Talk:Regensburg lecture/Archive 1

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

Secularist or Secular ?
Googleing for "secular commentary" gets 306 hits, googleing for "secularist commentary" gets 3 (one from an Anglican clergy and 1 from a Catholic regarding gay rights both using IMHO the term as a derogatory label, and 1 from a paper that was presenting a taxonomy and it has lots of "-ist" words e.g. "Religionists, Secularists, Separationists and Neutralists". I don't think either of these is relevant. Based on that evidence the term Secular commentary is more apt I would imagine given that it would look that using the term secularist commentary is quite rare i.e. 100 times less usage and thus our use like that is original work which we're not allowed. Don't revert back Secular to Secularist as what was originally wrote and is the more commonly used title. Wikipedia broadly reflects whats happening in real life not niches and 1% sounds niche terminology to me. Ttiotsw 02:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. I have explained why secular doesn't work. Google searches anyway are not a reliable way of finding out which to chose. If secularist editors include secularist voices in this article by creating a section called "secular comments", why shouldn't secularist people out there on the internet be any different?
 * If "secularist" is not well liked (and I have my qualms about the term as well), we can always put something else, e.g. "secular humanist", "non-religious", "atheist" etc. etc. Str1977 (smile back) 12:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't care what the section is called just that the views are represented.Hypnosadist 12:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I notice that the non-religious people listed are Communist and self-described anti-theists, was there no moderate atheist or humanist worth quoting?--T. Anthony 09:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In light of the criteria that only commentary about the two subjects i.e. Pope and Islam then any secularist/secular/non-religious commentary has been regarding this interaction only. Thus what little commentary there is has been filtered to only include those who have bothered with that aspect of the lecture. It could be that self-censorship has taken place for fear of life and limb WRT Islamic violence or the lecture just wasn't interesting. I have found something by Uri Avnery http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/35741 but again related to the article and I don't know if people see him as non-communist and non-anti-theist and I'm uncertain of the notability of the site - Media Monitors Network. Scott Adams (he of Dilbert fame) did a blog http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/09/pope_stirs_up_p.html ; I guess given the caricature of the responses of Islamics he would be approriate but as a blog (albeit on his own site) it's not really notable as it wasn't published by a notable (from WP POV) 3rd party. Unlike some who can't judge what is notable I feel I at least have a clue on this matter. I like Dilbert though so I'm biased. Few atheists I feel haven't bothered with the lecture as the core argument of this pope was a confusion about reason wrapped up in the usual tortured logic one would expect from such a authorative theocratic politician. Whereas before they could mangle people now it's words. Radical Islamics seem to mangle both people and words. Eventually moderates everywhere will prevail though it'll be a quiet revolution as usual. It usually starts with a new generation of children. Ttiotsw 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing what you're kind of saying is that a moderate atheists would either not really be interested in what Popes' say or would be concerned any comment would get them death threats. Atheists who'd comment on this would be more intense on religious matters or events, which makes sense. The "moderate atheist" I mean have a "live and let live" kind of policy, but that usually means they're not interested in religious discussions. They're disinterest is either to avoid fights or because the subject truly is of no interest to them whatsoever. The end is kind of a bit of snottiness, but whatever.--T. Anthony 09:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounded reasonable, until the last few sentences. Tortured logic? Beam of light.--Shtove 18:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible Factual Errors section
I removed this section because it is irrelavant. If the Pope said that the sky was green instead of blue in his speech, it would not have casued any controversy. Likewise, this section is irrelevant. There was no reaction to any 'factual errors' in his lecture. Rather, The Controversy was caused, quite simply, by the Pope's use of an ancient qoute that was seen by Muslims as derogatory.DocEss 21:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hate to disagree but i read the exact criticisms deleted in a Sunday Times piece, with the muslim columnist saying this basic error underlined how little he thought the Pope knew about Islam. I'll see if i can find the link and then we can see if that is notable?Hypnosadist 23:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * May be we should consolidate this section with this one. There's a Sunday Times piece here, under the title Serious errors of both fact and judgment, by Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent: In fact, this sura [Koranic chapter] is held by Muslim scholars to be from the middle period, around the 24th year of Muhammad’s prophethood in 624 or 625, when he was in Medina and in control of a state. Contrary to what the Pope said, this was written when Muhammad was in a position of strength, not weakness. --Filius Rosadis 00:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And contrary to what Ruth Gladhill claims, Mohammed was not 'in control of a state' and 'in a position of strength, not weakness' at the time. He had just fled his hometown of Mecca with his less-than 100 people (ok, less than 100 adult men, for nitpicks) strong community, and managed to draw up a contract with his new hosts, that made sure they wouldn't be persecuted, and which regulated intercommunity affairs. Still, this so-called "factual error" has been pointed out from several quarters (including, apparently, the Times), some of them notable muslim spokesmen. If we include the allegation of "factual error", let's also point out the error in calling this an error. There's a pattern here, of course: It's not as if 'the Pope said the sky was green instead of blue' in his speech. In the case of this sura, he said is was blue alright. And then along come Muslim spokespeople and Ruth Gladhill and the Times, and call him a liar or badly informed... Azate 11:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What about Controversy about an alleged factual error in the lecture or something? The controversy does exist. On the other hand, I agree that Wikipedia is not to arbitrate and decide who wins. I personally know for good that it's a blatant error. The Pope really though that 2:256 belonged to the first years. I think it's possible to trace the wrong source (an article where Meccan and Madinan are mixed up), but I'd never say it in the article. I prefer to suggest there are other possible interpretations. --Filius Rosadis 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's almost unanimous agreement among traditional islamic scholars and western islamic sciences about the dating of the sura, and about the size and situation of the medina community between the hidjra and badr (probably Badr + some months). And there's no way in the world this could be called "in control of a state", or "postion of strength" with a straight face. Ms. Gladhill is seriously talking out of her arse here, and it's not Original Research to point this out (albeit in tamer language, obviously). If you can't find a good source to bolster that point, I'll try too. In a situation like this, when there is scientific (and even traditional) consensus, we cannot allow this section to continue to just hang in the air unarbitrated or undecided solely for our laziness in tracking sources. (oh, and I don't mean you personally, of course :-) I like Alleged factual error in the lecture, too. If you could find out who introduced "Meccan", that woul indeed be nifty. Azate 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me put in in simple terms: the Topic of the Article is the Controversy Caused by the Pope's Lecture. I reitereate: the controversy was not caused by any factual errors. 