Talk:Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Discussion page

Sorry -- this is a discussion page, not the article. Why some many warnings about freely expressing opinions? freedom of speech is not a value to wk anymore? --BBird 15:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page – This page is for constructive discussions about the article, and nothing else. – Smyth\^talk 17:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

who was the Persian scholar?

Anyone know? 136.159.133.244 Presumably he is anonymous in the original text, which was likewise presumbly written by Manuel II. Pablosecca 20:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We may have to wait on the footnotes version of the speech promised to be released by the pope, for that. He doesn't really mention him, or other details about the conversation in the speech.--Tigeroo 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy war or jihad

The concept of "jihad" as described in the Wikipedia jihad article as a "struggle" against evil would not seem to be a contradiction of Catholic teaching. Perhaps the contributor meant "holy war" instead. Or did Benedict himself use the word "jihad"?

Anyway, what the pope was criticizing was (1) "forced conversions" and (2) the predominance of fanaticism over reason. --Uncle Ed 19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:"Jihad" is not mentioned in the lecture. I guess the MIIP quote, "daß er vorgeschrieben hat, den Glauben, den er predigte, durch das Schwert zu verbreiten," i.e., very literally, "that he [Muhammad] has prescribed that the faith which he preached would be distributed by the sword", or in the official trsl., "his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." (No more exact references than the links on the article page are possible.)Clossius 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the use of jihad in the opening paragraph, as he clearly did not condemn all jihad (religious struggle). Have left it in in the other two places of the article though, coz they are both direct quotes from other sources and I can't verify the Islamic source one. - 158.143.65.91 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, was the lecture given in German?

Yes, of course; by a German in Germany and for Germans. :-) Clossius 20:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone but me noticed the differences between the German and English/Italian texts??? I have to assume that much of the world-wide hysteria is due to an overreliance on a poorly worded English translation...Mccalpin 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And did Muhammad indeed command anyone to "spread by the sword" some or all of the teachings of Islam?

Whether commanded or not - Islam did indeed "spread by the sword" - using conquests, force, and threats of war/retaliation. KyuuA4 16:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably akin to spread of christianity by the gun during the colonial era, and the sword during the Imperial Roman era's, but thats all off-topic for this article--Tigeroo 07:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The pope seems to be expressing the view of the West (generally) and of Catholicism (specifically) that reason should be respected, and that God does not want to force people to accept any particular religious belief.

perhaps a better way to put it is that the Pope was saying that in the Greek Christian tradition (which the Roman tradition drew from) that God cannot be unreasonable, and since it's not reasonable to force conversions by violence, God cannot order conversion by violence; whereas, in the Muslim tradition (according to the Pope), God is "transcendent" (to use the Pope's word), and is by His very nature not limited. It's like the old question: if God is omnipotent, can He do evil? The Catholic response is "No, He cannot, not because he doesn't have the power, but because He cannot do anything against His very nature." In any case, the comments below are valid - this was a formal lecture to an educated audience, and it's extremely easy to take what he says out of context...Mccalpin 23:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What do Muslims believe about reason and force? Are there any prominent Muslims who (1) condemn forced conversions or (2) approve or insist on forced conversions? --Uncle Ed 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Acually, the verse in the koran, "there should be no compulsion in religion", specifically means that no one should be forced to convert to any religion, even islam.

It's a question of interpretation really - there are different traditions of how to place religious practices in a social framework. Certainly in some historical eras, and in some countries now (e.g. Pakistan) it's considered a crime to try to win over a muslim to any other religion, including Christianity, and there's been heavy coercion at times to make people join Islam (again, it's a question of interpretation if you feel that the institution of devsirme', the janisssary guard, in the Ottoman empire, recruited from Christian boys who were taken away from their parents and brought to Constantinople, sometimes castrated or mistreated in other ways, whether this should be seen as coercive in those terms)

Of course whether to speak of forcible conversion is partly a matter of how you view islam and the situation, but there's no doubt that in some times in the middle Ages, a military squadron would storm a city or a village and begin maiming the inhabitants or selling them as slaves, and then (pictiruring you're one of the defeated, christian side) you don't wait to find out if there's a law for or against this sort of thing. or if a proper judge will show up - you convert if your gut feeling is that it will save your life. Still, with all respect for the Pope's intelligence, I'm surprised he'd quote a Byzantine Emperor on Islam like this.

It's safe to say though, that the contrast between the Believing World (dar al-islam, the House of Islam) and the outside world (dar al-harb, the House of War, often seen as the still-not-believing world) is an ingrained concept in many traditional strands of Islamic thinking, and the conclusion, to many, would be that political power in a country with many muslims should be wielded by muslims. And of course, in the West, the image of Muslim warriors forcing christians to convert or die is a familiar one; obviously this is part of what the Emperor Manuel was alluding to.Strausszek September 16, 2006 04:55(CEST)

Actually, jihad IS mentioned: Quote from the Vatican official German text: "...kommt der Kaiser auf das Thema des Djihād, des heiligen Krieges zu sprechen.". The English translation, however, omits it: "...the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war." Azate 22:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you are right; I was totally mistaken. :-( I had read another version and glanced just over this one, and searched, but not for this spelling... my mistake! Clossius 23:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Stuff happens. Nevermind. Azate 23:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jihad may refer to any religious struggle, but in modern usage it seems to only refer to Islamo-facist attempts to destroy the west and repress western influence.

Mostly agreed, but in a recent American TV-series Sleepercell there is a discussion involving a (fictous) Yemenite imam and a gang of terrorists where the Yemenite imam asks: Which is the greater jihad? He was of course killed ... But the script as such exposes the much heard about peaceful aspects of Islam. MX44 18:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Advice from a past debate...

