Talk:Copts

Arbitrary break 1

I think I oppose the "Anti-direct descent" version. I prefer the version that doesn't attribute this view to journalists and activists. What I'm not seeing in the anti-direct descent comments above is:

• any solid reason to believe that Copts aren't descended primarily from Ancient Egyptians (i.e., the traditional inhabitants of a region that included so many immigrants, traders, and imported slaves that it can have no pretensions to ethnic purity), and
• any idea of who their ancestors might be, if not primarily the Ancient Egyptians. Because they did not spring forth like Athena fully formed from the Greek gods; they had parents and grandparents, and either most of those ancestors lived in Ancient Egypt or they lived elsewhere, and anyone trying to disprove the Ancient Egypt claim ought to be saying "We proved it was India" instead of " 'only' nearly all of their ancestors lived in Egypt several centuries ago"

Contrast "Cleopatra's ancestors were Ptolemaic Greeks, so she wasn't descended from Ancient Egyptians" (either "at all" or "primarily", depending on who you believe her mother was) and "The Copts aren't 100% biologically descended from Ancient Egyptians, so they aren't really descended from Ancient Egyptians at all". Rejecting the ancestry claims because they aren't 100% sounds too close to "so that religio-ethnic minority group doesn't really belong here in modern Egypt" to my ears for me to accept this version.

Also, in terms of misrepresenting sources

• The "Allele frequency" primary source says "The results support that Egyptian Muslims and Egyptian Christians genetically originate from the same ancestors", so if the Copts don't have Ancient Egyptian ancestry, then neither do the Egyptian Muslims, and that basically means that nobody in Egypt does.
• https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6964855/ is a study of two mummies and doesn't mention Copts.
• I would like @JoelleJay to look at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5587336/ because it seems to me that the source is talking about a small group of Egyptian Copts that "migrated from Egypt to Sudan around 200 years ago", and therefore is not a statement about Copts in general, but I'm uncertain what the effect of the assumptions about the number of clusters means, and I think she'll give a more reliable summary.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. After reading your answer, I realize that I may have inadvertently framed the RfC in an “us versus them” manner. In reality, the point of contention is the scientific validity of using a term such “direct descent” (especially using unscientific sources), rather than any intent to deny or diminish the Copts’ connection to a particular ancestry or origin. I will add this disclaimer to the RfC.

The study of the two mummies addresses continuity between ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians, among whom are the Copts, so a broader continuity as mentioned in that statement. This addition represented an attempt at compromise, aiming to anchor the argument in a more scientifically grounded tone, but without directly reinforcing the original assertion.Turnopoems (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like you are taking a very 'genetic' approach to ethnicity. I don't think that is appropriate for an ethnic group, but in an attempt to work within that model: Every human that has ever been born has "direct descent" from someone. Nobody is ancestor-less. So if the Copts allegedly don't have direct descent from people who lived in Ancient Egypt, then who did they allegedly directly descend from? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:: I don't think I'm taking a genetic approach, but rather a perspective rooted in a broader scientific methodology grounded in evidentiary standards. The issue I take with the claim of "direct descent" lies in its conspicuous lack of scientific validity. While the statement is phrased with the assertiveness of a settled truth, all the sources lack the empirical foundation necessary to sustain such a conclusion, nor do they even attempt to present it within any serious scholarly framework.

I have checked each of the cited sources, I have found none that offer a demonstrable, methodologically sound explanation for how this alleged "direct descent" is established. The phrase itself is left undefined, ambiguous both in scope and meaning. What constitutes “direct descent” in this context? Is it genetic continuity, cultural transmission, linguistic lineage, or some amalgamation of historical associations selectively invoked to serve an identity narrative? Moreover, how is such a claim substantiated across a temporal chasm of five millennia?

Maybe we can track our descent from parents and grandparents but even going back a few generations we run headlong into the practical limits of genealogical certainty and record-keeping. Even if someone has robust documentation for their immediate family; parents, grandparents, perhaps great-grandparents, those threads become increasingly frayed with each additional generation. Every new generation effectively doubles the number of an individual’s direct ancestors: two parents become four grandparents, four grandparents become eight great-grandparents, and so forth. After only ten generations, merely two or three centuries, this mathematical certainty translates to over thousands of distinct ancestral lines. Extending that exponential growth further back in time, especially over millennia, yields an astronomical number of ancestors, quintillions to be precise without accounting for pedigree collapse. As a consequence, the vast majority of modern populations share common ancestors with a myriad of other groups, rendering untenable any claim to an exclusive genealogical inheritance that remains unbroken over thousands of years. This reality also dispels the notion of a single, continuous bloodline persisting in isolation. If I have just one Greek ancestor in the 80 generations (that's roughly 1.2×10^24, or 1.2 septillion mathematically implied ancestral slots, odds are one was likely filled by a Greek) that have likely preceded me since the Hellenic era, am I not directly descended from that person, and thus I, an Egyptian, am also directly descended from the ancient Greeks? This is a matter of simple arithmetic: if a single an individual from any ancient population appears in your family tree, then the line from them to you, no matter how many generations intervened, runs unbroken and you are directly descended from them.

The assertion becomes even more tenuous when situated within the broader chronology of human habitation in Egypt, which extends well beyond the ancient Egyptian period. If the Copts are to be described as "direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians", are we to assume they are not equally descended from the peoples who inhabited the Nile Valley for thousands of years prior? Or are those earlier populations conveniently excluded because they lack the civilizational prestige typically invoked in national or ethno-religious narratives?

Furthermore, this selective invocation of descent raises questions about consistency and standards. In other ethnographic or national contexts, such blanket claims of “direct descent” are absent. For instance, are modern English populations described as the direct descendants of the pre-Roman Britons? Does the French article claim direct descent from the Franks? Are the Spanish portrayed as direct descendants of the Visigoths? And what of modern Italians, are they framed as the direct descendants of the Etruscans? If such statements are absent or heavily qualified in these cases, why should this context be treated differently?

Ultimately, I fail to see how such a claim meaningfully contributes to our understanding of Coptic population history. If the objective is to highlight genetic, cultural, or historical continuity, then the appropriate approach would be a methodologically grounded analysis, such as those employed in genetics, linguistics, or history. Not a sweeping generalization derived from this type of sources. Genetic techniques can't confirm that a modern ethnic group are the exclusive or linear descendants of one specific ancient community. Genetic markers, whether examined through mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosomes, or autosomal variants can only unveil broad regional affiliations and affinities. When studies from related fields avoid such imprecise language, opting instead for nuanced, interdisciplinary syntheses that reflect the complexity of population history, it should signal clearly that this is not an academically sound way to describe lineage or origin. To diverge from this standard uniquely in the case of the Copts not only undermines scholarly consistency but risks misleading readers by replacing a neutral, evidence-based narrative with an idealized and mythologized construction of identity that verges on nationalist romanticism.

I hope I have managed to make my viewpoint a bit clearer.Turnopoems (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor to take issue over whether a claim has "scientific validity".
• It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor to decide whether an "empirical foundation" for the reliable sources' claims is "necessary".
• It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor to require that sources provide the editor with "a demonstrable, methodologically sound explanation" for their claims.
• It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor to decide whether "direct descent" ought to mean "genetic continuity, cultural transmission, linguistic lineage, or some amalgamation of historical associations" or to insist that it should only refer to "a single, continuous bloodline persisting in isolation".
• It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor to calculate out the percentages of ancestry and decide for themselves which DNA elements or how much of them constitutes "direct descent".
• It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor to decide that the reliable sources are being unfair because they frequently point out the connection between the Copts and the Ancient Egyptians, but don't always point out the connection between the modern French people and the Germanic Franks or Celtic Gauls, or between the Italians and the Etruscans (though there are certainly some sources that do so).

Instead, it is the job of the Wikipedia editor to fairly, proportionately, and – as far as humanly possible – without any bias on the part of the Wikipedia editor, to summarize what the reliable sources say. For example, the Wikipedia editor should not try to cast doubt on the validity of what the reliable sources say, because the Wikipedia editor disagrees with the reliable sources' conclusion.

It seems logical to me to assume that anyone who is a "direct descendant of the ancient Egyptians" is probably also a direct descendant of the peoples who inhabited the Nile Valley for thousands of years prior, though that might not be true (e.g., if they all died – though that seems unlikely for an area as large as Egypt). For example, I've heard that the modern English populations have more Viking ancestry than than pre-Roman Briton ancestry, and that there appear to have been times in the history of human settlement of the island of Great Britain when no humans lived there (off and on between 40,000 and 10,000 BCE). But our job here is pretty simple: If nearly all the sources say "directly descended from Ancient Egyptians", then the Wikipedia article should also say "directly descended from Ancient Egyptians". It's not that difficult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, User:WhatamIdoing. I cannot agree more with everything you said.

To add to what you said, I invite User:Turnopoems to answer the one simple question you asked him previously, and which he/she has so far failed to address: "So if the Copts allegedly don't have direct descent from people who lived in Ancient Egypt, then who did they allegedly directly descend from?"

And of course, I would like User:Turnopoems in this case to respond to your question by using the "broader scientific methodology grounded in evidentiary standards" that he has repeatedly advocated for. Epenkimi (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing It is the job of a Wikipedia editor to make informed judgments about what constitutes a reliable source, whether the text faithfully reflects the nuance of those sources in context, and whether the source justifies an assertive claim of such magnitude. Policies like WP:NPOV and WP:RS are not self-enforcing; they rely on the collaborative efforts of editors to uphold content standards. The compromise version introduced was a good-faith attempt to reflect the character of sources that make claims of "direct descent", while juxtaposing them with the language of peer-reviewed scientific literature, which carries greater weight than op-eds, travel guides, blogs, news reporting, or the official page of the Coptic Orthodox Church, among others. Furthermore, not all of the cited sources explicitly assert "direct" descent, as you suggest. In fact, only one of them does so, Adel Guindy, and even then, his claim relies on the National Geographic study that maps the Y-chromosome distribution of modern Egyptian, it references Egyptians as a whole rather than the Copts specifically, and it makes no attempt, methodological or interpretive even, to compare it with ancient Egyptians. As such, the claim by Guindy extrapolates far beyond what the study actually supports.

Moreover, the fact that Guindy even invokes that study shows that his understanding of haplogroup distributions is fundamentally flawed. It is pretty clear that he incorrectly presumes that the presence of Haplogroup J signals post-Islamic Arab migration and that Haplogroup E is the genetic hallmark of pre-Islamic Egyptians, a common misinterpretation of the study that circulated widely across Egyptian tabloids and social media a few years ago (https://cairoscene.com/buzz/national-geographic-s-dna-analysis-proves-egyptians-are-only-17-arab). This gross oversimplification misreads population genetics by assuming that a given paternal lineage corresponds to a single historical event or ethnic boundary. In reality, haplogroups-J, E, or otherwise, are widely dispersed across multiple regions and have been long before an ancient Egyptian civilization emerged. The mummies of Abusir el-Meleq showed a similar distribution of both of those lineages. It is entirely within our prerogative to scrutinize the accuracy of a source that demonstrably misapplies a well-established scientific concept to critically assess its reliability (WP:NEWSOPINION, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:SOURCE, WP:VNOT, WP:EXCEPTIONAL), the suggestion that it isn't our job would be both baffling and antithetical to the foundational principles of evidence-based, collaborative content curation. Moreover, the notion that something may be "logical to assume" does not in itself make it reasonable for inclusion, particularly when the statement is vague enough to require interpretive context that neither the text nor the cited source provides.

