Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: Reply
Tag: Reply
Line 287: Line 287:
:::::I also think that every statement coming from anything else apart from foreign ministry and main administration of the countries should be removed or the current version about the reaction should suffice. [[User:LearnIndology|LearnIndology]] ([[User talk:LearnIndology|talk]]) 09:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::I also think that every statement coming from anything else apart from foreign ministry and main administration of the countries should be removed or the current version about the reaction should suffice. [[User:LearnIndology|LearnIndology]] ([[User talk:LearnIndology|talk]]) 09:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:LearnIndology|LearnIndology]] thanks for the comment. [[User:Venkat TL|Venkat TL]] ([[User talk:Venkat TL|talk]]) 09:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:LearnIndology|LearnIndology]] thanks for the comment. [[User:Venkat TL|Venkat TL]] ([[User talk:Venkat TL|talk]]) 09:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::The [[WP:ONUS|onus of inclusion]] is on you; please revert yourself. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 09:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


==Addition of unreliable sources ==
==Addition of unreliable sources ==

Revision as of 09:29, 11 June 2022

Title articulation

First thought came to mind after reading article title was, what is 'BJP Muhammad'? Whether a – sign is needed in between 'BJP–Muhammad' Though I am not good enough in English grammar, IMHO, article title seem to need improvement with better articulation.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: this title is somewhat similar to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Although in that case "Jyllands-Posten" is italicized. I don't think we can italicize "BJP" in this case.VR talk 05:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookku Why add BJP in the title? Can you explain it? ScriptKKiddie (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScriptKKiddie: [Humor] Because some Wikipedians may not have good faith in BJP, hence such inclusion may not have been called [dubious – discuss] (End of humor note). Rationally speaking Wikipedians need to have consistency. Whether they are open to add criticism expressed by duo in this controversy to be added to this criticism article and this criticism article as criticism by BJP ? Most probably they won't, but Wikipedia policies do not expect consistent approach across the articles. Hence some times such contradictions are okay, Idk, whether that is how some Wikipedians may have been thinking. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs quotations

The article needs the cited quotations that are ostensibly the basis for the article. Without them, these are vague, hearsay aspersions. 172.58.102.208 (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL: after reading your edit summary ".. She was neither quoting nor citing anything in the debate. ..", I can't agree more with above IP that The article needs the cited quotations that are ostensibly the basis for the article. Do you have word to word original language plus English translation? If yes then please do quote, that will also help confirm your claims in the summary. Thanks
PS: Can we also ping the users who claimed she is citing from scriptures, to join in the discussion . IDK which user introduced the claims.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should only use WP:SECONDARY sources, assessed for WP:DUE weight, and avoid WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3:, Though due to fear many people are not talking but my informal academic sources informed me off the record is
a) The lady is correct or not is different matter but the lady had raised three critical points and quoted specific scripture for one of them during the debate. So edit summary of @Venkat TL: is most likely to be at least partially inaccurate.
b) The rest of the two points are also most likely can be backed by scriptures though she did not quote.
c) Logically speaking she was talking tit for tat, ready to open lines of criticism/ mocking if criticism/ mocking of Hindu icons continues, but what she quoted from scriptures as is without her own opinion so technically that constitutes criticism but does not constitute as hate speech not even as blasphemy as per my sources.
Wikipedia needs to be neutral if any RS points out what she said matches to the scriptures then need to be taken note of in the article. You being a senior editor I hope you can understand the point.
Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookku as far as I remember She did not say that she was citing from Hadith, so it would be wrong for Wikipedia to say she was citing. If Godi media added things after it blew over and tried to explain/whitewash her statement, they should not be attributed to Nupur. We should be careful about this. Venkat TL (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL: With due respect to you, tell me, Whether Mohammed Zubair and his Pratik Sinha are working for Godi/Modi media or what? Won't you at least do a primary check what is available in English and from Mohammed Zubair and Pratik Sinha? This is Pratik Sinha twitter thread. Don't use primary sources if you don't wish but at least cross check from sources which match your point of views or that of the opposition you support for or you do not want to do that too.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are trying to discuss. Twitter is not a source. This page is not for off topic commentary. Venkat TL (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for on-topic commentary either. We can cite commentary, if it exists, but we can't engage in it ourselves. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. @Bookku please note. Venkat TL (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ Venkat TL, I did not ask to use the twitter as source but just to confirm with the source persons you trust. That would render your edit summary ".. She was neither quoting nor citing anything in the debate. ..", at least partially inaccurate. Understanding that shall help you to give appropriate selection and weight to secondary sources if you have faith in encyclopedic value of neutrality, and I believe so in good faith. Cheers Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artilcle blanking

