Talk:The Satanic Verses/Archive 1

Archive 1

What about others?

Satanic Verses is just a pathetic attempt to push sales by an average writer. Its frankly bloody boring. It has characters mocking Islamic celebrities as well as non-Islamic celebrities like Gandhi and Nehru. A dog is named Gandhi and a cat is named Nehru!

---

People seem to think that Rushdie's novel is somehow about Islam. Yes, he uses negatively (supposedly --- Rushdie initially denied it) imagery of prophet as one character in his novel, but the novel has nothing to say about Islam.

Read these 162 customers review on amazon.con

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312270828/qid=1100370442

Even though not all these reviews can be trusted, it will give some general idea about the book.

Now to the second point about apostates. Rushdie is a self proclaimed apostate, but he is not anti-religious like Ibn Warraq. From the interviews that I have seen, he seems more like anti-fundamentalist.

For example, he claims, "Many commentators have spoken of the need for a Reformation in the Muslim world."

Reformation? Anti-religious author like Ibn Warraq (or Taslima Nasreen) claims Islam can't be reformed, and that religion in general is bad. Reformation is not possible, period. So that's a clear distinction between Rushdie and other anti-religious apostates. OneGuy 18:42, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You following me around or what?

No, I haven't read the novel; I find Rushdie utterly tedious. So I am committing the sin of writing about it just from reading reviews. As I recall, the reviews at the time said that there was a brothel in the story, and the squabbling inmates were all named after Muhammad's wives. Plus a prophet named Mahound, who has a faithless scribe who is corrupting his words, and who is tempted to countenance polytheism.

I'm doing a lot of googling, trying to find the complete text of the fatwa and suchlike. I'll rewrite Zora 19:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I am not following you around. You edited the articles already on my watch list. I didn't read the book. I saw it once but it appeared too difficult to read and make sense, and so I didn't waste time on it. But since you seem to be aware of soc.religion.islam, I once read a post by usually a very reliable poster on the book. this post

I usually don't trust anything posted by people on newsgroups or other forums, but the guy who wrote this post was usually the most reliable poster on that newsgroup at that time (years ago). So there is no reason for me to doubt what he wrote.

As for Khmonie, he basically called for killing Rusdie and anyone (any publisher or translator) involved in the book. The fatwa was rejected by most other Muslims preachers, including Al-Azhar University OneGuy 20:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Having read many reviews and different opinions, I think I can safely say that it's a gross exaggeration to claim that Rushdie's book is inspired in part by the life of Muhammad. Mahound was only a minor character in the book, and appeared to have been defamed only in a dream of Gibreel Farishta (a bad guy in the novel). Also, this statement in the article:

"The controversy arose over Rushdie's portrayal of Prophet Muhammad as a fallible human character and his confession that he found Islam a sham"

is probably provably false too

Once again ... claims are inserted in the article that are most likely false. OneGuy 21:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm annoyed by people commenting on The Satanic Verses who have never read the book. You obviously do not know what you're saying, and just copy/pasting random quotations that you've found from google in the past 10 minutes hardly makes you an expert on Rushdie's novel.

I have read the book and I still don't know if I have the authority to comment on it. The novel is complex, twisting, and ambiguous. If you had read the story, you would know that while Mahound is not a major character in the book, he does have a profound empact on the storyline. The controversy surrounding how and from who Mahound is acquiring his prophesies is important not only to the meaning behind The Satanic Verses, but also a main reason for the bounty placed on Rushdie's head after writing this novel. The novel- by the way- is amazing.

---

Seeing that most of the people on this Talk page haven't read the book, I think it's somewhat my duty to chime in. I've read the book (thoroughly enjoyed it, btw), and I'll just give some relevant background. I read it a few months ago, so some details may be sketchy. As I saw it, there are four different parallel narratives being told in the book. One of them is the story of Mahound, though this story is really just a delusional dream of Gibreel Farishta (though I wouldn't call him a "bad guy"). If Mahound is said to be a representation of the prophet Muhammad, then I can only say that he is portrayed on a personal, humanistic level, instead of a as a God-like figure. His scribe, in the novel, indeed twists Mahound's words, and this could be a poke at the authenticity of the Quran, but says nothing as to the Mahound's character.

Again, all of this is in the context of a dream of Gibreel Farishta, whose dreams drip into reality with him thinking of himself as the angel Gibreel or as Mahound.

