Talk:Coptic identity

Lanternix, you removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&diff=333220939&oldid=333220765 this], saying the link does not work. You also removed it earlier from Arab Christians. The information is sourced to the book Arab Detroit: from margin to mainstream by Nabeel Abraham and Andrew Shryockon. In the chapter on "Egyptian Copts in Detroit", authored by Richard R. Jones, on page 231, it reads: "While in Egypt, I observed that Copts and Muslims alike, when asked, unioformly insisted that they were Arabs. It is interesting that in the West at least some members of the Coptic immigrant community are beginning to think of themselves as "non-Arab," yet continue to believe that they are Egyptian."

Given that this information is relevant to this article, I would appreciate it being restored. I would also appreciate that you cease deleting it from this article and the article Arab Christian, which you have done again most recently just after deleting it here. Please stop deleting reliably sourced information simply because it does not accord with your well-known POV. Thank you. Tiamut^talk 08:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:You are indeed linking to a blank page; furthermore, it sounds like the personal travel-account of one individual that does not seem to support a general statement like the one you were trying to insert into the article. For a general statement like the one you gave, one would expect to see some comprehensive survey with statistics. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:I'm not linking to a blank page. I'm linking to page in a book available for viewing at google books. [http://books.google.ca/books?id=5cw3WKvVt4MC&pg=PA199&dq=coptic+%22arab+identity%22&lr=&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false]. Furthermore, I've cited the page number, title, the author's names and the text pertaining to this article on this talk page. It's not a travel account. It's an entire chapter in a book published by an academic press (Wayne State University Press) on Egyptian Copts in Detroit. Richard R. Jones, who uathored the chapter is an assistant professor of anthropology and the book was peer reviewed. researched for five years, and funded by a National endowment in the Humanities. Tiamut^talk 09:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:Furthermore, there are a number of statements in this article currently that are unsourced entirely or sourced to Egyptian Coptic prists whose words are used to make OR conclusions about how all Copts everywhere in the world view themselves. I find it strange that you do not find any of those statements problematic and instead have chosen to focus on the one statement actually sourced to an academic press. Its the only statement providing some balance in this incredibly POV presentation of the issues. Tiamut^talk 09:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::The link you give now works. The one before that did not. I took out the "travel-account stuff" but kept the author's name. Can't hurt. Besides, I agree with the rest of your concerns, I had barely glanced over the article (it's fairly new) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Thanks. I have no objection to attributing the idea to its author. In fact, in identity articles, where there is some contention between different members of the community as to how they define themselves, I believe this is preferable. And I'm sorry that the link I provided before did not work. I've fixed that in th article now. Thank you for responding fairly to the issues raised and I'm sorry if I came off a little edgy. Tiamut^talk 09:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:Like hane said, the link you provided before did not work. The link you provide now is an observation made by an American that Copts in Egypt identify as Arabs, which everybody knows is not true, and which is clearly contradicted by the several statements made by Egyptian Copts provided in the article. The book itself contradicts this observation (which is erroneous to begin with) a few lines later, as the author states that Copts in the West identify as non-Arab. If you want to provide statements by Egyptian Copts stating that they are Arabs, I would be happy to include them in the article. But you and I know very well that Egyptians are NOT Arabs, and in fact take offense in being called so. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 09:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::Lanternix, the author does not contradict himself. He says Copts in the West are more likely to identity as Egyuptian and play down or reject an Arab identity while those in Egypt, like their Muslims coiunterparts, tend to identify as Arab. I'm aware of your POV on this issue. I understand that you do not identify as Arab, but there are many Copts who do (my uncle by marriage among them). So please try to leave space for the viewpoints of others in your community who may not define their identity as you do. I understand its challenging, but its necessary for NPOV. Tiamut^talk 09:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::...and if this ambiguity or these differences in self-identification actually exist, then it could warrant a separate article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:Tiamut, you and I very well know that Copts do NOT self-identify as Arabs, and that they are NOT Arabs by any stretch of the imagination. In the article, I provide statements by prominent Coptic figures inside of Egypt stating that Copts are Egyptians NOT Arabs. This pretty much refutes the claims/observations of that American author. If anything, even millions of Egyptian Muslims do NOT self-identify as Arabs. You can google articles by Muslim authors Okasha, Qandil, Gaara, Sisy and Younes and you'll see that even a good number of Egyptian Muslims reject Arabism. You can even listen to Amr Adib's "el Qahera el yom" to realize how much Egyptians are repelled by the idea. I am sorry to say that this American guy knows very little about Egyptian identity, let alone the Coptic one. I understand you are a Palestinian pan-Arabist, but we Egyptian are something else; we are NOT Arabs. Bottom lines: Copts do NOT identify as Arabs, not inside Egypt and not anywhere else. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 09:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::(I have from the start noticed that you both have some sort of POV here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

