User:Agnistus/Zakir Naik Discussion

Article is still disputed.
Several sections of this article added by ISKapoo, Vikramsingh were regularly removed/censored by ITAQALLAH and others (see, , e.t.c.). This article is still in dispute, please do not remove the tag until all the disputes involving this article are resolved. If you wish to know what is in dispute read the talk page. You will find a very long discussion there are realize that the recent inactivity was due to several persons (including ISKapoo & Vikramsingh) giving up any hope of maintaining a balanced viewpoint due to the constant censorship of ITAQALLAH and others. Agnistus (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you understand the tags you've put up? There is clearly no controversial or unsourced content in the article that blpdispute alludes to. This looks more like a heap of tags just to say you don't like the article as it stands. Neither you nor your colleagues have given any detailed reason why the removal of crankish, poorly sourced, fringe material contravenes WP:NPOV, and how the material isn't in violation of WP:BLP (whereas I have shown it is). ITAQALLAH   13:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop vandalizing this article by removing the tags. Your behavior has become a burden on most wikipedians. - Agnistus (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please demonstrate that you understand the issues at hand and are not merely placing tags so as to register your personal grievances with the page. You can do so by actually explaining how the tags are justified and how the fringe material removed doesn't violate core content policies. ITAQALLAH   19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Agnistus has claimed the neutrality of this article is disputed. That is legitimate. Now, I'd like to now what is it in the article that Agnistis finds to be a violation of WP:POV. I advise Itaqallah to give the user 24 hours (or the next time he signs on, whichever is earlier) to produce his/her reasons for placing the tag. Thank you Agnistus for your anticipated cooperation.Bless sins (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear ITAQALLAH , you do not know that the article is disputed? "crankish, poorly sourced, fringe material" ???. The statements by Zakir Naik on the rights on non-muslims were properly sourced material of much importance to the article(to maintain a balanced viewpoint). You have repeatedly and continously indulged in deletion of this material. Your actions have constituted a blatant violation of WP:BLP. Read the 50-page long talk page and you will understand the reasons for the disputed status. You are probably blind to this gross censorship since you yourself were the censor. Until and unless a fully balanced viewpoint is presented (ofcourse in compliance with WP:BLP) in the article, the tag cannot be removed. BTW Bless sins (talk), there is absolutely no necessity for a 24-hour window, as it is perfectly clear to any Non-Islamic fundamentalist from the talk page that this article is totally disputed. And if you (ITAQALLAH) still feel the material that you censored was "crankish, poorly sourced, fringe material", then please visit: , ; and please read the articles on Zakir Naik in ,  and . - Agnistus (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, I can only gather from your response that you have little basis in policy for inserting your tendentious unreliable material or what amounts to a pointish protest tag. Youtube.com isn't a reliable source; wikiislam and faithfreedom.org are unreliable polemical websites which cannot be considered as reliable sources on any topic, let alone a living person. Perhaps you have missed Biographies of living persons, WP:RS, WP:V, but your objection seems to be that your own personal perspective is not copiously represented. ITAQALLAH   20:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me how videos of Zakir Naik on Youtube.com are not reliable? Do you think some video artist carefully crafted those videos and put it up there? Only an idiot would think so. SO please don't play the fool. I have read WP:BLP, and your censorship is in violation of it. I kindly request you to stop your vandalism. - Agnistus (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, if you've read the policies, can you please explain how youtube.com is a third-party independent reliable source? It is in fact a public video sharing website - and videos of Naik on there are primary sources. Who says Zakir Naik's views on non-Muslims or tropical weather or space travel are important? It's third party independent (i.e. secondary) reliable sources which decide that, by deeming it worthy of substantial coverage - and not you. You claim to be familiar with content policies, so you must surely know of these specifications:
 * Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. (WP:BLP, see also WP:HARM)
 * Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. (WP:BLP)
 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves .(WP:RS)
 * What part of these comments do you have difficulty understanding? Instead of making personal attacks and vague protests about bias and censorship, why don't you establish which view that is covered significantly in reliable sources has not been represented, and explain how policy justifies the inclusion of this defamatory, unencyclopedic material? ITAQALLAH   12:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems you have not read my reply to your previous post properly. I have given there both first-party and third-party sources. Youtube videos are valuable verifiable checkpoints for his perverted views. But there are also various third-party sources that have commented on his nonsense. For instance Wikiislam and FII, . These are just a few out of many commentaries made on his crappy beliefs. If you need more proof just google 'zakir naik'. Even without these third-party sources, Youtube's videos have sufficient POV weight age and can be treated as a reliable source. I hope you stop your vandalism/censorship. - Agnistus (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And it seems you have not read my replies properly either, in which I state that Wikiislam, faithfreedom, youtube etc. do not constitute third party reliable sources. You have failed to explain how these sources meet WP:RS or WP:BLP (which they don't). ITAQALLAH   19:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second User:Itaqallah's opinion of Wikiislam and faithfreedom's failure to meet the reliable sources' standard for Wikipedia. Websites like these are purely POV and thus do not qualify as reference material in an encyclopedia. I'd rather paint them as well as websites like answeringchristianity, answeringislam, answeringhinduism, thepurebeacon etc. with the same brush when it comes to Wikipedia. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur too.Bless sins (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've flagged this dispute at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (WP:BLPN) for further examination and discussion by previously uninvolved parties. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly you lack proper understanding of English. I believe I have repeated sufficient times for any person who does not suffer serious brain-damage or brain-washing by fundamentalist thinkers will be able realize that this article has seriously censored, cut down until what was a much longer article is now so short and puts Zakir in extremely positive light.
 * If you need more verification take a look at the links provided in other parts of this talk page. Various editors whose content who you forcibly and adamantly removed, have several times provided you with links to various websites (3rd party in conformance to WP:BLP) justifying their content.
 * Continuing this revert war, trying to remove a tiny little tag that warns innocent readers about your censorship constitutes vandalism - Agnistus (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, considering the quite shocking vulgarity in your comment, this is the only warning I am to give you about personal attacks and defaming living people. You have in fact repeatedly attacked me personally and I have continually ignored it, so be under no illusion that I might continue to tolerate your verbal abuse.
 * You have persistently failed to show how any of the sources meet the criteria specified in WP:BLP and WP:RS, which I have already spelled out to you. Until you do so, there is really nothing to discuss here. ITAQALLAH   18:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You have on the other hand persistently continued to censor this article (among many others) making you one of the most hated editors of Wikipedia. If you continue removing the POV tag despite all the reasons I have given you (several times) it will not be tolerated. In fact, I am giving you a warning to stop vandalizing Wikipedia. - Agnistus (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this article is so biased and presents a woefully incomplete biography of Zakir Naik, I believe it is best that this article be deleted. - Agnistus (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, you haven't given a single policy-based reason why your defamatory material should have been included. Neither did you ever try to respond to the policies I cited, and quoted for your convenience. All you have done on the talk page is assume bad faith, make personal attacks against others, and attack Zakir Naik. In the light of this, I cannot see how the tag fulfills any purpose other than a pointish protest. ITAQALLAH   11:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Article should be deleted.
Since this article is so hotly disputed and so severely censored, I believe it is best that this article be deleted. - Agnistus (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The following concern has been put forth for deletion: This article presents a highly biased Biography of a Living Person (BLP). It has been victim to constant censorship and/or content removal. Several editors have consistently indulged in removal of parts and sections of this article that they personally dislike. As such this article is lopsided and lacks neutrality. In an extreme case of censorship, some authors have taken up a revert war over the removal of a POV tag that was inserted signifying the disputed state of the article. - Agnistus (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's actually not "so hotly disputed" - it's pretty clear to everyone that unencyclopedic material sourced to fringe websites on a BLP is unacceptable, and to pointedly tag the article because you're not getting your way is inappropriate. Perhaps you should have read the deletion policy before prodding. ITAQALLAH   11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed the PROD is inappropriate, since only test is notability which seems clear. Now what's the problem with the article? --BozMo talk 11:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In short, Agnistus wanted to insert this material into the article, which I oppose on the basis that it is inappropriately sourced for a BLP, negatively slanted, and unduly focusing on one or two opinions of Naik. It also includes the reinsertion of a criticism section, though the content is already in the article - just without the heading. Agnistus then placed a series of tags on the article (now insists on just the POV tag), but on the talk page never explains in detail how the content is in accordance with policy, and ignores any policies that I may cite. Instead he just repeats that the article is disputed, that it's being heavily censored and vandalised, all of which is interspersed with personal attacks against myself, and Naik ('... his crappy beliefs ...', 'voh sala kutta behn chod' - which I will not translate) ITAQALLAH   12:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Chill. There was a degree of repetition in the edits as well. As they stood they are no good but can we salvage any material from them? --BozMo talk 13:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly why this article should be deleted


 * Since some editors have deplorable difficulty understanding (eg. ITAQALLAH  laments "but on the talk page never explains in detail how the content is in accordance with policy, and ignores any policies that I may cite") why this article deserves to be deleted, I will once more explain now being very precise and exact so that you may be cleared of all doubts.


 * The article (in its post-censorsed state) is in violation of WP:BLP.
 * Let me quote from it:


 * Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:


 * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * Verifiability
 * No original research


 * This article violates requirement number One: Neutral point of view (NPOV)


 * Now for some editors (like those blockheads who childishly colour  their usernames) who will have difficulty comprehending how on earth this article violates NPOV (owing to their idiocy, which I hope Eugenics will fix one day) let me quote section 2.5 from the NPOV page:


 * Balance


 * When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.


 * It says "describe the opposing viewpoints". And where does this article do that ??? Rather than describe describe the opposing viewpoints, it suppresses opposing viewpoints. This is why the article is biased, censorsed and therefore must be deleted.


