Talk:Coptic Orthodox Church

New Image for the Cathedral

I have added a well-needed, updated photo for this article, that being the newly-renovated St. Mark's Cathedral as it stands today. The existing image is already 12 years old and does not reflect the current state of the cathedral. Open to discussion below if you disagree with the change. Thanks so much. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Will revert back to prior image until the new one is approved in the Commons. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality scale

I have upgraded this article’s quality level to “B”, up from where it stood before at a “C”. The requisite qualifications behind a “B” rating have been met for this article. If anyone would like to discuss it through or disagree, please feel free to comment. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 04:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hello @That Coptic Guy:. I added several citation needed tags and other things to the article. This needs to get addressed for a GA review and may be grounds for immediate fail. Happy to help, lemme know. MX (✉ • ✎) 22:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @MX - thank you so much. I really appreciate your time and your help with this! — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 02:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, I think there may be a little confusion on the classification.

The B-class criteria (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. #2 states: The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. Unsourced statements and blank sections are evidence the article does not pass the criteria and needs reassessing. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

There's some room for growth and improvement per Otr500. I have made the move to reduce the class from B to C. Due to a lack of coverage in of some major aspects, sourcing alone will be insufficient to elevate this article to B-class. Classification is not a priority, but it is a nice benchmark. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Library 100 - Critical Approaches to Information Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 February 2024 and 12 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ssoli10 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ssoli10 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Government vs. Church claims

Nearly all reliable sources in the media and peer-reviewed research (of which there are ample articles) acknowledge that the Coptic Church disputes the government statistics. This is attested to not only in this article, but in multiple Coptic-adjacent articles on wikipedia. An editor writing an academic journal, and reviewed by peers, the BBC, Providence Journal, and multiple others not only state this but the Coptic Church makes the claim and, whether it is 100% accurate or not, it is encyclopedic to note that this is the Coptic Church's claim, especially when substantiated by other secondary reliable sources. SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Reviewers of the research article, in the journal Arab-West Papers, were Prof. Dr. Jan Jongeneel (Prof. em. Utrecht University), Prof. Dr. Philippe Fargues (American University Cairo).SeminarianJohn (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Peer-reviewed journal Citations:, , , ,, Reliable Source media citations: , , , , , , , , ,

Here is the section in Demographics added by prior editors that prompted what I believe is the need to include additional peer-reviewed and other reliable sources. Prior editors already noted that the Coptic Church claims 20-25 million members (20% of Egypt's 105 million citizens). Academic and more reliable sources are helpful to present that claim by the church. "In 2017, a government owned newspaper Al Ahram estimated the percentage of Copts at 10 to 15% and the membership claimed by the Coptic Orthodox Church is in the range of 20 to 25 million.[89][90][91]"SeminarianJohn (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

"Between Coptic Statistics in the Egyptian Census and Estimates Provided by the Coptic Orthodox Church |url=https://www.dialogueacrossborders.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/AWRpapers/paper52.pdf |journal=MIDEO: Mélanges de l'Institut Dominicain d'Études Orientales |pages=1-47 |via=Dialogue Across Borders}}</ref> A peer-reviewed article, published in the Dominican Institute for Oriental Studies' journal, MIDEO, noted that the Coptic Orthodox Church claims that between 10-20% of the Egyptian population are members."

@SeminarianJohn: Thanks for opening this discussion. However, you have again restored that content without waiting for consensus. This is edit warring and contrary to WP:BRD. Please self-revert pending discussion. While you've since retracted it, I am deeply concerned about the accusation of "biased" editing in this edit summary. I think it is indicative that you believe any argument against inclusion of this content is somehow inherently biased. It also indicates a clear misunderstanding of how WP:ONUS works. Coupled with the WP:REFBOMBING in the article and here on the talk page, you should consider reexamining how you approach consensus building on the project.

You've offered a lot of citations, but most are either not relevant to the present population or unreliable. Some of these sources are decades old and presented without any sort of indication of their age (see WP:AGE MATTERS), and population–especially for religious groups when emigration is involved–can vary wildly even within a single decade. We should write off sources published before 2011 (pre-Arab Spring) as representative of current population totals.

On to reliability of some of these sources. Even if there were "reviewers" on Cornelis Hulsman's papers, his self-published e-magazine from the non-profit Center for Arab-West Understanding (where Hulsman seems to generally co-author with interns) is absolutely not to the quality of an academic journal. Indeed, it's little more than SELFPUB by someone who has remarkably few credentials and citations by leading scholars. Anything relying on his numbers can not be reliable, and his arguments against the census data rely heavily on unsubstantiated statements made by a Coptic bishop during an interview in 1996 and Pope Shenouda on TV in 2008. He also heavily cites claims he published in his e-mag as equivalent to actual academic evaluations of Egyptian census data without actually addressing the fact that Pew contradicts his findings and not pursuing the matter beyond an email. That this 2012 paper was published in a journal devoted to translating and interpreting primary sources rather than a journal in the relevant subject area is telling.