:::I'm sorry, but unlike Lanternix, I do not delete reliably sourced information that does not accord with my personal POV. I definitely have one, but I try to respect the POVs of others when I believe they are editing in good faith. Past experiences with Lanternixx lead me to believe s/he is not. Tiamut^talk 16:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Having looked over it, I don't see why this cannot be merged into Copt. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:Agreed. Currently, it seems to be somthing of a WP:POVFORK. Further. Coptic identity is a natural subsection for the Copt article. Tiamut^talk 09:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:Strongly disagree. The article Copt would be otherwise too cumbersome. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 09:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::This article is a POVFORK. And Lanternix, []http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&curid=25522710&diff=333225701&oldid=333224774 this edit] you just made, doesn't even pretend to be NPOV. Placing info from an author who says most Copts in Egypt identify as Arab under a subsection entitled "Copts are not Arabs" is really incredible actually. Further, you have distorted what he said and ended with a non-sequiter that is intended to refute his position in the aformk of an article titled after youir subsection. This article need to be dismantled immediately. I'm going to tag it as POV in the meantime. Tiamut^talk 09:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I'd find it much more interesting to include both views, possibly clearly labeled as difference/split between East/West (see above). I think that these sentiments are not all too unusual for a minority that geographically divided into ancient homeland and diaspora... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:no no no! Please! There is NO split between East or West here. The only split is in that author's head. All the statements made by Copts in the article are made by Copts who live inside of Egypt, not by members of the Coptic diaspora! Both Bishop Thomas and Bishop Pecenti are bishops of bishoprics located in Egypt. All Copts everywhere in the agree that Egyptians are NOT Arabs. In fact, you can even look for a Facebook group called "I'm Egyptian NOT Arab" and you'll realize that the vast majority of its 13,000+ members are Egyptian Muslims and Copts living inside of Egypt! So please, there is no split within the Coptic community about this issue! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 09:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::hey, calm down, I'm just asking questions... I am indeed skeptical of a single source that makes such a sweeping claim (see above), and I would again ask Tiamut to possibly bring more than one book to back it up. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I would encourage you to be skeptical Seb, and contrary to your claim above I am not trying to push a POV here. I don't think all Copts identify as Arab, but there are some who do. I also think Jones' opinion is a simplification - it is true that some Egyptian Muslims do not identify as Arab (though that is, I believe, much rarer). My problem with Lanternix is that s/he refuses to acknowledge the opposing viewpoint based on her strong belief that a Coptic identity is wholly separate from Arab identity. That's fine for her personally, but not for articles on the subject which need to represent all relevant POVs.

:::There are more sources discussing these issues. I will list some relevant excerpts below:

• In the book [http://books.google.ca/books?id=ROuqj_xIRMoC&pg=PA190&dq=copt+arab+identity&lr=&cd=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false Race] on pages 189-190, Soheir A. Morsy discusses egyptian identity and notes: "In addition to some Egyptians' opportunistic detachment from African identity, U.S. residents of Egyptian origin are also likely to shun their Arab identity in favor of nation-state, Islamic or Coptic affiliation. While the emphgasis on religious identity is an extension of post-1967 developments in Egypt and the surrounding region, the suppression of Arab identity is also understandable in light of U.S. foreign policy."
• More to come ....Tiamut^talk 16:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• The book Secularism, gender and the state in the Middle East: the Egyptian women's movement by Nadje Sadig Al-Ali and published by Cambridge University Press discusses egyptian identity more generally, covering the work of a number of important egyptian thinkers on pages 42-44. [http://books.google.ca/books?id=-LmgdkxqhUAC&pg=PA42&dq=copt+arab+identity&lr=&cd=30#v=onepage&q=&f=false] I don't want to excerpt it all here because it is only remotely related to the issue of Coptic identity itself, but needless to say, it is not as simple as Lanternix makes it out to be. One thinker describes, for example, the seven pillars of Egyptian identity as being made up of four civilizations (Pharonic, Greco-Roman, Coptic and Islamic) and three georaphical regions (the Arab world, the Mediterranean, and North Africa). Certainly for anyone to claim that they know how all Egyptians identify and they all do in X way is simply wrong given the scholarship available to anyone interested in reviewing it. Tiamut^talk 17:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:I don't see anywhere in the sources you put forward that Copts are saying we are Arabs, or even that non-Copts are saying that Copts are Arabs! I'll leave this to Seb to decide what he/she thinks. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 18:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:I wish you would actually read the links I give you and look at them in the context of the wider discussion on Egyptian identity which you yourself raised here. I found it very intresting and relevant to the article and discussion here for example that the second source I linked to discusses how "territorial nationalists" in Egypt in the 1920s tried to disassociate from their Arab identity, with some advocating that "the Egyptiaqn Copts, as the legitimate heirs of ancient Egypt, must aboandon Arabic and return to Coptic, a dead language." The footnote explains that the transition from Coptic to Arabic in Egypt occurred in the 11th century. The text goes on to explain how these same "territorial nationalists" tried to explain the introduction of Arabic into Egypt in new terms: "To do that, some territorial nationalists projected the seventh-century conquest of Egypt as an Arab invasion or occupation, and Arabic as the foreign language of that invader or occupier."

