Talk:Reza Aslan

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

{{WikiProject Islam|class=c|Muslim-scholars=yes|Muslim-scholars-importance=mid}} Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California: Los Angeles / San Francisco Bay Area C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cltfn removed part of a sentence from the article, saying that it was POV, leaving a sentence fragment hanging. Cltfn, exactly what do you see as POV in the assertion that the book combines academic training and Muslim sensibility? The academic training is obvious -- it's shown by the next section. It's also clear if you read the book, with its extensive bibliography, and many quotes. The Muslim sensibility is evident in the book -- he's a progressive Muslim of the sort that accepts Muhammad as a prophet, and the Qur'an, but is skeptical of hadith and fiqh. Cltfn, have you read the book? What exactly is the basis for your excision? Zora 21:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's also been on CNN a few times as a Muslim scholar, like Anderson Cooper's 360° (If I recall). While I, a non-Muslim can understand why his progressive views might be problematic to more traditional Muslims, his scholarship should not be in question. Last time I came to this page I don't remember seeing the Persian. I knew Reza of course, but now I can pronounce his last name right! Kudos! Khirad 12:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in serious need of citing reliable sources ... there are multiple links to the same webpages, some of which are decidedly not WP:RS, e.g., from the subject's own website ... there are many links to interviews with and essays by the subject, but scant WP:Verifiable "non-trivial and independent" coverage about the subject ... it may be buried in those obscure external links, but some {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} references would improve demonstrating WP:Notability. —72.75.85.159 (talk · contribs) 01:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the First Person, "I", is inappropriate - please change to "he". --Ludvikus 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is he Sunni or Shi'a? I know he was born in Iran but that doesn't mean anything. Now he lives in the USA. Robert C Prenic 12:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added this:

"Although born in Tehran in Iran, a predominently Shi'a Muslim country, it is not known whether Aslan's denomination of Islam is Shi'a or Sunni. Although, The Guardian newspaper in Britain reports that, by persuasion in that he was originally born in Iran, is a Shi'a muslim. ^[1]" Robert C Prenic 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell by his name that he is a Shi'a Muslim, and not Sunni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all, you can't tell from someone's name what someone's personal beliefs are. Second of all, just because he's from Iran doesn't mean he's a Shi'a. His parents are not Muslim and Reza Aslan joined a Christian youth group as a child, so came to Islam later in life; he has never specifically said whether or not he is Shi'a so we should not make assumptions. I am going to change this in the main article. Here's an interview he gives where he talks about his past:

http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-reformation-has-begun-Tehran-born/dp/B000E8U23S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1285342244&sr=8-1-spell

Unforutnately you have to pay to read it, but perhaps you can get access to it in a library or something.--M m hawk (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ngbg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the distinction of him being a Muslim Scholar. Unless he has received a verifiable ijaza by a reputable sheikh, the term is incorrect. Just because you like his opinion doesn't make him more credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasabi salafi koonkati (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, that is your interpretation of the term based on your particular cultural preferences. In the secular west, it is appropriate to refer to him as a scholar. I do not wish to impose my cultural assumptions on you, so please, show me the same respect. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the linked discussion with Sam Harris Aslan states: "the Koran actually forbids slavery..." this is how in contact with reality this guy is. His Books should stand in the fantasy section... 86.32.98.81 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not a fair interpretation? from a certain respect you can interpret the inanimate book to either forbid, allow or some variation of those two for slavery. And since no one but the person who wrote the Koran or Quran knows what he meant by what he wrote you can really just pick a few lines and make an argument for why your position is strongest or correct. So with that in mind, why should scholar be removed simply for his position on an issue, Scholar has a definition and as of 2014 he still fits it. I mean you can create a criticism if you, and other sources really do disagree with him so much but his books being in the fantasy section is a statement that suggests you dismiss his interpretation even though he does have an argument behind his reasoning. The problem can be when you borrow so deep into one side your value to discussion is eroded and only for debate. In this way rather then create a criticism of his views you can just dismiss them without trying to prove him wrong, just my take on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article "He is currently a Doctoral Candidate...", thus the title "Doctor" is not appropriate here, since he has not received his doctorate yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.133.243 (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reza did graduate and has a doctoral degree. However, under "Backgrounds" he is erroneous described as earning a "Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology, focusing in the history of religion." This is not true. The UC-Santa Barbara sociology department does not OFFER such a track. The Department of Religious Studies DOES offer such a track. Reza initially was accepted into the department of religious studies, but withdrew because he did not want to take all the coursework and switched to sociology. It is one thing to argue that he DOES history of religion, but he did not receive a "history of religion" specialization in the sociology department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.76.233 (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He may be ethnically Persian but wouldn't his nationality be Iranian-American as he is a US citizen?

