Talk:Copts/Archive 1

Descent

It says:

Some Egyptian Christians claim exclusive, direct ancestry from the Egyptians of Pharaonic times, while claiming that Muslim Egyptians are descended from invaders from the Arabian Peninsula. However, most modern Egyptian are the descendants of the original Egyptians.

But isn't it virtually certain that most modern Egyptians, regardless of whether Muslim, Christian, or other, have ancestors among both Arabians and ancient Copts? Michael Hardy 03:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, what can we say except that sectarian conflicts find the most trivial of ideas hard to grasp! Someone has removed that paragraph as a pretence to instate the opposite claim. --Alif 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, too, Alif, it is not really "most trivial". We know almost nothing about the historical ethnicity of modern Egyptians. And nothing is certain in here, especially virtually! The "most modern Egyptians are the descendants of the original Egyptians." is based on nothing, and I can't allow myself even of considering it an original research; it is no research at all. __Maysara 07:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Identity as Native Egyptians section

I have re-updated that section I initially added to reflect that it is not conclusive as to the origin of the Copts. The claim above is correct that most Egyptians decend from the original native inhabitants; my update reflects this, but that certain communities tend to reflect more closely the indigenous inhabitants, although most individuals in Egypt are of multiple backgrounds. I've done research providing the opinion of at least one Egyptologists who claims that the Copts immigrated to Egypt during the early 4th Century; the article reflects this as an opinion of an individual and not as fact. Also, I have cited another source which claims that Copts are not ethnically distinct from other Egyptians, which means that if the previous claim is true, than the Copts have become genetically absorbed into the general population. Please do not remove the section. If you want to better a Neutral POV voice, go ahead, but please do not completely cut the section as it expresses the fact that an indigeous idenitity of Copts is BY NO MEANS conclusive.Herikaius 05:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I will have to remove it because there are simply too many problems with the section you added and your claims above. Briefly, there is really no way to know how "most Westerners" view Egyptians, or to verify the random percentages that you gave. The idea that Copts are descended from Greek immigrants is not based on verfiable facts. The person on whom you base some of your ideas is not an actual Egyptologist, but someone who claims to practice "independent Egyptology." Most importantly, your statement above that you provided this information "as an opinion of an individual and not as fact" is precisely why it does not belong in the article or anywhere else in Wikipedia: WP:NOR and WP:V — [ziʔɾɪdəʰ] 06:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I think that because the identity of the Copts is not conclusive, we should include various positions on possible truths. Instead of merely stating one possible explanation, as the idea of them being ancestors of ancient Egyptians is disputed, we should include a few different explanations from various sources. I provided 2. 69.254.201.64 05:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Usage" section

I'm really amazed by this "usage" section.

I want to clear some things out.

The word "Copt" was initially used to refer to the people of Egypt before the Arab Conquest, that is, the Egyptians who may or may have not mixed with the Greeks/Romans (many of them did).

Muslims, however, are not in this group. Muslims descend from Egyptians, Arabs and Turks. It is ridiculous to refer to Muslims as "Copts", except for those who recently converted to Islam.

Indeed, most early Muslim writers referred to the Egyptians who converted to Islam as "Copts" just as the Christians. However, they quickly stopped using this term because almost all Copts who converted to Islam have immediately intermarried with Arabs, and their descendents no longer identify themselves as “Copts”. It is a known fact that the conversion to Islam in Egypt was via intermarriage, and this is true even for today.

Therefore, the "Coptic Muslim" label can only be applied to the Copts who converted to Islam "recently", and not those who have already intermarried with Arabs or other Muslim foreigners.

The Egyptian nationalists’ argument is also very weak. Although there are Egyptian nationalists who prefer to use the word "Copt", there are far more “nationalists” who completely reject it and prefer the word "Arab". In fact, if you called an average Muslim in Egypt today a "Copt", he will take it as an insult. Quoting Morcus Semika Pasha also doesn't help at all in supporting the argument; there are many other Coptic Pashas who said just the opposite.

Therefore, I highly recommend removing this section, and leaving the term “Copt” to refer to the Christians Egyptians, period. If anyone wants to add anything related to ethnicity, then you could mention that it refers to the pre-Islamic Egyptians whether they were Ethnic Egyptians or Greco-Egyptians.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.114.163.166 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 February 2006 .

The statement that "almost all Copts who converted to Islam have immediately intermarried with Arabs" is utter nonsense; that's the kind of thing that you cannot back up with any verifiable facts. And your argument that many "Egyptian nationalists" prefer to be labeled as "Arab" (sic) is not correct either! Egyptian nationalism, both contemporary and pre-1952, is the antithesis of what you're suggesting. Arabism is a question that Egypt contended with for more than a century, and in fact I've heard many, many Muslim Egyptians who reject it.

Whatever edits made to the article need to be based on verifiable facts, not Coptic nationalist sentiment. Interestingly, this is what another encyclopedic entry on the Copts looks like [1]. Notice it states, "Copts are not ethnically distinct from other Egyptians". — Zerida 16:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Racial traits of Copts vs. Egyptian Muslims

I have reverted to the version in "Coptic Christianity" article that said there was a "massive immgration of Arabs", and someone reverted it back, and I have a few questions that are better suited in this discussion page.

I'm just wondering, how could Muslims of Egypt be descended from Copts while many Copts, if not most of them, are recognizable and identifiable from the Egyptian Muslims in terms of looks and facial features, even if the difference is little?

I am a Copt, and wherever I go here in Egypt I'm always recognized as Coptic, even though I don't wear a cross and I don't have a cross tatto or anything like that. From taxi drivers who keep nagging me about the "strange beliefs of christians" to people almost everywhere -- in my school days and till today -- asking for my last name to confirm that I am coptic as they have thought.

How could this possible?

It is also interesting that most of the Muslims I know have Turkish grandparents. My family in the south (Upper Egypt) also have so many Arab neighbors who belong to real and still existing tribes.

Isn't this an indication that Arabs and Turks have mixed with the large number of Copts who converted to Islam in the 8th and 9th century? Aren't those Arabic tribes the remaining of the huge Arab settelments in the Egypt that were diffused in the Egyptian soceity?

I'm asking whoever edited after me (Zerida I guess), what is your opinion about this?

Please be aware that I'm not a "racist" and I don't hate Muslims, its just the idea of both of us having the same ancestory confuses me.

-Girgis 05:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't really answer your question as to why you are distinguished by your "looks and facial features" as a Copt, because it doesn't deal with objective facts or observation. It's a rather odd question! I can only describe the evidence at hand. Many people in Egypt and neighboring regions cling to local legends with regard to their history and descent. For example, some people across Africa and the Middle East, including many black communities, have constructed genealogies linking them to prophet Muhammad or his immediate family in order to maintain political and social advantage within their societies. Similarly, some Coptic and other Eastern Christians (e.g. Serbs vis-à-vis Bosniaks) cling to the myth of "racial purity". These are not objective facts and are not treated as such in the scientific community.

As to casual observation of Egyptian society, your experience certainly contradicts those of any observers with whom I'm familiar—from Lane's Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians to Edward Wakin's A Lonely Minority: The Modern Story of Egypt's Copts to Lord Cromer's famous remark to the effect that the only difference between a Copt and Muslim is that the former is an Egyptian who worships at a church, while the latter is an Egyptian who worships at a mosque. How is it that someone like Boutros Boutros-Ghali "racially" different from say Amr Moussa "even if the difference is little"? Or the Minister of Environmental Affairs, Maged George [2] from someone like Mubarak? I don't know; maybe you see something I don't.

Copts exhibit fairly the same range as Muslim Egyptians—they are not abstractions to Muslims or to the rest of the world [3] [4]. It's true that Muslims absorbed some Turkish, Arabian, Circassian and Albanian elements. Similarly, Copts have absorbed some Armenian, Greek, Italian, and Syrian (Syriac) elements. Egyptian society, like most other societies on earth, was never isolated—it was not so during its Dynastic history since its earliest beginnings.

That said, Egyptologists do on occasion get questions like these, particularly since the appearance of Afrocentric constructions of history. There are appreciable differences between Lower and Upper Egyptians overall, whether Muslim or Coptic, with the north being more Mediterranean/Berber oriented and the south more African. The late Frank Yurco was once asked about Copts in relation to the ancient Egyptians' ethnic origins, and had this to say:

Copts are found in all parts of Egypt, and those in Luxor to Aswan area are indeed very brown complexioned, just as are their Muslim compatriots in that part of Egypt. Farther north, you will find lighter complexioned Copts, and again Muslims also. In the Cairo area, they tend to be very light complexioned.

Most sincerely,

Frank J. Yurco

University of Chicago

There's been much discussion of the Copts. Well, even they come in all the varieties of brown that the Muslim population comes in. A Copt from Luxor will be brown-complexioned, one from Aswan darker still.

The facts are, there was no major displacement of Egyptians when Islam came to Egypt. Most Muslims in fact were converts from Christianity.

Amr ibn al-As conquered Egypt with a small force of about 5,000 Arabs. He settled with them at Fustat, across the river from old Memphis.

Most sincerely,

Frank J. Yurco

University of Chicago

--

Frank Joseph Yurco

fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu

— Zerida 23:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry for such a long reply.

You claimed that all foreign observers you have encountered have “different observations” from mine. This is really strange because most of the remarks I have seen that were made by foreign observers support my claims. For example, Stanley Pool Lane (in the 18th century) mentioned that “The Copts differ but little from the generality of their Muslim countrymen: the latter being chiefly descended from Arabs and from Copts who have embraced the faith of the Arabs, and thus become assimilated to the Copts in features”. Another observer (O. B. Carter, 1902) noted that “They [the Copts] are still a people apart, less mixed with alien blood than any other inhabitants of the Nile valley; their features recall those of the ancient Egyptians, as we see them on the monuments, much more than do the faces of the Muslim population.”