:In any case, I found the information helpful in understanding where you seem to be coming from, as opposed to my uncle's view which is that he is as Arab as I am, and that Coptic is his religious background, just as mine is Greek Orthodox. Tiamut^talk 20:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:And by the way, for a scholarly paper that directly addresses the issue of Coptic identity, please see [http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713718965&db=all this]. While you may not be able to read it all without a subscription, please note that the following sentence is in it (do a google search for it if you don't believe me): "Likewise, it is of paramount importance to note that Coptic Christians share an Arab identity with their Muslim neighbors." Perhaps this article and others can begin to express a POV that may not be yours but is in fact represented in many scholarly sources (and held by Copts themselves, though more so in the Arab world than in the West, as the sources themselves note). Tiamut^talk 21:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is a POVFORK. I strongly recommend a merger. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:(Waking up to some amazing edit warring...) I got involved here 'cause I thought I might be able to learn something. All I have learned thus far is that the issue apparently isn't as clear-cut and easy as either one of you would like to make it look... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

this article wasn't so much a pov fork as an explicit op-ed piece. Whoever gave you the impression it was ok to create Wikipedia articles in order to write essays about your political opinions?

Unless somebody sits down and writes an actual encyclopedia article about Coptic identity, this should be merged into Copts asap. --dab (𒁳) 10:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User Tiamut is adding exerpts that have nothing to do with Coptic identity, such as this one:

:According to Gamal As'ad Abdul Malak, an Egyptian Christian intellectual, "a group of Egyptians, including party leaders, politicians, intellectuals, journalists, university professors and actors issued a statement in which they denounce and reject this unpatriotic speech that does not conform to the church's attitude and national history." He also writes that Bishop Thomas had no authorization from the church to make such a speech and, "the Evangelical and Catholic churches rejected his speech and called on the church to hold him accountable for this. There are top Egyptian writers who issued articles denouncing his speech."{{cite web|title=Egyptians Reject Bishop Thomas Lecture: Coptic Intellectual|url=http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=17541|date=August 7, 2008|author=Gamal As’ad Abdul Malak}}

What exactly does all of that have to do with Coptic identity? Some Muslims agreed and some Muslims disagreed with Bishop Thomas' words. How exactly does this influence the question at hand? --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:Forgive me Lanternix, but isn't Abdul Malak a Coptic intellectual himself? Aren't his views relevant? You keep saying the views of non-Copts who say copt identify as Arab are not correct or not as important as what Copts have to say. Then when I find a Copt who is critiquing what Bishop Thomas had to say (who is your primary source for how copts identify themselves in this article - indeed half the article is an extended quote from his speech at the Hudson institute) suddenly, its not important what Copts have to say? Even if Abdul Malak wasn't a Copt, his article describes the widespread rejection of what Bishop Thomas had to say, which I believe, given the prominence you accord to his opinion here, is absolutely relevant. Tiamut^talk 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::1. Abdel Malak a Coptic intellectual???? Abdel Malak is a member of the Muslim brotherhood!! I would NOT call him a Coptic intellectual.

::2. What exactly are his views on the issue??? That paragraph you posted does not say what Abdel Malak's take on Coptic identity is. All it says is that he disagrees with Bishop Thomas. On what exactly does he disagree? If the topic is about Bishop Thomas' speech, then sure that paragraph would be relevant. But the article is about Coptic identity, and the paragraph has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If you find an article where Abdel Malak says that Copts are Arabs, I'll gladly incorporate it into the article. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 23:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Sorry Lanternix, but I don't think you read the source properly. It says he's an Egyptian Christian in the byline and the headline describes him as an "Coptic intellectual". Furthermore, [http://www.mideastwire.com/topstory.php?id=25750 this source] describes him as "a Coptic writer", though it does say he is supportive of the Islamists. Where did you get the idea that he's a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? And can Copts be members too? Tiamut^talk 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:Tiamut, I am an Egyptian living in Egypt. So think twice before asking your kind of rhetorical questions. Again:

• 1. Did Abdel Malak say that Copts are Arabs? No. Whether or not he disagrees with Bishop Thomas is irrelevant, because we don't know what exactly he is disagreeing with.
• 2. No Copt would ever agree that Abdel Malak is a Coptic intellectual. It's like saying that Ariel Sharon is a Palestinian nationalist.
• 3. It is a well known fact that Gamal Asaad is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that he ran the parlimentary elections in Assiut as member of the Muslim Brotherhood. More on Gamal Asaad here:

{{cquote|The Muslim Brotherhood is constantly praising the Copts who have accepted the idea of religious assimilation such as Rafik Habib, who promotes this idea among the Copts; Gamal Asaad, a candidate who adopted the slogan "Islam is the Solution" in his parliamentary campaign; and Hani Labib, who accepted a membership in the labor party under the same slogan, and whose books bear prefaces written by Islamic fundamentalists Tarek el-Beshri and Selim el-Awa. According to the Muslim Brotherhood, those Copts represent a commended Coptic ideal.http://threatswatch.org/commentary/2006/04/the-muslim-brotherhood-and-the}} (this by the way answers your last question about whether Copts can be part of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the answer is: Copts who would sell themselves for money and who have no allegiance whatsoever to the Copts can and do run under the slogan of "Islam is the solution")

and here:

{{cquote|Former parliament member Gamal Asaad, who represented the Muslim Brotherhood, described the Hudson Institute as an “American Israeli Zionist center that is hostile to Egypt”http://www.amcoptic.com/n2008/magdi-khalil-anba-tomas-reaction-in-egypt-press.htm}}

and in Arabic:

{{cquote|http://www.coptichistory.org/new_page_2577.htm}}

--Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 00:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Please make a valid argument against The Pew forum that states that Muslims in Egypt number 95% of the population, i.e., making Copts 5% or less. Also, please provide a reliable source for your number of Copts ranging between 15-20%, contrary to what all the other reliable sources say. Also, please explain how http://www.copt.net is a news source.... Is it Reuters, The Associated Press, the New York Times or similar? -Medjool (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously, you have no evidence to present in support of your edits, so Lanternix, please stop reverting the article. -Medjool (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

These comment here above were made by Arab Cowboys sock puppet, the strike out of them shouldn't be removed, it must be shown what kind of account that has made these edits:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACoptic_identity&action=historysubmit&diff=345217795&oldid=345211185] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Last night there was a program on the German television channel Deutsche Welle (DW-TV), entitled شباب بلا حدود (Youth Without Borders). The youth in the program very eloquently expressed the factors that shape their true identity as Egyptians and Germans, respectively. Basically, Egyptian youth (both Cristian and Muslim) viewed their identity as a mixture of all the cultures that have formed the history of Egypt, with the Arab and Ancient Egyptian cultures being the most important players. One (most likely Coptic) young lady named Sally who is an amateur photographer saw the Fatimid culture to have been the predominant player in shaping the Egyptian character. Another young Egyptian viewed, and many of the other partcicipants concurred, Umm Kulthum as the most important personality that has helped unify the Egyptian culture. By contrast, the German youth saw German culture as fragmented and either localized to each one the German cities or towns, or entirely absorbed into the global culture. They declared that Germans show pride in their German identity only during football games.

Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: موضوع الحلقة القادمة هو الشباب وهويته الثقافية. ستعرض الحلقة يوم الأربعاء 30 ديسمبر / كانون الأول الساعة السادسة مساء حسب التوقيت الدولي

تكتسب الهوية الثقافية في عصر العولمة أهمية خاصة، فالمدافعون عنها يحذرون من مخاطر الذوبان في الثقافية العالمية التي لا ملامح لها، في حين يدعو منتقدوها إلى تخفيف قبضتها من أجل تسهيل الاندماج في ثقافة عالمية مشتركة تسمح للجميع بالتحاور والتفاهم. لذلك اخترنا أن يكون محور حلقتنا الجديدة، التي تأتيكم هذه المرة من سفح الأهرامات في منطقة الجيزة، هو الملامح الثقافية للشخصية الألمانية والمصرية.

الشباب المصري أوضح لزملائه الألمان أن الشخصية المصرية هي محصلة تلاقح الثقافة العربية والثقافة المصرية القديمة، وأن الإنسان المصري يشعر بالتوازن والاستقرار في ظل هذين الثقافتين. أما الشباب الألماني فأوضح أن الملامح الثقافية الألمانية ترسمها المدن التي يعيشها في الشباب، وأنه ليس هناك ملامح محددة للإنسان الألماني، فالبرليني يقول إنه قادم من برلين وليس من ألمانيا، كذلك يقول البافاري. فكل مدينة لها طابعها الثقافي الخاص بها.

شاهد معنا الحلقة وتعرف على المزيد من الملامح الثقافية للشباب المصري والألماني.

Medjool (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

These comment here above were made by Arab Cowboys sock puppet, the strike out of them shouldn't be removed, it must be shown what kind of account that has made these edits:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACoptic_identity&action=historysubmit&diff=345217795&oldid=345211185] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

read, any Egyptian public figure who even tries to dis-associate with Arabism is prone by the Arab Media of being refered to a Zionist or trying to divide Egypt when truth is that All Arabism does is divide people under the notion it and the islamic culture is sperior

http://nationalcopticassembly.com/showart.php?main_id=1724 ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont get why 100 pan-arab articles can be created and not deleted for being POV yet any article that informs people that a certain community in an arab country follows another identidy than the Arab one. Its automatically considered POV and recommended for deletion by arab nationalists who want to shut them up.

