Supreme Deliciousness (talk | contribs) striking out Arab Cowboys confirmed sockpuppet |
Supreme Deliciousness (talk | contribs) please dont remove strike outs from comments made by a sock puppet |
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 14:25, 20 February 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Founder
the coptics trace their apostolic tradition to St. Mark, whose remains they believe are housed in the cathedral in Cairo, sorry I do not know how to edit wikipedia and am not citing anything but ask a copt...it's St Mark, in the icons he always has a lion and the light house of Alexandria. http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/church1.html
-above edited to remove ref tags by Jubilee♫clipman 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Coptic flag 2
There is a flag labled 'the Coptic flag' that has been added on the 10th of May 2007 to the article, I don't think this flag should be here or at least it should'nt be in its current place at the top of the article, for the following reasons:
- 1- It is not notable for this article, since a copt is a 'native egyptian christian' and the flag is not recognized by neither the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria nor most copts of Egypt. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.The flag has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is unknown how much copts even know about it, there is no secondary sources referring to it, and the currently cited sources are not independent from the subject.
- 2- Claims of consensus must be sourced, there is no source citing the flag as "the coptic flag" (being agreed upon by most copts) , and in the About us section of the Free Copts site they state that they "do not claim to represent the Coptic people as a whole politically or otherwise in any official capacity."
- 3- From the current sources (1 and 2 in the footnotes), one is a broken link and the other is a primary source.
I think the flag should be removed from the article, or at least moved to the body of the article instead of the infobox and changing the caption. Please add your comments, Thanks.--George (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree per the reasons given in the previous discussion about the Coptic flag and for the reasons given on Coptic flag. You remove things after people agree to do so, not before. Thank you. --Lanternix (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I had to do it to get your attention, I'm sorry. Please explain why you think it should be on the article, and in its current place. And if this page is not on your watchlist, please add it.--George (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked your arguments for keeping the flag in the archive, this is what I think:
- 1-Copts are native egyptian christians, and since this flag is not recongnized by the coptic orthodox church, it don't think it should be here.
- 2-'Articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future' (WP:N#TEMP), Googling "coptic flag" generates 19 pages and the first 20 results contain 4 blogs, 6 forums, 2 votes, 2 Wikipedia articles, 3 results from freecopts.com, and 3 videos (I haven't watched those), all of the results can't be cited (freecopts.com is a primary source).
- 3-I don't think the free copts are separatists (or anything similar), but I also don't think they are notable enough (for the flag to be in the article) and even if they are, the flag shouldn't be in the infobox.
Waiting for your response. (BTW I'm from College de La Salle too)--George (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have more opinions other than those I've already expressed. Basically, the flag is notable enough to be included in the article, but still not notable enough to be in the infobox. I would suggest, as I did before, to remove it from the infobox and place it somewhere in the body of the article--perhaps under "Human rights" or "Coptic activism"--noting that it was created by a group of activists. I think this is a nice compromise. — Zerida ☥ 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- We had this discussion before, so I'll have to repeat what was said then. The Coptic Flag is NOT a creation of the Free Copts. It came as a coordinated effort of many Copts from Egypt, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Canada. ALL (And I repeat ALL) of these activists were and still are members in official and recognized Coptic organization that represent Copts (not the Free Copts, which is not a recognized organization). If you follow the links on the article page, you will see that 2 Coptic organizations in the US and NZ have adopted the flag, and these are organizations whose members are elected by the Coptic communities in these countries (or at least those who care to do so). This is why I believe the flag is notable for the infobox of this article. The fact that the Coptic Church did not recognize it means nothing. First of all, the Coptic Church does not represent Copts and is not the official spokesman of the Copts. Secondly, the Coptic Church is under huge pressure from the Egyptian regime, so no one expects it to take such a huge leap as to recognize a flag (and you know that, unlike other people, Egyptians start thinking separatism and war when they hear the word "flag"). I will refrain from changing the article back until a concensus is made on the talk page, unless I don't hear from people within a reasonable span of time. Thanks (btw: je suis St-Marcien, mosh de la Salle, bas bardo ya3ni 2arayeb) ;) --Lanternix (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I opened the links in the coptic flag article, I don't know the number of Copts in New Zealand or how many of them are aware of the New Zealand Coptic Association (I googled copt+"new zealand" and found only one result) but, even if 20% of people in New Zealand are Copts and half of them are members of the New Zealand Coptic Association then they represent from 6% to 2% of the copts in the world (which is not enough for the flag to be in the infobox). I also opened the AMCoptic website and I didn't find the flag anywhere (and I think the site is islamophobic, if you agree please remove it) . Thanks --George (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ethnic self-definition
