Talk:Pope Benedict XVI criticises Prophet Muhammad's teachings

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I don't think it is relevant as that the biography that you referenced said that membership in Hitler Youth was required by law, therefore he was not a member by choice, he was compelled by the state to join. The article you referenced also said he was an unenthusiastic member. As he was in seminary before and immediately after the war I don't think that connecting the Pope to Nazism has anything to do with this story. I shall remove that from the aritcle again. Not that I'm a fan of the Pope, but this is the news, not a place for you to springboard your opinion of the pope. Without him actually saying that being in the Hitler Youth influenced his view on the world, you cannot be certain that it does. Therefore you are not maintaining the journalistic integrity of the article and therefore lowering the quality of Wikinews. Bscottbrown

As I have already mentioned, mentioning the Pope's Nazi history will provide background information as to his (possible) POV regarding non-Aryans. If you wish, we can add the "unwilling" and "compulsory membership" to the sentence. If you keep reverting changes without consensus, you will end up violating the 3 revert rule. PVJ(Talk) 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have consensus, look at the other edits. Bscottbrown 12:09 EDT 13 Sept 2006

I'd remove this bit. Saying he was a member of the Hitler youth doesn't say anything more than that "he lived in Germany as a boy while the Nazi's were in power". Is there any hard evidence that he supported the Nazi's, and further hard evidence that this support influenced his statements? If not, it's not relevant to this particular article. TRWBW 23:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Pope did not attack Islam he attacked Islamic extremism, a very diffrent thing. His main attack was on the idea of Holy War. The tone from his talk seems to be violence is bad, not Islam is bad. The source does not mention jihad at all, so the reasonable assumption is that he is referring to all violence in the name of religion. There is also only one source, and the source is kind of poorly written and biased. --Cspurrier 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, let's say the Pope attacked "extremist" Islam. By the way, though I cannot at present find an online source for this, the TV channel Timesnow says he quoted Crusaders in order to insult the Prophet. That seems to be a pretty clear-cut attack on Islam. PVJ(Talk) 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the opinion of Timesnow that he quoted the Crusaders to offend the Prophet, but you don't know if that was his intent. It's pretty obvious that you are biased against the Pope, maybe you should not write articles about a subject you have a bias for or against. Bscottbrown 12:09 EDT 13 Sept 06

I am not biased against the Papacy, in fact I quite admired Pope Jogn Paul II. However Benedict XVI seems to be much less tolerant than his predecessor, and you will agree with me that there was absolutely no reason for him to offend millions of Muslims by quoting Crusaders who insulted the Prophet. PVJ(Talk) 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went home at lunch and did some research. Check out CNN (I don't have the URL for the stories, but if you search Pope Benedict you'll find the articles) he has made similar statements in the past before his papacy, I think you might be able to make the focus of this article that quote you put in below. That seemed very inflamatory, stirring up trouble with Islam. If you made this quote the main focus of the article, then I think you should put in the Hitler Youth reference. I retract my statement about your bias towards the Pope. Bscottbrown 12:42 13 Sept 06 (EDT)
Thanks for taking the effort. I have put in the Youth Hitler thing, but to be fair it has to be mentioned that membership was compulsory and that he only joined unwillingly. Making the quote the focus seems more NPOV to me than "attacking Islam", whilst not compromising on accuracy.PVJ(Talk) 17:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'

---It seems Benedict is attacking Islam after all. Perhaps the title should read "Pope attacks jihad, Prophet"? PVJ(Talk) 16:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Pope's quote is pretty inflamatory. Bscottbrown 12:13 EDT 13 Sept 06

ah, then I agree. Let me see if I can edit it into a more neutral viewpoint than the original author had. If he changes it back, what do we do? I'm new to Wikinews, is there a deletion process we can go through for this article. I'm mostly worried about how people perceive Wikinews' jounalistic integrity. I like this source of news and this forum and I don't want it damaged by it picking up a slant towards one viewpoint or another. Bscottbrown 11:20am EDT 09/13/06

OK, I think I have it edited so it presents a NPOV. What do you think? Bscottbrown -11:20EDT, 13 Sept 2006


If you flesh it out just a little further, I think it will be ready to publish. Bscottbrown 13:45 13 Sept 06 (EDT)

Some comments[edit]

1. "Attacks"? "Lashed out"? Criticizes, yes. But attacks? "Lashed out" has a negative connotation. Did he really lash out? What is the source?

