Talk:Christian Flag

NPOV

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)
I took a stab at it, but it could use some other updates and a whole new section about recent controversies, not to mention historical controversies over its display in churches, public schools, town halls, etc.--Skepticalpoet (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

rm roman catholic-specific piece; this is true of MANY denominations, not just that one denomination

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)

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)

Move?

Should this article be moved to Christian Flag? FOTW uses the capital F. And it seems that it would be a proper noun. Fishal 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at similar articles:

* United States flag points to Flag of the United States

* Canadian flag points to Flag of Canada

* Vatican flag points to Flag of the Vatican City

Hrm. That search was not useful. I've never heard of anyone referring to this flag as the Flag of Christianity, just the Christian flag or Christian Flag. A quick Google search sees that people use both the capitalized and uncapitalized version of Christian Flag.

In general, though -- I'd agree. It seems to be a proper noun, so should be capitalized.

Chip Unicorn 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I moved it. Fishal 00:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Christian flag should not be a proper noun. No other flags in Category:Religious flags use the upper case.– Gilliam (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Episcopal Church flag

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)

US National Christian flag

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)

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)

The vatican city flag or the flag of the holy see

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)

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)

See also (King, North Carolina)

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)
Fixed. --Skepticalpoet (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Usage

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)

I agree, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I have never seen this Christian Flag in use in any of our churches. Also, the picture titled "A version of the Christian Flag, specialized for the Eastern Orthodox Church" is someone's personal creation and I don't believe there is an Eastern Church in existence that uses that flag. Unless there is some other evidence for its existence besides the creativity of one sole individual, I believe it should be removed from the article. Otherwise, anyone could be creative and create flags that supposedly exist. Ikariotis —Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

US-Centric Flag

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)

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)

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)

It's not just American missionaries, it's groups under the influence of American missionaries. AnonMoos (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Human Rights Infringement

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)

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)

Sections out of place?

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Problematic Edits by SPA

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, Anupam^Talk 10:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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.[1] --1990'sguy (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 22:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Anupam 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, The C of E? 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.[2] Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

Skepticalpoet, 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)

User:Kurt20008's edits

I'm not clear as to A's objection to my edits. The flag is not used by Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christians, it is solely something of the Protestant churches. The flag was adopted by the FCC. Grammatically it makes no sense to cite the FCC and then describe the NCCC, a distinct even though related organization but which was not the body which adopted the flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt20008 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

As with most of your other edits, you continue to supplant "Christian" with "Protestant" when that makes the sentence inaccurate. Groups that use the Christian Flag, such as Mennonites and Quakers, usually do not consider themselves to be Protestant (see this article). The lede of the article specifies which denominations use the flag and the Catholic Church is not one of them. Hence there is no need for your WP:POINTY edits. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Anupam -- let's continue this conversation. First, I don't believe Quakers allow flags of any sort in their meeting houses. Second, it is not uncommon to view Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox as the general branches of Christianity, with Protestantism meaning the western churches that arose at the Reformation such as the Anabaptists. In fact, the Wiki article on Protestantism cites Anabaptists as a school of Protestantism. Some might find it a little 'precious' that the handful of the world's Mennonites see them as a 4th branch of Christianity. I would be interested in your thoughts.

I take it we are okay with my point that when the article cites the actions of the FCC, it should describe that organization and not a distinct and subsequent organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt20008 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Kurt20008, your personal beliefs with regard to flag usage by Quakers are irrelevant. A simple Google search would show you several Quaker churches that display the Christian Flag, such as this one. Your comment about a "handful of Mennonites" is also incorrect; take a look at the website of the Mennonite Church USA, for example. It states:

We are neither Catholic nor Protestant, but we share ties to those streams of Christianity. We cooperate as a sign of our unity in Christ and in ways that extend the reign of God’s Kingdom on earth. We are known as “Anabaptists” (not anti-Baptist) — meaning “rebaptizers.”

Given that that the largest Mennonite denomination in the United States does not consider itself Protestant, why do you continue to shove the word "Protestant" everywhere when the word "Christian" suffices and is not contentious? I do not have any objection to your edits with regard to the FCC, but if you continue to try to replace "Christian" with "Protestant", you will be reverted. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Anupam -- Is your point that (contrary to Wiki's page on 'Protestantism") that the Mennonites form a 4th branch of Christianity? Would you find "Protestants and Mennonites" accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt20008 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No, because that list also includes Anglicans and Quakers, many of whom do not consider themselves to be Protestant either. The word "Christian" is fine here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

