Talk:Religion in Egypt

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)

Saynotobiasim, LionAjk, you are expected to hash out your disagreement here before continuing editing. You're both in violation of WP:3RR right now, but blocking both of you for 24 hours would just kick the can down the road. Further edit warring will result in blocks. If you reach an impasse in discussion, you should escalate the discussion to WP:3O, WP:DRN, or WP:RfC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Religions of Egypt

"In Egypt, Muslims and Christians share a common history, national identity, ethnicity, race, culture, and language." - Is this meant to be a joke? Up until 2014 it was legal to hunt the Coptic Christians. Only in 2014 was it replaced by Association Football as the national sport. 2A02:14F:1F2:7D52:0:0:59E0:D087 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussing the AB survey and the usa department report

Distorting the survey results is disingenuous the survey was about religiosity why are you including it here in this section where only 0.1% of those surveyed said they had no religion if you bothered to look at the wave v (2018) survey here https://www.arabbarometer.org/survey-data/data-analysis-tool/ and type religion in the search bar and select the religion option it gives you the results out of 2,400 surveyed in egypt:

Muslim / 90.4% /2,169

Christian/ 9.6% /230

No religion/ 0.1% /2

Everyone here answered the survey so sayings its other or no results is a lie which you wrote

I still don't get your logic in placing religiosity with the irreligion section when over 99% of Egyptians identified with a religion according to the AB survey ? Also the university of kent study is based of the AV survey and they haven't said anything different.

The 2017 data from the religious report was outdated and was based on anecdotal evidence you have to justify in keeping it here its anecdotal evidence that even the 2020 updated version has removed from the 2020 report Shinakho (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shinakho: Please stop saying "distorting" and "disingenuous" or "lie", it will not help you here in any way; you are obviously targeting several articles with removal of specific content you don't like, so be careful here, also focus on the content. By saying "type religion in the search bar", you have just indirectly told me that you have not carefully read the raw data. Don't simply and blindly perform a search with the word "religion" without knowing the section that subsumes it; go to the linked data analysis tool, AB Wave V, Egypt, and you will find two sections that are relevant here: "Social, Cultural and Religious topics" and "Respondents' Personal Information (Demographics)". The "Respondents' Personal Information (Demographics)" section contains the demographics of those surveyed, obviously, and I told you this in the edit summary, and this has to be, and is, stated clearly in the article, those are 90.4% from a Muslim demographic, 9.6% from a Christian demographic, and 0.1% from a demographic belonging to no religion; you are simply not taking the section they are in into account because you are "typing religion in the search bar". The "Social, Cultural and Religious topics" section contains the percentages included in the article: 10.4% not religious, 2.4% don't know, 0.1% refused to answer. Currently, Egyptians cannot officially change the religion they were born into, their "Personal Information (Demographics)" will normally reflect this. Or do you simply think that the survey is randomly including some data in the "Social, Cultural and Religious topics" section and others in the "Respondents' Personal Information (Demographics)" section? That is what happens when you don't read carefully. Everything here is stated accurately and clearly in the article to reflect the source.

As to the university of Kent study, it is also RS, and it is also accurately represented in the article. The university of Kent study is titled "Understanding Unbelief in Egypt", and states in the "Preface" and "Introduction" that this is about unbelief in Egypt, and many atheists and agnostics were interviewed, and all the statements from it are in this context, and that it is quoting the percentage from the AB survey is stated clearly in the article. Nothing here is misrepresented in any way. The university of Kent study is actually a SECONDARY source, see PST as well, with the AB analysis tool being the PRIMARY source that the university of Kent study is discussing, so actually the university of Kent study belongs here on Wikipedia, which is itself a tertiary source, more than the AB analysis tool does. Again what you are doing here is UCR, and you are poorly trying to interpret well-sourced content out of the article.

As to the 2017, no, you cannot simply say "outdated", it is from 2017, there is no sense whatsoever in which you can say "outdated" here, it is not a matter of "date" at all even, it is a separate report from the 2020 report (both should be included), it is a reliable source, and it did not hallucinate these anecdotal estimates, let a lone that there is no official estimates (we all know why, at least if one is honest), these estimates are important to include, the source is represented accurately in the article with the word anecdotal loud and clear. Your removal of it has no basis.

