Talk:Reza Aslan/Archive 2

Aslan on Ahmadinejad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Aslan's analysis on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

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

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

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

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

http://www.cfr.org/iran/atlantic-do-we-have-ahmadinejad-all-wrong/p23807

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omid-memarian/reading-ahmadinejad-via-w_b_815917.html?utm_hp_ref=mahmoud-ahmadinejad

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

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

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

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

Azarbarzin (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What a weird attempt at a threat. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

References

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

• Improve, don't include as is. Summoned by bot. The proposed language isn't really encyclopedic, as each sentence is just summarizing one opinion piece Aslan has written. This makes it either 1) a catalog of his writings, which is too much detail and repetitive, or 2) an analysis of the individual writings, which is primary research and an WP:NOR issue, as I think has been argued above. I would look for something more like: "Aslan has argued for a reappraisal of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, claiming that material released by Wikileaks shows him to be more of a reformer than his public persona would indicate." and include the Huffington Post cite (adding the others doesn't hurt). (As an aside, right now, a lot of the article seems like it is the former: a long collection of sentences, each one summarizing a single source about the subject.) Chris vLS (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• No A reliable secondary source is needed to ensure that editors are not cherry picking factoids to present some point of view. The Huffington Post article is not an analysis of Aslan's writings but is a response to claims about Ahmadinejad—the article is about Ahmadinejad, not Aslan. Re "no problem" above, the issue is that once people start adding what they think are choice bits, there is no end to the original research. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  Kindly mention a few reliable secondary sources pertaining Aslan's views on Ahmadinejad - what factoid was used in Huffington Post to present a point of view? Azarbarzin (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  That does not make sense—this is an RfC about a particular proposal, and my use of "factoid" was not related to the Huffington Post. The two factoids are in the RfC proposal which is to add text of the form "In 2011 Aslan said X, and two years later Aslan said Y" where X and Y were selected by an editor as somehow indicative of Aslan's views. That is known as original research. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

National Iranian American Council

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

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

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

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

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

Citation Required

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

Believer Controversy

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

References

• CNN show host Reza Aslan under fire for misrepresenting Hinduism,The Jakarta Post
• Indian Americans Criticise CNN for Offensive Portrayal of Hinduism, The Wire
• CNN’s ‘Believer’ Is Reckless, Racist And Dangerously Anti-Immigrant, The Huffington Post
• CNN criticised for 'disgusting' portrayal of Hinduism in new show, The Independent

Hello. I have added a section on the controversy around portrayal of Hinduism on the Aghori episode cited plentifully with secondary sources. Hope that would serve as a good start. Suggestions are welcome. Reema (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your contribution. I reedited the section to sound more neutral, which wikipedia prefers. Also, we prefer not to have particular sections labelled 'criticism' or 'controversy' if possible, but to interweave this stuff organically at the appropriate places in the article, so I put it in the subsection on 'Believer'. I didn't add mention of the controversy to the lead section because we prefer to wait a bit for that - just because something is in the news now, it may not seem so important in a while. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, a section I added has been removed by NPalgan2. It made two points. First that Aslan's claim in a Facebook post that he had the approval of the Hindu American Foundation has been refuted by the HAF. Second, he was asked the question as to why he did not have an episode on a sect on his own religion. This points are germane to the to argument - the article refuting Aslan's claims was published by the co-founder of HAF on the site of Religion News Service which is a non-partisan wire service dedicated to global news about religion. http://religionnews.com/2017/03/07/reza-aslans-believer-sensationalizes-and-stereotypes-hindus/ What is the claim of "credible" source we are working with here? Does the crtique have to published by CNN and NYT for it to be able to cited? Why is RNS not a credible source? I would humbly suggest that we honor the spirit of Wikipedia and allow a plurality of views instead of erasing each other's comments on the charge of not having a credible source. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RustaBucket (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Besides how can a section about responses to a show that has been accused of exoticizing Hinduism not include thoughts from the pre-eminent body representing Hinduism and advocating for peace and understanding in America? Of course Aslan's response to their criticism should be included too but if HAF's voice is excluded that may tantamount to silencing a key advocacy group with a history of representing views about Hinduism. Humbly. RustaBucket (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added quotations from Aseem Shukla to the article, but the RNS article was published before the HAF accused Aslan of misrepresentation. I suggest you read wikipedia's biography of living persons policy, particularly this section WP:BLPSPS, which explains why we can't use HAF's accusations of misrepresentation yet. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware of the policy. Are you claiming this to be an example of self-published source? Aslan has claimed that the HAF was on board with the show in his Facebook post that you have cited. And right below the post is a comment from the Executive Direct or of HAF requesting him to not claim such assent. How can the post be a legitimate source but responses to it not be? Also HAF has provided its response in detail on their site after the show - can you please state how Aslan's claim about HAF being on board is okay to be cited but not their response to his fallacious claim? Aren't we for points AND counter points to get at some semblance of a truthful account? Thank you. RustaBucket (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

We should "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:BLPSELFPUB is an exemption that allows us to link to Aslan's self-defense. Wikipedia prefers to be slow and cautious about these matters. The story is still developing, quite likely soon some media organisation will discuss this. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The article in Religion News (which is an 80 year old global news wire service focusing on religion and affiliated with the University of Missouri's School of Journalism) was written by Aseem Shukla - who is a co-founder of HAF. Are you saying that his article has to be read separately from HAF's response. Can we then just say that the co-founder of the organization is critiquing the show (somehow implying that he is separate from the organization). Moreover the Executive Director of HAF is claiming that Aslan is falsely claiming assent of the HAF. I understand the point about being slow and cautious but are we saying that the critique of Aseem Shukla needs to be carried by a major news organization for it to be cited? A major news wire service already carrying his article on their website is not sufficient? I understand we should link to Aslan's self-defense but a fallacious claim in that self-defense is bringing in an organization to legitimize the show. That organization has responded - on their website, on the website of the biggest religion focused news service, and right under his Facebook post. If we carry Aslan's claim (that the HAF was on board as you do by citing the Facebook post) but not the HAF's response denying their assent it goes against the fundamental ethos of this collaborative encylopedia. In gratitude. RustaBucket (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

We just cite Aslan's defense without vouching for it. We already quote Shukla's criticism from the RNS article. I think that that's enough, but we will add more as more sources cover the dispute. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The point is that it is simply NOT wikipedia policy to include HAF's claims of dishonesty until some independent third party source has evaluated them. I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Teahouse if you want an experienced editor to discuss this with you. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. Someone claims that I agreed with an action they took. I claim that I absolute do not - and we need an "independant third party source" to evaluate my "claim" while their claim can be published unchallenged. You should read that sentence you wrote again. Does someone need to evaluate a statement I am making about whether or not I am agreeing to an action someone took? Especially when I am clearly telling them that I disagree with that action? Besides let us all avoid status marker words such as "experience" etc - Distasteful example of what Dariusz Jemelniak describes in his take down of how Wikipedia functions as a cabal where so-called "experienced" editors use status, pedigree, experience to shut down other voices. Wikipedia is not for the experienced alone. Lastly, the quotes chosen from Aseem Shukla's article on Religion News do not represent the substance of his critique or his problem with the show. No reason has been given why Religion News is not a credible, third party source. In gratitude. RustaBucket (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want you can change the material quoted from the RNS piece, feel free. The reason I bring up 'experience' is that your problem seems to be with the BLP policy itself rather than an argument that I'm interpreting it wrongly. If you want to argue that I'm wrong about how the policy works, explain how, with quotations from wikipedai policy. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi NPalgan2 thanks for your edits. An official statement has now been issued by the HAF and has been posted on their official Facebook account. Kindly do let me know under what rule should an organization's official statement be excluded from the article. A minority community feels caricatured and ridiculed and an organization representing the community has issued a statement. Wikipedia articles are full of mention and citations to official statements by community organizations expressing their point of view. Do confirm why an exception should be made in case of this article. Thanks. RustaBucket (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." WP:USINGSPS The HAF wrote and issued their own statement. Such self-published sources are NOT acceptable for contentious claims - that Aslan is lying - about living people. This policy applies to *everyone* equally. If you find official statements by community organisations with contentious claims about living people that have not been published by a reliable media organisation, etc. please remove them at once. Two editors have explained this to you. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There are three conditions under WP:USINGSPS when self-published sources should be allowed. The usage of HAF's statement meets two of those (1&3). They are 1) A self-published source may be used for certain claims by the author about himself, herself, or itself & 3) A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. Moreover when making claims about living people self-published sources are acceptable when "The website for a company to support claims about itself or its employees." Here an organization is making a claim about itself (i.e. it did not endorse the show) and is countering a claim made about the organization by someone else on its website. Three different elements of WP:USINGSPS support this usage. Regarding 2 other editors having explained this to me - i scrolled up and only saw one (i.e. You) being a part of the conversation. Irrespective of the number of editors - since numbers do not mean a better argument - I would also humbly suggest following WP:DNB. Lastly, the Wikipedia rules are principles and suggestions. In this case the change is satisfying the letter and the spirit of WP:USINGSPS. Thanks.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RustaBucket (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi NPalgan2 as per WP:PNSD I would request you to not take this issue to voting while this discussion has just begun as voting can become a mere show of might/numbers that is connected to the demographics and global distribution of Wikipedia editors and the global digital divide. Three different instances of WP:USINGSPS support the inclusion of HAF's official statement. I would request you to please consider the merit of this argument on its substance and let it be included in the section on the controversy. Thank you. RustaBucket (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