I also noticed that you quoted Morcus Semika Pasha, which, I believe, does not prove anything like another person have said on this discussion. Morcus Pasha’s remarks are nothing more than political-nationalist slogans that were very common at that time, and we actually still repeat it till this day, whether anyone believes in it or not. I remember reading about an Egyptian sheikh in the 18th century claiming that Arabs are racially superior to Copts and thus Muslims should “take pride of their ancestry and their glorious history.” I will try to find the exact reference and probably post the quote in the article, but regardless of the prominence of this shiekh, I think it does not prove anything, just like the comment of Morcus Pasha which I believe should be removed.

Regarding my question on the different racial traits between Copts and Egyptian Muslims, I can very well understand your inability to answer my question and my comments on the difference in features, for being largely subjective. But more importantly, I must warn you that you are relying on subjective evidences. In this article related to this discussion page (on the term “Copt”) it is obvious that you are depending on the views of “Egyptian nationalists and intellectuals”, both of whom probably don’t have any scientific proof for their claims either. Even the foreign observers depended largely on how they perceive the people they see in the towns and streets, just like the comments by “Frank Joseph Yurco”.

You said that “Muslims absorbed some Turkish, Arabian, Circassian and Albanian elements.” I disagree with combing them in one sentence as if they all carry equal weights: the Arabian and Turkish elements are far more powerful than the Circassian and Albanian, only the Arabs and Turks had large settlements since they occupied the country. Same goes to your claim that “Copts have absorbed some Armenian, Greek, Italian, and Syrian (Syriac) elements”; from all of those, only the Greek would be classified as significant since they invaded the country and migrated to Egypt in large numbers.

You have asked “How is it that someone like Boutros Boutros-Ghali "racially" different from say Amr Moussa "even if the difference is little"? Or the Minister of Environmental Affairs, Maged George [2] from someone like Mubarak?”

I don’t want to give an answer like “Mubarak looks Turkish and thus Muslim, or that Boutrous looks Coptic”, because this is truly subjective, but I would like to talk about something else. What if we compared Mubarak to Mahmoud Abbas for example. Would you notice any significant difference? Not really. All Middle Eastern people look quite similar, either Arabs or non-Arabs. For that reason, “looks” should not be taken as a proof by itself, but rather a clue. The current similarity between Copts and Muslim Egyptians does not, by any means, prove that Egyptian Muslims have actually descended directly from Copts.

It is true that Copts and Egyptian Muslims have the similar shades of complexion in different latitudes of the country, but that does not prove that Muslim Egyptian descended directly from Copts, it definitely does not prove that Egyptian Muslims have not mixed with Arabs and Turks. Turks were concentrated in the north with huge numbers, and in the south many Arab tribes remain till this day with their tribal formations, indicating that much larger numbers existed in the past.

You said that “some Coptic and other Eastern Christians (e.g. Serbs vis-à-vis Bosniaks) cling to the myth of "racial purity" and that “Many people in Egypt and neighboring regions cling to local legends with regard to their history and descent”. I believe the true myth is to ignore the racial influence of the Arab and Turkish rule. Egypt was the capital of the Arab-Muslim empire for a pretty long time. Egypt is the home of the largest Islamic education institution ever: the Azhar, and was generally richer than any other Arab country, therefore large number of people from Arabia and from other parts of the Arab world were attracted. Egypt was a “waiting station” for the Arab troops moving to the African continent and to Andalusia as well, and certainly many of whom stayed in Egypt. Ignoring the influence of the Arab influx to Egypt would be the true legend. The Turks are also part of the game: Mamluk Turks Egypt ruled Egypt from 1250 to 1517, and then Ottoman Turks rules from 1517 to 1798, which means Turks ruled Egypt for more than half a millennium. Ignoring the Turkish influence would be another “myth”.

Just as the Greek and Roman invasions had massive effect on the Egyptian (later called Coptic) population, the Turkish and the Arab invasions had massive effects on the Egyptian Muslims as well. Claiming that no racial difference exists between Copts and Egyptian Muslims is anything but logical.

The only reason that Egyptian Muslims in the last century began claiming ancestry to the early Egyptians is largely due to the French expedition and the discovery of the wonders of Egypt. Just like any inhabitant of Egypt, Egyptian Muslims wanted to take credit and be part of the Egyptian civilization which they perceived as far more superior to that of the Arabs.

Regarding your references, I was very disappointed with your linking to wataninet.com and middle-east-online.com as some sort of proof, both of which are terribly unsuitable. Even Encyclopedias should not be quoted in debates. When Britannica, for example, wants an article on Islam, they ask a Muslim Scholar to write one according to his own view that the reader is expected to trust, and encyclopedic articles in general don’t include any external references, so it makes it even worse. In Encyclopedias I have seen some of the most biased and most contradictory statements. A good reference would be a history book written by a sound historian, but most of us unfortunately don't have enough time to do that kind of research.

— Girgis 00:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me quickly point out that I'm not at all inclined to have such a drawn out debate about this topic as I find the whole argument over the race of the Egyptians, whether by Afrocentrists or radical Coptic separatists or Islamists, nonnotable and rather obscene. Unfortunately, they usually spring up when those who make them don't bother to "do that kind of research" as you say. Egyptian Muslims did not begin "claiming ancestry of the early Egyptians" in the last century. It was largely Muslim Egyptians who showed any interest prior to the last century in ancient Egypt. It was Rifa'a et Tahtawi who made the initial effort in the 19th century, and many centuries before him a slew of Muslim Egyptian scholars starting in the 9th century with the likes of Zul Nun el Masri (Zul Nun the Egyptian) were heavily engaged in the study of ancient Egypt and its language [5].

As far as physical differences between Muslims and Copts, perhaps this subject is best answered by physical anthropology. Recent genetic research shows that Egyptians in general are most closely related to Berbers and Ethiopians, and far less so to people from Southwest Asia such as Arabs. A group of physical anthropologists concluded that "the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well" [6]. — Zerida 04:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Collage

The Copts have no women? How have they survived so long? Fishal (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Coptic flag 2

There is a flag labled 'the Coptic flag' that has been added on the 10th of May 2007 to the article, I don't think this flag should be here or at least it should'nt be in its current place at the top of the article, for the following reasons:

1- It is not notable for this article, since a copt is a 'native egyptian christian' and the flag is not recognized by neither the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria nor most copts of Egypt. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.The flag has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is unknown how much copts even know about it, there is no secondary sources referring to it, and the currently cited sources are not independent from the subject.

2- Claims of consensus must be sourced, there is no source citing the flag as "the coptic flag" (being agreed upon by most copts) , and in the About us section of the Free Copts site they state that they "do not claim to represent the Coptic people as a whole politically or otherwise in any official capacity."

3- From the current sources (1 and 2 in the footnotes), one is a broken link and the other is a primary source.

I think the flag should be removed from the article, or at least moved to the body of the article instead of the infobox and changing the caption. Please add your comments, Thanks.--George (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree per the reasons given in the previous discussion about the Coptic flag and for the reasons given on Coptic flag. You remove things after people agree to do so, not before. Thank you. --Lanternix (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I had to do it to get your attention, I'm sorry. Please explain why you think it should be on the article, and in its current place. And if this page is not on your watchlist, please add it.--George (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked your arguments for keeping the flag in the archive, this is what I think:

1-Copts are native egyptian christians, and since this flag is not recongnized by the coptic orthodox church, it don't think it should be here.

2-'Articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future' (WP:N#TEMP), Googling "coptic flag" generates 19 pages and the first 20 results contain 4 blogs, 6 forums, 2 votes, 2 Wikipedia articles, 3 results from freecopts.com, and 3 videos (I haven't watched those), all of the results can't be cited (freecopts.com is a primary source).

3-I don't think the free copts are separatists (or anything similar), but I also don't think they are notable enough (for the flag to be in the article) and even if they are, the flag shouldn't be in the infobox.

Waiting for your response. (BTW I'm from College de La Salle too)--George (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have more opinions other than those I've already expressed. Basically, the flag is notable enough to be included in the article, but still not notable enough to be in the infobox. I would suggest, as I did before, to remove it from the infobox and place it somewhere in the body of the article--perhaps under "Human rights" or "Coptic activism"--noting that it was created by a group of activists. I think this is a nice compromise. — Zerida ☥ 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--George (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We had this discussion before, so I'll have to repeat what was said then. The Coptic Flag is NOT a creation of the Free Copts. It came as a coordinated effort of many Copts from Egypt, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Canada. ALL (And I repeat ALL) of these activists were and still are members in official and recognized Coptic organization that represent Copts (not the Free Copts, which is not a recognized organization). If you follow the links on the article page, you will see that 2 Coptic organizations in the US and NZ have adopted the flag, and these are organizations whose members are elected by the Coptic communities in these countries (or at least those who care to do so). This is why I believe the flag is notable for the infobox of this article. The fact that the Coptic Church did not recognize it means nothing. First of all, the Coptic Church does not represent Copts and is not the official spokesman of the Copts. Secondly, the Coptic Church is under huge pressure from the Egyptian regime, so no one expects it to take such a huge leap as to recognize a flag (and you know that, unlike other people, Egyptians start thinking separatism and war when they hear the word "flag"). I will refrain from changing the article back until a concensus is made on the talk page, unless I don't hear from people within a reasonable span of time. Thanks (btw: je suis St-Marcien, mosh de la Salle, bas bardo ya3ni 2arayeb) ;) --Lanternix (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I opened the links in the coptic flag article, I don't know the number of Copts in New Zealand or how many of them are aware of the New Zealand Coptic Association (I googled copt+"new zealand" and found only one result) but, even if 20% of people in New Zealand are Copts and half of them are members of the New Zealand Coptic Association then they represent from 6% to 2% of the copts in the world (which is not enough for the flag to be in the infobox). I also opened the AMCoptic website and I didn't find the flag anywhere (and I think the site is islamophobic, if you agree please remove it) . Thanks --George (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I 100% agree. I think that flag should be deleted. I for one am cotic living in the uk and from the very few copts who know about its existance, very very few like it. Kvft (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic self-definition