I think this is worth repeating here... Azate 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc. Not only is this talk page not the right place for it, Wikipedia is not the right place for it. Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is undoubtably good in the world: write and give away a free encyclopedia.

Now, there are legitimate questions on both sides regarding this particular article, and I want to encourage a discussion of that. But please, do it with the very strong assumption of good faith on all parties to the discussion, and stick directly and purely to the editorial question at hand, rather than a general philosophical debate.

--Jimbo Wales 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm placing it on top. El_C 10:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo, Azate- used to love Wiki so much, what a tremendous n helpful site it should be. but now it seems the PC inmates are running the asylum and it is really saddening. It used to be that the talk page was the place for discussion that was more heated, but still controlled; Now if someone doesn't agree with what you say, or finds it offensive, it will be deleted. Truly unfortunate...PS what does "undountably" mean?

Agree with advice

Yes, I agree with all that of course. I'm only interested in figuring out:

What did the pope actually say about reason, force and religious conversions?
What did the pope actually say about "jihad" or "holy war"?
What has Muhammand, the Koran, and/or Muslims in the ancient and modern worlds said about using violence (or abstaining from it) to gain religious converts?
What similarities and differences are there in the Muslim and Catholic approaches?
Why are Muslims (or political leaders who are Muslims) taking offense at "a few obscure passages in a minor speech given in German at the pope's old university"?
- Do they regard the passing references as the most important part of the speech? Or,
- Do they see the pope as unfairly condemning Muslims or Muhammad for something? (Something that Christians themselves did (i.e., the Crusades)?
- Are they asserting the principle that no non-Muslim is permitted to criticize Islam, its prophet, its early followers, any Muslim?

Let's be neutral in our coverage of this controversy. I don't want to debate these things. I just want to know what Muslim and Catholic leaders (or scholars) have said or written about these things. --Uncle Ed 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the answers to 1 and 2 are easy enough to verify: just check out the external links cited:

Personally I doubt many will bother to read the comments in context especially as, to be honest, it's a pretty dry and highly academic discourse (in keeping it seems with the persona of this current pope, who is quite an intellectual but perhaps less in touch with the "grass roots" as his predecessor) - 158.143.65.91 19:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think the Germany pastoral visit showed that he is extremely in touch with the grass roots. He has really changed since his election; even since Cologne. The respective lecture was the one academic one he gave, at the university where he had been a professor, and this is why I think it is key to call it lecture (Vorlesung), not speech (Rede), which is what it was designed to be and what it was. (Admittedly the Munich sermon was also quite intellectual.) Note, in this context, by the way, the notice at the bottom of the lecture. Clossius 20:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Sorry, I may have been talking out of turn there then, since I'm not a Catholic and don't follow the detail of papal matters that closely, although I do have an interest in religious affairs. - 158.143.65.91 20:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, you are of course right - Benedict XVI is an extremely intellectual, scholarly Pope by any standards and particularly so when compared to John Paul II. However, I think that, in this context, the particular scholarly character of the speech is important for this very article - naturally, there was a wider audience addressed, but the setting and physical audience were purely academics, mostly even professorial colleagues, I think. Clossius 22:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems to imply that John Paul II was a bit on the dim side or less intellectual than the norm for a Pope, which I don't think is quite fair. At the same time I think it's likely unintentional that it sounded like that.--T. Anthony 04:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the opposite of "intellectual" or "scholarly" is "dim". There is no requirement that the Pope must be a scholarly type, and many great ones were not. It is of course easily a POV matter where exactly John Paul II "ranks" among Popes on the scholarship scale, but that this was not one of his main interests at all is, I think, fair to say. Clossius 06:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all going slightly off topic, admittedly, but I would disagree that scholarship was not (I am rewording slightly) a large interest of his. He was a prolific writer, and much of it would definitely be called scholarship. And if one ever notes his command of philosophy in Gift and Mystery, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, or in Encyclicals or Exhortations of his, it is pretty obvious the man was extaordinarily intellectual. Now, a comparison to Benedict might be premature, agreed, as his papacy is only a year and a half old. But perhaps the terms were meant to mean in appearance of being scholarly or intellectual. In such case Benedict wins hands down, agreed. Baccyak4H 16:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Separate Question

Since I am new (as a contributor) to Wikipedia, what do y'all think about me pointing out not just the variances between the German and English texts, but that this variance may be contributing to the controversy?

I had a statement in the text about how you might get a better feel for what the Pope thought about the quotation if you read his speech in the original German (however well or poorly I said it); however, I see that it (the slightly editorial comment) was deleted by a subsequent contributor.

My problem is that I am not sure that the average reader will make the connection - that this section is not just pointing out some interesting translation issues, but may well explain WHY the Pope said something that shocked everyone without repudiating it in advance...because, to me, he did, and it's clear when you read the German (and NOT very clear when you read the English or Italian) that he didn't particularly approve of the quoted statement.

How would you all feel about putting a statement back in calling attention at least to this possibility (that the controversy may hingle on a poorly worded English translation)? --Mccalpin 23:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are probably correct in your thinking. The problem is, until such reasoning is published in a reputable source (BBC etc.), we mustn't include it. It's called "Original Research", and Wikipedia doesn't allow it. Facts, such as the existence of the translation diffenences, however, can be pointed out without a reputable soure noticing them first. But reasoning - sorry, no. Azate 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Overall Organization

At this point, the article takes on the form of bascically what the pope said and general reactions to it...judging from what looks like is being asked, maybe it would be interesting to have a section with what the main objects are picked out, perhaps in some sort of point-counterpoint form, which may come out more anyway as this gets discussed in the public dialouge. TJ0513 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article ignore the context? These comments were made against a backdrop of constant Islamic violence, and have just become the latest excuse in a long chain of Islamist assaults on those who disagree with them. 75.1.6.112 15:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Bardakoglu Misstatement

