Talk:Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria

Date Correction
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)

Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopedia (which is referenced in the article) says he died on the 11th of September 454. This is different to what the Wikipedia article claims. Rather than dispute the date, I'm going to adjust the article to simply say "September" without an exact date and note the other differences in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.54.88.230 (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

ANOTHER COPTIC POV
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)

--This article seriously needs to be re-written. It's style and tone are extremely inappropriate, ie: it reads like a piece of Coptic propaganda. It's extremely biased in favor of Pope Dioscorus when the bulk majority of Christianity has extreme problems with him and, right or wrong, his theology. It lacks references, and where there are references, it repeats them over and over. I have read the 2nd reference and very little is actually said about Dioscorus. It seems to me at least to have been inserted as an attempt to appear unbiased. I understand Pope Dioscorus is a "hot-button" issue and a major bone of contention between the Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox Churches (Chalcedonian) and the Oriental Orthodox (Non Chalcedonians) but if the article on Chalcedon itself can be well written and relatively unbiased, why can't this one? In short, to me it appears this article needs to be seriously revised, hopefully by people without "A dog in the fight" as they say, to reflect the historical figure of Pope Dioscorus, and not be a piece of propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.0.190 (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dioscorus, father of St Barbara / other ppl named Dioscorus
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 isn't 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

This kind of confusion is best resolved by a disambiguation page; see Dioscorus. Gdr 17:40, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Proposed move

 * Unsure. Both post-Chalcedon traditions had a Dioscorus II, so (per Naming conventions (names and titles)), the ordinal should be included; cf Elizabeth I of England. However, it could be argued that the form without the number is a "well established name in English", so the John Chrysostom rule would apply. –Hajor 14:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Move Although he is the first of two patriarchs in both orthodox beliefs, he is the established leader (the last) that both religions agree was the true Patriarch of Alexandria. Dioscorus of Alexandria is his established name in English and as far as I know, no one in the Coptic community ever refers to him as Dioscorus I in discussion. It is automatically assumed who is being refered to unless both are in the same conversation (I and II). -Markio 17:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Hajor claims that there are two different Dioscorus II, one Coptic and one Eastern Orthodox. I don't think that's the case. The successions may be different, but (at least in the early years after the split) I believe that a number of the individuals were the same, including Dioscorus II. Gdr 15:19, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * That's intriguing; do you know enough about it to write a Dioscorus II of Alexandria article? The two lists indicate identical dates for his patriarchate/papacy, which definitely supports the idea of the two being the same. –Hajor 16:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. I was relying on the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Church of Alexandria which says, "The possession of the See of Alexandria alternated between these parties [i.e. the monophysites and the orthodox] for a time; eventually each communion maintained a distinct and independent succession." Gdr 17:38, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find out anything about him/them with a cursory glance at the web or in my books; a pity. Good work with the disambig page, though. –Hajor 18:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 16:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
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)


 * 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)

Was he sainted under any tradition? If so, it is appropriate to call him saint. If not, I would have to wonder why he was refered to as such to begin with. Thanatosimii 01:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Matrona's criticism lacks objectivity
Matrona's response shows some clear hypocritical bias. There is a wikepedia article for example on the arch-enemy of St Dioscorus - Leo of Rome, where he is referred to as "Pope Saint Leo the Great". Alot of Orthodox Christians (Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Indian, Ethiopian, Eritrean), consider Leo of Rome to be a serious Nestorian heretic.

More Concise
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)

Oriental Orthodox Are Not Heretics
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)


 * 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)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
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 :) DumZiBoT (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "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

The picture at the top: this is not an old icon of St Dioscorus and is obviously an amateur work. Please, remove it.

Could the person who uploaded the second picture give some background of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.57.94 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is the quality of this icon being new and amateur a reason to delete it? Deusveritasest (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Murder of Flavian
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)

The Murder of Flavian is not recorded in any historical account - nor is there any witness to it. The "Murder" of flavian is conveniently only ever first mentioned in the Trial of Dioscorus (Chalcedon). It may seem unbalanced to you because you are of the Chalcedonian camp but the vast majority of scholars consider this to be a trumped up accusation. (See Acts of Council of Chalcedon (http://www.amazon.com/Council-Chalcedon-Liverpool-University-Press/dp/1846311004)) and (Chalcedon re-examined - by V.C. Samuel - granted this author is of the Oriental Orthodox camp, http://www.amazon.com/Council-Chalcedon-Re-Examined-V-Samuel/dp/1401016448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1309365437&sr=1-1)

Another proof of that this charge is hearsay is that it was completely ignored when mentioned in the Council of Chalcedon - much like any charge of Heresy against Dioscorus, the sole reason for his deposition being that he did not answer the thrice-summons of the Roman Legates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerhesi (talk • contribs) 16:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Title
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)

He was most definitely pope - and he is actually just as widely known as Pope and Saint and venerated as such by the entire oriental orthodox church.

Also, your opinions on sainthood, are as you have so perfectly stated - personal opinions. They do not agree with the established traditions of either the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Oriental orthodox churches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerhesi (talk • contribs) 16:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Gangra Island or just Gangra?
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)