Also, I think the last line of - "The controversy arose over Rushdie's portrayal of Prophet Muhammad as a fallible human character and his confession that he found Islam a sham." - should be deleted, it seems like an unnecessary conclusion to the issues already discussed previously in the artice. It adds nothing. Jrka 14:21, 14 Nov 2004 UTC

---

Well, Muslims consider Muhammad a human and fallible, not a God-like figure. So that could not have caused all the uproar. Scriber twisted his words? That can be interpreted in several ways. It's not clear blasphemy. This was never mentioned in the fatwa anyway, or by the rioters, or other complainers. That was not the issue.

I think I am beginning to understand what happened. Another character in the book is satire of Imam Khomeini, who is portrayed negatively in the book. Since 88% of Muslims are sunni, portrayal of Khmonie wouldn't have caused that much uproar. To counter that, Khomeini sympathizers must have started the propaganda that the book is very blasphemous against Muhammad, calls him a liar and his wives prostitutes (the prostitutes in the book are apparently not the wives of Mahound but some other women who use his wives names to attract more customers). Since most rioters never read or understood the book, they were just reacting to these rumors of blasphemy against Muhammad. After the death fatwa by Khomeini, probably other anti-Islamic authors joined in with the usual "the book exposes Islam as false religion" (even though it's just a fiction -- and exposes nothing) and that Rushdie has a right to "expose Islam." Usual stuff.

Now I am pretty sure that's exactly what happened here.

Notice that Iran (Khomeini) is the only country that issued the fatwa. Many far more blasphemous books have been written before and after Rusdie about Islam .... none became such a big issue. OneGuy 14:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Temporary fix

OK, I've removed the stuff tagged as inaccurate, and added the text and time of the fatwa. I think there's still a lot more to be said to make this a real encyclopedia article, but this is at least a temporary fix. Zora 18:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Khomeini is in fact portrayed rather sympathetically

Alright, I can't *prove* this. All I can say is - read the book [start at page one and end at the end!] and judge for yourself. (I have read it 5 times in 12 years; and in fact I have read all of Rushdie's [published] novels more than once.) [his first two novels never got published, as he wrote somewhere - Grimus was the 3rd.] And he does *not* use negative imagery of the Prophet [easy exercise to the first-time reader of the novel - locate the sentence *in the novel* that explicitly says so. hint: snatching insulting terms from the hegemon and using it with pride [i.e. Identity politics]] And that's right, the book is not primarily about religion, though one of its important themes is the nature of Revelation [in one of his essays, SR describes this current of the novel as an attampt to tackle the question - if Revelation does not really reveal God or anything like that, and yet is an authentic experience, then what the hell is it all about? [not verbatim at all - this is a paraphrase, and I read the essay more than 10 years ago.] Except Midnight's Children [arguably], Haroun, The Moor's Last Sigh, and The Ground Beneath Her Feet [arguably], all other Rushdie novels are Greco-Shakespearean Tragedies. Fury most clearly so. Also Fury is his only novel to date which uses neither magic-realist nor science-fiction techniques. [Rushdie was never really magic-realism proper, only used magic-realist techniques - as well as others - he was not bound by one technique. Hence the *limitations* of magic realism didn't limit SR's work [not that his work has no limitations, though!]] It seems none of you have read the book at all! otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to type all this at all, getting increasingly dyslexic with slowly creeping Alzhmeier's and all that. But it is irritating to find people waxing eloquent about something they haven't read.

--- a cosmic citizen, technically from Calcutta India ---

Dear cosmic citizen, it's true that I haven't read the novel. I don't *like* Rushdie's work (though I adore Vikram Seth's). I just tidied the article as an interim measure. Instead of telling us we're all wrong, why don't you add some material to the article? Then we'll copyedit you <g> Zora 06:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many or most?

An anon editor changed several occurrences of 'many Muslims' to 'most Muslims'. I changed it back. There's no way to prove that 'most' Muslims would agree on this. There were certainly lots of NOISY Muslims protesting the novel, but they were outnumbered by the ones who stayed home and said nothing. Since we don't know how the ones who stayed home would have felt, it seems to me that it's a dishonest rhetorical ploy to say that 'most' Muslims felt this way. That's a way of implying that Muslims should agree with the criticisms of the novel. Zora 01:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ŲI have not read the book yet. Because - it is impossible to buy it! Everyone is afraid of the bandits, yes, they are bandits, those who control now Iran. Do not be afraid of Islam! They are weak, because they have a fear of truth. The fear of controversy is their weak point. It is very similiar to other totalitarian regimes - Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union.

Date of publication

The article currently reads:

"...first published in 1988 and..." in the first line; and "...upon publication in 1989..." in the second line.

My hardcover first edition copy says:

Published in 1989 by Viking Penguin Inc.

Copyright © Salman Rushdie, 1988 All rights reserved

So it's obvious where the confusion arised. Should the article be changed to reflect this, and how? Jp media 04:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

William Nygaard murderd?

The article on the Muhammand drawings asserts that William Nygaard was shot in 1993 - does this imply a second, successful assassination attempt after the first in 1991? Toby Douglass 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

William Nygaard is still alive.

We may as well drop the spoilers

This article doesn't seem to deal with the plotline very much at all when compared to other articles on novels. To be honest you get more from the blurb on the back. Should we not be focussing more on the books content and less on the controversy surrounding it??

It wouldn't be a notable book if it weren't for the controversy. I don't think anyone believes that it is a classic of world literature. Zora 09:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

i do trueblood 13:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

redundant title?

satanic verses redirects here and there's no mention of a disambig page. should i move page? Frenchman113 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Satanic verses should NOT redirect here. There's a separate article on the supposed Satanic verses removed from the Qur'an. Could someone have been playing tricks? I'll check. Zora 02:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

NO, it's alright. You type in Satanic Verses and you get the article re the Qur'an. You have to click on the top to get here. Zora 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Nunhunh

I looked at the title you gave the section and just assumed that it was a general attack. When I looked at your revert, I saw that it was indeed a timeline of events related to the novel. I apologize for being tired and cranky and not reading thoroughly. I did change the section title, however -- just call it Timeline. Readers can infer censorship, and probably will. Zora 10:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Improvements needed please

Hi all. Can someone who has read this book please include specific examples as to why this book was offensive to Muslims? The article is completely void of this. Thanks. Monkeyman^(talk) 17:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible move?

Move to The Satanic Verses to move the (novel). No other The Satanic Verses. Skinnyweed 21:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there is Satanic Verses. I think the (novel) tag is crucial. Zora 15:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

But Satanic Verses and The Satanic Verses are completely different in both content and, more importantly, name. And also, The Satanic Verses redirects to The Satanic Verses (novel) anyway. Skinnyweed 20:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

satanic verses controversy

i propose to take out the whole controversy section out of the rushdie article, only leaving a short summary and link to this article. most of the information is included in the timeline. obviously i also want to remove the link in this article's intro. i think it's into this article that all that belongs. one thing that is missing in the timeline but mentioned in the rushdie article is cat stevens alleged support for the fatwa. i would like to add that to the timeline with a link to cat stevens article, where it is explained in more detail.

btw do we really need links for words like japanese, muslim, 1988, myth, blasphemous, norway? or should we stick to the words that are central to the article (like fatwa, ...) trueblood 11:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, I don't think that's a good idea. It's hard to understand why there was a controversy if you don't know what the novel was about. It's as if I suggested that we divide the Osama bin Laden article into an article about Osama and an article about the controversies that surround Osama. Plesae DON'T! Zora 13:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

wait, just to make sure we are on the same page. i am proposing to take the satanic verses controversy section, which is currently part of the Salman Rushdie article off that article and add whatever information it contains to this article The Satanic Verses (novel). as mentioned before most of it is already here, except this cat stevens thing (in the timeline section). afterwards it would be the rushdie article that refers to the verses article not the other way round. my objective is to prune the rushdie article off all the stuff that is also in this article do you really object to that. trueblood 17:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Zora, maybe there was a misunderstanding? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, if another event like this happened in 2006, an article dedicated to it would be created in no time. It's only the fact that it happened several years ago that the event doesn't get its own article. Skinnyweed 20:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. But that's not really a compelling reason, is it? I think the public perception of both the novel and (to a lesser degree) of Rushdie himself is so inseparably intertwined with the controversy that it really makes more sense to have the controversy topic within one of those articles (preferably the novel) than in a separate article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

i am bringing the stuff from the rushdie article over to the timeline, afterwards some stuff can be shortened again, for instance everything related to the bounty seems a little bit confused. but when everything is together in one article the confusion is more evident and can be brought into a consistent form. trueblood 09:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ibn ishaq

the novel is not just about the namegiving satanic verses episode but presents a version of the early years of islam. are you saying that rushdie based all of this on the writings by ibn ishaq (could well be), did rushdie say so or are you just guessing? --trueblood 06:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC) i reverted the edit because i am really not convinced that rushdie based his book in ibn ishaq but open to be corrected.--trueblood 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

satanic verses in quran

what about the satanic verses in quran in i think 50th chapter. and Where has the section on satanic verses(novel) controversy moved.nids 17:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"As usual..."