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=nationality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.75.113 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He could still have Iranian citizenship. But I agree that in all likelihood he's an American, too. Perhaps, somebody could simply email him or his representative and ask to confirm that. ПБХ (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His nationality is american. His ethnicity is Persia. not sure why it says 'Iranian-American' under nationality. can someone change this? 108.244.138.234 (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the definition at Iranian-American states that the term can refer to "Americans of Iranian ancestry OR people possessing Iranian and American dual citizenship", therefore the term is correct either way and needs no correction.Quickmythril (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or does this page read like it was written by Reza Aslan? There does seem to be a sympathetic tone but that could just be me and that's not even what I'm getting at... I'm more referring to the longwinded list of quotations, (poorly formatted) television appearances (I have never, ever seen that on anyone elses wiki page), and of course the (already pointed out) lack of references and preponderance of google video, blogs and myspaces linked to in the "external links". I am not equipped with the patience, technical knowledge or familiarity with Reza Aslan to fix this page myself... but it needs serious attention. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it seems like its written by Aslan is because a lot of the article is copy and pasted. The entire tv appearances section has been copy and pasted from his website. Miraculousrandomness (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page stinks of copy-paste by Aslan's minions.

'He is working on a biography of Jesus of Nazareth and a historical novel, set a thousand years ago, about a caravan traveling from the Arabian Peninsula to India.' So is my 2-year old niece. Why is all this even here?

'This book uses the work of 69 writers to make a strong case for the power of fiction, poetry and essays to connect us at the level of the heart.'

'Working to engage with Muslims and non-Muslims on what's happening in the region, the Aslan Media TweetWire on Twitter has since grown steadily on the idea that it's possible to stay updated on Middle East news with just 140 characters.'

'No god but God is a persuasive and elegantly written account of the origins, evolution, and future of Islam.'

'He tours in U.S. and internationally giving talks and has written many press articles.'

Talk about shameless advertising on Wiki space. This article has to be cleaned up and practically rewritten. It's very, very one-sided.

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page shows clear bias. I think the quotes section and the media section should be gotten rid of. If any of the quotes are notable enough then they can just be placed in the article in a corresponding manor. As for the media appearance, people in his line of work make them all the time, that is not notable enough to mention every one. Also surely that will quickly fill up as time progresses. If he made a particularly notable appearance then maybe that should be held, but otherwise I would be inclined to delete it as well as the other quotes section. Honestly I am inclined to see many sections of the article re-written, but have no time to do so. --Greg Nevers (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read his intro sentence: "...a nationally acclaimed writer of religions." Shouldn't this be corrected to something along the lines of: ...a nationally acclaimed writer "about religions" or "on religious topics"? He doesn't actually write religions. Keithh (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should be corrected. Actually, his writing should not be considered "acclaimed" without a source for the sake of WP:NPOV. In general I find this article to be neutral in tone, but it is clearly too long considering it only has two references. It is all undue weight, I suspect because it was written by the subject himself. Fnordware (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon googling him, you could almost argue that he shouldn't have an article at all. There are really no reliable sources about him, only interviews with quotes of him talking about himself (not the same thing) and some articles about his books. OK, I guess any published author is considered notable enough for an article, but I think this article should be very short. The entire quotation section should be deleted right away and the external links section should be greatly paired down (WP:LINKFARM). Probably only the lead paragraph should remain, and only with sources to back it up. Fnordware (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a minority of published authors that would qualify for an article, see WP:AUTHOR. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, he clearly has the coverage to back up WP:AUTHOR. His books have been reviewed in many reliable sources and won/been shortlisted for prestigious awards. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a paragraph to the background material. I am aware that it needs cites and will have to look for some later with some greater searching effort. I also moved the old Currently subsection up above the Background section and intend to whittle it down since it essentially duplicates the last paragraph of the intro that now is directly above it now that it has been moved. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the background section of this article Reza Azlan's religion is described as being Shi'a Islam. He is not Shi'a Islam as is made clear in this recent interview with NPR: http://www.npr.org/2013/07/14/200844275/zealot-tells-the-story-of-jesus-the-man-not-the-messiah His background is actually evangelical Christian, which has shifted to a following of Jesus rather than calling himself a Christian. Thanks

Sanifer (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Reza Aslan was a Christian for some years in his youth but converted "back" to Islam. We could provide more information about his years as a Christian - feel free to suggest wording - but he is Muslim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: should he be therefore categorized as both "convert from christianity to islam" AND the opposite?

