This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Itsmejudith (talk | contribs) at 16:07, 24 October 2006 (A further reference). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:07, 24 October 2006 by Itsmejudith (talk | contribs) (A further reference)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Please do not delete this page while I am writing it.
If you have a problem with this page, please notify me so that we can discuss. The material for this page already exists on Misplaced Pages in another place, and I believe it is more appropriate within the category --BostonMA 20:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- It would be wrong to characterise me as "having a problem" with the page. Please withdraw that assumption. This page is meaningless without context; it is unsourced; it doesn't appear to be true (I've worked with a guy called Mahound - and yes, that was the spelling, and yes, he was muslim in his heritage). It is effectively empty. It's going to AfD now. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Redvers, thank you for responding. I'm sorry if my statement seemed offensive. No offense was intended. The material is sourced, there are references provided. It is also a notable term because it was used in reference to Muhammand. The information regarding this pejorative term is taken from the Muhammad article. It seems to me that if a pejorative term for an individual deserves mention in an encyclopedia, it perhaps deserves mention in an article other than that of the person for whom it is a pejorative. If you believe the pejorative does not belong on Misplaced Pages at all, please say so, and please mention this also at the Muhammad article. There has been an edit war going on for some time over this issue, and it was my thought (perhaps mistaken) that moving the mention of the pejorative to its own location might help to alleviate that war. If the information you have provided is correct, your input at the talk page of Muhammad could be very useful in helping resolve an edit war. Thanks. --BostonMA 20:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- This whole question is extremely confusing, even though some great writers are being used as sources. One thing that is certain is that in the mediaeval period spellings and transliterations were extremely fluid. That's why it is natural for there to be many spellings for the name of the Prophet (Muhammad, Mahommed, Mahomet etc.) in English. "Mahound" seems to be regarded as pejorative because it includes the word "hound", i.e. a dog, an animal regarded as unclean in Islam. But how can this be sourced to Dante, when Dante wrote in Italian, where the word "hound" would not be recognised? Even the combination "hound" is not a natural one in Italian. And Shakespeare - well, we know how unreliable his spelling was. Redvers, you mentioned an acquaintance of yours from the North of England. Do you know where he or his family came from before that? It might shed some light on how this transliteration or version came to be widespread. Itsmejudith 15:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
A further reference
Review of "The Satanic Verses" in the New York Times. A proper scholarly reference but it doesn't clarify much. Note that there are other related mediaeval spellings quotes (all I think from England) and that none of the others incorporate the full "hound", therefore would not imply "dog", but seem to be just a shortening of the Prophet's real name. Itsmejudith 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Category: