Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members and Talk:Regensburg lecture: Difference between pages

This is not the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc. Please stick directly and purely to the editorial question at hand, rather than a general philosophical debate.
Off topic comments may be removed without notice.

Discussion page

Sorry -- this is a discussion page, not the article. Why some many warnings about freely expressing opinions? freedom of speech is not a value to wk anymore? --BBird 15:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page – This page is for constructive discussions about the article, and nothing else. – Smyth\^talk 17:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

who was the Persian scholar?

Anyone know? 136.159.133.244 Presumably he is anonymous in the original text, which was likewise presumbly written by Manuel II. Pablosecca 20:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We may have to wait on the footnotes version of the speech promised to be released by the pope, for that. He doesn't really mention him, or other details about the conversation in the speech.--Tigeroo 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy war or jihad

The concept of "jihad" as described in the Wikipedia jihad article as a "struggle" against evil would not seem to be a contradiction of Catholic teaching. Perhaps the contributor meant "holy war" instead. Or did Benedict himself use the word "jihad"?

Anyway, what the pope was criticizing was (1) "forced conversions" and (2) the predominance of fanaticism over reason. --Uncle Ed 19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:"Jihad" is not mentioned in the lecture. I guess the MIIP quote, "daß er vorgeschrieben hat, den Glauben, den er predigte, durch das Schwert zu verbreiten," i.e., very literally, "that he [Muhammad] has prescribed that the faith which he preached would be distributed by the sword", or in the official trsl., "his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." (No more exact references than the links on the article page are possible.)Clossius 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the use of jihad in the opening paragraph, as he clearly did not condemn all jihad (religious struggle). Have left it in in the other two places of the article though, coz they are both direct quotes from other sources and I can't verify the Islamic source one. - 158.143.65.91 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, was the lecture given in German?

Yes, of course; by a German in Germany and for Germans. :-) Clossius 20:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone but me noticed the differences between the German and English/Italian texts??? I have to assume that much of the world-wide hysteria is due to an overreliance on a poorly worded English translation...Mccalpin 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And did Muhammad indeed command anyone to "spread by the sword" some or all of the teachings of Islam?

Whether commanded or not - Islam did indeed "spread by the sword" - using conquests, force, and threats of war/retaliation. KyuuA4 16:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably akin to spread of christianity by the gun during the colonial era, and the sword during the Imperial Roman era's, but thats all off-topic for this article--Tigeroo 07:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The pope seems to be expressing the view of the West (generally) and of Catholicism (specifically) that reason should be respected, and that God does not want to force people to accept any particular religious belief.

perhaps a better way to put it is that the Pope was saying that in the Greek Christian tradition (which the Roman tradition drew from) that God cannot be unreasonable, and since it's not reasonable to force conversions by violence, God cannot order conversion by violence; whereas, in the Muslim tradition (according to the Pope), God is "transcendent" (to use the Pope's word), and is by His very nature not limited. It's like the old question: if God is omnipotent, can He do evil? The Catholic response is "No, He cannot, not because he doesn't have the power, but because He cannot do anything against His very nature." In any case, the comments below are valid - this was a formal lecture to an educated audience, and it's extremely easy to take what he says out of context...Mccalpin 23:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What do Muslims believe about reason and force? Are there any prominent Muslims who (1) condemn forced conversions or (2) approve or insist on forced conversions? --Uncle Ed 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Acually, the verse in the koran, "there should be no compulsion in religion", specifically means that no one should be forced to convert to any religion, even islam.

It's a question of interpretation really - there are different traditions of how to place religious practices in a social framework. Certainly in some historical eras, and in some countries now (e.g. Pakistan) it's considered a crime to try to win over a muslim to any other religion, including Christianity, and there's been heavy coercion at times to make people join Islam (again, it's a question of interpretation if you feel that the institution of devsirme', the janisssary guard, in the Ottoman empire, recruited from Christian boys who were taken away from their parents and brought to Constantinople, sometimes castrated or mistreated in other ways, whether this should be seen as coercive in those terms)

Of course whether to speak of forcible conversion is partly a matter of how you view islam and the situation, but there's no doubt that in some times in the middle Ages, a military squadron would storm a city or a village and begin maiming the inhabitants or selling them as slaves, and then (pictiruring you're one of the defeated, christian side) you don't wait to find out if there's a law for or against this sort of thing. or if a proper judge will show up - you convert if your gut feeling is that it will save your life. Still, with all respect for the Pope's intelligence, I'm surprised he'd quote a Byzantine Emperor on Islam like this.

It's safe to say though, that the contrast between the Believing World (dar al-islam, the House of Islam) and the outside world (dar al-harb, the House of War, often seen as the still-not-believing world) is an ingrained concept in many traditional strands of Islamic thinking, and the conclusion, to many, would be that political power in a country with many muslims should be wielded by muslims. And of course, in the West, the image of Muslim warriors forcing christians to convert or die is a familiar one; obviously this is part of what the Emperor Manuel was alluding to.Strausszek September 16, 2006 04:55(CEST)

Actually, jihad IS mentioned: Quote from the Vatican official German text: "...kommt der Kaiser auf das Thema des Djihād, des heiligen Krieges zu sprechen.". The English translation, however, omits it: "...the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war." Azate 22:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you are right; I was totally mistaken. :-( I had read another version and glanced just over this one, and searched, but not for this spelling... my mistake! Clossius 23:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Stuff happens. Nevermind. Azate 23:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Jihad may refer to any religious struggle, but in modern usage it seems to only refer to Islamo-facist attempts to destroy the west and repress western influence.

• Mostly agreed, but in a recent American TV-series Sleepercell there is a discussion involving a (fictous) Yemenite imam and a gang of terrorists where the Yemenite imam asks: Which is the greater jihad? He was of course killed ... But the script as such exposes the much heard about peaceful aspects of Islam. MX44 18:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Advice from a past debate...

I think this is worth repeating here... Azate 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc. Not only is this talk page not the right place for it, Wikipedia is not the right place for it. Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is undoubtably good in the world: write and give away a free encyclopedia.

Now, there are legitimate questions on both sides regarding this particular article, and I want to encourage a discussion of that. But please, do it with the very strong assumption of good faith on all parties to the discussion, and stick directly and purely to the editorial question at hand, rather than a general philosophical debate.

--Jimbo Wales 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm placing it on top. El_C 10:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo, Azate- used to love Wiki so much, what a tremendous n helpful site it should be. but now it seems the PC inmates are running the asylum and it is really saddening. It used to be that the talk page was the place for discussion that was more heated, but still controlled; Now if someone doesn't agree with what you say, or finds it offensive, it will be deleted. Truly unfortunate...PS what does "undountably" mean?

Agree with advice

Yes, I agree with all that of course. I'm only interested in figuring out:

1. What did the pope actually say about reason, force and religious conversions?
2. What did the pope actually say about "jihad" or "holy war"?
3. What has Muhammand, the Koran, and/or Muslims in the ancient and modern worlds said about using violence (or abstaining from it) to gain religious converts?
4. What similarities and differences are there in the Muslim and Catholic approaches?
5. Why are Muslims (or political leaders who are Muslims) taking offense at "a few obscure passages in a minor speech given in German at the pope's old university"?
   • Do they regard the passing references as the most important part of the speech? Or,
   • Do they see the pope as unfairly condemning Muslims or Muhammad for something? (Something that Christians themselves did (i.e., the Crusades)?
   • Are they asserting the principle that no non-Muslim is permitted to criticize Islam, its prophet, its early followers, any Muslim?

Let's be neutral in our coverage of this controversy. I don't want to debate these things. I just want to know what Muslim and Catholic leaders (or scholars) have said or written about these things. --Uncle Ed 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the answers to 1 and 2 are easy enough to verify: just check out the external links cited:

• Official English translation of the Regensburg lecture
• Original German text of the Regensburg lecture

Personally I doubt many will bother to read the comments in context especially as, to be honest, it's a pretty dry and highly academic discourse (in keeping it seems with the persona of this current pope, who is quite an intellectual but perhaps less in touch with the "grass roots" as his predecessor) - 158.143.65.91 19:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think the Germany pastoral visit showed that he is extremely in touch with the grass roots. He has really changed since his election; even since Cologne. The respective lecture was the one academic one he gave, at the university where he had been a professor, and this is why I think it is key to call it lecture (Vorlesung), not speech (Rede), which is what it was designed to be and what it was. (Admittedly the Munich sermon was also quite intellectual.) Note, in this context, by the way, the notice at the bottom of the lecture. Clossius 20:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Sorry, I may have been talking out of turn there then, since I'm not a Catholic and don't follow the detail of papal matters that closely, although I do have an interest in religious affairs. - 158.143.65.91 20:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, you are of course right - Benedict XVI is an extremely intellectual, scholarly Pope by any standards and particularly so when compared to John Paul II. However, I think that, in this context, the particular scholarly character of the speech is important for this very article - naturally, there was a wider audience addressed, but the setting and physical audience were purely academics, mostly even professorial colleagues, I think. Clossius 22:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems to imply that John Paul II was a bit on the dim side or less intellectual than the norm for a Pope, which I don't think is quite fair. At the same time I think it's likely unintentional that it sounded like that.--T. Anthony 04:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the opposite of "intellectual" or "scholarly" is "dim". There is no requirement that the Pope must be a scholarly type, and many great ones were not. It is of course easily a POV matter where exactly John Paul II "ranks" among Popes on the scholarship scale, but that this was not one of his main interests at all is, I think, fair to say. Clossius 06:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all going slightly off topic, admittedly, but I would disagree that scholarship was not (I am rewording slightly) a large interest of his. He was a prolific writer, and much of it would definitely be called scholarship. And if one ever notes his command of philosophy in Gift and Mystery, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, or in Encyclicals or Exhortations of his, it is pretty obvious the man was extaordinarily intellectual. Now, a comparison to Benedict might be premature, agreed, as his papacy is only a year and a half old. But perhaps the terms were meant to mean in appearance of being scholarly or intellectual. In such case Benedict wins hands down, agreed. Baccyak4H 16:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Separate Question

Since I am new (as a contributor) to Wikipedia, what do y'all think about me pointing out not just the variances between the German and English texts, but that this variance may be contributing to the controversy?

I had a statement in the text about how you might get a better feel for what the Pope thought about the quotation if you read his speech in the original German (however well or poorly I said it); however, I see that it (the slightly editorial comment) was deleted by a subsequent contributor.

My problem is that I am not sure that the average reader will make the connection - that this section is not just pointing out some interesting translation issues, but may well explain WHY the Pope said something that shocked everyone without repudiating it in advance...because, to me, he did, and it's clear when you read the German (and NOT very clear when you read the English or Italian) that he didn't particularly approve of the quoted statement.

How would you all feel about putting a statement back in calling attention at least to this possibility (that the controversy may hingle on a poorly worded English translation)? --Mccalpin 23:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are probably correct in your thinking. The problem is, until such reasoning is published in a reputable source (BBC etc.), we mustn't include it. It's called "Original Research", and Wikipedia doesn't allow it. Facts, such as the existence of the translation diffenences, however, can be pointed out without a reputable soure noticing them first. But reasoning - sorry, no. Azate 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Overall Organization

At this point, the article takes on the form of bascically what the pope said and general reactions to it...judging from what looks like is being asked, maybe it would be interesting to have a section with what the main objects are picked out, perhaps in some sort of point-counterpoint form, which may come out more anyway as this gets discussed in the public dialouge. TJ0513 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article ignore the context? These comments were made against a backdrop of constant Islamic violence, and have just become the latest excuse in a long chain of Islamist assaults on those who disagree with them. 75.1.6.112 15:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Bardakoglu Misstatement

Of course, the Crusaders didn't occupy Istanbul but Constantinople. By the way, who is this guy, a religious leader, a civil servant or both? And if he is both, where is the separation of state and religion in Turkey? --Vladko 04:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

He is the head of a department of the Turkish government supervising all Mosques. Your question hits the heart of Laicism, which is an ideology that under the banner of "separating Church/religion and state" actually aims at controlling or marginalizing (if not suppressing) religion/s. This can be seen in France around 1900, though this was mellowed down very much after both World Wars. In the Turkish case, this means that the majority religion of Islam is considered part of the national heritage and therefore approved of as long as it is subjected to the state's interest - as defined by government and, in the end, the army, and implemented by this department - and all other religious groups are marginalized by all kinds of legal chicane. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Istanbul is the same city as Constantinople. Istanbul was officially known as Constantinople until 1930. Even before the name was officially changed, it was commonly called "Istanbul" or "Capital city" in Turkish. The Turkish system doesnt favor any religion, Islam or otherwise. The Islamic headscarf is banned at school and the workplace just as the orthodox christian head covering is.

