Wikipedia

Talk:2022 Muhammad remarks controversy/Archive 2

< Talk:2022 Muhammad remarks controversy
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Venkat TL in topic Help to expand Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

We should update information with these sources

Latest comment: 2 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion

We should update the "International Reaction" section because as of 11 June 2022 many more countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Bahrain, Iraq, and Libya Condemned BJP Leader's Remarks. Also, I suggest changing the line "At least five Arab nations have lodged official protests against India" to "18 Countries have condemned remarks by BJP Leaders" or you can comment on your line according to the sources I have added.


Sources to support these changes--

  1. The Wire.
  2. Scroll.

Please suggest anything if you can. Thanks Grabup (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Grabup I support both the proposals. I dont see why anyone will object to this update of new information. Please proceed. Venkat TL (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Some of these will fail inclusion, depending on the discussion going on above. Will have to wait till that concludes.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@CapnJackSp, Thanks for your feedback. I started this discussion because I knew that someone will oppose these edits. You are welcome to suggest anything here. Grabup (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The line will depend on the above discussion on whether or not to include non-official stances. Till then I think we will have to maintain the last uncontested version. The issue with The Wire and scroll reports is that it includes non-official stances as well. Further, they include organisations, as well as governments in that "18" number. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@CapnJackSp, For your knowledge. The wire mentioned "20 Nations and Bodies condemned" but I excluded those 2 bodies and suggested to add only "18" countries. You should check sources more carefully. Grabup (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Quoting directly from your source, scroll, At least 18 countries and organisations have criticised the comments. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@CapnJackSp, Can't you understand a simple thing? The article of scroll can be outdated that's why I also provided another reliable source The Wire, which is updated and mentioned 18 countries and 2 bodies. Grabup (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I know what you said, but if you were actually keeping a track of this whole discussion then you would know about my analysis of Turkey, Iraq, Egypt and why they cannot be considered to be officially condemning. I haven't checked the entire list but there are some problems with the claims that we will need more reliable sources to confirm the actual position. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Grabup has made a very clear proposal and is reliably source. @CapnJackSp you comment and make a vague hand wave. You are expected to speak clearly What exctly will fail inclusion? and why? Which country above are you calling as unofficial? Please dont disrupt article improvements like this. Venkat TL (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
How many countries have officially condemned it? I haven't checked all examples but for Iraq, the Wire cites "Parliamentary Committee on Awqaf and Tribals of Iraq", for Egypt we have Egypt’s Al-Azhar al-Sharif institute, for Turkey it cites Ömer Çelik, a mere politician of the ruling party. These examples cannot be included. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@CapnJackSp what makes you think "Parliamentary committee" is not an official body? this is strange behavior. Egypt’s Al-Azhar al-Sharif institute is a public university, but I agree that it cannot be considered official. Similarly turkey politician. Venkat TL (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Grabup if the sources are not naming the countries individually, you can link refs for individual counties and then add them after the name of each country. WP:REFBUNDLE is also possible to be used. Venkat TL (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Venkat TL, The Wire mentioned all 18 countries. The article of scroll can be outdated that's why the article mentions less countries. Grabup (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Do they represent the cabinet government or the head of state? That is the discussion above. Explain there why these should be included.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is about Dutch politician. Please dont swamp it with Turkey and all. @Grabup The Turkey example is from Ruling party [1] So it is position of the Ruling party and not necessarily Turkey. I believe Turkey officially made a statement need to look for source. Making a list for every country and then adding a ref is the best way to proceed. Venkat TL (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Venkat TL, I added Malaysian, Jordanian, and Libyan reaction to the article because officials or Foreign Ministries of these countries condemned of expressed concerns publicly. But, I want to know can I add Iraqi reaction because the condemnation is from the Iraqi Parliament. Grabup (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Grabup Yes, Iraqi parliament is an official arm of the government . Please add Venkat TL (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

explain this

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

why the words "Hindutva" being used here? This article is becoming more like a narrowed propaganda, rather than being a simple article documenting about a controversy. Anindianboi1905 (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Anindianboi1905 (talk), This thing is already discussed in this Talk page. Now it is archived. Grabup (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Refs

