Talk:Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy/Archive 3

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." 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. -- E lliskev 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 Naming_conventions_%28Western_clergy%29 is to be believed then we should consistently call him Pope Benedict XVI. On the other hand, Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29 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: 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. 

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)


 * Actually, it's not off topic at all. Read this. They demanded of the Pope to convert and said "aslim taslam." This link should be put back in the article. It's not off topic, nor is it POV. I've cited sources on that article, so it can't be POV. EliasAlucard|Talk 12:48, 22 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)


 * Alias: To which links are you referring? This one Aslim Taslamis off-topic because there is no context for it. So is this one 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping to be sure.


 * This one might be included somewhere, though this. If this last one is inluded, then perhaps the Aslim Taslam might be needed to maintain context.DocEss 18:04, 22 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)

Proposal for a section "assessment of the lecture's purpose", or something similar
In stark contrast to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - which was across the board called on as a precursor of the controversy about the Pope's lecture - the media focus was not on the issues of free speech or hurt religious sensitivities. Underlying the widely talked about question if the Pope should apologize or not, and if his subseqent statements constituded an apology or not, several competing interpretations of his intentions have been brought forward, some of them mutually exclusive. These are broadly, and in no particular order:


 * The presence of the controversial remark in the Pope's lecture is explainable only by the fact that Benedict XVI, in front of his old scholarly collegues, fell back into his old role as a university theologian and showed that he is still inexperienced at operating under the eyes of the worldwide public. A temporary inattention of the Pope's advisors, aggravated by a recent reshuffling inside the Vatican's hierachy, allowed a remark to slip through that would normally have been weeded out. However, a member of the pontifical curia is reported to have indeed given "the advice to delete the controversial section"


 * The lecture wasn't directed at Islam at all, and the incendiary passages purely circumstantial to the real intention of the speech, which was designed to counter the demotion of theology in the university environment in particular, or of faith in a society plagued by postmodern relativism and irrationalism in general.


 * The lecture demonstates that the West in general, or the Pope in particular, are still islamophobic and imperialist, victimizing a largely blameless Islam.


 * Benedict XVI with this lecture marks a parting from the Vatican's previous dialogue policies with Islam, away from promoting harmony at all costs, toward more reciprocity, that is, he wants the Muslim world opened up for Christian missions like Europe is open to Muslims', and conversion out of Islam mustn't be a legal or social impossibility. The position of Christians in Muslim-majority countries has to be improved.


 * Benedict XVI has given up hope on Islam reforming, and now wants to take on Islam in Europe in the same way his predecessor took on Communism, accesible via


 * The Pope wants to challenge Islam into clarifying its position on violence past and present, as the church did by amending doctrine, admitting to and apologizing for atrocities it committed in the past, and spark a similar reaction within Islam against the recent ascent of violent strains within it.

How about it ? Azate 05:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I emphazised some key sentences, to focus on the differences/incompabilities in the proposals. Perhaps with a slight rephrase? MX44 08:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(Further off-topic discussion moved to User_talk:DocEss)

moved back: Moved here from [Talk:Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy]


 * Azate: You open up an interesting line of investigation. It would be tantalizing to try to answer these and other questions; however, they are beyond the scope of the Article itself. The Artcile is meant to DESCRIBE the controversy cause by the Pope's lecture and this Talk page is meant to have discussion aboput how to DESCRIBE said controversy. Accordingly, these questions you raise are off-topic. (MAn! You are difficult to keep focused.) As I suggested above, maybe we should create a Special Page or Project where these ideas can be vetted; in the end, we may come up with a new article, perhaps one regarding Jew/Christian/Muslim disharmony. Do you agree with this? DocEss 17:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, Azate is prototyping a different take on the long list of comments. This is not a "question", it is a structured answer to the question of who said what about the meaning of the popes speach. If you like, this is a DESCRIPTION of the controversy, what people are arguing over.
 * The section needs a better title though. Anyone?
 * MX44 18:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you not reading well today? We don't need any 'different takes on long lisst of comments'. We don't even need the comments. Questions and answers about the meaning of the Pope's [notice Upper Case!) are not on-topic here. Obviously, you'd like to discuss all this stuff, so you'd agree to having a page where you can do so?DocEss 19:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You appear to be the only one here not to have observed that the pope is currently trying very hard to explain to everybody what he really meant? That in order to have a controversy, there needs to be discrepancy as well? Continue like this, and you'll get your own page ... In the main section :-D
 * MX44 20:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contary, the Pope is not trying to explain what he meant; rather, the Pope is trying sooth and smooth. There does not necessarily need to be a discrepancncy of any kind to have a controversy of any kind. In this case the controversy arose because the Pope used words that were critical of Islam. End of story. There's no big mystery. There's nothing to investigate. There's no mistranslation, analysis of possible motives and pursuit of covert agendas required to understand why there is a controversy. It is incontrovertibly simple and blatantly obvious: he said sumthun negative and the Muslims don't like that he said it and that, as they say, is that! If ya wish to discuss it all in excrutiating detail I'd even be glad to take part - ON SOME OTHER PAGE! Please stay on topic.DocEss 21:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * -"The pope said to his Wednesday audience his intention had been to "explain that religion and violence do not go together but religion and reason do".al-Jazeera
 * So there you have it. "Obviously" he did not say anything bad or critical about Muslims (except that everybody else seems to have their own take on this, including you ...) MX44 21:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * THAT, whether true or not, is not the point of the Article. How many ways can I explain it? We are here to DESCRIBE the controversy caused by the Pope's statements. Your constant blathering on are mere tangents. MOVE ON!DocEss 21:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * DocEss, we don't need a party whip. Let people chip in and use up WP's endless talk-page space. This one is going to run and run, so it'll be interesting for future contributors to see how the debate developed in the first place. In the end, you're right - but there never is an end to these matters.--Shtove 23:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, all right. You win. Whatever. Let us bandy things about helter skelter, endlesslessly and willy-nilly. Just stop bawling about someone trying to nobly act as a party whip to the benefit of truth and knowledge.DocEss 18:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