‎Timothyjosephwood agreed with me. You want to use the Facebook statement to an accusation about Aslan, so BLP says no inclusion. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not a "Facebook statement" but an official statement issued by the HAF placed on ALL their official outlets including their official website and their official Facebook page. By calling it a "Facebook statement" you undermine the statement by giving it the connotation of some individual opinion/comment on social media. It meets three criteria of WP:USINGSPS as stated above. Please avoid voting as per WP:PNSD. What is being suggested here goes against all norms of civil debate that Wikipedia articles are supposed to uphold - a claim has been made about an organization HAF - the organization has responded in an official statement that they have published on ALL their official outlets including their official website. It is only fair to give an organization an opportunity to respond to a claim made about it. Thanks. RustaBucket (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:!VOTE. A request for comments is how these things work. An uninvolved admin will wait for people to weigh in and then assess the quality of the arguments made. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

In this case I think WP:PNSD and WP:NOT are more relevant as they explain why frequent resort to voting is not healthy and why Wikipedia cannot function as a simple democracy. Else it just ends up being a numbers game that encourages the exercise of power, experience, pedigree etc. I also humbly suggest a read of chapter 3 of "Common Knowledge" by Dariusz Jemielniak as this exercise of power is brilliantly explained there. Can we also agree that the HAF official statement is not a "Facebook Statement"? Those two descriptions have wildly different connotations and referring to the former as the latter to exclude it is devaluing an official statement. As per 3 different elements of WP:USINGSPS, the HAF statement should be included in response to Aslan's claim that the HAF endorsed his show. Hence I request your support for it. Thanks. RustaBucket (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You are right and WP:!VOTE explains why Wikipedia is NOT a simple democracy. It doesn't matter where HAF released their statement, it's still self-published if it goes out on their website. Please engage in the RfC which is how wikipedia solves these disputes. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter where HAF released their statement" and yet you insisted on attaching the platform to the statement calling it "Facebook statement". How is an official statement from an organization a "Facebook statement" and why call it so if it doesn't matter? Also if you agree Wikipedia is not a simple democracy why start voting in the RfC as you are doing? WP:PNSD lays out strong dangers of voting and yet instead of countering arguments you have taken it to vote. Yes I agree it is self-published on the organization's website. I have given three circumstances from WP:USINGSPS when it supports use of self-publishsed sources and which is met here. They are--

1) A self-published source may be used for certain claims by the author about himself, herself, or itself 2) A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself.

I.e. 2 out of 3 conditions under "Using self-published sources" are being met.

And a 3rd condition under "For claims about living people" in WP:USINGSPS is also being met. That is:

3) Moreover when making claims about living people self-published sources are acceptable when "The website for a company to support claims about itself or its employees."

