Talk:Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  who was the Persian scholar?

message: I think this is worth repeating here...  Azate 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I'm placing it on top. El_C 10:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice from a past debate... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Separate Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Overall Organization

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bardakoglu Misstatement

message: Original discussion is here. El_C 10:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why some Muslims did not like the Lecture of the Pope

message: :Original discussion is here. El_C 10:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Some Muslims are Angry the Cliff Notes(tm) version

message: 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: 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I support inclusion. The ORF source is probably the best one. Azate 16:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prof. Adel Theodor Khourys comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pt. 2

message: This speech was a response to Mohammad Khatami's speech criticizing the West for an "over-reliance" on reason. See: . EFG 17:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe yes, maybe no. Presently, it's only blogg speculation. Azate 17:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing the point

message: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:AGF]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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.  --Antelucan 20:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Making the article NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: We already link to it here. El_C 19:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok. Just trying to help. dposse 19:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. Your efforts are appreciated. El_C 19:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  full text? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Page sprotected for now. El_C 20:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small request 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: title/afd

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The speech as a whole 

message: Original discussion is here. El_C 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad, Naughty Pope 

message: 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)
replies: text: He was professor in Regensburg, not a student. 141.13.8.14 15:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alma mater?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "See also" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Media colportage 

message: 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 . Gugganij 22:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  MP3 file with the whole lecture 

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

text: *Inexplicably, I'm doing both. El_C 11:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no [[Atheist]] [[Rage (emotion)|rage]]? 

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

message: --Greasysteve13 08:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It was just in their news section . I dunno if it much of stance.--Greasysteve13 09:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm busy--Greasysteve13 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "If you like." El_C 09:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we add this link?