Talk:Copts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Copt people article

Hi All. I propose we create a separate article Copt people which will focus on ethnic Copts. Copts concider themselves as separate ethnci group and therefore we shoudl have a separate article about their nation. Please feel free to comment and give suggestions. Thanks in advance. Ldingley 19:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

<sigh> The new version is such an assault on the integrity of the article, I don't know where to start! I don't think I've ever see such an accumulation of original research, political POV and poorly written unencyclopedic content in one place on Wiki before that stayed for that long without being seriously challenged. I mean, why don't we also include the claims contending that the Copts are descendants of 4th-century Greek immigrants (top discussion) since apparently when it comes to this article, anything no matter how ridiculous and how much it flies in the face of all reason can be included?!! I see you completely ignored the extensive discussion that took place here and the World Factbook reference that was included (which you deleted) specifying ethnic groups in Egypt as: Egyptian 98%, Berber, Nubian, Bedouin, and Beja 1%, Greek, Armenian, other European (primarily Italian and French) 1%. Another one: Ethnic groups: Egyptian, Bedouin Arab, Nubian.

An article on the Coptic community would typically include fundamental and essential information about Coptic history and culture like monasticism, the Catechetical School in Alexandria, the Council of Chalcedon, Origen, weddings, Coptic Christmas, annual mulids/festivals and pilgrimages, Coptic art and textile, the Coptic Museum, etc., in addition to information about the discrimination and violence that Copts are subjected to in Egypt and which have gained worldwide attention. Instead, the article has been turned into a mouthpiece for political propaganda using terms like "ethnic Copts", "Christian nation", "Copts are identified [by whom???] as a native ethno-religious group"; and claiming that the Coptic language "is only confined to Coptic schools and to the American University in Cairo". Coptic is taught at Cairo University, Zagazig University, etc.

Please don't compromise the article like that. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 23:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I found tons of pro-arab POV in your edits. Please maintain and respect Wikipedia policy on NPOV and if you edit anything on the article, provide reliable sources. The origins of Copts are highly disputed and actually are supported by many western scholars. They are not an religion entity of egypt but a separate ethnic group. All copst view their nationality as non-arabic, therefore do not mislead the public. Next time you edit/remove any content on the article, use sources to contradict the claim, otherwise i'll concider it as simply vandalism. I will monitor all of your edits and make sure they are Wiki compliant. Please be more considerate of other peoples work next time. Thanks. Ldingley 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just provided two sources detailing the ethnic division of Egyptian society, one of which you deliberately took out from the article, and have provided plenty of other ones in past discussions on this page, which you deliberately ignored, inc. one that very clearly states: "Copts are not ethnically distinct from other Egyptians; they are a cultural remnant, i.e., the Christians who have not been converted to Islam in the 14 centuries since the Muslim invasion." [1]. I also have it from foremost authorities on Coptic Christianity:

• Kamil (1997) Coptic Egypt: History and Guide
• Kamil (2002) Christianity in the Land of the Pharaohs
• Meinardus (1999) Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity
• Wakin (2000) A Lonely Minority: The Modern Story of Egypt's Copts

Wakin, which is a very sympathetic account of the Copts and their plight, says: "Indeed, it is likely that as much as 80 percent of Egypt's present Moslem population stems from Coptic stock, having been converted to Islam centuries ago."

Meanwhile, you have not provided any sources to back up any of the claims I called into questioned, with the exception of one web site that you yourself wrote, but with no attempt to substantiate it from reliable sources. Please stop contributing original research to the article. And enough of the nonsense that all Copts "view their nationality as non-arabic [sic]"—a great deal of Egyptian Muslims also view their "nationality as non-arabic", and yet there are Copts who consider themselves Arab such as Boutros Boutros-Ghali. This is an entirely separate issue (discussed on the Egypt page). — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits and contributions are total POV. Unfortunately, you have failed to present the NPOV content which will outline the views of Copts which can be found almost one very Copt web site. You only present arab POV which is unacceptable for Wikipedia standards. This article is highly disputed and we must involve more people to resolve it. We need Copts editors and Arab editors to create a fair NPOV content. So far its one sided and discriminatory towards Coptic nation. Butros-Butros Gali is not the representative of Coptic people. I have known many copts and none of them have claimed to be of arab ethnicety, on contrary they consider it as discriminatory and unfair labeling of their nation. They are nation, whether you like it or not. 10 million people who have distinct culture, language (which is not arab) and religion. I will try to find Copt and other editors who can solve this dispute. Thanks for your contributions and editing. Wishing you all the best. Ldingley 19:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

