Talk:Zakir Naik/New Version

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zakir Naik/New Version article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Note:Let's discuss changes to Zakir Naik here

Contents 1 Secondary sources 2 Tidiness 3 Uploaded Picture 4 Ali Sina 5 Pseudohistory 6 no independent sources

[edit] Secondary sources

I'm very uncomfortable with the relative dearth of secondary sources. I don't doubt that the characterization of his views here is mostly accurate, but we might also be encouraging Naik supporters to re-add their blinkered nonsense under the same criteria.Proabivouac 08:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a sandbox, not an actual article. it is still work in progress. See my edit summary. Rumpelstiltskin223 09:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should nominate this biased sandbox for deletion (joke). Arrow740 09:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The article Zakir Naik has been protected to facilitate edits in this special sandbox. Why not use this situation to all our advantage and work to build a good article here? Rumpelstiltskin223 09:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear friends, anyone wanting to contribute should of course do so, but let me voice my skepticism; the way this stub is developing, we will have the same confused, chaotic article back again in no time.

On the other hand, there are almost no reasoned opinions on Naik's work, except the propaganda from dawah sites and the attacks from anti-Muslim sources. So, we should probably try to keep the article as short as possible.Giordaano 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

True, I was watching Peace TV and in the introduction to Dr. Naik on their promotional segments on the programmes to be aired, (in fact also in the introductions to Dr. Naik IN the actual programmes) they mention he is 'well learned' and educated in the Christian and Hindu scriptures. Unfortunately his bio-data on the IRF webpage doesn't seem to mention any such education, only an interest in it. If any future segment on his education and vocational qualification is included in the article, I suggest having clear references to his education else not include speculation. Apermal 11:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tidiness

I have attempted to clean the article up a bit as well as adding some information about his education. I have put the information regarding his talks into Career and I hope someone could help clean that up as well as adding relevant (and I mean relevant otherwise it would be messed up again) information. Hshiwani 14:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: Changed Career to Works Hshiwani 14:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uploaded Picture

Could someone help me determine the copyright status of the picture? Hshiwani 14:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Sina

While I agree that he is not a known scholar and biased, should we not include his opinions? The reason why this would not be a bad idea is because a criticism section is sorely lacking, and a simple interwiki to Ali Sina's article will expose the reader to Sina's POV's so there is no possibility for erroneous judgement. The only issue is one if Sina's WP:Notability (since we do not even know who he is really). However, Sina claims that he hides his identity to avoid death threats from Islamists so that has to be taken into account. What are the opinions oif the regular editors to this article? Rumpelstiltskin223 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The very last thing we need is another "debate" type article of the type Naik says, however critics say, Naik responds...Frankly, I think Mr. Naik will look silly enough on his own if his views are merely presented without argument, but that is only my opinion. The way to stop it from being an advertisement for the IRF is not to counter it with original argument from the other side, but to remove material statements of fact sourced only to the IRF. The IRF should only be used to quote Naik himself, and briefly. What are needed are secondary sources about Naik. Ali Sina is notable, but not reliable. I believe an appropriately brief quote attributed to Ali Sina would be appropriate, in addition to other sourced opinions.Proabivouac 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Proabivouac.--Sefringle 05:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudohistory

Should we cat this article under Category:Pseudohistory as well? Since he claims this absurd thing about Muhammad being predicted in Hindu scripture (written in the past), clearly a baseless claim not backed up by a single scholar (religious or academic) on Islam or Hinduism. Rumpelstiltskin223 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether his research is backed up by other scholars is besides the point. The question is more about the depth and validity of his own research and how it has been carried out. I am not supporting Naik or opposing him, but I think it is irrelevant whether you think what he says is absurd or not. Aslamt 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us not fill the next version with off-topic arguments, as this is not a forum for religious debate.Proabivouac 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no independent sources

There are exactly Zero Independent Reliable Sources. From the notes:

1. is a subpage of the islamic Research Foundation.
2. is also a subpage. of that cite. It mentions 3 books, all self-publlished by that foundation
3. and
4. are both the main page for the foundation.
5. is listed on geocities only, and has not even yet appeared.

Of the external links

1. is his personal official website. (and at the moment the link is dead)
2. and
3. are two branches of the IRF.

At this point, not only have his accomplishments not been documented, neither has his existence. DGG 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed several sections which read like advertisements for the Naik's Islamic Research Foundation, and are sourced only thereto.Proabivouac 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Naik's page, in my opinion, should consist of two elements only :

- a short bio (avoiding expressions such as "world famous,convincing" etc, as well as the list of all the countries he visited, or of the gold plaques he received from other Islamic proselityzers, etc etc)

- a link to the IRF, where any person interested in his views can find them reported in lavish detail

All the rest is deeply partisan material, and should not be quoted as such, or the page will start again looking like a debating arena

In my view Naik's opinions, as can be read on IRF, do not need comments : his supporters will love them, and his opponents will think that they look ridiculous enough without any comment.

All the bestGiordaano 09:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)