Talk:Egypt/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Transliteration - Egyptian Arabic

@Snowstormfigorion: If you wish to continue engaging in this discussion please consider using this as a platform for your disagreement and refrain from further edit warring. The two arguments put forth for the exclusion of the Egyptian Arabic transliteration is clutter and its lack of recognition as an official language. The first point I've tried to address in an edit which was uncompromisingly reversed by you in favor of the contested version that you are advocating. I disagree with the second point because a national language holds just as much importance as an official language, and numerous countries do not have an official language to start with. Since it's not a criterion for inclusion and since Egyptian Arabic is unmistakably one of the most defining expressions of Egyptian culture, a decision to exclude it should be anchored in something less subjective than ones perception of clutter. Especially when it has been addressed with a collapsible list and complete a move to the more detailed "Name" section, both compromises eliminating clutter, and both rejected with no counter-compromise. Turnopoems (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not just me, as Skitash has stated multiple editors disagree with your version, yet you continue to engage in edit warring and display WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Also, what are you talking about? The moving to the Names section compromise was made by myself, which was followed your edit removing the single transliteration due to "clutter", while in the same breath restoring the collapsible list, which is somehow in your view less clutter-like. Please stop with the kettle logic and WP:DISRUPTIVE conduct. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The move to the 'Name' section was a suggestion I made at 18:39 on September 26, 2023. However, since both you and Skitash consistently disregard compromises and consensus-building, removing them in favor of your desired version, I decided to restore the collapsible list, which has been on this page for years now prior to the edit you're trying to force through. It's worth noting that two people engaging in edit warring against one does not constitute consensus building on Wikipedia.

I recommend acquainting yourself with WP:CON and refraining from levying baseless allegations, especially when both of you are clearly engaging in the same actions you're accusing me of. You continue to revert back to the disputed edit without making any efforts to accommodate, as if your desired outcome takes precedence. Then you have the audacity to accuse me of displaying ownership behavior. Why didn't you come to the talk page the first time your edit of the long-standing version was contested?

Your actions suggest that, had I not initiated this discussion, you might have persisted in your previous behavior indefinitely. It appears to me that you believe you are exempt from making an effort to build consensus, and that only subsequent edits or alterations of your version requires consensus building. Turnopoems (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Collapsible list does not function in mobile view (60%+ of our readers)MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. Font size should not be reduced in infoboxes as text is already at smallest size for viewing MOS:SMALLFONT.Moxy- 12:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  The critique against the long-standing version has mainly been about the inclusion of Egyptian Arabic, but if there are any technical issues with the collapsible list and font then this can be addressed without omitting the Egyptian Arabic transliteration and if you have any suggestions please let me know. Turnopoems (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't understand why Egyptian Arabic should be excluded from the Egypt article. That doesn't make sense. Because of formatting issues, font size? I think one should find a way to make it fit. It's right to include the Egyptian language version in the Egypt article. What am I missing here? The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I share the opinion that excluding a national language due to an individual's perception of clutter is somewhat peculiar. After all, there are country articles featuring nearly a dozen national languages. Their desire to reduce clutter should not overshadow the reality that Egyptian Arabic is the national language of Egypt and the de facto vernacular lingua franca.

_______________

The difference is consequential, here is a comparison just to provide a frame of reference:

Portuguese Republic

Portuguese: República Portuguesa

Spanish: República Portuguesa

Kingdom of Spain

Portuguese: Reino de Espanha

Spanish: Reino de España

These are two distinct languages and other Romance languages, like Italian and even French, could be added to this list and the name would be identical yet obviously look different due to spelling conventions. Name one context where an article would omit one in favor of the other in case both needed to be represented? In the Equatorial Guinea article three Romance languages are represented in the infobox with near-identical spelling.

Yet in this case where there are significant differences in vowel sounds, with ج being pronounced as 'G' and the 'J' sound being near-nonexistent in the language as a whole, it should be omitted due to clutter?