 * I will be re-inserting the PROD tag in 24 hours if no one can come up with an argument that justifies having a biased viewpoint or can explain why and how the "describe the opposing viewpoints" requirement is insignificant enough to be ignored. - Agnistus (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the above given proof amount to more that sufficient reason for having the POV tag. - Agnistus (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Article must be balanced.
In order to maintain encyclopedic standards, this article must present a neutral and balanced viewpoint to its readers. As of now the article has undergone continual whitewashing by editors who feel content that is "apparently unsavoury" to them can be removed without reaching a full consensus. The most oft-cited reason for removing this content has been an alleged violation of WP:BLP. It seems editors have made his/her own interpretation of WP:BLP that can twisted to fit in with their personal beliefs. I believe it is best to discuss thoroughly issues such as complaince to WP:BLP and reliability of sources, e.t.c. and include material that ought to be included. - Agnistus (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First I would like to start with Zakir Naik's statement regarding Death to Apostates. Zakir Naik believes (that according to Islam) a person who leaves Islam must be executed. This is an important viewpoint from a renown Islamic scholar, thus this opinion must be included in the article. Although this statement was there in the article it was removed by certain editors kept on insisting that the sources were not reliable. I would therefore like to list a series of sources that confirm this statement was made. Please view, , , or  to see him saying this live on television. You can also get videos of his lectures in India/Pakistan. Various articles have been written on it and there are several web pages discussing it ( just to list a few ,  ). Thus there is no doubt on the importance of this statement given how thoroughly it has been discussed by people all over India and elsewhere. Furthermore since the statement was made on television, so I do nor see a problem with reliability of sources. Editors who disagree should explain why they disagree before removing related content from the article. - Agnistus (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please just move forward thoughtfully. 1) You have to address the problem of undue weight. If this was important then you should be able to find reliable sources (e.g. a major newspaper or news channel) discussing it. Declaring it is important yourself counts as original research, and "all over india" isn't good enough I am afraid. Five islamic countries still have the death penalty for apostasy so why is an individul shocking?(2) The other problem IS reliability: if this is such a non issue please help by finding sources which meet WP rules. Blogsphere and youtube doesn't count as reliable and online videos don't generally meet WP:EL. --BozMo talk 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, none of the sources you've provided can be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards (WP:RS). ITAQALLAH   19:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You think the sources are not reliable. WP:BLP says Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person. On the other hand you can buy video cassettes where he says these things. The sources are indeed very reliable. - Agnistus (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, your comment seems self-contradictory. Please explain your views on the talk page and refrain from continual trolling and edit-warring in the article; besides it would be in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view that undue weight be not given to insignificant statements. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is simple &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk), the fact that he made these statements are completely verifiable. Apart from the various websites where his videos are posted and the articles that discuss them, you can buy his lectures as video casssettes (published by IRF) at bazaars in India. The statements he made were also thoroughly discussed by several people and the web pages listed are just a few out of them. Thus the verifiability & notability requirements (WP:BLP) are met, hence the content must be included.
 * Agnistus, there are several challenges to the statements you want to include. To name a few, WP:BLP which says Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person (how does one justify including links which spell P.O.V. like http;//jihadandthecity_ wordpress_com/2006/08/20/conservative-attack-on-dr-zakir-naik/, into an encyclopedia article?), contentious material, non-confirmance to requirement of coverage from reliable, third party independent sources (see WP:RS) etc. Also, rather than making direct attacks towards specific editors in order to have your point accepted, and indulging in |Edit-warring it is recommended that you meet/refute the challenges presented to the content you want to include. WP:BLP warns against the inclusion of any original research into a BLP, and hence unless there are any reliable third-party independent sources covering a subject, it cannot be included onto wikipedia. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez and everyone else, please do NOT remove content without reaching a consensus here, not the other way round. - Agnistus (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez was away on the weekend, and has no clue about the people included under and everyone else; besides its considered indecent to use CAPS and bold formatting when commenting on someone personally Agnistus. Nevertheless, to your statement I'd like to add also, please do not add 'multiply challenged' (and hence removed) content without reaching a consensus here.. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These sources are primary, not secondary/third party sources which is what BLP articles must rely upon. WP:BLP says: "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances what the subject may have published about themselves." The linked section of that policy notes that primary sources may be used for information about the subject only if it is not contentious, it does not involve claims about third parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject (among other things). Not only is the content contentious, it involves irrelevant claims about third parties (i.e. non-Muslims).
 * Furthermore, WP:BLP says: "If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." - And this is precisely what I am insisting upon here. ITAQALLAH   16:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You yourself say that "policy notes that primary sources may be used for information about the subject only if it is not contentious, it does not involve claims about third parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject". And then you say the material is contentious and involves irrelevant claims about non-Muslims ??? I would like you to explain what is contentious and what involves non-muslims in the statements he made. I am also curious to know how stating his words in its exact form with citation can be interpreted (by you) as "pushing an agenda or a biased point of view". All I have done is quote a few words that he said in a public lecture in their exact form along with numerous references to verify them. Are you suggesting that what he said is contentious & contains claims about non-muslims and also constitutes "pushing an agenda or a biased point of view". If that is indeed the problem, then you should be fighting with Mr. Naik for making statemtns that you think are contentious, not trolling and edit-warring with me. - Agnistus (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about Naik's views, I said it's quite clear that the material you are inserting is contentious (which is what the policy talks about)- hence the dispute here. And the material included involves his claims about others - as opposed to him talking about himself. What you require is coverage from reliable, third party independent sources; which you have not yet provided. You are seeking to insert primary sourced material with selective focus on particular views of Naik which appear to be of negative connotation. This is in violation of WP:BLP. With all due respect, I think you are pushing an agenda here given your personal animosity towards Naik. ITAQALLAH   20:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You say "it's quite clear that the material you are inserting is contentious", which is what I would like you to explain. I think the material is not contentious but rather is a direct quotation of (thoroughly discussed) statements he made, and (thus) the sources I have provided are valid. Additionally, I have no agenda to push other than having a fully balanced article that maintains a neutral POV. Please prove how his statements are contentious and "appear to be of negative connotation". - Agnistus (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thoroughly discussed? Why don't you provide some academic reliable sources discussing these specific aspects?
 * Picking and choosing which comments of his to represent can indeed be a contentious issue. You are implying that these particular comments of his are more important than any other views he may hold - hence you represent these and exlude others. That's not neutral. Wikipedia policy on living people says that content is dictated by coverage in reliable secondary sources, not what we cherry pick from the primary sources. ITAQALLAH   21:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Those views of his were not cherry picked out of many of his views because of my personal choice. I put those views of his there because of their notability, and yes; the fact that they were "thoroughly discussed". For sources that thoroughly discuss these please look into the links I have provided in the article (and for more google zakir naik). If the links I have provided are not satisfactory (since a few of them are blogs) please take a look at Kushwant Singh's article.
 * You say "Why don't you provide some academic reliable sources discussing these specific aspects"? Do you know what an academic source is? Academic publications do not discuss the specificities of the personal beliefs of someone (the closest they have come to this is the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal). If really you do know what they are, please name a few persons (whose fame level is that of Zakir Naik and hails from south-east asia), who have academic publications made on specific aspects of their beliefs. Academic publications are not meant to discuss specific aspects of the personal beliefs of some particular person. If there are indeed academic sources that do that, I would love to know about them. Nor does Wikipedia require that every sentence in BLP must have an academic source backing it (in fact the word academic does not occur even once in the entire WP:BLP). It seems this is another lame excuse to say that those 2 sentences break WP:BLP (which they don't) so that you can remove/censor them - Agnistus (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Please do not refer to any individual's views (Kushwant Singh for instance) when making your statements about any individual since many of them could be POVs only. For instance Singh thinks Dr. Zakir Naik sports a short goatee and also speaks of it in an article on TribuneIndia, however it is well-known to be otherwise. Nevertheless, we're not commenting on Singh's thoughts or on Dr. Naiks appearance, we're only being rational in our approach of what to include and what not. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep side-stepping the issue. Please just provide some secondary reliable sources offering substantial coverage of these views you selected from primary source material. The conditions stipulated in BLP are extremely clear, so I see no need to repeat them for you. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   23:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I have made it perfectly clear to you that the material is properly sourced and in full compliance with WP:BLP, and I see no need in a repeated explanation of how. So I kindly request you to re-read my replies more thoroughly, so that they clear any further doubts that you may have. - Agnistus (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP stipulates reliable secondary sources. These are primary sources and not reliable. Several editors have told you that already. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The content complies with WP:BLP. It has been dealt with in much detail in Compliance with WP:BLP. - Agnistus (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that preaching is Dr Zakir Naiks main occupation, why remove cited statements concerning his preaching, despite being focused on one aspect. The content of his lectures couldn't be more relevant to the section in the article titled Lectures and visits. Trips (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The section is about what reliable published sources have written about his lectures, not what we have discerned from primary sources. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   16:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The cited statements were very relevent to his lectures and complied with WP:BLP (see Compliance with WP:BLP). - Agnistus (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mass-posting the same comments will not divert from the issue at hand, which is that significance has not been established simply because there is a fundamental lack in reliable secondary sourcing. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   22:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What the article really needs is:
A Cleanup. For instance, what are statements of criticism (including pure POVs) doing in a section titled 'Lectures and Visits'? &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk), I agree the statements of criticism (including pure POVs) is not best placed in a section titled 'Lectures and Visits'. Rather it would be better to move it to a seperate section under the name Criticism or something similar. - Agnistus (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections are not recommended, especially on biographies of living people. See WP:CRITICISM. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH  . Agnistus nice to see  you agreeing on that too. I think that the statement from biographies of living people viz. In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged... and WP:CRITICISM viz. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability, rather solves the nifty little debate that we had over inclusion of some portions of critique into this WP:BLP. No offences intended to anyone's views and opinions, but I guess including some statements would be a possible violation of the above and hence best left out. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would summarize my opinion by repeating Trips (talk)'s words: "Considering that preaching is Dr Zakir Naiks main occupation, why remove cited statements concerning his preaching, despite being focused on one aspect. The content of his lectures couldn't be more relevant to the section in the article titled Lectures and visits.". - Agnistus (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To which I said: "The section is about what reliable published sources have written about his lectures, not what we have discerned from primary sources." <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   23:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which has been dealt with in much detail in Compliance with WP:BLP. - Agnistus (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the article supposed to be a promotional blurb?
Almost entire article reads like a promotional article. This is not what wikipedia is supposed to be.

Considering that he is an extremely infuential international preacher, his controversial views need to be included in the article.

Some of wikipedia editors have been actively removing quotes of his views. ITAQALLAH has been coming up with impressive sounding reasons for removing his views, but with no real rationale. He claims to be an authority on wikipedia, although he is just an editor like anyone else, but he wants to aggresively enforce his personal perceptions.

--ISKapoor (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at his views on the on rights of non-Muslims: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zakir_Naik&oldid=203624988

--ISKapoor (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to be anything, ISKapoor. Just because the article does not contain defamatory content and discuss "controversial views" in depth (not the purpose of a WP:BLP), does not mean it is promotional. In fact, there are two full paragraphs concerning controversies associated with Naik, barring the recently inserted poorly sourced material. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   10:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia standards states that fact must be presented as fact in a dry insipid opinionated un-opinionated manner. It is not up to you to decide that the "fact" which you consider to be "defamatory", can be removed and everything else can be allowed to stay.
 * In fact editors, are not even supposed to judge weather some "fact" is positive, negative, defamatory, e.t.c. Instead the job of a BLP is to present fact as it is, without any modification or personal opinion interspersed. - Agnistus (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "dry insipid opinionated manner" That's an oxymoron.


 * Selective presentation of Naik's views based upon your own arbitary judgement isn't neutral, irrespective of whether you consider them "fact" or not. Please just provide the reliable secondary sources that are being requested from you. I am at full liberty to continue removing this poorly sourced contentious material as per WP:BLP. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That was a typing error. I meant "dry insipid un-opinionated manner".

It is perfectly clear now that what ITAQALLAH is doing is nothing but Gaming the system.

Quoting Gaming the system from WP:GAME summary in WP:POINT:

Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship. Gaming the system is subversive and in some cases, a form of disruption. It usually involves improper use of (or appeal to) a policy, to purposefully derail or disrupt Wikipedia processes, to claim support for a viewpoint which clearly contradicts those policies, or to attack a genuinely policy-based stance.

Examples of gaming include (but are not limited to): -
 * 1) Wikilawyering
 * 2) Playing policies against each other
 * 3) Relying upon the letter of policy as a defense when breaking the spirit of policy
 * 4) Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper
 * 5) Selectively 'cherry picking' wording from a policy (or cherry picking one policy to apply such as verifiability but willfully ignoring others such as neutrality)
 * 6) Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community
 * 7) False consensus
 * 8) Stonewalling (willfully stalling discussion or preventing it moving forward)
 * 9) 'Borderlining' (habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach to make it hard to actually prove misconduct)
 * 10) Abuse of process

More specifically what he is doing is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9. Especially Wikilawyering (see WP:LAWYER).

- Agnistus (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is a prime example of Wikilawyering. Ironically, this list pertains moreso to you than me. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   13:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Those who read your comments/replies and notice your edits (esp. POV psuhing content removal) know better than that.
 * For proof let me quote ISKapoor (talk): "Considering that he (Zakir Naik) is an extremely infuential international preacher, his controversial views need to be included in the article. Some of wikipedia editors have been actively removing quotes of his views. ITAQALLAH has been coming up with impressive sounding reasons for removing his views, but with no real rationale. He claims to be an authority on wikipedia, although he is just an editor like anyone else, but he wants to aggresively enforce his personal perceptions." - Agnistus (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop it with the incivility? I don't think ISKapoor's views are relevant at all here. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You think his views are irrevalent, most others think that they are very relevent. Using incompoop-ish remarks like "incivility" rather than have proper civilized discussion only proves otherwise. - Agnistus (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The very fact you think other editors' view are not relevent proves that (quote ISKapoor) want "he (Itaq) wants to aggresively enforce his (Itaq's) personal perceptions.". - Agnistus (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is time you learn that discussions in Wikipedia is a place where one takes into consideration the views of other editors and come to a consensus, not a place to push your disruptive tendetious agenda. - Agnistus (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to stop focusing on me and start finding some reliable sources, which you have so far been unable to provide. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   22:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Compliance with WP:BLP. - Agnistus (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Youtube, Liveleak and a personal blog are not reliable sources. Don't use them to add negative remarks on Zakir Naik or any other person who is alive. Any user who does that will be reverted on sight (per WP:BLP) and also risks being blocked.Bless sins (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bless sins, it does NOT matter weather you think the content negative, positive e.t.c. because:
 * "Wikipedia standards states that fact must be presented as fact in a dry insipid un-opinionated manner. It is not up to you to decide that the "fact" which you consider to be "defamatory", can be removed and everything else can be allowed to stay. In fact editors, are not even supposed to judge weather some "fact" is positive, negative, defamatory, e.t.c. Instead the job of a BLP is to present fact as it is, without any modification or personal opinion interspersed."
 * - Agnistus (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (copy from Agnistus talk page) I don't wish to start another line of argument but it is not clear to me that (aside the unsubstantiated bit on "stirring up contraversy") these remarks are necessarily negative. As I have said five countries actually have the death penalty for apostasy and comments along the lines that the US is the biggest sponsor of terrorism are commonplace on main stream media in the UK, millions of people refer to the US as "great Satan" or similar. Do you think Zakir would disown them? The issue for me is more undue weight. What he said is reasonably shown on google video but no one seems to have written about it so it just isn't consequential. --BozMo talk 07:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Solely covering controversial views can often be perceived as negative. But yes, the main issue is lack of coverage from secondary reliable sources. I also wonder how necessary the insertion is given that there are two full paragraphs of controversy in what is a relatively small article. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't see two full paragraphs of controversy in what is a relatively small article. Could you please explain where these 2 invisible paragraphs are? - Agnistus (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Secondly regarding "Solely covering controversial views can often be perceived as negative", (copy from Bless Sins talk) Why the negative/positive nature doesn't matter: "Wikipedia standards states that fact must be presented as fact in a dry insipid un-opinionated manner. It is not up to you to decide that the "fact" which you consider to be "defamatory", can be removed and everything else can be allowed to stay. In fact editors, are not even supposed to judge weather some "fact" is positive, negative, defamatory, e.t.c. Instead the job of a BLP is to present fact as it is, without any modification or personal opinion interspersed." - Agnistus (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (copy from Agnistus' talk page)In my opinion the issues of notability and verifiability are very closely linked, if not the same. If something is published by multiple reliable sources (esp. if it is given non-trivial coverage) then it is notable, IMO. Thus, I also don't doubt that Zakir Naik has said these things, but because it is not published in reliable sources, it is not notable enough to be included. If criteria were not there, then users could include any statement Zakir Naik has made and that is up on youtube. That'd be quite silly, really.Bless sins (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The content complies with WP:BLP. It has been dealt with in much detail in Compliance with WP:BLP. - Agnistus (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Compliance with WP:BLP
I will address the issues of reliability of sources and undue weight below.

1. The content added is permitted by WP:BLP Section 3.3 which states that the subject can be used as a self-published source.

Quoting from Section 3.3 of WP:BLP:

Using the subject as a self-published source

Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
 * it is not contentious;
 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.

The content is in full compliance with Section 3.3 of WP:BLP:

Below I will explain how the content complies with each requirement.

Proof of Compliance

 * it is not contentious;
 * Yes:  It is not contentious because they are his views, they do not insult him in anyway; but rather they present fact as it is. For further proof let me quote BozMo "it is not clear to me that (aside the unsubstantiated bit on "stirring up contraversy") these remarks are necessarily negative. As I have said five countries actually have the death penalty for apostasy and comments along the lines that the US is the biggest sponsor of terrorism are commonplace on main stream media in the UK, millions of people refer to the US as "great Satan" or similar. Do you think Zakir would disown them?"
 * Selective presentation of views can indeed be contentious. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. These were not put forth due to their notability (ie. the fact they have have been thoroughly discussed as indicated by he links I have listed). - Agnistus (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you cannot produce a single reliable secondary source shows that it hasn't been "thoroughly discussed." Blogs and other sources not conforming to WP:RS simply don't count. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   22:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See the Links provided. - Agnistus (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about about links you've posted before (wordpress blogs etc.), then I think you know what was said: you need to show how they conform to the standards noted in WP:RS and WP:BLP. In short, they don't, and such sources have never been considered acceptable on Wikipedia. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   22:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of the links is to prove significance/notability, a guiding factor for content inclusion. - Agnistus (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this something that is stated on policy, or a rule of your own? Please link me directly to where it says you can use unreliable links as a "guiding factor for inclusion." <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See my reply in "Regarding the First Set (continued)". - Agnistus (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * Yes:  Obviously, it is not.


