Talk:Zakir Naik/Archive 1

message: Zakir Naik's figures about male and female population in the USA and the rest of the world are blatantly wrong adn people might use his WRONG figures for their use.  Believe it or not, people use Wikipedia for research.  We should provide the right information and direct them to links where they can get more information.  This is not refutation of Zakir Naik's arguments, it is only pointing people to thr right information (from a reliable source).  
If we just leave the wrong information as it is, it looks like this article is just puffing up Naik. 
11:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zakir Naik's figures 

message: I added the POV tag, after removing "Alhamdulillah" from the article, which doesn't sound very NPOV to me ... ---Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC
I have removed the POV tag as I don't think it is needed anymore. I deleted the line stating that he is afraid of debating with Ali Sina, as on Sina's webpage (www.faithfreedom.org) it merely states that Sina sent the IRF a invite for a debate to Dr Naik, and the IRF replied stating that he does not arrange debates through the IRF's email. Which does not mean he is afraid to debate with him. I also removed the phrase 'glorious Qur'an' because although that is what I would call it, it's a phrase that would not normally be used by non-Muslims, so I thought it would be better for a NPOV. M2k41 15:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Can I just point out that while factually accurate, this article is ACTUALLY written (or editted) by someone with a huge contempt for the subject. In particular the section on pig psychology is just someone taking the piss. Yes s he did say those stupid quotes, but noone considers it "pig psychology". I found this wikipedia entry laugh out loud funny however and since it is not factually inacurrate I suggest leaving it as is 129.67.126.71 08:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is a joke 

message: I am the author of the paragraph on "pig psychology" under "awards"
Yes, I agree that mentioning "a breakthrough in studies about pig and human psychology" is a slight exaggeration of Dr Zair Naik's merits, but I felt that I should keep the same over-enthusiastic and laudatory style used in the rest of the article.
With regard to the fact that his comparative studies are  "widely recognized internationally", I would like to point to some interesting discussions held on this subject in a highly regarded UK Academic forum, ("The Student Room"), with contributions from all over the world.
Please check at http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/t194971.html
and http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/t194794.html 
Giordaano
*"The Student Room" is not a highly regarded academic forum; it's a discussion site for undergraduates. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution on pig psychology 

message: The page as it is now looks like an advertisement for Dr Zakir Naik and the Islamic research foundation. Wikipedia should charge them at least a nominal fee.
My section on "pig psychology", albeit of course satyrical, was factually correct. Why was it removed?
giordaano87.64.5.236 08:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're an encyclopedia. We keep a straight face. I sympathize -- I've added touches of whimsey and fun to articles and had them ironed out. But I understand -- readers don't expect humor and sarcasm, and are going to be seriously confused if they meet it. Zora 08:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal impression 

message: I feel it can now be removed. Agree? Alex Bartho
: Well, I didn't agree when you first posted, Alex, but now that I have ruthlessly pruned the article, I think it's NPOV. I'm waiting for other editors to agree, however. Zora 22:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks great. I vote  for removing the bias tag. --Suresh 05:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias Tag 

message: I think this whole pork thing has become way too overblown, why do we need a special section on it? Can't we just put it back into the background section just stating that it is one his opinions on a particular matter, and just leave it.M2k41 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pork Issue

message: Considering that we have removed everything that appears Bias from this article, then why do we still have a the pork statement? I;m not saying its untrue by this article is now far from neutral.djorgensen
: Well, that's what I mean about giving a coherent account of his teachings. So far as I can tell, his specialty, like Ahmed Deedat, consists of giving what I would regard as pseudo-scientific justifications for traditional Muslim beliefs. The Qur'an is a miracle -- because it contains advanced science. Muslim halal rules make sense -- because you are what you eat. Polygyny is good -- because of population imbalances. He is saying that Islam is "modern", but carefully avoiding any real engagement with modernity (which starts with questioning traditional beliefs -- the epiphany of the college freshman who discovers that you can question authority). 
: Dang, I don't really have time to read his website and publications and give a good precis. You are right, it might be a good idea to imbed that remark re eating pork in a broader context. Zora 12:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should add what his objectives are? All we currently have is a page dedicated to where he was born and studied and what he doesn't eat. Once we have established a section called objectivces and established what are his objectives we might be able to talk about these in an objective manner then.--Damien Jorgensen 09:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pork 

message: That's the wrong word. He may be a recognizable name to some Muslims, but to the rest of the world, he's unknown. 
I read the New York Times and CNN, plus a dozen other blogs, plus Rediff, Sepia Mutiny, and Outlook for Indian news. His name is not there. Zora 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zakir Naik well-known? 