<--- No need for me to repeat anything that MX44 said here. DocEss, your interpretation of "to describe the controversy" is apparently at odds with the usual meaning of the word, both at WP and in the dictionary. Rather, 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. Besides, I think you are mixing up two things here: An "assessment of the lecture's purpose", which is what I try to do, and an "assessment of the reaction in the Muslim world", which remains to be done. A propos the latter, what you insist on labelling "incontrovertibly simple and blatantly obvious" and thus in no need of description is anything but. You mistake your verdict for everybody's conclusions, if not the truth. The first would be a myopic oversight, the second would be worse. You also appear to be prone to overgeneralize. Providing a summary of different assesments of the lecture's intent from reliable sources, and (yet to be done) a summary of the different assesments of the reactions on the islamic side, again from reiable sources, is one of the key elenments in describing (this doesn't require capitalization, btw.) any controversy where there is an absence of hard facts (which makes this one a valid discrepancy-driven controversy, as opposed to e.g. the evolution debate). You will certainly find your personal sentiment mirrored somewhere. To watch you maintain that yours is the only one out there, or the only valid one, is just depressing. When this however escalates into an attempt from your side into obstucting a valid initiative to summarize different points of view, now that's a whole different game. Azate 00:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to obstruct anything or anyone, including you and your points of view (which, incidentally I find interesting and stimulating). If there was ever a more vocal proponent of free speech than myself you'd be hard pressed to find one! I'm only trying to keep the discussion focused and you seem intent on derailing the train with ancillary material. Just because you seem to have an overwhelming need to 'have a voice' does not mean you can claim I'm out of order for trying to maintain focus. We are only here to describe keep the Article on point and to discuss what's in the Article. I've suggested numerous times that I'd be glad to carry on a verbose and lenghty discussions about everyhting you've mentioned above. This page is the wrong place. If you can't see that then we'll get nowhere.DocEss 18:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking for any discussions about these bullet list points. I am proposing their inclusion into the article - that's why I put them on the talk page first. These are not my ponts of view - they are an attempt to provide a short overview of the different views about the lecture's intent put forth in the press. Since nobody else took the trouble to do the work, I did. And what do I get? Hollow accusations about "derailing the train" and my so-called "overwhelming need to 'have a voice'". I have yet to find a WP policy that encourages you, DocEss, to bitch at editors for contributing too much. I think a short summary of different views, put forth in the press, of the lecture's intention is well within of the article's scope. After all, if it weren't, what would be. Azate 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A little late to dinner here, but I too have to question this section. This material would be appropriate for an article about "The papal lecture at Regensburg on 12 September 2006", but not on the "Controversy" surrounding it. Knowledge of the controversy is not advanced by people speculating as to what they thought was said/meant that made others upset. That is irrelevant, if the article contains i) what was said; ii) the thought of those who were upset. Now I did not read the sources and perhaps some are reponses of those who are upset. But then that material belongs in the "responses" section. This section seems inappropriate.


 * Update After a week of much Talk activity but no response to my proposal, I have deleted this section per my own and some others' logic here. I do believe some material may be relevant and includable, but in various "response" sections instead.  Baccyak4H 18:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Baccyak4H 14:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't read the sources, but you know they are irrelevant? Cool. And as for "your and some others' logic": There's two of you. And there's two of us. Fifth voice didn't commit. Besides, your argument borders on the silly: All the points madein the section you deleted don't just try to interpret a papal speech: They try to gauge if, besides the superficial quote that "offended Mohammed", there is actually a controversy over substance here, and what it may be. Azate 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are right in that they do not just interpret the speech. Rather they speculate as to what was on the mind of the pope, or officials near him, as the speech was prepared/delivered. Unless these points were used by noteworthy critics of the speech itself, they remain on the topic of the speech (lecture), not the controversy. If critics do make these points, that should be pointed out in the appropriate sections about response. This article is about a controversy, not about something that could be a controversy, or brought into this one (but hasn't been).

If your last sentence is indeed true ("... try to gauge ..."), then the section itself is OR. Someone of Wikiable note has to actually have such an interpretation which informs their criticism. Then that criticism should be put in the right place in the article. This in itself is enough to remove any ambiguity as to the inappropriateness of this section.