@Epenkimi I'm not sure what purpose is served by inviting me to answer the question, as I have never denied the origins of the Copts. The premise constitutes a mischaracterization of my position. I fully accept that Copts are part of the continuous population that has inhabited the Nile Valley since the beginning, but shaped by five millennia of additional history. My objection is not to continuity, but to the unqualified use of the term “direct descent”, particularly when it selectively elevates one period of Egypt’s past while omitting the broader historical context that would allow readers to understand how and why that connection is being emphasized. A more balanced and academically responsible formulation is not a rejection of identity, it is an affirmation of integrity in how we represent history. Turnopoems (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Editors are supposed to use their judgment to determine whether a source is reliable. That judgment is supposed to be focused on the WP:NOTGOODSOURCE criteria. It is not supposed to be focused on whether the source agrees with the editor.

See also WP:MEDASSESS: editors should determine the appropriate type of source and quality of publication. Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review.

You are rejecting sources because you disagree with their conclusions. You are performing detailed peer review to decide whether their evidence is sufficient – according to you. This is not what the policies and guidelines want editors to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I must respectfully push back on the characterization that I am rejecting this source purely on the basis of personal disagreement. Every point I have raised thus far has been grounded in an assessment of its methodological deficiencies with respect to the specific claim under scrutiny. I have explicitly outlined why the source lacks the scientific rigor necessary to substantiate the assertion of "direct descent", and I have done so by referencing both the content of the source itself and its broader context within the academic discourse.

Moreover, you appear to be overlooking a critical issue: all but one of the sources cited in support of this claim do not, in fact, use the phrase "direct descent" at all. This renders the statement in question a textbook example of WP:SYNTH, where multiple sources are combined to construct a conclusion that none of them independently assert.

Additionally, I find it puzzling that you’ve cited policies intended for articles on health and medicine, as these are not applicable to the present case. A far more relevant policy is found in WP:SCIASSESS, which explicitly governs natural and social sciences, which subjects such as population history and genetics fall under. It states:

Editors should be careful to avoid engaging in original research, but the quality of available evidence should be kept in mind when assessing whether a particular idea or viewpoint is well-accepted by the relevant academic community. Such evidence should include reviews of the literature including the work of several different research groups. Individual papers often disagree with each other, but there are several indicators that may be assessed even without specialist knowledge to differentiate high quality papers from low...

Accordingly, I ask you to explain how the assertion of "direct descent" is supported by the consensus of the relevant academic community, when the only instance of this language originates from a Coptic activist who misattributes the claim to a Y-chromosome haplogroup study of modern Egyptians.

Finally, turning to the question of source reliability, I feel that I must be more candid about the nature of Swords over the Nile which is essentially a self-published book. This work was published by Austin Macauley, a company known for publishing for payment and is widely recognized as a vanity press, see: Writer Beware report and Austin Macauley Publishers#Controversy. The same article on sources (WP:SCIRS) also states:

Most books and monographs that are self-published or published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and consequently are not reliable sources.

So the statement, as it's worded, is not supported by a single reliable source, and its assertion in a Sword over the Nile should be assessed per WP:USESPS. Turnopoems (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

If your main point of contention is the word "direct" and the fact that only Guindy's book is where it features as such per verbatim, why does Version 3 that you proposed state that Many Coptologists, journalists, religious figures, nationalists, and advocacy-driven sources assert that Copts are the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians ?

And I am only asking the question because it seems that now that you are cornered by someone who is far more knowledgeable than I am about Wikipedia's policies, your crusade to discredit all the sources provided that link the Copts to ancient Egyptians has now shifted to focus on and attack just one source to try and win the entire argument, which is completely disingenuous. Epenkimi (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Because it is an effort at compromise, an attempt to accommodate what you're advocating for without assigning disproportionate academic weight to a claim that lacks broad scholarly consensus, or even a single peer-reviewed source. If that would have been sufficient to find agreement between the two of us then it would have been an acceptable compromise. I think that would have been far more difficult to do had I forfeited that concession and written "Coptic activist Adel Guindy asserts that Copts are the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians", which, in my view, more accurately reflects the nature and origin of the claim. I didn’t have to, but I thought it was the most effective approach to achieve a successful outcome in terms of building consensus. Additionally, I was not aware that Austin Macauley Publishers was a vanity press until now. I was operating under the assumption that the book wasn't self-published.

I urge you to reconsider approaching this process as a zero-sum contest. It's making interacting with you incredibly tedious and unpleasant. I'm not taking away from his/her knowledge in any way, but I am by no means "cornered", which is a weird way to describe what is, or should be, a consensus-building dialogue. Like any collaborative editorial process, this involves a reasoned exchange of arguments, and I am engaging with his/her points just as he/she is engaging with mine. The RfC is not intended as a rhetorical checkmate, it is simply a means of inviting broader community input to help establish a clearer foundation for consensus. I have been clear in stating that I will respect the outcome, whatever it may be. And just to be clear, even if there is consensus among editors that the statement should be included as currently phrased, that does not in any way negate the substantive concerns I have raised regarding the weakness of the underlying sources. It simply reflects that, in their view, the claim meets the threshold of WP:DUE, that is, they consider it a proportionate representation of that specific viewpoint. Turnopoems (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

This conversation is getting more pathetic by the day. As I and others have tried to make you understand, you have no authority to challenge sources and insert your own opinion just because you do not like the sources. If you do not like a certain source, then you're most welcome to bring other reliable sources that contradict what that source says. Turning the argument into a sad discussion about how a certain book is published by a vanity press publisher only shows how weak the level of your argument is. A vanity publisher means that the author actually pays out of his/her own pocket to publish the book, rather than actually make profit off that book, which is quite noble and shows that the author is not looking for financial gain out of that work. More importantly, there is no Wikipedia rule against using sources published by vanity press sources. And at the end of the day, Adel Guindy knows way more about the topic of Coptic history than you do. If you knew of someone as knowledgeable or more knowledgeable than him who contradicts his assertion of direct descendance, you would have shared that a long time ago. You have not.

But honestly, since this discussion is so badly deteriorating, and since we need to move on, let me show you true compromise: I am ok with removing the word direct as long as you accept the following form for the paragraph, and as long as we discuss the four sources you added to end of Version 3 because the way I read your last 4 sources, they may not actually support the last sentence:

Copts are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, and are the heirs of the ancient Egyptian heritage.^{[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]} This link to ancient Egypt emphasizes cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing Coptic identity as distinct from the Arab and Islamic influences that later shaped Egypt. Genetic studies and scholarly analyses highlight a broad continuity and affinity between Copts and other Egyptians, and their ancient Egyptian ancestors, demonstrating a largely shared and stable genetic heritage rather than a strict, isolated lineage.^{[citation needed]}

If you're in agreement with this compromise, then let's discuss the sources for the last sentence and move on. Epenkimi (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The notion that Wikipedia operates on blind deference to sources and that we can't challenge them is, again, absolutely ridiculous, wrong and has no basis in policy. Wikipedia’s policies are not self-enforcing abstractions; they are upheld by editors, like you and me, in processes like these. I hope it's clear that I’m literally paraphrasing the guidelines directly. The texts I'm citing are not conjecture, they are directly copied from the policies and guidelines. WP:SCIRS explicitly states that material published through vanity presses is not considered reliable. Austin Macauley is, by definition, a vanity press. These policies are publicly accessible to you just as they are to me, they’re not hidden behind any paywall or restricted platform. I genuinely don’t understand the gaslighting involved in implying that they don’t exist or that I’m making them up. Which part of this do you believe reflects my personal opinion?

Adel Guindy’s credentials, whether stronger or weaker than mine, are not the issue. The fact remains that his book is self-published, and therefore falls squarely under the category of unreliable sources as outlined in the text below from WP:SCIRS. I encourage you to read this carefully:

Most books and monographs that are self-published or published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and consequently are not reliable sources.

I’ve also raised concerns about a specific claim in his book, citing both policy and sources that demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of haplogroup research. Dismissing this as mere personal opinion is, at best, a stretch and, at worst, an attempt to sidestep a serious issue of source quality. Merely stating that it's a bad source could perhaps be considered a personal opinion, but methodically explaining its weaknesses and factual inaccuracies is not personal opinion. This example highlights precisely why Wikipedia places limits on the use of self-published material that hasn't gone through a process of fact-checking and peer-review, no matter how "well-intentioned" the author may be. Whether one views his broader agenda as noble (moral relativism?) is irrelevant here. Personally I would argue that his framing of his non-Christian compatriots is far from noble, but that’s my opinion and beside the point.

As for the compromise, which is mostly based on the text I suggested in the first place (i.e. also a true compromise - come on dude), it is certainly an improvement, if we remove the absolute assertiveness then it is completely fine as far as I'm concerned. To me that would look something like this.

Many sources assert that the Copts are descendants of the ancient Egyptians and heirs to their heritage. This claim emphasizes cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, while framing Coptic identity as distinct from the Arab and Islamic influences that later shaped Egypt. Genetic and anthropological studies highlight a broader continuity and affinity between Copts, other Egyptians, and ancient Egyptians, demonstrating a largely shared and stable genetic heritage rather than a strict, isolated lineage

I’ve removed “ancestor” from my version because I still feel it lends the text a significantly more nationalist and less academic undertone. That said, it’s not a hill I’m willing to die on, if there’s broader consensus that it’s acceptable I will let it slide. This text could be included in the Identity section where you are also free to elaborate on how ancient Egypt features prominently in modern Coptic self-perception and identity. If you believe it would provide greater contextual clarity in another section, please feel free to offer your suggestion. Turnopoems (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I will address how the four sources I provided support the statement in question in this separate reply.

__________________________

This source alone is a pretty unequivocal and direct support for the statement, as it also includes a figure (S17) that maps the relation to ancient Egyptians. The relation is further explored in the other studies and can be further substantiated by a range of additional peer-reviewed studies, should additional support be required.

Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations

This behavior in the admixture analyses is consistent with shared ancestry between Copts and Egyptians and/or additional genetic drift in the Copts [41, 42]. 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.

The Egyptians and Copts showed low levels of genetic differentiation (FST = 0.00236, Fig 1B), lower levels of genetic diversity (S17 Fig) and greater levels of RoH (Fig 4) compared to other northeast African groups, including Arab and Middle Eastern groups that share ancestry with the Copts and Egyptians (Fig 2) [41]. A formal test (D(Ju|’hoansi,X;Egypt,Copt)), did not find significant admixture into the Egyptians from other tested groups (X) as the explanation of the (admittedly low level of) differentiation between the two groups, and the Copts and Egyptians displayed similar levels of European or Middle Eastern ancestry (S8A and S8B Fig). Taken together, these results point to that the Copts and the Egyptians have a common history linked to smaller population sizes, and that the Copts have remained relatively isolated since the arrival to Sudan with only low levels of admixture with local northeastern Sudanese groups (S8B Fig).

