Talk:Holy Father

message: A stub created for undeletion review. Please leave the stub article alone.
The Greek word in John 17:11 is HAGIOS which simply means Holy. When refering to the Father it can only be the purest form of the word. Holy Father is clearly God's name according to God Himself, if you believe in the Trinity. Jesus who is God made this statement calling His Father, HOLY FATHER. For any human to take God's name is bewildering. It can also be noted that the Holy Father or GOD has a son. This also means that any "deity" or human leader who does not have a son cannot be one and the same as the God of New Testament Christianity. 
--76.3.18.70 08:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub created for undeletion review. 

message: I would also like to add a controversies section like the Social and religious controversies section in Evolution. Some people believe the rcc use of the title for their pope is controversial. --jeolmeun 03:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section. 

message: I would like to add a section or a new article for the history of this Wiki article.
:We don't do that kind of thing around here. See WP:ASR. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki article history section 

message: I would like to add a hymnal section like that of the Popular culture / Music section of the article for YHWH.
:Why are you talking about this stuff here, where it's not relevant? Go to Talk:Tetragrammaton or Talk:Evolution and mention it there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Hymnal section would contain a list of hymns that contain Holy Father as part of their title or lyrics. --jeolmeun 03:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but you're asking about an addition to a different article entirely. This page is for discussion of Holy Father not Tetragrammaton. Try it and see what happens. Or discuss it first if you want to test the waters and see what kind of reaction you get. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I misunderstood you.  TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hymns section 

message: What do you think Tony Sidaway meant by, "If you want to try producing an article, give it a go,"? I don't think that means to keep it a redirect. --jeolmeun 03:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That means to try it and see what happens. It's not so much authorization as a restatement of WP:BOLD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why would he state that if not to tell me try producing an article which is what I'm doing, but you are reverting? --jeolmeun 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the breaks. I told you why I don't think the content you want here is appropriate, and others concur. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why don't you edit the content you have a problem with instead of redirecting? --jeolmeun 03:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  If you want to change Father of the Messiah to something you believe is NPOV go for it. --jeolmeun 03:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already explained what I would find acceptable, and you've rejected it. Whether or not my proposed content is acceptable would be up to anyone keeping an eye on this article since the AfD.  In default of that, I adhere to the consensus already reached. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rejected redirection. What else did I reject? You want a dab page now? What would make you not want just a dab page? Please, show me here how you plan on making the dab page and articles for separate articles. I tried to make the article, The Holy Father, but I guess the The isn't liked, so what would you name the article instead? --jeolmeun 03:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Sidaway 

message: I don't see why we would need a disambiguation page. The article for God has separate sections for different POVs of God, like Binitarianism and God as Unity or Trinity. --jeolmeun 04:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: God the Father pretty much covers everything that ought to be covered here, even if the section on Christianity could use a bit of expansion.  This therefore ought to disambiguate God the Father and Pope, if a dab page is to be. added: You say this title was concocted during the Investiture Controversy. If that's the case (and if you have sources) then it ought to be mentioned there, and the dab page could also point to that with a brief explanatory note. I don't think the title itself, or any controversies over it, deserve their own article. For reasons I already gave, I think it would degenerate into an argument in the body of the article itself and we can't have that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where would you put the Hymns section? --jeolmeun 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why wouldn't you? --jeolmeun 04:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep asking me substantially the same question? I'd support a plain, unadorned dab page. Period. I already explained why. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want the hymn section in this article, which article would you put the section in? --jeolmeun 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If the evolution article, isn't degenerate right now, I think this article will be ok as long as we keep checking the article. Where else could I write an article about the controversial title the rcc pope uses? --jeolmeun 04:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation page? 

message: TCC, what do you think of the following comment from DRV? Seems like he's saying that previous AfD doesn't matter now.
*Comment This isn't a matter for discussion here. Nothing was deleted. Everything is still in the history. It was turned into a dab by regular editing and it can be restored, recreated in a different form, turned back into a dab, etc. by regular editing. No sysop intervention is needed and there is nothing to discuss here. It would be extremely unwise to re-create this in anything resembling its previous without discussing it at Talk:Holy Father and gaining consensus for the change, and it would be considerate to invite people who participated in the AfD discussion to participate in that discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the hymns and the external links sections are "even vaguely similar to the content nominated for AfD" and would like to add them to the article. --jeolmeun 18:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed not, but it's difficult to see what the purpose of them might be.  See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lacking context provided by any content that is vaguely similar to that which was removed, this is nothing more than one of the lists that are not desireable content according to policy. Reverting. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, Out of AfD, I believe. 

message: I have stripped out all the superfluous info from this dab page, just leaving that required for navigation. Abtract (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: dab page

message: I have notified all of the IP addresses involved, and so far, not one of them has listened. There has been no discussion surrounding why they continuously revert edits—it's been several months now. I suspect that it's vandalism, but even if they don't see it as that, the onus is on them to explain why they ignore Wikipedia Policy—especially since I have already explained to them on their talk pages that it is against Wikipedia policy to constantly revert edits without reasoning, or to continuously make major changes without discussing (see WP:neutrality). At this point, these edits are identified as Vandalism. ~ Troy (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though. I think that I should let you know about the fact that the Coptic Pope was called "Pope" before it was even known by the Roman See. In fact, the Vatican probably didn't use the term until centuries after Pope ("Papa" in Coptic, meaning "Father") Heracleus used the title by a means of respect (elder Archbishop of Alexandria, Alexandria being among the four ancient patriarchs—the other ones are Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome). ~ Troy (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To those IP's who made recent edits, I apologize if you feel insulted by anything I said, but I still think you should avoid edit warring. ~ Troy (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice that I said "but I still think you should avoid edit warring". You still do not have a reason to deliberately remove contents of any articles without a valid reason. ~ Troy (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Constant Reverts