Talk:Copts

The reference to "Nisan Mordechai"

"The Copts were severely affected by Nasser's nationalization policies, though they represented about 10 to 20 percent of the population."

This sentence cites "Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-Expression, 2nd Edition" by Mordechai Nisan (Author)

The author of this citation, Nisan Mordechai, is described as a "counter-jihadist" and an adherent of Bat Ye'or, who promotes the Eurabia conspiracy theory. This is a far-right, anti-Muslim conspiracy theory that posits that globalist entities, led by French and Arab powers, aim to Islamize and Arabize Europe, thereby weakening its existing culture and undermining its previous alliances with the United States and Israel.

I am wondering if a better citation and author can be used related to Egypt's Coptic community under Nasser, as well as additional context. Gamalny (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

What is Todros ch. 3-4

The Todros ch. 3-4 citation seems to have been added to this article back in revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&oldid=569446271 back in August 2013 by @Rjensen It also appears in Christianity in Egypt and probably elsewhere. It needs to have a full reference beyond just an author name. Erp (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it's probably at type-o for the Tadros book that appears in Further Reading in that 2013 version of the article. There appears to have been some messy subsequent editing that retains a reference to Samuel Tadros in the current version of the article but replaces the formal citation with something else. Pathawi (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Copts make up 5-15% of population yet christianity 5-1o%?

If we read the notes and linked sources on the "Christianity in Egypt"-wiki article, we are met with high quality sources disproving the 5-15% number stated in Source 20 of this article.

I find it strange that a government-ran newsoutlet found up to 15% of the population as *overwhelmingly* coptic when the US' independent estimation made up around 9-10% only one year later in 2018. This is also not considering copts, but christians in Egypt as a whole.

It is therefor in my now fact-backed opinion wrong to claim that up to 15% of the population is coptic when further studies isn't finding numbers above 10% as christian. Mythicshaman (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This article contains a few different estimates of the Coptic population in Egypt, with different sources from different points in time. I don't see a US government source from 2018 that suggests a 9–10% number. Can you pinpoint what in the article's text you're talking about, & what you want to be different? Pathawi (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality and the state of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For additional context, here are the two versions of the article that I introduced in an attempt to address these issues: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&oldid=1282925895

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&oldid=1282456536

Both have largely been reverted or undone now. Turnopoems (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you need to specify the exact statements in the article to which you're objecting.

"Overemphasizing connections to ancient Egypt" is not an over-emphasis. Copts in Egypt do in fact emphasize that relationship and take pride that their Coptic language, their art, their music etc are directly derived from those of Ancient Egypt. Furthermore, as stated in the genetics section of the article, Copts (ad most Muslim Egyptians) are genetically very closely related to the Ancient Egyptians. These are well established facts, but happy to hear you are objecting to them.

"Distancing Copts from mainstream Egyptian culture, Arab identity, and Islam" is not something the article in its current form tries to do. The vast majority of Copts are in fact opposed to Arabism and Islamism. For instance, while Al-Azhar advocates for more Arabization of the education and media, the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church advocates for teaching the Egyptian and Coptic languages.

Thank you again and happy to work with you and everyone on improving the article. Epenkimi (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately at this point it is not helpful to point to one singular instance because the problem is pervavsive throughout the article as you have reintroduced and mulitplied these statements throughout the entire article. It needs to be reworked. Additionally, the content you have copied from other articles without formatting the sources has led to the page having dozens of broken and unformatted sources and this also needs to be worked on.

Throughout this discussion, I have repeatedly clarified that our task is not to debate our personal agreement with certain historical or cultural claims, as such considerations are irrelevant in the context of producing verifiable encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is governed by policies that prioritize reliable sources over personal convictions, and the key issue is not the factuality of a claim in an absolute sense but rather how it is presented and supported within the article. Even if you and I both agree that the sky is blue, that assertion must be supported by verifiable sources rather than personal agreement, and the framing should reflect the depth and nuance found in academic discourse rather than oversimplified or absolute statements like the ones you insist on including. More importantly, its presentation here should be free of POV embellishment.