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. Factual errors, however interesting, are not part of the Topic.DocEss 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's your point of view, which I respect. But in fact there's a controversy about a particular point of the lecture, as references show, and the article should include it. Muslims (and some non Muslims) did controvert this point, so it's part of the controversy. --Filius Rosadis 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Filius Rosadis here. Azate 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no. Just because there's a question about something in the lecture that is disputable or arguable does not mean that that thing is what caused the big ole controversy itself. You're all stuck on semantics - just becasue something he might have said about some trivial detail is 'controversial' does not mean that that thing caused the uproar and outrage that ensued. What caused the uproar is, again, blatantly obvious. We can't sit around nit-picking every little word the Pope used and come up with a critique! That is not the topic of the Article, now is it? No it isn't.DocEss 16:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You've made up your mind, and you know it all. We got that much long ago, and there's no need for you to repeat it over and over again. We're under no obligation to accept that there's this ONE THING about the controversy, and all the rest is inadmissible trivia. There's controversy in the details, too. Just because these fly under your personal radar, doesn't mean they don't exist. Filius Rosadis has the sources to shed light on this particular point, so let him go ahead with it. It's part of the controversy alright. Azate 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Prove it.DocEss 16:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What's "it"? Azate 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Indulge us: describe the Controversy (in a sentence or two); list the things that caused The Copntroversy.DocEss 17:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We have a whole article page to describe the controversy, which is clearly an advantage. There'a zero necessity in doing that in 2 sentences. We're neither a news agency under space constraints, nor a demagogue in need of a catchphrase. I could describe even WWII in one sentence, but I like the Wikipedia article better. Azate 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Those are poor reasons to escape such a simple task. If you can't do it, you should either stop editing articles or admit defeat.DocEss 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Buh-wah-ha-ha!--Shtove 22:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A problem with such a section is that it is again necessarily controversial. So some Imam or Muslim leader corrects the Pope that Mohammed did not teach to spread the new faith by the sword. Well, 1) the Pope never said that (he only report Manuel saying that) 2) what Mohammed said is a difficult subject, 3) even if he didn't say it, his followers acted that way after his death.
 * So if we have a "correction of the Pope's factual errors" section, then we would also need a correction of the correctors' factual errors" section, and possibly on and on and on.
 * Mrs Gledhill's article shows are much you can embarass yourself by correcting someone's errors, as even if she were right it would be nitpicking, not speaking of the things she was wrong about.
 * Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This section (or others) may be controversial, and that may even be a problem. "Problem" as in "challenge to do it concisely, yet thoroughly", but that's the general problem of any encyclopedia, and not a reason to omit it. Azate 17:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The encyclopedic solution to that problem is to provide factually accurate (and in case of debates) balanced articles on the relevant topics addressed by the speech. Then anyone can easily get informed. Str1977 (smile back) 17:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Amen. The obstacle, however, is DocEss's definition of "relevant". He has repeatedly thrown out sections that trespassed his definition: The one in question here, the one about the translation stuff, and the one which tried to collect and summarize different takes on the popes intentions. And people don't like to work for the trash can, including myself. The time I spent here on this talk pape, opposing his interpretation of "relevant" should have been spent drafting something productive instead, but couldn't. Azate 18:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well stop being so stubborn, then, Azate. I don't have a definition of relevant - it's in the dictionary! The material you wish to include is not on topic. Please, just think about it. You'll just end up arguing until you're blue in the face - and you're not arguing with me, you're arguing against logic. Nom wonder you're frustrated. Step back and think, please.DocEss 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Azate, buddy: you're floppin around like a fresh-caught fish in the bottom of the boat. This article is a simple thing: it describes the Controversy caused by the Popes word's; said controversy revolves around his use of an ancient qoute demmed derogatory by the Islummies. Any other analysis is ancillary. Interesting, to be sure, but hardly germane.DocEss 17:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree Docess the controversies core is the one quote in the intro but it includeds the whole speach and the methodology of the pope behind it. For example why is the pope reading a very old document by a christian at war with islamic people to learn about islam etc. And don't forget as this controversy went on more people came into this political arena, and these peoples comments are just as part of the controversy as the people at the start. If Mrs Gledhill is wrong then tell the Times, we can report what she says as long as it is atributed to her.Hypnosadist 18:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not relevant, now is it?DocEss 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr Sadist, the question would be have to be why is the Pope not an ignoramus but a scholar reading interesenting scholars and edition of old works by them. And why does he think them relevant even now where we today no perfectly well that Islam cannot be ever ever warlike at all. Sarcasm mode off.
 * I always thought, journalists should report the news and not make the news. But now I know better.