__________________________

Allele frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups

This work aims to study the correlation between allele frequencies of nine Short Tandem Repeats (STRs) autosomal loci (D3S1358, VWA, FGA, THO1, TPOX, CSF1PO, D5S818, D13S317, and D7S820) for the main two Egyptian ethnic groups, Muslims and Christians, in order to test the hypothesis of a common ancestral for the whole Egyptian population. [...] The genetic correlation of the two ethnic groups is investigated using alleles’ frequencies statistics, forensic efficiency parameters and populations’ homogeneity charts. Graphical methods were used to check the harmony between the two ethnic groups. The results support that Egyptian Muslims and Egyptian Christians genetically originate from the same ancestors.

[...]

Both groups show small SE values, which indicate that both of them represent the Egyptian population very well. Moreover, the forensic efficiency parameters showed a great genetic homogeneity and correlation between the two ethnic groups.

__________________________

Multidisciplinary investigation of two Egyptian child mummies curated at the University of Tartu Art Museum, Estonia (Late/Graeco-Roman Periods)

The mtDNAs retrieved from the mummies belong to hgs T2c1a (OM S1) and HV (YM S7). Identical or phylogenetically close derivatives of these lineages are present in both ancient and modern Egyptians as well as among several present-day populations of the Near East and North Africa [45–51].

__________________________

This study compares modern Egyptians with a sample from the Old Kingdom period and notes the presence of a Caucasus-related genetic component in the modern population. The author suggests that this component entered Egypt from West Asia around or after the Second Intermediate Period. The assertion of continuity is implicit, as establishing continuity is not the study’s primary focus; if preferred, this reference can be substituted with a study that addresses the question more directly.

Reconstructing past human genetic variation with ancient DNA: case studies from ancient Egypt and medieval Europe

DNA was extracted from 94 samples from Armant (Egypt), Nuerat (Egypt) and Ghaba (Sudan) dated from the Early Neolithic to the historic period. Genome-wide data were successfully recovered from one sample from Nuerat sequenced to 0.22X coverage, dated to 2,868-2,492 cal BCE (95.4% probability) - consistent with the 3rd-4th Dynasties of the Old Kingdom. Allele frequency-based analyses (PCA, ADMIXTURE, f-statistics, qpAdm) show a strong genetic affinity of this sample to Levantine Natufians. Compared with genomes dated from the end of the Dynastic period (Third Intermediate Period) and present-day Egyptians, the Nuerat sample did not carry the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer genetic component that started to spread across West Asia ~4,000 years ago and is widely spread in present-day populations. The presence of this component in Egypt is likely associated with admixture between local Egyptian populations and Bronze Age-related populations from West Asia. This admixture pattern might result from the dominance of Lower Egypt by Canaanite (Levantine) rulers during the Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1,650-1,550 BCE). Turnopoems (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not agree with your last version. It is self-explanatory that "many sources" say that since we are referencing many sources, and therefore that disclaimer should not be included. I do not agree with the term "claim" since this you trying to cast doubt on the entire statement rather than referencing someone reliable who calls this a "claim". If I am compromising by removing your main point of contention ("direct"), then I do not think any of that superfluous stuff should be included because it's misleading and unwarranted. My last paragraph to you holds as my last effort to compromise. If you're not happy with it, we can go back to debating the initial 4 versions provided.

I will look closely at the last 4 references and will get back to everyone about them. Epenkimi (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

If you can also include a study from a relevant scientific discipline, such as genetics, population history, or anthropology, that supports the claim, then we can forgo the qualifying language and present it as a factual assertion in the text. Absent such evidence, I cannot endorse the use of assertive phrasing and must insist on language that accurately reflects its status as a viewpoint rather than an established fact. I believe this is entirely reasonable, especially given that you’ve called for an equivalent level of scrutiny regarding the scientific sources I’ve cited in support of the second part of the statement. I trust we can agree that evidentiary standards must be applied consistently across the board.

If there is none, we could just phrase it differently in a way you might find more acceptable, such as "Copts are widely seen" or "Copts are often considered". We could also forego "claim" and write "this connection emphasizes" instead. Turnopoems (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Editors are not supposed to be making an assessment of its methodological deficiencies of the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that editors are bound by the strictest interpretation of assuming good faith and treating sources with deference. Even within that framework, the source in question is self-published through a vanity press, and by Wikipedia’s own standards, such sources are not considered reliable. That fact alone should be sufficient to render this particular discussion moot, without requiring further debate over the source’s numerous shortcomings.

We clearly do not share the same understanding of the role editors are expected to play in upholding content standards, and continuing to litigate that difference is, in my view, an unproductive detour. As WP:SOURCEWRONG explicitly affirms, editors are not obligated to accept every published claim at face value, and I have done exactly what this policy states by juxtaposing its assertion with the prevailing views within the relevant scientific disciplines. Turnopoems (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing that Wikipedia editors are not supposed to be making an assessment of its methodological deficiencies of the sources. If your main point of contention is the word "direct", then I have offered you a very generous compromise by removing it in favour of my last version.

Regarding your question for a study from a scientific discipline that support the fact that Copts are the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians, here are multiple ones:

The Scientific Discipline of History

• "Copts, the early native Christians of Egypt and their successors of the Monophysite sect, now racially the purest representatives of the ancient Egyptians." - Alfred J. Butler, historian, in Encyclopædia Britannica (1911).^[49]
• "Modern Copts are the living descendants of the ancient Egyptians, heirs to a splendid and unique patrimony." - Christian Cannuyer, academic and historian.^[50]
• "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." - Kevin Gutzman, scholar and historian^[51]
• "The Copts were the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, a point that must be frequently emphasized so that it will not be forgotten." - Iris Habib Elmasry, historian.^[52]

The Scientific Discipline of Egyptology

• "The ethnology of the Copts is considered from the point of view of their descendance from the Ancient Egyptians." - Gorgi Sobhi, Egyptologist and Coptologist.^[53]

So now that we have established that a number of sources from scientific disciplines support the fact that Copts are the descendants of ancient Egyptians, here is again the version I am willing to work with:

Copts are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, and are the heirs of the ancient Egyptian heritage.^{[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]} This link to ancient Egypt emphasizes cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing Coptic identity as distinct from the Arab and Islamic influences that later shaped Egypt. Genetic studies and scholarly analyses highlight a broad continuity and affinity between Copts and other Egyptians, and their ancient Egyptian ancestors, demonstrating a largely shared and stable genetic heritage rather than a strict, isolated lineage.^{[citation needed]} Epenkimi (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of the sources presented meet the necessary threshold of reliability for making an assertive claim of this nature. They are neither (a) scientific studies, nor (b) derived from relevant academic disciplines, nor do they (c) offer any explanation or evidentiary framework to support the assertion they advance. One of the sources is even 115-year-old (WP:AGEMATTERS) encyclopedic content that dabbles in the long-discredited race theory, a framework that is not only scientifically obsolete, but fundamentally flawed in its premise, particularly as it pertains to categorizing Copts, or any ethnoreligious group, as a "race" in any coherent biological sense.

Absent any form of methodological grounding, these are, by definition, viewpoints, and must be presented as such under WP:NPOV with qualifiying language. Moreover, due to the factual inaccuracies and unreliable sourcing involved, their inclusion, if retained at all, requires clear contextual framing per WP:SOURCEWRONG that offers a more scientifically valid explanation. Even @WhatamIdoing has acknowledged on her user talk page that these sources are insufficient to support an unqualified statement about descent.

To be clear, again, I have not insisted that your preferred language be removed. I am simply asking that, if you wish to retain it in assertive form, it should be substantiated with a scientific, peer-reviewed source from a relevant field, something on par with the standard to which you're (rightly) holding the studies I’ve introduced in support of the second statement. Doubling down on previously disputed sources that failed to achieve consensus the first time around does not advance the conversation.

I also want to ensure that we are clear on the fact that a compromise isn't an act of benevolence or generosity from one side; consensus is an obligation on you just as much as it is on any other editor. Turnopoems (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

This statement is false: Even @WhatamIdoing has acknowledged on her user talk page that these sources are insufficient to support an unqualified statement about descent.

I have said no such thing. I have mentioned the large number of little blue clicky numbers, and I have offered some thoughts on the wording. I have not said anything about whether any sources support any statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

To me, this part below does indeed sound like you take issue with the absence of qualifying language in the text, which, in that case, aligns our positions in this discussion. Though if that is not the case, I appreciate the clarification.

More specifically, I'm not sure that we should say that the Copts are "the" descendants of the ancient Egyptians, because that implies that nobody else is. Similarly, are they really "the" heirs of the ancient Egyptian heritage, and nobody else? What does it even mean to be the heirs of ancient Egyptian heritage? Aren't all Egyptians, or even all humans, recipients of some part of ancient Egyptian heritage? They're called World Heritage Sites in Egypt, not "national heritage sites", after all. Turnopoems (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Saying the Copts are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians does not say that population X, Y or Z is not. But if you want to mention what other population is also descendant of ancient Egyptians, then you have to provide the references for that. Epenkimi (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Or you could write that "The Copts are descended from the ancient Egyptians", which does not have a definite article implying exclusivity, and otherwise has the same meaning. Ditto for "are directly descended".

NB that I don't say that the sources are insufficient for the claim of descent as written; I only question whether we want to even subtly imply that they are the only direct descendants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

About whether having criteria for reliable sources could render this particular discussion moot: No. You've got it completely backwards.

Here's how you determine whether a source is reliable:

• Does the source have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?
• Was it published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s)?
• Is it appropriate for the material in question (e.g., directly discussing the subject of the article in detail, rather than just a passing mention; using scholarly sources for scholarly subjects)?
• Is the source independent of the subject matter, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest?
• Does the source have a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes?

Here's what you did:

• I don't think the data reported by this source is good enough to satisfy me, so that makes it an unreliable source in my opinion.

Only the first process is endorsed by the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion is rendered moot by the fact that it is not a reliable source, that is by virtue of it being self-published. We don't need to spend all this effort establishing the reliability of a source that is published through a vanity press, it is not reliable. This should, in itself, preclude the need for further debate about its admissibility. The insistence on continuing this back-and-forth over a source that is, by definition, unreliable raises the question of whether this discussion is still oriented toward a constructive resolution. If the source is inadmissible due to being a vanity press publication, then defending it against accusations of factual inaccuracy serves no purpose. In other words, that's what makes this discussion moot. Unless you're actually arguing that the source in question is not a vanity press publication, or that vanity press publications are reliable.

WP:SCIRS: Most books and monographs that are self-published or published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and consequently are not reliable sources.

Now what makes it factually incorrect are the multitude of other issues I've brought up throughout this discussion. WP:SOURCEWRONG is an entire policy essay dedicated to how editors can deal with incorrect content presented in sources, even when it appears in otherwise acceptable sources.