Any particular reason why issues of ethnicity have not been discussed? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. I think you should add a paragraph about Mesraym Ham being the father of Egyptians and where his sons and grandsons settled. You can reference Genesis. It also clarifies why Egyptians cannot be Arabs as Arabs claim to be the grandchildren of Sam and not Ham. At the same time it clarifies why Mesr is a more accurate name than Egypt. Kvft (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the above comment, i argue in tracing the linguistic derivation of the coptic peoples, coptic is not afro-asiatic like arabic is, in contrast, it is indo-european. this is the clearest evidence. not to take away from the bible, however it is not academic, it is spiritual. Also a comment on the ethnicity, an ethnic group is defined by religion, and self identification, so there is no controversy as to if copts are a separate ethnic group, one should simply highlight the ethnic markers that make a Copt Unique. jbisha2 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Map

There are also copts and coptic churhces in Ireland, UAE, Singapore (shared church), Japan, Ethiopia (of course), Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Ivory Cost (very recently), Greece and not sure about Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Qatar. Kvft (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. That map should have those regions darkened as well. ~ Troy (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to darken israel as well. Some palestinian christians are copts, and there's coptic presence in the christian quarter in jerusalem of some tens of families. MiS-Saath (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would, but the page is blocked from everyone except for admins because of heavy vandalism and in order to prevent sock puppets or malicious user accounts, even the average user can't edit right now. Don't worry, I'll have both the page-protection and the map on my to-do list. ~ Troy (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"vandalism"? More like attempts to have the article portray reality rather than fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.181 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's the wrong section. One mistake I made doesn't equal the long list of undiscussed edits you took part in. ~ Troy (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Theyre discussed NOW aren't they? Thats what matters.-comment added by 129.85.55.181 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A: you continuously refuse to sign your comments. B: you have vandalised more than one article for several months. This onus is on you to discuss first and take responsibility. Unfortunately, you have not done so. I even had to ask for full page-protection to prevent you from creating a user account to continue being disruptive, so discussing is obviously the only thing you can do now. At this point, I would have expected you to let us know about why you made such edits. No, really—why? Do you actually enjoy being disruptive? I don't—not when I come across some folks who aren't as law-abiding in Wikipedia as they are in the real world. This is the real world—so don't think of it as your personal game. Anyway, the main point is, why did you do it—even as there were already consensuse (resolutions that were hardly agreed upon, albeit)??

I'm waiting for a response,

• ~ Troy (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

...alright, from now on, discuss the Coptic flag in the above section to avoid confusion. ~ Troy (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Coptic flag 3

On the article's history, the page has been peppered with IP address edits and reverts (from both sides, the one that is strongly against the flag in particular). To those who say that the flag is controversial, please assume good faith. I have only reverted those edits because there was no source that explained those edits. I have said here that there has been no reasoning with edits that add to what is already sufficient enough (it already says that the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria doesn't recognize it). Also, debates on the web (IE: forums, threads, online discussions, etc.) are not reliable sources and cannot be used as an excuse for those edits. At this point, any further reverts without discussion may have to lead to full page protection (again). ~ Troy (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

True, these alleged sources have been claimed, however, there has been no citation whatsoever. Before these edits continue, there must be a consensus. It takes at least two people from both sides to discuss this, and so I am still dissatisfied with all of these edits (the anonymous ones in particular). ~ Troy (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Time and time again changes have been posted to this article to imply that a specific flag (one of many-actually all-unrcognized versions) is the accepted flag. And when changes have been placed to indicate that this "flag" is unrepresentative, that clarifying change has been vetoed by so-called moderators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.205 (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

All I want is a reliable source that says that the flag is controversial. Also, the information you added to the image moves the TOC template out of place ("toc" stands for "table of contents"). You can add links for different flags—that's fine with me—but adding unsubstantiated comments (like saying that it's not recognizd by the majority of Copts, or saying it's controversial having already said that the Coptic Church doesn't recognize it) is what needs to be verifiable. If you disagree, then show us a good source that validates your point. ~ Troy (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Where were the cries for sources when this so-called flag became the de facto emblem on the Copts wikipedia entry? Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.205 (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

When a symbol is used over and over again on articles describing an ethnic group of people, it is implied as the accepted symbol. Where are the reliable sources that this is the accepted symbol? Even when you check the website source of this so-called flag you get a website that has not been updated in YEARS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.205 (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Do not engage in edit wars, especially not if the page has been previously protected.
2. Discuss your edits/reverts the first time around—you shouldn't have to be prompted by others.
3. Sign your comments.
4. Cite reliable sources which have long been requested before inquiring others.
5. Please assume good faith, as Wikipedia talk pages are used for reasoning and consensuses.

If you wish for this article to be unprotected, please abide by these points and at least try to reach a consensus. ~ Troy (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards FAILED when this symbol became the de facto used to tag the Copts. A mention of this flag should have been allowed (and those others, such as the sourced link www.thecopticflag.com, which by the way is against Wikipedia rules that a sourced statement be removed) but no flag should be used on the main Copts page, or map, etc which implicitly implies worldwide recognition. WHERE IS THE RELIABLE SOURCE THAT THIS IS A WORLDWIDE RECOGNIZED SYMBOL???!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.205 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits have been disruptive—even after the page has been previously protected from your unaccountable reverts. There doesn't need to be a reliable source that says that it's "world-recognized", and also, I have asked you long ago for a viable source in response to your reverts, which appear to have been unverifiable. Wikipedia must be neutral (see WP:NPOV), and whether you like it or not, Wikipedia Policy is used to solve even the most ridiculous disputes, not to start them. If you do not cooperate, it's quite simple:

1. I (or anyone else) will report you
2. I will give reasons as to why you should be blocked (ie: disruptive editing or no uncompliance with any given Wikipedia Policy)
3. An administrator will decide if you should be blocked

Please cooperate and try not to make things harder for yourself (or others). ~ Troy (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm joining this debate in response to an editor request for assistance. Reading the above post, I can understand why the request was made. It appears that User:Troy_07 misunderstands Wikipedia policies and guidelines and is using them as weapons to try to "win" a content dispute. This is not how Wikipedia operates. The wiki process works on the basis of seeking consensus, not of threats and edit-warring. That means that everyone needs to be civil and respectful, everyone needs to assume that everyone else is here to improve Wikipedia (which what assuming good faith really means), and everyone needs to work together to find a solution to this dispute. Further, I must point out that any material that is contested may be removed if a reliable source cannot be found for it. The burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain information. Sources are not required to remove unsourced information, nor is consensus. This is the essence of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a core policy component.

Moving forward, I would like editors to provide any links to reliable sources discussing the Coptic flag, its level of acceptance, official status, etc. (please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources if you have not done so). Those sources, if any, will provide the basis for discussion and hopefully enable us to document the flag issue in a way which is acceptable to all. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not using Wikipedia policy as a weapon or a threat, though. These IP addresses come out of nowhere and don't discuss until they're forced, which was why I took that tone. My understanding was that the IP addresses were either vandals or those who misunderstand Wikipedia guidelines, because after there was already more than one consensus, the edit warring continued. All I did was restore to the original version after the last consensus and ask for page protection. ~ Troy (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So here we are. The so-called Coptic Flag Version is being used as a de facto symbol representing the millions of Copts worldwide. There is no source that shows reliable evidence that it is a reliable symbol, flag or visual representation that is accepted by a majority, or even a plurality of Copts. There are many versions of the Coptic flag (www.thecopticflag.com), none have gained a modicum of acceptance. I propose removing the symbols from the Copts Article webpage at the map and the "Copts" template. Furthermore, I propose the Article "Coptic Flag" allow portrayal of other versions and clearly reflect the fact that no sources prove that any of them are an accepted symbol. Signed129.85.55.181 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[[User talk:129.85.55.181

...on the other hand, I don't see why debates and forums would be "reliable" material. Besides, it already says that the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria rejects the flag. Remember that I myself am not a supporter of the flag whatsoever, but I also disagree with immediately taking out the flag after the issue has long been discussed to it's death, ending with a previous consensus. Why start another edit war? Isn't it easier to discuss the matter before removing images? For me, it's consensus first.

I apologize for not assuming good faith, but I had a legitimate concern.

