Talk:Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy/Archive 2

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'. 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?


 * WTF HE'S CALLING US ON OUR VIOLENCE, LET'S SHOOT A NUN


 * 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? --  tariq abjotu  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


 * 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, 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. --  tariq abjotu  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 " would be an apology, but "I am sorry for " (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. --  tariq abjotu  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. --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'.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.


 * 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)


 * MX44 --- I'll add a word of warning here: Your tone is beyond the pale, and has been before. You better quit behaving like that and go read WP:CIVIL DocEss 19:52, 23 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?


 * Is any religion beyond criticsm and investigation? DocEss 19:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * pope wants to ignite a discussion about islam's violent history . wants to challenge the islamic authorities out of denial (beautifully showcased eg. here ) and into real discussion and an apology (as the church did with the crusades)
 * pope wants to take on Islam/Islamism (especially in Europe) in the same way the JP2 took on Communism
 * 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.
 * The Media, or the BBC, NY Times and Guardian orchestrated this crisis, because they hate the pope, same as


 * 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. 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.
 * 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)

Key to the style and level of the public debate: http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/

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 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 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. 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: 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. 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 [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1703870/posts 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 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)


 * it does make a difference especially in context of religion where some folks believe in the devil, literaly. "evil" is _understood_ as "teuflisch" in germany, wich equals "devilish" in terms of err... evilness. and "schlechtes" can mean "bad in quality" "verry erroneous" or "bad like moral failure with or without evil intention". so "schlechtes" talks about the effects rather than the intention. infact the word "schlechtes" is verry rarely _used_ in a moral context. and to say "bad AND inhuman" suggests that "bad" is not used in a way that just sort of duplicates the meaning of "inhuman". german is my mother tongue. 84.172.77.20


 * 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)


 * Making fonts bigger is no way to convince people of your point of view. Use rationality instead of "I can shout louder than you" persuation and everybody wins. With respect, I find it remarkable that anybody could suggest that translation errors could not lead to or create a different level of controversy; so obviously, that should be part of the article in my opinion. I certainly viewed the matter differently after discovering that the pontiff did not use the word "evil", that the german ~inhuman~ means "inhumane" in English (and not "inhuman"), and that he noted the passage had, in contrast to the original author's perception, "for us an astounding [or surprising] brusqueness". These three things, the lack of "evil", the trailing 'e', and especially the note of personal difference in opinion with regards to the quoted passage together make for a big, obvious difference between initial perception and literal meaning, caused in part by the vatican's mistranslation and media incompetence.
 * Of course, the really important thing to do is read the entire section, instead of merely a half-sentence or two. The point is whether violence (in a wide sense, like forced conversion) can be a rational part of religion, which the pope obviously answers in the negative. That is a strong point against the beliefs of numerous Christians and the historical use of violence by the Catholic church and other Christian groups, just as it is a point against the beliefs of followers of radical interpretations of Islam that call for violence to be waged against non-Muslims. 4.159.11.1 06:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Doc' says: I don't know how to make the font bigger and brighter here ...
 * Answer: You could do like this:
 * MISTRANSLATIONS WERE NOT THE CAUSE OF THE CONTROVERSY !!!
 * (Not that it would make any impact other than the casual smile :-D) MX44 09:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I see...I knew there was a way. I emplore you: convince us all that mistranslation are the cause of the controversy. DocEss 20:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Will "Pope says Islam is evil and inhumane!" do? MX44 06:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

EXTREMELY odd ...
Note the date: 1 day after the papal speech:. 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)


 * DocEss, I find a number of your comments here are tainted by an unnecessary, disparaging kind of sarcasm, that suggests primarily you have, and want to express, a very low opinion of contributers other than you. At least, that is precisely what it comes across as from my perspective. You say "Move on" and shout (frequent use of all-caps is considered bad manners, use italics if you must) and you appear to do so with relish in a mean-spirited, angrily-raised voice, even if that's not your intention. Please, calm down a bit, and PLEASE (^_^) also lose the all-caps. Thanks, it is really appreciated. If you think others are wrong about something, please, try to express your grievances in a rational, friendly manner. I'm sure people will be much more likely to consider your opinions intelligently instead of dismissing them intuitively as angry shouting designed to drown out the opinions of others.

4.159.11.68 07:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh goodness...don't mistake my penchant for using colourful and pointed language as sarcasm. I'm not mean-spirited at all and I don't have a low opinion of anyone (yet). I have never in my life tried to drown out anyone's opinion; re-direct, alter, change, question - yes; but drown out- NEVER!DocEss 19:06, 23 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” and the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, touching on such issues as forced conversion, 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. --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)


 * It's verifiable (by looking into Khoury's book I assume, or the newer Förstel edition) that modern scholars assume this to be a rather free re-telling of the actual dialogues the emperor had three years before writing them down.
 * Also I'm not quite clear, whether the name given is correct. And it wouldn't help finding the cite in the Koury book, as the entire book is about one dialogue (the 7th)
 * http://www.librarius.net/boutique_librarius/product.php?productid=4985
 * Here's a page (in German) which gives some more background about the 7th dialogue:
 * http://www.dbk.de/aktuell/meldungen/01162/index.html
 * 09:06, 22 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)


 * The qoute has re-appeared again like a gopher popping its head out of the hole! Where is my .22 calibre when I need it? I think it should be removed (as do others) and so I will do so. I hope we get sopme discourse about it.DocEss 16:21, 27 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)
 * I'm quite well aware it is a "can of worms." However, it does still need to be decided.  We can't really have the article split between the two grammar styles.  It simply isn't proper.  --Keyne 12:35, 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)