POV dispute on Coptic ethnicity

• There is a strong POV on the article based on deletions and contributions made by Zerida. The article fails to mention Copt possition on the issue and denies the cultural and ethnic identity of Copt people. The article is suffering from pro-arab POV and from usage of unreferenced materials. The sources if any are not clear. Please do not remove the tag before the solution is found. We need Copts and Nutral editors to work on this dispute. Ldingley 19:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't insert anti-Islamic bigotry into the article. It's really very simple: Egyptians, Copts or Muslims, don't have Arabic origins but many consider themselves Arab because of the language they all speak. Many other Copts and Muslims don't agree and insist on only identifying as Egyptian. There is nothing in the article as it stands that suggests Copts identify as Arab, so I don't see anything in the article that warrants a dispute. It's obvious that your edits are directed against Muslims. Besides, we're not here to cater to the whims of what people believe. This is an encyclopedia, not a feel good to be whatever ethnic group forum. Come back when you've learned about the topic and have reliable sources. Egyegy 00:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was the version that presented Copts as an ethnic group removed? They are undoubtedly Egyptian but an ethno-religious group at the same time, in the same way that the Beta Israel speak only Amharic, but are not "Amhara" due to their religion (a situation found regarding most Agaw groups, usually even having the same religion). The extinct status of Coptic does not mean that the ethnic group, too, is extinct (were Russian-only-speaking Jews not their own ethnic group?) — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer: it is original research. If Copts are an ethnic group, then how come the Mormons aren't? When do we start classifying every religious denomination as an ethnic group? How come Hindus (who use Sanskrit in their prayers) and Muslims (who use Arabic in their prayers) in India are not classified as ethnic groups? Answer: Because they are not. Hindus and Muslims in India are two religious communities, but are equally found in the various ethnic groups of India. And there's also the fact that there are Copts who would disagree with that designation anyway. Egyegy 01:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Both ethnically and linguistically, Copts are unique and separate group from the rest of Egyptians (Arabs). Numerous sources do indicate that, here is couple of examples;

Ethnic: Ethnic boundaries between Copts and Muslims really exist and symbolise the unique differences between the two communities. (Samaan & Sukkary, pp 129; Ansari, p 397)

Language: Afro-Asiatic (formerly Hamito-Semitic) language that was spoken in Egypt from about the 2nd century Ad and that represents the final stage of the ancient Egyptian language. In contrast to earlier stages of Egyptian, which were written in monumental hieroglyphs, hieratic script, or demotic script, Coptic was written in the Greek alphabet, supplemented by seven letters borrowed from demotic writing. Coptic also replaced the religious terms and expressions of earlier… (Encyclopædia Britannica Article)

Thats why this article is disputed. Heated discussions will not solve the problem. We need nutral and copt editors. Thats all i can say. Thanks Ldingley 14:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. When quoting someone, the quote should be attributed to the actual source it was taken from [2]. Otherwise, it is considered plagiarism and open deception since the quote is from a personal website, not the sources supposedly "cited". An attribution like this for example:

"There are no ethnic or linguistic differences between Egyptian Copts and Muslims; both communities are found in all social classes and in all of Egypt's provinces. There is no Coptic province per se, but there are provinces with a larger or smaller Coptic population."[3]

2. The Britannica states, "The people of Egypt before the Arab conquest in the 7th century identified themselves and their language in Greek as Aigyptios (Arabic qibt, Westernized as Copt); when Egyptian Muslims later ceased to call themselves Aigyptioi, the term became the distinctive name of the Christian minority."[4]

3. A dispute should aim to reach some consensus, not go around throwing trollish temper tantrums and ethnic epithets [5] after being challenged to produce evidence for a blatant political POV and a host of unsubstantiated claims that were introduced into the article.

— [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 03:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• ...