It is entirely appropriate within this article to examine cultural elements within Coptic communities and their historical continuity with earlier periods of Egyptian history. However, such discussions must be framed with specificity. For instance, when addressing musical traditions, it is necessary to clarify which aspects of ancient Egyptian music may have influenced Coptic traditions. Does evidence suggest that ancient Egyptian musical practices where completely absorbed into modern Coptic music? If Coptic music is predominantly liturgical, does that imply ancient Egyptian music was exclusively religious in nature? Broad, unqualified assertions, such as claiming that "Coptic culture is a direct continuation of ancient Egyptian culture", fail to meet Wikipedia’s standards and the claim itself does not hold against scrutiny.

Rather than making broad, unverifiable claims about continuity, the focus should be on clarifying which aspects of ancient Egyptian music are reflected in Coptic musical traditions and how they have been preserved or transformed over time, and in a more summarized format may briefly mention that they have inherited some features of ancient Egyptian musical traditions. It is always important to present content within the framework of scholarly research, ensuring that claims are supported by reliable sources and that the language used reflects appropriate academic caution, as required by WP:V and WP:DUE.

Similarly, genetic studies suggesting an affinity between a modern population and an ancient one do not substantiate categorical claims of direct ancestry. Even if sources indicate a strong genetic continuity, Wikipedia requires that such claims be presented in proportion to the prevailing academic consensus per WP:DUE. The notion of direct descent over thousands of years is inherently problematic, as population genetics does not function in absolute, linear terms. Academic works in anthropology and population genetics avoid such definitive language, as the complexity of historical migrations, admixture, and cultural evolution precludes simplistic ancestral designations.

Finally, Wikipedia articles are not personal essays; they must adhere to the formal and precise language expected of an academic resource. Content should be written in a manner consistent with the encyclopedic tone outlined in WP:MOS.

I sincerely hope that this conversation will lead to a mutual understanding of the goals we should pursue for the article. However, I’m concerned that I may be reiterating myself excessively, given the extensive discussion we've already had on your talk page. At this juncture, I am contemplating the need to initiate further consensus-building by inviting other editors to weigh in. Turnopoems (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm happy to work with you and with others to improve the article. However, I find it problematic that you object to statements such as "are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians", even though these statements are supported by multiple references and sources in the article. If you want to object to some of the sources, we can certainly review them together. But would you similarly object to notions such as "modern Greeks are the direct descendants of Ancient Greeks"? Or that "modern Chinese are the direct descendants of the Ancient Chinese"? If these statements are not controversial and widely accepted, why is the former problematic?

Regarding coptic music, we can certainly add a section about that and discuss its relation to Ancient Egyptian music. That's why I'm encouraging a discussion here to see how we can improve the article, rather than simply remove things that some people personally object to. Epenkimi (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I will address your reply in the RfC post below to avoid multiple parallel discussions. Turnopoems (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding neutrality, language and adherence to WP:MOS

The article exhibits significant issues with the framing of its content, demonstrating a clear bias towards certain identity-based conclusions. This bias is evident in how specific claims are presented, particularly regarding the relationship to ancient Egypt. There is a strong overemphasis on unverified statements, such as "Copts are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians," which lack credible academic sources and misrepresent genetic history. Furthermore, vague and oversimplified language like "Coptic music is a continuation of ancient Egyptian music" and "Coptic culture is considered a continuation of that of ancient Egypt" diminishes the complexity of these cultural histories and risks misleading readers.

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

• Again, if you have specific objections to specific statements or sources, I am happy to work with you on that. However, your initial edits that deleted tens of references and rewrote the article in a way you alone seem to think is appropriate makes this article heavily biased towards your POV. Epenkimi (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  Also, please remember that most (if not all) of the initial references that you deleted were incorporated by users other than myself. I simply reverted many of the references and statements you deleted without discussing the reason behind the deletion. Epenkimi (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding your claim about ancient Chinese and ancient Greeks, I would object to it all the same of course. While genetic affinity between modern and ancient populations in these regions is well-supported by genetic studies, that is not equivalent to asserting direct descent. Such a claim is unverifiable and, above all, very unlikely based on the technical definition of such a claim. This topic demands academic caution and precise language. The fact that we cannot agree on the fundamental premise, that asserting direct descent from an ancient population is unsuitable for an encyclopedic article, is a core point of contention. Additionally, the sources used to support these claims fail to meet WP:RS standards, a concern I have explained multiple times.