... regarding the images, I do have an idea... wouldn't you like to replace any of the Coptic flag images with the Coptic Cross??? ~ Troy (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no feeling about using the Coptic Cross instead. Personally, no visual symbol is necessary but at least the Coptic Cross is more neutral. I admit I didnt understand the nuances of Wikipedia editing initially, but the point is that using this symbol left and right is in contrast with the reality that it is not the symbol used to describe millions of people worldwide. It should not have been allowed n the first place since no reliable source shows that it is an accepted symbol.User-129.85.55.181| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.181 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

FInally, SheffieldSteel's quote is quite telling: " Further, I must point out that any material that is contested may be removed if a reliable source cannot be found for it. The burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain information. Sources are not required to remove unsourced information, nor is consensus."-User-129.85.55.181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.181 (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, but remember, I wasn't the one who put the Coptic flag on these articles and templates in the first place. After there's a consensus, let's try not to argue again. I can switch to the Coptic Cross on the template right away if you would feel better about, but the text and other locations for the Coptic flag image can be dealt with after we hear from the other IP address—if he responds. Again, my sincere apologies for taking any part in this mess. ~ Troy (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine start. And I apologize for liberally editing in the beginning while ignorant of the Wikipedia editing protocols.-User-129.85.55.181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.181 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll contact Lanternix. May be he can come up with something that we can all agree upon. ~ Troy (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Coptic Cross looks to me like it would be a beautiful image with which to illustrate this template and article. If no other editors object, I would say go ahead and change to it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Troy for letting me know about this discussion. I'll summarize my response in the following:

• 1.I will NOT engage in a conversation with someone who went so far in his/her disruptive edits as to replace the Coptic flag with the flag of Israel, claiming that those who endorse the flag are Israelis and Zionists (please refer to the article's history page). While people who endorse the flag have contributed thousands of Coptic-affiliated articles, the disruptive IP address has done NOTHING but disrupting the pages of Coptic flag, Copt and others.
• 2.Once I find a reliable and respectful person to engage in a conversation with, the first thing I will do is to ask why the sources provided in the article do not - from the other party's point of view - represent reliable sources. This is a key issue in this debate.
• 3.No one has claimed that ALL Copts like the Coptic flag. But not all Egyptians like the current Egyptian flag. You can't simply remove the Egyptian flag from the Egypt article because of that. --Lanternix (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to discuss this subject in good faith and work towards consensus, then we can move forward. Accusing editors of bad deeds is not going to get us anywhere. Are you opposed to the image of the Coptic Cross for some reason, or is it just that you personally prefer a flag? Can you cite reliable sources associating the flag with Copts? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield, I agree with you in terms of how to reach a consensus, but Lanternix is my friend. Lanternix, I probably should have let you know that we're done with pointing fingers at eachother. I agree somewhat with all of you, but now is not the time to argue. Sorry Lanternix, but I think that the Coptic Cross is more neutral — at least in terms of something that we can all agree upon. Indeed, the cross is a symbol which, I believe, all Copts can relate to.

At least for the template, I have switched it already as a gesture to show that I'm willing to make some revisions. The "Copts Around the World" image can be dealt with—it's quite minor as I see it. I still think it's reasonable enough to say that the Coptic Orthodox Church doesn't recognize the flag, so I'm not sure what anon. thinks. The thing which I am least unsure of how to change is probably the Coptic flag article itself, as there is obviously no way for it to not be Coptic flag-related. Whatever the case, we need reliable sources, and we need to be more respectful to eachother—different viewpoints contrasted in a way that is reasonable might allow for neutrality. ~ Troy (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Coptic Flag article DOES indeed cite reliable sources from Egyptian newspapers and well recognized Coptic newspapers and websites. What exactly do people want? Do people want the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church to hold a conference discussing the matter? When I learn why people object to the sources already provided in the article, I may be able to respond. --Lanternix (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about sources in general. For example, why add that most Copts find the flag to be controversial if the Coptic Orthodox Church doesn't recognize it? There was apparently no reliable source on that. I do agree that the addition of the Israeli flag on the Coptic flag article was really absurd, but I'm not sure if that IP address had anything to do with the other articles. Any thoughts? ~ Troy (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FIrst, I was not responsible for the Israeli flag fiasco, check the IPs. Second, the sources Lanternix mentions only discuss the making of that "version" of the flag, not its acceptance. Third, his comparison that many Copts dont like the current Egyptian flag is a classic straw man argument. The Egyptian flag is the OFFICIAL flag, recognized by world governments, UN, etc. The Copts page does not show the Egyptian flag, so its a meaningless argument. The problem is due to to using that version of the flag (one of many) as the de facto symbol of Copts worldwide, when there is no evidence that this symbol is adopted by Copts other than the ones who created it. Not to mention the fact that the organization that created it has a website that has not been updated in years, not since their first creation of the website!User-129.85.55.181

I understand that you were not involved in that ridiculous edit war on the Coptic flag article specifically. Regarding the website, it's not up to me to say how reliable any one of those sites are reliable. Regarding the map, more areas should be darkened as explained below, but it's not my decision on wether to remove the flag from that image or not. This issue is quite a long-standing one—before I got involved. The one thing that I'm sure that I don't want to change is the text on this article specifically—I would like to know at least one reliable source that says that it's not recognized by most Copts. The Church doesn't recognize it, so it appears to be reasonably neutral. As for the Cross, if there's still a large-scale argument, then it can be sparingly used as a reasonable substitute. ~ Troy (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"I would like to know at least one reliable source that says that it's not recognized by most Copts" I thought we agreed that that is not the case. SheffieldSteel's quote is quite telling: " Further, I must point out that any material that is contested may be removed if a reliable source cannot be found for it. The burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain information. Sources are not required to remove unsourced information, nor is consensus.". A reliable source is required to prove the flag IS recognized by most Copts.-User-129.85.55.181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.181 (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, however, I don't believe saying that it's not recognized by most Copts is "neutral", whatever the case may be. I personally don't recognize it, but I still respect the opinions of others—so it does matter if it says that it IS or ISN'T recognized by most Copts. There must be some sort of verifiable information—one way or another. Also, within that quote, it says that "the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain information". In this case, you want to add information that it's not recognized by most Copts.

I am simply saying that both sides badly need some kind of evidence to prove either case:

1. Is it recognized by the majority? If it is, then keep it the way it is.
2. Is it not recognized by the majority? If it isn't, then make the required adjustments (asides from the actual Coptic flag article, the changes should be mostly with the image placements as there isn't much text about it)>

In this case, I haven't decided on how to add or retain the information, so I'm the one who is looking for proof of validity for whatever version that is brought forth.

• ~ Troy (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You cannot prove a negative. I can come up with a Coptic Flag version on my Adobe Photoshop on my laptop in 5 minutes flat. If I then splatter it all over the main Copts article, according to your logic that would be OK since there must be required proof that a majority of Copts DONT recognize my version??? SheffiedSteel's input earlier makes it clear that the burden of proof is required when the symbol was first placed as a defacto symbol. The latter never happened. If a symbol is accepted by a substantial portion of an ethnic group comprised of MILLIONS, dont you think there would be any evidence of that (pictures of the symbol used at a rally, flag flying at a significant event, etc). Ive googled Coptic flag and the only results I get are the webstites of the creating group and a couple of blog entries. Thats it. So much for a symbol representative of millions.-User-129.85.55.181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.123.35 (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for evidence. I had just said that the burden of proof is on you as you wish to add information that is "negative". Whether it's negative or positive, as long as it's opinion and not fact, you need proof. So far, I have only seen continuous reverts that were long unexplained and childish complaints — even after we had seemed to have established a civilised discussion. This is not what I had meant for.

So, as I have to explain myself again, I will kindly do so only ONCE more:

the onus is on you if you want to add any facts or opinions whatsoever

I really haven't asked for anything, so don't go crawling back to me for any agreement on my part unless you have a meaningful discussion. Let's not repeat ourselves here—it'll get us nowhere. ~ Troy (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't want direct evidence on a negative. I simply want a reason for why we should say that most Copts don't recognize it.

There's only one way to find out: see if there's any evidence for the positive.

Until there's any proof on either side for anything whatsoever (ie: is the flag representative?—or, why take out the flag on the map?), then I'm still waiting for a closer look at it—this is all I want.

72.43.123.35, I don't have a problem with you jumping in, but at least take a look at the earlier discussion before taking an insinctive tone right away—discussions will often change topics, as you may already know.

Also, to both IPs, signing is actually quite simple—just type in four tildes :) ~ Troy (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my earlier quote: to include the Coptic Flag requires a reliable source to verify that it represents Copts. Removing the flag does not require a source; indeed, in the absence of any source on the subject, removal is strictly the correct action to take. However, I hope this doesn't become an argument about "the letter of the law". I would rather see discussion and compromise, such as using the Coptic Cross instead of the flag, and I'm glad to see that the template now uses the cross image. If all editors can accept that, perhaps further discussion about the use of the flag could be moved to Talk:Coptic flag. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well in terms of our idea on using the Coptic Cross instead, I think we can all happily agree on that solution. I changed it to the cross on the template because, as I saw it, even those who support the flag also view the cross as something that is entirely representative of the Copts. I also want a compromise—it just seems to be difficult for me to see what Lanternix and the IPs agree upon other than the Coptic Cross.

I am glad, nonetheless, that SheffieldSteel is helping out. Angrily disputing the issue after we have already apologized for letting our feelings towards the issue getting the better of us is not a solution. What we need is something to build on, and for one thing, I want to see a positive attitude. I surely hope that we can build on what we did on the template. ~ Troy (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I copied the discussion to Talk:Coptic flag according to SheffieldSteel's suggestion, I hope no one has any problem with continuing the discussion there --George (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that at all. I should let you know that I'll steer clear of the issue on that page for now—I don't want to do all of the talking. ~ Troy (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you're busy I understand but if you're not please stay (or at least check your watchlist from time to time), we need people from both sides to reach consensus, Thanks --George (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not terribly busy, but I'd like to examine other views before stating my opinion. I sort of understand how both sides feel, but I don't think I can come up any of my own solutions right away. I will keep a close eye on both talk pages, though, I'll promise you that. ~ Troy (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion

By undermining the process of conversion in the other direction, Egypt effectively undermines the secularity of the state. Each Egyptian has to wear ID cards with their religion stated what about people who don't have any religion? I hope Egypt will get better soon!Domsta333 (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Founder

the coptics trace their apostolic tradition to St. Mark, whose remains they believe are housed in the cathedral in Cairo, sorry I do not know how to edit wikipedia and am not citing anything but ask a copt...it's St Mark, in the icons he always has a lion and the light house of Alexandria. http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/church1.html

-above edited to remove ref tags by Jubilee♫clipman 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Muslims and Copts clashed in southern Egypt

This site: [Egypt] about one clash in Egypt, in 2009.Agre22 (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Coptic church flag??