I actually endorse on more articles like this being created i.e Maronite Identity,Lebanese Identity,

Assyrian Identity,

patient my friend, I'm sure Arabs will pay for their deeds. Israel is just a start, we will finally throw away Arabs in Syria, Iraq and Egypt, push them back to where they come from. But before that, be patient and let Pan Arabs make screams, they will not last for long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

that's probably because you have no clue what Wikipedia is trying to do. Please read WP:5P.

Look, there are plenty of free web providers where you can express your opinions, there is literally no reason to use Wikipedia for that. There are lots of reasons not to do that, in fact. For one, bona fide Wikipedians will keep tearing your articles down. I understand this must be frustrating, which is why you shouldn't publish them here, but on your own blog. --dab (𒁳) 10:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

{{Quotation| The Egyptians' attachment to Arabism, however, was particularly questioned after the 1967 Six-Day War.}}

Hi. Can someone please clarify in the article how and why the Six-Day War inspired doubts about Arabism? Was pan-Arabism viewed as a catalyst of the war? Thanks. By the way, while I'm at it, how common is non-Arab identity among secular/irreligious Egyptians? I mean, Nasser-ism is secular, after all. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on Coptic identity. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=752325914 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304035013/http://nationalcopticassembly.com/showart.php?main_id=1724 to http://nationalcopticassembly.com/showart.php?main_id=1724

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coptic identity. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=795251274 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220151536/http://dostor.org/ar/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=659&Itemid=75 to http://dostor.org/ar/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=659&Itemid=75

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This section is completely irrelevant for the topic and the information included in it is highly contestable. It's talking about Greeks in Fayoum and refers to some of the Greek liturgical texts used in Egyptian churches. None of this has to do with the question of Coptic identity. I recommend completely removing this section. Epenkimi (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

After removing a tremendous amount of referenced information from the article, and frequently erroneously paraphrasing what sources said, User:Turnopoems has performed a blank reversion of multiple edits here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&diff=1287656048&oldid=1287655245] that tried to fix the following:

• Many of his misstated paraphrasing of sources
• A lot of previously referenced material that he/she removed
• A lot of broken links and references

I am seeking help from the broader community to assist in putting an end to this vandalism. Epenkimi (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Accusing other editors of "vandalism" during a content dispute is generally taken as an actionable personal attack and should not happen again. Turnopoems's own take on this (from user-talk):{{tqb|The other day, I spent some time applying the same roadmap we used in the main article to Coptic identity, but the editor returned, rolled back much of the work, and introduced a flood of new content, some of it continuing the same problematic narrative, while some parts are constructive. I rolled back the edits for now, but I doubt that will hold for long. In your view, what would be the best way to approach this situation going forward? Based on the precedent in the Copts article, I don't see engaging in discussion with this user as a productive path toward building consensus. Shouldn't the consensus reached in that article guide us in this article as well?}}So, as usual, there are multiple sides to the story.

For background, I initially offered an uninvolved WP:3O at Talk:Copts, but then got drawn into the discussion later, on the merits of various positions and their sourcing, so I am no longer an uninvolved/neutral party. I don't think any prior commentator on these matters is, either. My initial take on {{tq|Shouldn't the consensus reached in that article [Copts] guide us in this article [Coptic identity] as well?}} is "Obviously 'yes{{'"}}. But exactly how to apply this to all the material Epenkimi is trying to add to "Coptic identity" is open to some interpretation, especially since Turnopoems concedes that "some parts are constructive". A blanket revert was probably ill-advised, though doing an edit to remove the material being challenged while leaving in the new material unchalleged as "constructive" would take some effort. In my experience, spending that effort is pretty much the only way to isolate the parts that are objected to, which sometimes need to then be taken one claim at a time, if their entire nature doesn't raise a consistent problem (e.g. of OR or a clear PoV problem).

What we have here is classic entrenched content dispute, now spilling across multiple related articles. So, this probably needs to be settled with a somewhat formal dispute resolution mechanism, e.g. an RfC or more likely a noticeboard discussion. Given the multi-claim, multi-source nature of the content additions, and the dispute involving both WP:NOR- and WP:NPOV-related claims from {{em|both}} sides, I would think either WP:NORN or WP:NPOVN would be appropriate, and I would probably suggest the former, as NOR matters come up less frequently but are also easier to settle. I.e. NORN will probably be more expedient. This probably isn't well suited for the WP:RFC process because it probably can't be reduced to a concise single question. I would discourage taking this to WP:ANI. That's for behavioral problems and rarely helps properly settle content disputes (rather than just try to punish both sides to the extent anyone can find fault anywhere).