What does that leave us with? Well, there's The Wall Street Journal from 2015, which supports a 6% to 18% estimate (in 2015, that roughly translates to 4 to 15 million) but does not indicate where it's pulling those numbers from. It does also appropriately reference the Coptic Orthodox Church's claim of 15 to 18 million, but does not apply a date to these claims. It's only a decade old, so we can probably safely use it to source the claim "As of 2015, the Coptic Orthodox Church claimed that its population was underreported by the government and that it had 15 to 18 million members in Egypt." However, in 2016, Pew Research outright placed the population of all "Orthodox" Christians in Egypt at 4 million, saying the majority of those were Coptic. Other reliable sources also indicate that organizations actually capable of reliable population counts (namely, Pew and the Vatican) put the number at between 4.5% and 8% in 2013. As such, essentially what is currently included in the article is ok, but many of those very lackluster references should be culled. We must also add emphasis to the lower-end estimates preferred by institutions that have demonstrated reliability, per WP:DUE. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Prbitti, thank you for responding. I think it's unfortunate you're making your own allegation now. I understand; my mistake probably offended you and for that I am sorry. I simply misread your edit summary and quickly caught my mistake. So, I'm not going to argue about motivations here, yours or mine. I will note that you reverted my edits twice even after I actively was trying to work with you by addressing your initial concern which was fair (that the source was a primary source). The 20% claim is already in the text, as I quoted, 20-25 million. The cited sources are not what I would describe as of encyclopedic quality, not all of them anyway. So, I spent time reading multiple peer-reviewed articles. I do find it a bit inexplicable that you would object to multiple peer-reviewed sources spanning decades with consistency from 1981 to 2022 at the most recent academic entry. I admit to being perplexed by your staunch opposition to re-stating, with peer-reviewed sources, what is already in the article (added by prior editors with much less reliable citations).

On to the sources, thank you for laying out your perspective. Cornelis Hulsman wrote one of the several pr articles, and it was published in the MIDEO for which he is not a director or editor to my knowledge. MIDEO is the Dominican Institute for Oriental Studies' journal. I don't disagree about age, but you're discounting all peer-reviewed articles 2012 onward as well. Per Wiki policy, even one peer-reviewed citation can be sufficient; here we have more than 8.

I think Pew Research is probably accurate; that isn't the issue I don't think. The issue is that the article currently, and I think possibly rightfully so, the Coptic Orthodox Church claims 20-25 million members in Egypt (or 20% of the population). The question isn't, who is more accurate? Encyclopedic content also includes the claims of the subject, in this case the Coptic Orthodox Church. One could note, for example, that the Coptic Church claims 25 million members (20% of the population) as previous editors have already done, while also acknowledging this is not what other reputable research surveys have found (e.g. Pew Research). Again, thank you, Prbitti. SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I removed the sentence that says "The coptic church claims higher estimates" at your request. I want to note that I am doing so out of respect and because I'm not trying to argue with you.SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

On an indirectly related note, how can you show the references without what you referenced as "refbombing"? I am not familiar with how to present the references in the talk page without citing them in this way; could you point me in the right direction for future conversations?SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for the partial revert. The Hulsman papers are either self-published in a marginal e-mag or were included in a journal specializing in reprinting primary sources without any indication that they performed review. The additions you made seem to intended as profusely sourcing the Coptic claims against other population totals and estimates from reliable sources. While probably well-intentioned, this has the effect of falsely implying that the greater weight of trust should be placed on the Coptic claims (which even Hulsman considers improbable on the higher end). Thank you for discussing this, but you should still self-revert until consensus is achieved. We are not far apart in terms of what we believe is appropriate in the article, so I can anticipate that consensus is easily achievable.

My proposed alternative second half of that paragraph that deals with the Coptic claims reads approximately as follows: "Bishops and Pope Shenouda have repeatedly claimed that the population of Coptic Orthodox Christians is underreported by the Egyptian government. Church leaders have claimed that, as of [insert date of particular claim], Coptic Orthodox Christians comprised [X]% of the population." If the claims were made prior to 2016, we should follow this up with "Pew Research has estimated there were four million Egyptian 'Orthodox' Christians in 2016, primarily Coptic Orthodox." Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you too, Pbritti; let me know if I've removed the other part you believe needs to be removed until we come up with an agreement. I thought I removed all additions that used the citations and 15-20% number being discussed. I think we are both well-intentioned. Absolutely, and like I said I really regret that I misread your summary. I agree with your proposal. I think that would cover the issue. Thank you, friend.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@SeminarianJohn: Thanks for your cooperativeness here! I am anticipating that I will be unable to reply again for about 3.5 hours. If you want to take a stab at a revised version of your edits incorporating my critiques, please feel welcome to do so. I won't revert them again, as I think any further modification can be fairly easily hashed out with you here on the talk page. Your work in this subject area, so neglected on this project, is greatly appreciated. I'll be back before the end of the day UTC to reply to any queries or comments you may have. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I also had to step away; I work Sundays so I had to sign off for a while. I think what you said is perfect and I'd support just copying and pasting it with the dates that you think are best.SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, I added to the paragraph below that academic estimates of the number of Copts in the diaspora are also less than 1 million as the church claims; Middle East Report estimated 533,000 in 2013. I think it's helpful but please remove if you think it's too specific or another issue (or ask me to remove and I will).SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

References