Jump to content

Talk:2022 Muhammad remarks controversy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 8 June 2022

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 section.

Moved to 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy. See consensus below against keeping the present title; however, there is little agreement about which new title would be highest and best for this article. Under WP:OTHEROPTIONS, the closer must choose from the available titles, and they are:

Title suggested by Iskandar323 was fairly well-received; however, the proposed title was just a bit better supported below. So it appears that 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy is the highest and best title for this article at this time. I could be wrong. That is why OTHEROPTIONS stipulates that while "the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, then instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request at any time, which will hopefully lead the article to its final stable title." Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy → 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy – This was moved to this title once per the above comment (previous section), and undone as an "undiscussed move, see TP". Well the only discussion here was to justify the move, and there is no opposition stated. MB 17:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose '2022 Muhammad remarks controversy' sounds as if this controversy is about the remarks made by Muhammad (PBUH). This is not correct. The entire controversy started due to comments of BJP spokesperson representing Party in a TV debate. Jindal was not in debate but he tweeted. (MB, you beat me in starting this thread) Venkat TL (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
    Not just the Prophet, according to the Independent the name Muhammad is the most popular name in the world.[1] Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose as that doesn't come close to defining the topic. Remarks about the Islamic prophet Muhammad are made pretty much all the time.VR talk 20:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it happened in a vacuum then I'd be more amenable to the idea of distancing the BJP from the comments about Mohamed, that said it didn't happen in a vacuum, the BJP does use hindu nationalism to whip up support for elections, the comment itself is not fringe but fairly standard BJP rhetoric, and when compared with other rhetoric such as Modi's leading up to the Gujarat riots it actually, by BJP standards, comes off as being rather PC, what's more is that Nupur Sharma is or atleast was a BJP spokeswoman and didn't make these statements as a private citizen but rather fulfilling her duties as a BJP spokesman.[1][2] Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - BJP did not make the remarks and distanced itself from the them. If another Muhammad-related comments controversy emerges this year then we will think about it and we can probably rename it to "2022 Nupur Sharma Muhammad remarks controversy" but right now this proposal is better. >>> Extorc.talk 16:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Extorc The statement of the spokesperson "is the official remark of the party" and all was fine (i.e. no rebuttal, distancing etc) till the Qataris retaliated. So the title is not WP:OR, but based on what sources are reporting. Venkat TL (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "and all was fine"? Show me where BJP endorsed these views upon being questioned? Spokesperson can act as spokesperson for a particular task. Not everything he says can be considered as his organization's view. >>> Extorc.talk 17:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    others have already explained. Look up what spokesperson means. Venkat TL (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    BJP has been making the remarks for years. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. As per the Economist:
    "And as the BJP has found, promoting “Hindu consolidation” by pointing to a common enemy—generally Muslims—is electoral magic. It erases the divisions of caste and ethnicity that for decades fragmented the Hindu electorate, and in doing so gave minorities some weight in the game. Again and again the BJP has entered a contest, stirred up hatred, and walked off with victory. That success has brought more power and more money in a self-reinforcing cycle, such that even Mr Modi’s political rivals now compete in burnishing their pukka Hindu credentials rather than in defending secular ideals, let alone defending actual Muslims.
    In this way, a narrative of the awfulness of Muslims has grown increasingly entrenched, and is all the more easily exploited by the sangh’s zealots. In states ruled by the BJP this shows in policies to counter such imagined abuses as “love jihad”, “land jihad” and “job jihad”, supposed campaigns to usurp Hindu women, property and opportunities. Petty rules are imposed to ban veils in schools, ban public prayers, ban the Muslim call to prayer and, in the BJP-ruled state of Karnataka this year, even to ban Muslim street traders from plying their wares near Hindu temples. Tightened restrictions on cattle slaughter, violently enforced in many parts by vigilantes tacitly supported by the state, have recently been followed by efforts to proscribe halal butchery of any kind. Yet another campaign seeks to delete Muslim-sounding names from Indian maps.
    At the most extreme end of the Hindu-nationalist spectrum, speakers at public rallies across northern India in recent years have launched bidding wars of threats against Muslims, from mass rape to mass expulsion. On May 7th Hari bhushan Thakur Bachaul, a BJP politician in Bihar, in eastern India, declared that Muslims should be burned alive just like effigies of the Hindu demon Ravana."[3]