Of course, the Crusaders didn't occupy Istanbul but Constantinople. By the way, who is this guy, a religious leader, a civil servant or both? And if he is both, where is the separation of state and religion in Turkey? --Vladko 04:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

He is the head of a department of the Turkish government supervising all Mosques. Your question hits the heart of Laicism, which is an ideology that under the banner of "separating Church/religion and state" actually aims at controlling or marginalizing (if not suppressing) religion/s. This can be seen in France around 1900, though this was mellowed down very much after both World Wars. In the Turkish case, this means that the majority religion of Islam is considered part of the national heritage and therefore approved of as long as it is subjected to the state's interest - as defined by government and, in the end, the army, and implemented by this department - and all other religious groups are marginalized by all kinds of legal chicane. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Istanbul is the same city as Constantinople. Istanbul was officially known as Constantinople until 1930. Even before the name was officially changed, it was commonly called "Istanbul" or "Capital city" in Turkish. The Turkish system doesnt favor any religion, Islam or otherwise. The Islamic headscarf is banned at school and the workplace just as the orthodox christian head covering is.

Of course Constantinople is NOT the same city as Istanbul. When the Crusaders occupied Constantinople, it was the capital of the Byzantine Empire. By saying that they had occupied Istanbul, Mr. Bardakoglu (OT - funny name, translates like 'son of a brothel', if I am not mistaken) might imply to some of his compatriots who lack knowledge of Byzantine history that the Crusaders had occupied the capital of the Ottoman Empire! --Vladko 03:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Some Muslims are Angry

I think we need a section about the Muslim view of the lecture and why they think it was offensive. It is unfair to put their reaction whithout explaining their poin of view. I hope the section I added on this will not be deleted. --Thameen 10:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed this again - it is both grossly biased as well as original research. It is also highly presumptuous, talking about "the Muslim view", as if all Muslims would fall for this artificially created agit-prop; as if rationalizing excuses for why some rioting would be nice right now would matter at all. If you publish this first, you can then quote it here, but not before. Almansor 11:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Almansor, it was this section in particular which made me flag the article as POV. I remove that tag now. Bless you, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd missed that brouhaha, which is just as well. Still there was one part of it I thought maybe needs to be brought in somehow. That being that the one sura the Pope cited is actually a Medina verse. That strikes me as relevant and also something people might not know. (I didn't) I hope you don't impugn my Catholicism for saying that, but I don't think it's unfair to mention when someone says something factually in error even if it's the Pope.--T. Anthony 13:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In the section I added, I made it clear that the section is not about NPOV analysis of the lecture, but indeed what SOME Muslims found offensive in it. That does not mean they are right, but how this is how they expressed themselves,

The Fact is that SOME Muslims got offended, so there is a reason for such a feeling, at least from their perspective. Thus I feel that any article about this controversy needs to address the point of view of those who were offended, whether they are right or wrong in our openion. This article is not about the lecture per se but about the contoversy, and in each controversy there are two sides. Where is the counter-Pope point of view?

>>>Yes, 'some' got offended. Burned a few churches. Killed an old nun. Typical barbarism. But the 'rest' of them....well, they just sit back and quietly let it all happen. Their silence is consent.

I think the article in this format is not neutral. Because it gives the Pope an opporunity to express his point of view throught the paragraphs of the lecture included in the article (I was the one who added these paragraphs), But on the other hand it does not explain the point of view of those who were offended.

We heard the Pope's side. It think we need to hear the side of those who felt offended. Not including the offended point of view means that either we are protecting the Pope or that we believe the lecture was not offensive. We should not adopt either of these positions.

Putting the Muslim reaction is not enough to explain the counter-Pope point of view, as these reactions are but in news-type format without any indication of what these offended Muslims really find offensive in the lecture.

The section I added is not an original research. All what I did was to go through the articles and blogs of those Muslims who did not like the lecture and I summerized their point of view.

However, I will put this section here below. I wiish that some members will consider my point of view about including this section in the article, until that happens lets leave it here for reference. --Thameen 17:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Going through "some Muslim's blogs" and cobbling something together is OR. If a Muslim institution of some authority (say, Al-Azhar, or a Grand Mufti)) chooses to reply to the pope, his text will go here, of course. So far, we've seen only soundbites from them, but nothing of substance. Azate 17:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that my resources were only blogs. I said articles and blogs. some of these articles (whom I cite in my piece) are written by scholars. Your partial reading of me shows that you have an issue with the Muslims who did not like the lecture. Your calling of the reactions as 'soundbites, confirms this. Actually you need not alot of bakground in Muslim theology or history to see the reason of the Muslim dislike of the lecture. The errors in it are obvious to those who know basic Islam. --83.244.39.65 18:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I counted. There are exactly four links in your piece: One to the pope's speech and three others, all of them going to one and the same blog. And this blog entry wasn't even written by an Islamic scholar, but by a prominent US politics professor. Azate 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why some Muslims did not like the Lecture of the Pope

Original discussion is here. El_C 10:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Some Muslims are Angry the Cliff Notes(tm) version

Original discussion is here. El_C 10:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Adel Theodor Khourys comments

Yesterday Prof. Khoury, who got cited by the pope, commented on the issue:

"I had wished a few words of differentiation. Two, three lines would have effected a lot." Regarding the quotes of Manuel II he said: "He speaks like everyone did in middle age." Therefore "a few words of neutralisation" would have been particularly desirable. "I have said myself to this dialog (of Manuel II), "these texts are not my opinion""

That information comes from the dpa and can be found in a couple of german newspapers: [1] [2] [3] [4]

I'd say, that this information should get merged into the article as well. What do you think?