LearnIndology please don't blank the article. If you think its a POVFORK, please take it to AfD. I don't think this is a POV fork. What POV is this forking? This article is about the event and there is currently no other article on this event. Nupur Sharma (politician) article is about the person.VR talk 05:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring to restore this content fork and discuss at Talk:Nupur_Sharma_(politician)#Notability. LearnIndology (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DP, "If the change (that is, blank and redirect) is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again." If you wish to actually discuss the issue, then please submit it for AfD. Mupper-san (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CapnJackSp and @LearnIndology Once you have been reverted you cannot edit war, Take it to AfD if you dont like this article. Venkat TL (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

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

As noted in the first ref, the "Shivling claim" was being mocked. That doesn't imply that Shivling was mocked, or that Lord Shiva himself was being mocked. The extrapolation drawn by the BJP supporters is not viable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling party

Venkat TL "spokesperson of India's ruling ..." might be misconstrued to suggest that she represents India as part of the ruling party.

I will update the wording to below which should provide the context:

On 27 May 2022, Nupur Sharma, the then national spokesperson of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), made controversial remarks regarding the Islamic prophet Mohammed.

Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d had added it. We leave that for the reader to decide. Yes she is the official spokesperson of the ruling party. I am fine with your proposed copy edit. Venkat TL (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Monitor write up - RS?

This write up seems to better explain what happened:

What happened: The controversy began with comments made by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokeswoman Nupur Sharma on the TV station Times Now on May 27. Sharma was commenting on the Gyanvapi mosque controversy. The mosque in northeast India was built on the site of an earlier Hindu shrine. Some Islamists have reportedly claimed that there actually was no shrine at the site. During the TV segment, Sharma rhetorically asked if she should "mock" some parts of the Muslim holy book, the Quran. She specifically mentioned "flying horses," a likely reference to the buraq creature. She also brought up the Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, describing her as 9 years old at the time the marriage was consummated, according to local media.

Aisha’s exact age at the time of the marriage is unknown. Some scholars believe she was a child. Others have countered that she had reached puberty by time the marriage was consummated. Critics of Islam regularly cite Aisha’s age. After Sharma’s comments, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s spokesman for the Delhi region Naveen Kumar Jindal accused Muhammad of rape in a tweet. Sharma later apologized, saying she was lashing out in response to insults to Hindus. For his part, Jindal subsequently deleted the tweet. The Bharatiya Janata Party, which is India’s governing party and espouses Hindu nationalism, has also suspended both of them.

Both incidents have caused outrage in India and led to communal violence.

Webberbrad007 (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had added it, unfortunately it was removed. I'll restore some of it. Please be WP:BOLD too.VR talk 20:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should not remove this I guess. Let the people get the right information about what happened on that media debate. O osheikh (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page Title

Do not add BJP in the title as Entire party is not involved in the whole controversy; few members were involved and made controversial remark on Prophet Muhammad; expelled and got suspended from the ruling party in India. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of remarks, Nupur Sharma was a national spokesperson of the BJP. Additionally, BJP's expulsion itself shows that they have a role to play in this controversy.VR talk 20:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems an unclear opinion, not a fact!

Can you prove that the entire BJP is involved in this whole controversy? ScriptKKiddie (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a Straw man. Venkat TL (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They were not suspended for more than a week and it was only done to calm to international reaction. So, basically party didn’t distanced itself from that remark until the controversy blew international. O osheikh (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

end of the discussion. O osheikh (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 June 2022

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Oppose and agree with the editors above. An alternative worth considering would be 2022 Mohammad remarks controversy in India given that the international blowback has been via diplomatic channels to India and not to the BJP directly. Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would propose 2022 Mohammad remarks controversy in India. Agree that BJP should be removed because it isn't their stated policy or public stance as was mentioned in the suspension letter, and subsequently on multiple occasions. However, 2022 Mohammad remarks controversy might be a bit too generic.
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support 2022 Mohammad remarks controversy in India as per above. User4edits (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:*:Strong oppose. This lady alone doesn't represent the country. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 11:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support @MB as it is precise, and doesn't involve [at least in title] about the particular entity. Besides, not all people would know about what "BJP" os. Anindianboi1905 (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support People are clearly more concerned about what was said about "Muhammad" than who said it. 122.170.33.2 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
others have already explained. Look up what spokesperson means. Venkat TL (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
That makes sense. Thanks for doing the research. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Support I raised this point earlier at Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy#Page_Title and I thank MB for starting this request. BJP hasn't engineered the remarks that created controversy but it was done by BJP members on their own who are not in the party anymore. Also the prevalence of sources show that "BJP" shouldn't be used as the title. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose the proposed title, it indeed sounds like Mohammad made the remark, but Support move to Nupur Sharma's remarks on Prophet Mohammad. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 11:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support to Iskandar323's proposal. Mehedi Abedin 20:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Should Naveen Jindal's remarks be mentioned?

It has been very widely reported in news media that the remarks of Naveen Jindal are a major part of this controversy. Yet, most media have self-censored those remarks as they were deeply offensive. (For example, BBC refused to describe Nupur Sharma's remarks saying they were too offensive to print). This is similar to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - most newspapers described the controversy but refused to print the cartoons, yet our wikipedia article includes the cartoons anyway. Should we include Jindal's remarks in this article? VR talk 04:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should include them - a major reason why this article was created out of Nupur Sharma (politician) was because it could not include statements and controversy about Naveen Jindal. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should. I shall reinstate it. Kautilya3, please generate consensus here before removing it. Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tweets have been used in multiple Wikipedia pages where they have been relevant. See Social media use by Donald Trump page for example. Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 please could explain your revert here and here despite counter-examples from established articles and consensus on usage here? Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per policy, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Prominent display of a primary source highlighted in a box, while the secondary sources do not describe it in even vaguest terms, and the source itself has been deleted and you had to fetch it from archive.org, shows a high degree of WP:OR. Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable secondary sources. You are trying to turn it into a tabloid. Take it to WP:RSN or do an WP:RFC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point in general. However, the topic is based on two things - the comments of Nupur Sharma on TV and the tweet of Jindal. This is required to describe the topic. Because you started the revert cycle, shouldn't you take it to WP:RSN or do an WP:RFC? Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of any encyclopedia anywhere on earth that published a tweet, that too from archive.org? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my response above
Tweets have been used in multiple Wikipedia pages where they have been relevant. See Social media use by Donald Trump page for example. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to make that argument on WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you created one? Webberbrad007 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10th June Violence

Hemantha please explain this revert? The material was sourced by India Today, India.com, Jansatta and other local news reporting bodies. If at the citations should be improved because now there are more established media houses writing about it than only the local ones which were the only ones when the story was developing.

All the claims in the wiki text was based line-to-line from the citations used. Xoocit (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh aren't you bold? If you think some tweets embedded in a no by-line ref - Desk, India com News. "Ranchi City SP Injured During Protest Over Prophet Remark". www.india.com. Retrieved 2022-06-10. - give you a pass to add the text the peaceful protests lasted for 10-15 minutes after which the crowd started to stone-pelt on the police force guarding the area., you need to read all the Wikipedia policies once again. Do read the ones I linked in the edit summary first. I also note that you've added their sentence with no paraphrasing. Hemantha (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As another fellow editor on Wikipedia, your responsibility is to add correct information, not wipe the entire story from the surface of the article.
If I misquoted or wrongly interpreted lines of the text from an article then shouldn't it be fixed and rephrased instead of removing it, like it never happened in the first place? Xoocit (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't the controversy?

Webberbrad007 removed a sentence from the lead, claiming: This isn't the controversy or even the response to the controversy. This is tertiary to the topic and thus not Lede material per MOS:LEAD. The sentence in question was

The supporters of BJP reacted to these actions with anger, calling them "cowardly".[1]

References

  1. ^ Hannah Ellis-Petersen (6 June 2022), "Prophet Muhammad remarks embroil India in row with Gulf states", The Guardian

How exactly do you decide what is and what isn't part of the "controversy"? Muslims protesting the remarks are part of the controversy, and the Hindu nationalists supporting the remarks are outside the controversy?