    This isn't some kind of random event, this is indicative of the BJP which makes sense since it was stated by an official party spokesman of the BJP.Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    Quote from the economist is irrelevant as a party's nature does not decide whether its spokesperson can insult ones religion. I would recommend you to stop using this page for WP:SOAPBOXING your views. >>> Extorc.talk 17:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    You said "Show me where BJP endorsed these views" then when I show you where these quotes are being endorsed you say that I'm soap boxing. You say if another controversy emerges, so I provide quote where a different BJP politician said that Muslims should be burned alive, is it not controversial a BJP politician stated that Muslims should be burnt alive? That's not ancient history either, it happened a month ago. Also avoid making personal insults, and casting aspersions. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    No they are not endorsing the views of Nupur Sharma and you haven't ever shown "where these quotes are being endorsed". Just because a BJP politician hates Muslims, it doesn't mean it can be taken as official party stance and then every act against Muslims would be automatically considered as party's official position. You are just soapboaxing by saying that. Read WP:SYNTH and use a proper argument. I never made any "personal insults", nor I am "casting aspersions," but you are sure engaging in WP:NPA by making these false allegations. >>> Extorc.talk 18:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    I've linked The New York Times and The Economist to back what I'm saying and have quoted extensively from them, you've brought your opinion. If you have something useful to say please back it with reliable sources. Why not take a step back and calm down a bit, collect your thoughts, then find reliable sources to back your opinions? Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    You must have linked to those articles, but they have nothing to do with proving BJP's alliance with Nupur Sharma regarding this controversy. Is it too hard to understand or you are really this bad at playing? 122.170.33.2 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    I've linked The New York Times and The Economist and your sources fail to show me whether BJP endorsed Nupur Sharma's statement. Just showing me that a a few sources say that the party is Islamophobic doesn't mean that these statements were given by the Party. >>> Extorc.talk 05:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Current title is misleading at best - Statements were from an individual, not a party (which seems to have clearly distanced itself from the claims, as covered in this very article). The controversy is about what was said about Muhammad, meaning that the proposed title, "2022 Muhammad remarks controversy" adequately describes what the issue at hand is. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    And yet, at the time of the remarks, the individual in question was an official spokesperson - a role traditionally associated with carrying the party message. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    And was removed from that post for not carrying the party message, as clearly stated in the letter removing her. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with Iskander323, Nupur Sharma was the BJP's National Spokeswoman and Naveen Jindal was the head of BJP's Media in Delhi, India's capital. These are high ranking members of the BJP's PR wing who are entrusted to speak for the party and these comments weren't on private facebook posts or whatever but in fulfilling their jobs as BJP leaders. Furthermore the BJP has a long history of Islamophobia, just last month a BJP politician from Bihar said that Muslims should be burned to death. This is well documented in Reliable Sources such as the New Yorker and the Economist that the party itself espouses this ideology.[4][5] It seems like there's a concerted effort now to distance the BJP from the remarks but the BJP itself is the one which made them and continues to make them.Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Comment Do note that none of these arguments have anything to do with the issue at hand - This is just a collection of sources that call BJP Islamophobic. That does not prove that these specific statements (that are our sole concern with in this article) are the party views, or that the party was itself involved, or that the party endorsed it. Much to the contrary.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    You mean the "high ranking members of the BJP" who didn't even have a Wikipedia page before this controversy, and one of them still does not have it? How about you stop using this talk page to express your irrelevant ignorance about Indian politics? 122.170.33.2 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Support as accurate. BBC called it "Prophet Muhammad row",[6] and nearly all other sources don't mention BJP's name to name this controversy. To say that everything a spokesperson does is ultimately action of political party is a childish argument and does not even deserve a response. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
      The BBC article reads different to me, subtitle is "India's diplomatic nightmare over controversial comments made by two senior officials of the country's ruling party about the Prophet Muhammad is showing no signs of ending." and then in the body it states "Hate speech and attacks against Muslims have risen sharply since the BJP came to power in 2014." Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