Of course Constantinople is NOT the same city as Istanbul. When the Crusaders occupied Constantinople, it was the capital of the Byzantine Empire. By saying that they had occupied Istanbul, Mr. Bardakoglu (OT - funny name, translates like 'son of a brothel', if I am not mistaken) might imply to some of his compatriots who lack knowledge of Byzantine history that the Crusaders had occupied the capital of the Ottoman Empire! --Vladko 03:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Some Muslims are Angry

I think we need a section about the Muslim view of the lecture and why they think it was offensive. It is unfair to put their reaction whithout explaining their poin of view. I hope the section I added on this will not be deleted. --Thameen 10:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed this again - it is both grossly biased as well as original research. It is also highly presumptuous, talking about "the Muslim view", as if all Muslims would fall for this artificially created agit-prop; as if rationalizing excuses for why some rioting would be nice right now would matter at all. If you publish this first, you can then quote it here, but not before. Almansor 11:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Almansor, it was this section in particular which made me flag the article as POV. I remove that tag now. Bless you, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd missed that brouhaha, which is just as well. Still there was one part of it I thought maybe needs to be brought in somehow. That being that the one sura the Pope cited is actually a Medina verse. That strikes me as relevant and also something people might not know. (I didn't) I hope you don't impugn my Catholicism for saying that, but I don't think it's unfair to mention when someone says something factually in error even if it's the Pope.--T. Anthony 13:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In the section I added, I made it clear that the section is not about NPOV analysis of the lecture, but indeed what SOME Muslims found offensive in it. That does not mean they are right, but how this is how they expressed themselves,

The Fact is that SOME Muslims got offended, so there is a reason for such a feeling, at least from their perspective. Thus I feel that any article about this controversy needs to address the point of view of those who were offended, whether they are right or wrong in our openion. This article is not about the lecture per se but about the contoversy, and in each controversy there are two sides. Where is the counter-Pope point of view?

>>>Yes, 'some' got offended. Burned a few churches. Killed an old nun. Typical barbarism. But the 'rest' of them....well, they just sit back and quietly let it all happen. Their silence is consent.

I think the article in this format is not neutral. Because it gives the Pope an opporunity to express his point of view throught the paragraphs of the lecture included in the article (I was the one who added these paragraphs), But on the other hand it does not explain the point of view of those who were offended.

We heard the Pope's side. It think we need to hear the side of those who felt offended. Not including the offended point of view means that either we are protecting the Pope or that we believe the lecture was not offensive. We should not adopt either of these positions.

Putting the Muslim reaction is not enough to explain the counter-Pope point of view, as these reactions are but in news-type format without any indication of what these offended Muslims really find offensive in the lecture.

The section I added is not an original research. All what I did was to go through the articles and blogs of those Muslims who did not like the lecture and I summerized their point of view.

However, I will put this section here below. I wiish that some members will consider my point of view about including this section in the article, until that happens lets leave it here for reference. --Thameen 17:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Going through "some Muslim's blogs" and cobbling something together is OR. If a Muslim institution of some authority (say, Al-Azhar, or a Grand Mufti)) chooses to reply to the pope, his text will go here, of course. So far, we've seen only soundbites from them, but nothing of substance. Azate 17:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that my resources were only blogs. I said articles and blogs. some of these articles (whom I cite in my piece) are written by scholars. Your partial reading of me shows that you have an issue with the Muslims who did not like the lecture. Your calling of the reactions as 'soundbites, confirms this. Actually you need not alot of bakground in Muslim theology or history to see the reason of the Muslim dislike of the lecture. The errors in it are obvious to those who know basic Islam. --83.244.39.65 18:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I counted. There are exactly four links in your piece: One to the pope's speech and three others, all of them going to one and the same blog. And this blog entry wasn't even written by an Islamic scholar, but by a prominent US politics professor. Azate 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why some Muslims did not like the Lecture of the Pope

Original discussion is here. El_C 10:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Some Muslims are Angry the Cliff Notes(tm) version

Original discussion is here. El_C 10:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Adel Theodor Khourys comments

Yesterday Prof. Khoury, who got cited by the pope, commented on the issue:

"I had wished a few words of differentiation. Two, three lines would have effected a lot." Regarding the quotes of Manuel II he said: "He speaks like everyone did in middle age." Therefore "a few words of neutralisation" would have been particularly desirable. "I have said myself to this dialog (of Manuel II), "these texts are not my opinion""

That information comes from the dpa and can be found in a couple of german newspapers: [1] [2] [3] [4]

I'd say, that this information should get merged into the article as well. What do you think?

Raphael1 15:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, especially because the context is of course that the poor man is scared for his life, and rightly. His first German TV interview was very different, as I recall. Anyway, what I would suggest, and what makes sense anyway and w/o even these happenings, would be a separate lemma for Prof. Khoury - easily done from the Münster page, and I think there's a piece on him on the German wiki. And I think this is where this info should go. Just my opinion. Almansor 15:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I support inclusion. The ORF source is probably the best one. Azate 16:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Western Media Coverage

The changes here, and adding Muslim views again, and especially User: El C's deletions, are close to vandalism. This segment is not perfect yet and needs more citations, but it has been edited several times. The resasons given for the deletion are absolutley faulty: This is the international Wikipedia, and citations do not have to be from Anglo-American countries; German sources are also particularly interesting because this is where the lecture was delivered. Second, in a section on Western media coverage, it is absurd to demand the Islamic stuff again; these reactions have just been listed long and wide in the section above. Finally, one of the key political meanings of this controversy is indeed that the Western media are not anymore kowtowing to the hurt pose and threats from the organized Muslim side, but defending the right to speak even if people chose to act upset. If that doesn't belong into this article, what does?

Sorry, but that section falls our bellow standards, please familarize yourself with these. Thanks. El_C 15:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't (I guess you mean "below our standards", "our" meaning Wikipedia - your removal after this discussion is, well, not vandalism, but quite close to it. I'll revert it again. But I think this is an issue to be brought up for mediation or arbitration; how about doing this right away? Clossius 16:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reversion comes close to vandalism. That section is an original synthesis, mostly relying on sources from a single German source which most of us are not able to read. If you find a source that speaks about Western media reactions, feel free to use that. El_C 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean the quote from the New York Times? To be very specific: You think that in an article about a global controversy, in the English wikipedia, the editorial of the NYT, well-referenced, is OR? The German newspapers, if I see correctly, are from four very different large dailies; German language sources are valid on Wikipedia, it is the second-largest community here and there are sufficient users who can check it. Anyway, I would say that your editing out what you deem OR is fine, but that you delete the category as such as well as even links that satisfy your own demands (which are not Wikipedias) is as POV as it can get. But I will not revert this a second time, although it would be permissible; let's see for others. Clossius 16:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to use the NYT's denouncement of Pope's remarks, please integrate it into the article without original research. Non-English sources (which I cite all the time myself) always need to be explained when questioned, so that its use on the English-language Wikipedia isn't used to disguise original research. El_C 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please consider what you are doing here. It is your obligation, especially as a veteran Wikipedian, not to delete, in a wholesale and cavalier manner, entire non-frivolous sections, especially multi-authored ones, but to edit out what you find (honestly and justifiably) non-Wiki and where you think that a would not do for the moment. Clossius 16:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That section is entirely original research/sample, as such, it is frivolous until it is can be attributed. If you know a way to rewrite it without original reserach feel free. El_C 16:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is an "original sample" interdict on Wikipedia and one would have to quote all newspapers in the world addressing the issue, I stand corrected. But there isn't. The onus was on you not to delete referenced material, and not on me to see that non-referenced was weeded out when I legitimately reverted you. I also wonder why you think even exists - according to your theory, it should never be used, because all non-referenced material should be deleted right away, w/o discussion. Clossius 16:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I use {{fact}} all the time, but the section was entirely based on original claims. Do you have a relaible source for the claim that "the Western media have mainly supported the Pope's right to speak as he did and have emphasized that the overreaction has been created by people who have not read and will not read the speech." If so, please cite the claim so that it could be verified. Thanks. El_C 17:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This merely obscures the issue. It is factually wrong to say that it was "entirely" OR. I think it doesn't make it better if you continue demanding a citation from me for a sentence that I have many times said that it would be okay to delete because it is sweeping and unattributed. But the fact is that you deleted both a summary of some German mainstream newspapers and a specific reference to another (w/o ever asking for trsl.), as well as a clearly attributed NYT opinion, as well as the category as such. All that is against Wikipedia policy, and it weakens the article. It is all the more odd because what (judging from the first removal summary) seems POV-motivated actually deletes both "Western" (or whatever) endorsements and criticism of the Pope. Clossius 17:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

All these sources are only cited as part of an original synthesis. The entire section is based on original claim, and adding a {{fact}} for every single sentence defeats its purpose. El_C 17:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Factually untrue. If I see correctly, three newspaper references were meant to represent specifically the German media (and I think quite correctly), one was a specific article for another point of view, also referenced, and the third the famous NYT op-ed. Well, if people are not too demotivaed, as Azate in his 16:17 statement below says, "In time, there will be pages (at the BBC for example) that present a representative sample of the international press." That will take care of the matter, so I let it go, because I should assume that we both believe we are actually preserving Wikipolicy and standards, yet cannot agree what they are, or which are more important in a collision. Clossius 17:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming tendencious. Even if those three German articles fairly represent the German press, it does not follow that they do so for the enitre Western one, nor can they be said to back the original claim made by the lead sentence that "the Western media have mainly supported the Pope's right to speak as he did". El_C 18:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be such a section. It needs much improvement, of course. In time, there will be pages (at the BBC for example) that present a representative sample of the international press. These pages schould be linked to, then. Azate 16:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Oh, and it should be called not "Western", but "International" press coverage. Azate 16:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the last statement, though "International" doesn't quite catch it, either, because the Muslim reactions are not "national". "Western" is also no good (because it is ambiguous), because several of the Muslim reactions listed with these little flags are from what you would commonly call the "West". "Non-Muslim" sounds surely odd, too. "Christian" is totally wrong. Clossius 16:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of media sources out there. Anyone can create an original synthesis on what this reaction entails, but without a source that actually speaks about Western media reaction, it is original reserach. El_C 16:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are also thousands of angry statements; some are listed, some not. At least, I think it should be possible to report the reactions of key media when referencing them directly. IThis is more serious secondary research than to rely on an, in turn, secondary source, making the reporting here, tertiary. If there are references to several (representative) newspapers of one country, I also would find it legitimate to synthesize that, but I agree that this is arguable.Clossius 16:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We need citations that the "Western media have mainly supported the Pope's right to speak as he did". By reverting me, you reinseted totally original research. El_C 16:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pl use the German traslation using babel or google translation.Yousaf465

No, that is insufficient. Please provide direct citations (quotes) to that effect per WP:CITE. The Western media have mainly supported the Pope's right to speak as he did and have emphasized that the overreaction has been created by people who have not read and will not read the speech According to whom? We need better sources. El_C 16:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant use the original sources in german and give a link to their translated version using internet translation e.g babel.Yousaf465

The onus is on the editor who added these to translate when they come into question. El_C 16:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

When asked, but he was given no chance. Clossius 16:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The chance was then as it is now. The user can respond whenever they see fit. El_C 17:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pt. 2

After you repeatedly (and IMHO aggressively) removed the segment in question, and originally not because (some of) it was OR? That's really not how things should be done, and usually are done, here. But okay, it's a highly emotional topic. Still sad. Clossius 17:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not emotional to me. Please refrain from innunedo and otherwise emotional exclamations, if you find it otherwise. If you feel any portions of that section had citational merit, feel free to rewrite it accordingly. El_C 17:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no innuendo and no emotional exclamations on my part. I indeed think your quick reverts and their summaries and justifications were aggressive; that's neither emotional nor innuendo. That the first revert was for POV and not administrative reasons is clear, I think, from your summary: "15:10, 16 September 2006 (→Western media coverage - remove entire section: this survey of Western mainstream media responses fails to contrast these with non-Western ones (!), and relies too greatly on non-English sources)". The entire later argument re OR is entirely absent. That I am sad about how this was handled is a personal statement, surely permissible on a talk page and in this context. I'll admit, though, that I find the reoeated attempts at the reverting of tables ("Feel free...") and the almost complete non-discursiveness a bit annoying, and indeed, that is (per policy) a sign one should get out or at least let the matter rest for a while, which I'll do. Clossius 17:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you're not allowed to express your emotions, I asked that you refrain from doing so. Your response distorts the reality wereby the entire section was based on original claims. I have no ideological stake in this, nor any fondness for the Western media. I explained to the very new user on their talk page what the problem was. I regret your annoyance, but your revert, and the fact that you are arguing over the section's merits here rather than rewriting it in the article, seems questionable. Not only should you feel free, I encourage you to write such a section, but without original research. El_C 17:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For the last time (really), it is your obligation not to throw out legitimate material, not mine to mop up after you. And the reality, as everyone can check, is that part of the segment was OR - whether to let this stand and work on it or just dump it may be a matter of taste -, and part was referenced. As easy as that. What is more than questionable here is that you removed the referenced parts as well. And I hope you'll forgive me if I say (and yes, that is emotional) that nothing could be less motivational than "encouragement" coming from you, while the admonishment to me to avoid OR is just gratuitously impolite. Clossius 17:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find it impolite, but it was a violation of no original reserach, so I'm not sure how to communicate that any more clearly. I regret you feel that "nothing could be less motivational than 'encouragement' coming from [me]." I really would like to see such a section in the article, but am nonetheless unwilling on compromising on policy toward that end. El_C 18:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm butting in here, but El C, chill out a bit. There are two aspects you should consider. First, does drawing a generalization constitute original research? I personally think no. If we used such harsh stances toward original research, one could not (on Wikipedia, at least), write that most people have two hands, unless of course they found some sort of citation (I guess in English only), stating "most people have two hands". We draw generalizations every day. It would track that many western media outlets support the Pope's right to speak; there is evidence to back this up. Some western outlets may indeed say that he should excercise greater care when talking, and some may even condemn him flat out. These can be documented as well. Second, what is hindering removal of the culprit sentence? Assuming the sentence is original research (I don't think it is), it is not hard to go in and remove the sentence. Deleting the entire section is like decapitating a person with skin cancer on his head. No one is stating that "every 'western' media outlet is completely behind the Pope." That would be untrue. But it would be untrue not because it could not be cited; one could come up with many citations that support the truth of that statement. It, however, would be factually untrue because not every western media outlet feels that way. The generalization is valid but untrue. Stating that many western media outlets believe in free speech is both valid and true, as many western outlets have published this in op-ed peices, even in the German language. Bottom line: if you find something wrong with a section, fix the part that is wrong. It is far easier than repeatedly deleting it and then coming here to start a flame war.Andrew Elgert 04:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I merit the suggestion to chill out, as I remain dispassionate and detached on the issue. I'm not so much interested in generalizations that are devoid of practical suggestions, and I'm getting weary of repeating myself: The entire section was based on the original claim that The Western media have mainly supported the Pope's right to speak as he did and have emphasized that the overreaction has been created by people who have not read and will not read the speech — the rest was qualifications which rest on that assumption. So this original claim needs a source, so it can be verified. As I said, I'm interested in seeing such a section written (although, in terms of the current balance, I think a more pressing priority would be to find reactions from Western International politicians and Hindu-Juedo-Christian-etc. religious leaders — though that remains the editors' discretion). If you know of way to write it without original research, please do. I'll be pleased to review any concrete ideas. As for Western media outlets "belief in free speech," that's an opinion I emphatically do not share, but it's the beyond the scope of this. El_C 07:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing the point

