Jump to content

Talk:2022 Muhammad remarks controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mossad3 (talk | contribs) at 03:26, 8 July 2022 (→RfC about adding what reliable sources say about these Comments: Made bold). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:BLP noticeboard

Neutrality concerns

  • 1) Non–neutral article titles are being promoted and insisted upon
  • 2) Related violence related articles are being merged but Condemnations of threats and violence are not being adequately covered.
  • 3) Scriptural mentions, and skepticism part in the remarks and debate around the same is not adequately covered
  • 4) Debate around child marriage and free speech is not adequately covered
  • 5) Even sourced academic content is being deleted

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? Sources? Some of these issues may be relevant, but for the some of the material, I imagine it's a due weight matter. The main topic is political. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookku I have same questions as @Iskandar323. Which academic source are you talking about? please start thread below for each point. Title is already being discussed and has a tag over it. What debate on child marriage do you want to add? Venkat TL (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on (1), and (maybe even) on (4), especially, the aspect around free speech. Do you have any reliable sources that cover (3) and (4) in the context of this controversy? With regard to (5), can you point to diffs showing sourced academic content is being deleted. That's big if true. Thanks! NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NebulaOblongata I do not find deletion of such content satisfactory. At the most that would need copy edit not entire deletion.
Of course all points in reference to controversy there is media coverage then need to be covered and specially when special article is available.
Meanwhile first I am reexamining already used sources to find the missing things, so we will have less reasons for disagreement, then I will put up the rest.
Thanks to all for the inputs Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookku It has been three days and you have still not clearly pointed what exactly you expect to be fixed and answers to the above questions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is already mentioned: I do not find deletion of such content satisfactory. At the most that would need copy edit not entire deletion.
  • There is no section about threats and condemnation of threats. Part of Pakistan's Prime Minister's statement is insinuation of subtle threat/instigation can be seen in ".. Our love for the Holy Prophet (PBUH) is supreme. All Muslims can sacrifice their life for the Love & Respect of their Holy Prophet (PBUH). .."[1] . Looking @ Murder of Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur, I doubt, mentioned this part of Shehbaz Sharif's statement can be ignored without any mention in Wikipedia article and still be called neutral.And certainly not looking @ record of Blasphemy in Pakistan



Don't worry, & don't be in hurry, there is more I'll bring one by one

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku (1)Who is stopping you from adding the projects? Instead of writing threads after threads, just be WP:BOLD
(2) Appears to be content dispute, what are you doing to to get consensus? seeWP:DR for help.
(3) This is a vague hand waving. Propose the para that you want added, get consensus and add it.
Again all three of these require your action. The tagging seems frivolous to me. If you dont take these action soon it, I will start a discussion to remove the tag. Venkat TL (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]



References

  1. ^ https://www.dawn.com/news/1693382 https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/oic-pursuing-divisive-agenda-says-india/article65501380.ece

