Talk:Copts/Archive 4

Coptic bookbinding?
Did ancient Copts invent this ancient (4th century?) for bookbinding? Were these people living in Ethiopia? Or Egypt? Or who were the inventors of this bookbinding exactly? African Christians?--Sonjaaa 18:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
This article has been reviewed against the good article criteria and has failed. I did have a whole in depth review for you but my computer just crashed and took with it the whole damned thing! Here is a truncated version:


 * You don't cite enough sources anywhere, especially in the sections which I have flagged up as needing references.
 * The language section needs to be expanded. Is the language widely spoken or is it only liturgical?  Is it taught in schools, at home or at church?  How many people speak it?  Why don't I know this from reading the article?
 * The lead section needs a re-write, to pass both the Well Written and NPOV criteria. Get rid of the parentheses.  The majority of whom?  Does this mean that the majority of Copts are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church, or that the Coptic Orthodox Church is the biggest Coptic church in the world?  Are the two the same?  Just get rid of those parentheses!  *Also, in your infobox you cite the estimate of the Coptic church.  Both the Coptic Church and the Egyptian Government are bias sources, but you have in the CIA a neutral and disinterested third party - use their estimate for the infobox.

Chrisfow 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes
The links in fact do not work but I did a quick search through Blackwell Synergy and found mention in a footnote of Botros 2006 of some unofficial number of 700,000 according to an unattributed Khalil. Besides the fact that number is pretty ridiculous since the number of Egyptians in the US put together is barely 300,000 (the official US Census estimate is less than 150,000 ), it doesn't meet Wiki's policy on verifiability. The bit about Chrisitians being massacred to the point that the number of Muslims exceeded that of Christians sounds like old, tired, hackneyed POV—it needs direct quotes and page numbers since anyone with knowledge of Egyptian history can appreciate the equally ridiculous tenor of this argument. The remainder is in the archives. — Zerida 04:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The majority of the Copts in the US do NOT qualify as Egyptians in the US Census because they do NOT hold Egyptian passports. They do qualify nontheless as Copts. In addition, the number of converts to Coptic Orthodoxy increase this number. Khalil is not the only source in this case, see for example the official website of the US Copts association, which puts the number of Copts in the US between 700,000 and one million . I will go back and change the number accordingly and cite this as a reference. The links work fine on my computer. I don't understand why they don't on other people's. I will try opening them from a different computer to see if it's a cookies' problem. I will also look for the page number about the information Zerida is asking about. Thanks --Lanternix 13:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is irrelevant and speaks volumes of the continued inability to come up with any reliable sources to substantiate such a fantastic claim. I'm actually a bit amused by that claim because the idea that the United States hosts a whopping one million Egyptians of any religion, but somehow unaccounted for, is so absurd I almost want to chuckle. The US census states specifically as shown in the link above that Egyptians are those who marked their *ethnic origin* as Egyptian and I know for a fact that Copts do just that. What citizenship they hold is besides the point! The claim by the US Copts Association is not sufficient since it's based on no evidence from official censuses whatsoever. It will need at the very least to be qualified.


