Talk:Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria/Archive 2

Catholic Church

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

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 removal

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.

 Done and should be better, also added your source. Check it out and feel free toreword.(Lihaas (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)).

Issues:

(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. News.va 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

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

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?

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

New elected pope

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