Talk:Coptic Orthodox Church

Child sexual abuse cases

Hi, I've removed a large swath of content from the section on child sexual abuses, for numerous reasons. It's mostly explained in the edit summaries but I thought I'd post this here so people can discuss it. Firstly, this article was sourcing whole paragraphs of information, and it's about coronavirus in Egyptian prisons. Just... what? Secondly, there was a lot of information (particularly about living people) sourced to random social media posts, or even worse information sourced just to instagram accounts or hashtags themselves. The section on Priest Isak Soliman could plausibly be re-added, but it will need a better source than the primary source court documents, so I've removed it for the time being (see WP:BLP). This is both because we need to establish due weight for inclusion of the event, but most importantly because of WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person", primary sources like these should not be interpreted by Wikipedia editors, but instead by reliable secondary sources.

There's probably information that could be re-added here, but please do not re-add it without first familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's sourcing and BLP policy, and then secondly fixing the numerous issues with the material as it was before. Volteer1 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1, your edits were a marked improvement, and I doubt anyone familiar with our policies would contest this. Your version largely avoids (I believe) any serious BLP or DUE pitfalls. While this information is generally encyclopedic, there tend to be a lot of coatracking of overly critical material on this subject, and in the particular case of this article, a lot of crap citations. I agree there needs to be better independent and secondary sourcing on the article. Though I'd imagine there's something of a paucity of this in English, I'm willing to bet that more such sources exist in Arabic (which unfortunately, I can't read). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: I unfortunately know very little about the subject matter and haven't been bothered to look into this in great detail, it was just easy enough for me to fix the egregious errors without having to think very hard. Perhaps when I can be bothered to look into it more I can work on trying to fix what problems still lie in the only section that at least seemed to be properly sourced, and dig around for other sources to see what can be added back. But, alas, another time. --Volteer1 (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1,@Symmachus Auxiliarus: From what I've seen across wikipedia (other church's sexual abuse cases) there appears to be no singular example of a case which is relayed with this amount detail. I was wondering if it would be more prudent to stick to the facts instead of explain the play by play of events according to Sally. Titus Obelisk (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

As Titus Obelisk is stating, there is no Wiki page of other churches in which the abuser's name is fully written. Also, this is a page concerning the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Adding personal situations to this page is irrelevant. It can be put on a different page, but it has nothing to do with the Church. It has something to do with a person, a priest, not the whole church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.39.190 (talk • contribs)

I've trimmed it way, way down. It's one incident and the level of detail was rather extreme and not particularly relevant for an encyclopaedic summary of events. I'm still not entirely convinced, however, that it should just be removed entirely – this is an incident that still did receive a significant amount of attention in reliable sources, so I do think it should probably get some mention. Regarding other churches, you're right that the level of detail here was a bit absurd, but e.g. there's a whole article on it for the Catholic Church: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. The Catholic Church is, however, far more known for these kinds of issues, so they're not comparable one-to-one obviously. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1 I agree, but would it be appropriate to removed the timeline as it is written out? Why not simply include the general facts?Titus Obelisk (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the timeline"? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coptic flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria → Coptic Orthodox Church – By far the common name of this Church in English ([1]). Even the category for this article (Category:Coptic Orthodox Church) and the native name (Ϯⲉⲕ̀ⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ⲛ̀ⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ ⲛ̀ⲟⲣⲑⲟⲇⲟⲝⲟⲥ) don't mention "of Alexandria". 92.184.105.120 (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Support. "Coptic Orthodox Church" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Image for the Cathedral

I have added a well-needed, updated photo for this article, that being the newly-renovated St. Mark's Cathedral as it stands today. The existing image is already 12 years old and does not reflect the current state of the cathedral. Open to discussion below if you disagree with the change. Thanks so much. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Will revert back to prior image until the new one is approved in the Commons. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality scale

I have upgraded this article’s quality level to “B”, up from where it stood before at a “C”. The requisite qualifications behind a “B” rating have been met for this article. If anyone would like to discuss it through or disagree, please feel free to comment. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 04:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hello @That Coptic Guy:. I added several citation needed tags and other things to the article. This needs to get addressed for a GA review and may be grounds for immediate fail. Happy to help, lemme know. MX (✉ • ✎) 22:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @MX - thank you so much. I really appreciate your time and your help with this! — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 02:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, I think there may be a little confusion on the classification.

The B-class criteria (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. #2 states: The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. Unsourced statements and blank sections are evidence the article does not pass the criteria and needs reassessing. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

There's some room for growth and improvement per Otr500. I have made the move to reduce the class from B to C. Due to a lack of coverage in of some major aspects, sourcing alone will be insufficient to elevate this article to B-class. Classification is not a priority, but it is a nice benchmark. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)