Requested move 30 June 2022

2022 Muhammad remarks controversy → 2022 Prophet remarks row – As mentioned towards the end of the previous 8 June move request discussion, and as per WP:CRITERIA, this topic already has a recognizable, natural, precise and concise descriptive title that is used widely in the sourcing. The exact phrase Prophet remarks row has 56,900 news hits (at the last count), compared to exactly 3 news hits for the title that the page was recently moved to. So commonplace is Prophet remarks row that even some non-English, non-Latin script articles are using the tag for search purposes, see: here. "2022 Prophet remarks row", with the date at the front, is meanwhile consistent with Wikipedia's more general event title formats. Flipping it around, I have not seen any good reasons for NOT using the terminology used most commonly by the referenced sources, or for sticking with a title clearly at odds with this terminology, which serves little purpose and could potentially sow confusion among prospective readers. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a) Article Jesus and article Muhammad exists since too long, it was and is possible to redirect them to Prophet Jesus and Prophet Muhammad or adding some other honorific citing WP:COMMONNAME that has not been done up til now.
FAQ @ Talk:Muhammad says ".. Wikipedia's biography style guidelines recommend omitting all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precede or follow Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is required to maintain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. .." Idk how it is most neutral way in a controversy people of other denominations and atheists would have neutrality concerns ? This article is not even classified under many other related projects and users working on all the related projects have been not duly informed.
b) MOS:MUHAMMAD says ".. The Prophet or (The) Holy Prophet (including with a lowercase 'h') in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad"; or just Prophet preceding "Muhammad" — recommended action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad" .. .."
c) A site wide long standing policy and encyclopedic principle is being sought to be changed (option to read, 'undermined') without site wide notification and discussion.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it absolutely abides by policy, namely: WP:POVNAME, which states: Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use. (my highlighting). So WP:COMMONNAME and prevalence-based naming are in fact explicitly endorsed over competing guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support because Muhammad is the most popular name in the world.[1] Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunutubble Exactly what are you trying to say? :) are you sure you got the move question properly?
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means it is not very precise. It used to be the case in the Middle East, and still is in Egypt, that it was perfectly acceptable to call out "Muhammad" to summon the waiter - a practice that I can only assume derives from the fact that so many people are called Muhammad that there is a reasonable chance your waiter will indeed be a "Muhammad". Iskandar323 (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Prophet remarks row is not the common name - Not even 10% of the articles feature it (1,62,000/18,70,000 [1][2])Real figure much lower, corrected below here regarding this controversy. WP:COMMONNAME is not valid here. Even if some editors perceive it to be valid here, WP:COMMONNAME does not overrule WP:NPOV, one of the three core policies of Wikipedia that is non-negotiable. NPOV, as illustrated above by Bookku as well as at Talk:Muhammad (FAQ Question 5), requires the islamic prophet Muhammad to be referred to as 'Muhammad'. The current name is neutral and accurate to the controversy at hand. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:MUHAMMAD is primarily a guideline with respect to mentions of the individual's name within articles - it is not an explicit part of article naming guidelines, and was unlikely intended as such, since, quite obviously, the issue does not exactly crop up a lot in article titles. The guideline I referenced was WP:POVNAME and its prevalence-based allowances for non-neutral terminology where it forms part of the common terminology of a subject, which is a part of the WP:NPOV guideline. So perhaps dispense with the 'non-negotiable' polemics and actually read it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

::Even in the news saturated 21 century, there aren't 3m articles on this issue. Even if we disregard WP:HITS, prophet remarks shows twice as many hits as muhammad remarks, once we filter out pre-2022 results. Hemantha (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

If you conduct a news search for "prophet remarks" + "nupur" with the former term used as an actual set phrase, that 3 million drops to 141,000 hits. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse, adding an unnecessary filter will reduce results. The news results for <prophet remarks "nupur"> are about the controversy, and this filter is sufficient when taking the entire set of articles. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if you don't use any grouped words, your search results are bogus, because they could just contain any of those words in any random order. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By about page 20 of your very vague search you are getting all sorts of stories that are only very tangentially connected. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:::::The news results for <prophet remarks "nupur"> - Good luck convincing the closer that these results - all of which are contained in your search - are about this article. Hemantha (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

And, also related to Hemantha's results, most "Muhammad remarks" search results are actually hits for "Prophet Muhammad remarks" written out in full. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Hemantha notes, you haven't addressed why the current title is better: by your search result logic 'Muhammad remarks controversy' fares yet worse. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And as a set phrase it is borderline non-existent: it pulls in just 7 hits, which is a fairly sad indictment of how desperately contrived this phrasing is. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If either of you had read my comments, it simply points out that Prophet remarks row is Not the common name. WP:COMMONNAME requires prevalence in a significant majority, which a title used less than a tenth of the time definitely does not have. WP:COMMONAME is not the only possible naming convention, and if it cannot be applied, the article will be named in accordance with other guidelines, in this case NPOV.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but your 1/10 figure is bogus, and, as Hemantha says, that is even if we disregard WP:HITS. As Venkat notes, the key is to look at the RS. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has been replied to here. Comment was moved down by an editor for time consistency. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support In addition to the reasons above given by Iskander323, Vice regent and Dunutubble, I note that The Hindu is the 'most respected' among the only few reliable sources in India, and it uses this proposed title as headlines in their series of articles on this event. See: "Prophet remarks row | Five arrested over Amravati chemist murder". The Hindu. 2 July 2022. --Venkat TL (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of reliable sources in India, your representation as "one of the few" is incorrect. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. It is most respected RS. --Venkat TL (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely subjective, non policy based statement. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources attaining generally reliable status at WP:RSP is not 'subjective' - this only comes about as a result of hard-won community consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can add to that the Indian Express - the other generally reliable mainstream Indian news outlet at WP:RSP - which has a similarly tagged feed. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, thank you for adding the link Prophet Remarks Row. Venkat TL (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am genuinely glad to see you are finally supporting this proposal, Venkat. This is a massive shift of your opinion from the last discussion. The Hindu is definitely a good RS - I fully agree. NebulaOblongata (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Support per previous support arguments and usage in reliable sources (prophet remarks shows twice as many hits as muhammad remarks) Hemantha (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

