`  :::Well, putting this section in the article was not a consensual decision to begin with. This unsourced section was unilaterally created barely a month ago (without even an edit summary) by , a newly registered user who had created his Wikipedia account only four days earlier. I agree with Diaa's decision to remove this section, for the following reasons: :::*Having a ``Persecution of Copts`` level-2 heading in a general article about Egypt is a clear violation of WP:STRUCTURE and WP:UNDUE. We already have a Persecution of Copts article where such issues are discussed at length, and there is a hatnote linking to this article in the ``Christianity`` sub-section. The discrimination faced by Copts is also discussed in the ``Human rights`` section. Having such information discussed three times in the article gives it undue weight. :::*Such a section is a total departure from the standard sub-division of country-related articles. It is generally agreed upon at Wikipedia that country articles should only have sections covering top-importance topics, such as ``History``, ``Geography``, ``Economy``... Without belittling the difficulties faced by some Copts in Egypt, the ``persecution of copts`` is not a major topic to be discussed so prominently (by prominently, I mean by having a section devoted solely to it) in a general-interest article about Egypt. There are other countries where minorities fare far worse than in Egypt, yet we don't have specific sections in those countries' articles dealing with such issues. For instance, there's no ``Persecution of Arab-Israelis`` section in the Israel article, no ``Persecution of Tibetans`` in the People's Republic of China article, no ``Persecution of Shi'a Muslims`` in the Saudi Arabia article, no ``Persecution of Roma`` in the Hungary article, no ``Persecution of Kurds`` in the Turkey article... In fact, the persecution of minorities is not mentioned at all in any of these articles (some of which are/were FAs), let alone in a separate section. Therefore, compared to other articles, the Egypt article's dicussion of the discrimination faced by Copts is already quite sufficient and does not justify a separate section. :::*The section is a clear violation of WP:UNSOURCED, which explicitly says that ``any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed.`` The section makes extremely grave and serious accusations, such as claims of ethnic cleansing and accusations of complicity on the part of government officials in the persecution of Copts, without citing any source whatsoever, let alone a reliable one. By removing this section, Diaa didn't do anything wrong, since WP:UNSOURCED explicitly says: ``Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations.`` :::*I disagree with Lanternix's assertion that ``there is nothing controversial about the section.`` In its current form, the section is clearly biased and in violation of WP:NPOV. Here are some examples: ::::*The word ``persecution`` itself is highly charged. The Arab-West Report, which the section cites, speaks not of persecution but of discrimination, which is a more appropriate concept to describe the Copts' situation. The U.S. Department of State's International Religious Freedom Report (a highly reputable and non-partisan source) enumerates several examples of discrimination faced by Copts, yet it uses the verb ``persecuted`` only once, in reference to converts from Islam to Christianity. This is due to the fact that persecution requires some degree of systematic state-sanctioned violence, and only converts are systematically targeted and surveilled by the Egyptian police. While Copts undeniably face discrimination in Egypt, whether or not they ``suffer organized persecution`` as claimed in the section is a matter of serious contention. The issue of conversion, which is cited as an example of Coptic discrimination, is actually an example of discrimination against Muslims, since it is Muslim citizens' right to change their religion that is being infringed upon. Coptic-born citizens are unaffected by the controversy surrounding conversions. ::::*Some of the issues described in the section are presented as straight facts, when the reality is in fact far more nuanced. For instance, the section plainly states that ``Coptic girls are victims of abduction and forced Islamization by Islamic fundamentalist groups``. However, this is what the International Religious Freedom Report has to say about the issue: ``As in previous years, there were occasional claims of Muslim men forcing Coptic wo