Talk:Pope Benedict XVI and Islam

Politics and religion
Is it possible within this article to better distinguish Islam as an agglomeration of cultures and states and Islam as a religion ? There is a notion called orientalism, which means that several civilizations and religions may in theory co-exist within the so-called Eastern world. For instance, Armenia and Russia are part of the Eastern world and they merely have a different college of bishops. There are also Syriac, Greek-Egyptian, Filipino and Arab-speaking Christian minorities in the region, as well as Jews in Israel and Hindus in India. ADM (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Analogia Entis/Analogia Fidei
I was going to link these terms to the wikipedia entries, but only the latter term has an entry. Upon Googling each term, I discovered that, even to a reader familiar with the entis/fidei jargon, the text ("Others have noted a heavy reliance on analogia entis rather than analogia fidei, and to consider "faith as the common ground" in the approach to Islam") is unclear. Very unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.177.202 (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pope Benedict XVI and Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061004155253/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2006/WORLD/europe/09/16/pope.islam/index.html to http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/16/pope.islam/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality of sources
Some of the sources used for this entry are not suitable for an encyclopedia and likely would not qualify as "reliable sources" as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines. One obvious example is the use of a YouTube video to support the assertion that the Pope is wrong (as a matter of fact, not opinion) about his claims concerning the Koran and compulsion in religion. While I have seen YouTube used as a source for video evidence to prove, for instance, a particular person, such as a well-known celebrity, did in fact issue a statement that has been attributed to him, I have never seen(not that it hasn't happened) it accepted as a reliable source for the settling of disputes concerning the facts surrounding actual historical incidents. Given that YouTube is unedited and virtually anyone can use as it, citing it as a definitive resource for evidence the Pope is factually wrong seems rather dubious, particularly when the individual appearing in the video is likely unknown to everyone but a relatively small group of individual. Sources of unknown quality that are subjected to no independent fact-checking or editing should not be treated as reliable.72.49.235.222 (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)