 * DocEss, not really. Str1977 (smile back) 19:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're on about. Explain.DocEss 20:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply this, DocEss:
 * "Not relevant, now is it?" - "DocEss, not really (relevant)."
 * Str1977 (smile back) 22:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was pointing out one of the many criticisms leveled at the pope due to this lecture that is not even covered yet. All these things are part of the controversy, because someone notable says so. And the notability guidelines show us that writers published in both america and europe and in the oldest and most notable newspaper in the whole world (Thats the Times of London) are notable, Docess if your F'n plumber is he should be in the article.Hypnosadist 20:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you're gettin all fwuthtwated for no purpose. Succumb to reason, will ya?DocEss 20:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh look its a notable muslim complaining about the choice of person to quote from just like i said . Docess your continued incivility is not helping you or wikipedia please stop.Hypnosadist 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am civil; stop claiming I'm not. Please start justifying your statements.DocEss 20:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This "What if we get an X-Files enthusiast to say that he believes the Pope was forced by Martians to make that speech? Should we include that too? Logic elusive, is it?" and from above "Now you're gettin all fwuthtwated for no purpose." your sarcasm is not helping and not civil. The repeated strawman arguement about your plumber etc stop it and discuss the issues in terms of the policies of wikipedia.Hypnosadist 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing sarcastic. Answer those questions.DocEss 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats relevant to this article?
Lets put what each of us think is relevant to this article here and see if we can get concensus. Hypnosadist 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist 18:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The quote at the top of the article.
 * 2) The whole of the speach of the pope.
 * 3) The different reactions to the speach, from all over the world (as per wp:NPOV)
 * 4) Comment on the reactions from around the world.
 * 5) Comment on the speach.
 * 6) Comment on the pope (including past actions deemed unislamic) or his aims with this speach.

Hypnosadist 18:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say mainly The different reactions to the speech, from all over the world (as per wp:NPOV) including reactions to the different points of the lecture, criticism, support, arguments from the parts. --Filius Rosadis 18:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Starting from the present state of the article, I'd propose the following: Azate 18:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) section 1, about the contents of the lecture much as as is now, minus the translation differences.
 * 2) move detail from the initial statements" (minus # 2.3 Non-religious commentary) to a subpage. Summarize in article.
 * 3) move detail from the "Subsequent Vatican statements" to the same subpage. Summarize in article in same section as above.
 * 4) section about issues with the substance of the lecture, e.g. the translation differences, the mecca sura stuff, anything surfaces in this respect and hasn't been covered yet
 * 5) the "assesment of the purpose of the pope's lecture" section. Merge the applicable parts of "Non-religious commentary". Add additional stuff as it turns up. Move stuff that belongs from the initial staements to here. (eg. the abbot who speculates about iran)
 * 6) add section about "assesment of the purpose of the muslim reaction". Populate.
 * 7) add section about "assesment of the consequences of the controversy. Move the riots and threats here. Merge the applicable parts of "Non-religious commentary". Add additional stuff as it turns up. The recent pronouncement of the anglican church has frequently mentioned up in this respect, for example.


 * "assessment of the purpose of the muslim reaction" seems to me to be getting a little too recursive, in the sense that it suggests describing then the reactions to that, and then assessments of those reactions' purposes etc. etc. Just a thought.  Baccyak4H 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than that all ideas to date seem good, given they are presented in the right context. I think I have an idea that may, just may, be agreeable to all of us nitpicking over content.

Make an article about the lecture itself. Give the context of delivery, the full text of the lecture itself, then some scholarly references as to the intent, purpose, and (alleged) factuality. Then, have a section (perhaps the vast majority of the article!) about the controversy itself. Here I suggest we would have the critiques by political, religious, and non-religious intellectual leaders (any leaders speaking in an editorial way; any scholarship would go in the earlier section). Also of course would be protests, diplomatic efforts, clarifications, etc.

If that gets too long, then have a subpage with only the controversy, or perhaps several with various aspects of it, as has been proposed.

