|WikiProject Egypt||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy||(Rated Start-class)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 28 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.|
Arab/ Non-Arab Identity 
I have added a sentence that I guess seems unrelated to some, but the fact is, it is very related. Because the article mentions how Egyptian Christians are inclined (without sourcing, by the way) to consider themselves non-Arab, and uses it as an explanation of having a non-pan-Arab flag, I think it is important to point out that pan-Arabism itself was formalized by Christians who are members of other ethnic groups that also do not consider themselves Arabs. The addition was attached to the Origins section of the Wikipedia article titled pan-Arabism. Tamer (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Real vs Spam Coptic Flag 
The main reason that this Coptic flag should not be in the article and is original research is because, first of all it's not widely used by most Copts. Then their are 3 other Coptic flags that have more supporters and came before the current version.
- cpr-government.org/ (an active website atleast for 4years now, that had the coptic flag atleast 3years before you even introduced your version of the coptic flag), investigatre the website logs and records.
- thetruth4u2.com/copticflag.htm (another active website for 3years now, it had another version of the coptic flag that was wornm on many T-shirts in Europe)
- coptflag.com a website reintroducing the 1959 version of the coptic flag.
- copticfreedom.com a coptic website that begun using the 1959 coptic flag as its symbol and begun giving away Free Coptic flag Tshirts and car signs that had the cross on the eagle.
- thecopticflag.com started by a coptic activist who wanted to organize the flags and give all of them their due respect, because a coptic activist is a coptic activist no matter whats their political belief or location.
If you are a true Copt who cares about our cause, you will appreciate such efforts. If not then we are not surprised and we will take the necessary steps to protect our cause and ppl at any price.
- I believe your main focus is to refute the efforts made by so many Coptic activists over the past few years to assert the Copts' Egyptian non-Arab identity, as a step in their struggle towards fully implemented rights for the Copts in their historical land, that is Egypt.
Unlike you, I do not base my claims on unfounded allegations. Here are the reasons why I and many other Coptic activists believe you are not a Copt, and that you are spamming around the web:
- 1. The real website of the Free Copts organization is http://freecopts.net (their Arabic site is http://www.freecopts.net/arabic/arabic). The website has been around for a few years and has received international acclaim and has become widely referenced as a source for Coptic news. To mention a few examples, Magdi Khalil, the political analyst and the executive editor of the only Coptic newspaper in Egypt, Watani (http://www.wataninet.com) has written at least 3 times in Watani to encourage the Coptic youth to register at the FreeCopts' forum (http://www.freecopts.net/forum), thus raising awarness about the site.
- 2. On your website where you have that imaginary vote on the Coptic flag, you stole the name of the Free Copts (http://www.thecopticflag.com), you stole a Coptic Cross design that was made by the Free Copts, and you stole the design of the Coptic Flag that was designed by some Coptic activists. Furthermore, your forum (http://www.thecopticflag.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3), which was made mainly to force your design of a weird Coptic flag on the Coptic community, promotes ideas such as kicking Arabs out of Egypt (http://www.thecopticflag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16&sid=e6e2ca34da2a465360df0479ad00f2ce), calling them animals (http://www.thecopticflag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14&sid=e6e2ca34da2a465360df0479ad00f2ce), and asking for Israeli occupation of Egypt (same link as previous). Way to go with your claims of helping the Coptic cause! Furthermore, you are attacking Wikipedia members such as Zerida and myself, calling us dogs and other names (http://www.thecopticflag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32&sid=e6e2ca34da2a465360df0479ad00f2ce). I will have your entire site shut down for racism, personal attack and identity theft. I got your phone number and address in NYC and will make sure you get what you deserve for your many infringements.
- 3. When one of the Free Copts, Yaweeka, posted on your forum that you are a bunch of thieves for stealing their organization's name, not only didn't you address his/her objections, you also stole their name and made some edits on Wikipedia using their name (User:Yaweeka) which was nothing but a sock puppet of your other names (Kemet59, Coptictillthebone, CopticFreedom, Voiceofraison, Grouphave19, User:TheBigPharaoh, and more). Give me one reason why I should believe a thief and a sock-puppet user like yourself. And not only this, one of your sock puppets (Grouphave19) only edited two articles on Wikipedia: the Coptic Flag and Sharmuta!!! (for non-Arabic speakers, Sharmuta is a very low word literally meaning whore, and is considered one of the most offensive and insulting expressions in Arabic). How can you convince anyone after this that you work towards the bien-etre of the Copts and their cause? I guess it's obvious where your interests lie and I suggesst you stick to them and leave the Copts alone.
