View source for Talk:Copts

{{talk header}}
{{Article history
|action1=GAN
|action1date=17 Feb 2007
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=108865370
|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
{{afd-merged-from|Copts (ethnic group)|Copts (ethnic group)|01 March 2015}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity |importance=Mid |oriental-orthodoxy=yes |oriental-orthodoxy-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Arab world |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Egypt |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Africa |Sudan=yes |importance=High |Libya=y |Libya-importance=}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups |importance=mid|attention=yes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(30d)
| archive=Talk:Copts/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=1
| maxarchivesize=150K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes}}

== Neutrality and the state of this article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:For additional context, here are the two versions of the article that I introduced in an attempt to address these issues: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&oldid=1282925895][Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&oldid=1282925895 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&oldid=1282925895] 
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&oldid=1282456536][Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&oldid=1282456536 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&oldid=1282456536] 
:Both have largely been reverted or undone now. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 13:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
::I think you need to specify the exact statements in the article to which you're objecting.
::"Overemphasizing connections to ancient Egypt" is not an over-emphasis. Copts in Egypt do in fact emphasize that relationship and take pride that their Coptic language, their art, their music etc are directly derived from those of Ancient Egypt. Furthermore, as stated in the genetics section of the article, Copts (ad most Muslim Egyptians) are genetically very closely related to the Ancient Egyptians. These are well established facts, but happy to hear you are objecting to them.
::"Distancing Copts from mainstream Egyptian culture, Arab identity, and Islam" is not something the article in its current form tries to do. The vast majority of Copts are in fact opposed to Arabism and Islamism. For instance, while Al-Azhar advocates for more Arabization of the education and media, the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church advocates for teaching the Egyptian and Coptic languages.
::Thank you again and happy to work with you and everyone on improving the article. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 15:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately at this point it is not helpful to point to one singular instance because the problem is pervavsive throughout the article as you have reintroduced and mulitplied these statements throughout the entire article. It needs to be reworked. Additionally, the content you have copied from other articles without formatting the sources has led to the page having dozens of broken and unformatted sources and this also needs to be worked on.  
:::Throughout this discussion, I have repeatedly clarified that our task is not to debate our personal agreement with certain historical or cultural claims, as such considerations are irrelevant in the context of producing verifiable encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is governed by policies that prioritize reliable sources over personal convictions, and the key issue is not the factuality of a claim in an absolute sense but rather how it is presented and supported within the article. Even if you and I both agree that the sky is blue, that assertion must be supported by verifiable sources rather than personal agreement, and the framing should reflect the depth and nuance found in academic discourse rather than oversimplified or absolute statements like the ones you insist on including. More importantly, its presentation here should be free of POV embellishment. 
:::It is entirely appropriate within this article to examine cultural elements within Coptic communities and their historical continuity with earlier periods of Egyptian history. However, such discussions must be framed with specificity. For instance, when addressing musical traditions, it is necessary to clarify which aspects of ancient Egyptian music may have influenced Coptic traditions. Does evidence suggest that ancient Egyptian musical practices where completely absorbed into modern Coptic music? If Coptic music is predominantly liturgical, does that imply ancient Egyptian music was exclusively religious in nature? Broad, unqualified assertions, such as claiming that "Coptic culture is a direct continuation of ancient Egyptian culture", fail to meet Wikipedia’s standards and the claim itself does not hold against scrutiny. 
:::Rather than making broad, unverifiable claims about continuity, the focus should be on clarifying which aspects of ancient Egyptian music are reflected in Coptic musical traditions and how they have been preserved or transformed over time, and in a more summarized format may briefly mention that they have inherited some features of ancient Egyptian musical traditions. It is always important to present content within the framework of scholarly research, ensuring that claims are supported by reliable sources and that the language used reflects appropriate academic caution, as required by [[WP:V]] and [[WP:DUE]].
:::Similarly, genetic studies suggesting an affinity between a modern population and an ancient one do not substantiate categorical claims of direct ancestry. Even if sources indicate a strong genetic continuity, Wikipedia requires that such claims be presented in proportion to the prevailing academic consensus per [[WP:DUE]]. The notion of direct descent over thousands of years is inherently problematic, as population genetics does not function in absolute, linear terms. Academic works in anthropology and population genetics avoid such definitive language, as the complexity of historical migrations, admixture, and cultural evolution precludes simplistic ancestral designations.
:::Finally, Wikipedia articles are not personal essays; they must adhere to the formal and precise language expected of an academic resource. Content should be written in a manner consistent with the encyclopedic tone outlined in [[WP:MOS]].
:::I sincerely hope that this conversation will lead to a mutual understanding of the goals we should pursue for the article. However, I’m concerned that I may be reiterating myself excessively, given the extensive discussion we've already had on your talk page. At this juncture, I am contemplating the need to initiate further consensus-building by inviting other editors to weigh in. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 16:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand where you're coming from, and I'm happy to work with you and with others to improve the article. However, I find it problematic that you object to statements such as "are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians", even though these statements are supported by multiple references and sources in the article. If you want to object to some of the sources, we can certainly review them together. But would you similarly object to notions such as "modern Greeks are the direct descendants of Ancient Greeks"? Or that "modern Chinese are the direct descendants of the Ancient Chinese"? If these statements are not controversial and widely accepted, why is the former problematic?
::::Regarding coptic music, we can certainly add a section about that and discuss its relation to Ancient Egyptian music. That's why I'm encouraging a discussion here to see how we can improve the article, rather than simply remove things that some people personally object to. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 22:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::I will address your reply in the RfC post below to avoid multiple parallel discussions. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 23:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Well since you mentioned Copts in Egypt then I feel like my opinion here would be somewhat important in terms of Arabism there’s no explicit stance Copts have to Arabism as we aren’t a monolith both the orthodox and Protestant church are members of the Arab Christian research group however we hold the belief that genetically we are different but in terms of culture then it’s up to the individual copt , you can already see on the Arab Christian Wikipedia page that the response of the Coptic church to Arabism is ‘mixed’ however a growing number of Christians and Muslims are rejecting pan Arabism as a whole [[User:Kyrilloskiro|Kyrilloskiro]] ([[User talk:Kyrilloskiro|talk]]) 13:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you. It is important  we do not allow a singular voice, however visible or impassioned, to appropriate the narrative of an entire community. To do so, whether in affirmation or repudiation of a given political or ideological affiliation, is reductionism at its worst. The Copts, like any people, constitute a diverse and differentiated collective, individuals shaped by a wide spectrum of personal histories, convictions, and social realities. To subsume their complex lived experiences beneath a monolithic identity is obscene, especially when the suggestion is that they should essentially be reduced to a caricature for Western curiosity and consumption, by overstating and exaggerating certain aspects of their reality, while arbitrarily downplaying others.
::::It is worth emphasizing that even among Muslim Egyptians, self-identification as ''genetically'' Arab is relatively uncommon, a reflection not only of nuanced historical consciousness, but also of the fact that the term itself is something of a misnomer. Among the many populations who speak varieties of Arabic and identify, culturally or linguistically, as Arab, there exists a large degree of ethnic and genetic diversity. Few serious observers would claim that, for instance, a Saudi Arabian and an Egyptian share a uniform genetic heritage, a distinction that is very apparent even at the level of phenotype. Such a misconception is more typically found among those with limited familiarity with the region’s complex historical and ethnographic landscape, and try to calibrate it to American conceptions of “black” and “white”. This view is ill-equipped to account for the profound demographic complexity of the Arab world, and particularly of Egypt, whose population reflects millennia of civilizational layering. '''[[User:Turnopoems|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to bottom,#57ABDF 65%,#FFB800);color:white;text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-weight:bold;padding:4px;">Turnopoems 𓋹</span>]] [[User talk:Turnopoems|✎]]''' 12:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:The "This exemplifies the issue with how these statements are being framed" bit above is on-point. That's a very clear and concise illustration of improper [[WP:SYNTH]] versus using two sources properly. The difference between the two versions summarizes exactly how to proceed with this article. Do not synthesize unrelated claim into a new WP-created claim that is not found in the sources. Instead, including the salient reliably-sourced facts (at points in the article where they are actually salient), and let readers draw their own conclusions. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:Just to respond historically speaking, Copts are considered the indigenous peoples of Egypt, not Arabs, and christianity is considered the ancient religion of the copts. Arabs and islam are newer identities in the land due to arriving with Arab islamic colonialism and imperialism during the caliphates days [[User:Completely Random Guy|Completely Random Guy]] ([[User talk:Completely Random Guy|talk]]) 12:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
::This point is tangential to the main issues under discussion, and I’d prefer we don't use this discussion as a forum for airing personal opinions on the matter. It is uncontested that Copts are an indigenous people of Egypt (which is why I am calling this tangential), but the assertion that they are ''the'' indigenous people, implying exclusivity is scientifically unfounded and a [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] view in contemporary scholarship. Here is where we run into [[WP:NPOV]] issues, when people insist on using specific language to promote identitarian narratives, especially ones of ethnonationalist nature that stakes an exclusive claim to something. It is widely understood today that Coptic Christians and Muslim Egyptians have a shared ancestry, this is discussed in the article itself and supported by several scientific studies, so it is not helpful to introduce this kind of NPOV terminology in a process that seeks to tackle NPOV fails. 
::A) The notion of "Arab colonialism" in Egypt is a modern framing with no grounding in historical record, usually employed in anti-Arab rhetoric from the West. There is no credible source that characterizes the history of Arabness in Egypt as colonial in nature, nor any accounts of actual instances of colonization. Even Copts reject this, and have done so in this very discussion. B) It is well-known that Semitic-speaking nomads (from whom the earliest Arab tribes emerged) have lived in parts of Egypt, the Syrian steppes, Transjordan, Canaan for thousands of years, going back as far as the Bronze Age. They are also, very much, indigenous to Egypt. C) Juxtaposing “Copt” against “Arab” as if they occupy opposite ends of a singular axis is an inherently flawed understanding rooted in a  Western proclivity to impose binary taxonomies upon complex civilizational identities of a completely foreign (to them) nature. Arab is widely understood to a be pan-ethnicity, a cultural-linguistic category that includes people of multiple origins, similar to Hispanic, which is why you have Nilotic/Cushitic people in Sudan/Chad and Iranic people in Khuzestan both calling themselves Arabs  without any sense of contradiction within their cultural consciousness. Of course, Arab identity is politically fraught, and in Egypt, whether Christian or Muslim, individuals relate to it in markedly different ways for different reasons. But if you're going to wade into this complex terrain, that distinction is absolutely foundational and it is very much lacking in your argument.
::The claim you are promoting does not reflect established science; rather, as has already been pointed out several times, it stems 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 dichotomy is a product of colonial racial and sectarian bias, not of native Egyptian self-understanding. It was intended fracture the Egyptian population into essentialized, oppositional identities, not to reflect any substantive truth about the origins of Egypt’s two religious communities. The emergence of Egyptian nationalism under British occupation, particularly through movements like [[Pharaonism]], was in large part a deliberate, native repudiation of the colonial narrative that sought to divide Egyptians along Western conceptions of racial and sectarian belonging. I have even suggested representing this claim in the context of clarifying the origin of the mischaracterization. There are plenty of sources discussing this. '''[[User:Turnopoems|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to bottom,#57ABDF 65%,#FFB800);color:white;text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-weight:bold;padding:4px;">Turnopoems 𓋹</span>]] [[User talk:Turnopoems|✎]]''' 15:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

== Regarding neutrality, language and adherence to [[WP:MOS]] ==
{{anchor|rfc_E1852C2}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 17:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1746291671}}
{{tlx|rfc|soc|rfcid=E1852C2}}
The article exhibits significant issues with the framing of its content, demonstrating a clear bias towards certain identity-based conclusions. This bias is evident in how specific claims are presented, particularly regarding the relationship to ancient Egypt. There is a strong overemphasis on unverified statements, such as "Copts are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians," which lack credible academic sources and misrepresent genetic history. Furthermore, vague and oversimplified language like "Coptic music is a continuation of ancient Egyptian music" and "Coptic culture is considered a continuation of that of ancient Egypt" diminishes the complexity of these cultural histories and risks misleading readers. 