File:Copts.jpg

Coptic Church Flag

Hello everyone, there has been a debate and deletion of the image provided here as the Coptic church flag; the authenticity of this flag is being challenged. Please, if anyone can provide a reliable source for this image as the Coptic church flag, please republish the image with the source. If there is no such source, then the File:Copts.jpg should be deleted as such. Thank you very much, Maysara (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Material for article on Coptic militias in Egypt?

I've been writing some articles on militant and/or self-defense organisations of religious minorities, and am trying to track down reputable sources on such organisations of Copts. Unfortunately, I'm finding only vague references to Pope Shenouda having been accused of forming Coptic militias, and some quotes from an Ikhwan leaflet accusing "Nazarean militia" of attacking Muslims. If anyone has verifiable info on the subject, or even official names of such groups to Google up, I'd like to get some Wikipedia articles going for the subject. Thanks for any info. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Coptic percentages in Egypt

{{3O}}

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) 07:48, 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) 03:59, 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: [7] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The goverment doesnt give honest estimation of the Coptic numbers because they know its means they would have to increase the civil liberties and parliament representation. The copts and other observers however cite their numbers to between 10-20% ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

for the sake of completeness of the argument of the percentage of copts in egypt, i believe the full range quoted by both sides should be included, i.e. 5-20%. You cannot be one-sided subjective. While you may say that the government is lying to hinder coptic rights, the other side may argue that you are exaggerating your numbers out of a need to feel significsnt and important-for pschycological comfort- and to also have a false basis to argue for greater rights in egypt. It goes both ways. Unless there is a census we will never know for sure. In the meantime, the figures should represent the whole proposed spectrum, because in fact 1 side could be lying, or even both sides.Artefactual (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your source does NOT say 5%, as you claimed on the page. Second of all, this is a report about recent attacks on Copts, NOT an official report about the number of Copts in Egypt. If you want to talk numbers, bring forth declarations from credible sources. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

so the AFP is not a credible source according to you?! just because the article is about a recent incident and not specifically about percentages of copts in egypt, that does not mean the info about percentages is false! where did you get such distorted reasoning from??! perhaps the AFP like to report the news, and then throw in some random, inaccurate percentages just for the fun of it- according to your opinion!!! besides there are plenty more credible websites that quote percentages of 5 or 6% and upwards. i think your actions are harbouring biased motives. i am not asking you for much...all i ask is that you include the whole spectrum of opinions, since the matter is not at a phase of consensus. remember, this wiki article is for the benefit of the entire global community- not solely the coptic community.58.111.168.151 (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC) oh and sorry... i just realised my login had expired and i had not noticed.Artefactual (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AFP is usually a reliable source for whatever it's talking about. It is NOT a reliable source when it just copies and pastes the percentage of Copts in Egypt from other websites. Did the AFP conduct a consensus that I haven't heard about? How did they come up with these numbers? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

how can you be so blatantly contradictory "AFP is usually a reliable source for whatever it's talking about"?? your claim that "It is NOT a reliable source when it just copies and pastes the percentage of Copts in Egypt from other websites" is unsubstantiated skepticism driven by ulterior motives- in my opinion. so AFP is usually reliable, however, you seem to definitely know that in the copts percentage they have carelessly copy and pasted data!!!?? how did you come to know this fact with such solid certainty. did you investigate how they derived these numbers?? did you talk with the reporter who composed it???? of course you did not!!! therefore, i believe you should be careful before you wantonly throw around personal opinions or excuses as facts. your antagonism to including the whole spectrum of percentages is unbelieveable. i have tried to be as reasonable and accomodating as is possible. do you have so much hope invested in the belief that your percentages could be at least 10% greater than quoted minimums??? if that is the case, then unfortunately i am dealing with a psychological issue- and not an issue to do with reporting to the most accurate standards as wikipedia demands. how sad and unfortunate.Artefactual (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

it looks as though we will just have to settle for our alternate views being posted during different time-slots.Artefactual (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reply to 3O: More than 2 people are involved in this dispute. Please try a {{rfc}}. -Atmoz (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop the Edit War

Wikipedia:3RR#Application_of_3RR says, in pertinent part,

3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an 'entitlement' to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR.

This war has been going on since March 14 with something like 18–20 reverts each by Artefactual (talk · contribs) and Lanternix (talk · contribs) I will report both editors to WP:ANEW and/or ask that the page be fully protected against further editing if it continues by either editor after this moment. Let me suggest that the page be neutralized to say "represent 20% or less of a population" until this dispute can be worked out here on the talk page. I'll make that change if both parties agree to it, or either of them can make it. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

i agree with User:TransporterMan that for the meantime "represent 20% or less of a population" should be added until there is further consensus. i will personally make the edit- as User:TransporterMan has suggested.Artefactual (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this compromise for now. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Both editors are to be commended for taking a step back and seeking compromise. Best of luck to both of you. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 12:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

from the book I read about, the Egypt official statistic is incredible, they have conducted many wrong statistic survey and caused the country with false policy based on those figures. such as the food crisis and military lose. now Egypt imports 45% of its food, mainly grains from countries like France and Ukraine, because the statistic told the government that the food production will keep pace with the population growth during the 1970s. It seems to me that countries with Muslims majority tends to not accepting the "reality". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.117.27.43 (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Population in Egypt and the US

I have just made a correction since 5%-20% of 80 million constitute 4-16 million and not 12-16. I personally think that the 9% given by the CIA world factbook is pretty accurate and it should be sufficient.

Also the figures given for Copts in the US are highly inaccurate imho. check the official 2009 U.S. Census Bureau estimates which puts the total number of all Egyptians just under 200,000. Rafy talk 12:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that 10% is a reasonable estimate, but when we say "estimates range", we give a high and a low estimate. The low estimates are the official estimates by the Egyptian government, which gives 6%-10%.[8] 6% means five million. We could also say "about 10% or 8 million", but we shouldn't lose the low estimates and at the same time keep the high estimate, that would be biased.

We can split hairs about this all day, the bottom line remains that the true number is unknown, but likely in the order of magnitude of a couple of million (more than 5, less than 20). --dab (𒁳) 22:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

since we have logged-out users revert-warring without bothering to use the talkpage, I'll try semiprotection. We can improve the population estimate, but that won't happen by simply reverting to the figure you like best. --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Boutros Boutros-Ghali.jpg

The image File:Boutros Boutros-Ghali.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.12.121.110, 10 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please remove or repair stray "</ref>" tag appearing twice in section entitled "Name"

24.12.121.110 (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing this out! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Slave Tradea and Eunuch Production

Under 'The Arab-Muslim Invasion of Egypt' the final paragraph reports that Copts performed brutal castration operations on black African slaves.

This information does not belong under this heading imho, and I think its inclusion is biased.

The sources cited are all from the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century. There is a 2002 source listed, but it is in a book which reproduces a text from the 1800s. The lack of contemporary research supporting the idea that Copts produced eunuchs for the slave trade this casts doubt on these sources.

The tone of the paragraph also seems biased. The sentence "During the operation, the Coptic clergyman chained the boys to tables and after slicing their sexual organs off, stuck a piece of bamboo into the genital area, then submerged them in neck high sand to burn" seems more concerned with sensationally disparaging copts than reporting historical facts. It is unclear why bamboo would be placed in the genitals (the 2002 book reports a piece of steel being placed in the urethra to allow urine flow) while it is not clear what the bit about being put in sand to burn means.

I recommend this paragraph be deleted or, if contemporary sources can be found to support it, rewritten to have a more neutral tone and put under a new heading such as 'Coptic involvment in the North African Slave Trade'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.173.116 (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes that stuff doesn't belong to an article about an ethnic group. You can't just stuff this article with whatever you find about Copts.--Rafy talk 11:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This article completely miss neutrality

this article is written by extremist and miss neutrality , he is talking about strange things like elimination of copts!!. All egyptians suffer from human rights violation not only copts! and also he is citing with individual accidents made by a minor extermist from both sides "muslim and copts" to claim that copts suffer in Egypt.

I suspect that the author didn't even visit Egypt before , as if he was talking about another country!

This article need for a complete reconstructing and citing with moderate references not only extermist references!. 3d vector (talk)

To what exactly are you referring? ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 12:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly the article was talking about another Egypt, and still needs more changes « PuTTY^SchOOL 11:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless those changes are actually specified, then I'm afraid you'll have to make do with what you've got. Additions should be made carefully and aren't something that you could just copy'n paste (like cut&paste moves or taking things directly from copyrighted material). ~ Troy (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree to doubting the neutrality of some parts of this article. Specifically, the part concerning Religious freedom and human rights is more like a biased supporter opinion rather than data and facts representation. The author intentionally feeds biased opinions amidst the normal history telling. Also, it can become very misleading when one describes only a part of the facts and not the other part. All Egyptians would agree considering that we suffer from western media when they show only one face of the truth. As for the article itself I see, for example, words like "discriminatory government policies" are not appropriately used. The following sentence "his appointment as an only acting foreign minister depicted Egypt's systematic elimination of Copts from all governmental influential positions" is a clear unsubstantiated opinion. The passage about hate crimes is a one-sided view, as there are numerous situations for crimes under religion name from either muslims or copts. All these situations are minor with no long-term effect. No one living in Egypt would recall what happened or how many muslims/copts injured or died, we remember how many Egyptians died. One fact is agreed upon, muslims and copts suffer to make the country they live in a better place. I would finally want to add that I also think that the author(s) didn't live in Egypt for enough time, criticism could be wrong if you didn't live the experience.Ircian (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There was an odd edit that found its way into the main page..no references, bad spelling, etc. Removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.70.210 (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I add that at the beginning of the page there is a broken link that looks very unprofessional. It's trying to link to a page about persecution of Copts, but no such page exists. Someone should fix it soon. Mavriksfan11 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Arab persecution ?

