Talk:Reza Aslan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cltfn's edits

Cltfn removed part of a sentence from the article, saying that it was POV, leaving a sentence fragment hanging. Cltfn, exactly what do you see as POV in the assertion that the book combines academic training and Muslim sensibility? The academic training is obvious -- it's shown by the next section. It's also clear if you read the book, with its extensive bibliography, and many quotes. The Muslim sensibility is evident in the book -- he's a progressive Muslim of the sort that accepts Muhammad as a prophet, and the Qur'an, but is skeptical of hadith and fiqh. Cltfn, have you read the book? What exactly is the basis for your excision? Zora 21:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

He's also been on CNN a few times as a Muslim scholar, like Anderson Cooper's 360° (If I recall). While I, a non-Muslim can understand why his progressive views might be problematic to more traditional Muslims, his scholarship should not be in question. Last time I came to this page I don't remember seeing the Persian. I knew Reza of course, but now I can pronounce his last name right! Kudos! Khirad 12:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This article is in serious need of citing reliable sources ... there are multiple links to the same webpages, some of which are decidedly not WP:RS, e.g., from the subject's own website ... there are many links to interviews with and essays by the subject, but scant WP:Verifiable "non-trivial and independent" coverage about the subject ... it may be buried in those obscure external links, but some {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} references would improve demonstrating WP:Notability. —72.75.85.159 (talk · contribs) 01:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The use of the First Person, "I", is inappropriate - please change to "he". --Ludvikus 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ngbg.jpg

Image:Ngbg.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sunni or Shi'a

Is he Sunni or Shi'a? I know he was born in Iran but that doesn't mean anything. Now he lives in the USA. Robert C Prenic 12:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now added this:

"Although born in Tehran in Iran, a predominently Shi'a Muslim country, it is not known whether Aslan's denomination of Islam is Shi'a or Sunni. Although, The Guardian newspaper in Britain reports that, by persuasion in that he was originally born in Iran, is a Shi'a muslim. " Robert C Prenic 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You can tell by his name that he is a Shi'a Muslim, and not Sunni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, you can't tell from someone's name what someone's personal beliefs are. Second of all, just because he's from Iran doesn't mean he's a Shi'a. His parents are not Muslim and Reza Aslan joined a Christian youth group as a child, so came to Islam later in life; he has never specifically said whether or not he is Shi'a so we should not make assumptions. I am going to change this in the main article. Here's an interview he gives where he talks about his past:

http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-reformation-has-begun-Tehran-born/dp/B000E8U23S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1285342244&sr=8-1-spell

Unforutnately you have to pay to read it, but perhaps you can get access to it in a library or something.--M m hawk (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me...

Or does this page read like it was written by Reza Aslan? There does seem to be a sympathetic tone but that could just be me and that's not even what I'm getting at... I'm more referring to the longwinded list of quotations, (poorly formatted) television appearances (I have never, ever seen that on anyone elses wiki page), and of course the (already pointed out) lack of references and preponderance of google video, blogs and myspaces linked to in the "external links". I am not equipped with the patience, technical knowledge or familiarity with Reza Aslan to fix this page myself... but it needs serious attention. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason it seems like its written by Aslan is because a lot of the article is copy and pasted. The entire tv appearances section has been copy and pasted from his website. Miraculousrandomness (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Very Poorly Referenced

This page stinks of copy-paste by Aslan's minions.

'He is working on a biography of Jesus of Nazareth and a historical novel, set a thousand years ago, about a caravan traveling from the Arabian Peninsula to India.' So is my 2-year old niece. Why is all this even here?

'This book uses the work of 69 writers to make a strong case for the power of fiction, poetry and essays to connect us at the level of the heart.'

'Working to engage with Muslims and non-Muslims on what's happening in the region, the Aslan Media TweetWire on Twitter has since grown steadily on the idea that it's possible to stay updated on Middle East news with just 140 characters.'

'No god but God is a persuasive and elegantly written account of the origins, evolution, and future of Islam.'

'He tours in U.S. and internationally giving talks and has written many press articles.'

Talk about shameless advertising on Wiki space. This article has to be cleaned up and practically rewritten. It's very, very one-sided.

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias

I think this page shows clear bias. I think the quotes section and the media section should be gotten rid of. If any of the quotes are notable enough then they can just be placed in the article in a corresponding manor. As for the media appearance, people in his line of work make them all the time, that is not notable enough to mention every one. Also surely that will quickly fill up as time progresses. If he made a particularly notable appearance then maybe that should be held, but otherwise I would be inclined to delete it as well as the other quotes section. Honestly I am inclined to see many sections of the article re-written, but have no time to do so. --Greg Nevers (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What does he write?

I read his intro sentence: "...a nationally acclaimed writer of religions." Shouldn't this be corrected to something along the lines of: ...a nationally acclaimed writer "about religions" or "on religious topics"? He doesn't actually write religions. Keithh (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that should be corrected. Actually, his writing should not be considered "acclaimed" without a source for the sake of WP:NPOV. In general I find this article to be neutral in tone, but it is clearly too long considering it only has two references. It is all undue weight, I suspect because it was written by the subject himself. Fnordware (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, upon googling him, you could almost argue that he shouldn't have an article at all. There are really no reliable sources about him, only interviews with quotes of him talking about himself (not the same thing) and some articles about his books. OK, I guess any published author is considered notable enough for an article, but I think this article should be very short. The entire quotation section should be deleted right away and the external links section should be greatly paired down (WP:LINKFARM). Probably only the lead paragraph should remain, and only with sources to back it up. Fnordware (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's only a minority of published authors that would qualify for an article, see WP:AUTHOR. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, no, he clearly has the coverage to back up WP:AUTHOR. His books have been reviewed in many reliable sources and won/been shortlisted for prestigious awards. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

More background material

I have added a paragraph to the background material. I am aware that it needs cites and will have to look for some later with some greater searching effort. I also moved the old Currently subsection up above the Background section and intend to whittle it down since it essentially duplicates the last paragraph of the intro that now is directly above it now that it has been moved. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2013

In the background section of this article Reza Azlan's religion is described as being Shi'a Islam. He is not Shi'a Islam as is made clear in this recent interview with NPR: http://www.npr.org/2013/07/14/200844275/zealot-tells-the-story-of-jesus-the-man-not-the-messiah His background is actually evangelical Christian, which has shifted to a following of Jesus rather than calling himself a Christian. Thanks

Sanifer (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Reza Aslan was a Christian for some years in his youth but converted "back" to Islam. We could provide more information about his years as a Christian - feel free to suggest wording - but he is Muslim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: should he be therefore categorized as both "convert from christianity to islam" AND the opposite?

regards Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Shia or Sufi?

I found this article where Reza says that he "Yeah, I'm definitely a Muslim and Sufism is the tradition within Islam that I most closely adhere to." Should that be changed? Vyselink (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the article? He says he is Muslim in the Fox News interview shown here. Fnordware (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It just so happens that the article in question was written by one of Wikipedia's own. Perhaps he can shed some light on the matter? Personally, I think it'd be best to just say "Islam": If someone says that something is "the tradition [they] most closely adhere to", but stops short of saying that they actually identify as a member of that tradition, I don't think it's our place to brand them as such. You can be non-denominational and still pick a certain movement as the closest to your own beliefs. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You wikipedia people should not be tagging people as this, that, or the other. "Sufism" contains multitudes and overlaps with "Sunni" and "Shia" (and sometimes other things too). My advice is remove your wretched infoboxes and ethnic and religion tag category ghettos and let peoples' words speak for themselves in the body text.Dan Murphy (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dan, but at least we can change it to just Islam, as suggested by PinkAmpers. Taha (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

per Dan and Taha, I think we should mention Islam in infobox.