On one hand, the material in question is unreliable because it’s a vanity press publication and not peer-reviewed; on the other, it’s factually incorrect based on the arguments I have put forth earlier. If necessary, I am more than willing to provide sources that explain how Y-chromosome haplogroup research functions and, more importantly, why it is insufficient to substantiate a claim of this nature. I can cite the study itself that the book invokes to show you that the conclusion is completely absent from it. I’m not sure what aspect of my approach you find problematic, given that the this entire RfC rests on three versions of a compromise I suggested, one that allows the inclusion of the text he insists on, using the sources he provided, despite their flaws, provided the language is appropriately qualified to reflect that it is a viewpoint and not a fact, while also balancing it with a scientifically valid claim. Turnopoems (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

That one source is self-published, and unless the author/publisher is also a previously published expert (in this specific area), then the source should not be cited.

But that leaves about ten other sources in the proposed paragraphs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I cannot agree more with WhatamIdoing. Turnopoems cannot simply disregard and cast doubt on so many different sources because he/she likes the content of what the say. If these sources would have said something he/she agrees with like "ancient Egyptians lived in Egypt" or "Ramses II was a pharaoh in the New Kingdom", he/she would have had no problem accepting these sources. The problem for Turnopoems is not the sources, the problem for him/her is that he/she does not agree with the content of what these sources say. These are historians, scholars/academics, Coptologists, Egyptologists etc. When it come to the Copts, their culture, their language and their history, I do not believe you know more than Alfred J. Butler, Christian Cannuyer, Kevin Gutzman, Iris Habib Elmasry or Gorgi Sobhi, all whom have said that "Copts are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians", and I have provided quotes from their works that support this statement. If you disagree with what they say, you don't get to insert your own opinion. What you can do in that case is find other equally qualified sources that clearly state the "Copts are NOT the descendants of ancient Egyptians". In that case only can you say "some sources state ABC... while other sources state XYZ". But you are inserting your own bias and opinion by using words like "claims" to cast doubt on these statements without showing us who said that these are unfounded claims. I will continue to oppose this misuse of Wikipedia to insert users' biases into articles. Epenkimi (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I want to be absolutely clear: I am not casting doubt on the sources for the sake of discrediting them, nor am I advocating for their removal. Rather, my position is that these sources are insufficient to justify presenting the claim as a fact in Wikipedia’s voice. The issue at hand is not the inclusion of the sources themselves, but the absence of qualifying language that would appropriately frame their assertions as scholarly viewpoints, not definitive, empirically established facts presented in assertive language. How can anyone justify presenting something as fact when the source itself makes no meaningful effort to establish it as such? If the source does not provide evidence or demonstrate scientific consensus, then asserting its claims as factual on Wikipedia not only misrepresents the source, but directly contradicts core content policies like WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.

The accusation that I’m dismissing these sources wholesale is simply misplaced. Every compromise (which includes every version presented in this RfC) I have proposed retains the full set of sources under discussion and preserves the statement in question, with qualifying language. That is not only a fair position in this dispute, it is directly supported by policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

Moreover, you are subjecting my sources, all of which are drawn from peer-reviewed scientific literature, to scrutiny (as they should be), while dismissing similar scrutiny of your own sources as "opinion". You clearly understand the essence of applying WP:RS and WP:NPOV to texts, but there seems to be an unwillingness to apply those same standards to your own preferred content, as you clearly want to present those as facts for ideological reasons. That is what makes constructive resolution so difficult.

That an author is respected in a particular field does not automatically elevate their interpretation to the level of objective truth. Until such claims are backed by substantial evidence or shown to reflect a broader consensus, they remain viewpoints and should be described as such. Framing these statements as "claims," "views," or "interpretations" is not an attempt to discredit them. It is, quite simply, an application of Wikipedia’s policies in their intended spirit, to maintain editorial balance, avoid overstating the certainty of assertions, and preserve the encyclopedia’s integrity as a neutral, fact-based resource.

The reason I’m focusing specifically on the Swords over the Nile source is because it is the only one among those cited that attributes the claim to scientific studies, something that, under normal circumstances, could have justified a factual assertion. However, the source is a vanity press publication, which disqualifies it under WP:RS, and furthermore, it misattributes/misrepresents the studies it cites. This combination makes it doubly problematic: both unreliable and inaccurate. The latter is not my opinion, it is a fact that can easily be proven, but I will not put in the effort as the source is unreliable anyway. Turnopoems (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

As was discussed before, you as a Wikipedia user do not get to say what sources are and are not sufficient in your subjective opinion. If you open that door of letting users decide what they consider sufficient and what the consider insufficient, then half of the material on Wikipedia would start with your "Many resources say ..." It is implied in any referenced statement that the source saying that statement is included within the reference that follows the statement. Any time a use disagrees with a statement from now on, they will start that statement with "Some sources say ..." This is not reasonable nor is it acceptable.

The next issue is that you are asserting that "the source itself makes no meaningful effort to establish [the statement as a fact]". How do you know that? Have you read all these sources? Some of these quotes come from books that discuss the history and culture and language and so many other aspects of the Copts' heritage, and then at the end they make the statement that the "Copts are the descendants of ancient Egyptians" based on everything they included in their books. Have you read these books? Or are you asking us to copy and paste the many pages in these books that led to this conclusion?

And again, when multiple Egyptologists and Coptologists and historians and academics and scholars spend their entire lives studying Egyptology, Coptology and history, then they make such assertions, it does not mean that they woke up one day and decided to draw these conclusions. It means that their many years of academic study and research have led them to these conclusions. And neither you nor I are qualified to challenge these conclusions. So I will ask you again, if you have any "scientific" evidence that contradicts the fact that Copts are the descendants of ancient Egyptians, then you are most welcome to present this information here. Otherwise, your opposition to this statement is not scientific and not warranted.

Unfortunately the compromise you are making after I compromised by removing the word "direct" is not a compromise. Insisting on adding the prologue about sources and insisting on removing the fact that these sources include historians and academics and scholars and Egyptologists and Coptologists is not a compromise. It's simply another way to get your way to lead the reader to doubt what these multiple sources are saying, which is disingenuous and unethical because it is based solely on your subjective opinion, rather than on the opinion of the scientific community.

Yes, I am subjecting all your sources to scrutiny, and I am sure glad we did, since we have demonstrated through that scrutinization that two of your sources had absolutely nothing to do with the topic (thank you for offering to remove them based on that scrutiny), and that your paraphrasing of the third source was wrong and misleading. I too welcome heavy scrutiny of any and all of my sources, which in fact you have done to the point of trying to reject a source of mine - not based on its content or arguments - but based on the publisher who published it. That's a level of scrutiny I have not subjected your sources to (yet). I can certainly look into the impact factor of each one of these journals you provided to see how reliable they are as journals. That would be scrutiny.

By the way, just to be clear, I do believe that both Copts and other non-Coptic Egyptians are all descendants of ancient Egyptians and that they share common ancestry rooted in Ancient Egypt. All I'm advocating here is to properly represent what the sources say, nothing more and nothing less. If we paraphrase things, they have to be paraphrased in a way that actually agrees with what the sources say, otherwise we have to use the exact wording of the sources. I have no problem with either "common ancestral lineage" or "shared ancestry". However, the sentence should read something like the following based on the source that you have provided: Studies suggest that, while the Copts formed their own separate ancestry component, they shared a genetic affinity to and a common ancestry (or shared ancestry) with the general Egyptian population Epenkimi (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

More to the point, when all the reliable sources say _____ and no reliable sources say the opposite, then we're supposed to say _____ in WP:WIKIVOICE. Consider that section's advice: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice".

We have no evidence that any reliable source actually contests the claim of the Coptic community's descent from Ancient Egyptians. All we have is a single Wikipedia editor saying that he personally doesn't believe that it's proven to his satisfaction in terms of genetics. To this, we can only say: WP:You are not a reliable source, and NPOV is determined according to the reliable sources.

In other words, our available, policy-based options are:

1. The many reliable sources we have already identified make this factual claim. This factual claim is uncontested by other reliable sources, and therefore this factual claim should be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice per the WP:WIKIVOICE policy, – or –
2. @Turnopoems is going to cough up some reliable sources (not his own analysis) that directly and explicitly contest this factual claim ASAP. That would demonstrate that this factual claim is "contested" by other reliable sources. If that were the case, then both of the competing claims would be presented with in-text attribution and neither would be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Take your pick, Turnopoems. NB that I'm looking for a reliable source that directly makes a statement about whether or not the Copts are descended from Ancient Egyptians. A sentence like "Our analysis shows that the Copts are not actually descended from the Ancient Egyptians, as popularly supposed for at least the last 15 centuries" would do very nicely for this purpose. A source that doesn't contain the word "Ancient" at all, such as one of the ones you've cited above, will not serve the purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

At this point, all I have left to add is this: if you genuinely believe that Wikipedia functions on blind deference to sources, regardless of their nature or the claim being made, then I would respectfully encourage you to revisit WP:NPOV, and in particular, WP:YESPOV. You will be hard-pressed to find any experienced editor who upholds the notion that anything cited in a source, no matter how tangential, outdated, or interpretive, should be asserted as fact without editorial judgment as to whether the nature and quality of that source justify such framing. In fact, determining the weight, context, and interpretive nature of a claim is a fundamental editorial responsibility.

Other editors in this very thread have already provided sources and insights that recognize this particular claim as inherently interpretive and unfalsifiable. If you take a step back from this increasingly circular discussion, you’ll see that I’m far from alone in my concern, not only about how the content is presented, but about the nature of the sources themselves. If you're still unconvinced, so be it. But from where I stand, it seems that your primary contribution to this discussion has been to school me on your absolutist interpretation of sourcing policy, while contributing very little toward the actual advancement of consensus.

With all due respect, I'm not convinced that you're knowledgeable enough about the topic to assume that role. Earlier you incorrectly invoked a policy article for medical and health content in attempt to assert authority in this context. The way I see it, you're simply digging further into the rabbit hole in an effort to entrench this position. Truth in interpretive disciplines is rarely binary or absolute; it is contingent, often shaped by the frameworks and assumptions brought to bear by the scholar or institution. Diverging perspectives arise not from error, but from disciplinary lenses and methodological variance. That does not render them invalid, but it does demand that we treat such claims as perspectives, not axiomatic truths.

When a source lacks verifiable evidence, rests heavily on subjective reasoning, or resists independent confirmation, it is, by any standard, a viewpoint, and should be presented as such. Recognizing that distinction is essential to rigorous, policy-compliant editing. We are not here to elevate opinions into facts. A viewpoint may well merit inclusion, but only when framed and attributed appropriately. This is clearly articulated in WP:YESPOV.