      Who talked about 'subtitle'? If you can't stick to the actual argument then stop throwing strawman just because your poor knowledge of Indian politics is getting in the way. 122.170.33.2 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: because this is just a move from one bad title to another. By far the most common descriptive title for this event at this point is Prophet remarks row. There are already 75,000 hits for that very specific word combination - I doubt any other phrase can pull a higher number. Removing "BJP" may be slightly better for neutrality, but it seems like there's a contorted effort being made to bend over backwards to just not use the already common phraseology - is this something to do with desperately trying to avoid the use of 'prophet' in the title or something? Normally I'm all for removing honorifics, but when an event has a specific common phraseology, it makes no sense to intentionally avoid its use. The title should clearly be the very straightforward, concise, precise 2022 Prophet remarks row.Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    Users: Aljazeera, India Today, Deccan Herald, NDTV, Zee news, Hindustan Times, The Quint, The Times of India, DNA India, the Qatar Tribune, etc., etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    That makes sense. Thanks for doing the research. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    +1 This is the most appropriate title based on the sources used in the article. NebulaOblongata (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment:
    a) Move seems to have been proposed before doing adequate discussion. (Though an idea of having year wise remark related encyclopedic articles is possible)
    b) I suggest to convert this discussion to regular discussion and make a well thought move proposal after a week or so.
    c) I do not see any users referring to Wikipedia:Article titles and abbreviation related policies.
    c) For example one can refer to the article Bangladesh Jatiya Party how many times abbreviation BJP has been used.
    d) With due respect, Iskandar323's suggestion title with just word Prophet sounds vague, What is the number of claimed prophets were there in the world?
    I suggest let us discuss more options then put it to move discussion voting. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    Well my comment, for one, did provide numbers and references to WP:AT terminology, so it's pretty odd that you would single out what I presented for critique. But since you have done so, in a manner that itself is rather adrift from any sort of guideline, your opinion on whether 'prophet' is vague is pretty irrelevant when stacked against the numbers. As I said, I thought 'prophet' might be being avoided because some people had an issue with it, but Prophet remarks row is a boatload closer to a common name/description than Muhammad remarks controversy, which gets all of 109 hits. What your point about vagueness misses out on is that few if any other 'prophets' ever make it to the headlines in world events, and frankly, when 'remarks' or 'insults', 'row' or 'controversy' are also involved, it is even more obvious who the subject likely is. 'Muhammad' alone could refer to said prophet, or any one of a stupid number of individuals. But again, don't actually take my word for it. Defer to the sources. Not one of the sources currently used in this article has a headline with the word 'Muhammad" used in isolation. Ever single headline uses either 'Prophet Muhammad' or 'Prophet' alone. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    In fact, just Prophet row appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME at this point, with more than three million hits, and again, this isn't me, but all of the reliable sources that this is supposed to be based on - though I would suggest that the also highly prevalent Prophet remarks row still remains a slightly more precise and therefore useful description. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    The problem is, those millions of hits can be about any prophet row, not just the one we are concerned with. Not even 20% of the results under prophet row talk about "nupur", meaning that Prophet row is definitely not the common name for the controversy.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    Hmm, ok, good point, but Prophet remarks row + Nupur still has 67,800 hits almost the 75,000 hits without 'nupur', so it's 90% specific. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    And again, both the current title, and the proposed move have almost zero support in the sourcing. The only sourced terminology is 'remarks'. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    Your calculations are problematic. You are considering the 90% accuracy, as to the number of papers that say "Prophet remarks row" and talk of nupur. That is different from being the common name. For example, Prophet row "Nupur" has 1.4 million hits. These can be taken to be the hits about the row. Out of these, if only 60,000 have "prophet remarks row" "nupur", then "Prophet remarks row" isnt the common name.
    I dont think there is any common name here. The best option here is to use the accurate phrasing - 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    I didn't say Prophet remarks row was the common name - I said it was the closest thing we have that is still precise. My 90% remark is in relation to the fact that 90% of the hits for this term are specific to this particular controversy - in response to your point that Prophet row alone was non-specific. Prophet remarks row is therefore both accurate phrasing, fairly common, descriptive, and sourced, and not just plucked out of thin air like both the current title of the page and the target of the move proposal. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Iskandar323 Just for record, I singled out your proposition because I gave some level of importance to it. I am truly against usage of honorifics in encyclopedic environment only if policy is consistently followed across but since Wikipedia practically fails in consistency, until a true consistency is followed across I can bear with any number of honorifics across. That is not issue with me here. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks for clarifying, and I'm sorry if I jumped the gun, but the lack of interest in adherence to secondary sources in this discussion has been getting my goat. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support to Iskandar323's proposal. Mehedi Abedin 20:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support to Iskandar323's proposed Title. This page can reach more readers if we follow what Iskandar323 said. Grabup (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I have already voted above, I wanted to add that I oppose Iskander's proposal of "Prophet remark row" because there are many prophets, it is confusing. Secondly it is dropping BJP from the title. The whole controversy is caused by BJP and it has to be retained in the title. Muhammad did not cause this as the proposed title is suggesting. Venkat TL (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    If we stick to actual sourcing, most of the world's media don't find it particularly confusing, and I have already noted how 'Muhammad' alone is actually no more precise ... Muhammad who? Meanwhile, the inclusion of BJP in the title was never going to pass muster under Wikipedia policies on article title neutrality, as, quite clearly even from this thread alone, this attribution is heavily contested. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Iskandar323 you need to urgently read the page Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content, since you are misrepresenting neutrality. Venkat TL (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    I know exactly what I am saying. Clearly, from the thread above, some people think this was a BJP statement, but others think that, because the BJP refuted it and the individuals in question were removed from their positions, that it cannot be considered a 'BJP' statement. On this matter, there are two diametrically opposed camps with conflicting points of view. Neither is neutral. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support to "2022 Muhammad remarks controversy" per Captain Jack Sparrow, and other arguements provided in the discussion. Also, the current title suggests Muhammad joined BJP and made some controversial remarks. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Title could also refer to remarks made by the Prophet Muhammad or a person called Muhammad/Mohammed.
    In 2015 Muhammad was the most popular boy's name in London and the West Midlands.[2] Mohammed was the 29th most popular baby name in the UK in 2015; Mohammad was the 68th most popular.[3]
    The BBC, the Washington Post, and The Independent reported in 2017 that not only was Mohammed the tenth most popular boy's name in the entire world, it's also the most popular boy's name in Britain (including 14 other spelling variations of the name).[4][5][6]
    In the US, Muhammad is the tenth most popular male baby names as of 2019.[7][8]
    It's also the most popular name in Oslo, Norway (as of 2014),[9] Israel (as of 2014),[10]
    And now for the Nail on the coffin: According to The Independent, "Muhammad is thought to be the most popular name in the world, given to an estimated 150 million men and boys."[11] Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Dunutubble: how about 2022 Prophet remarks row ? - a title actually supported by the sources. I get your point about the current or any title sounding like it suggests the subject is the one making the 'remarks', but this is how the sources also present it, and, frankly, it's a 2022 story, so the emphasis really should be relatively clear from the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Only Wikipedia calls it "BJP Muhammad remarks" controversy. How about "2022 Prophet remarks row". This is what most news articles call it. NebulaOblongata (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Note A section in archives should also be considered by closer. Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy/Archive_1#Page_Title Venkat TL (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Note, in relation to the "2022 Prophet remarks row" title suggestion, in the past some users have objected to referring to the Islamic Prophet Muhammad as simply "Prophet" as a violation of NPOV, with the recommended action being referring to him as the Islamic Prophet (since other religions have prophets too). This seems to be implied by MOS:MUHAMMAD (which is a guideline, not policy). I've posted about this here.VR talk 18:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Relister's note: A simple headcount indicates that participants do not want BJP in the title by a ratio of 2:1. There were strong arguments that BJP itself as a party is not involved in this controversy and the fact that it distanced itself from the spokesperson following the controversy. Despite this, the two-thirds of the participants who support a name change haven't been able to agree on a single better title. Thus, relisting to generate a thorough consensus. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that's the case. A lot of people support Iskander's proposal without explaining why. It may be that they want BJP out of the title, or it may be that they agree with Iskander's stated rationale that the "2022 Prophet remarks row" is the WP:COMMONNAME in sources. I, for example, would support Iskander's proposed name as a second choice (first choice is present title), not because I think BJP doesn't belong in the title (the remarks were made by BJP's spokesperson), but because WP:COMMONNAME is pretty strong reason.VR talk 16:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: 2022 Prophet remarks controversy. BJP itself did not make these statements, but they were made by a member. It is the appropriate name. Kpddg (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisting break