message: Some constantly vandalises this article by deleting information on Zakir Naik's most famous debate. -- A debate he clearly won... This whole article should be deleted, cuz Naik has too many haters.... u all can't accept the fact that he provides facts to defeat Christians, Jews, Hindus etc..
: I am the person who added the debate!!!!!!!! Not removed it!!!! it is insecure people like others who cant see his work and hell bent on removing it, i am the one who is adding it. Check the history. Monotheist 19:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, i fixed the title Wallah96
In my view, reference to the debate could stay. It has to be, however, NPOV.
I have cleaned up a bit the article. giordaano87.65.189.207 18:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are fooling people in the guise of "cleaning up" you are just adding the old junk back without references where Zakir Naik says something, and plus we dont need anyones opinion. If they have opinions, they can conduct debates with him and then post it here. Monotheist 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I havent given any opinions on the debate, and hence the debate stays. I havent given any points of my OWN.
some people are feeling insecure and trying to remove it, and i dont see any good reason why.Monotheist 19:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: People are blindly reverting the edits without any explaination or discussion, such people will be reported for Vandalism Monotheist 19:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Are Vandalising this Article 

message: Wikipedia's organizing principle is NPOV, neutral point of view. We don't take sides! If there's a dispute, we make room for all notable views. We present the arguments for each side and let the reader make the ultimate decision as to whom to believe. Removing links because they're critical of Naik is a direct contravention of NPOV. Guys, play fair. That's the only way this project will work. Zora 20:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has no fame, zip, zilch, no fame at all. It was an event at a Muslim religious gathering which only Muslims attended, and got NO mainstream press at all. It is not notable. Zora 20:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Zora, I told you THE PAGE IS ABOUT ZAKIR NAIK, WE CARE A HOOT ABOUT WHO ATTENDED AND WHO DIDNT. It is about what ZAKIR NAIK DID IN HIS LIFE. If you think he is not worth the attention, then please leave this place and go edit something else. Monotheist 20:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You must allow criticism 

message: Removed the Verified tag for now since everything that is in the page is about Zakir Naik with references.Monotheist 20:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verified

message: Hijab
*modest dress, for both men and women, although the emphasis is usually on the female. What "hijab" actually means varies widely from place to place.
This is the definition, it does not always denote something related to a woman. It is for both male and female. I am going to correct this information in the article.
Wallah96 21:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some small edits such as adding transition words, and adding the actual verse from the Qur'an that was cited within the articleWallah96 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of HIJAB 

message: Wallah, you don't delete stuff when the talk page gets too long. You set up an archive page and then move the old talk into it. I did that. You can look at the code and figure out how I did it, or you can ask me to do it the next time. I had to have my hand held the first time I did archiving :) Zora 23:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: zora i don't understand what you mean. I never deleted any part of the talk page because it got too long. Please explain what you meanWallah96 02:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't delete, archive 

message: Please discuss on how we can remove it. Please dont attempt to change without discussion. 
Sensible comments only please
People are not interested in any discussion shows their sick mentality and their anti Zakir naik stance, they dont have a good reason hence they are vandalising the page.
Any more edits and removal without discussion will be reverted immediately since this page is DISPUTED
:People are delibreatly trying to Hide information on Zakir Naik and presenting biased BIGOTED views, this is totally unaccpetable. Anyone continuing to edit without a proper reason will be reported
________
Firstly, as I said, comments should be signed, or the discussion becomes chaotic. 
: Ok if you think so Monotheist 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not a decent site, it uses all kinds of words, abuses and accuses. Uses Vulgur language. Plus the challenge to debate is the biggest pathetic attempt by a coward who wants to debate sitting in from of the computer, his very existence is in doubt. Such sources cannot be trusted in an encyclopedia. Hence the link goes. And a challenge to debate is something anyone can put, it is like some kind of joke. Cause if is not even an opinion. Even i can open a page and challenge to debate, it MEANS NOTHING. Monotheist 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont think so, the views section was started by certain people and they insisted on having it, i long ago had told that it should not be there or it should be balanced. Monotheist 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: i dont know how by hiding what Zakir Naik has done and his famous works she is trying to make it less ridiculous. Its a page of ZN and hence his famous talks have to be there. Those are the reasons he is famous for. But she wants to selectively hide information. What is funny,about it?Monotheist 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am ready for a discussion first, people here are editing without a proper discussion since they have no good reasons for their edit which is making the situation worse.Monotheist 02:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats why i am insisting on a discussion first, what you want to edit, add, delete why? etc. But no one really seems interested Monotheist 02:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Dispute

message: I moved all the disputed claims to the bottom and referenced them, as before. The material on prasad and Christmas wishes still needs references. I will not let the Naik supporters use WP for dawa. Zora 11:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor will i let ZN haters to hide some of his information that they just cannot digest and hence put the information back, and also i gave you references you had a problem with 50,000 and i removed it. now stop showing your true colors. 59.92.152.61 15:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do some of you continue to post a link to a challenge to debate with Zakir??? This is ridiculous... everyone knows it cannot happen, ali is probably not even a real person. no one has seen him... and ZAkir is a very busy person... Wallah96 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes the link to the challenge is ridiculous, i dont even know why it is here, i have seen even some of my friends boasting that they can beat zakir naik in a debate, hahaha, it does not mean anything and does not contain any useful information, hence desist from giving that link 59.92.136.45 05:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I rewrote yet again 

