Talk:Sham Ennessim

Ancient Origin(s)

I have removed this section due to concerns about the source:

The festival has been nationally celebrated by all the Egyptians since ancient times, as it is considered a national festival in Egypt. Its history goes back to ancient Egyptian times, as it was related to the agricultural background of the ancient Egyptians, originating from Shemu. Sham Ennessim is an official holiday in modern Egypt.

Reasoning: I am not aware of a pharaonic Shemu festival nor can I find anything on it. There is the season šm.w which gives us Coptic ϣⲱⲙ (summer). šo:m does not directly become sham - and it's not the name of a festival, AFAIK. The festival of the first month of šm.w is the festival of Renenutet. Maybe there is a connection between the Renenutet festival and the modern festival, but that needs to be shown - the source give in the section above just asserts that Sham Ennessim is ancient because it associates it with the season name šm.w ... which smacks a lot like superficial armchair linguistics.

If you want the section back, please provide some source that shows that there was a festival of that name in antiquity or shows the parallels in customs that would justify a connection without just going by "A sounds like B to me so ..." MikuChan39 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

about AI-generated image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(User:That Coptic Guy) removed the image and I think it is a wrong application of the policies, he actually referred to WP:AIIMAGES

AI-generated images
Most images wholly generated by AI should not be used in mainspace, especially for named people and in technical or scientific subjects such as anatomy and chemistry. Obvious exceptions include articles about AI and articles about notable AI-generated images; other categories of exceptions may arise through further community discussion. AI-generated images should not be used to depict individual people (living or dead). Marginal cases (such as major AI enhancement or if an AI-generated image of a living person is itself notable) are subject to case-by-case consensus.

So, it say (most) not (all) + (shouldn't) not (must not) + also it apply on "people and in technical or scientific subjects" and this article is not + (other categories of exceptions may arise through further community discussion) and you remove it without discussion.

I don't know what's wrong with posting an image like this that captures the atmosphere of an Egyptian celebration or tradition. There's nothing deceptive about it, and the comment of image states it's an imaginary image. Unfortunately, there aren't any free Sham Ennessim images available yet, so there's no harm in using an expressive image. If others have a different opinion, we can reach a consensus, but I absolutely refuse to remove an image just because another user doesn't like the AI-generated images. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ibrahim.ID - I apologize for not posting on the talk page before removing the image. I'm going to restore it, but for purposes of this discussion, I am absolutely voting to remove the image for the reasons you mentioned above. We need to try and not use AI images in mainspace. This is also not an article discussing an AI topic, so that's another reason why it isn't appropriate here. The image isn't inherently deceptive as you did properly noted it was AI, but no real Sham el-Nassim celebration will be held with perfectly arranged eggs, fish, and a background with flowing greenery on a sunny day like that image depicts... — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ibrahim.ID Sorry - struck a part of my comment. Please see WP:AIIB as another editor mentioned. The community has come to a consensus on a general ban of AI-images on non AI-related articles. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. In fact, I'm not a stickler for posting this image and I'm not a stubborn person. I certainly respect all points of view, and if many people find it inappropriate, there's no problem with removing it. I was simply surprised because I didn't violate any policies or guidelines. As the rules state (Each case is discussed separately).

Thank you for pointing out the discussion WP:AIIB, I've noticed that most of the opinions support banning AI images, but at the same time, they oppose a "blanket ban" They argue that these are exceptional cases, and perhaps the article here is an exception.

I understand some people's displeasure with the AI-generated image, as it is fabricated, distorts facts, and is inappropriate for Wikipedia articles which rely on facts and reliable information. We're not talking, for example, about AI-generated images of the "Mona Lisa" or "Big Ben" (I'm definitely against that), but rather about an Egyptian tradition (not something tangible or with a specific image). We're talking about celebrating Sham Elnessim in parks, eating colored eggs and "Fesikh" or Bloater and green onions. This image expresses the atmosphere, no free photos yet. I just thought I'd include an imaginary image to help convey the idea to the reader.

I also understand the fear many have about the idea of ​​relying on AI images. I've seen this issue as an ongoing debate for years, with both supporters and opponents of the idea in general. Therefore, I don't want this image to be part of that debate; I want to discuss it independently. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 08:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

No free photos yet. There actually is. I added one to the Wikidata item. There's also File:Bg-easter-eggs.jpg and an image of fish in an Arbic article for the holiday. I'm sure your aware of all that though since you edited the articles and Wikidata item. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I removed the image. This clearly isn't an instance of "about self" since the article doesn't have to do with AI or AI generated images and that was only exception. You should have asked on the talk page to have the image added to the article. Instead of just adding it and then expecting everyone else to justify it's removal. Personally, I don't find your reason for putting it in the article compelling or valid. Your just going off about AI generated images in general instead of actually saying why you think this particular image should be in the article. This isn't the place to discuss or debate AI generated images. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This is your opinion, do not force your opinion on everyone Ibrahim.ID ✪ 07:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ancient Origins, part 2

First off, really appreciate the extensive rewrite of the article that took place over the last days - it was much better, but still full of speculation, unfortunately:

- There is no festival Shemu that I can find from pharaonic times, only the season

- Cannot find the place where Plutarch speaks of salted fish and lettuce

- I cannot find any attestation for ϣⲱⲙ as a festival, it is summer and taxes only in Crum

- No *ϣⲱⲙ ⲛⲛⲓⲥⲓⲙ "summer of the grasses", either - looks like a complete internet retcon

- Read through Blackman's chapter on festivals, and she does NOT talk about origins at all

Sorry, this whole history section is hopeless. I have rewritten the first section of this paragraph to start from what we know and present the other claims and the objective issues with each of them. I left the date section alone because I have no specific knowledge on that, but it is still rather disjointed.

I am pasting the previous text in here out of respect for the amount of work that went into rewriting it, but if you want to restore parts of it, please look up the original primary sources first and cite them in a way that the claims can be verified by a reader or another editor. If you know where to find the Annals of Ain Shams Literature, I would appreciate that, btw.

Ancient Egypt

Sham Ennessim was believed by some to have first been celebrated by Egyptians during the Pharaonic era (ca. 2700 BC) and they kept celebrating it during the Ptolemaic times, the Roman times, medieval times, and up to the present day. Others contend that while the festival is a descendant of a Shemu festival, it's current form is an amalgamation of different influences from different eras. Ultimately, there is insufficient evidence to confirm the festival's exact origins and evolution. Allegedly, Plutarch records that there was a festival around the time of spring where Egyptians went out into their gardens with food, drink, and musical instruments. Gifts were exchanged, including salted fish and lettuce.

Christianization of Egypt

There is some evidence indicating Shemu was tied to Easter after the Christianization of Egypt. According to Winifred Blackman, Shom Ennisim used to come before Easter, during fasting time. It was then changed so that Christians could participate in festival activities, which include eating fish. Coptic fasts prohibit meat consumption. However, she does not say when this change happened. The Coptic calculation of Easter uses the Aqbati method, invented by Pope Demetrius (189-231 AD) to ensure it would always be on the same date as Easter celebrated by other Christian groups, due to an early Byzantine decree. Fish and eggs are both symbols of resurrection for Christians, influencing their use in festivities.

Shom means spring or summer. Enn is a prefix meaning of the, and sim means herbs or grasses. If the full term Shom Ennisim predates Islam, it translates to Spring of the Herbs/Grasses. If Shom was preserved in an archaic understanding, it means Harvest of the Herbs/Grasses.

Muslim Conquest of Egypt

As Egypt became Islamized, the term Shemu/Shom Ennisim may have found a rough phono-semantic match in Sham Ennesim, or "Smelling/Taking In the Zephyrs," which fairly accurately represents the way in which the festival is celebrated. There is some doubt about where the current Coptic name of the festival came from, due to limited attestation.

At one point, Muslims in Giza celebrated the mawlid of Abu Huraira on the same date as Shom Ennisim.

The Islamic calendar being lunar and thus unfixed relative to the solar year, the date of Sham Ennessim remained on the Christian-linked date. The Christian Egyptians have played a major role in preserving the festival through their cultural agency, which was quite limited after the conversion to Islam in Egypt, but that cannot be taken to be the reason why the Muslim Egyptians collectively celebrate the festival.

Some believe that for the festival to be collectively celebrated by the Muslim Egyptians it must have been retained by them among themselves after conversion, citing E. W. Lane, (see below), and from the fact that they perform similar celebratory traditions.

