Talk:Pharaohs' Golden Parade

Mummies with disputed identities
I think its just Thutmose I and Hatshepsut.©Geni (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Edits regarding the barriers claim, and the reception
"You wrote: "This is not WP:OR, it can be verified from the event itself, as stated, and the length of the route can be verified through search engine (google maps), which is why the reporter's "claim" needed to be balanced. And to my knowledge the word "claimed" is not prohibited on Wikipedia, I have seen many established users use it in such contexts; it doesn't imply that the reporter is right or wrong. I hope I'm not missing something here!"
 * Thank you for the clarifications in the message you put on my talk page, where you stated:
 * There are several problems here, and yes, you are missing a few things. First of all, you should read WP:OR, in which you'll find that "can be verified from the event itself" is not a reliable source, and what you wrote is the very definition of original research.
 * While you can find the length of a route from Google Maps, you still need a reliable source saying exactly WHAT the route was, if you want to calculate it. It's not enough to simply say "I know the route and I looked up the length on Google Maps." That's WP:OR again.
 * The word "claimed" is not prohibited but it should be avoided. Please read MOS:CLAIM.
 * I hope this helps. Please don't revert again without discussing your proposed additions that violate several guidelines."

First off, I did not put the sentence "can be verified from the event itself" as a source in the article, I just wrote it in the edit summary, but in the article I wrote "There were also several shots, including aerial shots, during the parade itself that showed the parade route", which is what I was referring to by saying "as stated" in the edit summary. I did read WP:OR, perhaps you can help me here, regarding this sentence, because I can't decisively determine why using an instance drawn from the event under discussion is OR (the video is officially available); is this because the event itself is to be considered a primary source and Wikipedia mainly requires a secondary source? But is the primary source in this instance completely invalid to use, since this sentence is not an interpretation, and primary sources are allowed as long as there is no synthesis or interpretation? How can we, then, use anything from, say, a public speech, or do we need to have an article transcribing it first? If that is the case, then how can we follow something like the Translations and transcriptions section, in that "faithfully ... transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources is not considered original research"? Since it implies the use of the original video as a (primary) source! I also did not simply say "I know the route and I looked up the length on Google Maps", I understand that my own experience and what I know are not criteria for verifiability on Wikipedia, I pointed to Google Maps in the edit summary (not in the article) because I considered this to be easily verifiable (Google Maps being a quick tool to make sure one is not being misinformed), but here is a source mentioning the length of the route, which is also cited twice in the article, this is a piece of information that is quite illuminating regarding the reporter's "claim" that barriers were "throughout the city", which is obviously inaccurate to say the least, and I put it in for contrast; we are dealing with news-reporting, and "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors". It seemed to me that it needed to be balanced, and the word "claim" seemed to me to be quite appropriate in this context. It is fully my mistake, however, that I didn't find the citation right away when I reverted. I can see why the sentence "However, the parade route from the Egyptian Museum to the National Museum of Egyptian Civilization does not pass through any impoverished areas at all" needs a source; it is quite difficult to find a source that discusses such specifics of a random route, so I will not restore this sentence unless I find a reliable source. As to some of the edits made by, the Smithsonianmag article is actually citing a New York Times article for that claim, and the New York Times doesn't say that it was the locals that made that claim, the New York Times reporter herself is making that claim in the article, so adding this to a section titled "Reception" is not accurate. I will edit it back to "A reporter stated" instead of "Some locals stated", since "claimed" is obviously still deemed inappropriate, and I think this sentence should be moved to some other section, since it is, thus, not representative of the "reception", but I will refrain from doing this myself. As for the statement about the reception by Egyptians, which was removed by PerpetuityGrat, I will restore it as well and add the sources that support it. I thus propose the following edits: "A reporter stated that the government "erected barriers throughout the city to prevent virtual viewers from catching a glimpse of impoverished areas along the parade route". However, the parade route from the Egyptian Museum to the National Museum of Egyptian Civilization is only about 5 km long (about 3 miles long), so the parade did not pass "throughout the city". It should also be noted that there were no viewers, and in particular no reporters, at all allowed along the parade route, which is due to the aforementioned security measures. There were also several shots, including aerial shots, during the parade itself that showed the parade route."