- 4. The current Coptic flag (the one you are fighting) has been adopted following a census of Coptic activists both inside and outside Egypt. Furthermore, many worldwide Coptic organizations have adopted it as the official Coptic flag (to name a few: the Free Copts http://freecopts.net, the New Zealand Coptic Association www.egypt.co.nz, and the American Coptic Association http://www.amcoptic.com/index2.php). Your flag has been adopted by ZERO known organizations.
- 5. The current flag you are fighting has an explanation that comes with it, and which stresses the Egyptian identity of the Copts. Your flag is not different from the pan-Arabist flag of pan-Arabist Egypt.
- 6. Your alleged voting on a Coptic flag is organized by YOU, a biased person or persons who is/are clearly favoring that weird design of yours. As a Coptic activist myself, I never heard about this voting from any other activists. So who exactly is organizing this? You and...? You?
- To conclude, only when you start respecting honesty and transparency are you allowed to talk about democracy. And until then, I wish you a fun time trying to implement that flag of yours. --Lanternix 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are we denying older Coptic flags? 
http://www.cpr-government.org/HTML/graphics.htm <<<<< So this guy is not a Copt in your eyes?! His website had his own copticflag before any other website (BTW its not me and I am not all the screennames you mentioned above! While it doesnt take a scoobydoo to figure out that Zerida = Lanternix. However, thats not the issue now.
It doesnt matter who are you or who I am, the problem is that you are denying the fact their are other Coptic activists trying to do the same thing, and you use Wikipedia to omit and hide facts. instead of allowing it show how the coptic flag came through. with such hate and accusations of being (ProZionist, AntiArabist & PanArabist in the same time you give us an insight about your idea of being a Copt activist!)
We are trying to present ourselves as a fresh breath of air in he Mideast, yet we can't accept each other opinions! the article didnt say that these flags were official. Its just mentions them and If you dont agree you should add to the article instead of omitting everyone else and creating ill feelings betwen us.
Was this activist website, the main reason for you to call him a non Copt? although he proudly poses his face and risks his life for us, unlike most of us who hide behind the screens.
or the Forum (that I also post in)
And you were quoting a poster! claiming that he is the website owner, when it only takes one look at the website to notice that it is a very diverse Pro Coptic website. and you said it has a coptic cross on it(?) so whats the problem with that. half of the members including the founder of the website are Free Copts from Copts.com, thats why the news section links directly to Copts.com!
Even the topic, you claim that it is Real vs Fake Coptic flag! (so the oter 3flags, designed by 3 diff activist groups on a span of atleast 50 years are the same person in your opinion!)
Take a look at ch website by itself and decide.
- Most of what you wrote does not even deserve adressing it, so I won't. The only valid point is that of the CPR exile governemnt. The guy was NOT elected democratically (since you seem to be talking about democracy!) and no Coptic organization in the entire world has recognized or adopted his flag. I am willing however to add a section within the article about his flag, since it is clearly not a bogus flag. The other two flags (and particularly that stupid pan-Arabist flag with the Eagle of the Saladin, which actually emanates from the Eagle of the arabian trible of Quraish) have no origin and no one knows where they come from (and I don't want you to repeat the nonsense you wrote before about them because it's non-believable, especially considering the many other objections people have against you and your group. So in other words, if you're a thief and a liar, why should people believe what you say?) Enough said? --Lanternix 02:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The latest on the unrecognized Coptic flags 
The website claiming to be a fair vote among all Coptic flags (previously four of them) removed the pan-Arabist flag because it was created by a woman in NYC with a Jewish BF, who was promoting pro-Zionist ideas. Although this flag was removed from their internal voting, it can be still viewed on this website. The even more shocking news is that all the votes that the pan-Arabist flag previously got were automatically transferred to the flag of the CPR! A very democratc system indeed. For more information on this joke, please see this forum. --Lanternix 13:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Copyright trouble 
Regarding this page and this one on Freecopts, it looks unfortunately like alot of the text on this page was swiped from freecopts, which has a VERY clear copyright notice on the bottom. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that this article should be deleted based on WP:NOTE (see Talk:Copt), WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. If you don't think it should be deleted, please add your comments. Thanks --George (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am copying some of the comments here in response to your call for deletion of the article, because I feel many of them are relevent to this discussion page. --Lanternix (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the current flag is too Arabic and not really Egyptian. But the proposed flag, even after the many explanations attached, looks too European and again not really Coptic. If it's up to me I keep the three colors green, blue and yellow and in the middle I would put the three pyramids.
