[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Egyptian Armed Forces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Untitled

[edit]

Egyptian armed forces is said to be the second strogest in the middle east region, after Israel.How about Turkey? Does Turkey have a weaker military than these countries or do not we count Turkey as a player in the middle east scene? Thank you for contribution...

Why is there such a long drawn out compairison of Egyptian Military VS Israel? Do we really need a full paragraph and an economics lession just to say that the Egyptian army is comparable to Isael's army. Couldn't we just say Egypt has one of the most powerfull armies in the middle east/africa?

I'm kind of mixed on it. I think it's important that we don't just make very general statements, since most of the military articles on Wikipedia are very unspecific, but it doesn't really matter to me either way.

Well , the page of the egyptian army here are outdated for example , it's stated that egypt uses the tokarev while the tokarev has been out of service since ever and there are other things here that are outdated 

Moutanbo (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the military power of Egypt...

[edit]

Someone keeps making biased edits in the fourth paragraph and claims Egypt has the strongest military in the Middle East. What about Turkey and Israel? I changed the last sentence to: "It is the strongest military power in Africa, and among the strongest in the Middle East with Israel and Turkey." Denix 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey is officially in europe not in the middle east and they are not compareble turkey is in the NATO. And why would turkeys army be stronger than Egypts Army Egypt has more tanks and more planes and if you add the paramillitary they would have more soldiers to.

turkey dosen't even count as a middle easteren country anymore its european, the ranks for the strongest military powers of the middle east is first israel, second egypt and third iran. and there is comparison between israel and egypt becuase they are rivals and the only other country matching or exceeding egypt in military power. egypt and israel are the strongest by a landslide any other country wouldnt count as comparable.

counting turkey as a middle eastern country just because it is a muslim country is totaly wrong as not all muslims are middle easterns and not all middle easterns are muslims

also iran is a fare-east country as middle east ends at iraq so iran is to be considered an even asian country not middle eastern

and about egypt and israel ..well the situation is not as perivious i mean :egypt and israel are not enemies any more since the peace treety in 1977 besides i donot think that any of them will sacrifise the american support just for some brother-hood or religious goals , both egypt and israel need USA and USA needs both of them and if we came to the point that IDF is some how stronger than EAF it is some thing that needs cirtification as EAF has more M60A3s than IDF and all of then are upgraded , EAF T-62s are made equavalent to M60A3 mobility and even fare much better technologies besides haveing 4 mounted SAGGER missles in armored external tanks , T-55s are made equavalent to M60A3 exepting for the fire power which is solved by using Ling shells giving the 100mm gun the capability of percing heavy M60A3 front armour at the range of 3000 meters

for the better generation of MBTs IDF has 1,200 Merkavas including MK-1s and MK-2s which are not euavalent to the M1A1 so if we took an over look we find that EAF has even more MBTs of the newest generation that the IDF and about the infantry ofcourse EAF has the superriority and also about the special forces which were having various co-trainings with the USA in bight star operation(s) about the navy we donot even need to discuss that just search for both navies on wikipedia or any other site and u will find out which is better your self and finaly the air force of both are now may be considered euavalent while i think that the MIG-21MFs with western armament and systems are much better that the heavy Phantoms in intersipting , numbers of F-16s are almost the same and the EAF manufactures it's own training and ground support jets while the IDF manufactures only licenced F-16I beening awar of that EAF commanders are going to manufacture the JF-18 modern interseptor under licence from PRC

i want to know why was the photo of the EAF f-16s flying over the piramids deleted while it was totaly great pic. ???

"According to the Israeli chair of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Yuval Steinitz, the Egyptian Air Force has roughly the same number of modern warplanes as the Israeli Air Force and far more Western tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft batteries and warships than the IDF.[56]" is not that enough to prove that EAF is far stronger than IDF ??? their guy has siad that him self what more do any one need??? . the age of the weak repiblic that donot have eanough/efficient weapons is over and will never be back . following other aims than the exact benifit for the country is also over . the EAF is made to defend or fight for egypt only egypt and no other country but egypt no more men are wasted in silly disbutes that the country donot even have a long-range stratigigc benifit from . meaning the EAF is not a supject to be weaken by secoundary disputes and the only way to do that is taking te risk of begining a war with it .

