Talk:Religion in Egypt: Difference between revisions

Untitled

The article is meant to give an overview of religious life in Egypt. Unless the prolems facing all religious groups are discussed, posting detailed and specific grievances concerning a particular group on this page is inappropriate. Hussein M Allam 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of this article is Religion in Egypt, and based on that title a whole bunch of things can (and should) be included about religion in Egypt. Things like religious life in Egypt, and also the condition of religious populations in Egypt, and general views of the population and the government about religion and religions in Egypt. The article does so, with some sections clearly being stubs. But Wikipedia does not remove content because some other content is missing; instead the process clearly involves editors adding content where it is underrepresented. Furthermore this article is definitely not long enough for it to invovke the Wikipedia:Summary style, where content is moved to other articles. In fact this article is a really a subsection of the Egypt article, which neccessitates going into detail about religion which cannot be discussed in the main Egypt article. -- Jeff3000 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

citation needed

May be there is a source, but I failed to follow the source, may be it is broken link « PuTTY^SchOOL 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's highly unlikely. It said "http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2386" and "IPS News (retrieved 09-27-2008)", so the idea that a citation is needed after looking at that is either a mistake or intentionally wrong. Pick one. ~ Troy (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, It is very clear that the citation was about that reference "Article in the local Al Dustur Newspaper dated Wednesday 12th March 2008."
your other reference according to the WINEP wikipedian article is not a neutral reliable source, please stop your edit wars and reverting my edits without any logical reason.« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't cite other Wikipedia articles and that is not relevant to the source. As well, you ignored all of the other sources brought up by myself on Talk:Egypt. I will not repeat myself again. ~ Troy (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"The original Ancient Egyptian religion has all but disappeared." That is what the article says. Can anyone sight any reference to the woship of pagan gods after the 7th century? Realistically has there been any modern worship of the ancient gods?125.237.111.80 (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Kindly stop inserting figures from unreliable sources

Troy 07 (talk · contribs) references are either un reliable sources, or outdated contracted by new article from the same newspaper. Here is the summary about five deceiving new references inserted in article Religion in Egypt :

1. Reference 7 is a copy from reference 12
2. Reference 8, is outdated November 1997; his claim about the reference is the Washington post is fake; it is from an unreliable source with Google add-ons.
3. Reference 9 from New York Times is an outdated, published on March 15, 1993 giving a round figure of 17%, while reference 18 also from the New York Times published February 11, 2008, giving a definite figure of 10%
4. Reference 10 from The Christian Post is an outdated Published December 7, 2004, giving a round figure of 15%, while reference 16 also from The Christian Post published July 8, 2008, giving a round figure ranging from 7.5% to 10%
5. Reference 11 from NLG Solutions, which is a Traveling Agent; can’t be a reliable source, contradicts itself, giving a round figure of 15%, then in population percentage by religion giving a definite figure of 6%

The issue was discussed thoroughly from September 26, 2008 till October 5, 2008 i.e. for 9 days.
All references were analyzed, one by one on Egypt article talk page
So kindly stop inserting figures from unreliable sources into the text; stop you disruptive editing and reverting my edits with no reason.
This issue has already been thoroughly discussed for 9 long days on Egypt article talk page; we will not repeat our self. --Great Sphinx (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue was over and dealt with as it was agreed that all of the sources relevant sources may be included by being properly weighted and properly incorporated. The only thing you did was REMOVE references blatantly, and I will not spend time with your editing (which is far more disruptive than mine because I discussed this on Talk:Egypt while you didn't discuss it at all). Also, you are almost certainly a sock of Putty (as per evidence and similar use of {{user|}}). May be if you didn't call me an "evil editor", I would actually care, but after having discussed it to death, you have no reason to remove references. ~ Troy (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Start of paste

In reply to your post:

1. References 7 and 12 are the same, and this is ok. There's nothing in Wiki against repeating the same source twice at 2 different places.
2. Reference 8 is from 1998. This does not make it outdated, unless you can provide a more recent and neutral reference that proves that information in reference 8 is no longer valid on the ground.
3. Reference 9 is from 1993. This does not make it outdated, unless you can provide a more recent and neutral reference that proves that information in reference 8 is no longer valid on the ground. As for the contradiction in information provided by references 9 and 10, both figures should be included with allusion to the appropriate sources.
4. Reference 10 is from 2004. This does not make it outdated, unless you can provide a more recent and neutral reference that proves that information in reference 10 is no longer valid on the ground.
5. I agree with you that reference 11 is a weak reference. It does not add much to the argument at any rate.

I hope this helps.--Lanternix (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Lanternix is this another method of twisting facts, regarding troy 07 (talk · contribs) edit which is by all means a method of twisting Wikipedia to his point of view, using a trivial method of deceiving the readers.