You don’t have to take my word for it, feel free to consult an experienced admin or uninvolved editor well-versed in content policy. But as far as this discussion goes, I see no further value in continuing it. I’ve made my position clear, I’ve backed it with relevant policies, and I’ve proposed reasonable compromises that preserve your sources while framing their claims appropriately. At this point, I’m content to let the broader community weigh in without wasting my time on this unproductive discussion. Turnopoems (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is a revised version of the compromise, which represents the closest possible attempt to bridge both positions. It does not include qualifying language in the main sentence, per your preference, the compromise lies in the inclusion of the source that acknowledges the interpretive and subjective nature of such claims.

Both parts of the third statement are properly attributed, with the exact excerpts from the supporting source included in the reference. If this version still proves unacceptable, then we will have no choice but to fall back on the outcome of the RfC. I will not continue engaging in a circular debate that yields no forward progress.

The Copts are descended from the ancient Egyptians, and their connection to ancient Egyptian heritage is often highlighted through cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity which frames Coptic identity as distinct from the Arab and Islamic influences that later came to shape Egypt.^{[66][67][68][69]} However, scholars caution that such assertions are unfalsifiable and more a matter of identity.^[70] Genetic studies highlight a shared ancestry between Copts and other Egyptians, revealing minimal genetic differentiation and an even narrower range of genetic diversity among them,^[71] and also that they genetically originate from the same ancestors.^[72] Turnopoems (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You're citing primary sources to debunk secondary sources. That's not consistent with any of our policies or guidelines.

If you want to remove or attenuate the directly supported claim that the Copts are descended from Ancient Egyptians, then you need a source that says exactly that. NB: Not "they're directly descended – oh, and they have the same genetic ancestry as Egyptian Muslims, so I'd like to hint that this means they're not actually directly descended from ancient Egyptians wink wink nudge nudge".

The only way to meet YESPOV for a claim about their ancestors is to have a source that directly says something about their ancestors. It needs to be a source that contains the words "ancient Egyptians", not "modern Egyptian Muslims". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Could you please clarify which specific policies or guidelines you believe this content violates? More specifically, which of the sources I’ve cited would you characterize as secondary, and on what basis? I ask that you specify your point of contention with precision. Also, are you familiar with WP:PRIMARYUSE? If so, I’d appreciate your explanation as to why you believe it does not apply in this case. If you consider Jacques van der Vliet’s work inadmissible, please cite the specific guideline that would disqualify it.

Regarding the policy essay you've written, there is not a single sentence in the statement I’ve proposed that is not directly supported by the content of the cited sources. The text in question is composed of three clearly attributed claims, each substantiated by high-quality academic references. If you believe a particular statement is misrepresenting the source, then please present it here.

What I find especially problematic is your repeated attempt to reframe my argument into something it is not, followed by efforts to dismantle that reframed version. At no point have I claimed to refute or deny the possibility that Copts are descended from ancient Egyptians. Rather, my aim has consistently been to moderate the introduction of nationalistic or ethnonationalist narratives that seek to portray Copts as somehow ontologically distinct from the broader Egyptian population. The issue is not descent per se, it is the attempt to present Copts as an isolated ethno-cultural enclave, uniquely linked to ancient Egypt in contrast to "Muslim Egyptians", who are then implicitly cast as disconnected newcomers.

This is a broader pattern in the article, almost all of it introduced by Epenkimi, which leans heavily into portraying Copts as a distinct ethnic group, possessing a separate heritage, culture, and lineage. It is this exaggerated ethnic exceptionalism that my statements are intended to temper. For example:

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.

The fact that my sources do not reference “ancient Egyptians” explicitly is immaterial, because they are not being used to dispute descent, but to provide balance to a portrayal that overstates Coptic separateness and downplays continuity with the broader Egyptian population. Thus, my statements and sources do not need to contain "ancient Egyptians", they contain exactly what my statement attributes to them and my statement attenuates what it intends to attenuate. Turnopoems (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Sure, I can write out an evaluation of your sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Don’t trouble yourself. Ultimately, I have little hope that the current version will satisfy all parties involved. At this stage, it may be more productive to explore an entirely different version of the text, one that better addresses both your concerns and those raised by Epenkimi, as well as my own and those mentioned byothers. I’ll take some time to reflect on it and will ping you once I’ve done further research. In the meantime, feel free to share any pointers or ideas you think might help shape a more workable draft. Turnopoems (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Too late; we were apparently writing at the same time. Perhaps you will find the list of qualities for each of these two WP:BMI sources informative anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

First source:

• Hollfelder, Nina; Schlebusch, CarinaM.; Günther, Torsten; Babiker, Hiba; Hassan, Hisham Y.; Jakobsson, Mattias (2017-08-24). "Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations". PLOS Genetics. 13 (8): e1006976. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1006976. ISSN 1553-7404. PMC 5587336. PMID 28837655.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

• Source: Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations
• Date of publication: 2017-08-24, 8 years ago. Consider whether a newer source would be better.
• Journal name: PLoS Genetics
• Publisher's name: Public Library of Science
• Journal reputation: Y MEDLINE, Index Medicus, 90th percentile at Scopus
• Primary vs secondary: N Primary sources are acceptable for limited purposes, but not to debunk secondary sources.
• Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): N Original (primary) research
• Pre-clinical vs human: "221 individuals from 18 populations sampled in Sudan and South Sudan", so it's not WP:IN MICE
• Independence: Y Independent sources are best.

Second source:

• Taha, Tarek; Elzalabany, Sagy; Fawzi, Sahar; Hisham, Ahmed; Amer, Khaled; Shaker, Olfat (1 August 2020). "Allele frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups". Forensic Science International. 313: 110348. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110348. ISSN 0379-0738. PMID 32521421. S2CID 219586129. Archived from the original on 3 June 2021. Retrieved 14 April 2023.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

• Source: Allele frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups
• Date of publication: 2020-08, 5 years ago.
• Journal name: Forensic Science International
• Publisher's name: Y Elsevier is one of the largest publishers of academic journals. The source may be available via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
• Journal reputation: Y MEDLINE, Index Medicus, 94th percentile on Scopus
• Primary vs secondary: N Primary sources are acceptable for limited purposes, but not to debunk secondary sources.
• Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): N Original (primary) research
• Pre-clinical vs human: 200 unrelated healthy humans, so not WP:IN MICE
• Independence: Y Independent sources are best.

I have used the Template:MEDRS evaluation form because (a) it's comprehensive, and (b) the statements being made are about "Population data and epidemiology", which is Wikipedia:Biomedical information, which is what the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) guideline covers.

Both of these sources are primary sources. Both of these sources are being used to cast doubt on the conclusions of the secondary sources. Both of these sources are being used to advance a POV that (apparently) can't be sourced to proper reliable sources, namely to imply that Coptic Egyptians are not genetically descended from ancient Egyptians. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Respect secondary sources, Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research. None of this is allowed.

Again: If you want to say "The Copts aren't really descended from ancient Egyptians", then you need to find a source that says that. If you want to say "The Copts might be descended from ancient Egyptians, but they aren't the only ones", then you need to find a source that says that. This is not rocket science; this is Reliable Sourcing 101. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

Regarding your 4 sources that you are referencing to support the claim that Genetic studies and scholarly analyses highlight a broad continuity and affinity between Copts and other Egyptians, and their ancient Egyptian ancestors, demonstrating a largely shared and stable genetic heritage rather than a strict, isolated lineage: African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations: the study talks about Copts who migrated to Sudan 200 years ago (n=14) and says they are afro-asiatic and their linguistic subgroup is ancient Egyptian (I agree, and that partially supports my assertion that Copts are direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians from a linguistic standpoint). The study shows "genetic affinity of the Copts to the Egyptian population". The study goes on to say that "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 (Fig 2). This behavior in the admixture analyses is consistent with shared ancestry between Copts and Egyptians and/or additional genetic drift in the Copts". The article also states that "Taken together, these results point to that the Copts and the Egyptians have a common history linked to smaller population sizes, and that the Copts have remained relatively isolated since the arrival to Sudan with only low levels of admixture with local northeastern Sudanese groups". So it is obvious that the Copts in Sudan share "similarities" with the broader Egyptian population, which I agree with, but it also says that "the Copts formed their own separate ancestry component", and that there was an "additional genetic drift in the Copts". The degree to which Copts are genetically similar to Egyptians is unclear, and since the article also talks about Copts, Egyptians and Arabs sharing common ancestry, I am assuming they are talking about many millennia that take us back to the era of Proto-Afroasiatic homeland, which predates the existence of ancient Egyptians. So yes, there is a affinity between Copts and the general Egyptian population, but the article does not link the general Egyptian population to ancient Egyptians, and it is obvious that the article contradicts your claim that Copts do not have a a strict, isolated lineage. frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups: still trying to get my hands on this study so I can read the entire paper, so I will put this on hold for now. investigation of two Egyptian child mummies curated at the University of Tartu Art Museum, Estonia (Late/Graeco-Roman Periods): the study does not even mention the word "Copt" once. The conclusion of the study is that there is a West Asian genetic component that entered Egypt from West Asia around or after the second intermediate period, which makes sense based on our knowledge of Egyptian history and the presence of West Asian Hyksos in Egypt. The Conclusion section of the study addresses the practice of mummification during the third intermediate period or the early Ptolemaic period. The paper does not in any way talk about Copts, modern Egyptians or any form of genetic analysis linking these 2 mummies to anyone. This source obviously does not in any way, shape or form support your claim and should be removed. past human genetic variation with ancient DNA: case studies from ancient Egypt and medieval Europe: Again, the study says nothing about any link between Copts and other Egyptians. I am not denying that a link exists, but why is this being used as a reference to support your claim? The study says that the 94 sample mummies from the Old Kingdom "show a strong genetic affinity [...] to Levantine Natufians Compared with genomes dated from the end of the Dynastic period (Third Intermediate Period) and present-day Egyptians, the Nuerat sample did not carry the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer genetic component that started to spread across West Asia ~4,000 years ago and is widely spread in present-day populations. The presence of this component in Egypt is likely associated with admixture between local Egyptian populations and Bronze Age-related populations from West Asia. This admixture pattern might result from the dominance of Lower Egypt by Canaanite (Levantine) rulers during the Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1,650-1,550 BCE)." So you can conclude from this paper that these Old Kingdom mummies were genetically related to Natufian West Asian populations and that there is a genetic component that some modern Egyptians have, which did not exist during the time of the Old Kingdom. The study says nothing about who these modern Egyptians studied were, and whether or not they were Copts or non-Copts, and the study most certainly says nothing about who similar Copts are genetically to other Egyptians. Again, this source obviously does not in any way, shape or form support your claim and should be removed. Epenkimi (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

To streamline the discussion and avoid further prolongation, the following wording reflects the findings of the two primary genetic studies cited, presented verbatim in line with their original language and conclusions (see my excerpts above). Each statement is now directly attributed to its supporting source:

Genetic studies and academic analyses highlight a common ancestral lineage between Copts and other Egyptians, revealing minimal genetic differentiation and an even narrower range of genetic diversity among them,^[73] and also that they genetically originate from the same ancestors.^[74]

The other two studies pertain to genetic continuity across the general Egyptian population and their relationship to ancient Egyptians, rather than to Copts specifically. Nevertheless, to simplify the matter and facilitate consensus, I will remove those sources and endorse this version which is more than sufficient in my opinion. Turnopoems (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you're removing these two sources that are impertinent to the topic. I'm still working on finding that paper on "Allele frequency" to read it and see what it says. I still do not believe the paper called "Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations" support your claim as you're wording it. The paper clearly states that "the Copts formed their own separate ancestry component", and that there was an "additional genetic drift in the Copts". It does not explain when exactly that drift occurred, or provide any explanation as why that same drift did not take place in the non-Coptic Egyptians included in the study. The article says nothing about "minimal genetic differentiation and an even narrower range of genetic diversity" as you're wording it. A more proper wording that is actually supported by that source would be the following:

Studies suggest that, while the Copts formed their own separate ancestry component, they shared a genetic affinity to and a common ancestry with the general Egyptian population.^[75][76] Epenkimi (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I have made no interpretive effort whatsoever in this text, I have almost directly paraphrased the study. Non-tree-like history means that have a reticulated pattern of ancestry, implying that a branching diagram failed to capture the relationship between the two groups, while Copts exhibit some genetic drift (probably due to religiously motivated endogamy). I could change common ancestral lineage to "shared ancestry" if you want to state exactly what the source says.