  • Thanks to Hemantha for pointing out a correction to my method of searching. I am correcting the figures given above by me above. The proposed title is now even farther from being the common name, featuring in just over 5% of articles(4,720/81,100 [3] [4]). Additionally, it appears that some editors have not read WP:HITS; it is about demonstrating Notability, not the common name. Not applicable in the current circumstances. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, both of those searches are for "prophet remarks", so I'm not sure how it establishes that "Muhammad remarks controversy" is somehow a better fit. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained how it is a NPOV title, unlike the proposed one. Only you are insisting on using WP:COMMONAME as the only yardstick. Im showing how the proposed title is not a common name and fails even if you claim that WP:COMMONNAME supersedes NPOV. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a decent argument having been made that the proposed name IS actually 'POV' in a bad way. It is certainly the POV of reliable sources, but that is a good thing. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ive pointed out clearly how wide community consensus agrees that "prophet" being used to refer to Muhammad is POV, and not in a good way. Apart from that, since you have stopped arguing about it, do you accept that the proposed title is not the common name? 5% can hardly be called common. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And as I've said, it is not clear that guideline was ever intended to apply to any article titles other than the obvious case - this is rather a unique case - and you still have yet to explain why we should be ignoring reliable sources, the bedrock of Wikipedia. Your analysis of search hits is meanwhile wholly unconvincing, and also fails to support the current title. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Baby names: The top 20 boys and girls names in England and Wales". The Independent. 2014-08-15. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
  • oppose news articles cover "current affairs" wikipedia is long term. There are mulutiple prophets. The suggested title is ambiguous, also per MOS:MUHAMMAD. However, I have no issue with "2022 Muhammad remarks row". —usernamekiran (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

**This article is indeed an article on current news event and there are millions of Muhammads; so, without resorting to subtextual interpretations. it's not immediately clear what you are opposing. Hemantha (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

  • Strong Oppose: As mentioned by Captain Jack Sparrow "2022 Prophet remarks controversy" is far further from being common name than the current article title as the word prophet is used by far fewer articles than the current title. I also strongly agree with Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' regarding the importance of the WP:MOS policy against honorifics and support WP:MOS's continued use in this article. Following this the use of the word prophet is ambiguous, here in Brazil in specific and the Americas in general the word prophet does not refer to Mohammad. Piggy backing off of this idea and the comments of Bookku, Wikipedia is not religious, does not have a religion, and while it does have articles about religions it addresses them through a NPOV, I feel deeply uncomfortable with the idea that wiki would begin to endorse religions or that religious figures would be referred to as their honorifics in wiki voice. There are many places for such rhetoric, Wikipedia however is not one. In conclusion "2022 prophet remarks controversy" is less used thus not common name, is POV, is against MOS, and is ambiguous in what it refers to; the current title isn't ideal but it's far and away better. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

**CapnJackSp has done no such thing; in fact he appears to have dropped common name as an argument. Bookku's argument has been countered; at least respond to the counter instead of repeating it. It's interesting to see so many similar votes, when even Sharma and Jindal said 'prophet' and not Muhammad in the original remarks. Hemantha (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

