Talk:Copts/Archive 2

Lead

Issue 1:

N They are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians.^[1][2][3]

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

Issue 2:

N While an integral part of their society, Copts remain culturally and religiously distinct from their surroundings. Coptic music is a continuation of ancient Egyptian music, and Coptic culture is considered a continuation of that of ancient Egypt. For instance, Copts still use the same calendar and months that have been used by their Egyptian forefathers for thousands of years. Thus, modern Copts are not only genetically descendants of ancient Egyptians, but retain some tangible cultural Egyptian heritage such as language, music and more.^[4]

Comment: This paragraph is unsalvageable as it is entirely WP:OR. In an attempt to remove the citation tag I added, another editor inserted "Guindy, pp. 25" as a source, yet these statements are not actually found in A Sword Over the Nile by Adel Guindy, making the citation incorrect. This pattern of misattributing sources to unsourced claims has been repeatedly observed throughout the article. Furthermore, Adel Guindy is not a historian but a Coptic activist, and his book has been widely discredited as a primary source (). It is not a historical account but rather a commentary on the History of the Patriarchs. It is a vanity press publication and thus not a reliable source for any assertive claim beyond the views of the author himself.

Issue 3:

  While Coptic Christians speak the same dialects and are culturally similar to other Egyptians, they strongly oppose Arab identity and associate it with Islam and Islamism.^[5][6] Copts reject Arab nationalism, emphasizing indigenous Egyptian heritage and culture as well as their own unique ethnicity and genetic makeup, which are completely different from those of the Arabs. In Egypt, Copts have a relatively higher educational attainment, a relatively higher wealth index, and a stronger representation in white-collar job types, but limited representation in military and security agencies.^[7] The majority of demographic, socio-economic, and health indicators are similar among Coptic Christians and Muslims in Egypt.^[7]

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion:

Y Many Copts view Arab identity as closely associated with Islam and may not fully identify with it,^[8] but they also have a national identity shared with other Egyptians.^[8][9] Copts and Muslim Egyptians are recognized as being physically indistinguishable.^[10][11] In Egypt, Copts have a relatively high educational attainment, wealth index, and a strong representation in white-collar job types, but limited representation in military and security agencies.^[7] The majority of demographic, socio-economic, and health indicators are similar among Coptic Christians and Muslims in Egypt.^[7]

Etymology

Issue 4:

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

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

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

History

Issue 5:

N Copts are the native inhabitants of Egypt, and the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians whose ancestors embraced Christianity in the first centuries.^{[12][13][14][15][16]}

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

Issue 6:

N Today, Copts form a major ethno-religious group whose origins date back to the ancient Egyptians.^[17][12]

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

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

Issue 7:

  Coptic converts to Islam were lured to the new religion by the prospect of paying less taxes, since they would no longer have to pay the Jizya taxation levied only on non-Muslims according to Islamic Sahria law.^[18]

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

Suggestion:

Y Coptic converts to Islam may have been motivated by the prospect of financial relief, as they would no longer be subject to the Jizya tax, which was levied only on non-Muslims according to Islamic Sharia law.^[19]

Issue 8:

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

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

Suggestion:

Y The treatment of Christian Copts by Muslim rulers remained challenging throughout the Middle Ages and continued into the Early modern period.^{[citation needed]}

Issue 9:

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

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

Demographics

Issue 10:

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

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

Genetics

Issue 11:

  Copts are the native inhabitants of Egypt, and the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, whose ancestors embraced Christianity in the first centuries.^{[20][21][22] [23][24][12][12][13][25][26][16]} After the Arab conquest of Egypt, Egyptians who converted to Islam ceased to call themselves by the demonym Copt, and the term became the distinctive name of the Christian minority in Egypt. Nevertheless, genetics have proven that the vast majority of Egypt's Muslims today are also of Coptic origin.^[27]

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

Suggestion:

Y Copts are a Christian community in Egypt with a long history dating back to the early centuries of Christianity in the region. Following the Arab conquest of Egypt, the term "Copt" became associated with Egypt's Christians. Over time, the term "Copt" came to represent Egyptian Christians as distinct from the Muslim majority. While there are cultural and historical connections to ancient Egypt, modern Copts are part of the broader Egyptian population, shaped by both their Christian faith and their historical presence in Egypt. Genetics have shown that both Egypt's Muslim and Christian populations are largely descended from the pre-Islamic Egyptian population.^{[28][29][23][30][12][12][13][31][32][16][33]}

Music

Issue 12:

  Coptic chant is a very old tradition with links to ancient Egyptian music.^[34][35] For instance, a hymn sung today on Good Friday in the Coptic Church has its roots in an ancient Egyptian melody that ancient Egyptian priests played during the burial of Egyptian kings.^[36]

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

Suggestion:

Y Coptic chant is an ancient tradition that has been linked to the musical practices of ancient Egypt.^[37][38] One example is a hymn sung on Good Friday, which may be derived from melodies used by ancient Egyptian priests during royal funerary rites. ^[39]

Identity

Issue 13:

  As the native inhabitants of Egypt, and the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, Copts have a strong attachment to their Egyptian identity.^{[12][13][40][41][16]} Over the centuries, Copts have always rejected and fought against other identities that foreign rulers attempted to force upon them, stressing their own Egyptian identity.^[42]

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

Suggestion:

Y Copts have historically maintained a strong sense of Egyptian identity, which has played a role in their cultural and religious expression.^{[12][13][43][44][16]} Throughout history, Copts have expressed resistance to broader regional identities such as pan-Arabism and Islamism, while emphasizing their connection to Egypt.^[42]

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

Replies

Please write all replies under this section.