I changed a lot of things in the article (I wanted to do it for a long time but didn't have enough time), and I decided to write the edit summary here instead.
- changed "but many Copts" to "and few Copts" in the first paragraph.
- added a comment explaining that the Free Copts are the ones who created the flag (that's what was written in Akhbar el Yom).
- removed uverifiable claims from the background section.
- removed a forum from the references of the "blue bone" folktale. (and added the word 'folktale')
- changed "Eastern and Western Deserts" to "Eastern and Western Deserts".
- changed "since Egyptians adopted Christianity and until today" to "during the times of presecution" .(persecution)
- Please note that most of the stuff you removed/changed was adopted as middle ground between many differnt Wiki users over the past few years. Please go back to the article's history to learn more about why the article is written the way it is. Also, please discuss things here first and change them once an agreement is reached (your changes are likely to be perosonally-motivated, especially in light of your continuous disagreement with the whole idea and article. So it's safer to see what others think about your edits first). Thanks for your understanding. --Lanternix (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I won't change the page again without discussing the changes here first (unless there is a good reason). I also want to know what you thought of the changes I made. (details please) George (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. I'll comment on the quick ones now and I'll address the rest later:
- 1. The article used to say "Copts ..." and some people disagreed with that because they felt that this implies all Copts adopted the flag, so we reached an agreement to say "many Copts...etc". I totally disagree with "few Copts". They aren't few.
- 2. The Free Copts did not create the flag. Akhbar el hawadeth just copied the article from their website. But the Free Copts never claimed that the Coptic flag is their creation.
- 3. Will address later. Meanwhile, please clarify what you mean by "unverifiable claims".
- 4. Will address later.
- 5. I don't understand why you want to change a link to the Western Desert to one talking about Egyptian geography in general.
- 6. I disagree with the last change. Maybe because I don;t understand the reason behind it. Could you please explain your rational for that?
OK, I saw your comments. What I meant by "unverifiable claims" is that you can't prove any of the claims I removed (like "as if to distinguish between an Arab Egypt and one that is not"), this is why I removed them. If you don't have any objections to number 5, please change it back. I removed "which has been shed all over Egypt since Egyptians adopted Christianity and until today" because it gives the impression of continued persecution, not individual (and illegal) accidents. I just wanted to say I saw your comments and explain my edits, I'll answer them when you finish writing them. George (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay:
- 3. I still don't get what you mean by unverifiable claims. what you wrote (Quote)""as if to distinguish between an Arab Egypt and one that is not"(End Quote) is not a claim. Nobody claims there are 2 Egypts. It's an objection to a status quo situation.
- 4. I think we both agree that the Copts are referred to, pejoratively, as "Blue Bones". A quick google search came up with the following: ,  and apparently people differ as to what the reason for this is. To be honest, I do not know of any quthentic source that explains the etiology of this term. However, this does not change the fact that it is widely accepted among the Copts that they are called "Blue Bones" for the heavt crosses the Muslim rules made them wear. So I think it's fair to consider it a folktale, as long as you mention that it is widely accepted among the Copts.
- 5. I do NOT agree with #5. Maybe the way I worded my sentence before was misunderstood. I reworded it.