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

As noted in the first ref, the "Shivling claim" was being mocked. That doesn't imply that Shivling was mocked, or that Lord Shiva himself was being mocked. The extrapolation drawn by the BJP supporters is not viable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@Bookku: I'm not sure compiling news sources here is really helping anyone. We all have google. If you think a news story is truly pertinent, why not add it to the article? And if not ... ? If these were academic sources it might be slightly different, but this is just a random list, probably rapidly going out-of-date, of some the many 100s of news stories a day on this. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
You won't have any academic sources, this all happened the last month, academic doesn't work that fast. --StellarNerd (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I know. But on other pages, I understand that people do sometimes provide references lists. In fact, I know there's a template somewhere for adding particularly pertinent sources to the talk page header, but I can't dig it out. My point was rather that a list of news sources, without even notes on whatseparates them, is basically just a news feed. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
What Iskandar323 says. @Bookku please add a line or two with the ref, why you believe it is worth adding to the talk page, without your note, this is spamming. Venkat TL (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
On WP my usual focus is to find information and knowledge gaps and facilitate expansion of various articles and drafts, as part of being help to myself and others I do collate relevant (still assorted to maintain neutrality) resources then present them to other users if they are interested in the article expansion. I do take part in article expansion in due course as and when time permits usually after through research and reading and previous collations helps me save time and it can save time for others too. I can do collation activity only on my page but doing it at article talk page makes it transparent, one can take into account if any other users have any views on any sources and other users too can utilize these sources if they wish too. Idk if the collated sources are relevant ones how those can be termed spamming. I do not see anything in such listing to worry about for other users who are not necessarily interested. In fact if you/ anyone find any information gaps or useful refs to share I me or other users can help in expanding. The purpose of this activity is to facilitate better collaboration and other users can look at it with good faith. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Talk pages should really be reserved for discussion, so listing links in a dedicated page in your sandbox would not be a bad idea - you could then post that link to a talk page, where it would remain accessible to anyone interested without constant updates to the talk page. You should consider this if only for the sake of the server space/environment. Every time you post a link here (potentially useful or not), you create a new version of the page, soaking up server space and energy without directly contributing to the discussion. By hosting the links in a dedicated sandbox space you could make the links available in just the same manner to those that want to use them, but then speedy delete the lists when no longer useful, thereby freeing up the server space occupied by those lists of links and all of the past versions created every time you add a link, which, when added one by one, is quite a lot. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I was asked, "..why not add it to the article?", it is quite a frequent experience of deletionism of well sourced content on doubtful grounds and that can be just exhausting, (just experienced), so writing when keeping the sources ready and knowing user objections in advance can save time and energy and one can write when article is in peace I find that much better with least friction and relaxed one. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of well sourced content?

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

@CapnJackSp: Your edit deletion summary and message @ my talk page indicates you considered my additions this or this to be WP:UNDUE as per your subjective opinion stating 'since this has been already discussed on the article'. We all understand we are entitled to have our own independent views. With due respect to your opinion, I am not convinced with such assessment and I do have different view altogether to look at encyclopedic content. IMHO at the most some small copy editing would have needed.

  • Besides your summary & message at my talk page are not specific and clear that which sentences already cover following deleted content ?

I had included following editorially credible content for better representation of respective views, IMHO readers deserve to know various / diverse views and I sincerely believe with both paragraphs balancing with neutrality vis a vis each other.

  • I am also concerned / (wonder) whether would we be blocking all the academic discussion in times to come also.

As of now I leave it to discretion of rest of Wikiuser community to include them again or not.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

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) [1]
== 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.[2]
Nupur's defense had been already provided. There is no need to add more about it. Similarly, there is no need to initiate a debate on the issue of the veracity of Nupur's comments and it's reception. This is all WP:UNDUE for this article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree. To create a subsection on academic response (huh?) is ridiculous. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
a) I do not want to sound too pushy or being in hurry to add content. I can understand effect of media sourcing on mindset of all of us, With due respect to wisdom of other Wikipedia users, what I see this one essay cautioning It is in the better interest of Wikipedia that editors not edit articles of persons involved in current events, or other situations that are fluid and incidentally encourage a high number of edits over shorter periods of time. and also cautioning Wikipedia is not a news source to which I am concerned about this article getting turned into news of news and Wikipedia's encyclopedic priority being turned up side down.
As of now I see most of article either covering riots or a dump of copyvio statements intending to cover endless list of international reactions. Idk how controversies can be covered in balanced manner in encyclopedia without providing space to all significant views.
b) Where is the seriousness as expected of WP:BLP arena article to give importance to factual? Any person getting unlawful death threats is any time is despicable hence deserves condemnation, are we pretending to be oblivious and underplaying risks to the life of WP:BLP accused of blasphemy? 'whether article has adequately covered notable third party condemnations (emphasis added) of death threats?', If not then why it should not?
c) This is a where is any intellectual defense covered in sentence " .. Nonetheless, Sharma defended her comments .. " , another defense of Zubair of "heavily [editing]" the clip is unlikely to be accepted in toto so that does not practically work as defense.
d) I admit mention of 'receiving rape and death threats' is likely to get repeated but if Sharma's statement about that is covered in the article why do repeat the same self statement here and not give scope to other media reports about the same?
e) The way I covered Panchajanya gives information of tangential underbelly of a significant segment in BJP camp.
f) Last but not least, how such a significant controversy related multiple issues relating to child marriage; free speech Vis a Vis blasphemy vis a vis hate speech will remain out of sight of academic discourse? Why do we play down academic discourse in encyclopedic article, I have already requested introspection whether, inadvertently, encyclopedic priorities are being turned up side down,
Though I made a list of points let me repeat, I do not want to be pushy as of now. If wikipedia community is still not ready I can come back for same discussion after a year or two when more academic sources would be available.
Thanks for inputs and cheers Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sharma, Unnati (2022-06-09). Arora, Amrtansh (ed.). "How Hindu Right press defended Nupur Sharma's controversial Prophet remarks". ThePrint. Archived from the original on 2022-06-10. Retrieved 2022-06-19. .. 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. ..
  2. ^ Kuru, Ahmet T. (2022-06-19). Adetunji, Jo (ed.). "Why Muslim countries are quick at condemning defamation – but often ignore rights violations against Muslim minorities". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-19. .. 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. ..
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