Arab Republic of Egypt

Standard Arabic: Jumhūrīyat Miṣr al-ʻArabīyah

Egyptian Arabic: Gomhoreyyet Maṣr el-ʻArabeyya

Given that there is an Egyptian Arabic version of Wikipedia, I don't believe its status as a distinct language from an academic perspective needs to be subject for a debate on this platform.

_______________

As far as the technical issues go, I am aware that other articles, such as the South African one, also use collapsible lists. However, I am open to suggestions on how to include it without the technical issues raised by @Moxy.

It's worth noting that the two users attempting to remove Egyptian Arabic are also involved in a similar edit war in the Algeria article, where they seek to omit Amazigh from the infobox. Amazigh is recognized as an official language per Article 4 of the Algerian constitution. Unfortunately, it appears there may be an agenda to de-emphasize linguistic and cultural differences between the countries of the region. Turnopoems (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The guideline states, at the top, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that transliteration is not actually a part of the template to begin with, so if clutter is such a big issue then my suggestion to move it completely to the aptly named Name section is far more reasonable than omitting an important language. This has been done in articles like China. I will proceed to suggest a compromise that removes the collapsible list and reduces the appearance of clutter. Turnopoems (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: no one is trying to exclude Egyptian Arabic from the article, the dispute here concerns listing it in the names parameters in the infobox. Turnopoems, I have never even edited the other article you're referring to, so kindly do without the baseless allegations and ad hominem simply to appeal to your case. As the dispute now involves many editors, please keep the suggestions in the talk page until wide editorial consensus has been reached; see WP:TALKDONTREVERT.

Your push for a dialect (it is linguistically classified as such, not as a distinct Arabic-derived language such as Maltese; having a Wikipedia version of it is impertinent as a Moroccan version similarly exists) to be vertically inserted under the sole official language when it can be added in the article's names section in a much more tidier manner, not to mention that it's also included in the opening paragraph of the lead, seems unnecessary to me still; removing the transliteration when it's only the Arabic one equally so. Not having any of the Egyptian dialects' transliterations in the infobox does not take away from their importance, position, status, etc. It's just a matter of layout. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I urge you to practice what you preach, you continue to revert to your version without engaging in the discussion here to find said wide editorial consensus. Yours is not the default version and since it is also contested by multiple editors you should refrain from any further editing or reverting, unless it's based on the outcome of this talk page discussion. Not only did you revert the compromise I proposed in the infobox, you also removed my other unrelated contributions without explanation which I will proceed to restore.

At least you've clarified that your issue is with Egyptian Arabic and not clutter. Classification of languages and dialects is somewhat subjective and context-dependent, in a political context Egyptian Arabic is often seen as a dialect, to emphasize the status of Standard Arabic. From an academic point of view there is no such ambiguity, since it exhibits significant linguistic variation from Modern Standard Arabic. Cairene Arabic for example is a dialect of Egyptian Arabic, and Egyptian Arabic, in turn, is a language ((Glottolog: egyp1253)) descended from Classical Arabic, much like how French descended from Latin. Thus many universities across the world view it as a distinct object of study, offering separate courses for Egyptian Arabic. The decision to assign a separate ISO code to Egyptian Arabic is based on linguistic criteria, the fact that it has its own unique phonological, grammatical, and lexical features that distinguish it significantly from other varieties of Arabic. In academic literature it is solely addressed as a language, and is thus the only appropriate way to treat it on Wikipedia. A few examples off the top of my head that touch on this topic:

Ondráš, F. (1 January 2005). Egyptian colloquial Arabic.

Hanna, M. (31 January 1967). The Phrase Structure of Egyptian Colloquial Arabic. Vol. 52. Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783111678733.

Nydell, M. K. (1 January 1973). The acquisition of Egyptian Arabic as a native language.

Abdel-Massih, E. T. (31 October 2011). A comprehensive study of Egyptian Arabic. MPublishing, University of Michigan Library.