 * And once again, the "related ethnic groups" should be deleted since Copts are not an ethnic group of Egypt and are not recognized as such nationally or internationally by anything of significance. That is at best an expression of nationalism or religionism, but either way Wikipedia is, yet again, not the place to promote the political views of certain groups and generalize those views on the rest of us who do not share them. The box is already coming close to qualifying as original research and was never appropriate for the page in the first place, so there are already enough grounds to delete the whole thing. — Zerida 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I respect your doubt about the number of Copts in the US, and I agree with the mark you added as dubious to this number on the page. However, I will keep correcting the following:

1. The Copts are an ethnic group, related to other North Africans ethnically and linguistically. I will keep correcting this, unless we have a vote on the matter and most people find it inappropriate. This has nothing to do with what you call nationalism or religionism. Ethnically, they are also different from Muslim Egyptians, since the latters have significant Arab influence. 2. and who did not intermarry with the Arab invaders is a sentence you continue to remove, and I will continue to correct it because, again, it is a simple fact. As you know, the offspring of the marriage between an Arab (who were all Muslims to begin with) and an Egyptian Christian is always a Muslim. Furthermore, apostasy in Islam is a crime that results in capital punishment. So, simply, the ancestors of today's Coptic Christians could not have intermarried with the Arabs. Thanks. --Lanternix 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly takes presumptuous self-importance to speak in such no uncertain terms about a topic while continuing to make no effort at all to substantiate such claims with any reliable sources. You also seem to mistake your emotional and personal investement in the topic as having any bearing whatever on what can or cannot go into the article. There is simply no going around these three basic pillars: verfiability, no original research and NPOV. If you want to promote your own ideology, create your own website—Wikipedia is not the place for it. If you continue to disregard these guidelines and the concerns raised by other editors, and the extensive discussion in the archives, it can be construed as disruptive editing. Alternatively, you might want to open an RFC — Zerida 09:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, here is an official American governmental website saying that in 1992 the number of Coptic Orthodox Christians in the US was 180,000 This is not even counting Copts of other denominations (Catholics, Protestants). This just illustrates my point that Egyptian and Coptic Orthodox are NOT mutually inclusive. The former is a citizenship, the other is a religion. Thus, I have American friends who attend my Coptic Church and identify themselves, religiously, as Copt Orthodox. Clearly, they wouldn't identify themselves as Egyptians! Other Egyptians born in the US may feel white or Caucasian and would identify themselves as such; yet they are still Copts and Egyptians. --Lanternix 05:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Now, let's see how that helps your claim that Copts are an "ethnic group"! — Zerida 09:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like I am the only person who is trying to reach a compromise here. Try to focus on the matter, objectively, and please refrain from resorting to subjective and personal ad hominum attacks. This won't help your case. So, you decided to put a "disputed" label on the number of Copts in the US, and I agreed with you. I also tried explaining to you the reason behind some of the changes, and yet you insist on making disagreed-upon changes in the article. I will continue to change them back until A. We reach a mutual agreement, or B. We resort to voting on the whole matter. The Copts are obvioulsy an ethnic group because the vast majority is Egyptian. There are converts to Coptic Orthodoxy everywhere but their numbers will continue to be minimal compared to the native Coptic population. Just like Egyptians in general are Egyptians even though they may have Turkish or Levantine inluences. They are still considered an ethnic group. The same rule applies to the Copts. As for their number in the US, I will be happy to keep the above-mentioned "disputed" label until you can find a contemporary estimate about the exact number of Copts in the US. I am also putting (en.khristianos) in italics because, as you know, "Copt" etymologically means "Egyptian", NOT Egyptian Christian. Thanks. --Lanternix 17:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not inclined to keep going round in circles on that. You've been asked to observe and/or provide the following: verifiability, no original research and reliable sources. It applies to everything on Wikipedia. — Zerida 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Still awaiting sources for the above. — Zerida 03:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

original research
I deleted two things from the page because they are original research. The so called "Coptic flag" because no such flag exits. The coptic church doesn't have a flag. I think this needs to be made clear. The Coptic Church doesn't have a flag. It looks like it was created by someone with free time and a photoshop. When I google it I only find it on the site that created it, but it's not even used by the US Copts organization. The second is the template which is reserved only for ethnic groups. Pages like Druze, Hindus, Maronite Church and other religious groups don't have it, of course bec that would be original research too. The history section too has had stuff dumped into it without using proper citations and references, just leaves obsecure footnotes. It needs to be examined for original research and neutrality. Egyegy 16:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverted you edits back since the whole matter is still being discussed. Thanks. --Lanternix 17:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Back again since no one agreed that either item can go into the article from the start. It seems like they were left only as a comprise which you prefer to ignore. You you will need to justify why they should be in the article without proper sourcing. Egyegy 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on reverting it back, I will continue to do the same until you learn how to have a mature conversation about a topic, instead of wasting months worth of work. Thanks. --Lanternix 02:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected the page for one week. All parties engaged in the edit war should work together on this talk page to come to an agreement over the disputed content. Be wary that any further edit warring after the expiration of the protection will result in WP:3RR blocks for those who violate it. Sean William 03:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes!