This speech was a response to Mohammad Khatami's speech criticizing the West for an "over-reliance" on reason. See: [5]. EFG 17:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe yes, maybe no. Presently, it's only blogg speculation. Azate 17:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF

We assume good faith even against confirmed vandals and disruptive elements. Please assume good faith against the Pope: he was simply quoting from a text published several centuries before, and we do that here every day under WP:V. People do crazy things: I saw a news that some people of India burnt an Effigy of the Pope, as also the Prime Minister of India. By the way, the sections pertaining to reactions are getting bigger, and as the convention in such cases, a separate page may be created to record the same. --Bhadani 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Making the article NPOV

I missed the news, and came to Wikipedia, hoping to find a balanced presentation of the controversy. To my disappointment, the article only gives Muslim condemnations to the Vatican declaration. Was there no voice of support? Not even one Muslim that thought that the Pope might be right? No supporting declarations from Western countries? (Maybe Denmark?) I'm not that interested in the subject to perform the research myself, but as it stands now, the article is not NPOV since it only includes criticism of the Vatican. --Gabi S. 18:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I read Muslims who said that they will wait for an explanation of what the Pope meant and that until then they'll withhold judgment. Or that they are offended, but do not want to start any tiff with the Catholic Church or its followers. Now if the Pope really meant that Islam is violent, irrational, and forces people to convert I don't see how they could agree. That said I don't think that's what he meant, but I think he did take a critical stance toward Islam as being more proned to violence or allowing for an unreasonable God.--T. Anthony 23:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course no prominent muslim will support it publicly. Their family might get targetted with violence. When rationiality is a not a valued attribute, what do you expect? -- 66.171.76.139 18:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So... you know next to nothing about the affair, but you know the article is bad? Can't make the effort to "perform the research" yourself, but found time enough to post this? Good going, Gabi! Azate 18:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is an English translation of an editorial by Magdi Allam, a leading Muslim commentator in Italy, that appeared in the Italian newspaper, "Corriere della Sera," which defends the Pope.[6] --Antelucan 20:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Gabi S.

Exactly, true concerns. And, this POV pushing (in the name of NPOV) is the main reason that we are unable to become better than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Some of us over react to academic analysis of presentations by some one (say, the present Pope), citing sources centuries old. Perhaps, we have become very adept at imputing motives to innocuous events and statements. In the meantime, many valuable man hours are wasted which could have been utilized to truly enrich the Project. --Bhadani 19:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To "enrich The Project" I added a balancing section. Azate, I did some limited research; are you happy now? --Gabi S. 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

full text?

[7]

There's a link to the full text of the Vaticans statement on the pope’s speech. Should we add it to this article, or perhaps put it in one of those other wikis that specalize in that kinda thing? dposse 19:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We already link to it here. El_C 19:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Just trying to help. dposse 19:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Your efforts are appreciated. El_C 19:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A small request

Based on previous observations of vandalisms, etc, I would be recommend that editing on this page be disabled for new and anonymous users. Cheers. Thanneer 19:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Page sprotected for now. El_C 20:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring

I believe this article needs a complete overhaul. Currently, the layout is as follows:

* 1 Benedict XVI's lecture
      o 1.1 Key paragraphs
      o 1.2 Translation differences
* 2 Reactions of religious leaders
      o 2.1 Muslim reactions
            + 2.1.1 Initial responses
            + 2.1.2 Reactions to official Vatican declaration
      o 2.2 Vatican reactions
            + 2.2.1 Initial responses
            + 2.2.2 Official Vatican declaration
* 3 Political reactions
* 4 Other reactions
      o 4.1 Incidents
* 5 See also
* 6 References
* 7 External links

Perhaps we should go for a system such as this one:

* 1 Benedict XVI's lecture 
      o 1.1 Key paragraphs
      o 1.2 Translation differences
* 2 Controversy begins
      o 2.1 Reactions from political leaders
            -- Include information currently in section 3 --
      o 2.2 Statements by other leaders
            -- Include information presently in section 2.1.1 --
      o 2.3 Initial protests
            -- Include information presently in sections 4 and 4.1 (prose requested here as well) --
      o 2.4 Further comment by the Vatican
            -- Include information from section 2.2.1 --
* 3 Official Vatican declaration
      -- Include information currently in section 2.2.2 --
      o 3.1 Further response from Muslims
            -- Include information presently in section 2.1.2 (again, we can go for some prose here) --
      o 3.2 Response from others
* 4 See also
* 5 References
* 6 External links

My primary issues with the current scheme are the excessive amount of non-prose and the fact that we are pretty locked in with the current layout. With the current layout, everything that could possibly happen from now on (pretty much) could fit in one of the current primary sections. That's because everything from now on is essentially a reaction (either from a religious leader, from a political leader, or from "other"). However, the scheme I proposed goes for more of a sequential format. If a major development occurs, we could add it as a new primary section after the Vatican declaration. Comments are, of course, welcome. -- tariqabjotu 20:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, just my luck, someone edited the structure of the article already. However, I still stand by my suggestion, as the current Response section has the potential of being overloaded very soon. Also, we need some more prose in this article. -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That be me! My original comment (pre-edit conflict): I've already reordered some of the sections, which I think resulted in a more logically intuitive TOC, but those are good points nonetheless. El_C 20:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I support you move toward a more chonological order and more prose. Also, these flags must go! To prefix "The Guardian said in a commentary" with The UK flag, or what an Irish Muslim leader said with the Irish flag is madness. Azate 20:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Guilty as charged; I put (most of) the flags there in the first place. But now that the article is suffering from insufficient prose syndrome and there are tons of statements from all over the world (or the Muslim world, at least), I think it's time for them to go, especially for items that don't correspond with a government position. -- tariqabjotu 20:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the flags and related sections are fine so long as their content remains limited to brief summaries/quotes. But it does seem to be supplanting prose, so that is a problem. Certainly, any chronological order is useful. El_C 20:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So what do we do? Keep them for official government speech and action (Merkel said..., Marocco recallrd ambassador, etc), and ger rid of the rest? Azate

Ugh... I hate how edit summaries are irrevocable; I meant to say miss you. Anyway, I'll request comment from User:Gabi S., who seems quite active here, and then go ahead and do the restructuring. -- tariqabjotu 20:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The restructuring suggestion looks fine to me; go ahead. --Gabi S. 20:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I will be you support. Keep everything official, incl. comments from religious leaders, but shift to integrate as prose. El_C 21:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes, namely, moving the official decleration below the initial response (for chronological continuity), as well as re-naming some sections. I'm not that pleased with the over-indentation of the responses to the decleration. Anyway, feel free to modify as you see fit. El_C 21:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It also needs a quck background context and links to related events, such as Terrorism, the War on Terror, the Jyllands Posten, the Lebanese invasion controversy etc. Basically to say that there is a perceived "clash of civilzations" under which the event is viewed in a magnified and more polarized manner by both sides.--Tigeroo 15:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

title/afd

why is this a "controversy"? A controversy is, well, controversial. You have two sides giving a different spin to things and calling each other names. Here, we have the pope making a stupid comment, some Muslims saying "this makes us angry" and the pope saying "oh dear, I shouldn't have said that then, sorry". That's it. Now what is controversial about this, and why does it need its own Wikipedia article?? I invoke Wikipedia:Recentism, Wikipedia:Notability: move to wikinews. dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit drastic, I think. It is a notable event, is already mentioned on wikinews, and regardless of intent or sides, it is controversial. El_C 20:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The speech as a whole

I glanced through the speech and I am impressed by the breadth of its citations and informed knowledge of the development of logos. That Greek word is very difficult to translate, especially in the context of early Christianity, where for instance Jerome translates it as verbum, which being in the Vulgate has had much influence throughout history. (But the concept is difficult and subtle to grasp: as an example compare Desiderius Erasmus' reaction to Jerome regarding the in principio erat verbum, ie In the beginning was the Word, which Erasmus revised as In the beginning was the speech or discourse, etc.) The crux of the speech is Benedict's suggestion that God's presence in man should not be transcendental (personified apparently by the Muslim scholar Ibn Hazan) but instead

As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul ... worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).

Even an atheist like me can appreciate the nimbleness of the reasoning above. The point is that his speech was not a violent op-ed, but is actually a little tricky to understand, and so my question to you all is, how should that be reflected in the article? How much should we endeavour to educate people? (It seems to me that much if not all of the offense comes from the citation of the Byzantine despotēs and his "harsh" sentiments regarding Muhummad: but surely just a citation is not cause for offense?) Pablosecca 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion the reactions from the Muslim world on this are quite ridiculous. However, the problem is we don't have too many people saying this is ridiculous loud enough in the real world to get a place in the article. As far as I can see, it's some in the Muslim world protesting, the Vatican trying to defend the Pope's statements, and the rest of the world, save Angela Merkel, staying out of this. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that any reaction setting out to defend the Pope should be listed with as much visibility as those that condemn him in the interests of neutral point of view. Although the media doesn't see fit to report such comments as heavily as the headline-friendly muslim outrage, Wikipedia shouldn't fall into the same trap. aLii 08:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all so lousy... The pope gets great PR for his "reason-is-hollow-without-faith-agenda" and everybody else can look cool to his constituency by either slamming their favourite scapegoats or posing as holier than the pope... Azate 21:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reactions seem disproportionate and (dare I say) ignorant from all quarters, occidental and oriental. The point is that in all this I think some of us should try and stage an exposition of the speech trying to include all of the elements in its argument. Take in addition this article by Russel Berman -- note the following points, in addition to mine: 1) Benedict's critique of dehellenization of christianity and 2) his assertion of a commonality in faiths as per essential aspects of faith 'itself'. Pablosecca 21:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not our place to advance the view that reactions are disproportionate, unless major figures / newsources make this argument. This article is intended to focus on the controversy rather than serve as a scholarly exploration of the lecture, although it can touch on this. El_C 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a good article here by the catholic writer David Quinn in the Sunday Independent (Ireland's biggest selling Sunday broadsheet). But you have to subscribe online. He defends the pope's right of expression (Voltaire), criticises muslim reaction, and makes some points on the faith and reason debate.--Shtove 12:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Any leader that changes what he says about somthing he believes because he hurt someones poor little feelings is not a good leader at all Caleb09 23:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he apologised for causing offence, but not for what he said. You get in to niceties when it comes to PR, like what's the difference between expressing regret and apologising? I hope that lecture proves a defining moment in relations with, and within, Islam.--Shtove 23:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad, Naughty Pope

Original discussion is here. El_C 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Alma mater?