  Beyond this, Copts are a contemporary ethnic group, people living in 2025 with a culture shaped by the modern world and influenced by thousands of years of historical development, like any other group. They deserve an accurate representation of their contemporary identity without having ancient Egypt imposed onto every aspect of their existence just because you have a personal inclination towards that specific period (I do too by the way). Their genetic connections or continuity in some aspects of their culture does not need to be reaffirmed in every paragraph. This is not my stance; it is WP:NPOV. Their distinct identity is fundamentally anchored in their Christian faith, even if pre-Islamic history is often invoked to differentiate them from Muslims.

  You'll notice that I haven't objected to the inclusion of any of the content in the article, but specifically the way they are worded, framed and presented. I have no interest in excluding any narrative, provided it is backed by reputable sources and follows Wikipedia’s guidelines in the way it is presented. My repeated attempts, so far unsuccessful, have aimed to moderate the language and align the structure of the article with Wikipedia standards, which necessarily includes removing weak sources used to support problematic claims that do not belong in an academic text. This does not preclude mentioning, for instance, the genetic connection between Copts and ancient Egyptians in an appropriate manner, something that is already done in the genetics subsection in my opinion. This also does not preclude discussing the connection between various cultural traits and their equivalents in ancient Egypt or any other historical period, provided it is done with proper attribution and without broad, unqualified assertions that exaggerate these connections beyond what is supported by evidence. The issue lies not in acknowledging historical continuity where it exists, but in the disproportionate and often misleading manner in which these claims are framed.

  You repeatedly claim that I am "removing content", but removing unverifiable and weakly sourced material is entirely justified per WP:RS and WP:V. Content does not become sacrosanct merely because it has a citation. The sources were weak, as defined by Wikipedia guidelines (I have referenced the exact guidelines, so implying that I removed them because of POV is disingenuous), and the content violates Wikipedia guidelines (same here). Collaboration to improve this article requires you to stop reverting my edits aimed at addressing these issues, especially if you actually do want to iron out these issues like you say you do. I will happily work with you to improve the framing of new content that you want to add, but even those edits were reverted and you also removed my citation tags without addressing the lack of citation in the text.

  I know that your contributions are made in good faith and that this is likely a topic you are passionate about. As you are a new editor however, I want to make you aware that repeatedly reinstating and adding more disputed content during an ongoing resolution while also disregarding established Wikipedia policies, can be considered disruptive editing. Im not pursuing anything other than consensus to improve the article, but in other circumstances, it could lead to arbitration. Please avoid making further edits of this content while there's an ongoing discussion and RfC addressing the matter (you are of course free to make other unrelated edits). Turnopoems (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RFC. The statement is not WP:RFCNEUTRAL, and asking people to assess "neutrality, language and adherence to WP:MOS" for an entire article is a very big ask. It appears that this disagreement just involves two of you, so it would probably be better to start off by seeking a third opinion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Agreed with FactOrOpinion that this is not a proper RfC nor what the WP:RFC process is for. However, I might as well provide a third opinion without that process being invoked bureaucratically. I coincidentally happen to work on a lot of ethno-cultural articles, have a degree in cultural anthropology (ethnology), and find the complex truth of such questions far more interesting and valuable than any "my side versus yours" viewpoint battle (of a sort often tinged by political, religious, diasporic, folk-belief, and other viewpoints rather than on systematic review of evidence and its meaning as found in high-quality sources.

  Detailed third opinion taking both parties' concerns on board. Since I'm doing this and the RfC is malformed, I've removed the RfC tag.

  Our articles on ethno-cultural groups (especially ones that still exist but have a long history and one that is characterized by inter-cultural exchange, influence, and intermingling at various eras and areas, are notoriously difficult to get right, and usually do not come down to "my version versus yours" but considerable editing (including scope adjustment, sometimes even article splitting/merging, e.g. Copts re-focused on the present-day population and historical information mostly merged to Coptic history, with the latter's key points only appearing in WP:SUMMARY form in a section in the former), by a larger body of editors over time.