  • Comment
a) I suppose closure of the discussion @ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Using an unqualified "Prophet" in place of Muhammad shall take at least ongoing week so it's good this got relisted. See the relister's note @ end of above section.
b) I suppose it is better to bring relister's note in this subsection for user's easier understanding but that I leave to other users to decide and do needful.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

c) Following names came in above discussion relisting for ease of reference.
  • Comment : Today I did revisit various related existent policies. IMHO few more descriptive title options should be possible. Among above no. (3) and (4) seem less ambiguous.
Policies wise (5)th one seems, to me, like too much on borderline, WP:POVNAMING states ".. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. .." but that is not necessarily most ideal, WP:POVNAMING itself allows any such compromise for sake of 'clarity' but if title does not provide for 'clarity' but retains 'ambiguity' purpose of such title seem to get defeated. (See WP:CRITERIA). WP:POVNAMING also explains neutrality ideal of the title ".. Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. .." (See also MOS:PREFIX and WP:NPOV). So the (5)th does not seem comfortable as title on account of ambiguity and also doubtful on account of encyclopedic neutrality.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
TBH I truly believe that the name Nupur Sharma is going to be the most recognizable part of the entire title if renamed. >>> Extorc.talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Only people that have already read about this controversy know the name Nupur Sharma - and it rarely appears in the headlines. I, for instance, did not know the name of the individual involved until I saw the Wikipedia discussions on it - being somewhat disengaged from the very country-specific drama. Nothing to do with naturalness or recognizability lead the article title discussion in this direction in terms of naming. @Bookku: I don't understand your point, even remotely, about WP:POVNAMING. You've quoted a lot of guidelines, but haven't explained the all-important part about why you think the is POV - let alone to the extent that we should be ignoring the more common forms of phraseology actually used in the sources. This is what a strict news-based google search turns up for these different title options (excluding the 2022 part):
2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy ← present name -> 0 results - never been used - pure editor synth
2022 Muhammad remarks controversy ← First nom's suggession -> 4 results - also editor synth born of the effort to avoid 'prophet' and use 'controversy', despite prophet and row being prevalent
2022 Mohammad remarks controversy in India ← Proposed by user Webberbrad007 -> also 0 hits - same as above
2022 Nupur Sharma Muhammad remarks controversy ← Proposed by user Extorc -> 0 hits - surprise surprise
2022 Prophet remarks row ← Proposed by user Iskandar323 -> 61,000 hits - widely used, recognizable, concise, zero synth Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
So that is 61,000 unique news listings under this very specific name, which has become the de facto tag for even foreign language media on the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • What are Wikipedia policies when Argumentum ad populum based popular RS does not match with Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV neutrality?
  • WP:POVNAMING also explains neutrality ideal of the title ".. Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. .."
  • End of the day Wikipedia is an uncensored neutral platform many times ends up including all sort of criticism; @ VR's other discussion too what I want to say is with word 'Prophet' neither believers will be comfortable to read criticism nor skeptics will be comfortable so that goes contrary to expectation of spirit of ".. Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. .."
  • Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is a reference tool, and that is why WP:COMMONNAME is such a dominant policy - it makes sense to name articles after the most common names, as, that way, they will be most readily accessible and searchable both on wiki and via search engines. This is common sense. You suggest that it might not satisfy believers or skeptics. No POV camps being happy about it sounds pretty neutral. Happiness is irrelevant, because, yes, we are not censored (WP:CENSOR). Iskandar323 (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the third option is the best and cleanest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    The third option is actually pretty bad on two counts - not enough sources to back it and the controversy is not limited to India. NebulaOblongata (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • having reviewed all the new proposals, I think the current title "2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy" is still the most appropriate. actions of Both Sharma and Jindal had made the controversy, Just naming sharma does not cover both. BJP hence is the optimum and necessary qualifier. Venkat TL (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Alas, your suggestion is not backed by data/reliable sources. You need to read WP:Verifiability. Thanks! NebulaOblongata (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Baby names: The top 20 boys and girls names in England and Wales". The Independent. 2014-08-15. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  2. ^ "Baby names in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics". www.ons.gov.uk. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  3. ^ "The popularity of the name Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad - Office for National Statistics". www.ons.gov.uk. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  4. ^ "Baby names: Is Muhammad the most popular?". BBC News. 2018-09-26. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  5. ^ "Is Mohammed really the most popular baby name in Britain?". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  6. ^ "Muhammed really is the UK's most common baby name". The Independent. 2014-12-01. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  7. ^ "Muhammad, Aaliyah among most popular US baby names". Arab News. 2019-12-13. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  8. ^ "Muhammad breaks into top 10 most popular US baby names". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  9. ^ "Mohammed is most popular name in Oslo". The Local Norway. 2014-08-28. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  10. ^ Beauchamp, Zack (2014-09-24). "Yosef isn't the most common male baby name in Israel. Mohammed is". Vox. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  11. ^ "Baby names: The top 20 boys and girls names in England and Wales". The Independent. 2014-08-15. Retrieved 2022-06-12.