Diff shows nothing close to your claims of me "dropping" my argument. By any account, the title used 5% of the times is in no way shape or form a "common name". The argument stands, and indeed, was further reinforced by your suggestion of using the time filter. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp:Can you please stop regurgitating the same totally unevidenced claims that you are able to accurately determine usage ratios. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) Well evidenced, see the details here. 2)If you have a problem with me repeating my stance, you should be telling others no not misrepresent my stance as "CapnJackSp has done no such thing; in fact he appears to have dropped common name as an argument". If an editor misrepresents my statements, I will correct them. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All that you have shown is that a three-word searched phrase is less prevalent that an two-word searched phrase, which is search engine 101; what you haven't addressed is the prevalence of "Prophet remarks" over "Muhammad remarks" as a common phraseology, particularly with respect to the most reliable sources available. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, since you seem confused, let me explain the math. Your suggested title is "Prophet remarks row" - So that goes as a phrase, leading to 4,720 news results in 2022. I have taken a subset of the total articles about this controversey, by taking the keywords, prophet, remarks, and "nupur". This led to 81,100 news results in 2022. Combining these two, and taking into account the fact that the 81,100 figure is a subset of the actual number of articles, your proposed title does not feature in more than 6% of the total articles related to the incident. Here, the numerator includes even the articles that dont use your title as a heading and just somewhere randomly in the text, and the denominator excludes articles that may not be covered by <prophet remarks + "nupur">. Therefore, the 6% figure will actually be even lower.
Using the fact that 6% is nowhere near a "significant majority" per WP:COMMONNAME, or "has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name)" per WP:POVNAME, both are invalid here.
Therefore, you have no argument supporting your proposed title - While I have the longstanding community consensus of using Muhammad, without honourifics, to support my preferred title. Happy now?Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, ignoring the sources does not make me happy. There are two parts to this, the Prophet/Muhammad component, and the row/controversy component. As now explained in the addendum just below my original comment, "Prophet remarks" outweighs "Muhammad remarks" in 2022 usage by a 25:1 ratio. The guideline you refer meanwhile pertains to body references: it is not an article title naming guideline, and it certainly does not override WP:COMMONNAME, with or without the caveats contained in WP:POVNAME. The row/controversy component is somewhat of a side issue, but row is more prevalent than controversy, regardless of the other terms you use. Controversy is a bit of an overused and fetishized generalizing term used within the Wikipedia community when the other alternatives are perceived as POV, but I doubt you also think 'row' is POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read over the discussion that followed my opposition to the move. I continue to be strongly opposed to the move. I won't restate my reasons. It's clear that there are two editors who feel very strongly that the page should be moved, I'm not interested in getting sucked in to the never ending debate. I would say however that this talk page exemplifies the necessity for why we must continue to follow WP:MOS and not use honorifics; it clearly and obviously opens the door to an abyss. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Prophet" is unclear because there are many individuals regarded as "Prophet" and it is also a POV. "Muhammad" is indeed the most common term for the subject. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScriptKKiddie: Sorry, please could you provide your sourcing for saying that "Muhammad remarks" and not "Prophet remarks" is the common terminology. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And there are also many individuals (150 million) in the world who go by the name Muhammad. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too much recentism & too much localism. Definitely has to have date, and very inclined against "Prophet". Not particularly keen on "row" either as it is does not carry that meaning in other ENGVAR. BTW, not sure where you're finding "56,900" Google news hits. Scroll to the end. It is 190 hits. Practically all of which, incidentally, are Indian news outlets. Please remember Wikipedia's audience is global. A throw-away phrase used by the local political press will not be necessarily be recognizable outside of it. Walrasiad (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

**I linked WP:HITS above for this very reason. There are some limits to how many articles the google web interface shows; so while 56900 might be a very loose estimate, 190 is entirely wrong. Given the media attention, I'm quite sure that there are more than 190 articles about this topic in just the regional languages in India, let alone English and in international sources. Hemantha (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