- In addition, I found 2 other sites with the Coptic Flag , and the site of the Copts in the Holy Land , so I would like to add those links to the article. I won't do so until we agree on the changes. Thanks. --Lanternix (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll start with #3, what I meant was that statements like "... Egyptian flag, which many Copts feel does not represent their community. " cannot be proved or disproved (you can say that some or a few copts do, but you can't know how much). The example I gave before was not a good one (but it should be changed to something that makes it clear whose opinion this is). I opened the link and didn't find the flag anywhere on the site, if you have a more specific link write it next time. George (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The link works, and the flag is right there on the top right hand side. The link is http://coptsrights.com/home I agree with you that this claim can neither be proven nor disproven. But there are groups on the internet that call for changing the current pan-Arabist flag with one that carries true Egyptian symbols. If you look at these groups, you'll notice that the number of Copts in them is disproportionate with (larger than) their real percentage. I can send you the link to one such group on Facebook, but you'll need a Facebook account to access it. --Lanternix (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I know that there are people who like the idea of the flag and think that the flag of egypt should be changed, but they are a minority and their views should not be the main views in the article, and sources should not be internet groups. I checked the link again and found the flag (I don't know why I didn't see it before), but I don't think a link to this site should be added to the article because it represents the views of a very small minority and because the site does not represent any organization or person. George (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
and it doesn't have a page about the flag, it only displays it on its front page (which only proves that there is another group of people who are aware of the flag and like its idea, it doesn't give the reader any more information about the flag). George (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Coptic flag 3 
On the article's history, the page has been peppered with IP address edits and reverts (from both sides, the one that is strongly against the flag in particular). To those who say that the flag is controversial, please assume good faith. I have only reverted those edits because there was no source that explained those edits. I have said here that there has been no reasoning with edits that add to what is already sufficient enough (it already says that the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria doesn't recognize it). Also, debates on the web (IE: forums, threads, online discussions, etc.) are not reliable sources and cannot be used as an excuse for those edits. At this point, any further reverts without discussion may have to lead to full page protection (again). ~ Troy (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- True, these alleged sources have been claimed, however, there has been no citation whatsoever. Before these edits continue, there must be a consensus. It takes at least two people from both sides to discuss this, and so I am still dissatisfied with all of these edits (the anonymous ones in particular). ~ Troy (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Time and time again changes have been posted to this article to imply that a specific flag (one of many-actually all-unrcognized versions) is the accepted flag. And when changes have been placed to indicate that this "flag" is unrepresentative, that clarifying change has been vetoed by so-called moderators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- All I want is a reliable source that says that the flag is controversial. Also, the information you added to the image moves the TOC template out of place ("toc" stands for "table of contents"). You can add links for different flags—that's fine with me—but adding unsubstantiated comments (like saying that it's not recognizd by the majority of Copts, or saying it's controversial having already said that the Coptic Church doesn't recognize it) is what needs to be verifiable. If you disagree, then show us a good source that validates your point. ~ Troy (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Where were the cries for sources when this so-called flag became the de facto emblem on the Copts wikipedia entry? Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
When a symbol is used over and over again on articles describing an ethnic group of people, it is implied as the accepted symbol. Where are the reliable sources that this is the accepted symbol? Even when you check the website source of this so-called flag you get a website that has not been updated in YEARS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Do not engage in edit wars, especially not if the page has been previously protected.
- Discuss your edits/reverts the first time around—you shouldn't have to be prompted by others.
- Sign your comments.
- Cite reliable sources which have long been requested before inquiring others.
- Please assume good faith, as Wikipedia talk pages are used for reasoning and consensuses.
Wikipedia standards FAILED when this symbol became the de facto used to tag the Copts. A mention of this flag should have been allowed (and those others, such as the sourced link www.thecopticflag.com, which by the way is against Wikipedia rules that a sourced statement be removed) but no flag should be used on the main Copts page, or map, etc which implicitly implies worldwide recognition. WHERE IS THE RELIABLE SOURCE THAT THIS IS A WORLDWIDE RECOGNIZED SYMBOL???!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your edits have been disruptive—even after the page has been previously protected from your unaccountable reverts. There doesn't need to be a reliable source that says that it's "world-recognized", and also, I have asked you long ago for a viable source in response to your reverts, which appear to have been unverifiable. Wikipedia must be neutral (see WP:NPOV), and whether you like it or not, Wikipedia Policy is used to solve even the most ridiculous disputes, not to start them. If you do not cooperate, it's quite simple:
- I (or anyone else) will report you
- I will give reasons as to why you should be blocked (ie: disruptive editing or no uncompliance with any given Wikipedia Policy)
- An administrator will decide if you should be blocked
- I'm joining this debate in response to an editor request for assistance. Reading the above post, I can understand why the request was made. It appears that User:Troy_07 misunderstands Wikipedia policies and guidelines and is using them as weapons to try to "win" a content dispute. This is not how Wikipedia operates. The wiki process works on the basis of seeking consensus, not of threats and edit-warring. That means that everyone needs to be civil and respectful, everyone needs to assume that everyone else is here to improve Wikipedia (which what assuming good faith really means), and everyone needs to work together to find a solution to this dispute. Further, I must point out that any material that is contested may be removed if a reliable source cannot be found for it. The burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain information. Sources are not required to remove unsourced information, nor is consensus. This is the essence of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a core policy component.