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

*Again, if you have specific objections to specific statements or sources, I am happy to work with you on that. However, your initial edits that deleted tens of references and rewrote the article in a way you alone seem to think is appropriate makes this article heavily biased towards your POV. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 22:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
*:Also, please remember that most (if not all) of the initial references that you deleted were incorporated by users other than myself. I simply reverted many of the references and statements you deleted without discussing the reason behind the deletion. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 22:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
*::Regarding your claim about ancient Chinese and ancient Greeks, I would object to it all the same of course. While genetic affinity between modern and ancient populations in these regions is well-supported by genetic studies, that is not equivalent to asserting direct descent. Such a claim is unverifiable and, above all, very unlikely based on the technical definition of such a claim. This topic demands academic caution and precise language. The fact that we cannot agree on the fundamental premise, that asserting direct descent from an ancient population is unsuitable for an encyclopedic article, is a core point of contention. Additionally, the sources used to support these claims fail to meet [[WP:RS]] standards, a concern I have explained multiple times.
*::Beyond this, Copts are a contemporary ethnic group, people living in 2025 with a culture shaped by the modern world and influenced by thousands of years of historical development, like any other group. They deserve an accurate representation of their contemporary identity without having ancient Egypt imposed onto every aspect of their existence just because you have a personal inclination towards that specific period (I do too by the way). Their genetic connections or continuity in some aspects of their culture does not need to be reaffirmed in every paragraph. This is not my stance; it is [[WP:NPOV]]. Their distinct identity is fundamentally anchored in their Christian faith, even if pre-Islamic history is often invoked to differentiate them from Muslims. 
*::You'll notice that I haven't objected to the inclusion of any of the content in the article, but specifically the way they are worded, framed and presented. I have no interest in excluding any narrative, provided it is backed by reputable sources and follows Wikipedia’s guidelines in the way it is presented. My repeated attempts, so far unsuccessful, have aimed to moderate the language and align the structure of the article with Wikipedia standards, which necessarily includes removing weak sources used to support problematic claims that do not belong in an academic text. This does not preclude mentioning, for instance, the genetic connection between Copts and ancient Egyptians in an appropriate manner, something that is already done in the genetics subsection in my opinion. This also does not preclude discussing the connection between various cultural traits and their equivalents in ancient Egypt or any other historical period, provided it is done with proper attribution and without broad, unqualified assertions that exaggerate these connections beyond what is supported by evidence. The issue lies not in acknowledging historical continuity where it exists, but in the disproportionate and often misleading manner in which these claims are framed.
*::You repeatedly claim that I am "removing content", but removing unverifiable and weakly sourced material is entirely justified per [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]]. Content does not become sacrosanct merely because it has a citation. The sources were weak, as defined by Wikipedia guidelines (I have referenced the exact guidelines, so implying that I removed them because of POV is disingenuous), and the content violates Wikipedia guidelines (same here). Collaboration to improve this article requires you to stop reverting my edits aimed at addressing these issues, especially if you actually do want to iron out these issues like you say you do. I will happily work with you to improve the framing of new content that you want to add, but even those edits were reverted and you also removed my citation tags without addressing the lack of citation in the text. 
*::I know that your contributions are made in good faith and that this is likely a topic you are passionate about. As you are a new editor however, I want to make you aware that repeatedly reinstating and adding more disputed content during an ongoing resolution while also disregarding established Wikipedia policies, can be considered disruptive editing. Im not pursuing anything other than consensus to improve the article, but in other circumstances, it could lead to arbitration. Please avoid making further edits of this content while there's an ongoing discussion and RfC addressing the matter (you are of course free to make other unrelated edits). [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 00:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Bad RFC'''. The statement is not [[WP:RFCNEUTRAL]], and asking people to assess "neutrality, language and adherence to WP:MOS" for an entire article is a very big ask. It appears that this disagreement just involves two of you, so it would probably be better to start off by seeking a [[WP:THIRD|third opinion]]. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 02:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
*Agreed with FactOrOpinion that this is not a proper RfC nor what the [[WP:RFC]] process is for. However, I might as well provide a third opinion without that process being invoked bureaucratically. I coincidentally happen to work on a lot of ethno-cultural articles, have a degree in cultural anthropology (ethnology), and find the complex truth of such questions far more interesting and valuable than any "my side versus yours" viewpoint battle (of a sort often tinged by political, religious, diasporic, folk-belief, and other viewpoints rather than on systematic review of evidence and its meaning as found in high-quality sources.<!-- --><p>'''Detailed third opinion''' taking both parties' concerns on board. Since I'm doing this and the RfC is malformed, I've removed the RfC tag.</p><!-- --><p>Our articles on ethno-cultural groups (especially ones that still exist but have a long history and one that is characterized by inter-cultural exchange, influence, and intermingling at various eras and areas, are notoriously difficult to get right, and usually do not come down to "my version versus yours" but considerable editing (including scope adjustment, sometimes even article splitting/merging, e.g. [[Copts]] re-focused on the present-day population and historical information mostly merged to [[Coptic history]], with the latter's key points only appearing in [[WP:SUMMARY]] form in a section in the former), by a larger body of editors over time.<!-- --><p>On the substance of the present rather narrow dispute, I have to agree generally (but see below) with Turnopoems. Making "directly descended from" claims without iron-clad sourcing {{em|and}} (not "or") also a encyclopedically pertinent rationale to do it, is not how we do things. The evidence seems to suggest interrelatedness and not much further, though I am not immersed in Coptic history. (I don't have a dog in the fight, but could be missing some information.) Nor can statistical genetic data be used to make any claims about culture (including music, etc.).</p><!-- --><p>There's the further problem that "directly descended from" claims are essentially meaningless, because they have no concrete definition. E.g. my personal genetic test data indicates that a small portion of my genome is long ago from Cyprus, so in a technical sense I'm "directly descended from the ancient Cypriots", but using that phrase to describe myself would be very misleading, as would calling myself "Cypriot-American" or "Cypriot". A key element of encyclopedic writing is avoiding ambiguous, confusing, or misleading phrases.<!-- --><p>Secondly along this line of reasoning, haplogroup evidence is often entirely meaningless with regard to ethnocultural groups, lifeways, and cultural heritage. As an example, genetic comparison of modern south-east English people's data with archaeogenetic data from the region shows that a high proportion of the modern-day residents have significant, even dominant, overlap with those all the way back to the Mesolithic era. That is, they could be (near-meaninglessly) said to be "directly descended from" the builders of Stonehenge and the like, but in cultural memory and written history they have identified entirely as English and have for all practical purposes simply been English. Yet before they received an influx of northwest German chromosomes from the Anglo-Saxons in the 5th–8th centuries and gradually became English, they would have identified as Britons (or for a spell even as Romans) speaking Common Brittonic and sometimes later British Latin, and with entirely Insular Celtic then Romano-British lifeways (culture) with little in common with Angles and Saxons (also already established as continental populations by the era of Roman Britain). It is not helpful to describe south-east English people of today as "direct descendants of" the Britons before the Roman and Anglo-Saxon invasions, except in a paragraph devoted to their genetics, which has nothing to do with their culture.</p><!-- --><p>Moving on, Turnopoems's [[WP:P&G]] arguments are sound, especially with regard to quality of sources how they can be used. Removing cleanup/dispute tags without the underlying being issue resolved isn't how we do things, either. Even {{em|if}} direct descent (as the majority component, not just through intermittent regional commingling) from the Pharaonic Egyptians could somehow be proven, with sources that are actually reliable for such a matter, and without using [[WP:OR]] to "interpret" them to seem to say what they do not, Turnopoems is again correct that harping on such a connection paragraph after paragraph would be an [[WP:NPOV]] failure (and also a [[WP:NOT#ADVOCACY]] one - Wikipedia does not exist for promoting a particular viewpoint or factoid or story that a particular person wants badly to over-emphasize).</p><!-- --><p>Our material on every such ethno-cultural group has to align almost entirely (per [[WP:DUE]] policy) with the mainstream, pertinent, modern academic consensus about it (what the preponderance of modern sources reliable on the subject agree on), with alternative hypotheses given little weight and short shrift if mentioned at all. Where there is no academic consensus on a particular point, WP cannot pick a side. Where such a point of uncertainty has resulted in real-world controversy between reputable scholars in recent times (and perhaps spilled over into popular culture, modern ethno-politics, etc.), our encyclopedist duty is to lay-summarize these competing hypotheses with due weight given based on their acceptance level. Under no circumstances does WP just declare one side or the other correct and write as if the controversy did not exist. (But we also need not document controversies resolved a long time ago through more modern research, unless an outmoded idea has become common in the popular imagination and readers might expect to find it addressed.) Turnopoems has even indicated no opposition to including any particular claim as long as it's demonstrable with proper sourcing, worded encyclopedically appropriately, and not used as a repetitive or out-of-context PoV bludgeon. That's a reasonable and standard-operating-procedure approach.</p><!-- --><p>All that said, Epenkimi's request to have "specific objections to specific statements or sources" be spelled out in detail is also entirely reasonable, especially in cases of this sort involving a series of claims and a series of sources. I've rarely seen a matter like this firmly resolved (hopefully with a compromise that both/all sides can live with, and more importantly which produces an objectively better article), without listing out disputed claims and sources one by one and discussing them on their own merits. I would suggest that is the way forward here (in a new thread), and should be done on this article-talk page, not in user-talk.</p><!-- --><p>Epenkimi's note that some of these sources (perhaps also some claims?) pre-dated that editor's involvement is meaningful, in that if other editors, without controversy heretofore, considered them good enough to use here (for something), then some of them might actually be, and Turnopoems has a higher barrier to jump to get "the right version". It seems likely to me that one of more of these sources are okay, for certain sorts of claims but not [some of?] the ones at issue, that some of them are not good sources at all, and that the claims most at issue are not adequately sourced (maybe not sourceable at this stage), but also that at least one or another point Epenkimi wants to include will be sourceable and should be included, perhaps in rewritten form (and maybe confined to a short section on genetic research, which arguably would be more on-topic at this ethno-culture article than at [[Coptic history]]).</p><!-- --><p>As a final point, I would suggest that what amount to user warnings regarding behavior and consequences are better left at user-talk pages and kept out of article-talk discussions, when appropriate at all. Better given by an uninvolved party than a partisan in the dispute.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 04:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)</p>
*:@[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]: Thank you for your very valuable insights and feedback. Since the dispute primarily stems from a lack of adherence to Wikipedia guidelines, I’ve found it particularly challenging to present the issue in a purely neutral manner, perhaps further underscoring that an RfC may not have been the most suitable venue for addressing this. I have not previously been involved in a dispute over such a large volume of text, nor have I experienced improved formatting being a point of contention in the past. The reason I could not pinpoint specific statements requiring revision is that new problematic content has been continuously added throughout the dispute (and still is, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&diff=1283040341&oldid=1283020685 latest edit]), exacerbating the issue. I hope @[[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] will refrain from this going forward so we can focus on addressing the existing problems in the article before introducing new content.
*:I appreciate your insights on a roadmap for improving the article, and if the other editor is willing to use this as a basis for collaboration, I will begin cataloging the sections I believe need revision or removal in a separate post for us to address together. I understand that an RfC would be more helpful after this stage if the content is still disputed. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 12:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
*::@SMcCandlish & @Turnopoems, thank you both for your reply. I am in agreement in principle with both of you to work collaboratively on improving the article. There are sections that I was planning to work on: Music, Identity, Persecution and Church affairs (I'm not sure that last section should exist as a main subhead. It should probably be incorporated into History or renamed as Religion). If you would like me to refrain from editing these sections for now, I can hold off. Otherwise, we can start working together on other sections while I work on those 4 sections.
*::With regards to what may seem the major point of contention, that is the identity and roots statements. I agree that these should be factual statements, and not "my opinion versus yours". However, I still believe that it is a very reasonable claim to state that "Modern Greeks are the direct descendants of the Ancient Greeks" or that "Modern Chinese are the direct descendants of the Ancient Chinese". These statements do claim that every single modern Greek or Chinese is directly descendant from these ancient people, but taken collectively, it is very reasonable to make these claims based on genetic, historical, geographical, linguistic, cultural and other facts. I'm not sure how we can say that such statements would be in contradiction with Wikipedia's standards or guidelines.
*::In the case of Copts (technically the term simply means "Egyptians"), not only do they self-identify as Egyptians and descendants of the Ancient Egyptians, but objectively speaking (1) their language is the latest stage of development of the ancient Egyptian language and was even used to decipher the Egyptian hieroglyphs, (2) there is absolutely no historical evidence that claims they were replaced or exterminated at some in history, (3) they are genetically very close to ancient Egyptians: '''"Copts share the same main ancestral component than North African and Middle East populations [...], supporting a common origin with Egypt (or other North African/Middle Eastern populations). They are known to be the most ancient population of Egypt and [...] different from the current Egyptian population which is closer to the Arabic population of Qatar. [...] Copts lack the influence found in Egyptians from Qatar, an Arabic population. It may suggest that Copts have a genetic composition that could resemble the ancestral Egyptian population, without the present strong Arab influence." [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4446898/]''', (4) Coptic music as is close as it gets to ancient Egyptian music, (5) the Coptic calendar is identical to the ancient Egyptian calendar to the smallest detail including the names of the months and seasons, (6) many historical Coptic names are identical to ancient Egyptian names... Not to mention that it is a well established common knowledge that Copts are in fact the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians (see [https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1323879322-147641|here] as an example, although I am well aware that in isolation, this cannot be used as evidence).
*::So I guess my question is, what exact evidence (more than the above) is required to link a modern population with an ancient one, and why is it so unfathomable and objectionable to state that Copts descend directly from ancient Egyptians? And if not the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, then (1) where do Copts descend from, and (2) what happened to the descendants of the ancient Egyptians?
*::Thank you both again, and I look forward to continuing the discussion, learn from you, and work with you to improve the article. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 00:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::While I appreciate the spirit of collaboration, I must, again, emphasize that the issue is not about disputing facts themselves but ensuring that Wikipedia content adheres to its core principles of verifiability and neutrality. Even if we fully agree on the factual basis of a statement, its inclusion still depends on whether it is explicitly stated in a reliable, authoritative source. What you are doing is synthesizing interpretations from various sources and introducing your own conclusions into the text, which violates Wikipedia’s policies on original research. For inclusion, an authoritative source, such as a peer-reviewed study, must state the claim explicitly.
*:::Academic sources, particularly in fields like ancestry and genetics, do not use imprecise or vague terminology because such phrasing lacks scientific rigor. You are, of course, free to seek out sources that explicitly support your argument, but as it stands, the wording you propose, such as "directly descended", is not supported by the standards of verifiable academic discourse. Conversely, the excerpt you provided on ancestry, exactly as written, is legitimate and suitable for inclusion precisely because it adheres to these principles.
*:::This exemplifies the issue with how these statements are being framed by you.
*::::'''Source A:''' "Copts historically used the sistrum in their church services. The sistrum is an instrument that dates back to ancient Egypt."
*::::'''Source B:''' "Evidence suggests that some Coptic hymns have incorporated certain elements from religious music from later ancient Egyptian periods."
*::::{{xmark}} Your framing: ''Coptic music is a continuation of ancient Egyptian music'' or ''Coptic music is as close as it gets to ancient Egyptian music (Source A & B)''
*::::{{tick}} Correct framing: ''Coptic hymns likely incorporate some elements from religious musical traditions of later ancient Egyptian periods (Source B), and instruments like the sistrum, which dates back to ancient Egypt, have also been used (Source A).''
*:::This is textbook [[WP:SYNTH]] and it is not allowed. Your approach relies on assembling a series of factual statements to support your own broad, interpretative conclusions that are not explicitly stated by authoritative sources. Coptic music is Christian music shaped in a specific cultural context, ancient Egypt was not Christian, hence it is not a continuation of ancient Egyptian music in any definitive or meaningful way beyond the broader cultural continuity, shaped by the natural and dynamic evolution of cultural influences over time. Yes, Copts do use the ancient Egyptian calendar just like most Egyptian farmers do to calculate agricultural seasons. Yes, Copts do use the Egyptian language at church for certain liturgical purposes. Yes, Coptic was used to decipher hieroglyphs. Yes, the Coptic church preserved the Egyptian language. Yes, Egyptians were not exterminated or replaced. I know this and you know this, our connection to ancient Egypt is tangible in so many ways and please feel free to present these facts independently in their appropriate place and proportionately worded. But no, this does not mean you can infer your own conclusions through selective fact-stitching and present it here as a fact in its own right. 
*:::Please refrain from using "established common knowledge" or "established facts" as a justification for content inclusion on Wikipedia. If that exact statement was indeed established fact you should have no difficulty providing authoritative sources that explicitly state it (see [[WP:DUE]]). What you're arguing in favor of including is basically editorializing the content of this article to the massive detriment of its quality and academic integrity.
*:::I have put a lot of effort into illustrating the fundamental issues with this approach, besides the fact that it's against the guidelines that have been cited here, and I sincerely hope to reach a basic understanding with you before listing the specific problems in the article. We are not arguing about what content to include, but about the enforcement of the rules of this website. Ultimately, Wikipedia guidelines will be upheld in this article, and we can save considerable time in achieving that by avoiding prolonged dispute resolution processes. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 11:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
*::::@Turnopoems, thank you again for your reply. I would not agree with you that I am synthesizing information. I think the main point of disagreement is what we consider reliable resources. Throughout Wikipedia, various sources such as books, journal articles, scientific papers, news articles and others are used as references. There are tons of such sources that explicitly state that "the Copts the descendants of ancient Egyptians". Here are only a handful of examples:
*::::* '''"So who are the Copts? They are the ancient Egyptians. Their art, language and religion are directly descended from the art, language and religion of the land of the pharaohs."''' - The Guardian[https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt]
*::::* '''"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[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/who-are-egypts-copts/8429634]
*::::* '''"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[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Copts]
*::::* '''"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."'''[https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/blog/coptic-identities-as-indigenous-the-politics-of-recognition-improving-interfaith-relations-in-egypt]
*::::* '''"The Coptic people are an ethnoreligious population that identifies as the descendants of ancient Egyptians2 according to their genetic results and the evolution of their language and traditions that root back to the ancient Egyptian civilization."''' - James B. Minahan. Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World, Second Edition, Vol Second edition, Greenwood; 2016, page 108.
*::::* '''"As already mentioned, the Copts were the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, a point that must be frequently emphasised so that it will not be forgotten."''' - [[Iris Habib Elmasry]]. The Story Of The Copts. St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery publications. Published January 1, 1978. ASIN ‏: ‎ B00NHR2KJW. Page 247
*::::Now, there are many more articles and books that state the same fact, that Copts are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. Again, anyone who does not want these facts to feature in Wikipedia will simply discredit every single source, which I do not believe is fair. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 19:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
*::● SMcCandlish is correct.
*::Discussion should be point-by-point. The article lacks '''neutrality''' and has many primary and POV sources, not to mention many repetitions.
*::As for the intro, I removed the disputed content until a consensus is reached on the talk page. There is a genetics section for a reason, which is following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 
*::As for the shared quote from Epenkimi, well again, that is misleading as it hides the fact that those are '''Sudanese Copts''', and it's part of a series of studies on Sudan, the latest of which was far more detailed on that topic:
*::'''"The population history of the Copts and their relation to Egyptians:
*::The Copts represent a well-known ethnic group, generally practicing Christianity, which migrated from Egypt to Sudan around 200 years ago, settling in a predominately Muslim region.
*::'''''The ADMIXTURE analyses and the PCA displayed the genetic affinity of the Copts to the Egyptian population.
*::'''''Assuming few clusters, the Copts appeared admixed between Near Eastern/European populations and northeastern Sudanese and look similar in their genetic profile to the Egyptians. Assuming greater number of clusters (K≥18), the Copts formed their own separate ancestry component that was shared with Egyptians but can also be found in Arab populations. This behavior in the admixture analyses is consistent with shared ancestry between Copts and Egyptians and/or additional genetic drift in the Copts.
*::'''''The Copts and the Egyptians have a historically documented shared history. 
*::'''''We further investigate the relationships of the Copts and the Egyptians to other groups. All population histories tested in every possible combination of either Copts or Egyptians, and Bedouin and Nuer, with Ju|’hoansi as outgroup to the others were rejected (D-statistic, |Z|>5.5), which points to a non-tree-like history of the Copts and Egyptians." '''''
*::Here's a detailed conclusion with numbers:
*::'''''• The Copts were estimated to be of 69.54% ± 2.57 European ancestry and the Egyptians of 70.65% ± 2.47 European ancestry.
*::'''''•The Egyptians and Copts showed low levels of genetic differentiation (FST = 0.00236), lower levels of genetic diversity and greater levels of RoH compared to other northeast African groups, including Arab and Middle Eastern groups that share ancestry with the Copts and Egyptians.
*::https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5587336/
*::[[User:Fragrant Peony|Fragrant Peony]] ([[User talk:Fragrant Peony|talk]]) 14:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::Sudanese Copts are Copts who emigrated to Sudan in the last 200 years. They are Copts. Not sure what your point is here. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 19:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