MikuChan39 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Ancient Origins, part 3

I'm getting somewhat tired of this, but here we go again: If you want to establish as an undisputed fact that there really was continuity for this festival from ancient times we need more than the source by Molefi Kete Asante. In his book he does not establish that there was a spring festival of this name in pharaonic Egypt, he just makes that assertion. If it were true, I'd expect to see it somewhere in an Egyptian dictionary or a description of relevant source texts about festivals in Middle Egyptian, Late Egyptian, Demotic or, heck, even Coptic. Have not been able to find anything - šm.w is summer or tax, not a festival. Same for Coptic ϣⲱⲙ. So, the etymology Molefi Kete Asante presents as fact looks a lot like wishful thinking and I am calling BS on the whole thing. Not going to outright delete it because it has been published and there are a lot of tourist guides etc. that repeat it without questioning, but some qualifiers are in order even if you have no rebuttal from Egyptologists because frankly Egyptologists do not have time to write rebuttals for every piece of speculation that is put out there. MikuChan39 (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Moving the reply down here instead. You are all over the place, please keep the discussion in one place.

Formulating the passage in accordance with the peer-reviewed source is not only sufficient, it is the standard of accuracy we are obligated to uphold on Wikipedia. There is no need to extrapolate additional conclusions out of an overabundance of editorial caution, particularly when such extrapolations risk falling afoul of WP:SYNTH. As presently written, the text accurately distinguishes between two separate claims from the sources: first, that the tradition originates in a festival celebrated during the harvest season; and second, that the modern name may derive from the ancient name of the season. Nowhere does it assert that the tradition descends from a specific festival named shemu. It appears you are conflating these distinct points to suggest that the article claims the tradition stems from an ancient celebration called shemu.

Your revision attributes conclusions to the cited source that it simply does not make. This constitutes a textbook example of WP:OR, which may be summarily removed. Moreover, you are relying on a Coptic lexicon to assert the nonexistence of attestations. On what basis can such a claim be made, unless a reliable source explicitly states that no attestation exists?

If your aim is to challenge the current source’s assertion, the burden lies with you to produce a reliable, contradictory source. At that point, we can present both perspectives in balanced fashion, per WP:DUE. In short, there are sources that explicitly support this claim, which suffices for its inclusion. If you wish to challenge it, the burden lies with you to disprove it using reputable sources, not through your own conjecture or original research. Absent that, I will be reworking the section to align strictly with what the sources state, nothing more, and certainly nothing less. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 09:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

First off, thanks for the reply (@Turnopoems) and for working on restructuring the article. The new structure is better than the old one.

As for the topic at hand, the supposed antiquity of the festival, the sources given do not seem satisfactory. I hope you have the patience to review the following as I have taken the trouble to write it up for discussion rather than just summarily editing the article as I see fit. Proposals included in the text below:

(1) tshom ni sime

Middle East Eye is a web-publication dealing with news on all sorts of topics, it is not a peer-reviewed Egyptology or archeology journal. Specifically, the following statement needs to be modified when sourced to this article as it currently is:

This in turn has a proposed Coptic origin, tshom ni sime, meaning "garden meadows". With the Arabization of Egypt, the name is thought to have underwent a phono-semantic shift and evolved into Sham Ennesim.

tshom ni sime is not good Coptic, neither Bohairic nor Sahidic. I am relying on the ability to read Coptic and to write grammatically correct Coptic here after having taken several courses on it. tšōm n-ni-sim (ϭⲱⲙ ⲛⲛⲓⲥⲓⲙ) "garden of the grasses" would work which is one of the two etymologies I have seen proposed before. The other is šōm n-ni-sim (ϣⲱⲙ ⲛⲛⲓⲥⲓⲙ "Harvest of the Herbs/Grasses"). Note that the form proposed by Ms. Osman has two mistakes in it, a missing genitive and a form sime that does not exist. The problem with both etymologies is that I have not seen the original word in any actual Coptic text. That does not mean that they do not exist, but it also means that we cannot just take a random news article as any kind of proof. Unless there is a much better source in [5] which I cannot access at present, I would propose the following for this passage:

A derivation from a Coptic ϣⲱⲙ ⲛⲛⲓⲥⲓⲙ ("Harvest of the Herbs/Grasses") or ϭⲱⲙ ⲛⲛⲓⲥⲓⲙ ("garden of the grasses") has been proposed. This term is, however, given without reference to any particular source text nor found in standard Coptic dictionaries. (happy to provide sources for both proposed etymologies in these forms)

Which is true. Look for it in any standard Coptic dictionary like Crum, Westendorf or Spiegelberg - it's not there. You are not going to find a peer-reviewed paper on which made-up words are not in the dictionary. So, I think it's up to whoever makes this claim to show an actual Coptic text from before the internet that uses this word. Wikipedia is not a place for Original Research, but it is also not a place for random etymological speculation, especially when presented as quasi-fact: "the name is thought to have undergone (not underwent)" suggests that this is scholarly consensus which it is certainly not.

Sidenote: I don't see what is not factual about my original statement: "It has been proposed that the Arabic name is a reinterpretation of a proposed Coptic *ϣⲱⲙ ⲛⲛⲓⲥⲓⲙ "Harvest of the Herbs/Grasses". No actual attestation of this term has, however, been provided. ϣⲱⲙ by itself means 'summer' or 'tax' in Coptic, not 'festival' or 'harvest'." - all pieces of this sentence are easily verifiable.

(2) The 4,500 year old festival

This one is more tricky. What exactly does Molefi Kete Asante say?

The people of Egypt have celebrated this holiday (Spring Day) for more than 4,500 years. It is called Sham ennessim because the harvest season in ancient Egypt was called shamo. [...] The early Egyptians offered salted fish, lettuce, eggs and onion to the deities during that festival.

While you are correct that he does not say that the name of the ancient festival was "shamo", that's where the problem logically comes in. How do you show that a particular holiday existed for 4,500 years? You'd need a record of a festival by a similar name or at least substantially similar customs. The name part we can eliminate, because šmw does not seem to be the name for any ancient festival. Siegfried Schott put a list of festivals together (Altägyptische Festdaten. Wiesbaden 1950) and while there are multiple festivals in the 1st month of šmw, none of them are called Spring Day or šmw festival. There is a festival of Renenutet, but I don't think we know exactly what was celebrated. So, where does Molefi Kete Asante get all his details from? I don't see any footnotes, so how do I know this is reliable at all? I have no idea if the book is peer-reviewed by Egyptologists. So, my principal objection here is that this is not a very strong source for the claim that the festival in question goes back in a straight line for 4,500 years - when I cannot find anything in the Egyptological literature about it.

That said, if somebody could provide a source that actually shows how it arrives at its assertions I would be more than happy. It would be cool if the festival went that far back and survived multiple cultural breaks. But retconning due to national pride is a thing, too, so I think as editors we have to weigh this and put qualifiers where a piece of information does not seem transparently sourced.

I'd be OK with this:

Sham Ennessim is commonly believed to be directly descended from a proposed spring festival named after the season of Shemu in the old Egyptian calendar, thus establishing direct continuity since pharaonic times. There is, however, insufficient evidence to confirm the festival's exact origins and evolution.[ref. 2]. MikuChan39 (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad we're beginning to find common ground here, @MikuChan39, and I do appreciate the clarity with which you've expressed your position. I do, however, disagree with your framing of the second point, and I’ll elaborate on that.

To begin with, I’m perfectly willing to concede that the first point may indeed be problematic, particularly if the linguistic derivation of the term in question cannot be credibly reconciled. This is, unfortunately, a recurrent issue across numerous Egypt-related articles, where some contributors, well-meaning as they may be, have overreached, inventing unattested Coptic etymologies which find their way across the internet. The only reason I reintroduced the claim was that I had, this time, located a peer-reviewed source to support it. But if that source cannot bear the necessary philological scrutiny, the correct editorial response would be to remove the claim altogether, not to counter it with our own inference that no such attestation exists, which, absent a source explicitly stating as much, would be a pretty blatant WP:OR fail. In any balance between a peer-reviewed academic source and editorial conjecture, the latter must yield. That’s how it goes on Wikipedia.

Now, regarding the origin of the festival itself, this is where we disagree. Your approach strikes me as unnecessarily rigid. Has the modern festival of Sham Ennessim been celebrated under that precise name and in its present form for 4,500 years? Obviously not. The question is whether the custom itself, in some iteration, has roots in the celebration of spring within Egypt’s ancient cultural memory. On that point, the answer is not only “yes”, it is “almost certainly yes”. The existence of spring celebrations in Egypt is well-documented, within that exact timeline even. Cultural traditions are not static relics; they are constantly evolving. Even within the various phases of ancient Egyptian civilization itself, Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms, festivals transformed in form and function, and those evolutions are attested.

