Talk:The Satanic Verses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Satanic Verses article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article has an infobox template in need of a 1st Edition Cover!
Assessment comments

Archive 1 2004–2006

Contents

[edit] Problem with the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The following post was made by 202.83.175.66 on June 23, 2007. 202.83.175.66 deleted the article above and his post was in turn deleted by BorgQueen. I'm reposting it even though it's a little intemperate and ill informed.
PS, 202.83.175.66 is in the North-West Frontier of Pakistan --BoogaLouie 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC) ]
talking of freedom of speeach.redicilous. CAN U TALK ABOUT THE REAL FACTS OF HOLOCAUAST.can u abuse imperialism , king queen or royal family.my dear every thiing has a limit . freedom of speech must not include playing with emotions of any community. and to my christian and jew brothers, blasphamy is equally applicable to propher christ aND MOSES. WE RESPECT ALL PROPHETS . WHY U DONT respect ours.please understand that religios is sensitive issue and abstain from financing and god fathering any rascal who have been unanimously critisiced by a community .by the way if froodom of speech is unlimited , then y the president of iran was bullied for conducting a educational dialogue on holocast.please learn to respect other faith. --202.83.175.66

[edit] New article on The Satanic Verses controversy

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

Shouldn't there be a link from this article to the controversy article? --Splette :) How's my driving? 11:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
New article is up and running and some links have been changed from the novel article to it. --BoogaLouie 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "As usual..."

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

[edit] protected article

I cannot edit the article because it is protected. Please make this change in the timeline, which gives the important fact that the banning of the book was spearheaded by the eminent politician Shahabuddin:

Replace: October 5, 1988: India bans the novel's importation.

with:

  • October 5, 1988: India bans the novel's importation, after Indian parliamentarian Syed Shahabuddin petitioned the government of Rajiv Gandhi to ban the book.[1][2][3] In 1993 Syed Shahabuddin tried unsuccessfully to ban another book (Ram Swarup's "Hindu View of Christianity and Islam").[4][5]

[edit] Trimming text

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


[edit] Proposed Disambiguation page

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

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

[edit] Cat Stevens

Cat Stevens said at one point that Salman Rushdie should be killed because of this book. I'll try to find the quote and put it in. It's a legitamate quote, so don't erase it when I put it in.

[edit] The Timeline should go

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

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

[edit] Proposed name change

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

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

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

http://www.alislam.org/books/rushdie/RUSHDIE_Haunted_by_his_unholy_ghosts.pdf
--Wowaconia 04:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lead changes

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

Please avoid bad style by using the passive voice. You have a habit of removing the subject of the sentence where that subject is Muhammad. This is bad style. The "some" early biographies implies that there are some that don't include it. Considering that Ibn Hisham is a redacted version of Ibn Ishaq, and the evidence strongly suggests that Ibn Ishaq included it (he circulated version of the story that made it into Waqidi and Tabari, scholars have concluded it was in Ibn Ishaq, etc), the "some" is misleading. Hopefully this is unintentional. It's not clear why you're removing the sentence desribing which versions Rushdie based his version on. "Redundancy" doesn't excuse it. One sentence is saying it occurs in Muslim biographies of Muhammad, the other says which specific narratives Rushdie based his retelling on. Arrow740 08:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
i assume your comment on passive voice refers to this passage: "... which were then later retracted at the behest of the archangel Gabriel." - which you replaced with this: "Muhammad later retracted them, saying the angel Jibreel had told him to do so." - i am sure my version can be fixed by changing 'were then' > 'he'. your change disjoints the sentence from attribution to traditional biographies, thereby necessitating redundancies such as Muhammad 'saying'. the apparent story according to Tabari et al. is that certain verses were forwarded by Satan and then Gabriel came to nullify it. either attribution of this to Muhammad replaces attribution to the biographies right at the beginning, or we don't supplement additional attributions later (not present in the narrative itself) to imply doubt. ITAQALLAH 11:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)