For NORN to work, you really need to lay out in nicely formatted blocks what the proposed additions are with their sources, then give rationales for why this material is appropriate to add (from one side) and why it is not (from the other), and how this relates to previous consensus discussion, and also try to avoid taking personalized pot-shots at each other. The more you make it look like a personality dispute, the more likely NORN is to fail to come to a consensus about the sources and their usage for the claims, and just deem it a behaviorial dispute that has to go to ANI (or worse, like ArbCom).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you @ SMcCandlish. What you recommended is actually exactly what I did in this case. I went through the article, sentence by sentence, and tried to incorporate some of the edits that User:Turnopoems did, while remaining loyal to what the original sources actually said. I also fixed the broken links and removed the broken links alerts. While I did not (at least to my knowledge) remove any of the references that User:Turnopoems inserted, he/she did in fact remove many of the references I added with that blanket revert. Happy to work with everyone to improve the article. Epenkimi (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::@SMcCandlish Thanks again, I think a WP:NPOVN case will be most suited for this, as it is not entirely an issue of WP:OR.

::@Epenkimi The broken sources are a result of building on your previous edits. You are not citing sources correctly and as a result the article is littered with broken sources that look like the example below. Stop removing the template, if you don't understand how to properly format sources please familiarize yourself with how it's done (WP:CS) before attempting to address an issue template pertaining to it. Where is the full citation? Additionally, you have at least ten sources that are just links.

::Bagnall, pp. 180 Turnopoems (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted the insertion of the useless Bagnall citation and excessively non-neutral text. It's hard to take seriously proposed edits when they include lines like {{tq|Undoubtedly for the Copts, the Flight into Egypt by the Holy Family provided the ultimate sanctification for Egypt, making the country an extension of the holy lands trod by Jesus Christ}}. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Rosguill: I can understand you may disagree with one or more sentences in the article, and I am certainly open to discussing your objections and reaching a common agreement on wording, but can you please explain how your action of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&diff=1287791511&oldid=1287727334| mass reversal where you deleted tens of referenced and documented statements] is something justifiable or constructive? Epenkimi (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Rosguill & @ Turnopoems: The quote you are objecting to and that you used to do a blanket revert of all my edits comes from the book Roman Egypt by the professor of classics and history at Columbia University, Roger S. Bagnall. Here are pictures of the cover of the book and the pages from where the quote is taken.

::And here is the exact quote, word for word:

::{{tqb|Besides telling the story of the suffering and sacrifices that went into the establishment of the Egyptian church, martyrdom accounts complement several other texts to offer a narrative of the sanctification of the Egyptian landscape. The bodies of the martyrs were buried in shrines that formed a dense network, giving the country an especially holy character. It was also at this time that the story known as the "flight into Egypt," recounting how Mary and Joseph took the baby Jesus to Egypt to escape King Herod's massacre of all babies in Judaea, became popular and was told in much more detail than the initial short mention in the gospel of Matthew allows (Mt 2:13-23). For any Christian, this was the ultimate form of sanctification, as it made Egypt a part of the holy lands that were trod by Jesus.}}

::Epenkimi (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The fact that someone somewhere published such a lopsided opinion doesn't make it appropriate to quote it or to paraphrase it as if it's fact. What is the encyclopedic argument for keeping this? Any time someone begins a claim with a word like "undoubtedly", it means they are pushing a dubious claim and are trying fallaciously to forestall controversy being raised about it. Epenkimi's version is a paraphrase, not a quote, and that makes it problematic in multiple additional ways, since the "undoubtedly" in it is not that of the original author but is in Wikipedia's own voice. And "flight into Egypt" in the original has been over-capitalized for no reason. And Wikipedia is not a position to call any family "holy", so "the Holy Family" cannot be used in this way by us. Nor do we call Jesus by the epithet "Christ", which is problematic in at least two different ways which have been covered extensively in prior debates elsewhere, e.g. at WT:MOSWTW.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you @ SMcCandlish. The way I see it is this:

::::1. The article is about the identity of the Copts, so it talks about how Copts perceive themselves and how they perceive their country etc. In that context, the quote is appropriate because it shows that Copts view their land as sanctified by the fact that the Holy Family spent time there

::::2. The quote comes from a book written by a professor of classics and history at Columbia University, who is not a Copt. So it comes from an academic source that is presumably unbiased.

::::3. There is an entire article on Wikipedia about the Holy Family.

::::4. In the article about Jesus, it says "Jesus (c. 6 to 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus Christ".

