Talk:Copts

The reference to "Nisan Mordechai"

"The Copts were severely affected by Nasser's nationalization policies, though they represented about 10 to 20 percent of the population."

This sentence cites "Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-Expression, 2nd Edition" by Mordechai Nisan (Author)

The author of this citation, Nisan Mordechai, is described as a "counter-jihadist" and an adherent of Bat Ye'or, who promotes the Eurabia conspiracy theory. This is a far-right, anti-Muslim conspiracy theory that posits that globalist entities, led by French and Arab powers, aim to Islamize and Arabize Europe, thereby weakening its existing culture and undermining its previous alliances with the United States and Israel.

I am wondering if a better citation and author can be used related to Egypt's Coptic community under Nasser, as well as additional context. Gamalny (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

What is Todros ch. 3-4

The Todros ch. 3-4 citation seems to have been added to this article back in revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&oldid=569446271 back in August 2013 by @Rjensen It also appears in Christianity in Egypt and probably elsewhere. It needs to have a full reference beyond just an author name. Erp (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it's probably at type-o for the Tadros book that appears in Further Reading in that 2013 version of the article. There appears to have been some messy subsequent editing that retains a reference to Samuel Tadros in the current version of the article but replaces the formal citation with something else. Pathawi (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Copts make up 5-15% of population yet christianity 5-1o%?

If we read the notes and linked sources on the "Christianity in Egypt"-wiki article, we are met with high quality sources disproving the 5-15% number stated in Source 20 of this article.

I find it strange that a government-ran newsoutlet found up to 15% of the population as *overwhelmingly* coptic when the US' independent estimation made up around 9-10% only one year later in 2018. This is also not considering copts, but christians in Egypt as a whole.

It is therefor in my now fact-backed opinion wrong to claim that up to 15% of the population is coptic when further studies isn't finding numbers above 10% as christian. Mythicshaman (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This article contains a few different estimates of the Coptic population in Egypt, with different sources from different points in time. I don't see a US government source from 2018 that suggests a 9–10% number. Can you pinpoint what in the article's text you're talking about, & what you want to be different? Pathawi (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality and the state of this article

The article presents several significant issues, most of which stem from a concerted effort to push a particular POV from two distinct angles:

• Overemphasizing connections to ancient Egypt
• Distancing Copts from mainstream Egyptian culture, Arab identity, and Islam

If these conclusions were drawn naturally from legitimate content presented according to Wikipedia guidelines, they wouldn't be problematic. However, the forced nature of these perspectives through authoritative and unverifiable statements based on weak sources, opinion, and WP:OR, compromises the integrity of the entire article.

Notably, there is a lack of citation for key claims such as "Copts are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians" which has been plastered all over the article in multiple places using self-published sources and a qualitative study from a completely unrelated field. This is not a verifiable statement because the premise itself is impossible. Any discussion regarding genetic history requires significant contextual clarity supported by reliable and verifiable sources in accordance with Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability and reliable sourcing (WP:V). So even with appropriate citations, these claims should be framed carefully, avoiding vague or overly authoritative language WP:ASSERT. Genetic history is already discussed elsewhere in the article, which I see as the only context in the article where these topics can be discussed with contextual clarity.

The article also suffers from the use of weasel words (WP:WEASEL), vague phrasing, and emotive language, which undermine clarity and neutrality, contravening Wikipedia's standards for reliable writing. This undermines verifiability and neutrality. The language also often overgeneralizes, misrepresenting the diversity of opinion within the Coptic community, which oversimplifies complex topics and fails to adhere to Wikipedia's guideline of neutrality, which demands that all viewpoints be represented fairly and without bias (WP:NPOV).

Another problematic claim is that Copts' identity is "completely different" from Arabs, particularly with regard to their "genetic makeup." How can an ethnic group emphasize its genetic makeup? Additionally, this statement contradicts well-cited content in the genetics section of this article. Unsubstantiated assertions of this nature may be seen as POV-pushing. Similarly, the claim that "Coptic music is a continuation of ancient Egyptian music" is an unverified self-published assertion that requires reliable academic references (WP:RS).

Furthermore, the article conflates ethnicity and culture by linking genetic descent to cultural distinctiveness. Clear distinctions must be made between these concepts, with definitions supported by verifiable sources, in line with (WP:V, WP:NPOV), both claims also need significant contextual clarity in order to be considered WP:DUE.

I have raised these concerns with @Epenkimi, one of the editors heavily involved in this article, on his talk page. However, due to the overwhelming amount of issues in the article, it would benefit from being raised on a more public platform. Turnopoems (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

For additional context, here are the two versions of the article that I introduced in an attempt to address these issues: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&oldid=1282925895

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&oldid=1282456536

Both have largely been reverted or undone now. Turnopoems (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you need to specify the exact statements in the article to which you're objecting.

"Overemphasizing connections to ancient Egypt" is not an over-emphasis. Copts in Egypt do in fact emphasize that relationship and take pride that their Coptic language, their art, their music etc are directly derived from those of Ancient Egypt. Furthermore, as stated in the genetics section of the article, Copts (ad most Muslim Egyptians) are genetically very closely related to the Ancient Egyptians. These are well established facts, but happy to hear you are objecting to them.

"Distancing Copts from mainstream Egyptian culture, Arab identity, and Islam" is not something the article in its current form tries to do. The vast majority of Copts are in fact opposed to Arabism and Islamism. For instance, while Al-Azhar advocates for more Arabization of the education and media, the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church advocates for teaching the Egyptian and Coptic languages.

Thank you again and happy to work with you and everyone on improving the article. Epenkimi (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately at this point it is not helpful to point to one singular instance because the problem is pervavsive throughout the article as you have reintroduced and mulitplied these statements throughout the entire article. It needs to be reworked. Additionally, the content you have copied from other articles without formatting the sources has led to the page having dozens of broken and unformatted sources and this also needs to be worked on.

Throughout this discussion, I have repeatedly clarified that our task is not to debate our personal agreement with certain historical or cultural claims, as such considerations are irrelevant in the context of producing verifiable encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is governed by policies that prioritize reliable sources over personal convictions, and the key issue is not the factuality of a claim in an absolute sense but rather how it is presented and supported within the article. Even if you and I both agree that the sky is blue, that assertion must be supported by verifiable sources rather than personal agreement, and the framing should reflect the depth and nuance found in academic discourse rather than oversimplified or absolute statements like the ones you insist on including. More importantly, its presentation here should be free of POV embellishment.