I just added a request for citation in the area you mentioned. I don't know if Egypt has the most powerful military in Africa, what about South Africa? Nigeria or even Kenya?
As far as the 2nd most powerful in the Middle East, what about Turkey, Iran or even Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's military has come along way since 1991. Israel couldn't even defeat Hezzbollah, and they only defeated Egypt, Syria, Jordan and some others (with US backing) several times because they were using technologically weak weapons.
MPA 19:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

i am the one who deleted the statment "second after israel" just because of lacking a single profe on that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.198.57 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

summar up - israel air force got 80 F-15's including 25 F-15I's .. this 80 F-15's are more advance than anything egypt got.. israel got 320 F-16's including 102 F-16's block 52+.. all of the 320 F-16's are more advance than egypt F-16's becuse they got special technologies that egypt F-16's dont have..allso in numbers egypt only got 200 F-16's whan israel got 320.. the rest of egypt plans are mostly obsolete and any way israeli F-15's and F-16's are much more advence.. allso the israel got somt of the bast ELINT / EW& AWACS in the world.. and more advance spy satellite than egypt..

so in air power.. israel is stronger.

in land egypt got some 800 M1A1 and soon will have 200 more..israel on the other hand got 650 Merkava 3.. that in the same level as the M1A1 but israel allso got 400 Merkava 4 with 300 more on order.. and the Merkava 4 is in the level of M1A2 not 1.. and allso the more obsolete tanks of israel is more advence than the more obsolete tanks of egypt.. so allso in armor israel is stonger..

in sea its a difrent category... egypt got much more ships.. but israel missile boats are more advence and maybe the most advence missile boats in the world.. and in the submarine arena the same thing.. israel got 5 dolphin sumbrine - probably the bast conventional submarine in the world..

but still number are substantial so I would say that in the navy category egypt got a small advantage that in a war scenario will not make a diffrence.. so over all israel is stronger.. but i would say that we need to write "egypt got one of the strongest militaries in the middle east.. a long side israel and turkey"

Why is it that only the Egyptian army page has exaggerated claims about its powers with absolutely no references? I deleted the paragraph which makes exaggerated and unbacked claims about the Special Forces. Egyptians need to follow the same rules as other Arab countries, and put references to any claim they make about the army. This isn't a chatting contest where you can just state what you think without evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.190.51 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leivick's passion about Egypt

[edit]

The fellow editor, and respected Administrator, Mr.Leivick seams to be having a problem with listing egypt as one of the strongest military powers in the Middle East. who takes a look up here in this page is most likely to understand why saying that it's one of the strongest, and avoiding stating that it's the strongest is the best choice. Some one may believe that the military of egypt is the strongest, another would say that the IDF is, and maybe others would say that it's Turkey's or Iran's, however in all of these cases, i find it very strange that some one would actually need a proof that it is one of the strongest. We have successfully avoided the comparison, and reached a point of agreement.
Another Thing is that my fellow editor is susbecting weather Egypt is the first arab country to luanch a spy satellite or not on the highlight of the Irani satellite luanched in 2005, right? well....is Iran an arab state? officially, and according to the public, No.
The stricker here is that he -my fellow editor- have also removed the statement about the Egyptian Military being the strongest in Africa!
First, he discussed only the sattelite issue, while deleting the two other statements as well.
Second, when bringing it to discussion, he mentioned some thing about another issue with no thing said about the third information deleted.
And now dear Admin. , are u going to discuss the third information deleted now that i have mentioned it ?

Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to say that one more thing; u have just said : "As for the satellite, it would be best to have a source saying that Egypt is the only Arab country with a spy satelite, but I wouldn't be strongly opposed to saying that it is the only country in the Arab speaking world with a satelite", right?

