Also, while there is an article on peace in Islam, it’s not really fair to say that qualifies as a pro-Islam stance, as these other articles also exist:

Islam and Domestic Violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....c_violence

Criticism of Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam

Criticism of the Qu’ran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....e_Qur%27an

among others..

But there seem to be thousands of liberals who dedicate their lives to it.

But I guess when you make your living by stealing money from taxing other people, you have time to do stuff like that.

That’s a fact. Scientology was born when L. Ron Hubbard told a group of his friends (the only one I can remember is Harlan Ellison) that the best way to make real money is to start a religion. As long as there are gullible people, and “useful idiots”, there will always be Scientologists setting up tables on street corners.

I looked at the entry for “Pope”. They use “pope” and “popes” for the general class (e.g., “Some popes ….”) and “Pope” for specific popes (e.g., “The current Pope is Benedict XVI…”).

As to that risible example, all we need do is look at what the mad mullahs in Iran are saying. Breitbart has a story from Iran that says

” In Friday’s central Muslim sermon at Tehran University, a senior cleric, Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami, called for harsh retribution for dissent.

“Anybody who fights against the Islamic system or the leader of Islamic society, fight him until complete destruction,” he said in the nationally broadcast speech.
…
“Anyone who takes up arms to fight with the people, they are worthy of execution,”

Maybe they read your post, because they avoid “mullah” in favor of “senior cleric”.

I’m sure you could go through and change the “Mullah” entry, but then someone else would come along and change it back.

It’s no surprise that a Wiki entry on Islam is going to be pro-Islam, since that’s who the writers are.

Without getting too far into the substance of your post, your following statment is in error;

“Ten years from now there will probably not be a real Scientology movement (if there even is one now.)”

Scientology is a philosophy that has been around for at least 50 years or more. Right, wrong or indifferent, it is not going away in ten years.

And BTW if reports are correct, you don’t want to be between Scientology and their “philosophy”. People get hurt. Google it. There are pages and pages of information.

Maybe the Muslim community has been more moderate? :-)

I can’t see how the wikifolks would let it stand, their English usage specifies that titles are not capitalized unless associated with a name.

For instance, Lord Barry’s and Biden’s vote to continue to fund the Bridge to Nowhere, citing the actual senatoral record of the situation, and it was removed due to it being anti-Obama. Seriously. That was the actual reason cited for its removal.

Anyways, after that fiasco, I stopped doing things on there and unless it’s for something involving pop culture and general science knowledge, I never use it.

Of course I could just be as dense as I’m sometimes accused of being.

Tom Cruise & Co. have never blown themselves or anybody else up, so if they’re giving your website problems, just censure them or whatever else you feel like doing. Problem solved and you can sleep safe and sound while you wait for the day that the actor and his Hollywood friends all neuter themselves and drink the kool-aid. Ten years from now there will probably not be a real Scientology movement (if there even is one now.) Islam, I’m betting, will probably still be around, having shown better staying power.

To claim to be something doesn’t mean one is what they say they are. Using “Mullah” is a little bit how some put “Reverend” to their name and go around acting irreverently. So similarly the semantics have come to represent something entirely different than the implied definition. In this case we know and associate most mullahs with fanatical Islam, not the teaching of any peace or wisdom that might be contained within Islam. If Wikipedia had any interest in objectivity this fact would’ve been stated and explained at length – which is your point I believe.