== Roadmap for fixing guideline failures ==

@[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]
@[[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]]
@[[User:Fragrant Peony|Fragrant Peony]]

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

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

===Lead===
'''Issue 1:'''
::{{nayc}} They are the direct descendants of the [[Ancient Egypt|Ancient Egyptians]].<ref>https://www.britannica.com/topic/Copt</ref><ref>https://copticchurch.org/about/thecopts/</ref><ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1750635219866137</ref>

'''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:'''
::{{nayc}} 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 [[Coptic calendar|calendar]] and [[Coptic months|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.<ref name="Guindy, pp. 25">Guindy, pp. 25</ref>

'''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 ([https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351704781_Book_Review_A_Sword_Over_the_Nile_A_Brief_History_of_the_Copts_Under_Islamic_Rule]). 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:'''
::{{bang}} 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]].<ref name="CoptBirtannica">{{citation |title=Britannica: Egyptian Christians - Copt |website=britannica.com |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Copt |access-date=30 July 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dobon |first1=Begoña |last2=Hassan |first2=Hisham Y. |last3=Laayouni |first3=Hafid |last4=Luisi |first4=Pierre |last5=Ricaño-Ponce |first5=Isis |last6=Zhernakova |first6=Alexandra |last7=Wijmenga |first7=Cisca |last8=Tahir |first8=Hanan |last9=Comas |first9=David |last10=Netea |first10=Mihai G. |last11=Bertranpetit |first11=Jaume |year=2015 |title=The genetics of East African populations: A Nilo-Saharan component in the African genetic landscape |journal=Scientific Reports |volume=5 |page=9996 |bibcode=2015NatSR...5.9996D |doi=10.1038/srep09996 |issn=2045-2322 |pmc=4446898 |pmid=26017457}}</ref> 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|wealth index]], and a stronger representation in [[White-collar worker|white-collar job types]], but limited representation in military and security agencies.<ref name="ReferenceB" /> The majority of demographic, socio-economic, and health indicators are similar among Coptic Christians and [[Muslims]] in Egypt.<ref name="ReferenceB">Mohamoud YA, Cuadros DF, Abu-Raddad LJ. Characterizing the Copts in Egypt: Demographic, socioeconomic and health indicators, QScience Connect 2013:22 {{doi|10.5339/connect.2013.22}}</ref>

'''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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&oldid=999799925]) that contained several well-sourced statements but was inexplicably removed.

