Content deleted Content added
Dan Murphy (talk | contribs) sleazy bits of slander will be pointed out |
Replies |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
[[File:Giotto - Scrovegni - -26- - Entry into Jerusalem2.jpg|100x100px|Jesus's Entry into Jerusalem]] |
[[File:Giotto - Scrovegni - -26- - Entry into Jerusalem2.jpg|100x100px|Jesus's Entry into Jerusalem]] |
||
</div> |
</div> |
||
* '''ALT1''' ... that according to an [[Islam]]ic tradition, the [[Prophets of Islam|Prophet]] [[Muhammad]] owned a talking donkey called '''[[Ya`fūr]]''' that was descended from the one ''(pictured)'' that carried [[Jesus]] into [[Jerusalem]]? |
* '''ALT1''' ... that according to an apocryphal [[Islam]]ic tradition, the [[Prophets of Islam|Prophet]] [[Muhammad]] owned a talking donkey called '''[[Ya`fūr]]''' that was descended from the one ''(pictured)'' that carried [[Jesus]] into [[Jerusalem]]? |
||
Hopefully this will suffice... [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 22:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
Hopefully this will suffice... [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 22:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
: Thanks - that is indeed interesting, and I had no idea. The limit of my aspirations at the time were to figure out if the ''Innocence of Muslims'' scene was based on anything real or not, which I had - I see that the naysayers here completely nuked any reference to the original 1400s Arabic Wikisource document on which the story is based, or to modern commentary by pro- and anti-Muslim groups. There is no merit in deleting information just because you don't like it for some reason. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 22:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
: Thanks - that is indeed interesting, and I had no idea. The limit of my aspirations at the time were to figure out if the ''Innocence of Muslims'' scene was based on anything real or not, which I had - I see that the naysayers here completely nuked any reference to the original 1400s Arabic Wikisource document on which the story is based, or to modern commentary by pro- and anti-Muslim groups. There is no merit in deleting information just because you don't like it for some reason. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 22:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
:: Doesn't suffice. Make it "according to a story that '''most scholars of hadith consider apocryphal and unreliable,''' Mohamed owned a talking donkey." Don't mislead people.[[User:Bali ultimate|Dan Murphy]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 22:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
:: Doesn't suffice. Make it "according to a story that '''most scholars of hadith consider apocryphal and unreliable,''' Mohamed owned a talking donkey." Don't mislead people.[[User:Bali ultimate|Dan Murphy]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 22:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
::: |
::: Way too long with that addition, and the word "hadith" won't mean anything to most people without an explanation, which is why I used "tradition". I've added the word "apocryphal", which gets the point across. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 23:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
:: And "prioryman": You wrote that Andreas Kolbe owns a "hate site." That is a lie, and a sleazy bit of slander. Shame on you.[[User:Bali ultimate|Dan Murphy]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 22:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::: I don't think a journalist (allegedly) has much standing to lecture about sleazy slanders... [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 23:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
Revision as of 23:47, 24 October 2012
Ya`fūr
- ... that Muhammad's conversation with Ya`fūr in the Innocence of Muslims film trailer was loosely based on a 14th century book by Ibn Kathir?
Created/expanded by Wnt (talk). Self nom at 01:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I can't find the hook ref in the article linked - the Time Entertainment one. I also think it needs a better source than a tv critic's article. Secretlondon (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Time Entertainment seems like a good enough source for a movie. What it says is that in the movie "He has a bizarrely homoerotic, one-sided conversation with a donkey (a take on an old story that’s been cited by critics charging Muhammad with perversion)." The latter link goes to a writing about Zakaria Botros, who had some influence on the filmmaker, which explains about the donkey, "Perhaps most entertaining, Fr Botros spent some time analyzing an anecdote recorded in Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidaya we al-Nihaya. Here is a translation for this lengthy account:" Now of course Jihad Watch is a very partisan source!, but it is being used to explain the intent of a very partisan film from a related point of view, so that seems like a reasonably expert opinion. Besides, a pro-Muslim site I used to illustrate the opposing point of view, answering-christianity.com, gives the same translation. And I actually tracked down the original source to a direct Google machine translation of our own Arabic Wikisource version of Ibn Kathir, which has some lines recognizable as the "do you desire females? NO!", given by the two opposing partisan sites and recognizable from the film. So I think that my statement that the scene is loosely based on this book is pretty well documented, and I don't think the hook or what it described is biased toward one side or the other; it is their interpretations that differ. Wnt (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Quite apart from any sourcing problems, this article is a blatant coatrack (fails neutrality). AndreasKolbe JN466 09:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- But this article has great potential. John lilburne (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the inappropriateness of Jayen466 simultaneously purporting to review this article while ridiculing it on his hate site Wikipediocracy, it's premature to reject this nomination. The article is admittedly not very well written but there is scope for this to be a useful article; the story described in it is a fairly well-known Hadith. I'll do some work on it tonight. Prioryman (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Prioryman just accused Andreas Kolbe of running a "hate site." That's not just a lie, it's defamation.Dan Murphy (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, put a sock in it, Dan. I've rewritten the article; I think the Innocence of Muslims bit is undue weight on a totally fringe work. There is in any case a much more interesting story to tell (which I've told). I suggest an alternative hook, viz:
- ALT1 ... that according to an apocryphal Islamic tradition, the Prophet Muhammad owned a talking donkey called Ya`fūr that was descended from the one (pictured) that carried Jesus into Jerusalem?
Hopefully this will suffice... Prioryman (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks - that is indeed interesting, and I had no idea. The limit of my aspirations at the time were to figure out if the Innocence of Muslims scene was based on anything real or not, which I had - I see that the naysayers here completely nuked any reference to the original 1400s Arabic Wikisource document on which the story is based, or to modern commentary by pro- and anti-Muslim groups. There is no merit in deleting information just because you don't like it for some reason. Wnt (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't suffice. Make it "according to a story that most scholars of hadith consider apocryphal and unreliable, Mohamed owned a talking donkey." Don't mislead people.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- And "prioryman": You wrote that Andreas Kolbe owns a "hate site." That is a lie, and a sleazy bit of slander. Shame on you.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)