Issue 1:Here are a handful of sources that explicitly say that Copts are the descendants of ancient Egyptians (there are many more, these are only examples):

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

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

Issue 2:I am afraid you are incorrect in your claim that "these statements are not actually found in A Sword Over the Nile by Adel Guindy". Here is the exact quote from page 24 of the book:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really do not find a place after all of this to try and discredit the book as major source of information on the history of Copts.

Issue 3: I think the first suggestion is misplaced? Maybe it relates to Issue 2 above?

Here is what I propose instead for that paragraph:

{ Many Copts reject Arab nationalism because they believe themselves to be ethnically Egyptian and not Arab, thus emphasizing indigenous Egyptian heritage and culture, which are different from those of the Arabs.^[45] They view Arab identity to be closely associated with Islam and the process of Arabization of their country.^[46][8] Nevertheless, Copts also have an Egyptian national identity shared with other Egyptians.^[8][9] Copts and Muslim Egyptians are largely physically indistinguishable.^[10][47]

In Egypt, Copts have a relatively high educational attainment, wealth index, and a strong representation in white-collar job types, but limited representation in military and security agencies.^[7] The majority of demographic, socio-economic, and health indicators are similar among Coptic Christians and Muslims in Egypt.^[7]Epenkimi (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Epenkimi! Regarding issue 1, I strongly encourage you to review the relevant guidelines on appropriate sourcing, particularly WP:EXCEPTIONAL. You seek to make a broad and authoritative claim regarding genetics and anthropology, yet such statements require authoritative sources from these fields if they are to remain unchallenged. Instead, you have compiled an assortment of sources, including an article from The Guardian’s art section, an ABC News article, a 115-year-old encyclopedic entry (WP:AGEMATTERS), a book by a religious historian, a blog post, and a secondary historical account by a Coptic activist, among other similar sources. This approach does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for sourcing when addressing WP:DUBIOUS claims. Even outside such contexts, it ranks far below peer-reviewed scientific research in terms of source priority, meaning authoritative sources must take precedence over others per WP:RS.

What I, and others, are asking for is an authoritative, peer-reviewed source that substantiates this assertion. Otherwise, the claim must be reworded to reflect the poor quality of the sources supporting it while introducing a more proportionate counterpoint backed by reliable academic research. Furthermore, such content belongs solely in the genetics OR identity section, not in the lead or multiple other sections where it has been repeatedly inserted.

A more appropriate phrasing, which maintains neutrality while ensuring factual accuracy, might be:

"Several sources, often from journalistic, religious, nationalist, or advocacy-driven contexts, assert that Copts are the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, sometimes characterizing them as the purest or sole inheritors of ancient Egyptian heritage. These claims emphasize cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing Coptic identity as distinct from the Arab and Islamic influences that later shaped Egypt. However, more authoritative research in genetics and anthropology does not support such assertions. Instead, genetic studies and scholarly analyses 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."

This is the only objective way to present such content in accordance with Wikipedia's policies per WP:NPOV and presented exactly as stated in WP:RS. Once again, I am not opposed to the inclusion of any topic, but it must be framed in a manner that maintains proportionality, neutrality, and adherence to reliable sourcing standards.

Regarding issue 2, I want to clarify that my intent is not to discredit the author personally. My statement remains valid, however, he is not a historian, which is not a critique of his career but a necessary clarification in determining how to prioritize sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. His work constitutes a secondary, not an authoritative primary, source. While I do not dispute the accuracy of the accounts he provides, and I recognize the value of representing minority perspectives in Egypt, I find it unfortunate that his presentation of information is at times skewed and, in certain instances, incorporates embellishments of highly sectarian nature. That is my personal assessment, and it should be taken as such, it does not affect the validity of the source for a more general inclusion, as I do not claim to be an arbiter of content or sources.

As I am reviewing an online version of the book, the statement in question does not appear on page 24 but I'll take your word for it if that is indeed the case. Please note that the source is unformatted still. I did find the excerpt and here it is in full, for contextual clarity:

"The expression Copt appears for the first time around 750, i.e. more than a century after the invasion, to specifically refer to the native Christians of the land. Even if it may be technically correct to currently use the designation ‘Copt’ to refer to every Egyptian irrespective of religion, nonetheless, the expression has come to describe specifically and exclusively Christian Egyptian natives (i.e. not every Christian living in the country, even if they had the Egyptian nationality, such as Armenians, Syriacs, Maronites, Greeks, etc.). This term is, hence, almost as a good as a definition, given its continued usage over the centuries. Copts are then the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians. Gamal Hamdan5 said that the Ancient Egyptians were an indigenous (autochthonous) people that had not migrated from anywhere else, and even if miscegenation (racial mixing) had taken place, it did in the context of racial continuity across the ages and even prior to the dating of Pharaonic dynasties (32 centuries B.C.). Contemporary Egyptians are (regardless of their religion) descendants of the Ancient Egyptians intermixed with traces of Arabic, Semitic, Caucasian, European, and other genes (not that genetic composition is of any importance in itself). In fact, according to a recent National Geographic genographic study, modern day Egyptians carry particular blends of regional affiliations: 68% North Africa, 17% Southwest Asia and Persian Gulf, 4% Jewish Diaspora, 3% from each of Southern Europe, Asia Minor, and Eastern Africa.6"

The passage distinguishes between native and non-native Christians while referencing genetic studies on the origins of Egyptians, not specifically Copts. The studies cited are well-regarded and widely distributed, but the author himself is not an authority in this field. Given that these studies are readily available, Wikipedia guidelines (WP:USEPRIMARY) direct us to cite the original research rather than relying on secondary commentary, ensuring that the content is framed in accordance with the original wording of the studies rather than individual interpretation.

As a side point, this passage also contradicts other statements you have introduced, which claim that Copts, as an ethnic group, originated in ancient Egypt. It clearly indicates that the identity specifically pertains to Egyptian Christians, a religious community that did not exist in ancient Egypt, and that the distinction itself emerged following the Arab conquest.

Also, regarding the source you mentioned being included in my suggestions, I have not moderated every single source in the long list of sources within the text, which naturally leaves room for further refinement. However, the excerpt you cited does not claim direct descent but rather emphasizes the centrality of ancient Egyptian heritage in Coptic identity. I have never disputed this; ancient Egyptian heritage is undeniably an aspect of modern Coptic identity, as it is of Egyptian identity more broadly, including in official state contexts even (in symbols, architecture, national narratives and so on). Turnopoems (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Issue 1

I'm not sure how what you wrote is objective if you're mentioning sources of journalistic, religious, nationalist, or advocacy-driven contexts, but you fail to also mention academic, historian and Coptology sources based on the examples I put forth. More specifically, there are historians (Alfred J. Butler, Christian Cannuyer, Iris Habib Elmasry), Coptologists (Christian Cannuyer) and academics (Christian Cannuyer, Constantine Gutzman) who assert that Copts are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians.

If you really want to provide a long prologue of the background of people who state that Copts are the descendants of ancient Egyptians, the proper paragraph would read as such:

"Several sources, including academics, historians, Coptologists, journalists, religious figures, nationalists, and activists, assert that Copts are the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, sometimes characterizing them as the purest or sole inheritors of ancient Egyptian heritage. These claims assertions emphasize cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing Coptic identity as distinct from the Arab and Islamic influences that later shaped Egypt. However, more authoritative research in genetics and anthropology does not support such assertions. Instead,Genetic studies and scholarly analyses highlight a broader continuity and affinity between Copts, and other Egyptians, and their ancient Egyptians forefathers, demonstrating a largely shared and stable genetic heritage rather than a strict, isolated lineage.^{[citation needed]}"

Please note that I removed inflammatory words such as purest or sole. I think the vast majority of people knowledgeable about the history of Egyptians and their modern genetic studies would agree that the vast majority of Muslim Egyptians are simply Copts who converted to Islam, and are therefore also the descendants of Ancient Egyptians rather than Arabs. Taha Hussein and Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed would certainly agree and would self-identify as Muslim Copts.

I also changed claims to assertions since you led the paragraph by acknowledging that these various sources assert this statement, and since such an overwhelming bibliography make this more than just a claim.

Furthermore, there is no source that I am aware of that support the claim that more authoritative research in genetics and anthropology does not support such assertions.

We will also need a citation that supports the last sentence.

For the sake of clarity, let us resolve these issues one at a time, otherwise this thread becomes overwhleming.

Thanks. Epenkimi (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Including "academics" is imprecise, as the term applies broadly to anyone with a degree and does not convey specific expertise. Moreover, it introduces an ambiguous and unwarranted level of authority. Both names you listed under academics are historians anyway. The inclusion of "Coptologist" is acceptable, as it is a recognized subfield of history; however, listing both historians and Coptologists is redundant, given that Coptologists are, by definition, specialists in Coptic history. It would be like writing "Egyptologists and historians". So we can write either Coptologists, or religious historians. I don't think "activists" is preferable, as it lacks authoritative weight in the context of expertise, while advocacy-driven sources at least implies it's a published material. However, if you strongly prefer its inclusion, we can write it.

The citation tag is unnecessary, as the claims can be properly referenced once the final wording is established. The terminology you omitted as inflammatory was directly drawn from the cited sources, but if you prefer its removal, that is acceptable. However, it is difficult to characterize this as a compromise when the counterpoint is moderated and reworded in a manner that reinforces your own position. Additionally, we are not composing an epic for the Egyptian nation, so "forefathers" is not appropriate terminology.

