Talk:Reza Aslan/Archive 2

Aslan on Ahmadinejad
Aslan's analysis on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Is this poorly sourced? Should Aslan's analysis on Ahmadinejad be added to his page? Azarbarzin (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"In an article published on January 13th, 2011 in The_Atlantic, Aslam claimed that those who oppose the Mullahs' rule, yearn for greater social and political freedoms for the Iranian people, and envision an Iran that draws inspiration from the glories of its Persian past, have more in common with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ' Two years later, in another article published in Foreign Policy, he added that no president in the history of the Islamic Republic has so openly challenged the ruling religious hierarchy. Aslan wrote that once President Ahmadinejad is gone, there’ll be no one left to stand up to Iran's mullahs. '"


 * No, a reliable secondary source would need to take note of this. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * - thank you for your input- are these reliable secondary sources?:

http://www.cfr.org/iran/atlantic-do-we-have-ahmadinejad-all-wrong/p23807 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omid-memarian/reading-ahmadinejad-via-w_b_815917.html?utm_hp_ref=mahmoud-ahmadinejad

- Azarbarzin (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The second one is at least consistent with our sourcing guidelines (the former is not, because, again, it is by Aslan, you need to read these policies), but I think it's ultimately more about Ahmadinejad than about, as you claim, Aslan's feelings about Ahmadinejad. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The title I used was "On Ahmadinejad" - the phrase "feelings about Ahmadinejad" was never used by me. You need to pay closer attention to what other editors write -- the articles you have deleted are in Aslan's edit history, including your comment "this gets more and more ridiculous "

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reza_Aslan&action=history

Azarbarzin (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What a weird attempt at a threat. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * My sincere intention has been to resolve this edit war. I am not into threats. What's odd is deleting corroborated facts by you on Aslan's page, i.e. him being on the advisory committee of NIAC - you may consider that membership as ridiculous or threatening also. Let's make a genuine attempt to resolve this without accusations - Cheers :)

https://www.niacouncil.org/about-niac/staff-board/

https://www.niacouncil.org/?s=reza+aslan

Azarbarzin (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Include Summoned by bot. I see no problem with utilizing this passage, but at shorter length. Coretheapple (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Improve, don't include as is. Summoned by bot. The proposed language isn't really encyclopedic, as each sentence is just summarizing one opinion piece Aslan has written. This makes it either 1) a catalog of his writings, which is too much detail and repetitive, or 2) an analysis of the individual writings, which is primary research and an WP:NOR issue, as I think has been argued above. I would look for something more like: "Aslan has argued for a reappraisal of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, claiming that material released by Wikileaks shows him to be more of a reformer than his public persona would indicate." and include the Huffington Post cite (adding the others doesn't hurt). (As an aside, right now, a lot of the article seems like it is the former: a long collection of sentences, each one summarizing a single source about the subject.)  Chris vLS (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No A reliable secondary source is needed to ensure that editors are not cherry picking factoids to present some point of view. The Huffington Post article is not an analysis of Aslan's writings but is a response to claims about Ahmadinejad—the article is about Ahmadinejad, not Aslan. Re "no problem" above, the issue is that once people start adding what they think are choice bits, there is no end to the original research. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kindly mention a few reliable secondary sources pertaining Aslan's views on Ahmadinejad - what factoid was used in Huffington Post to present a point of view? Azarbarzin (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That does not make sense—this is an RfC about a particular proposal, and my use of "factoid" was not related to the Huffington Post. The two factoids are in the RfC proposal which is to add text of the form "In 2011 Aslan said X, and two years later Aslan said Y" where X and Y were selected by an editor as somehow indicative of Aslan's views. That is known as original research. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Whether you like the information or not, the argument that we need people covering his opinions above and beyond his own writing just doesn't hold water right now. Pretty huge chunks of the article currently are sourced to Aslan himself, without meeting this requirement. So if there isn't a better argument than that, then we should probably consider either including the content in some form, or removing content sourced to Aslan himself if secondary coverage can't be found. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

National Iranian American Council
For anyone who's interested, there was a fairly lengthy discussion about this article on my talk page, which I've closed since it became pretty keenly focused on article content, and a user talk is probably not the best place for that.

