Wikipedia

Talk:2022 Muhammad remarks controversy/Archive 4

< Talk:2022 Muhammad remarks controversy
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Mellohi! in topic Requested move 30 June 2022
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Justice Surya Kant's observations controversy

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

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

Protected edit request on 4 July 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)

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)
  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)

Neutrality tag

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I propose the neutrality tag added by User:Bookku be removed. As discussed on #Neutrality concerns section, these concerns need action by Bookku and he is not taking any to resolve this. Moreover none of the points he is making, is a major concern. So I propose to remove the tag. Venkat TL (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the reasons provided so far are vague. Only a couple of not particularly severe editorial concerns exist, and I would say these fall below the level of an imbalance tag. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The concerns look perfectly reasonable to me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: You need to provide some reasoning. Just saying that you agree is not particularly persuasive or usefully informative to other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I am afraid you give overblown importance to your opinions and fail to read what people are saying. I have no solution for that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
If your best explanation is the beginnings of a personal attack then you frankly make my case for me that you don't actually have anything to say. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Mossad3 CU blocked as a sock of Y2edit?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Which means that all article edits can be reverted, unanswered talk page posts also. Others can be struck through. And although I'm not sure if it would always be a good idea, hat some threads? Doug Weller talk 07:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Murder of Kanhaiya Lal § RfC about Attari's infiltration in BJP

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Murder of Kanhaiya Lal § RfC about Attari's infiltration in BJP. Venkat TL (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Maharashtra, beating of Saad Ansari

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Beating of Saad Ansari is not a major incident, hundreds of people have been beaten in this incident, only major incidents should be added. Please do not add without consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Saad Ansari is still seeing coverage by reliable sources,[1] and you also removed about Murder of Umesh Kolhe which has its own article. Even if that article got deleted one day it can be still retained here. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Case of 'Saad Ansari' is 'distinct' .
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bookku so? how does this incident merit the inclusion of a paragraph here? Such incidents were not unique and still no justification has been provided why adding them is necessary in this article. Venkat TL (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
•Support @Venkat TL's statements. Beating Saad Ansari is not a big deal, and hundreds of other people have been beaten in this incident. There is no consensus to add the paragraph about Ansari, but some editors started an edit war, which is not the right way to keep anything on Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
That makes no sense. See the comment by REDISCOVERBHARAT which shows that the coverage about this incident is ongoing. If there is coverage for "hundreds of other people have been beaten in this incident" then mention those examples here instead of sticking to vague handwave. Dympies (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Those quoting "Hundreds of other events", kindly provide cases where multiple RS gave coverage of those individuals, as in this case (Not some general mention). Source-less hand waving will not reduce the merit of this inclusion. If there are indeed cases where such instances of violence against individuals have seen as widespread of coverage as this one, we can surely include those as well.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment:
    • Since 'atheist Saad Ansari' had done piggy-backing of Nupur Sharma's remark to push his own atheist agenda of initiating discourse of progressive reform in his own Muslim community. Hence one needs to understand Nupur Sharma's remark in different perspective here. Irrespective of pertinence or impertinence or intentions of Nupur Sharma's remarks, the points of criticism of Islam selected by Nupur Sharma were modern natural sciences based (criticism of flying horses & flat earth) or medical sciences based (Child marriage). So as far as WP:Due policy is concerned Nupur Sharma remark is going as per modern sciences and her remarks do not amount to be fringe.
    • Out of Nupur Sharma's remarks 'atheist Saad Ansari' chose topic of (Child marriage) so his remark too pertains to mainstream modern medical sciences and not fringe one for WP:Due policy.
    • Please refer to Wikipedia:Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability which states ".. An article is no less neutral because its content is supported by citations from sources that principally state critiques of society, .. There may not be an article topic that can be sourced only to sources that uniformly state one critique of society, but that would be because there are multiple views in the sources for any notable topic and therefore the article should reflect that multiplicity of views. There would be no need to delete or avoid adding a source because it criticizes society, since the presence of that source would not disrupt neutrality in Wikipedia. .. An example of a critique that may validly be cited would be of religion A by religion B. (An entire society may agree to religion A, so a critique of that religion could be a critique of the believing society.) That a criticism by religion B of religion A is in the article with a source authored by a theologian from religion B does not violate Wikipedia's neutrality respecting religion A, as long as other sources are also cited, when available. .."
    • 'atheist Saad Ansari' view is not run of the mill view but distinct view because he is not usual BJP supporter but represents a different angle of view from atheist (former) Muslim segment. Case 'Atheist Saad Ansari' distinct because irony not just in his beating by his own community but subsequent arrest by a secular government for holding progressive secular views. (Mind 'atheist Saad Ansari' is not holding general BJP views but only supporting scientific part of Nupur Sharma's comment)
    • IMHO 'atheist Saad Ansari' is much more important and encyclopedically relevant to surrounding child marriage discussion in relation to ongoing controversy and surrounding 'Free Speech' discussion in relation to ongoing controversy.
    • I hope this helps putting the things in better perspective.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Maharastra Amravati pharmacist

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The National Investigation Agency that took over the case has said that there were evidence that the accused were involved in terrorist activities.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Amravati Chemist's Murder: 7 Accused To Be In Anti-Terror Agency Custody". NDTV.com. 7 July 2022. Retrieved 12 July 2022.

