Talk:Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria

Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria → Shenouda III of Alexandria

• Oppose. But leave redirect in place, of course. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Clerical names. Additional discussion at Talk:Pope Peter VII of Alexandria. –Hajor 14:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

• Opposed. In the Coptic Orthodox tradition, the title "pope" is as valid as for the Bishop of Rome in the Latin tradition. Halcatalyst 20:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Notmoved 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,

• ~ Troy 00:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

• ~ Troy 21:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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,

• ~ Troy (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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. Avruch^Talk 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. Avruch^Talk 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. Avruch^Talk 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)

Saddam comment lacks objectivity

This man looks like saddam hussein, omg!!! 77.248.185.98 (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 the comparative motives in pope shenouda's face linking him directly to saddam hussein. 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 Saddam Hussein, 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)