Please note that you have to establish consensus with other editors here first, if other editors wish to participate that is. There is a process that you have to follow, simply removing the content and references and edit-warring will not work here. Masrialltheway (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Masrialltheway: 1. You ignored the points raised why add religiosity in this section? Religiosity is about how much a person practices their faith it has no relevance to those who no longer hold a belief saying other wise is disingenuous why is this relevant here I didn't say the results were false but its not relevant this part

"The "Social, Cultural and Religious topics" section contains the percentages included in the article: 10.4% not religious, 2.4% don't know, 0.1% refused to answer. Currently, Egyptians cannot officially change the religion they were born into, their "Personal Information (Demographics)" will normally reflect this. Or do you simply think that the survey is randomly including some data in the "Social, Cultural and Religious topics" section and others in the "Respondents' Personal Information (Demographics)" section? That is what happens when you don't read carefully. Everything here is stated accurately and clearly in the article to reflect the source."

This should not be in this section the only thing here should be the religious views the people in the survey have held. What you gave is how much egyptians say they practice the religion you putting this in a section about atheist/irreligious people its like you are saying those people who arent religious are actually atheist/agnostic which is far off as the AB survey said only 0.1% identify as having no religion. This is a survey asking people what there views are this isnt linked to the government so people can freely give there religious views even in the latest AB survey VII which took place last year 97.1% egyptians in the survey said they were muslim while 2,9% said they were Christians this is less compared to old survey from 2018 or wave v that said 5% identified as christians this isnt linked to the government so why did you even make this comment?

2. The university of kent is irrelevant its talking about the ab survey and the religiosity again address why is the religiosity added in this section?

3. "Anecdotal estimates" means its not reliable figure or there isnt proof this is why in the 2020 updated report the figure has been removed and it says there isnt any reliable estimate. Shinakho (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shinakho: First off, I addressed everything you are saying, but I don't have to be sidetracked by your OR/interpretation, I'm focusing on what's in the sources. You seem to have not read or to have not understood anything I am saying, and you are repeating yourself, which is a telltale that you don't have much to say, and that you have not taken a second to read the guidelines I’m citing and abide by them. Now, do you know what OR/interpretation is? Or are you just ignoring the Wikipedia guidelines? What you are saying, i.e.: "what you gave is how much egyptians say they practice the religion" and "anecdotal estimates means its not reliable figure", is OR/interpretation; it is not for you to interpret what the source means. OR/interpretation is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, note that I'm not citing the guidelines for you to ignore them, I’m citing them for you to read them and abide by them, because otherwise we will not be able to discuss anything.

The problem here in regard to the AB data analysis tool, is that it is a primary source that is prone to OR/interpretation. This is not a technical article, we do not need to use a primary source when there are secondary sources reporting it, interpreting it for us, and putting it in the precise context of unbelief, like the university of Kent study and the other sources;[1][2][3] you are trying to remove the content of these secondary sources as well, which are more important here than a primary source is, as I'm saying above.

So, since the AB analysis tool is a primary source, I believe we can remove it altogether if there is an interpretation issue, since this is not a technical article, and since there are secondary sources reporting it, interpreting it of us, and contextualizing it. This has been raised by Rosguill in another section on this talk page. I also admit that, even though I have tried carefully to avoid interpretation with this AB analysis tool primary source, my edit is still not perfect, the best I could do is to indicate the sections that the different data are included in. Also, I did not say that anything is linked to the government! What are you on about? I’m remarking on why the separation into two sections is significant, with the relevant situation in Egypt, please understand what someone is saying before replying. Also, you can’t cherry-pick what to include from the AB data analysis tool raw data, you cannot tell us that the percentage of "not religious" shouldn’t be included, and then go ahead and include the demographic percentages of Muslims and Christians; either all the data is included and reconciled, or none of it is to be included at all, specially since this is a primary source. I’m arguing for the latter, since we have secondary sources reporting this primary source, interpreting it for us, and contextualizing it.