 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * Yes:  The statements he made do not involve claims about third parties(non-muslim). Eg. A claim about a 3rd-party would be something like: All hindus are evil and idiotic. But saying "muslims should slaughter the hindus" is not. Rather its his opinion about what muslims (which is not a 3rd party) should do, that every muslim should be a terrorist and his views of the US. His personal views are not and does not involve claims about third parties.
 * Totally wrong. A third party is anyone other than himself. Making a claim about anyone than himself consists of making a claim about a third party. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are totally wrong. Saying X is Y and Z inlvoles claims of 3-rd party. Eg. All hindus are evil and idiotic. Saying A should so B is not. Eg. "muslims should slaughter the hindus" or that every muslim should be a terrorist. - Agnistus (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In you example, he is making a claim about what Muslims should do. The claim is not about himself, so it's about a third party. This is very basic stuff, Agnistus. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   20:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, you need to learn English. He's giving his opinion not making a claim. - Agnistus (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He's also giving an opinion in your first example. Both claims involve third parties. He isn't talking about himself. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, in one case he's confirming an aspect of the Sharia Law, in the other he's giving his own opinion regarding terrorism. Neither involve claims on 3rd-partes. - Agnistus (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * His own opinion, as you put it, pertains to third parties - hence it is not allowed ("it does not involve claims about third parties", see also WP:BLPSTYLE: "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves."). Likewise, any comment about "hindus being evil and idiotic" (from your first example) is also his own opinion, and is about a third party. Comments about apostates do not pertain to himself. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   22:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If I say "I like swimming" or "I think apples are tasty" or "I feel that McCain is too old." - am I making a claim on a 3rd party? NO. (If you think yes, you certainly need to attend some English classes). The same applies here: 1) he's confirming an aspect of the Sharia Law, other he's giving his own opinion on terrorism. - Agnistus (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, if you think "I like swimming" is the same as "Muslim apostates should be killed" or "America is a terrorist state" - then perhaps the condescending rhetoric about English classes more aptly applies to yourself. Everything Naik says is his opinion, by the way, and it being so doesn't stop it from involving a third party. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the definition of "claim" in an English dictionary. - Agnistus (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Zakir Naik claims Muslim apostates should be killed' - nope, that sounds about right to me. They are claims. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Zakir Naik feels the Islamic death penalty for apostates is appropriate". Not a claim. Mere opinion. - Agnistus (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You could easily replace "feels" with "claims." It is an opinion, yes, and it involves a third party.
 * Lol. You can easily replace words, everyone knows that! You can replace "Earth is round" with "Earth is flat" (change round to flat); e.t.c. I did not expect such mundane arguments from a Wikipedia editor. - Agnistus (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you replaced "claims" with "feels" to make it look like less of a claim. Like I said, it involves a third party, so it's not admissible under 3.3. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   20:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Similarly you can replace "round" with "flat" to make it look less roundish. Also, you're the one who replaced those words first (quote: You could easily replace "feels" with "claims." It is an opinion, yes, and it involves a third party.) - Agnistus (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is a non sequitur, Agnistus. Do you deny that Naik's comments involve a third party? <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   22:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

<font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH  17:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * NO Agnistus, you've failed to realize that in the video Dr. Naik hasn't uttered anything even remotely similar to  I say, everyone guilty of apostasy should face capital punishment. He has only re-iterated the Islamic ruling on this matter when he said There is Death Penalty in Islam for such a person. Islamic Law is a 3rd party about which Dr. Naik made a claim. (By the way did you notice how the words Death Penalty were in quotes in the video's transcript? A fine example of conspiracy to highlight capital punishment in the video. Pure POV. And hence not supported by any reliable independent secondary sources) &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See replies to itaq. - Agnistus (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * None of your comments show coverage by reliable secondary sources. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See links and (copy from above) In one case he's confirming an aspect of the Sharia Law, in the other he's giving his own opinion regarding terrorism. Neither involve claims on 3rd-partes. - Agnistus (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * Yes:  There were no claims about any events.


 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
 * Yes:  The fact that he made these statements are completely verifiable. Apart from the various websites where his videos are posted and the articles that discuss them, you can buy his lectures as video casssettes (published by IRF) at bazaars in India.


 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * Yes: It isn't, there are several secondary sources listed in the article, Khushwant's and Ahmed's are two examples out of many.
 * No. These are unreliable POVs. For instance (copying from an earlier comment) Kushwant Singh thinks Dr. Zakir Naik sports a short goatee and also speaks of it in an article on TribuneIndia, however it (i.e. Dr. Naik's appearance) is well-known to be otherwise. With all due respect to the humorous writer Kushwant Singh, his views against Dr. Naik seem completely biased and falsified. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They still are valid secondary sources. Him being humorous does not make his writings unreliable. - Agnistus (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

2. There is no question of notability, ie. undue weight is not a problem. For proof please view the links provided below. These links can also be considered as secondary sources.

Content is notable.

The links below solve the problem of undue weight.

One can understand that the stuff he said was thoroughly discussed by viewing the web pages listed below. These pages can also be considered as secondary sources to a certain extend. The main point of listing these pages is to prove that the content was notable enough to be added to the article.

Links

 * You can get transcripts of almost all his lectures here:
 * You can get audio recording of his lectures here:
 * Many others can be found here . Yet these do not contain any independent third-party coverage or any secondary sources for the video (punishment for treason) that you've provided. (Original research?) &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * D.R.V. Acharya's Article
 * Wordpress personal blog. POV . &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * First statement (in header) contains:  Personal blog of U Mahesh Prabhu, Editor-in-Chief of Aseemaa: Journal for National Resurgence. (underlined highlights mine) POV . &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a lot more stuff in these 3 web pages than what is actually listed in the article:, and
 * Do not support videos in question. (Original research?) &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Goes in-depth into his statements:
 * WikiIslam_com Link. Run by Ali Sina. POV . &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * Link belongs to AnsweringMuslims_com which is an anti-Islam site. POV . &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * Link belongs to AnsweringMuslims_com (again?). Just FYI there is also an answering-christianity_com and an answeringhinduism_com. None of them cannot be classified as reliable sources. (Paint with the same brush of POV s) &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * This is the SAME ARTICLE listed as D.R.V. Acharya's Article above. Have you read the matter before posting this link? &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This article (a copy of DRV's) which is a reliable 3rd-party source overturns your argument that D.R.V. Acharya's Article was not reliables since it was a Wordpress personal blog. - Agnistus (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No Agnistus, this is NOT like the proverbial the chicken or the egg argument, considering the fact the article appeared first on DRV's BLOG (http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/) on October 25, 2007 and then was published on (http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/66367/46971) on Apr 10, 2008'. And BTW, chowk.com says  all are welcome to read, write and think  on its main page. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * This is a paper written by a certain Jagmohan Singh Khurmi (who runs www_khurmi_com). His views on khurmi.com are anti-Islam and cannot be considered as references for wikipedia. POV &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weather he is anti-Islamic or pro-Islamic is none of your business. As I have said many times, wikipedia editors have no authority to decided wither something is "postive" or "negative", and this research paper is a reliable secondary source. - Agnistus (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it reliable, Agnistus? It looks like a personal polemical piece constructed in MS Word. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To you, Itaq, to me its fact. - Agnistus (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I've said, don't just tell me it's reliable, you need to prove it and show how it complies with 3.1 and WP:RS. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- Agnistus (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, if you believe a source is reliable, you must prove how it conforms to WP:RS. It is not assumed until disproven. I can say after a quick glance that none of these links appear to be reliable. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   20:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This principle is enshrined in V. If in doubt about whether your sources is reliable, you can always go to WP:RSN.Bless sins (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of sources is notability. - Agnistus (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. How familiar are you with Wikipedia policy? <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, it would be prudent to keep aside impulsive feelings and statements of none of your business and work towards what is in the interest of, and complying with WP policies when it comes to a BLP. With all due respect to Khurmi, given his known background (how does his statement These Girls don't like Islam and make no secret of this! Cool ! No? from khurmi.com seem for instance?), his paper certainly cannot be considered as a reliable source because it could very well turn to be just his view of Dr. Naik and nothing else. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Waiting to see how the rationale that's 'coming soon' makes the links fit into the ' Subjects may provide material about themselves ' clause (tailor-made?). &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of providing the links to these pages is to prove that the content was notable enough to be added to the article. BozMo is an admin who knows wikipedia laws better than most people and he says in a reply that "The issue for me is undue weight." The links address this "issue". For more info see Section 3.3 of WP:BLP. - Agnistus (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not reliable sources. Neither are fansites. Content inclusion isn't decided by notability, it's decided by coverage in reliable secondary sources. Of which there seems to be none. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read section 3.3 of WP:BLP, Itaq rather than Wikilawyering (WP:LAWYER). I have stated clearly above by quoting directly from the WP:BLP that self-published material can be used in BLPs and also explained how the content added adheres to every requirement stipulated by WP:BLP. - Agnistus (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And I have responded above. Zakir Naik is clearly making claims about third parties (=not claims about himself), and a selective presentation of views you personally deem noteworthy is indeed a contentious issue. You may be focusing upon primary material because the secondary material is all unreliable, but it's reliable secondary material that's needed. I wonder how many times I need to repeat that. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   21:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding 3rd party claims: In the video Dr. Naik hasn't uttered anything even remotely similar to I say, everyone guilty of apostasy should face capital punishment. He has only re-iterated the Islamic ruling on this matter when he said There is Death Penalty in Islam for such a person (quoted verbatim from video transcript). Islamic Law is a 3rd party about which Dr. Naik made a claim. This should have occured to you Agnistus while quoting WP:BLP 3.3 with regards to 3rd party claims. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read my replies to your comments above. - Agnistus (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also assume you didn't see my reply to this (older) comment of yours:
 * Solely covering controversial views can often be perceived as negative. But yes, the main issue is lack of coverage from secondary reliable sources. I also wonder how necessary the insertion is given that there are two full paragraphs of controversy in what is a relatively small article. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't see two full paragraphs of controversy in what is a relatively small article. Could you please explain where these 2 invisible paragraphs are? - Agnistus (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Secondly regarding "Solely covering controversial views can often be perceived as negative", (copy from Bless Sins talk) Why the negative/positive nature doesn't matter: "Wikipedia standards states that fact must be presented as fact in a dry insipid un-opinionated manner. It is not up to you to decide that the "fact" which you consider to be "defamatory", can be removed and everything else can be allowed to stay. In fact editors, are not even supposed to judge weather some "fact" is positive, negative, defamatory, e.t.c. Instead the job of a BLP is to present fact as it is, without any modification or personal opinion interspersed." - Agnistus (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More than sufficient proof has been provided in favor of including the content in question to the article as per section 3.3 of WP:BLP. I will add the content to the article now. Do NOT revert until and unless you can prove that it violates WP:BLP (which it doesn't). Apart from that, there is really nothing to discuss here.- Agnistus (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus please stop repeating what you are doing and try to understand the objections. You should break up your changes and discuss them bit by bit. My first objection is that there is no visible reference for "stirred up contraversy". --BozMo talk 05:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am ready to replace the sentence "Naik also stirred up controversy when he labeled the United States as the world's "biggest terrorist" and declared that "every muslim should be a terrorist" during a public lecture." with "During a public lecture Naik labeled the United States as the world's "biggest terrorist" and declared that "every muslim should be a terrorist".". Although I must say there is a certain degree of controversy as indicated by this research paper (a reliable secondary source). - Agnistus (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your insertion complies with neither 3.1, 3.2, nor 3.3. As has been said before, these claims involve people other than himself (i.e. Muslims, USA, etc.) - so using primary sources here is unacceptable. Secondly, the sources you are providing are not reliable at all. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   21:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The links were not sources, they were signs of notability only. Also, my insertion complies with 3.1, and I have explained why. All claims (above) made that it does not comply is fallacious and nothing but forms of wikilawyering. I have explained how sufficiently to you itaq. The content will be added back, with the modifications requested by BozMo (see comments above). - Agnistus (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is a complete red herring in this discussion, as it doesn't determine the content of an article. You have not explained how any of the sources used are reliable. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Section 3.1 clearly says if the conditions are met, primary sources can be used. - Agnistus (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as you have been repeatedly informed, his comments aren't about himself, they are about third parties. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   14:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing Others' Comments?
User:Agnistus in your (large number of) edits yesterday, you've been editing previous comments, yours as well as others'. I am hoping you will refrain from acts like these in future lest you violate the Talk Page Guidelines any more. Here's your list of violations:, ,. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. All of the material edited were my own comments. Furthermore none of the material edited was relevent to the discussion. The material was added/changed were things like the headlines and formatting which do not affect the discussion. The talk guidelines do not prohibit this. Please re-read the Talk Page Guidelines before making such false claims to me or other editors. - Agnistus (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Contentious claim by Elazeez in Zakir Naik Edit Summary
I would like to request some editors esp. Elazeez to verify their statements before making them. In a recent edit Elazeez (talk) states "Removing word 'Hafiz' since he is not one. (word slipped in by Agnistus during )" which is totally untrue since the word was added by Arthur in. - Agnistus (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC) ''Yes you're right, I could see that. But I also could see how you reverted a version of the article (which did not contain 'Hafiz') to the version that had it in it. I am sure you could be a bit careful with your reversions. Thanks. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)''
 * (Copied from Agnistus' talk page)
 * --> Just an update, this issue's been cleared with Agnistus after a small talk we had with regards to the usage of the term Hafiz. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (copy from talk) Hafiz is a term used by Muslims for people who have completely memorized the Qur'an. So why not say Hafiz Dr. Zakir... - Agnistus (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (copy from talk) Being a muslim (Alhamdulillah) I completely agree with you on the meaning of the term 'Hafiz'. However Dr. Naik hasn't done so (i.e. memorizing the arabic Qur'an completely) and also doesn't claim to be a Hafiz. Besides, ascribing qualities (be they good or otherwise) which are not present in a person (whomsoever it may be) is strongly condemned by Islam; a good example to prove it would be the fact that we muslims are warned against going over the top in praise of Allah (SWT) or the Holy Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) by ascribing qualities which they do not possess. For instance one cannot say the Holy Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was the best of arabic writers of his time, simply because we know (from well-established historical facts) that he was un-lettered, i.e. he had no formal schooling and hence couldn't read or write by his own hand. I hope that answers your question brother. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (copy from talk) I understand. Thankyou - Agnistus (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (copy from talk) You are welcome brother. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A genuine expert on Hinduism and Islam
I have become fascinated with Naik. I have never encountered anyone so well-versed in both the scriptures of Hinduism and Islam. Dr Zakir Naik - Similarities Between Islam and Hinduism is a good sample. This article doesn't mention his work on the relation of Hinduism and Islam.--71.118.46.32 (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am truly not his supporter, but I have immense respect for his genius because I have never encountered anyone so knowledgeable in both Hinduism and Islam. I have heard him speak Urdu, Arabic, Sanskrit, and English.  This article needs expansion especially on his speeches and writings pertaining to Hinduism.--71.118.46.32 (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Aside from Islam, Dr. Naik also has a thorough understanding of many other religions like Hinduism.A Question Posed Agressively By a Hindu Brother He goes to great lengths to harmonize the concepts of Hinduism with Islam and has said that he wishes not to belittle Hinduism. Furthermore, he translates and interprets Hindu texts in a monotheistic sense as polytheism is a great sin in Islam. For example, in his interpretation and translation of Sanskrit he subtly tries to equate Brahman which is a force that permeates the universe with Allah which is a being by referring to both as "God." Despite this, he claims that Hinduism is pantheistic if not monotheistic. (See Sikhism for a monotheistic amalgamation of Hinduism and Islam.)

Dr. Naik has said that he tries to not offend Hindus and promote good relations between Hindus and Muslims. He has also converted many Hindus to Islam.