It is entirely appropriate within this article to examine cultural elements within Coptic communities and their historical continuity with earlier periods of Egyptian history. However, such discussions must be framed with specificity. For instance, when addressing musical traditions, it is necessary to clarify which aspects of ancient Egyptian music may have influenced Coptic traditions. Does evidence suggest that ancient Egyptian musical practices where completely absorbed into modern Coptic music? If Coptic music is predominantly liturgical, does that imply ancient Egyptian music was exclusively religious in nature? Broad, unqualified assertions, such as claiming that "Coptic culture is a direct continuation of ancient Egyptian culture", fail to meet Wikipedia’s standards and the claim itself does not hold against scrutiny.

Rather than making broad, unverifiable claims about continuity, the focus should be on clarifying which aspects of ancient Egyptian music are reflected in Coptic musical traditions and how they have been preserved or transformed over time, and in a more summarized format may briefly mention that they have inherited some features of ancient Egyptian musical traditions. It is always important to present content within the framework of scholarly research, ensuring that claims are supported by reliable sources and that the language used reflects appropriate academic caution, as required by WP:V and WP:DUE.

Similarly, genetic studies suggesting an affinity between a modern population and an ancient one do not substantiate categorical claims of direct ancestry. Even if sources indicate a strong genetic continuity, Wikipedia requires that such claims be presented in proportion to the prevailing academic consensus per WP:DUE. The notion of direct descent over thousands of years is inherently problematic, as population genetics does not function in absolute, linear terms. Academic works in anthropology and population genetics avoid such definitive language, as the complexity of historical migrations, admixture, and cultural evolution precludes simplistic ancestral designations.

Finally, Wikipedia articles are not personal essays; they must adhere to the formal and precise language expected of an academic resource. Content should be written in a manner consistent with the encyclopedic tone outlined in WP:MOS.

I sincerely hope that this conversation will lead to a mutual understanding of the goals we should pursue for the article. However, I’m concerned that I may be reiterating myself excessively, given the extensive discussion we've already had on your talk page. At this juncture, I am contemplating the need to initiate further consensus-building by inviting other editors to weigh in. Turnopoems (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm happy to work with you and with others to improve the article. However, I find it problematic that you object to statements such as "are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians", even though these statements are supported by multiple references and sources in the article. If you want to object to some of the sources, we can certainly review them together. But would you similarly object to notions such as "modern Greeks are the direct descendants of Ancient Greeks"? Or that "modern Chinese are the direct descendants of the Ancient Chinese"? If these statements are not controversial and widely accepted, why is the former problematic?

Regarding coptic music, we can certainly add a section about that and discuss its relation to Ancient Egyptian music. That's why I'm encouraging a discussion here to see how we can improve the article, rather than simply remove things that some people personally object to. Epenkimi (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I will address your reply in the RfC post below to avoid multiple parallel discussions. Turnopoems (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding neutrality, language and adherence to WP:MOS

The article exhibits significant issues with the framing of its content, demonstrating a clear bias towards certain identity-based conclusions. This bias is evident in how specific claims are presented, particularly regarding the relationship to ancient Egypt. There is a strong overemphasis on unverified statements, such as "Copts are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians," which lack credible academic sources and misrepresent genetic history. Furthermore, vague and oversimplified language like "Coptic music is a continuation of ancient Egyptian music" and "Coptic culture is considered a continuation of that of ancient Egypt" diminishes the complexity of these cultural histories and risks misleading readers.

Such claims in the article are backed by self-published sources, qualitative studies from unrelated fields, and even WP:OR. My own attempts to address these issues have been largely reverted, leaving them pervasive throughout the article. The editor heavily involved in the article insists on including such statements, stating that they are established facts, and has repeated them throughout the text. The quality of the article, which was previously a good article nominee, has, unfortunately, deteriorated significantly due to a lack of consideration for WP:MOS. Extensive discussion available in the talk page and the talk page of the other editor (here). Turnopoems (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Again, if you have specific objections to specific statements or sources, I am happy to work with you on that. However, your initial edits that deleted tens of references and rewrote the article in a way you alone seem to think is appropriate makes this article heavily biased towards your POV. Epenkimi (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  Also, please remember that most (if not all) of the initial references that you deleted were incorporated by users other than myself. I simply reverted many of the references and statements you deleted without discussing the reason behind the deletion. Epenkimi (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding your claim about ancient Chinese and ancient Greeks, I would object to it all the same of course. While genetic affinity between modern and ancient populations in these regions is well-supported by genetic studies, that is not equivalent to asserting direct descent. Such a claim is unverifiable and, above all, very unlikely based on the technical definition of such a claim. This topic demands academic caution and precise language. The fact that we cannot agree on the fundamental premise, that asserting direct descent from an ancient population is unsuitable for an encyclopedic article, is a core point of contention. Additionally, the sources used to support these claims fail to meet WP:RS standards, a concern I have explained multiple times.

  Beyond this, Copts are a contemporary ethnic group, people living in 2025 with a culture shaped by the modern world and influenced by thousands of years of historical development, like any other group. They deserve an accurate representation of their contemporary identity without having ancient Egypt imposed onto every aspect of their existence just because you have a personal inclination towards that specific period (I do too by the way). Their genetic connections or continuity in some aspects of their culture does not need to be reaffirmed in every paragraph. This is not my stance; it is WP:NPOV. Their distinct identity is fundamentally anchored in their Christian faith, even if pre-Islamic history is often invoked to differentiate them from Muslims.

  You'll notice that I haven't objected to the inclusion of any of the content in the article, but specifically the way they are worded, framed and presented. I have no interest in excluding any narrative, provided it is backed by reputable sources and follows Wikipedia’s guidelines in the way it is presented. My repeated attempts, so far unsuccessful, have aimed to moderate the language and align the structure of the article with Wikipedia standards, which necessarily includes removing weak sources used to support problematic claims that do not belong in an academic text. This does not preclude mentioning, for instance, the genetic connection between Copts and ancient Egyptians in an appropriate manner, something that is already done in the genetics subsection in my opinion. This also does not preclude discussing the connection between various cultural traits and their equivalents in ancient Egypt or any other historical period, provided it is done with proper attribution and without broad, unqualified assertions that exaggerate these connections beyond what is supported by evidence. The issue lies not in acknowledging historical continuity where it exists, but in the disproportionate and often misleading manner in which these claims are framed.