I have added a short section on his affiliation with the NIAC, and here's my reasoning on the whole thing:


 * He does in fact appear to be a member, and I don't think anyone is really disputing that.
 * As an academic in the field, and obviously, as a publicly active member of this advisory board, presumably this is not a fact that the subject would be ashamed of.
 * The source from The Algemeiner, while it may not be particularly reliable for facts as to whether the deal is overall a good or bad thing for US foreign relations, for the purpose of this article, we don't really care. This isn't the main article either on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or Iran–United States relations, which is where a discussion on those topics should probably take place, if at all. This is the biography on Aslan, and the source does show that his membership and activity in the group has gotten some attention by someone, and rises to some level of some public importance beyond being a mere fact.
 * We are however, not going to add any digression into past controversy regarding the NIAC, because the NAIC is not the subject of this article. Things seem fairly well covered over at National Iranian American Council, and if that coverage needs improvement, it should happen on that article, and not here. If readers want to learn more about the NIAC, they can follow the wikilink and read to their heart's content.

As always, anyone can feel free to revert the addition if they think my rationale isn't sufficient, and we can discuss it further, hopefully, in a civil rational manner. Timothy Joseph Wood 13:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have also added a second reference from the Chicago Monitor, which, as far as I can tell, is likely a pro-Arab pro-Islamic leaning publication, which seems like a fair counterweight to the Algemeiner sources. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Citation Required
What do you mean citation required for his connection to Council on Foreign Relations? That is deceptive claim when the citation is readily available on the internet. It is outright cheating in order to hide his connections to a group affiliated with the CIA. Here is the citation: http://www.cfr.org/content/bios/Aslan_Bio_Dec12.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.199.121 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Believer Controversy
May I suggest a little more material be added on the ongoing controversy concerning the portrayal of Hindus by Azlan on his CNN show? The current material is too little and devoid of context. I'm adding some links below to demonstrate notability, and an established editor can add a few sentences accordingly.2405:205:640C:71CE:8D55:D718:6E38:88EA (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments
Should Reza_Aslan include the following: The Hindu American Foundation has issued an official statement denying any "endorsement or approval" for the show, as claimed by Aslan in his Facebook Post and requesting him to "stop misrepresenting the extent of this one meeting". NPalgan2 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

!VOTES

 * No per WP:BLPSPS. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No The views of the Hindu American Foundation belong on their article. If a reliable secondary source has an analysis of the situation, the views of the secondary source may warrant inclusion. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm aware that this RfC is occurring, but I'm not going to !vote since I apparently am involved in a content dispute related to the originator on another article, and I will not give the impression that we are going quid pro quo on content disputes, because we're not. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No. The spat between the HAF and Aslan over who claimed what over support goes on HAF's page and would be WP:UNDUE here. Secondary sources exist which note that HAF has criticized Aslan, which would fit well on this article, and that's enough. Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Summoned by bot. Self-published sources not allowed in BLPs for that kind of text. Full stop. Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No per WP:BLPSPS.LM2000 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No summoned by bot. And for the record, I read this guy's babblings abotu Jesus, and consider them that. L3X1 (distant write)  14:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"Public intellectual" description
"Public intellectual" is subjective and no source is provided indicating he is indeed a "public intellectual." In the absence of sources, he certainly doesn't appear as a "public intellectual" spouting profane epithets towards the US president and others. When I think of intellectuals, indecent and profane epithets such as ‘piece of sh*t, f*ck those moms, go f*ck yourself,' etc, doesn't come to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.156.252 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Position on Israel and Jews?
What is frequently missing from discussion about defenders of Islam is their position on Israel, Jews, and BDS. It would be useful if Aslan's positions on these topics were included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.67.239 (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you been able to find any reliable third-party sources that mention Aslan's views on such matters? MPS1992 (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Pakman criticism
We need to weight the focus we give to each critic according to its importance and their prominence; it's clearly WP:UNDUE to devote an entire paragraph to quoting Pakman so extensively, when other critics are given a sentence or two at most. Why, basically, do you think Pakman's opinions deserve so much focus in this article? --Aquillion (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

"Sociology of religions" is factually incorrect & duplicate citations.
There are multiple citations to the 'fact' that Reza Aslan has a phd in 'sociology of religions', however these all seem to link back to the bio page on his DREW UNIVERSITY page.