Wise, H. (1 January 1975). A transformational grammar of spoken Egyptian Arabic. Turnopoems (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I did engage in discussion, and I simply restored the article to the most recent widely accepted version. "From an academic point of view there is no such ambiguity," "In academic literature it is solely addressed as a language," those are some pretty serious claims, I must say, but I just do not think that's the case. The other examples you mentioned, being a subject of study, having courses, linguistic features, etc., do not make it a separate language. Both aspects, the dialect and layout, are intertwined. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no widely accepted version, so here's a friendly reminder to heed your own advice: WP:TALKDONTREVERT. There is a long-standing version which has had implicit consensus for half a decade and the version you changed it to just now, which has been contested. The implication of your version being contested is that it has no consensus, and thus requires you to pursue consensus seeking measures. That is what you should do in the first place when your edit is reverted, rather than reverting back until someone else starts a discussion. I urge you once again to respect the process outlined in WP:CON and acknowledge the fact that it is a two way street, your desired version does not take precedence nor does any single editor have a final say. I've put forth several suggestions on how the format can be adapted to resolve this issue but you've swatted them all down with nothing constructive to offer in return, except for your subjective definition of what constitutes a language. If this is the crux of the matter then the logical move forward is to fall back on academic literature and its definition, rather than our own definitions. Perhaps I approached the topic with broad strokes but naturally what I'm referring to is academic consensus and I'm ready to share more of my list of literature on this topic. Turnopoems (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

By widely accepted I'm referring to the version in this dispute supported by the majority of editors. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, by majority you mean you and Skitash? At this point I find your actions on this page to border on gatekeeping and are simply disruptive, even removing minor edits that are completely unrelated to the infobox. I don't know if you're being intentionally disingenuous by engaing in Wikilawyering only to conspicuously disregard those very same guidelines in the same breath (WP:TALKDONTREVERT; WP:DISRUPTSIGNS).

Since your insistence on omitting any transliteration of Egyptian Arabic from the article is, supposedly, based on the fact that you don't think it qualifies as a language, it would be a lot more helpful for your case if you tried to back this up using sources (WP:VERIFY). Otherwise, its inclusion, with the sources I mentioned, should suffice to settle the issue on whether it is a language or not and thus if it is deserving of inclusion or not.

So far you haven't actually addressed any arguments or put forth a credible defense of your own, more importantly you've failed to partake in this discussion in a way that enables this process to move forward. I will go ahead and put in a request for comment to enable more editors to weigh in on the issue. Turnopoems (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I meant myself, Skitash and Ohnoitsjamie, and please with the nonsense accusations. Again, Egyptian Arabic is linguistically classified as a dialect, the WP:BURDEN of verification lies upon you to prove that it is in fact a separate language from Arabic, which you have yet to achieve. In regard to the layout aspect, as said above, it's simply unnecessary and visually unpleasing; MOS:INFOBOXGEO for example states "Alternative or native names can appear beneath [the original transliteration] if beneficial," and I don't think that the transliteration of a dialect of the above transliteration that is marginally differing, and can be placed appropriately and in a much neater manner directly below in the names section, is. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie is an adminstrator and reverted because of the edit war, to the last version prior to all the reverting, and neither user has participated in the discussion here.

I've provided an array of academic literature which refers to Egyptian Arabic as a language, including referencing reputable bibliographic databases where it is listed as such, like Glottolog (link). Similarly, it is also listed as such on Ethnologue (link) which is the world's most comprehensive reference work cataloging languages.

As long as we agree on the premise that this will be determined through verification then we are in agreement on how to proceed from here. As for the technical aspect I'm sure we can find ways to make it look as neat as possible. Visual appeal is subjective and does not take precedence over accurate representation of facts. Turnopoems (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Jamie reverted to the version supported by Skitash and I, and participating in the discussion is not a criterion for involvement in the dispute. The sources you listed do not change the status of Egyptian Arabic as a dialect; dialects and vernaculars are sometimes addressed or referred to in literature as languages, that does not mean they in fact are, or change their linguistic classification. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're treating this process as a zero-sum game, whether he reverted or implicitly supports your version is irrelevant. This is a dispute resolution and there is an established protocol for how to proceed (WP:DR), and either side will hopefully concede to the outcome regardless of how far or close it is to our original positions. The validity of content is not determined by how many people engage in edit warring on either side. If community consensus through this process determines that your position is the best way forward then naturally I will concede, and hopefully you will do the same thing if the reverse is true.