Raphael1 15:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, especially because the context is of course that the poor man is scared for his life, and rightly. His first German TV interview was very different, as I recall. Anyway, what I would suggest, and what makes sense anyway and w/o even these happenings, would be a separate lemma for Prof. Khoury - easily done from the Münster page, and I think there's a piece on him on the German wiki. And I think this is where this info should go. Just my opinion. Almansor 15:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I support inclusion. The ORF source is probably the best one. Azate 16:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Western Media Coverage

The changes here, and adding Muslim views again, and especially User: El C's deletions, are close to vandalism. This segment is not perfect yet and needs more citations, but it has been edited several times. The resasons given for the deletion are absolutley faulty: This is the international Wikipedia, and citations do not have to be from Anglo-American countries; German sources are also particularly interesting because this is where the lecture was delivered. Second, in a section on Western media coverage, it is absurd to demand the Islamic stuff again; these reactions have just been listed long and wide in the section above. Finally, one of the key political meanings of this controversy is indeed that the Western media are not anymore kowtowing to the hurt pose and threats from the organized Muslim side, but defending the right to speak even if people chose to act upset. If that doesn't belong into this article, what does?

Sorry, but that section falls our bellow standards, please familarize yourself with these. Thanks. El_C 15:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't (I guess you mean "below our standards", "our" meaning Wikipedia - your removal after this discussion is, well, not vandalism, but quite close to it. I'll revert it again. But I think this is an issue to be brought up for mediation or arbitration; how about doing this right away? Clossius 16:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reversion comes close to vandalism. That section is an original synthesis, mostly relying on sources from a single German source which most of us are not able to read. If you find a source that speaks about Western media reactions, feel free to use that. El_C 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean the quote from the New York Times? To be very specific: You think that in an article about a global controversy, in the English wikipedia, the editorial of the NYT, well-referenced, is OR? The German newspapers, if I see correctly, are from four very different large dailies; German language sources are valid on Wikipedia, it is the second-largest community here and there are sufficient users who can check it. Anyway, I would say that your editing out what you deem OR is fine, but that you delete the category as such as well as even links that satisfy your own demands (which are not Wikipedias) is as POV as it can get. But I will not revert this a second time, although it would be permissible; let's see for others. Clossius 16:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to use the NYT's denouncement of Pope's remarks, please integrate it into the article without original research. Non-English sources (which I cite all the time myself) always need to be explained when questioned, so that its use on the English-language Wikipedia isn't used to disguise original research. El_C 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please consider what you are doing here. It is your obligation, especially as a veteran Wikipedian, not to delete, in a wholesale and cavalier manner, entire non-frivolous sections, especially multi-authored ones, but to edit out what you find (honestly and justifiably) non-Wiki and where you think that a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} would not do for the moment. Clossius 16:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That section is entirely original research/sample, as such, it is frivolous until it is can be attributed. If you know a way to rewrite it without original reserach feel free. El_C 16:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is an "original sample" interdict on Wikipedia and one would have to quote all newspapers in the world addressing the issue, I stand corrected. But there isn't. The onus was on you not to delete referenced material, and not on me to see that non-referenced was weeded out when I legitimately reverted you. I also wonder why you think ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} even exists - according to your theory, it should never be used, because all non-referenced material should be deleted right away, w/o discussion. Clossius 16:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I use {{fact}} all the time, but the section was entirely based on original claims. Do you have a relaible source for the claim that "the Western media have mainly supported the Pope's right to speak as he did and have emphasized that the overreaction has been created by people who have not read and will not read the speech." If so, please cite the claim so that it could be verified. Thanks. El_C 17:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This merely obscures the issue. It is factually wrong to say that it was "entirely" OR. I think it doesn't make it better if you continue demanding a citation from me for a sentence that I have many times said that it would be okay to delete because it is sweeping and unattributed. But the fact is that you deleted both a summary of some German mainstream newspapers and a specific reference to another (w/o ever asking for trsl.), as well as a clearly attributed NYT opinion, as well as the category as such. All that is against Wikipedia policy, and it weakens the article. It is all the more odd because what (judging from the first removal summary) seems POV-motivated actually deletes both "Western" (or whatever) endorsements and criticism of the Pope. Clossius 17:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

All these sources are only cited as part of an original synthesis. The entire section is based on original claim, and adding a {{fact}} for every single sentence defeats its purpose. El_C 17:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Factually untrue. If I see correctly, three newspaper references were meant to represent specifically the German media (and I think quite correctly), one was a specific article for another point of view, also referenced, and the third the famous NYT op-ed. Well, if people are not too demotivaed, as Azate in his 16:17 statement below says, "In time, there will be pages (at the BBC for example) that present a representative sample of the international press." That will take care of the matter, so I let it go, because I should assume that we both believe we are actually preserving Wikipolicy and standards, yet cannot agree what they are, or which are more important in a collision. Clossius 17:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming tendencious. Even if those three German articles fairly represent the German press, it does not follow that they do so for the enitre Western one, nor can they be said to back the original claim made by the lead sentence that "the Western media have mainly supported the Pope's right to speak as he did". El_C 18:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be such a section. It needs much improvement, of course. In time, there will be pages (at the BBC for example) that present a representative sample of the international press. These pages schould be linked to, then. Azate 16:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Oh, and it should be called not "Western", but "International" press coverage. Azate 16:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the last statement, though "International" doesn't quite catch it, either, because the Muslim reactions are not "national". "Western" is also no good (because it is ambiguous), because several of the Muslim reactions listed with these little flags are from what you would commonly call the "West". "Non-Muslim" sounds surely odd, too. "Christian" is totally wrong. Clossius 16:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of media sources out there. Anyone can create an original synthesis on what this reaction entails, but without a source that actually speaks about Western media reaction, it is original reserach. El_C 16:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are also thousands of angry statements; some are listed, some not. At least, I think it should be possible to report the reactions of key media when referencing them directly. IThis is more serious secondary research than to rely on an, in turn, secondary source, making the reporting here, tertiary. If there are references to several (representative) newspapers of one country, I also would find it legitimate to synthesize that, but I agree that this is arguable.Clossius 16:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We need citations that the "Western media have mainly supported the Pope's right to speak as he did". By reverting me, you reinseted totally original research. El_C 16:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pl use the German traslation using babel or google translation.Yousaf465

No, that is insufficient. Please provide direct citations (quotes) to that effect per WP:CITE.