'''Suggestion:'''
::{{yeac}} Many Copts view Arab identity as closely associated with Islam and may not fully identify with it,<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|last=Tadros|first=Mariz|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mhcnDAAAQBAJ&q=copts+identity&pg=PA41|title=Copts at the Crossroads: The Challenges of Building Inclusive Democracy in Contemporary Egypt|date=2013|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-977-416-591-7|language=en}}</ref> but they also have a [[Egyptians#Identity|national identity]] shared with other Egyptians.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":0">Images as Messengers of Coptic Identity An Example from Contemporary Egypt. RAGNHILD BJERRE FINNE STAD</ref> Copts and Muslim Egyptians are recognized as being physically indistinguishable.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last=Gurr|first=Ted Robert|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6-hEA_wWpyMC&q=Egyptian+copts+and+Egyptiam+Muslims+are+recognized+as+being+physically+indistinguishable&pg=PA138|title=Peoples Versus States: Minorities at Risk in the New Century|date=2000|publisher=US Institute of Peace Press|isbn=978-1-929223-02-2|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Banjo|first1=Omotayo O.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eD1DDwAAQBAJ&q=Egyptian+copts+and+Egyptiam+Muslims+are+recognized+as+being+physically+indistinguishable&pg=PA151|title=Contemporary Christian Culture: Messages, Missions, and Dilemmas|last2=Williams|first2=Kesha Morant|date=2017-11-30|publisher=Lexington Books|isbn=978-1-4985-5390-2|language=en}}</ref> In Egypt, Copts have a relatively high [[educational attainment]], [[Wealth|wealth index]], and a strong representation in [[White-collar worker|white-collar job types]], but limited representation in military and security agencies.<ref name="ReferenceB" /> The majority of demographic, socio-economic, and health indicators are similar among Coptic Christians and [[Muslims]] in Egypt.<ref name="ReferenceB">Mohamoud YA, Cuadros DF, Abu-Raddad LJ. Characterizing the Copts in Egypt: Demographic, socioeconomic and health indicators, QScience Connect 2013:22 {{doi|10.5339/connect.2013.22}}</ref>
------

===Etymology===
'''Issue 4:'''
::{{bang}} In their own [[Coptic language]], which represents the final stage of the [[Egyptian language]], the Copts refer to themselves as ''rem en kēme'' (Sahidic) <span lang="cop-Copt" style="font-size:100%;font-family:'Arial Coptic', 'New Athena Unicode', 'MPH 2B Damase', 'Quivira', 'Analecta';">ⲣⲙⲛⲕⲏⲙⲉ</span>, ''lem en kēmi'' ([[Coptic language#Fayyumic|Fayyumic]]), ''rem en khēmi'' (Bohairic) <span lang="cop-Copt" style="font-size:100%;font-family:'Arial Coptic', 'New Athena Unicode', 'MPH 2B Damase', 'Quivira', 'Analecta';">ⲣⲉⲙ̀ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ</span>, which literally means "people of Egypt" or "Egyptians"; cf. [[Egyptian language|Egyptian]] ''{{lang|egy-Latn|rmṯ n [[Km (hieroglyph)|kmt]]}}'', [[Demotic Egyptian|Demotic]] ''{{lang|egy-Latn|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, {{langx|cop|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:'''
::{{nayc}} Copts are the native inhabitants of [[Egypt]], and the direct descendants of the [[Ancient Egypt|ancient Egyptians]] whose ancestors embraced [[Christianity]] in the first centuries.<ref name="Guindy, pp. 24">Guindy, pp. 24</ref><ref name="U.S. Bill Has Egypt's Copts Squirming">{{cite news |last=Ibrahim |first=Youssef M. |date=April 18, 1998 |title=U.S. Bill Has Egypt's Copts Squirming |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E5DC103DF931A25757C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 |access-date=2008-10-08 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Jones |first1=Jonathan |date=11 May 2011 |title=Who are the Coptic Christians? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=19 June 2024 |title=The Copts of Egypt: Guardians of an Ancient Faith - Travel2Egypt |url=https://travel2egypt.org/exploring-the-great-sphinx-of-giza/#:~:text=Genetics,was%20known%20simply%20as%20Egyptian}}</ref><ref name="Guindy">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Pd-UzQEACAAJ |title=A Sword over the Nile |date=June 2020 |publisher=Austin Macauley |isbn=978-1-64378-761-9}}</ref>

'''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:'''
::{{nayc}} Today, Copts form a major [[ethno-religious]] group whose origins date back to the [[Ancient Egypt|ancient Egyptians]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Copt &#124; Definition, Religion, History, & Facts &#124; Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Copt}}</ref><ref name="Guindy, pp. 24" /> 

'''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:'''
::{{bang}} 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 [[Sharia|Islamic Sahria law]].<ref>Bagnall, pp. 339</ref>

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

'''Suggestion:'''
::{{yeac}} 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 [[Sharia|Islamic Sharia law]].<ref>Bagnall, pp. 339</ref>
-----
'''Issue 8:'''
::{{bang}} 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:'''
::{{yeac}} The treatment of Christian Copts by Muslim rulers remained challenging throughout the [[Middle Ages]] and continued into the [[Early modern period]].{{cn}}
-----
'''Issue 9:'''
::{{nayc}} 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:'''
::{{nayc}} 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:'''
::{{bang}} Copts are the native inhabitants of [[Egypt]], and the direct descendants of the [[Ancient Egypt|ancient Egyptians]], whose ancestors embraced [[Christianity]] in the first centuries.<ref name="Britannica">{{citation |title=Copts |work=Britannica.com |date=3 May 2024 |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Copt |quote=The Copts are descendants of pre-Islamic Egyptians. When Egyptian Muslims later ceased to call themselves by the demonym, the term became the distinctive name of the Christian minority.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Who are the Copts of The Coptic Orthodox Church |url=https://copticchurch.org/about/thecopts/}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=El Gendi |first1=Yosra |last2=Pinfari |first2=Marco |date=2020 |title=Icons of contention: The iconography of martyrdom and the construction of Coptic identity in post-revolutionary Egypt |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1750635219866137 |journal=Media, War & Conflict |volume=13 |pages=50–69 |doi=10.1177/1750635219866137}}</ref> <ref name="Colbert">{{Cite book |last=Held |first=Colbert |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WyZhDwAAQBAJ&q=%E2%80%9CMost+ethnic+Copts+are+Orthodox+in+religious+affiliation%E2%80%9C&pg=PT163 |title=Middle East Patterns, Student Economy Edition: Places, People, and Politics |date=2018-10-03 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-429-97307-9 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Copt &#124; Definition, Religion, History, & Facts |work=Britannica.com |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Copt}}</ref><ref name="Guindy, pp. 24" /><ref name="Guindy, pp. 24">Guindy, pp. 24</ref><ref name="U.S. Bill Has Egypt's Copts Squirming">{{cite news |last=Ibrahim|first=Youssef M.|title=U.S. Bill Has Egypt's Copts Squirming|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=April 18, 1998|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E5DC103DF931A25757C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1|access-date=2008-10-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Jones |first1=Jonathan |date=11 May 2011 |title=Who are the Coptic Christians? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=19 June 2024 |title=The Copts of Egypt: Guardians of an Ancient Faith - Travel2Egypt |url=https://travel2egypt.org/exploring-the-great-sphinx-of-giza/#:~:text=Genetics,was%20known%20simply%20as%20Egyptian}}</ref><ref name="Guindy">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Pd-UzQEACAAJ|title=A Sword over the Nile|date=June 2020|publisher=Austin Macauley|isbn=978-1-64378-761-9}}</ref> 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 [[Christianity|Christian]] minority in Egypt. Nevertheless, genetics have proven that the vast majority of Egypt's Muslims today are also of Coptic origin.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Taha |first1=Tarek |last2=Elzalabany |first2=Sagy |last3=Fawzi |first3=Sahar |last4=Hisham |first4=Ahmed |last5=Amer |first5=Khaled |last6=Shaker |first6=Olfat |date=August 2020 |title=Allele frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32521421/ |journal=Forensic Science International |volume=313 |pages=110348 |doi=10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110348 |issn=1872-6283 |pmid=32521421 |s2cid=219586129}}</ref>

'''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:'''
::{{yeac}} 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=Who are the Copts of The Coptic Orthodox Church |url=https://copticchurch.org/about/thecopts/}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=El Gendi |first1=Yosra |last2=Pinfari |first2=Marco |date=2020 |title=Icons of contention: The iconography of martyrdom and the construction of Coptic identity in post-revolutionary Egypt |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1750635219866137 |journal=Media, War & Conflict |volume=13 |pages=50–69 |doi=10.1177/1750635219866137}}</ref><ref name="Colbert">{{Cite book |last=Held |first=Colbert |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WyZhDwAAQBAJ&q=%E2%80%9CMost+ethnic+Copts+are+Orthodox+in+religious+affiliation%E2%80%9C&pg=PT163 |title=Middle East Patterns, Student Economy Edition: Places, People, and Politics |date=2018-10-03 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-429-97307-9 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Copt | Definition, Religion, History, & Facts |work=Britannica.com |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Copt}}</ref><ref name="Guindy, pp. 24" /><ref name="Guindy, pp. 24">Guindy, pp. 24</ref><ref name="U.S. Bill Has Egypt's Copts Squirming">{{cite news |last=Ibrahim|first=Youssef M.|title=U.S. Bill Has Egypt's Copts Squirming|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=April 18, 1998|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E5DC103DF931A25757C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1|access-date=2008-10-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Jones |first1=Jonathan |date=11 May 2011 |title=Who are the Coptic Christians? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=19 June 2024 |title=The Copts of Egypt: Guardians of an Ancient Faith - Travel2Egypt |url=https://travel2egypt.org/exploring-the-great-sphinx-of-giza/#:~:text=Genetics,was%20known%20simply%20as%20Egyptian}}</ref><ref name="Guindy">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Pd-UzQEACAAJ|title=A Sword over the Nile|date=June 2020|publisher=Austin Macauley|isbn=978-1-64378-761-9}}</ref><ref name="Taha">{{Cite journal |last1=Taha |first1=Tarek |last2=Elzalabany |first2=Sagy |last3=Fawzi |first3=Sahar |last4=Hisham |first4=Ahmed |last5=Amer |first5=Khaled |last6=Shaker |first6=Olfat |date=August 2020 |title=Allele frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32521421/ |journal=Forensic Science International |volume=313 |pages=110348 |doi=10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110348 |issn=1872-6283 |pmid=32521421 |s2cid=219586129}}</ref>
------

===Music===
'''Issue 12:'''
::{{bang}} Coptic chant is a very old tradition with links to [[Ancient Egypt|ancient Egyptian]] music.<ref>https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/collection/cce/id/1446/rec/1</ref><ref>https://www.egyptindependent.com/humming-oldest-tune-history/</ref> 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.<ref>https://www.egyptindependent.com/humming-oldest-tune-history/</ref>

'''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:''' 
::{{yeac}} Coptic chant is an ancient tradition that has been linked to the musical practices of ancient Egypt.<ref>https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/collection/cce/id/1446/rec/1</ref><ref>https://www.egyptindependent.com/humming-oldest-tune-history/</ref> One example is a hymn sung on Good Friday, which may be derived from melodies used by ancient Egyptian priests during royal funerary rites. <ref>https://www.egyptindependent.com/humming-oldest-tune-history/</ref>
------

===Identity===
'''Issue 13:'''
::{{bang}} As the native inhabitants of [[Egypt]], and the direct descendants of the [[Ancient Egypt|ancient Egyptians]], Copts have a strong attachment to their Egyptian identity.<ref name="Guindy, pp. 24">Guindy, pp. 24</ref><ref name="U.S. Bill Has Egypt's Copts Squirming">{{cite news |last=Ibrahim|first=Youssef M.|title=U.S. Bill Has Egypt's Copts Squirming|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=April 18, 1998|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E5DC103DF931A25757C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1|access-date=2008-10-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Jones |first1=Jonathan |date=11 May 2011 |title=Who are the Coptic Christians? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=19 June 2024 |title=The Copts of Egypt: Guardians of an Ancient Faith - Travel2Egypt |url=https://travel2egypt.org/exploring-the-great-sphinx-of-giza/#:~:text=Genetics,was%20known%20simply%20as%20Egyptian}}</ref><ref name="Guindy">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Pd-UzQEACAAJ|title=A Sword over the Nile|date=June 2020|publisher=Austin Macauley|isbn=978-1-64378-761-9}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Werthmuller, Kurt J 1250">Werthmuller, Kurt J. Coptic Identity and Ayyubid Politics in Egypt 1218–1250. American University in Cairo Press. 2009</ref>

'''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:'''
::{{yeac}} Copts have historically maintained a strong sense of Egyptian identity, which has played a role in their cultural and religious expression.<ref name="Guindy, pp. 24">Guindy, pp. 24</ref><ref name="U.S. Bill Has Egypt's Copts Squirming">{{cite news |last=Ibrahim|first=Youssef M.|title=U.S. Bill Has Egypt's Copts Squirming|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=April 18, 1998|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E5DC103DF931A25757C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1|access-date=2008-10-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Jones |first1=Jonathan |date=11 May 2011 |title=Who are the Coptic Christians? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=19 June 2024 |title=The Copts of Egypt: Guardians of an Ancient Faith - Travel2Egypt |url=https://travel2egypt.org/exploring-the-great-sphinx-of-giza/#:~:text=Genetics,was%20known%20simply%20as%20Egyptian}}</ref><ref name="Guindy">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Pd-UzQEACAAJ|title=A Sword over the Nile|date=June 2020|publisher=Austin Macauley|isbn=978-1-64378-761-9}}</ref> Throughout history, Copts have expressed resistance to broader regional identities such as pan-Arabism and Islamism, while emphasizing their connection to Egypt.<ref name="Werthmuller, Kurt J 1250">Werthmuller, Kurt J. ''Coptic Identity and Ayyubid Politics in Egypt 1218–1250''. American University in Cairo Press. 2009</ref>

