Article is still disputed Several sections of this article added by ISKapoo Vikramsingh were regularly removed censored by ITAQALLAH and others 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 Are you sure you understand the tags you ve put up There is clearly no controversial or unsourced content in the article that 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 Please stop vandalizing this article by removing the tags Your behavior has become a burden on most wikipedians 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 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 Dear 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 can not be removed BTW 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 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 can not be considered as reliable sources on any topic let alone a living person Perhaps you have missed Wikipedia Biographies of living persons Criticism and praise WP RS WP V but your objection seems to be that your own personal perspective is not copiously represented 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