Naik has exegetically shown that Muhammad is prophesised in Hindu scriptures.--71.118.46.32 (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you haven't noticed yet some editors (esp. itaqallah) will delete any content that they deem not fit for the "promotional blurb" article they want put up on wikipedia. For doing this they will give you spurious reasons that claim that your sources are not valid enough (this is known as wikilawyering, see WP:LAWYER). I forewarn you that a tough fight lies ahead if you plan to deal with these religiously motivated editors. (I would prefer calling them "religiously brainwashed morons" but then they'll use it as an excuse to get me blocked - so that's another warning be falsely kind to them). - Agnistus (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agnistus if you cannot be genuinely constructive I suggest you take a wiki-break. I also suggest you make some effort to learn community rules before you assume you are de facto right and everyone else who disagreed with you is de facto biassed. You still have a little licence as people will still assume you have good faith and want to help but that is running out. --BozMo talk 07:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. - Agnistus (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Section on Hinduism


 * I apologize for my previous comment (above striked out one), because I had not read what the section says before commenting. I strongly recommend removing "Interpretation of Hinduism" because it contravenes Wikipedia guidelines.


 * The first line of this section says "Aside from Islam, Dr. Naik also has a thorough understanding of many other religions like Hinduism." which is nothing but POV. (And he has a very poor understanding of Hinduism). The sources listed for this are all primary sources, in which he mocks and insults Hinduism or a person asking the question. Furthermore every other source in the section are primary sources or links to pro-Islamic websites operated by Naik and/or his followers. The content also lacks notability makes claims about 3-rd party (hindus) thus violates section 3.1 of WP:BLP as well as other sections of it. It also violates WP:NPOV. Therefore the section cannot stay. - Agnistus (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In this instance I think you are right that the sources are not good enough, and support your removal of the section. Was there some old content which was better? --BozMo talk 09:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A small modification needed (if section is kept, that is)
71.118.46.32, In case the section isn't removed (which seems doubtful now though :) I have a modification to suggest for it: in the video linked to the statement 'He has also converted many Hindus to Islam', one can see that the lady's conversion to Islam (after having heard his talk) has been more of her own personal choice, rather than one being due to Dr. Naik explicitly converting/asking her to convert. I've also seen a few more videos with people converting from different faiths during/after many of his talks, and they all seem to personal choices as well. (BTW the vid you've linked is from Q/A session of his talk Is the Qur'an The Word of God which was given at the Peace Conference organized by IRF at Mumbai in Nov 2007). Thus, for your newly added section, I suggest that a choice of words on the lines of 'A number of non-muslims have accepted Islam after having heard his talks' might give a better picture of the scene and hence could be substituted instead of the current one. Do let me know what you think.&#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I accept it.--71.118.42.243 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In case the section comes back again, InshaAllah we'll keep it that way. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Indecent/Personal Attacks on co-editors?
A general rule of thumb while trying to do some 'community editing': refrain from making personal attacks!. This certainly does not look good:- We could all do better than what I've randomly picked out above from a recent day's work of editing. Wikipedia hopes to see better choice of words (and thoughts) on the Talk Page. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think yes, you certainly need to attend some English classes
 * If you want productve work done (which I doubt)
 * you and your supporters have dismissed them with various comments like "it is anti-islamic", "it is a blog",


 * Agnistus, your recent edit to the talk page on Line 358 has seen you a) Removing the strike-outs (which might not be so much of a problem as) b) Re-Including the bracketed statement I would prefer calling them "religiously brainwashed morons" but then they'll use it as an excuse to get me blocked - so that's another warning be falsely kind to them) again into it. This could only mean two things a) Either you hate your co-editors so much as to call for re-inclusion of the hate-filled statement OR b) You were so sure you'll get blocked for your words that you wanted to leave a message foretelling your tale as you saw it. In either case, I hope you were well aware of the No_personal_attacks guidelines on WP. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you haven't noticed my friend, I profusely apologized (twice with explanation) right beneath that comment. Quote: " ... Sorry. - Agnistus (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ... I apologize for my previous comment (above striked out one), because I had not read what the section says before commenting ...". - Agnistus (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how one can make a personal attack and then sincerely apologise for it in the same edit. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   16:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Quote from Wikistress: "There are users who simply cannot and do not want to write NPOV articles, users who want to delete relevant information, users who are notoriously anti-social, and so on. We think these are the types of users we do not really want on Wikipedia, and a few have been banned. However, while many Wikipedians tend to write slightly POV articles about subjects that are near and dear to their hearts, most of them can be worked with.". - Agnistus (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my query. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Second set of claims
I have gone through the video clips for the "america is the world's biggest terrorist" quotes from Agnistus. I have the following concerns: (1) these clips are all clearly editted and clearly from one single original source, which could easily be faked or sensationalised (2) the language used is ungrammatical which means I don't think it is easy to get the meaning. For example he says "America biggest terrorist" when talking about "terrorising terrorists" but it is not clear if he means America is the world's biggest terrorist as proposed in your edit summary or America is the bigger terrorist which is another possible grammatical correction. Also it is had to work out metaphor in this context. Therefore, for these quotes which seem to be much more contentious than supporting the death penalty for apostasy I would wish to see a reliable source discussing them. e.g. Some newspaper headlines supporting what he said etc before they can be included. --BozMo talk 08:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have viewed the video, and it is true that there are grammatical errors in his statement (this is probably because he's speaking Desi English, most desi(Indian/Pak) listeners will interpret it as america is the biggest terrorist). But due to the ambiguity surrounding "America the biggest terrorist", I suggest we remove the part that deals with America and reduce the sentence to something like: During a public lecture Naik declared that "Every muslim should be a terrorist". - Agnistus (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm an Indian (Alhamdulillah), and I really can't agree with Agnistus on the interpretation of the words America biggest terrorist. There's no reason to make assumptions about something when we cannot be sure about it ourselves. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A few problems with "Every muslim should be a terrorist"

 * *Agnistus, there's another problem with your newly proposed statement During a public lecture Naik declared that "Every muslim should be a terrorist. The problem is dual, a) Dr. Naik's been making that very declaration in a number of his public talks and not just during this one particular public talk which has been the subject of hullabaloo, and b) apparently the video that you have shared with us doesn't contain his personal rationale behind that declaration. Pasted below are a couple of subsections from his self-authored book titled Replies to the Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims (http://www.irf.net/book2.zip<--Download from IRF.net) from the topic Muslims are Fundamentalists and Terrorists, which read as follows5. Every Muslim should be a terrorist

''Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror.

The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. antisocial elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people. '' 6. Different labels given to the same individual for the same action, i.e. ‘terrorist’ and ‘patriot’

Before India achieved independence from British rule, some freedom fighters of India who did not subscribe to non-violence were labeled as terrorists by the British government. The same individuals have been lauded by Indians for the same activities and hailed as ‘patriots’. Thus two different labels have been given to the same people for the same set of actions. One is calling him a terrorist while the other is calling him a patriot. Those who believed that Britain had a right to rule over India called these people terrorists, while those who were of the view that Britain had no right to rule India called them patriots and freedom fighters. It is therefore important that before a person is judged, he is given a fair hearing. Both sides of the argument should be heard, the situation should be analyzed, and the reason and the intention of the person should be taken into account, and then the person can be judged accordingly. And it can also be obtained from sources such as http://wiki.islamedia.ws/Islam_and_Terrorism_by_Dr._Zakir_Naik <-- Islam and Terrorism by Dr. Zakir Naik, and http://www.famousmuslims.com/faq.htm. I'll also try searching online (to share here) any video clips where he explains this very rationale on camera. I'm sure I'll find some if I look hard enough since I've also seen him say that in his talks titled Terrorism and Jihad: An Islamic Perspective and in his latest offering Is Terrorism an Islamic Monopoly?. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (underlined highlights above are mine) Now, whether this fits into the Subjects may provide information about themselves clause or not, I'd leave that for you to contemplate, but then again it surely befits the logic of believing what is straight from the horse's mouth. An online version of the book can be found here for reading http://www.scribd.com/doc/2574863/Most-Common-Questions-Asked-By-Non-Muslims-Dr-Zakir-Naik.

His reasoning behind saying Every Muslim should be a Terrorist (Videos)
Ok, as said above, here I present two videos with Dr. Naik mouthing his views on terrorism and Islam from one of his latest lectures titled Is Terrorism an Islamic Monopoly?
 * (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmdKVRq6vZc <-- Here he explains content which is compiled into this (3rd party) slideshow --> http://www.slideshare.net/abdul_lateef/is-terrorism-a-muslim-monopoly)
 * and the video continues here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-fNo8cDCt8&feature=related <-- Explicitly stating "Every muslim should be a Terrorist" with rationale. see 01:30 to 03:30). &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I guess we can also see why he's used the words 'America' and 'biggest terrorist' together in one sentence as well. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me now that the videos that Agnistus has linked fit only into original research, pure POV's or non-neutral content, since they've either a) Selectively depicted only the portion of the talk where Dr. Naik says "Every Muslim should be a terrorist" without including to his reasoning into the clip OR b) caught Naik during the question-answer session (as is evident because there's a person standing near the mic and Dr. Naik's pointing to him while speaking. See him saying ...have you checked up? in video) and he (Dr. Naik) might have already covered the reason behind his making such a statement during the talk which preceded the Q&A session. No I am not blaming you for the content in the videos Agnistus (please don't take anything personally), I'm only saying that the videos are unworthy of consideration and un-reliable since they appear to be products of 'selective editing'. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have watched the entire series of videos "Is Terrorism A Muslim Monopoly?". It is evident that the video I provided, and yours are totally different. Even the sentence construction in which he says "Every muslim should be a terrorist" is different. In one video (my) he is being asked if Osama is right or wrong. It is there he says (truly meaning it) that "Every muslim should be a terrorist". Wheras in the video; he's giving a lecture not even taking questions from the audience. All I can presume form this is that he after making the statement "Every muslim should be a terrorist" regretted so doing and decided to correct it in "Is Terrorism A Muslim Monopoly?" by playing a game of semantics and changing the meaning of "Every muslim should be a terrorist". - Agnistus (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point Agnistus. It was never claimed that those videos were the same as yours. All that was claimed was that YOUR videos were a result of SELECTIVE EDITING, i.e. they LEFT OUT the rest of his answer/talk/rationale. AND this book that I've linked has been in publication for quite a long time so there's no question of Dr. Naik's trying to 'cover up' anything like you have tried to PRESUME (which incidentally is not something that we are allowed to do on wikipedia). With all due respect, all that I can see from your video and your comments is a hidden bias towards portraying Dr. Naik in bad light by quoting him out of context and making 'presumptions'. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. I believe you (out of good faith) that "this book that I've (you) linked has been in publication for quite a long time" and will discard my presumptions. Therefore, I am suggesting we replace the older sentence with something like "Naik believes every muslim should be a terrorist in the sense that he/she should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists, e.t.c.". Yet I must say that personally I feel the idea of muslims playing police (ie. taking law into their hands, example: Honor killing) itself is a bit disturbing - see Khurmi's research paper. - Agnistus (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agnistus 1) I wasn't asking for you to believe me in good faith brother, I've only presented the facts so as to help attain a consensus here via a neutral point of view (without any biased 'original research' as the EDITED videos that you linked, contained) . 2) Personally feeling something is not a justifiable reason of including any content onto WP. 3) For Khurmi's paper I'd written above: ...a certain Jagmohan Singh Khurmi (who runs www_khurmi_com). His views on khurmi.com are anti-Islam and cannot be considered as references for wikipedia. POV 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC). Please understand that it is quintessential to have strongly reliable sources, and justifiable encyclopedic content to incorporate any statements into the BLP. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the First Set
There are 6 links for the apostasy claim, all of them pointing to the same video:-
 * http_//www.liveleak.com/view?i=c00_1210182997
 * http_//hawkeyeindia.wordpress.com/2006/12/02/dr-zakir-naiks-jawdropping-logic-224-or-is-it/
 * http_//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMAZR8YIhxI
 * http_//video.aol.com/video-detail/death-penalty-for-apostates-dr-zakir-naik/2351209970
 * http_//technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJRl5c-xPVA0
 * http_//ameyap.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/death-penalty-for-apostates-dr-zakir-naik/