[[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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[https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt]
::* '''"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[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/who-are-egypts-copts/8429634]
::* '''"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[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Copts]
::* '''"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."'''[https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/blog/coptic-identities-as-indigenous-the-politics-of-recognition-improving-interfaith-relations-in-egypt]
::* '''"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''
::[[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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.<ref>Bishop Thomas of Cusae and Meir. Egypt's Coptic Christians: The Experience of the Middle East's largest Christian community during a time of rising Islamization. July 18, 2008</ref> They view Arab identity to be closely associated with Islam and the process of [[Arabization]] of their country.<ref>Bishop Thomas of Cusae and Meir. Egypt's Coptic Christians: The Experience of the Middle East's largest Christian community during a time of rising Islamization. July 18, 2008</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite book|last=Tadros|first=Mariz|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mhcnDAAAQBAJ&q=copts+identity&pg=PA41|title=Copts at the Crossroads: The Challenges of Building Inclusive Democracy in Contemporary Egypt|date=2013|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-977-416-591-7|language=en}}</ref> Nevertheless, Copts also have an [[Egyptians#Identity|Egyptian national identity]] shared with other Egyptians.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":0">Images as Messengers of Coptic Identity An Example from Contemporary Egypt. RAGNHILD BJERRE FINNE STAD</ref> Copts and Muslim Egyptians are largely physically indistinguishable.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last=Gurr|first=Ted Robert|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6-hEA_wWpyMC&q=Egyptian+copts+and+Egyptiam+Muslims+are+recognized+as+being+physically+indistinguishable&pg=PA138|title=Peoples Versus States: Minorities at Risk in the New Century|date=2000|publisher=US Institute of Peace Press|isbn=978-1-929223-02-2|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Banjo|first1=Omotayo O.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eD1DDwAAQBAJ&q=Egyptian+copts+and+Egyptiam+Muslims+are+recognized+as+being+physically+indistinguishable&pg=PA151|title=Contemporary Christian Culture: Messages, Missions, and Dilemmas|last2=Williams|first2=Kesha Morant|date=2017-11-30|publisher=Lexington Books|isbn=978-1-4985-5390-2|language=en}}</ref> 

::In Egypt, Copts have a relatively high [[educational attainment]], [[Wealth|wealth index]], and a strong representation in [[White-collar worker|white-collar job types]], but limited representation in military and security agencies.<ref name="ReferenceB" /> The majority of demographic, socio-economic, and health indicators are similar among Coptic Christians and [[Muslims]] in Egypt.<ref name="ReferenceB">Mohamoud YA, Cuadros DF, Abu-Raddad LJ. Characterizing the Copts in Egypt: Demographic, socioeconomic and health indicators, QScience Connect 2013:22 {{doi|10.5339/connect.2013.22}}</ref>[[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 01:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Hello @[[User:Epenkimi|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). [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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, [[Coptology|Coptologists]], journalists, religious figures, nationalists, and activists, assert that Copts are the direct descendants of the [[ancient Egypt]]ians, <s>sometimes</s> characterizing them as the <s>purest or sole</s> inheritors of ancient Egyptian heritage. These <s>claims</s> assertions emphasize cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing Coptic identity as distinct from the Arab and Islamic influences that later shaped Egypt. <s>However, more authoritative research in genetics and anthropology does not support such assertions</s>. <s>Instead,</s>Genetic studies and scholarly analyses highlight a broader continuity and affinity between Copts<s>,</s> 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. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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 [[postgraduate education|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, [[Coptology|Coptologists]], journalists, religious figures, nationalists, and activists, assert that Copts are the direct descendants of the [[ancient Egypt]]ians, 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 identity|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.''' [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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 [[postgraduate education|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. 
::::::::<u>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</u>. 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. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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, [[Coptology|Coptologists]], journalists, religious figures, nationalists, and activists, assert that Copts are the direct descendants of the [[ancient Egypt]]ians, characterizing them as the heirs of ancient Egyptian heritage.<ref>{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle= Copts |volume= 7 |last= Butler |first= Alfred J. |author-link= Alfred J. Butler |pages= 113-116 |short=1}}</ref><ref>Coptic Egypt : The Christians of the Nile. Thames & Hudson; First edition (January 1, 2001). {{ISBN|978-0500301043}}</ref><ref>On Islam And Its Centuries-Long Battle Against Christianity. November 26, 2013.[https://mikechurch.com/kevin-gutzman-islam-centuries-long-battle-christianity/]</ref><ref>The Story Of The Copts. St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery publications. Published January 1, 1978. ASIN ‏: ‎ B00NHR2KJW. Page 247</ref><ref>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}}.</ref><ref>A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24-25. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}</ref><ref>A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}</ref><ref>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</ref><ref>[https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/blog/coptic-identities-as-indigenous-the-politics-of-recognition-improving-interfaith-relations-in-egypt]</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt]</ref><ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/who-are-egypts-copts/8429634]</ref><ref>Bulletin de l’association des amis des églises et de l’art copte (counted as BASC) 1 (1935): pp.43-59.</ref> These assertions emphasize cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing [[Coptic identity]] as distinct from the [[Arab identity|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 Egypt]]ians, characterizing them as the heirs of ancient Egyptian heritage.<ref>{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle= Copts |volume= 7 |last= Butler |first= Alfred J. |author-link= Alfred J. Butler |pages= 113-116 |short=1}}</ref><ref>Coptic Egypt : The Christians of the Nile. Thames & Hudson; First edition (January 1, 2001). {{ISBN|978-0500301043}}</ref><ref>On Islam And Its Centuries-Long Battle Against Christianity. November 26, 2013.[https://mikechurch.com/kevin-gutzman-islam-centuries-long-battle-christianity/]</ref><ref>The Story Of The Copts. St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery publications. Published January 1, 1978. ASIN ‏: ‎ B00NHR2KJW. Page 247</ref><ref>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}}.</ref><ref>A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24-25. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}</ref><ref>A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}</ref><ref>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</ref><ref>[https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/blog/coptic-identities-as-indigenous-the-politics-of-recognition-improving-interfaith-relations-in-egypt]</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt]</ref><ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/who-are-egypts-copts/8429634]</ref><ref>Bulletin de l’association des amis des églises et de l’art copte (counted as BASC) 1 (1935): pp.43-59.</ref>  These assertions emphasize cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing [[Coptic identity]] as distinct from the [[Arab identity|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}}'''
::::::::::[[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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 <u>Twelve proofs</u>. 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. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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 [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/academic 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.
:::::::::::::[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Alfred_Joshua_Butler Butler] was indeed a scholar at Oxford University, specifically, a [[Research_fellow#United_Kingdom|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 [https://accot.stcyrils.edu.au/authors/iris-habib-elmasry-1910-1994/ 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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 10:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::How is my argument unconvincing and wrong if even you confirm that [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Alfred_Joshua_Butler 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. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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 ([https://orthokairos.weebly.com/iris-habib-el-masri.html 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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 18:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
:My general takes on these matters:
:# "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.
:# "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]]).
:# 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.
:# 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.
:# Yes, same problem as no. 1, and based on dreadful sourcing.
:# 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.
:# 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. [[WP:NOT#BLOG|Wikipedia is not a blog and must not be written like one]].
:# 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.
:# 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.
:# "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.
:# Same basic issues as nos. 1, 5, 6. The suggested rewrite is vastly better.
:# 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.
:# 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). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 10:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

== RfC on statement asserting "direct" descent ==

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 17:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1746896465}}

As part of a broader discussion concerning improvements to the [[Copts]] article, @[[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] has presented several sources to support a statement about Copts being "directly" descended from the ancient Egyptians. I contend, however, that these sources, while perhaps valuable in understanding Coptic self-perception, do not constitute authoritative evidence from disciplines such as population genetics or anthropology, which I consider to be the appropriate fields for assessing a claim about "direct" descent, which is a term I don't think is sufficiently defined to begin with. Consequently, I believe that the statement, if included at all, must be properly qualified to reflect the nature of the sources  (the quality and reliability of which have been called into question) and the absence of similarly assertive references to the term or conclusion in peer-reviewed genetic or anthropological material.

In addition to advocating for the inclusion of this claim, @[[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] has suggested repeating the assertion in several sections and sub-sections of the article, articulated in various formulations. I disagree with this approach and have argued that mention of the topic should be confined, if mentioned at all, to the "Identity" section, where it can be contextualized and addressed with nuance.

Our positions are too far apart, and efforts at compromise have not brought us closer to resolution. Accordingly, I believe it would now be most constructive to invite community input on this matter so we can proceed in either direction with broad consensus. 

As further clarification, this dispute centers on the scientific validity of using the term “direct” descent, especially when based on non-scientific sources. The intention is not to deny or distance the Copts from any particular ancestry, nor is it meant to create a binary conflict between Coptic and non-Coptic Egyptians. Neither position, be it version 1, 2, 3 or 4 attempts to rule out any specific origin. Instead, the primary concern is whether the claim, as worded, is sufficiently and explicitly supported by reliable evidence. One side holds that it is, while the other maintains that it is not. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 16:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

===Version 1===
''Several sources, including academics, scholars, historians, [[Coptology|Coptologists]], journalists, religious figures, nationalists, and activists, assert that Copts are the direct descendants of the [[ancient Egypt]]ians, characterizing them as the heirs of ancient Egyptian heritage.<ref>{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle= Copts |volume= 7 |last= Butler |first= Alfred J. |author-link= Alfred J. Butler |pages= 113-116 |short=1}}</ref><ref>Coptic Egypt : The Christians of the Nile. Thames & Hudson; First edition (January 1, 2001). {{ISBN|978-0500301043}}</ref><ref>On Islam And Its Centuries-Long Battle Against Christianity. November 26, 2013.[https://mikechurch.com/kevin-gutzman-islam-centuries-long-battle-christianity/]</ref><ref>The Story Of The Copts. St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery publications. Published January 1, 1978. ASIN ‏: ‎ B00NHR2KJW. Page 247</ref><ref>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}}.</ref><ref>A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24-25. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}</ref><ref>A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}</ref><ref>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</ref><ref>[https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/blog/coptic-identities-as-indigenous-the-politics-of-recognition-improving-interfaith-relations-in-egypt]</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt]</ref><ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/who-are-egypts-copts/8429634]</ref><ref>Bulletin de l’association des amis des églises et de l’art copte (counted as BASC) 1 (1935): pp.43-59.</ref> These assertions emphasize cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing [[Coptic identity]] as distinct from the [[Arab identity|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}}''

===Version 2===
''Several sources assert that Copts are the direct descendants of the [[ancient Egypt]]ians, characterizing them as the heirs of ancient Egyptian heritage.<ref>{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle= Copts |volume= 7 |last= Butler |first= Alfred J. |author-link= Alfred J. Butler |pages= 113-116 |short=1}}</ref><ref>Coptic Egypt : The Christians of the Nile. Thames & Hudson; First edition (January 1, 2001). {{ISBN|978-0500301043}}</ref><ref>On Islam And Its Centuries-Long Battle Against Christianity. November 26, 2013.[https://mikechurch.com/kevin-gutzman-islam-centuries-long-battle-christianity/]</ref><ref>The Story Of The Copts. St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery publications. Published January 1, 1978. ASIN ‏: ‎ B00NHR2KJW. Page 247</ref><ref>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}}.</ref><ref>A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24-25. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}</ref><ref>A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}</ref><ref>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</ref><ref>[https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/blog/coptic-identities-as-indigenous-the-politics-of-recognition-improving-interfaith-relations-in-egypt]</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt]</ref><ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/who-are-egypts-copts/8429634]</ref><ref>Bulletin de l’association des amis des églises et de l’art copte (counted as BASC) 1 (1935): pp.43-59.</ref>  These assertions emphasize cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing [[Coptic identity]] as distinct from the [[Arab identity|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}}''