Here is how I would reword it with your version and feedback in mind:

Many Coptologists, journalists, religious figures, nationalists, and advocacy-driven sources assert that Copts are the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, often portraying them as the inheritors of ancient Egyptian heritage. These claims emphasize cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing Coptic identity as distinct from the Arab and Islamic influences that later shaped Egypt. However, research in genetics and anthropology does not mirror such absolute assertions about direct descent. Instead, it highlights a broader continuity and affinity between Copts, other Egyptians, and ancient Egyptians, demonstrating a largely shared and stable genetic heritage rather than an exclusive or isolated lineage.

Frankly, I am more happy with this version than omitting it altogether as it objectively represents most of the nuance that is part of this debate, so I would gladly move forward with this version.

I agree that we should do it methodically, one at a time, but this particular issue overlaps with many other issues. This text can not be repeated throughout the article, please keep that in mind. Personally I feel that the identity section is where it should be, as the genetics one should be limited specifically to research from that field. Turnopoems (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Including "academics" is very accurate in this case. Per Wikipedia's definition of academic, it is "a person who works as a teacher or researcher at a university or other higher education institution. An academic usually holds an advanced degree. The term scholar is sometimes used with equivalent meaning to that of academic and describes in general those who attain mastery in a research discipline. It has wider application, with it also being used to describe those whose occupation was research prior to organized higher education." This exact definition applies here to Christian Cannuyer, who teaches ancient Near Eastern religions, Christian church history and Coptic language at the Theological Faculty of Lille Catholic University, and to Constantine Gutzman, who is the Chair of the Department of History at Western Connecticut State University. If you prefer to substitute the word academic for scholar, I'm ok with that. If you feel that it "introduces an ambiguous and unwarranted level of authority", then you are letting your preconceived biases affect the objectivity of the article. In the same way, when I read "Several sources, often from journalistic, religious, nationalist, or advocacy-driven contexts", I get the feeling that whoever wrote that is trying to discredit the statement that is to follow. However, it is a fact, so my feelings here do not matter. Similarly, it is a fact that academics and scholars have made such assertions, and therefore either academics or scholars must be included.

Furthermore, academics and historians are not mutually inclusive. For instance, Alfred J. Butler and Iris Habib Elmasry are historians but not academics/scholars. Also, Coptology is not a subset of history by any stretch of the imagination. Coptology is the study of Coptic people, or Coptic culture, or Coptic language, or Coptic literature etc. A Coptologist can be studying Coptic art or Coptic music and have nothing to do with history. I do prefer activists over advocacy-driven sources in this case since we are listing a series of people/professions/careers, rather than sources, so that keeps it consistent.

We can hold off on the citation tag for now, but ultimately a strong statement such as "Genetic studies and scholarly analyses highlight a broader continuity and affinity between Copts, and other Egyptians, and their ancient Egyptians forefathers, demonstrating a largely shared and stable genetic heritage rather than a strict, isolated lineage" should be referenced. I do not disagree with the content, but we need to be able to find credible sources to support it.

I am ok with removing "forefathers". We can replace it with "ancestors".

Finally, I cannot make a blank promise not to include this statement or part(s) of it in other places in the article. If it fits in another location and will be useful to justify/clarify content and flow, then it should be included.

So here is the version I recommend without the formatting in my previous answer:

Several sources, including academics, historians, Coptologists, journalists, religious figures, nationalists, and activists, assert that Copts are the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, characterizing them as the heirs of ancient Egyptian heritage. These assertions emphasize 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 broader 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. Epenkimi (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Academic is a blanket term, encompassing all scientific fields, including genetics and anthropology, which are later specifically cited as counterpoints. Which of the cited sources, in your assessment, qualify as academics yet are not adequately described by more precise terms such as Coptologist? A scholar of history, or its specialized branches, is, by definition, an academic. The only apparent function of this term in this context is to artificially enhance the authority of the statement by introducing ambiguity regarding the qualifications of the sources. If the sources in question are indeed authoritative enough to substantiate the claim, there should be no difficulty in categorizing them without resorting to vague embellishments like this. There is no need to entangle ourselves in a labyrinth of classifications and sub-classifications, homo sapiens and religious figures, the literate and journalists, and so forth. Such distinctions are, at best, redundant, and at worst, a pedantic exercise that serves only to obfuscate rather than clarify.

Additionally, I do not expect a blanket promise, I am making it clear that continued noncompliance with WP:NPOV, WP:SUMMARY, and other WP:MOS standards will continue be challenged even if we agree on a specific wording.

I do not see substantive progress in refining the wording, as you're only swapping out words for synonyms, so I will not expend further effort drafting a compromise when there is no corresponding willingness to reciprocate. I believe the version I last proposed is sufficient. If you're content with your version, then the most appropriate course of action at this point is to present an RfC, allowing the community to determine the final wording. I will finalize mine with references, and you are free to do the same with yours. Turnopoems (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, let me provide you with Wikipedia's definition of an academic:

An academic is a person who works as a teacher or researcher at a university or other higher education institution. An academic usually holds an advanced degree. The term scholar is sometimes used with equivalent meaning to that of academic and describes in general those who attain mastery in a research discipline. It has wider application, with it also being used to describe those whose occupation was research prior to organized higher education.