Nationality

He may be ethnically Persian but wouldn't his nationality be Iranian-American as he is a US citizen?

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=nationality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.75.113 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

He could still have Iranian citizenship. But I agree that in all likelihood he's an American, too. Perhaps, somebody could simply email him or his representative and ask to confirm that. ПБХ (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

His nationality is american. His ethnicity is Persia. not sure why it says 'Iranian-American' under nationality. can someone change this? 108.244.138.234 (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

the definition at Iranian-American states that the term can refer to "Americans of Iranian ancestry OR people possessing Iranian and American dual citizenship", therefore the term is correct either way and needs no correction.Quickmythril (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Idiots!

You are all idiots! It is a biography! It should sound like an advertisement. A biography tells a story of someone's life. The man has a lot of accomplishments and as they are part of his life they should be included in his story. You should all just STFU and get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.81.169 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well put, 75.186.81.169. That sounds like a well-considered interpretation of WP:ADVERT and WP:AUTO. Fnordware (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

:-) The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete sections

As was discussed here almost a year ago, the article is largely unsourced. How about we delete the Career and Other Publications sections? I'd also take out the bottom two paragraphs in the Background section unless we get reliable sources for them. Then we could probably remove the multiple issues banner. Anyone object? Fnordware (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A couple of users have cleaned some parts of the article. I prefer to first try to find some references for the paragraphs, if not you can go ahead with your proposed deletion. Taha (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In light of his recent controversy, of course I'll hold back on deleting any parts of this article for a little bit. The Career and Other Publications sections are still missing any references with the exception of the newly-added Zealot controversy section. But with him being in the news, perhaps some of the other stuff will find references too. Fnordware (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sociology vs. sociology of religion

User:StAnselm, the source you added doesn't say anything about sociology. Why is everyone so insistent on changing what is in a cited source? The very least you could do is provide a source that says something different! (If the concern is unofficial vs. official, we can add clarifying language, eg. "PhD in Sociology with a focus in the history of religion", rather than trying to make it seem as though his doctorate is in something unrelated.) See explanation here (Juergensmeyer's Twitter confirms the comment is really his). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - I had the wrong article. I will replace it with one that says he had his degree in sociology. StAnselm (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:StAnselm did make mistake but it doesn't mean he's wrong, if you open dissertation here first page clearly states "A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology. --HistorNE (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Page V of the dissertation states "Major Field: Islam, Sociology of Religions." Does that mean anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.151.2.10 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a description of what he studied rather than a statement of what his degree is in. Like I said, I'm sensitive to the arguments that "the degree is not in Sociology of Religion" - I just want to make sure that we're not eliding the fact that religion was the focus of the degree even if Sociology of Religion is not a program at the university. It's documented that his coursework was in religious studies; we just need to find an acceptable compromise for how to include the information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I know this is OR but I'm very familiar with graduate studies at UCSB and if he received a degree there, it was either in Sociology or Religious Studies. Sociology of Religion is a field of study in both of those programs (it's considered interdisciplinary). One can get a PhD in Sociology or Religious Studies and within that, one's research can emphasize Sociology of Religion. But I know of no higher education where one receives a PhD in a sociology subdiscipline. It's possible but I've researched many graduate departments in both disciplines and I've never seen it. Within UCSB Religious Studies Department, one can specialize in Islam but, like Sociology of Religion, one does not get a degree in Islam. PhDs are associated with academic department, as they are the division that authorizes the university that a candidate has fulfilled requirements and should be granted a degree. Because of the organization of universities, departments are broken down in specific traditional disciplines or an interdisciplinary programs. But a subfield or subdiscipline does not have the standing to be a separate department and award graduate degrees, at least not at a secular university.

That's as far as his PhD goes. As far as his professorship goes, you can be hired as a Professor of Anything within a specific academic department. I know Professors of Sociology of Religion and Professors of Islam (heck, at some offbeat institution, one could be hired to be the Professor of Amish Studies or Professor of Social Revolutions). A professorship indicates what the academic teaches and researches, not what their PhD is in. It is not uncommon for it to be a subfield or subdiscipline (or even a completely invented area of study) and it can be associated with an endowed chair (made-up example, "The Ronald Reagan Professor in Global Studies").

So, one is awarded a PhD in a known academic discipline (or, less commonly, an established interdisciplinary program) but one can be a professor in whatever subject the college or university hires a person to teach or study. So, as I read the sources, the Drew announcement is faulty and I think that is because Aslan is a visiting faculty member in an institute that focuses on religion, so they highlighted his research field, not the specific discipline of his PhD. This is a mistake on their part and is probably taken from a bio given to them or one online. Announcements like this one are typically put together by department office staff and is the equivalent of a press release, albeit from an educational institution. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

At the University of Copenhagen religious studies department there are separate degrees in history of religion and sociology of religion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yawn........Partisan Conservatives, have been using this argument to try and smear the guy, and discredit the book. It's perfectly obvious to anyone without an agenda, that his PhD is in Sociology of Religions Cjmooney9 (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The title "scholar of religion" is a statement of opinion and not of fact.

The overview of Aslan states he is a "scholar of religion". Aslan has stated this himself, but his actual qualifications do not justify this title. He has a masters in theology (same degree I have). His PhD is clearly in sociology with an emphasis in religion. At the very least that makes the assertion that he is a "scholar of religion" an opinion rather than an established fact. This is further supported by the fact that he is a professor of creative writing and not of religion.

Here's a relevant article discussing how Aslan has misrepresented his own credentials by claiming to be a "historian" and "scholar of religion": http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/07/29/scholarly-misrepresentation/

TJ Turner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnerjazz (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, stating that one is a "historian" or a "scholar of religion" describes participating within a field of inquiry and is not a claim about a degree. Sociologists of Religion are one kind of scholars of religion and they are historians in so far as they work professionally with historical sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the Conservative, partisan, agenda-driven rubbish, I've been reading on poor right wing blogs for weeks. It's not an attempt to write an encyclopedic article. It's an attempt to try and discredit a person, and a book, by evangelical Christians. Having an opinion, on his credentials is fine. But keep them on the blogs. They're not based on fact, or any logic.

A "scholar of religion" is someone who researches/writes/studies it. Nothing more. What's more, all of his degrees are on religion - a degree in religion, a masters in theology, and a PhD in Sociology of Religions. He's more than qualified to claim he's an academic in the subject (which he doesn't even try to do)

Cjmooney9 (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 August 2013

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the section "Fox News interview controversy" it should be noted that the credentials that Reza Aslan mentioned during the interview do not match his actual credentials. He lied about what his job is and the various degrees he has earned. According to this very wiki page He is a professor of creative writing not a "professor of religion" as he claimed. He does not have a PhD in religion he has a Bachelor of Arts degree in religions according to this page's own "Background" section. Truex365 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Nope, it should not be noted. Because it is false and not a notable viewpoint in reliable sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC) It is not false. He lies and Maunus lies. 1. Aslan lied about being a "professor of religions." The school website describes him as "Associate Professor Department of Creative Writing" http://meis.ucr.edu/people/faculty/ 2. Aslan lied about having a PhD in history. His degree is in sociology http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/getreligion/files/2013/07/Verification_Certificate_106896848.pdf Truex365 —Preceding undated comment added 14:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Not done:. The sources you cite do not appear to support your contention, and you may be in violation of the policy on biographical content to make such unsupported allegations on this talk page. For that reason, I am collapsing this thread. If you know of an impeccably reliable source that specifically, unequivocally says he lied, you're welcome to present it in a new edit request. Before you do, please read WP:SOAPBOX, and please also be aware that unsupported assertions about your fellow Wikipedia users are unacceptable. Rivertorch (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

WaPo

[1] might have something useful for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Professor of Islam?