===Version 3===
''Many sources claim that Copts are the 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.<ref>{{cite book |last=Cannuyer |first=Christin |title=Coptic Egypt: The Christians of the Nile |publisher=Thames & Hudson |date=2001 |isbn=978-0500301043}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Minahan |first=James B. |title=Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World |edition=2nd |publisher=Greenwood |date=2016 |page=108 |isbn=978-1610699532}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Elmasry |first=Iris Habib |title=The Story of the Copts |publisher=St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery Publications |date=1978 |asin=B00NHR2KJW |page=247}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Tadros |first=Mariz |title=Copts at the Crossroads: The Challenges of Building Inclusive Democracy in Contemporary Egypt |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=2013 |isbn=978-977-416-591-7}}</ref> 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,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hollfelder|first1=Nina|last2=Schlebusch|first2=Carina M.|last3=Günther|first3=Torsten|last4=Babiker|first4=Hiba|last5=Hassan|first5=Hisham Y.|last6=Jakobsson|first6=Mattias|date=2017-08-24|title=Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations|journal=PLOS Genetics|language=en|volume=13|issue=8|pages=e1006976|doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006976|pmid=28837655|pmc=5587336|issn=1553-7404|doi-access=free}}{{CC-notice|by4|url=https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1006976}}"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)"</ref> and also that they genetically originate from the same ancestors.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Taha |first1=Tarek |last2=Elzalabany |first2=Sagy |last3=Fawzi |first3=Sahar |last4=Hisham |first4=Ahmed |last5=Amer |first5=Khaled |last6=Shaker |first6=Olfat |date=1 August 2020 |title=Allele frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073820302103 |url-status=live |journal=Forensic Science International |language=en |volume=313 |pages=110348 |doi=10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110348 |issn=0379-0738 |pmid=32521421 |s2cid=219586129 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210603030945/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073820302103 |archive-date=3 June 2021 |access-date=14 April 2023}}"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."</ref>''

===Version 4===
''Removing all mentions of direct descent.''
-------

===Discussion===
Please write your replies below. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 16:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Just to be clear and refute any mischaracterization of my edits, the sources put forward are not based on "Coptic self-perception" since many - if not most - are made by non-Copts. Examples of such assertions made by non-Copts include the following:
:* "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).<ref>{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle= Copts |volume= 7 |last= Butler |first= Alfred J. |author-link= Alfred J. Butler |pages= 113-116 |short=1}}</ref>
:* "Modern Copts are the living descendants of the ancient Egyptians, heirs to a splendid and unique patrimony." - [[Christian Cannuyer]], academic and historian.<ref>Coptic Egypt : The Christians of the Nile. Thames & Hudson; First edition (January 1, 2001). {{ISBN|978-0500301043}}</ref>
:* "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<ref>On Islam And Its Centuries-Long Battle Against Christianity. November 26, 2013.[https://mikechurch.com/kevin-gutzman-islam-centuries-long-battle-christianity/]</ref>
:* "The Coptic people are an ethnoreligious population that identifies as the descendants of ancient Egyptians according to their genetic results and the evolution of their language and traditions that root back to the ancient Egyptian civilization." - James Minahan, writer and researcher.<ref>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</ref>
:* "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]].<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt]</ref>
:* "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]].<ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/who-are-egypts-copts/8429634]</ref>
:As you can see, these are non-Coptic academics, scholars, historians, Coptologists, journalists etc. So the statement that "Copts are the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians" is not a "self-perception" by Copts.
:I also want to be clear that I am not advocating for "repeating" anything. I was simply asked to provide a blank statement about future edits, which I simply refuse to do. Any and all edits must be evaluated independently and discussed. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 16:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for your clarification. To provide additional context regarding the repetition of the statement, the concern arises from prior edits in which the editor in question inserted the same or nearly identical statements in multiple sections of the article, four, to be precise, including the lead.
::*Edit 1 in identity section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&diff=1283040341&oldid=1283020685
::*Edit 2 in genetics section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&diff=1282944523&oldid=1282941891
::*Edit 3 in history section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&diff=1282926509&oldid=1282926366
::*Edit 4 in lead section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&diff=1214463426&oldid=1214461210
::One of these instances, in the lead, has already been removed by another editor pending the outcome of this discussion. 
::The editor explicitly stated the following in an earlier discussion:
::''"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."''
::Given this, it would be helpful for the current RfC to determine not only the validity of the statement itself but also whether its repeated inclusion throughout the article is appropriate. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 17:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I do not believe anyone can tell Wikipedia users what to include or exclude in a future version of a certain article.
:::As I said before and will say again '''I cannot [and will not] 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.''' I recommend we focus on improving the current version of the article rather than try to suppress or silence users' freedom and ability to edit information on Wikipedia. If we all reach an agreement on how the article will look like after addressing all the different issues you are raising above, then logically there will be no need to make any further substantial edits (unless a good reason arises of course). [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 21:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
::::If communal consensus concludes that it is or is not appropriate to include certain content in multiple sections, following guidelines such as [[WP:DUE]], then the justification is that there is consensus on how the article should be presented. This process is an example of consensus building ([[WP:CONSENSUS]]). Should you or anyone wish to change the article in a way that deviates from the result of this process, now or in the future, they would need to establish a new consensus supporting their proposed revisions. That is why we are bringing this matter to an RfC: the two of us cannot arrive at consensus when it remains my word against yours and vice versa.
::::There is really no need to keep repeating your stance at this point, you've sufficiently clarified your position. No one is attempting to suppress or silence anyone. This process is specifically designed to invite input from others who may agree or disagree with you. Please allow space for their contributions unless you believe you need to offer further clarification. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 09:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::The discussion is regarding how to improve the current version of the article and how to resolve issues that you have claimed exist in it. Nobody knows what future versions of the article will look like months, years, decades or centuries from now. Nobody can forces anyone else not to make future changes. I suggest you focus on the article as it is today rather than try to prevent people from making changes in the future. That is the classic definition of suppressing and silencing people.
:::::Also, thank you for your suggestion to allow other users space to contribute. I wonder why you keep repeating yourself here instead of following your own advice though. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 13:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::The basis of our engagement on Wikipedia is to build consensus for our edits, that is precisely what we are doing in this process. Consensus, whether implicit or explicit, determines content on Wikipedia, as explained in [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. I’m not sure where you got the idea that this is about future edits; no one is being prevented from making them. Right now, we are simply working to establish consensus on whether this specific content should or should not be included in the article in the way you and I respectively argue for, by inviting broader community input. Whatever the outcome of this process may be will be the content presented in the article, and it can still be changed in the future through a new outcome of a similar consensus-building process ([[WP:CCC]]). If no change occurs, this outcome continues to guide that particular content. Hope that clarifies things! [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 13:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm glad we agree that nobody can prevent Wikipedia users from making future edits on the website. Happy to be working with everyone to establish consensus regarding the current version of the article. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 14:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

====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 @[[User:JoelleJay|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.
[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|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.[[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 01:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|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 (Y-DNA)|Haplogroup J]] signals post-Islamic Arab migration and that [[Haplogroup E (Y-DNA)|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.
:::::::@[[User:Epenkimi|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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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]]:  {{xt|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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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:
:::::::::{{xt|''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: [https://writerbeware.blog/2016/12/21/questions-for-vanity-publisher-austin-macauley-yield-few-answers/ Writer Beware report] and [[Austin Macauley Publishers#Controversy]]. The same article on sources ([[WP:SCIRS]]) also states:
:::::::::''{{xt|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]]. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 09:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::If your main point of contention is the word "<u>direct</u>" and the fact that only Guindy's book is where it features as such ''per verbatim'', why does Version 3 that ''<u>you</u>'' 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. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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 '''''<u>true compromise</u>''''': I am ok with removing the word '''''<u>direct</u>''''' 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 Egypt]]ians, and are the heirs of the ancient Egyptian heritage.<ref>{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle= Copts |volume= 7 |last= Butler |first= Alfred J. |author-link= Alfred J. Butler |pages= 113-116 |short=1}}</ref><ref>Coptic Egypt : The Christians of the Nile. Thames & Hudson; First edition (January 1, 2001). {{ISBN|978-0500301043}}</ref><ref>On Islam And Its Centuries-Long Battle Against Christianity. November 26, 2013.[https://mikechurch.com/kevin-gutzman-islam-centuries-long-battle-christianity/]</ref><ref>The Story Of The Copts. St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery publications. Published January 1, 1978. ASIN ‏: ‎ B00NHR2KJW. Page 247</ref><ref>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}}.</ref><ref>A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24-25. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}</ref><ref>A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}</ref><ref>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</ref><ref>[https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/blog/coptic-identities-as-indigenous-the-politics-of-recognition-improving-interfaith-relations-in-egypt]</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt]</ref><ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/who-are-egypts-copts/8429634]</ref><ref>Bulletin de l’association des amis des églises et de l’art copte (counted as BASC) 1 (1935): pp.43-59.</ref> This link to ancient Egypt emphasizes cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing [[Coptic identity]] as distinct from the [[Arab identity|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. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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:
:::::::::::::{{xt|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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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.
::::::::::::::<big>Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations</big>
::::::::::::::''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).''
::::::::::::::__________________________
::::::::::::::<big>Allele frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups</big>
::::::::::::::''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.''
::::::::::::::__________________________
::::::::::::::<big>Multidisciplinary investigation of two Egyptian child mummies curated at the University of Tartu Art Museum, Estonia (Late/Graeco-Roman Periods)</big>
::::::::::::::''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.
::::::::::::::<big>Reconstructing past human genetic variation with ancient DNA: case studies from ancient Egypt and medieval Europe</big>
::::::::::::::''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).'' [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 14:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Editors are not supposed to be making {{xt|an assessment of its methodological deficiencies}} of the sources. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 08:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I agree with [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] that Wikipedia editors are not supposed to be making {{xt|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).<ref>{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle= Copts |volume= 7 |last= Butler |first= Alfred J. |author-link= Alfred J. Butler |pages= 113-116 |short=1}}</ref>
::::::::::::* "Modern Copts are the living descendants of the ancient Egyptians, heirs to a splendid and unique patrimony." - [[Christian Cannuyer]], academic and historian.<ref>Coptic Egypt : The Christians of the Nile. Thames & Hudson; First edition (January 1, 2001). {{ISBN|978-0500301043}}</ref>
::::::::::::* "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<ref>On Islam And Its Centuries-Long Battle Against Christianity. November 26, 2013.[https://mikechurch.com/kevin-gutzman-islam-centuries-long-battle-christianity/]</ref>
::::::::::::* "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.<ref>The Story Of The Copts. St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery publications. Published January 1, 1978. ASIN :  B00NHR2KJW. Page 247</ref>
::::::::::::'''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]], [[Egyptology|Egyptologist]] and [[Coptology|Coptologist]].<ref>Bulletin de l’association des amis des églises et de l’art copte (counted as BASC) 1 (1935): pp.43-59.</ref>
::::::::::::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 Egypt]]ians, and are the heirs of the ancient Egyptian heritage.<ref>{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle= Copts |volume= 7 |last= Butler |first= Alfred J. |author-link= Alfred J. Butler |pages= 113-116 |short=1}}</ref><ref>Coptic Egypt : The Christians of the Nile. Thames & Hudson; First edition (January 1, 2001). {{ISBN|978-0500301043}}</ref><ref>On Islam And Its Centuries-Long Battle Against Christianity. November 26, 2013.[https://mikechurch.com/kevin-gutzman-islam-centuries-long-battle-christianity/]</ref><ref>The Story Of The Copts. St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery publications. Published January 1, 1978. ASIN ‏: ‎ B00NHR2KJW. Page 247</ref><ref>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}}.</ref><ref>A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24-25. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}</ref><ref>A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}</ref><ref>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</ref><ref>[https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/blog/coptic-identities-as-indigenous-the-politics-of-recognition-improving-interfaith-relations-in-egypt]</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt]</ref><ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/who-are-egypts-copts/8429634]</ref><ref>Bulletin de l’association des amis des églises et de l’art copte (counted as BASC) 1 (1935): pp.43-59.</ref> This link to ancient Egypt emphasizes cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing [[Coptic identity]] as distinct from the [[Arab identity|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}}''''' [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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 @[[User:WhatamIdoing|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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 20:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::This statement is false:  {{xt|Even @[[User:WhatamIdoing|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 [[User talk:WhatamIdoing#c-WhatamIdoing-20250412010100-Epenkimi-20250411115400|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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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.
:::::::::::::::{{xt|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.}} [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::About whether having criteria for reliable sources could [[Talk:Copts#c-Turnopoems-20250412084900-WhatamIdoing-20250412020200|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 [[Wikipedia:Published|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 [[Editor|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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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]]: {{xt|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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I cannot agree more with [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]. [[User:Turnopoems|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 [[User:Turnopoems|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. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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. <u>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.</u>
:::::::::::::::::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 (<u>thank you for offering to remove them based on that scrutiny</u>), 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'' [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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:  {{xt|"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:
::::::::::::::::::# The [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill|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 –
::::::::::::::::::# @[[User:Turnopoems|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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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.<ref>{{cite book |last=Cannuyer |first=Christin |title=Coptic Egypt: The Christians of the Nile |publisher=Thames & Hudson |date=2001 |isbn=978-0500301043}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Minahan |first=James B. |title=Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World |edition=2nd |publisher=Greenwood |date=2016 |page=108 |isbn=978-1610699532}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Elmasry |first=Iris Habib |title=The Story of the Copts |publisher=St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery Publications |date=1978 |asin=B00NHR2KJW |page=247}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Tadros |first=Mariz |title=Copts at the Crossroads: The Challenges of Building Inclusive Democracy in Contemporary Egypt |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=2013 |isbn=978-977-416-591-7}}</ref> However, scholars caution that such assertions are unfalsifiable and more a matter of identity.<ref>{{cite book | last = van der Vliet | first = Jacques | chapter = The Copts: 'Modern Sons of the Pharaohs'? | title = Religious Origins of Nations? The Christian Communities of the Middle East | publisher = Brill | year = 2010 | pages = 279–290 | isbn = 9789047444367}}"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."</ref> 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,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hollfelder|first1=Nina|last2=Schlebusch|first2=CarinaM.|last3=Günther|first3=Torsten|last4=Babiker|first4=Hiba|last5=Hassan|first5=Hisham Y.|last6=Jakobsson|first6=Mattias|date=2017-08-24|title=Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations|journal=PLOS Genetics|language=en|volume=13|issue=8|pages=e1006976|doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006976|pmid=28837655|pmc=5587336|issn=1553-7404|doi-access=free}}{{CC-notice|by4|url=https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1006976}}"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)"</ref> and also that they genetically originate from the same ancestors.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Taha |first1=Tarek |last2=Elzalabany |first2=Sagy |last3=Fawzi |first3=Sahar |last4=Hisham |first4=Ahmed |last5=Amer |first5=Khaled |last6=Shaker |first6=Olfat |date=1 August 2020 |title=Allele frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073820302103 |url-status=live |journal=Forensic Science International |language=en |volume=313 |pages=110348 |doi=10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110348 |issn=0379-0738 |pmid=32521421 |s2cid=219586129 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210603030945/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073820302103 |archive-date=3 June 2021 |access-date=14 April 2023}}"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."</ref>''' [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Directly supports|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". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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:
::::::::::::::::::::::{{xt|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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 21:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

