Talk:Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy/Archive 3

message: :The Muslim onslaught against the Pope's comments only make one certain that there is no room of dialogue with Islam, while Muslims are free to preach their religion in the West, a reciprocity on the part of other faiths in Muslim land would almost certainly lead to arrest or death. The very violent nature of protest (eg in the Palestinian Authority) only attests to the fact that violence is indeed a part of this faith.
The above text was cut because it was unsourced. We can't use "one" as the advocate of a viewpoint. It sounds like something U.S. conservatives or U.S. Christians might say, so it's relevant. Let's find somebody to quote. --Uncle Ed 15:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This line of investigation had better be in furtherance of our objective, which is to DESCRIBE the Controversy associated with the Pope's lecture. If it is a discussion about the rights and wrongs (if there could possibly be any at all) about Islam, move it to another page (like a personal talkk page) where zealoted religiousness can be bandied about with reckless abondon. Stick to the point, please.DocEss 17:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've never been more insulted (nor surpised) than by your calling me PC. PC? That's funny.  Look - stick to the point - we're trying to write a good article about the controversy. Whether adherants of Islam have been extraordinarily violent is hardly gemane to the Topic. We are here to DESCRIBE in the Article pages and discuss DESCRIBING in the Talk pages. I'd be glad to go to another page and argue endlessly about Islummy and Jews and Cristians and Buddhists and Scientologists and anything esle that I can use to stir the pot. Here, we should stick to the point.DocEss 17:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Islamic thoughts

message: Does anyone think we should create a Special Page where all these little bickerings about Popes and Islams and jihads and crusades etc. can occur? This page is not the appropriate forum, we all realise; perhaps another page will allow the passions to sooth. Opinions?DocEss 23:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Your concern is correct, but the debate is entertaining and useful. This will pass in a few weeks, and then recrudesce (the visit to Turkey?). Let the debate remain on the record here.--Shtove 23:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Page For Passionate Discourse 

message: The section "Diplomatic initiative" sounds like it was copyied word for word from the news article. can someone please rewrite the section? dposse 16:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-wrote the section; I hope it is adequate now. I also removed the "Re-write Please" tag. Hope everyone is OK with this section now.DocEss 17:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Thanks. dposse 15:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomatic initiative 

message: Would someone tell the pope to read Fear and Trembling and consider the rationality of telling Abraham to sacrifice his only son?
:I called him, but I haven't received a return call yet. I wonder though, if he read it, what do you think he would do? DocEss 16:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No - to the man with no name.--Shtove 07:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  God as fundamentally reasonable 

message: The title here seems crap. It was not an "islam controversy", if anything it was a "Quotation controversy", or something similar. Surely there is a better name out there?--Irishpunktom\talk 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. The title is just fine. It gets the point across. He was talking about Ilsam. Islamists are upset. Islam was the subject of the quotation. Islamists have been vocal. Pope + Islam = Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy. Good enough. What's the problem? What's your agenda?
DocEss 18:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oh stfu
I don't like the title either and I hope no one will suspect me of having an agenda. Right now the title still works but at one point in the future, when the dust has hopefully settled, we will have to be more descriptive. And actually, Islam quote controversy doesn't seem that bad. But that's no urgent matter. Str1977 (smile back) 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new name?

message: This article, *The Myth of Forced Conversions by Muhammad’s Sword: Arab News, is certainly an interesting viewpopint and worth reading. I believe it is ancillary to the topic of the Article and so I have removed it again. The Arab News article is merely a refutation of Manuel II's qoute and does not further our knowledge of the Artcle's topic, which is The Controversy. The Arab News content certainly makes for an interesting discusssion; but we can't have arguments for and against every little thing that was mentioned in the Pope's lecture, now can we? We'd have a page a mile long, full of theological ramblings! What we have on the Article's page is simply a description of the controversy caused by the Pope's use of an ancient qoute, and this description should include all the necessary elements. Ancillary discussion about whether or not the Pope's or Manuel's words were corect are best done somehwre else. Agreed?DocEss 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, such a link would require us to include a balancing link, as calling the issue a myth is itself highly questionable at least, if not a myth itself. Str1977 (smile back) 20:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have a POV that supports Pope's view when one reads all that you have written above,It is correct that it should be ancillary - that is why it is connected as a link to the article and not discussed in the article itself.TerryJ-Ho 09:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, Terry, that I agree with what the Pope said (and not what others said that he said). However, that is not the point. The point is neither that we need exacatly equal representation of all POVs in the links section. However, a link declaring something myth and hence declararing something else fact is highly problematic when this judgment is highly questionable. Str1977 (smile back) 19:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Terry: I don't quite follow you. I said that the link is ancillary (merley so) and as such such not be included. You countered that the link is ancillary and that's your rationale for inclusion. Does not compute. My personal point of view is as irrelevant as yours, by the way.DocEss 17:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab News article about forced conversion 

message: How does one hijack an aeroplane without using any weapons? What did they do - use harsh language?DocEss 18:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Turns out they were Christian converts, who "didn't want to serve in a Muslim army" Whatever. Azate 19:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well well. Seems like the inclusion of the link to this story and paragraph in the Article was a tad premature. We should wait for a little while until the story gels, ya?DocEss 19:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. All i know is that several, if not all, news sources have said that it is a "hijacking". dposse 21:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dposse, since you have already posted here I thougt I could expect you to have read all the links above. Please do so now and you will find the answer to your query. Str1977 (smile back) 17:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's all right. I hope you can now understand that I got a bit angry. Sorry about that. Str1977 (smile back) 20:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hijacking?