Talk:Manuel II Palaiologos

interest
I'm interested in Manuel II because he is part of a vast event, connecting one end of Eurasia to the other. Manuel was begging Henry IV of England for a new crusade to save Constanople from the besieging Turks, when a message arrived with the news that Tamerlane's (Timor's) Mongol army had badly defeated the Turks, thus saving Constantinople.


 * Excellent description of Manuel's travels to the West can be found in several resources. Among them, the most interesting ones, conveyed in modern textbooks, can be found in Sir.Runciman's "Fall of Constantinople" and Lord Norwich's "Byzantium", vol. III.--Spryom 09:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
The discussion for this move request is undergoing, as well as other similar requests, in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. Please go there to discuss the move request.--Panairjdde 22:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The debate on the move is now completed; the result was no consensus. Mango juice talk 20:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Pope Benedict
Made a major speech quoting Palaeologus today. This should be mentioned. EFG 04:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know where Manuel made this comment and in what context? (Was it in a book, or as an aside to his foot washer, etc.?)Minguo 13:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably one of his letters (which have conveniently been translated and published by Harvard University Press, if someone wants to check). Adam Bishop 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mentioned., yes, probably including the quote itself and just enough context to be meaningful. The gory details of who responded how, etc. should either be in the Pope's article, or perhaps a seperate article. The material in Manuel II needs to stay focused on Manuel II. Studerby 15:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The link to the official translation of the speech into English is this, and here is the relevant paragraph:


 * I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.


 * I think, but haven't checked, that the book in question is Adel Theodor Khoury (1969): Der theologische Streit der Byzantiner mit dem Islam, Paderborn: Schöningh, though it sounds somehow as if it was a more recently published book. But that will be clear very soon, probably by tomorrow. Clossius 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've linked the pope's name to the WP article on this controversy.--80.4.169.22 13:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Shorten that
As a measure against Recentism, I'd suggest shortening coverage of the recent incident in this article a lot. One single sentence: A passage written by Manuel Palaiologos containing some anti-Islamic polemics, quoted in a speech by Pope Benedict XVI on 12 September 2006, became the object of apublic controversy over the pope's stance towards Islam. All the rest should be in the article about the incident. Manuel's own stance against Islam doesn't require any discussion here, it was presumably completely conventional and commonplace for his time and seems never to have been any particularly noteworthy object of study in the context of Manuel's biography or Byzantine historiography. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken, but I arrived at this article to find out exactly what Palaiologos said, and I am glad I found it. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   08:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Noncompliant?
I tagged this article as noncompliant becasue of the description of the 2006 protests resulting from the pope's quoting of MIIP's statement regarding Muhammad. Use of phrases such as "Muslim community" and "as always" reflect a non-neutral PoV, IMHO.

It's not "nocompliant", it's vandalism.--Ceaser 12:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

syn logo?
There is a sentance in the last section that contains some text I'm not sure what to do with: "God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (syn logo) is contrary to God's nature." What is the "syn logo", is it to mark that part of the quote is taken out?--Ceaser 12:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's quoting the original Greek phrase. Adam Bishop 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent event section
How can a section be called recent event if WP sticks to the no timespace policy. Please be kind as to change the name of the section to reflect more accurately that there is no time in wikipedia ... or an encyclopedia. Lincher 15:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)