"As usual, Singapore was the first country and India the second country to ban the book." Is Singapore usualy first to ban books? Does India make a hibit of it? Even if they do, I'm not sure this is common knowledge, nor do I see why "As usual" is necessary for the reader's understanding of the controversy.67.70.1.171 17:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

New article on The Satanic Verses controversy

I have started an article on The Satanic Verses controversy copying a good deal of the original The Satanic Verses story. Stay tuned.--BoogaLouie 16:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a link from this article to the controversy article? --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 11:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

New article is up and running and some links have been changed from the novel article to it. --BoogaLouie 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Trimming text

Anyone object if I delete the timeline and trim some of the text now that there is a satanic verses controversy article? --BoogaLouie 00:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Disambiguation page

There is now a Satanic Verses article on the Quranic ayat issue, a The Satanic Verses article on the Rushdie novel and an The Satanic Verses controversy article on the fatwa against the novel and related issues.

I propose creating a Disambiguation page. I think this will mean changing the article on the novel back to Satanic Verses (novel) title. --BoogaLouie 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Timeline should go

Ever since the creation of a stand alone page on the The Satanic Verses controversy was created the timeline on this page looks to be a mere copy of the one on that page. If no one objects we should compare one against the other to insure that if there is any uniquely sourced info on this page is transferred there and then delete the timeline here replacing it with a sentence or two and a link to the timeline on that page.--Wowaconia 10:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Checked timeline and deleted it. --BoogaLouie 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Intersting link posted but it was removed as it was from self-published non-expert

I removed this link becuase it failed under the wikipedia guidelines against using info from a non-expert at a self-published site. I did think it was interesting enough to move it here as it sees the whole Rushdie affair as an anti-Islamic conspiracy.

http://www.alislam.org/books/rushdie/RUSHDIE_Haunted_by_his_unholy_ghosts.pdf

--Wowaconia 04:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

lead changes

i instituted some changes to tighten up the text in the lead and remove some plain redundancies, but they were reverted for the ambiguous reason that they made the text 'worse.' i see no problem with the changes made apart from the sole issue raised, which i shall rectify accordingly. other than that, i think it's for anyone who disagrees with the changes to explain in detail as to why. ITAQALLAH 15:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid bad style by using the passive voice. You have a habit of removing the subject of the sentence where that subject is Muhammad. This is bad style. The "some" early biographies implies that there are some that don't include it. Considering that Ibn Hisham is a redacted version of Ibn Ishaq, and the evidence strongly suggests that Ibn Ishaq included it (he circulated version of the story that made it into Waqidi and Tabari, scholars have concluded it was in Ibn Ishaq, etc), the "some" is misleading. Hopefully this is unintentional. It's not clear why you're removing the sentence desribing which versions Rushdie based his version on. "Redundancy" doesn't excuse it. One sentence is saying it occurs in Muslim biographies of Muhammad, the other says which specific narratives Rushdie based his retelling on. Arrow740 08:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

i assume your comment on passive voice refers to this passage: "... which were then later retracted at the behest of the archangel Gabriel." - which you replaced with this: "Muhammad later retracted them, saying the angel Jibreel had told him to do so." - i am sure my version can be fixed by changing 'were then' > 'he'. your change disjoints the sentence from attribution to traditional biographies, thereby necessitating redundancies such as Muhammad 'saying'. the apparent story according to Tabari et al. is that certain verses were forwarded by Satan and then Gabriel came to nullify it. either attribution of this to Muhammad replaces attribution to the biographies right at the beginning, or we don't supplement additional attributions later (not present in the narrative itself) to imply doubt. ITAQALLAH 11:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the article

The article sounds more about the controversy and less about the novel itself. I propose we should strip off the controversy to put most of it in Criticism section. The mention of Khumaini's whole quote in the introduction itself is not good. Any one there to contribute on this?--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 11:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked back because I had plans to write a synopsis earlier and never got around to it. Whoever wrote this one did an admirable job of keeping it concise, although I see some elements of OR, so maybe links to critical reviews would be in order. I'm not sure if splitting off a The Satanic Verses controversy subarticle is doable, but content and controversy issues should be kept separate. ~ trialsanderrors 21:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What are the actual allegedly blasphemous references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.64.73 (talk • contribs)

I've read the book, and i never found anything particularly. From what i can gather, its only blasphemous bacause of REFERENCE to the Koran and Muhhamed, in situations they shouldnt be in. Becuase in the east a person doesent have the basic freedoms they do here AKA: Freedom of speech, people got really wound up. Surely if this book is offencive, us fendemental christians should have hung drawn and quartered Dan Brown by now... but we have freedom of speech, and respect his right to write whatever he chooses.Teta 09:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"The freedoms they do here?" "But we have freedom of speech?" You don't say where you are.