2. "the Prophet" in the article's title is not clear. Mohammed, yes. Or "the last prophet of Islam", but that might be too long for a title.

3. The title is unclear. "attacks jihad, quotes against" sounds like he is attacking the quotes.

4. "Holy Struggle" is again not clear. Islamic holy struggle or jihad.

5. The reference to Hitler Youth is irrelevant and biased, as others have explained. Is there any evidence that he ever had or supported Nazi views? The implication is that he is anti-Muslim because of his Nazi past. --AlexS 19:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His Nazi views are a result of his (understandable) opposition to the creation of a Jewish regime on Muslim soil.What (justifiable) grievance has Kommandant Ratzinger got against Muslims? None, other than the usual Crusader mentality. PVJ(Talk) 10:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just the facts ma'am[edit]

Maybe we can cut through the NPOV problem by just giving the facts: what the pope said, leaning towards giving his full quotes and the context he made them in. Any responses to his speech would also be relevant. I don't think the hitler youth issue needs to be here, unless he made reference to hitler in the speech. TRWBW 23:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have already mentioned that he was an "unwilling" Nazi, there is no need to hide that fact. Ratzinger's statements were blatantly anti-Muslim, and insulting to the Prophet, that is their context. All of this has already been sorted, there is therefore, no need for any trolling. PVJ(Talk) 10:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was completely resolved. I can't speak for anyone elses position, but as I see it his membership in the hitler youth isn't relevant unless it can be linked to his speech. Since he didn't mention hitler or nazism either directly or indirectly, I just don't see the relevance, unless you can find a NPOV source that connects them. TRWBW 11:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


An attack on holy war IS an attack on Islam, as its a fairly central concept, and he does mention Mohammed specifically. otoh, There are plenty of western muslims who have changed the meaning of jihad to be purely spiritual. And its obviously not an attack on their beliefs.

Pro-Crusader POV pushers.[edit]

Although these issues were satisfactorily sorted out yesterday, it appears some pro-Crusaders are trying to push anti-Muslim POV into this article. That will not be allowed to happen for the following reasons:- 1)The Pope is/was a Nazi. That fact must be mentioned so as to provide a background as to how his views on non-(white)Aryans might be biased against them. 2)The aforementioned Nazi has launched a cowardly, unprovoked attack on the Prophet and the major world religion preached by the latter. That is an attack on Islam and must be exposed for what it is. 3)The Nazi tried to veil his attacks by quoting Crusaders, that does not mean we should twist words to mask the anti-Muslim hate-sermon. 4)Yesterday, another (possibly Christian) user-BscottBrown and I had a discussion regarding the article and it was decided that 1)The offensive quote must be mentioned in the title, 2)The man's Nazi history must not be concealed. 5)All issues have already been sorted out and the article will remain in its present state. Any unilateral attempts to POV it will result in action being taken against the offenders. PVJ(Talk) 10:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To claim the Pope is a Nazi seems unreasonable, and is not pertinent to the article. I removed the addition of this information as it was weaselly worded. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the title too. I was worried that it implied he critisized Mohammed's preachings in general, when from my reading his critisism was limited to jihad and forced conversion. TRWBW 11:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ratzinger was a member of Hitler Youth, which (one would assume) does make him a Nazi. His Aryan-supremacist background is pertinent to an article that deals with his attacks on Islam. As for the Nazi critising "only forced conversions", I have explained below why such an interpretation would be inaccurate. PVJ(Talk) 12:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Would "Benedict XVI criticises Muslim prophet Mohammed's teachings on jihad" be better? TRWBW 12:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you understanding of what the Nazi said is erroneous. I have explained below why the quote attacks not only Prophet Muhammad's (there is no need to say "Muslim Prophet") teachings on Holy Struggle, but also the faith preached by him. PVJ(Talk) 12:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Muhammad was a prophet is disputed by non-Muslims, and it would be inappropriate to call him "Prophet Muhammad" without qualifying it. Would "Benedict XVI criticises Muhammad's preachings on jihad" or "critisises concept of jihad" or "critisises concept of 'Holy war' and forced conversion" be better? How do we express what the Pope said clearly and concisely? TRWBW 13:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ummm... Prophet Mohammed is Prophet Mohammed, whether non-muslims like it or not. Doldrums 13:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that was just my opinion, if there is a specific wikinews policy on this, my bad. Personally, I'm happy to refer to him as "Prophet Mohammed", happy to refer to Sun Myung Moon as "Humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent" happy to refer to Jesus as "Jesus Christ, Son of God" or not to name ****** not at all, but instead call him "the Lord" as the Jew's prefer his name be unspoken. I'm for calling people whatever they want to be called, but worried that it might seem an endorsement of a particular religion's point of view to use a title that implies something factual. But I'm more than happy to defer to other people's views on this. TRWBW 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prophet Mohammed is simply the easiest, most recognisable way to refer to him. is all. Doldrums 13:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Dennis Miller would say, 'sorry to go off on a rant'. Fine by me. TRWBW 13:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should the title say 'His Holiness the Pope, Benedict XVI...' or 'Servant of the Servants of God, Benedict XVI...'? TRWBW 13:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Benedict XVI should suffice, unless you want to mention the rank he held during his tenure in Hitler's Youth? PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 14:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