This behavior in the admixture analyses is consistent with shared ancestry between Copts and Egyptians and/or additional genetic drift in the Copts [41, 42]. [...] 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.

The Egyptians and Copts showed low levels of genetic differentiation (FST = 0.00236, Fig 1B), lower levels of genetic diversity (S17 Fig) and greater levels of RoH (Fig 4) compared to other northeast African groups, including Arab and Middle Eastern groups that share ancestry with the Copts and Egyptians (Fig 2) [41].

Resulted in this bit: Genetic studies and academic analyses highlight a common ancestral lineage between Copts and other Egyptians, revealing minimal genetic differentiation and an even narrower range of genetic diversity among them,

The results support that Egyptian Muslims and Egyptian Christians genetically originate from the same ancestors.

Resulted in this bit: and also that they genetically originate from the same ancestors.

Both studies are linked in the references by the way. Turnopoems (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Your "paraphrasing" of the study is wrong. "Non-tree-like history" in the context of genetics or language evolution refers to a situation where the evolutionary relationships between populations or groups are not accurately represented by a single, branching tree-like diagram. Instead, the history is more complex, involving events like admixture (interbreeding between groups) or gene flow, which create a network-like pattern rather than a clear branching structure. This is not at all what you're saying in your "paraphrasing" when you say Genetic studies and academic analyses highlight a common ancestral lineage between Copts and other Egyptians, revealing minimal genetic differentiation and an even narrower range of genetic diversity among them, and also that they genetically originate from the same ancestors. The correct "paraphrasing" based on this study alone would be something similar to what I wrote before: Studies suggest that, while the Copts formed their own separate ancestry component, they shared a genetic affinity to and a common ancestry with the general Egyptian population. This is the only conclusion one can draw from the article called "African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations" where it says that "the Copts formed their own separate ancestry component", and that there was an "additional genetic drift in the Copts". Epenkimi (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

More to the point, he's trying to use a source that does not include the name "Ancient Egyptians" to prove something about the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians. It won't do; it's straight-up WP:OR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Both statements are clearly attributed to their respective sources, using the exact same words found in the two studies, and neither makes any reference to ancient Egyptians, not my statement and not the source, so don't be disingenuous. Stating that Muslim and Christian Egyptians descend from the same ancestors, which is written explicitly in the conclusion of the study, is not the same as stating that they descend from ancient Egyptians. At this point, the objection appears less about substantive inaccuracy and more like an attempt to manufacture disagreement where none exists. So I would ask directly: what part of the amended text do you believe lacks support in the cited study? If that cannot be demonstrated with reference to the source itself, then continuing to contest the phrasing feels pointless. Turnopoems (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The conclusion I’ve drawn from the study is exactly what the study itself states, and in fact, the wording I used is a close paraphrase of the text from the original source. To ensure even greater precision, I’m happy to adjust the phrasing to reflect the study’s language verbatim. If you’d like to add a supplementary line highlighting that the study also attributes some genetic drift to endogamy, you are welcome to do so, I have no objection to that inclusion.

To clarify, the sentence I wrote:

"Genetic studies indicate a shared ancestry between Copts and other Egyptians, revealing minimal genetic differentiation and an even narrower range of genetic diversity among them."

Is directly derived from the following passage in the study:

"This behavior in the admixture analyses is consistent with shared ancestry between Copts and Egyptians [...] The Egyptians and Copts showed low levels of genetic differentiation (FST = 0.00236, Fig 1B), lower levels of genetic diversity (S17 Fig)"

This is not an extrapolation. Turnopoems (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4

• I think the RFC should be closed. It's already mentioned within the body of the article more than once.

You can simply create a separate section for a bigger illustration to those statements if you want. Fragrant Peony (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Fragrant Peony Agreed, consolidating the statement into a single, well-contextualized section would be far preferable to the current version. Turnopoems (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Your naming as anti or pro is confusing. Please re-edit the titles into just Version 1,2,3,4.

• Version 3 is by far the most reliable one, as the entire paragraph is well-sourced and gives us the two views. This isn't a nationalist blog or nationalist slogans platform. Scientific evidence already proves that the majority of the Egyptian nation are also directly related to Ancient Egypt. Fragrant Peony (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  I was a bit overzealous when I initiated the RfC, but I agree, the “pro” and “anti” labels are confusing. I’ll go ahead and remove them. Turnopoems (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Option 4: Any of these would suffice, in actually substantive part, but without any aggrandizing and emotive language like "the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians", "the heirs of ancient Egyptian heritage", "the inheritors of ancient Egyptian heritage", etc. Such claims essentially have no objective meaning, and it is not encyclopedic but PoV-advancing language (plus some of these words are simply misused, such as "heirs", a legal term; and "inheritors ... heritage" is redundant, like "her descendants are descended from her"). Simply saying "descended from the ancient Egyptians" is sufficient, accurate, agrees with the sources, and doesn't try through obfuscation and hand-wavy misdirection to hide the fact that they are also descended in part from some other groups. What I would suggest is to merge the gist of all three versions (without the problematic wording) into a single paragraph. If the term "direct descent/descendants" were going to remain in it at all (which is not actually necessary nor desirable), it should be put in quotation marks and cited to specific sources that use that phrase (in English or as translated into English). The term has no clear definition and is not a scientific one but is an emotive, confusing/distracting, and promotional-viewpoint phrase. I've twice (in threads above) demonstrated why it's bullshitty, so don't need to go over that again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC); clarified 08:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, thank you for weighing in. Just to make sure you have seen it, I made an attempt to attain a closer compromise by providing a new version for that removes references to "direct descent". Please see . Please let us know your thoughts on that version so we can try to move forward into the next topic. Thanks. Epenkimi (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It's much better without "direct" Kowal2701 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It's really not better, because that manipulative "direct" claim has been replaced by the arguably even worse "the heirs of the ancient Egyptian heritage" one, which is both abusing a legal term ("heirs") that is not applicable here, and using a contextually undefined word ("heritage", which means something different to just about everyone who encounters it) that serves no encyclopedic purpose, just a kind of propagandistic one. But the extensive discussion below seems to have moved past that specific draft anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Version 2/3, for the love of God can we not use sources from 1911, 1935, nor media sources! Can someone please add page numbers to the sources cited so that they can be verified. Some other sources:

• The Copts: ‘Modern Sons of the Pharaohs’? (2010) (journal article) says: Are the Copts in any way ‘modern sons of the Pharaohs’? As I hope to have shown, this question cannot be answered with a yes or a no. It is simply not a falsifiable statement. It is as true as you believe it to be. But that, of course, holds for most identity statements.
• Copts in Context: Negotiating Identity, Tradition, and Modernity (2017) presents them as just narratives
• COPTS AND THE MILLET PARTNERSHIP: THE INTRA-COMMUNAL DYNAMICS BEHIND EGYPTIAN SECTARIANISM (2014) (journal article) says Taha Husayn and Salama Musa looked back with pride upon Ancient Egyptian civilization: Husayn argued that “most Egyptians were descended in a direct line from the Pharaonic Egyptians” and that “Arab civilization, when compared with the older one, had had a meager impact on Egypt.” Musa encouraged “the erection of Pharaonic statues and memorials, believing that such solid evidence would reinforce the Egyptians' sense of continuity.”
• Henderson 2011 looks like it might support descent but WPL doesn't seem to be accessing Taylor and Francis Kowal2701 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree. I’ve consistently maintained throughout this discussion that the sources in support of the first statement are inadequate. But since that point remains part of the broader dispute, I incorporated them into my compromise proposal, with appropriate qualifying language to ensure the assertions are clearly presented as viewpoints, not established facts. Personally I would much rather do away with them. Unfortunately, Epenkimi is defending these sources as if his life depends on it and as if the validity of the entire article hinges on their inclusion, without qualification. Turnopoems (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 Thank you, these are helpful. I will try to find a way to access these articles / books to incorporate them in the discussion. Regarding the dates of the sources, I am not aware of a Wikipedia policy that prevents the use of sources based on age, but please correct me if I'm mistaken.

@Turnopoems The age of a certain source does not make it "inadequate" or a "viewpoint". Epenkimi (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I have consistently referenced the guideline that does exactly that, but again, you're dismissing these references as my personal opinion (WP:AGEMATTERS).

Moreover, the source you're defending explicitly invokes the concept of racial purity, a notion that is not only scientifically discredited but also deeply problematic in both ethical and epistemological terms. The use of such language in a modern encyclopedic context is indefensible. Wikipedia is not a platform for reviving discredited frameworks, and citing a century-old source that leans on racial typologies only reinforces why WP:AGEMATTERS exists in the first place.

The age of a source alone doesn’t necessarily render it a viewpoint. What matters is whether the source itself functions as an opinion rather than a scientifically grounded or verifiable reference (yes, I have read the sources, this is not a solid argument). When a claim is presented without supporting evidence, or is based solely on personal observation (regardless of whether the author has an IQ of 200 and worked in this field his whole life), it's impossible to discern whether it reflects objective reality or merely the author's perception.

In many fields, particularly those rooted in theory and interpretation, what is presented as truth often hinges on the framework through which the subject is viewed. Different schools of thought may analyze the same issue and reach entirely different conclusions, not because one is inherently false, but because each is approaching the matter from a distinct ideological or analytical lens. While this doesn’t discredit their perspectives, it does mean their assertions should be recognized for what they are.