Possibly a good deal of the problem is the credence given to the authenticity of the Satanic Verses tradition. Despite plausible claims that this story of the prophet is authentic, Islamic scholars generally consider it to be definitively rejected (and presumably not an acceptable topic of debate). I believe that 'At its centre is the episode of the "Satanic Verses"' should be altered so that Satanic Verses is a link to the wiki entry.

[The following post was made by 202.83.175.66 on June 23, 2007. 202.83.175.66 deleted the article above and his post was in turn deleted by BorgQueen. I'm reposting it even though it's a little intemperate and ill informed.

PS, 202.83.175.66 is in the North-West Frontier of Pakistan --BoogaLouie 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC) ]

talking of freedom of speeach.redicilous. CAN U TALK ABOUT THE REAL FACTS OF HOLOCAUAST.can u abuse imperialism , king queen or royal family.my dear every thiing has a limit . freedom of speech must not include playing with emotions of any community. and to my christian and jew brothers, blasphamy is equally applicable to propher christ aND MOSES. WE RESPECT ALL PROPHETS . WHY U DONT respect ours.please understand that religios is sensitive issue and abstain from financing and god fathering any rascal who have been unanimously critisiced by a community .by the way if froodom of speech is unlimited , then y the president of iran was bullied for conducting a educational dialogue on holocast.please learn to respect other faith. --202.83.175.66

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and we speak freely of the Holocaust in North America. Your persecution complex is pathetic. Please learn to write properly in English, and get down off of your high horse. Muslims, Christians, etc. kill people because of their religions, and have no respect for other beliefs. We're not all as stupid as you. Rhowryn (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

lead changes about controversy

I have made edits moving paragraphs on "the controversy" from the lead to the Controversy section (which had no text, only a link to the The Satanic Verses controversy article), and trimmed the controversy paragraph in the lead which was a bit long. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Abdolkarim Soroush's Notability

He is named by Time magazine as one of the world’s 100 most influential people in 2005 and by Prospect magazine as one of the most influential intellectuals in the world in 2008. Source --Kazemita1 (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It still doesn't belong in the "literary criticism" section, because that isn't what it is. It might fit into the "controversy" section, but for that you'd have to show not merely that it's technically a reliable source, but that it's an opinion more prominent than the thousands and thousands of other published authors who have commented on the book at some time. Our coverage is not an indiscriminate list of each and every published opinion on the book, so what is special about this one? Finally, your summary of his position, "and differentiates it from the subject of freedom of speech" doesn't even make sense. What does "it" refer to in that sentence? The novel? What does it mean to "differentiate" a book from a subject? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Will transfer it to the "controversy" section per your explanation. And yes, being among the Time magazine's 100 most influential people does make him more prominent that thousands and thousands of other published authors.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, no, it doesn't. This article currently doesn't contain any list of quotes of individual writers' opinions, and very rightly so, because otherwise it would be a quote farm. So why would we have this person's opinion? If there was a largish list, then maybe we could fit this person in, as one among the more prominent voices in the debate (reserving my judgment on whether he really is such a prominent voice, which I'm also not convinced of yet). But the way you have it now, you are making it seem as if he alone, out of the six billion people on earth, had produced a comment deserving of notice. That's just ridiculous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Freedom of Speech

I've added {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}} to the top of this talk page, due to the book's history of censorship and free speech related controversies. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the novel

Are there any reviews of the novel that are mostly or completely negative (outside of the infamous controversy)? Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Satanic Verses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/FOP2006cartoonessay.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040202043457/http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/anglophone/satanic_verses/ to http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/anglophone/satanic_verses/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184713/http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/misc/rushdie.html to http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/misc/rushdie.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Incoherent Sentence

"Farishta's transformation can partly be read on a realistic level as the symptom of the protagonist's developing schizophrenia. "

This is not grammatically correct. I am not familiar with the plot so I do not know if this is trying to refer to multiple characters having schizophrenia or one person. Either way it is not possessive in that use case.