I removed that reference from the lead para. There's no reference in the Benedict XVI article to his having studied there, and University of Regensburg says it was founded in 1962, when the Holy Father would have been a very old undergraduate indeed. He did go there to teach in 1969, apparently. Bolivian Unicyclist 21:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

He was professor in Regensburg, not a student. 141.13.8.14 15:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"See also"

Is the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy really relevant to this article? Just about the only thing they have in common is that the Muslim community has gotten riled up about them, but that also goes for hundreds of other events… The Jade Knight 22:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, but analogies or linking it to the "cartoon controversy" are common in the news. Looking up the words "cartoon crisis" at Google News I found:a Bahrain paper making the analogy, a South African one doing so, and a Turkish paper. The connection is not really logical or sane, but it is out there.--T. Anthony 23:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think reinforcing this particular connection is an example of Wikipedia:Recentism. Many journalists have short memories, or perhaps assume short memories in their readers, and so reference the most recent rather than the most relevant controversy. Even if Google thinks there is a strong connection, it doesn't mean Wikipedia should agree. Wikipedia already has a perfectly good mechanism for linking things that fall into the same category, and the Danish cartoons and the Pope's lecture are merely two contrasting instances of the category "Islam-related controversies". --RichardVeryard 00:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Recentism essay applies. It happned 1 yr ago, so it isn't a journalistic; the timing is of an historical significance. El_C 10:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Media colportage

It seems to me that the controvery is largely exaggarated and a protest without reason. In fact by no standards is there anything in that lecture which offends anyone.

However media reporting cited the claims and the reaction. Most people learned about the case from the media and the alleged comments of the pope. What media failed is to clarify that these accusations were unfounded in the first place. In the usual mood to shorten what was really said the catholic church was forced to calm down. In many media reports that looked like the official side affirmed that there really was a case.

what Benedict said and quoted in a certain context what angry unfounded reaction were tried what the media reports what the public believes benedict said and mainstream media did not deny

217.252.96.238 22:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Andre

Removed trolling by Samir धर्म -- TM धर्म]] 09:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Added comment back to page. This is a discussion page, so let us discuss.

Removed more trolling by Samir धर्म -- TM 09:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take prolonged looks at the media coverage to see that the above claims that most Western news sources and outlets have eagerly defended the Pope's right to speak as he did (Voltaire, ironically, is invoked) and pressed the "intransigency and bitterness" of the Muslims (who are always identified with the militant bomb-lunging crowd) is a good description. This Sunday, the 18th, BBC World, ran their weekly "The Foreign Correspondents" with four non-British journalists (one of them from Morocco, and a muslim). All but the Moroccan made it their point that the Pope wasn't the focus of the problem,and one of these, an Italian, Annalisa Piras of L'Express, claimed very strongly, and with more than a hint of disgust, that not only did the Pope have the right, he shouldn't even have his statements questioned and badgered in the media "because he is the Pope, he's not a political figure and he moves in a different and scholarly sphere; th media shouuldn't be at his tails at all" (this is of course a natural statement for many Roman catholics, but not a valid journalistic guideline).

It was obvious that none of them wanted to see the Western media engage in a discussion on any kind of equal terms with any Muslim community, and the fact that the BBC, professionals if any, chose this line-up. probably knowing roughly what profiles and persuasions they would get, goes a long way to show the dominance of these views. It's hard, however to source from this kind of program unless you record it at the time pf airing (I don't have a recording dvd or vhs) and in any case, as some people have pointed out here, if all generalizations you make without having seen them before count as Original Research, then you can't say much of anything at Wikipedia. No ordinary encyclopedias of any depth are just stitchings tigether of "established facts and truths", they all trade in some generalizing; if not some articles would turn unreadable. Of course nobody who jas a reputation to defend, working in the media is going to say outright "Muslims are scum unless, out of the blue, they suddenly found a newspaper that we British or French can fully approve of, which meets our standards" even if that's what is said and thought in private. Strausszek September 20, 2006 09:20 (CEST)

MP3 file with the whole lecture

I am not quite sure if we should add this mp3 file with the whole lecture of the pope. Anyway, I add the link here [8]. Gugganij 22:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not? He held the lecture at a German public university, so it's in the Public Domain, copyright-wise. I added it. On second thought,maybe sombody could convert this file to this "OggVorbis" format that MediaWiki requires and deposit it there? I'm to 'technically challenged' to do it myself... Azate 23:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Could Someone who is authorized to do so put a copy of Pope Benedict XVI's speech at Regensburg in the Also See category.(70.37.245.106 23:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

I've already speedy deleted it as copyvio; at any event, it's linked in the article. El_C 10:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Countries?

Is someone planning to add more reactions of Muslim countries or countries with Muslim communities?

Currently trying to look for:

Malaysia

Singapore

Philippines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.143.168 (talk • contribs) of 16.09.06

the philippines is not a Muslim Country. I would however look for the responses of Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia.(Lucas(CA) 05:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

The Philippines is not a Muslim country, but there are actually a significant (3-4 percent) Muslim minority there. And it is of course a very "active" minority: Abu Sayyaf, Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

There is plenty of reaction already listed. The article would become unfocussed if everybody who had expressed outrage was quoted. As it is the British reaction is listed twice - under both political and religious... aLii 08:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The Philippine's Muslim community is significant, but a minority IMO. 70.68.143.168 16:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Should I also add the statement of a Chinese Muslim man from the Islamic Association of China? Thanks. Ominae 09:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why no Atheist rage?

Original discussion is here. El_C 10:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• This section is wholly off-topic and a misuse of this article talk page. Please limit your opinions to respective user talk pages and elsewhere. El_C 10:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I sort of agree, but I want to say something above before that and I'll try to make it relevant.--T. Anthony 10:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not. This article talk page is designed to improve the entry. Please do not misuse it. El_C 10:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I thought the "please" meant it was a request not a demand. That one statement was it and I was done. When you're demanding, and not requesting, try to be clearer.--T. Anthony 11:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Inexplicably, I'm doing both. El_C 11:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism Category

While one could argue that the category could be included since it is clearly related to terrorism the term in question is highly controversial. Therefore, the category should be included when or if independent reliable sources refer to it as being terrorism or related to terrorism. To do otherwise would raise serious WP:NPOV issues. At to witnessing the results of these ironic attacks, that is a WP:OR related concern. JoshuaZ 06:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time of noticed we had a Category:Moral panics! El_C 07:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we add this link?

[9]--Greasysteve13 08:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not in isolation, but you can certainly summarize the World Jewish Congress' stance on the controversy and cite that as your source. El_C 08:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It was just in their news section [10]. I dunno if it much of stance.--Greasysteve13 09:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of it. Feel free to sumarize (& attribute) its conetns in the entry, if you like. El_C 10:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm busy--Greasysteve13 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you like." El_C 09:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the nun shot in Somalia

According to this source, it has not been confirmed yet whether this murder was related to pope Benedict's lecture. FilipeS 14:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WTF is wrong with Islam? It is time for a Crsuade. We shall convert the heathens or they shall all die. No one is going to miss Somalia. 70.112.181.8 15:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User 70.112.181.8, please refer to the top section of the discussion page and 'be as cool as a cucumber' during discussions. This is a place to discuss changes to the article. There are other forums for critique and analysis of current events.Prospero74 17:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I posted the article and it was quite relevant to this event a day after a death threat from a Somali warlord. A few hours later there was a senior Solami Islamist who spoke on condition of anonymity that 'There is a very high possibility the people who killed her were angered by the Catholic Pope's recent comments against Islam'.[11] Prospero74 17:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If worse comes to worse, the Pope can always use his force lightning. Liu Bei 19:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please. That comment of yours is not needed here. Ominae 15:11, 17 September 2006 UTC

Does anyone else think it is rather silly that people respond to allegations that they are violent with violence?

But remember, Islam is a religion of peace. And if you believe that, I have an invisible refrigerator to sell you.

Punishment for Apostasy

I removed two mentions of the punishment for apostasy – one in regards to Yemen and another in regards to Afghanistan. I don't think they're particularly relevant here because the controversy isn't about anyone converting out of Islam and no one is saying that the Pope is an issue because he's the head of the Roman Catholic Church. The issue is about the Pope's statement, which did not have anything to do with apostasy. What do others think? -- tariqabjotu 15:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Countries demanding an apology for the pope's statement, while ironically proving the truth of it by having the death-penalty for not being Muslim, is certaintly revelant. -- Kendrick7 15:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In otherwords, they should have kept their mouths shut, but didn't, so such statements of fact are fair game. -- Kendrick7 15:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a public voice uttering that counter-criticism, we may well include it. But right now it is OR. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not WP:OR, it's from the reference:

"The pope's suggestion that compulsion and violence are inherent features of Islam has outraged the Muslim world. In Afghanistan, where apostates are subject to execution, the parliament and the foreign ministry demanded an apology. In Yemen, where religious conversion is punishable by death, the president has threatened to sever diplomatic ties. In the West Bank, Palestinians attacked four churches with guns and firebombs. And a Somali cleric added his two cents: 'Whoever offends our Prophet Muhammad should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim.'"

Reporters are public voices. -- Kendrick7 15:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "otherwise it's OR". I was merely laying down the principle without looking at the actual text. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this will turn out to be very relevant as the controversy continues: As is clear from past remarks of the pope, this whole business is very much about the catholc church wanting access to the muslim world to convert people, like muslims are able to to in europe. Guardian article with the pope's track record regardind this issue. But I also think that a proper analysis of "what this all may be about" (for both sides) will have to wait a couple of weeks. Azate 16:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

News Section need to be edited

the main page news section should have the latest event, which is the apology from the pope

[12] Here's a story from reuters. dposse 17:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"a sufficient apology."

In the article, it says that the Muslim Brotherhood has accepted his apology. However, in this news story [13], it states:

“ EGYPT'S Muslim Brotherhood said Pope Benedict had not made a "clear apology" for remarks on Islam that have sparked anger across the Muslim world.

"It does not rise to the level of a clear apology and, based on this, we're calling on the Pope of the Vatican to issue a clear apology that will decisively end any confusion," Brotherhood deputy leader Mohammed Habib said.

Mr Habib had earlier described the Pope's remarks as a "sufficient apology".

The Pope said he was "deeply sorry" at the anger caused by his remarks on Islam in a speech last week and said a quote he used from a medieval text about holy wars did not reflect his personal thoughts.

The Pope had referred to criticism of the Prophet Mohammed by 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus.

The emperor said everything Mohammed brought was evil "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

”

What should we do with this infomation? Should we update the Brotherhoods reported response in the article? dposse 17:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It should certainly be updated. -- tariqabjotu 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

ok. i added a quote. dposse 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no apology. The best we can say is that someone accepted it as an apology. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was an apology from both the Pope and the vatican. dposse 22:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] I haven't seen anything that could objectively be called an apology. Nothing I've seen contains an admnission of any wrongdoing - not that I necessarily think there was any wrongdoing. However, I don't see how it can be called an "apology" without such an admission. As far as I know, and I'm open to correction, it did not purport to be an apology but merely a statement. Metamagician3000 12:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It was not an apology. "I am sorry for <something I did>" would be an apology, but "I am sorry for <something I didn't do>" (eg, "you aunt's death" or "the reactions in some countries") is not an apology, merely a statement that you feel sad over something. The rest of the statement makes it abundantly clear that the Pope considers the cause of those reactions to be a lack of understanding of the true meaning of his lecture; and while he makes every effort to clarify his intent and reassert his respect for Muslims, he does not admit that it was wrong to make that quote. To do otherwise, I surmise, would be to concede that it is fundamentally unacceptable to criticize Islam or to make rational discourse about it - and this would really contradict what the lecture was about, namely the harmony of faith and reason.

Therefore I do not think that there will ever be a full apology (and personally, I do not think that it would be desirable). 87.16.246.91 09:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

Perhaps much of the article (or at least the reactions section) should be re-ordered to be more chronological. I feel it is essential – given the Vatican's statements this past weekend – that readers know in what context certain statements were made. Right now, it's not perfectly clear. -- tariqabjotu 20:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That should be the plan; let's make it happen. El_C 09:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nun killed

It has been removed this sentence, because it is said the relation is not proven:

On September 17th, 2006 two Somali gunmen entered a children's hospital in Mogadishu and shot and killed a 75 years old Italian nun Leonella Sgorgati and a Somali bodyguard

Italian newspapers report that also the local Islamic courts says that there is very probably a relation between the murder and pope's speech. [14] --Acis 20:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was it removed? This is not NPOV. Your bias for the Islamofacists is disgusting. Even the "holy" Islamic courts of the Somalian hell hole say this was due to the Pope's remark. 128.62.102.33 21:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia standard is not "proof", but verifiability. Liu Bei 21:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC) -- nice, wholesome, american news site now gives the sentence its blessing: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/09/17/somalia.nun.reut/index.html Liu Bei 18:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A reliable source that says that it's connected would do just fine. Missionaries are shot all the time in Somalia. A source that says more than "there are rumours that it's connected" will be quite enough. Azate 21:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous contributor, with such opinions how can you trust local Islamic courts ? Maybe the nun was killed for money or because she was sexually appealing and those "Islamofacists" invented some fake religious motivation to the murder for propaganda purposes. Or maybe just an skilled attorney (if they are some in Somalia) that pledged for religious motivations ? Ericd 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear editor who remvoed the citation of the murder, please refer to my earlier note above (restated below as well) and restore the article reference to the nun and the Somali bodygaurd's murder. I believe the citation suffices Wikipedia criteria for a mention in the article....I posted the article and it was quite relevant to this event a day after a death threat from a Somali warlord. A few hours later there was a senior Solami Islamist who spoke on condition of anonymity that 'There is a very high possibility the people who killed her were angered by the Catholic Pope's recent comments against Islam'.[15]Prospero74 22:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

She's 70 years old!!! Are you sick? Wikipedia is not a refuge for deviants. Please seek help. What reason can you have for killing a 70 year old nun working at a children's hospital?