Now, this exact definition applies to multiple university professors who support the assertion that Copts are the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians. For instance, Kevin Gutzman is an academic, a scholar, a university professor and a historian, but not a Coptologist.

The only reason you are against including the fact that both academics/scholars and historians agree that Copts are the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians is that you are trying to discredit that statement because you don't like it. This is not fair and will not fly. So since you insist on including the professions and careers of people who support that statement in a prologue, that inclusion must be comprehensive. This is not a "vague embellishment" as you claim, but a simple fact that many academics/scholars and historians agree upon.

Alternatively, if you do not want to "entangle ourselves in a labyrinth of classifications and sub-classifications", then we can simply remove the entirely unnecessary prologue and say:

Copts are the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, and are characterized as the heirs of the ancient Egyptian heritage. This assertion emphasizes cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing Coptic identity as distinct from the Arab and Islamic influences that later shaped Egypt.

It is also rather untruthful to claim that I am not compromising. I have made many compromises so far, and you can simply scroll up in the thread to remind yourself of them. Epenkimi (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

A definitional excerpt from a Wikipedia article, particularly one drawn from an entry rather than a policy or guideline, is not really authoritative in this context but either way it does not make it less of a catch-all label. Again, not a single individual cited among your sources qualifies as a historian or Coptologist without simultaneously being, by that definition as well, an academic. Regardless, the assertion that academics support these statements is problematic as such phrasing suggests a broad interdisciplinary consensus, when in truth the citations provided are confined to the fields of Coptology and religious historiography. To extrapolate such niche support into a universal scholarly support is not only a mischaracterization, but an intellectually dishonest one.

It is also regrettable that, rather than engaging with the substance of the critique, you continuously choose to personalize the exchange by making unsubstantiated claims about my motives. No one here is trying to dissect your motives, even though they are quite obvious, so I would ask that you extend the same courtesy in return. This tactic neither enhances the discussion nor tackles the central issue that must be addressed in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, and not my personal stance. Your sources are methodologically weak, consisting of authors offering assertions as primary sources on a subject entirely extrinsic to their own disciplinary expertise.

Neither one of us have all the time in the world to litigate semantic minutiae and this exchange needs to reach an outcome eventually. What was requested, quite clearly, was sources from within those specific fields (genetics and anthropology) that explicitly validate the language you insist on using (i.e. direct descent). The compromise was to preserve the text in question while transparently noting the weakness of its sources and stating that no equivalent assertion exists within the relevant disciplinary sources, either that or remove it entirely. Instead, you revised the framing, excised the counterbalancing disclaimer, and repackaged the claim as if it bore the weight of academic consensus. With that, we will not achieve anything meaningful in this process. If you're confident in your version, then please present it in its entirety below, whether it is devoid of prologue or with prologue is up to you. I will submit both my version and your final version to an RfC and allow the community to determine which version will make it to the article. I will also ask about its inclusion in multiple sections as you suggested, so that there will be broad consensus for its removal or inclusion, depending on the outcome. This is as fair as it can possibly be. Please proceed accordingly so we can move forward. Turnopoems (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

If you disagree with a Wikipedia definition, you're most welcome to change it and support your changes with references. Again, you are wrong about the people who confirm that Copts are the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians in your statement that "not a single individual cited among your sources qualifies as a historian or Coptologist without simultaneously being, by that definition as well, an academic":

• Alfred J. Butler : a historian. Not a Coptologist. Not an academic.
• Christian Cannuyer " a historian, a Coptologist and an academic.
• Kevin Gutzman : an academic and a historian. Not a Coptologist.
• Iris Habib Elmasry : a historian and a Coptologist. Not an academic.

So, no, the three things are not interchangeable, and there are sources that qualify as historians and/or Coptologists but who do not qualify as academics.

Again, if you find that to be problematic, please remember that you are the one who initiated the use of that long prologue that describes the profession and activity of every single source that states the Copts are the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians. And again, I am more that happy to compromise and remove the prologue altogether. But if you insist on using it in the article, then you must be honest and include everyone, not just the ones you want.

I think your motives are quite clear from the prolonged exchange we have had in this article and from statements such as "the weakness of its sources ". If you think that statements about Copts provided by academics, historians and Coptologists are weak, then maybe you can provide us with statements by equally qualified authoritative figures that refute the claims of these sources and explain why these particular sources are wrong. That will certainly help enrich the article. But you and you alone draw a blank statement that these are weak sources, that implies that you know better on the subject of Coptic history than these people who have spent significant portions of their lives studying it.

At any rate, I highly doubt that will happen or that it will bring the conversation to any fruition, so let's just focus on how to resolve Issue 1 so we can move on to the next issue.

Here are the two versions I am willing to accept for the article:

• Several sources, including academics, historians, Coptologists, journalists, religious figures, nationalists, and activists, assert that Copts are the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, characterizing them as the heirs of ancient Egyptian heritage.^{[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]} These assertions emphasize 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 broader 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]}
• Several sources assert that Copts are the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, characterizing them as the heirs of ancient Egyptian heritage.^{[60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]} These assertions emphasize 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 broader 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) 13:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with your argument for inclusion, not with a particular definition of the term. I ask that we refrain from petty remarks; the weakness of your position does not obligate me to do anything beyond the direct critique of that position that I offered. Even by the definition of “academic” that you’ve cited, your reasoning remains unconvincing, as you fail to articulate why certain individuals qualify while others, despite holding posts at academic institutions, do not. Both Elmasry, affiliated with the Institute of Coptic Studies, and Butler, a scholar at Oxford University, clearly fall within that scope and are even referred to as scholars/academics/researchers.