By way of analogy, Christmas celebrations have diverged dramatically, with substantial adaptations in the last century in particular, yet we still understand it as rooted in a synthesis of Christian and pre-Christian feasts like Saturnalia or Yule. The same holds true for many of Egypt’s local moulids. We know for a fact that many of them have deep roots in ancient Egyptian festivals that were later rebranded as Islamic, like how Moulid Abo El Haggag lines up with the ancient Opet festival. The first drop of water that hits the Nile, known as Isis’ tear, signaling the start of the annual flood, is still marked in northern Cairo with a celebration called Moulid El Embabi. Then there’s the end of the Wag Festival, which happens when the Nile reaches its peak. Around that same time, people celebrate Moulid Mar Barsoum El Rayan. Another one is the annual moulid of Abu Huraira, held in Giza. Do we sever their ancient ties just because they have gone through a series of adaptations and changes?

As for Sham Ennessim, as a springtime harvest festival celebrated by Egyptians, its links to ancient Egypt have, notably, not been contradicted by any peer-reviewed material I’ve seen. The Palermo Stone, dating back 4,400 years to the Old Kingdom period, records several springtime festivals that are likely the basis for such claims in the material used here. The ritual consumption of symbolic foods during festivals, such as lettuce and onions, is also well attested in Egyptian texts. While you mention the Renunetet festival, which was indeed during Shemu, it began in the New Kingdom period and was celebrated in March, festivals like those of Bastet or the Valley Feast, both celebrated in the Egyptian month of Bashans, roughly April, coincide more closely with the date of Sham Ennessim. Not that the date needs to be interpreted as static in order for the ties to Sham Ennessim to be credibl, meaning that even celebrations such as the Sokar festival, which was an agrarian festival (but not during Shemu), and was also mentioned in the Palermo Stone, could be a probable influence. There are at least a dozen festivals celebrated throughout Shemu itself that we know of though, not just that of Renunetet. It doesn't even have to be rooted in a single festival, it could be an amalgamation of influences from various ones. It's impossible to reconstruct or even fully conceptualize the exact trajectory of cultural developments across millennia, however, drawing plausible connections based on available evidence is a well-established and legitimate methodology in historical research.

You are calling for a single, comprehensive academic study that definitively traces the exact evolution of Sham Ennessim from antiquity to the present. Such a source would certainly be ideal. But in the absence of that, our role is not to substitute it with our own interpretive effort. I also don't like the fact that you are selectively citing parts of the sources to present a narrative that is clearly not intended by the authors themselves, which would have been evident if you cited the full text. This effort would likely fail if put through additional dispute resolution processes as well, like WP:NORN. We should write what the peer-reviewed material states, even if not entirely satisfactory, otherwise this effort is just a massive combination of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:DUE fails. If and when we find something that states otherwise, we can present that narrative as well per WP:DUE. Until then, we must allow the sources to speak for themselves, in the terms in which it was published, not as we would prefer it to be reframed, which also means avoiding WP:ALLEGED-terms. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 14:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Turnopoems - first off, thanks for engaging in a substantive discussion on the topic, it's what I was hoping for.

If you think that removing the tšom nnisim / šom nnisim claim is the only way to deal with the situation that would be within policy then I am aligned. My only concern is that this will be a recurring battle - many people do not seem to read the talk pages before making edits, so I expect this to come back on a frequent basis. At the same time, you will not get a scholarly source to refute this particular claim anytime soon, because, frankly: what should such a paper even look like and who would be motivated to write it? It is a weakness within Wikipedia that it is easier to get shoddy claims into an article than to get them out again. So, if eliminating the proposed Coptic etymology works for you, then let's do that.

As for the festival itself, you seem to misunderstand me. I did not call for "a single, comprehensive academic study that definitively traces the exact evolution of Sham Ennessim from antiquity to the present". Where did you get that from? I would just like to see anything that demonstrates that there was a festival within the claimed period (e.g. 2,500 BCE) that is sufficiently similar to be a direct ancestor. Is that too much to ask? Is that unreasonable?

Let's stay with your example of Christmas: Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ, takes place on 12/25 and in its current form it typically features a Christmas tree and presents. If you show me a festival in the 3rd century CE that celebrates the birth of Christ and is around December, I will accept that. If it moves by a month ... fine. If you have a pre-Christian festival say from 100 BCE that features a rebirth, some of the same elements and happens at around the same date: I think a claim could be made that Christmas likely continues that tradition. It is not proven yet ... e.g. Hanukkah is around Christmas and in its current form features lights and presents, but I don't think it is commonly claimed as Proto-Christmas - a naive contemporary observer (e.g. in the US where both festivals are observed side by side) could come to that conclusion if you do not actually trace back the traditions and just judge from general similarities.

I would expect there to have been a Spring festival in Egypt. But if you are making the claim that there is a direct line from a festival in 4,500 BC to Sham Ennessim, I would like some details about this festival - what specifically was similar? And how do you know? I have tried to find a reference to the salted fish and onions in Plutarch and Herodotus (since they are pretty descriptive) and was not successful. If you have a source text I am happy to check it out - I don't recall the Palermo stone going into such detail. If you have no ancient source that says on x festival y was eaten, how can you just come to the conclusion that this was the case and that there is a continuous custom on that particular festival? Germans generally like waffles - does that mean waffles are a traditional Christmas dish? They're not. I don't see Asante give any backup for the very specific claims he makes and I think it absolutely has to be expected - if you make very specific claims (like xyz festival was celebrated 4,500 years ago in x place) you should be able to present some specific evidence. I am not going to take it just on plausibility and neither should you.

Which brings me to the final, less pleasant part of this write-up: where exactly am I "selectively citing parts of the sources to present a narrative that is clearly not intended by the authors themselves, which would have been evident if you cited the full text"? That's a pretty strong allegation, so I would like to know what specifically you are referring to. More generally, I would also appreciate if you could drop the adversarial rhetoric of "blatant fail", "massive fail" and the barrage of WP:policy cites as if I was about to start an edit war with you. The fact that I am spending my time explaining my reasoning here should be evidence enough that this is unwarranted. For me, this is not about who prevails but about (A) determining if the sources are convincing - I would say they are not at all - and (B) how we can integrate this into the article in a way that works for Wikipedia. Let's keep this a good faith effort - thank you! MikuChan39 (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

First and foremost, I want to offer a sincere apology if my previous remarks came across as unduly adversarial. That was not my intent. I fully acknowledge that you are engaging in this discussion with genuine good faith, and I do not believe we are at cross-purposes when it comes to reaching a well-reasoned and constructive conclusion. To be clear, my objection was not an allegation directed at your conduct, which I regard as thoughtful and principled, but with the proposed phrasing in your proposed draft. Specifically, the line stating that “There is, however, insufficient evidence to confirm the festival's exact origins and evolution”. While the cited source indeed makes that cautionary note, it also, in the very same breath, posits a plausible link to ancient Egypt and Shemu. That omission subtly, but significantly, shifts the framing in a way clearly not intended by the author. I also want to clarify that my reference to the guidelines was not intended to criticize your approach, but simply to help align our discussion within the broader editorial framework. Again, I appreciate the constructive nature of your input.

Regarding the Coptic etymology, while it is inherently difficult to "future-proof" any particular formulation, it is worth noting that material susceptible to WP:OR scrutiny remains far more vulnerable to challenge than content grounded in an established consensus. Fortunately, the understanding we have reached here qualifies as precisely such a consensus. Should someone seek to revise this content in the future, they would need to challenge it through a new consensus process. Personally, I’ve long been skeptical of the Coptic etymology; the perfect phonetic and semantic alignment has always struck me as unusually convenient. Both names are curiously precise descriptors of the festival, which also raises legitimate questions about retrospective interpretation. To my mind, this perfect match is not something that a natural linguistic evolution across two languages would ascribe any substantive value, and some difference would be expected. I did come across an online discussion among people who appeared to possess a solid command of Coptic, and the consensus there seemed to be that the term in question was, for the most part, a modern fabrication that served to promote Coptic in a contemporary context. While such efforts are entirely valid for linguistic revival and cultural preservation, it does not justify its inclusion here, especially not with a historical framing.

Returning to the substance of the festival itself, I don’t find your caution unreasonable in principle, but in the absence of contrary evidence, and in the presence of a plethora of material that explicitly discuss probable continuity, such content is defensible. Academic caution is important, but even such caution should be grounded in a source, not assumed as default through our own interpretive effort.

As for lettuce and onion: lettuce was consumed during festivals, it was associated with the deity Min, a symbol of fertility in ancient Egypt, while onions were linked to Osiris and widely used in ritual contexts, including the Sokar festival for example. Herodotus does in fact note the consumption of preserved fish in Egypt, as referenced in Tallet, P. (2015). Food in ancient Egypt. A Companion to Food in the Ancient World, 319–325. That source explicitly ties the practice to modern-day fesikh. I don’t have a online link to that material for you, but here is the referenced passage from The Histories itself: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D77

It could be interesting having a section in this article talking about the ancient symbolism of these foods, what do you think? As a sidenote, it also mentions a fermented barley drink, very likely to be the predecessor of modern-day bouza, which I wrote the Wikipedia article about.