I suggest we keep any one to avoid unnecessary redundancy. My recommendation is to keep LiveLeak and scrap the Wordpress, YouTube and other user videos' sites. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd personally like to see some coverage by reliable secondary sources; else, on what basis are we covering this view but not his view on music, inheritance, media, salat, jihad, sects, or any other issue related to Islam? <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   11:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We're covering these views based on their notability and significance. Can you come up with 6 videos that cover his views on any one of these: "music, inheritance, media, salat, jihad, sects, or any other issue related to Islam". If so, then you can add those views to this article. The lack of significance of these other views (as indicated by the few or no pages that discuss them as opposed to several pages that discuss his views about apostasy, terrorism, e.t.c.) is why we don't add them. - Agnistus (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability has nothing to do with article content. Besides, notability is established through reliable secondary sources. None of them are reliable and secondary. If you believe they are reliable, you need to show how and why. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   12:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, unless you truly believe Naik is a non-Hindu scholar of Hinduism, I would suggest you stop reinserting the category. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   12:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The content (1 sentence) was added as per Section 3.1 WP:BLP, which I have explained in much detail. Furthermore, the very title of WP:NNC states "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content", whose meaning I believe should be clear to any English wikipedia editor. It says "limit" not "permit", which basically means content does not even have to be notable to be included in the article. Also, I did not add that category, and would have certainly removed it had I seen it; so please refrain from making such false claims without verifying who added it in the first place. - Agnistus (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I said you reinserted it, which is exactly what you did. Judging from how you didn't quote the rest of WP:NNC, I am inclined to believe that you are now aware that notability isn't directly related to content decisions. Section 3.1 of WP:BLP is about reliable sources ("Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims."). Can you show me anywhere on this page where you have attempted to explain precisely how the source is reliable and secondary? <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   14:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Section 3.3 says you can use the subject as a self-published source under certain conditions. The required conditions have been met, therefore the content (1 sentence) is in full compliance with WP:BLP. - Agnistus (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you first answer my comment about 3.1?
 * As I've shown above, Naik is not revealing anything about himself, and is instead talking about third parties. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How many times do I ahve to repeat that Section 3.3 ststes you can use the subject as a self-published source!? - Agnistus (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer is directly above your comment: "As I've shown above, Naik is not revealing anything about himself, and is instead talking about third parties." Hence the insertion is not appropriate. You're avoiding addressing my comment about section 3.1, even though you were previously claiming that the sentence conformed to it. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Six (different websites hosting the same) video you mean? &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dr. Naik on music (the first 5 genuine links I could come across on google)
 * http://video.aol.com/video-detail/zakir-naik-question-regarding-music-on-islam-channel/3667477256
 * http://www.islamicvoice.com/January2005/QuestionHour-DrZakirNaik/
 * http://www.islamictube.net/watch/814099345/Zakir-Naik---Question-regarding-music
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwCN53l_Lmk&feature=related
 * http://shadeshi.blogspot.com/2008/01/shadeshibondhu-dr-zakir-naik-on-music.html
 * &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dr. Naik on Salat (Salaah i.e. Prayer)
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajj1RzKd0D0
 * http://www.esnips.com/doc/57507b66-f372-4adf-8ed5-f34167696746/Dr-Zakir-Naik---Salaah-(Prayer)-1of4-(www.aswatalislam.net)
 * http://www.simplyislam.com/iteminfo.asp?item=55415 <-- buy DVD here
 * http://video.aol.com/video-detail/salaah-prayer-programming-towards-righteousness-part-14/456349352
 * http://www.ahya.org/amm/modules.php?name=Lectures&d_op=viewdownload2&cid=2 <-- Download talk on Salaah here
 * &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Links provided to refute the claim that would be difficult to come up with coverage of Dr. Naik's views on any one of these: "music, inheritance, media, salat, jihad, sects, or any other issue related to Islam". Picked 'music' and 'salat' at random. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job. If you look at my comment, you can see that I said "If so (if you find links), then you can add those views to this article.". Since you have found so many links, you are free to add the content to the article. Also, if you need any help just leave a message on my talk page; Insha'Allah I will happily add a sentence to the article regarding his views of music and Islam. - Agnistus (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What Elazeez has shown is that there's nothing unique about the view you selected for it to warrant inclusion in the article. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You also don't seem to be aware of how consensus works. You need consensus for insertions to remain (especially on a BLP), not the other way around. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [Quoted from above: What Elazeez has shown is that there's nothing unique about the view you selected for it to warrant inclusion in the article. ITAQALLAH 17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ] Indeed, that was the reason behind the whole exercise. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the videos & articles that I've presented above (as well as the ones from Agnistus) can't actually be termed his views on any of those subjects (music, apostasy, salaah etc). The reason for this argument being that Dr. Naik has based his answers only on the Islamic rulings and laws (for example see transcript: <font color="#028FFF"> "There is death penalty in Islam for such a person" in the video s regarding apostasy that you've linked, between 00:36 to 00:46) with (mostly referenced) quotations from Islamic scriptures and books in most situations. In fact when people must have seen his answer to the punishment for apostasy, I'm pretty sure most of them must have realized that he was merely quoting the Islamic Ruling on the subject and not dishing out his personal advice on how to deal with apostates or the ones that commit treason against Islam. I'm not trying to justify him nor explain any Islamic law concepts here, I'm just trying to drive home the point that there's nothing very new in what he's been saying. Besides the Islamic Shariah, the laws of various (non-muslim) countries too are very severe when it comes to treason (for instance, see Hanging%2C_drawing_and_quartering which was the penalty in England until 1790 CE), and hence not worthy of being considered disturbing. To summarize, what we're debating is just a matter of undue weight. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (Now Bozmo starts): I don't think you can push this quite so far, Itaqallah. At least every time I have tried to use exactly this argument (e.g. I have been told that in practice we often include things which are of sufficient general interest once we have reliable reasons for believing them to be true. This is part of choosing "encyclopedic" content I guess, and I also guess you could patch policy to it, but practice favours keeping it in. So does  my feeling... in some form it should stay in.--BozMo talk 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't you feel there's an element of bias if it's left up to editors to decide which of Naik's views are included or excluded? The implication is that there's something significant about the views that have been chosen. And, hey, if they are significant, then the least that can be expected is some sort of coverage from an independent source. Around a year ago this article was packed with primary-sourced view-spam where there was a section for virtually every view of Naik imaginable (with focus on "controversial" ones), and we agreed upon restricting coverage to what had been documented in reliable sources. The benefit is that there's no implicit bias in emphasising particular views merely because they are of personal concern to the editor inserting them. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   18:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment mixes how I feel with what I think it appropriate for Wikipedia. What is encyclopedic content versus trivia is subjective, but the fact that it is hard to judge the "most encyclopedic" of reliable facts does not mean we should not judge at all to a degree. Personally I feel that some sort of bias is inevitable, but then what we regard as reliable sources in most instances (for example western media) is riddled with far more implicit bias than we give acknowledge. Editorially "interesting" is a valid concept. From a WP point of view, I think the two edits from Agnistus were different in nature because one was about a accusation and exhoration but the one on capital punishment for apostasy was simply a statement of belief which is a common belief and is interesting. After all I live in a country (England) where people used to be burned to death for belief (see Bloody Mary) and where in a later period religious allegance to Rome was considered treason. You could set up "Islamic clerics who support the death penalty for apostasy" as a Category and it would be more relevant than many of our categories. So, yes it is a bit subjective but yes I think it is good content which everyone seems to accept is true so it should go in, in my view. However I am still here listening and thinking about it. --BozMo talk 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that reliable sources may have their own bias (i.e. western-centric), but at least we have a fixed criterion in that regard, and at least we can employ attribution when a distinct view is presented. The "I think it's noteworthy" argument (which in practical terms translates to "Wikipedia says it's noteworthy") is too subjective. That it's true is secondary here. Many of Naik's views are arguably interesting as he is an entertaining orator, but there must be a reason why one specific view is selected and another isn't. Assigning weight towards particular views (ones of particular interest to the West, i.e. apostasy, terrorism, women etc.) in this way is something covered by the undue weight clause - and the result can often be a slant in tone, even if it's unintentional. The reader also gets the impression that there is something uniquely significant about this view that Wikipedia deems it noteworthy. I ask: why is it significant? From a WP perspective, the nature of content inclusion is determined by coverage in the sources (cf. WP:BLPSTYLE). Views of Naik are indeed presented in the article, such as his view of Islam as superior to other religions - but the difference is that we have independent coverage of it. That this is a BLP means there should be extra caution in ensuring that the tone is fair and that there isn't an emphasis on one or two views that an editor personally deems important or significant. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the First Set (continued)
I agree that while writing BLPs extra caution should be taken in ensuring that the tone is fair. In my opinion a BLP should be both neutral and informative. Maintaining neutrality means including all significant material, regardless of weather this material seem slanted/negative to some editors. The test for significance is notability. Notability is a general guiding principal that Wikipedia editors use to decide what should be or should not be included in the article. To this end, while presenting significant views of the subject; these views should be presented as it is in neutral and unbiased manner. One out of many ways of doing this is to directly cite the subject in question. Significant material (determined by notability) can be presented this neutral unbiased way and editors can use the subject as self-published source (under section 3.3 of WP:BLP). Regarding notability; the 2 views I have listed are out of many of his other very notable significant views. For example consider his view on pork-consumption, Naik says if a person eats pig, he behaves like a pig. He goes on to say that the pig is the most shameless animal and that westerners swap their wives and are promiscuous because they eat pig. This "theory" of his is more well-known than his views on apostasy or terrorism. Even in the Kushwant Singh artcle, Singh talks about Naiks's views about pigs. Surely this view deserved more attention - has reliable sources, is notable/significant; but then why didn't I add it to the article? Because I wanted to ensure that the article was as neutral as possible. To insist on removing his opinion on apostasy from this article would be a serious aberration of neutrality. Executing people for Apostasy (a medieval practice) being done in the modern era, is indeed a serious issue. Islam is the only religion that still does it and this has caught a lot of media attention recently for it (like the man in Afganistan who was about to executed because he became a Christian). Therefore a lot of people (incl. readers) want to know what stance Islamic scholars have on it. Itaqallah claims I cherry pick views of Naik that are apparently unsavory and contentious. Indeed, if I wanted to do that; I would have added his views on pork-eating, wishing people Christmas, e.t.c ; but I didn't. He claims including the view on apostasy makes the slanted; but I disagree, it makes the article neutral and informative. Indeed if Itaqallah, starts removing all such material he thinks is "slanted", then that itself would make the article slanted. If this is truly his agenda and we decide to take part in it, then we would be better off removing both "positive" and "negative" statements on Naik, therefore permanently reducing the article into a stub. But then the article would loose all its content/information, which would kill the very purpose of having the article. Please realize the point of a BLP or any article is to convey information in a balanced manner. I hope this tug of war ends soon, and all editors understand the importance of having high-quality balanced Wikipedia articles. In my opinion the two sentences should stay in some form or another. Essentially, what I am trying to do is maintain a neutral and informative BLP. - Agnistus (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, what bothers me most is why no main media source has picked up on the daeth penalty for apostasy story. It has had a lot of blogspere reaction and two local welsh papers. AFAICT no one has has run it. Why? --BozMo talk 15:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See reply to Itaqallah (below). I will address both issues there. - Agnistus (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Maintaining neutrality means including all significant material..." And significance is determined by coverage in reliable secondary sources (See section 3.1 etc.). Not by what you or I think is significant.

"... editors can use the subject as self-published source (under section 3.3 of WP:BLP)" - So long as the source is not talking about third parties, which is not the case here. Even WP:BLPSTYLE says it quite clearly: "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves " - note that it doesn't say "about others" i.e. Muslims, non-Muslims, Americans, and so on. The policy allows for information he publishes about himself i.e. he may say "I am of Konkani descent."