Your sarcasm is understandable but betrays you missed my point. Its the structure of this article I am objecting to, not the sources. But we can perform the same discussion without sarcasm just as well. Let's start. Baccyak4H 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, this section engages in pure speculation. Admitedly, it is interesting to discuss the possible purposes of the Pope's lecture and to propose new ones, but it all kinda borders on imagination -- could even count as original research. All we really know is what the Pope and the Vatican have said and we have sourced all of that in the Article. Our inclusion of qoutes about what others (all thamrt dudes, to be sure) believe the Pope was attempting to achieve is hardly an encyclopoedic endeavor. I think the section should be removed. Let us discuss said proposal.DocEss 21:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would agree. But if someone noteworthy had a particular criticism based on one of these points, that would be good material. But, it would belong under some type of "response" or "reaction" section. Any synthesis of themes here, by us, is clearly original research. Baccyak4H 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A sythesis of themes is the opposite of original research. As long as it merely assembles and summarizes points made in notable sources, of course, which is the case here. It is also far more interesting and informative for future readers of this article than yet another bulletpoint quote from yet another bishop of mufti that repeats basicallly the same thing over and over again. ('should apologize', 'was right', 'ignorant' etc...). Take a look at a past famous speech, the Gettysburg_Address, which is rated a 'good article'. Look at its section 'content and themes', it does exactly the same thing that the section under discussion does for this article. Look at the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy: There's this 'sythesis of themes' again. You are fixed on that old quote too much. WE have too much soundbites and too little substance. What this article needs is not the absence of this section, but the addition of another section that doe4s the same sort of thing for the opposite side of the controversy. Azate 11:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Argument rejected out of hand: this section contains nothing that is not speculation and accordingly is un-encyclopoedic. Delete.

reference 21.
Reference 21 is just kinda hanging there in no mans land. Can someone please find the place that it's trying to source and place it there? thanks. dposse 11:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The most spectacular quoteable is from Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party:


 * - ''"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," Kapusuz told Turkish state media. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."


 * - ''"Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words," Kapusuz added. "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."


 * There is no reference to neither Hitler nor Mussolini in the wiki article though. MX44 13:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? dposse 16:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is this quote; "mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages" in a political comment from Turkey, so I moved the "reference 21" there. MX44 21:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks. dposse 23:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Western commentary on Muslim reaction to the Pope's speech

 * Daniel Pipes: "The Muslim uproar has a goal -- to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby impose Shariah norms in the West.

We have a lot of Muslim reaction: around a dozen different comments and threats, last time I counted. Can we also have some Western reaction? --Uncle Ed 13:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we? Of course we can. I think maybe we should include quotable sources until your heart's content. But we must be sure to remain on-topic: the quotes must relate directly to the controversy caused by the Pope's lecture.DocEss 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Jihad Watch has been linking to a lot of articles arguing againts the childish tantrum of the Muslims, you should find plenty of stuff there.

Factual Errors
A section discussing factual errors in the Pope's speech, however well-written and maybe even interesting, is not on-topic. I deleted it it for that reason. The point of the Article is to DESCRIBE the controversy associated with the Pope's speech. Other commentary is interesting but ancillary. Let us have opinions instead of a bunch or reverts. DocEss 21:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That section dealt mostly with the editor's opinion about the concept of logos, which is as you said interesting but off topic. Don't mix it up with the new section which despite its similar title describes a controversy about a particular point of B.XVI's lecture (sura 2,256 and its chronology). There are references and more are coming. --Filius Rosadis 19:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I too objected to this section but will allow you to elaborate it. But note that just pointing out factual errors is in itself OR; as written now this is the case.  Someone (of Wikiable note) critical of, offended by, etc., the lecture needs to have made a claim of such an error (whether or not it indeed is an error; misinterpretations count too, unfortunately) as part of their rationale to their reaction.  Note that much content in the various "responses" sections say something to the effect that "so-and-so said the Pope got it wrong and...".  I would suggest that these instances you have planned be merged into response sections.  But I'll let you have a go and see what you've got.  Baccyak4H 19:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are not in a position to "allow" or disallow somebody something, remember that please. As far as that 'early sura' section is concerned, I think it should be shortened and somehow merged with the one that deals with the translation differences stuff, if at all. I, for one, can't see any problem, or factual eroor in describing that sura as an 'early sura ... whern M. was still powerless' (or similar). It's early (chronologically before halftime break), and he was still powerless, compared to what still lay ahead. The pope didn't say anything about 'Meccan'. Azate 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I'll merge it as suggested. Meanwhile, I don't see a consensus for a plain deletion. This part of the controversy might be less nitid in English, but it has been covered by the Arab press. By the way, the chronology of 2:256 is hardly controversial, I couldn't find a single source stating it's an early sura (early final stage, perhaps?). Al Baqarah is often used as a sample of the last period suras. --Filius Rosadis 00:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Azate, "allow" was the wrong word, I apologize. I should have said "encourage".  What I intended to not say in any form was "do not even think of reintroducing, I will revert".  But please assume good faith next time.


 * Filius, as I have mentioned, I would support a rerganization of this material to describe how any errors, real or perceived, caused specific trouble. But then I am not a scholar of Islamist texts so I have nothing to contribute to claims about them, so appreciate your efforts.  (I am hedging my language ("real or perceived")  because a couple of so-called errors claimed by some which I have heard quoted were indeed not errors at all.  But even perceived errors or misunderstandings as such can still cause controversy and if they do, can be worth including.)


 * I appreciate both your efforts here to avoid OR material in the article. Baccyak4H 01:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation differences: Bad vs Evil
I think we should do something about the third argument in the Translation differences section, regarding mistranslation of "sclechtes". It has been argued that there is a difference between a bad teacher and an evil teacher, but I can't see the relevance here. No matter how we play with words, it is (in the given context) still a negative towards Islam.