The "The Arab-Muslim Invasion of Egypt" needs some serious changes. There are a lot of groundless claims and not any citations/sources. I will remove all the nonsense unless I see sources. UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: The above editor is subject (at the moment) to an indef block.[9]--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 January 2012

Instead of "native Egyptian Christians" how about just "native Egyptians". This would be more accurate, and also in the next sentence it says that they are a major enthoreligious group which would suggest that they are Christians.

TalentTrekNashville (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

population by Governorates

Where I get population of copts by Governorates of Egypet?--Kaiyr (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:CoptsCollage.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:CoptsCollage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:CoptsCollage.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Jews didn't merely "Emigrate"

Some Egyptian Jews did emigrate, as the article states. Most were simply deported by the Nasser regime, their property confiscated. 70.181.108.157 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

New article: Copts (ethnic group). a valid split?

The recently created article Copts (ethnic group) seems to duplicate some content from Copts and to be unduly focused on genetic studies. I'm not sure the subjects of the two articles are distinct, and a creative merger and/or retitling may be warranted. I'll defer decision to editors more familiar with the subjects. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Copts (ethnic group)

Can someone see if you can link to this orphaned article? Maybe add it to the template? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request for the "ethnic" characterization

Hi Editors, About the above note regarding the article Copts (ethnic group) I suggest to remove the ethnic character from this one in the phrase "a major ethnoreligious group in Egypt". The article traces the timeline of Christianity in Egypt and Christian Egyptians in diaspora, I do not see an ethnic side of it. Moreover, the citation approved for the mentioned phrase (#13) states the exact opposite. I quote from the source: "Copts contend that they are not a cultural or ethnic minority but Egyptians whose ancestors embraced Christianity in the first century" End of quotation http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/12/world/us-bill-has-egypt-s-copts-squirming.html

Keeping this information would give an impression, unlike the reality, that Muslim and Christian Egyptians have different ancestors. Such an information needs a more powerful and reliable source (scientific survey, ethnic study,...) 88.175.64.169 (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Quentin A.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 06:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

ethnoreligious group

What is the evidence for the assertion that the Copts are an "ethnoreligious group"? They are a religious minority, ethnically no different to other Egyptians. Unless some evidence can be provided for this assertion, it should be deleted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Since no-one has responded I have changed the text accordingly. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2015

ⲟⲩⲢⲉⲙ̀ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ̀ⲛ̀Ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓ̀ⲁⲛⲟⲥ can't be right

Aekupp (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nasser' and MB's policies

This edit, added on August 2013, is not backed by the source respectively a POV view. The part about Nasser was cited first but some parts then removed and new ones added in that edit. The last section added is POV. Saying that the Muslim Brotherhood "launched murderous assaults" etc. needs better backup. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Coptic Protestants?

Can we have a source for the use of the word "Copt" to describe Egyptian Protestants? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Copts picture

The picture at the top of the article does not depict Copts. Those are either Ethiopians/Eritreans who follow a similar sect of Christianity but are not ethnically Copts. Please change it.

--Pharoh123 (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done.--Kathovo talk 22:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not restore the picture (we should ping the user who did), but think it could go either way, esp. if the Copts are from Upper (southern) Egypt. However we should check the source. Where is the picture from? Steeletrap (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does Pharoh123 and Steeletrap have a problem with in the photo? I have attended church services in both Egypt and Ethiopia. Those are clearly Egyptian monks, what is the genesis of your doubt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD1A:2CB0:4DA9:FBF9:6D3A:BB6B (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Copts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110107131052/http://www.elaph.com:80/Web/news/2011/1/622635.html to http://www.elaph.com/Web/news/2011/1/622635.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2016

Source [24] contains nothing to back the part that cites it on the Christians being a majority between 400 to 800 CE. Mrs340 (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it being used to back up such a statement, but when I went to look for the source I cannot find it at all. No such article exists in either the first or second issue of the journal, volume, and year being cited. I'm removing it entirely. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I found the statement and source you were referring to. I agree that the source does not support the statement. I've removed it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

"Scholars"

They are not Scholars so don't reference them, if they can't even take Egypt. Egypt is too much for them, they are not Scholars.. cite Herodotus instead. He gives Greek-Egyptian God & mythology parallels. Book II of Histories. Zeus-Ammon, and more enumerated (braches or whatnot of) mythology parallels than Zeus-Ammon too. Also, if you look up mythology, you'll see that Poseidon's mom is Memphis, so... clean your shoes before you write about the Copts. 47.17.237.108 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Copts. Please take a moment to review 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/20090121192147/http://www.middlekilleavy.com:80/index.php?artid=2631&option=com_cifeed&task=newsarticle to http://www.middlekilleavy.com/index.php?artid=2631&option=com_cifeed&task=newsarticle
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008090221/http://www.copticafrica.org:80/bookcomehelp3.htm to http://www.copticafrica.org/bookcomehelp3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110131014720/http://www.copticmission.org/copticmission to http://www.copticmission.org/copticmission
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930211738/http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021220/2002122025.html to http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021220/2002122025.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090218014241/http://www.cpr-government.org:80/index_English.htm to http://www.cpr-government.org/index_English.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ahram.org.eg/acpss/eng/ahram/2004/7/5/ARAB43.HTM
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557408_3/Egypt.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080508002335/http://www.andrewfanous.com:80/CopticCorner/CopticCalendar.htm to http://www.andrewfanous.com/CopticCorner/CopticCalendar.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060303032450/http://www.copticmuseum.gov.eg:80/English/default.htm to http://www.copticmuseum.gov.eg/English/default.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Copts. Please take a moment to review 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/20110821115518/http://www3.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=373326 to http://www3.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=373326
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926234617/http://www.jordanembassyus.org/06032005001.htm to http://www.jordanembassyus.org/06032005001.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926234617/http://www.jordanembassyus.org/06032005001.htm to http://www.jordanembassyus.org/06032005001.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318161245/http://www.wwrn.org:80/article.php?idd=19813&sec=36&cont=3 to http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=19813&sec=36&cont=3
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.compassdirect.org/en/newslongen.php?idelement=4132&id=17&critere=&countryname=&rowcur=25
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060624162244/http://freedomhouse.org:80/religion/publications/endangered/ to http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/publications/endangered
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080928034724/http://hrw.org:80/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/egypt14701.htm to http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/egypt14701.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015153850/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/843/eg8.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/843/eg8.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121180512/http://www.pr-inside.com/egypt-court-upholds-right-of-converted-r430320.htm to http://www.pr-inside.com/egypt-court-upholds-right-of-converted-r430320.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416155254/http://afp.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5g8Ro5sk6sChDNUGMQTIMBj6HsHQQ to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8Ro5sk6sChDNUGMQTIMBj6HsHQQ
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090312092916/http://www.fco.gov.uk:80/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/egypt to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/egypt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557408_3/Egypt.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928041231/http://www.copticheritage.org/parameters/copticheritage/calendar/The_Coptic_Calendar.pdf to http://www.copticheritage.org/parameters/copticheritage/calendar/The_Coptic_Calendar.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017

copts are in Africa not in the middle east 173.54.6.165 (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 23:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017

173.54.6.165 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

copts is in Africa not in the middle east

Not done: See Middle East. While you're right that Egypt is in Africa, it's also part of the Middle East Cannolis (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Copts. Please take a moment to review 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Montreal%2BCoptic%2BOrthodox%2BChristmas/4054183/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319010757/http://sce.uhcl.edu/akladios/Magdy%20Akladios%20Website/Links%20For%20Church/Copticsflocktowelcome.doc to http://sce.uhcl.edu/akladios/Magdy%20Akladios%20Website/Links%20For%20Church/Copticsflocktowelcome.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614212516/http://www.hrwf.net/religiousfreedom/news/2004PDF/Austria_2004.pdf to http://www.hrwf.net/religiousfreedom/news/2004PDF/Austria_2004.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557408_3/Egypt.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614212516/http://www.hrwf.net/religiousfreedom/news/2004PDF/Austria_2004.pdf to http://www.hrwf.net/religiousfreedom/news/2004PDF/Austria_2004.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copts. Please take a moment to review 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 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135632/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/egypt to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/egypt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557408_3/Egypt.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

47.23.75.122 (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  — Ammarpad (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Coptic Wikipedia

With 15 million people, is there a Coptic Wikipedia?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copts. Please take a moment to review 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/20160304083550/http://i-cias.com/e.o/coptic_c.htm to http://i-cias.com/e.o/coptic_c.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419152624/http://www.stshenouda.com/coptlang/copthist.htm to http://www.stshenouda.com/coptlang/copthist.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

[Congrefs of The United States of America'./https://g.co/kgs/MQmDkC'!|Congrefs of The United States of America'.]

To:Gen.Douglas McArthurs' Right of Passage:Emlin Erojo Nabua.Thank you for your Last Will Testimony:Emlin Ong Nabua.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019

Please add to the Prominent Copts list:

Nader Anise, Egyptian-American founder of Coptic American Chamber of Commerce (Coptic Chamber) and attorney 23.161.192.105 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2019

please edit the link 38 - dead link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts#cite_ref-38 to https://saf-egypt.com/ Esraasheta (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Reference 38 is not a link to begin with, and an homepage is not adequate as an source.--Snaevar (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2019

Pls revert this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&diff=prev&oldid=927870067

The editor has made unsourced changes and broken the last sentence in the first para. I also suggest reviewing their subsequent edits.

