effort you can probably get pictures that people can agree upon. A street scene could do just that. Tombseye 06:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the imageshack page owner did not own that image, so it's licensing does not work and will be deleted. I still feel that some image reflective of Egypt's diversity should be included. Again, not implying that all Egyptians are dark-skinned, nor that they are all light-skinned with blonde hair and blue eyes. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have a solution to this problem. Most country articles that are featured articles don't particularly go into posting numerous pictures of the diversity of its population, but rather have general shots of cities and relevant matters. See Canada, India, Nepal, Hong Kong or South Africa. Thus, the current selection with the farmer and entertainers is actually enough there. What you might want to do then is to put pictures of Sadat and Boutros-Ghali as they would be relevant to the article and show the diversity of Egypt. Now the place to note and illustrate the wider issue of diversity in Egypt's population would actually be Demographics of Egypt where you can put up a wider range of people from African types to European types etc. to the more common fellahin. Given the space limitations these are really the only options available. Tombseye 20:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. There's not much space here anymore to add images (though I do believe the farm should go under Economy). I'm afraid that Egyegy and Zerida might fight the inclusion of the photo there as well, though. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would get rid of the farm picture as there is simply no room for it or replace the one in the economy section with it and move the fellah to the top of demographics and leave it at that. This article needs a lot of work and expansion and the articles I've mentioned are good templates (Canada's the best one I think) to work off of. The pictures are kind of the topping on the cake so to speak after you've got a strong article anyway. Tombseye 20:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a general agreement w/regard to my suggestion to move the farm photo to "Economy." Now, what about replacing the two lions photo, the caption of which is about the city itself, with the aerial shot of Cario at dusk? The lions photo isn't terribly useful or illustrative of the city. Further, the person(s) who've engaged in reverting those changes haven't bothered to comment one way or the other in discussion and have offered no rationale in their edit notes. deeceevoice 14:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Youssra

Youssra's image got tagged again [8], so I'm replacing it with one of another celebrity. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 08:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

lack of blacks on Egypt page

why are there no blacks on the egypt page? one pic? come on YungMike513 06:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because of the incessant, seemingly racist/afrophobic edit warring of Zerida and Egygy [or whatever his user name is]. That's why. Are you committed to seeing one? deeceevoice 09:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia is everybody's encyclopedia not just Zerida's. YungMike513 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

deeceevoice

FYI, I just filed a formal complaint against the user deeceevoice in the arbitration case that was brought against her by a groups of users for her unruly behavior, vandalism, and frequent racist comments (now talk about blatant racism [9]!) Egyegy 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote of your "seemingly" racist edit warring against the inclusion of a photo of a dark-skinned Egyptian in the article. If you have another reason for your apparently completely illogical opposition to representing the diversity of the Egyptian people, then I'm open to reading it. In fact, I've invited you here to explain yourself. Instead, you've offered nothing but personal attacks and nastiness. And you filed a complaint against me? That's pretty amusing. deeceevoice 09:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Arabs? Arabic Language?

Hello guys.

I was researching on Arabic language issue in the Egypt. As this article states this language is just being practiced for 1500 years. As every one may see, Egyptian and other so-called Arabs like Syrians are not originally Arab. Actually I understand also that the term Arab is not defined clearly as well. If a person who talks Arabic is Arab, so this is correct and Eruptions are Arab. But it is nonsense when we say Egyptians used to be "Egyptians" or whatever and turned out to be "Arabs".

I believe Egyptians are not Arab, the word Arab refers just to the people that are living in Arabian Peninsula and Persian gulf countries. All Egyptians, Lebanese people, Syrians and others should be proud of their history and I don't think that the word Arab describes very well such nations like those that were mentioned.

I wanted to know about Egyptians' opinions. And please correct me if I am wrong.