As you all know, I feel quite strongly that not noting the logical difference between the lecture itself and controversy itself would be inappropriate in the setting of WP. But in following my suggestion, this is no longer an issue, and there is a place for pretty much all supporting material. Baccyak4H 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Baksyyacky: make an article about the lecture itself, if you wish to engage in critique. As for this Article and this section -- "There is no compulsion in religion" -- re-titling it does nothing to change the fact that it is critique of the lecture and does not speak to the controversy caused by the lecture (which I remind all is the Topic of the Article).DocEss 16:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. That section documents an important part of the controversy. Its relevancy is much clearer than the Assessment of the lecture's purpose section. By the way, I agree with the title change. --Filius Rosadis 16:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I point out again that the controversy is not limited to just the reactions of muslims on the day of the speach but to all the notable events directly atributed to this event. As for the logical distinction between the speach and the controversy that is perfectly obvious. The lecture is the cause and the controversy is the effect, and it is insane to try a discribe an effect without its cause.Hypnosadist 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the controversy might entail (indeed does) much more than that. And are you then arguing in favor of generalizing the article to be about the lecture itself, thus including the controversy? Baccyak4H 17:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Justify your statement: explain how the Pope's contention about 'compulsion in religion' could be responsible for the indignant reaction? Also, you weren't clear: what title should this (ancillary) quote receive?DocEss 16:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not our job to do here. Not "how [it] could be responsible for [reactions]", but rather what the reactions were, and (whenever reasonably possible) reasons why they reacted such, from those doing the reacting.  Baccyak4H 17:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no Baccy. Our job is to write articles that are on topic. Including reasons for someone's motives regrading a lecture is pure speculation, by the way. Look, I asked Filuis to justify his statement, a statement he believes and relies upon to put content into the article: "That section documents an important part of the controversy." I want to know: 1) how is the material in that section even part of the controversy?; 2) if it is part of the controversy, why does he think it is important as oppossed to trivial or anciallry? DocEss 17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify then. Including content of events/statements which are reactions to the lecture is completely valid.  It sounded like you were asking for some OR; our analysis here should not be part of the article.  But notable events which are precipitated by similar analysis could be.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.   Baccyak4H 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear too. The section about 'compulsion in religion' does not describe the Controversy; it is not even part of the Controversy and no one can 'twist it' into being relevant; 2) The section "Assessment of the Lectures Purpose" is speculation, it is WK:OR and it is counter to what the lecturer even stated was his purpose (i.e., the Pope has stated inumerable times what was the lecture's purpose); and 3) the conetent about Secular (or whatever it's called now) opinions are irrelevant because those being qouted are irrelevant. Those three sections should be deleted. Our job is to write articles that are on topic.DocEss 17:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1)The section "Assessment of the Lectures Purpose" is not wp:OR as each of the statments is sourced, OR only applies to sections writen by WP editors, not to what sources say!Hypnosadist 17:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 2)WP:NPOV quite clearly means that secular commentary as well as that of any other religious or political denomination should be part of this article. Makeing the article less POV by the inclusion of many different POV's.Hypnosadist 18:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 3)'compulsion in religion' section is again notable as this has been complained about by both muslims and non-muslims who are notable and have verifiably said that.Hypnosadist 18:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 4)Docess will you please list what you feel is relivent in the format i have used above so we can see what we agree on.Hypnosadist 18:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The Pope stated his purpose. We don't need all that other speculative crappola. (Indeed, inclusion does not help describe the controversy; it only creates more through speculation!) Providing sources for crap doesn't eliminate the fact that it is crap. What if we get an X-Files enthusiast to say that he believes the Pope was forced by Martians to make that speech? Should we include that too? Logic elusive, is it?
 * 2) It's not the point whether the secularist commentary is POV or NPOV or anything at all; what matters is that the people being qouted don't matter: they are not authorities, nobody (well a few dimwits) listens to them, and we never hear about them anyway. Shall we qoute my plumber's views too?
 * 3) The section about 'compulsion in religion' does not describe the Controversy, whetehr it is "notable" or not.
 * Stop trying to force material into the mold just because it is interesting and has something to do with the topic. Thsi Topic couldn't be more simple: all we're suppossed to do is describe the controversy. That entails describing what was said, who got hurt, how various important people reacted and mention of directly connected fallout. That is not hard to grasp. Doing things like arguing about wheteher there actually is compulsion in relgion for dis or dat or the Sura says this or that or the Pope didn't wear his hat while speaking is not germane.