Well I didn't know how old she was... However it doesn't exclude any reason related to money ? And for sex appeal... Well those "Islamofacists" are so deviant :-) Ericd 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW I don't need any help.I didn't kill anybody nor have any sexual desire for old womens... And I don't think I suffer from some kind of islamophobia. Ericd 22:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you can include this but with a lot of care... According to Reuters "The source, however, offered no specific evidence to support that motive." Ericd 22:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ericd, Wikipedians treat FACT with care as I have done in reporting these matters. A reported factual event may be unsettling to a reader's sensibilities, but it is still a fact. I have included the disclaimer. There was a missionary murder three years ago that does sound remarkably similar, but the timing of this murder and the quote from the senior Somali Islamist quoted in Reuters bears note. Here's the link for the nun killed three years prior on the UNICEF website and details of her death from the Washington Post. [16] [17]

Prospero74 please don't mess my criticisism of the "neutral POV" of our anonymous contributor with an alleged relunctance to include this fact in the article. Ericd 23:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ericd, I was responding to your response to me to include the disclaimer you suggested. I was puzzled by your added commentary to 'include it with care'. It was a good suggestion to elaborate on the investigation which I did, but a fact is a fact so why would I need to be 'careful' with it? As Joe Friday said, 'just the facts mam'. And those on the board who I'm hoping are new like user 70.112.181.8 need to keep in mind that this is a place to discuss the article from a NPOV and not a platform to forum about the topic. Prospero74 00:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother, let the Islamists have their way. It's the only way to wake the public up to their insanity. 70.112.181.8 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You definetly need some help.... As I stated before I don't have any desire for old womens... But you know those twelwe years schoolgirls are so hot ! AAAAARRRRRRGHHHHHHH ! ;-) Ericd 23:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What was the answer of the Persian scholar ?

In Islamic faith , holy war (Jihad) is only in defensive manner . here is a Muslim view about this :

Holier than Me 

Byline By M.J. Akbar http://www.deccan.com/columnists/Columnists.asp

Some Muslims might hold that view, but history has been different. When was the first djihad as defensive war fought? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguably when Muhammad was alive IMHO.... Ericd 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Im confused, is the above quote targeted by vandalizm?--Xlegiofalco 01:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Jihad can be fought both as a defensive and an offensive war against the "infidels". Islam Q&A has a good article about the subject (offensive and defensive Jihad) that is available here: http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=34830&dgn=3 -Muhammadthepizzaman 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh! It's eerie that some big-money Islamic websites these days are absolutely indistinguishable from a vicious joke. Azate 22:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks ?

How can we know that they were quotation marks when the Pope says infidels ? Ericd 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's in the official Vatican written version of the lecture.

This is worth more than a footnote IMHO. Ericd 21:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. It seems that moslems don't know what a 'quote' means. If it comes out of your maouth, then you said it :-)160.84.253.241 07:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

... even when you are talking out of your a**! :-D MX44 09:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate citation - Yemen

There is an inaccuracy in one paragraph of the article - "Yemen has threatened to sever diplomatic ties with the Vatican, despite having a law imposing the death penalty on non-Muslim citizens". However, the article from which this is supposedly taken says "In Yemen, where religious conversion is punishable by death...". Please note that these statements are different - death penalty, according to the source, may only be imposed on the religious converts, not on all non-Muslims. Stretching the sourced material like that is quite a biased approach I must say, although definitely I don't support such radical laws. In addition, I really doubt the original source correctly described the death-penaty law itself. Anyway, the source must be double-checked and the wiki article should be edited.

Moreover, I must add that this is not relevant. The controversy is supposedly between the Pope and Muslim people as a whole. Yemeni state & government do not represent all the Muslims, while Pope does represent all the Catholic (at least from the Church's point of view). There are many Muslim countries that do not put any differences between their citizens based on their religion.

Well IMHO there's still a similar law in Afghanistan. And to be exact, I think religious conversions from Islam to another religion are punishable by death. Of course in works better in the other way... Ericd 21:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Pope does represent all the Catholics". NO !!! He probably doesn't represent my views but I think I'm not a catholic anymore. But from from the Catholic Church's point of view I am still a Catholic as I was not sentenced of excommunication. As long as the Pope expresses his view on a subject that isn't dogma (and it wasn't) he speak as man that express his POV. Ericd 22:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Irony

Has anyone reported on the irony of the response of some Muslims, to the Pope’s offensive words criticizing the alleged doctrine to spread the faith "by the sword": by shootings and bombings? 75.7.0.102 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

They may have, but it would be instantly reverted. Wikipedia treads very lightly around muslims, even when the criticism is true, because the possible backlash (read: things blowing up) is quite out of their league. Liu Bei 02:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia treads very lightly around muslims, even when the criticism is true, because the possible backlash" is another way of saying you're cowards.

If that's true, then Wikipedia is just another media outlet as corrupt as all the other media companies in the world.. cough CBS... CNN... --Nissi Kim 03:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If (as in I suspect will occur in a day or two) enough commentators in notable sources such as various major newspapers and such the ironic element then we will inculde it. This article is having enough problems without WP:OR issues coming into play. (slightly off topic but note that Wiki was willing to include the Denmark cartoons so no Wiki is not really that intimidated). JoshuaZ 03:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be original research, at least at this time. Baccyak4H 03:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, this is clear POV on your part. I guess at least 99% of Muslims around the world are against any violence whatsoever, in particular in response to the Pope's speech. Yet there are some people, like you, you take those few radical, extremist people calling themselves Muslims (who just happen to enjoy violence and bombings but find Islam as a very comfortable pretext for doing it) and try to make a showcase out of them as a stereotype of all Muslims and, above all, of the Islamic faith. This happens so often in the Western world, and the westerners do not understand why some Muslims are so outraged because of this. Maybe there are no Christian or Jewish radicals around, White supremacists, racist Christian priests? Of course there are, but no one is trying to blame the Christian faith for their actions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.229.102 (talk • contribs)

Actually, lots of people are blaiming the Christian faith for their actions. Just as lots of people are blaiming the Muslim faith for their actions.--Greasysteve13 13:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The irony of the violent reaction in the muslim world should've been reported in mainstream media long time ago. I don't know if they are afraid to say it to incite more violence or what. I do agree that it shouldn't be dealt with in this article until it is said in the mainstream media first.

When Christians or Jews are criticised openly by muslims like they are now, they don't go on the street burning effigies and bombing mosques. If only a few muslim radicals resort to violence, why aren't the goverments condemning them? --Kvasir 18:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

When are christian or jews criticised openly by Muslims? or is it original research? --BretH 01:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to see MY reserch, just turn on the television. Protest slogans against the West, Christians, jews are out there on the streets, and it has been even before this controversy errupted. --Kvasir 01:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting much more off-topic (incidentally an example would be the lack of rioting of Jews in response to the holocaust cartoons as opposed to rioting by muslims after the muhemmad cartoons). Since this is now very off topic I suggest we drop this discussion until we have WP:RS sources or notable critics who are making the point about irony. JoshuaZ 01:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"When are christian or jews criticised openly by Muslims?" - You've got to be joking, right?

Forced conversions in intro?

I removed the small paragraph about forced conversions and the FOX reporters example from the introduction. While this material may indeed find a good home elsewhere here, this is clearly too specific and narrow for the intro. This seems obvious to me, but I posted here in Talk so that if I am missing a good reason to keep it here, someone can explain. I also am not a fan of altering the introduction of a well worked article but I saw it a great improvement in this case. Baccyak4H 03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The relevance of the forced conversions is relevant today. It is not about a 615 year old controversy. Claiming forced conversions do not exist today, or that we should ignore them by deleting any mention of them, seems in violation of achieving NPOV. Yaf 03:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant today. But that is not the issue I raised (rather, is it best placed in the intro?). Neither was there was a claim they don't occur, nor suggestion that there can absolutely be no better place in the article for the info. So there is no NPOV issues demonstrated at all, as all your premises are false.

Thus, I am wholly unconvinced. However, please feel free to put it somewhere else in the article. Baccyak4H 03:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. (As I noted in the original insertion, it probably would end up needing to be moved elsewhere.) Have made a new section for this information and re-inserted, with citation. Yaf 03:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems like as good a place as any. The placement at top was indeed my gripe. I do worry somewhat about your new section being added to and growing unwieldy, but time will tell; looks reasonable for now. Baccyak4H 04:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's too narrow, one out to mention the jizya tax and the pre-muslim discrimination inherent in halal food production. JeffBurdges 06:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This section was unrelated to the topic, which is the Controversy, specifically, so I removed it. El_C 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Restored the part related to forced conversions, but not the jizya tax and halal discussions. Forced conversions are precisely on topic, being included in the 1391 quote at the core of the controversy. The other two do not seem relevant at all. Yaf 11:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Modern forced conversions are not relevant to the article. They are not widespread and the Pope did not suggest that they were; in fact, it doesn't look to me as if he wanted to make any point about modern Islam, but was just using ancient Islam as a rather unwisely-chosen example. – Smyth\^talk 20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted editorial

I've just deleted the following editorial from the intro. I normally wouldn't bother posting such a deleteion here, but its actually a pretty accurate summery of the feelings of quite a lot of westerners. So maybe it'll give people helpful ideas. JeffBurdges 06:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote from the iraqi spokesman has been maliciously altered

from the wikipedia article- "Iraq-Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said that like the rest of the sane world, we stand by his comments, but by fear we condone them."The Pope's remarks reflect his understanding of the principles of Islam and its teachings that call for heartless, compassionless and merciless," but also called on Iraqis not to harm "our Christian brothers."[7]"

If you actually read the source, the quote is ""The Pope's remarks reflect his misunderstanding of the principles of Islam and its teachings that call for forgiveness, compassion and mercy," he added." No mention of condoning the speech out of fear..

I'm going to just go crazy and out on a limb here but I'm pretty sure this isn't an unintentional typo.

"you dog of rome" letter to pope

as per http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/15542306.htm and many other sources, shouln't this be a part of the article discussion about reactions and counter-reactions?

Wikicide 07:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Time for an analysis?

Maybe now is the time to collect good sources that make good points about what it's all about. Reading the press, I found the following trains of thought: (please add more sources and arguments): Azate 13:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• remark unintentional, because pope behaved like the scholar he used to be, and is inexperienced.[18][19]
• remark secondary, pope's real focus was to counter the shrinking influence of the church in Europe, by arguing secularists are useless for dialogue wis islam, only the church can do it.[20][21]
• remark intentional, pope wants more 'reciprocity', that is, he wants the muslim work opened up for christian missionaries (like Europe is open muslim ones). Conversion out of islam mustn't be a legal or societal impossibility.[22][23]
• pope wants to ignite a discussion about islam's violent history . wants to challenge the islamic authorities out of denial (beautifully showcased eg. here [24]) and into real discussion and an apology (as the church did with the crusades)[25][26][27][28][29]
• pope wants to take on Islam/Islamism (especially in Europe) in the same way the JP2 took on Communism[30]
• pope is a tool of imperialist/zionist interests in the middle east (new crusade etc)
• pope + the west are incurably islamophobic and violent and have always been, while islam is peaceful and has always been [31][32].
• The Media, or the BBC, NY Times and Guardian orchestrated this crisis, because they hate the pope [33][34], same as [35]

--

Is the press any good source for analysis? I find it is mostly sensationalism and soundbits out of context. Which of course opens up for the question: Where is a good analysis and did anything happen worthy an analysis except for some details lost in translation, amplified out over the world beyond recognition. We could also ask: Who cryed wolf, and why would they want to do that? MX44 14:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The press is all we've got at the moment. Our job should be to isolate the few expamples of coherence from the flood of soundbites. I've linked to one such useful analysis[36]. There's certainly more. Azate 14:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, then I'd like to add this opinion:

• Turning faith in god into theocratic totalitarian power. [37]

Actually, Allam does not give any interpretation of the Pope's lecture. His point is to criticize the violent reactions of many in the islamic world; regarding the quote, he merely says that it was legitimate and that it is in fact historically accurate to say that Islam was spread by the sword. 87.16.246.91 09:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Allam gives an interpretation of the controversy as being (more/less) unrelated to what the pope said or did not say. This is different from the list Azate is compiling, but I believe it is as important, or perhaps even more. MX44 12:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Allam's position is relevant to the article. I created the section "Where to put reactions from Muslims who are not religious or political leaders?" at the bottom of this page to discuss how to include it, and other reactions from prominent Muslim authors. 87.16.246.91 14:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I found the press pretty poor - everything skimmed, without addressing the central point about the necessity of involving faith with reason. The best analysis I read was Karen Armstrong in today's Guardian - but then she's always critical of the Vatican (Hans Kung weighed in as well!) and gave an apology for Islam's attitude to violence in the name of the faith - apparently, all those jihadists are deviants reacting to political circumstances created by the West and there's nothing to worry about, if only the pope would stop stirring things up and be diplomatic. Apart from all the press flim-flam, I got to this article and was happy to find a solid description of what had happened and links to the lecture itself. There was even a link in the talk pages to a lecture in a similar vein by Khatami in America the previous week, in which he criticised over-reliance on rationality, but without addressing Islam's stance on violence as unreason.--Shtove 17:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Similar? That would be a completely opposite vein, actually. The pope's lecture was all about the importance of reason, which is intrinsic to the Christian faith, that mantains that God revealed Himself as λόγος. The pope criticized both the dehellenization of Christianity and the restriction of the horizon of reason in the secular world. 87.16.246.91 10:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I hadn't read anything of Benedict's before, and was very impressed. In a similar in vein? So that you can compare AND contrast.--Shtove 22:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we bold parts of Key paragraphs?