Well, it is NOT the only one with a "sattelite", but the article said it IS the only one with a "spy sattelite". One last pharaoh (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted ur revert of reverting my revert of ur revert :D. it has to wait untill we get a solution here, fellow editor. some times it matter who wants to change the article eh ? One last pharaoh (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was paraphrasing, obviously we are talking about spy satellites. As for the strongest army statement, it is an arguable statement in need of a source, if one can be found I don't have a problem with it. Regarding Africa, I did not remove the statement in question, but it still needs a source considering the argument made by the user who did delete it regarding other African powers like SA and Nigeria. If non biased quality sources can be found saying that Egypt is one of the strongest armies in the Middle East and Africa than please reinsert the statements along with the reference, the same goes for the satellite statement. What I don't like to see is the use original research to pick different regions in which an editor determines that Egypt might be the strongest in different categories. --Leivick (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that u already know that not all informations need sources, and that not all informations in great articles are sourced. that means that when i say that the M1A1 Abrams is the strongest latest generation MBT i might need a source for that, but when i say that it is a latest generation MBT i need no source on that however, the MBT generations article still do not have sources for the latest generation MBTs to the present day.
Meaning...that in case of Africa for example, would some one really need a source to say that a country ranked 11th on the world's biggest military powers with over 1000 modern MBTs, and well over 200 4th generation multi-roll jet is stronger than another ranked 67th with no single latest generation MBT, or another that is ranked 51th with no single 4th generation fighter jet !!
Incase of the Middle East, if the military of Egypt is not one of the strongest in the middle east....which other one is?
I guess that a citation needed tag would solve the problem if u still do not agree after all.
And about the satellite issue, i think that it's clear now, right?
Thanx for reading. One last pharaoh (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what is happening on the the tank generation article, the statements in question still need sources. You have presented an original research argument as to why you. think that Egypt has one of the strongest militaries in the region, however someone like myself might argue with your reasoning on various grounds. That is why you must present a valid source. I am fine with a citation need tag for the time being while you look for a source, but if you can't come up with anything in a couple of weeks then statements have to go. --Leivick (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However no one have the right to delete the statement even after a couple of years, here is ur source: http://www.acpr.org.il/NATIV/2000-6/2000-6-shawnpinexs.htm
Check the 4th paragraph if u need a clear statement, but i recommend reading the whole thing. One last pharaoh (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
U need a source to assure the possession of spy satellites by other officially considered arab states. as for me there is no other state in the region with spy satellites but for egypt, and israel. It was embraced in the source where it mentioned the egyptian claim of leading the region in spy satellite technology, then mentioned some thing about the capabilities of israel in this field making the comparison here between the two mentioned countries only. no other OCA "Officially Considered Arab" country have a spy satellite. if some thing needs to be sourced, it would be that. One last pharaoh (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the statement regarding the regional supremacy. I think it is clearer and follows what the source in question is saying as the source doesn't mention Africa or clearly define any region. Egypt is clearly a regional power in the Middle East. --Leivick (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, u might be allowed to add a citation needed tag beside the statement....Or u can contact the wikianswers guys ? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_has_the_strongest_military_on_Africa