1. Reference 7 is a copy from Reference 12 and both are the same atricle, not in two different places, as you wrote, which makes it problematic edit. can't you see the list [6][7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]?
2. Reference 8, is outdated November 1997, not from the Washington post, as troy wrote while defining the reference, it is an un-reliable source and not every page on web can be used a reference for population, compare it to true reliable up-to-date referances included by the article.
3. Reference 9 is an outdated 1993 from the New York Times giving a round figure of 17% , while Reference 18 is up-to-date 2008 and also from the New York Times giving a definite figure of 10%.
4. Reference 10 is an outdated 2004 from the Christian Post giving a round figure of 15% , while Reference 16 is up-to-date 2008 and also from the Christian Post giving a round figure 7.5% to 10%
5. it is a natural that we must use the up-to-date reference if we have two references from the same news paper or publisher.
6. troy 07 (talk · contribs) is writing the access data, not the published date, and according to Wikipedia stype of editing, this is another sign of his intention for deceiving the readers.
7. troy 07 (talk · contribs) intention in removing the “pro-Israeli” source from the article and hiding the nature of the source is another problematic edit.
8. You agreed with reference 11 from NLG solutions as it contradicts it self, by giving a 6% of the total population, at the same time Troy choice of such reference is an indication about how he did not respect Wikipedia.
9. According to troy 07 (talk · contribs) Claim I used "LOOKLEX Encyclopedia" (and not in all edits) as it is the only reference that give the number of native Egyptian Christians other than Copts, also it is used by more than 20 articles as a reference about population, at the same time I did not use any of the Arabic or Islamic Reference, as all give a definite percentage of 6. But I never see an article from a news paper talking about a percentage from X to Y, used as a reference except for Egypt articles.

I hope this helps. « PuTTY^SchOOL 07:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

End of paste I pasted the above from puttyschool talk page. Now either cease being disruptive or we can go this way WP:RFC --Great Sphinx (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, it has been discussed already and agreed upon. End of story. I'm not to be expected to waste my time with someone who thinks I'm "evil" and "perverting" articles that I'm interested in as well. What I'm not interested in is the edit wars. If you think enough is enough—then stop removing references. ~ Troy (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

THE Oriental-Orthodox Church?!?

What is THE Oriental-Orthodox Church? There is the Oriental-Orthodox family of churches, to which the Coptic one belongs. More precision and differentiation needed!

Muslim Brotherhood

Muslim Brotherhood is a political party, and as such should not be referenced here as impacted by restrictions of freedom of religions. Please respond before I remove this reference --Paul Lewison (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

20% give me a break !!

first of all i am an Egyptian 15% or 20%? thats really funny . i will not verify the governmental or official censuses that give the definite number of 6% but i am sure that Christian percentage in Egypt dosn't break the 10% barrier. some figures like 15% or 20% is too exaggerated  !!! in Egypt there is only 4 or 5 governorates in which Christians make a significant percentage otherwise Christians percentage doesn't exceed 5% of any other governorate so the figure 20% or even 15% doesn't make any sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptianknight22 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess the Christian percentage is considerably higher. Just by randomly driving through the streets of Cairo, you see av lot of cars with crosses hanging from the mirror, a lot more than 1 in 10 cars. In Upper Egypt there are big villages, small towns with almost 100 percent Christians. But the most stupid thing about this, is that the Egyptian government very well know the exact number of Muslims and Christian - as that is an information printed on every Egyptian person’s identity card. I guess the reason for the Muslim government to keep this information a secret is that the number of Christian is a lot higher than official numbers or estimates. --88.93.123.245 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent reverts by User:Voiceofplanet

I am restoring the edits made by User:Voiceofplanet for the following reasons:

• 1. The user insists on deleting any reference to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in the sentence a number of published sources such as the Washington Institute, in addition to some of the Coptic sources, uphold that Christians represent more than 10% of the total population and claim that they actually still compose up to 15 or even 20% of the Egyptian population. This is in spite of the fact that the sentence is very well referenced.
• 2. The user insists on deleting the sentence Until recently, Christians were required to obtain presidential approval for even minor repairs in churches. Although the law was eased in 2005 by handing down the authority of approval to the governors, Copts continue to face many obstacles in building new churches. These obstacles are not as much in building mosques. The user also places a template requiring citations in this section in spite of the fact that both the above statement and the entire paragraph are well referenced.
• I am thus restoring all deleted referenced material. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 15:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The reasons for my edit were as follows:

• 1. Regarding the points you have made in this section concerning my editing of:

While some government sources have claimed a percentage of around 6 to 10%, a number of published sources such as the Washington Institute, in addition to some of the Coptic sources, uphold that Christians represent more than 10% of the total population and claim that they actually still compose up to 15 or even 20% of the Egyptian population. to While many government and international sources have claimed a percentage of around 6 to 10%, a number of unofficial sources estimate that Christians represent more than 10% of the total population, with some claiming that they compose up to 15 or even 20% of the Egyptian population. - I changed "some government sources" to "many government sources", as there are many. The references already present after this statement (8) is quite a lot, and many more could be added. In fact, I couldn't find any government sources that don't fall within this range. If you find any, maybe you could add them. - I removed the mention of the "Washington institute to the Near East Policy" as I fail to see why it is necessary to specifically mention in the text that a U.S. based think tank established by the "American Israel Public Affairs Committee" is amongst those who support the claim of Christians constituting 15-20%. I left them in as one of the references for this claim, but couldn't see what made this group significant enough to warrant a mention in the text. - The template requiring citations has been placed after these two sentences, as neither of them are referenced: Coptic Christians, being the largest religious minority in Egypt, are the most negatively affected. and Copts have faced increasing marginalization after the 1952 coup d'état led by Gamal Abdel Nasser

• 2. Regarding the points you have made in this section concerning my editing of:

Until recently, Christians were required to obtain presidential approval for even minor repairs in churches. Although the law was eased in 2005 by handing down the authority of approval to the governors, Copts continue to face many obstacles in building new churches. These obstacles are not as much in building mosques. to Although until 2005 Christians were required to obtain presidential approval for even minor repairs in churches. However, Presidential Decree No. 291 eased regulations allowing churches to make minor repairs without waiting for government approval. For major renovations, the decree requires governors to process requests within 30 days, and to give reasons should they reject an application. However, Copts continue to face many obstacles in building new churches. - I didn't remove the information, I expanded on it by explaining the changes in the law. These changes have been referenced. I hope that explains my recent edits. Voiceofplanet (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's my reply to your answers:

• 1.I suggest the following compromise: Governmental sources usually put forward a percentage of 6% to 10% for Copts in Egypt. However, independent non-governmental institutions such as the Washington Institute, in addition to Coptic sources, uphold that Christians represent more than 10% of the total population and claim that they actually still compose up to 15 or even 20% of the Egyptian population. I think this is fair compromise between the different versions. The mention of the Washington institute to the Near East Policy is necessary because it adds credibility to the independent sources discussed in the text. If you would like, please feel free to add more names for credible independent sources that tackled this issue.
• 2. The sentence Coptic Christians, being the largest religious minority in Egypt, are the most negatively affected does not require a reference because it's self evident. It's an introductory sentence that is proven by the rest of the statements, all of which are well referenced.
• 3. For the sentence Copts have faced increasing marginalization after the 1952 coup d'état led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, here's one reference that I will be adding to the text (I am positive there are many more, I just have no time to look right now, but I will later on): Harvard encyclopedia of American ethnic groups By Stephan Thernstrom. Page 242.
• 4. For your last edit, the English structure of the sentence is incorrect. It is also incorrect that that decree allowed for minor renovations to be undertaken without government approval as you claim. If you're from Egypt you'd know that if you place one single stone in a church bathroom without governmental approval you simply get put in jail. The link you provided does not work anyway. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 14:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please

Would you both please provide one or two brief (one or two paragraph) quotes from reliable secondary sources regarding the status and state of Coptic Christians in Egyptian society? Please avoid primary, governmental, NGO, and think tank references. Try to find high quality sources that interpret and select those references for us. I will do a quick search and add quotes from the first few I find to help you along the way. --Vassyana (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ismailis?

The claim there are Ismailis still present in Egypt is not cited properly. There is no claim in the World Fact Book about an Ismaili presence in modern day Egypt. Can anyone provide evidence of the existence of a native Egyptian Ismaili community in Egypt today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernCat12 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Religion in Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010050756/http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf to http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135632/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/egypt to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/egypt
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5kwQyp3zM?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557408_3/Egypt.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557408_3/Egypt.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215133731/http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL29677385.html to http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL29677385.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930211738/http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021220/2002122025.html to http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021220/2002122025.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120602124514/http://213.158.162.45/~egyptian/index.php?action=news&id=20442 to http://213.158.162.45/~egyptian/index.php?action=news&id=20442
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080928034724/http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/egypt14701.htm to http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/egypt14701.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912060035/http://www.ahram.org.eg/acpss/eng/ahram/2004/7/5/ARAB43.HTM to http://www.ahram.org.eg/acpss/eng/ahram/2004/7/5/ARAB43.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015153850/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/843/eg8.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/843/eg8.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121180512/http://www.pr-inside.com/egypt-court-upholds-right-of-converted-r430320.htm to http://www.pr-inside.com/egypt-court-upholds-right-of-converted-r430320.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416155254/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8Ro5sk6sChDNUGMQTIMBj6HsHQQ to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8Ro5sk6sChDNUGMQTIMBj6HsHQQ
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318161245/http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=19813&sec=36&cont=3 to http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=19813&sec=36&cont=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321010537/http://bikyamasr.com/52960/egypts-forgotten-bahai-community-fearful-and-hopeful-of-future/ to http://bikyamasr.com/52960/egypts-forgotten-bahai-community-fearful-and-hopeful-of-future/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Religion in Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041226194856/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/513/eg7.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/513/eg7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge Proposal from Freedom of religion in Egypt

I propose that Freedom of religion in Egypt be merged into Religion in Egypt. The content of Freedom of religion in Egypt is virtually all from a woefully outdated US government report, and Religion in Egypt covers the topic much more effectively.. Rosguill (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Many Egyptians as many Greeks, merge atheism and agnosticism

They merge atheism and agnosticism in some groups of friends, and if you are mono-ideologue only agnostic or only atheist, you cannot feel at home.