Can we track down his actual job title while at the University of Iowa? From what I can tell, he was a "visiting assistant professor of religion," not a "Professor of Islam," as per his employer. --Bagwhan (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on your link, I would advocate seeing if you can get it changed. A formal University of Iowa press release is certainly credible. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 August 2013

While The Washington Post observed Green had asked "astonishingly absurd questions," it also dubbed Aslan a "moving target" and described him as being "eager — perhaps overeager — to present himself as a formidable academic with special bona fides in religion and history" and "boast[ing] of academic laurels he does not have." The piece noted one of Aslan's four degrees was in creative writing and that his descriptions of his doctorate as being in 'the history of religions' or a doctorate in 'the sociology of religions' were imprecise. It also observed that Aslan was an associate professor in the creative writing department of the University of California at Riverside, and it noted a discrepancy in Aslan's claims to be a "cooperative faculty member" at UCR's Department of Religious Studies.[16]

'AFTER THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH, ADD THE FOLLOWING

The Washington Post profile was condemned for its unfair treatment of Aslan by both the New Republic, which published a piece demanding the Post apologize to Aslan, noting that Aslan’s own dissertation adviser, Mark Jeurgensmeyer, has said he “doesn’t have a problem with Aslan’s characterization of his doctorate, noting that his former student did most of his course work in religion,” and by The Daily Beast, which criticized the Post’s “hair-splitting attacks on Reza Aslan’s credentials.”'

Denizfirataslan (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you include citations in this edit request? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

[Dr] Reza Aslan?

According to the article "He is currently a Doctoral Candidate...", thus the title "Doctor" is not appropriate here, since he has not received his doctorate yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.133.243 (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reza did graduate and has a doctoral degree. However, under "Backgrounds" he is erroneous described as earning a "Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology, focusing in the history of religion." This is not true. The UC-Santa Barbara sociology department does not OFFER such a track. The Department of Religious Studies DOES offer such a track. Reza initially was accepted into the department of religious studies, but withdrew because he did not want to take all the coursework and switched to sociology. It is one thing to argue that he DOES history of religion, but he did not receive a "history of religion" specialization in the sociology department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.76.233 (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

ridiculous hair-splitting

I would argue that the inclusion of quotes questioning the legitimacy of his expertise implies that those quotes have merit. But I wonder . . . As written now, the Wikipedia article has the following to say about a Washington Post piece on Aslan: "The piece noted one of Aslan's four degrees was in creative writing and that his descriptions of his doctorate as being in 'the history of religions' or a doctorate in 'the sociology of religions' were imprecise." OK, I've got two problems with this. First, if his doctorate degree really is in "Sociology, focusing in the history of religion," isn't it rather extreme hairsplitting to say that it would be "imprecise" to describe it as a doctorate in the history of religions? I honestly can't figure out the practical difference, especially in the context under question, in which Aslan's point was that he has a degree dealing with this topic. That much seems to be an objective fact. I mean, all opinions aside, he's either got a degree dealing with this topic, or he doesn't. Second, if he's really got a BA in religion, a Master's in theology, and a sociology doctorate that specifically focused on the history of religion, how, exactly, does the fact that he also has a degree in creative writing somehow make him less qualified as an expert? That seems pretty ludicrous to me. Again, I would argue that even mentioning such bizaare arguments implies that they are legitimate, when I don't see how they are.

On the other hand, I do acknowledge that the Washington Post (to use the above example) isn't exactly considered a fringe publication. If, anyone wants to counter-argue that these quotes are included merely for the purpose of completionism, that's fine with me. I just wanted to raise this question, and let wiser editors than me decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.191.181 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: Oh, after reading the other section of this talk page, I see I'm not the only one who calls this hairsplitting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.191.181 (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

AbuRuud's edits

I agree that the whole “academic credentials” controversy is hair-splitting, but it is a notable controversy that deserves a fuller, more balanced treatment than it currently has. I created a subsection underneath the FoxNews interview controversy. This allows a more extensive, balanced discussion of the controversy (i.e., Aslan misrepresented/overstated his credentials v. he accurately summarized his academic background). AbuRuud (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Academic credentials Undue Weight

I agree with the undue weight flag on Aslan's Academic credentials. Section is a quote farm and lengthy. I could edit down the section. Input appreciated. Jppcap (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fixing up the section. Jppcap (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a Scholar

Please remove the distinction of him being a Muslim Scholar. Unless he has received a verifiable ijaza by a reputable sheikh, the term is incorrect. Just because you like his opinion doesn't make him more credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasabi salafi koonkati (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, that is your interpretation of the term based on your particular cultural preferences. In the secular west, it is appropriate to refer to him as a scholar. I do not wish to impose my cultural assumptions on you, so please, show me the same respect. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In the linked discussion with Sam Harris Aslan states: "the Koran actually forbids slavery..." this is how in contact with reality this guy is. His Books should stand in the fantasy section... 86.32.98.81 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that not a fair interpretation? from a certain respect you can interpret the inanimate book to either forbid, allow or some variation of those two for slavery. And since no one but the person who wrote the Koran or Quran knows what he meant by what he wrote you can really just pick a few lines and make an argument for why your position is strongest or correct. So with that in mind, why should scholar be removed simply for his position on an issue, Scholar has a definition and as of 2014 he still fits it. I mean you can create a criticism if you, and other sources really do disagree with him so much but his books being in the fantasy section is a statement that suggests you dismiss his interpretation even though he does have an argument behind his reasoning. The problem can be when you borrow so deep into one side your value to discussion is eroded and only for debate. In this way rather then create a criticism of his views you can just dismiss them without trying to prove him wrong, just my take on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Reza Aslan: is his Ph.D in "history of religions" or... "sociology"?

Reza Aslan made it clear on the Fox interview, that he was a Ph.D in the history of religions, and I quote "I am an expert with a PhD in the history of religions". It says in the article he has a Ph.D in sociology. Which one is it? 129.180.137.107 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This is literally addressed in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to create just a FWI notification here that directs people for this specific issue, it has been discussed god knows how long yet there still isn't a consensus I suppose and people bring it up again a month later, It'd be better to just track down info and put it to rest what his education is in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Same Donkey but a Different Load

Reference to "Same donkey but a different load" which the author claimed is the old Persian adage that refers to a donkey not gaining any value by carrying a more valuable load was deleted, the Author did not provide reliable source for the authenticity of the adage to be Persian, in fact most countries have donkeys and the value of the load on those donkey's could vary from time to time so any country could claim this adage of their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.42.139 (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing of Criticism

Copied from user talk by Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Vanamonde. I posted an event relevant to subsection "Criticisms" under Reza Aslan. It was some of his responses to criticisms. You twice removed it, questioning the veracity of the sources: Buzzfeed, Foxnews.com, and The Blaze. After further review, I agree that The Blaze should not be included. However, regarding the other two:

- BuzzFeed, from the first Wikipedia line, "is an internet news media company." This article (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/author-attacked-by-fox-news-is-actually-kind-of-a-jerk-on-tw) is simply an archive of photo records of Aslan's past Twitter posts. While Buzzfeed may have had a less than favorable reputation during its earlier years, recently they've fired journalists for plagiarism. Imagine what they'd do someone faking photos and committing criminal libel, which is what would've needed to happen for this link to not be credible, given the little if any commentary on it. The most egregious thing the article writes is the headline calling Aslan a "Jerk on Twitter," which, as the FoxNews source shows, Aslan called himself a "#TwitterJerk." This

- Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/02/cool-headed-academic-scholar-real-potty-mouth-on-twitter/) is understandably a controversial source, but the web-site isn't Fox News Channell itself. Its parent News Corp is the second largest news media company in the world, has a staff of several award-winning journalists, and interviews world leaders. Further, this article is posted under US news, not Opinion.

