Jump to content

Talk:Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria → Shenouda III of Alexandria

  • Opposed. Refer to Hajor above. -Markio 15:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 20:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--- Perhaps anyone of you working on this article know anything more about Bishop Thomas of the El-Qussia and Mair Diocese in Upper Egypt? He recieved a norwegian award for his human rights work, but I can find very little information on him. Vintermann 09:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

Theological Disputes As a Copt, this section on this article seems to somewhat insult Pope Shenouda III. Is there any chance to make this more neutral??? Also, we Orthodox Copts view Pope Shenouda with a loving passion (the same way Roman Catholics felt towards Pope John Paul II). Shouldn't it at least mention that somewhere on the article? (I do have sources to back that up anyway.)

Lastly, I have simply found NO EVIDENCE that Pope Shenouda III teaches OR believes in monothelitism. It has been totally rejected by many — especially by Orthodox Copts... If you have any reliable sources or any piece of true evidence, be my guest. You'll never, however, find anything that puts Pope Shenouda in line with monothelitism as he has never wrote or said anything that supports this heresy. He is regarded as a living Saint who is serious when it comes to important theological questions. He has studied in the theological seminary and is a well educated man (in fact, he was even Bishop for education before becoming Pope).

I require other Copts to verify this and other sections of the article. I would also like any other input on the matter.

Thanks,

Actually I agree with every single word that Troy07 said. The articles has obvious POV's and unsubstantiated claims against Pope Shenouda. It needs to be rewritten in a more neutral manner. --Lanternix 01:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Diabulos 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC) I find the line: 'The recent theological disputes, in reference to Matta El-Meskeen and Babawi, have been taken to a far greater extent then perhaps they should have been. Firstly, Pope Shenouda on no account denies the Divinity of Christ. The problem stems from the missunderstanding of the concept of Theosis. Some "theologians" such as Babawi have taken theosis to mean that man may become God by partaking in the essence of God. This is incorrect, and Pope Shenouda is right to react against such wayward theology.' inapropiate for an enciclopedia, as it states a POV quite dramatically, specially the part 'this is incorrect, and pope ... is right to react' that is a personal opinion, not an attributed opinion to one of the actors in the biography and intrinsically related to the events, it is plainly the POV of the author, it should be erased. Diabulos 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I would like to stress that this article has FAR too much POV against Pope Shenouda III. Remember that this is a biography of a living person and should be taken seriously.
And so, I do agree with the above responses.
Therefore, I WILL make it clear.
ANY edits made by users or anonymous editors will be reverted if they are too anti-neutral, so to speak. I DON'T care if these edits are from a government agency, a person who knew nothing about HH, Copts or non-Copts — as long as they insult his theological teachings or are unsourced statements/claims, they WILL BE ERASED.
As for the section "theological disputes", it WILL be deleted IF it can't be edited in compliance with reliable sources.
Thank-you for your contributions. Any responsible help is appreciated.
As I haven't seen anything good happen in the section "Theological Disputes", I'm making a note HERE that I have put 2 tags in that section. There should indeed be a POV-check.
In fact, if you take in my opinion, the whole section should be deleted altogether unless there is verifiable content in there.
I would appreciate it if anyone sends me a message regarding this issue on my talk page.
Thanks again,
  • I've removed the controversial and unsourced text from that section. Much of this article could do with a great deal of sourcing. Additionally, I'd like to point you to WP:OWN - some of your comments make it seem as though you believe you are the arbiter of information in this article. Wikipedia operates on consensus as you may already know. Anyone, of any religion or background, is permitted to edit an article. AvruchTalk 02:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I did, however, not say that religuos, secular, political, or just random people can't edit this article. Neither did I imply that I was the arbiter of the article's information. All I said was, if you can't make meaningful edits or edits that are neutral enough, they will be taken down for the better. That's all. ~ Troy (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Honorific "His Holiness"

This is an honorific relating to the persons standing in a particular community, and not a title. I checked the other Pope's page, and don't see it used there. AvruchTalk 03:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes for more information. You could, as this suggests, mention in the article that he is properly referred to as 'His Holiness' in person. AvruchTalk 03:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Titles such as Pope, Lord, Justice, etc. are acceptable but honorifics are not. So it would be great if people would stop inserting them. RecentlyAnon (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To a certain degree, I agree with that. However, I still see the use as not falling out of standard when it is used out of passing mention. Besides, I see the use of "His Holiness" in Wikipedia a lot. Just look at Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama. The Copts, Catholics, Buddhists, etc. can and do refer to their leaders as such. ~ Troy (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All that means is that those articles need to be edited to conform with wikistandards. Again, here is the relevant page in the MoS.