Anyway, I can make an attempt at drafting a somewhat more cautious assertion to reflect your sentiment, based on the two sources in the article. Hopefully you'll find it easier to reconcile with your stance. This would replace the opening paragraph of the history section.

The exact origin of the festival remains insufficiently documented; however, it is generally held that Sham Ennessim traces back to ancient Egypt. The modern name is likely derived from the harvest season, Šmw (Shemu), with the festival associated with early forms of springtime festivities dating back over 4,500 years. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 11:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Turnopoems Let me pick that up tomorrow - long day today. I think we're getting close, though. MikuChan39 (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Turnopoems, how would you feel about this:

The exact origin of the festival remains insufficiently documented; however, it is generally held that Sham Ennessim traces back to ancient Egypt. It has been proposed that the modern name is derived from the harvest season, Šmw (Shemu), and that the the festival itself is a continuation of early forms of springtime festivities dating back over 4,500 years.

If you feel that is too much interpretation let me know, but I think it elegantly side-steps the issue by straightforwardly reporting what others have said without taking an absolute stance on it (as in: Wikipedia 100% subscribes to this being true). This could be the opening sentence of the history section.

Thanks for the Greek food references - I had seen those, but you probably know what I am going to say: they don't specifically reference a spring festival. But breaking it into a separate food symbolism section (they way you have it now) is safe. Tallet looks like an interesting source, btw (found the relevant passages in Google Books). I am primarily a language guy - with a specialization on Late Egyptian - and fish deliveries, dried or fresh, are a surprisingly interesting topic.

Now that we have the food symbolism section, can we take this out? - During the spring festival, ancient Egyptians presented offerings of salted fish and other foods to their deities in alignment with the spring equinox. It's not impossible and I think this would be cool if there was a source that told us how they arrive at that conclusion, but in both Osman and Asante it just falls from the sky which makes me very uncomfortable considering how often I see sweeping claims of cultural continuity as a point of pride (in different cultures - the caricature of etymologies in the 'Big fat Greek wedding' comes to mind and boy, have I met many real life examples of this). While I agree that we shouldn't attempt to change what the sources say, it is up to the editor which claims seem relevant and safe enough to include in an encyclopedia article and then source appropriately. Or we could do it with attribution (so and so said ...), but do we even need it if there already is a food symbolism section? Let me know! MikuChan39 (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey @MikuChan39,

In the interest of resolving the issue, I’d say your revisions are mostly fine, even though the qualifying language may not be strictly necessary per WP:DUE. I don't think it contradicts the author though, so it's okay.

Regarding the salted fish, I assumed you were asking more generally. Beyond Herodotus, it’s well established that the Egyptians practiced fish preservation, with the process even depicted in murals. There's also evidence of them exporting salted roe, what we now call batarekh, to other parts of the region.

As for the festival part of the claim, allegedly from Plutarch, it seems more likely to be a modern extrapolation from scattered fragments of information, maybe from De Iside et Osiride. But frankly, I haven’t been able to track down the primary source.

In any case, I was already envisioning the proposed draft replacing the entire introductory paragraph of that section, so if you're comfortable moving forward on that basis, so am I.

I’ve been knee-deep in a two-month-long dispute throughout multiple articles on Wikipedia, trying to temper narratives that mythologize ethnonationalist origins on the back of identitarian claims of this nature, rooted in racist colonial epistemology, so believe me, I understand exactly where you're coming from. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 10:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Turnopoems, cool, I think we have what we need then - please go ahead. & thanks for the discussion! Agree, the intersection of identity politics and history / etymology is such a pain. BTW, it seems that you are Egyptian? - edit: answered my own question from your talk page :-D MikuChan39 (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@MikuChan39: Glad we could reach a compromise, and thanks for the good dialogue. I am indeed Egyptian. :D Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 09:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Break 1

I've just seen this discussion after I submitted my edit, sorry about that. But are we seriously relying on a youm7 article (18 times) that gives no references whatsoever, that mixes up Sham Ennessim and Nayrouz, claims that eating eggs comes direclty from Ancient Egypt (probably never heard about Easter celebrations in other Christian countries) etc etc. First of all, the name is not even recorded before the late 18th century (the earliest one I could find is al-Jabarti in 1787). Secondly, the only secure origin we have for this festival is Christian - an Easter celebration that secularised over time. The rest is speculation. One could claim that it was brought to Egypt by the Europeans who celebrated Easter Monday or Lundi de Pâques and it would probably have more evidential support. absudar (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, however, these are all valid sources, and just removing them in favor of conjecture unsupported by sources reflecting an alternative narrative is not how Wikipedia operates. The consumption of eggs is supported by multiple sources in the article. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 17:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

What exactly is a valid source? Youm7 is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal as far as I'm concerned.

"in favor of conjecture unsupported by sources" - so you're saying that the fact that the first mention of the festival we have is late 18th centrury and the fact that "the Ancient Egyptian festival of Shemu" (if it existed) would fall on 1st of Pashons, while Sham Ennessim is in Pharmouti, is usupported by sources? Are you also going to deny that hald of that article is about Nayourz, which is a completely different festival? absudar (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia are not limited to peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is an entire policy on reliable sourcing that explains what qualifies as a source (see WP:RS), which naturally includes articles, along with the broader principle of writing only what sources directly support. If the source says "A is this and that", then your only job as an editor is to make sure Wikipedia says "A is this and that", not "A might also be B or C, or nothing at all", after adding OR.

I do invite you to present valid sources that support the narrative you are positing as a counter to the existing sources. I don’t think it is particularly damning that the name "Sham El Nessim" was first recorded by Lane, given the plethora of earlier attestations of springtime festivities that may or may not have borne the same name, but nevertheless embodied essentially the same character.Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 21:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I will add that I don't think your latest additions were particularly problematic, but please let's discuss them here before we change a version of a previously contested text that was established through a consensus-building process. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 21:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. So you're saying that any published source should be treated as a usable source for Wikipedia? Nodoby is saying that only peer-reviewed journals are accepted as sources. A newspaper article may be perfectly fine for current events and news, but not as a reliable source for this sort of article with a historical claim. WP:NEWSORG specifically states:

• The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
• Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.
• Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

If the source says "A is this and that", then your only job as an editor is to make sure Wikipedia says "A is this and that" - this is basically misleading as I mentioned earlier, as Wikipedia's job is not automatically copy every claim maid by a published source. What about WP:V? The article that is referenced 18 times! mixes Sham Ennessim and Nayrouz, do you believe it to be a reliable source? At least that false should be removed immediately.

You're also basically contradicting yourself - "I don’t think it is particularly damning that the name "Sham El Nessim" was first recorded by Lane, given the plethora of earlier attestations of springtime festivities that may or may not have borne the same name, but nevertheless embodied essentially the same character.". This is practically WP:OR, and this is not how Wikipedia operates. If the sources don't explicitly and verifiably connect those festivities with Sham Ennessim, then connecting them is WP:SYNTH.

"...please let's discuss them here before we change a version of a previously contested text" - per WP:BURDEN "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", not the other way round. Don't forget about WP:ONUS as well, "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content", and this is pretty much a disputed content, to say the least. absudar (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Any published source that satisfies WP:RS cannot be dismissed on the basis of editors' personal historical interpretations. Doing so would amount to WP:OR, which is not permissible on Wikipedia and may be removed outright.

For example, you cannot cite Edward Lane's work and then state, in Wikipedia's voice, that it constitutes the earliest attestation of the name "Sham Ennessim" unless the source itself explicitly makes that claim. Even if the conclusion is ultimately correct, it remains your own analytical inference unless it is directly supported by the source you are citing. Wikipedia is not a venue for editors to synthesize conclusions from primary material or present personal historical reasoning as encyclopedic fact, which is precisely the kind of synthesis prohibited under WP:OR. Wikipedia is not our personal essay intended to give voice to our own ideas.

This issue is particularly important when working with older primary sources such as Lane's writings. The reason Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources in such cases is because secondary scholarship contextualizes and interprets the material explicitly, rather than requiring editors to do so themselves. This is also directly tied to WP:V, which you mentioned. A claim must be verifiable in the source being cited. If the source merely states "A is A", editors cannot extend that into "A may be A under condition X" unless the source itself says so. Otherwise, the only basis for the additional claim is the editor’s own reasoning, which is unverifiable by definition.