Agnostics are open towards the possibility of the importance of the personhood of a supposed universal creator.

Mixing ideology is great in politics and for large numbers.

Many Egyptians and Greeks who are mono-ideologue non-theists, feel alone because they have no specific home to belong.

Non-thinkers (metalogically shallow) want to be anti-something. Ok, anti-something is fun, but some people are mono-something and should be respected with separate organizations.

The theist and the deist misinterpretes the universe via the personhood of man via the notion of god.

The atheoagnostic doesn't focus specifically on atheism or on agnosticism, but mainly on antireligion and on human rights.

Human rights are great but some people are philosophically specific and aren't respected!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4117:A100:ED7B:DC44:2F3E:E80D (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Number of Christians in egypt

A section for discussing the claims made in [edit] by Mark1218. it seems perfectly possible this is true, but can we provide sources here before making the edits, if as claimed there are sources for the numbers reported. Oathswarm (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Arab Barometer and religious census

Starting a discussion here to head off some of the edit warring going on. As it stands, I think I'm actually inclined to agree with Amgaw, if not their tone or specific line of argumentation. While Arab Barometer is a generally reliable source, the citation here is a link to a download page for their most recent survey of the Middle East. However, rather than reporting interpretable results, what we have here is a largely unformatted spreadsheet which I honestly do not trust us as Wikipedia editors to be able to interpret directly, and I believe that attempts to do so constitute original research. Pinging other involved editors Sro23 and FrankCesco26. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that we can both agree that this article needs a reliable, self-identification based main source, and I believe that the Arab Barometer is the best source we've got here. It doesn't seem biased and it is in between with the 5% of christians the authorities report and the 15% the church reports. I think 10% is a good compromise. Similar percentages are found in the 2016 Afro Barometer. The page redirects to a download page where you can download the SPSS dataset you can analyze with SPSS or other programs (for example the free SAV viewer I personally used with this dataset). You can check the factuality of the data reported at the online data analysis tool the arab barometer website provides here ( https://www.arabbarometer.org/survey-data/data-analysis-tool/ ). If you select the Wave V for Egypt and then the question Religious sect you will basically find the data I reported in the pie chart. I preferred to use the SPSS dataset since the 0.1% of Atheist is apparently split into sects, which is a survey error and the online analysis tool didn't separate unspecified Muslim with unspecified christian denominations. If you got any other questions, I'm happy to solve your doubts. FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I sympathize with your concerns about needing more reliable sources, but I still feel like providing a source that requires a reader to feed data into an analysis tool is falling short of verifiability standards (although I did find this new link that you've provided here to be relatively easy to use, and a marked improvement over the link provided in the citation when I started this discussion). I'm still undecided as to what to do with this source right now, but I think our long term solution should be to provide a reference to a prose overview of the Arab Barometer survey once it one published (which will almost certainly happen sooner or later). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I would add it again, since I don't really think they'd make a report on every country including the detailed statistics on every question including cross sections. I think what we've got here is one of the most reliable sources at the moment, such a shame they've removed it. FrankCesco26 (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you be willing to format a citation that includes both the data set and the visualization tool? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Done, tell me what you think. -FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

FrankCesco26, I think the citation is adequate as currently formatted, but the pie chart graphic should probably be moved below the Religion in Egypt and Life in Egypt sidebars (I'm going to try to do that myself shortly). I'm also not sure what ".nfd" stands for, and the "Just a Muslim" entry should maybe be rephrased in a more encyclopedic manner (e.g. "Muslim, no denomination specified"). More importantly though, the demographics section should be rewritten to take into account the availability of this new survey. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: I've moved the pie chart down. Unfortunately, due to the amount of images and sidebars, placing the pie chart in the "Demographics" section makes the chart show up lower down on the article. I think this is preferable to having it at the top, but the article could probably stand to have its images reorganized. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, one concern that I do have is that the pie chart visualization provided in the citation does not include the level of detail that we report in the article. This is a problem. One solution would be to simply report the simplified 90%/10% split used in the visualization. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

We can sure do add more information in the article, the same as reported in the pie chart if hopefully the article isn't reverted every time I add the chart. What are we going to do? Everytime someone does a edit newly registered possibly sockpuppets revert the article... FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