Thanks 121.44.62.246 (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Done (just this article) Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2019

The section "Copts in modern Sudan" needs to be updated. The government of Omar al-Bashir fell in the Sudanese Revolution of 2019, and a Coptic woman now serves in the new Transitional Military Council.

SOURCE: Women take prominent place in Sudanese politics as Abdalla Hamdok names cabinet 86.169.239.193 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Forbid

"Forbid from" is not only correct usage, it is accepted by many dictionaries. I do not see a point in fighting this, but I just thought you should know. [10] Elizium23 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2019

THIS IS THE INITIAL PARAGRAPH: "Copts of Egyptian ancestry maintain a distinct ethnic identity from Muslim Egyptians, with some of them rejecting an Arab identity. Genetically, Copts are a distinct population, albeit more closely related to the Muslims of Egypt than to any other population.[26] Like other Egyptians, Copts are a diverse population, with considerable genetic, ethnic, and cultural differences persisting between Copts from Lower and Upper Egypt."

IT NEEDS TO BE EDITED BECAUSE THIS STATEMENT PRESENTED AS FACT IS PURELY NOT TRUE, AND DEEMS TO FIT A NARRATIVE NOT CONSISTENT WITH MOST COPTIC VIEWS:

"Copts of Egyptian ancestry maintain a distinct ethnic identity from Muslim Egyptians, with THE MAJORITY rejecting an Arab identity. Genetically, Copts are a distinct population FROM Muslims of Egypt. (https://egyptianmuseum.org/explore/coptic-period-overview ) Like other Egyptians, Copts are a diverse population, with considerable genetic, ethnic, and cultural differences persisting between Copts from Lower and Upper Egypt."

SOURCES: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/archaeology-and-history/magazine/2019/03-04/coptic-christianity-ancient-egypt/ Meagan chick7 (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Meagan. I would suggest that you calm down a little bit and discuss rationally about your requests to modify this article. Please build some consensus rather than demanding evidence/changes; and try not to write in all-caps because it is rather painful for us to read all that. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The statement in the lead is already better-sourced than what you have given. Moreover, there's no "narrative" here; it's just talking about genetic relationships. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Deacon :Hello Elizium23. I have to agree with Meagan. The sources offered to support the statement as it stands are being offered in a very misleading way. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The source from "The Journal of Economic History" quite literally mentiones the statement in question here. The other sources indicate the same idea with different styles. Mohamed^Talk 12:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Which statement are you talking about? In my comments above in this talk page, I was referring to Megan's comments. It sounds like you're referring to statements regarding the "mostly descendants of the pre-641 Coptic population" statement that I previously removed. For that statement, we should discuss it in another section because there are many genetic studies on the subject. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry

The Dobon study, an actual genetic study, states that "They[Copts] are known to be the most ancient population of Egypt" and supports that with the genetic findings already mentioned in the article. While this does not necessarily contradict the statement in the introduction that both Copts and Modern Egyptians are "mostly descendants of the pre-641 Coptic population," it certainly needs to be harmonized with it. It's possible that both Copts and Modern Egyptians are mainly descended from the pre 641 population in spite of genetic differences between the populations, but the article needs to state that for clarity. When I edited this statement out, it was unrelated to my views on Megan's comment, which concerned a totally different part of the article even though both of my opinions on those respective matters related to interpretation of the sources. I should have been clearer about why I took that clause out. The Eliot Dickinson book, "Copts in Michigan", at page 1941, says "Egyptian Muslims may legitimately claim to be the descendents[sic] of the Ancient Egyptians..." That does not mean that Dickinson is claiming Modern Egyptians are predominately descended from the pre-641 population. What reference does he cite at footnote 15? I don't see where the Refworld article says anything about the ancestry of Modern Egyptians that imply predominant descent from the pre-641 population. One of the sources does mention the statement cited, and I didn't see that previously, but it is not a genetic study. None of the sources cited are genetic studies for that statement and that is an issue. Given the Doban study, which is an actual genetic study, and the Schuenemann study from 2017(https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694?utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_deeplink_PID100062364&utm_content=deeplink), this statement should be either explained further or taken out. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• @CessnaMan1989: Yes, my previous comment above was about this statement that you removed from the article, sorry if I misunderstood your comment there. The Journal of Economic History source may not be a genetic study, but it's a reliable and relevant source nontheless, and gives focus to the history of conversions and Coptic-Muslim relations. In another source, Nationalism and Minority Identities in Islamic Societies, it mentiones that it's thought that "a majority of Egyptian Muslims are themselves descended from Coptic blood", which is basically the same statement with a different style. The same happens in Eliot Dickinson's book, but maybe the relation to the statement is less clear as you said. Reworld mentions that "The Muslims arrived in 641 CE, but did not constitute a majority until about three centuries later, mostly due to the conversion of the Egyptian populace", which I believe confirms the statement mentioned in the article. Also, there are genetic studies that emphasize the close genetic relationship and common ancestry between Egyptian Copts and Muslims. See Hollfelder et al. (2017). Even the Dobon study, although it says Copts lack some Arabian influence that is present amon Muslims, clearly says that "The scientists suggest that this points to a common origin for the general population of Egypt". A recent allele frequency comparative study between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups, Muslims and Christians, supported the conclusion that "Egyptian Muslims and Egyptian Christians genetically originate from the same ancestors". I don't think the statement mentioned in the article is controversial at all, and there isn't a shortage of studies or sources in general that confirm it. We can discuss other suggestions such as "They [Copts] are known to be the most ancient population of Egypt" separately, as they usually involve other factors such as identity, and may falsely imply that other Egyptians are less indigenous, an opinion that "doesn't have much currency, whether among the coptic intelligentsia in Egypt or among the Coptic population at large" according to Mariz Tadros, Copts at the Crossroads: The Challenges of Building Inclusive Democracy in Contemporary Egypt. Mohamed^Talk 08:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Memelord0: I would recommend adding a separate section on this question to use the historical studies and papers you're using because the sources need to be explained more. There are several reasons for this:

1) The way the sentence is currently worded implies that if two populations both predominately derive from the same ancestors, one shouldn't expect differences in their respective general physical appearances. This is incorrect. For example, the Tsimihety and Merina tribes of Madagascar both predominately descend from the same ancestors, Polynesians and Africans, but they generally look different because the Merina often descend from the Polynesian ancestors more than the Tsimihety descend from the Polynesians. If one had perfect family trees of members of both groups, they would have predominately the same ancestors, but some ancestors would show up more often in one group of family trees than another, and the Merina would probably have more Polynesian ancestors than the Tsimihety. "Predominately" only implies more than 50% of one's ancestry. Conversely, lots of groups that look similar have completely different ancestral origins.

2) With significant genetic evidence suggesting the the Ancient Egyptians originated from outside of Egypt in the last ten thousand years, just because the two groups descend from a common ancestry pool doesn't necessarily mean that ancestry pool was in Egypt. Such a conclusion would need more explaining. Do the Doban and Hollfelder studies provide a date for the common ancestry pool? I didn't see any.

3) The Hollfelder study isn't cited for the sentence in question at all; it's cited just in the Genetics section.

Overall, I think too many deductions and inferences from the citations are required for the statement to simply have it as a standalone phrase in the introduction. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

But They are indeed "physically indistinguishable" and at the same time derive from the same ancestors, the sources cited in the article confirm both, so I don't think the comparisons you made are relevant. Also, I don't see the relation between the origin of ancient Egyptians and the statement mentioned in the article. They are supposed to have originated from Eurasian back migration and from the Sahara and maybe East Africa. What does that have to do with Copts and their identity that only emerged in the Roman and Muslim era (to refer to all Egyptians at first and then only to christians that didn't convert)? The Hollfelder study and other genetic sources can be added to the list of sources to the statement. Multiple reliable sources in the article confirm the statement either literally or with a different style, it isn't vague at all. To give this part a separate paragraph would be giving it too much weight in my opinion, while there is hardly any info on Coptic history and culture for example. I'm talking about the lead here, if you mean a section in the article itself, there already is a section on genetics, but maybe a section on identity and Coptic-Muslim relations could be added. Mohamed^Talk 22:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

Greetings

The word “Egyptian” in the quote below needs to be replaced with “Coptic”:

“Copts of Egyptian ancestry maintain a distinct ethnic identity, and generally reject an Arab identity,[38] but they also have a national identity shared with other Egyptians.[38][39]”

In this line it needs to be changed from “Egyptian ancestry” to “Coptic ancestry” since the ancestral component that is identified among Copts is labeled as “Coptic” (Dark green) specifically not “Egyptian.” Figure 3 in the study has the components listed. The dark green is called Coptic & makes up most of Copts distribution & peaks highest among Copts. There is no component in the studies on ancestry that is called Egyptian. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09996

This is the most detailed study we have on Copts distribution & it shows the Coptic component peaks highest among Copts & makes up most of their distribution while it is lacking among noncopt Egyptians. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09996

While the study was on Copts in Sudan they authors in that paper say these Copts migrated from Egypt in the past two centuries https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09996 & another study on Copts in Sudan says they haven’t been significantly influenced genetically by their time in Sudan.

http://www.iend.org/dad/Y%20_paper_Sudan.pdf This study says “The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan. The current communities are known to be largely the product of recent migrations from Egypt over the past two centuries.”