  You repeatedly claim that I am "removing content", but removing unverifiable and weakly sourced material is entirely justified per WP:RS and WP:V. Content does not become sacrosanct merely because it has a citation. The sources were weak, as defined by Wikipedia guidelines (I have referenced the exact guidelines, so implying that I removed them because of POV is disingenuous), and the content violates Wikipedia guidelines (same here). Collaboration to improve this article requires you to stop reverting my edits aimed at addressing these issues, especially if you actually do want to iron out these issues like you say you do. I will happily work with you to improve the framing of new content that you want to add, but even those edits were reverted and you also removed my citation tags without addressing the lack of citation in the text.

  I know that your contributions are made in good faith and that this is likely a topic you are passionate about. As you are a new editor however, I want to make you aware that repeatedly reinstating and adding more disputed content during an ongoing resolution while also disregarding established Wikipedia policies, can be considered disruptive editing. Im not pursuing anything other than consensus to improve the article, but in other circumstances, it could lead to arbitration. Please avoid making further edits of this content while there's an ongoing discussion and RfC addressing the matter (you are of course free to make other unrelated edits). Turnopoems (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RFC. The statement is not WP:RFCNEUTRAL, and asking people to assess "neutrality, language and adherence to WP:MOS" for an entire article is a very big ask. It appears that this disagreement just involves two of you, so it would probably be better to start off by seeking a third opinion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Agreed with FactOrOpinion that this is not a proper RfC nor what the WP:RFC process is for. However, I might as well provide a third opinion without that process being invoked bureaucratically. I coincidentally happen to work on a lot of ethno-cultural articles, have a degree in cultural anthropology (ethnology), and find the complex truth of such questions far more interesting and valuable than any "my side versus yours" viewpoint battle (of a sort often tinged by political, religious, diasporic, folk-belief, and other viewpoints rather than on systematic review of evidence and its meaning as found in high-quality sources.

  Detailed third opinion taking both parties' concerns on board. Since I'm doing this and the RfC is malformed, I've removed the RfC tag.

  Our articles on ethno-cultural groups (especially ones that still exist but have a long history and one that is characterized by inter-cultural exchange, influence, and intermingling at various eras and areas, are notoriously difficult to get right, and usually do not come down to "my version versus yours" but considerable editing (including scope adjustment, sometimes even article splitting/merging, e.g. Copts re-focused on the present-day population and historical information mostly merged to Coptic history, with the latter's key points only appearing in WP:SUMMARY form in a section in the former), by a larger body of editors over time.

  On the substance of the present rather narrow dispute, I have to agree generally (but see below) with Turnopoems. Making "directly descended from" claims without iron-clad sourcing and (not "or") also a encyclopedically pertinent rationale to do it, is not how we do things. The evidence seems to suggest interrelatedness and not much further, though I am not immersed in Coptic history. (I don't have a dog in the fight, but could be missing some information.) Nor can statistical genetic data be used to make any claims about culture (including music, etc.).

  There's the further problem that "directly descended from" claims are essentially meaningless, because they have no concrete definition. E.g. my personal genetic test data indicates that a small portion of my genome is long ago from Cyprus, so in a technical sense I'm "directly descended from the ancient Cypriots", but using that phrase to describe myself would be very misleading, as would calling myself "Cypriot-American" or "Cypriot". A key element of encyclopedic writing is avoiding ambiguous, confusing, or misleading phrases.

  Secondly along this line of reasoning, haplogroup evidence is often entirely meaningless with regard to ethnocultural groups, lifeways, and cultural heritage. As an example, genetic comparison of modern south-east English people's data with archaeogenetic data from the region shows that a high proportion of the modern-day residents have significant, even dominant, overlap with those all the way back to the Mesolithic era. That is, they could be (near-meaninglessly) said to be "directly descended from" the builders of Stonehenge and the like, but in cultural memory and written history they have identified entirely as English and have for all practical purposes simply been English. Yet before they received an influx of northwest German chromosomes from the Anglo-Saxons in the 5th–8th centuries and gradually became English, they would have identified as Britons (or for a spell even as Romans) speaking Common Brittonic and sometimes later British Latin, and with entirely Insular Celtic then Romano-British lifeways (culture) with little in common with Angles and Saxons (also already established as continental populations by the era of Roman Britain). It is not helpful to describe south-east English people of today as "direct descendants of" the Britons before the Roman and Anglo-Saxon invasions, except in a paragraph devoted to their genetics, which has nothing to do with their culture.

  Moving on, Turnopoems's WP:P&G arguments are sound, especially with regard to quality of sources how they can be used. Removing cleanup/dispute tags without the underlying being issue resolved isn't how we do things, either. Even if direct descent (as the majority component, not just through intermittent regional commingling) from the Pharaonic Egyptians could somehow be proven, with sources that are actually reliable for such a matter, and without using WP:OR to "interpret" them to seem to say what they do not, Turnopoems is again correct that harping on such a connection paragraph after paragraph would be an WP:NPOV failure (and also a WP:NOT#ADVOCACY one - Wikipedia does not exist for promoting a particular viewpoint or factoid or story that a particular person wants badly to over-emphasize).

  Our material on every such ethno-cultural group has to align almost entirely (per WP:DUE policy) with the mainstream, pertinent, modern academic consensus about it (what the preponderance of modern sources reliable on the subject agree on), with alternative hypotheses given little weight and short shrift if mentioned at all. Where there is no academic consensus on a particular point, WP cannot pick a side. Where such a point of uncertainty has resulted in real-world controversy between reputable scholars in recent times (and perhaps spilled over into popular culture, modern ethno-politics, etc.), our encyclopedist duty is to lay-summarize these competing hypotheses with due weight given based on their acceptance level. Under no circumstances does WP just declare one side or the other correct and write as if the controversy did not exist. (But we also need not document controversies resolved a long time ago through more modern research, unless an outmoded idea has become common in the popular imagination and readers might expect to find it addressed.) Turnopoems has even indicated no opposition to including any particular claim as long as it's demonstrable with proper sourcing, worded encyclopedically appropriately, and not used as a repetitive or out-of-context PoV bludgeon. That's a reasonable and standard-operating-procedure approach.

  All that said, Epenkimi's request to have "specific objections to specific statements or sources" be spelled out in detail is also entirely reasonable, especially in cases of this sort involving a series of claims and a series of sources. I've rarely seen a matter like this firmly resolved (hopefully with a compromise that both/all sides can live with, and more importantly which produces an objectively better article), without listing out disputed claims and sources one by one and discussing them on their own merits. I would suggest that is the way forward here (in a new thread), and should be done on this article-talk page, not in user-talk.