HAF's response to Aslan's claim about their support (that he makes in the Facebook post) meets the above three criteria from WP:USINGSPS and hence should be included. Thanks. RustaBucket (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Request for comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

References

!VOTES

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Public intellectual" description

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

Position on Israel and Jews?

What is frequently missing from discussion about defenders of Islam is their position on Israel, Jews, and BDS. It would be useful if Aslan's positions on these topics were included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.67.239 (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you been able to find any reliable third-party sources that mention Aslan's views on such matters? MPS1992 (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Pakman criticism

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

"Sociology of religions" is factually incorrect & duplicate citations.

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

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/reza-aslan-a-jesus-scholar-whos-hard-to-pin-down/2013/08/08/2b6eee80-002b-11e3-9a3e-916de805f65d_story.html - here is my source, citing his adviser clearly.

If I were hiring someone for a position in the sociology of religions, and their dissertation was on the sociology of religions, it wouldn't matter if they had a creative writing Ph.D. or an economics Ph.D. as long as they were focused on the area and they could publish peer reviewed articles on the subject. The problem here, though, is that he did not publish peer reviewed articles on the subject. He publishes mass-market books, which while valid for a creative writing instructor is NOT something that indicates someone is a valid contributor, nor a legitimate thought leader, on the sociology of religions. When he says something like 'my job is to study the sociology of religions' he is implying he is a sociologist of religions and that, as such an academic, his work stems from a lifetime of disciplined scholarship that is being translated into a book. The fact, however, is that he's a creative writing professor and his work is much more about how to write interesting novels for public consumption than it is building on a life of hard-fought scholarship. 69.166.35.218 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe this should be added to the article and the redundant 'citations' given which all link back to the same page removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.116.71 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed this the one time this is mentioned without full details. The "2013 Fox News interview" section gives greater detail into his claim, including an extended quote from Mark Juergensmeyer.LM2000 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Suggestion

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

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

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

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

Controversies

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

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

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

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

Since there's so much controversy surrounding Aslan, I suggest that we make a whole new section called "Controvery", where it would be possible to expand on what has already been mentioned in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc nyregrus (talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles are based on reliable sources and are not a place to accumulate ephemeral excitement. See WP:Criticism. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A controversy section would be inappropriate per Johnuniq's comments above. Reliably sourced commentary on Believer and his other works are fine in their respective sections but a separate section devoted only to tearing him apart wouldn't be policy compliant.LM2000 (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A controversy section wouldn't be about tearing him apart. The neutral tone of Wikipedia should be used here as well, but since there are so many topics that could be included, in my opinion they should be addressed, and preferably in one section rather than be spread out. Some examples are the comments about Trump, Aslan's denial of Palestine's use of human shields, as well as the other sources that have criticized Aslan or show him to lie or misrepresent, whether deliberate or not. So, it shouldn't be a smear campaign at all, but his Wikipedia page now looks like he's a clean and well-respected figure (which he obviously is for certain matters), and a controversy section would balance it out. Mc nyregrus (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, see WP:CRITICISM (and WP:BLP + WP:DUE.) If you have reliable sources for those things, they should be addressed, ideally, in the appropriate places in the article - for instance, commentary on one of his books or shows belongs in the section for that book or show. Creating one section as an indiscriminate dumping ground for everything bad anyone ever said about the article's subject is, usually, considered to be a bad choice stylistically; and per WP:BLP we have to evaluate who is making each criticism (and where it's published) in deciding whether it's appropriate to cover in the article and, if so, at what weight. --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I also don't really think that the article portrays him in a totally positive light. Most of the Believer section describes the controversy with his portrayal of Hinduism; we also detail his firing from CNN for the Trump tweets, as well as challenges to claims he made in interviews on Fox News and CNN. I think that's fine per WP:NPOV, but at some point too much criticism does become a problem.LM2000 (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Remarks about President Trump Under Business Ventures

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2020

The tweets regarding Nicholas Sandman are a notable part of Aslan's pubic voice, and need to be included in this article. 100.40.31.73 (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)