 * Read my answers above and wp:npov Docess and then come back and discusss this matter logically and civily.Hypnosadist 18:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can read. Your answer is refutable on all grounds --- as it just was. I am civil. Be logical.DocEss 19:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think calling something crappola is logic whats the point of this talk page!Hypnosadist 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What a sura says and when it is said is of Great importance to muslims, maybe not you Docess but this encyclopdeia is ment to be NPOV so what is important to 1.6 billion people is to be represented here.Hypnosadist 20:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a disengenous statement and I take umbrage to it. I never said that what 1.6 billion people think is not important. I said, repeatedly so, that the material whose inclusion you supoort does not add to the Article's validity or our understanding of the Topic, which is to describe the controversy caused by the Pope's lecture. You seem to have an agenda to include Muslim voices; I, on the other hand, have the only correct agenda: to describe items in an encycloepedic fashion. Now get down to justifying inclusion of particular material and stop trying to attribute motives to me.DocEss 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope i want to make an encyclopedia for the whole of humanity, so i want all notable pov's included. I have represented for having the views of secularist/athiest views, muslim views and CofE views.Hypnosadist 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahhhh what a nice sentiment. This is hardly the point of an encyclopoedia. Go write a novel. think about it: should we have Buddhist views in the the Internal Combustion Engine article? Look --- we don't need 'views' in any article - we need facts properly described and that is all. You keep looking for ways to include opinions; not the point! This Article is simple - why do you complicate so?DocEss 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, what is the Buddhist view on the Internal combustion engine? It might save the planet.--Shtove 22:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Seams you two have not been reading the policies of wikipedia, my nice sentiment is Jimbo's nice sentiment. I'll tell you this for free your'e sarcasm won't save the planet.Hypnosadist 22:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Idea: write an article describing the lecture, then seek a vote to merge this article in to one section of the lecture article, and once the vote is passed recalibrate all existing links to this article. Baccyak4H]'s will be done. No sarcasm, honest. When was the last time so many people actually read what a pope had written?--[[User:Shtove|Shtove 22:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "When was the last time so many people actually read what a pope had written."
 * If they had read what he had said/written, we would have no controversy. Str1977 (smile back) 17:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * NO this article is about the controversy over this lecture not just the bits you think are relivent. Yes after the headline quote there are more things to criticise (apperantly) and those things should be included because they are part of the controversy as a whole. Just because Docess and Shtove don't think something controversal doesn't mean someone thinks that,and it is notable and verifiable sources say on the matter thats important.Hypnosadist 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I second Hypnosadist's point.
 * Who are you? Str1977 (smile back) 17:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Article dated July 2004???
I have not deleted it yet, but take a look:


 * There have been reports of writing in church doors stating "If the Pope does not apologise, we will bomb all churches, kill more Christians and steal their property and money." Then the reference points to http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_04047ixtns.shtml , which is dated 7/4/04 and doesn't contain the quoted passage or deal with the Pope's lecture. I think  it should be removed. --Filius Rosadis 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We should go though the article history first, and see if the real URL can be found in an earlier article version. Azate 19:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This Zakir clown
Can we agree that this guy can get a bullet point and end this crazy fancruft? Elliskev 02:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote for a line and a link for this guy!Hypnosadist 17:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Probably"
From the original German text:

"Der Kaiser wußte sicher, daß in Sure 2, 256 steht: Kein Zwang in Glaubenssachen – es ist eine der frühen Suren aus der Zeit, in der Mohammed selbst noch machtlos und bedroht war. Aber der Kaiser kannte natürlich auch die im Koran niedergelegten – später entstandenen – Bestimmungen über den heiligen Krieg." (http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=14655)

Please point out where you got your "probably" from. The text merely says: It is one of the early suras from the time, when Mohammed himself was still powerless and threatened."