Damn ama baaad man ;D One last pharaoh (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikianswers is a user created site much like Wikipedia, and can't be used as a source in any case the answer you link to seems to use this article as its source, so we are really just going in circles. An outdated Wikipedia mirror cannot be used as a source either as you have attempted to do. Obviously an older version of the article cannot be used as a source for the current version. Please try to find a real reliable source that says "Egypt is the strongest military in Africa." of some variation of that. Until then please as a sign of good faith leave it out of the article. --Leivick (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, i did not use it as a source. As a sign of a good faith, check the one i used. One last pharaoh (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. What do you mean you didn't use it as a source, what did you use it as? --Leivick (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means that i did not use it at all. I used another source, check it out, if u want to. One last pharaoh (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please try and be more clear. What source did you use? The article still links to experiencefestival.com which is some kind of new age spirituality site which copies some outdated content form Wikipedia. Their article on the Egyptian military is identical to the Wikipedia article in 2007. We have had trouble communicating in the past so it would be beneficial if you tried to be more specific and answer the question: Knowing that mirrored Wikipedia content form experiencefestival.com isn't even close to a reliable source, what source are you using to verify the claim the military experts consider Egypt the strongest army in Africa? --Leivick (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i cannot be more clear because it's impossible to be more clear !
As much as i understand, u assumed that i used wikianswers as a source, then i said i did not use it and that u can check the one i used. Now u know which source did i use, so where is the problem here?
check theeeeeeeeese out:
* http://www.alloexpat.com/middle_east_expat_forum/egypt-country-profile-t1629.html
* http://www.k12academics.com/egypt_military.htm
* http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/180382/Egypt#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Egypt%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
* http://www.essential-architecture.com/ASIA-WEST/NA-EG/NA-EG.htm
* http://sadsudan.tigblogs.org/
* http://books.google.com/books?id=VkOT4E8-Z_IC&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=strongest+military+Africa+Egypt&source=web&ots=FaYnW_qvQh&sig=x8kv5oRVQqmLLJPAYANO9qDyt7s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA299,M1
I can assume that u can find whatever kinda source u need in the list; a book, an academic source, or simply a reliable source.
U might also notice that all of these sourced, when mentioning the status in the Middle East agreed that the military of egypt is one of the strongest in the region. What u should expect now is that the two old statements shall be re-included in the page, as well as the reworded version. Thankfully, we did improve the article after all.
Thanx for that. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a closer look at the sources you provided. The first two as well as essential-architecture are copied either completely or incompletely from an older state of this very article and are thus not reliable sources. As far as I can tell the Britanica article and the tig blog don't say anything about the strongest military in Africa (if they do and I am missing it please direct me to the right section). So that leaves the Global Diversity, which is a guide book for business people doing business with other cultures and makes no claims whatsoever to any kind military expertise. My concern is that this "strongest army in Africa" claim is one made very rarely if at all by military experts. While Egypt's military is strong compared to the rest of Africa, it lacks long range power projection and its sphere of influence is limited to the Northern part of the continent allowing other countries to be regional powers in the central and southern part of the continent. Don't hold me to this analysis, as I am not an expert, that is why we need to rely on the words of real experts not just our own opinions on the matter. If the only reliable source you can find is Global Diversity" I would change the sentence to say "Global Diversity, a guide book for business people, calls Egypt's military the strongest on the African continent." as the source doesn't carry much authority in the area it is discussing. Please take a look at WP:RS if you haven't already, as it explains what a reliable source is. We are looking for real academic sources here, not just the results from google searches. --Leivick (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are u missing the point here? OK, Britanica stated that the military of egypt is one of the strongest in the region, it can be found be clicking "Government and society" in the table of contents, where u shall find "Security". Britanica is the reliable source to re-include the statement: "one of the strongest in the Middle East", or another one giving the same meaning. I do not think that at wikipedia we have to classify sources in articles. remember when Israeli, and pro-israeli sources where used as reliable source in articles about conflict directly involving Israel? remember when writing "according to the israeli point of view", or "according to israel" was such a problem for member such as u that ended with not including the statement? Well..."U can not have it all, u gotta give, and take.", so i tell u what, that source is gonna be used with out a single word about it, OR every single article about stuff directly involving Israel using israeli, or pro-israeli sources has to undergo the same, even if that means writing "according to the israeli point of view" every single time such a source is used. BTW, that is not only about Israel, it's just an example. it's not our duty as editors, or any body else's duty, or right to add a description to a source used unless that source is not neutral, and there for does not represent a neutral point of view. U would need to prove that K12 Academics is "copy-pasting" from wikipedia. i did not ask for such a proof for the rest of the sources u rejected, because it did not need one. Prove that K12 Academics is copying informations from wikipedia. We -wikipedians- use other sites as sources, but directly copying informations is not allowed, prove that they are not doing the same, and that's only if we assumed that they got the informations directly from wikipedia. Use the Google search to get to some nice sources talking about the main powers in Africa. one of the results analyzed that matter economically, culturaly, and in the field of military, and the result was that Egypt is the main power -not only military power, stratigec depth- in north africa, Nigeria in middle-west africa, and South Africa in the south, but none of the ones i've seen made a comparison between the three nations. I donot know if the term used in ur short analysis of the military power of egypt is actually correct or not, and i do not know if u have a prove for the claim about that the experts rarly use the term "strongest in Africa", but u can read more about the influense from this article, from Egypt's main article on wikipedia, or from an easy fast search on Google, or any other search engine.

Good luck. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enriching the Article

[edit]

I believe that a new section called "Training, and cooperation" for example would be a very good step to improve the article, and provide even more valuable informations. that can be done by including all training operations with other countries, or as much as possible, and it does not even need to be explained now maybe some one enlists them, and leave the explanation for other members, if he/she does not have time to do it him/her self. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

INSS

[edit]

http://www.inss.org.il/upload/(FILE)1232450403.pdf Flayer (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos Needed

[edit]

Perhaps we should add more photos to enrich this article and we should extend this article. I will contribute and I hope you contribute also. Thank you all.User:Ramomammah —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Orphaned references in Egyptian Armed Forces

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Egyptian Armed Forces's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.acpr.org.il/pp/pp046-shohame.pdf. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unit777tt.jpg Deleted

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Unit777tt.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Fastily for the following reason: No license since 29 April 2011

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Egyptian air defence forces' flag.gif Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Egyptian air defence forces' flag.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The origins and evolution of the army

[edit]

