Talk:Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy/Archive 2

message: the main page news section should have the latest event, which is the apology from the pope
: Here's a story from reuters. dposse 17:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News Section need to be edited 

message: Perhaps much of the article (or at least the reactions section) should be re-ordered to be more chronological. I feel it is essential – given the Vatican's statements this past weekend – that readers know in what context certain statements were made. Right now, it's not perfectly clear. -- tariqabjotu 20:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be the plan; let's make it happen. El_C 09:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: In Islamic faith , holy war (Jihad) is only in defensive manner . 
here is a Muslim view about this : 
 Holier than Me 
Byline By M.J. Akbar 
http://www.deccan.com/columnists/Columnists.asp
Some Muslims might hold that view, but history has been different. When was the first djihad as defensive war fought? Str1977 (smile back) 22:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably when Muhammad was alive IMHO.... Ericd 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Im confused, is the above quote targeted by vandalizm?--Xlegiofalco 01:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sheesh! It's eerie that some big-money Islamic websites these days are absolutely indistinguishable from a vicious joke. Azate 22:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the answer of the Persian scholar ?  

message: There is an inaccuracy in one paragraph of the article - "Yemen has threatened to sever diplomatic ties with the Vatican, despite having a law imposing the death penalty on non-Muslim citizens". However, the article from which this is supposedly taken says "In Yemen, where religious conversion is punishable by death...". Please note that these statements are different - death penalty, according to the source, may only be imposed on the religious converts, not on all non-Muslims. Stretching the sourced material like that is quite a biased approach I must say, although definitely I don't support such radical laws. In addition, I really doubt the original source correctly described the death-penaty law itself. Anyway, the source must be double-checked and the wiki article should be edited.
Moreover, I must add that this is not relevant. The controversy is supposedly between the Pope and Muslim people as a whole. Yemeni state & government do not represent all the Muslims, while Pope does represent all the Catholic (at least from the Church's point of view). There are many Muslim countries that do not put any differences between their citizens based on their religion.
::Well IMHO there's still a similar law in Afghanistan. And to be exact, I think religious conversions from Islam to another religion are punishable by death. Of course in works better in the other way... Ericd 21:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Pope does represent all the Catholics". NO !!! He probably doesn't represent my views but I think I'm not a catholic anymore. But from from the Catholic Church's point of view I am still a Catholic as I was not sentenced of excommunication. As long as the Pope expresses his view on a subject that isn't dogma (and it wasn't) he speak as man that express his POV. Ericd 22:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate citation - Yemen 

message: I removed the small paragraph about forced conversions and the FOX reporters example from the introduction.  While this material may indeed find a good home elsewhere here, this is clearly too specific and narrow for the intro.  This seems obvious to me, but I posted here in Talk so that if I am missing a good reason to keep it here, someone can explain.   I also am not a fan of altering the introduction of a well worked article but I saw it a great improvement in this case.  Baccyak4H 03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevance of the forced conversions is relevant today.  It is not about a 615 year old controversy.  Claiming forced conversions do not exist today, or that we should ignore them by deleting any mention of them, seems in violation of achieving NPOV.  Yaf 03:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  (As I noted in the original insertion, it probably would end up needing to be moved elsewhere.)  Have made a new section for this information and re-inserted, with citation.  Yaf 03:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This section was unrelated to the topic, which is the Controversy, specifically, so I removed it. El_C 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Restored the part related to forced conversions, but not the jizya tax and halal discussions.  Forced conversions are precisely on topic, being included in the 1391 quote at the core of the controversy.  The other two do not seem relevant at all. Yaf 11:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced conversions in intro? 

message: I've just deleted the following editorial from the intro.  I normally wouldn't bother posting such a deleteion here, but its actually a pretty accurate summery of the feelings of quite a lot of westerners.  So maybe it'll give people helpful ideas.  JeffBurdges 06:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted editorial 

message: as per http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/15542306.htm and many other sources, shouln't this be a part of the article discussion about reactions and counter-reactions?
Wikicide 07:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "you dog of rome" letter to pope 

message: I noticed when I first read that article, that the key line of the Pope's speech causing controversy isn't bolded in the key paragraphs section, which was annoying for me when I quickly would like to find the context of how the pope said those infamous lines.  So I went and made the key sentence in their bold to make it easy for people to identify.  However, it was just removed... so that's why I'm asking this because I'm not sure what the reasoning for that is.  I truly believe making the important sentence in the key paragraph more visible makes it easier for a user who quickly wants to discover the context of how the pope said his comments.  Does anyone disagree with this?
: We can' simply put bold stuff into quotations. That's basic citation etiquette. Only if there is bold text in the original, can/should there be bold text in the quote. Azate 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we bold parts of Key paragraphs? 