As to these secondary sources themselves, I addressed why you should not remove their content; their content is as follows: "A study at the University of Kent, citing a 2018 survey by Arab Barometer, stated that around 11% of Egyptians identified themselves as not religious.[1][2][3]", and "In the same Arab Barometer survey, about 20% of young Egyptians described themselves as not religious.[3]" You simply ignored what I'm saying, you just quoted me, and then repeated yourself with a typical attempt at OR/interpretation. Secondary sources are the priority, they reported on the primary source, interpreted it for us, and contextualized it, this is in line with Wikipedia as a tertiary source, as I said above. You removed their content without explanation, which I keep telling you and giving you the link to UCR, again please see the guidelines I’m citing to understand why you shouldn’t do this, specially when your reason for removal is purely OR/interpretation, which again is not allowed on Wikipedia, even when someone else added the content, because someone else will always be adding the content, the content does not add itself; unexplained removal of well-sourced content, which is directly verifiable from the sources cited for it, is what has to be thoroughly discussed and consensus has to be sought first once someone tells you that your removal is UCR; if you have read the guidelines I’m citing you would have learned this. And, given your comments above and your attempt at interpretation, you are in no position to say in the edit summary "that’s not how it works", it is obvious you don’t even have a good grasp on the basic guidelines, such as OR/interpretation, to be telling anyone how things work.

Regarding the 2017 report, again stop repeating yourself. And again, saying "anecdotal estimates means its not reliable figure" is absolute OR/interpretation; it is not for you to interpret what the source means. This is the statement you are removing: "The 2017 US report on international religious freedom in Egypt states that anecdotal estimates report between 1 million and 10 million atheists in Egypt, of Egypt's estimated 97 million population at that time.[4]", which is taken directly from the source, and so long as the source is RS and so long as what is stated in the source is represented accurately, which it is, you should not remove it; your OR/interpretation has no place here; attempting to interpret it out is unacceptable. Again, I have already addressed this and your other claims in my comment above (and, for instance, reports from as far back as 2006 are used elsewhere in this article), stop ignoring and repeating yourself please.

You reverted again and said that if I want to add, I should seek consensus on talk. Fair enough, my addition is: I re-added the 2017 report, and added the AB raw data on the "not religious" percentage, both are taken directly from the sources; you removed both, but you also covertly removed a large amount of other well-sourced content while reverting. You have not offered any valid argument for the removal of anything, only OR/interpretation, which is not allowed here. Now, as I said, you are also covertly removing a large amount of other well-sourced content, not just the 2017 report which I re-added and the AB raw data on the "not religious" percentage that I added; you are removing the content from the university of Kent study and the content from the secondary sources reporting on the AB survey, which are mentioned above. So, the same applies to you, if you want to remove anything you must discuss here and seek consensus first. If I have to argue and seek consensus for the inclusion of well-sourced content that is directly verifiable from the cited reliable source, then you absolutely have to thoroughly explain, discuss, and seek consensus for removing the content that you are removing without any valid explanations whatsoever, only attempts at OR/interpretation. I will proceed to restore the other content you removed until you seek consensus, while keeping my addition out as well until there is consensus. I hope other editors get involved, because it is clear that you are disregarding the guidelines, which as I said makes any discussion difficult. Also, again, if you want to interpret the AB data analysis tool raw data on the "not religious" percentages out of this section, then the AB data analysis tool raw data on the demographics percentages cannot be included in this section by themselves either, and I'm in favor of total removal of this primary AB data analysis tool source, as I'm explaining above, but I will leave this part alone until other editors chime in, because I want to avoid any edit-war with you, which you seem to be locked and ready for, here and on other article with the same nature of editing. Masrialltheway (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Masrialltheway:

1. You haven't addressed why add this part here you don't seem to understand the survey and the results they are broken down in many topics one such is about what religion the people who took part it the survey follow another was about religiosity and that how much do they seem themselves as religious or not the AB survey is even says if they consider themselves religious, some what religious or not religious. I have no issue with you putting this information in the article my issue is why add this in the atheist/irreligious section this isnt about my interpretation when its clear what the AB survey literally said here.