- Moving forward, I would like editors to provide any links to reliable sources discussing the Coptic flag, its level of acceptance, official status, etc. (please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources if you have not done so). Those sources, if any, will provide the basis for discussion and hopefully enable us to document the flag issue in a way which is acceptable to all. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not using Wikipedia policy as a weapon or a threat, though. These IP addresses come out of nowhere and don't discuss until they're forced, which was why I took that tone. My understanding was that the IP addresses were either vandals or those who misunderstand Wikipedia guidelines, because after there was already more than one consensus, the edit warring continued. All I did was restore to the original version after the last consensus and ask for page protection. ~ Troy (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
So here we are. The so-called Coptic Flag Version is being used as a de facto symbol representing the millions of Copts worldwide. There is no source that shows reliable evidence that it is a reliable symbol, flag or visual representation that is accepted by a majority, or even a plurality of Copts. There are many versions of the Coptic flag (www.thecopticflag.com), none have gained a modicum of acceptance. I propose removing the symbols from the Copts Article webpage at the map and the "Copts" template. Furthermore, I propose the Article "Coptic Flag" allow portrayal of other versions and clearly reflect the fact that no sources prove that any of them are an accepted symbol. Signed18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[[User talk:22.214.171.124
- ...on the other hand, I don't see why debates and forums would be "reliable" material. Besides, it already says that the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria rejects the flag. Remember that I myself am not a supporter of the flag whatsoever, but I also disagree with immediately taking out the flag after the issue has long been discussed to it's death, ending with a previous consensus. Why start another edit war? Isn't it easier to discuss the matter before removing images? For me, it's consensus first.
- I apologize for not assuming good faith, but I had a legitimate concern.
I have no feeling about using the Coptic Cross instead. Personally, no visual symbol is necessary but at least the Coptic Cross is more neutral. I admit I didnt understand the nuances of Wikipedia editing initially, but the point is that using this symbol left and right is in contrast with the reality that it is not the symbol used to describe millions of people worldwide. It should not have been allowed n the first place since no reliable source shows that it is an accepted symbol.User-126.96.36.199| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
FInally, SheffieldSteel's quote is quite telling: " Further, I must point out that any material that is contested may be removed if a reliable source cannot be found for it. The burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain information. Sources are not required to remove unsourced information, nor is consensus."-User-184.108.40.206 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, but remember, I wasn't the one who put the Coptic flag on these articles and templates in the first place. After there's a consensus, let's try not to argue again. I can switch to the Coptic Cross on the template right away if you would feel better about, but the text and other locations for the Coptic flag image can be dealt with after we hear from the other IP address—if he responds. Again, my sincere apologies for taking any part in this mess. ~ Troy (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine start. And I apologize for liberally editing in the beginning while ignorant of the Wikipedia editing protocols.-User-18.104.22.168 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll contact Lanternix. May be he can come up with something that we can all agree upon. ~ Troy (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Troy for letting me know about this discussion. I'll summarize my response in the following:
- 1.I will NOT engage in a conversation with someone who went so far in his/her disruptive edits as to replace the Coptic flag with the flag of Israel, claiming that those who endorse the flag are Israelis and Zionists (please refer to the article's history page). While people who endorse the flag have contributed thousands of Coptic-affiliated articles, the disruptive IP address has done NOTHING but disrupting the pages of Coptic flag, Copt and others.
- 2.Once I find a reliable and respectful person to engage in a conversation with, the first thing I will do is to ask why the sources provided in the article do not - from the other party's point of view - represent reliable sources. This is a key issue in this debate.