  On the substance of the present rather narrow dispute, I have to agree generally (but see below) with Turnopoems. Making "directly descended from" claims without iron-clad sourcing and (not "or") also a encyclopedically pertinent rationale to do it, is not how we do things. The evidence seems to suggest interrelatedness and not much further, though I am not immersed in Coptic history. (I don't have a dog in the fight, but could be missing some information.) Nor can statistical genetic data be used to make any claims about culture (including music, etc.).

  There's the further problem that "directly descended from" claims are essentially meaningless, because they have no concrete definition. E.g. my personal genetic test data indicates that a small portion of my genome is long ago from Cyprus, so in a technical sense I'm "directly descended from the ancient Cypriots", but using that phrase to describe myself would be very misleading, as would calling myself "Cypriot-American" or "Cypriot". A key element of encyclopedic writing is avoiding ambiguous, confusing, or misleading phrases.

  Secondly along this line of reasoning, haplogroup evidence is often entirely meaningless with regard to ethnocultural groups, lifeways, and cultural heritage. As an example, genetic comparison of modern south-east English people's data with archaeogenetic data from the region shows that a high proportion of the modern-day residents have significant, even dominant, overlap with those all the way back to the Mesolithic era. That is, they could be (near-meaninglessly) said to be "directly descended from" the builders of Stonehenge and the like, but in cultural memory and written history they have identified entirely as English and have for all practical purposes simply been English. Yet before they received an influx of northwest German chromosomes from the Anglo-Saxons in the 5th–8th centuries and gradually became English, they would have identified as Britons (or for a spell even as Romans) speaking Common Brittonic and sometimes later British Latin, and with entirely Insular Celtic then Romano-British lifeways (culture) with little in common with Angles and Saxons (also already established as continental populations by the era of Roman Britain). It is not helpful to describe south-east English people of today as "direct descendants of" the Britons before the Roman and Anglo-Saxon invasions, except in a paragraph devoted to their genetics, which has nothing to do with their culture.

  Moving on, Turnopoems's WP:P&G arguments are sound, especially with regard to quality of sources how they can be used. Removing cleanup/dispute tags without the underlying being issue resolved isn't how we do things, either. Even if direct descent (as the majority component, not just through intermittent regional commingling) from the Pharaonic Egyptians could somehow be proven, with sources that are actually reliable for such a matter, and without using WP:OR to "interpret" them to seem to say what they do not, Turnopoems is again correct that harping on such a connection paragraph after paragraph would be an WP:NPOV failure (and also a WP:NOT#ADVOCACY one - Wikipedia does not exist for promoting a particular viewpoint or factoid or story that a particular person wants badly to over-emphasize).

  Our material on every such ethno-cultural group has to align almost entirely (per WP:DUE policy) with the mainstream, pertinent, modern academic consensus about it (what the preponderance of modern sources reliable on the subject agree on), with alternative hypotheses given little weight and short shrift if mentioned at all. Where there is no academic consensus on a particular point, WP cannot pick a side. Where such a point of uncertainty has resulted in real-world controversy between reputable scholars in recent times (and perhaps spilled over into popular culture, modern ethno-politics, etc.), our encyclopedist duty is to lay-summarize these competing hypotheses with due weight given based on their acceptance level. Under no circumstances does WP just declare one side or the other correct and write as if the controversy did not exist. (But we also need not document controversies resolved a long time ago through more modern research, unless an outmoded idea has become common in the popular imagination and readers might expect to find it addressed.) Turnopoems has even indicated no opposition to including any particular claim as long as it's demonstrable with proper sourcing, worded encyclopedically appropriately, and not used as a repetitive or out-of-context PoV bludgeon. That's a reasonable and standard-operating-procedure approach.

  All that said, Epenkimi's request to have "specific objections to specific statements or sources" be spelled out in detail is also entirely reasonable, especially in cases of this sort involving a series of claims and a series of sources. I've rarely seen a matter like this firmly resolved (hopefully with a compromise that both/all sides can live with, and more importantly which produces an objectively better article), without listing out disputed claims and sources one by one and discussing them on their own merits. I would suggest that is the way forward here (in a new thread), and should be done on this article-talk page, not in user-talk.