  Epenkimi's note that some of these sources (perhaps also some claims?) pre-dated that editor's involvement is meaningful, in that if other editors, without controversy heretofore, considered them good enough to use here (for something), then some of them might actually be, and Turnopoems has a higher barrier to jump to get "the right version". It seems likely to me that one of more of these sources are okay, for certain sorts of claims but not [some of?] the ones at issue, that some of them are not good sources at all, and that the claims most at issue are not adequately sourced (maybe not sourceable at this stage), but also that at least one or another point Epenkimi wants to include will be sourceable and should be included, perhaps in rewritten form (and maybe confined to a short section on genetic research, which arguably would be more on-topic at this ethno-culture article than at Coptic history).

  As a final point, I would suggest that what amount to user warnings regarding behavior and consequences are better left at user-talk pages and kept out of article-talk discussions, when appropriate at all. Better given by an uninvolved party than a partisan in the dispute.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Thank you for your very valuable insights and feedback. Since the dispute primarily stems from a lack of adherence to Wikipedia guidelines, I’ve found it particularly challenging to present the issue in a purely neutral manner, perhaps further underscoring that an RfC may not have been the most suitable venue for addressing this. I have not previously been involved in a dispute over such a large volume of text, nor have I experienced improved formatting being a point of contention in the past. The reason I could not pinpoint specific statements requiring revision is that new problematic content has been continuously added throughout the dispute (and still is, see latest edit), exacerbating the issue. I hope @Epenkimi will refrain from this going forward so we can focus on addressing the existing problems in the article before introducing new content.

  I appreciate your insights on a roadmap for improving the article, and if the other editor is willing to use this as a basis for collaboration, I will begin cataloging the sections I believe need revision or removal in a separate post for us to address together. I understand that an RfC would be more helpful after this stage if the content is still disputed. Turnopoems (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish & @Turnopoems, thank you both for your reply. I am in agreement in principle with both of you to work collaboratively on improving the article. There are sections that I was planning to work on: Music, Identity, Persecution and Church affairs (I'm not sure that last section should exist as a main subhead. It should probably be incorporated into History or renamed as Religion). If you would like me to refrain from editing these sections for now, I can hold off. Otherwise, we can start working together on other sections while I work on those 4 sections.

  With regards to what may seem the major point of contention, that is the identity and roots statements. I agree that these should be factual statements, and not "my opinion versus yours". However, I still believe that it is a very reasonable claim to state that "Modern Greeks are the direct descendants of the Ancient Greeks" or that "Modern Chinese are the direct descendants of the Ancient Chinese". These statements do claim that every single modern Greek or Chinese is directly descendant from these ancient people, but taken collectively, it is very reasonable to make these claims based on genetic, historical, geographical, linguistic, cultural and other facts. I'm not sure how we can say that such statements would be in contradiction with Wikipedia's standards or guidelines.

  In the case of Copts (technically the term simply means "Egyptians"), not only do they self-identify as Egyptians and descendants of the Ancient Egyptians, but objectively speaking (1) their language is the latest stage of development of the ancient Egyptian language and was even used to decipher the Egyptian hieroglyphs, (2) there is absolutely no historical evidence that claims they were replaced or exterminated at some in history, (3) they are genetically very close to ancient Egyptians: "Copts share the same main ancestral component than North African and Middle East populations [...], supporting a common origin with Egypt (or other North African/Middle Eastern populations). They are known to be the most ancient population of Egypt and [...] different from the current Egyptian population which is closer to the Arabic population of Qatar. [...] Copts lack the influence found in Egyptians from Qatar, an Arabic population. It may suggest that Copts have a genetic composition that could resemble the ancestral Egyptian population, without the present strong Arab influence." [3], (4) Coptic music as is close as it gets to ancient Egyptian music, (5) the Coptic calendar is identical to the ancient Egyptian calendar to the smallest detail including the names of the months and seasons, (6) many historical Coptic names are identical to ancient Egyptian names... Not to mention that it is a well established common knowledge that Copts are in fact the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians (see [4] as an example, although I am well aware that in isolation, this cannot be used as evidence).

  So I guess my question is, what exact evidence (more than the above) is required to link a modern population with an ancient one, and why is it so unfathomable and objectionable to state that Copts descend directly from ancient Egyptians? And if not the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, then (1) where do Copts descend from, and (2) what happened to the descendants of the ancient Egyptians?

  Thank you both again, and I look forward to continuing the discussion, learn from you, and work with you to improve the article. Epenkimi (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  While I appreciate the spirit of collaboration, I must, again, emphasize that the issue is not about disputing facts themselves but ensuring that Wikipedia content adheres to its core principles of verifiability and neutrality. Even if we fully agree on the factual basis of a statement, its inclusion still depends on whether it is explicitly stated in a reliable, authoritative source. What you are doing is synthesizing interpretations from various sources and introducing your own conclusions into the text, which violates Wikipedia’s policies on original research. For inclusion, an authoritative source, such as a peer-reviewed study, must state the claim explicitly.

  Academic sources, particularly in fields like ancestry and genetics, do not use imprecise or vague terminology because such phrasing lacks scientific rigor. You are, of course, free to seek out sources that explicitly support your argument, but as it stands, the wording you propose, such as "directly descended", is not supported by the standards of verifiable academic discourse. Conversely, the excerpt you provided on ancestry, exactly as written, is legitimate and suitable for inclusion precisely because it adheres to these principles.

  This exemplifies the issue with how these statements are being framed by you.

  Source A: "Copts historically used the sistrum in their church services. The sistrum is an instrument that dates back to ancient Egypt."

  Source B: "Evidence suggests that some Coptic hymns have incorporated certain elements from religious music from later ancient Egyptian periods."

  N Your framing: Coptic music is a continuation of ancient Egyptian music or Coptic music is as close as it gets to ancient Egyptian music (Source A & B)

  Y Correct framing: Coptic hymns likely incorporate some elements from religious musical traditions of later ancient Egyptian periods (Source B), and instruments like the sistrum, which dates back to ancient Egypt, have also been used (Source A).

  This is textbook WP:SYNTH and it is not allowed. Your approach relies on assembling a series of factual statements to support your own broad, interpretative conclusions that are not explicitly stated by authoritative sources. Coptic music is Christian music shaped in a specific cultural context, ancient Egypt was not Christian, hence it is not a continuation of ancient Egyptian music in any definitive or meaningful way beyond the broader cultural continuity, shaped by the natural and dynamic evolution of cultural influences over time. Yes, Copts do use the ancient Egyptian calendar just like most Egyptian farmers do to calculate agricultural seasons. Yes, Copts do use the Egyptian language at church for certain liturgical purposes. Yes, Coptic was used to decipher hieroglyphs. Yes, the Coptic church preserved the Egyptian language. Yes, Egyptians were not exterminated or replaced. I know this and you know this, our connection to ancient Egypt is tangible in so many ways and please feel free to present these facts independently in their appropriate place and proportionately worded. But no, this does not mean you can infer your own conclusions through selective fact-stitching and present it here as a fact in its own right.