message: My dear friends, I have noticed the way some of you guys have attacked Zora. Though i don't agree with what she says, i still feel you must talk to her with respect and politeness. i think all those who have spoke in favor of Dr. Zakir Naik are Muslims and hence should know that P. Mohammed (pbuh) spoke with utter respect and dignity even when unbelievers said the stupidest of stuff to him. And Zora, i do agree with the fact that this page is about Dr. Naik. All his debates, even the ones you might not consider popular by your definition, should be mentioned. you are no one to decide what is important about Dr. Naik and what is not. --zahid 13:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; i have restored the external links section so that it is more effective. We do not need multiple links to the same site. I have just posted the main site, instead of internal links to that same site.Wallah96 15:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manners of Communication 

message: I was very busy for a few days, preparing for a Mountain Seat ceremony at my Zen center. It was lovely. So here I am again. 
The article makes sense if it's organized as I did it: who is Naik, what does he believe, claims that his supporters make for Naik, criticisms of Naik. I have again removed a dead link, to a deleted article (it is silly to keep replacing it, since that article is DEAD and will not be revived), and the multiple links to Naik's books, videos, etc. It's all there on his website. Multiplying the links is effectively linkspam, trying to use Wikipedia to propagandize, and it's NOT OK. If the Naik supporters want to praise Naik, they can do it in the support section. If the detractors want to criticize him, they can do it in the criticism section. Just be sure to give references for opinions. We're not supposed to add our personal opinions so ... if you want to say something about Naik, pro or con, try to find someone who has published that view. 
It's not a good idea to mix the criticism with the views section. I removed all the criticisms, none of which were sourced. If you can find refs, they can go in the crit section. Zora 09:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry in the debate/dialog show me who has praised Naik, only the information is given and also why are you removing links to the dialog which shows clearly you want to hide it. and also its not there in the same site, they are different sites 203.196.172.222 07:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zora you are reverted it in the GUISE of glorification, can you show me what is the glorification in mentioning his debates and dialogs??? you just want to  hide it, it is same as mentioning his views, do you have a problem with that?? 203.196.172.222 07:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Zora, Giordaano - outstanding work! The page is cleaner and is that much closer to losing the POV tag.  -Suresh 16:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm baaaaaack :) 

message: The problem with diagnosing Salafism is that many Salafis claim to be preaching pure Islam, as practiced by the first Muslims. They are not sectarian, everyone else is. They will often respond with indignation to claims that they are Salafi. Salafism has to be diagnosed, from views, and often, verbal tics (frequent refs to the Qur'an and Sunnah alone, use of Salafi spelling). Perhaps this shouldn't go under criticism, but should have a section of its own. "Is Naik a Salafi? a Deobandi?" Zora 18:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salafism  

message: I did some research and found out that I was wrong in describing Campbell as a minister. It's also wrong to call him a scholar; in the preface to his book, he says that he's a medical doctor and that he took three years out of his practice to write the book. I gave a link to the book, and also links to Maurice Bucaille, whom he was writing to refute. That puts the whole debate into another light -- two Scriptural literalists arguing from the same perspective for different books. This would be irrelevant to all Muslims and Christians who aren't scriptural literalists. 
I also moved the claim to "known for ..." to the pro-Naik section; he is not known for his quoting to anyone save his fans. I also removed all the links to books and videos again. This is starting to approach linkspam levels. Guys, his website is linked, readers will find everything there if they're interested. WP is not an opportunity to shove it in their face. Zora 05:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campbell 

message: Wikipedians,friends,countrymen
this, admittedly, is not a great article. It is, however, amazing that we managed to reach (somehow) a consensus on how Naik should be presented. Yet another triumph for wikipedia and NPOV.
To other contributors : should we remove the tags ?Giordaano 08:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye. --Punekar 12:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Tag Removal - Vote here 