@Walrasiad: Also, here is "row over Prophet remarks" from South China Morning Post and France 24, so you can see the terms are international. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemantha It's not a "very loose estimate", it is a completely fabricated number. Google hits at the top are always worthless and you should never report them. Scroll to the end, to get a better sense. There aren't "tens of thousands" of articles on any topic, much less one barely a month old.
@Iskandar323 This is not a news blog for a local audience. This is an online encyclopedia for a global audience. Please keep WP:RECENTISM and WP:GLOBAL in mind. Local press will always use short-hand phrasing for news topics of the day. They don't have longevity or global audiences in mind. Those phrasings will not be recognizable to anyone but local news junkies, and will fade in time. Does a reader in Nigeria know what this phrase refers to? In fifty years, will anyone anywhere know what this phrase is about? There have been many, many quarrels in history over remarks about the Prophet Muhammad, in many countries and places. It could refer to any of them. Walrasiad (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrasiad: I'm not sure I understand your point. This entire body of material is recentism - that doesn't inhibit us referring to reliable sources, and I've just shown you international media using the same terms as local media. In 50 years time, no one will give a shit about this article regardless of its title, so I really don't know what your point is. Though yes, I probably shouldn't waste any more breath on this. But equally, I don't see how any of that has a bearing on the current title discussion, or why ignoring the prevailing sources is good. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a) This is a typical Straw man argument. You seem continuously insisting upon and conflating Common noun to be used in the place of Proper noun at the cost of compromising neutrality and injecting ambiguity. User4edits is referring in Wikipedia's context. Keep aside, Muslim world itself says there are 124000 prophets, en Wikipedia Category:Prophets lists and at least half a dozen are in popular imagination meaning different thing to different people.
Irrespective of RS or not news media's structural compulsion to make headlines more eye ball catching, Writing just "Prophet" in head lines catches more eye then writing just 'Prophet Muhammad'. While writing news head lines news media can happily compromise non–ambiguity and NPOV, where as Wikipedia being Encyclopedia is expected to maintain higher level of standard. You know Berries and even Apples do not mean same thing every where.
b) Last but not least, No doubt both of us can write good essays, countering every time and more number of times is unlikely to make our points prettier than what they are. You and me have discussed adequately enough by now and let us avoid repeating same arguments again and again from our side and it would be better we avoid stalking every other input, opposing to our point of view. You are experienced and understanding enough.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: Thank you, this page is not just for 2022. If sometime in future, 99% of the population turns to one religion with one god, would you advocate "Allah/Jesus/etc." be replaced by 'God'. We are a continuously progressing species. Further, news traction on digital/print media is to save space in headlines, let me know if they only use the word "Prophet" in the news body. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And when that happens we can re-name the page. For now, the word Prophet is commonly used for Muhammad. This has been demonstrated by Iskandar232 by the use of solid data. Where's your data? NebulaOblongata (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is probably a bit late for this, as this discussion has become almost irrevocably side tracked, but the aim of this RFC was to redirect the title towards a wording that was more neutral with respect to the actual sourcing, which is actually the core function of WP:NPOV. As it stands, much has been said about MOS:MUHAMMAD guide, but as another editor has put it better in a related discussion: [5] - essentially this guideline is first and foremost an editorial style guide aimed at reducing honorific clutter within articles by preferring "Muhammad" (one word) over "prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" (both two words) "just like we write "Woodrow Wilson" or "the then-President Wilson", and not "the former President, Professor Governor Woodrow Wilson", not a specific NPOV judgement. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How neutrality is best served by a three-word descriptive title/phrase used in practically no sources anywhere (the worst of all worlds) is anybody's guess. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with one good point there which mentions avoidance of honorifics discourages Argument from authority.
    Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine that if the title options here were 2022 Pope remarks row and 2022 Francis remarks controversy, nobody would be arguing for the latter. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO, this is not good way to influence discussion closer; this grievance of whataboutism does not have any relevance vis a vis this article.IMHO, since in some other articles POV bias exists so defend or introduce POV bias in this article is not the right way of addressing bias and POV practices. Besides is not well studied let me cite an example below.
    • When Users used to MOS HON think those policies has nothing to do NPOV since they are not informed that discussions were started from side of users who objected Honorifics and titles etc over NPOV issues itself. One of such discussion we can find @ Talk:Jesus/Archive 1 in mid 2001 itself. That discussion is as follows:
    • ".. Should we really call this page "Jesus Christ"? Calling him Jesus Christ, implies he was/is the Christ (i.e. the annointed one, the Messiah), and a lot of people who don't think he is the Christ wouldn't want to call him that. Wouldn't "Jesus of Nazareth" be a more neutral name for him? -- SJK
      Hmm, Jesus "the Christ"? That looks really goofy. :-) The way-NPOV name would be Yeshua benYousef or Yeshua benMiriyam. I don't think that'll work either. .."
    • The talk page FAQ of the article Jesus says ".. Q 1: What should this article be named? .. To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that Jesus, rather than Jesus Christ, is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. .."
    • So I am not inventing some new NPOV concern. Nor ".. Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. .." is my own invention but is already stated in WP:POVNAMING. Just I am trying to add value to it.
    • Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title's name