I should also note that this is not an isolated issue. Similar forms of synthesis appeared in your earlier 2024 contributions as well. Ironically, that portion of the article was one of the few sections I initially left untouched at the time despite it being a fairly clear policy problem under WP:OR.

If you believe a particular source fails WP:RS, then the appropriate course is to explain specifically why that source is unreliable, with reference to other reliable sources for your claims against it. Simply asserting that a source is unreliable because it is "an article" is not sufficient. Likewise, if you have a stronger source that explicitly argues the contrary position, then that would provide grounds to revisit the content. But editors' personal objections or interpretations do not override published reliable sources.

As for the burden here: you are attempting to overturn an established consensus supported by existing sourcing and prior editorial discussion. Under WP:CONSENSUS, the burden is therefore on you to establish a new consensus for changing it. There is no way around this. Other editors have agreed on this version already.

As for the assertion that my commentary constitutes WP:OR, that is not the case, as none of those remarks were proposed for inclusion in the article itself. Cultural traditions frequently undergo linguistic and social evolution while retaining continuity in practice. For instance, bouza was referred to as keshkab and mizr during parts of the medieval period, yet it is still understood as part of the same beer brewing tradition despite later Turkish linguistic influence on the modern term. Similarly, whether or not the specific name "Sham Ennessim" was used in earlier periods does not diminish the fact that Egyptians have historically observed springtime festivities from which the modern tradition emerged, and is therefore part of its history. Historical continuity is not dependent on uninterrupted terminology, just like Christmas has historically been referred to by a variety of names and associated traditions, including Yule/Yuletide, Noel, Midwinter, Christ's Mass, Feast of the Nativity and others, while still being understood as part of the same broader tradition tied to the modern term Christmas. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 10:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

“Can’t be dismissed” and “should be used” are two different things. I agree that the “earliest mention” claim is questionable. But why do you continuously ignore the reliability of the source being used? Does it actually satisfy WP:RS for this specific claim? WP:RS is contextual - I can’t use a Vogue publication to support claims about biology or etymology.

Youm7 has claimed that Egyptians invented football, monotheism, and contraception, should we use that in the respective articles as a reliable source too? It may be usable for documenting modern popular beliefs and urban legends, but not for establishing as historical fact that the modern festival descends directly from ancient Egyptian rites.

As for “you must provide reliable sources against the source” and “established consensus”, I’m not trying to prove the opposite claim. I’m saying that the current claim is not adequately supported by any means. Prior discussion does not make weak sourcing immune from challenge.

You’re also using OR asymmetrically. As I said earlier, your argument regarding Lane and the earliest attestation is completely valid, but the same goes for “ancient Egyptian spring festivals = Sham Ennessim”. “…the fact that Egyptians have historically observed springtime festivities from which the modern tradition emerged” - this is pure WP:OR. This talk page and your comments here are relevant because they are being used as reasoning to justify the article wording, which in itself is very problematic.

“…however, it is generally held that Sham Ennessim was celebrated by Egyptians as far as ancient Egypt.” - Generally accepted by whom? Egyptologists? Journalists? The general public?

“The arrival of spring was considered a time of profound importance for the ancient Egyptians, as it signaled the beginning of the agricultural cycle, an essential phase for sowing, cultivation, and eventual harvest. The seasonal shift held deep symbolic and practical significance in the rhythms of Egyptian life.” - How is this part relevant to the article?

“Throughout medieval Egypt, Sham Ennessim remained widely observed among Egyptians, persisting across successive regimes including the Fatimids, Ayyubids, and Mamluks. The festival retained a largely non-religious character, maintained instead through its integration into local custom and seasonal rhythms. Its position in the calendar reflects the continuity of earlier seasonal rites that predate both Christianity and Islam in Egypt. Participation extended across religious lines, with Muslims, Christians and Jews in Egypt marking the day through shared customs.

The Fatimid rule in particular paid special attention to Sham Ennessim, allowing it to flourish as a public festival while incorporating aspects of it into official state ceremonial life. Although the celebration was rooted in pre-Islamic traditions, the Fatimid regime did not suppress its observance. Instead, it permitted the continuation of established customs and at times adopted a participatory role in their public expression.

Notably, the Fatimid state organized formal celebrations of Sham Ennessim. These included an official procession led by the caliph and accompanied by high-ranking state officials. The event was coordinated by the court preacher, assisted by a cadre of appointed captains, and proceeded through the streets of Cairo as part of a large public spectacle.” - This whole passage appears to refer to Nayrouz, not Sham Ennessim. It seems to be from Boaz Shoshan’s Popular Culture in Medieval Cairo. Why do you ignore that? Does that show reliability of that source to you? I’d appreciate an answer. absudar (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The reliability of the source can certainly be discussed, I have no objection to that. But the objection cannot simply be that newspaper articles are, by default, insufficient for this type of claim, because Wikipedia policy does not establish such a rule. Nor is Youm7 listed at perennial sources, so we should also dispense with the assumption that it is inherently unreliable on the basis of whatever anecdotal impressions. If there is a substantive reliability objection, it needs to be made through actual analysis: what the source says, what counter-sources say, whether the article accurately supports the cited text, and whether better sources contradict it. The discussion above is a good example of that.

Your main criticism appears to be that the source allegedly conflates Nayrouz with Sham Ennessim. That is therefore the point we should address first. Please explain precisely why you believe the article is actually discussing Nayrouz rather than Sham Ennessim, and, more specifically, identify the connection you are drawing with Boaz Shoshan’s Popular Culture in Medieval Cairo. You asked me why I am ignoring it, and the answer is that you simply asserting something does not make it worth addressing, I need you to form a coherent case for it so I can formulate a position on it first and foremost. Show the textual basis for the claim and explain how it undermines the source's use here. Otherwise, this is merely your interpretation against mine, and we are not engaged in this discussion to get acquainted with each others opinions.

I do note that the Nayrouz article on Wikipedia, which cites Shoshan, mentions that the Fatimid court partook in the festivities of Nayrouz, which is well known, just like this article states they partook in Sham Ennessim, but that appears to be where the similarities end, as far as I can tell. I personally don't think their interest in Nayrouz is mutually exclusive with Sham Ennesssim, as it is also well-known that the Fatimids partook in many festivities. I do not have access to the source material itself, so I welcome your explanation of the specific reasoning behind your argument.

As for the lead of the history section constituting WP:OR, that wording emerged from the long discussion above. I was not the editor who pushed for the qualifying language; it was the compromise that could be reached. I agree that the qualifying language is not directly supported in the sense of being explicitly stated word-for-word in the source, which is precisely why I was never especially fond of it. The alternative would have been a more direct assertion about the festival’s origin, which would go further than the current wording and in fact run counter to your objection, with direct support in the sources.

However, the distinction here is that this formulation does not put words into the author's mouth through editorial synthesis in the way the horrendous "Cross-religious observance" section (for example) does, where Lane's text has been used as scaffolding to construct conclusions that are nowhere actually supported by the source itself. In other words, this wording does not attribute explicit conclusions to the author that the author never made. Rather, it simply reports that the assertion made in the source is one that is held, which is true even if the exact phrasing is not stated verbatim in the text. I agree that it is WP:OR to an extent, but a direct inference is not the same thing as synthesis. The former at least remains tethered to, and verifiable against, the underlying source material, which is why it was an agreeable compromise.

Beyond that exception, the inline citations do directly support the text. More importantly, the compromise wording you are criticizing does the opposite of asserting that ancient Egyptian springtime festivities = Sham Ennessim. It says that such a connection is "generally held" and "proposed" (the latter is directly supported). Those are attributional and qualifying formulations, not statements of fact about the festival's actual origin. Saying "it is generally held that Christmas is a continuation of Saturnalia" is not the same as saying "Christmas is a continuation of Saturnalia". They are distinct claims, one reports the existence or prevalence of a view, the other endorses the view as true. It's a meaningful distinction, and they can both be true simultaneously or independently.

As for "generally held", it means exactly what it says: a view held in general circulation. It intentionally denotes a broad, non-specific belief, without pointing to a defined subset of people. If specificity were intended, the text would identify who holds the belief. What purpose is served by attempting to narrowly define it? Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 14:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

My objection is specific - Youm7 is being used for historical, etymological, and long-term continuity claims. WP:NEWSORG explicitly cautions that news articles containing historical information about events long before the reporter’s lifetime are not reliable unless the reporter cites a specific reliable source. The fact that Youm7 is not listed at perennial sources does not establish that it is reliable. RSP is not a comprehensive list of all reliable or unreliable sources, and reliability remains contextual.