Unless somebody can come up with an interresting aspect of further retranslation into Arabic, I'd suggest we strike it. MX44 07:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have an original source in Latin? (Assuming Latin is the original language of the passage.) MX44 08:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The lecture was in German.DocEss 18:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummmm...are you asking about the original Manuel II qoute? I'm actually struggling to find this answer. I've surfed all over the place and this is the scant information I've collected. Manuel II was a Byzantine Emperor and prodigious publisher of all kinds or written material, including many indepth and investigative pieces on Islam; it was he who first wrote down the relevant conversations and the language he used was undoubtedly Greek. The edition of Manuel II's material that the Pope quoted was by Professor Theodore Khoury, a lebonese-born catholic theologeon who headed a university theology department in Germany; this book was written in German. I have it on good authority that the book by Koury as well as the orignial Manuel II material is in the Vatican Secret Archives composed in Latin. I seek proof for all of this as we speak.DocEss 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The original is Greek, yes. Khoury's book is written in French (Entretiens avec un musulman, 7e Controverse), not German. There's another book (Erich Trapp's German translation (Manuel II palaiologos: Dialoge mit einem 'Perser'", also from 1966, containing the dialogue in German. Don't know anything about a Latin version in Vatican archives.I still think the translation stuff is not central, but quite interesting. However, since most people here object, mabe it's better to remove it. Azate 20:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that French link not just a French translation of the book? I'm nearly sure the original book was composed in German? Let us go find out. Naghh - agreed - translation stuff is truly ancillary.]DocEss 20:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a recent interview with Khoury. It says that his book is in French. Azate 21:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't read German (which is to say I can read it but I don't understand any of it). I remain unconvinced. Convince me. DocEss 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The (telephone?) interview starts out quite casually, he is then asked if he had been prepared for all the fuzz his book have created, to which he replies:
 * - Eine byzantinische Quellenedition in französischer Sprache, die 1966 erschienen ist? Ich bitte Sie.
 * "A byzantine compilation in french, published 1966? Excuse me." MX44 22:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that seems to be pretty convincing --- but doubt remains in me. Appease, please: is there a corroborating source?DocEss 15:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Here is Professor Kroury's emial address: I'm sure a Geman speaker like yourself would just love to ask him in what language he wrote this book: thkhoury@uni-muenster.de
 * Doc'; are you now saying that you would believe me, an anonymous wikipedian, rather than one of Germany's most respected newspapers, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung? Please. MX44 05:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A better (and complete) translation of the article in question can be found here

The pope has been warned
According to a FOCUS article the pope has been warned by members of his curia about including that controversial quote in his speech. He was given "the advice, to delete the controversial section". But the pope "has never made a secret, that he's more interested in truth and critical dialog and less interested in what that triggers."

Is there any opposition to include that in the article? Raphael1 09:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is interresting and vernichtets the last point of the first instance of Azate's series of (other peoples editorial) interpretations:
 *  ... allow[ing] a remark to slip through that would normally have been weeded out.
 * MX44 10:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice find. I've appended it to the collection above, even though I wish the FOCUS had provided something more tangible than "sources close to the Vatican" Azate 18:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Diplomatic initiative
The section "Diplomatic initiative" sounds like it was copyied word for word from the news article. can someone please rewrite the section? dposse 16:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I re-wrote the section; I hope it is adequate now. I also removed the "Re-write Please" tag. Hope everyone is OK with this section now.DocEss 17:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Much better. Thanks. dposse 15:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote misleading
I am very unhappy with the prominent presentation of the quote ("Show me ..."). Presently it seems to suggest that this is a quote from Benedict himself or a quote benedict approves of, which is not the case.
 * Seconded


 * Both of you anonymous chirpers: why are you unhappy with the placement of the quote? I think most would agree that the formatting (i.e, placement) of the qoute is front and centre where it should be: 1) it is the source of the controversy; 2) "what Pope Benedict said" is why I come to this page and wish to read the article; & 3) the qoute is part of a sentence that ends "...mentioning the quotation:". I see no problem with it at all. Explain your objections, please.DocEss 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it warps the sense of the pope's lecture. (I) The way it is presented right now (i.e. without the context) it suggests: "According to the pope's view Islam is evil" (put it most simple for demonstration). (II) If you add the next sentences: "The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature." Then it suggests: "According to the pope's view any religion is evil if it endorses violence". (Simplifying again, but I hope I make myself more or less understood) Right now all readers of the article read (I), but will miss (II). Therefore at the moment the quote's presentation is misleading.


 * Version (I) is a reason to be offended if you are muslim. If you are offended by version(II), then, well, you are in bin Laden's camp. This, in my view at least, is the key to understand the controversy. Unfortunately the mass media's reporting was not very subtle (spreading Version (I) and omitting version (II))and this article repeats the mistake with presenting the quote as it is.


 * Ya...I suppose I see what you mean. Visit the page and BOOM "there's a qoute from...the Pope" - right? Well, I guess it could be all jigged about and changed to avoid same. But I, for one, do not wish to do get all persnickety about it though --- I trust the average visitor to read a little more deeply than just relying on his fleeting glance. Rubberneckers are never very investigative anyway. DocEss 16:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe the next few sentences after the quote in question could added. It might help the casual raeder to get to the core of the problem a little bit faster.

God as fundamentally reasonable
Would someone tell the pope to read Fear and Trembling and consider the rationality of telling Abraham to sacrifice his only son?


 * I called him, but I haven't received a return call yet. I wonder though, if he read it, what do you think he would do? DocEss 16:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you read the pope's lecture you'd see he's ahead of you.--Shtove 16:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Shtove: To whom are you responding? Me? DocEss 16:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No - to the man with no name.--Shtove 07:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

new name?
The title here seems crap. It was not an "islam controversy", if anything it was a "Quotation controversy", or something similar. Surely there is a better name out there?--Irishpunktom\talk 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah. The title is just fine. It gets the point across. He was talking about Ilsam. Islamists are upset. Islam was the subject of the quotation. Islamists have been vocal. Pope + Islam = Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy. Good enough. What's the problem? What's your agenda?