We can request for page protections, and if need be take offenders to administrator intervention. The only reason that I haven't initiated this process already is because I don't think we've quite reached a consensus for what should be in the article. I think that using the non-denominational reporting from the visualization for the pie chart is an acceptable compromise, but I think that ultimately there is a valid policy-backed concern behind refusing to include the fully detailed chart from the reverted edit, even if the editors articulating their opposition have done so in less-than-civil manners. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the pie chart being detailed is the problem. As I could understand from the explanations for their reverts, they argue that the share of christians may be higher than 10%, which is understandable as we don't have any unbiased census or large scale survey to provide any completely reliable percentage. Putting the pie chart in that way might in a way put this source above the others, even if other sources are mere estimations not based on any self-identification approach. At the end, I believe that the Arab Barometer survey, even if it's based on a 2.500 respondents sample which is not low but not even robust, is the most reliable source to date, and provides important data (for example for Shafi'i or Catholics) that any other source could not provide. I think that the article should be rewritten or changed for the good in order to make it clearer. At this actual state, it's a mess of percentages thrown away with a needlessly high amount of sources lumped together. -FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I apologize if I was unclear: upon reviewing the source again following the most recent revert, it is my opinion that we shouldn't include the fine grained denomination data in the pie chart because the only available source to support it is the raw data sheet, which I still have OR and verifiability concerns about. The other editors reverting edits are in a "broken clock strikes right twice" scenario, IMO. However, I would lend my !vote to form a consensus to include the 90/10 pie chart which is supported by the visualization tool, and to edits to the prose that don't require us to pick through the data set. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Inflation of numbers of atheists and false figures by IP