I find your attempt to act as an arbiter of sources by shifting the goalpost, without providing ones of your own, to be a form of intellectual dishonesty. Your statement is incorrect since the majority of the sources I listed tackle the subject from a sociolinguistic point of view; discussing the complexities surrounding the status of Arabic variants, the dichotomy between formal and informal speech and the state of diglossia in Arab societes.

Another example: in the book The Future Culture of Egypt, Taha Hussein, one of the most prominent figures in Arabic literary history, refers to a distinct Egyptian Arabic language as a linchpin in the broader context of Egypt's cultural identity. In the original Arabic language version he refers to it as "اللغة العربية المصرية" and not "اللهجة", and argues for its standardization. His work builds on that of previous generations of Egyptian intellectuals like Salama Moussa and Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed.

You also conveniently disregarded the fact that it is listed as a language on both Glottolog and Ethnologue, a categorization that stands in stark contrast to actual dialects of other languages such as British English, Canadian French etc. This clearly and unambiguously defines its linguistic classification as a language. Turnopoems (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Edit warring over transliterations

The article has been fully protected for one week due to edit warring. Please try to resolve the content dispute here on the talk page. If the involved editors are unable to achieve consensus, please make use of dispute resolution options such as getting a third opinion. If an unrelated change needs to be made urgently, please see WP:FULL for instructions on how to make an edit request while the page is still protected. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan As the protection has expired, I would like to suggest that you restore the previous level of protection, which seems to be gone, to avoid some of the vandalism that happened in the past. Turnopoems (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC - Transliteration - Egyptian Arabic

A disagreement has arisen over Egyptian Arabic transliteration in the infobox of the Egypt article, with the discussion mainly taking place in the similarly named talk page entry. These are the two contradictory positions:

• One party states that it is merely a dialect and should therefore be omitted entirely in favor of the Standard Arabic transliteration only, regardless of phonetic differences.
• The other states that it is considered a language of its own from an academic point of view and should therefore be included as well due to its status as the national language of the country.

The point of contention is mainly over the transliteration of the full name in the infobox, but has also spilled over to other parts of the article, such as the lead and Name sections.

My suggestion to resolve the matter was to present credible academic sources that define the status of Egyptian Arabic, whether it's a language or a dialect, and proceed based on academic consensus. However, since the effort is largely one-sided I would prefer that other editors weigh in on the topic as well. Turnopoems (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• The infobox should be kept to official names, including official transliterations. That is جمهورية مصر العربية/Jumhūrīyat Mişr al ‘Arabīyah (as provided for example to the UN). This is the usual practice, and it is helpful to keep that consistent from a readership perspective. I would similarly reflect this in the lead, which should be only the truly key information, and which can become unreadibly cluttered if you get enough long names in non-latin scripts plus transliterations. The Name section however is not expected to be as high-level, so it is more likely that different languages/dialects and/or transliterations would meet appropriate weight in other sources. CMD (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  @User:Chipmunkdavis Thanks for your input. There are instances where country articles diverge from this convention and include non-official major/national languages, as in the case of Norway, Spain and Nigeria for example. In other cases transliteration has been omitted entirely in the infobox in favor of detailed clarification elsewhere in the article, such as China, Mongolia and Ethiopia. When would such departures be justified in your opinion? Turnopoems (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  The concept of an "official language" is somewhat malleable, so situations like Spain are not a departure but more of trying to deal with a complex situation. As for transliteration, I don't think there is a particular impetus that it must be there (or not), the generally important factor is the official language as written in the country however that is best presented. CMD (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  @User:Chipmunkdavis: I appreciate the clarification, although I do think it raises a few questions that need to be addressed since the Egyptian situation, and indeed that of many Arabic-speaking countries, is inherently complex as well. It stands as a unique case due to the prevailing state of diglossia between a standardized non-spoken language and a non-standardized spoken language.

