Talk:Zakir Naik

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/11/28. The result of the discussion was keep.

Has anyone got a reference for the claim about Thomas Blom Hansen?

I was just adding some new content to the article when I noticed this statement Thomas Blom Hansen, a sociologist at the University of Edinburgh, has written Naik's style of memorizing the Qur'an and hadith literature in various languages, and travelling abroad to debate Islam with theologians, has made him extremely popular in Muslim circles. I've tried google-ing for Hansen in the current context and come up with nothing except some personal blogs and articles which have the same statement printed VERBATIM. Does anyone have any citations/references for this? 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the references section. Elazeez, I disagree with the addition of more content sourced to primary sources - it is only acceptable incases where Naik is explicitly talking about himself. If this is not the case, and we are instead making deductions on the basis of primary sources, then this material is original research and should be removed. Additionally, there should certainly be no reliance upon primary sources in an article, which I feel is a trend developing here. ITAQALLAH 13:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources are very important in helping us to objectively evaluate what should be in a BLP and what should not. Some go so far as to suggest that only material in print biographies should be used, but that is not a consensus view. We need to be thoughtful, caring, and careful. We have time to get it right. Find the best sources and include the most encyclopedic claims. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In regards to my revision [1]:-
Hmm... You've got a worthy point there; I guess its best to look for some reliable secondary sources before proposing the inclusion of this content again. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Singh

I performed this edit because, on a search, I couldn't find any reference in the source article to the claim that Singh had criticised Naik for a claim that "Eating pork makes one behave like a pig". Singh does take issue with Naik's characterization of pigs as unclean animals (not big news--Naik is a muslim, Singh is not) but does not represent Singh as making the claim quoted in the article. Please check the source and verify. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The cited article too doesn't show Sinhg saying anything about the claim made viz Singh also expressed surprise at Naik's belief that "Eating pork makes one behave like a pig". (No more Original Research please Agnistus [2] ) 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sub-sections

I created the sub-sections, because it improves the readability of the article a lot. They are removed by another user because a) they are Prospective Troll Magnets b) [you] Can't mention ALL his visits here so no cherry-picking.

It may be true. However, in this way medium-interested people wouldn't be eager to read this amount of continuous text. Furthermore, I believe the mentioned visits of Naik caused some stirr in the press, so they are noteworthy enough to get an apart sub-section. So let us vote: who agrees or disagrees with subsections?

I agree.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree because I feel that making sections like these could give an impression like Dr. Naik's delivered only these (3) lectures and all of them have been subjects of controversy. Moreover since [we] cannot include information about all his lectures/visits, it might seem that these 3 were the most note-worthy ones with the criticisms being the highlights. Besides, if we have sections criticising his visits, they might become prospective troll magnets over a period of time with editors concentrating on adding more to those respective sections rather than to the article as a whole. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you disagree. You made some subsections yourself a few weeks ago at Jimmy Swaggart: [3]. What is the difference between the subsections thre and over here?Jeff5102 (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We cannot make subsections for the same reasons that I've cited above, Jeff. To summarize, if we are to make sub-sections for Dr. Naik's speeches, then why not incorporate a section for all of them instead of a just these three which have been subjects of controversy? 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea. As long as they are noteworthy, and well referenced, I cannot see any objection. By the way, are there any written transcripts of his debates? I saw some of them on youtube, but that is no valid source.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with that, Jeff, is that there are too many of them out there. (I heard the number being around 800+). And you're right, YouTube wont qualify as a valid source too; but then if you've been reading the archives out here you'll see that most editors here have reached a consensus at including only that content which has reliable secondary sources supporting it. Hence for any more details of Dr. Naik's lectures to get into this article, they would need reliable media coverage. For these and similar reasons I was against the idea of the seggregation of statements in Lectures and Visits into separate subsections. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind sub-sections, but one must be aware not to present the article in a way that leans towards controversy. The only views of Naik and incidences concerning him that need be mentioned are ones that have been covered in third party reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 17:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse, Itaq. Your religious persuasion is well-known in Wikipedia circles. - Agnistus (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not the contributor. ITAQALLAH 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I never thought that lay-out-questions could sprarkle such bitter personal attacks. Too badJeff5102 (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff. I've removed the sections for now as I don't think they're particularly necessary. ITAQALLAH 15:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I must admit that you are right Itaqallah (regarding WP:NPA), I must say that as far as you are concerned; something more appropriate (for you) would be "Comment on the content, not the censor". - Agnistus (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Deleted. Was slightly angry. My apologies to you, Itaqallah. - Agnistus (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please just calm down before you post. Don't make personal attacks and then strike them out a minute later - repeatedly doing this starts to look pointish. ITAQALLAH 16:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT has nothing to do with that comment. - Agnistus (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It has everything to do with habitually making unacceptable comments and then striking them immediately afterwards. ITAQALLAH 15:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to re-read WP:POINT. Especially section 2.1 - Agnistus (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid adding material with unreliable (primary) sources

Wikipedia rules (WP:RS) prohibits adding content with primary sources, especially on a BLP (see WP:BLP). There were several sentences and even a while paragraph in the article sourced to "irf.net". Since irf.net is a primary source, it cannot be used; thus I removed such material. Not only was the material added back without any discussion on the talk page; another primary source was attached to it, further violating WP:RS and WP:BLP. I kindly request all editors/contributors to follow Wikipedia guidelines and refrain from re-inserting content with unreliable sources in the future, until you can provide reliable 3rd-party sources for them. Thank you. - Agnistus (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove reliably sourced content.