"...Styles should not be used to open articles on royalty and popes. Thus the article on Pope Benedict XVI should not begin "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI... " nor should the article on Queen Victoria begin "Her Majesty Queen Victoria..." Such styles should, however, be discussed in the article proper..."

If you want to discuss what titles he is called by feel free to add a section like that to the article but when referring to him or his activities Pope Shenouda, the Pope, Shenouda, his real name, etc. Will do just fine. Also just because certain religious groups can and do refer to their leaders in a certain way does not make such references appropriate or encyclopedic. RecentlyAnon (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really...

He is known for his commitment to Christian unity and has, since the 1970s, advocated inter-denominational Christian dialogue.

This statement upsets me. This man may be good when it comes to Christian vs. Muslim which is the major conflict that results in Egypt. But this mans church vs. other Christian religions or beliefs... he is far from being an advocate for dialogue. The above statement is an opinion. Facts need to prove such a statement. I believe these facts do not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themudd2001 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. I mean, yeah, facts need to prove such statements, but he is often known for being an advocate for dialogue. May be you can elaborate on where you think the issue might be? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP violation

BLP violation removed77.248.185.98 (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest commenting on living persons like that—it can often be taken as an insult and is not objective—rendering comments like that as irrelevant. ~ Troy (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I cant see how that has anything to do with the articel in question, this page is to discus fact about the subject of the articel not to make jokes about it, there are lots of other pages on the net for such comments. --> Halmstad, Talk:Halmstad 02:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The comment has been striked as per Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal_of_uncivil_comments. ~ Troy (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to strike my comment. It does not contain offensive language, it is merely a statement made about BLP violation removed. Now if you are offended by that, you have got bad luck, because wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia where reverts out of religious point of view are not allowed. This is your second unlawfull edit and it is getting clear by now that you are driven by religious motives to disrupt wikipedia's neutrality. 77.248.185.98 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

77.248.185.98 - I have to point out that this comment adds nothing meaningful to the understanding of Pope Shenouda or BLP violation removed, and so has no real place here. wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, yes, but that does not mean it is open ground for any pointless, inflammatory statement one might care to make. comment is struck out again. --Ludwigs2 20:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


Let's calm down, everyone.

To 77.248.185.98: I understand that you mean no offense in writing that comment. You were just making an observation. I can see BLP violation removed. I don't think the other editors are trying to strike your comment out of religious motives. They just think that, although what you said may be true, it is...kind of off-topic for an encyclopedia project.

What they're saying is that talk pages are for discussing things that have to do with improving the article. Other kinds of discussions, even if they have something to do with the article, should be kept to a minimum.

I mean no offense to you or anyone else, and if anyone feels offended, I apologize.

By the way, although striking another editor's comment is sometimes uncivil, I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism; impolite, perhaps, but not malicious vandalism. I think this case is a simple disagreement, not vandalism.

Respectfully, SunDragon34 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The rules are the rules, i am entitled to make any comment here conceirning pope shenouda and i BLP violation removed. And as per wikipedia policy (for all of you who are about to strike my comment), Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal_of_uncivil_comments, only the commentator himself can strike comments of his own. My comment does not contain any indescent language, it merely points out a fact. 77.248.185.98 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Wrong policy. WP:TALK prohobits small talk on TALK pages, and your opinion is certainly that. You're gaming the system, and just disrupting to make a point. Dayewalker (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


Also be advised anyone making any changes on my comment without my approval will get a warning and will be reported to wikipedia for disrupting order. 77.248.185.98 (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

77.248.185.98 - I am resisting the urge to ask to have you blocked for disruptive editing, because I'd really rather not. so I'll give you a decent chance here. if you can explain to me how this comment in any way improves wikipedia as an encyclopedia, or adds some significant or important information about Pope Shenouda to the talk page or the article, then I'll let it go. if you can't, I expect you to strike it out on your own. if you won't do either, I will strike it out again myself, and you may report me to wikipedia where the issue (and the two of us) will be dealt with as the administrators see fit. ok? --Ludwigs2 22:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Since this guy is still alive, there are serious WP:BLP concerns here. I am striking all instances of the comment, and I encouraged the IP address to report this incident if he feels slighted. I am confident my actions are in the right. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