Any particular reason why issues of ethnicity have not been discussed? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the above comment. I think you should add a paragraph about Mesraym Ham being the father of Egyptians and where his sons and grandsons settled. You can reference Genesis. It also clarifies why Egyptians cannot be Arabs as Arabs claim to be the grandchildren of Sam and not Ham. At the same time it clarifies why Mesr is a more accurate name than Egypt. Kvft (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the above comment, i argue in tracing the linguistic derivation of the coptic peoples, coptic is not afro-asiatic like arabic is, in contrast, it is indo-european. this is the clearest evidence. not to take away from the bible, however it is not academic, it is spiritual. Also a comment on the ethnicity, an ethnic group is defined by religion, and self identification, so there is no controversy as to if copts are a separate ethnic group, one should simply highlight the ethnic markers that make a Copt Unique. jbisha2 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Collage
The Copts have no women? How have they survived so long? Fishal (talk) 19:47, 18 April 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 129.85.55.205 (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 129.85.55.205 (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 129.85.55.205 (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 129.85.55.205 (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.
Signed129.85.55.181 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[[User talk:129.85.55.181
- ...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.
- ... regarding the images, I do have an idea... wouldn't you like to replace any of the Coptic flag images with the Coptic Cross??? ~ Troy (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
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-129.85.55.181| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.181 (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-129.85.55.181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.181 (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-129.85.55.181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.181 (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)
- The Coptic Cross looks to me like it would be a beautiful image with which to illustrate this template and article. If no other editors object, I would say go ahead and change to it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:03, 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-129.85.55.181
- 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-129.85.55.181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.181 (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-129.85.55.181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.123.35 (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.
- 72.43.123.35, 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 copied the discussion to Talk:Coptic flag according to SheffieldSteel's suggestion, I hope no one has any problem with continuing the discussion there --George (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that at all. I should let you know that I'll steer clear of the issue on that page for now—I don't want to do all of the talking. ~ Troy (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not terribly busy, but I'd like to examine other views before stating my opinion. I sort of understand how both sides feel, but I don't think I can come up any of my own solutions right away. I will keep a close eye on both talk pages, though, I'll promise you that. ~ Troy (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The Map
There are also copts and coptic churhces in Ireland, UAE, Singapore (shared church), Japan, Ethiopia (of course), Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Ivory Cost (very recently), Greece and not sure about Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Qatar. Kvft (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I see your point. That map should have those regions darkened as well. ~ Troy (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to darken israel as well. Some palestinian christians are copts, and there's coptic presence in the christian quarter in jerusalem of some tens of families. MiS-Saath (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would, but the page is blocked from everyone except for admins because of heavy vandalism and in order to prevent sock puppets or malicious user accounts, even the average user can't edit right now. Don't worry, I'll have both the page-protection and the map on my to-do list. ~ Troy (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
"vandalism"? More like attempts to have the article portray reality rather than fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.181 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's the wrong section. One mistake I made doesn't equal the long list of undiscussed edits you took part in. ~ Troy (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Theyre discussed NOW aren't they? Thats what matters.-comment added by 129.85.55.181 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- A: you continuously refuse to sign your comments. B: you have vandalised more than one article for several months. This onus is on you to discuss first and take responsibility. Unfortunately, you have not done so. I even had to ask for full page-protection to prevent you from creating a user account to continue being disruptive, so discussing is obviously the only thing you can do now. At this point, I would have expected you to let us know about why you made such edits. No, really—why? Do you actually enjoy being disruptive? I don't—not when I come across some folks who aren't as law-abiding in Wikipedia as they are in the real world. This is the real world—so don't think of it as your personal game. Anyway, the main point is, why did you do it—even as there were already consensuse (resolutions that were hardly agreed upon, albeit)??