DocEss 18:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * oh stfu

I don't like the title either and I hope no one will suspect me of having an agenda. Right now the title still works but at one point in the future, when the dust has hopefully settled, we will have to be more descriptive. And actually, Islam quote controversy doesn't seem that bad. But that's no urgent matter. Str1977 (smile back) 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Secularist
Have removed the wording about atheist from main body of article as the pope never mentions atheism. About the closest is the pope presenting a fallacy of a strawman argument of evolution with respect to ethics. The pope's fear is the secular trends within Europe, though obviously Islam represents an equally dangerous threat in his opinion to the Holy See. Also have re-add the section on secular comment regarding the popes lecture. Happy if anyone edits the title to e.g. Non-religious or something but I feel Secular is a more positive word to use. This should encompass humanist, freethought, agnostic as well as the atheist opinion so hated by both the Pope and Islamics. The comments of Tariq Ali should not have been removed with such prejudice. Ttiotsw 07:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is this qoute from this wing-nut, Ali, something we should keep? Isn't the inclusion of the qoute simply inflammatory and slighly sensationalistic? I'm not saying to remove it just yet...I'm just asking for validation. And hey: the Pope hates nothing; The Islamists, on the other hand....DocEss 15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest to you that though Tariq Ali is probably a wing-nut he is at least an educated wing-nut. When I look at the balance of applying self censorship to the topical comments by a well published author against your personal feelings that as an atheist his comments are simply inflammatory and slighly sensationalistic then I'm afraid you're going to have to try harder. Your supporting plee presenting a dichotomy of a Pope that hates nothing but an Islam that hates is comical. Both Catholism and Islam have a long history of hatred. This controversy is just another chapter in both parties' bloody histories. Ttiotsw 19:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Humanity's long history of bloody hatred is both regrettable and, gladly, reparable. We now must endeavor never to repeat those atrocities. Now, the Pope seems to lack hatred in the regard, but the Islamist fundamentalists seem to still retain a lot of hatred. I didn't see the Pope calling for anyone's execution or burning effigies in the streets. Nevertheless, I have nor deleted Ali's comment - I simply suggested we could delete it and I hope others weigh in on the matter.DocEss 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats laughable as you deleted them before e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy&diff=78128782&oldid=78127509

Shurely come mistake ? You didn't suggest we could delete it, you did delete his comments and now want some sort of selective self-censorship. Also be nice to keep on focus here: I have no idea what my parents have to do with Wikipedia, nor for that matter any edits I do ! I try to stay within the spirit of the system for the few items I edit. Ttiotsw 20:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed it from Religious Leaders section where it was sitting. It was a silly place for it. How can an athiest be deemed a religious leader? Then, you put it back in and I graciously left it there under Secular because i did not wish to get your shorts all in a knot. Besides, the qoute does have a small amount of validity and relevance to the Topic because it was a direct response to The Controversy. I then invited discussion. The qoute remains. Now, what the bloody hell is your problem?DocEss 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK thats fine. I was afraid the comments by this so called wingnut may be off-topic but good to see you agree he is relevant after all. I guess that's a vote for the secular section to stay. Ttiotsw 21:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh no. I think his qoute is marginally relevant but wholly unimportant. I mean - who cares what he says? It is as poignant and powerful as a movie-star's qoute or a baseball player's or a garbage man's or a plumber's or a stripper's or yours or mine. I believe Ali's qoute does not warrant inclusion not becasue it's irrelevant in any way; it does not warrant nclusion because he himself is hardly relevant enough as any authority to actually matter. Capiche?DocEss 22:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that this speach was ment to be about Logos and claiming that christianity is a scientific understanding of "God", and the evils of secularism in europe this quote is important.It was ment to be proposing an allience between catholic fundamentalists and muslim fundamentalists verses evil secularism. The fact that the pope is so narrow minded that he can't even do that right and pisses off muslims is just a bonus for secularists and atheists alike (not to mention every one in the world). Hypnosadist 12:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is that the qoute is important merely because you agree with its content? In any event, I never said the qoute wasn't relevant - I said its author isn't relevant.DocEss 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope you're mind reading, try again? I'll have a look for more notable athiest, secularist or Brights movement comments or critisims if its just the auther you have a problem with.Hypnosadist 19:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. I will then contend that an athiest's view of a religious comment is inherantly irrelevant, just as my commentary on string theory or muons would be useless. Who cares? Incidentally, why do you care, being an atheist yourself? Why are you chiming in at all? Do you just wish to have a target to shoot at? Do you truly believe (oops wrong word for an atheist) that you will add value to the Article itself with these atheist's qoutes or are your comments merely editorial in nature? Do these qoutes add an understanding to the Topic, which is describe the controversy caused bu the Pope's use of qoutation? Oh well, as long as you're having fun.... DocEss 19:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Several points, first the truth is out, its not the person that you feel is not notable its that atheists are not allowed to have an opinion. Thats not wikipedia policy, all povs are to be present, and atheists view of any religious topic is as valid as any other belief system.


 * Second your mind reading abilities fail you again, i'm not an atheist! I'm not going to discuss my morals and ethics with you as you don't have any respect for me.