latest NPOV[edit]

I'm concerned that the inclusion of the hitler youth reference and the title violate NPOV. The hitler youth seems irrelevant, since there is no source relating it to the speech. The title seems to me to imply a more general critisism of Muhammad's teachings, when the speech seemed to be very specifically focused on jihad and forced conversion. TRWBW 12:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, we have mentioned the "compulsory membership" and "unwillingness" aspects of his involvement with Hitler Youth. The reason for including details of his Nazi past have also been explained to you. If you continue to disrupt Wikinews by reverting changes in this regard, action will be taken against you. I am unaware of how fluent you are in English, so let me explain to you what this statment means:"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".. Your (Nazi) Pope is quoting a Crusader who claims that everything new that Prophet Muhammad brought (including the religion of Islam) is "evil and inhuman". One of these (remember the words such as) "evil and inhuman" things is "his (the Prophet's) command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". That is clearly a cowardly, obvious attack on Islam. I hope you understand now the meaning of that quotation? PVJ(Talk) 12:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether what you said was 'for the last time' is your opinion, which you are welcome to. Whether the Pope was generally attacking Muhammad's teachings, and whether his being a member of the hitler youth is relevant, are opinions too. Unless you can find a NPOV source that backs them up. TRWBW 13:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what his views are on Islam, I know what his views are on Islam, the whole Muslim world knows what his views are on Islam, so why don't we just stand back and wait for a response from the millions of people whose religion he insulted? Whether or not you try to hide his Nazi past in this article is not going to make that big a difference to the end-result, is it? PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 14:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Nazi Reference Please[edit]

The inclusion of the Nazi youth comment is irrelevant to this news item, as has been stated. The 'shamefulness' of any comments made by the pope is irrelevant to the article as well as irrelevant to the inclusion of the Nazi Youth comment. This is a news site, not a site on which to write editorial pieces aimed at discrediting or maligning anyone. There are comments in this discussion to the effect that if someone did something inflammatory or shameful, then suddenly the article can include selected details of a person's life that, while holding no real relevance to the article at hand, make the person look bad. This is certainly not the case! Any attempt to use Wikinews to sway public opinion in any way is inappropriate! It must end.

I have seen this so often here, on this site that prides itself on the ability to have articles with high levels of 'journalistic integrity' that it makes me wonder if perhaps it would be better if there were another outlet available for attempts to sway public opinion, such as an editorials section, rather than polluting all news items with such attempts. 12:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i see no direct relevance of B-16's Hitler-youth membership with the present quote. for wikinews to claim that such a connection exists is Original Research, and such OR needs to be vetted by editors, made NPOV and validated by a wording that editors can agree upon (i certainly don't see the agreement, at the moment). it would be far better, in my view, to balance the Pope's statement by drawing on responses to it by Islamic clergy, scholars, ...etc than to attempt to establish our own reasons for why he made the statement. the sources i saw also report qualifiers for his statement, saying he emphasized that he was quoting, (but did not indiacate whether he agreed or disagreed with the quote) and also, a vatican spokesman issued further "clarifications" about it, all of which, i think, shld be incorporated in the article. Doldrums 12:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a link to that Vatican statement? Also, the "not- agreeing-with-the-quote-but-mentioning-it-anyway" tactic is nothing but weasel-wording at the Papal level. Anyway, I have wasted far too much time arguing with trolls on this article, the (Muslim) world knows the facts of the case, and will doubtless take action against the Nazi for his cowardly attacks on the Prophet. PVJ(Talk) 13:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here is the vatican thing -

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the pope was not giving an interpretation of Islam as "something violent," although he said the religion contains both violent and nonviolent strains.