Can we refrain from this pointless discussion about motivations? Yours are no more legitimate than mine, nor are mine superior to yours, except insofar as they conform to, or diverge from, Wikipedia guidelines. Let's focus on policy and content, where the discussion actually belongs, or refrain altogether.

Moreover, the burden of proof lies with the individual presenting a claim. One cannot simply put forth an unqualified assertion and then demand it be explicitly refuted by scientific literature. No credible study in genetics or anthropology would address such a statement, precisely because it is scientifically incoherent, unverifiable in the strictest sense, as it cannot be empirically tested or even meaningfully defined. Its purpose is to comfort those determined to reaffirm their own constructed identities. That is why the sources supporting it are weak. A claim does not gain legitimacy simply because individuals with academic qualifications from unrelated fields assert it (or something vaguely similar) without empirical evidence, it remains, at its core, an ideological projection and should be interpreted as such. Trying to present it is an absolute truth on an encyclopedia, knowing fully well that the statements are not supported by relevant evidence neccessary to support such a conclusion, is also the worst kind of ideological projection.

If I asked you, right now, to construct a convincing, evidence-based explanation, rooted in empirical observations, to prove that the Copts are indeed the "direct descendants" (whatever your conception of that is) of the ancient Egyptians using your sources alone, you would not be able to do so. The extent of the empirical depth in your argument is simply parroting the original statements of these individuals, which we are expected to accept as authoritative just because you say so.

In any case, it's clear that this discussion has reached an impasse and I'm getting frustrated with repeating the same things over and over again. I've initiated an RfC below. If you believe I’ve mischaracterized your position in any way, I encourage you to provide a clarification under the “Replies” section. Turnopoems (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

You disagreed with the definition of "academic" when you said "A definitional excerpt from a Wikipedia article, particularly one drawn from an entry rather than a policy or guideline, is not really authoritative in this context".

You can disagree with the inclusion of "academics, scholars, historians, Coptologists". But similarly in that case, I will disagree with your inclusion of " journalists, religious figures, nationalists, and activists". You cannot have it both ways. You either include everyone who made such assertions, or you include no one. I'm quite certain that your "selective" inclusions do not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. You can call my position weak as much as you want, but it is quite clear to everyone who is the one being selective because of their weak position. Furthermore, you do not need to be convinced by anybody's reasoning. We are simply presenting facts and adhering to guidelines. You're welcome to dispute the facts if you disagree with them. But whether or not you're "convinced" bears no weight on the current discussion.

Also, no, Butler was not an academic or a scholar. Studying at Oxford does not make you an academic or a scholar at Oxford. Otherwise, we would call everyone with an undergraduate degree an academic. Similarly, being " affiliated" with the Institute of Coptic Studies does not make Elmasry and academic or a scholar. Please refer back to the definition thereof.

"The burden of proof lies with the individual presenting a claim". I cannot agree more. I have provided you with not one proof, but Twelve proofs. The fact that you do not like some of them because they refute your claims makes you biased. It's as simple as that. If you disagree with the assertions made by these numerous historians, academics, scholars, Coptologists and Egyptologists, you are most welcome to present your sources and references that refute their assertions and support your POV. If you claim to know more about Copts and Coptic history than historians, academics, scholars, Coptologists and Egyptologists then you should tell us what your credentials are and why you disagree with all of them. But mischaracterizing everything you disagree with as "weak" or "ideological" is the exact true definition of weakness and biased ideology, and carries zero weight when we talk about supporting an encyclopedic entry with evidence and references.

I had previously constructed a paragraph as to why Copts are indeed the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians, but you disagreed with it. You then claimed that I have no proof of such claim, so I provided you with twelve proofs. You then reworded the whole paragraph in a way that makes the reader doubt its content. So again, either provide your own contrary sources, or remove the entire prologue altogether. Epenkimi (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I said that a definitional excerpt from Wikipedia is not authoritative, because that specific context lacks the nuance found, for instance, in Merriam-Webster's broader definition. I never claimed that excerpt was wrong; rather, I pointed out that even if we accept its narrower scope, your argument remains unconvincing and wrong.

Butler was indeed a scholar at Oxford University, specifically, a research fellow at Brasenose College, not merely a student. Likewise, Iris Habib Elmasry was more than simply affiliated with the Institute of Coptic Studies; she was a professor there and she is even referred to as a scholar in Coptic sources. At this point you're just being disingenuous.

You may disagree with my text, but I no longer expect us to reach consensus on its wording, as that has proven unproductive. The key difference is that my list of titles, Coptologists, religious historians, journalists, activists, religious figures, places individuals on a single level, accurately reflecting their primary roles. Your approach, however, alternates between broad and specific titles (e.g., “academics and historians,” “academics and Coptologists”), even though “historian” or “Coptologist” is included within the broader category of “academic”. This rhetorical layering gives the appearance of a more extensive or interdisciplinary consensus than actually exists, because it suggests that each title denotes a separate authority rather than a more precise subset of the same.

