Talk:Christian Flag

message: The top of the article is NPOV. I could easily tell that it was written by a quite enthusiastic Christian. I'll try to rewrite it to make it a bit less... crazy about Jesus. AutisticCatnip (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: What demoninations besides the Catholic Church display the flag of Vatican City, as opposed to the Christian flag? patsw 04:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies; I misunderstood the paragraph.  In many denominations, the national flag is displayed with the Christian flag...I thought that was the nature of the statement...I didn't catch that it was about the Vatican flag.  Sorry again...my bad.  KHM03 17:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rm roman catholic-specific piece; this is true of MANY denominations, not just that one denomination 

message: Does anyone have a better image of the Episcopal Church's flag? The proportions are incorrect on the image here.Rockhopper10r 15:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episcopal Church flag

message: Is this article the place to mention also the newest addition to christian flags, in the form of the US Christian Flag? --Oren neu dag (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: not unless there are significant neutral third party references showing this is a notable flag. otherwise, it would just be a link to a commercial website promoting a product, which is not our purpose.(mercurywoodrose, always replying 2 years late on random talk pages, out of a sense of completion)75.61.138.42 (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  US National Christian flag 

message: In the United States which of these flags are used? It's says that Churches in Communion with the Holy See display the Vatican City Flag and that makes little sense. Why would they use the Vatican City Flag? They aren't in communion with Vatican city.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many (Roman) Catholic parishes and other institutions do fly the Vatican flag -- there being no separate flag for the (Roman) Catholic Church (and certainly, as far as I know, no separate flag for the U.S. [Roman] Catholic Church). Vikslen (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The vatican city flag or the flag of the holy see 

message: Has anyone fathomed why this link is here? I may delete it soon if there's no objection. Vikslen (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also (King, North Carolina) 

message: I have never heard of any body that wasn't Protestant (and note, not even the Protestant Episcopal Church) using the "Christian flag." I'm not arguing for changing the name of the article, but I think this fact could be brought more to the forefront in the body of the article. And what's this about Catholic and Orthodox churches starting to use it? Vikslen (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: The introductory paragraph describes the flag as being popular among churches in North America, Latin America, and Africa. I don't believe this is accurate, in fact I've never seen the flag outside of the United States (although I'm sure it might be present in Canada). I feel that the design itself stirs American patriotism. 72.145.32.164 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been frequently used by some groups in southern Sudan, to judge from some photographs I've seen.  Probably usually under U.S. missionary influence... AnonMoos (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I understand. American missionaries using an American flag is almost expected, but I don't believe that any other Christian groups outside the US use this flag. I being Nicaraguan can attest to never having seen this flag until I came to the United States. 74.161.32.184 (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just American missionaries, it's groups under the influence of American missionaries. AnonMoos (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  US-Centric Flag 