I agree to strike The Blaze, but the BuzzFeed link is perfectly legitimate and I encourage you to further consider the FoxNews source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaviqAhmed (talk • contribs) 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

TaviqAhmed, the question of reliability goes a little beyond just whether they faked something or not; reliable sources are also our guide to what content is notable enough to be mentioned, and so there's questions about how much editorial oversight they are receiving, and so forth; personally, I do not feel Buzzfeed to be reliable enough to add critical material on a BLP. I appreciate that you dropped the Blaze piece, and seem willing to engage constructively. However, after being reverted multiple times, you really should discuss this on the talk page first. You will find people not unreasonable. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

TaviqAhmed, I asked you on my talk page to respond to the issues raised on this talk page. Please do so, before adding the disputed content repeatedly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I apologize for not originally posting under the correct Talk page. Regarding the editorial oversight of BuzzFeed, some pages there do not have it, and they are markedly identified as such as when it posts at the top that a page "has not been vetted or endorsed by BuzzFeed's editorial staff" (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22has+not+been+vetted+or+endorsed+by+BuzzFeed%27s+editorial+staff%22). On the contrary, the source I posted (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/author-attacked-by-fox-news-is-actually-kind-of-a-jerk-on-tw) does not have that and in-fact did receive oversight. It was compiled by a noted journalist featured on Wikipedia, Andrew Kaczynski, who has "appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, NPR, PBS, and C-SPAN" and made a reputation for himself reporting on others' ethical failures in journalism, so it'd could become a national news story if he hypocritically did something anti-notable via this article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaviqAhmed (talk • contribs) 00:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Of the three, only Fox is even conceivably reliable from a verifiability perspective, and I don't think it meets the standards for due weight. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Under ordinery circumstances, I would agree that Fox was more or less reliable; but Fox's off the mark criticism of this guy is by far the biggest reason for his fame in the first place, and they didn't do too well out of that fracas; so I would treat them with a pinch of salt in cases relating to this guy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a valid point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Roscelese and Vanamonde93, how are the two of you either ignoring or claiming contrary to the validity and editorial oversight of the source by journalist Andrew Kaczynski? Further, the source is just an image compilation, so how is that not valid? http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/author-attacked-by-fox-news-is-actually-kind-of-a-jerk-on-tw — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieHatch64 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Roscelese has already explained; criticisms on a BLP require a higher standard of sourcing, and I'm not sure if buzzfeed is meeting that standard. If you look up Buzzfeed on RSN; there is not clear consensus on its use, and the fact that this is a BLP makes it even more questionable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Roscelese ignored the points made and neither of you have addressed the arguments: (1) Andrew Kaczynski is a legitimate journalist who's been aired by "MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, NPR, PBS, and C-SPAN"; (2) BuzzFeed notates when editorial oversight is or is not present, and in this article it clearly is present (Vanamonde93, this was your original issue and it has been covered). Further, this source clearly meets all three criteria for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. (1) Neutral Point of View: Source has no editorializing, just screenshots of Aslan's twitter posts. It couldn't be more neutral. (2) Verifiability: Pictures as it did happen, and plenty of other sites post some of them too. (3) No original research: This all comes from Aslan himself, via Twitter http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/author-attacked-by-fox-news-is-actually-kind-of-a-jerk-on-tw. And his responses to some critics couldn't be more relevant to the Criticisms section. I hope to find you people not unreasonable. Thanks. - Taviq — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaviqAhmed (talk • contribs) 03:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
          • We're not ignoring your points, we're disagreeing with them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
            • No, all you mentioned was Fox, thereby literally ignoring the many points about the source by journalist Andrew Kaczynski. "Disagreeing" is an opinion and in this case neither an argument or use of logic. Vanamonde suggested there was a lack of journalistic oversight, but that point was adequately refuted several times. Vanamonde also talked about BLP, and the last post covered that by specifically citing Wikipedia policy. All other points above have been ignored. Can we now please use Wikipedia to post obviously accurate information in the relevant section of a relevant article? - Taviq — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaviqAhmed (talk • contribs) 00:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
              • We've noted that Buzzfeed is not a reliable source. If you want to include this content, you must demonstrate that reliable sources, not fringe news, involved entities, and fluff sites, have paid attention to it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, repeating the same refuted one-liner over and over like this "is not a reliable source," does not make it true.

This has been reported is several places though. This contested source (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/author-attacked-by-fox-news-is-actually-kind-of-a-jerk-on-tw) is simply the best because it's from reliable journalist Andrew Kaczynski, has the least editorializing and is therefore the most neutral, and compiles the most content. Here are six other reports though, because this actually happened: http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/07/after-championing-his-cause-buzzfeed-turns-reza-aslan/67848/ http://news.yahoo.com/t-brains-muslim-zealot-author-reza-aslan-history-122425190.html http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/reza-aslan-media-martyr-and-bully_742315.html http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/author-attacked-by-fox-news-is-actually-kind-of-a-jerk-on-tw http://www.forbes.com/sites/robasghar/2013/07/31/how-reza-aslan-became-a-media-messiah/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/01/st-for-brains-muslim-zealot-author-reza-aslan-has-a-history-of-nasty-profanity-laced-online-behavior-and-theres-a-glenn-beck-twist/

Roscelese, until you (or anyone else) can use logic to answer all of the following: why Andrew Kaczynski is not a reliable journalist; why you're not acknowledging that BuzzFeed is noted by Wikipedia to be "an internet news media company," as well as the clear distinction it makes between hard news journalism with editorial oversight and user-genrated content; why the source is practically only images that haven't been faked (and is therefore reliable), or else Andrew Kaczynski would be liable for criminal libel; why your opinion is somehow above Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requirements of Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No original research (this was covered and ignored above); and why you haven't covered any of this, the silence on all these points can be interpreted as nothing more than consent. As such, I'm reposting the very relevant link as it complies with all Wikipedia policies. And it should stay posted, otherwise the only thing that will truly be noted is that Vanamonde93, when s/he said that people here will not be found unreasonable, was unfortunately mistaken. Thank you. - Taviq — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaviqAhmed (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to add content for which you have failed to build consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Does he have any Azeri background?