Need for relisting

@MB: I do not know WP policies for relisting move discussion, if it is possible I believe it should be relisted with all the options suggested in above discussion and put for vote again. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A WP:RM must have a clear proposal (move X to Y), and a relist is only to try to get more participation. This discussion will be closed somehow (Move or No Consensus). I think there is sufficient support for the proposed move, to remove BJP from the title (but that will have to be determined by an uninvolved editor). Either way, another RM can be opened after this closes, with a different proposal (addressing whether it should say Mohammad, Prophet, or something else). MB 14:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Clearly suggested edit lacks consensus. What's more is that half the supports are in regards to Iskander's suggested title of "Prophet remarks row" not your suggested title of "2022 Muhammad remarks controversy". 190.103.152.227 (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
+1 2022 Prophet remarks row is also backed by solid data (presented by Iskander above) NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisting is used to draw more attention to a RM by letting it run for longer and it is sent to the top of the list. This RM has received enough attention. Relisting not required. @Bookku >>> Extorc.talk 14:31, 13 June 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.

Murder of Kanhaiya Lal

A new page called Murder of Kanhaiya Lal has just been created, which I think should be merged here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge, I agree with the proposal to merge. The article without background etc is unusable. There is not enough content to create a WP:SPLIT right now. Venkat TL (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Split, Taking note of the increasing political and public controversy that the severity of the Murder has created, I'd say a separate article is warranted. It's a hate crime that has far surpassed the scope of the remarks controversy, and further considering that the trial and conviction of the accused would (the last part is my learned assessment as a long-term editor), likely create news cycles every turn, I'd say we should split it into a different article. LΞVIXIUS💬 18:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Did you mean to say you oppose the merge? Because splitting carries a different implication. NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Split That beheading murder will create a lot of news for several days to come. Refer Samuel Paty. Allow WP:CHANCE for editors to populate content. Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Did you mean to say you oppose the merge? Because splitting carries a different implication. NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Oppose the merge. Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Levixius @Webberbrad007 I note that you have not given any policy based reason. WP:OSE is not policy based. Meanwhile WP:SIZESPLIT is clear when a split is needed. This news of Udaipur may or may not create a lot of news. If you want to look at example, There were 2 killings in Ranchi protests (not one), yet it did not justify creating another page named 2022 Ranchi violence and it was merged after discussion. As of today I dont see why relevant information cannot be added here. Every news cycle does not need a new article per WP:NOTNEWS Venkat TL (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Venkat TL Did you even read what I had written? Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Size is not the only reason why an article can be split. Content splits are a thing too. In Ranchi, police fired at a mob. The individual deaths weren't notable enough to have a page. Here this is a hate crime which is not the same. >>> Extorc.talk 18:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

:Split per Livixius. It has crossed the scope of this article rapidly. >>> Extorc.talk 18:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean to say you oppose the merge? Because splitting carries a different implication. NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Asking a clarifying question is not the same as voting. I am assuming you didn't like the bold text. I am changing that to italics NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge It's still developing. Murder has caused statewide internet blocking, section 144 and protests across the country, so we should wait. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

