Talk:Reza Aslan

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". [1] Normally we would take his word for it. The university gives Sociology degrees, but I see nothing about a Sociology of Religions degree. [2] 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)

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)

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)

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)