  Please refrain from using "established common knowledge" or "established facts" as a justification for content inclusion on Wikipedia. If that exact statement was indeed established fact you should have no difficulty providing authoritative sources that explicitly state it (see WP:DUE). What you're arguing in favor of including is basically editorializing the content of this article to the massive detriment of its quality and academic integrity.

  I have put a lot of effort into illustrating the fundamental issues with this approach, besides the fact that it's against the guidelines that have been cited here, and I sincerely hope to reach a basic understanding with you before listing the specific problems in the article. We are not arguing about what content to include, but about the enforcement of the rules of this website. Ultimately, Wikipedia guidelines will be upheld in this article, and we can save considerable time in achieving that by avoiding prolonged dispute resolution processes. Turnopoems (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Turnopoems, thank you again for your reply. I would not agree with you that I am synthesizing information. I think the main point of disagreement is what we consider reliable resources. Throughout Wikipedia, various sources such as books, journal articles, scientific papers, news articles and others are used as references. There are tons of such sources that explicitly state that "the Copts the descendants of ancient Egyptians". Here are only a handful of examples:

  • "So who are the Copts? They are the ancient Egyptians. Their art, language and religion are directly descended from the art, language and religion of the land of the pharaohs." - The Guardian[5]
  • "Copts do not historically believe themselves to be of Arab origin, but are instead acknowledged as the remaining descendants of the civilisation of the Ancient Egyptians, with Pharaonic origins." - Australian Broadcasting Corporation[6]
  • "COPTS, the early native Christians of Egypt and their successors of the Monophysite sect, now racially the purest representatives of the ancient Egyptians." - 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. Composed by Alfred Joshua Butler[7]
  • "Modern Copts are the living descendants of the ancient Egyptians, heirs to a splendid and unique patrimony." - Christin Cannuyer. Coptic Egypt : The Christians of the Nile. Thames & Hudson; First edition (January 1, 2001). ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0500301042 ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0500301043
  • "Defining indigeneity is complex; the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) abstains from a rigid definition but suggests a criterion - one Copts indeed fulfil. Foremost, Copts exhibit profound ties to Egyptian territory. Copts [...] have a distinct genetic makeup as descendants of the Ancient Egyptians."[8]
  • "The Coptic people are an ethnoreligious population that identifies as the descendants of ancient Egyptians2 according to their genetic results and the evolution of their language and traditions that root back to the ancient Egyptian civilization." - James B. Minahan. Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World, Second Edition, Vol Second edition, Greenwood; 2016, page 108.
  • "As already mentioned, the Copts were the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, a point that must be frequently emphasised so that it will not be forgotten." - Iris Habib Elmasry. The Story Of The Copts. St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery publications. Published January 1, 1978. ASIN ‏: ‎ B00NHR2KJW. Page 247

  Now, there are many more articles and books that state the same fact, that Copts are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. Again, anyone who does not want these facts to feature in Wikipedia will simply discredit every single source, which I do not believe is fair. Epenkimi (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  ● SMcCandlish is correct.

  Discussion should be point-by-point. The article lacks neutrality and has many primary and POV sources, not to mention many repetitions.

  As for the intro, I removed the disputed content until a consensus is reached on the talk page. There is a genetics section for a reason, which is following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

  As for the shared quote from Epenkimi, well again, that is misleading as it hides the fact that those are Sudanese Copts, and it's part of a series of studies on Sudan, the latest of which was far more detailed on that topic:

  "The population history of the Copts and their relation to Egyptians:

  The Copts represent a well-known ethnic group, generally practicing Christianity, which migrated from Egypt to Sudan around 200 years ago, settling in a predominately Muslim region.

  The ADMIXTURE analyses and the PCA displayed the genetic affinity of the Copts to the Egyptian population.

  Assuming few clusters, the Copts appeared admixed between Near Eastern/European populations and northeastern Sudanese and look similar in their genetic profile to the Egyptians. Assuming greater number of clusters (K≥18), the Copts formed their own separate ancestry component that was shared with Egyptians but can also be found in Arab populations. This behavior in the admixture analyses is consistent with shared ancestry between Copts and Egyptians and/or additional genetic drift in the Copts.

  The Copts and the Egyptians have a historically documented shared history.

  We further investigate the relationships of the Copts and the Egyptians to other groups. All population histories tested in every possible combination of either Copts or Egyptians, and Bedouin and Nuer, with Ju|’hoansi as outgroup to the others were rejected (D-statistic, |Z|>5.5), which points to a non-tree-like history of the Copts and Egyptians."

  Here's a detailed conclusion with numbers:

  • The Copts were estimated to be of 69.54% ± 2.57 European ancestry and the Egyptians of 70.65% ± 2.47 European ancestry.

  •The Egyptians and Copts showed low levels of genetic differentiation (FST = 0.00236), lower levels of genetic diversity and greater levels of RoH compared to other northeast African groups, including Arab and Middle Eastern groups that share ancestry with the Copts and Egyptians.

  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5587336/

  Fragrant Peony (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Sudanese Copts are Copts who emigrated to Sudan in the last 200 years. They are Copts. Not sure what your point is here. Epenkimi (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Roadmap for fixing guideline failures

@SMcCandlish @Epenkimi @Fragrant Peony

Please find below my compilation of issues identified in the article, accompanied by comments and suggestions for improvement. These points can also serve as a stronger basis for input should we require additional dispute resolutions, in the event we fail to reach an agreement. @SMcCandlish, I understand that you're not directly involved in the dispute, but your valuable input would be highly appreciated if you have the time to spare.

I also want to point out that the article currently has an absolutely massive source issue after recent content additions. A good portion of over 200 sources are completely unformatted, and many statements are supported with opinion articles and blog posts.

Lead

Issue 1:

N They are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians.

Comment: We have discussed this issue extensively, and this particular statement has been repeatedly inserted into nearly every major subsection of the article. This is a clear attempt to turn the article into a battleground for identity politics. The content itself is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR, as it is not supported by the cited sources. Moreover, the sources fail to meet WP:RS standards, including a self-published claim and a qualitative study on semiotics, neither of which provide a reliable basis for such assertions. This content needs to be removed from the article in its entirety.