I noticed when I first read that article, that the key line of the Pope's speech causing controversy isn't bolded in the key paragraphs section, which was annoying for me when I quickly would like to find the context of how the pope said those infamous lines. So I went and made the key sentence in their bold to make it easy for people to identify. However, it was just removed... so that's why I'm asking this because I'm not sure what the reasoning for that is. I truly believe making the important sentence in the key paragraph more visible makes it easier for a user who quickly wants to discover the context of how the pope said his comments. Does anyone disagree with this?

We can' simply put bold stuff into quotations. That's basic citation etiquette. Only if there is bold text in the original, can/should there be bold text in the quote. Azate 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Example of moderate Muslim reaction

Move on, leader tells Muslims

I haven't noticed many moderate reactions from Muslim leaders until the article which I have hopefully linked appeared on news.com.au just now. From the article, Dr Ameer Ali, the head of the Australian Government's Muslim advisory council, said today the Pope's remarks had created a reaction as medieval as the quote. "They have to move on," he said. See the article for the rest of his quote. If the regulars here think that this is appropriate, could someone please put it into the article? I have to log off in a minute and won't be back today, and I don't want to mess it up in my haste. I think it would be good to show that not all Muslim's reactions are in the same vein. Thanks. Now, where is that tilde key ...... found it! Iramoo Bearbrass 03:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Initial reactions

Perhaps it is time for the initial reactions section to get its own article? User:Anonymous

Where to put reactions from Muslims who are not religious or political leaders?

Another anonymous linked a column by Egyptian-Italian journalist Magdi Allam [38] here in the talk page. It would be interesting to quote it in the main page, as an example of a Muslim who rebukes violent reactions and supports the Pope's right to use that quote as based on "historical truth". But since he is neither a political nor a religious leader, I don't know where to list his position in the current structure of the page. 87.16.246.91 10:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Best-Selling Muslim author Irshad Manji gave a commentary[39] on the CBS Evening News supporting the Pope's lecture as a call for dialogue and deploring the violent reaction and hypocrisy of protesting Muslims.--Antelucan 12:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody have an idea of where they could be quoted? Please advance suggestions; I think that reactions by prominent Muslims should find a place on this page, especially when they help represent a broader range of opinions. 82.55.199.200 13:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Key missing fact

One thing that seems to be missing from the article is information I cannot contribute, because I don't have it. Namely, what precisely did the Pope say that was offensive? In order to be complete, the first paragraph of the article needs to explain this in 10 to 15 words, otherwise what follows is just mish-mash. We know that the Pope did not say that Islam is inherently violent. We also know that violent people have taken that the position that the Pope should not be allowed to say that. But we do not know what the Pope actually said that was offensive.

Moped233 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The article does do just what you ask, I am not sure it could do much better!

The second paragraph quotes probably the most controversial sentence of his lecture. At the fourth paragraph (first highlighted section), the article starts an overview of the lecture, then quotes three relevant paragraphs of it. Baccyak4H 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The parts of the article to which you refer do not help me at all to understand what was offensive about the Pope's remarks. And the reference to an "overview" and "three relevant paragraphs" fails to provide a concise explanation in 10 or 15 words. If the entirety of the Pope's speech was offensive, then presumably it was for some reason that can be concisely explained. For example: "The Pope gave a pedantic speech that could only be of interest to professional theologians"; or "The Pope said Islam has been criticized for encouraging violence in the name of religion"; or "The Pope called for dialog on how jihad can be reconciled with universal religious concepts." A distillation down to a single statement is necessary in order to understand what is being objected to.

Moped233 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you did ask for what he said that was offensive. As to why, that would be in the ear of the listener. That would be hard to put in 15 words, as there are likely far more than 15 ways offense has been taken. So I am not sure that's plausible.

I do think it is pretty easy to imagine how a Muslim, if hearing that someone quoted the Manuel quote, and not having any other context or information about what else was said, at what place/event, etc., could be quite upset. That comes across to me quite easily in just reading the 3 paragraph intro. But if it doesn't for you, be bold! You already listed some good draft sentences, although you should probably give a citation to someone who said in so many words "This was offensive because...", so as not to be original research. There may be some examples of this later in the article. Baccyak4H 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot provide the necessary edit without doing original research (or feeding the fire). I suspect that the reasons for the controversy potentially include (i) objections to the use of syllogistic reasoning in discussions dealing with religious subjects, (ii) objections to any discussion including any degree of even hypothetical skepticism directed to a core religious subject, and (iii) objections to discussions of core religious subjects with those who are not coreligionists.

Moped233 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What was offensive to Muslims about the Pope's remarks was that they and other critics see his qoutation of something disparaging as a backhand way of saying that very disparaging thing himself. We know that was not his intention (as the article states as do the external linkls), but nevertheless this is what is perceived. Let us use an anology: the critics say his actions are tantamount to qouting any incendiary/inflammatory/dipragaing historical document and then saying "I didn't say it....those were someone else's words." That is the source of the controversy; whether that view is right, wrong or irlelevant is a long debate (and I think we all know he meant nothing but good to come of it). I think we should all actually read the entire speech to get a context of what the Pontiff was attempting to say; I think we'll all then realise he was, as always, arguing for peace and love. The article is written well enough now to illuminate all of this, I believe. The opening line: "The lecture has been subject to much condemnation, criticism and support by political and religious authorities, particularly Benedict's usage of the quotation:..." is perfeclty clear. DocEss 19:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This does not providing the missing information. You say, "What was offensive to Muslims about the Pope's remarks was that they and other critics see his quotation of something disparaging as a backhand way of saying that very disparaging thing himself." You do not, however, identify "that very disparaging thing" which was said. Several possible candidates for "that very disparaging thing" come to mind. Each candidate, however, is readily eliminated because juxtaposing the candidate perception with the actual response to the Pope by the "Islamic Street" results in a reductio ad absurdum, thus:

(1) What the Islamic Street might have thought the Pope said: "I have a pedantic speech that can be of interest only to professional theologians."

Response by the Islamic Street: "We want to kill you for saying that."

(2) What the Islamic Street might have thought the Pope said: "I call for a learned dialog on how the Islamic concept of jihad can be reconciled with universal religious concepts."

Response by the Islamic Street: "We want to kill you for saying that."

(3) What the Islamic Street might have thought the Pope said: "Islam has historically been criticized for encouraging violence in the name of religion."

Response by the Islamic Street: "We want to kill you for saying that."

(4) What the Islamic Street might have thought the Pope said: "Islam is inherently violent."

Response by the Islamic Street: "We want to kill you for saying that."

Based on this reductio, all of these examples are invalid as candidates for how the the Pope's message could have led to the response in the Islamic Street, with one nuance. My reasoning would be incorrect if the objection to the Pope's perceived message was prompted, not because of a view that the perceived message was incorrect, but instead because of a view that the perceived message is something that the Pope is not permitted to say, even if it is true. Especially with regard to example number 4, above, the objection "you're not allowed to say it" is very different from the objection "what you're saying is incorrect."

Moped233 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that if you have yet to see how offense could be taken, you probably never will. That's not a bad thing, except that you will not likely be ever satisfied with how the article is written.

For example, I can easily see how your hypotheses 2 through 4 could possibly yield your Response. I am not saying I would (on the contrary), but rather how some might. You may be forgetting that some on what you call the Islamic Street might have some preconceived notions, rightly or wrongly, that the Pope, Christianity, "old" Europe, etc., are all out to get Islam (whatever that means), among others, which you might not have. And leaders in countries with large Muslim populations might believe they have to avoid appearing soft on the issue. So some might find offense in any remotely tenuous leap of logic from the Pope's words. For example, if the perception is "I call for a learned dialog on how the Islamic concept of jihad can be reconciled with universal religious concepts", an elaborated response might be "But jihad is a universal religious concept. You are trying to diss Islam! Death!" Of course jihad isn't but if someone honestly believes it is, and has certain other pieces of cultural/intellectual baggage, it is at least plausible that someone could honestly reason that way. Like I said earlier, it depends on the ear of the listener, or more accurately, the brain of the listener.

If this doesn't clear things up for you, I doubt I ever can. But in that or any case, feel free to find sources making explicit what the offense was and why, and include it. Just be aware that to many reading the article now, it is already quite clear. Baccyak4H 01:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You say, "I can easily see how your hypotheses 2 through 4 could possibly yield your Response. I am not saying I would (on the contrary), but rather how some might."

Perhaps I have misunderstood the controversy. I thought that the point of the protests what that the Pope's statements, as the protesters understood them, were wrong. If, as you suggest, examples 2 through 4 may actually reflect what the protesters thought the Pope said, then the violence of the response would only have proven the objected-to statements to be true. In such an event, the message of the protesters would have been to declare themselves to be a potentially serious threat to any who do not share their religious beliefs, unless those non-coreligionists give the protesters a veto over their statements. Because I find this to be illogical, I find myself mystified by the protests and unable to fathom what the protesters might have thought the Pope was saying. Thus, returning to the original point, the absence of a succinct statement of what precisely the Pope said (or was believed to have said) that led to violence and threats of violence in response.

Moped233 17:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Turkey citizens ask for arrest info.

I added infomation on a news story from CNN that says that some people in Turkey are asking for the Popes arrest when he arrives at the country. [40] It's under the "threats" section. dposse 18:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

word change in top summary

I am making a small word change to the second paragraph of the summary at the top:

The lecture has been subject to much condemnation, criticism and support by political and religious authorities, particularly Benedict's usage of the quotation [Manuel's quote]

I am changing "support" to "defense", as without the criticism in the first place, no one would speak out in "support" of the lecture. But since this is in response to criticism, I think "defense" is a better word.

Normally I would just make a change of this magnitude. However, as this is in the summary at the top of the page which gives the reader an impression of the whole article, and which has been crafted carefully, I wanted to give a heads up and opportunity to object to the change. Baccyak4H 19:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a remarkably well reasoned, logical and cogent observation. DocEss 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Upon seeing the change, I also added "subsequent" before "defense". That sentence reads very well (IMO). Baccyak4H 19:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

aside discussion moved to DocEss page

External Link - Useful at all?

Is this link useful to expanding our understanding of the Article here, whose purpose is only to illuminate the controversy by describing it in factual terms? This link doesn't add much; indeed, it seems to be only a critical essay about the entire lecture, most of which has nuttin to do with the controversy itself. I think it should be deleted because it does not add our understanding of the topic. Moreover, it's whacky and a tright freaked out, franlky. This link: http://www.ellopos.net/politics/benedict-science.html DocEss 19:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I already did; much of the commentary was not even about the lecture itself but Benedict's purported intellectual and psychological failings. Baccyak4H 19:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. [I am willing to bet it gets re-inserted by an anoymous user.] I don't particularly care what it says, but I do care that it is ancillary commentray to the Topic (and is therefore inappropriate as a source). More importantly, the entire lecture is available in the other links, especially the Vatican's site.DocEss 19:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Vatican's own inadequate translation made English quote harsher than the true quotation

The Vatican's own, and "official" translation into English, contains an obvious error on a crucial point. "...things only evil and inhuman...". But what the Pope said, and which is found in the German text and verifiable on the audio from the lecture, was "... things only bad and inhuman ... ". The word used was "schlechtes" (bad), whereas the English word "evil" would have corresponded to "böses", a word the Pope did not use.