The Western media have mainly supported the Pope's right to speak as he did and have emphasized that the overreaction has been created by people who have not read and will not read the speech

According to whom? We need better sources. El_C 16:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant use the original sources in german and give a link to their translated version using internet translation e.g babel.Yousaf465

The onus is on the editor who added these to translate when they come into question. El_C 16:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

When asked, but he was given no chance. Clossius 16:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The chance was then as it is now. The user can respond whenever they see fit. El_C 17:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pt. 2

After you repeatedly (and IMHO aggressively) removed the segment in question, and originally not because (some of) it was OR? That's really not how things should be done, and usually are done, here. But okay, it's a highly emotional topic. Still sad. Clossius 17:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not emotional to me. Please refrain from innunedo and otherwise emotional exclamations, if you find it otherwise. If you feel any portions of that section had citational merit, feel free to rewrite it accordingly. El_C 17:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no innuendo and no emotional exclamations on my part. I indeed think your quick reverts and their summaries and justifications were aggressive; that's neither emotional nor innuendo. That the first revert was for POV and not administrative reasons is clear, I think, from your summary: "15:10, 16 September 2006 (→Western media coverage - remove entire section: this survey of Western mainstream media responses fails to contrast these with non-Western ones (!), and relies too greatly on non-English sources)". The entire later argument re OR is entirely absent. That I am sad about how this was handled is a personal statement, surely permissible on a talk page and in this context. I'll admit, though, that I find the reoeated attempts at the reverting of tables ("Feel free...") and the almost complete non-discursiveness a bit annoying, and indeed, that is (per policy) a sign one should get out or at least let the matter rest for a while, which I'll do. Clossius 17:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you're not allowed to express your emotions, I asked that you refrain from doing so. Your response distorts the reality wereby the entire section was based on original claims. I have no ideological stake in this, nor any fondness for the Western media. I explained to the very new user on their talk page what the problem was. I regret your annoyance, but your revert, and the fact that you are arguing over the section's merits here rather than rewriting it in the article, seems questionable. Not only should you feel free, I encourage you to write such a section, but without original research. El_C 17:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For the last time (really), it is your obligation not to throw out legitimate material, not mine to mop up after you. And the reality, as everyone can check, is that part of the segment was OR - whether to let this stand and work on it or just dump it may be a matter of taste -, and part was referenced. As easy as that. What is more than questionable here is that you removed the referenced parts as well. And I hope you'll forgive me if I say (and yes, that is emotional) that nothing could be less motivational than "encouragement" coming from you, while the admonishment to me to avoid OR is just gratuitously impolite. Clossius 17:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find it impolite, but it was a violation of no original reserach, so I'm not sure how to communicate that any more clearly. I regret you feel that "nothing could be less motivational than 'encouragement' coming from [me]." I really would like to see such a section in the article, but am nonetheless unwilling on compromising on policy toward that end. El_C 18:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm butting in here, but El C, chill out a bit. There are two aspects you should consider. First, does drawing a generalization constitute original research? I personally think no. If we used such harsh stances toward original research, one could not (on Wikipedia, at least), write that most people have two hands, unless of course they found some sort of citation (I guess in English only), stating "most people have two hands". We draw generalizations every day. It would track that many western media outlets support the Pope's right to speak; there is evidence to back this up. Some western outlets may indeed say that he should excercise greater care when talking, and some may even condemn him flat out. These can be documented as well. Second, what is hindering removal of the culprit sentence? Assuming the sentence is original research (I don't think it is), it is not hard to go in and remove the sentence. Deleting the entire section is like decapitating a person with skin cancer on his head. No one is stating that "every 'western' media outlet is completely behind the Pope." That would be untrue. But it would be untrue not because it could not be cited; one could come up with many citations that support the truth of that statement. It, however, would be factually untrue because not every western media outlet feels that way. The generalization is valid but untrue. Stating that many western media outlets believe in free speech is both valid and true, as many western outlets have published this in op-ed peices, even in the German language. Bottom line: if you find something wrong with a section, fix the part that is wrong. It is far easier than repeatedly deleting it and then coming here to start a flame war.Andrew Elgert 04:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I merit the suggestion to chill out, as I remain dispassionate and detached on the issue. I'm not so much interested in generalizations that are devoid of practical suggestions, and I'm getting weary of repeating myself: The entire section was based on the original claim that

The Western media have mainly supported the Pope's right to speak as he did and have emphasized that the overreaction has been created by people who have not read and will not read the speech

— the rest was qualifications which rest on that assumption. So this original claim needs a source, so it can be verified. As I said, I'm interested in seeing such a section written (although, in terms of the current balance, I think a more pressing priority would be to find reactions from ~~Western~~ International politicians and Hindu-Juedo-Christian-etc. religious leaders — though that remains the editors' discretion). If you know of way to write it without original research, please do. I'll be pleased to review any concrete ideas. As for Western media outlets "belief in free speech," that's an opinion I emphatically do not share, but it's the beyond the scope of this. El_C 07:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing the point

This speech was a response to Mohammad Khatami's speech criticizing the West for an "over-reliance" on reason. See: [5]. EFG 17:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe yes, maybe no. Presently, it's only blogg speculation. Azate 17:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF

We assume good faith even against confirmed vandals and disruptive elements. Please assume good faith against the Pope: he was simply quoting from a text published several centuries before, and we do that here every day under WP:V. People do crazy things: I saw a news that some people of India burnt an Effigy of the Pope, as also the Prime Minister of India. By the way, the sections pertaining to reactions are getting bigger, and as the convention in such cases, a separate page may be created to record the same. --Bhadani 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Making the article NPOV

I missed the news, and came to Wikipedia, hoping to find a balanced presentation of the controversy. To my disappointment, the article only gives Muslim condemnations to the Vatican declaration. Was there no voice of support? Not even one Muslim that thought that the Pope might be right? No supporting declarations from Western countries? (Maybe Denmark?) I'm not that interested in the subject to perform the research myself, but as it stands now, the article is not NPOV since it only includes criticism of the Vatican. --Gabi S. 18:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I read Muslims who said that they will wait for an explanation of what the Pope meant and that until then they'll withhold judgment. Or that they are offended, but do not want to start any tiff with the Catholic Church or its followers. Now if the Pope really meant that Islam is violent, irrational, and forces people to convert I don't see how they could agree. That said I don't think that's what he meant, but I think he did take a critical stance toward Islam as being more proned to violence or allowing for an unreasonable God.--T. Anthony 23:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course no prominent muslim will support it publicly. Their family might get targetted with violence. When rationiality is a not a valued attribute, what do you expect? -- 66.171.76.139 18:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So... you know next to nothing about the affair, but you know the article is bad? Can't make the effort to "perform the research" yourself, but found time enough to post this? Good going, Gabi! Azate 18:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is an English translation of an editorial by Magdi Allam, a leading Muslim commentator in Italy, that appeared in the Italian newspaper, "Corriere della Sera," which defends the Pope.[6] --Antelucan 20:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Gabi S.

Exactly, true concerns. And, this POV pushing (in the name of NPOV) is the main reason that we are unable to become better than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Some of us over react to academic analysis of presentations by some one (say, the present Pope), citing sources centuries old. Perhaps, we have become very adept at imputing motives to innocuous events and statements. In the meantime, many valuable man hours are wasted which could have been utilized to truly enrich the Project. --Bhadani 19:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To "enrich The Project" I added a balancing section. Azate, I did some limited research; are you happy now? --Gabi S. 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

full text?

[7]

There's a link to the full text of the Vaticans statement on the pope’s speech. Should we add it to this article, or perhaps put it in one of those other wikis that specalize in that kinda thing? dposse 19:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We already link to it here. El_C 19:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Just trying to help. dposse 19:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Your efforts are appreciated. El_C 19:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A small request

Based on previous observations of vandalisms, etc, I would be recommend that editing on this page be disabled for new and anonymous users. Cheers. Thanneer 19:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Page sprotected for now. El_C 20:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring

I believe this article needs a complete overhaul. Currently, the layout is as follows:

* 1 Benedict XVI's lecture
      o 1.1 Key paragraphs
      o 1.2 Translation differences
* 2 Reactions of religious leaders
      o 2.1 Muslim reactions
            + 2.1.1 Initial responses
            + 2.1.2 Reactions to official Vatican declaration
      o 2.2 Vatican reactions
            + 2.2.1 Initial responses
            + 2.2.2 Official Vatican declaration
* 3 Political reactions
* 4 Other reactions
      o 4.1 Incidents
* 5 See also
* 6 References
* 7 External links

Perhaps we should go for a system such as this one:

* 1 Benedict XVI's lecture 
      o 1.1 Key paragraphs
      o 1.2 Translation differences
* 2 Controversy begins
      o 2.1 Reactions from political leaders
            -- Include information currently in section 3 --
      o 2.2 Statements by other leaders
            -- Include information presently in section 2.1.1 --
      o 2.3 Initial protests
            -- Include information presently in sections 4 and 4.1 (prose requested here as well) --
      o 2.4 Further comment by the Vatican
            -- Include information from section 2.2.1 --
* 3 Official Vatican declaration
      -- Include information currently in section 2.2.2 --
      o 3.1 Further response from Muslims
            -- Include information presently in section 2.1.2 (again, we can go for some prose here) --
      o 3.2 Response from others
* 4 See also
* 5 References
* 6 External links

My primary issues with the current scheme are the excessive amount of non-prose and the fact that we are pretty locked in with the current layout. With the current layout, everything that could possibly happen from now on (pretty much) could fit in one of the current primary sections. That's because everything from now on is essentially a reaction (either from a religious leader, from a political leader, or from "other"). However, the scheme I proposed goes for more of a sequential format. If a major development occurs, we could add it as a new primary section after the Vatican declaration. Comments are, of course, welcome. -- tariqabjotu 20:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, just my luck, someone edited the structure of the article already. However, I still stand by my suggestion, as the current Response section has the potential of being overloaded very soon. Also, we need some more prose in this article. -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That be me! My original comment (pre-edit conflict): I've already reordered some of the sections, which I think resulted in a more logically intuitive TOC, but those are good points nonetheless. El_C 20:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I support you move toward a more chonological order and more prose. Also, these flags must go! To prefix "The Guardian said in a commentary" with The UK flag, or what an Irish Muslim leader said with the Irish flag is madness. Azate 20:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Guilty as charged; I put (most of) the flags there in the first place. But now that the article is suffering from insufficient prose syndrome and there are tons of statements from all over the world (or the Muslim world, at least), I think it's time for them to go, especially for items that don't correspond with a government position. -- tariqabjotu 20:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the flags and related sections are fine so long as their content remains limited to brief summaries/quotes. But it does seem to be supplanting prose, so that is a problem. Certainly, any chronological order is useful. El_C 20:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So what do we do? Keep them for official government speech and action (Merkel said..., Marocco recallrd ambassador, etc), and ger rid of the rest? Azate