Reply:Here are a handful of sources that explicitly say that Copts are the descendants of ancient Egyptians (there are many more, these are only examples):

• "So who are the Copts? They are the ancient Egyptians. Their art, language and religion are directly descended from the art, language and religion of the land of the pharaohs." - The Guardian[9]
• "Copts do not historically believe themselves to be of Arab origin, but are instead acknowledged as the remaining descendants of the civilisation of the Ancient Egyptians, with Pharaonic origins." - Australian Broadcasting Corporation[10]
• "COPTS, the early native Christians of Egypt and their successors of the Monophysite sect, now racially the purest representatives of the ancient Egyptians." - 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. Composed by Alfred Joshua Butler[11]
• "Modern Copts are the living descendants of the ancient Egyptians, heirs to a splendid and unique patrimony." - Christin Cannuyer. Coptic Egypt : The Christians of the Nile. Thames & Hudson; First edition (January 1, 2001). ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0500301042 ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0500301043
• "Defining indigeneity is complex; the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) abstains from a rigid definition but suggests a criterion - one Copts indeed fulfil. Foremost, Copts exhibit profound ties to Egyptian territory. Copts [...] have a distinct genetic makeup as descendants of the Ancient Egyptians."[12]
• "The Coptic people are an ethnoreligious population that identifies as the descendants of ancient Egyptians2 according to their genetic results and the evolution of their language and traditions that root back to the ancient Egyptian civilization." - James B. Minahan. Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World, Second Edition, Vol Second edition, Greenwood; 2016, page 108.
• "As already mentioned, the Copts were the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, a point that must be frequently emphasised so that it will not be forgotten." - Iris Habib Elmasry. The Story Of The Copts. St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery publications. Published January 1, 1978. ASIN ‏: ‎ B00NHR2KJW. Page 247
• '"Modern Copts are not only 'genetically' descendants of Ancient Egyptians, but retain some tangible cultural heritage such as language, music, and more."' - Adel Guindy. A Sword Over the Nile. Page 25. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. ISBN-10: 1643787616, ISBN-13: 978-1643787619
• '"Copts are then the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptian." - Adel Guindy. A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. ISBN-10: 1643787616, ISBN-13: 978-1643787619
• "The Copts are the people who made the pyramids and were the ancient pharaohs and so on. The Arabs, who are the majority population of Egypt, are two groups, one, the Arab invaders from the seventh century and their descendants, but more numerous are genetically Coptic people who converted to Islam under this pressure of dhimmitude over time. " - Prof. Constantine Gutzman, Chair of the Department of History at Western Connecticut State University
• "The Copts' lineage being tied to the pharaohs is central to the representation of their identity and sense of self" -Tadros, Mariz (2013). Copts at the Crossroads: The Challenges of Building Inclusive Democracy in Contemporary Egypt. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-977-416-591-7. (NOTE THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A BOOK YOU REFERENCE IN ONE OF YOUR SUGGESTIOSN BELOW

Epenkimi (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

---

Issue 2:

N While an integral part of their society, Copts remain culturally and religiously distinct from their surroundings. Coptic music is a continuation of ancient Egyptian music, and Coptic culture is considered a continuation of that of ancient Egypt. For instance, Copts still use the same calendar and months that have been used by their Egyptian forefathers for thousands of years. Thus, modern Copts are not only genetically descendants of ancient Egyptians, but retain some tangible cultural Egyptian heritage such as language, music and more.

Comment: This paragraph is unsalvageable as it is entirely WP:OR. In an attempt to remove the citation tag I added, another editor inserted "Guindy, pp. 25" as a source, yet these statements are not actually found in A Sword Over the Nile by Adel Guindy, making the citation incorrect. This pattern of misattributing sources to unsourced claims has been repeatedly observed throughout the article. Furthermore, Adel Guindy is not a historian but a Coptic activist, and his book has been widely discredited as a primary source ([13]). It is not a historical account but rather a commentary on the History of the Patriarchs. While this does not render the source entirely unsuitable for the article, it is certainly not appropriate for authoritative claims of this nature, even if it had been correctly cited, which it was not.

Reply:I am afraid you are incorrect in your claim that "these statements are not actually found in A Sword Over the Nile by Adel Guindy". Here is the exact quote from page 24 of the book:

• "Copts are then the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptian."

And here is the exact quote from page 25 of the book:

• "Modern Copts are not only 'genetically' descendants of Ancient Egyptians, but retain some tangible cultural heritage such as language, music, and more."' - Adel Guindy. A Sword Over the Nile. Page 25. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. ISBN-10: 1643787616, ISBN-13: 978-1643787619. The author then goes on to discuss the direct link between Coptic language and ancient Egyptian language (page 25-26), Coptic music and ancient Egyptian music (page 26-27), Coptic art and ancient Egyptian art (page 27).

As for the author himself, I find that attacks on his personality simply an ad hominem not worthy our time here. His book is NOT a commentary on the History of the Patriarchs as you claim, but a historical account based on 56 primary and other historical works by historians such as Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, al-Maqrizi, Ibn Khaldun, Al-Baladhuri, Ibn Abd al-Hakam, Mohamed Shafik Ghorbal, Mikhail Sharubim Bek, Jacques Tagher, Robert G. Hoyland, John of Nikiû, al-Qalqashandi, Aziz Suryal Atiya, Mark Swanson, Barbara Lynn Carter, Edith Louisa Butcher, Selim Naguib, Gawdat Gabra, Patricia Crone, Sanaa el-Masry, Sayeda Kashif, Louis Awad, Abdel Latif El Menawy, Hannah Arendt and others. This is an impressive list of bibliography for the book, and no one can claim that a work based on writings by such people is an unworthy or untrustworthy work.

As for the review of the book that you found by someone called Toby Kan (I tried looking up his credentials online, but could not find anything about who that person is), while it is a highly subjective review that doesn't mean anything in light of the obscurity of its writer, and his/her unknown merit or credentials, it is noteworthy mentioning that that same review commends Adel Guindy's A Sword Over the Nile more than once:

• It is commonplace to find that the official history is always dominant by the perspective of the conqueror’s camp. From the perspective of the vanquished side, this work provides an alternative narrative on solid ground.
• As a whole, this work undoubtedly gives an indispensable perspective to the current debate and can help scholars to uncover a fuller picture of the interfaith history in Egypt. Guindy’s observation of the systematic problem in Egyptian society is also worth considering. It is always a good idea to understand the Egyptian narrative from different angles. I believe that this book provides invaluable insights for scholars to balance their points of view in future research.