::::5. All that aside, as I mentioned earlier, these are all things that I am happy to discuss and reach a consensus on. However, how do the multiple blanket reverts of my work in this article make any sense? How are these actions justifiable? Whom do I speak with on this platform to protect my edits from these actions, and how does one escalate these actions that I find to be objectionable? Epenkimi (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's not a quote. And it's not about how Copts perceive themselves and their country; it's a Western academic theorizing about how Christians in general came to see Egypt, and why. {{em|If}} Bagnall's views on this matter are consonant with mainstream scholarship on the subject (i.e. his material is not WP:FRINGE), there there are pretty obviously better ways to summarize this material. Wikipedia of course notes that the terms "Holy Family" and "Jesus Christ" exist and are in use; but we do not go around referring to them in Wikipedia's own voice as Christ and as Holy. If you cannot understand this distinction, then this may not be the right kind of project for you. As for Bagnall's material, a sensible way to summarize it would be something like: {{tqb|For Christians, the flight into Egypt conferred some sanctity on that land, as one that Jesus walked, and its reputation was further enhanced by a network of shrines to the martyrs of the early Egyptian church.}} Note the lack of any emotive content, and avoidance of calling anyone by debatable religious terms like "holy", "Christ", "sacred", etc. That Jesus spent time there is not even a "fact" as WP understands that term; it's a claim from a religious scripture which contains some factual material and some dubious material. In closing, I will say that I'm not a fan of blanket reverts, and was previously critical of them above, but to the extent that you give the impression of digging in your heels and introducing additional problems instead of resolving extant disputes, mass reversion becomes more likely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you. Your paraphrasing is helpful.

::::::I'm not sure I agree with what you said that this quote is about how Christians in general view Egypt. This section of the book is entitled "The formation of Coptic identity", so my opinion is that it's about how Copts view Egypt and how the story of martyrdom and Jesus' visit to Egypt have shaped their identity etc. But that's beside the point.

::::::What I'm not sure I understand is how what I said gives the impression that I'm digging in my heels when I have repeatedly said that I'm happy to work with everyone to reach compromises. Epenkimi (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Even if this is a section about the formation of Coptic identity, the content must still be framed in a way that accurately reflects the nature and status of the statements being made without using religious or emotive terminology. You cannot assume that readers will engage in implicit interpretative effort or automatically understand the framing you intended when you wrote the text. I informed you about this several weeks ago on your user talk page. Otherwise we might as well use ancient literature to write factual entries about trolls and fairies. There is no issue if you wish to include that exact part from the book as a properly attributed quote within the current version. The issue here is largely symptomatic of a broader pattern across many of your contributions to these articles. I have barely removed any material you added; rather, I reframed it to bring it into alignment with WP:NPOV and even these reformulations were reverted.

:::::::I did remove the section you added that consisted of a series of quotes about the links to ancient Egypt, because this is not an appropriate way to present material on Wikipedia. Compiling a list of quotations without proper integration into sourced, factual narrative violates established content standards, specifically WP:QUOTEFARM, as I made clear in the edit summary. Some problematic statements, copied from the other article, were removed or reframed on the basis of the consensus achieved in the other article. It's the exact same content, so the same consensus applies. Turnopoems (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::This summary of Bagnall seems like a constructive addition _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree, there is no problem with that one. Turnopoems (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::To address Epenkimi's inital responses first: It doesn't matter what the title of Bagnall's chapter is, when a statement by him begins "For any Christian," that is necessarily about any Christian, not Copts in particular. To be honest, writing an encyclopedia is very difficult; it requires both an ability to write material without emotional, political, or other baggage and implication (to the extent we, as humans rather than robots, are capable of neutrality), but also the ability to vary carefully parse the source material and not misinterpret what it actually means in whole or in part.

As for digging in of heels, what I mean is that a number of objections have been raised (few of them explored in detail yet at this particular page, but they relate strongly to matters already discussed at length at the talk page of the main article) about pretty much everythig you've been trying to add or otherwise change in this article and a related one, and rather than slow down and resolve those disputes, one-by-one if necessary, you are trying to add even more material written in an unencyclopedic manner. This may cause other editors to interpret your purpose here being to advance a personal viewpoint instead of do what an encyclopedia does (neutrally summarize the most reliable source material). It's good to hear that you're willing to work these things out, but saying and doing aren't the same thing.