 * Third why do i care? i care because i'm trapped on this planet with all the religous nutters! Just because they care more about being "RIGHT" than the fact they are driving us to a genocidal religious world war does not meen i'm having fun.Hypnosadist 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * An example of an atheist who supported current pope and yet is also against how Islam is implemented today is Oriana Fallaci, though she died after a long runnin with cancer prior to these recent events she has had a private audience with the Pope at least a year prior to the recent events. I think atheist commentary (as an example of secular commentary) is very relevant, even more so in that religious comment by "strong" atheists are generally unbiased with respect to any religion. That we live in ostensibly secular western societies make secular commentary equal in weight with religious aligned commentary. Most atheists will (going out on a limb here) be as happy to identify the flaws in Islam as they are with flaws in Christianity or any religion. Obviously some self-censorship does take place given the violence against critics of Islam (as has historically taken place against critics of Christianity) but some atheists are willing to risk their way of life to support our freedom of speech. They are thus proxies for our point of view. Being in post-Enlightenment Western Europe for Oriana Fallaci the risk to her way of life was that she found out that she was the target of criminal court cases from both Christian and Islamic advocates. That one commentator here cannot see that belief by atheists in an ideal e.g. human rights or democracy or freedom of worship is possible is truely worrying but I will say that I truely believe that within the context of Wikipedia that there are differences between what one person says and what another person says when it comes to inclusion of content within the articles. Judging the relative merits of say a movie-star or a baseball player or a garbage man or a plumber or a stripper with respect to any subject I feel simply takes time and experience. A suitably notable plumber e.g. Crapper, would be more notable with respect to sewer management than say the baseball player. Shurely this must be obvious ? It is to me. Ttiotsw 09:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the good work on the secular section Ttiotsw.Hypnosadist 16:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine speech. As I suspected: you've found an ideal editorial outlet for your belief system. Ok...whatever. Athiests are allowewd to have opinions, I certainly want to hear their opinions, Wikipedia wants their opinions and I'd risk my life to fight for anyone's right to be heard. Know, however, that this does not mean that after I hear those very opinions I'd fight for that I wouldn't be averse or slow to declaring them to be stupid opinions or their authors to be silly, irrational imbiciles!


 * So, are these three qoutes (from people who don't matter) enough? I for one shall leave them in the Article simply to assuage your definsiveness and sensitivities. I suspect someone else will delete them because the authors of these qoutes are so obviously unimportant, plumber.DocEss 17:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! "so obviously unimportant" did you even look at the Christopher Hitchens page, and that just covers his regular jobs. He does one off articles for many of the finest newspapers in the world (such as the Times). Compared to Oscar Cruz, bishop of Lingayen-Dagupan in the Philippines a redlink nobody who is quoted in the catholic section then Hitchens is titan of notability.