Now, if we were to consider the comments made by a slightly more renowned figure, Lord David Alton, on A Sword Over the Nile, we can read the following:

• It deserves to be widely read.
• Perhaps Adel Guindy’s timely and excellent book will act as a wakeup call.

Finally, as for the author himself, he is not a mere "Coptic activist". He is in fact was the former president and founder of Coptic Solidarity, as well as a senior editor of renowned Coptic weekly newspaper Watani, the only Coptic newspaper in Egypt. His expertise has been sought in the past for Ph.D. theses, including in Germany and France.

I really do not find a place after all of this to try and discredit the book as major source of information on the history of Copts. Epenkimi (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

---

Issue 3:

  While Coptic Christians speak the same dialects and are culturally similar to other Egyptians, they strongly oppose Arab identity and associate it with Islam and Islamism. Copts reject Arab nationalism, emphasizing indigenous Egyptian heritage and culture as well as their own unique ethnicity and genetic makeup, which are completely different from those of the Arabs. In Egypt, Copts have a relatively higher educational attainment, a relatively higher wealth index, and a stronger representation in white-collar job types, but limited representation in military and security agencies. The majority of demographic, socio-economic, and health indicators are similar among Coptic Christians and Muslims in Egypt.

Comment: This section needs to be reworked to better adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, particularly WP:NPOV. Assertive claims should be moderated to accurately reflect the content of the sources, rather than making broad or exaggerated statements. In particular, expressions that present Copts as a monolithic group, disregarding the diversity of opinions within any community, including the Copts, should be avoided.

Britannica is cited to support a claim that Copts reject Arab identity, yet no such statement appears in Britannica. On the contrary, it explicitly states:

"Copts, meanwhile, played key administrative and commercial roles under Arab rule. Adopting Arabic language and culture therefore became important means of upward mobility. Assimilation and inclusion of the Copts became especially pronounced during Fatimid rule. In the 12th century, the Coptic church officially adopted Arabic for liturgical use alongside the Coptic language, reflecting the fact that many churchgoers no longer understood Coptic."

Similarly, the study on East African genetics does not mention Coptic identity at all; it was merely copied over from the "Genetics" subsection without justification.

Below is an improved version, which restores elements of a long-standing revision ([14]) that contained several well-sourced statements but was inexplicably removed.

Suggestion:

Y While an integral part of Egyptian society, Copts preserve distinct religious traditions and some unique cultural elements. Coptic music incorporates influences from earlier Egyptian musical traditions, but its precise relationship to ancient Egyptian music remains debated among scholars. Copts also maintain the use of the Coptic calendar, which is based on the ancient Egyptian solar calendar and remains significant in their liturgical practices.

Y Many Copts view Arab identity as closely associated with Islam and may not fully identify with it, but they also have a national identity shared with other Egyptians. Copts and Muslim Egyptians are recognized as being physically indistinguishable. In Egypt, Copts have a relatively high educational attainment, wealth index, and a strong representation in white-collar job types, but limited representation in military and security agencies. The majority of demographic, socio-economic, and health indicators are similar among Coptic Christians and Muslims in Egypt.

---

Comment: I think the first suggestion is misplaced? Maybe it relates to Issue 2 above?

Here is what I propose instead for that paragraph:

Y Many Copts reject Arab nationalism because they believe themselves to be ethnically Egyptian and not Arab, thus emphasizing indigenous Egyptian heritage and culture, which are different from those of the Arabs. They view Arab identity to be closely associated with Islam and the process of Arabization of their country. Nevertheless, Copts also have an Egyptian national identity shared with other Egyptians. Copts and Muslim Egyptians are largely physically indistinguishable.

In Egypt, Copts have a relatively high educational attainment, wealth index, and a strong representation in white-collar job types, but limited representation in military and security agencies. The majority of demographic, socio-economic, and health indicators are similar among Coptic Christians and Muslims in Egypt.

Etymology

Issue 4:

  In their own Coptic language, which represents the final stage of the Egyptian language, the Copts refer to themselves as rem en kēme (Sahidic) ⲣⲙⲛⲕⲏⲙⲉ, lem en kēmi (Fayyumic), rem en khēmi (Bohairic) ⲣⲉⲙ̀ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ, which literally means "people of Egypt" or "Egyptians"; cf. Egyptian rmṯ n kmt, Demotic rmt n kmỉ.

Comment: Coptic is not a spoken language but a liturgical and historical one. Describing it as "their own" language is misleading, much like referring to various Celtic offshoots as the "own language" of the British. A more neutral phrasing would be preferable. While it is understandable that Copts identify strongly with the language for religious reasons, the article should accurately reflect its actual linguistic status rather than creating a false impression that it is actively used by Copts today. In reality, most Copts can only recite hymns in Coptic without comprehending the meaning or syntax.

Additionally, it would be more accurate to restore the previous version, Coptic: ⲚⲓⲢⲉⲙ̀ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ̀ⲛ̀Ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓ̀ⲁⲛⲟⲥ, NiRemenkīmi enKhristianos, as Remenkīmi simply means "Egyptian" and does not specifically distinguish between Copts and Muslims. While this is not a content violation, it would enhance accuracy.

---

History

Issue 5:

N Copts are the native inhabitants of Egypt, and the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians whose ancestors embraced Christianity in the first centuries.

Comment: Same as Issue 1, the sources for this guideline violation include a blog post, an opinion article, the infamous "Guindy, pp. 24", a travel guide (Travel2Egypt), and yet another Guindy but this time without even specifying a page. None of these meet WP:RS standards obviously. Furthermore, this is not history in any meaningful sense, it's the same ritualized affirmation that needs to be removed from the article.

---

Issue 6:

N Today, Copts form a major ethno-religious group whose origins date back to the ancient Egyptians.

Comment: As with Issue 1, this text suffers from the same problem. Additionally, the article does not require multiple introductory statements, making this section not only problematic for the reasons previously stated but also redundant. The sources cited do not explicitly support these claims. Instead, they are copied from other parts of the article and contain content that mentions connections to certain aspects of ancient Egypt, which the editor has synthesized into their own conclusion, violating WP:SYNTH.

Copts, as a distinct ethnic group, do not trace their origin to ancient Egypt; rather, they emerged during the Roman period of Egyptian history, as clearly indicated in the article’s own history section. Even if we're talking about lineage, why ancient Egypt? Is there a specific cut-off point? Why not pre-dynastic Egypt, proto-Afroasiatic communities, or even homo erectus? On the other end, I suspect that Copts also trace their origins to the Middle Ages and beyond, so why is this singular period in history chosen as some kind of reference point here? Implying that Copts either don't trace their lineage to earlier periods, or that other periods are unimportant for some reason. This clearly represents yet another attempt to affirm one specific perspective on identity. It's a pretty obvious WP:DUE and WP:NPOV fail.

