Talk:Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pope Shenouda III of AlexandriaShenouda III of Alexandria[edit]

  • 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)

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)


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.


  • ~ 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,
  • 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"[edit]

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...[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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. (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC) - 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 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. (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. (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC) - 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) 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 that I sincerely apologize for my part in any editing that may be disruptive.
Seeing as 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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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)

Catholic CHurch[edit]

per this: WP cant cite itself, further the link itself has a disambiguation title that lead to other options(Lihaas (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)).

(3) The (Roman) Catholic Church consistently refers to itself as the Catholic Church, and it is common parlance among non-(Roman) Catholics as well. The fact that some people prefer to call it the Roman Catholic Church does not give us carte blanche to go around sticking in "sic" templates when we come across statements from the RCC which use that terminology. To do so looks like a clear POV violation, introducing a jarring note just to make a point and not because it adds anything of value. As a courtesy to you I shall not immediately remove it, as I am strongly inclined to do (though others may), but I hope that you will see how plainly inappropriate it is. Vilĉjo (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Okey the first part of this doesnt gel with the content of this subsection so i overlooked it as misplaced.
Then there arent 4 editors with clear consensus here, there is one discussion by one person on the catholic church issue and you havent got consensus.
That said the whims of the one institution to label itself as such is not reason enough to cite its view, if its "common parlance" amongst others then please cite that. And WP as an encyclopaedia takes a globalised view not the "clear POV violation" of 1 side (the Roman church) with its intrinsic western bias. Its plainly inappropriate to impose the worldview of one and cite it as gospel (no pun intended) global truth, also to deceptively (not accusing against AGF though) put the message in another section when there is a discussion called for above on this issue then saying there is "Clear consensus".
Incidentally sic is intended for matters of such regard when there is a disconnect in the QUOTES. here it is in difference to other uses even more so on the Church in question with Shenouda...that is quite clear. (and where the difference lies) + see Protonotary apostolic the 3/4/5 word in opening caveatLihaas (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Here are four diffs from four different editors, all reverting your repeated insertion of the "sic" template [1] [2] [3] [4]. As I said, there is a clear consensus against your one-man POV campaign.
Quoting people accurately doesn't mean that we're validating their opinions. If you don't like the quote, then cut it out entirely. (It was you who put it in in the first place, and objected to my removal of the entire quote, so for you to complain about its "worldview" is more than a little hypocritical. In fact it seems clear that you only put it in so as to have something to attach a "sic" template to.)
The documentation for Template:Sic states that it "is used where a textual error, or unexpected but intended text that may appear to be an error, has been faithfully reproduced from the original source." Clearly there is no textual error here - the quote is as the author (Lombardi) intended it. Nor is it "unexpected" - the terminology is exactly as one would expect from a spokesman for the RCC. Whether or not one agrees with it is neither here nor there. The "sic" template does not mean, as you seem to want it to mean, "this text accurately reflects the opinion of its author but others may disagree with it". If it did mean that, there would hardly be a single quotation in the whole of Wikipedia which wouldn't have a "sic" template stuck on it. Vilĉjo (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Per BOLD and BRD one needs to discuss changes and none have so there is NO clear consensus and that is misleading. I posted this message here 10 days ago and only you have discussed (at the wrong place before it was moved here). That is not consensus on a "one-man POV campaign" (ad homindem attacks dont build consensus when content should be discussed) ...consensus is garnered through discussion. please familiarise yourself there. Quoting accurately is as said and thats what SIC is for, familiarise yourself with the usage of the quote.
We dont cut quotes we dont like because thats CENSORSHIP. (capitalised per the WP link/guideline im not "shouting")
hypocrisy? in working against censorship? it should be added by all means as it is notable, with due caveat. How then does it "seem clear" i added it for the tag...i added it as the Lombardi is notable. the terminology on an article about the Eastern catholic church is in direct conflict with this...and dont misleadingly quote my intentions without asking. Anyways were not going to agree so lets get consensus on this and not decieve with the arguementation that there is clear consensus when no one else has discussed it! There is a due statement on the page in hidden text to discuss and get consensus. if you believe there is clear consensus which is got through discussion then show that? consensus is not "Clearly gotten" through reverts and edits.
And did you see the wikilink above?Lihaas (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
"consensus is garnered through discussion" – per the WP guideline, it can also be established through editing. The fact that four people objected to your tag and edited it out is relevant to demonstrating consensus, whether or not they have joined the talk-page discussion.
You haven't said how the "sic" tag can be justified in terms of that tag's documentation. The text to which you were attaching it is neither an error nor is it unexpected, which are the two possibilities referred to.
I'm quite open to the possibility of resolving this in other ways, e.g. trimming the quote in order to avoid the disputed phrase. But to date you have rejected every solution I've put forward.
(BTW, your initial comment in this section was on the separate issue of WP:CITE. Since this was not, as far as I was concerned, in dispute, I thought it was "the wrong place" to raise the matter presently under discussion. No matter – it's here now.) Vilĉjo (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Monastic life and educational service[edit]

In this section, it says the he was made antonios al-syriani, and translates into anthony the syrian, actually i think it should be anthony the syriac.