message: Move on, leader tells Muslims
I haven't noticed many moderate reactions from Muslim leaders until the article which I have hopefully linked appeared on news.com.au just now.  From the article, Dr Ameer Ali, the head of the Australian Government's Muslim advisory council, said today the Pope's remarks had created a reaction as medieval as the quote. "They have to move on," he said.  See the article for the rest of his quote.  If the regulars here think that this is appropriate, could someone please put it into the article?  I have to log off in a minute and won't be back today, and I don't want to mess it up in my haste.  I think it would be good to show that not all Muslim's reactions are in the same vein.  Thanks. Now, where is that tilde  key ...... found it!   Iramoo Bearbrass 03:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of moderate Muslim reaction 

message: Another anonymous linked a column by Egyptian-Italian journalist Magdi Allam  here in the talk page. It would be interesting to quote it in the main page, as an example of a Muslim who rebukes violent reactions and supports the Pope's right to use that quote as based on "historical truth". But since he is neither a political nor a religious leader, I don't know where to list his position in the current structure of the page. 87.16.246.91 10:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Best-Selling Muslim author Irshad Manji gave a commentary on the CBS Evening News supporting the Pope's lecture as a call for dialogue and deploring the violent reaction and hypocrisy of protesting Muslims.--Antelucan 12:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody have an idea of where they could be quoted? Please advance suggestions; I think that reactions by prominent Muslims should find a place on this page, especially when they help represent a broader range of opinions. 82.55.199.200 13:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put reactions from Muslims who are not religious or political leaders? 

message: I added infomation on a news story from CNN that says that some people in Turkey are asking for the Popes arrest when he arrives at the country.  It's under the "threats" section. dposse 18:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey citizens ask for arrest info. 

message: I am making a small word change to the second paragraph of the summary at the top:
:The lecture has been subject to much condemnation, criticism and support by political and religious authorities, particularly Benedict's usage of the quotation [Manuel's quote]
I am changing "support" to "defense", as without the criticism in the first place, no one would speak out in "support" of the lecture.  But since this is in response to criticism, I think "defense" is a better word.
Normally I would just make a change of this magnitude.  However, as this is in the summary at the top of the page which gives the reader an impression of the whole article, and which has been crafted carefully, I wanted to give a heads up and opportunity to object to the change. Baccyak4H 19:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a remarkably well reasoned, logical and cogent observation. DocEss 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  word change in top summary 

message: Is this link useful to expanding our understanding of the Article here, whose purpose is only to illuminate the controversy by describing it in factual terms? This link doesn't add much; indeed, it seems to be only a critical essay about the entire lecture, most of which has nuttin to do with the controversy itself. I think it should be deleted because it does not add our understanding of the topic. Moreover, it's whacky and a tright freaked out, franlky. This link:  http://www.ellopos.net/politics/benedict-science.html   DocEss 19:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did; much of the commentary was not even about the lecture itself but Benedict's purported intellectual and psychological failings.  Baccyak4H 19:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sentiments exactly. [I am willing to bet it gets re-inserted by an anoymous user.] I don't particularly care what it says, but I do care that it is ancillary commentray to the Topic (and is therefore inappropriate as a source). More importantly, the entire lecture is available in the other links, especially the Vatican's site.DocEss 19:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link - Useful at all? 

message: Note the date: 1 day after the papal speech: . This is truly the stuff for a wholesome conspiracy theory. Azate 08:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can a set of disconnected events amount to a theory of anything? Would your talents not be better employed by writing science fiction like the X-Files than writing descriptive encycopoedic articles? Seriously, you have a stellar imagination, reasonble writing skills and free time. Write a novel.DocEss 19:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Watch your tongue, Doc. Some people have time, because they are retired, you know, and still enjoy doing the things they did before. Like me for example. This link was for entertainment (I though that was obvious). I said it would make make a nice consparacy theory, beacause of remarkable coincidences with the pope affair on hand. Nothing else. Azate 21:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Retired? Goodness - go write a novel! That is something I've alwasy wanted to do in retirement. I was serious that you're perfect for writing novels. I, of course, meant no offense - I'm just trying to keep this material on point. You must then admit that your link does nothing to meet our encyclopoedic objectives here, agreed?DocEss 17:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EXTREMELY odd ... 

message: I think I've added the following information once or twice, but it disappeared (from the intro anyway):
*“These (words) were in fact a quotation from a Medieval text which do not in any way express my personal thought,” Benedict told pilgrims at his summer palace outside Rome.
*“The holy father,” Cardinal Bertone said one day after his installation in his new post, “sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions.” (emphasis added for Wikipedia talk page)
Benedict said (1) the (offensive) quote is not something he agrees with and (2) people have misinterpreted his remarks. --Uncle Ed 14:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UncleEd: That is not what the Pope Benedict said. Re-read the Vatican's responses (see external links) so that you can familiarise yourself with the facts. DocEss 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pope's position on the controvery

message: The inclusion of this quote is inappropriate for the Initial Reacttions section because it is not (as the paragraphs's author even states) a reaction to the Pope's comments. Therefore, it should be deleted. Opinions?
President George W. Bush, in his speech to the United Nations, reasurred Muslims that he is not waging war against Islam, regardless of what "propaganda and conspiracy theories" they hear. "My country desires peace. Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is false and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam." (The President's speech did not formally address the comments made by the Pope, though this speech came in the context of the controversy.)[10] DocEss 21:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - it didn't even come "in the context of the controversy".--Shtove 21:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  I already removed it earlier and it was put back in. I don'tfeel comfortable taking it out again.  I has absolutely nothing to dowith this article. Elliskev 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The claim "...though this speech came in the context of the controversy" is a dubious one but not entirley unrealistic. I still think removal is the best approach.DocEss 21:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the context claim can be attributed, I'd say keep it. Otherwise it's analysis and has no place here. Elliskev 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote for removal. But Condi Rice said somthing about the pope stuff that would qualiify. Azate 21:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The qoute has re-appeared again like a gopher popping its head out of the hole! Where is my .22 calibre when I need it? I think it should be removed (as do others) and so I will do so. I hope we get sopme discourse about it.DocEss 16:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pres Bush Statement