Can a administrator please look at the source it doesn’t say 10 million Egyptians are atheist/agnostic while the Kent university and the Arab barometer study don’t say non religious is the same as being atheist/agnostic and the word irreligious is not even used this is POV pushing. 213.107.51.175 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I've gone over the sources in question and rewritten claims to more accurately reflect their content. Previously, the content in the Wikipedia article consistently misrepresented upper bound estimates and dubious reporting (as described in the RS) as actual accurate counts. N.b. although I am an admin, this is not the kind of editing that requires an admin, and my opinion here only has as much weight as any other editor's would. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thank you, Rosguill, for chiming in. You have indeed made the statement from The 2017 US report more precise in your first edit, but your second edit doesn't seem more accurate, I'll get to that below. But first, a few remarks. The user 213.107.51.175 (who is the same as 213.104.126.48 and 213.107.2.41) keeps removing well sourced content from WP:RS and erroneously saying that the sources are not saying this and that, which is very weird, since evidently the user can read! And the user has been told several times that what is stated does indeed exist in the sources, here and on the page "Irreligion in Egypt" (where the user is also making the same edits), but the user keeps insisting and even called it a "lie" in the last edit here (which is not very civil), this is, again, very weird, because evidently the user can read, as can all of us, and as can you, Rosguill, when you made it more precise, let's see if the user will call you a "liar" and revert your edit. The user also keeps copy-pasting that same edit summary over and over, the user is even using that edit summary here on the talk page, instead of saying anything of substance. It is tiring really to deal with users like 213.107.51.175, who keep insisting on their erroneous claims in a facile manner hoping that they might fool other editors, which never works on Wikipedia, and such things are very easily checked.
The user keeps trying to interpret "not religious", which is typical WP:OR; the user should note that these terms are used in reports and studies that are precisely about nonbelievers in Egypt, and not some random use. For instance, the Kent university study is titled "Understanding Unbelief in Egypt", and states at the outset, in the "Preface" and "Introduction", that this is about unbelief in Egypt, and many atheists and agnostics were interviewed, where the statements from them are the crux of the study. The "Arab Barometer" report is about that too. To say that this and that report "don't say X is Y" or "don't mean" that and this, is to essentially say nothing and is a meagre attempt at WP:OR-ing well sourced content out of the article. All the terms used in both the study and the report are in the context of nonbelief. The Kent university study even goes into the details of the bodily acts that leaving a particular religion entails, and how some Egyptians try to hide these acts in fear of prosecution. But, talk-page explanation and clarification aside, the user is making a very poor attempt at OR:interpretation, as has been mentioned in the edit summaries, and as long as what is said in the sources is accurately stated in the article, the user 213.107.51.175 (who is the same as 213.104.126.48 and 213.107.2.41) cannot just remove well sourced content from WP:RS, and tell us that we are "lying", this is insulting to everyone, not just to the editors that reverted the user's erroneous claims; the user's edits have been reverted several times. Noting also that the user's edits are nothing but removing well sourced content from WP:RS, and it is approaching vandalism at this point, which I believe should eventually prompt a filing at the AN/I if the user persists; as it stands right now, it is at the very least disruptive editing. Besides, perhaps the user should learn what "POV pushing" is before throwing it around in the edit summary? It is not hard to guess why the user doesn't like the statements from the sources, but a statement that the user doesn't like is not automatically "POV pushing"; accurate and well sourced content is not POV pushing. The user should not try to heedlessly quote the guidelines.
As to the user's OR claims about reliability, it has been mentioned to the user in an edit summary that "reliable" on Wikipedia is evaluated in accord with the Wikipedia guidelines, not with what the user 213.107.51.175 thinks is reliable; this is, again, a typical WP:OR attempt about what the source means or the intention of the source.
Now as for your second edit, Rosguill, which is revision 1074004447, I don't think your rewording is more accurate, specially the last part of it, you have changed the statement "The study states that there is reportedly a tremendous increase in the amount of nonbelievers and atheists, and that there is noticeably an increase in the number of Egyptian youth coming out for nonbelieving and publicly testifying they have left the faith" to the statement "Egyptian news media has reported on a massive increase in the amount of nonbelievers and atheists following the the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, and particularly following the ouster of Mohammed Morsi in 2013, although the accuracy of this reporting is unclear". The first statement, before your edit, is an actual word for word quote from the study (from two paragraphs), where I left out the part about the 2011 Egyptian Revolution because that part is stated with another source in the following fifth paragraph in the subsection "Atheism and agnosticism", so there is no need to repeat it. So, since the first statement, before your rewording, is more accurate in following the source, and "reportedly" is to indicate that the study itself is quoting the media, this first statement should be the one retained here, whereas the part "and particularly following the ouster of Mohammed Morsi in 2013" should be appended to the part that already exists in the fifth paragraph, which reads "... have become increasingly vocal online since the Egyptian revolution of 2011". As for the part "although the accuracy of this reporting is unclear", this part doesn't reflect what is stated in the study, the study is making a remark to the reader saying "whereas we have to be cautious to uncritically reproduce this media frame, it is a highly interesting contestation that enables us to examine the importance and nature of unbelief", which is not a statement about the clarity of the media report, it is a remark to the reader that the study is not uncritically reproducing this media frame, and it should not be incorporated in the article here as a statement on the media quoted. So, I'll make the following edits: I'll restore the first statement, i.e.: "The study states that there is reportedly a tremendous increase in the amount of nonbelievers and atheists, and that there is noticeably an increase in the number of Egyptian youth coming out for nonbelieving and publicly testifying they have left the faith", which is, again, a word for word quote from the study (from two paragraphs). I will make the aforementioned appending in the fifth paragraph, so that the statement "... have become increasingly vocal online since the Egyptian revolution of 2011" becomes the statement "... have become increasingly vocal online since the Egyptian revolution of 2011 and particularly after the ouster of Morsi in 2013". I will also add the 2017 population estimate of Egypt in the statement from the 2017 US report, since it is stated in the that report right before the numbers, and gives the reader a clearer picture, I'll add "concerning Egypt", since the report is exclusively about Egypt. I'll also make these same edits on the page Irreligion in Egypt, and hopefully the user 213.107.51.175 does not heedlessly edit-war with misleading, erroneous edit summaries. 197.38.24.106 (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the second edit and the change proposed here. The study's warning about not reproducing the media's frame is enough to support a statement of uncertainty regarding the veracity of the phenomenon, and the "reportedly" phrasing is not sufficiently clear in explaining to the reader where the reports are coming from. We need to fully attribute the claim to Egyptian media, as the source does, particularly if you want to use its wording of "tremendous". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made further changes, as the general organization of that section left a lot to be desired. I think that with my changes the section is now much more straightforward to read and follows the cited sources more closely. Glancing at Irreligion in Egypt, that whole article needs to be reorganized as currently its lead is far, far too long relative to the length of the rest of the article. Trying to coordinate changes across two articles at once is going to be a mess if we still have disagreements, so I'd like the dust to settle a bit here first before I go to edit that article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Your edits seem fine to me, I have only minor suggestions. I'm going to create a new talk page section to discuss the organization of the subsection "Atheism and agnosticism", because I don't like the misleading title of this talk page section. I'll also propose minor additions. 197.38.24.106 (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Organizing the subsection "Atheism and agnosticism"