Does anyone know if he has an Azeri background? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.32.124 (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to add something about that, use citations. - SantiLak (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggest caution in handling credentials controversy

I see an IP user has added some more to the academic credentials section, mostly in support of Aslan and presumably in an attempt to balance what was perceived to be a WP:POV problem. I don't think it needs reverted, but I'd just suggest to everyone that we bear in mind the core task of Wikipedia and that it is not to repeat everything that's out there related to the topic. There's a danger that we could all pile on here each one attempting to balance a perceived NPOV problem, and we'd end up making the article more about "Controversy Surrounding Reza Aslan" than about Aslan himself. If I was Wikipedia King For The Day, I think I'd compress all of the content about his credentials question into a one or two statements noting merely that there is some controversy. On the one hand I think Aslan has opened himself up to absolutely valid criticisms about his claims, but on the other hand the guy is a real guy, with real family, and who overall is a lot more than just a fight about his credentials. We are, after all, an encyclopedia and not People magazine :-) Thomask0 (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

While I'm here, in reading that addition, which had been added in a subtopic to the "Career" section, I noticed that a fair amount of "Career" is really more about the controversial aspects. Maybe that stuff would be better relocated down into the "Criticisms" section? I'm not too fazed by it as it stands, but it might make sense to move it. Thomask0 (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Gaddafi

If you watch the sourced video, there is no doubt he called for Gaddafi's assassination. Do not remove sourced content.Big-Endians (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely beyond the scope of what WP:BLP allows to interpret a LP's hope that Gadaffi would go the same way as Bin Laden (I may be misremembering the phrasing, but it was similarly ambiguous) as calling for assassination. Even the inclusion of a direct quote from the source would be questionable because it's a primary source that secondary sources don't appear to have picked up, but you absolutely may not put your own spin on this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

During the talk he was talking about the Arab spring. The context speaks for itself.Big-Endians (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"The context speaks for itself" is a really, really good clue that you're adding content that isn't actually in the source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The first questioner (did you even watch that part?) certainly did not see any ambiguity it what was said, and I do not see any ambiguity either. Here is Hillary Clinton responding to the assassination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM Big-Endians (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it a different way: what do you think the meant? Can it be construed as anything except a call for assassination? Big-Endians (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think he meant, because I don't work for the Times or the Guardian. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

both of which support the NATO-backed government there, one of *many* governments currently claiming to represent Libya (which Julian Assange has spoke about). Big-Endians (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What is this supposed to prove? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove? That you are not fluent in conversational English?Big-Endians (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Aslan is not a "scholar of religious studies"

This topic was lightly discussed in 2013, but that discussion was not very impressive in terms of resolving the question. More of a "Is not!" "Is too!" kinda thing. So as far as I can see, the issue is still unresolved. I think there are three issues relevant to fixing things.

First, note that Aslan himself does not claim to be a "scholar of religious studies", but rather a "scholar of religions". And only last week, on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show", he was introduced as a "religions scholar". I'm not exactly sure if those differences are significant, but if we're taking the guy at his word, we may as well follow his own wording.

Second, the first point notwithstanding, the current wording of "scholar of religious studies" is simply wrong. Aslan does not claim that he studies "religious studies". He claims he studies "religions". A scholar of religious studies would be interested in how people have studied religion in the past, how the field is subdivided, how many Universities have religious studies departments and so on. In that sense it is analogous to the history of science. The primary area of interest to the historian of science is not string theory, or gene theory, or plate tectonics etc. Rather the prime area of interest is how the study of such things has developed over time.

Third, and most important because it renders the other two points moot, Aslan is simply *not* a scholar of religion. In the Talk archive, when this point was raised, the following characterize the responses:

"stating that one is a "historian" or a "scholar of religion" describes participating within a field of inquiry and is not a claim about a degree."

"A 'scholar of religion' is someone who researches/writes/studies it. Nothing more."

Those are not accurate interpretations of what the word "scholar" means especially where the person in question is an academic and therefore likely to be a scholar of *something*. A scholar in that sense is someone who has performed significant study and achieved extensive understanding of a field and, most important, has demonstrated those things to other recognized scholars who in turn acknowledge the scholarship'. It is simply not true that anyone who writes/researches/studies a field is a scholar of that field, in the normal use of the word. The most telling sign is that as far as I can see, he has published nothing on religion in any peer reviewed journal or conference.

Now all that said, care is needed not to swing too far in the other direction. Although Aslan is a Creative Writing teacher, he clearly has something to say on religion, and is doing it in a way that is making an impact.

Given all of the above, here's a possible reformulation of the opening:

Reza Aslan (Persian: رضا اصلان, IPA: [ˈɾezɒː æsˈlɒːn]; born May 3, 1972) is an Iranian-American professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside. His educational background is in religious studies and the history of religion, and includes a PhD in the Sociology of Religions from the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has written two books on religion: No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam and Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth Aslan is a member of the American Academy of Religion.

That still could do with some WP:RS's that are not Aslan's own website, but I think it's a more accurate rendition of the facts than the current wording.

Comments? Thomask0 (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide some sourcing for this claim of yours that someone in the field of religious studies does not in fact study religions, but rather historiography? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't my claim. Your "in the field of" is a broader concept than the notion of "a scholar of", and you're right that someone "in the field of" religious studies may well, and almost certainly does, study religions. But I was referring to the specific phrase "scholar of religious studies". My point was that the thing studied by a "scholar of X" is X. So the thing studied by a scholar of religions, is religions; whereas the thing studied by a scholar of religious studies, is religious studies. This is a very small point, and I wouldn't have raised it were it not in the article lede. In fact, there's an even simpler way to fix it than I'd suggested: changing "scholar of religious studies" to "religious studies scholar" would, given the nuance of English usage, solve the problem. That of course does not solve the deeper problem that Aslan simply is not a scholar of such things. Thomask0 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think the proposed wording is fine. Although of course a "religious studies" is the field that studies religion, not the field that studies the history of the study of religion. It is simply the wording, "scholar of religious studies" that creates the ambiguity aout whether he is a scholar in the field religious studies, or whether he is a scholar "of" the field religious studies (i.e. whose topic of study is the discipline of religious studies).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

See my above reply to Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs). The wording would be fine were it not up there in the lede. But it is, so we need to take some care and use words with precision. The study of X is not the same as the study of the study of X. Thomask0 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

By "the proposed wording" I meant your wording. I was agreeing with you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Duh! :-) I read "proposed" as "existing". Apologies. Thomask0 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• I believe his PhD is in Sociology, not Sociology of Religions. That is, his diploma would just say Sociology. Roger (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. His doctoral supervisor is quoted here as saying the same thing -- i.e. that Aslan's PhD is in Sociology (although, granted, the context of that quote was a defense of Aslan). It would be useful to see a copy of Aslan's dissertation. since that would be definitive, but I tried searching and couldn't find one. Overall though, there does seem to be a lot of controversy about Aslan's claims of credentials, so in the spirit of WP:BLP I'm going to now make the change I proposed (including the modification suggested by Roger (talk)). It covers broadly the same scope, but by being more conservative should avoid the controversy (while it remains a controversy). Thomask0 (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I dont think that is a good point actually. I would be surprised if there are any institutions that offer phds in "sociology of religion" or if any major sociologists of religion have such a degree. Having a degree in sociology means something about your disciplinary background and the department in which you studied, saying that someone is a sociologist of religion is to say what field of the world they specialize in the sociological study of. I dont think there is any legitimate controversy here at all. There are some people who know very little about academia trying to discredit an academic that is all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