Mark Juergensmeyer, Aslans graduate adviser has stated that UC Santa Barbara does *not* have a degree in the 'sociology of religions' only a regular 'sociology' course. It does not matter that the 'TOPIC' of his doctorate was focusing on religion - the fact remains that he only has a phd in sociology.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/reza-aslan-a-jesus-scholar-whos-hard-to-pin-down/2013/08/08/2b6eee80-002b-11e3-9a3e-916de805f65d_story.html - here is my source, citing his adviser clearly.
 * If I were hiring someone for a position in the sociology of religions, and their dissertation was on the sociology of religions, it wouldn't matter if they had a creative writing Ph.D. or an economics Ph.D. as long as they were focused on the area and they could publish peer reviewed articles on the subject. The problem here, though, is that he did not publish peer reviewed articles on the subject. He publishes mass-market books, which while valid for a creative writing instructor is NOT something that indicates someone is a valid contributor, nor a legitimate thought leader, on the sociology of religions. When he says something like 'my job is to study the sociology of religions' he is implying he is a sociologist of religions and that, as such an academic, his work stems from a lifetime of disciplined scholarship that is being translated into a book. The fact, however, is that he's a creative writing professor and his work is much more about how to write interesting novels for public consumption than it is building on a life of hard-fought scholarship. 69.166.35.218 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe this should be added to the article and the redundant 'citations' given which all link back to the same page removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.116.71 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed this the one time this is mentioned without full details. The "2013 Fox News interview" section gives greater detail into his claim, including an extended quote from Mark Juergensmeyer.LM2000 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Suggestion
It seems that since "God:A Human History" has been out over a year, and there are multiple articles from reliable sources on it, it would make sense to add it to the book list on this page, and either add it to the list of "three books on religion:" in the Introduction, or leave off the list and simply change the number to "four."

But since the page is semi-protected, I thought it best to suggest the edit rather than just doing it myself. I think the links below have enough information to write a brief synopsis of the book's central themes, and the spectrum of views on the book. The Publisher's Weekly article is fairly NPOV and just informative, while the Washington Post review is a bit more praising and the NY Times article is a bit more critical.

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/75027-author-reza-aslan-questions-the-origins-of-god.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-we-made-god-in-our-own-image/2017/11/16/94df18ee-bd7e-11e7-8444-a0d4f04b89eb_story.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/books/review/reza-aslans-god-a-human-history.html

CleverTitania (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Controversies
Aslan was accused of Hinduphobia and mischaracterizing Hindus by the U.S. India Political Action Committee and U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for a 2017 episode of his CNN television series, "Believer," on which he consumed cooked human brains with a Hindu sect.

Aslan responded to President Donald Trump's tweet regarding a June 4, 2017, terrorist attack in London in which 7 people were killed and 48 wounded stating, "We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!", with a tweet of his own.

"This piece of shit is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He's an embarrassment to humankind."

Put this up Allanana79 (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Since there's so much controversy surrounding Aslan, I suggest that we make a whole new section called "Controvery", where it would be possible to expand on what has already been mentioned in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc nyregrus (talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles are based on reliable sources and are not a place to accumulate ephemeral excitement. See WP:Criticism. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A controversy section would be inappropriate per Johnuniq's comments above. Reliably sourced commentary on Believer and his other works are fine in their respective sections but a separate section devoted only to tearing him apart wouldn't be policy compliant.LM2000 (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A controversy section wouldn't be about tearing him apart. The neutral tone of Wikipedia should be used here as well, but since there are so many topics that could be included, in my opinion they should be addressed, and preferably in one section rather than be spread out. Some examples are the comments about Trump, Aslan's denial of Palestine's use of human shields, as well as the other sources that have criticized Aslan or show him to lie or misrepresent, whether deliberate or not. So, it shouldn't be a smear campaign at all, but his Wikipedia page now looks like he's a clean and well-respected figure (which he obviously is for certain matters), and a controversy section would balance it out. Mc nyregrus (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, see WP:CRITICISM (and WP:BLP + WP:DUE.) If you have reliable sources for those things, they should be addressed, ideally, in the appropriate places in the article - for instance, commentary on one of his books or shows belongs in the section for that book or show.  Creating one section as an indiscriminate dumping ground for everything bad anyone ever said about the article's subject is, usually, considered to be a bad choice stylistically; and per WP:BLP we have to evaluate who is making each criticism (and where it's published) in deciding whether it's appropriate to cover in the article and, if so, at what weight. --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I also don't really think that the article portrays him in a totally positive light. Most of the Believer section describes the controversy with his portrayal of Hinduism; we also detail his firing from CNN for the Trump tweets, as well as challenges to claims he made in interviews on Fox News and CNN. I think that's fine per WP:NPOV, but at some point too much criticism does become a problem.LM2000 (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This page is notable due to its complete and very obvious sanitisation of Aslan’s controversies. There’s acres of national media coverage of them, so put them in. Fig (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Remarks about President Trump Under Business Ventures
Why is the part about his remarks about President Trump under the business ventures section? That doesn't seem to make very much sense. DiscoStu42 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2020
The tweets regarding Nicholas Sandman are a notable part of Aslan's pubic voice, and need to be included in this article. 100.40.31.73 (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)