Talk:Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria

message: The 7th of Thout (Coptic Calendar) is equivalent to the 4th of September in the Julian Calendar. As the Gregorian Calendar was not invented until over 1000 years after the death of St. Dioscorus, it is historically inaccurate to equate the date of his commemoration in modern times on a calendar to which it has been transposed to a date in the fifth century. As the precursor to the Gregorian Calendar was the Julian Calendar, to provide an accurate date for his repose according to the Western system of dating, it is the Julian Calendar which must be used.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.54.88.230 (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Date Correction

message: If you read carefully you will notice that this is not a scientific and impassionate article. It implies at many points how the Coptics are "orthodox" and they struggled to get rid of "alien" opression from the main-stream Chalcedonian  Church, either Latin or Greek. Read it with this caveat in mind, or if someone objective could re-write it please.
Like it or not, Copts are Orthodox. Get over it.
To point out that the Coptic hagiographic POV is not unbiased is not to put down Coptic Orthodoxy, but rather to ask that the article speak on the life of Dioscorus in a non-biased way. For example, to mention that Chalchedonians are still a "problem" is seriously biased against Chalchedonians. What would be valid is to mention the debate without judging Chalchedonians as a problem. Responding "Like it or not. Copts are Orthodox. Get over it." does not endear anyone to your position nor does it make your POV all of a sudden valid. If you can't write from a POV that at least tries to be neutral then don't write articles here in Wikipedia... try Orthodox Wiki instead. Chrisgaffrey (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ANOTHER COPTIC POV

message: OK, here's a stumper- I've seen writers confuse him with Dioscurus, the father of Saint Barbara. We can't very well have a disambiguation page, since there's (obviously) no article about that Dioscurus; would it make any sense to have a sentence in this article saying that this <I>isn't</I> the father of someone, especially of an apocryphal someone who predated him? It seems stupid; maybe it's trivial enough to simply not be worth mentioning at all, but it's the kind of the we might disambiguate under other circumstances. -FZ 20:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Worth a phrase in the lead, and a paragraph in more detail (is there any basis for the confusion, or just because names are similar?) at the end. That's exactly the kind of confusion that a reference work should clear up; you can see OCD and EB articles doing that all the time, if you look closely. Stan 21:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This gets even more complicated than I thought- I did a Google search and discovered two more Dioscuruses (Dioscurii?) that I hadn't even known about... including another from Alexandria. argh. -FZ 16:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dioscorus, father of St Barbara / other ppl named Dioscorus

message: I don't think it's remotely appropriate for this article to refer to Dioscorus as a "saint".  Not only is it inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia, the majority of Christians condemn Dioscorus as a serious heretic.  --Matrona 19:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh brother. We could say that about any number of Chalcedonian saints. Leo I is a great saint of the Roman and Byzantine churches yet traditionally regarded as a terrible heretic by the Non-Chalcedonian traditions. If we were to follow the principle you are suggesting here, there would be many more figures on Wikipedia who would lose the title of saint other than simply Dioscorus. Deusveritasest (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Dioscorus I is most certainly "sainted" by certain traditions, the Coptic Orthodox being the primary among them. Deusveritasest (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Saint is perfectly appropriate to use within this article, according to the conventions of Wikipedia (especially if, as it is here, it is set within the context of the tradition that considers him a saint).  --Pastordavid 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually the articles I see refering to "saints" will explain which tradition holds that person as a saint. This is lacking here and goes to show major non-NPOV. Chrisgaffrey (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: As there has been an active talk page, I did not want to make any edits without talking it out here first.  This article, seems laden with too much detail about the theological debates in of the age, extending well beyond their connection to the life of Dioscorus.  It would be helpful if the article were more concise, with appropriate wikilinks where more background ifo is provided in other articles. If no one objects, I will try to do some trimming.  --Pastordavid 19:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Concise 

message: In regards to those who have made biased comments earlier on, I have sources which suggest the opposite.
Take a look at these:              . You can also see lesson 23 on this link (about the Second Council of Ephesus) . Note: if link #7 didn't work, try this (it's in wiki sandbox history) . There's also info on the Coptic Encyclopedia if you scroll down to the middle of the page, it's linked here . ~ Troy 19:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I was not bashing anyone here, justing pointing things out with some references. Also, in regards to that user who has deleted this section earlier on, I understand that this section may have originally been on the verge of continuing minor-yet-bothersome disputes, however, I had certainly not inteded that. ~ Troy (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oriental Orthodox Are Not Heretics 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "multiple" :
** Coptic Synaxarion
** http://www.zeitun-eg.org/Coptic_interpretations_of_the_Fourth_Ecumenical_Council_(Chalcedon).pdf
** Coptic interpretations of Chalcedon
** Coptic Synaxarionsa=1&month=1&day=7&btn=View#1
** zeitoun-eg
DumZiBoT (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the quality of this icon being new and amateur a reason to delete it? Deusveritasest (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: This article does not mention Saint Dioscorus's most notorious act, his role in the murder of Saint Flavian. It seems a bit unbalanced to me. Rwflammang (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Murder of Flavian

message: Forgive me for nit-picking, but I thought Dioscorus was merely Cyril's archdeacon and hatchet man.  I had not realised that he was ever elevated to the dignity of pope.
This article really does need to be rewritten by somebody who isn't either a Jacobite or a Nestorian.  I would do it, but I'm too busy at present.
A good start, though, would be to change its title to Dioscorus of Alexandria, the name under which Dioscorus is most widely known.  Discussion of whether he is a pope (!) or a saint (!) should come later.
At the same time, the absurd title of the article on Leo I should also be changed to 'Leo I'.  Personally, I don't think 'Saint' should appear in the title of an article on any early Christian figure, except possibly the first-generation disciples and apostles.  There are conventions for these things, tried and tested and used by all reputable encyclopedias, and it is dispiriting to see Wikipedians constantly trying to re-invent the wheel. 
Djwilms (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:PopeDioscorosI.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I noticed of the two links to 'Gangra Island', one was redlinked and one actually just went to 'Gangra' (Çankırı). Having searched around the internet I cannot find any place named Gangra Island, and many of the sources cited specifically refer to it being Gangra in Paphlagonia/Galatia/Asia Minor/North Turkey. Çankırı (Gangra) is a city in north Turkey which is the historical capital of Paphlagonia, although it is inland and almost certainly has no islands. Some sources explicitly refer to an exile to 'Gangra Island', however none of these go into any more detail, and often in the same source it will refer to the location in Anatolia. This leads me to believe Gangra is the most likely location referred to, so we should remove references to Gangra Island. Does anyone know any more to shed light on this? GeorgmentO (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gangra Island or just Gangra?