- 3.No one has claimed that ALL Copts like the Coptic flag. But not all Egyptians like the current Egyptian flag. You can't simply remove the Egyptian flag from the Egypt article because of that. --Lanternix (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you are willing to discuss this subject in good faith and work towards consensus, then we can move forward. Accusing editors of bad deeds is not going to get us anywhere. Are you opposed to the image of the Coptic Cross for some reason, or is it just that you personally prefer a flag? Can you cite reliable sources associating the flag with Copts? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sheffield, I agree with you in terms of how to reach a consensus, but Lanternix is my friend. Lanternix, I probably should have let you know that we're done with pointing fingers at eachother. I agree somewhat with all of you, but now is not the time to argue. Sorry Lanternix, but I think that the Coptic Cross is more neutral — at least in terms of something that we can all agree upon. Indeed, the cross is a symbol which, I believe, all Copts can relate to.
- At least for the template, I have switched it already as a gesture to show that I'm willing to make some revisions. The "Copts Around the World" image can be dealt with—it's quite minor as I see it. I still think it's reasonable enough to say that the Coptic Orthodox Church doesn't recognize the flag, so I'm not sure what anon. thinks. The thing which I am least unsure of how to change is probably the Coptic flag article itself, as there is obviously no way for it to not be Coptic flag-related. Whatever the case, we need reliable sources, and we need to be more respectful to eachother—different viewpoints contrasted in a way that is reasonable might allow for neutrality. ~ Troy (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Coptic Flag article DOES indeed cite reliable sources from Egyptian newspapers and well recognized Coptic newspapers and websites. What exactly do people want? Do people want the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church to hold a conference discussing the matter? When I learn why people object to the sources already provided in the article, I may be able to respond. --Lanternix (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was talking about sources in general. For example, why add that most Copts find the flag to be controversial if the Coptic Orthodox Church doesn't recognize it? There was apparently no reliable source on that. I do agree that the addition of the Israeli flag on the Coptic flag article was really absurd, but I'm not sure if that IP address had anything to do with the other articles. Any thoughts? ~ Troy (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
FIrst, I was not responsible for the Israeli flag fiasco, check the IPs. Second, the sources Lanternix mentions only discuss the making of that "version" of the flag, not its acceptance. Third, his comparison that many Copts dont like the current Egyptian flag is a classic straw man argument. The Egyptian flag is the OFFICIAL flag, recognized by world governments, UN, etc. The Copts page does not show the Egyptian flag, so its a meaningless argument. The problem is due to to using that version of the flag (one of many) as the de facto symbol of Copts worldwide, when there is no evidence that this symbol is adopted by Copts other than the ones who created it. Not to mention the fact that the organization that created it has a website that has not been updated in years, not since their first creation of the website!User-126.96.36.199
- I understand that you were not involved in that ridiculous edit war on the Coptic flag article specifically. Regarding the website, it's not up to me to say how reliable any one of those sites are reliable. Regarding the map, more areas should be darkened as explained below, but it's not my decision on wether to remove the flag from that image or not. This issue is quite a long-standing one—before I got involved. The one thing that I'm sure that I don't want to change is the text on this article specifically—I would like to know at least one reliable source that says that it's not recognized by most Copts. The Church doesn't recognize it, so it appears to be reasonably neutral. As for the Cross, if there's still a large-scale argument, then it can be sparingly used as a reasonable substitute. ~ Troy (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"I would like to know at least one reliable source that says that it's not recognized by most Copts" I thought we agreed that that is not the case. SheffieldSteel's quote is quite telling: " Further, I must point out that any material that is contested may be removed if a reliable source cannot be found for it. The burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain information. Sources are not required to remove unsourced information, nor is consensus.". A reliable source is required to prove the flag IS recognized by most Copts.-User-188.8.131.52 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your opinion, however, I don't believe saying that it's not recognized by most Copts is "neutral", whatever the case may be. I personally don't recognize it, but I still respect the opinions of others—so it does matter if it says that it IS or ISN'T recognized by most Copts. There must be some sort of verifiable information—one way or another. Also, within that quote, it says that "the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain information". In this case, you want to add information that it's not recognized by most Copts.
- I am simply saying that both sides badly need some kind of evidence to prove either case:
- Is it recognized by the majority? If it is, then keep it the way it is.