I added further information and supplied sources, the fact that you keep reverting it back and deleting months worth of work is unexplainable. I am afraid I will continue to change it whenever I have the chance until an agreement is reached concerning the various points of dispute. I am not ready to see incorrect information about Copts on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Lanternix 03:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Coptic flag
The 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. How come even the US Copts organization doesn't use it? If something that is supposed to represent the Copts then it should be something widely used, not something that most Copts never knew anything about. Second, the Coptic flag article says that it is equivalent to the flag of the Muslim Brothers and Hezbollah!!! Don't forget that the Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed in Egypt and is considered a terrorist organization. Is that what the people of the Coptic flag want to associate themselves with?? You see this is exactly my point, it's basically created by a separatist Christian group even if they claim they are not. The Muslim Brothers say that too. You don't see the flag of the Muslim Brotherhood in regular Egypt articles, so a separatist Christian flag shouldn't be added here either because this is a general article about the Copts of Egypt, not the separatist group. Egyegy 08:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the objections to the talk page. I will divide my answer to you into points
 * 1. The Coptic flag was never claimed to be te flag of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and Copts are NOT the Coptic Orthodox Church. These are two totally different things. The first is a group of people; the second is a religious institution.
 * 2. The Coptic flag, according to its Wikipedia article and sources, was created in 2005, that is, only two years ago. Thus, the fact that it is not used by all Copts may not be interpreted as a "rejection" on their part. It could be only a matter of time before we see it all around us. The US Copts organization does NOT represent the Copts. There are at least 3 other Coptic organizations in the United States. One of them, the Free Copts, has adopted the flag. Moreover, other Coptic organizations around the world, such as the New Zealand Coptic Association, have adopted the flag. Googling "Coptic flag" generates more than 2000 pages. I think this is a rather significant number for a 2-years old creation.
 * 3. I'm sorry to see you take half of the truth and reject the other half. The Muslim Brotherhood may be an outlawed organization, and yet it has 88 members in the Egyptian parliament! Hezbollah has a flag, and it has 14 seats in Lebanon's parliament. No one has EVER accused either organization to be "separatist"; a label you yourself have put on those who created the Coptic flag. The other half of the truth, which you chose to ignore, was that the Phalanges (today part of Lebanon's governmental and parliamentary majorities), as well as the Assyrians also have their own flags. Are these also outlawed terrorist organizations?
 * Looking forward to your reply. Thanks.--Lanternix 17:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm sorry to see that you're the one completely ignoring half of the truth. You forget to mention that the Muslim Brothers can NOT have seats in the Parliament as Muslim Brothers, only as independents. You also don't mention that after Mubarak's last changes to the constitution, they will never be recognized a legitimate party, and any religion-based party can not be created from now on. And where have you been for years, the Muslim Brothers have always been accused of being separatist. What is scary to me though is the Coptic flag people are really equating themselves with the Muslim Brotherhood. So that is how you see yourselves, the Christian version of them???? But anyway, your number 2 proves to me that it should not be included in the article because it is based on speculation, like it might be adopted or it might not be, and Wikipedia shouldn't be used for experiments. Egyegy 06:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. The 88 members of the MB in the Egyptian parliament did run the elections as MB members, raising the MB's slogan of "Islam is the solution" and kissing Mahdi Akef's hands in a gesture of loyality to the "outlawed" organization.
 * 2. You continue to claim that "the Muslim Brothers have always been accused of being separatist." Do you have any references to back your claim up, or are you just talking? And which part of Egypt exactly are they trying to separate from the rest?