  • Is there any value in highlighting the difference in the main parts of the article, like the infobox and the lead?
  • Will failing to highlight the difference fall short of accurately representing the linguistic situation in the country?
  • Is it pertinent to illustrate, in the same context, that there are significant phonetic differences and that Egyptians don't actually call their country by the official standardized name?

  Of course, I already know my answer to these questions, but given my bias to represent Egyptian culture I think neutral answers are more helpful from the point of view of conflict resolution. Turnopoems (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the Arabic diglossia is unique, you get similar in say Brunei. At any rate, to respond to the questions, there is value in highlighting diglossia, but simply dumping a second transliteration doesn't help with reader understanding. Failing to highlight the difference is unrelated to the discussion, it is again not something to be solved with contextless long words. The citizens of many countries with longform names don't call their country by their official standardized name, something again which is difficult to address in the first sentence of the lead and the infobox. I'm not sure why there is an RfC about the lead when this sort of information is barely even addressed in the Languages section, which is surely the first place you'd expect to see it. CMD (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your answers. Brunei is similar but not entirely comparable since it still remains mutually intelligible to a large extent. In contrast, the Arabic variants are not inherently intelligible with one another. Not with Standard Arabic and mostly not with other branches either, depending on the distance of the respective branches. This assumes no major exposure or education in the other variant, which is mainly why Arabic-speakers do understand one another to varying extents today. There are a plethora of YouTube videos that demonstrate just how perplexing these cross-variant conversations can be for Arabic-speakers ([1]). This situation is somewhat comparable to the relationship between Latin and its Romance language descendants. For example, despite the fact that standard education in all Arab countries is exclusively in Standard Arabic, not everyone can actually understand and hold a conversation in it.

• Nonetheless, I appreciate the input. The RfC aims to address the current dispute in the most constructive manner possible. I have been planning to improve some under worked sections of the Egyptian Arabic article in the future. A more concise version of these additions could also be integrated into the Language section of the country article to clarify the situation. Turnopoems (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If there is an official transliteration from the Egyptian government, then I would tend to prefer that, but it looks like they don't really use it. I did find https://africa.sis.gov.eg/portugu%C3%AAs/egito/ which is in Portuguese, and which uses both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Why can't we include both in the article? I think that would be better than favoring one over the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The transliterations in the Portuguese source seem to be taken from Wikipedia. The dispute concerns the inclusion of the Egyptian Arabic transl. in the infobox, not omitting it from the article, as in the current version; see the Names section. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Including both is one of the positions, so it is one of the contested versions. The dispute has mainly been over the following three, possible, alternatives (all of whom have been contested):

1. Standard Arabic transliteration: Jumhūrīyat Miṣr al-ʻArabīyah

2. Standard Arabic transliteration: Jumhūrīyat Miṣr al-ʻArabīyah + Egyptian Arabic transliteration: Gomhoreyyet Maṣr el-ʻArabeyya

3. No transliteration in infobox but more detailed explanation in the Name section Turnopoems (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Peace agreement with Israel

The article states: "In 1978, Egypt signed the Camp David Accords, officially withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and recognising Israel". This is mistaken. Egypt never claimed Gaza as part of Egypt, it just occupied it from 1948 to 1967. The border changes in the Camp David Accords were that Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula. The sentence should be changed to just: "In 1979, Egypt signed a peace accord with Israel." (note the change of year) 2A04:EE41:4:45A6:A86A:F947:A531:449F (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Gdp of Egypt is the second largest in africa as of 2023 not the third largest. Source: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/AFQ/DZA/ZAF/MAR/NGA/EGY?year=2019 197.53.175.97 (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Shadow311 (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2023

Change "in the southwest corner of Asia." To "in West Asia" Onion1981 (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)