·maunus, I tend to agree with you in that it would be surprising to find an institution that offers phds in "sociology of religion". But that is precisely why we should not claim that Aslan has one! The thing his degree is "in" is a matter of recorded fact at his alma mater, and in the imprint of his thesis. As to your ad hominem references to motives and knowledge, I was a professional academic and I know more than a little about that culture. For example, I earned my PhD in "Computer Science" not "Computer Hardware" or "Parallel Computing" etc, even though informally both of those are correct. I am SIMPLY NOT ENTITLED to claim I have a PhD in anything else other than what my thesis, my degree certificate, and my alma mater say -- in my case "Computer Science". The same applies to Aslan. And I have no interest in crediting or discrediting anyone; my aim is to be an effective encyclopedia editor. So all I care about here is that we're accurate, precise, and following WP's various guidelines.Thomask0 (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is not how it works in other fields, either in theory or in practice. It is entirely possible to be a PhD in the sociology of religion and have a diploma that says Sociology. That is in fact to be expected. It is inaccurate to say that he is a sociologist for example because what he is is a sociologist of religion. And that is the field that his PhD is in, regardless of the fact that he took it in a program that grants degrees in "sociology". By the same token no one would be able to say that they have a Phd in archeology if they took that degree in an anthropology. That would mean that mnost of the US' archeologists are not in fact archeologists but anthropologists since that is what their diplomas say.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Now I am not so sure what to say. His own web site says "PhD in the Sociology of Religions from the University of California, Santa Barbara". [2] Normally we would take his word for it. The university gives Sociology degrees, but I see nothing about a Sociology of Religions degree. [3] Also his BA seems to be in religious studies, not religion. That might be enough to call him a scholar of religious studies, if he wants to call himself that. Roger (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a degree in "sociology of religions" there is a degree in sociology with a speciality in sociology of religions, and it is entirely reasonable to call that "a phd in sociology of religions" or "a phd in sociology". Either is correct.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

·maunus, see my point above. If there is no such thing as a degree in "sociology" then why are we/Aslan claiming that he has one; namely a "PhD in Sociology of Religion"? This specific point is an easy one to handle. Someone just needs to find a copy of Aslan's thesis, or call up the University. and ask the question. But the answer will be one or the other, and this article needs to respect that. It is simply factually wrong to say that "either is correct".Thomask0 (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to start reading a bit more carefully, there is degrees in sociology, but not in sociology of religion. The "of religion" describes his speciality with in sociology, it is not an independent field. When I finish my degree my diploma will say "PhD in anthropology" but I will be entirely able to say that I have a degree in "linguistic anthropology" because that is the field of anthropology that I specialize in. Someone who has a diploma in Physics can also say that he has a degree in quantum physics if thats their field of specialization. Or someone who has a phd in cognitive science can say that they have a degree in "neural networks", if that is their topic of specialization. This is something any academic would know, and really is not weird or controversial at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You are simply and fundamentally wrong. Degree names have legal force, and their bearers cannot mess around with them willy nilly. They are similar to terms like "Engineer" which is also legally protected in many areas. You could claim *informally* that "I did my PhD in linguistic anthropology" but you cannot and must not claim that you have a "PhD in Linguistic Anthropology". Aslan simply does not have a "PhD in Sociology of Religion" and to say otherwise is at best to make an error, and at worst to commit fraud.Thomask0 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

RogerI think you were right the first time. Since this is a controversial point (Google for it) it is certainly not appropriate to rely (solely) on Aslan's own site. And on something as public in nature as a PhD, we certainly wouldn't just take the person's word for it. That's what a PhD is: a *public* declaration by a University that the person concerned has been admitted to the degree. On the scholarship thing, the primary issue is what is Aslan *now*, since the claim is, implicitly, that he is a scholar now. I *used to be* a scholar of computer science -- I have a PhD, extensive experience, and peer-reviewed papers to show. But that was several years ago. I am *now* a businessman and no longer do very much work in CompSci. If I asserted that I was a CompSci scholar *now*, real scholars would rightly ridicule me. And, related, despite being a businessman, I *do* spend a lot of my spare time studying religion and philosophy, maybe as much as, if not more, than Aslan does. But that's irrelevant to whether I get to be called a scholar of religion. I don't, because I am not publishing in peer reviewed journals, collaborating with other scholars, etc, and have not done anything that would allow those other failings to be overlooked. As far as I can see, the same thing applies to Aslan. Thomask0 (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That is an amazingly absurd thing to claim. Aslan has a Phd in the sociological study of religion and he has published several books about religion. So no, you, a computer scientist with no professional background in the study of religion, do not "maybe study religion more than he does" for fucks sake, this is getting ridiculous.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the link to Resa Aslan's dissertation: http://gradworks.umi.com/33/85/3385753.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.19.29.249 (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2015

He grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area.  

2601:445:104:4400:51C5:2237:6516:762C (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Praise

I think this should have a praise section, as there is much support for him from a wide variety of individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.60.128.202 (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If anything, the criticism section should be bigger and more in depth. The man is an obvious panderer of misinformation. He repeatedly misrepresents his credentials and lies about information regarding Islam.

I just want to cite his interview with Krista Tippett from the radio show/podcast, On Being.

References

Done Stickee (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Miami book fair

The Miami book fair image looks a bit silly, does anyone have an alternate photo? Binaryhazard (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

FrontPage

@Federicofuentes: I'm not reverting you yet, but your source is unacceptable and the fig-leaf of "it's just an opinion" that sometimes allows subpar content into biographies of living people is undermined by your claims about Rafizadeh's alleged expertise. Rafizadeh does not appear to be an academic in any significant capacity, and regardless, if his views on Aslan mattered he would be able to find a real venue to publish them in, not FrontPage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I agree with you saying that FrontPage Magazine is really not the ideal place to publish. But, despite being far-right wing, it unfortunately is a "real" venue - a very opinionated one I recognize. Fox News has a tinge of the same elements and it is being mentioned in the article. Regarding Majid Rafizadeh he is a scholar at Harvard University at the very least as stated here. Just on this evidence alone, he's more "credible" than many other academic sources. Also, he worked as a teacher in religious studies in University of California, Santa Barbara, where Aslan obtained his PhD, giving his opinion even more weight on the matter. Regarding the article itself, I recognize it is very harsh and seems to have a negative opinion of Aslan. However, I only quoted a very limited portion which criticizes Aslan's claim of being a scholar, at least as viewed within the academy. I believe the quoted piece of text is fair and true - Aslan does not have many peer-reviewed journal articles. Finally I place this "evidence" in the Fox News controversy section because it seems the appropriate place to put given that Rafizadeh's article is a response to the Fox News interview. Do you agree? Federicofuentes (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The page you link is written by Rafizadeh himself, it's not exactly going to be modest or refrain from overstating his qualifications. Again, it doesn't matter whether or not it's a response to the Fox interview, because it's not a reliable enough source to use in this article. If Rafizadeh were writing about his own beliefs, then it might be suitable for use in his own article, but it can't be used to write about someone else. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The Harvard pages are always written by the person itself: yes. However, he does not lie about his qualifications though and he is indeed consulted by various major newspapers and news channels. The man is a "scholar" as considered by Harvard University (otherwise he would not have been given the domain http://scholar.harvard.edu/ by the institution). If he were lying about his qualifications in an official institution webpage he would at the very least get a very harsh reprimand, which makes it very unlikely that he would lie (or even overstate). If it was his personal webpage not associated with the institution that pays him, then I would be more inclined to more blindly accept your point. You have not addressed my point that Fox News has a tinge of the same elements as FrontPage Magazine and it is being quoted here. You continue to label the source as unreliable referring more to FrontPage rather than the author himself, who is the actual source. He is expressing his opinion, but then so are Elizabeth Castelli, Manuel Roig-Franzia, Nora Caplan-Bricker, Tirdad Derakhshani, and David A. Graham which are quoted in this section. As far as I know, with the exception of Elizabeth Castelli, the others are journalists. Isn't the opinion of academics and scholars as important, or even more important, given that the topic in discussion are the academic qualifications of an individual? So, I would say the source of the information, which I repeat is Majid Rafizadeh, not FrontPage (this is simply the venue he used to express that information), is as reputable as the others, especially since he is a scholar and he used to teach in the department (of religious studies) where Reza Aslan took the majority of his courses while doing his PhD (according to his supervisor). I don't think his opinion should be dismissed simply because he chose a "bad" magazine, whereas others' opinions are quoted because they chose a "good" magazine or newspaper. We should judge the authors based on their expertise in the subject in which they are giving their opinion, and according to that criteria I believe Dr. Rafizadeh is a valid source. More importantly, the text I quoted from his article is not even to a large extent his opinion ("Aslan has barely published any papers or articles in peer-reviewed scholarly journals") and I personally did not add this source with the intention of smearing Reza Aslan whatsoever, but because the quoted text is a valid and fair criticism (or even fact) expressed by an expert scholar in the field. Federicofuentes (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, if Rafizadeh's views were important, he would be able to get them published in a reliable source. If he couldn't get those views published in a real source, that demonstrates that they're questionable even beyond the normal standards; if he "chose" FrontPage over a real source, that demonstrates that he has poor judgment. Note that scholar.harvard.edu appears to be for the use of anyone with a Harvard ID, including grad students. It does not mean that he works for Harvard, that Harvard has anything to do with his writings, etc. It's a blog profile that happens to have a harvard.edu web address, and, for whatever it's worth, I can't find anything documenting a Harvard affiliation that isn't written by him. You are not successfully making a case that Rafizadeh's scholarship is so expert and important that we can ignore WP:RS; I can't even find anything that he's published.