Rosguill: I have no qualms with the edits you made, I'll only propose a stylistic change for better readability, and very minor additions, and I won't effect any edit before there is agreement here on the talk page. The stylistic change is, I think the second paragraph should remain the first, since it has the characteristics of an opening paragraph, in that it gives a good introductory description before dropping the numbers on the reader. The fist addition is, I think since the university of Kent study is putting the number at 11% it should be mentioned with a remark that it is quoting the Arab Barometer. The university of Kent study is actually one of the most useful sources I have come across. This addition should go directly after the Arab Barometer survey. Since the US report is the only one left with concrete numbers instead of percentages, I think it should lead the (now) second paragraph, followed by the Arab Barometer survey, followed by the statement from the university of Kent study which quotes the Arab Barometer survey. The second addition is, after "Egyptian media has reported... since 2011" I think the following should be added: "however, atheism or scepticism is not a recent phenomenon in Egypt"; because there is an emphasis put on the 2011 revolution, which may give the wrong impression that it is solely responsible; this addition is taken from the university of Kent study, Chapter 1, which goes on to list relevant Egyptian intellectuals and writers in the 20th century, some of them even openly professed atheism, such as Ismail Adham; I'm wondering if mention of this particular Egyptian writer should be made, perhaps on the page "Irreligion in Egypt". The third addition (or rather a rephrasing), while I have no problem at all with the statement "While exact numbers of irreligious Egyptians... especially on the internet" as it is right now, I think we should stick more closely to the source and rephrase it to "Despite the lack of clarity with regard to absolute numbers, there is a noticeable increase in young Egyptians coming out for nonbelieving and publicly testifying they have left the faith, especially on the internet", as in the source; I also think we should retain "and involves both Egyptian men and women" after "which is visible across both Islam and Christianity"; the state of Egyptian women who have left religion requires a section of its own, and it is discussed in the study, but a passing mention of their involvement here seems proper.
So, the additions are only in the (now) second paragraph, and after these edits, which are just minor additions and stylistic changes, the whole subsection should read like this, with the additions highlighted:
First paragraph (no changes):
"There are Egyptians who identify themselves as ... in four of his books."
Second paragraph, with the additions highlighted:
"The 2017 US report on international religious freedom, concerning Egypt, states that there are between 1 million and 10 million atheists in Egypt, of Egypt's estimated 97 million population at that time. Absent official figures, sources consistently report that the number is increasing steadily. According to a survey by Arab Barometer, around 10% of Egyptians identified themselves as not religious. In the same survey, about 20% of young Egyptians described themselves as not religious. A study at the university of Kent quoted the Arab Barometer survey but stated their number as approximately 11% in 2013. Egyptian media has reported a major increase in the amount of nonbelievers and atheists since 2011; however, atheism or scepticism is not a recent phenomenon in Egypt. Despite the lack of clarity with regard to absolute numbers, there is a noticeable increase in young Egyptians coming out for nonbelieving and publicly testifying they have left the faith, especially on the internet. Many Egyptian irreligious/atheist intellectuals encourage irreligious Egyptians and Egyptian atheists to speak up and come out of the closet, a trend which is visible across both Islam and Christianity, and involves both Egyptian men and women."
Third paragraph (no changes):
"Discrimination against atheists in Egypt is mainly the ... whether it is Islam or Christianity."
Fourth paragraph (no changes):
"In a 2011 Pew Research poll of ... and particularly after the ouster of Morsi in 2013."
If this sounds reasonable to you, then I'll wait for your reply before making the edit. 197.38.24.106 (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think generally this is fine, but would still suggest reporting the Arab Barometer number only once; however, since the AB sources, whether reported here or here, only show a graph and do not cite a specific number, I think we should use the 11% figure explicitly mentioned by the Kent study, rather than giving two different figures for the same data (my guess is that 10% was based on an editor eyeballing the graph). We should also include the year. So, my suggestion would be to write:

According to a 2018 survey conducted by Arab Barometer, around 11% of Egyptians identified themselves as not religious [cite Kent]. In the same survey, about 20% of young Egyptians described themselves as not religious [keep current citation to AB]. Egyptian media...

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand, and agree, that it is better cited once. The thing is, unlike the Arab Barometer survey, the Kent university study is exclusively about Egypt, and exclusively about irreligion in Egypt, and is much more valuable and detailed than the Arab Barometer survey, so I think it should be explicitly cited. How about a statement that combines them both, using both citations:
"A study at the university of Kent, citing a survey by the Arab Barometer, stated that around 11% of Egyptians identified themselves as not religious. In the same survey, about 20% of young Egyptians described themselves as not religious."
I think that's a good merge of both, and is attributing the number to the source that stated it, instead of the source that requires eyeballing. If that's okay by you, then I should proceed to make the edit. 197.38.24.106 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be fine with this last formulation, but I do think you may have gotten our attribution practices backwards: if a source is high quality and is making a straightforward claim not contradicted elsewhere, as the Kent paper is doing here (no one disputes that Arab Barometer published the reported statistic), it's generally better to not state the source in the article text and just use the citation for attribution. So, I'd still prefer the wording I suggested, but this is a pretty minor difference and I wouldn't hold up editing over it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a better look at the in-text attribution practice, but to move this forward, I'm going to go ahead and make the edit, which is always open for further tweaks when necessary. 197.38.24.106 (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Should the article have a bit of history of religion in the region?

I was quite surprised by this article that none of the Ancient Egyptian religion has survived or had an influence on the current population and religions. I then had to find the articles Decline of ancient Egyptian religion and Islamization of Egypt to understand what happened. So I thought maybe this article could have a brief description of the Christianization and Islamization events and their respective wikilinks and timeframes? —Arthurfragoso (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent addition, and would be in line with other country-religion articles such as Religion in Germany _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreement needed for my edit on removing a source that is misplaced and misleading.