On the one hand, you are claiming that this particular view of his is "notable," yet on the other hand, you seem to believe that a primary source is sufficient for establishing its significance. Surely you see the contradiction. If you want a high quality article, Agnistus, then it is necessary to use third party reliable sources: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims." Yes, the purpose of a BLP is to convey information - more specifically, information that has been relayed through reliable sources. Its purpose is not to present those views of Naik that you or I personally deem significant, yet have no such coverage in third party reliable sources (which undermines any claim of significance). <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH  18:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Newspaper articles have been published on Zakir Naik in India. My friend who stay in the Kerala state, India; told me 2 state newspapers (Malayala Manorama and Mathri Bhoomi) has published articles on him several times. I can guess from this, that he has been discussed in other state newspapers or even national ones (,,..) as well. Many of the state and local newspapers (of India) do not have websites of their own, as such you cannot link to them directly. People like Naik who are not extremely famous (in order to have thorough coverage by major newspapers) but significant enough to have a Wikipedia article on them; usually don't make it into the headlines of major newspapers. Therefore editors decide to include content (if necessary using the subject as a self-published source - Section 3.3 WP:BLP) based on its notability/significance to the article. Unfortunately, Itaqallah does not understand this. He dismisses every non-primary source as belonging to fringe extremist websites. He also throws away research papers, by saying that they were polemical pieces written by the author in MS Word (as though it is prohibited to write research papers in MS Word). Rather he adamantly demands newspaper articles sources (of newspapers that he deems to not be "fringe extremist"). What I have to say is Insisting that every single sentence in a BLP should be referenced to a newspaper article is ABSURD. If that were the criterion; Wikipedia articles would be very short indeed. It is amazing that an extensive tug of war has been going on surrounding just one sentence (very notable/significant and which has generated lots of discussion) on apostasy. I would like to see a BLP in which each and every sentence has a newspaper article reference. Secondly, I have provided several sources proving notability (none of them primary); but you and your supporters have dismissed them with various comments like "it is anti-islamic", "it is a blog", bla bla bla; despite these links clearly proving the notability of the view(s) in question. Regarding compliance to WP:BLP, please do not re-iterate your arguments here; I have explained that the content complies in much detail above (see section Compliance with WP:BLP). I hope this bickering stops soon. Quote 71.118.42.243: "... don't have time to wade into the haystack of words which both sides pile up by taking turns. I urge you to drop your shovels and not load any more words for the sake of having typed something. The only thing I notice is the urge for deletion. I think both sides want to censor something. Instead adding information there is a competition to remove things. I condemn this form of editing as deeply flawed and unproductive. ... The main objective has been to carelessly delete.". - Agnistus (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So what if newspapers have published articles on him? What's that got to do with whether his view on apostasy is significant?
 * Zakir Naik does have sufficient coverage in reliable print materials - which is why he has an article. To propose that he is not very 'famous' as a pretext for tendentious primary source mining doesn't work for me really. Significance is shown by coverage in these reliable secondary sources. All of your secondary sources have been of extremely poor quality, I think everyone barring you can see how they violate the clearly stated requirements in WP:BLP.
 * You continue to assert the significance of this opinion, but cannot find a single reliable source to support this. The amount of blog discussion or forum posts available is not a criterion considered by Wikipedia in establishing significance. Only reliable secondary sources are of interest here; as noted in WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS. You are aware that no such sources exist, hence your appeal to section 3.3 - but even then the content is inadmissible as the comments are about third parties. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   22:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have dealt with sufficiently, several times. Please re-read my comments more carefully rather than keep continually restating you one sole argument - that the sources are not reliable; along with gross misinterpreatation/misunderstanding (aka wikilawyering - WP:LAWYER) of section 3.3 WP:BLP. If you want productve work done (which I doubt), co-operate and deal maturely with the issues at hand. - Agnistus (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with your argument is that you're trying to cover as many bases as possible, and as a result none are adequately covered. If you assert that it's significant, then be expected to provide evidence of that in the form of reliable sources. If you can't, then don't claim it's significant. Simple. Don't conflate it with this 3.3 argument - which, as has been shown, involves parties other than himself - no amount of convoluted explanation can escape that fact. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All I can gather from your response is that you have been paying very little attention to the points espoused in my replies (which at this point seems you have only been skim-reading). To claim that I tend to conflate the 3.3 argument is preposterous. I have explained in very deep detail, several times; both compliance to section 3.3 and notability which hitherto you have purposefully been ignoring. You then go on to make unwarranted unilateral edits on false grounds. You and I seem to disagree on validity of sources. Your source requirements, to say the least are "absurd". Quote: "... Insisting that every single sentence in a BLP should be referenced to a newspaper article is ABSURD. ... I would like to see a BLP in which each and every sentence has a newspaper article reference.". Applying WP:RS to sources when I have clearly said several times: "The point of the links is to prove significance/notability, a guiding factor for content inclusion." is moronic. Picking out 1 word ("concern") from Section 3.3 and debating on its meaning to use it as justification for your content removal (the zenith of wikilawyering) is not going to solve the problem. Either way your argument falls apart. - Agnistus (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Applying WP:RS to sources when I have clearly said several times: "The point of the links is to prove significance/notability, a guiding factor for content inclusion." - Can you show me any Wikipedia policy which says that notability can be determined from unreliable sources? You seem to be inventing rules and policy as you go along. WP:NPOV clearly says: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." - If a reliable source hasn't published it, Agnistus, it means it's not worth including. WP:RS is completely relevant to the discussion.
 * As for section 3.3, I've shown you that his comments involve third parties i.e. people other than himself. I've shown you WP:BLPSTYLE which clarifies that the only information that can be used is information he says about himself. You seem to believe Naik's opinions cannot be about third parties, which is clearly an erroneous stance. As for your comment about sourcing on BLPs - every passage should be reliably sourced- WP:BLP makes that abundantly clear - and there's many BLPs which conform to such, like Barack Obama, Jackie Chan etc. Reliable sources aren't just newspapers, they are academic books, journals, reviews, and so on.  <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you show me any Wikipedia policy which says that notability cannot be determined from primary sources? Setion 3.3 compliance has been explained in the section "Proof of compliance". - Agnistus (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take your lack of response to my question as a "no," then.
 * From WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."
 * From WP:V:"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." - "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source,"
 * From WP:BLP: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims."
 * And so on, and so forth. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, I should also advise you to control yourself please. This is not the place for you to constantly insert and remove invisible expletive-filled personal attacks. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the last time let me tell you: Section 3.3 says you can use primary sources. I have said this many times; as well as the fact that he is not making any claims, but just giving his opinion on certain aspects of Islam. Since the links are genuine primary sources and such primary sources are allowed under 3.3; I request you to end your tendentious agenda to remove content from Wikipedia that you personally dislike. - Agnistus (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, please answer my questions instead of changing the topic. Since you were adamant about asserting notability, I asked: Can you show me any Wikipedia policy which says that notability can be determined from unreliable sources? BLP 3.3 does say primary sources can be used under stringent circumstances, such as not making claims involving third parties. That includes not talking about Muslim apostates or America - which you inaccurately describe as talking about "certain aspects of Islam." These are all Naik's opinions about third parties. The view is insignificant, as shown by the lack of reliable sourcing, and the content demonstrably pertains to people other than Naik so it does not comply with 3.3. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You keep repeating the same question, Itaq. Not only do skim-read my comments but BozMo's too. Both I and BozMo have explained this to you. Quote BozMo: "I don't think you can push this quite so far, Itaqallah. At least every time I have tried to use exactly this argument (e.g. [47] I have been told that in practice we often include things which are of sufficient general interest once we have reliable reasons for believing them to be true. This is part of choosing "encyclopedic" content I guess, and I also guess you could patch policy to it, but practice favours keeping it in. So does my feeling... in some form it should stay in." Please understand "we often include things which are of sufficient general interest" and that there is no rigid written down law pertaining to this ( ... and I also guess you could patch policy to it, but practice favours keeping it in ... ). Wikipedia relies on editors to use their common sense (I am guessing next you'll ask me for a law that says this) and decide what is significant for inclusion. I did not even have to provide links for the apostasy thingy, because it common sense / general knowledge that death apostasy is certainly a matter of general interest. Yet I provided those links to satisfy your insatiable appetite (demands that I prove his views on apostasy are important) hoping that you would co-operate with me in creating a high-quality neutral and informative Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, I was wrong; you don't seem to have the least bit of interest in working together amicably but rather are vilely intent on having content that you dislike removed from the article. - Agnistus (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's interesting how you quote others as if their statements are policy, yet you cannot find a single policy-based statement which supports spurious notions like "notability is proven by sources that aren't reliable." Everytime you are challenged about the issue of "notability," you ignore it or evade it. The rest of your response is similarly evasive - you cannot establish a policy-based rationale for inclusion, you have no secondary reliable sources to establish significance. The entirity of WP:BLP contradicts you in that regard. Thus, you appeal to the primary source clause, but don't see how Naik's claims (or, "feelings", if you like) are about people other than himself. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   22:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just wow. Another repeat. You just paraphrased: "Zakir Naik does have sufficient coverage in reliable print materials - which is why he has an article. To propose that he is not very 'famous' as a pretext for tendentious primary source mining doesn't work for me really. Significance is shown by coverage in these reliable secondary sources. All of your secondary sources have been of extremely poor quality, I think everyone barring you can see how they violate the clearly stated requirements in WP:BLP#Reliable sources. You continue to assert the significance of this opinion, but cannot find a single reliable source to support this. The amount of blog discussion or forum posts available is not a criterion considered by Wikipedia in establishing significance. Only reliable secondary sources are of interest here; as noted in WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS. You are aware that no such sources exist, hence your appeal to section 3.3 - but even then the content is inadmissible as the comments are about third parties. ITAQALLAH 22:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC) " - Agnistus (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me now that you are playing a game of repetition, paraphrasing and restating you older comments; continually ignoring the points I have made. Well if this is the strategy that you wish to adopt to pursue you tendentious agenda, then you force me to do the same. - Agnistus (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is my reply:
 * All I can gather from your response is that you have been paying very little attention to the points espoused in my replies (which at this point seems you have only been skim-reading). To claim that I tend to conflate the 3.3 argument is preposterous. I have explained in very deep detail, several times; both compliance to section 3.3 and notability which hitherto you have purposefully been ignoring. You then go on to make unwarranted unilateral edits on false grounds. You and I seem to disagree on validity of sources. Your source requirements, to say the least are "absurd". Quote: "... Insisting that every single sentence in a BLP should be referenced to a newspaper article is ABSURD. ... I would like to see a BLP in which each and every sentence has a newspaper article reference.". Applying WP:RS to sources when I have clearly said several times: "The point of the links is to prove significance/notability, a guiding factor for content inclusion." is moronic. Picking out 1 word ("concern") from Section 3.3 and debating on its meaning to use it as justification for your content removal (the zenith of wikilawyering) is not going to solve the problem. Either way your argument falls apart. Both I and BozMo have explained this to you. Quote BozMo: "I don't think you can push this quite so far, Itaqallah. At least every time I have tried to use exactly this argument (e.g. [47] I have been told that in practice we often include things which are of sufficient general interest once we have reliable reasons for believing them to be true. This is part of choosing "encyclopedic" content I guess, and I also guess you could patch policy to it, but practice favours keeping it in. So does my feeling... in some form it should stay in." Please understand "we often include things which are of sufficient general interest" and that there is no rigid written down law pertaining to this ( ... and I also guess you could patch policy to it, but practice favours keeping it in ... ). Wikipedia relies on editors to use their common sense (I am guessing next you'll ask me for a law that says this) and decide what is significant for inclusion. I did not even have to provide links for the apostasy thingy, because it common sense / general knowledge that death apostasy is certainly a matter of general interest. Yet I provided those links to satisfy your insatiable appetite (demands that I prove his views on apostasy are important) hoping that you would co-operate with me in creating a high-quality neutral and informative Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, I was wrong; you don't seem to have the least bit of interest in working together amicably but rather are vilely intent on having content that you dislike removed from the article. - Agnistus (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Flawed editing
Once again, I am truly not a supporter of Naik. I am neither a Hindu nor a Muslim.

I can't figure out what the heck is going on with the article and don't have time to wade into the haystack of words which both sides pile up by taking turns. I urge you to drop your shovels and not load any more words for the sake of having typed something. The only thing I notice is the urge for deletion. I think both sides want to censor something. Instead adding information there is a competition to remove things. I condemn this form of editing as deeply flawed and unproductive.

A good example of this mode of flawed editing has been the removal of the Hinduism section. No one who shown any willingnees to tweak the material or do a diddlysquat. The main objective has been to carelessly delete.--71.118.42.243 (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want his views on Hinduism in the article, I suggest you summarize the section on Hinduism to 1 or 2 sentences and add it to the Lectures & Visits section. The reason your content was removed was removed was because of unattested POV, undue weight, lack of reliability of sources. The section focused on just one aspect and elaborated on it. Also, if you're adding any such material; please avoid personal unverified opinion like "Zakir Naik is a scholar of Hinduism" or "Zakir Naik has converted many Hindus into Muslims". Rather directly cite his statements in a neutral manner, for example: "Zakir Naik has stated that Mohammed (PUH) was Kalki, the 10th avatar of Vishnu; although this theory is disputed by several Hindu and non-Hindu scholars". - Agnistus (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone got a reference for the claim about Thomas Blom Hansen?
I was just adding some new content to the article when I noticed this statement Thomas Blom Hansen, a sociologist at the University of Edinburgh, has written Naik's style of memorizing the Qur'an and hadith literature in various languages, and travelling abroad to debate Islam with theologians, has made him extremely popular in Muslim circles. I've tried google-ing for Hansen in the current context and come up with nothing except some personal blogs and articles which have the same statement printed VERBATIM. Does anyone have any citations/references for this? &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Hmm... You've got a worthy point there; I guess its best to look for some reliable secondary sources before proposing the inclusion of this content again. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please look at the references section. Elazeez, I disagree with the addition of more content sourced to primary sources - it is only acceptable incases where Naik is explicitly talking about himself. If this is not the case, and we are instead making deductions on the basis of primary sources, then this material is original research and should be removed. Additionally, there should certainly be no reliance upon primary sources in an article, which I feel is a trend developing here. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   13:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are very important in helping us to objectively evaluate what should be in a BLP and what should not. Some go so far as to suggest that only material in print biographies should be used, but that is not a consensus view. We need to be thoughtful, caring, and careful. We have time to get it right. Find the best sources and include the most encyclopedic claims. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to my revision :-

Singh
I performed this edit because, on a search, I couldn't find any reference in the source article to the claim that Singh had criticised Naik for a claim that "Eating pork makes one behave like a pig". Singh does take issue with Naik's characterization of pigs as unclean animals (not big news--Naik is a muslim, Singh is not) but does not represent Singh as making the claim quoted in the article. Please check the source and verify. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The cited article too doesn't show Sinhg saying anything about the claim made viz Singh also expressed surprise at Naik's belief that "Eating pork makes one behave like a pig". (No more Original Research please Agnistus ) &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sub-sections
I created the sub-sections, because it improves the readability of the article a lot. They are removed by another user because a) they are Prospective Troll Magnets b) [you] Can't mention ALL his visits here so no cherry-picking.

It may be true. However, in this way medium-interested people wouldn't be eager to read this amount of continuous text. Furthermore, I believe the mentioned visits of Naik caused some stirr in the press, so they are noteworthy enough to get an apart sub-section. So let us vote: who agrees or disagrees with subsections?

I agree.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree because I feel that making sections like these could give an impression like Dr. Naik's delivered only these (3) lectures and all of them have been subjects of controversy. Moreover since [we] cannot include information about all his lectures/visits, it might seem that these 3 were the most note-worthy ones with the criticisms being the highlights. Besides, if we have sections criticising his visits, they might become prospective troll magnets over a period of time with editors concentrating on adding more to those respective sections rather than to the article as a whole. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you disagree. You made some subsections yourself a few weeks ago at Jimmy Swaggart:. What is the difference between the subsections thre and over here?Jeff5102 (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We cannot make subsections for the same reasons that I've cited above, Jeff. To summarize, if we are to make sub-sections for Dr. Naik's speeches, then why not incorporate a section for all of them instead of a just these three which have been subjects of controversy? &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea. As long as they are noteworthy, and well referenced, I cannot see any objection. By the way, are there any written transcripts of his debates? I saw some of them on youtube, but that is no valid source.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The only problem with that, Jeff, is that there are too many of them out there. (I heard the number being around 800+). And you're right, YouTube wont qualify as a valid source too; but then if you've been reading the archives out here you'll see that most editors here have reached a consensus at including only that content which has reliable secondary sources supporting it. Hence for any more details of Dr. Naik's lectures to get into this article, they would need reliable media coverage. For these and similar reasons I was against the idea of the seggregation of statements in Lectures and Visits into separate subsections. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly mind sub-sections, but one must be aware not to present the article in a way that leans towards controversy. The only views of Naik and incidences concerning him that need be mentioned are ones that have been covered in third party reliable sources. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse, Itaq. Your religious persuasion is well-known in Wikipedia circles. - Agnistus (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on content, not the contributor. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I never thought that lay-out-questions could sprarkle such bitter personal attacks. Too badJeff5102 (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeff. I've removed the sections for now as I don't think they're particularly necessary. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   15:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I must admit that you are right Itaqallah (regarding WP:NPA), I must say that as far as you are concerned; something more appropriate (for you) would be "Comment on the content, not the censor". - Agnistus (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Deleted. Was slightly angry. My apologies to you, Itaqallah. - Agnistus (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please just calm down before you post. Don't make personal attacks and then strike them out a minute later - repeatedly doing this starts to look pointish. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   16:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT has nothing to do with that comment. - Agnistus (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It has everything to do with habitually making unacceptable comments and then striking them immediately afterwards. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   15:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to re-read WP:POINT. Especially section 2.1 - Agnistus (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sections
I feel the "Lectures and Visits" section is very long and needs to be split up into sub-sections soa s to make it more readable. - Agnistus (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have begun to perform a preliminary splitting up of the section. Comment here on what you feel would be appropriate names for sections, e.t.c. - Agnistus (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid adding material with unreliable (primary) sources
Wikipedia rules (WP:RS) prohibits adding content with primary sources, especially on a BLP (see WP:BLP). There were several sentences and even a while paragraph in the article sourced to "irf.net". Since irf.net is a primary source, it cannot be used; thus I removed such material. Not only was the material added back without any discussion on the talk page; another primary source was attached to it, further violating WP:RS and WP:BLP. I kindly request all editors/contributors to follow Wikipedia guidelines and refrain from re-inserting content with unreliable sources in the future, until you can provide reliable 3rd-party sources for them. Thank you. - Agnistus (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove reliably sourced content.
Please do not remove reliably sourced content from the article without proper reasons and discussion. The Indian Express is well-known mainstream publication. Declaring such high-quality 3rd-party sources to be unreliable, and removing content with such fallacious claims is nothing more than POV enforcement. It would be best if contributors read Wikipedia guidelines (WP:RS and WP:BLP) before editing. Thank you. - Agnistus (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Like RegenerateThis said, the source is merely an op-ed. Secondly, why do you insert totally unsourced negative material on a BLP while on the other hand insisting on reliable sourcing? <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The section "Criticism" has been removed. Secondly; as I said before "The Indian Express is well-known mainstream publication. Declaring such high-quality 3rd-party sources to be unreliable, and removing content with such fallacious claims is nothing more than POV enforcement.". Even if it is an op ed, that does not make the article an unreliable source, since it has been published on such well-known mainstream newspaper. - Agnistus (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The article on the "Indian Express" in my view, qualifies as originating comes from a reliable source. Does the fact that it's an op-ed detract in any way from this ?