A source is a viewpoint when it displays lacks empirical support, leans heavily on subjective interpretation, or cannot be independently verified. Being able to distinguish between opinion and fact is fundamental to any serious academic effort, which Wikipedia is. A viewpoint isn't inherently invalid or deceptive, but it demands critical examination and should never be presented as axiomatic truth. There is an entire policy dedicated to how we as editors should approach this, again, I've referenced it multiple times (WP:YESPOV). You clearly understand the principle at play here, namely, that claims must be supported by reliable and appropriately contextualized sources, but you appear unwilling to apply that same standard to this particular text, likely because you have an interest in presenting it as a fact. Turnopoems (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

For anything even faintly related to colonialism, we should never be using sources written by colonisers. Such sources are notorious for their racist mythology spin, these are best handled by experts, not editors. Unfortunately (and amazingly) we don't have a guideline or even an essay on this, other than WP:AGEMATTERS which is more relevant for updated scientific theories. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The entire claim, in part, emerges from a colonial epistemology. Its origins lie in 18th and 19th-century Orientalist scholarship, where European colonial thinkers, operating within the typical racial hierarchies of their era, depicted the Copts as a “degenerated” remnant of the "once glorious ancient Egyptian race". Within this framework, Copts were cast as the direct racial and cultural heirs of ancient Egypt, while Muslim Egyptians were portrayed as foreign interlopers, Arab invaders lacking any legitimate connection to the country’s historical legacy. This separateness reflects the racial and sectarian prejudices of the colonial imagination and intended to fracture the Egyptian population into essentialized, oppositional identities. Just a bit of irrelevant WP:OR context from my side. Turnopoems (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I know as Van der Vliet 2010 discusses this, but other sources I read that covered this didn't, which might make it undue. I think in your proposal Van der Vliet is already given too much weight, just the unfalsifiable part would be sufficient. The colonial origins could make a good note? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

How would you suggest that part be rewritten to be more proportionate? I read a doctoral thesis from Princeton that explored this topic in depth, though I would need to look it up again. Turnopoems (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, this discussion's gone on too long for me to engage in writing a proposal, too many WP:WALLOFTEXTs, and unfortunately there don't seem to many scientific sources specifically focussing on Ancient Egyptians and Copts. I'd be inclined to just say, based on the above proposal using the same sources, The Copts are descended from the ancient Egyptians, and their connection to ancient Egyptian heritage is often highlighted through cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity which frames Coptic identity as distinct from the Arab and Islamic influences that later came to shape Egypt. However scholars caution that such assertions are unfalsifiable and more a matter of identity. [something about the origin and evolution of it here] Kowal2701 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Understandable, I appreciate your input nonetheless. Your version is indeed an improvement, so I'll incorporate it into my suggestion if you don't mind. Turnopoems (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I think Turnopoems' comment above has finally identified the real problem: If you accept that Coptic Egyptians are descended from ancient Egyptians, then some non-Coptic Egyptians feel like they're being implicitly relegated to the status of "foreign interlopers".

What Wikipedia needs is for Copts to say that they're descended from ancient Egyptians and for articles about Muslim Egyptians to also say that they're descended from ancient Egyptians. Both groups can be descended from ancient Egyptians. It doesn't have to be either/or. In fact, this article could say (with suitable sources) something like "Both the Coptic Egyptians and Muslim Egyptians are descended from ancient Egyptians". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: There are no separate articles on Muslim Egyptians because both groups, Copts and Muslims, are Egyptians, while Copts are best understood as an ethnoreligious subset of the broader Egyptian population. No such subset exists for Muslim Egyptians, who primarily identify simply as Egyptians, without an additional ethnoreligious designation. Regardless, a simpler compromise for this dispute, that includes less components that can be disagreed on, incorporating both your input and that of Epenkimi, might be the following phrasing:

They are, like the broader Egyptian population,^{[77][78][79][80][81]} descended from the ancient Egyptians.^{[82][83][84][85]}

If there's a preference to present this in a separate paragraph, instead of its current position in the lead, with more context, perhaps discussing the origins of this claim or additional connections. I’d be more than happy to work collaboratively on that. Turnopoems (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Assuming the sources WP:Directly support that statement, then that IMO would work well and also have the encyclopedic virtue of concision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I have included one more source that does so more explicitly in that exact formulation. If you have access to any literature platforms that gives you access to these materials please let me know if you think they'd suffice for such a statement. Personally, I'm not happy with the type of sources for such a statement in either direction, but if this is the only way to achieve consensus while balancing the ethnonationalist narrative implied by the original statement, it's better than nothing. Turnopoems (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 5

Procedural comment @Turnopoems and @Epenkimi you two are posting massive WP:TEXTWALLs and keep repeating the same arguments e.g. WP:BLUDGEONING. That makes it hard for other editors to get involved in the discussion which would be the purpose of an RfC. Please take a step back and consider whether more contributions from you to this discussion are really needed. —Joe vom Titan (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Joe vom Titan Thank you for your input. This has been an unusually challenging dispute to navigate, with the issue spilling over into multiple articles. The editor in question has now entered a self-imposed Wiki-exile following sustained disagreement from multiple editors regarding their edits here and elsewhere. In light of this, it seems both reasonable and procedurally sound to treat the compromise established between myself and @WhatamIdoing as the prevailing consensus, together with the roadmap above. I believe it would now be appropriate for someone to formally close this RfC. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 09:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I have already requested a closing summary at Wikipedia:Closure requests. The closing editor can decide whether saying that Copts are descended from ancient Egyptians is "a portrayal that overstates Coptic separateness and downplays continuity with the broader Egyptian population", or if it's just a plain statement of the facts that doesn't imply anything about other descendants of ancient Egyptians.

I have begun wondering whether there is some sort of dog-whistle politics around this in Egypt. Does the Muslim majority object to Copts claiming their ancestry? Does the Muslim majority want the Copts to feel like they aren't "real" Egyptians? I have been surprised by your tenacious insistence that the Copts can't be described as being "directly descended" from ancient Egyptians. (What would "indirectly descended" even look like? That's not a thing in genetics.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

From the little bit of reading I did on this, politics surrounding the treatment of Copts and Coptic issues in general are incredibly contentious, and there’s no doubt this is in that context. But from my experience Wikipedia editors tend to be staunchly anti-nationalist, seeing it as their mission to disprove and revise nationalist histories, which I don’t really get. It’s certainly not NPOV when that POV isn’t included at all Kowal2701 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing It is perplexing, if not outright disingenuous, that you persistently evade the overarching concern I (and others) have raised regarding systemic violations of WP:NPOV that pervade these articles, choosing instead to obsessively isolate a single issue, as though it exists in a vacuum, wholly divorced from the broader context. To then accuse me of seeking to diminish or undermine Coptic claims to descent, which you have done consistently throughout this discussion, is not only a gross misrepresentation of my position, but outright offensive. I have poured hours into addressing blatant and some absolutely ridiculous WP:NPOV fails introduced by this user. Every compromise I have proposed has, without exception, preserved and affirmed Coptic descent, this affirmation is already reflected in the current version of the article. To portray my effort as an attempt to erase Coptic lineage is a strawman that has no basis in either the content or the expressed intent of my contributions.

Moreover, the continued insinuations regarding my motives, repeatedly and conspicuously tethered to my ethnicity, begin to verge uncomfortably on WP:ASPERSION. At no point in this protracted discussion has the legitimacy of Coptic identity as authentically Egyptian ever been called into question by me. On the contrary, I have gone to great lengths to ensure that such identity is articulated with clarity and supported by reliable sourcing.

As for the linguistic quibble over "direct" versus simple "descent", I you hope you realize that your tangent about "indirect descent" being nonsense can be flipped on its head and demonstrate just how equally ridiculous "direct descent" is. The notion of “direct descent” implies the existence of some imagined, purer lineage, an idea neither supported by the article's sources nor compatible with a neutral encyclopedic tone. Descent, by definition, is a binary condition: either one is descended from someone, or one is not. There are no meaningful gradations of directness here, and to suggest otherwise ventures into the realm of ethnonationalist rhetoric, which is exactly the kind of narrative I have devoted all these hours to moderate (not remove, moderate). The difference is that I never argued that the word "indirect descent" be included, whereas you're clearly offended by changing "direct descent" to just "descent" for some reason. Tell me, what exactly would "directly descended" even look like, as opposed to merely "descended"? What measurable distinction are you imagining? Beyond serving as a veiled claim to being the "true Egyptians", a notion you seem to bristle at when imagined in one direction, yet apparently embrace when directly implied in another for some reason.

If I may presume good faith, that your remarks stem from a sincere, if perhaps misinformed, curiosity rather than a desire to impugn my motives, then allow me to clarify further. As an Egyptian, I can attest with confidence that there exists no societal or political debate regarding whether Copts are "real" Egyptians. The marginalization they face stems from well-documented religious and institutional discrimination, not from some imagined dispute over their national authenticity. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that such a position existed, I fail to see how any of my contributions could be meaningfully construed as aligning with it. Unless, of course, one labors under the impression that pluralism, critical engagement, and the capacity for independent thought are somehow endemic to the West and absent in Egypt and elsewhere, I can't see why I would be guilty by association.

Hope that clears things up, and even if not, I hope, moving forward, you'll engage with the content of my contributions at face value, rather than indulging in unwarranted speculation about my motives or background. These ad hominem insinuations, however subtle, have no place in a serious editorial process and carry with them an unmistakable stench of orientalist condescension that I can not and will not stomach. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 16:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

AFAICT the main problem is that nobody else can see what you call "absolutely ridiculous WP:NPOV fails".

Your RFC question, with a section heading of "RfC on statement asserting "direct" descent", is written to "isolate a single issue", so you isolated the single issue, even if you are complaining about that now.

I think your comment here about saying that 'direct descent' "implies the existence of some imagined, purer lineage" is interesting, because purer is a comparative, which leads to the question: Purer than what? Should we be implying that the lineage isn't "purer"? That it isn't "pure enough"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I fail to understand why "AFAYCT" is strictly confined to this specific RfC, when I have consistently alluded to a broader discussion. There are at least three other sections in this very talk page discussing this at length, repeatedly and in great detail. This issue is merely one out of 12 that have been outlined as problematic in the broader roadmap I drew up. This RfC only addresses the first issue in that roadmap, per the other editor's request. Moreover, his/her revisions, which have been consistently problematic, have not only been flagged here but also thoroughly addressed at WP:NPOVN and in multiple other relevant talk pages (and even ANI after the latest shitshow).

Not only do you approach this discussion with an unearned level of confidence and assertiveness, even going so far as to question my motives based on my ethnicity, but it also appears you are doing so with a complete lack of understanding of the broader context at play. What bothers me even more is that, while you persist in engaging and making these unfounded accusations, you seem completely disinterested in understanding the broader context or in fully addressing my replies even. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 17:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXTs can be a bit WP:SEALIONy in that they exhaust the "opposing" editor, but I don’t think that’s what’s happened here. Regardless, it would help a lot if you were more concise, such a minor and relatively simple thing doesn’t need paragraphs Kowal2701 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I have a habit of letting my thoughts spill out and then struggling to pare them down, but it's certainly something I could get better at. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 10:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

RFCs ask a question. If you want a general review of the whole article, then you should look into Wikipedia:Peer review. This is an RFC; therefore, we are answering the RFC's question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you but I know what an RfC is, and that is not the point of contention in this particular tangent. Your assertion, questioning my motives on the basis of my ethnicity and doing so purely on the premise of this RfC, is. What you continuously disregard, either through indifference or lack of due diligence, is that this RfC represents but one thread in a far more intricate pattern of systemic NPOV violations and my effort to address them. Violations that I have painstakingly highlighted across multiple articles and substantiated through noticeboards, collaborative discussions, and the engagement of multiple uninvolved editors, none of whom share my ethnic background, yet all of whom independently recognized the same troubling pattern: the persistent imposition of ethnonationalist and religious narratives by a particular contributor.