The Guardian wrote:

However, many observers pointed out that the two had faced no action when their comments had first been flagged over a week ago by Muslims and civil rights activists in India. Instead there had been calls by BJP supporters for the arrest of the journalist who had called out the Islamophobic comments on social media.... The decision to expel Sharma and Jindal was met with anger from some BJP supporters, who called the decision “cowardly”.

BBC wrote:

But since her suspension, support has also been growing for the beleaguered former BJP spokesperson - hashtags such as #ISupportNupurSharma and #TakeBackNupurSharma have trended daily on social media, with tens of thousands praising her.[1]

The Washington Post wrote:

Modi’s party also faced anger from some of its own supporters, but it was for a different reason. Many Hindu nationalists posted comments on social media saying the government was buckling under international pressure.[2]

The Siasat Daily documented:

Right-wing masses on Twitter have expressed their disappointment with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for suspending its spokesperson Nupur Sharma by using the hashtag #ShameOnBJP.... “Every BJP supporter hangs his head in shame for supporting such a spineless bunch,” wrote a Twitter user.[3]

IANS:

Many 'supporters' of the BJP were outraged by the decision and called it an appeasement of the kind that used to be practised by the Congress.[4]

The Telegraph:

The Right-wing ecosystem on Monday turned on the BJP for suspending spokesperson Nupur Sharma, with the hashtag “#ShameOnBJP” trending on Twitter, prompting suggestions that the ruling dispensation may have lost control over the troll army it had once unleashed for political gain, unless a time-tested good-cop-bad-cop tactic is being deployed to address conflicting overseas and domestic concerns. Those castigating the party for “throwing to the wolves” a “young Hindu leader” included prominent BJP supporters, while indirect criticism came even from party motormouth Kapil Mishra and the director of The Kashmir Files.[5]

Barkha Dutt:

Sure, for now, media representatives of the BJP will watch their words when they appear on panels. But let’s not kid ourselves. For hundreds of thousands of far-right supporters of the Modi government, Sharma is a cause célèbre. Just look at the flood of “I stand with Nupur Sharma” comments on social media and calls to boycott Qatar Airways. This mass messaging once again appears to be coordinated by a well-oiled, centralized machinery.[6]

If this is supposedly outside the controversy, why are they all writing about it in their articles on the controversy? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The central point of the controversy is the remarks. The reaction to these comments is the firing of those responsible and the national and international condemnation that followed the remarks.
The reaction of some unspecified party members to the party's reaction (suspending of NS / expelling of NKJ) to the controversy is tertiary and should be part of the details within the body and not in the Lede. Per MOS:LEAD

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

Webberbrad007 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to decide what is central and what is not. The reliable sources do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your claim that the reaction of some unspecified BJP members to the action taken by BJP on NS and NKJ is central to the topic 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy? Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Geeta Pandey (7 June 2022), "Nupur Sharma: The Indian woman behind offensive Prophet Muhammad comments", BBC News
  2. ^ Sheikh Saaliq (AP) (6 June 2022), "Muslim nations slam India over insulting remarks about Islam", he Wasington Post
  3. ^ #ShameonBJP trends on Twitter after right wing support for Nupur Sharma, Siasat Daily, 6 June 2022.
  4. ^ IANS, 'Majority of Indians back BJP's move to suspend Nupur Sharma', The Times of India, 7 June 2022.
  5. ^ Right-wing ecosystem turns on BJP for suspending Nupur Sharma, The Telegraph (India), 7 June 2022.
  6. ^ Barkha Dutt, Opinion: Why did India listen to Arab governments before its own Muslim citizens?, The Washington Post, 7 June 2022.