My personal opinion is that the quote refers to one of the most controversial and well-known aspects of Naik's ideas, and that it should stay. Giordaano (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the fact that the article is an op-ed does detract from its reliability. It should only really be used for attributing the opinions of the author, certainly not acceptable for saying anything about Naik. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The paper which includes the op-ed does have editorial oversight (per WP:RS) and so in my opinion may be used for reporting facts. And those fragments, in which the "Indian Express" quotes Naik, it uses facts, doesn't it? Of course, the conclusions drawn by Sudheendra Kulkarni cannot seen as facts, but the facts he uses can be used. Unless these quotes were disputed, ut I couldn't find such.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur. Agnistus (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove content sourced to reliable 3rd-party sources.
Several sections of the article were removed despite attempts to restore them. The reasons provided in the edit summary for the deletions are invalid and fail to explain how the information is "irrelevent" (see ) despite being published on a National newspaper (The Hindu). Reckless content deletion such as these (,, e.t.c.) falls under the category of vandalism. Please understand that Wikipedia is not censored to satisfy the particular interests of certain groups. I request all editors (esp. User: Elazeez) to follow Wikipedia guidelines while editing. Thank you. - Agnistus (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll answer rapid-fire to Agnistus' points to save time (and hopefully, some space too)  1.)  User:Elazeez was away for the weekend and hence the delay of 3 days in this reply.  2.)  'Irrelevant' connotes irrelevance. I fail to understand how the controversial views of a certain tabloid (which is not the National Newspaper of India BTW) are worthy enough of consideration. Even if for argument's sake I agree that they might deserve any space on WP, to be frank the article only seems like a polemical piece by some critic who's bent on painting Dr. Naik in the same hue as some terrorist organizations. C'mon, can't YOU see the blatantly visible baggage of hate against Naik the article comes with? It's like some nutcase saying Agnistus believes in Hinduism, which is same religious ideology which hardened terrorist Maya Dolas followed all through his career as an extortionist. Don't get me wrong, I hate Dolas but I totally respect your religious views (See Qur'an 6:108 which beckons muslims to respect other communities). You just can't go about likening people good and bad over some view which co-incides amongst them. 3.)  BTW, there are many incidents when a certain newspaper article contains defamatory content and then (if there's cry over it) there's a public apology printed by the same tabloid a few days later. Have you checked up if there was an apology in any of the days after the printing of the article?  4.)  My edit summaries WERE explanatory enough AND I've also called for a discussion on the talk page. A call for discussion is something which you've violated. (See the Bold-Revert-Discuss rule on WP).  5.)  Regarding that SlashDot article you've linked about censoring: The article starts off with The New York Times is reporting that Muslim groups are attempting to censor Wikipedia because of images of Muhammad contained in the article about him (PBUH) and rants about some muslims not approving of images of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) being added to the article [Muhammed on WP. Agnistus, have you considered the [controversy of Rama's Setu] to Lanka? Please do check out the edit histories and discussions on the talk page for the article on WP. No I'm not belittling the mythological significance of the natural formation, all I'm saying is that there are some things which do inflame certain people; and if they protest against those things, you and I don't need to object when  a.)  it doesn't concern us and  b.)  we cannot comprehend its significance. It would be diabolic on my part if I used the controversy surrounding the article on Rama's Setu (known as Adam's Bridge too) against you or any other co-editors saying Hindus are trying to censor wikipedia. I am hoping you understand my points Agnistus. I will now proceed to delete that content and expect it to not be re-instated without a consensus here. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not fully conclusive whether Rama Sethu was a natural formation, despite it seeming likely, though this is hardly comparable to censoring Muhammad's article which has been a far bigger issue and entirely based on religious reasons rather than logic. Trips (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. (with Trips) - Agnistus (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC).


 * BTW, I found a comment on Slashdot (see ) and feel like quoting it. Quote: "This being Islam we're talking about, it propably won't take too long before death threats start flying, and it's always possible some lunatic will decide to carry them out, or take less drastic action, such as a cyber-attack against the Wikipedia servers ... Cue a hundred replies claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance; and maybe it is - I wouldn't know, since I haven't read their holy book. All I know is that it certainly seems attract lots of bloodthirsty lunatics who use their religion as an excuse to live up to their murderous nature."

I reinstated the part fromThe Hindu. THe paper looks reliable enough to me.If there is an apology printed for this article, please let me know.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeff5102, it is not the The Hindu a reliable source 'feeling' that's being questioned. It is 'undue weight?' that needs an answer. Please understand that 'please let me know' is not a good enough excuse to put up a polemical statement in BLP. Since there's a call for discussion over the issue here, according to WP:BLP, there is a need of a consensus before restoration of deleted content takes place. Quoting WP:BLP Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Can't you see that presenting a controversial article by The Hindu which likens Dr. Zakir Naik to a terrorist organization can harm his public image? &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You have got a point at your undue weight-argument.With regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Abdel, until you find an apology for the article published on The Hindu, you cannot remove the material from the page. There is something called WP:NPOV, that articles have to adhere to. Quote NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." An article published by a National newspaper (yes, The Hindu is one) is an extremely reliable 3rd-party source. (WP:RS and WP:V says "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed"). Regarding "A call for discussion is something which you've violated." and "I will now proceed to delete that content and expect it to not be re-instated without a consensus here."; please understand that in Wikipedia, reverting vandalism does not require any discussion or consensus on the talk page. - Agnistus (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC).


 * 1) Its not upto me to find any counter-arguments Agnistus. Being neutral also involves adhering to the policy about WP:BLP which says Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". 2) The Hindu is NOT the National Newspaper of India. Nevermind that claim about a 3rd party that you've made though. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NPOV
Agnistus, I am sure you are aware that WP:BLP writes that biographies should be written conservatively. It seems that people have been bloating the section beyond all proportion as if every view of Naik mentioned must be mentioned in intricate detail. You tell us about WP:NPOV, but the spirit of WP:UNDUE - which is to not unduly focus on any aspect of Naik - has been omitted from your comments. Please don't be under the impression that removing such excess constitutes vandalism - it doesn't. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed down the section in question to make it more manageable, as it severely outweighed the rest of the article put together. I've removed the masses of text consisting of "Naik said this, Naik said that" because it's of no encyclopedic value - if you want to quote Naik, consider taking it to Wikiquote. A lot of the other text was of marginal significance, the sources mentioning Naik only in passing or not imparting any information of value about Naik (i.e. 'Naik says hijab is good, Naik says rape is bad, Naik says you should have a beard and mustache'). The sub-section headings, which are an illustration that editors have been getting carried away with the content-bloating and not writing conservatively, have been removed. There is still some more work to do in order to bring the content in line with encyclopedic standards. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For similar reasons, I've deleted the image Burqa Afghanistan01.jpg. There's no reliable reference to support the claim that Naik has endorsed that style of Burqa (probably Afghanistani) as a kind of Hijaab for muslim women. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not focused on any particular view of Naik. Instead many views have been covered in the article. Each view has been reliably quoted to a reliable 3rd-party source. - Agnistus (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So what? It isn't conservative writing, it imparts no information what would be found in a serious encyclopedia (who cares what he thinks about beards/mustaches??), and constitutes coatracking. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have removed the needless discussion about personal views of Islam or Naik, as talk pages are not the place for this. Please refer to WP:TPG and WP:SOAP. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH  01:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have absolutely no right to remove my comments from the talk page. Not only do you disrupt the article, but also its talk page. - Agnistus (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop being needlessly combative. I did direct you to WP:TPG, which says: "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." If you feel this is wrong, then I'd recommend you take it to AN/I. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Islam
BTW a reply to Abdel's statement: "I totally respect your religious views (See Qur'an 6:108 which beckons muslims to respect other communities)". I ask the Muslims, if you can quote 6:108; then why not quote Qu'ran 9:5 (At-Tawba 5) ? This verse truly shows what Islam thinks of non-believers (kafirs). Quote Ibn Kathir's commentary on the verse: Do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam." Every religious leader has been an example of peace and goodness, except Muhammed. Jesus, Buddha, e.t.c. never shed blood. On the contrary, Muhammed was a mass-murderer. Not only is the book violent and unjust; but also contains gross scientific errors such as the splitting of the moon. So don't try to cover up this fact and pretend that it is peaceful or just. - Agnistus (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are your answers: 1) Have you by any chance had the chance to look at an article dealing with Quran9:5 At-Tawba 5 (which BTW is about a war that was taking place between the Muslims and the Pagans... I'm sure no army-general will ask his army to have mercy on the enemy's soldiers) I'm also pretty sure taht if you read (atleast) the WP article it with an open mind, you'll find some answers there. 2) Forget Jesus (PBUH) (since I don't think the Bible is your area of expertise... AND also since I could prove you wrong on that account as well), how about your own Mahabharata which has more verses of killing than the Qur'an itself?. 3) Splitting up of the moon? see Miracles. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Abdel; In the Mahabharata and war, most of the killing is done in order to maintain Dharma (peace and justice). Not to force a religion down the throats of unwilling people. - (copy from Elazeez talk) Agnistus (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 PLEASE NOTE THAT AGNISTUS HAS COPIED THE GREEN TEXT BELOW FROM MY TALK PAGE DESPITE MY (TWICE) EXPRESSED DISAPPROVAL TO SPAMMING THIS ZAKIR NAIK'S TALK PAGE WITH IRRELEVANT INFORMATION. Agnistus, this is mischief that you're playing (or is it all just a bout of impulse?). If you want answers to any of the following points, please do speak with me on my personal talk page OR send me a PM [but doing that still wouldn't permit you to copy my answers and reproduce them here... Simply because this is all just a waste of time and energy (not to forget, valuable real-estate on an encyclopaedic article's talk page).] I wont be posting in this section anymore for you Agnistus. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion began here so it only appropriate that it must continue here. - Agnistus (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Agnistus: Precisely said (well, almost). The only difference is, I can't see the verse from the Quran that you've quoted on Dr. Zakir Naik's talk page (i.e. At-Tawba 5) befitting the latter example above (i.e. forcing religion down peoples' throats). Please do find some replies below:-
 * Hmm... so you DID drop the discussion about Jesus PBUH's teachings eh? Thats good I'd say, now InshaAllah we can concentrate on your personal doubts.
 * Jesus said "Love thy enemy", and he never hurt anyone; instead he cured people. Compare that with "kill the mushkireen (pagans/idolators/non-beleivers)".
 * Peace and Justice (Is that a new translation of the word 'Dharma'? Which I've always found to be synonymous with religion?) by killing ones own cousins, Agnistus?
 * The Bahagavd Gita clearly says the purpose of the war is to maintain peace. Quote Gita: "..paritranaya sadhunam vinashanaya dushkritham.." ("to protect the good people and to destroy the evil people"). Not on religious grounds.
 * Chapter 9 (At-Tawba) talks of a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Pagans which was violated by the Pagans. You NEED to read the translation of the chapter from verse 1 onwards to verse 8 (atleast) to understand the context InshaAllah. There, I've linked it for you here http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html
 * Why read only till verse 8? First I suggest you read verse 8 ("they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant ... their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked."), then read the whole chapter. This sura has many more horrbile verses in it such as "Fight thte non-beleivers until they submit and pay the Jizya (non-muslim tax)" At-Tawba 29, e.t.c.
 * Soon after the death of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the death of Abu Bakr, the first caliph, the Muslim faithful were led by Caliph `Umar, one of the Prophet's Companions. When `Umar entered Jerusalem at the head of a Muslim army in 638 CE, just six years after the Prophet's death, he entered the city on foot, as a gesture of humility in a city sacred to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. There was no bloodshed. There were no massacres or forced conversions. On the contrary, those who wanted to leave were allowed to do so with all their possessions. Those who wanted to stay were granted protection for their lives, their property, and their places of worship. `Umar very famously declined to pray one of the five daily prayers in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, lest in years to come Muslims might try to turn it into a mosque in his memory. Instead, `Umar cleansed the so-called Temple Mount with rose water and built a small mosque there, where the Dome of the Rock now stands.
 * "protection for their lives"? Yes, As Dhimmis (third-class citizens) who must pay the Jizya (non-muslim tax).
 * The spread of Islaam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity, who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword - often basing their conduct on Biblical verses. This was especially true of the colonisation of South America and Africa, where native peoples were systematically wiped-out or forced to convert. It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islaamic Empire, instead of destroying the religion, they adopted it. This is a unique occurrence in history - the conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered! Since they were the victors, they certainly could not have been forced to become Muslims! Ask any of the over one billion Muslims alive in the world today whether they were forced! The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia -- and there were never any battles fought there! So where was the sword? How could someone be forced to adhere to a spiritually rewarding and demanding religion like Islam?
 * There have been special cases when people have willfully adopted Islam. But compared with the spread of Buddhism, the spread of Islam is overwhelmingly filled wiht blooshed. For example Timur, who came to India and killed 100,000 hindus; or the famous Aurangazeb, imposer of Jizya & destroyer of 3000+ tempels. Monuments like the Qutb Complex were built after demolishing 20 Jain temples. Actually, why look into the past; what about the recent attacks on Bangalore & hamedabad by the so-called "peaceful muslims". There several more such examples. You call this peaceful?
 * It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islaam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islaamic Empire?
 * They survived as dimmis/third-class-citizens (and becuase they were strong-willed & would-not-convert-so-easily).
 * Have you heard of the non-muslim historian De Lacy O' Leary who wrote: "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islaam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever accepted." (Islaam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p. 8.)?
 * Wrong. (Copy from above) For example Timur, who came to India and killed 100,000 hindus; or the famous Aurangazeb, imposer of Jizya & destroyer of 3000+ tempels. Monuments like the Qutb Complex were built after demolishing 20 Jain temples. Actually, why look into the past; what about the recent attacks on Bangalore & hamedabad by the so-called "peaceful muslims". There several more such examples. You call this peaceful? Quote Timur: "In a short space of time all the people in the Delhi fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives....on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam at liberty... no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword.".
 * One could go on and on explaining the point to you Agnistus, but the question is, are you ready to listen with an open mind? Allah the Exalted says in the Qur'an, 2:256 'Let there be no compulsion in religion; Truth stands out clear from Error.' If you come with an open mind, InshaAllah you will see the truth... &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its because I have an open mind that I don't fall for this.