You guys can change the title to Prophet Muhammad remarks controversy Oh hindutvas are actually making these topics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.53.181 (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Wikipedia expects it's users to follows WP:Good faith WP:NPOV policy, and only Hindutva people do not work on Wikipedia.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhim Sena chief remarks

@Hemantha, why did you remove the content? This is not just an alleged comment or breaking news. Kpddg (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC) *Huh? both the refs said "alleged" by a BJP member. for allegedly issuing bounty and arrested for allegedly threatening and announcing a bounty. Even the court has noted that “The investigating officer (IO), despite being questioned, has failed to answer why was he in such a hurry to register the FIR even when he had not seen the video,” Duty Metropolitan Magistrate Dev Saroha observe. Do read the refs before you add content and especially before litigating on talk. Hemantha (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

Justice Surya Kant's observations controversy

Any one writing on this or do I write myself ? Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV wording for infiltration claims

@NebulaOblongata, can you explain why you reverted my changes? India Today editors have been known to spread misinformation aligned with government interests and the poor quality of the content on their website has been noted before in RSN. What is your objection specifically, because your edit summary is unclear? Hemantha (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Also refer to the old Cobrapost sting as well as the sources in Paid news in India. Hemantha (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]
These are passing comments and unsubstantiated allegations. I see no consensus on India Today's unreliability. Please make an official case before removing India Today citations. Try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. NebulaOblongata (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:::Eh? Where is the consensus about its reliability? The reliability needs to be established, not unreliability. Hemantha (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

@NebulaOblongata @Webberbrad007 Instead of edit warring to add back controversial content, please follow WP:BRD and discuss to make consensus. See WP:ONUS Edit warring is frowned upon by the admins. The said content violates wP:BLP and should not be added back. Venkat TL (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL please read MOS:SEEALSO. Your objections are unfounded and the very policies you quote actually support having Lee Rigby and Samuel Paty in the See Also section. Webberbrad007 (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The see also section of this page is not a directory of murders done by Islamic militants. Kamlesh Tiwari is a relevant case, I agree so it is kept and I did not remove it. If you want to add more names to it, you have to explain why exactly and how does it help the reader. Venkat TL (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being discussed on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Negative_Conspiracy_theories_about_living_person_on_Indian_murder_page.Venkat TL (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please demonstrate how WP:BLP is being violated? NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The reliability needs to be established, not unreliability". Quoting the page, "If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should start a discussion about it at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, and after checking the "Search the noticeboard archives" there first. That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with." NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section for Maharashtra

There has been enough in WP:RS regarding developments in Maharashtra on the back of this including the case of Saad Ansari and murder of Umesh Kolhe. So I propose adding a section for Maharashtra. Wording can be discussed once agreement on adding the section is arrived at. Webberbrad007 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Webberbrad007 what exactly do you wish to add. This opening statement cannot be vague. Please update your comment and add your proposed content, reliable source, and explain why you think adding it is relevant for the reader. Venkat TL (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL: Not only Amrawati police but WP favorite reliable sources too seem doing U turns, you will search news sources yourself or need help?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku your comment is not clear. what is "WP favorite reliable source"? What are you asking? Venkat TL (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read Amrawati killing related latest news and decide for yourself. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest users Please maintain WP:Goodfaith and note all my comments are always for betterment of respective articles. There is nothing wrong in saying read for themselves and decide, rather than getting into avoidable detail arguments. You know WP rules better than others and you choose your sources and decide when you want to update and what you want to update in the article. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked users comments

:(ec) No, I refuse to discuss Ansari here, who is not notable and not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Take it to WP:BLPN if you wish. For Kolhe, why is something that police have linked just now and for which we have nothing other than their claims, relevant here? NDTV said that the case was transferred by Amit Shah ... on Saturday after the local BJP unit accused the police of trying to conceal the reason. So it appears that there is some political angle influencing the claim and not just what an unbiased investigation would have revealed. Hemantha (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

"So it appears that there is some political angle influencing the claim and not just what an unbiased investigation would have revealed." Got a reliable source that discusses this angle? NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a clear attempt to remove the cases of Saad Ansari and Umesh Kohle from the article that are backed by reliable sources. Users with a poor understanding of WP:BLP are stonewalling the inclusion of facts. NebulaOblongata (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 4 July 2022