Re Fox News, they're obviously pretty low-quality but not as low-quality as FrontPage, if I recall RSN's verdicts correctly. This is something you should already know. More to the point, they're not cited in this article as though they were important or reliable - the controversy over their dumb comments is covered by third-party sources. If the New York Times, etc. suddenly go "look at how stupid Rafizadeh's opinions on Reza Aslan are!" and it blows up into a big thing, then we might also cite Rafizadeh as a primary source in addition to the secondary sources. That's not what happened here.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It is true that Majid Rafizadeh is not a "famous" person and therefore it is hard to find information from third party sources about him. However, all the "reputable" newspapers he has written for do credit him as an expert (see here for example) and haven't seemed to question that he is a scholar that works in Harvard University as published online. His opinion as a scholar I would say is important and very pertinent to the matter at hand, but it seems nothing published in FrontPage Magazine, even if it comes from the American President, will ever satisfy you. I insist we should be looking more at the individual rather than the magazine. Regarding his freedom, he can choose whichever venue to publish he deems appropriate - in this case he had poor judgement I would say. If some other journalist in a reputed newspaper quoted the disputed article would this source suddenly become validated? Having said this, would you be so kind at pointing me at some study or source which classifies newspapers and magazines in order of reputability? I would honestly like to know. Would you be satisfied if the same information (very few peer-reviewed articles by Reza Aslan) came from another source? It seems you are being very protective of what seems to be a very brief and fair criticism that I have added to this section. Federicofuentes (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep pointing to Rafizadeh's own descriptions of himself in online profiles as independent sources that confirm his supposed expert status? Of course he is going to claim he's an expert! Check out Wikipedia's reliable source policy for more information about reliable sourcing. If you have a reliable source which questions R.A.'s qualifications then by all means show it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all I am not claiming independent sources on Rafizadeh. Don't suggest that I have. I have simply remarked that reputable news organizations, like CNN, "haven't seemed to question that he is a scholar" and as far as his description as an author, I don't know (and neither do you) if it was Rafizadeh himself who wrote it or someone in CNN for example. Moreover, I did explicitly mention it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find third party information on a person who is not publicly visible. Having said this, he is an author in many reputable news organizations, and I don't know why you are insisting so vehemently that he is no expert at all. Has he fooled all the mainstream media, including possibly what seems to be his employer, Harvard University? It seems you have a personal problem with Majid Rafizadeh or about his opinions. Otherwise you would apply this same level of rigor with all the authors quoted in this section: Elizabeth Castelli, Manuel Roig-Franzia, Nora Caplan-Bricker, Tirdad Derakhshani, and David A. Graham. Are they all true experts and do you have third party information confirming such a claim? I don't expect a response. I do recognize the article itself is opinionated and so is FrontPage Magazine (I did read the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where some claim that opinion columns can be considered if they are experts in the subject at hand), but I repeat the text I quoted is not opinionated at all and comes from an expert in the field with unique insight into Reza Aslan. It seems you are overprotective of this article and will never consider any information coming from FrontPage magazine alone as reputable information (I would generally agree, but I would find exceptions depending on the author in question such as this case), so I guess I have to make you happy (such is life) and for this reason I will ask you if you to consider this source from a (religious) expert. Is this "good" enough for your standards? It essentially claims the same thing as the quoted text I gave (Aslan has few or no peer-reviewed articles) but in the context of a critique of Aslan's book - not as a response of the Fox News interview. If you deem the new source appropriate, I would agree to delete the disputed source coming from Rafizadeh and published in FrontPage Magazine (which I insist is valid) and put similar comments from the new source under the Criticism section. I can do this myself if you agree with this and you can then check what I have done. Is this satisfactory? Finally, regardless I would appreciate if you don't question Rafizadeh's expertise based on the arguments you have given (which apply to many other "unknown" academics and journalists) out of respect - many major news organizations and myself have not questioned his expertise. If he is indeed not an expert I beg for you to find third party evidence to prove that and perhaps you will convince me as well :) Federicofuentes (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

PS: I just saw you undid my edits with a very inappropriate description calling Majid Rafizadeh a "nobody" and makin some wild claims. This is completely unnecessary and unfair for a person who is quoted by major news organizations as an expert in the matter. Do you have bias in this matter? In any case please read the response above. I want to compromise with you, instead of bullying each other by editing on top of another, but these type of edits do not help in the matter. Federicofuentes (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not looking into the qualifications of Castelli et al. because they have succeeded in being published by a reliable source. What you seem to have been doing is invoking the part of WP:QS/WP:SPS that says that we may make exceptions to our sourcing policy for subject matter experts with a good publication history, but Rafizadeh simply doesn't have the qualifications to justify that kind of exception - no publications whatsoever, no third-party endorsement of his work, etc. The ABC source looks better, because it is a real publishing venue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I have added the criticism on Aslan's expertise on the Criticism section. It seems another user took the liberty of adding a full paragraph on the source by Majid Rafizadeh, but I have nothing to do with this. As to your recurrent claim the Rafizadeh is not an expert (and even a "nobody") I can say that it is false. Your claim that he has no publication history is outright false. He has not written books but he has written in many major and reputed news organizations and he is referred to as an expert by those organizations. That is as much a publication history as you might expect from many reputed journalists who are also considered "experts". Specifically he is referred to by his BBC interviewer as an "award-winning scholar at Harvard University" among many other benevolent characterizations which you can listen here. Additionally, it seems he is getting a second PhD which you can see here and he has an op-ed piece at Yale here. So, as to other users quoting at least part of the Rafizadeh's article I would say it is completely justified on the basis of the author's expertise. However, I leave it to those other users to make those changes if they want. Federicofuentes (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