Let's focus on the source itself then. An extract from that article:

واتبع المصريون عادة مميزة في هذا اليوم، فقد كانوا يختارون من بينهم شخص كل عام ينصبونه رئيسا لموكب الاحتفال، وكان يدعى "أمير النيروز"، واستكمالا للاحتفال كان هذا الموكب يجوب الشوارع ويطلب من الناس مال ومن يرفض إعطاؤه يلقيه بالماء، وكان الأمر كله مزاح ليلعبوا بالمياه، وكتب المقريزي: "في سنة أربع وستين وثلثمائة: وفي يوم النوروز زاد اللعب بالماء ووقود النيران وطاف أهل الأسواق وعملوا فيلة وخرجوا إلى القاهرة بلعبهم ولعبوا ثلاثة أيام وأظهروا السماجات والحلي في الأسواق ثم أمر المعز بالنداء بالكشف وأن لا توقد نار ولا يصب ماء وأخذ قوم فحبسوا وأخذ قوم فطيف بهم على الجمال" وفى نهاية عصر الخليفة الفاطمي المستنصر بالله في مستهل النصف الثاني من القرن الخامس الهجري في مصر 1036 – 1094 نتيجة غياب مياه النيل بمصر لـ 7 سنين ، حيث تصحرت الأرض وهلك الحرث وخطف الخبز من رؤوس الخبازين كما اتجه الشعب المصري إلى أكل القطط والكلاب، ولم يتم الاحتفال بعيد شم النسيم أو أكل السمك والبصل فتوقف الاحتفال في هذه السنوات.

A quote from Shoshan:

"The high mark of Nawruz in medieval Egypt appears to have been the procession of the "Emir of Nawruz" (amir an-nawruz). Elected by the Cairene crowd, this "emir" had to be a wanton, 'abir al-'ayn, and "of firm nature".38 Naked, or, in another version, dressed in yellow or red, his face besmeared with lime or flour, a beard of fur or some other material attached to his face, on his head a special cap made of palm leaves (khus) and known as tartur, he used to ride a small and ugly(?) donkey, perhaps another survival of a pagan rite. A sort of register (daftaf) in his hand, at the head of a crowd, he "visited" homes of dignitaries and officials, and handed to each of them a statement about a "debt". Anyone who refused to pay, be he even "the most important man in Cairo", was scorned, cursed, and hard pressed until willing to clear the "debt". Some were sprayed with water, occasionally with mud, and verbally abused, or even beaten. Privacy was violated. Those who locked their homes to prevent the intruders from entering could not escape their lot: gates were broken and water poured on doorsteps."

Then Youm7 article also states:

"وفى عصور المماليك والعثمانيين والعصر الحديث "مصر الخدوية"، كان الاحتفال متشابًا بالدولة الفاطمية وفى دولة المماليك تؤكد الوثائق أن السلطان بيبرس أحد سلاطين المماليك أصدر فرمانا بمنع إحدى العادات القديمة التي كان المصريون يهوون ممارستها في يوم شم النسيم، فمن الأساطير القديمة أن الطيور عندما أرادت أن تقدم هدية إلى الملك سليمان، في عيد الربيع، فأن هذه الطيور لم تجد لديها أغلى من بيضها تقدمه حبا وامتنانا لمن انفرد من بين البشر بمعرفته لغة الطيور والحيوانات ومن هذه الأسطورة القديمة، عرف المصريون عادة أن يجيء يوم شم النسيم فيلقون البيض في الشوارع، يلقونه على كل من يكون ماشيا سواء كانوا يحبونه أو لا يحبونه. فإذا كانوا يحبونه القوه عليه ناضجا، أما إذا كانوا لا يحبونه ألقوه عليه نيا!  وزاد المصريون من ممارسة هذه العادة التي كانوا يمارسونها فأمر السلطان بيبرس بمنع تلك العادة."

So during the reign of Mamluks/Ottomans the celebration was similar to the Fatimid one. I believe the celebration of Nayrouz is implied? Because this is the only Fatimid celebration mentioned in the article. Then we have claims like "documents confirm", what kind of documents.

Funnily enough, the next paragraph with reference to al-Maqrizi is also about Nayrouz. I mean... this is why I believe the article's medieval part is about Nayrouz rather than Sham Ennessim. But I'm happy to hear your objection.

I also think that your explanation of “generally held” is problematic, because if it means "held in general circulation", then it should not be used to imply historical reliability. WP:DUE concerns prevalence in reliable sources, not popular belief. If the intended meaning is “popularly believed,” then the article should say that and source it as a popular belief, not as historical fact. The subsequent wording doesn't make it any better, as it describes "ancient" traditions as if their continuity is a given fact.

More importantly, you acknowledge that the compromise wording is “WP:OR to an extent". That is exactly my objection. “Generally held” in itself is a claim about the prevalence of a view, and it needs direct support. A source claiming ancient origin does not automatically support the separate claim that this is “generally held".

I am not asking completely deny ancient influence (or popular belief in it). But the article should clearly distinguish between modern Sham Ennessim, ancient Egyptian spring/agricultural rites, medieval celebrations (like Nayrouz) and the claim that the modern festival directly descends from those earlier ones. The fourth point requires direct and reliable secondary sourcing. absudar (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG explicitly states that reputable news organizations are considered reliable sources, including for historical information, even if they are not as authoritative as academic scholarship. Youm7 falls within the category of a reputable news outlet, so in the absence of a substantive challenge supported by stronger sourcing, its content is not automatically unsuitable for inclusion. Framing the issue as though the material were inherently unreliable or removable outright like WP:OR is not the right angle.

That said, I will concede that what you have presented now is in fact a compelling case. There does undoubtedly appear to be portions of it that conflate the two. My suspicion is that the author, likely not a historian, attempted to synthesize several strands of information into a single continuous narrative and mistakenly incorporated sources about Nayrouz. However, this does not appear to apply to all parts of the article.

Notably, the piece also cites contemporary historians directly, and I looked further into that aspect. Historian Sameh El Zaher has indeed discussed the connection between the Fatimids and Sham Ennessim, including references to the procession led by the caliph, the twelve captains, and related ceremonial elements. His description of this procession does not sound like that of Nayrouz. The idea that they celebrated both also aligns with the broader historical understanding that the Fatimids actively engaged with and incorporated Coptic and wider Egyptian festive traditions. I think the other article may simply have been somewhat overzealous in attempting to present a complete historical narrative.

As for the word "generally" in the phrasing under discussion, I have no objection to removing it. Omitting it would simply make the statement more direct and more closely aligned with how the cited sources themselves present the claim. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 21:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

On WP:NEWSORG, I don't think it supports the source as strongly as you suggest. My argument is not that news articles are automatically unusable, but that their reliability remains contextual. A newspaper article may be usable for contemporary description, but it is much weaker for ancient-history, etymological, and long-term continuity claims, especially when the article itself demonstrably conflates two different festivals in parts of its historical narrative.

If there is a separate source where Sameh El Zaher specifically discusses Fatimid Sham Ennessim processions, the twelve captains, the caliphal procession, etc. then that source should be cited directly and evaluated separately. But the current Youm7 article cannot support those claims where its own medieval evidence explicitly refers to Nayrouz. I am not saying Fatimid participation in Nayrouz excludes participation in Sham Ennessim, I am saying that material explicitly about Nayrouz cannot be transferred to Sham Ennessim without direct support.

I also do not think removing “generally” solves the issue. In fact, making the statement more direct would make the problem worse unless the claim is supported by stronger sourcing. If the point is that some writers or popular sources connect Sham Ennessim with ancient Egyptian spring festivals, then the article should say that explicitly and attribute it. If the point is that historians or Egyptologists accept a direct continuity, then that requires better sources.

So I would support wording along the lines of: “Some writers have connected Sham Ennessim with ancient Egyptian spring or harvest rites, but the exact origin and historical development of the modern festival remain insufficiently documented”. absudar (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Their reliability is not contextual by any means, rather, as WP:RS states, they are generally reliable but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for a claim like this. That is why I asked you to present yourr case why this particular article fails in that regard. I also conceded that there does appear to be some conflation between the two festivals once you did. The other link I included, which cites Sameh El Zaher, corroborates the part about the procession led by the Fatimids and should suffice as a source for that claim.

As for "generally held"... You framed the problem as WP:OR, but introducing alternative qualifiers does not address that concern at all. What you are suggesting is textbook WP:WEASEL, and if that is your position, then we could not be further apart. WP:WEASEL is generally both a WP:OR and a WP:NPOV fail. None of the sources used here frame the claim in those terms. By introducing that qualifier yourself, you are effectively inserting your own interpretation in a way that diminishes the cited source. If the sources present a claim directly and without qualification, then we should not add unsupported qualifiers that imply uncertainty, marginality, or lack of consensus where the sources themselves do not.