- Is it not recognized by the majority? If it isn't, then make the required adjustments (asides from the actual Coptic flag article, the changes should be mostly with the image placements as there isn't much text about it)>
- In this case, I haven't decided on how to add or retain the information, so I'm the one who is looking for proof of validity for whatever version that is brought forth.
You cannot prove a negative. I can come up with a Coptic Flag version on my Adobe Photoshop on my laptop in 5 minutes flat. If I then splatter it all over the main Copts article, according to your logic that would be OK since there must be required proof that a majority of Copts DONT recognize my version??? SheffiedSteel's input earlier makes it clear that the burden of proof is required when the symbol was first placed as a defacto symbol. The latter never happened. If a symbol is accepted by a substantial portion of an ethnic group comprised of MILLIONS, dont you think there would be any evidence of that (pictures of the symbol used at a rally, flag flying at a significant event, etc). Ive googled Coptic flag and the only results I get are the webstites of the creating group and a couple of blog entries. Thats it. So much for a symbol representative of millions.-User-220.127.116.11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for evidence. I had just said that the burden of proof is on you as you wish to add information that is "negative". Whether it's negative or positive, as long as it's opinion and not fact, you need proof. So far, I have only seen continuous reverts that were long unexplained and childish complaints — even after we had seemed to have established a civilised discussion. This is not what I had meant for.
- So, as I have to explain myself again, I will kindly do so only ONCE more:
- the onus is on you if you want to add any facts or opinions whatsoever
- No, I don't want direct evidence on a negative. I simply want a reason for why we should say that most Copts don't recognize it.
- There's only one way to find out: see if there's any evidence for the positive.
- Until there's any proof on either side for anything whatsoever (ie: is the flag representative?—or, why take out the flag on the map?), then I'm still waiting for a closer look at it—this is all I want.
- 22.214.171.124, I don't have a problem with you jumping in, but at least take a look at the earlier discussion before taking an insinctive tone right away—discussions will often change topics, as you may already know.
- Just to clarify my earlier quote: to include the Coptic Flag requires a reliable source to verify that it represents Copts. Removing the flag does not require a source; indeed, in the absence of any source on the subject, removal is strictly the correct action to take. However, I hope this doesn't become an argument about "the letter of the law". I would rather see discussion and compromise, such as using the Coptic Cross instead of the flag, and I'm glad to see that the template now uses the cross image. If all editors can accept that, perhaps further discussion about the use of the flag could be moved to Talk:Coptic flag. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, well in terms of our idea on using the Coptic Cross instead, I think we can all happily agree on that solution. I changed it to the cross on the template because, as I saw it, even those who support the flag also view the cross as something that is entirely representative of the Copts. I also want a compromise—it just seems to be difficult for me to see what Lanternix and the IPs agree upon other than the Coptic Cross.
- I am glad, nonetheless, that SheffieldSteel is helping out. Angrily disputing the issue after we have already apologized for letting our feelings towards the issue getting the better of us is not a solution. What we need is something to build on, and for one thing, I want to see a positive attitude. I surely hope that we can build on what we did on the template. ~ Troy (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we strat the article by describing this Flag as a "version" of a Coptic Flag due to the fact that many different versions have been imagined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, sure. Can you all explain to me what these versions are and how they should be sorted? ~ Troy (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Changes 2 
- What about the flag design of the "Coptic Pharaonic Republic" based in Egypt? I have the flag and anthem (but was sang in English) on a youtube video clip: [ url= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmBB7OvI-2s&feature=related] This flag has a "sun rays" design of black on the bottom, yellow in the middle, blue on the top and a white triangular area with an eagle bearing a shield with an orange cross on the middle. + —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Changes 3 
I made the following changes:
- I removed the "New Zealand Coptic Association" from the article . The site looks like it's run from a personal computer and it's empty (almost).
- I removed references 2 and 3 because they were broken links.
- I moved the links to Akhbar el Yom to the External links section because they are not used as references in the article.
- I moved the links to The Free Copts to the External links section because there is already one link in the references section to the Free Copts' site.
The link to arab.net redirects you to an "Under Construction" page, when you click "Why am I seeing this 'Under Construction' page?" it tells you that the "Under Construction" page is an automatically generated placeholder Web page for a domain that is not yet attached to an active Web site and that it replaces the "Not Found" error pages.