One wonders if the Vatican's own sloppy translation job contributed a notch to the strength of the adverse reactions. "Bad" is bad, but "evil" is worse... CTande 67.87.122.178 21:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm...is bad not evil?...is evil not bad? From a theological point of view both words are interchangeable enough. What is the point of making an issue with this, even though in some technical way it's midly interesting? The distinction you're attempting to make amounts to nit-picking. Anyway, in the end, there is nothing harsh at all about his statements. The reaction to his statements is the thing that needs work....DocEss 21:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not really attempting to make a distinction, merely to rectify a mistranslation. But if I were to follow an invitation to nitpick, I would say - to illustrate the point - that the Vatican translator made a bad error, but not an evil error. 67.87.122.178 21:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Interchangeable enough"? Humbug! "Bad" and "evil" make quite a difference, e.g. a "bad teacher" may have good intentions, or suffer from external circumstances, such as the curriculum or even a voice that is hard to hear. He can and should improve. An "evil teacher" should be fired. The theological difference is much more sophisticated, I'm sure. Azate 23:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You quibble over trivialities. Bad and evil in the context of the Pope's theological speech are interchangeable. Just look at the sentence. It's not likle "hey - bad putt" - it's bad as in ungood asin opposite of Goodness as in evil. Whatever. Moreover, the original text of the quote was not in English, American or German. It was in Latin. Do you know what word was used? Irelevant. MOVE ON!DocEss 23:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote was from Khoury's book, which is in German. I don't own it. Obviously you do and know that the quote is in Latin, yes? Or are you guessing? And why the shouting? Azate 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can't do much about the actual Vatican translation, now can we? Also notworthy is that the translation has been done into myriad other languages and we can't know which ones translate as bad, evil or whatever. Maybe when German is translated into Arabaic it comes out sounding threatening, Ja? My point is that we must recognise that mistranslation, eben if it exists, cannot certainly be the cause of so much silly disharmony. DocEss 22:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when evil is translated into Arabic it (obviously) comes out harsher than when bad is. But whether the mistranslation added fuel to the unreasonable reactions is not the primary point here. Rather that Wikipedia does not need to kowtow to an obviously erroneous Vatican translation, whether it be official or not. 67.87.122.178 22:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice catch! Sometimes the devil is in the detials. However, please leave the "evil" in the quoted passages in the article, and don't change that to "bad". A quote has to reproduce the (English) official Vatican text. It cannot be our job to correct translation sloppyness of the Vatican's press office. It's fine to elaborate on the dicrepancy in the "translation differences" section, of course, as sombode already did. Azate 22:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting about the Arabic. The point of this Topic is to DESCRIBE the controversy; detailed text in the Article regarding translation anomolies can harldy add much to our understanding of the Topic (unless, of course, mistranslation were the source of any controversy, and it is not). I think this translation anomoly section is nothing but a minor point at best, and at worst is disengenous in that it suggests (erroneously) that mistraslation IS the controversy. As I wrote above, the controversy is that Muslims were offended by the Pope's remarks because they and other critics see his qoutation of something disparaging as a backhand way of saying that very disparaging thing himself. Therein lies the controversy, not within any mistranslation errors or some such trivia. Ok?DocEss 22:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The pope says something and "Muslims were offended"? That's certainly not how it works. There must have been a transmission chain between the two. Somebody, somewhere must have come accross the lecture (which was not exactly headline news in itself) and turned it into a protest by handing it upward to the OIC and all these religious and political leaders. Translation may or may not have been a factor. We just don't know this, or how the word spread because the press isn't as inquisitive as it should be. Even if this turned out to have been a "minor point", we are under no obligation to dismiss it, and report on so-called "major points" only. Unlike the newspapers, we are not under space and time constraints here. Azate 22:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Again: the point of this Topic is to DESCRIBE the controversy. Please analyse content within the article to see if it furthers that objective. I have obviously suggested that translation anomolies, while interetsing, do not constitute the controversy, the controversy being the point of the article. Take a step back and think about that approach, K?DocEss 22:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

(<- break) Since the vatican and the pope himself have repeatedly said that they have been "misunderstood" or "misinterpreted", pointing out translation differences (wihout OR speculation added, of course)is part of describing the controversy, just like pointing out that the lecture is mostly about theological details of reason and faith is. Btw. the translation errors have been caught elsewhere, too: This is one place that I could find quickly, uising google:[41] Azate 23:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point and sidetracking you thought process, I respectfully suggest. The controversy was not caused by any mistranslations and we all know that to be the case. It was caused by his use of an ancient quote and that use caused offence. And to be clear, the Vatican did never say that the Pope was wrong nor did the Pope apologise for using that qoute. Three things: they said he was misunderstood (and boy, was he!), he said he was sorry the Muslims got all offended (and we can say we are not surprised that they were or that he'd feel bad about it all) and they corrected some small translation errors (which are trivial, to be sure). So that is all. [P.S. When referring to the Pontiff, the respectful thing to do in formal writing is use upper case, as in Pope Benedict and Vatican.] DocEss 23:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be more sure than warranted. Nobody knows what caused the controversy. Like all of us, you are only guessing. I always takes two for a controversy. Somebody must have read the lecture in any language and called "foul". Maybe it was the content, context or the undercurrent of the lecture he didn't like, maybe it was only the quote. We don't know that. And if it was the quote, and if it was English, we don't know if 'bad' instead of 'evil' would have made a difference in his verdict. Again: I dot'n say this was necessarily the case. I'm only saying that I don't know and that nobody else does either (except they have privileged inside information). And as long as we don't know, pointig out the translation differences and the fact that the official translation has been subsequently altered by the Vatican itself, is not only possible but necessary. Azate 23:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It does seem to make a difference in meaning, though it would be original research for us to say so in the article. However, if someone else makes the point, e.g. in an OpEd piece somewhere, we can report it. I don't see the problem with it being raised here on the talk page, as long as it's just a heads-up - i.e. "Here's a point to look out for in whatever sources you're using." Metamagician3000 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out translation differences isn't original research. Wikipedia:No original research allows "descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" even in the absence of a reliable source. As long as we don't say "this was a factor", or something like that (and we don't), inclusion is safe. Azate 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In regards to 'why' the controversy, I find this article BBC, et al stage managed controversy particularly relevant- but am not sure if this is something that merits inclusion, or if it can be considered a 'credible' source?--Dwon038 05:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting theory. Apparently, the freerepublic ripped that text from some obscure anti-abortion site which would indeed not count as a credible source. Fortunately, that site merely rewrote an article [42] from the Ottawa Citizen, which is in all likelihood permissible as a source. I added that analysis/opinion to the others below the "time for an analysis" header above. Azate 07:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Any supposed mistranslation certainly was not the cause for controversy. Whether "bad" or "evil" doesn't really make a difference, especially when followed hy "inhuman". It was the entire Manuel quote ripped out of its context that gave offense. The offense is understandable, but its aiming at the Pope, who did not endorse this quote, is mistaken. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Str1977. I sugest Azure has wedded himself so tightly to his theory that he won't let go despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Regarding the Article, in a more simple sense the controversy was caused by the Pope's stating something (heck, anything) negative about Islam. He could have been mistranslated all over the place and it probably would not have mattered; what mattered was that the words used were ones that criticised Islam, and apparently no one is allowed to ever do such a ghastly thing because it so easily causes offence. Notwithstanding that, mistranslation is two things here: 1) it is not original research to point it out, I believe; 2) it is but a minor curiosity to the Topic. DocEss 18:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I still wonder how everybody can be so "certain" what was a factor and what not, when in fact they know zilch, and only promote their pet guess as fact. I'm not at all "wedded" to any therory. I'm just collecting different interpretations. Azate 21:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to wonder. Most people are relying on anecdotal evidence, cicumstantial evidence and plain 'ol common sense. MISTRANSLATIONS WERE NOT THE CAUSE OF THE CONTROVERSY. I don't know how to make the font bigger and brighter here, or I would. Please let it go.DocEss 17:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

EXTREMELY odd ...

Note the date: 1 day after the papal speech: [43]. This is truly the stuff for a wholesome conspiracy theory. Azate 08:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How can a set of disconnected events amount to a theory of anything? Would your talents not be better employed by writing science fiction like the X-Files than writing descriptive encycopoedic articles? Seriously, you have a stellar imagination, reasonble writing skills and free time. Write a novel.DocEss 19:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)P.S. I'd love to read a novel (more likely watch the consequent DVD) about a global conspiracy by rogue elements to enigineer a theolgical war in some not-too-distant future. Include the Free Masons and the Knights Templar. Include Bush. Include that Iranian guy whose name no-one can pronounce. Include Bin Laden. Heck! Include Scully and Mulder. It would sure beat that DiVinci Code silliness.

Watch your tongue, Doc. Some people have time, because they are retired, you know, and still enjoy doing the things they did before. Like me for example. This link was for entertainment (I though that was obvious). I said it would make make a nice consparacy theory, beacause of remarkable coincidences with the pope affair on hand. Nothing else. Azate 21:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Retired? Goodness - go write a novel! That is something I've alwasy wanted to do in retirement. I was serious that you're perfect for writing novels. I, of course, meant no offense - I'm just trying to keep this material on point. You must then admit that your link does nothing to meet our encyclopoedic objectives here, agreed?DocEss 17:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote originated ..

Regarding,Pope's speech;

1-" Thequote originated from a 1391 “Dialogue Held With A Certain Persian, the Worthy Mouterizes, in Anakara of Galatia”and the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, touching on such issues as forced conversion, holy war, and the relationship between faith and reason." Suspiciable!. All of the Galatia(including Anakara/Ankara) was invaded by Ottomans at 1354. This area was Ottoman land at that time and "Manuel II Paleologus" was an enemy for Ottomans at that time.

So,something is wrong(with date, with place or with all..)

2- Lets assume that there was a conversation between "Manuel II Paleologus" and an undefined Persian(where is the reply of that Persian -which was possibly Muslim)

3- Lets assume that there was a conversation between "Manuel II Paleologus" and an undefined Persian; please make an attention to the words "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Manuel II Paleologus reject to held and use sword to anybody which believe to other religion.

In 1391-1394, Manuel II Paleologus went to Venice to organize an army against Ottomans.In other words he held a sword against Ottomans.

Is this a conflict or not.

Mustafa Akalp 09:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivially not a conflict since he is defending Byzans against intruders. Are you drunk, or are you just trying to be funny? MX44 10:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mustafa: Two wrongs don't make a right. History is full of idiots using religion to further political causes. [MX44 He probably is not drunk --- at least on alcohol.] DocEss 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Only that there are no two wrongs here. Manuel trying to get military support in order to defened his realm against an enemy attacking him from two sides cannot seriously considered a wrong.

And Mustafa, Manuel did not reject to use the sword against anybody of a different religion. He would be quite stupid to do that. He rejected the usage of the sword in order to convert others to one's respective religion.

Mustafa, if you are wondering what Manuel was doing in Galatia, read the WP article on him. He was a diplomatic hostage of the Ottomans. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this conversation is ancillary to the Topic here, which is to DESCRIBE the controversy caused by the Pope's words. I think we should create a page where zealoted-religiousness can be debated in all of its ugly glory.DocEss 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Muslims have taken offense

Let's separate what we know from what we don't know:

• We know exactly what passage in the pope's speech which Muslims are protesting:
  • The quotation, "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"
• We know that Muslim political and religious leaders have demanded an apology.
• We do know not know what grounds the offended ones give for taking offense.
  • Presumably, the quoted passage is disparaging of Islam and/or its prophet. Also presumably, that's enough.

I think (though this is OR and therefore can't be added to the article) that Muslims regard any criticism or opposition to Islam, its scriptures or its prophet as an affront. And the more powerful the affront, the more vigorous (and violent) the response.

This contrasts with (modern) Christianity, which takes criticism in stride. It's either unfounded, in which case the criticism can be largely ignored (or mildly rebutted). Or it's valid, in which case it is accepted and embraced as constructive criticism.

Islam responds to opposition with violence; Christianity responds with reason. --Uncle Ed 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• We need a quote from a Muslim denying that Muhammad gave a "command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The article currently ends with a demand from a Muslim that the pope take back what he said, i.e., that he "declares publicly that what the Byzantine emperor had said was wrong". Presumably, the part that is 'wrong' is the "command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
• Can we identify any Muslim source which denies that Muhammad advocated the use of force ("the sword") to spread Islam ("the faith he preached")? --Uncle Ed 14:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhmm ... You mean an official source of denial? I think not. But it is certainly a common belief amongst Muslims as recently examplified over at imdb.com in the forum regarding Sleeper Cell:

Q:5. What do you think of the term, 'Islam is a peace-loving religion'?

A:5. Most people would probably laugh when they heard this, but it's actually true. But sadly, because the only Muslims people see on tv happen to be terrorists, it's a term non-Muslims would completely disagree with. And, contrary to popular belief, Islam WASN'T 'spread by the sword'. There were never battles to try and convert people to Islam. The early Muslims fought battles to defend themselves against tribes who were out to destroy them.

MX44 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems Manuel II's comment refers to the innovation of jihad by the sword - it bears no criticism of the prophet's carrying on of the biblical tradition. It is pointless to state that muslims wish to raise their families in peace - of course they do - and then fail to address this innovation. We have seen a recent example of it at work, when Usama bin Laden called the infidel to embrace the faith: in doing that he was widely deemed to have complied with islamic teaching and to have satisfied a condition precedent for such jihad. Isn't this the context in which the pope's observations ought to be discussed?--Shtove 15:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

MX44: Your statements betray a lack of full knowledge of history, especially when you state drivel like "And, contrary to popular belief, Islam WASN'T 'spread by the sword'." Moreover, your whole editorised diatribe here does not have much to do with the point of the Article, which is to DESCRIBE the controversy. While it is certainly a tantalizingly interesting debate you're trying to start, this is the wrong forum for your voice, however passionate. Why don't you start a discussion on a different page (like youtr own page) if your'e so inclined to investigate Islam/Christian./Jewish differences in history? I hope you have a lot of free time. DocEss 18:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

MX44 is quoting somebody here. No need for you to shout. I hope you see the irony of what you just did. Azate 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I was only trying to examplify "the voice of the street" in context of denial of "jihad by the sword", this one being a very mild and gentle one. There are others, but so agitated and outraged that they do not make any sense (to me.) Putting the quote in italics might help get the message across? MX44 08:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Admitedly, that irony was delicious indeed. Well...whoever believes drivel like "And, contrary to popular belief, Islam WASN'T 'spread by the sword'" is certainly ignorant. Nevertheless, I suggest this is the wrong forum for the discussion.DocEss 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

DocEss, you still do not get it!? I am not initiating a discussion about religion here, only exposing what is actually said "in the street." At this point we are trying to analyze what (if anything?) went wrong with Pontiff's speech, right? My thesis is that there might not be rational reasons behind, and you can call me medieval if you like >:-/ The consequence is that all bets on a rational discussion/explanation is off! MX44 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

We know what happened with the Pope's lecture. He qouted something critical of Ilsam and they didn't like it. Your analyses and thesises, however stimulating to your own intellect, are not the point of the article. We should not be trying to analyse anything here. The point of the artcile is to DESCRIBE the controversy. 'What is actuially said in the street' and other neat-o topics are better discussed somewhere else. Now, I hope you get it. Got it? Move on.DocEss 20:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The title of this part of the discussion is: Why Muslims have taken offense

There is no (rational) why ...