Your argument is that "some" writers have advanced this view. But can you demonstrate that other writers do not or even discredit it? "Some" is quantitative language. It implicitly frames that view as limited, minority, or non-representative. In ordinary usage, saying that "some writers argue X" naturally suggests that many others do not, even when no such contrary body of scholarship has been demonstrated. The entire passage already relies on academic scholarship, so source quality is not the issue. We could easily introduce twenty sources directly asserting that Sham Ennessim originates from ancient Egypt, in that case, it would no longer be "some" writers. The original qualifying language was introduced because of the chronological ambiguity, not because the sources were weak as you claim. What it asserted was simply that a particular view is held, which is objectively verifiable from the cited sources. By contrast, the formulation "some writers" introduces an additional comparative claim, which can not be verified.

It may be helpful to clarify more specifically what problems you see with the current formulation, in order to determine whether there is another way to address it. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 09:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

If Sameh El Zaher talks about the Fatimid procession, then he should be cited directly and his sources should be mentioned explicitly, limited to what they actually say. My objection was using the Youm7 artcile which medieval part clearly talks about Nayrouz, which in my opinion undermines the credibility of the whole article.

On that topic: "Their reliability is not contextual by any means, rather, as WP:RS states, they are generally reliable but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for a claim like this." - this is just not true. WP:RS explicitly says "Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement." I strongly believe that Youm7 fails as a reliable source on this topic.

I accept that "some writers" can be WP:WEASEL if left vague. A better solution would be direct attribution. Concerning the word "some". Some do, others, in fact, do not. Ahmad Issa and Mamduh al-Damati, for example.

"The entire passage already relies on academic scholarship, so source quality is not the issue." - am I missing something? Could you point me to the academic scholarship used in the passage?

My problems with the current formulation that it blends the modern Sham Ennessim festival, ancient Egyptian spring celebrations and some vague medieval processions into a continuity narrative presented in Wikipedia's voice. All of those points should be clearly distinguished, and each claim should be sourced to material that explicitly supports it with reliable sources. absudar (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Break 2

As I said, I accepted your critique of the Youm7 article once you presented a substantive case, which is why I looked further and found another article corroborating the portion ultimately included here about the Fatimids, which directly cites the historian in quesiton. We do not disagree that these sources are not uniformly reliable, but under WP:RS, and indeed in the passage you quoted, articles are generally treated as reliable unless and until there is reason to conclude otherwise. What I stated, which you described as "just not true" was, in substance, a paraphrase of WP:RS. "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." As for Sameh El Zahar, the article I posted from almasryalyoum is sufficient, unless you have a similar case to present against it that you would like me to review. I see no similarity between his description and Nayrouz however. Academic scholarship is understood as peer-reviewed, published work, and the material in the "generally held" text falls within that category. The appropriate approach is not to dilute sourcing with WP:WEASEL fails, vague or not, nor to adjudicate between competing interpretations. Once it is established that the interpretation is contested within the literature, as you have done, the neutral course per WP:NPOV is to reflect that plurality directly by presenting the different positions side by side, rather than implicitly endorsing one through framing. That would look something like this: The exact origin of the festival remains insufficiently documented; however, it is commonly held that Sham Ennessim traces back to ancient Egypt. The modern name has been linked to the harvest season, Šmw (Shemu), while the festival has been associated with early forms of springtime festivities dating back over 4,500 years. The attribution of Sham Ennessim to ancient Egyptian religion or festivals has, however, also been questioned. Critics argue that there is no conclusive archaeological or historical evidence demonstrating a direct continuity between the modern celebration and a specific ancient Egyptian feast. The movable date of the festival has been cited as evidence of a later Christian-era development rather than a survival of the fixed calendrical structure typical of ancient Egyptian festivals, such as the annual Nile inundation celebrations, which are still observed today. Although foods commonly associated with Sham Ennessim, such as salted fish, eggs, onions, and lettuce, are attested in ancient Egypt, their continued presence in the modern celebration is not regarded by all scholars as sufficient proof of direct continuity from an ancient Egyptian festival. This resolves the concern in a way that preserves WP:NPOV by explicitly distinguishing between competing interpretations rather than privileging one through framing, which is not our job. I wrote the second and third passages entirely from the article citing Dr. Ahmed Eissa. What do you think? Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 11:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said, Sameh El Zahar's claim should be sourced directly and attributed to him. Especially given that he doesn't seem to cite any primary sources.

Regarding WP:RS, it seems like we're arguing over wording at this point. We both agree that news article should be assessed case by case. My point is exactly that the Youm7 source is very problematic for this claim.

I accept that "some writers" is vague. But so is "commonly held", unless there's a source that establishes that it's a prevalent view.

My preferred approach would be direct attribution on both sides - name the authors who connect Sham Ennessim with ancient Egyptian festivals, and name the authors who question direct continuity.

You also say that the passage relies on peer-reviewed academic works that support the claim. Could you help me identify them?

But overall my main objection is using "commonly held", because as far as I'm concerned the source doesn't claim the prevalence of this view. Otherwise, it turns a sourced claim into a claim about the prevalence of that claim, which is a separate statement requiring support. absudar (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no policy-based reason to exclude this source. In general, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary ones where both are available. The MENA interview may exist only in broadcast or in printed form, and this impossible to locate. Both sources reflecting the viewpoint that you seek to include are of a similar nature. It may be more productive to remain flexible on this point in order to reach a reasonable outcome, rather than digging in your heels. Otherwise, it will be necessary to involve a broader consensus-building process beyond this one-on-one discussion.

It is either presented as a view that is held (preferable) or as one that is commonly or generally held. There is no way to avoid the WP:OR concern while also stripping away the assertive nature of the wording found in the source as you wish to do. Objectively, the position is held and is directly verifiable from the source, which makes it the most accurate thing to report. It's up to you.

Individual authors are typically not named on Wikipedia when talking about a general topic, especially where we are summarising a common position across multiple sources. That kind of attribution is used when the specific viewpoint of one author is being discussed and identifying the author adds relevant context. When a statement reflects a broadly shared position however, naming individual authors can be both confusing and constitute a WP:NPOV issue.

It would be like writing, "Einstein says that the theory of relativity is a description of the laws of physics in the absence of a preferred frame of reference". Is the article meant to present Einstein's personal view, or is he the only one who holds this view? What if I add ten more sources stating the same? Do we name them all? We have already sidestepped this issue by presenting both views neutrally, so I am not sure why you want to frame it in a specific way.

The passage uses the following sources:

Asante (2002), Culture and Customs of Egypt

Type: Scholarly reference book (a peer-reviewed, heavily cited, and in-depth academic resource)

Publisher: Greenwood Press (now part of ABC-CLIO), which is an established academic/reference publisher

Author: Molefi Kete Asante a professor in Africana studies

Celebrations of the Feast of Shamm Al-Nassim in Egypt: The Past and the Present (2014)

Type: Journal article (university-affiliated academic journal)

Publisher: Ain Shams University

Author: Shirin Sadiq al-Jundi Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 11:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's a policy to exclude this source, but there's definitely a policy-based reason to say that this source is too weak to support this specific claim. I don't know why you keep framing it as a policy issue, I'm just asking for each claim to be supported by a respective source.

I have no objection for "held view", only for "commonly", "generally" etc. held.

Einstein analogy is bad. Relativity is a theory with overwhelming specialist consensus, Sham Ennesim's ancient origin is far from that. “Individual authors are typically not named” is not a rule, especially for contested or interpretive points of view and it's quite normal to use "Historian/archaeologist/scholar X suggests/argues/rejects".

Calling Asante's book "Scholarly reference book (a peer-reviewed, heavily cited, and in-depth academic resource)" is a huge stretch. It is a reference book, but it doesn't automatically make it peer-reviewed. And Asante is not an Egyptologist/Coptologist or a specialist in Egyptian festivals, he's an Africanist doing Afro-American studies.

Al-Jundi is a stronger source, although I can't see that it underwent peer review. But nevertheless, the article itself says:

“D’où proviennent les coutumes de cette fête? Nul ne le sait avec certitude.”

“La documentation reste encore insuffisante pour affirmer si elle est une fête d’origine, purement, égyptienne ancienne ou non.”

Again, if you're stating that it's a "broadly held" view, you should support it with sources. If it's claimed that the festival was continuosly celebrated throughout the Egyptian history, we need a source that specifically states it. We can't take evidence about ancient Egyptian spring celebration, some vague Medieval traditons (that are mostly assumed and refer to a different celebration in most sources so far) and modern celebration and create a continuous narrative from that.

A broader consensus is fine if we can't agree. absudar (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is moving forward in a meaningful way, as we are still stuck on the exact same talking points. To move this forward, could you please provide the exact version, with correct attribution, that you would like to see included in the article? We can then present that specific proposal against mine in a RfC.