I will go by point by point as my last edit was undone I removed this as it was dishonest to put it here as according to wave V or wave 5 of the Arabbarometer survey only 0.1% of egyptians said they were atheist while 9.6% said they were christian and 90.4% said they were muslim here is way to access the survey go to wave V or 5 select egypt then type religion https://www.arabbarometer.org/survey-data/data-analysis-tool/ LionAjk (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the issue is the differing results of the "What is your religion" question vs. "Level of religiosity". You are correct that only 0.1% of Egyptians respond that they are atheist, but the "Level of religiosity" does state, as affirmed in the U of Kent source, that about 10% describe themselves as "not religious". I'm not sure the current prose captures this nuance adequately, although it's worth noting that the U of Kent source discusses this phenomenon in detail and could likely be used to flesh out descriptions of the state of people's beliefs in Egypt (particularly in "Chapter 2 Debating the Nature of Unbelief in Egypt"). Additionally, as the Arab Barometer source is WP:PRIMARY in nature whereas the U of Kent article is secondary in nature, we should prefer the latter as a source over attempting to interpret survey results ourselves. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay but I think the link should be removed from the section it is in as the section is a about atheism, irreligion and agonsticism.LionAjk (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think a better way forward would be to rewrite the claim to better describe the U of Kent study's claims regarding levels of religiosity, as it is relevant to the general topic of the section, phrased so as to better represent the U of Kent study's claim and clarify the distinction between "not religious" and "atheist" in its research. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

About the Shi'a being barred from admission to Al-Azhar University.

As stated on the Al-Azhar University Wikipedia page, it is a Sunni Islamic university. And since Shi'a Islam is very different from Sunni Islam, it is normal for Shi'a Muslims not to be eligible for it, as Shi'a Islamic laws dramatically differ from Sunni Islamic ones.

So a Shi'a Muslim attending Al-Azhar would pretty much be like a Hindu regularly attending prayers in a Christian Catholic church. You imagine that. nutzboi (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Saynotobiasim's comment

This is deliberate misinformation and bias by removing my edit when I have 2 recent reliable sources that back my edits information. That is wrong not right when there is proof to support my edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saynotobiasim (talk • contribs)

Saynotobiasim, while I personally have no opinion either way here, you need to establish why the current note regarding demographics is insufficient. The note, which is included in the second-to-last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, reads:

Numbers vary widely. The 1996 census, the last for which public info on religion exists has 5.6% of the population as Christian (down from 8.3% in 1927). However the census may be undercounting Christians. The government Egyptian Demographic and Health Survey (2008) of around 16,500 women aged 15 to 49 showed about 5% of the respondents were Christian. According to Al-Ahram newspaper, one of the main government owned national newspapers in Egypt, estimated the percentage between 10% - 15% (2017). QScience Connect in 2013 using 2008 data estimated that 5.1% of Egyptians between the ages of 15 and 59 were Copts. The Pew Foundation estimates 5.1% for Christians in 2010. The CIA Fact Book estimates 10% (2012) while the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs states in 1997, "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" which yields an estimate of about 10-20% then.. Several sources give 10-20%. The British Foreign Office gives a figure of 9%. The Christian Post in 2004 quotes the U.S. Copt Association as reporting 15% of the population as native Christian.

Could you explain why you find this description insufficient? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Based on Rosguill edit again I will wait for response to why I should have my edit, as mentioned before I have decided to to make a edit to help stop misinformation and biased information as my edit should remain as it clearly has 2 reference from recent unbiased sources such as google which states 30 million and a recent researcher and analyst from the Middle East. Once again I am not trying on warring or putting misinformation simply out of being biased but trying to correct misinformation and biased wrong information with recent creditable information that clearly supports my edits information. So therefore if my edit is removed I therefore believe this is an error by admin stuff on Wikipedia and other editors as mentioned before as my edit with 2 sources such as google and the other source which states 10% to 25% by a researcher and analyst specialising in the Middle East region, also google which has acknowledged and creditable states 30 million not 10 million. So my argument fairly which believe so keep my edit. Saynotobiasim (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've moved the above comment from its separate section to this thread, as discussion about a single issue should be collected into the same section. LionAjk is the editor that objected to your original edit, but in case you hadn't already seen my comment above, you should explain why existing sources giving estimates under 10% should be ignored, or give another explanation of why the current note explaining the range doesn't do the page justice. You are effectively arguing that sourced information should be removed, not added, so you need to explain what's wrong with the current sources._signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

References

My edit has recent information to back my edit

Hello I have explained the reason of my edit and why as the there are sources or references that back up my information and edit. Which is clearly evident with recent returnable researchers and conformed and backed by google culture which states 30 million world wide and researcher and analyst stating 10 to 25%. The whole of the Middle East is 5% which equates to 20 plus million and most are from Egypt. That is enough proof and facts with recent sources as proof as these old sources can be wrong due method or inaccurate. However, I would understand your point of view if it was my own information without any references or sources to back up my edit but that is not the case with my information such as google culture backing my edit as a sources as well. Saynotobiasim (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You cannot remove source information your spurces are estimation in best so its better to leave 5% then change 10 or 15% to 25% instead of removing confirmed estimations. LionAjk (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)