Jump to content

Talk:Reza Aslan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thomask0 (talk | contribs) at 01:44, 20 May 2015 (→‎Aslan is not a "scholar of religious studies"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

Sourcing of Criticism

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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.[1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
By "the proposed wording" I meant your wording. I was agreeing with you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Duh! :-) I read "proposed" as "existing". Apologies. Thomask0 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  1. ^ "ABOUT". Reza Aslan.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reza_Aslan&oldid=663183267"