Talk:The Truth About Muhammad

Fair use rationale for Image:ThetruthaboutMuhammad.jpg

Image:ThetruthaboutMuhammad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"anachronistic reading of the historical context"?

The second sentence of the second paragraph of the lede states "The critical reception of the book was generally unfavorable, with Spencer being criticized for his selective use of sources, subjective interpretation and anachronistic reading of the historical context" (emphasis added). This phrase seems nonsensical. An "anachronism" is defined as "something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time."[1]https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anachronism In other words, it is something temporally inconsistent with another time. "Historical context" is the larger body of information surrounding events that aid in understanding motives, influences, etc., which shape those events. So it is difficult to see how a writer of a book on history can have an "anachronistic reading" of those surrounding historical events unless they are imposing or imputing motives, influences, etc., which are ahistorical, such as if a historian were to write that one of the causes of the French Revolution was "transphobia" (a phenomenon unknown in 18th century France), or if a film about the Battle of Culloden showed soldiers wearing wristwatches. This is not to suggest that the author is necessarily accurate or even-handed in their account of history, just that the phrase "...anachronistic reading of the historical context" does not stand-up to logical scrutiny and should be either explained or removed. Bricology (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)