---

Issue 7:

  Coptic converts to Islam were lured to the new religion by the prospect of paying less taxes, since they would no longer have to pay the Jizya taxation levied only on non-Muslims according to Islamic Sahria law.

Comment: This wording is a pretty massive WP:NPOV failure. This needs to be reworded, and the source format needs to be fixed.

Suggestion:

Y Coptic converts to Islam may have been motivated by the prospect of financial relief, as they would no longer be subject to the Jizya tax, which was levied only on non-Muslims according to Islamic Sharia law.

---

Issue 8:

  The persecution and harassment of Christian Copts by their Muslim rulers continued throughout the Middle Ages and well into the Early modern period.

Comment: Same goes for this one, and it is not sourced.

Suggestion:

Y The treatment of Christian Copts by Muslim rulers remained challenging throughout the Middle Ages and continued into the Early modern period.

---

Issue 9:

N Egyptian nationalism rose to prominence in the 1920s and 1930s. It looked to Egypt's pre-Islamic past and argued that Egypt was part of a larger Mediterranean civilization. This ideology stressed the role of the Nile River and the Mediterranean Sea. It became the dominant mode of expression of Egyptian anti-colonial activists of the pre- and inter-war periods. There was no place for an Arab component in the Egyptian personality at that time, and Egyptians had no Arab orientation as they saw themselves as Egyptians regardless of religion. Foreigners visiting Egypt noted that Egyptians did not possess any Arab sentiment in the first half of the 20th century. As one Arab nationalist of the time put it "Egyptians did not accept that Egypt was a part of the Arab lands, and would not acknowledge that the Egyptian people were part of the Arab nation."

Comment: What does this have to do with Copts? Once again, there is a clear attempt to insert content that reinforces a particular perspective on identity, which is both a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. This section has been copied verbatim from another article with this intent. It should be removed unless further contextual clarification is provided to justify its inclusion in an article specifically about Copts. Without such context, it is irrelevant and detracts from the focus of the article.

---

Demographics

Issue 10:

N Living predominantly in a country with Muslim majority, the size of the population of Copts is a continuously disputed matter, frequently for reasons of religious jealousy and animosity.

Comment: Why does living in a Muslim-majority country automatically lead to disputes over population size? Why is religious jealousy and animosity presented as a natural outcome simply because the country is Muslim-majority? The reason the population size is disputed is due to contests by Christian groups, which led authorities to exclude religion from the census. This not only represents a WP:NPOV failure but also borders on Islamophobia by implying that such tensions are an inherent consequence of a Muslim-majority context. This framing needs to be corrected to maintain neutrality and avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

---

Genetics

Issue 11:

  Copts are the native inhabitants of Egypt, and the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, whose ancestors embraced Christianity in the first centuries. After the Arab conquest of Egypt, Egyptians who converted to Islam ceased to call themselves by the demonym Copt, and the term became the distinctive name of the Christian minority in Egypt. Nevertheless, genetics have proven that the vast majority of Egypt's Muslims today are also of Coptic origin.

Comment: The same issues of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH are present here, supported by a range of sources that have been copied over from other parts of the article. Many of these sources are improperly formatted, and several do not meet WP:RS standards (as previously mentioned). Among them is a blog post, a travel guide, and others copied from the genetics section. While the sources copied from the genetics section provide accurate facts about genetics, they do not support the explicit statements made in this section. The weaker sources have no place in a genetics section. I am not going to undertake the Herculean task of moderating this long list of sources, but this section needs to be tagged for weak sources, specifically due to the problematic content that was recently introduced to what was previously a well-sourced and well-written text.

Suggestion:

Y Copts are a Christian community in Egypt with a long history dating back to the early centuries of Christianity in the region. Following the Arab conquest of Egypt, the term "Copt" became associated with Egypt's Christians. Over time, the term "Copt" came to represent Egyptian Christians as distinct from the Muslim majority. While there are cultural and historical connections to ancient Egypt, modern Copts are part of the broader Egyptian population, shaped by both their Christian faith and their historical presence in Egypt. Genetics have shown that both Egypt's Muslim and Christian populations are largely descended from the pre-Islamic Egyptian population.

---

Music

Issue 12:

  Coptic chant is a very old tradition with links to ancient Egyptian music. For instance, a hymn sung today on Good Friday in the Coptic Church has its roots in an ancient Egyptian melody that ancient Egyptian priests played during the burial of Egyptian kings.

Comment: This comment is mostly fine, but the wording could be refined to enhance its academic tone. The issues are not related to WP:NPOV, but rather to the overall lack of formal and scholarly expression. Additionally, it is important to note that the sources are not properly formatted and must be corrected to adhere to Wikipedia's citation guidelines.

Suggestion:

Y Coptic chant is an ancient tradition that has been linked to the musical practices of ancient Egypt. Evidence suggests that certain hymns sung in the Coptic Church, such as those performed during Good Friday services, may be derived from melodies used by ancient Egyptian priests during royal funerary rites. One example is a hymn sung on Good Friday, which is believed to share similarities with an ancient Egyptian melody associated with the burial of pharaohs.

---

Identity

Issue 13:

  As the native inhabitants of Egypt, and the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, Copts have a strong attachment to their Egyptian identity. Over the centuries, Copts have always rejected and fought against other identities that foreign rulers attempted to force upon them, stressing their own Egyptian identity.

Comment: The ritual affirmation needs to be removed for the same reasons explained in the other sections. Coptic identity is almost entirely rooted in their Christian faith, not specifically in ancient Egypt. Copts existed for thousands of years during the long intermediate period prior to Egyptology, when almost nothing was known about ancient Egyptian culture, and such associations would have been impossible at the time. The continuous imposition of ancient Egypt onto every aspect of their existence represents a significant WP:NPOV fail. However, the content is salvageable if the language is moderated to eliminate the authoritative claims that present Coptic views as a monolith. It is entirely possible to discuss political and ideological trends without resorting to exaggerated generalizations, which, even if true assuming someone took the temp of every Copt, do not comply with Wikipedia guidelines unless WP:RS sources explicitly state this.

Suggestion:

Y Copts have historically maintained a strong sense of Egyptian identity, which has played a role in their cultural and religious expression. Throughout history, Copts have expressed resistance to broader regional identities such as pan-Arabism and Islamism, while emphasizing their connection to Egypt.

References

Turnopoems (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)