In regards to the other study that is the most detailed population genetics study we have on Copts thus far says “Copts share the same main ancestral component than North African and Middle East populations (dark blue), 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 at k = 4 (Fig.3), they show their own component (dark green) different from the current Egyptian population which is closer to the Arabic population of Qatar”

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09996

Below in quotes is what needs removal because it doesn’t have support from genetic sources:

“Copts and Muslim Egyptians are recognized as being physically indistinguishable,[40][41] as both are "mostly descendants of the pre-641 Coptic population".[40][42][43][44][29]“

These in quotes needs removal. The claims in the quotes above require population genetic evidence & physical anthropological data to substantiate & these are not cited. And the most detailed population genetic evidence we have on Copts thus far shows the Coptic component makes up most of Copts distribution while it is lacking among Egypt & that same study shows that Egypt composition is closer to Qatar composition than Copt composition. Copts do have overlap with MENA populations in general including Egypt so they have same ancestors in that sense like they have same ancestors(as in more than one same same ancestor). That’s why the 2015 Dobon et al study says they support a common origin with middle eastern/North African (MENA) populations but it also acknowledges that Copts have their own distribution. So Copts have same ancestors with MENA populations (when you add a ‘s’ to ‘ancestor’ it just means more than one) but also have their own distribution. Having same ancestors doesn’t mean Copts & Egyptians largely descend from the same 7th century Coptic population.

Figure 3 in Dobon et al 2015 has the distribution of Copts & Egypt outlined & it shows the Coptic component(Dark green) peaking among Copts & making up most of Copts distribution while this component is lacking among noncopt Egyptians. This weakens the claim that they are largely from the same population. They have overlap since they are both MiddleEast/North African but the population genetic evidence doesn’t support that they largely descend from the same population. The run at figure 3 also shows Egypt has a closer composition to Qatar than Copts.

Another reason that the lines ““Copts and Muslim Egyptians are recognized as being physically indistinguishable,[40][41] as both are "mostly descendants of the pre-641 Coptic population".[40][42][43][44][29]“

Need to be removed is because the page on Copts doesn’t require commenting on the ancestry & anthropology of Egyptian Muslims. We don’t typically see this on the pages for other ethnic groups so I don’t see why such comments should be on the page for Copts. The page for Greeks doesn’t comment on the anthropology & ancestry of Turks. The page for Jews doesn’t comment on the anthropology & ancestry of Palestinians.

Below in quotes needs removal:

“ In all secular aspects of life, their culture is the same.[39][45]”

Need to remove this quote. First a page on Copts needs no commenting on the culture on noncopts. We don’t see on the Greek page comments on the culture of Turks. We don’t see on the Jewish page comments on the culture of Palestinians. Second religion is the central component of the culture for both groups & it impacts everything from marriage, social life to dietary. That’s how it is in the Middle East. There are books on the distinct Coptic culture https://books.google.com/books?id=A4YeDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=“as+a+copt+and+an+egyptologist”&source=bl&ots=hoRs6o-i43&sig=ACfU3U14wh_cKwSwdYSw-2GvmhgXWwU-0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4ybKf9szvAhVWbs0KHQiUCfcQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg

There is even a book on Coptic food by Charles Akl https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/7/49/282236/Life--Style/Food/Review-Food-for-the-Copt.aspx

Summary:

Remove below in quotes:

”Copts and Muslim Egyptians are recognized as being physically indistinguishable,[40][41] as both are "mostly descendants of the pre-641 Coptic population".[40][42][43][44][29]“ 

Remove below in quotes:

“In all secular aspects of life, their culture is the same.[39][45]”

The word “Egyptian” in the quote below needs to be replaced with “Coptic”:

“Copts of Egyptian ancestry maintain a distinct ethnic identity, and generally reject an Arab identity,[38] but they also have a national identity shared with other Egyptians.[38][39]” Zack439 (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is a summary of what u want to change below. I my message I explained why. But one reason is there is no need to comment on the ancestry & culture of Egyptians on a Copt page just like how on the Greek page we don’t see comment on the culture & ancestry of Turks. On the Assyrian page we don’t see comment on the culture & ancestry of Iraqis/Syrians. On the Jewish page we don’t see comments on the culture & ancestry of Palestinians. We should apply the same standard on the Copt page.

Summary:

Remove below in quotes:

”Copts and Muslim Egyptians are recognized as being physically indistinguishable,[40][41] as both are "mostly descendants of the pre-641 Coptic population".[40][42][43][44][29]“ 

Remove below in quotes:

“In all secular aspects of life, their culture is the same.[39][45]”

The word “Egyptian” in the quote below needs to be replaced with “Coptic”:

“Copts of Egyptian ancestry maintain a distinct ethnic identity, and generally reject an Arab identity,[38] but they also have a national identity shared with other Egyptians.[38][39]” Zack439 (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. I was able to edit. Zack439 (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"Copts of coptic ancestry" is meaningless, it can be just "Copts". According to Mariz Tadros, "the discourse that refers to Copts as the original inhabitants of the land [Egypt] and others as having less claims to it, which she described as "supermacist and exclusionary", is adopted by some Copts living in the diaspora, such as Shawky Karas. However, she added that this discourse "doesn't have much currency, whether among the coptic intelligentsia in Egypt or among the Coptic population at large." On the other hand, the mainstream discourse adopted by Coptic historians presents a common Egyptian history binding together all Egyptians". That's why it's a false equivalence to say Greeks and Turks for example = Muslim Egyptians and Copts. You repeatedly mentioned one source that doesn't even talk directly about the relation between Copts and Muslim Egyptians and ignored the rest and then concluded that "Having same ancestors doesn’t mean Copts & Egyptians largely descend from the same 7th century Coptic population", which is literally what the sources mentioned in the article say (see "On the Road to Heaven: Taxation, Conversions, and the Coptic-Muslim Socioeconomic Gap in Medieval Egypt" for example). Hollfelder et al. (2017) and Dobon et al. and the allele frequency comparative study mentioned in the article all indicated "a common origin for the general population of Egypt" not a common origin with general MENA populations including Egypt as you claim. The following sentence “Copts and Muslim Egyptians are recognized as being physically indistinguishable,[40][41] as both are "mostly descendants of the pre-641 Coptic population".[40][42][43][44][29]“ is mentioned literally in 2 sources and in varying forms in other sources, so I don't get how you think it's unsubstantiated.

Claiming that the page on Copts doesn’t require comparing with other Egyptians is false, because the sources that cover Copts almost always cover them in comparison to other (Muslim) Egyptians, and because of the shared history and culture as indicated in the sources mentioned in the article, which isn't the case for the other groups you mentioned. And you haven't removed the other info on comparison in socioeconomic indicators, which compare Copts with the rest of the population. Mohamed^Talk 06:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The quote you cited by Mariz is refuted with this study & by the 2013 book on Coptic identity by Sam Tadros https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326888263_Images_as_Messengers_of_Coptic_Identity_An_Example_from_Contemporary_Egypt/fulltext/5b73136d299bf14c6da23283/Images-as-Messengers-of-Coptic-Identity-An-Example-from-Contemporary-Egypt.pdf this study says “most Copts also hold the view that they are racially more geninue descendants of the ancient Egyptians than are the Muslims.” This is from a study that addesses Coptic identity https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326888263_Images_as_Messengers_of_Coptic_Identity_An_Example_from_Contemporary_Egypt/fulltext/5b73136d299bf14c6da23283/Images-as-Messengers-of-Coptic-Identity-An-Example-from-Contemporary-Egypt.pdf

Samuel Tadros in his book 2013 motherland lost also states that Copts view themselves are the true descendants of the ancient Egyptians.

Hollfelder et al. (2017) & Dobon et al (2015) & the comparative allele study show overlap. It doesn’t prove that both populations draw largely from the same coptic population in Egypt.

Dobon 2015 literally says “Copts share the same main ancestral component than North African and Middle East populations (dark blue), 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 at k = 4 (Fig.3), they show their own component (dark green) different from the current Egyptian population which is closer to the Arabic population of Qatar.”

Fig 3. K=2 to k=5 shows that Egypt autosomal distribution resembles Qatar more than Copts. K =4 to k=5 shows Coptic component making up most of Copts distribution & peaks highest among Copts while this component is lacking among Egypt & Qatar. This is at odds with the claim both largely descendant from the same population. If that was the case than we would expect significant Coptic component to reflect for Egypt at k=4 to k=5 & we wouldn’t expect Egypt to resemble Qatar more than copts across the board on the study that went into the most detail on Copts distribution thus far.

The paper “the Road to Heaven: Taxation, Conversions, and the Coptic-Muslim Socioeconomic Gap in Medieval Egypt” makes the assumption that the decrease is Copt is largely due to conversion but this is assumed, this is not proven in the study & not reflected by their ancestral distribution. If the thesis of that study was right than we would expect Egypt to have mostly Coptic on k=4 to k=5 on Dobon but it doesn’t & across the board it resembles Qatar more than Copts. I can provide a study published in the journal of NearEastern studies that says the Copts who converted were a minor segment of the population based on linguistics https://copticsounds.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/coptic-lexical-influence-on-egyptian-arabic.pdf

Again we don’t see on other pages of ethnicies commentary of other ethnic groups ancestry & culture. For Assyrians we don’t see this about Syrians/Iraqis. For Palestinians we don’t see this about Jews. For Greeks we don’t see this about Turks. Zack439 (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Zack439 can edit the page, also there seems to be discussion going on so any requested edits would need consensus to be implemented. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Language information update

Coptic is still spoken by several families in Cairo and it should be added to the infobox, to the language section, where it says that Coptic is liturgical and ancestral. There should also be added that Coptic is still, colloquially, spoken.

Source: <https://wwww.dailynewssegypt.com/2005/12/10/coptic-languages-last-survivors/ [89.210.119.61] [[11]] 11:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coptic flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021

In the third paragraph of this page, please change circumistances to circumstances. It's a spelling error. BeeGhoul (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done   melecie   t 14:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021

Footnote 90 "Compass Direct News. Church Building Regulations Eased" is a dead link. BeeGhoul (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Replaced dead archive link with one that is live —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 02:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)