Opinion of Dutch politician

The Opinion of Dutch politician is WP:UNDUE. @REDISCOVERBHARAT in the past 10 days, hundreds of politicians have opined on this controversy. The page mentions official diplomatic opinions, as they are relevant. Individual opinions are not being added here. Please make consensus to add it. Dont edit war. Venkat TL (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If thats the point remove all this:-
The government’s spokesperson, Zabihullah Mujahid, wrote on his Twitter handle: “The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan strongly condemns the use of derogatory words against the Prophet of Islam (Peace be upon him) by an official of the ruling party in India.”
A member of the Maldives' parliament, Adam Shareef filed for a motion that called on the country's president to condemn the remarks about Muhammad.
Egypt's Al-Azhar mosque, one of the leading institutions of learning in the Islamic world, condemned the remarks.
The Grand Mufti of Oman called the remarks "insolent and obscene rudeness" by the official spokesperson of the BJP and characterized it as war against every Muslim. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@REDISCOVERBHARAT Why do you want to remove "government’s spokesperson" 's comment? Please read my comment once again specially the word official. Venkat TL (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't replied to the original point; why you are keeping so many random names with no political relevance when you absurdly find Geert Wilders to be "non notable" and "undue"? 99.165.88.9 (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no random names. The topic of this thread is Dutch politician. Off topic comments will be ignored. Start thread below and get consensus to remove them, if you find any "Dont edit war". Venkat TL (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LearnIndology The dutch guys comment is being discussed on the talk page in this thread here. Please join this thread. As you can see, There is no consensus to add it, yet you have restored this content into the article. Please dont edit war like REDISCOVERBHARAT . Venkat TL (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that every statement coming from anything else apart from foreign ministry and main administration of the countries should be removed or the current version about the reaction should suffice. LearnIndology (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LearnIndology thanks for the comment. Venkat TL (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The onus of inclusion is on you; please revert yourself. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of unreliable sources

@REDISCOVERBHARAT Zee News and TimesNow are not considered reliable sources. Do not edit war to add them into the article. Find better sources. See WP:TOI Venkat TL (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add them. I am just reverting your disruptive content removal.[7] I am also removing the disparaging section headline you created for this section when same issue is already being discussed above where you were already rebuked. Zee News is not unreliable though. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@REDISCOVERBHARAT Please read WP:REVERT and WP:EDITWAR You cannot shake of responsibility from the changes you make in your edits by saying I am simply reverting. Once you are reverted, you cannot restore it back without consensus. Read WP:BRD. Also this thread is unrelated to Dutch politician, stop merging it back. Venkat TL (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How brutally ironic of you to cite those policies that you violate the most out here. If you want to write a section heading then make it neutral per WP:TALKHEADER which say "Keep headings neutral" otherwise I will keep removing your efforts to disparage me. It belongs to the same section as above since your disruptive content removal is still involving same content and is only getting more disruptive. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@REDISCOVERBHARAT Then dont add unreliable sources into the article. No These unreliable sources have nothing to do with Dutch politician. If you continue disrupting the talk page discussion threads you will be reported for edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you are going to stop making up false accusations and misrepresenting policies to distract from your disruptive content removal? REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@REDISCOVERBHARAT Unreliable source will be removed immediately. If you want to include unreliable source into the article, you need to create consensus for those edits. Venkat TL (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are keeping the information that you like from your list of "unreliable sources", while removing the information that you don't like, sourced to your list of "unreliable sources". Do you really believe I can't see this disruptive editing coming from you? REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not "my" list. The list of unreliable source can be found on WP:RSN and WP:TOI. Please dont add an unreliable source after it has been removed once. Make effort to only add reliable sources. Venkat TL (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it was not really wise to add TimesNow.com for sourcing a statement on Saudi Arabia section, it can be replaced with another source since the information itself isn't controversial. But to remove additional content, unrelated to the sourcing issue, by providing the reason "unreliable source" is definitely disruptive editing. LearnIndology (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources available which should be acceptable - like The Hindu Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch guys comment is being discussed above, There is no consensus to add it. @LearnIndology please explain in the thread above, not here (why you are adding it without getting consensus first.) As for unreliable source, Repeated edit warring to add an unreliable source after revert is undesired behavior. Please read WP:RS and post on WP:RSN. For Saudi section I have already added reliable source BBC and one more source added by another user, there is no need to add TimesNow and edit war over it. Venkat TL (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy vs International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Venkat TL why do you believe that only International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy should be in the See Also section? This page covers the controversy and the reaction to that controversy, so shouldn't Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy both be included? -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that link shouldn't be included at all. We should stop pretending that we are creating this unnecessary fork of Nupur Sharma (politicial) article to be a bigger story than it actually is by comparing it with Jyllands-Posten controversy. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Webberbrad007 I have no objections about the see also section. I went to add it back and I see that the controversy link is already restored. I believe the link to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is a better fit then adding both links. Venkat TL (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1092601080