====Arbitrary break 2====
Sure, I can write out an evaluation of your sources.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
:First source:  
:* {{Cite journal |last1=Hollfelder |first1=Nina |last2=Schlebusch |first2=CarinaM. |last3=Günther |first3=Torsten |last4=Babiker |first4=Hiba |last5=Hassan |first5=Hisham Y. |last6=Jakobsson |first6=Mattias |date=2017-08-24 |title=Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations |journal=PLOS Genetics |language=en |volume=13 |issue=8 |pages=e1006976 |doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006976 |issn=1553-7404 |pmc=5587336 |pmid=28837655 |doi-access=free}}
:{{MEDRS evaluation
| source = Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations
| date = 2017-08-24
| journal = [[PLoS Genetics]]
| publisher = [[Public Library of Science]]
| reputation = {{tick}} MEDLINE, [[Index Medicus]], [https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/4000151808 90th percentile] at Scopus
| type = primary
| evidence = {{cross}} Original (primary) research
| human = "221 individuals from 18 populations sampled in Sudan and South Sudan", so it's not [[WP:IN MICE]]
| independence = yes
}}
:Second source:
:* {{Cite journal |last1=Taha |first1=Tarek |last2=Elzalabany |first2=Sagy |last3=Fawzi |first3=Sahar |last4=Hisham |first4=Ahmed |last5=Amer |first5=Khaled |last6=Shaker |first6=Olfat |date=1 August 2020 |title=Allele frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073820302103 |url-status=live |journal=Forensic Science International |language=en |volume=313 |pages=110348 |doi=10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110348 |issn=0379-0738 |pmid=32521421 |s2cid=219586129 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210603030945/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073820302103 |archive-date=3 June 2021 |access-date=14 April 2023}}
:{{MEDRS evaluation
| source = Allele frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups
| date = 2020-08
| journal = Forensic Science International
| publisher = Elsevier
| reputation = {{tick}} MEDLINE, Index Medicus, [https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/27743 94th percentile] on Scopus
| type = primary
| evidence = {{cross}} Original (primary) research
| human = 200 unrelated healthy humans, so not [[WP:IN MICE]]
| independence = yes
}}
: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]], {{xt|Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. [[Wikipedia:Original research by synthesis|Synthesis of published material advancing a position]] is [[wp:OR|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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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'':
[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5587336/|Northeast 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 <u>the article does '''not''' link the general Egyptian population to ancient Egyptians</u>, and <u>it is obvious that the article contradicts your claim that Copts do not have a ''a strict, isolated lineage''</u>. 
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073820302103|Allele 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.
[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6964855/|Multidisciplinary 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. <u>''This source obviously does not in any way, shape or form support your claim and should be removed''</u>.
[https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/18979/?utm_source=chatgpt.com|Reconstructing 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. <u>''Again, this source obviously does not in any way, shape or form support your claim and should be removed''</u>. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hollfelder|first1=Nina|last2=Schlebusch|first2=Carina M.|last3=Günther|first3=Torsten|last4=Babiker|first4=Hiba|last5=Hassan|first5=Hisham Y.|last6=Jakobsson|first6=Mattias|date=2017-08-24|title=Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations|journal=PLOS Genetics|language=en|volume=13|issue=8|pages=e1006976|doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006976|pmid=28837655|pmc=5587336|issn=1553-7404|doi-access=free}}{{CC-notice|by4|url=https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1006976}}</ref> and also that they genetically originate from the same ancestors.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Taha |first1=Tarek |last2=Elzalabany |first2=Sagy |last3=Fawzi |first3=Sahar |last4=Hisham |first4=Ahmed |last5=Amer |first5=Khaled |last6=Shaker |first6=Olfat |date=1 August 2020 |title=Allele frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073820302103 |url-status=live |journal=Forensic Science International |language=en |volume=313 |pages=110348 |doi=10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110348 |issn=0379-0738 |pmid=32521421 |s2cid=219586129 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210603030945/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073820302103 |archive-date=3 June 2021 |access-date=14 April 2023}}</ref>''
::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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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''.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hollfelder|first1=Nina|last2=Schlebusch|first2=Carina M.|last3=Günther|first3=Torsten|last4=Babiker|first4=Hiba|last5=Hassan|first5=Hisham Y.|last6=Jakobsson|first6=Mattias|date=2017-08-24|title=Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations|journal=PLOS Genetics|language=en|volume=13|issue=8|pages=e1006976|doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006976|pmid=28837655|pmc=5587336|issn=1553-7404|doi-access=free}}{{CC-notice|by4|url=https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1006976}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Taha |first1=Tarek |last2=Elzalabany |first2=Sagy |last3=Fawzi |first3=Sahar |last4=Hisham |first4=Ahmed |last5=Amer |first5=Khaled |last6=Shaker |first6=Olfat |date=1 August 2020 |title=Allele frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073820302103 |url-status=live |journal=Forensic Science International |language=en |volume=313 |pages=110348 |doi=10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110348 |issn=0379-0738 |pmid=32521421 |s2cid=219586129 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210603030945/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073820302103 |archive-date=3 June 2021 |access-date=14 April 2023}}</ref> [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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: {{xt|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: {{xt|and also that they genetically originate from the same ancestors.}}
::::Both studies are linked in the references by the way. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 09:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Your "paraphrasing" of the study is wrong. <u>"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.</u> 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"'''. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Fragrant Peony|Fragrant Peony]] ([[User talk:Fragrant Peony|talk]]) 01:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Fragrant Peony|Fragrant Peony]] Agreed, consolidating the statement into a single, well-contextualized section would be far preferable to the current version. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Fragrant Peony|Fragrant Peony]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 10:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
------
'''Option 4''': Any of these would suffice, {{em|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. {{em|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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACopts&diff=1285210263&oldid=1285204932]. Please let us know your thoughts on that version so we can try to move forward into the next topic. Thanks. [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk:Epenkimi|talk]]) 08:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::It's much better without "direct" [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 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:
* [https://brill-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/display/book/9789047444367/Bej.9789004173750.i-366_013.xml?rskey=OndjtM&result=1 The Copts: ‘Modern Sons of the Pharaohs’? (2010)] (journal article) says: {{tq|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.}}
* [https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ens2DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT12&dq=copts+ancient+egyptians+descent&ots=GbpPsifA-A&sig=FIkwsN31vEdwWyZt_ShGvKucLLw#v=snippet&q=elizabeth%20iskander&f=false Copts in Context: Negotiating Identity, Tradition, and Modernity (2017)] presents them as just narratives 
* [https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-religion/article/copts-and-the-millet-partnership-the-intracommunal-dynamics-behind-egyptian-sectarianism/76A402A87E190F43762624CF235D2F67 COPTS AND THE MILLET PARTNERSHIP: THE INTRA-COMMUNAL DYNAMICS BEHIND EGYPTIAN SECTARIANISM (2014)] (journal article) says {{tq|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.”}}
* [https://www-tandfonline-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/09596410500059664?scroll=top&needAccess=true Henderson 2011] looks like it might support descent but WPL doesn't seem to be accessing Taylor and Francis [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Epenkimi|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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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:WALLOFTEXT]]s, 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, {{tq|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]}} [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|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 [[Egyptians|Egyptian]] population,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Setiyono |first=Mozes Adiguna |title=From Pan-Arabism to Pharaonism: Egypt's Gradual Change of National Identity during the Sisi Era |journal=Global Strategis |volume=17 |issue=2 |year=2023|page=312}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Erman |first=Adolf |title=Life in Ancient Egypt |series=Egypt Series|publisher=Courier Corporation |year=1971 |isbn=9780486226323 |page=29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Lefkowitz |first1=Mary R. |author-link=Mary Lefkowitz |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AClFWV6PE8wC |title=Black Athena Revisited |last2=Rogers |first2=Guy MacLean |date=1996 |publisher=UNC Press Books |isbn=978-0-8078-4555-4 |pages=159|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Pateman, Robert & Salwa El-Hamamsy|title=Egypt|date=2003|publisher=Marshall Cavendish Benchmark|place=New York|page=54|isbn=9780761416708}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Colla |first=Elliott |title=Conflicted Antiquities: Egyptology, Egyptomania, Egyptian Modernity |publisher=Duke University Press |year=2008 |isbn=9780822390398 |page=128}}</ref> descended from the ancient Egyptians.<ref>{{cite book |last=Cannuyer |first=Christin |title=Coptic Egypt: The Christians of the Nile |publisher=Thames & Hudson |date=2001 |isbn=978-0500301043}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Minahan |first=James B. |title=Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World |edition=2nd |publisher=Greenwood |date=2016 |page=108 |isbn=978-1610699532}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Elmasry |first=Iris Habib |title=The Story of the Copts |publisher=St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery Publications |date=1978 |asin=B00NHR2KJW |page=247}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Tadros |first=Mariz |title=Copts at the Crossroads: The Challenges of Building Inclusive Democracy in Contemporary Egypt |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=2013 |isbn=978-977-416-591-7}}</ref>'''
:::::::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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] ([[User talk:Turnopoems|talk]]) 17:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