message: The Greek flag includes a religious symbol of only one out of the many Greek religious [or secular] beliefs.
In Greece by law religion is a characteristic of the individual, [an issue of personal manner]
and should be respected [as personal]. The entanglement of one of the Greek people's religious [or secular beliefs]
via a symbol included/depicted in the national flag's design,
contradicts the greek law that protects religion [or other beliefs of that genre] as a personal characteristic of
the individual. The usage of that symbol [Orthodox Christian cross] on a national permanent symbol of everyday and global
usage, violates at the most extreme possible manner the personal character of religious/non religious belief.
It is also a conscious policy, openly admitted by the Greek Government, that Human Rights in Greece have lower
legal validity than "tradition", even if that claim is not included in the Greek Constitution and law explicitly.
This policy tergiversates against the spirit of the Greek law by governmental and judicial manipulation/exploitation
of archaic, unjust, out of date, provisional failure legal and Constitutional contradictions.
Legal and Constitutional contradictions also legal provisional failure are not legitimate excuses for Human Rights infringement
or other violations against people that are forced by the Greek Government to be perceived as cultural minority.
The law is supposed to protect all citizens. If a national law or a Constitutional paragraph generates
contradiction, by international law defended under the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitution or the Laws of
that country should adopt via reformation the most humain variant/option.
A general claim used as an excuse for religious infringement by the Greek Government is that
"Christians did shed their blood in order we are now free"
[it is also the main Islamic State ideology even if other religion is cited].
Bloodshed is though neither a Greek nor a E.C. of H.R. recognized excuse to legalize Human Rights violations.
Also the Greek Government implicitly claims that the bloodline of the Orthodox Christians is of higher political might and
cultural genre than the bloodline of Non-Orthodox people, [even of atheists, agnostics, neo-paganists that recently departed
from ancestral beliefs]. Some fanatic Orthodox Greeks claim that the Orthodox cross is only an artistic or archaic [Pre-Christian]
either modern mathematical depiction, and not a religious symbol. This claim is totally discarded by the Greek law,
because the well documented intention of an action defines the causality. As Greeks we shall respect the existing
historic flag and the existing historic Constitution
[by the way both Greek Flag and Greek Constitution have been revised many times in the past].
Respect of national history in not an excuse for not allowing a legal system evolve by complying to the Human Rights
standards of a modern society. Greek history is not an legitimate excuse to violate the
individual character of personal beliefs.
Historic awareness allows us to evolve. Germany should have remained Nazi with that Greek Governmental standards.
Tradition of a part of a population is not a higher value than general
respect of the human rights of all citizens and nationals of a country. Even if all Greeks were Orthodox Christians, still
religion is a personal characteristic, but we are not all Orthodox in Greece! Also the largest majority of Non-Orthodox Greeks,
do not accept their non-inclusion on the Greek flag, therefore we never accepted to be violated, and that violation of
personal belief is a violation supported by many Greek Orthodox people against Non-Orthodox Greeks. It is a violation without
consent. A clear violation. The contradictial parts of the Greek Law and Constitution do not render that violation
milder, that's why we absolutely demand the humain and fair legal shield of the European Court of Human Rights.
Personal beliefs is not an issue that the majority should enforce, neither have they any legal right to do against others.
The flag depiction is of permanent, global and highest status usage, also the Greek flag [usually only the Orthodox part]
is included in other heraldic crests [like the Greek police crest/ensign] therefore as a symbol itself
prescribes authority. It legalizes mentaly and physically actions against Non-Orthodox people [crimes against life,
crimes against other people, guilt as final court decision].
The Greek Government does not order that crimes, but the Greek flag cultivates explicitly to a large part of the Greek public
the notion that Orthodoxy is a higher value than Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights should include in the investigation criminal actions and publications that claim Orthodox superiority and Orthodox Supremacism among all variant Greek peoples cultures and personal beliefs.
[a Greek was convicted by the Greek court for not respecting the deceased Orthodox Supremacist neonazi Elder Paisios
who speaks with racial hate against other populations and beliefs, also Paisios speaks with hate against life
and cites fairness of right to kill human beings for political [Paisios was an anti-communist], religious or national beliefs.
It is legal in Greece to type his Orthodox-neo-nazi theories]
/I personally respect neo-nazi Paisios as a human being, but not his beliefs.
I could accept him as a non-neonazi if he didn't support human loss as a means of ideologic prevalence/
I respect the freedom of speech if not direct human loss is supported by the author.
The publications are not to be convicted as actions [except from those legitimizing slaughter for ideological reasons],
but a proof that this official/governmental violation has a huge anti-human right impact on the Greek public,
and according to final court decisions this behavior has an impact either on direct human loss, either on slashing beatings and
permanent injuries, either on mental injuries - all as final court decisions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.221.125 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, your tedious rant appears to be about the flag of Greece, not the flag covered by this article, and to have no relevance to article improvement in either case... AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights Infringement