Furthermore, your approach to sourcing indicates a lack of critical evaluation. Simply pointing to a piece of writing, online or otherwise, does not confer absolute credibility. Most of the sources you provided merely restate (vaguely in most cases) the conclusion that Copts are the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians, without offering a coherent scientific explanation of how or why this is so. Even the one reference that cites a broader genetic study focusing on Egyptians does not explicitly demonstrate how its findings apply specifically to Copts being direct descendants. In that case, I did not oppose it; I merely asked you, per Wikipedia guidelines (WP:USEPRIMARY), to present the primary source if you believe the referenced study genuinely supports the statement Guindy made. It wouldn’t be an issue at all if it did.

Including travel guides, blogs, news articles, and the official page of the Coptic Orthodox Church among your twelve sources, none of which provide a thorough explanation of how or why Copts are direct descendants, does not meaningfully establish authority on the matter. Without clear empirical evidence supporting the claim, presented in those sources, you cannot reasonably expect them to be deemed conclusive or even remotely scientific, when all they do is just state something out of the blue. Turnopoems (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

How is my argument unconvincing and wrong if even you confirm that Butler was indeed a "British academic and writer"?! How does that confirmation lead you to preclude including the fact that academics support the notion of Copts being direct descendants of ancient Egyptians? If anything, this strengthens my argument that including this particular designation is not only all the more befitting, but also even more accurate that your version that excludes people's designations according to your own biases. I don't even need to debate the definition of an academic anymore after you have shown that Butler was an academic, and I thank you for that.

Similarly, since Elmasry is described as a scholar and not an academic as you have shown us, I now change my stance and advocate for including the term scholar as well to the list in your prologue. I will be changing my my paragraph below accordingly. Again, I thank you for that. Nonetheless, a "Copologist" or a "historian" is not necessarily an academic. For instance, you are wrong in your statement that Elmasry was a professor. She was not. She is not an academic, even when you apply your definition of an academic to her.

Also, who exactly defines "credibility"? When different historians and scholars and academics and Coptologists all make a certain assertion, who exactly are you to say that what all of them are saying is not something credible? Can you explain to us how exactly that works?

Again, it's ok if you don't like it, but you really have no authority to challenge a certain expert in their field. Only another expert does, and if you have sources made by equally qualified experts that challenge the assertion that Copts are the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians, you are most welcome to show them to us and debate them here. So far you have repeatedly failed to do so. Your own personal opinion carries no weight in this discussion and is irrelevant. Epenkimi (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

This level of debate is ridiculous. Your argument fails because the only way you can sustain it is by being disingenuous and misrepresenting the nature of their work. If you sincerely believe these individuals are all of these things but not academics, or that being an academic or a scholar is entirely separate from their primary role (rather than a broader category encompassing that role), that is your prerogative, I see no point in trying to convince you otherwise. You should not be surprised, however, if others disagree with you.

You are free to include whatever you want in your version, and if others support your stance, they will make it clear. Elmasry worked as an educator at the Institute of Coptic Science and was previously a researcher at various Western institutes (link). Stop trying to obfuscate facts that do not fit whatever argument you conceived on the fly.

It astounds me that, even after nearly twenty replies reiterating this point, you still fail to grasp that a source lacking empirical evidence, applied in accordance with the scientific method, is not credible. Otherwise, one might as well cite their grandmothers journal. Not all sources are equal, and yours are weak not simply because I say so, but because they merely assert a conclusion without offering any empirical basis or methodological explanation.

I, and any other editor, have every right under Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:RS and WP:BOLD, among others) to challenge sources and content. You seem to treat your own contributions as sacrosanct in the most childishly defensive way possible. Turnopoems (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It's ok, I know you're losing your temper because you have no ground to stand on when you try to censor and discredit information that you don't like. You started this discussion by claiming I have no sources to support my contributions, and when I showed you numerous credible sources, you started questioning the authors of the sources using a classic Ad hominem fallacy. And when I showed you that these were academics and scholars and historians and Coptologists, you arrogantly continued to insist that you did not like the sources. Just as simply as that. You don't like them. You don't think they're credible. As if you were an authority in all these fields and wrote books and articles refuting the assertion that Copts are the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians. Again, unfortunately for you, you are not an authority on the topic, and those who are authority in the field do agree with and support this statement.

No wonder with the level of arguments you are using, you think than an "educator" equates a "professor". Is she a scholar? Yes. Then include that in your prologue. Is Butler an academic per you link you showed? Sure, then you'll have to include that. You cannot pick and choose. You want to add your prologue of who is saying Copts are the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians? Then you have to add all of them. If your reasoning was so pity as to add "journalists" and "activists" to the list, you are compelled to add "scholars" and "academics" and "historians" and "Coptologists". These are FACTS and you don't get to change facts based on your biases.