Do you know what religiosity means its about much they practice the faith so explain to me clearly why add this in this section the only thing that should be here is how many people in that survey said they believe in a religion or that they dont believe in anything. All I did was give what the sources gave you in the other hand added irrelevant things or outdated information. This is not a interpretation issue when the AB survey literally breaks it down for you it gives what people have said in what faith or religion they follow in this 2018 wave v survey 95% said they were muslim while 5% said they were christian and 0.1% said they had no religion this very clear I can't understand how you made this about interpretation when its not then in another part of the questions the AB survey asked how religious are you so its very clear what the ab survey meant here. So my solution is add the religiosity section some where else not in the section about not believing in any religion this section is only meant for people who identify with no religion which I gave the 2018 results and the better thing would be is to give he 2022 results where 46.9% said they considered themselves religious, 48.6% said they were somewhat religious, 3.6% said they were not religious and 0.9% said they don't know. While for religion 97.1% egyptians in the survey said they were muslim while 2,9% said they were Christians while those who said they had no religion was at 0%

2. I explained why I moved the university of kent study of the ab survey as it wasn't needed here in this section as it was talking about how religious Egyptians are again my point was it shouldn't be under in the section that is about people who are atheist/agnostic but it should rather be in a section.

3. First google what anecdotal means its not my interpretation here is from the merriam- websyer dictionary:

Anecdotal:

(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

The 2017 report is outdated as the information has changed in the latest 2020 report where it even said they are no reliable estimates even in the 2017 report it said that it is anecdotal so its unreliable why keep it then? Not even the 2020 report has it you haven't explained why you want to add it here you haven't explain why would keep it here just that its not RS the 2020 report is enough or a newer report is enough.

4. But why can't we leave the religious part as that is relevant here while the religiosity part isnt as its not about atheism/agnosticism? Shinakho (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shinakho: Someone added this AB data analysis tool data from 2018 specifically because it is the primary source discussed in the secondary sources. Other than that you are just repeating yourself over and over again. I addressed what you are saying. I’m not going to respond again to any more repetitions from you. The fact that you are seriously giving me a dictionary definition here indicates that you are clueless, even after I cited the guidelines and explained, twice. Input from other editors, if they want to, is what I’m seeking here. So, my response is no longer directed toward you.

If other editors want to get involved: I initially wanted to include all the percentages from the AB data analysis tool, not just the demographics percentages that are currently added, but it seems that interpretation is unavoidable, so in my previous comment I’m arguing to remove this AB data analysis tool altogether, since, as I said, it is a primary source, and we already have secondary sources reporting it, interpreting it for us, and putting it in the precise context of unbelief, like the university of Kent study specially and the other sources as well, and since this article is not a technical article. And, I want to restore this statement from the 2017 report: "The 2017 US report on international religious freedom in Egypt states that anecdotal estimates report between 1 million and 10 million atheists in Egypt, of Egypt's estimated 97 million population at that time.[4]"
The reasons for everything are discussed in my previous comments. Masrialltheway (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Masrialltheway

1. No you haven't addressed my comment tell me why add the religiosity of those who took part of the survey here either add it in another section or dont add it at all only the religious views should be added here. Some points have been repeated because you refuse to a answer them properly. Yes the data analyst tool is the primary source but the secondary sources only discuss the religiosity of the people not the religious views of the people who took the survey my point here is that the religiosity pat shouldn't be in this section.

2. But why add the religiosity its not needed here only the religious are needed the part you want to put this in is about atheism/agnosticism in the country only demographics is enough saying its a interpretation issue when its clearly not as the AB survey made a clear distinction between the two there is no issue here.

3.Why add the 2017 report when the 2020 report removed that statement and said the number of atheist in unreliable even the 2017 report said it was anecdotal estimate which means its not reliable or had no proof why even start this discussion when you arent even going to answer properly. Shinakho (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)