  Epenkimi's note that some of these sources (perhaps also some claims?) pre-dated that editor's involvement is meaningful, in that if other editors, without controversy heretofore, considered them good enough to use here (for something), then some of them might actually be, and Turnopoems has a higher barrier to jump to get "the right version". It seems likely to me that one of more of these sources are okay, for certain sorts of claims but not [some of?] the ones at issue, that some of them are not good sources at all, and that the claims most at issue are not adequately sourced (maybe not sourceable at this stage), but also that at least one or another point Epenkimi wants to include will be sourceable and should be included, perhaps in rewritten form (and maybe confined to a short section on genetic research, which arguably would be more on-topic at this ethno-culture article than at Coptic history).

  As a final point, I would suggest that what amount to user warnings regarding behavior and consequences are better left at user-talk pages and kept out of article-talk discussions, when appropriate at all. Better given by an uninvolved party than a partisan in the dispute.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Thank you for your very valuable insights and feedback. Since the dispute primarily stems from a lack of adherence to Wikipedia guidelines, I’ve found it particularly challenging to present the issue in a purely neutral manner, perhaps further underscoring that an RfC may not have been the most suitable venue for addressing this. I have not previously been involved in a dispute over such a large volume of text, nor have I experienced improved formatting being a point of contention in the past. The reason I could not pinpoint specific statements requiring revision is that new problematic content has been continuously added throughout the dispute (and still is, see latest edit), exacerbating the issue. I hope @Epenkimi will refrain from this going forward so we can focus on addressing the existing problems in the article before introducing new content.

  I appreciate your insights on a roadmap for improving the article, and if the other editor is willing to use this as a basis for collaboration, I will begin cataloging the sections I believe need revision or removal in a separate post for us to address together. I understand that an RfC would be more helpful after this stage if the content is still disputed. Turnopoems (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish & @Turnopoems, thank you both for your reply. I am in agreement in principle with both of you to work collaboratively on improving the article. There are sections that I was planning to work on: Music, Identity, Persecution and Church affairs (I'm not sure that last section should exist as a main subhead. It should probably be incorporated into History or renamed as Religion). If you would like me to refrain from editing these sections for now, I can hold off. Otherwise, we can start working together on other sections while I work on those 4 sections.

  With regards to what may seem the major point of contention, that is the identity and roots statements. I agree that these should be factual statements, and not "my opinion versus yours". However, I still believe that it is a very reasonable claim to state that "Modern Greeks are the direct descendants of the Ancient Greeks" or that "Modern Chinese are the direct descendants of the Ancient Chinese". These statements do claim that every single modern Greek or Chinese is directly descendant from these ancient people, but taken collectively, it is very reasonable to make these claims based on genetic, historical, geographical, linguistic, cultural and other facts. I'm not sure how we can say that such statements would be in contradiction with Wikipedia's standards or guidelines.

  In the case of Copts (technically the term simply means "Egyptians"), not only do they self-identify as Egyptians and descendants of the Ancient Egyptians, but objectively speaking (1) their language is the latest stage of development of the ancient Egyptian language and was even used to decipher the Egyptian hieroglyphs, (2) there is absolutely no historical evidence that claims they were replaced or exterminated at some in history, (3) they are genetically very close to ancient Egyptians: "Copts share the same main ancestral component than North African and Middle East populations [...], supporting a common origin with Egypt (or other North African/Middle Eastern populations). They are known to be the most ancient population of Egypt and [...] different from the current Egyptian population which is closer to the Arabic population of Qatar. [...] Copts lack the influence found in Egyptians from Qatar, an Arabic population. It may suggest that Copts have a genetic composition that could resemble the ancestral Egyptian population, without the present strong Arab influence." [3], (4) Coptic music as is close as it gets to ancient Egyptian music, (5) the Coptic calendar is identical to the ancient Egyptian calendar to the smallest detail including the names of the months and seasons, (6) many historical Coptic names are identical to ancient Egyptian names... Not to mention that it is a well established common knowledge that Copts are in fact the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians (see [4] as an example, although I am well aware that in isolation, this cannot be used as evidence).

  So I guess my question is, what exact evidence (more than the above) is required to link a modern population with an ancient one, and why is it so unfathomable and objectionable to state that Copts descend directly from ancient Egyptians? And if not the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, then (1) where do Copts descend from, and (2) what happened to the descendants of the ancient Egyptians?

  Thank you both again, and I look forward to continuing the discussion, learn from you, and work with you to improve the article. Epenkimi (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)