message: Why do you continue to delete links to the debate? And NO, they are not posted twice. You keep deleting the only links to the debate, they are not existant in the article, only in the external links. You are confusing it (maybe) with a link to a book he has written. It is not a link to the debate. so stop deleting the link, are you scared people will see Zakir Naik triumph? Wallah96 21:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see, you've put a link IN the article to the article. I thought that was an external link. Remove that and condense the video links to ONE line in the pro-Naik section and I'll stop removing it. You have also linked to the books twice. You are using this article to PUSH his stuff on people and that is not the purpose of WP. WP is not a soapbox. I am not "afraid" that people will look at his stuff -- I rather suspect that more people than you think would find it hilarious rather than convincing. But I  care enough about WP being neutral that I don't want to see any article pushing a POV, whether I agree with the POV or not. Zora 03:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am deleting the links to two of the books from the external links and within the article i am posting the link to the page where you can download all his books, since you are such a pest.  I still don't understand how people will find it 'hilarious'. You are seriously anti-naik, what is wrong with posting the link within the article, where it won't add clutter, and also in the external links section? You seriously are paranoid that people will read some of Naik's works and see some of his debates. Wallah96 20:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora, Stop Deleting Links 

message: It is important to mention that he is sunni or shia. I think he is sunni, but i dont have the source. It is important to mention his denomination in the article because shia and sunni hadiths defer a lot. And he mostly (I suppose) refers to sunni hadiths. --nids(♂) 14:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is he sunni or shia 

message: Is Naik really able to quote all results of Cricket test matches since 1925 ? who has checked on this ? did the International Cricket Council certify his claim ? giordaano
: It doesn't matter. This is what his supporters claim about him. They could also claim that he can fly and morph into a giant squid. Let it remain - it only shows how silly they are.--Punekar 16:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket 

message: In the Naik's critics section, for a reference to the kabbah, it links to this post on faithfreedom, now I can make 100s of posts on various different forums of supporting Zakir. The point I am making is this really a sufficient reference for a encyclopedia article, we don't even know who the poster he is just some random person making a comment. I think it should be removed. There is also another reference linking back to a Hindutva forum and a post made by some random person --Street Scholar 17:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We need to realise that this is the Internet and many different kinds of people make up websites.  One the references in the "supporters" section is also from a random website created by some random person.  That link shows that there are people questioning Naik's claims.  That post was created in January of this year as well. Outsider2810 20:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forum posts are not appropriate sources. Please read WP:RS. BhaiSaab talk 20:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ok then we play it your way.  I have deleted what the supporters supposedly said as well. Outsider2810 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. BhaiSaab talk 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  fine for me too...in the supporters' section. Outsider2810 02:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And I will also tell you why it is OK to have forum topics as sources.  Its because we are talking about what different critics claim about Naik.  What the critics does not have to be fact.  They can claim anything as their OPINION. However, if we were talking about a live debate or news item, then we SHOULD have news websites.Outsider2810 02:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that you have reinserted the forum-sourced statements. The fact is that these claims are not published by reliable sources. If you read WP:RS, you'll understand the policy on this. I could go on any forum I want and make a post. Would that post be a reliable source to use on Wikipedia? Absolutely not. Please do not reinsert those sentences without proper references. BhaiSaab talk 09:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you know what sourcing is?  Things which are common knowledge do not have to be sourced.  If you see any debate of Naik, it's obvious that he has a strident debating style.  And as for claims by critics, forum topics are alright.  It shows he has got people talking about him.  Remember, I am not using those forum topics to "prove" a scientific fact...I'm using them to show that Naik has critics.  It's not a forum topic where one person discusses things with himself, its a lot of ppl discussing Naik. 
Also, I AM willing to listen.  I would like more people's opinions on this before you go changing things all of a sudden.  And I want those people to be non-muslims and muslims alike.
Outsider2810 16:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but regardless of your intent, Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources specifically states that "posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources." BhaiSaab talk 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why link to posts on faithfreedom? 

message: some links (in particular the anti-Naik ones) are being sabotaged by slightly modifying the web address, so that the links will not work anymore.
Tsk, tsk.212.190.74.29 10:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: link sabotage

message: Ali Sina's web site was all fake, in his web site he has proved nothing except that he knows how to put " Empty Accusations ".
and i can prove it; for further discussion
contact: apple_flavour_red@hotmail.com
<B>Guys please remember this wikipedia article is dedicated to Dr. Zakir Naik , will it not be justice if he is invited or his student representatives to write about Dr. Naik, rather than making false accusations of Dr. Naik and in his absence . this is totally unfair . if any attempt is made to correct the prejudice about this man you call that vandalism, all the while you allow unfair criticism in the name of "balanced view".</B>
Ahmed 05:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali sina was fake 

message: Has anyone read this:
http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=120&page=0 
Ali Sina back in 99 used to post EFnet under the name afreethinker. If you read this article you will realize Sina has mental problems. But Sina worshipers like Zora just love to discredit this stuff and worship Sina like a god! --Street Scholar 21:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali Sinas antics 

message: If the same person keeps adding the same shit into wiki, then I'll be hard-pressed to request RfA its funny how Zora keeps over looking this transgression. --Street Scholar 21:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a couple of months of wikibreak and I've been trying to limit my activities on WP. I was pushing myself too hard and getting exhausted and cranky. See my userpage. Zora 05:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking comments back to forums for reference