Ugh... I hate how edit summaries are irrevocable; I meant to say miss you. Anyway, I'll request comment from User:Gabi S., who seems quite active here, and then go ahead and do the restructuring. -- tariqabjotu 20:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The restructuring suggestion looks fine to me; go ahead. --Gabi S. 20:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I will be you support. Keep everything official, incl. comments from religious leaders, but shift to integrate as prose. El_C 21:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes, namely, moving the official decleration below the initial response (for chronological continuity), as well as re-naming some sections. I'm not that pleased with the over-indentation of the responses to the decleration. Anyway, feel free to modify as you see fit. El_C 21:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It also needs a quck background context and links to related events, such as Terrorism, the War on Terror, the Jyllands Posten, the Lebanese invasion controversy etc. Basically to say that there is a perceived "clash of civilzations" under which the event is viewed in a magnified and more polarized manner by both sides.--Tigeroo 15:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

title/afd

why is this a "controversy"? A controversy is, well, controversial. You have two sides giving a different spin to things and calling each other names. Here, we have the pope making a stupid comment, some Muslims saying "this makes us angry" and the pope saying "oh dear, I shouldn't have said that then, sorry". That's it. Now what is controversial about this, and why does it need its own Wikipedia article?? I invoke Wikipedia:Recentism, Wikipedia:Notability: move to wikinews. dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit drastic, I think. It is a notable event, is already mentioned on wikinews, and regardless of intent or sides, it is controversial. El_C 20:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The speech as a whole

I glanced through the speech and I am impressed by the breadth of its citations and informed knowledge of the development of logos. That Greek word is very difficult to translate, especially in the context of early Christianity, where for instance Jerome translates it as verbum, which being in the Vulgate has had much influence throughout history. (But the concept is difficult and subtle to grasp: as an example compare Desiderius Erasmus' reaction to Jerome regarding the in principio erat verbum, ie In the beginning was the Word, which Erasmus revised as In the beginning was the speech or discourse, etc.) The crux of the speech is Benedict's suggestion that God's presence in man should not be transcendental (personified apparently by the Muslim scholar Ibn Hazan) but instead

As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul ... worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).

Even an atheist like me can appreciate the nimbleness of the reasoning above. The point is that his speech was not a violent op-ed, but is actually a little tricky to understand, and so my question to you all is, how should that be reflected in the article? How much should we endeavour to educate people? (It seems to me that much if not all of the offense comes from the citation of the Byzantine despotēs and his "harsh" sentiments regarding Muhummad: but surely just a citation is not cause for offense?) Pablosecca 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion the reactions from the Muslim world on this are quite ridiculous. However, the problem is we don't have too many people saying this is ridiculous loud enough in the real world to get a place in the article. As far as I can see, it's some in the Muslim world protesting, the Vatican trying to defend the Pope's statements, and the rest of the world, save Angela Merkel, staying out of this. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that any reaction setting out to defend the Pope should be listed with as much visibility as those that condemn him in the interests of neutral point of view. Although the media doesn't see fit to report such comments as heavily as the headline-friendly muslim outrage, Wikipedia shouldn't fall into the same trap. aLii 08:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all so lousy... The pope gets great PR for his "reason-is-hollow-without-faith-agenda" and everybody else can look cool to his constituency by either slamming their favourite scapegoats or posing as holier than the pope... Azate 21:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reactions seem disproportionate and (dare I say) ignorant from all quarters, occidental and oriental. The point is that in all this I think some of us should try and stage an exposition of the speech trying to include all of the elements in its argument. Take in addition this article by Russel Berman -- note the following points, in addition to mine: 1) Benedict's critique of dehellenization of christianity and 2) his assertion of a commonality in faiths as per essential aspects of faith 'itself'. Pablosecca 21:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not our place to advance the view that reactions are disproportionate, unless major figures / newsources make this argument. This article is intended to focus on the controversy rather than serve as a scholarly exploration of the lecture, although it can touch on this. El_C 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a good article here by the catholic writer David Quinn in the Sunday Independent (Ireland's biggest selling Sunday broadsheet). But you have to subscribe online. He defends the pope's right of expression (Voltaire), criticises muslim reaction, and makes some points on the faith and reason debate.--Shtove 12:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Any leader that changes what he says about somthing he believes because he hurt someones poor little feelings is not a good leader at all Caleb09 23:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he apologised for causing offence, but not for what he said. You get in to niceties when it comes to PR, like what's the difference between expressing regret and apologising? I hope that lecture proves a defining moment in relations with, and within, Islam.--Shtove 23:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad, Naughty Pope

Original discussion is here. El_C 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Alma mater?

I removed that reference from the lead para. There's no reference in the Benedict XVI article to his having studied there, and University of Regensburg says it was founded in 1962, when the Holy Father would have been a very old undergraduate indeed. He did go there to teach in 1969, apparently. Bolivian Unicyclist 21:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

He was professor in Regensburg, not a student. 141.13.8.14 15:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"See also"

Is the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy really relevant to this article? Just about the only thing they have in common is that the Muslim community has gotten riled up about them, but that also goes for hundreds of other events… The Jade Knight 22:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, but analogies or linking it to the "cartoon controversy" are common in the news. Looking up the words "cartoon crisis" at Google News I found:a Bahrain paper making the analogy, a South African one doing so, and a Turkish paper. The connection is not really logical or sane, but it is out there.--T. Anthony 23:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think reinforcing this particular connection is an example of Wikipedia:Recentism. Many journalists have short memories, or perhaps assume short memories in their readers, and so reference the most recent rather than the most relevant controversy. Even if Google thinks there is a strong connection, it doesn't mean Wikipedia should agree. Wikipedia already has a perfectly good mechanism for linking things that fall into the same category, and the Danish cartoons and the Pope's lecture are merely two contrasting instances of the category "Islam-related controversies". --RichardVeryard 00:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Recentism essay applies. It happned 1 yr ago, so it isn't a journalistic; the timing is of an historical significance. El_C 10:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Media colportage

It seems to me that the controvery is largely exaggarated and a protest without reason. In fact by no standards is there anything in that lecture which offends anyone.