David Pakman in this Youtube video seems to make well-researched and valid criticism against Aslan, showing that he dishonestly presents his credentials and that he makes obviously false claims regarding female genital mutilation and other issues. I posted I link to this video and it was deleted by Roscelese. Although the title of the video is blunt, the content seems to be very honest, well researched and important to be included in an unbiased article about Aslan. Am I wrong here?--Ortho (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We have to use reliable sources, and even if we had a truly investigative "hit piece" from a reliable source, it would not be appropriate to just toss it in as an external link. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But I don't understand why it isn't a reliable source. It seems to me to fit all the requirements of a reliable source.--Ortho (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The David Pakman show is an opinion show and has essentially no editorial oversight, so don't think it fits the traditional definition of an RS. However, it is a show with a long track record of factual accuracy. This particular piece is clearly put together quite carefully, so think it should be considered certainly as a source for those who are skeptical of Aslan. But certainly in context with other more reliable sources. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Castelli's [ed. Green's] degree

@Lovewhatyoudo: the reference to Castelli's [ed. Green's] music degree remains inappropriate. Do you have a reliable source which comments on this in the context of this issue? Because it seems like you're engaging in WP:SYNTH. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Before my editing, this article only mentions the names of the newspaper of which a specific assertion is published on. On one hand, this is unfair to the author as it seems what they asserts carry weight only because it is published on that particular newspaper; on the other hand, this is unfair to tabloids which have a serious columnist with relevant experience. And most importantly, the creditability of a newspaper does not necessary imply it carries a weight on this particular subject matter, i.e. academic work of a scholar. Therefore I identify the names and the academic backgrounds of each of the individual who wrote that specific article on that newspaper. I have been doing so to everyone who made an assertion, no matter that assertion is dismissing or concurring the academic work of this scholar. I don't understand what the problem is. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the policy I linked? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have a general question on citation policies, not sure if it clashes with WP:SYNTH.
• (1a) When a newspaper publish an article on the first observation of gravitational waves, if the author himself, called him Jones, is actually a professor of particle physics at Harvard but he does not mention it in the article, am I prohibited to mention his academic background?
• (1b) In a documentary about first observation of gravitational waves, the host invites Jones to talk about the issue. The host introduces Jones as "Jones is a respected scientist working in the relevant field." Am I prohibited to mention his specific academic background as a professor of particle physics at Harvard?
• 2) Do we editors have the obligation to make it clear to the readers that a challengeable assertion on a contentious issue quoted in the article is actually stated by a professor of particle physics at Harvard? Or we just leave it as "Jones said..." and leave the readers to find out whether we editors quoted a nobody or not? In particular, when it comes to a challengeable assertion on a contentious work of an academic. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• 1a) We expect that people writing for the news are writing as journalists, even if they got an undergraduate degree in physics. The same principle applies here. GREEN (sorry for the confusion - hopefully it was mitigated by my identifying the issue as the mention of the music degree) isn't an expert on Islam and no one expects her to be because she was interviewing Aslan as a news anchor. What's the relevance of your other two? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• (2) deals with my understanding of WP:SYNTH. The following scenario may be better. Steve contributes a book review which writes "the new book The God Delusion rejects the self-absorbed culture of political correctness". Steve is actually a PhD in religious studies at Yale but he did not mentioned it in the book review. According to WP:SYNTH, when I quote, I shall leave it as " Steve says the book The God Delusion..." rather than "Steve, a PhD in religion at Yale, says the book The God Delusion...". If readers doubt Steve is just a nobody, they themselves shall figure out what credentials Steve has to comment on this subject matter. We editors are not obliged to make this clear to the reader at the first place that what rationale we have to quote this particular person on this subject matter. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Generally if someone isn't actually employed by the journalistic outlet and is contributing an op-ed or review as a specialist, that is something that will be mentioned. Just like in the endnote to Castelli's Nation piece, or Keddie's review in the Washington Post! Green, whatever her degree, had been working for Fox for nearly twenty years at the time of this interview, and as a journalist elsewhere before. Bringing up her bachelor's degree to attempt to make implications about her comments is synth. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of New Atheists - A hit piece??

Grammar aside, this paragraph is non-encyclopedic. The entire purpose of this paragraph appears to be to assert contentious views held by Aslan about other public figures as true, when they are demonstrably dubious at best. Sam Harris in particular, like him or hate him, has spent a considerable portion of his life studying religions and has written several well researched and referenced books on the subject. This really needs to be changed, may I suggest the following as a minimum:

In 2014, Aslan was interviewed by New York's Jesse Singal on his response to the recent intense criticism of Islam by the New Atheists. In the interview Aslan criticizes what he calls the "armchair atheism" of atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, whom Aslan claims have no background in the study of religion and are unable to effectively comment on how it shapes human behavior. He goes on to contrast their philosophy with what he calls the "philosophical atheism" of earlier thinkers whom he claims "were experts in religion, and so they were able to offer critiques of it that came from a place of knowledge, from a sophistication of education, of research."[27]

Ironically Sam Harris has a degree in philosophy, and it would not be unreasonable to classify him as an expert on religion. Of course, both Reza and the original author of this article know this. This paragraph is basically a hit piece and should in my opinion be removed completely.

Oscil8 (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing edits

I added some more info and sourced it. This was more challenging than usual because a lot of the background info that appears online with Aslan's interviews seems to be copied from a canned speaker bio, which may not be up to date. For example, the bios all say he's an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but I can only find activity related to him on the CFR site from 2012-2013. As a result, I just used those dates, and marked that I need a source. There's also controversy about his PhD. It's listed as being in Sociology, but I found several sources that say it was actually Sociology of Religion. Since Aslan's academic background is a point of contention in many of the criticisms, it was important to clarify this with a source. Also, I'm not thrilled with how the non-linear history and organization info is lumped together, so I'll see what I can do to improve this going forward. User:Mcsketchy seems to have been going down a similar path, but since his info wasn't sourced I jumped in. Hopefully I didn't step on his toes.Timtempleton (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Blanking

@Mcsketchy: why did you blank this content? [4] Please restore it at once. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Restored content, deleted before understanding the whole page revision. Article revision is currently in process. Mcsketchy (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mcsketchy: - I looked at your edits that were reverted, and tried to add them back but this time with proper sources. It's fairly time-consuming finding proper sources - see my other comment on this talk page. I have some ideas for fixing the rest of the article and just wanted to make sure we weren't stepping on each other's toes. What other revisions are you planning?Timtempleton (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The persistent problem is that Aslan's side activities as a TV producer simply seem to be inconsequential compared to his status as a public intellectual. They are not lede-worthy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2016

The article currently contains no criticism of Mr. Aslan, notwithstanding several published commentaries critical of his views. In the interest of balance, this article should feature a section dedicated to criticism of Mr. Aslan (as opposed to only featuring his criticism of others), which may remark on his interpretation of Islam, his views on female genital mutilation and its prevalence in the Middle East, and the veracity of his claimed academic credentials. The absence of any such commentary calls into question the objectivity of this article.

Andrewwilmont99 (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)