Hello to everyone,

1. The argument that the Copts, and to be very precise, the Christian-Egyptians, are of a unique ethnic identity that distinguish them from Muslim-Egyptians, can immediately and easily be discovered as that arising from a Christian-Egyptian sentiment. Precisely as much as that, arguing that Muslim-Egyptians are also of a different ethnicity (namely, the Arab one) is arising from a Muslim-Egyptian sentiment. There is nothing in these arguments but sentiments, although ethnicity itself, possesses nothing of the sentimental in it! Religion was never a factor in ethnic identification, and I don't know of one historical occurrence, where a religion had caused a people to cease to be what they are, in their very human bodies and physiology(!) And whenever similar arguments were declared (such as in Macedonia with all its numerous ethnicities; and in Poland as between Jews and Christians, and even Catholicism and Orthodoxism!) it was the tongue of sentiment and politics that was speaking, not that of body and physiology. And, indeed, in those examples I mentioned, it was the actual and real differences of ethnicity, and even language, that brought with them the differences in faith - and certainly not the opposite.
It is therefore important to look at the issue as it actually happened, that is, historically: I mean that it is only beyond all existing historical information and knowledge, that one can assert that the Arabs came to Egypt not only to conqueror it, but also to populate it, with their race, and that they somehow (possibly by religion) have managed to keep that race distinct and immune of any Coptic element. Not only is this unbelievable, but, most importantly, it is unprovable, or at least, yet unproven. We have no grounds on which to base the ethnic distinction of the Christian-Egyptians; there may be only the religious distinction. And a significant indication of this, is the linguistic homogeneity of all the Egyptian people: How could the Christian-Egyptians preserve their religion, but their language not?! What is it that makes Ashmonein's bishop "Sawiris Ibn al-Muqaffa", back in the 10th century A.D., writes the "History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Chrurch" in the Arabic language?!! These are difficult questions, especially for those who want to believe that the Coptic is also ethnic.
But what only seems to be the truth, is that the difference between Copt and non-Copt in Egypt is merely the difference between those who, after the Arab conquest of Egypt, happened to adopt Islam and those who continued to be Christian; the Gods know or know not under what circumstances these transformations had occurred! (and we are referred to Ibn 'abd el-Hakam "إبن عبد الحكم" in how tributes or head-taxes where collected even after a Copt, that is, any Egyptian at that time, has reverted to Islam!) There is a whole process in here, Egyptians, that is, Copts, are gradually converting to Islam under the command of poverty and oppression. And oppression does not transform one's body and physiology; it changes one's religion only (and one's language as well!). And before disagreeing with me here, I should like to remind you that it was not without oppression that Christianity itself was once instituted in the land of Isis; when those who, in turn, quite backwards, continued to adhere to the ancient Egyptian religion, and the worship of Amoun in particular, had to go under the fire of the fanatic Christians of the time. Could we then say that, because of that, the Christian-Egyptians are ethnically disconnected with the ancient-Egyptians?! I don't think so. Such separations occur only in imagined history and do not occur in real life, and one should guard against cutting history into isolated pieces; for Histoy, too, feels the pain of the knife; unjustice.

2. User:Ldingley, it could indeed be helpful, if you could extract a quote for us here, from your sources, particularly the (Samaan & Sukkary, pp 129; Ansari, p 397) - I have the feeling that they have not done anything deeper than the mere asserting of speculations. However, please let me remind you that the Copts, and all Egyptians as I see it, no more speak Coptic. Moreover, it should be noted that one day in the past, the ancestry of most Muslim-Egyptians today, were, ehim, native speakers of Coptic. Generally, the Muslims of today are the descendants of the Christians of yesterday! And the Egyptian proverb goes: "e'naas 3ala deen molokhom!"

3. It only take us to remember that we are editing an encyclopedia, consequently, to identify ourselves as encyclopedia editors, in order to remember also that Rationalism and Critical Thinking are of the utmost importance in our occupation. And indeed, where one is not interested in consistency and rational thinking, then one aught not be interested in the activity of editing an encyclopedia as well, and perhaps in encyclopedias at all! These happen to be the measures and criteria through which an edit or an openion - any contribution - is evaluated: how much rational, coherent, and consistent it is. And because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", it becomes social in the sense that the organization of all possible disputes and disagreement is carried out by means of the talk-pages, templates, etc. It is therefore important to acknowledge the essential vitality of these organizational means, and to attempt in every way to support and assist their activity and to make proper use of them at all times, even if one personally is not contented or satisfied. And here it may be useful to point-out to what I consider as an inappropriate statement by User:Ldingley, which rejects the arguments of others as either un-neutral or non-Copt! In as much as it would be considered inappropriate if a REAL Copt comes over and say: "Copts came to Egypt from outspace and I know this because I am a Copt!" And the reason this is inappropriate is that it simply does not conform to or regard what happens to be a rational, coherent, and consistent talk or discussion. Here, I should also mention that I am unable to see anything un-neutral in the discussion here, apart from the statements which want us to believe that there is a separate and unique Coptic ethnicity. And while User:Egyegy has declared such conclusions as original research, I think he/she has fallen in the error of overestimating! since I myself do not deem it research at all!

4. For all this, I believe that the pov templates aught be avoided; the article is already in need for references and citations, and perhaps we could do it more good by finding and adding those references and citations, rather than adding unjustified pov templates, and let alone for a long while, the addition of the conclusions causing some of you to believe there is a pov condition in here!
Thanks to you all, __Maysara 13:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)