Spidermanshotuncle (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)spidermanshotuncle 12 october 2020

Hmm, sorry but I'm not quite sure what you find ungrammatical about the sentence. I still find it quite clear, though maybe not worded optimally. Farishta develops schizophrenia. His apparent transformation can be read as a symptom of that, i.e. as his own delusional state of mind. But only partly so, because some of these episodes are also narrated in a way that implies he really has transformed, in the eyes of the narrator and of other characters. Can you suggest a better phrasing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

"Farishta's transformation can partly be read on a realistic level as the symptom of the protagonist developing schizophrenia. " remove the 's

Spidermanshotuncle (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)spidermanshotuncle October 13 2020

The contested statement is perfectly grammatically correct; the commenter seems to be unfamiliar with such genitive + gerundive constructions, a common feature of formal English. (https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0316.html) Mpaniello (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"BBC reported"

Toward the end of the article, the stabbing is described (almost) verbatim as in the BBC article, with attribution. This seems unnecessary, as it has been widely reported on. I suggest changing it to Wikipedia's own voice and wording. 2A02:A467:F771:1:215D:2CD5:204F:1CD8 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Seminars

The second paragraph of the Controversy section does not sufficiently establish notability. Why should we care about seminars by two British organizations? Why should Fay Waldon have been invited? Why do we care what McSmith thinks about it?

I don't have access to the source, so I honestly don't know whether it's notable or should just be removed. 2A02:A467:F771:1:215D:2CD5:204F:1CD8 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2022

For clarity and detail from the existing citations, please change...

The book was banned in India as hate speech directed toward Muslims.

To: The book was banned for import though not declared as forfeiture in India for potentially offending the religious sensitivities of Muslims. 70.71.82.43 (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: in this edit --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 23:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

drafting

Can one have two protagonists? Deipnosophista (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed name change

Any comments on changing the name back to The Satanic Verses (novel)? --BoogaLouie

Support. It only adds clarity. Seeing no detractors, I will change it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Stabbing incident

Not sure about including material on the recent attack on Rushdie yet. I don't believe a motive has been established, and the article presents no references as to a direct connection. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The motive has been established in several reputable sources. The article should be written for the distance future, however, and give equal weight to all the horrific violence of reactions to the book. DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong ISBN

ISBN listed is for the American hardcover published by Viking, but photo shows the British 1st edition. 96.37.118.231 (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The pdf is no more available at archive.org

Trying to use the link under external links https://archive.org/download/TheSatanicVerses/Salman_Rushdie-Satanic_Verses.pdf

resulted a/o 2022-08-15:

Item not available
The item is not available due to issues with the item's content. 

It would be highly interesting when and why the pdf has been removed from the archive as this is may affect the future use of archive.org regarding the suitability and reliablility there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.246.210.6 (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

If that was supposed to be a link to the full text of the novel, then it should never have existed on archive.org and never be linked to from here in the first place, as it would obviously be a copyright violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The link to GoogleBooks is here[1] (not all of the book is available to read online there though, alas). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Club Hot Wax

We should mention the fact that the fictional club called ‘Club Hot Wax’ appears in this novel, where wax effigies of various right-wingers such as Margaret Thatcher were melted in front of baying crowds. There are also other other things that should be mentioned such as the ‘granny ripper’ serial killer and the fact that the main reason that Ayeesha was considered to be a prophetess by the inhabitants of her native town of Titlipur (literally ‘butterfly city’ in Hindi) is that butterflies were attracted to her. In fact, for most of the pages of the book where she appears she’s naked, covered only in a coat of butterflies, and actually has an exclusively Lepidoptera diet - they sacrifice themselves by voluntarily flying into her mouth! --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any of this should be in the plot summary, no. The plot summary needs to be kept short and neat. This is particularly difficult with a novel like this, with its dozens of sub-plots and its incredible wealth of narrative detail. If we wanted to account for all of them, the article would become unreadably long. The details you mention are not important enough for the overall structure of the plot to be in need of mentioning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that it’s a relatively difficult book for people to buy given its controversy, we should make a special effort to inform people what it’s about, imo. The summary maybe similar in length to the one for Midnight’s Children but then there is a separate article devoted entirely to the characters in that book. The last thing we should be doing is bending over backwards to appease fanatical censors. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)