The Aisha article says, "Some traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 6 or 7;[12] other sources say she was 9 when she had a small marriage ceremony" and so that sentence should be added to the lead or under Naveen Jindal's tweet in the Comments about Muhammad section so that our readers know why they said what they said (Nupur Sharma and Naveen Jindal).- Mossad3 (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Aisha" subsubsection of the "Muhammad's marriages" subsection of the "Points of contention" section of the Criticism of Muhammad article, it says, "From the 20th century onwards, a common point of contention has been Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, who was said in traditional Islamic sources[98] to have been six when betrothed to Muhammad,[99][100][101] and nine when she went to live with Muhammad[99][100][101] and the marriage was consummated,[99][101] although according to some scholars it is assumed that the marriage was consummated upon her reaching puberty".-Mossad3 (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NebulaOblongata blocked

As NOTHERE, but is also apparently editing on behalf of Ex-Muslims of North America, ie COI/PAID. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments started

I have started a Request for Comments section here and request you all to participate. -Mossad3 (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about adding what reliable sources say about these Comments

Should the sentence "Some traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was six years of age when she was married to Muhammad, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.[1], others say she was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 6 or 7;[2] and she was 9 when she had a small marriage ceremony.[3]" be added to the lead or under Naveen Jindal's tweet in the Comments about Muhammad section? Mossad3 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Aisha" subsubsection of the "Muhammad's marriages" subsection of the "Points of contention" section of the Criticism of Muhammad article, it says, "From the 20th century onwards, a common point of contention has been Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, who was said in traditional Islamic sources[98] to have been six when betrothed to Muhammad,[99][100][101] and nine when she went to live with Muhammad[99][100][101] and the marriage was consummated,[99][101] although according to some scholars it is assumed that the marriage was consummated upon her reaching puberty".-Mossad3 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mossad3 Partly I do see a point in what you say. But as user @Kautilya3 says in the other RfC you opened @ We need sources that directly speak to why Nupur Sharma said what she did, and some WP:THIRDPARTY analysis on where all this is coming from. So basically information has to come in context of ongoing controversy with analysis in credible independent sources.
I tried with this content which sort of fulfills above requirement , but still is stone walled as of now and needs to be discussed more about.
In any case the ongoing controversy most likely will get covered in scholarly academic literature and likely to start appearing within a years time. So what I advice you is to keep searching https://scholar.google.com/ for "Nupur Sharma" once in a while and use those sources to update the article.
Last but not least don't be in hurry on Wikipedia specially to before starting RfCs longer discussions are supposed to follow. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - She did not make a false allegation but stated a fact. Please see the sources used in those articles (linked to above). I would like it to be added to the lead so that the reader reads it right at the beginning.-Mossad3 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mossad3: As Bookku notes, a reliable source would need to say this. We can't draw together information from this article and another. See WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As one reads in the Aisha article, Islamic sources differ among themselves about her precise age, some authors finds it futile to try to establish Aisha's real age, and Aisha's age has recently become a tool of polemicists. So if we were to include the proposed sentence on traditional hadith sources we would cease to describe the Muhammad remarks controversy in a neutral way and we would start to participate in that controversy with our own view - which is Mossad3's view: she did not make a false allegation but stated a fact. Interested readers can always read the article on Aisha, where that matter is adequately explained (note that I've just restored the sentence from the lead section [6], to which IMHO it belongs). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gitz6666, there is no reliable source for this sentence in any Wikipedia article, "differ among themselves about her precise age"-Mossad3 (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
why do you think that Spellberg 1994, p. 40 (quoted in Aisha) is not reliable? There one finds that All of these specific references to the bride's age ... suggest the variability of A'isha's age in the historical record. Plus Ali's book contains a detailed discussion on the early Muslim textual tradition (pp. 156 ff.) E.g. in Tabari's History Aisha is said to have been born before the coming of Islam, which might imply that she was 12 or 13 at the time of her marriage. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I apologise.-Mossad3 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support, but not in the lead. The comments I made at Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician) do not directly apply here. That was a biography page, whereas this page is on "Muhammad remarks". So, the defensibility or indefensibility of those remarks certainly belongs here. Some kind of summary of the Aisha page or other sources would be warranted. On the other hand, we should avoid wishy-washy newspaper op-eds that simply take convenient positions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, why don't you propose something? I see that you are an experienced editor.-Mossad3 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Bookku has tried to convey that here and I am reproducing it for others to read and understand the point,
Deleted content
Response in Hindu right media
According to a synopsis of 'Hindu right media' by Unnati Sharma in ThePrint; an editorial of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-affiliated journal Panchjanya, the erstwhile spokesperson Nupur Sharma and her family are being threatened with rape, death when Sharma had only repeated what Islamic preacher Zakir Naik too had said earlier; where as other Muslim leader threatened of iconoclasm against Shivling.(Sic) [5]
Academic response
According to Ahmet T. Kuru, it is not possible to know Aisha's factual age at the time of marriage, Kuru says Sharma used a single narration, of a hadith record, which says Aisha was 9 years old by the time she got married, and that some Muslims do accept since child marriages were common in premodern times. Kuru says, but Sharma ignored alternative Muslim explanation that Aisha might have been either 18 or 19 years old at the time of marriage.[6]-Mossad3 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those passages say exactly what Sharma said; instead they are both rambling paragraphs that seem considerably off-topic. But also, it is not very important whether information can be found showing that Sharma can, from some perspectives, be seen as having said something verifiable. The controversy is about the perceived offense, and that is in the eye of the beholder; here, on Wikipedia, in the form of the reliable, secondary responses from Muslim community leaders in India and abroad to the ill-advised and polemical squabble in which the comments came. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perceived offense leading to rape threats, death threats and murders.-Mossad3 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what your point is here. Yes, India has a history of religiously and politically motivated violence, on both sides of the Hindu-Muslim divide. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your use of the words, "perceived offense". You should probably include that in this article with sources.-Mossad3 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why it is supposed to limit to ".. Muslim community leaders .." ? Why WP:censor 'non Muslims' ?
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I said, I was speaking to the groups among whom the perceived offense was most pronounced. I wasn't aware too many non-Muslims were offended. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Muslims are offended that Nupur Sharma is being wrongly accused of blasphemy (the punishment for which is beheading in Islam).-Mossad3 (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, Bookku, please examine what I have added just below my question (rfc) right at the top (I have labelled it, "Addendum") and let us (other editors) know if that can be used.-Mossad3 (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mossad3 I already hinted @ your talk page you continue discussing but to withdraw RfC since Wikipedia community operates differently than your imagination. First there is huge list of rules you will see people citing then one has to navigate through confirmation biases of each other. Only particular list of news media sources and reference sources is accepted classified as reliable and not all. That is why I suggested to work through Google scholar as early you learn doing that you will have better say in Wikipedia content
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