Now you move on :P MX44 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Pope's position on the controvery

I think I've added the following information once or twice, but it disappeared (from the intro anyway):

• “These (words) were in fact a quotation from a Medieval text which do not in any way express my personal thought,” Benedict told pilgrims at his summer palace outside Rome.

• “The holy father,” Cardinal Bertone said one day after his installation in his new post, “sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions.” (emphasis added for Wikipedia talk page)

Benedict said (1) the (offensive) quote is not something he agrees with and (2) people have misinterpreted his remarks. --Uncle Ed 14:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

UncleEd: That is not what the Pope Benedict said. Re-read the Vatican's responses (see external links) so that you can familiarise yourself with the facts. DocEss 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong ref

The quote originated from a [[1391]] “Dialogue Held With A Certain Persian, the Worthy Mouterizes, in Anakara of Galatia”<ref>[http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24446 "The Pope, Jihad and "Dialogue""], ''The American Thinker'', [[19 September]], [[2005]] {{de icon}}</ref> and the [[Byzantine]] emperor [[Manuel II Paleologus]], touching on such issues as [[forced conversion]], [[religious war|holy war]], and the relationship between [[faith]] and [[reason]].

The page at frontpagemagazine.com is surely not in German, it is most certainly not the best cite for the “Dialogue Held With A Certain Persian, the Worthy Mouterizes, in Anakara of Galatia”, and it is arguably a rather bad source per WP:RS.

Pjacobi 20:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume it would be best to give the printed editions of the Dialogue as a reference, see Manuel_II_Palaiologos#Literature. --Pjacobi 21:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It was the only source I came across that bothered to mention the Persians's name. Appaently, this journalist was one of the few who did his homework, instead of only rewording Reuters and AP tickers. Azate 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need a news source at all. It's mentioned in the published version of Benedict's speech:

• http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_ge.html

Pjacobi 21:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't mentioned there at all. Did you even read the text before posting? Azate 21:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked Persians's name in your posting. But stating that name is a not good idea anyway, as it gives the impression -- contrary to contemporary scholarly opinion -- that the Dialogues have really happended in the firm written down by Manuel. --Pjacobi 06:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm. They may not have truly happened in that form, but are written down in that form (and published by Khoury, apparently). Isn't this a case of Wikipedia's "not truth but verifyability matters" policy? If anybody now wants to read the dialogue, they at least know what it's called in Khoury's book. Azate 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Pres Bush Statement

The inclusion of this quote is inappropriate for the Initial Reacttions section because it is not (as the paragraphs's author even states) a reaction to the Pope's comments. Therefore, it should be deleted. Opinions?

President George W. Bush, in his speech to the United Nations, reasurred Muslims that he is not waging war against Islam, regardless of what "propaganda and conspiracy theories" they hear. "My country desires peace. Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is false and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam." (The President's speech did not formally address the comments made by the Pope, though this speech came in the context of the controversy.)[10] DocEss 21:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree - it didn't even come "in the context of the controversy".--Shtove 21:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I already removed it earlier and it was put back in. I don'tfeel comfortable taking it out again. I has absolutely nothing to dowith this article. Elliskev 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The claim "...though this speech came in the context of the controversy" is a dubious one but not entirley unrealistic. I still think removal is the best approach.DocEss 21:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If the context claim can be attributed, I'd say keep it. Otherwise it's analysis and has no place here. Elliskev 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote for removal. But Condi Rice said somthing about the pope stuff that would qualiify. Azate 21:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Various cleanup

Which format are we using for quotation-period combinations? (e.g., ." or ".) It should probably be uniform. --Keyne 00:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You are opening up a can of worms here, and the short answer is; it depends in part on the context but also wether you are native American or native British. Part of that package is also to choose between spellings like internationalization (US) or internationalisation (UK). You could start [here] and then later tell us what route you have decided on.

MX44 00:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Is not the proper method to have the quotation mark being the last (except in special circumstances)?DocEss 17:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Depoping

User:Tigeroo insists on removing all occurrences of the word "pope" from this article, claiming that it is a honorific. In my opinion, "Pope" is the name of an office, not a honorific, and it is in very common use to refer to the person in question. Even his most violent opponents use it: for example, see this quote by Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin: "We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion."[44] Amidst all of the controversies referenced in this article, the uses of the word "Pope" is one thing which is clearly not disputed by anyone in the real world. Thus, I don't see the point of Tigeroo's edits. In addition to all of this, his edits introduced a number of technical errors. Tigeroo, before you reinstate them, let's discuss this and see what other people think. 82.55.199.200 10:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's wiki policy, the same goes with terms like prophet, king, queen, emperor etc. Especially if they are with a capital P. First mention is fine, in quote's it has to be kept, elsewise it is removed as the honorific that it is.--Tigeroo 10:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you honor someone while calling for his assassination? The honorific for the pope is "His Sanctity", and of course you don't see it used anywhere in this article; but even his detractors call him "the Pope", without attaching any special honorific value to it. I'd like to see a link to the specific policy that you are referencing; I'm pretty sure that common usage is a valid exception. 82.55.199.200 10:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A blind removing will be POV. I think if many times mentioned, he could be called simply "Benedict XVI" and/or "the Pope" to avoid tautology. --Brand спойт 11:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Tigeroo here. It's policy. Azate 16:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The removing is nonsense. Pope is the commonly used name of his office. We can say "Benedict" or "Benedict XVI" or "the Pope". Whether capital or small P I'll leave to others. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Can those claiming that removal is in accord with policy please provide a reference? I see a guideline which implicitly suggests the opposite of the claim, but no policy to contradict my understanding of the guideline. --Elliskev 16:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No, No. "Honouriffic" has nuttin to do with nuttin. The man's name is Joseph Ratzinger. He as Pontiff's is titled Pope Benedict XVI. The head of The Holy See is titled Pope XXX and is to be called so and it is to be written in upper case. In this case, it is Pope Benedict XVI. In formal writing, calling him these things is fine: 1) the Pontiff 2) the Holy Father; 3) Pope Benedict XVI 4) Pope Benedict ; 5) the Pope. The same kind of thing works for the Europe's royal families, where they take on titled names (see King Edward VIII - ya wouldn't have called him Eddy - that wasn't even the man's name). Also (and I hate to stoop to the this level), you don't call an American president anything but President XXX in formal writing - you don't write "George said...," you write "President Bush said...." Why make an issue of proper protocal? What's the problem buuuuuudy?DocEss 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, alright alright. If this Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Western_clergy) is to be believed then we should consistently call him Pope Benedict XVI. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Subsequent_uses_of_names appears to say we sould call him that only once. Personally, I just don't care. Azate 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: 'Pope' is not an honourific, so WIKI policies in that regard are inapplicable. I guess we shall have to rely on English language convention and protocol. If you ever meet the Queen or write a letter to her or about her, the proper protocol must be followed - she's Her Majesty, or Queen Elisabeth, or Queen Elisabeth II, or the Queen. - always, not just once. If ya don't, you'll cause great offence and people will think ya'll some kinna unedamukated in-brud hyck. Ya call him Pope, at least. End of story.DocEss 21:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC) {Hey - go to the Mohammed page and start changing the spelling there and see what happens!)

All I was trying to say was....

The Popes were removed with a reference to policy. My point is that tthere is no policy - only guidelines. Those guidelines implicitly say, by cautioning against prefacing Pope Benedict XVI with "His Holiness", that the Pope should be called the Pope. Elliskev 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Pope's official biogaphy at the Vatican page[45]: They appear to not have a problem omitting "Pope" when talking about any of them. They mix usages: Sometimes they say "Pope Paul VI" sometimes only "Paul VI". (If you wonder why "Paul VI": Talking about Benedict XVI the text only calls him "he") Azate 21:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's allright to mix usages. It is not allright to remove all instances of Pope but the first. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic thoughts

The Muslim onslaught against the Pope's comments only make one certain that there is no room of dialogue with Islam, while Muslims are free to preach their religion in the West, a reciprocity on the part of other faiths in Muslim land would almost certainly lead to arrest or death. The very violent nature of protest (eg in the Palestinian Authority) only attests to the fact that violence is indeed a part of this faith.

The above text was cut because it was unsourced. We can't use "one" as the advocate of a viewpoint. It sounds like something U.S. conservatives or U.S. Christians might say, so it's relevant. Let's find somebody to quote. --Uncle Ed 15:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Charles Krauthammer writes that whether or not Islam is inherently peaceful, adherents have been extraordinarily violent in the name of Islam. [46]

Let us not, however, use the article to assert that "adherents have been violent". Rather, frame it as Krauthammer SAYS that adherents have been violent. --Uncle Ed 15:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This line of investigation had better be in furtherance of our objective, which is to DESCRIBE the Controversy associated with the Pope's lecture. If it is a discussion about the rights and wrongs (if there could possibly be any at all) about Islam, move it to another page (like a personal talkk page) where zealoted religiousness can be bandied about with reckless abondon. Stick to the point, please.DocEss 17:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, please relax...the statement starts with the words "Charles Krauthammer writes"...How much clearer does it need to be so that there is no uncertainty as to whom said it...This is a classic case of nitpicking and i think it is a nice microcosm for the situation occuring with the Pope. As with the Pope's statement, this user made it quite clear that he was quoting someone else. Furthermore I am not sure which is more troubling; The fact that you can barely breathe now without inciting a Muslim riot, or the fact there always seems to be many who won't place blame on them for rioting. Truly abhorrent.

DocEss...individuals like yourself are stifling creative and passionate discourse by deleting subject matter from discussion pages or suggesting they be moved elsewhere. This is the discussion page, not the actual article-This is where people come to delve deeper into an article. Stop contributing to the declination of WP, by trying to be overly PC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.154.205 (talk • contribs) .

I've never been more insulted (nor surpised) than by your calling me PC. PC? That's funny. Look - stick to the point - we're trying to write a good article about the controversy. Whether adherants of Islam have been extraordinarily violent is hardly gemane to the Topic. We are here to DESCRIBE in the Article pages and discuss DESCRIBING in the Talk pages. I'd be glad to go to another page and argue endlessly about Islummy and Jews and Cristians and Buddhists and Scientologists and anything esle that I can use to stir the pot. Here, we should stick to the point.DocEss 17:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The "See Also" Section

The "See Also" section contains internal links that I think should not be inluded here.

There is a weird link of Aslim Taslam. This links to a two lines article that is totally inaccurate and POV. "Islim Taslam" there is described as a threatening phrase made by Prophet Muhammad to other leaders. May be who aded it thought it is an example of forced conversions.

First of all, what does have to do with this controversy?

Second, this phrase in Muhammad's letters is not acurate archeologically. No one really knows what Muhammad letters contained. This is a whole big subject in islam archeology.

Third, if the letters of Muhammad did include the phrase. then it should be quoted in its full. The supposed letter reads " Follow Islam and you will be saved (in a spiritual meaning) and god will give you your reward doubled (one for you and one for your people who will follow your steps), but if you do not follow Islam, then you will bear the sins of your people". It has nothing to do with forced conversions.

this article started by having a strict editing. how did such things slip into it? Plz re-examine the "See Also' section". This is not the only weird thing in it. --Thameen 20:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This link is off-topic and so should be removed.DocEss 20:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Cany any one tell me what is the reason behind this link too 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping. Is there a thing i'm mising? or is it just the work of a POV pusher? --Thameen 20:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thta link too seems to be off-topic. Delete it.DocEss 20:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh .DocEss What did you do to Nemo wa wa. I will delete these links. --Thameen 20:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A Page For Passionate Discourse

Does anyone think we should create a Special Page where all these little bickerings about Popes and Islams and jihads and crusades etc. can occur? This page is not the appropriate forum, we all realise; perhaps another page will allow the passions to sooth. Opinions?DocEss 23:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Your concern is correct, but the debate is entertaining and useful. This will pass in a few weeks, and then recrudesce (the visit to Turkey?). Let the debate remain on the record here.--Shtove 23:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)