Str1977 (smile back) 16:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, those darn translation differences again. :-)


 * "Der Kaiser wußte sicher, daß in Sure 2, 256 steht: Kein Zwang in Glaubenssachen – es ist wohl eine der frühen Suren aus der Zeit, wie uns ein Teil der Kenner sagt, in der Mohammed selbst noch machtlos und bedroht war. Aber der Kaiser kannte natürlich auch die im Koran niedergelegten – später entstandenen – Bestimmungen über den heiligen Krieg." (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_ge.html) (emphasis added - B4H)


 * My german is not that trustworthy. But what other meanings can "wohl" reasonably have here?    But note this is from the original source.


 * If there is controversy because someone copied or transcribed it wrong or whatever, fair enough, let's report such. But at least get our facts straight.  It it quite pointless, indeed in this case perhaps disingenuous, to take a second hand source over a first hand one, for purposes of what what actually said (not that reactions to second hand sources are irrelevant -- they're not -- but they are just that).


 * Not reporting "wohl" or "probably", while still factually true (just a different but still correct excerpt), gives an implication of authority that was just not present, and thus is misleading. If Joe on the street wishes to conveniently ignore that word just in order to conclude the Pope said something stupid and ignorant, well to the extent he notably did it's valid material.  But to imply in the WP article that the Pope actually was demonstrably wrong, when in reality the best evidence available suggests something far more vague, is simply inappropriate.


 * Baccyak4H 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't waste your time. The enitre section will be removed.DocEss 16:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Doc, that might be so. Then again, maybe not. In any case, as long as it stands, it should be correct and NPOV. I am pessimistic about the second point, but at least regarding the first point we can avoid the errors that are really easily avoidable. And this is one of these easy issues. I will argue no more about this and will accept no denial of this simple fact. Str1977 (smile back) 16:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

STR: I'm glad to see you've been able to maintain your objectivity and open mind. In any event, I admire your attention to detail; similarly, I spent a lot of time correcting errors in the "Assessment" section to make it read right and I'm going to rally for its deletion too.DocEss 17:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am still holding out hope that a reorg can appropriately include all of this material. I have gotten both HS and Doc on board already (the two most divergent opinions on this) as well as at least one other. So all is not lost.  Baccyak4H 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hardly! I'm not on board anything, Baccy. Explain pleaseDocEss 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Making an all-inclusive article about the lecture, including the subsequent contoversy. Here's what you thought.  Baccyak4H 17:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * oh no no no. Make a second article is what I meant. This article is a simple one. Make another one to deal with all the other anciallry stuff.DocEss 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't do "simple" here. We do "encylopedic", which means compehensive and yet condensed and in layman's language. Azate 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly Azate, i agree!Hypnosadist 18:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is the solution: This is another of these version differences. Both of the present official English and German versions say "probably", the older, original German transscript doesn't at all. The Vatican is playing games here. They also altered "the experts" to "some of the experts". Azate 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Engish official Vatican version (present version): The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion" According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat (bold script mine)
 * German official Vatican version (present version): Der Kaiser wußte sicher, daß in Sure 2, 256 steht: Kein Zwang in Glaubenssachen – es ist wohl eine der frühen Suren aus der Zeit, wie uns ein Teil der Kenner sagt, in der Mohammed selbst noch machtlos und bedroht war (my translation: The emperor certainly knew that in surah 2, 256 is says: no compulsion in matters of religion - it is probably one of the ealy suras, from the time, as a some (parts) of the experts tell us, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat) (bold script mine)
 * German official Vatican version (version from 12 Sept, from ): Der Kaiser wußte sicher, daß in Sure 2, 256 steht: Kein Zwang in Glaubenssachen – es ist eine der frühen Suren aus der Zeit, wie uns die Kenner sagen, in der Mohammed selbst noch machtlos und bedroht war. (my translation: The emperor certainly knew that in surah 2, 256 is says: no compulsion in matters of religion - it is one of the ealy suras, from the time, as the experts tell us, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat)


 * Why your faith in the second hand source? For that Joe on the street, that would betray something as to his mindset.  Now maybe indeed that is what the vatican did.  But a reasonable person should require quite firmer evidence.