You may wish to consider a blog or forum for this soapboxing, because Wikipedia is not the place. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH  18:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And soapboxing it is indeed User:Agnistus; nevermind though, I'll finish off the discussion in this one post InshaAllah. For any more talk on these, please post on my talk page and avoid cluttering this space. Like I said before, for more talk on this, speak with me on my talk page. This Zakir Naik talk-page is not a blog or a forum on critique about Islam &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And who started the whole thing?? Adbel started it all by quoting verses from the quran in a discussion that has nothing to do with Islam. Show your smartness to him, Itaq. - Agnistus (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said above, Agnistus, "This Zakir Naik talk-page is not a blog or a forum on critique about Islam" please do speak with me on my talk page. I can't understand why you'd want to replicate content that you've posted on My Talk Page out here. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting the article.
It is after putting in much effort that I made this article neat, informative, readable and realibly sourced. Yet some editors (Itaq & Abdel) who seek to censor Wikipedia have continually deleted content without any good reason except POV pushing, despite attempts by other editors to stop it. Please stop disrupting this article. - Agnistus (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So I reverted all the disruptive edits made by Itaq and Adbel, to maintain encyclopedic quality. - Agnistus (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Please stop disrupting...' is not a valid reason for such drastic edits which may be classified as vandalism. Your words  I made this article neat, informative, readable and realibly sourced sounds like you want to put up everything that you've written down on this page; and that's unacceptable Agnistus. I've reverted your recent edits (which included putting in an image which 'might' be under the scanner due to its inappropriate licensing info. Please understand the implications of using non-free content on WP) &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, please stop assuming bad faith. And please stop labelling others' edits as disruptive, especially if you give no indication that you are wary of the concerns raised. This is not a sandbox for mass-quoting everything Naik has ever said. Consider taking it to Wikiquote. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   16:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted some edits (in this-->) to the last version which didn't have them. WP:BLP asks for a consensus to be reached before restoration of deleted content takes place. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said before, Abdel; reverting vandalism does not require consensus. The edit/revert which you did, made the article everything but informative and readable. Not only did you indulge in mass deletions of reliably sourced contnet, you also got rid of the sections (which made the article more readable), all wihtout any proper reason or explanation. This is vandalism that certainly deserves blocking. - Agnistus (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, if you continue to wrongly call edits vandalism, then you may be blocked for incivility. Elazeez and myself have explained why quotefarming and coatracking on a BLP is totally unacceptable. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   01:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Any user/admin can clear see the disruptive nature of your edits. You yourself know perfectly well that your edits/censorship is in full violation of WP rules. Yet you continue to indulge in them so as to fulfill your personal agenda. Please explain how repeatedly deleting reliably sourced content can be considered as constructive "edits" and not vandalism. Also show me a Wikipedia rule that prohibits quoting the subject in a BLP. Itaqallah, if you continue to repeadetly remove reliably sourced material, you may be blocked for vandalism. - Agnistus (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
I guess that we need here is WP:3. Without blaming anyone for these problems, this leads to nowhere. Could you all three agree with that?Jeff5102 (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; a 3rd opinion would be very useful, provided the opinion comes from an unbiased neutral preferablly non-muslim user. - Agnistus (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I've bowed out of this discussion, but I agree with including the reliably sourced content. Removing it repeatedly smacks of POV-pushing in my view. S. Dean Jameson 12:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reinserting mass-quotes and content which clearly shifts an undue focus onto Naik's views is simply not neutral, especially for a BLP, and especially when it outweighs the rest of the article several times over. Many of the sources are simply op-eds. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   01:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing opinions of Naik that you do not wish to be present in the article while retaining content that you like, is a violation of WP:NPOV. - Agnistus (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agnistus, you should address the concerns raised. Turning the article into a verbose screed about his every thought - with supplementary inline quotes - is itself a violation of WP:NPOV. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They're his views, represented by words he spoke. How can this be biased? And how can an article on Naik have an "undue focus on [his] views"? The article is about him and his views? Just because you don't like what he says and writes being out there, doesn't mean it shouldn't be out there. S. Dean Jameson 13:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While there should be space for coverage for his views as related by reliable sources, they should not overwhelm the rest of the article. The mass quotefarming in this respect illustrates my point, and unbalances the presentation. See WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Please keep personal speculation of what apparently I like and dislike out of this discussion. Thank you. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a quotefarm, it's a documentation of views (well-referenced), that he does, in fact, hold. That you find the inclusion of them objectionable in some way matters not at all. All that matters is that they're reliably sourced and conform with Wikipedia policy. S. Dean Jameson 19:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mass quoting on an article - as is the case in Agnistus' version - is self-evidently a quotefarm. They don't conform with Wikipedia policy, hence my objection. Op-eds aren't really reliable sources, especially not on a BLP. But let's assume the sources are adequate for the purposes of the discussion. The weight given to the 'documentation' of Naik's views is excessive, and thus exaggerates the importance or significance of this aspect to the subject as a whole. Which is why the issue of WP:UNDUE has been raised, and for some time. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added this page on WP:3, since nobody disagrees.Jeff5102 (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Compare and Comment
There is an ongoing dispute among editors as to how this article should be presented. Please compare these two versions of the article and comment on their readablity, informativeness and how well organized they are. Thankyou. - Agnistus (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The content should not be judged by criterion arbitrarily decided by yourself. For judging basic content acceptablity, we primarily use the core content policies: namely WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also note that Agnistus has solicited the opinion of select editors. See WP:CANVASS in this regard. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   21:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Version (228975985) recommended by user Agnistus.


 * I would prefer Agustinus's version. It is much better readable. However, Itaqallah had a point, when he said that the picture of the women in burqa could be misleading. I quess we can find a better picture for that.Jeff5102 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who cares if its more readable if it fundamentally violates WP:UNDUE? My contention is that the weight of coverage must be balanced - giving excessive weight to one aspect of the article implies that this area is of greater significance to the subject than is actually the case. When one aspect outweighs the one article several times over, then you know there's a problem with balance. WP:UNDUE makes this quite clear: "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." That this is a BLP means it is of pressing importance to keep things in balance. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I care. It was me who started to talk about sub-sections; without them this article is just a plain mess. My opinion is: before we can judge if the article violates other rules, we need to be able to READ the article.Jeff5102 (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. We know you think it does, but that doesn't make it true. You asked for a 3O, and he gave it to you. Now we either choose to abide by the 3O (my preference), or we take it further up dispute resolution. S. Dean Jameson 19:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How can Jeff5102 be the third opinion when he himself posted the request on WP:3O, and is already involved in the dispute? "No, it doesn't. We know you think it does, but that doesn't make it true." - This doesn't actually address the points I raised. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way Jeff, 3O is for dispute resolution between two editors. I think RfC is the correct avenue here. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I misread the posting. I thought Agnistus posted it. Apologies. The point remains, though, that simply objecting to reliably sourced information isn't enough to remove it. And for the record, there are two distinct opinions here, which makes it a decent candidate for 3O. If one of the groups doesn't like the result, then RfC would be the next step. S. Dean Jameson 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Objections should be policy/guideline-based, which I believe mine is. On that basis, and on the basis that WP:BLP applies, I think trimming down the excess is absolutely necessary (which is what I attempted). If the content under dispute is newly inserted then it should be removed until we agree upon how and what to incorporate, as we defer to the previous consensus - wherein we had two concise paragraphs about Naiks views and controversies surrounding him. I don't mind pursuing 3O, but as the opening sentences of that page note, it's for dispute resolution between two editors. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Version (228786579) recommended by user Elazeez.

Not WP:UNDUE
The proponents for basically chopping this article in half keep (erroneously) citing WP:UNDUE. The text of that link has nothing to do with this article. The quotes and other referenced material they keep removing without consensus directly bears on the subject of this article. He is a Muslim scholar, and these are his beliefs regarding Islam. All that WP:UNDUE requires is that proper weight be given to differing viewpoints in order to satisfy WP:NPOV. Referenced quotes regarding his opinions as a Muslim scholar do not unbalance the article unfairly at all, thus the article in no way violates WP:UNDUE. S. Dean Jameson 19:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your attribution to WP:UNDUE is incorrect. It says: " Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints . Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
 * Secondly, if you want to talk about consensus, then the material never had consensus when it was inserted in the first place. It needs consensus to remain. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. It's reliably-sourced, pertinent to the article, and doesn't overemphasize any one aspect of the subject, which is what UNDUE is meant to address. These statements bear directly on his being a Muslim scholar. There's just no undue weight there, no matter how much you try to represent that there is. I'd be interested to read how exactly you feel referencing some views he holds as a Muslim scholar violates undue weight. Be specific please, along with quotes from UNDUE for clarity's sake. S. Dean Jameson 20:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've quoted to you WP:UNDUE already. It says that UNDUE applies to more than just viewpoints, it applies to weight of coverage- directly contradicting your earlier comment. Excessive focus on one aspect- irrespective of whether it is all factual- is not an appropriate balance. The coverage of his views - merely one aspect of the article - outweighs the rest of the article several times over. This is plain for all to see. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   20:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He is a Muslim scholar. As a Muslim scholar, his views as a Muslim scholar SHOULD "outweigh" the other portions of the article. Stop erroneously citing WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP in edit summaries. It doesn't apply here at all. S. Dean Jameson 20:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To tweak your own words slightly: "Yes, it does. We know you think it doesn't, but that doesn't make it true."
 * He's not actually a Muslim scholar by qualification, nor does he issue fatwa. So why should one section outweigh the others, and by such an enormously large amount?  <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   21:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That he is not an Islamic scholar seems of no consequence to me. He happens to be a public figure speaking frequently on Islamic topics. We cannot simply ignore that. Str1977 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting we ignore it. There is of course room for discussion of his views, but the volume of content for it should be balanced and in proportion, as opposed to outweighing the rest of the article by some distance. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   00:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Errors needing rectification in this version
While there is still no consensus on to keep or do away with the content(and while some of us are pushing to keep it until we arrive at a consensus), there is need to atleast get some things right in it (remember, while we are engaged in our editorial discussions, the world is still reading the articles on WP as a source of encyclopaedic information). In the recent version (by Agnistus) there are too many blatant issues needing rectification, and yet it amazes one that no one has cared to correct even some of them before dutifully reverting any new revesion to that one. For instance, the first line contains Arabic text that simply reads Zakir Naik next to its english counterpart reading Zakir Abdul Karim Naik; each time it has been corrected, Agnistus or someone else has simply reverted the complete revision. The next two paras seem as if they were written in a hurry (missing conjunctions?), in order to get to started with the Lectures and Visits' section. The so-called 'Lectures and visits' section (which Agnistus has been very generous in spliting up into sub-sections) has silly looking sub-section headings, all starting with 'Lectures and Visits regarding...' except the last one (Is this an article about Naik or about his Lectures and Visits?) From the article, it seems only a fraction of his lectures and visits have been reported in Op-eds, and Op-eds are what this encyclopaedic article has seemingly used as its primary source of information. Besides, all text in the version lacks what WP:RS demands, When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. (emphasis mine); once in-text attributions are given, the article would be totally outweighed by content copy-pasted directly. WP:UNDUE, thus still holds ground.&#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And YES, the image of two burqa-clad Afghan women is essentially mis-leading. Because 1) It is only a picture of two Afghan-Women (wearing the kind of Burqa fashioned mostly in Afghanistan) 2) There is no evidence to show that this kind of Burqa is the one Naik endorses (Naik has endorsed the 'Hijaab' and not the Burqa, which is a kind of Hijaab) (WP:Original research?) and 4) The image is not even the actual hijaab which is prescribed in Islam for women (the one which says everything should be covered except the palm of the hands and the face) &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another one, whoever inserted the text Naik went on to say "Jihad is not what the media has portrayed it as - it is not a holy war. There is no such thing as holy war in Islam. Jihad is an oxymoron term used by the international media to describe certain people." citing as the reference, seems to have not read the op-ed even once because the text in the cited source actually contains this text: Egypitian-born Canadian academic Professor Badawi said the message of Islam was peace. He said: "Jihad is not what the media has portrayed it as - it is not a holy war. There is no such thing as holy war in Islam. Jihad is an oxymoron term used by the international media to describe certain people.'' (so it was JAMAL BADAWI who said it, not Naik). &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So it seems that not only is the content being defended clearly excessive in weight and sourced to op-eds, it also contains outright misinformation. And, as has been noted for the nth time, it enjoyed no consensus in the first place - so there is certainly no need for consensus to restore the previous version (which did enjoy consensus). I'd suggest the proponents of this mass of unencyclopedic material scrutinise it more closely before defending it as adamantly as they are. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   18:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pointing out mistakes is much more promising an undertaking than the supposed undue weighz. Right now, I can't see any reason for it. However, one can always address an issue more concisely (but never at the expense of accuracy, so please no "lecture on Islam" again). Str1977 (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rectifying mistakes might have been a good idea Str1977 had it been just a few. You see, examples like quoting Jamal Badawi's words as being that of Naik's, only serve to hint a bit at the amount of mis-accurary the 'proposed' article might contain. I recommend we keep the current version which has had no disputes and build upon it again. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing others' comments
There was nothing at this discussion that gave you the right to remove the comments of other people. If you continue to do so, I'm quite certain you will be blocked. S. Dean Jameson 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:TPG, which is quite clear on the issue - and does certainly allow for the removal of irrelevant discussions not related to improving the article. I don't see any basis upon which you can even begin to consider threatening blocks. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   01:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not threatening a block. I'm not an administrator. I'm warning you that removing others' comments is blockable. Please stop doing it. If you remove them again, I'll have to report you to ANI. I have recused myself from the underlying content dispute, but removing others' comments is not acceptable at all. 02:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If others' comments consist solely of irrelevant religious debate, posted on this talk page even without the consent of one of the involved parties (and, in fact, his explicit disapproval, and I quote from above: "PLEASE NOTE THAT AGNISTUS HAS COPIED THE GREEN TEXT BELOW FROM MY TALK PAGE DESPITE MY (TWICE) EXPRESSED DISAPPROVAL TO SPAMMING THIS ZAKIR NAIK'S TALK PAGE WITH IRRELEVANT INFORMATION."), then removing them is completely acceptable, as clearly noted in WP:TPG. Hence, it's not a blockable offence, nor will it ever be. Indeed, it is standard practice to remove off-topic soapboxing. I would insist you take it to AN/I if you feel as strongly as I do about this. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you remove the valid comments (Agnistus moved it here from his talk when it spilled over there) regarding religion (which the article dispute is about), this will be brought up on ANI. Is it really worth removing the comments? S. Dean Jameson 02:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, because they aren't "valid" comments - they do not pertain to improving this article at all. It's an irrelevant religious debate between Elazeez and Agnistus - a classic case of WP:SOAP - and has nothing to do with the article content dispute which is about undue weight. I suggest you bring it up on AN/I anyway instead of waiting for me to revert again, then it can be properly settled. Taking this issue to AN/I was, after all, what I had done several days ago. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   02:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not sure that ANI is the best forum for that to be discussed (unless you revert again, of course). Perhaps (as the comments aren't truly harming anyone, nor are they a violation of BLP in any way) you should just leave them, let them be archived after a while, and be done with it. There's really no pressing need for you to remove those comments at all. S. Dean Jameson 03:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The only 'pressing need' for deleting those comments (which are NOT 'valid' BTW and they are solely advocating POVs which have no relevance to the article) is that they serve as red-herrings (just look at all those colors) for the ongoing content-dispute we have at hand here. They didn't quite 'spill over' on Agnistus' talk page either, they were on mine. Since they do not serve even a bit towards bringing out any of finer (or otherwise) points in (any of) the disputes over Zakir Naik's article, I feel they deserve no piece of real-estate here. The only thing they are 'harming' is the article and the debate over inclusion of some content, which —I feel— is quite a lot of damage as far as how WP is supposed to work. I personally don't see any need for the discussion to remain un-deleted since it is not contributing contructively to the article at hand at all in any way. Besides, there cannot ever be a block for reverting this kind of soap-boxing from the talk-page. &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Work it out
If the users involved here can't work out the issues, I'll full protect the article and also block people for disruption, edit warring, etc. This is a WP:BLP so keep that in mind as well as WP:POINT; WP:RS,WP:CIVIL, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:OR. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)