Maybe you are fine with articles about certain ethnicities reading like a caricature of Western identity politics riddled with orientalist, Islamophobic, ethnonationalist and religious tropes, as though these people are not complex human beings with independent thoughts, opinions, histories, origins and cultures, reduced to a collective, curated as points of Western orientalist fascination and objectified for their consumption. There is no imperative on me to share your conviction regardless of where I am from. Your fixation on imputing ulterior motives to me from the start, based solely on my ethnicity, is deeply disturbing to me. That this line of reasoning has found repeated expression is, frankly, disheartening and corrosive to the integrity of this entire process. At no point have I questioned your participation or stance on account of you being American, I would ask that you reciprocate this standard of discourse. If you're unwilling or unable to do so, then I would encourage you to reflect on whether your continued involvement here serves any constructive purpose. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 10:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't actually know your ethnicity, so I can't be questioning your motives on that basis. With your new WP:CUSTOMSIG, if forced to guess, I would not guess that you were an observant Muslim, because the Ankh – in US culture – is a symbol of paganism and New Age beliefs. However, for all I know (i.e., not much), it could be a symbol of benevolence in other parts of the world, or a secular patriotic symbol in Egypt. (I do admire the gradient you've added – very nice alignment.)

I have been concerned that your effort to remove "directly descended" language is motivated more by modern politics than by reliable sources since you said above that when Coptic Egyptians are called the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians, then Muslim Egyptians are implicitly being "portrayed as foreign interlopers". I don't know whether this is a broadly held view in Egypt, but it feels like an explanation for your persistence in the face of what appears to be a very ordinary (if slightly verbose) thing to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

As a matter of personal disclosure, I am an observant Muslim. In the Egyptian national consciousness, symbols such as the ankh, and others drawn from ancient Egypt, are expressions of patriotism and pride in our historical heritage. These motifs frequently appear in state iconography (for example), designs and even landscaping. Neopagan movements such as Kemetism are cultural phenomena that have emerged almost exclusively within American identity-based subcultures, so these associations don't exist here.

The assertion you objected to was not a personal conjecture, but rather a direct engagement with scholarly review of the origin of the claim, as presented in Religious Origins of Nations by Jacques van der Vliet for example. I made additional observations informed by a doctoral thesis I encountered some time ago, which I can look up for you if you're interested.

Typical Coptic identity discourse is a by-product of the Orientalism so forcefully denounced by Edward Said and unthinkable without Egyptology. To a quite astonishing degree the cultural and racial prejudices of European scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth century have shaped the way in which still today highly respectable Coptic intellectuals think and write about their own history and identity.

Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 21:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

That’s not unique, it’s very common for colonial ideology to have been appropriated, many oral traditions from far-flung regions of Africa claim an origin from Egypt, Yemen, or more generally "the northeast". It’s no reason to oppose/censor them, we still have to be respectful of people’s beliefs Kowal2701 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I have never argued for censorship, though. The statement about Coptic descent and the broader text about identity remain fully intact, even after removing the WP:OR embellishments introduced by the user. One could reasonably argue that the entire discussion of descent could be moved to the identity section and framed as a component of self-perception, with additional context about its origins. The current compromise seems less contentious though, at least in terms of the position held by the other user. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 22:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

But it isn't just "a component of self-perception". It is an objective, genetic fact that they are directly descended from Ancient Egyptians. The fact that some 19th-century Europeans said this (and for once, on this one isolated point, they were actually correct) doesn't mean we should frame the Coptic ancestry as merely "self-perception". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This entire point is largely moot, given that I have already acquiesced to presenting the claim in the manner you and the other user are arguing for. However, for the sake of clarity, let me reiterate: at no juncture have I denied that Copts are descended from ancient Egyptians. On the contrary, as a matter of personal conviction I firmly hold that they are. If pressed to substantiate that conviction however, would it suffice to say that it is because a Victorian gramps stated that it is? The issue at hand, concerns the framing of this assertion, particularly when it is derived entirely from identitarian sources, divorced from any substantive research that can meaningfully demonstrate that they are. Romanticized essentialism and pseudo-scientific ethnography hardly qualifies it as credible, let alone dispositive. Asserting it as a fact, in an encyclopedic voice, should require more than deference to colonial-era conjecture, even if still parroted today. Otherwise, we might as well also state as facts that colds are caused by not wearing a jacket outside, or that arthritis comes from cracking your knuckles, without contextualizing the claims or explaining why such associations came to be common folk wisdom.

In my opinion such claims should be situated within their proper historiographical and epistemological context. The assertion here is not, as it is portrayed, an objective or uncomplicated scientific fact. It is worth underscoring that, as an Egyptian deeply invested in and proud of this historical inheritance, I harbor no illusions that we possess anything approaching a comprehensive or definitive understanding of the genetic history of ancient Egypt, a period understood to span roughly 3200 years. It is an area of inquiry that remains, by its very nature, complex, evolving, and highly provisional. None of the sources cited for it even frame it as a genetic fact as you just stated, with the exception of the vanity-press publication, nor do they assert the notion of "direct" descent. Please note that almost all of the problematic language comes from the same discredited source. Are the Copts, and Egyptians more broadly, descended from the ancient Egyptians? Almost certainly, yes. But the character of that continuity should be conveyed more precisely through the rigor of scientific inquiry

If establishing "genetic facts" were as simple as parroting antiquated colonial proclamations, there would be far fewer controversies across ethnonational claims to ancestry. Instead, as with almost every other article on ethnicities on Wikikpedia, we should privilege terminology that reflects scientific consensus, avoids deterministic overreach, and resists the temptation of mythologizing identity. Why? Because it's misleading, not because I have a bone to pick. This has consistently been my argument, an argument echoed by @SMcCandlish, who, in his own words, aptly characterized such claims as “bullshitty". If one genuinely seeks to ground such claims, then consistent with the treatment of virtually every other ethnographic article, the appropriate locus for such information is the genetics section, wherein the relevant studies can be presented and should point to the same overarching conclusion.

Feel free to disagree but this is my conviction on how we should approach such topics on Wikipedia. As far as I am concerned, we can conclude this discussion with the current compromise. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 10:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The job of a Wikipedia editor is to present what the sources say. Deciding that the sources say ____ but the Wikipedia editor (who is so much smarter and better informed than the actual reliable sources?) believes they don't have sufficient evidence to say so is not our job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The insinuation that peer-reviewed publication renders a view beyond scrutiny, especially when the criticism is also drawn from peer-reviewed material, is weird to me. Have I, at any point, implied that we should favor WP:OR over the content of any particular source? Or have I stated that sources should be represented in accordance with WP:DUE, accompanied by additional context, also drawn from reputable sources, presented proportionately and accurately? Our job is to compartmentalize information and structure it according to its nature and weight. When different assertions are entangled, it is our job to present them in proportion to their weight.

Just because someone said something doesn't make it an objective fact, as you seemed to suggest above, even if it qualifies for inclusion on Wikipedia on account of being peer-reviewed. This also does not protect it from peer-reviewed scrutiny. It is an objective fact that the author believes what they wrote. On a personal level, putting Wikipedia aside for a moment, if you genuinely believe that something becomes an "objective fact" simply because someone said it, then I honestly don’t know how to respond.

If you think blind deference to a source, without any contextual understanding on the part of the editor paraphrasing it, constitutes sound editorial practice, that's your prerogative. You can open a cook book and write a historical account about Diocletian for all I care. With all due respect, it really doesn’t interest me at this point to hear your take on the matter. We have done this pointless tango too many times now. To bring this discussion to a constructive end: if you believe the current framing, agreed upon above, misrepresents or fails to directly attribute statements to their sources, then please identify the inconsistencies so they can be addressed accordingly, instead of all these tangents. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 18:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to me that you have preferred your own OR interpretation over what the reliable sources say.

You have sources saying that Coptic Egyptians are directly descended from Ancient Egyptians, and you say we should "frame" that as being a "pseudo-scientific" narrative rather than a biological fact, because there isn't – in your opinion – "any substantive research" by an "authoritative" source proving the widely agreed upon facts.

AFAICT every single reliable source agrees that the Coptic Egyptians are directly descended from Ancient Egyptians. I've asked you repeatedly to provide a reliable source saying that Coptic Egyptians aren't directly descended from Ancient Egyptians, or even that they're maybe not directly descended from Ancient Egyptians, and you've not found a single source. The best you've come up with is sources saying that non-Coptic Egyptians are just as directly descended from Ancient Egyptians. This is like saying "I've got a source that says Cairo is a city, so we should downplay and cast doubt on the claim that Alexandria is a city".

I agree that "contextual understanding" is important, but contextual understanding doesn't let you escape the plain meaning of the sources. In the face of multiple ordinary RS directly saying that the Copts are directly descended from the Ancient Egyptians, if you want to weaken that statement, you need at least one ordinary RS that directly says that they didn't, or at least that they mightn't have. There are apparently no such sources. Therefore we have to accept what the sources say, even if they do not provide the level of evidence that we personally prefer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

A) The cited sources affirm that Copts descend from ancient Egyptians, but they do not assert that Copts are directly descended, or anything about genetics. I refer you to your own policy essay. The current phrasing in the article is consistent with the sources and reflects this nuance appropriately. Thus, I fail to see the substance of your objection. Please illustrate specically what you find objectionable.

B) If my intent were to challenge the claim that Copts descend from ancient Egyptians, I would seek out sources that contradict it. I am quite aware of how evidentiary standards operate. Since that is not my objective, I am fully satisfied with the current formulation, which accurately reflects the language and framing of the attributed sources. My suggestion was simply to contextualize the claim by incorporating additional perspectives, also from reputable sources, that analyze its emergence as part of an identitarian narrative rather than as a demonstrable “genetic fact”, as you, rather incorrectly, insist that it is on the basis of these sources. Again, these are reputable sources, not my own WP:OR.

C) Biology, being an empirical science, operates through the scientific method. Consequently, a claim cannot be classified as a “biological fact” unless it is grounded in peer-reviewed research within that domain. While it is perhaps factual to state that a qualified scholar made a particular assertion, this does not elevate the statement to the status of a "biological fact". That distinction matters and should not be blurred. With the standards you're proposing, we might as well write an article about phytoplankton photosynthesis citing a SpongeBob episode. Can you demonstrate that any of these sources even claim that it is a biological or genetic fact, or is it WP:OR?

D) Once more, if you believe there is a material inconsistency between the sources and the current text, kindly specify what that inconsistency is. Are you genuinely interested in working the text, or is this just an opportunity for you to wikilawyer for its own sake? Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 20:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 6