References

  1. ^ "Sahih al-Bukhari 3896 - Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar) - كتاب مناقب الأنصار - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)". Sunnah.com (in Latin). Retrieved 2022-07-06.
  2. ^ Spellberg 1994, pp. 39–40
  3. ^ Armstrong 1992, p. 157
  4. ^ "'This is 100% true': Saudi Islamic scholar confirms Nupur Sharma's remarks about Muhammad". NewsBharati. 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-07-07.
  5. ^ "How Hindu Right press defended Nupur Sharma's controversial Prophet remarks". ThePrint. 2022-06-09. Retrieved 2022-07-06. ... Former BJP national spokesperson Nupur Sharma only dared to repeat what Islamic preacher Zakir Naik had said, read an editorial in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-affiliated journal Panchjanya, referring to the former's suspension from primary membership of the party over her remarks on Prophet Muhammad. .. "A BJP spokesperson and her family were threatened with rape, death because she dared to repeat what Islamic preacher Zakir Naik has been saying. On the other hand, a Muslim leader says that if he had known about the Shivling, he would have broken it already," it added. ..
  6. ^ Kuru, Ahmet T. (2022-06-12). "Why Muslim countries are quick at condemning defamation – but often ignore rights violations against Muslim minorities". The Conversation. Retrieved 2022-07-06. .. According to a hadith record, Aisha was 9 years old when she got married. Some Muslims accept this record and see it normal for a pre-modern marriage, whereas other Muslims believe that Aisha was either 18 or 19 years old by referring to other records. It is not possible to know the true facts of Aisha's age. As Islamic scholar Khaled Abou El Fadl stresses, "we do not know and will never know" them. Sharma thus used a single narration, while ignoring alternative Muslim explanations, in her remarks. ..
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Muhammad_remarks_controversy&oldid=1097009753"