So, "Christians outside the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches"? Or possibly "Post-Reformation western Christian churches"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt20008 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No User:Kurt20008, the way the article currently states the information is fine. It mentions the specific traditions that use the Christian Flag. It does not need to mention a list of those denominations that do not use the flag. Anupam^Talk 18:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree. It is not used by the vast majority of Christians and is very much a symbol of non-Catholic Christianity. For Catholics, depending on their view, they might view it as a symbol of our ecumenical brethren of other traditions or as a symbol of Protestant Supremacy. Censoring this fact does impact the article. Is a third party we might refer this to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt20008 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia articles are written. The article about the Kanger, for example, mentions that it is used by Kashmiris. It does not mention all the other ethnicities that do not use the Kanger. I am a Roman Catholic myself and in no way see the Christian Flag as a "symbol of Protestant Supremacy". That is a ridiculous assertion. Anupam^Talk 18:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Symbol of Christian nationalists

This page is now very far out of date. In recent years the flag has become a favorite symbol of Christian nationalists and white supremacists. That is why it figured so prominently in the January 6 2021 attack on the US Capitol. It is widely used interchangeably with other symbols of white supremacy like the Confederate battle flag. It's value to those who are attempting to subvert the US Constitution and institute Christianity as the established religion of the nation is precisely the fact that flag was created as an ecumenical symbol and thus the Christian nationalists can retreat behind that when the feel it's necessary to cloak their motives and goals from public scrutiny.

https://www.salon.com/2022/01/19/christian-flag-case-reaches-court-is-the-nazi-flag-next/ https://publicwitness.wordandway.org/p/has-the-christian-flag-become-a-lost 72.86.132.21 (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I wonder why I haven't seen it in any Jan 6 photos, if it was so prominent there. Not sure how the last 5 years of a symbol which has been around for 125 years can change its basic meaning... AnonMoos (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Because you don't want to see it? Not much of an argument. Clearly you didn't click on the links I provided because it's right there in an Associated Press photo. 72.86.133.23 (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure it's in some photos, but if it was "so prominent", then I wonder why I didn't notice it in any of the coverage I've seen. The source I relied on in the immediate aftermath was the Daily Mail's "The far-right symbols and groups at the Capitol Hill riots", and I don't think the Christian flag is in there. AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, what you have "noticed" or "don't think" you have seen is irrelevant, especially when you decline to read coverage that discusses it or to look at linked photos that show what you plainly *could* see if you wished to. The fact is it has become a common symbol of Christian nationalists and white supremacists. Plenty of people were upset that the swastika became a symbol of hatred but that wouldn't justify pretending in an encyclopedia entry that it had not. 72.86.133.23 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Whatever -- If you had said that the Christian flag was "present" on January 6th, then there would have been no problem with that, and it could have been discussed on that basis -- but when you said it was "prominent" on Jan 6th, then that started my BS detector pinging. If you want to withdraw the word "prominent", then we could discuss its presence, because everything I've seen so far makes me disbelieve that it was prominent... AnonMoos (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You're really committed to your bit, I can see. Of course you have used this multi-day charade to redirect attention away from the actual point of my post: "the flag has become a favorite symbol of Christian nationalists and white supremacists". That easily documented fact does not stand or fall on the question of whether the flag's prominence among the J6 rioters was sufficiently prominent to meet your own personal threshold for using the adjective "prominent". 72.86.133.23 (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

A few hours ago I looked at the top 60 Google Image search results for "January 6 flags and symbols". If it was so "prominent" during the event, then one would think that it would show up in at least one of those 60 images... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

"the flag has become a favorite symbol of Christian nationalists and white supremacists" You don't want to deal with that, and evidently you don't want any readers of this page to learn that. Hence the incessant misdirection. Yes, let us debate precisely and scientifically just how prominent the Christian nationalist flag was at the J6 coup! Because only after we have quantified its prominence may we let readers know that it is a Christian nationalist symbol. 72.86.136.186 (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

And you are of course talking nonsense even about the narrow point you'd like to focus on. I googled "January 6 riot" and one of the first images that came up has the Christian nationalist flag front and center.

https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/rockcms/2023-03/230308-jan-6-riot-jm-1343-00cd06.jpg 72.86.136.186 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Christian schools source

Hi, there is a plethora of individual Christian nationalist schools that can be found online showing they require a pledge to the Christian flag, but I cannot find a centralized source saying many of those schools use this pledge. I know it's real because I grew up with it and those pledges every morning. It's just not something of interest to the media I guess.

Is it sufficient to link to a few of those schools' mentions of the flag and pledge? Ieditthethings (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that it would be to say "some Christian schools" use it under WP:PRIMARY, but I don't think you can use such cites to use the loaded term "Christian nationalist". The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I never said I was going to use that term in the article. It's not loaded. Don't be a troll. Ieditthethings (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)