NIA is investigating the incident as a terrorist incident, NIA has not linked this killing with Nupur. Speculated content linking the murder with Nupur should not be added as this matter concerns multiple living persons. Please discuss Venkat TL (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@REDISCOVERBHARAT:, The line on infiltration is matter being discussed on RfC. None of the 2 incidents of Maharashtra have consensus to include. Please see WP:ONUS before adding and do not edit war. That an article exists on Kolhe is no reason to add stuff here. Until NIA links Nupur incident with Kolhe murder it is not appropriate to add it here, since it is speculation. Venkat TL (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • First of all, for benefit of other users, let me point out opening this discussion in separate section while discussion in the section Neutrality concerns is still ongoing.
  • @Venkat TL above argument seem to cherry pick suitable news report which missed related info, over police commissioner's updated statement in other news reports by NDTV. NIA took over ongoing investigation from state investigation to check terror connections that does not mean religious angle accepted by police commissioner is gone out of the picture.
  • As a student of South Asian Studies I know that usually South Asians classify intentions of crime in classes of property/money, sex/loves, and power all the three are absent in this case but religious extremism seems present as accepted by police commissioner. Such efforts of clutching the straw in hope of taking chance to obfuscate is unlikely to go far enough.
  • Spirit of WP:PGBOLD says ".. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. .."
  • All the comment is related to content discussion in this article
  • Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion
  • 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)

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)
@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)
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)
@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)
@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)
  • 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)

@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)
@Kautilya3 which point do you call reasonable? @Bookku you have again ignored my call for action 2 days ago. Venkat TL (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
All of them, to tell you the truth. The POV-editing on this page is quite obvious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

listing of the article under other relevant projects

I know adding all related projects to the talk page can be inconvenient, still taking call on which all projects are relevant for talk page communication and which projects are relevant enough to be added in WikiProject banner shell is important to avoid systemic bias. If other users are finding taking call on this long list in one go in convenient then we can discuss those in subsets. If I do not find any discussion taking place then I will assume all are okay as relevant.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Random subset of projects 1

  • WikiProject Television
  • WikiProject Journalism
  • WikiProject Freedom of speech
  • WikiProject Religion
  • WP:WikiProject Crime

Random subset of projects 2

Random subset of projects 3

Section for Maharashtra

Section for Maharashtra seems to have been deleted (edit dif) with almost alarming speed as soon as admin removed full page protection. Deletion summary too give link to some unrelated RfC? If the user was so certain that the section is not warranted why they did not approach admin to remove the section or they were less than confident about admin response?

Since issue was under discussion earlier Section for Maharashtra (archived discussion)

  • Complete section was not added by sock, what was added by sock was also referenced text. Wikipedia term for deletion of legitimate content is bit harsh one termed as WP:Gravedancing is that so? I leave it to wisdom of other users.
  • After previous edit war among other editors reliable sources came up with new updates and that seems to have not been considered by deleting user.
  • Excuses given for previous deletions or this time too sound more kind of flimsy and I sincerely doubt we can call this article neutral after deleting legitimate content relating to Maharashtra section. If not the same as deleted content, article deserves may be updated content and we expect experienced users not to give excuses for deletionism and stonewalling but preferably update content if they are not happy with existent content.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bookku I cannot make any sense of this rambling comment. How can I help you? Venkat TL (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bookku I see the section on Maharashtra is still around. It should be part of this write-up given similar incidents of violence compared to other states. On a side note, I am lately a bit busier than usual in RL and so my responses might be a bit slow.
The argument of sock added it, so it should forever be removed doesn't wash. If that is the case, anyone with an agenda will create a sock account and add a section they actually disagree with and then out the sock to ensure that the said section is never included in the article. Webberbrad007 (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Reflist-talk

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

Latest comment: 2 years ago76 comments17 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Data used to support the notion of the proposed name being the most common was disputed by many opposers and countered by independent investigations supporting the exact opposite conclusion. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
Support because Muhammad is the most popular name in the world.[1] Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
@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)
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)
Strong Oppose Prophet remarks row is not the common name - Not even 10% of the articles feature it (1,62,000/18,70,000 [2][3])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)
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)

::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

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)
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)
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)
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)

:::::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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Corrected. It is most respected RS. --Venkat TL (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Completely subjective, non policy based statement. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
Agree, thank you for adding the link Prophet Remarks Row. Venkat TL (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
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)

*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

  • 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 [4] [5]). 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)
    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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

**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

  • 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)

**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

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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    @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)
    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)
  • 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)

**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

@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)
@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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
  • 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: [6] - 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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)

Oppose: as per multitude of reasons detailed above Tow (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Muhammad_remarks_controversy/Archive_4&oldid=1229980945"