====Arbitrary break 5====
'''Procedural comment''' @[[User:Turnopoems|Turnopoems]] and @[[User:Epenkimi|Epenkimi]] you two are posting massive [[WP:TEXTWALL]]s 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. —[[User:Joe vom Titan|Joe vom Titan]] ([[User talk:Joe vom Titan|talk]]) 04:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:Joe vom Titan|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 @[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] as the prevailing consensus, together with the roadmap above. I believe it would now be appropriate for someone to formally close this RfC. '''[[User:Turnopoems|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to bottom,#57ABDF 65%,#FFB800);color:white;text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-weight:bold;padding:4px;">Turnopoems 𓋹</span>]] [[User talk:Turnopoems|✎]]''' 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.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|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. '''[[User:Turnopoems|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to bottom,#57ABDF 65%,#FFB800);color:white;text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-weight:bold;padding:4px;">Turnopoems 𓋹</span>]] [[User talk:Turnopoems|✎]]''' 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"? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Systematic_NPOV_fails_throughout_Coptic_identity_article|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. '''[[User:Turnopoems|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to bottom,#57ABDF 65%,#FFB800);color:white;text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-weight:bold;padding:4px;">Turnopoems 𓋹</span>]] [[User talk:Turnopoems|✎]]''' 17:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:WALLOFTEXT]]s can be a bit [[WP:SEALION]]y 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 [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Turnopoems|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to bottom,#57ABDF 65%,#FFB800);color:white;text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-weight:bold;padding:4px;">Turnopoems 𓋹</span>]] [[User talk:Turnopoems|✎]]''' 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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Turnopoems|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to bottom,#57ABDF 65%,#FFB800);color:white;text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-weight:bold;padding:4px;">Turnopoems 𓋹</span>]] [[User talk:Turnopoems|✎]]''' 10:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I don't actually know your ethnicity, so I can't be questioning your motives on that basis.  <small>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.)</small> 
::::::::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 [[Talk:Copts#c-Turnopoems-20250414212200-Kowal2701-20250414201300|"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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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 [[Egypt Economic Development Conference|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.
:::::::::{{tqb|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.}} '''[[User:Turnopoems|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to bottom,#57ABDF 65%,#FFB800);color:white;text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-weight:bold;padding:4px;">Turnopoems 𓋹</span>]] [[User talk:Turnopoems|✎]]''' 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 [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Turnopoems|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to bottom,#57ABDF 65%,#FFB800);color:white;text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-weight:bold;padding:4px;">Turnopoems 𓋹</span>]] [[User talk:Turnopoems|✎]]''' 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". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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 @[[User:SMcCandlish|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. '''[[User:Turnopoems|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to bottom,#57ABDF 65%,#FFB800);color:white;text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-weight:bold;padding:4px;">Turnopoems 𓋹</span>]] [[User talk:Turnopoems|✎]]''' 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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Turnopoems|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to bottom,#57ABDF 65%,#FFB800);color:white;text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-weight:bold;padding:4px;">Turnopoems 𓋹</span>]] [[User talk:Turnopoems|✎]]''' 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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Directly supports|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 [[WP:LAWYER|wikilawyer for its own sake]]? '''[[User:Turnopoems|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to bottom,#57ABDF 65%,#FFB800);color:white;text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-weight:bold;padding:4px;">Turnopoems 𓋹</span>]] [[User talk:Turnopoems|✎]]''' 20:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

====Arbitrary break 6====

{{hat|References}}

{{reflist-talk}}

{{hab}}

== Last edit ==
[[User:Kyrilloskiro]] changed the description of Copts from an ethno-religious group to a religious group [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&diff=1294564539&oldid=1294563281]. I have added two new sources that clarify that Copts are viewed as an ethno-religious group. Is it possible to reach a consensus based on sources regarding whether the Copts should be described in the first sentence as solely a religious group, or—as various sources indicate—as an ethno-religious group.[[User:Durziil89|Durziil89]] ([[User talk:Durziil89|talk]]) 13:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:What’s the two sources ? Also I could add more 
:smith Charles d “ Egyptian Copts” 2005 p.59
:“Religious strife in Egypt” p.57
:minority right group organization report on Copts 
:Heritage practices as development's blind spot: A case study of Coptic tattooing in Libya and Egypt by Marie tadros
:Abdelhafidh Hajjej et al. PLoS One. 2018.
:Encyclopedia of the peoples of Africa and the Middle East by Jamie stokes, Anthony Gorman and Andrew Newman
:all of them consistently agree on us Copts being ethnically Egyptian like the wider Egyptian population [[User:Kyrilloskiro|Kyrilloskiro]] ([[User talk:Kyrilloskiro|talk]]) 13:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
::I am not claiming that the Copts are a separate nation from Muslim Egyptians. An ethno-religious group is a community of people who share a common religious and ethnic background, or in some cases, a religious background exclusively. It can also be considered a subcategory of ethnicity, where members collectively identify through a shared religion.
::Here are some sources that describe the Copts as an ethno-religious group:
::# [https://www.britannica.com/topica The Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the Copts] says {{tq|Copt, a member of Egypt’s indigenous Christian ethno-religious community.}}
::# [https://biomedres.us/pdfs/BJSTR.MS.ID.009543.pdf In an article published by The American Journal of Biomedical Science and Research about the Copts] says {{tq|today, Copts constitute a notable ethno- religious group with connections to ancient Egyptians.}}
::# [https://bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2023/11/27/the-2000-year-bleeding-struggle-of-egypts-minorities-persists/ In an article published by the Berkeley Political Review] says {{tq|The Coptic people are an ethnoreligious population that identifies as the descendants of ancient Egyptians, according to their genetic results and the evolution of their language and traditions that root back to the ancient Egyptian civilization.}}
::These are some of the sources, and many more can be found that describe the Copts as an ethno-religious group. [[User:Durziil89|Durziil89]] ([[User talk:Durziil89|talk]]) 14:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
:::An ethnoreligious group is a group where it’s ethnic group is closely tied to it’s religion so said group needs to be an ethnic group not belonging to a wider ethnicity , it’s just not the sharing of ethnicity and religion and the exclusivity of the ethnicity because of religion 
:::One is three sources you provided is an article thus irrelevant , britannica is not a scholarly source so it only leaves us with the American journal that deals with US immigrants and their perception with their identity while I acknowledge it , it doesn’t speak for us Copts in Egypt 
:::again review my sources that all comment on my both Muslims and Christians in Egypt are the same ethnic group and all are from scholarly sources and speaking about Egyptians in Egypt [[User:Kyrilloskiro|Kyrilloskiro]] ([[User talk:Kyrilloskiro|talk]]) 15:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Edit : grammar mistakes [[User:Kyrilloskiro|Kyrilloskiro]] ([[User talk:Kyrilloskiro|talk]]) 15:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Even in Egypt, many Copts associate their ethnic identity with their religion, as indicated by various sources, see, for example: Henderson, Randall P. (April 2005). 'The Egyptian Coptic Christians: the conflict between identity and equality.' Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 16(2), pp. 155–166. Or the book Copts at the Crossroads: The Challenges of Building Inclusive Democracy in Contemporary Egypt by Egyptian Coptic scholar Mariz Tadros, published by Oxford University Press. Pages 23 and 40, in particular, discuss how Egyptian Copts view their identity or sense of self. Once again, the term ethno-religious group does not necessarily imply a genetic difference between Muslims and Christians in Egypt, nor that they are inherently distinct ethnic groups [[User:Durziil89|Durziil89]] ([[User talk:Durziil89|talk]]) 15:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I didn’t mention genetic differences however an ethnoreligious group is based on an ethnicity that’s tied to religion 
:::::the majority of Copts in Egypt differentiate between religion and ethnicity matter of fact “religious strife in Egypt” examines the effect of Islamic  extremism on Copts identification and that some Copts may intertwine their religion with their ethnicity as extremism intensifies  , again see my sources they examine the issue in depth 
::::: by the way  Mariz tadros, the author you quoted I also referenced as he identified Copts as ethnically the same as other Egyptians in his latest research paper and smith d Charles analysis the Coptic question in his book which again you didn’t address [[User:Kyrilloskiro|Kyrilloskiro]] ([[User talk:Kyrilloskiro|talk]]) 15:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::This is how identities are formed—within social and political contexts. Many Copts have not embraced an Arab identity, unlike many Muslim Egyptians. Instead, many Copts understand their ethnic identity through a religious lens. For this reason, various sources describe the Copts as an ethno-religious group, characterized by cultural, social, or religious distinctiveness. This does not necessarily imply any genetic difference from other Egyptians. The term ethno-religious group can also apply to sub-groups within broader ethnic categories—such as the Parsis (ethnically Persian), the Yazidis (ethnically Kurdish), Irish Catholics, the Maronites, and others. [[User:Durziil89|Durziil89]] ([[User talk:Durziil89|talk]]) 15:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::In terms of Arabism there’s no consensus on it in the Coptic community in Egypt see Arab Christian’s wiki , Coptic response is ‘mixed’ , what we agree on in that genetically we aren’t Arabs other than that there’s no consensus and you didn’t respond to any of my sources that confirmed Copts being ethnically Egyptian like other Muslim Egyptians and you ignored why some Copts see religion and ethnicity as the same despite that I have told you why and as sectarian strife has been decreasing this definition has likewise decreased in Egypt again see religious strife in Egypt 
:::::::and being an ethnoreligious group means by the definition of oxford dictionary “ an ethnic group whose members are also unified by a common ethnic religion” 
:::::::i know that Wikipedia has Irish Catholics as ethnoreligious but according to the dictionary it doesn’t satisfy the criteria which is unsurprising as Wikipedia lets anybody edit and yezidis are considered an ethnic group closely related to Kurds but they don’t identify as Kurds [[User:Kyrilloskiro|Kyrilloskiro]] ([[User talk:Kyrilloskiro|talk]]) 16:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Listen, I don’t want this discussion to turn unproductive when I told you that you aren’t Egyptian and thus don’t understand/know the identity politics , it wasn’t an attack on you it’s clear that you don’t know an important point in the discussion 
::::::::in “religious strife in Egypt” the author said that as Muslims become more Muslim,Christians become more Christian and that’s the point where some Copts see intertwine religion with ethnicity however this approach exludes non-orthodox Copts as it intertwines religion with the sect of orthodoxy , in “Copts of Michigan” the author tells us of Adel abadeer a catholic copt who isn’t seen as a Copt only a catholic where he was raised in Egypt , the paper “ the other Copts” by Ann carol tarroes describes the Coptic question through the eyes of the non orthodox Copts and p.89 is particularly important where Andrew an orthodox Copt when asked about Protestant and catholic Egyptians says that they aren’t “real Copts” even one of the articles that you linked talked about coptic orthodoxy specifically as ethnoreligious , Copts who tend to see their religion with ethnic lens always exclude Catholics and Protestants as foreigners or “non Copts” at the very least , since the nineties the “ who’s Coptic” question has been asked numerous times with no satisfying answer and with the dominance of the Coptic orthodox church. None of your sources speak about Catholics or Protestants more than a brief mention or not at all while understood as we are a minority within a minority and we don’t have any significant diaspora however this is a page dedicated to Copts in general which is why I needed to bring this discussion to you . I would like to also stress that while this view exists in the Orthodox Church it’s not the dominant especially with the coming of the new pope, pope tawadros and the general sectarian violence decreasing this view is also descreasing. My problem is that you are unconsciously marginalizing or deleting my identity as a Coptic catholic with the sources that were represented 
::::::::it seems that the Coptic label is expanding and being more welcoming to Protestants, Catholics and even Muslims.
::::::::my second point is that the ethnoreligious Catogery in Wikipedia is divided into three : ethnic fusion or where religion is one of the foundations of ethnicity or religious ethnicity where religion is the main core of ethnicity 
::::::::which disagrees with your definition of ethnoreligious and the common consensus is that Copts whatever their sect background is are ethnically the same as Muslim Egyptians whatever their sect is [[User:Kyrilloskiro|Kyrilloskiro]] ([[User talk:Kyrilloskiro|talk]]) 18:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::You don’t really know me or my identity, so I kindly ask that we avoid turning the discussion into matters of personal or group identity. Again, referring to Copts as an ethnic religious group does not imply that they are genetically different from other Egyptian Muslims. Many Egyptian Muslims actually have ancestral roots tracing back to Coptic families who converted to Islam. The sources also describe Copts as an ethnic religious group. Our personal feelings or opinions about Copts are not relevant to this discussion. Please, let’s keep the conversation focused on the topic and avoid making it personal with comments like "You’re not really Egyptian" or "You’re denying my Catholic Coptic identity". [[User:Durziil89|Durziil89]] ([[User talk:Durziil89|talk]]) 18:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)