 * 3. You continue to ignore commenting on other ethnic/religious/political groups that have flags (Assyrians for instance). I wonder why that is?!
 * 4. I agree that Wikipedia is not about experiments. And this is exactly why the Coptic must be included in articles talking about the Copts, because it's far from being one. It's an established symbol carried by many Copts and well spread across the world. --Lanternix 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your #1: Wrong. The MB cannot run as MB members only as independents. Period. You know this, but you're dancing around the issue, even though it won't help your position.
 * Your #2: They want to turn Egypt into an Islamic State, which is directly against the laws enshrined in the constitution, so by definition they are separatist because it means they have no respect for the country's very basic laws.
 * Your #3 The subject of groups outside of Egypt has NOTHING to do with this issue. The only real parallel to the Coptic flag in EGYPT would be the Muslim Brothers, which you yourself do not deny! Egypt and Iraq are entirely different countries with entirely different demographics, each have nothing to do with the other.
 * Your #4: "Established symbol" is your original research. It was created by a minority of people who are HOPING it will catch on, and until then and if it ever does (which I doubt) it is pov and original research. Egyegy 20:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. The MB is NOT a separatist group, and you know that very well. Furthermore, it's aknowledged as the largest opposition party in Egypt. Calling it "outlawd" is very much a joke!
 * 2. Egypt is not on a planet of its own. What applies anywhere in the world applies to Egypt as well. If religious minorities in other countries have flags, Copts should be allowed their own flag as well.
 * 3. Nice attempt, that try to redefine "separatist" after having been cornered and asked for references! Doesn't apply though.
 * 4. Even inside Egypt, el Ghad Party has its flag, Alexandria has its flag, the Arab Academy for Science and Technology has its flag, the Bibliotheka Alexandrina has its flag. Everybody has a flag. Maybe they all want to become separatists and declare the independance of a couple fo streets from Egypt?
 * 5. The Coptic flag is not MY original research. Google it and you'll see.
 * 6. This discussion is going nowhere and I continue to insist on including the flag with the article. If you continue to disagree call for a vote and let's see what other people say. --Lanternix 01:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling [the MB]] "outlawd" is very much a joke! Hmm... I don't understand this sentence. Is this a reference to their general influence in the country (since we know of course that they *are* outlawed—thank the Lord that I don't have)? — Zerida 05:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Zerida, an outlawed group generally abide by the following criteria:
 * 1. You cannot publicly declare that you are member of that group.
 * 2. The leader of the group is pursued by the police/intelligence.
 * 3. The group does not have an HQ with a sign blatantly carrying the name of the group and its seal.
 * Do these criteria apply to the MB? Yes, it's officially outlawed, but it's a complete JOKE! --Lanternix 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They are not outlawed as a "group" but they are outlawed as a political PARTY because the constitution doesn't allow religious parties period. They can have their little organization if they want, but they can never have any official political presence as MB. They have been trying to take over the government for so many decades but it will be civil war for that to happen. Again, you don't see the flag of the MB or any of these groups in general articles, I don't see why we should make an exception for a Coptic flag that was created by a specific group not Coptic church authorities. The group that created it is the Free Copts, so it would make more sense to create an article about this group and include the flag there not here. Egyegy 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked all over that "Free Copts" site and found nothing that said they are the creators of that flag! The Assyrians are a Christian minority in a predominantly Muslim country, and they have a flag, and that flag is included on their page. I don't see why the Copts should be prevented from doing the same on Wikipedia. And the Coptic flag has nothing to do with the Coptic Church, and noone has ever made this claim. Copts are not only Orthodox, there are Catholics, Protestants, Agnostics, Atheists and others. What does the Coptic Church have to do with that? Again, the article is about the Copts, not the Coptic Church. And by the way, the Coptic Orthodox Church has its own flag with a red cross and a lion. That flag is raised when the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church visits a foreign country. --Lanternix 18:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is it that when you google the Coptic flag