On the other material, basically I have to agree with all of what Turnopoems has said. Having improperly written material reframed by another editor to be more encycloepdic is not you being mass-reverted, though reflectively reverting those reframings is getting into editwar territory, and is the opposite of your professed "happy to work with everyone to reach compromises". If a consensus discussion has already concluded against a particular claim, then trying to re-assert the same claim in another page isn't going to fly (that would be WP:POVFORKing). When a block of material is clearly inappropriate, like a QUOTEFARM that serves the impermissible WP:OR purpose of "steering" readers to a particular PoV-laden conclusion that is not what the sources are actually saying, it is entirely appropriate for an editor to remove that whole block. That doesn't mean that nothing at all in it can be used in some way in the article more appropriately; it just needs to be worked out what is appropriate to include and how.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::SMcCandlish's advice is sound, but I also want to point out that "compromise" isn't really the framework that Wikipedia operates on; we follow WP:CONSENSUS. For as long as you are one editor arguing against multiple, there is no compromise: it's on you to provide compelling arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy to support the changes you want to make and win people to that position. Until you win people over to the change, you are expected to abide by the existing consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It is very clear to me based on this conversation that there is no hope for me contributing to Wikipedia because at the end of the day, a number of users will gang up and mass delete everything I write even when everything I contribute is supported by references. Last time there was a disagreement on another page, the same user who mass deleted my work on this page got another user blocked on Wikipedia because that other user was supporting my edits. I had high hopes that administrators on this website would take actions against the mass deletion of my work, which happened twice. Had I been the one to mass revert what the other user changed, I would have likely been accused of edit warring and got banned. Moreover, it is very obvious that what academia says matters very little to Wikipedia. What matters is what some Wikipedia users want Wikipedia articles to say. When I write an entire section supported by academia and scholarship, and a handful of users dislike what that section says, their own personal opinion and bias ends up trumping the opinion of the experts. This is unfortunately not an encyclopedia. It's a joke. You guys can go ahead and enjoy editing the articles to your liking. Best of luck. Epenkimi (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::First of all I want to dispense with the mischaracterization that you merely "reworked" my reformulations, as you mentioned on the noticeboard. In reality, you reverted them wholesale in favor of your contested version, with few exceptions. I have already provided both versions side by side, so this objection can be dismissed outright. In doing so, you disregarded not only the substantive editorial reasoning behind the changes to the formulation, but also the established conventions of formatting and structure as outlined in WP:MOS. Paragraphs were once again fused into dense, monstrous blocks of text, meaning that your blanket revert failed to acknowledge even the most simple and non-contentious improvements I had introduced.

:::::::::::When several uninvolved editors raise objections to your contributions, citing substantive concerns rooted in Wikipedia’s core content policies, it is worth reflecting on why that consensus has emerged, rather than dismissing it as conspiratorial or biased. When I started editing nearly fifteen years ago, I too made missteps born of inexperience. What distinguished those misjudgments from a persistent pattern of editorial conflict, however, was a willingness to absorb critique, adapt to community standards, and allow the project’s collective ethos to refine my contributions. I did not wield inexperience as a shield against legitimate criticism, nor did I interpret disagreement as rejection of my voice. I learned, I adjusted, and I remained committed to building encyclopedic content.

:::::::::::If you find yourself unable, or simply unwilling, to work constructively within a model that privileges consensus and neutrality over individual conviction, then it may be worth considering whether this is the right platform for your efforts. Wikipedia is not a venue for molding articles according to your preferred narrative. It is a shared space, governed by principles like WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE, where content must be supported not just by sources, but by sound editorial judgment.

:::::::::::The tone and content of your messages cross the line into petulance. Your broader complaint boils down to indignation that your edits, despite being "sourced", were not accepted without question. Over several weeks, I and multiple editors have explained in detail, on your user talk page, across multiple articles, why certain formulations were problematic and suggested ways to move forward. Yet the response was that you continued to dig in your heels, as @SMcCandlish aptly noted, while stalling with promises of compromise that ultimately served only to repackage the same problematic content in slightly different language. This led to a never-ending, circular discussion. No one wants to be drawn into a cycle defined by the repeated reintroduction of disputed material and a reluctance to engage in genuine, policy-based dialogue, especially when it drags on for weeks. That’s why I eventually abandoned that approach in favor of building broader consensus without your input, which is perfectly valid per WP:CONSENSUS. There is no imperative that you be part of the final resolution. Consensus does not hinge on the participation or agreement of any single editor, as @Rosguill noted.

:::::::::::You suggest that another user was blocked simply for supporting your edits, but according to the sockpuppet investigation, that account was blocked because it was highly likely to be your own sockpuppet. Using multiple accounts to manufacture consensus is a clear violation of WP:SOCK, which is why the admins (read: not me) decided to block it.

:::::::::::If you genuinely want to improve articles, the constructive way forward is to engage with policy, seek consensus, and present your arguments with maturity. Throwing a tantrum when the community disagrees is never a sound strategy. Ultimately, whether you continue contributing is your choice. That said, I will be requesting an admin review for the content you've posted on your user page that implicates me in your self-constructed victimhood narrative. Oujai, awo nofri ehou! Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 11:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::A shorter bit of feedback: {{tq|a number of users will gang up and mass delete everything I write even when everything I contribute is supported by references.}} The issue is that the conclusions you (Epenkimi) are trying to reach are often not factual ones supported by references. Much of it is novel synthesis where you are combining elements of different sources to reach a conclusion not reached by any of them (i.e., weaving a story out of disconnected facts and claims, cherry-picking the parts that suit your personal ideas). In other cases taking a simple fact and elaborating on it in emotive and promotional and subjective ways (or taking an already emotive and subjective presentation by a source and failing to neutralize it down to actual facts). My sample rewrite of the Bagnall sentence above is a good (I hope) illustration of how to avoid some of these problems. The way to avoid novel synthesis is to simply not do it. Say what the source says, not what you think or wish the source "really meant" or what the implications to you might be of what that source said in light of what other sources say. Wikipedia does not publish "original thought" by editors. This has major implications, of course, for all your promotionalism with "the true Egytians" and other such claims.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)