Doldrums 13:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As you may be aware, I was already considering temporarily leaving this project some time ago. The blatant attempts by some trolls (who have collectively created less articles than I have) to justify the anti-Islamism preached by the bigotted Nazi has led me to lose faith in the neutrality of Wikinews. I have no desire to write for a project whose members try to protect gutless racists who make unprovoked attacks against a Prophet who is respected by millions of people around the world, including me. For that reason I shall not be starting any articles for some time to come. I am sure however, that TRWBW, AlexS and the rest will be more than capable of making up for the article deficit that will be caused as a result of my protest. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 13:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work! TRWBW 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlexS and the rest will be more than capable of making up for the article deficit that will be caused as a result of my protest. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 13:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work! TRWBW 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wave those bits in public, substitute Dali Lama for Pope and see if you'd be determined to mention that he was involved in some compulsory state organisation when he made critical statements about the extreme sects within another religion. Don't assume people have no memory, you remember the Hitler Youth aspect of Benedict's past so others will as well. Leave people to come to the conclusion that there is a link on their own rather than lead them to it. This "factoid" is covered in the Pope's biography on Wikipedia where I'm sure they've spent a great deal of time working over how to word it. There simply is no basis within a wikinews article to juxtapose events from when a man was a teenager with now, unless you are trying to lead people to a conclusion of your own choosing. PJV, you have made it crystal clear in the comments here and on my talk page that this is what you are trying to do. It isn't part of the cornerstone of policy that is WN:NPOV, so stop it and quit saying you'll leave because of it. There may be some basis for saying people have not made an effort to understand your point of view, but all you've actually explained is that you hold the current Pope in contempt and would like to see Wikinews (in violation of WN:NPOV) express that sentiment on your behalf. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wave those bits in public- interesting statistics, but might I remind you that I joined Wikinews about 15 months after you, and in the span of less than 5 months published over 50 articles (which is, I assume, about as many as you have written)? By the way TRWBW seems to be violating POINT, something needs to be done about that. I do not mean to lead anyone to a "conclusion of my choosing", although I would not be entirely against someone who chooses to lead this Pope to his "conclusion". PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. As an administrator, if you think I've violated a guideline, of course you should take action. It's good that wikinews has administrators who, when they see a user who is being a problem, do the right thing. What's the procedure from here? I'm pretty new here, but my guess is I should expect to see a dispute posted on the dispute page? Or is there another mechanism? TRWBW 15:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am currently involved in a discussion with you, I do not want to take any action against you. I advise though to remember not to disrupt Wikinews to make a point. seems to have some articles about the conflict in Pakistan, though its neutrality as a source might be debatable. For reasons already mentioned, I shall not be writing any articles for some time to come, so if I find an article (from a neutral source-preferably from outside the Subcontinent) I will inform you so that you can create an article based on it. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 15:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did agree with it.[edit]

I DEMAND that the sentence "without agreeing or disagreeing" with the quote of the Byzantine Emperor be changed to "agreeing", because there is no way that he would quote such a statement that carried alot of hate and racism during a speech where HE talked about jihad in a disagreeing way and then not agree or disagree with it, then why did he say it? did he just feel that it was a nice touch! We are talking about the head of the church, a person who's speech is written and revised by hundreds of churchmen before he would read it loud, in this kind of speeches there's nothing that is not agreed or disagreed with, AND YOU KNOW THAT HE MEANT AND AGREED WITH IT. 09:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)ToTo[reply]

He did not agree with the whole sentence and shows it by quoting the surah, and calling the sentence brusquness. He agrees in the critics to the concept of holy war. --Histio 10:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with, I consider that phrase weasel-wording and have removed it. The fact that the Nazi chose to make that statment indicates that he agrees with it, and we do not need to include CNN's sugar-coating in this regard. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 11:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What have the Nazis done, what wpould be interesting for this article? --Histio 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, perhaps my comment is long overdue, but I find that an unbiased article should allow readers to form their own opinion, in this case by linking to a transcript of the Pope's original lecture: an Italian version for example is at — 21:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]