LOL! "I for one shall leave them in the Article simply to assuage your definsiveness and sensitivities." Nope you'll leave them in as they are up to the appropriate standard notability and verifiability for this article.Hypnosadist 18:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We also need a qoute from Brangelina, ya think? Standard notability? He's a plumber.DocEss 18:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I sort of agree that this "secular" section is bad. First, the choice of 'speakers' for the secular side is totally random, and necessarily and incurably so, because nobody can claim to speak for 'secularists' with any authority. It's also totally US-centric. Second, even though some secularists have commented on the lecture, this is not part of the original controvery, and I don't think any confrontation or substantial controversy between the Vatican and "secularism" is imminent. I think the section must go. Azate 13:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Azate you need to read the lecture, it was ment to be about uniting monotheists faiths to battle secularism. As i say that the pope messed up is good news as it reduces the risk of us being force back to the middle ages. There will be no confrontation over this as secularists tend not to crusaid or jihad to get their way. This popes whole message in his time is that the world is messed up due to secularism, he's messing in the legitamate democratic process in several countries on abortion issues especially european ones etc. Many secularists commented on the reaction to the one phrase that angered the muslims, and that reaction and then pointed out the popes true aims with this lecture. As to the concept of authority, these quotes don't claim to speak for all secularists or athiests as thats not possible because we each think for ourselves and are not told what is right by an ex member of the hitler youth. That doesn't mean we don't have a right to a voice, or that individual secularists such as the highly notable political commentator Christopher Hitchens say on the issue especially as with christopher the Sunday Times asks him to write an op-ed on this very issue! As long as the comments are limited to the lecture and its world wide responce the secularists views of this are just as valid as anyone else (especial redlink catholic bishops).Hypnosadist 15:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hypno: Nobody ever said you don't have a right to a voice. Indeed, I stated above I'd fight to the death for your right to a voice. But you should know that having a voice and getting people to listen to that voice are two different things. Azate is saying that the section must go - why don't you justify why it should stay? In your justification, please stay on point; the Topic of this Article is The Controversy Caused by the Pope's Lecture. If these qoutes are germane, then by all means keep them in the Article. But if you wish to write more disjointed and rambling speeches like these about what's wrong with the Pope and Middle Ages and Hitler Youths and Democratic Processes and other tangentental, ancillary & irrelevant material, please do it all in one big essay (which I'd be glad to read) - just get it over with so we can duly ignore it again.DocEss 16:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did read the lecture, and there is no doubt at all that secularists/atheists are targeted (among others, maybe). Even the WP article says as much. Thing is, there is no controversy on this front: Secularists/atheists are used to shrugging off remarks from popes. This has worked very well for 200 years. Chr. Hitch. didn't write that article because he felt an urgent need to defend secularism against the vatican, but because writing about the pope is the hip thing to do right now. The controversy is a pope vs. islam thing exclusively. Azate 16:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Who is Brangelina?? "Brangelina" – Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, U.S. actors (as a couple) - I quipped that we should include a qoute from them, too. I mean, golly - they're as important as cristupher hutchuns, aren't they? More so?DocEss 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Azate: you removed the Secular Section in summary fashion. I'm not convinced it should be removed entirley. Some of the qoutes were direct responses to what the Pope said. Our only debate, really, is whether or not the authors of those qoutes are of enough importance. I take it, therefore, that you believe these wing-nuts to be as unimportant to the Topic as Brangelina, Roger Clemens, my plumber or your favorite stripper.DocEss 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Azate,
 * while I agree that most of what these secularist voices said is rather ignorant and without substance (yes, that is a POV!), there is no reason to simply debar them from the article. (And stupid edit summaries are not a valid argument.) Whether CH has a urge to write on this, or simply does the fashionable thing is of no consequence. Do we probe into the motives of these countless Mulim voices? From how some have commented, one cannot but sense a lack of earnestness about their comments (I haven't read but I'll just comment anyway etc.) Still, we include these comments.
 * Furthermore there is absolutely no reason for you to delete the comments by George Carey. Though he is retired he still is a respected voice within the Anglican world and notable given his being quite different from his successor. Given that we have several Muslim quotes that repeat the same stuff again and again, I don't think it too hard to give Mr Carey two extra lines. Str1977 (smile back) 18:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's quite a spanking. I see that the inclusion of Carey quote is perfectly legitimate: he's still an expert, he talked exatcly about the Pope's lecture and he's important enough to cite.DocEss 18:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't hold any grudges agains Carey, or find his views odd. It's just that including a retired, former archbishop would give license to include the views of all these former presidents and former prime-ministers, too. And, yes, we should "probe into the motives of these countless Mulim voices", too. But more systematically, and less anecdotal. It's a job that remains to be done. T.Ali's and S.Harris' views are already summarized in section 4. We can obviously add them as additional footnotes. Hitchens' piece is totally lazy writing and totally lazy thinking. I really feel sorry for the man - he used to be sharp. See this for how to tackle the same issue in-depth that CH only superficially bumped into, and stumbled over. Azate 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Azate,
 * if you want to probe into them, I don't object. But until we do so, we cannot merely probe into CH's motives (whose comment I think, as I have stated, you be notable only in its malice and his, as you rightfully termed it, laziness). I understand that you had to start somewhere.
 * I also believe you that you hold no grudge against Carey. However, I don't think that we should be as legalistic as you fear (and I understand that that danger exists). I believe that Carey is not merely some former Archbishop but the immediate predecessor, a very well respected man, and also representative for one of the CoE's wings.
 * I also hope that neither you nor DocEss are hurt by my "spanking" language above. I was a bit enraged, partly by your reverting again but also partly by what I termed stupid edit summaries (and also talk pages postings). And believe me, Azate and DocEss, it wasn't you posted them. Str1977 (smile back) 22:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, include Carey then. But if someone comes along and wants to include Clinton or Carter, or Kissinger because "Carey is also included and is only a former office-holder", I'll die! And YOU promise to talk him out of it. Azate 14:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll do that unless that additional comments is worth including. That has always been my take on this, that we include comments for their informative value, and because every tribe sents a delegate to the council. Str1977 (smile back) 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, am hurt by no words. Neither should anyone else be. DocEss