TrangaBellam, please could you explain your removal of links to Gyanvapi mosque controversy given that it is a primary source of tensions leading up to this controversy? If you believe there are issues with the content, please help improve it instead. Webberbrad007 (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There exists a longstanding precedent to avoid linking to shoddy articles. All the more so, when a far decent article exists at Gyanvapi Mosque. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
On what basis are you making the claim of relative decency? I note that you are the primary contributor on the Gyanvapi Mosque article, but that shouldn't mean that you cite that even when the article to cite here is the controversy one and not the mosque one. Webberbrad007 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The entire article was a copyright violation - sigh. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Sigh indeed. Hopefully someone will flesh it out with relevant details which don't violate any copyright, at which point, the references can be updated. Webberbrad007 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Usage of yet to be published book as a reference

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Trangabellam you have used a yet to be published book Saffron Republic as a reference. How is that a valid reference if only you have a pre-publication copy? Webberbrad007 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh? I had accessed the book via Cambridge Core from my institute library. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
It was published on 31 May. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Tbh, I do not know the precise date. I became aware of the volume though an emailed flyer of a talk by one of the editors. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
That being said, I cannot find the discussion on the line. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
So do both of you claim that this, this and this and every other reference I have found on google is incorrect? The release date of the book is 31-July per every available online source, including the publisher, Cambridge University Press. A pre publication print might have been made available to you (or your university, if you are students / academics) for review. Webberbrad007 (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
That must be for the print edition. The online version is available on the CUP web site. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Reordering of the countries' responses

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Recent twice edits of mine were revered by @Venkat TL, while I was trying just to rearrange the countries' reactions in alphabetical order. I already saw that the chronological order was to kept in first responders first, but No Thanks, I would like to see the "International reactions section to be in the alphabetical order. I haven't see any OTHER article as such, where International reactions by country is not maintained alphabetically. Also, why are the flag templates being constantly being removed?

So, whose with me on it? Anindianboi1905 (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose Alphabetical order. An event happens with a chronology. Qatar's response here was not just a response but a part of the international event. The reactions of the Gulf countries basically shaped how the Indian government reacted suspension/expulsion of its leaders etc. These response are not just after the fact reactions that happens in other event articles on Wikipedia. No good reason was given by the nominator to explain why he wants to trash the chronology and re-arrange the country flag soup in an alphabetical order. Other articles are doing it is not enough because each article has its own reasons that are discussed on the talk page. The flag is a violation of MOS:FLAG and in my personal opinion the country flag soup is very distracting from the content of the article. Venkat TL (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Venkat TL. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While browsing peripheral topics to this article I came across, following articles do not seem to be at their best and secondly too U.S. centric. Can some editors take up expansion and improvement of the following.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Missing in projects list?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I visited talk pages of related and similar articles following projects may be missing from the project list. I know all of the following need not be added to. May be some users would be interested updating the project list from the following. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  • WikiProject Television
  • WikiProject Journalism
  • WikiProject Freedom of speech
  • WikiProject Religion
  • WikiProject Crime
  • WikiProject Law Enforcement
  • WikiProject Family and relationships
  • WikiProject Human rights
  • WikiProject Skepticism
  • WikiProject Folklore
  • WikiProject Spirituality
  • WikiProject Philosophy / Logic / Science
  • WikiProject Theology
  • WikiProject Hinduism / Shaivism
  • WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government
  • WikiProject Religious texts
  • WikiProject Law

Refs

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

First link from June 28 has been added into the article as ref. Venkat TL (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Help to expand Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please help to expand the new article. Venkat TL (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Muhammad_remarks_controversy/Archive_2&oldid=1100939824"