message: If this page is about “the” Christian Flag, rather than Christian flags generally, the sections on demoninational flags and national flags seem out of place, and should be moved to other pages or given pages in their own right.
* Denominational flags → Christian denomination (extisting; new section: "Flags of Christian denominations") or Flags of Christian denominations (new page)
* National flags → Christian symbolism (existing; new section: "Christian symbolism in national flags") or Christian symbolism in national flags (new page)
--Ant (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the sections you mention are a case of "mission drift" or WP:Coatrack. They definitely belong elsewhere, and not in this article, which is about a specific christian flag.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections out of place? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Christian Flag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150918081452/http://www.vatican.va:80/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv/insigne/sp_ss_scv_stemma-bandiera-sigillo_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv/insigne/sp_ss_scv_stemma-bandiera-sigillo_en.html#Stemma%20della%20Santa%20Sede
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130307194120/http://www.vatican.va:80/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv/insigne/triregno_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv/insigne/triregno_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Over the last few days, I have observed User:Skepticalpoet add WP:UNDUE commentary and news articles to Wikipedia's article about the Christian Flag adopted by the Federal Council of Churches (a general discussion about Christian vexillology over the centuries can be found at History of Christian flags). Despite this, User:Skepticalpoet has introduced critical quotes about "Christian flags" from 1826 (well before the Christian Flag was invented and adopted) in the lede of the article, which properly serves the purpose of summarizing the article's key points and provides an introduction of the topic to our readers. In the lede, he has synthesized various newspaper articles in order to publish the false claim that the Christian Flag was invented in order to unite Christians who were divided over slavery. The primary-source (that doesn't meet WP:RS) that this editor used to buttress this blatantly fantastical conjecture is found nowhere therein. This user has also supplanted the name of the flag with his own invented term Overton Flag, which yields articles tangential to this topic and a fraction of the results that the proper term "Christian Flag" produces. In spite of the fact that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, User:Skepticalpoet has introduced articles such as this one in the lede of the article, a violation of WP:UNDUE. I would suggest that User:Skepticalpoet take a look at a similar article, such as Buddhist flag, to learn how a netural article about a religious flag should look like. In addition, per WP:BRD, any contentious material should not be restored until consensus is established here. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 10:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to agree, I've been watching this while it's been going on. I know he said he wanted to make it so it appeared less like it was written by a Christian but what he has done makes it look more like an atheist has been given free reign to write whatever they like about it. Personally I thought the original was neutral enough but maybe could have done with a few small tweaks rather than wholesale overhaul.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for comment User:The C of E. I too agree that the article satisfied WP:NPOV before User:Skepticalpoet's overhaul of the article and I have restored it to that version in addition to moving some relevant material to the History of Christian flags article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Anupam that Skepticalpoet's edits are problematic in that they tried to make this article about the Christian Flag adopted by the Federal Council of Churches (and used by many mainline denominations today) a WP:COATRACK for other topics (mainly those being of criticism). I'm glad that the improper synthesis of various sources, such as the irrelevant and undue satire commentary about crusader flags originating the Christian Flag, has been removed. Also, news does not belong in the intro and Anupam did a good job of summarizing any news-related controversy in the appropriate section. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the timely review, feedback, and edits Anupam. I guess I did get a bit carried away and introduce some original research into this topic. However, the previous and current versions frankly read more like an advertisement for the flag in a 1950s Methodist bookstore than a 21st century online encyclopedia article. I think the Encyclopedia Britannica, which only has a short article about it, gets it about right when it opens by saying, "while there is no one official flag of all Christian churches, by common usage a so-called Christian flag has come to be recognized by a number of them." Yet neither give us any indication that there has been, or continues to be, controversy (even among Christians) about this flag with a notable Lutheran religious scholar joking in 1982 that it means: "I have to go potty." As noted in my edits: “Churches have [also] struggled with the flag’s placement in relation to the American flag, its implied link between faith and patriotism, and whether flags belong in a sanctuary at all” (Christianity Today, 2008). Not to mention the historical and contemporary controversies over its display on public property: Perhaps it could use a linked article like the Confederate flag ("For modern uses, see Modern display of the Confederate flag")? Finally, is there an online version of the Federal Council of Churches bulletin from 1942 that can be linked? The article currently says it was both "authorized" and "adopt[ed]" by the Federal Council, but The Pittsburg Press (1942) said it was “recognized only by general usage and not by any official action of an ecclesiastical body.” Skepticalpoet (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for accepting my review of your edits so well User:Skepticalpoet. Between myself, User:1990'sguy and User:The C of E, there is no consensus for including the satirical comment of a jocular nature within this article. It is WP:UNDUE and unencyclopedic, as User:1990'sguy mentioned above. With respect to flags in the chancel of a church building, the contorversy concerns the presence of national flags, such as the U.S. Flag, rather than the Christian Flag, as evidenced by this article in the C.S. Monitor and this article in Christianity Today. Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources to WP:PRIMARY sources and as a result, rather than add an online version from the FCC bulletin, I have added a reference to the article from the Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States, which states that the Christian Flag was "adopted by the Federal Council of Churches in 1942." I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  that the current version of the article meets WP:NPOV and that the proposed additions by Skepticalpoet don't have consensus right now. What do you think, ? As mentioned above, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and so news articles about various local issues are WP:UNDUE here and that the one sentence in the article describing government-related controversy is more than adequate. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding the note about recent "impassioned debate" by accommodationists and separationists and the reference to the Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States with respect to the Federal Council of Churches action in 1942. Does their successor organization (the National Council of Churches) have an official position today? While there is certainly controversy over the presence of national flags in churches, I was referring to controversy over the presence of this so-called Christian flag in churches (also controversial as this article in Christianity Today notes) and its position relative to national flags as evidenced by this article in the Citizen-Times (Asheville, NC) and the this article in the Huffington Post. Skepticalpoet (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , once again, Wikipedia is not the news. There is no consensus to add local incidents from the Citizen-Times or Huffington Post in the article at this time as they would give WP:UNDUE weight to a couple minor incidents among millions and millions of churches that use the Christian Flag. Even more importantly, placing these incidents in the intro section (of all places) goes against MOS:LEAD. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic Edits by SPA