Please do not remove reliably sourced content from the article without proper reasons and discussion. The Indian Express is well-known mainstream publication. Declaring such high-quality 3rd-party sources to be unreliable, and removing content with such fallacious claims is nothing more than POV enforcement. It would be best if contributors read Wikipedia guidelines (WP:RS and WP:BLP) before editing. Thank you. - Agnistus (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Like RegenerateThis said, the source is merely an op-ed. Secondly, why do you insert totally unsourced negative material on a BLP while on the other hand insisting on reliable sourcing? ITAQALLAH 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The section "Criticism" has been removed. Secondly; as I said before "The Indian Express is well-known mainstream publication. Declaring such high-quality 3rd-party sources to be unreliable, and removing content with such fallacious claims is nothing more than POV enforcement.". Even if it is an op ed, that does not make the article an unreliable source, since it has been published on such well-known mainstream newspaper. - Agnistus (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The article on the "Indian Express" in my view, qualifies as originating comes from a reliable source. Does the fact that it's an op-ed detract in any way from this ?

My personal opinion is that the quote refers to one of the most controversial and well-known aspects of Naik's ideas, and that it should stay. Giordaano (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that the article is an op-ed does detract from its reliability. It should only really be used for attributing the opinions of the author, certainly not acceptable for saying anything about Naik. ITAQALLAH 17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The paper which includes the op-ed does have editorial oversight (per WP:RS) and so in my opinion may be used for reporting facts. And those fragments, in which the "Indian Express" quotes Naik, it uses facts, doesn't it? Of course, the conclusions drawn by Sudheendra Kulkarni cannot seen as facts, but the facts he uses can be used. Unless these quotes were disputed, ut I couldn't find such.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Agnistus (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove content sourced to reliable 3rd-party sources.

Several sections of the article were removed despite attempts to restore them ([4]). The reasons provided in the edit summary for the deletions are invalid and fail to explain how the information is "irrelevent" (see [5]) despite being published on a National newspaper (The Hindu). Reckless content deletion such as these ([6], [7], e.t.c.) falls under the category of vandalism. Please understand that Wikipedia is not censored to satisfy the particular interests of certain ([8]) groups. I request all editors (esp. User: Elazeez) to follow Wikipedia guidelines while editing. Thank you. - Agnistus (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer rapid-fire to Agnistus' points to save time (and hopefully, some space too) 1.) User:Elazeez was away for the weekend and hence the delay of 3 days in this reply. 2.) 'Irrelevant' connotes irrelevance. I fail to understand how the controversial views of a certain tabloid (which is not the National Newspaper of India BTW) are worthy enough of consideration. Even if for argument's sake I agree that they might deserve any space on WP, to be frank the article only seems like a polemical piece by some critic who's bent on painting Dr. Naik in the same hue as some terrorist organizations. C'mon, can't YOU see the blatantly visible baggage of hate against Naik the article comes with? It's like some nutcase saying Agnistus believes in Hinduism, which is same religious ideology which hardened terrorist Maya Dolas followed all through his career as an extortionist. Don't get me wrong, I hate Dolas but I totally respect your religious views (See Qur'an 6:108 which beckons muslims to respect other communities). You just can't go about likening people good and bad over some view which co-incides amongst them.3.) BTW, there are many incidents when a certain newspaper article contains defamatory content and then (if there's cry over it) there's a public apology printed by the same tabloid a few days later. Have you checked up if there was an apology in any of the days after the printing of the article? 4.) My edit summaries WERE explanatory enough AND I've also called for a discussion on the talk page. A call for discussion is something which you've violated. (See the Bold-Revert-Discuss rule on WP). 5.) Regarding that SlashDot article you've linked about censoring: The article starts off with The New York Times is reporting that Muslim groups are attempting to censor Wikipedia because of images of Muhammad contained in the article about him (PBUH) and rants about some muslims not approving of images of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) being added to the article [[[Muhammed]] on WP. Agnistus, have you considered the [controversy of Rama's Setu] to Lanka? Please do check out the edit histories and discussions on the talk page for the article on WP. No I'm not belittling the mythological significance of the natural formation, all I'm saying is that there are some things which do inflame certain people; and if they protest against those things, you and I don't need to object when a.) it doesn't concern us and b.) we cannot comprehend its significance. It would be diabolic on my part if I used the controversy surrounding the article on Rama's Setu (known as Adam's Bridge too) against you or any other co-editors saying Hindus are trying to censor wikipedia. I am hoping you understand my points Agnistus. I will now proceed to delete that content and expect it to not be re-instated without a consensus here. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)