Talk:Takbir/Archive 3

Jai Shree Ram vs this article
It's laughable how biased Wikipedia is. While the 'Jai Shree Ram' page includes every possible event associated with the slogan, especially instances of violence, with repeated mentions in the lead and throughout the article, this article does a great job of concealing the extensive use by Islamic extremists when they commit acts of violence. Great job - I sincerely admire the effort of all Wikipedians. Rackaballa (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * See WP:OTHERCONTENT and false equivalence for why people may not find this kind of argument convincing.
 * That said, it is reasonable to ask whether the use of the Takbir by extremists or for celebrating acts of violence is given enough room in the present version of the article (or whether, in the corresponding section, the currently quoted view of Khaled A. Beydoun is representative of "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", as required by Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy). But this kind of question can only be answered by examining what other reliable sources have published about this topic, not by comparisons with an entirely different slogan from an entirely different religion.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would love to hear from you why you think comparing the two is false equivalency. How are the two slogans any different? Rackaballa (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ’’’Jai Shree Ram’’’
 * * The article includes a dedicated section on the chant's use in communal violence. This section provides a detailed overview of the history of the chant's use in violence, as well as specific examples of incidents in which the chant has been used.
 * * The article discusses the various reasons why the chant has been used in violence. These reasons include the chant's association with Hindu nationalism, its use as a rallying cry for Hindu mobs, and its use to intimidate and threaten Muslims.
 * * The article acknowledges that the use of the chant in violence is a controversial issue. The article presents a balanced view of the different perspectives on this issue, and does not take a clear stance on whether or not the chant is inherently violent.
 * ‘’’Takbir’’’
 * * The article only mentions the chant's use in terrorism in passing. The article does not provide any specific examples of incidents in which the chant has been used in terrorism.
 * * The article does not discuss the reasons why the chant has been used in terrorism.
 * * The article does not acknowledge that the use of the chant in terrorism is a controversial issue.
 * In addition to these differences in content, the two articles also differ in their tone. The article on Jai Shree Ram is more negative in tone.
 * Overall, the two Wikipedia articles differ significantly in their coverage of the use of their respective chants in violent situations. Rackaballa (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me try to explain it in more detail.
 * To quote from false equivalence: This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.
 * You appear to argue that because both are religious slogans that have been used in violent acts (shared trait), that aspect must be given equal weight in both articles (assume equivalence). In contrast, Wikipedia's aforementioned Neutral Point of View policy requires that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources (my bolding).
 * You may be right that the two Wikipedia articles differ significantly in their coverage of the use of their respective chants in violent situations. But your mistake is to automatically assume that this is because of bias on Wikipedia's side, rather than considering the possibility that this is because reliable sources have given this aspect different weight in the coverage of each topic (which, in turn, could well be because the underlying facts summarized by these sources are different).
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)