 * Azate your reasons in the edit summary to wholesale remove the secular section were related to it being US-centric or that the choice of 'speakers' for the secular side is totally random and that no one can speak for secularists (your word as I originally used "secular" as it was to describe the non-religious commentary as opposed to describing solely the people making it). Alternatively you said that secularists have commented on the lecture and that this is not part of the original controvery, and that you didn't think any confrontation or substantial controversy between the Vatican and "secularism" is imminent. Your reasons are poor. Tariq Ali is UK based but born in (now) Pakistan, Christopher Hitchens born in England but now in US and Sam Harris is born in US and live in US, thus not fully US-based or centric. Maybe you mean Anglo-American though I suspect that if you put all three of these in a room they'd each go to seperate corners on many subjects. These peoples' relevance is that all of them have had books or articles published related to Islam and Christianity. They are thus notable commentators to this so-called controversy. No doubt many other notable people (in their own right) can comment too what the Pope said BUT are they notable with respect to the topics i.e. Christianity and Islam ? Probably not. By all means anyone can fly the flag by which they prejudge content but at least plant it in solid ground of reason. Just trying to avoid an edit war here. I'll at least refrain from adding Scott Adams, because even though I like Dilbert, Mr Adams may comment on the pope (as a secularist) but he's not a plumber and thus not an expert on the subject of the Pope or Islam. I will thus not allow my opinion of Dilbert or Dogbert, or any cartoons for that matter to affect my reason. As for your view that there is no confrontation between the Vatican and "secularism" thats a strawman with respect to this Islam controversy; it's offtopic but the only answer is "where have you been since the Enlightenment !?" Ttiotsw 03:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have changed the section header back to "secularist". Though I am not completely happy with that term, it is certainly better than "secular". What is secular supposed to mean? That these folks have no religio-philosophical background? That they are somehow independent or objective. I don't think they are ... they are just as much or just as little "secular" than all the other voices. Str1977 (smile back) 10:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just call it "non-religious" and avert the inevitable three page argument over syntax? And yes, Tttwotoitw, Azate's reason for deletion might not be the right ones: but the best reson for deletion is that the people don't matter. Hardly anybody on earth cares what they think. To most people they are as important as my plumber --- or Dilbert, for that matter. DocEss 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * These people are notable(thats why they have their own pages). Major newspapers, mags and internet sites think these people are notable enough to give them column inches (on this very issue)and their publishers yet more book deals. And as no-one here seams to understand the word secular (docess included) i'll explain in small words. A secularist promotes the right of people to practice their religion freely (whichever one it is) and not to impose that religion on others through the state. A secularist can be an atheist or a catholic priest or any other faith so "non-religious" is completely wrong.Hypnosadist 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My plumber has his own web page too. Come to think of it --- so does my favourite stripper!DocEss 18:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They have wikipedia pages not just there own webpage!Does your plumber write for newspapers on both sides of the atlantic? About religion and politics and the separation of church and state? I think not! And you can keep mentioning your plumber as a sad strawman but it does not make your position any more valid. Just because you think secularists arn't allowed to have a POV on wikipedia does not make you any less wrong, they are allowed, read wp:npov and you will find i'm still right.Hypnosadist 18:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Sadist,
 * even if your definition of secularist were accurate (and it isn't or it least doesn't grasp the whole range of meanings of the term), it would still be secularist that you defined and not "secular". Secular simply means "(concerning the) wordly, temporal realm" - as opposed to the eternal realm. Accordingly, a physicist is always secular even when he happens to be a monk.
 * and if "secularist" is not liked, we need a word that isn't necessarily synonymous with "secularist" but which properly describes the voices included in the section.
 * Str1977 (smile back) 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think secularists aren't allowed to have a POV in Wiki; on the contrary, I said the oppossite three times. Now the fourth: everyone has a right to a POV in Wiki and everywhere. {Should I make the font bigger?} From above: Athiests are allowewd to have opinions, I certainly want to hear their opinions, Wikipedia wants their opinions and I'd risk my life to fight for anyone's right to be heard. Know, however, that this does not mean that after I hear those very opinions I'd fight for that I wouldn't be averse or slow to declaring them to be stupid opinions or their authors to be silly, irrational imbiciles! In my opinion, your guys whom you qoute are unimportant to the Topic of the Article.DocEss 18:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I absolutely concur. Atheists and secularists and whoever have a right to a POV in WP, as long as it is properly attributed and made clear that it is an opinion. And I say that even though I think especially these three opinions given here extremly low. What I tried to argue above is that we do not use wrong labels that are de facto endorsing the statements or give them wider validity. Calling these view secular is like calling the Immaculate Conception a Christian doctrine alongside of Sola Fide labelled as a Protestant doctrine. Both are true classifications (IMHO) but it is misleading to present them this way. Str1977 (smile back) 18:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Docess you say "I will then contend that an athiest's view of a religious comment is inherantly irrelevant," and then expect me to believe that you want to represent secular or atheist or bright POV in this article?Hypnosadist 02:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh no --- I don't really want these comments in the Article because, as I've repeatedly stated, I believe they (the authors) don't qualify as authorities on the subject. They (the authors) are inherantly irrelevant and their opinions about the Pope's Islam Controversy don't matter to 99% of humanity. Again, they are about as important as my plumber. Nevertheless, the qoutes remain in the article because permanently deleting them seems like it would be a whole lot of irritating work. So please remain placated and sedated.DocEss 17:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Arab News article about forced conversion
This article, *The Myth of Forced Conversions by Muhammad’s Sword: Arab News, is certainly an interesting viewpopint and worth reading. I believe it is ancillary to the topic of the Article and so I have removed it again. The Arab News article is merely a refutation of Manuel II's qoute and does not further our knowledge of the Artcle's topic, which is The Controversy. The Arab News content certainly makes for an interesting discusssion; but we can't have arguments for and against every little thing that was mentioned in the Pope's lecture, now can we? We'd have a page a mile long, full of theological ramblings! What we have on the Article's page is simply a description of the controversy caused by the Pope's use of an ancient qoute, and this description should include all the necessary elements. Ancillary discussion about whether or not the Pope's or Manuel's words were corect are best done somehwre else. Agreed?DocEss 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, such a link would require us to include a balancing link, as calling the issue a myth is itself highly questionable at least, if not a myth itself. Str1977 (smile back) 20:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a POV that supports Pope's view when one reads all that you have written above,It is correct that it should be ancillary - that is why it is connected as a link to the article and not discussed in the article itself.TerryJ-Ho 09:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Terry, that I agree with what the Pope said (and not what others said that he said). However, that is not the point. The point is neither that we need exacatly equal representation of all POVs in the links section. However, a link declaring something myth and hence declararing something else fact is highly problematic when this judgment is highly questionable. Str1977 (smile back) 19:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Terry: I don't quite follow you. I said that the link is ancillary (merley so) and as such such not be included. You countered that the link is ancillary and that's your rationale for inclusion. Does not compute. My personal point of view is as irrelevant as yours, by the way.DocEss 17:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hijacking?
How does one hijack an aeroplane without using any weapons? What did they do - use harsh language?DocEss 18:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Turns out they were Christian converts, who "didn't want to serve in a Muslim army" Whatever. Azate 19:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well well. Seems like the inclusion of the link to this story and paragraph in the Article was a tad premature. We should wait for a little while until the story gels, ya?DocEss 19:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question. All i know is that several, if not all, news sources have said that it is a "hijacking". dposse 21:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dposse, since you have already posted here I thougt I could expect you to have read all the links above. Please do so now and you will find the answer to your query. Str1977 (smile back) 17:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't see that.... dposse 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's all right. I hope you can now understand that I got a bit angry. Sorry about that. Str1977 (smile back) 20:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)