Egyptian army is the first and oldest regular army in the world was founded 7000 years ago has been found in Egypt, one of the oldest standing armies in the world. [5] This was after the unification of King Narmer of Egypt around 3200 BC. AD. Before that year was for each of the regions Egyptian army has its own protected, but the after unification Egyptian war Egypt became a unified army under the command of the king of Egypt. The Egyptian army was the most powerful army in the world and thanks to him the Egyptians created the world's first empire in the Egyptian empire stretching from Turkey in the north to south Somalia and Iraq in the east to Libya in the west, it has been the golden age of the Egyptian army. The Egyptians are always the key element in the Egyptian army. King Farouk review mini units from the army in Abdeen Palace Square The Egyptian army was composed of the military road (pedestrians and carts, horses, Alrmahin and soldiers, bayonets and other branches) and the fleet, which was protected marine coast of Egypt are all in addition to the Nile River [citation needed]. Some plans are still studying the ancient Egyptian military academies of the world military and Egypt. Has provided the Egyptian military many old pimp great and was Onbg these minds military is the emperor (Thutmose III) was the first emperor in history is that created the Egyptian empire in the tally of many battles and wars, most notably the Battle of Megiddo, which is still taught today. Has participated army Egyptian in the liberation of the city of Jerusalem from the hands of the Crusaders in one of the historical battles over the ages commander of the battle hero Saladin was the bulk of the soldiers from the Egyptians and the addition led Egyptian forces a major role in the defeat of the Mongols who destroyed the Islamic State Abbasid led by Commander Qutuz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egy writer (talk • contribs) 11:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long unsupported rants like this have no use on the TP. Please provide RS's for your claims. Many points you have made are laughably incorrect and speak of a lack of knowledge of established history. HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OVERVIEW section needs severe editing! Too much on recent events

[edit]

Someone has added a large chunk of recent history (the revolution against Morsi) and immediate events up to this event into the Overview. This is an article about the military of Egypt, not its politics. A couple of lines (at most) are all that is needed here. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Egyptian Armed Forces

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Egyptian Armed Forces's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "autogeneratedmil":

  • From Equipment of the modern Egyptian Army: http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/Egypt_10-67.pdf
  • From Phalanx CIWS: Dan Petty. "The US Navy – Fact File:". Navy.mil. Retrieved 2012-08-04.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of modern EAF

[edit]

copied from User talk:Buckshot06 With all due respect to you, you remove almost half of the article why you remove the old army, I know very well that consolidate, start from Muhammad Ali but there are army and navy was established in the era of the pharaohs, we are talking about military history in Egypt not talking about the consolidate of the army, I think that the meaning of the word foundation is to establish the structural and organizational model of the army not the foundation out of nowhere. Regards to you.RabeaMalah (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the Egyptian Armed Forces, with a focus on the history of the present entity (Muhammad Ali's Egypt, Kingdom of Egypt, Republic of Egypt, ARE). WP:Reliable Sources repeatedly say that the modern force can only be traced back to Muhammad Ali. There's a whole other article available for Military of ancient Egypt and that article is linked in the very first line of the main part of the article. I have copied this discussion to Talk:Egyptian Armed Forces and I will make all following replies there. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/egypt/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

[edit]
[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MLauba (Talk) 09:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egyptian Armed Forces. 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:

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) 09:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from top)

[edit]

Well , the page of the egyptian army here are outdated for example , it's stated that egypt uses the tokarev while the tokarev has been out of service since ever and there are other things here that are outdated 

Moutanbo (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moutanbo, we would appreciate you updating incorrect parts of this page, the Tokarev pistol and others, but you must insert appropriate WP:REFERENCES to support the new data. Please see WP:FOOTNOTEs etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian military schools

[edit]

Dear AaqibAnjum, would you kindly like to explain why the Thunderbolt School is not notable while the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School is? They're both special forces training schools. I'd also be interested to hear why you removed the WP:REDLINKs when we specifically leave them in place to encourage editors to create articles for such entities. Please do comment here. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only called it a non-notable that it currently does not have any article on Wikipedia and this is what I've learnt from senior editors within my one year experience. In the Wp:Redlinks, it mentions that if the topic of redlink is notable, verifiable by resources - the redlink should be allowed. I suggest to add the redlink but with a reference next to it. My intention was not to hurt. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Military schools and training centres are generally notable. You will find that at WP:NOTABLE the definition is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." That's got nothing to do with WP:BLUELINK in which an article actually exists or not. WP:REDLINK says "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject" (or if there's an existing article you could link it to). The issue is, here, that there's not much in English. That's no problem whatsoever; for the Thunderbolt School the memoirs of Egyptian generals in Arabic would be fine, and there are a number of memoirs available. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Egyptian_Armed_Forces&oldid=1195368088"