You want to challenge these experts? Show us proof from equally qualified experts that refute their claims. Wikipedia is not your own personal blog to include on it what you agree with and remove what you disagree with. Anyone on Wikipedia can challenge unsupported claims by experts, but nobody can remove referenced and supported statements made by experts in a certain field. You can write your own version of the article in your own sandbox, where you remove whatever verifiable referenced statements made by authorities in the field. But not on the page called "Copts". Epenkimi (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

There’s nothing more to add to this discussion that hasn’t already been covered. If you’re done with your little tantrum now, I’m going to step aside until someone has more substantive input to offer. Turnopoems (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

My general takes on these matters:

1. "direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians" – This is an essentially meaningless statement that is being used to (or at least has the effect of) pushing an identarian viewpoint, which is not how we do things. The sources indicate considerable genetic heritage from that population, with admixture, and this is what our article should say, in a section about genetics. "Direct descendants of ..." does not belong in the lead, or really anywhere. Cf. my prior 3O response above: I'm "directly descended from" (in small part) ancient Cypriots, but that doesn't make me a Cypriot or a Cypriot-American in any meaningful sense. This just is not how to encyclopedically approach such a matter.
2. "Copts remain culturally and religiously distinct from their surroundings" doesn't even really parse as English. Surroundings = environment, so it's like saying my cat is different from my bedroom when I'm trying to indicate that my cat is different from other cats (somehow). But the underlying urge here, to promote a "so very different" viewpoint doesn't appear to be sourceable. "Coptic music is a continuation of ancient Egyptian music" is not what the sources say; rather, there's some indication of certain elements of late classical Egyptian music that have been preserved in Coptic music. "Coptic culture is considered a continuation of that of ancient Egypt." WP:WEASEL and doesn't agree with the sources. "retain some tangible cultural Egyptian heritage" is a bit more in an appropriate direction, though is misusing words (in anthropology, "tangible ... heritage" means physical objects, AKA material culture).
3. The entire segment is making unsupportable claims about all Copts (as if about a monolithic ideology with a single published doctrine, rather than an ethno-cultural group of individuals), that even directly defy what the sources say.
4. I agree with the entire summary above, and needn't pore over the details. It is not okay to misrepresent language usage (nor word meanings). Beware also the etymological fallacy; there's a strong attempt in here to steer the reader into believing that because "Copt" ultimately comes etymologically from a word meaning 'Egyptians' than they are really the "true Egyptians". There's a supremacist whiff in the air here and it needs to be dispelled.
5. Yes, same problem as no. 1, and based on dreadful sourcing.
6. Agreed with the problem statement about this too. It repeats the same error as nos. 1 and 5, and is redundant in intent anyway. "Major" is also more meaningless weaselwording.
7. The rewrite suggestion is spot-on, as are the reasons for it. We cannot use wording like "lured". Whoever is injecting that kind of material either needs to learn how to write encyclopedic material, or go elsewhere and start a blog. Wikipedia is not a blog and must not be written like one.
8. Ditto. Under no circumstances is WP to pick a side in a historical ethno-religion conflict and declare one side to have been engaged in "persecution and harassment". This is not AntiIslamPedia.
9. While there could be (if reliable sources say so) some element of Egytian nationalism that interfaces strongly enough with the Copts as an ethno-cultural-religious group that it would be worth mentioning in this article, the critique above is correct that the material highlighed is both off-topic and is PoV-pushing in ways that are not sourceable.
10. "for reasons of religious jealousy and animosity" is made-up anti-Muslim nonsense. The factual claim "the size of the population of Copts is a continuously disputed matter" might be correct and sourceable (though the word "continuously" is emotive blather and serves no legitimate purpose). However, it's poor writing to precede this with "Living predominantly in a country with Muslim majority," setting up a senseless cause–effect claim that cannot be demonstrated.
11. Same basic issues as nos. 1, 5, 6. The suggested rewrite is vastly better.
12. Rewrite is again much better. The problem here is that some evidence of some survival of tradition is being improperly spun into an identification and eqation. It's part of this particular writer's "direct descendants of" obsession, a desire to magically "prove" that the Coptic group are somehow the One True Inheritors of all tradition and heritage of ancient Egypt, when in reality lots of elements of classical Egyptian culture survived into modern Egypt and its environs, and simply more elements have been preserved by the Copts than otherwise.
13. Ditto, with again elements of the nos. 1, 5, 6, 11 problem (and the no. 3 problem). This identarianism-pushing and "Copts have always ..." sort of wording that implies a monolithic ideology, are not okay.

So, I guess now I do have a dog in the fight after going over all this material in detail instead of commenting, as I did earlier, in the abstract about how process works. I'm hard-pressed to find a single substantive flaw in any of Turnopoems's analyses and revision proposals, while the old material to be revised is clearly badly faulty in many ways, most of them directly implicating core content policies. In short, I support Turnopoem's revisions (including simply removal of inappropriate material where that has been proposed).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the discussion, your insights, as before, are extremely valuable in helping guide the process toward a more balanced and academically-grounded article. I’m hopeful that once we reach some form of agreement on the first issue under the RfC, we can begin moving forward with implementing the remaining improvements, recognizing that consensus doesn’t always mean unanimous satisfaction. Turnopoems (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)