The link to mycopticchurch.com takes a minute to load and then Firefox displays a network timeout error. I tried to ping mycopticchurch.com and all requests timed out (meaning that the problem is not from the browser).
I didn't say that the "New Zealand coptic association"'s link is broken, I just said I can create a site like this in half an hour using FrontPage, and it doesn't contain anything about the flag (except it being in the upper left corner) and the site is almost empty and it doesn't represent any official group of people (other than the creator).
I added quotation boxes to paragraphs containing controversial claims like "as if to distinguish between an Arab Egypt and one that is not" and "[...] coptic blood, which has been shed all over Egypt since Egyptians adopted Christianity and until today". These are claims, not facts, and should not be added to the article without quotation marks. I also wrote that the free copts are the creators of the flag. Their site clearly claims that "we found that the best solution for this dilemma is designing a Coptic flag that represents us and highlights our non-Arab identity". --George (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Semiprotection review 
- 23:02, 28 June 2007 BrendelSignature protected Coptic flag (User with habit of creating socks to evade his/her block continues edit warring. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 23:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC))) (hist)
- 23:33, 1 July 2007 Maxim protected Coptic flag (Socks [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)
- 22:10, 13 January 2008 Acalamari unprotected Coptic flag (Requested at RFPP, should be fine now) (hist)
- 00:52, 17 May 2008 Husond protected Coptic flag (IP edit war [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)
- 01:01, 17 May 2008 Husond changed protection level of Coptic flag (on second thought, full protection instead [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (hist)
- 01:02, 17 May 2008 Husond changed protection level of Coptic flag (forgot to set time [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 01:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC))) (hist)
- 15:51, 17 May 2008 Husond changed protection level of Coptic flag (changed time [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC))) (hist)
- 20:13, 1 June 2008 AndonicO protected Coptic flag (Edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (hist)
- 09:55, 8 July 2008 AndonicO changed protection level of Coptic flag (Dispute resolved? [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)
Despite this long history of protection actions it looks to me like it might be worth reviewing this to see if semiprotection really is still necessary. A short trial could be tried. As well as welcoming views from other editors I've contacted AndonicO, the last admin involved in protecton of the article. --TS 09:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't do this alone 
2 years ago I tried to have this page and references to it removed based on its lack of notability and the fact that the only reason for its existence is that some people want to use Wikipedia for advertising the idea of the flag and hiding behind the "free speech" label. At the time I tried to do this for a number of months and eventually decided to stop for the sake of my mental health and I rationalized that it can't be too damaging to have an article like this here but since that time there have been two instances where this article was two clicks away from Wikipedia's main page and these times worried me since I am an Egyptian christian and the contents of this article reflect on me. Today I opened Wikipedia and once again the article is two clicks away from the main page but now I don't have enough faith in the way Wikipedia works to try and have this article removed again. You did this to me. I am writing this in case someone who cares sees it. Please don't remove it just because you can. --George (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- The flag is not official, and the article makes clear that it's not official, so I'm not sure what "damage" the article does. The article could be deleted for lack of notability or lack of good-quality available sources. AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I sympathize with George/Protious. Things are quite tense for Copts currently living in Egypt, and the base that uses this flag is somewhat...shall we say, suspect as far as the Egyptian government is concerned. There's also a strong element of suspicion within the Coptic community towards those Copts who sympathize with this flag's designers; fitna is the watchword these days. Most Copts want no trouble with the Muslims (and vice-versa), and as the aftermath of the late attacks have shown, most in both communities consider themselves Egyptian first, and then an assortment of other identities second. Lockesdonkey (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
More identity 
Whoever keeps adding demonization of Muslims and flat statements that Egyptians are not Arabs: please stop. The former, for being so grave an accusation, requires substantial and reputable sources, not just one random website; the latter is simply not true. This isn't to say it's false either; what nation one belongs to is a social construct (Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities; Ernest Gellner; Eric Hobsbawm; etc.; etc.; etc.). As long as there are a substantial number of Egyptians who consider themselves Arabs (and there are), then WP cannot make any statements beyond "Some Egyptians consider themselves Arabs, while others do not." Please. This is important. Thanks. Lockesdonkey (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)