 * What would be compelling would be the vatican's page cached and dated by a reputable search engine. Or even better, a YouTube video of the lecture with audio.  But even so, honest ears can differ.  Just ask Neil Armstrong. Baccyak4H 17:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is exactly what I did. The second hand source from www.kath.net is a faithful copy & paste from the www.vatican.va version from 12 September. See also the early BBC copy The audio link of the lecture is in the article, too. The early version is a word-by-word reproduction of the live lecture. I checked it. (I speak German fluently). The present version is altered and wrong, the early version a faithful reproduction of the audio. (as far as this passage is concerned, at least) Azate 18:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To quote a great philosopher "Naughty, naughty, very naughty!"Hypnosadist 18:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Vatican is not playing games here at all. Three distinct things are the manuscript (sometimes distributed beforehand), the actually spoken word, and later publication of the speech, which can be altered. Usually the manuscript will say "the spoken word counts" and "the right to stylistic alterations are reserved". The Vatican has apperently done the latter, but there is nothing sinister about it.
 * Nonetheless, either the lecture as it was held should count ... or ... we should ship around the issue by simply leaving the differing word out from the quote. Str1977 (smile back) 18:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. I will listen to the lecture again and get back to you. A link is this one: http://www.horeb.org/xyz/podcast/papstbesuch/2006-09-12_Vortrag_Uni_Regensburg.mp3 Str1977 (smile back) 18:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're right. And maybe you're wrong and there are indeed games played here. We don't know. But I know this: In three crucial parts (the amount of the pope distancing himself from the quote, and twice with this sura stuff here) the alterations mirror the complaints from the muslim side, and hedge with an altered, official version. Maybe this late vesion is designed to appease, maybe the early version was designed to provoke (with backdoors for the Vatican built in). The much ruder and planily incorrect translation of Manuel's quote from german to english is another factor. Of course, one should never rule out stupidity or chance. Personally, I think what the Vatican did and does is ominous. And very clever: This is material that could be showcased in advanced studies in "How to create controversy and maintain plausible deniability", right after the "If you can't convince them, confuse them" basic course. Btw., I was present at actual courses with titles very much like that, in case you think I'm exaggerating. Hint: The passage is 4 min 50 sec into the audio of the lecture Azate 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not document both the versions, just explaining there's a slight variation in the two German texts, and comparing it to the official English translation? Just this, without any judgement about it. --Filius Rosadis 18:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should we waste space on this irrelevant question? How does covering this contribute to the overall understanding of this controversy? Str1977 (smile back) 14:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the "Holy See" is trying to re-writing history and wikipedia should record the facts so that anyone reading this understands the word probabliy was NEVER in the quote.Hypnosadist 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see no "rewriting of history", especially not if we simply stick to the original text as it was spoken. Creating an issue where ther isn't one would be OR. Str1977 (smile back) 15:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes we stick to what was actually said not the vaticans re-write of history.Hypnosadist 15:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no rewrite of history, if later publications word things in a more comprehensible way, avoiding wordings that have created unintended controversy. A re-writing of history would be if the Holy See claimed that the Pope had said "probably" in Regensburg or if it tried to destroy records of the actual speech.
 * If "we stick to what was actually said" my original aim in creating this section has been fulfilled. I always tried to keep "probably" out because it was not in the original lecture. Str1977 (smile back) 17:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Different English versions
On September 18 2006, some newspapers including La Nación posted an official English translation of the lecture with this final note: ''The Holy Father intends to supply a subsequent version of this text, complete with footnotes. The present text must therefore be considered provisional''. Some passages of this provisional text differ from the current official English translation. Perhaps we should mention these variations in the Translation differences section. --Filius Rosadis 03:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Old version: According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.
 * New version: According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.
 * Old version: he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general. (N.B.: already mentioned at "Change of text" subsection).
 * New version: he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general. (N.B.: already mentioned at "Change of text" subsection).


 * We could put it After Translation differences and call it Version differences as that would place this info in a NPOV way.Hypnosadist 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)