However media reporting cited the claims and the reaction. Most people learned about the case from the media and the alleged comments of the pope. What media failed is to clarify that these accusations were unfounded in the first place. In the usual mood to shorten what was really said the catholic church was forced to calm down. In many media reports that looked like the official side affirmed that there really was a case.

what Benedict said and quoted in a certain context what angry unfounded reaction were tried what the media reports what the public believes benedict said and mainstream media did not deny

217.252.96.238 22:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Andre

Removed trolling by User:DocEss -- Samir धर्म 22:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 09:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Added comment back to page. This is a discussion page, so let us discuss.

Removed more trolling by User:DocEss -- Samir धर्म 22:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 09:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take prolonged looks at the media coverage to see that the above claims that most Western news sources and outlets have eagerly defended the Pope's right to speak as he did (Voltaire, ironically, is invoked) and pressed the "intransigency and bitterness" of the Muslims (who are always identified with the militant bomb-lunging crowd) is a good description. This Sunday, the 18th, BBC World, ran their weekly "The Foreign Correspondents" with four non-British journalists (one of them from Morocco, and a muslim). All but the Moroccan made it their point that the Pope wasn't the focus of the problem,and one of these, an Italian, Annalisa Piras of L'Express, claimed very strongly, and with more than a hint of disgust, that not only did the Pope have the right, he shouldn't even have his statements questioned and badgered in the media "because he is the Pope, he's not a political figure and he moves in a different and scholarly sphere; th media shouuldn't be at his tails at all" (this is of course a natural statement for many Roman catholics, but not a valid journalistic guideline).

It was obvious that none of them wanted to see the Western media engage in a discussion on any kind of equal terms with any Muslim community, and the fact that the BBC, professionals if any, chose this line-up. probably knowing roughly what profiles and persuasions they would get, goes a long way to show the dominance of these views. It's hard, however to source from this kind of program unless you record it at the time pf airing (I don't have a recording dvd or vhs) and in any case, as some people have pointed out here, if all generalizations you make without having seen them before count as Original Research, then you can't say much of anything at Wikipedia. No ordinary encyclopedias of any depth are just stitchings tigether of "established facts and truths", they all trade in some generalizing; if not some articles would turn unreadable. Of course nobody who jas a reputation to defend, working in the media is going to say outright "Muslims are scum unless, out of the blue, they suddenly found a newspaper that we British or French can fully approve of, which meets our standards" even if that's what is said and thought in private. Strausszek September 20, 2006 09:20 (CEST)

MP3 file with the whole lecture

I am not quite sure if we should add this mp3 file with the whole lecture of the pope. Anyway, I add the link here [8]. Gugganij 22:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not? He held the lecture at a German public university, so it's in the Public Domain, copyright-wise. I added it. On second thought,maybe sombody could convert this file to this "OggVorbis" format that MediaWiki requires and deposit it there? I'm to 'technically challenged' to do it myself... Azate 23:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Could Someone who is authorized to do so put a copy of Pope Benedict XVI's speech at Regensburg in the Also See category.(70.37.245.106 23:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

I've already speedy deleted it as copyvio; at any event, it's linked in the article. El_C 10:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Countries?

Is someone planning to add more reactions of Muslim countries or countries with Muslim communities?

Currently trying to look for:

Malaysia

Singapore

Philippines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.143.168 (talk • contribs) of 16.09.06

the philippines is not a Muslim Country. I would however look for the responses of Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia.(Lucas(CA) 05:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

The Philippines is not a Muslim country, but there are actually a significant (3-4 percent) Muslim minority there. And it is of course a very "active" minority: Abu Sayyaf, Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

There is plenty of reaction already listed. The article would become unfocussed if everybody who had expressed outrage was quoted. As it is the British reaction is listed twice - under both political and religious... aLii 08:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The Philippine's Muslim community is significant, but a minority IMO. 70.68.143.168 16:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Should I also add the statement of a Chinese Muslim man from the Islamic Association of China? Thanks. Ominae 09:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why no Atheist rage?

Original discussion is here. El_C 10:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This section is wholly off-topic and a misuse of this article talk page. Please limit your opinions to respective user talk pages and elsewhere. El_C 10:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I sort of agree, but I want to say something above before that and I'll try to make it relevant.--T. Anthony 10:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not. This article talk page is designed to improve the entry. Please do not misuse it. El_C 10:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I thought the "please" meant it was a request not a demand. That one statement was it and I was done. When you're demanding, and not requesting, try to be clearer.--T. Anthony 11:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Inexplicably, I'm doing both. El_C 11:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism Category

While one could argue that the category could be included since it is clearly related to terrorism the term in question is highly controversial. Therefore, the category should be included when or if independent reliable sources refer to it as being terrorism or related to terrorism. To do otherwise would raise serious WP:NPOV issues. At to witnessing the results of these ironic attacks, that is a WP:OR related concern. JoshuaZ 06:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time of noticed we had a Category:Moral panics! El_C 07:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we add this link?

[9]--Greasysteve13 08:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not in isolation, but you can certainly summarize the World Jewish Congress' stance on the controversy and cite that as your source. El_C 08:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It was just in their news section [10]. I dunno if it much of stance.--Greasysteve13 09:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of it. Feel free to sumarize (& attribute) its conetns in the entry, if you like. El_C 10:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm busy--Greasysteve13 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you like." El_C 09:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)