77.248.185.98: I understand that you are not using any indecent language. But indecent or offensive language is not the only reason a talk page post may be inappropriate. Please keep in mind the following:
Therefore, please tell how your observation made on this page helps to improve the article.
With all due respect, please know that there are inoffensive comments that are inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.
You have long since said what you wanted to say, so why are we arguing? Let's move on with our lives.
We welcome your talents and contributions in the future. Cheers!
SunDragon34 (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Apparently, after I took a break from editing for a few hours, all of this sort of happened right under my nose.
To the IP: I am sincerely sorry if you feel insulted by me, but complaining about something minor (ie: one removal and one lousy strikeout) is likely in nobody's best interest.
I had honestly not meant for this to happen, however, I would like to point out something. I had already explained above that I didn't believe that those comments were appropriate because:
  1. It's not objective
  2. It is not necessarily meant to be offensive, but it doesn't seem to be that respectful either
  3. It can be seen as a violation of a biography of living persons (as mentioned before)
I would like everyone to know (including 77.248.185.98) that I sincerely apologize for my part in any editing that may be disruptive.
Seeing as 77.248.185.98 is temporarily blocked, I invite him/her to appropriately follow the guidelines of Wikipedia as it should be (after the block is lifted).
I would greatly appreciate it if my views will be reasonably considered.
Also, I have to say, SunDragon34 has a very good point. We shouldn't be arguing over any simple or silly comments. We should get on with our lives—and that's the end of that. ~ Troy (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
...Lastly, I admit that I mistakenly used the wrong policy, but it has been corrected accordingly by Dayewalker, so no need to worry about that. Again, let's not fight eachother over a comment that is weeks-old. I have no intention for wasting the time of other's over such an issue. ~ Troy (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

POV and Unreferenced tags

I haven't read through the entire article, but after reading some parts of it I must say it is highly inflammatory. Here are the following paragraphs that need rewriting. They also, above all else, need reliable sources.

After a long period of late 1970s of massive terror attacks from the Muslim Extremists against the Copts, their territories and churches all over Egypt, the state (and President Sadat) did not respond to the demand of the Copts and the church to protect them. Sadat tried to satisfy the Muslim extremists on the cost of the Copts. After about a Year of negotiations and petitions to the President and the state, no active protection was offered and they did not respond to stop the terror attacks. A number of Copts were killed and hundreds were injured was the result of a couple of years of massive terror against the Copts.

The Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt has suffered much since the Arab Invasion in the seventh century.

Under these difficult conditions, Pope Shenouda III has been doing all that he can politically to minimize the tension and keep the social freedom. In spite of these awful attacks, discrimination and the attitude of the responsible persons, he preserves good relations with the persons responsible and with the Sheikh of Al-Azhar.

In the last ten years the Copts suffered many terror attacks resulting of tens of thousands of deaths. None of the terrorists were punished for murdering the Copts.

On Wikipedia, we avoid using the terms "terrorists" and "extremists". See WP:AVOID for details. Also claims of tens of thousands of people being killed should be backed either by news sources or books. YouTube and promotional websites should be avoided. In addition, most of the article does not have sources backing the information—a lot of which simply complements or praises the pope. I myself like Pope Shenouda and a lot of other people who have articles on Wikipedia, but editors have to try hard to abide to the rule of "Neutral Point-of-View". --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ameer. I agree. This article needs to be cleaned up. How do you propose that these problems be resolved? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It's simple. First sources have to be found backing the information. If you could find a source(s) then you still have to reword the passages so it doesn't reflect bias. However, if no sources are found, controversial information like this in a BLP should be removed immediately. When a reliable source is found, then someone could easily reinsert it into the article with a reference. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The burden of proof is upon the person who wants to keep those statements. I suggest removing them until evidence to support them is posted. Ameer, you're welcome to do so yourself, or I may also do it if you do not have the time. Thanks, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest you do it or somebody else. Not me. I'm going to edit another article a little bit and then I'll be out for a while again. Salam, --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

In the section Bishop is this sentence: "Pope Cyril VI appointed him to the bishopric of Christian Education and as Dean of the Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary, naming him . " I assume the last word should be "Shenouda," but I'm not sure. Somebody want to fix it? Queezbo (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A mess!

This is insulting. The rendition of the pope's name is illegible; I do not believe the photo is really Pope Shnouda. This needs attention! And I'm not going to do it just to get jumped by a bunch of angry editors. You need to address these issues.--Djathinkimacowboy 19:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that adding Coptic characters to a computer that does not display them could cure the hurt felt on coming across such a text in Coptic, and I am certain that the hurt felt because of personal disbelief that a photograph is of the person to whom it is attributed could likewise be cured by the small personal effort of looking up on an Internet-linked computer other images of the same individual. Esoglou (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Shenouda_III_of_Alexandria/Archive_1&oldid=1236885932"