you almost always get references to the Free Copts? And why are you being coy, aren't you the same Lanternix who wrote this message on the Free Copts blog ? You seem to have a very close association with both the flag and the Free Copts group. I don't see how you can compare this with the Assyrians. The people who claim Assyrian identity have always wanted their separate homeland, they call it Assyrian homeland and their movement is the Assyrian independence. That's completely different, and that's why I said Egypt and Iraq should not be compared, they have totally different demographics, different peoples, different histories. Egyegy 19:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When you do your own research you need to be honest and straightforward. Does me writing an article on FreeCopts mean that I or the FreeCopts created the flag? What exactly does this this have to do with the issue in discussion? The Assyrian homeland is the same thing as Egypt being the Egyptian homeland. The Assyrian independence movement is a political movement that by no means encompases all Assyrians. Yet all Assyrians, those who do and those who do not subscribe to this party, do aknowledge what the Assyrian flag means and represents. Trying to convey the impression that those who adopt that flag are separatists, just like you tried to do with the MB, is again wrong and misleading. At the end of the day, both Copts and Assyrians are religious minorities, and both have the right to have their own flags, just like any other religious, political, ethnic, or even cultural entity. --Lanternix 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really see a huge parallel with the Assyrians here, since they differ in some essential and fundamental ways. Maronites might be a better analogy, but I don't know if they have a flag. A cursory look at Assyrian people and Assyrian independence reveals they are a lot more than an Iraqi Christian minority. The CIA World Factbook for example indicates that Iraq has an ethnic Arab majority with Kurdish, Assyrian, and Turkoman minorities as does the demography section in the Iraq article. The Assyrian homeland does not refer to Iraq, but a homeland only for the Assyrians, whereas Egypt is, well, historical Egypt to which Copts are equally attached (well, not so much under the current political/religious climate, but you know what I mean). At any rate, I think it's time to try and reach a compromise so we can at least remove the "neutrality disputed" tag. What if the flag was taken out of the infobox and placed in the body of the article the way it used to be before (as shown on the right); does that work for the two of you? That would leave room to include the image of your choice in the infobox. — Zerida 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I think it's too early to be including it in an encyclopedia when it is in the experimental stage, it's fine by me either way really (since I am not against the concept of a Coptic flag, just the application). Thanks. Egyegy 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Zerida, for the sake of completion, I'll try to address some of the points you raised:
 * 1. The CIAWFB has so many facts wrong, and unfortunately, everything it says should be taken with a grant of salt. It is simply going with the flow of what people in Iraq "believe" they are; convictions that are mostly not based on facts. For instance, all Iraqi Christians identify as Assyrians or Chaldeans. The Sunnis and Shias identify as Arabs (Exceptions of course include the Kurds and the Turkmans, who are real separate ethnic groups). But if an ethnically Assyrian person converts to Islam, he or she will be called an Arab, which shows that these labels have more to do with self-identification and conviction that with real ethnologic research.
 * 2. The Maronites don't have their own flag because Lebanon's current flag started as a Maronite flag
 * Now, that being said, I have no problem removing the Coptic flag and relocating it to some other place within the article. I object however to the label under the thumb. I suggest we leave it as Coptic flag as shown, and those who are interested can click on it and read the whole story of the flag on the appropriate page. Thanks. --Lanternix 19:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Everytime an article has a dispute, we follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For flag supporters, please bring sources and edit notes so flag opponents can easily accept. I've just fixed what needed to be fixed. I also removed references to blogs, to wikipedia article [Coptic flag] as per RS policy. [Coptic flag] is tagged "lacking sources" and it is inappropriate to be included here as a ref. I think the rest is ok. In parallel, i added notes according to RS. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  01:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are valid sources and references used to support the flag claim, i also reviewed them and they are quite suitable. Ldingley 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)