Wikipedia

Talk:2022 Muhammad remarks controversy/Archive 4

< Talk:2022 Muhammad remarks controversy
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Webberbrad007 in topic Neutrality concerns
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Justice Surya Kant's observations controversy

Latest comment: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 1 year 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)
  • Support inclusion - If even rationalist critiques are being called out as being offensive, that deserves mention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Maharastra Amravati pharmacist

Latest comment: 1 year 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: 1 year 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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Muhammad_remarks_controversy/Archive_4&oldid=1227988084"