As a general point, I have tried to engage with your criticisms in a flexible and constructive manner, and I would appreciate the same in return. Please avoid characterizing the sources in ways that are not supported by the discussion. We have already established that the source currently cited in the article conflated other parts of the topic that are not discussed in this article. It is not incorrect for what is currently included in this article, but nonetheless I subsequently provided an alternative source that does not make that error. In that context, it is not accurate to suggest that "most" sources are making such a mistake. It was one article that was incorrect about a matter not discussed in this article, and it has now been replaced with an alternative source that does not contain that error.

As for the passage from Al-Jundi that you quoted, the cautious wording you highlight is already reflected in the article. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 09:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is the way to move forward.

Just a few points to clarify for the future notice -

1) I never claimed that "most" sources conflate Nayrouz and Sham Ennessim, it was indeed one article which was nevertheless used to support that claim in the article. You proposed to cite El Zahar instead, now let's actually make that swap and cite him directly and drop the details (like eggshell wishes, lotus necklaces, Fustat gatherings etc.) that don't appear in the source.

2) "As for the passage from Al-Jundi that you quoted, the cautious wording you highlight is already reflected in the article." - I don't think that is entirely true. The article says that the origin is "insufficiently documented" and then continues (in the same sentence!) with "it is generally held that Sham Ennessim was celebrated by Egyptians as far as ancient Egypt". That doesn't look like the cautious wording to me. It also cites al-Jundi for "commonly held" who actually says pretty much the opposite: "Nul ne le sait avec certitude" and "La documentation reste encore insuffisante pour affirmer si elle est une fête d'origine, purement, égyptienne ancienne ou non". That's a WP:V issue, and part of the reason why "commonly held" can't be used with the current sources.

3) The remaining disagreement is mostly not about sourcing, but whether the article should express direct continuity in Wikipedia's voice. I'm not seeking to insert a contrary narrative in Wikipedia's voice either. My aim is that each claim be tied to a source that explicitly supports it. That being said, named attribution is not weasel wording (which is rather vague "some say"), but the remedy for it. In this case the named attribution is even more appropriate, because we're dealing with a very contested claim, which in my opinion is pretty clear give the previous discussions and edit wars here, as well as the internet/media debates.

Here's my version:

Origins

The origins of the festival are unclear. A view put forth in popular writing and some academic works states that the festival derives from an ancient Egyptian spring or harvest festival Shemu (Šmw), and that the particular food and dishes associated with the festival: salted fish, eggs, onions and lettuce, are derived from foods and offerings present in ancient Egypt. 
This proposed derivation was questioned by specialists: according to Sherin Sadek al-Jundi, the precise origin of the practices in the feast is unknown and evidence cannot be used to confirm if the feast originates solely from ancient Egyptian traditions. The Egyptologist Ahmed Eissa argues that Sham Ennessim is not a Pharaonic festival, stating that deriving its name from the ancient Egyptian season of Shemu, which denoted summer rather than spring, is not convincing. He also notes that, unlike ancient Egyptian festivals with fixed dates such as the Nile inundation feast, Sham Ennessim has no fixed date and follows Coptic Easter, which he interprets as having a Christian character. Mamdouh al-Damaty, former Minister of Antiquities, also states that it is not a Pharaonic festival, noting that it does not appear on temple walls among the approximately 200 Egyptian festivals and that the feast's particular characteristics appeared during the Fatimid period.

Medieval observance

According to the archaeologist Sameh El Zahar, Sham Ennessim was celebrated most widely under the Fatimids. He states that the Fatimid state held an official celebration which featured a procession led by the caliph and senior officials, organized by the chief dāʿī and assisted by twelve captains, which passed through Cairo. absudar (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Please provide your version of the history section exactly as you would like it to appear in the article, including proper formatting and inline attribution for each statement.

Below is the version I intend to submit to the RfC following removal of all content from the contested article.

History

The exact origin of the festival remains insufficiently documented; however, it is held that Sham Ennessim was celebrated by Egyptians as far as ancient Egypt. It has been proposed that the modern name is derived from the harvest season, Šmw (Shemu), and that the festival itself is a continuation of early forms of springtime festivities dating back over 4,500 years. The arrival of spring was considered a time of profound importance for the ancient Egyptians, as it signaled the beginning of the agricultural cycle, an essential phase for sowing, cultivation, and eventual harvest.

The attribution of Sham Ennessim to ancient Egyptian religion or festivals has, however, also been questioned. Critics argue that there is no conclusive archaeological or historical evidence demonstrating a direct continuity between the modern celebration and a specific ancient Egyptian feast. The movable date of the festival has been cited as evidence of a later Christian-era development rather than a survival of the fixed calendrical structure typical of ancient Egyptian festivals, such as the annual Nile inundation celebrations, which are still observed today.

Although foods commonly associated with Sham Ennessim, such as salted fish, eggs, onions, and lettuce, are attested in ancient Egypt, their continued presence in the modern celebration is not regarded by all scholars as sufficient proof of direct continuity from an ancient Egyptian festival.

Sham Ennessim was observed during the Middle Ages, and the Fatimid period saw some of the most prominent recorded celebrations, with the state organizing official festivities that included a ceremonial procession led by the caliph. The procession was accompanied by senior officials, military leaders, and members of the court, and was organized under the supervision of the chief missionary (داعي الدعاة, da‘i al-du‘at) with the assistance of twelve appointed officials. The procession travelled through Cairo in a public display that marked the occasion. At the popular level, Egyptians continued traditional practices associated with the festival, including the consumption of foods such as salted fish, eggs, lettuce, and onions, as well as the exchange of spring flowers and gifts and visits to public spaces. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 10:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, here it is:

Origins

The origins of the festival are unclear. A view put forward in popular writing and in some academic works holds that the festival derives from an ancient Egyptian spring or harvest festival, Šmw (Shemu), and that the particular foods and dishes associated with it — salted fish, eggs, onions, and lettuce — derive from foods and offerings present in ancient Egypt.

This proposed derivation has been questioned by specialists. According to Sherin Sadek al-Jundi, the precise origin of the practices observed in the feast is unknown, and the available evidence cannot be used to confirm whether the feast originates solely from ancient Egyptian traditions. The Egyptologist Ahmed Eissa argues that Sham Ennessim is not a Pharaonic festival, holding that the derivation of its name from the ancient Egyptian season of Shemu — which denoted summer rather than spring — is unconvincing. He also notes that, unlike ancient Egyptian festivals with fixed dates such as the feast of the Nile inundation, Sham Ennessim has no fixed date and instead follows Coptic Easter, which he interprets as having a Christian character.

Mamdouh al-Damaty, then Minister of Antiquities, likewise stated that it is not a Pharaonic festival, noting that it does not appear on temple walls among the approximately 200 recorded Egyptian festivals, and that the feast's particular characteristics appeared during the Fatimid period.

Medieval observance

According to the archaeologist Sameh El Zahar, Sham Ennessim was celebrated most widely under the Fatimids. He states that the Fatimid state held an official celebration which featured a procession led by the caliph and senior officials, organized by the chief dāʿī (داعي الدعاة, dāʿī al-duʿāt) and assisted by twelve captains, which passed through Cairo. absudar (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Happened to stop by and saw there was a lot of new discussion. Should state first that I am OK with the current version as is, which I believe is the consensus version we arrived at a year ago.

If we want to bring in the new version posted immediately above, I would want to see the "their continued presence" changed. I have looked at the primary sources (in Greek) that are usually cited for candidate festivals and if you actually look at them , no connection with fish / onions / lettuce is made. It is as if we were saying: Khufu drank beer, Khufu had festivals, ergo Oktoberfest dates to the 4th dynasty. So, if we never established an original presence in the festival, there cannot be a continued presence in the festival. Maybe it should be: "the fact that they were consumed in pharaonic times is not regarded as sufficient proof of direct continuity" - which is kind of a 'duh?!' moment, but in my view it shows how weak this argument by association really is.

I hope this seems reasonable. Otherwise I am fine with the above, or ... we could just leave it the way it currently is ;-) MikuChan39 (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey @MikuChan39,

Hope all is well with you! I was long considering asking you to weigh in on the discussion for a third opinion, given the constructive outcome of our previous dialogue. I don't mind changing the phrasing to account for the point you raised regarding "continued", as it does not deviate from the source.

Personally, I prefer the latest iteration, the elaboration on the origin with two opposing views is always an improvement, and I think it makes for a stronger entry. That said, I am happy to hear absudar out if he/she wishes to weigh in further. If he/she does not (no additional comments for a while), and you are comfortable proceeding, the current consensus stands at 2 to 1, which is good enough to move forward either way. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 15:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

References