- I'm waiting for a response,
Religion
By undermining the process of conversion in the other direction, Egypt effectively undermines the secularity of the state. Each Egyptian has to wear ID cards with their religion stated what about people who don't have any religion? I hope Egypt will get better soon!Domsta333 (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This article completely miss neutrality
this article is written by extremist and miss neutrality , he is talking about strange things like elimination of copts!!. All egyptians suffer from human rights violation not only copts! and also he is citing with individual accidents made by a minor extermist from both sides "muslim and copts" to claim that copts suffer in Egypt.
I suspect that the author didn't even visit Egypt before , as if he was talking about another country!
This article need for a complete reconstructing and citing with moderate references not only extermist references!. 3d vector (talk)
- To what exactly are you referring? ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 12:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly the article was talking about another Egypt, and still needs more changes « PuTTYSchOOL 11:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unless those changes are actually specified, then I'm afraid you'll have to make do with what you've got. Additions should be made carefully and aren't something that you could just copy'n paste (like cut&paste moves or taking things directly from copyrighted material). ~ Troy (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly the article was talking about another Egypt, and still needs more changes « PuTTYSchOOL 11:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I kind of agree to doubting the neutrality of some parts of this article. Specifically, the part concerning Religious freedom and human rights is more like a biased supporter opinion rather than data and facts representation. The author intentionally feeds biased opinions amidst the normal history telling. Also, it can become very misleading when one describes only a part of the facts and not the other part. All Egyptians would agree considering that we suffer from western media when they show only one face of the truth. As for the article itself I see, for example, words like "discriminatory government policies" are not appropriately used. The following sentence "his appointment as an only acting foreign minister depicted Egypt's systematic elimination of Copts from all governmental influential positions" is a clear unsubstantiated opinion. The passage about hate crimes is a one-sided view, as there are numerous situations for crimes under religion name from either muslims or copts. All these situations are minor with no long-term effect. No one living in Egypt would recall what happened or how many muslims/copts injured or died, we remember how many Egyptians died. One fact is agreed upon, muslims and copts suffer to make the country they live in a better place. I would finally want to add that I also think that the author(s) didn't live in Egypt for enough time, criticism could be wrong if you didn't live the experience.Ircian (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
There was an odd edit that found its way into the main page..no references, bad spelling, etc. Removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.70.210 (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Wierd lettering?
ⲟⲩⲣⲉⲙ'ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ 'ⲛ'Ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓ'ⲁⲛⲟⲥ
The above comes out as apparent gibberish on my computer. Is it necessary? Could it be replaced with a png if so? Jubilee♫clipman 20:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- It looks fine and beautiful on mine. You probably need to download a unicode font, preferably "Athena". --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 20:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was about to ask this, its not showing up for me either. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Muslims and Copts clashed in southern Egypt
This site: [Egypt] about one clash in Egypt, in 2009.Agre22 (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)agre22
Coptic church flag??
Hello everyone, there has been a debate and deletion of the image provided here as the Coptic church flag; the authenticity of this flag is being challenged. Please, if anyone can provide a reliable source for this image as the Coptic church flag, please republish the image with the source. If there is no such source, then the File:Copts.jpg should be deleted as such. Thank you very much, Maysara (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
To Lanternix
Please make a valid argument against The Pew forum that states that Muslims in Egypt number 95% of the population, i.e., making Copts 5% or less. Also, please provide a reliable source for your number of Copts ranging between 15-20%, contrary to what all the other reliable sources say. Also, please explain how http://www.copt.net is a news source.... Is it Reuters, The Associated Press, the New York Times or similar? -Medjool (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, obviously, you have no evidence to present in support of your edits, so Lanternix, please stop reverting the article. -Medjool (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)