News reports for Murder of Kanhaiya Lal

Rajasthan killing

"Don't Watch, Says Rajasthan Cop About Video Of Tailor's Murder". NDTV.com. 28 June 2022. Retrieved 28 June 2022. There are conflicting reports on whether the tailor was beheaded.

As mentioned in above quote, since there are conflicting reports we should mention killing and not beheading. User:Kpddg please note the ref above. Venkat TL (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No issues in using just word 'Killing', but just for information This BBC news report uses term 'beheading' where as Washington Post news uses word 'slay' and 'slit'.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, we can wait until there is clarity. Kpddg (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg: I suppose official postmortem report too is in the news. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I found a couple of refs (1, 2). Kpddg (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@Kpddg thanks for the postmortem link, the postmortem report would have mentioned it clearly if they had beheaded. They may have attempted though. We should continue with using "killing" or murder wherever it applies. Replublic is deprecated source. Please use Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics/Archive_3#User_script_to_detect_unreliable_sources Venkat TL (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@Venkat TL, I had removed Republic. This also says that they tried to behead him, but failed. But we can add that there were 26 injury marks on his neck, chest, etc. Kpddg (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@Kpddg thanks for the link. Yes this is reliable. This CBS link along with postmortem makes it clear it was a killing. I dont see any encyclpedic purpose being served by detailing the post mortem report with number of marks etc. Venkat TL (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sharma's remarks

Kautilya3 can you explain this revert? I tried to describe what Sharma said but you seem to have removed that. Given the controversy around Sharma's remarks, we owe it to our readers to write what she actually said.VR talk 02:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

My edit summary was Isn't this WP:SPS. Was that not clear?
There is nothing called "we owe it to the readers" in Wikipedia policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Your edit summary wasn't clear because your edit removed certain material and shuffled other material. Which source in that edit do you think is an WP:SPS?VR talk 03:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Since there's no response, I'll go ahead and restore that content.VR talk 19:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Title's name

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

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

Bhim Sena chief remarks

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

NPOV wording for infiltration claims

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

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

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

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

NebulaOblongata blocked

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

Section for Maharashtra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refs

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

Blocked users comments

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

"So it appears that there is some political angle influencing the claim and not just what an unbiased investigation would have revealed." Got a reliable source that discusses this angle? NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
There's a clear attempt to remove the cases of Saad Ansari and Umesh Kohle from the article that are backed by reliable sources. Users with a poor understanding of WP:BLP are stonewalling the inclusion of facts. NebulaOblongata (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Muhammad_remarks_controversy/Archive_3&oldid=1109731554"