And the following: "The event was well-received by the Egyptians, they expressed that they are proud of their history and heritage, and the Egyptian ministry of finance issued commemorative Egyptian one pound and one hundred pound coins carrying the name and the official logo of the Pharaohs' Golden Parade, to symbolize this historic cultural event. The logo of the event is inspired by the ancient Egyptian belief in eternity and afterlife. Also, the Egyptian ministry of communications and information technology (MCIT) issued QR Code commemorative stamps carrying the name and the official logo of the Pharaohs' Golden Parade, as well as pictures of the kings and the queens who were transported in the parade."

If there are no issues with these proposed edits, then I don't know if they should go into the section titled "Reception" or if they should just be in the section "Event" as before, or if they should go into separate sections! If I'm the one to make the edit, I may restore them back to "Event", and leave the sectioning to someone else to determine, maybe PerpetuityGrat. 197.38.77.97 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're still adding your own unsourced bits into the text. One quick example: you cite the Washington Post article for the sentence "there were no viewers, and in particular no reporters, at all allowed along the parade route, which is due to the aforementioned security measures." - but the article only states that "the entire route and surrounding bridges and roads were closed for security." None of the other things you said are in there. This sort of half-sourced and half-original research stuff is present in your entire proposed addition, but I don't have time to detail it all. Just stick strictly with what the sources say and you won't have any problems. If you don't, it's going to get deleted. It's not like a different editor is going to look at your original research and say "oh okay that's fine." I have nothing against you - I just don't like seeing unverified things in articles. Andrew Englehart (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say, nor imply, that you have anything against me. I was not waiting for a different editor to agree, I tagged you specifically, and respectfully. And, isn't that what talk pages are for, to detail and reach consensus if possible? Also, the comments of other editors are extremely desirable, whether they think "it's fine" or not, since that would work toward consensus. The very instance that you mentioned is supported by many of the articles, I suppose that you find the part that says "and in particular no reporters" problematic? Because other than that, I don't really see the original research in that sentence. 197.38.77.97 (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is one of many problematic phrases, yes. As I said, I don't have time to list them all. Just add what's in the sources, and nothing else. Let's try that for starters. Andrew Englehart (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I will start with the second edit which you are not involved in; just adding the sources to the first sentence, which PerpetuityGrat removed because it wasn't sourced; I added a third source to it as well. As for the first edit, I'll rephrase and add it in a separate edit. Even though the second sentence is just a sourced statment of fact, I will make it more so by avoiding "so" and the quotation marks, and rephrasing it to "However, the parade did not pass throughout the city, since the parade route from the Egyptian Museum to the National Museum of Egyptian Civilization is only about 5 km long (about 3 miles long)." As for the third sentence, I will remove "and in particular no reporters" and MOS:NOTED, I will rephrase it to "Also, there were no persons or viewers at all allowed along the parade route, which is due to the aforementioned security measures." I added a second supporting source to it. 197.38.52.52 (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you couldn't resist the temptation to add some of your own original research back in, although it's much improved from your first attempt. I removed the unsourced and the WP:synthesis. Andrew Englehart (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will not try to further make any tweaks to the changes you just made, even though I still think the sentence "There were several shots, including aerial shots, ..." above was justified, but I will leave it at that. If I may take a little bit more of your time, I want to remark on an edit that doesn't pertain to the current discussion, just to clear it here with you. You removed the second part of the quote by the Egyptian president and said that "there's no reason for a full quotation of all the tweeting". But it is not the full quotation, just the first two of a series of tweets. I think there is no reason against it, and it is not that plenty, just about forty words. It gives a sense of how the highest official in the country conceived of the event, and the appreciation of the pharaohs in the event. I will restore part of it, but I will remove the last part to make it shorter, I think the last part is what gives the sense that it is plenty; i.e., I will stop at "... in which all humanity takes pride". If you consider it to be necessary to remove, then revert my edit and will not try to further restore it. 197.38.49.212 (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)