Holy See remova[edit]

this removed sourced content to RS...when the alternative was to reword...especially the 2nd bit that i tried to readd since it wasnt explained to remove. As for the edit that i explained, and was refuted as "not attributed" : "The Vatican also paid tribute to Shenouda and said that Pope Benedict XVI had offered "prayers of suffrage"." -- it cant get more blatantly attributed.(Lihaas (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)).

This demonstrates that the removed quotation is from the Vatican Press Office, not from Benedict XVI, and is signed "Fr. Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See Press Office". Your Al Jazeera reference does not show it being "attributed" to Benedict - it simply attributes it to "a statement". And the word "pain", which you put in quotes, is not a quotation from either Benedict or Lombardi but just a bit of newspaper editorialising by the Lebanon Daily News.
As for the "prayers of suffrage", where did you include that quote? You didn't. So the two bits in quotation marks are wrong, and the one bit which was "attributed" you didn't actually quote.
The other bit of Lombardi that I left in the second time really adds nothing at all to the words of Benedict, but I'm not going to bother about removing it. Vilĉjo (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
And can you please explain in what way this is an issue of neutrality (as per your placing of the POV template)? Vilĉjo (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Your source of the vanews says "Pope Benedict XVI was informed of the news and he is united spiritually with prayers of suffrage" apparently the press office said it is his sentiment.
The other stuff can be reworded...thats not a reason to REMOVE sources. Ill try to reword something, see if its okey, if not then reword better and/or well return here, okey?
You also removed the souced prayer bit fo rno reason...guess that was AGF wth the others.
Yes check.svg Done and should be better, also added your source. Check it out and feel free toreword.(Lihaas (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)).
(1) There's a fair bit of needless repetition. E.g., the Cairo meeting with John Paul II is mentioned twice, with nothing different or extra said the second time; and "the Lord welcomes this great pastor" and "the Lord welcome this great shepherd" are just different translations of the same Italian original. If it was you who added the Lombardi material, kudos to you for putting it in when there was as yet no statement from Benedict XVI; but it seems superfluous, as well as repetitious, now that Lombardi's boss has said essentially the same thing.
(2) "A statement attributed to him …" To whom? Benedict? Please read your sources more carefully. Neither of your sources attributes to Benedict either of the two sentences that you quote. attributes no words at all to Benedict - the words of the press statement are entirely those of Lombardi, as is shown by his signature below it (and the lack of any direct quotation within it). Al Jazeera is quoting the Lombardi statement (and the attribution is simply to "a statement".) Just saying that "apparently … it is his sentiment" does not come anywhere near justifying calling Lombardi's words "a statement attributed to [Benedict]".Vilĉjo (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
(3) The (Roman) Catholic Church consistently refers to itself as the Catholic Church, and it is common parlance among non-(Roman) Catholics as well. The fact that some people prefer to call it the Roman Catholic Church does not give us carte blanche to go around sticking in "sic" templates when we come across statements from the RCC which use that terminology. To do so looks like a clear POV violation, introducing a jarring note just to make a point and not because it adds anything of value. As a courtesy to you I shall not immediately remove it, as I am strongly inclined to do (though others may), but I hope that you will see how plainly inappropriate it is. Vilĉjo (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Coptic script[edit]

Does anyone know how to fix the script characters in the Coptic translation of the Pope's name? Also, I thought the Copts used the Arabic script. Is this not the case? --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What a freaking mess of the lead sentence - is there any way all the names in different languages can be footnoted? – Connormah (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Pope Shenouda III's Signature.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Pope Shenouda III's Signature.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Pope Shenouda III's Signature.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Who consecrated him to the episcopate?[edit]

Who consecrated him to the episcopate? --Jaques O. Carvalho 23:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

New elected pope[edit]

A new Coptic pope has been elected! Datu Dong (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Crowd crush of mourners[edit]

I added a sentence to the Reaction subheading under Illness and death making reference to the massive crush among mourners waiting to view the pope's body. My intention was to give information about an important historical event that happened during the events of his mourning (which is on-topic for that section of the article), and to give a reflection of the huge number of mourners who came to the cathedral. I don't think this event should be ignored in a section that describes his mourning and funeral, though I am also aware that it might be a sensitive issue to those who want to remember only the best qualities of the pope and the celebration of his life. But we need to be neutral and encyclopedic. If anyone thinks my writing could be reworded to be more sensitive, feel free, but I think the content should remain. I looked through the article's revision history and did not see any edit summaries addressing this issue, nor is there anything on the current talk page. Dcs002 (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing issue[edit]

"Many colleges dictate quotas for Coptic students, often around 1 or 2% despite the group making up as much as 15% of the country's population[citation needed]. There is also a separate tax-funded education system called Al Azhar, catering to students from elementary to college level, which accepts no Christian Coptic students, teachers or administrators."

This is a pretty substantial claim to make and should not be in the article without proper sources, so I've removed it. --Hazachu (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Coptic calendar use[edit]

As this is an article about a Coptic leader, doesn't it make sense to write the dates in this article in the Coptic calendar, alongside the Gregorian calendar? (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)