regards Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article where Reza says that he "Yeah, I'm definitely a Muslim and Sufism is the tradition within Islam that I most closely adhere to." Should that be changed? Vyselink (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the article? He says he is Muslim in the Fox News interview shown here. Fnordware (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It just so happens that the article in question was written by one of Wikipedia's own. Perhaps he can shed some light on the matter? Personally, I think it'd be best to just say "Islam": If someone says that something is "the tradition [they] most closely adhere to", but stops short of saying that they actually identify as a member of that tradition, I don't think it's our place to brand them as such. You can be non-denominational and still pick a certain movement as the closest to your own beliefs. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wikipedia people should not be tagging people as this, that, or the other. "Sufism" contains multitudes and overlaps with "Sunni" and "Shia" (and sometimes other things too). My advice is remove your wretched infoboxes and ethnic and religion tag category ghettos and let peoples' words speak for themselves in the body text.Dan Murphy (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dan, but at least we can change it to just Islam, as suggested by PinkAmpers. Taha (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are all idiots! It is a biography! It should sound like an advertisement. A biography tells a story of someone's life. The man has a lot of accomplishments and as they are part of his life they should be included in his story. You should all just STFU and get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.81.169 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, 75.186.81.169. That sounds like a well-considered interpretation of WP:ADVERT and WP:AUTO. Fnordware (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:-) The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As was discussed here almost a year ago, the article is largely unsourced. How about we delete the Career and Other Publications sections? I'd also take out the bottom two paragraphs in the Background section unless we get reliable sources for them. Then we could probably remove the multiple issues banner. Anyone object? Fnordware (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of users have cleaned some parts of the article. I prefer to first try to find some references for the paragraphs, if not you can go ahead with your proposed deletion. Taha (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In light of his recent controversy, of course I'll hold back on deleting any parts of this article for a little bit. The Career and Other Publications sections are still missing any references with the exception of the newly-added Zealot controversy section. But with him being in the news, perhaps some of the other stuff will find references too. Fnordware (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:StAnselm, the source you added doesn't say anything about sociology. Why is everyone so insistent on changing what is in a cited source? The very least you could do is provide a source that says something different! (If the concern is unofficial vs. official, we can add clarifying language, eg. "PhD in Sociology with a focus in the history of religion", rather than trying to make it seem as though his doctorate is in something unrelated.) See explanation here (Juergensmeyer's Twitter confirms the comment is really his). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake - I had the wrong article. I will replace it with one that says he had his degree in sociology. StAnselm (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:StAnselm did make mistake but it doesn't mean he's wrong, if you open dissertation here first page clearly states "A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology. --HistorNE (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page V of the dissertation states "Major Field: Islam, Sociology of Religions." Does that mean anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.151.2.10 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a description of what he studied rather than a statement of what his degree is in. Like I said, I'm sensitive to the arguments that "the degree is not in Sociology of Religion" - I just want to make sure that we're not eliding the fact that religion was the focus of the degree even if Sociology of Religion is not a program at the university. It's documented that his coursework was in religious studies; we just need to find an acceptable compromise for how to include the information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is OR but I'm very familiar with graduate studies at UCSB and if he received a degree there, it was either in Sociology or Religious Studies. Sociology of Religion is a field of study in both of those programs (it's considered interdisciplinary). One can get a PhD in Sociology or Religious Studies and within that, one's research can emphasize Sociology of Religion. But I know of no higher education where one receives a PhD in a sociology subdiscipline. It's possible but I've researched many graduate departments in both disciplines and I've never seen it. Within UCSB Religious Studies Department, one can specialize in Islam but, like Sociology of Religion, one does not get a degree in Islam. PhDs are associated with academic department, as they are the division that authorizes the university that a candidate has fulfilled requirements and should be granted a degree. Because of the organization of universities, departments are broken down in specific traditional disciplines or an interdisciplinary programs. But a subfield or subdiscipline does not have the standing to be a separate department and award graduate degrees, at least not at a secular university.

That's as far as his PhD goes. As far as his professorship goes, you can be hired as a Professor of Anything within a specific academic department. I know Professors of Sociology of Religion and Professors of Islam (heck, at some offbeat institution, one could be hired to be the Professor of Amish Studies or Professor of Social Revolutions). A professorship indicates what the academic teaches and researches, not what their PhD is in. It is not uncommon for it to be a subfield or subdiscipline (or even a completely invented area of study) and it can be associated with an endowed chair (made-up example, "The Ronald Reagan Professor in Global Studies").

So, one is awarded a PhD in a known academic discipline (or, less commonly, an established interdisciplinary program) but one can be a professor in whatever subject the college or university hires a person to teach or study. So, as I read the sources, the Drew announcement is faulty and I think that is because Aslan is a visiting faculty member in an institute that focuses on religion, so they highlighted his research field, not the specific discipline of his PhD. This is a mistake on their part and is probably taken from a bio given to them or one online. Announcements like this one are typically put together by department office staff and is the equivalent of a press release, albeit from an educational institution. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the University of Copenhagen religious studies department there are separate degrees in history of religion and sociology of religion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn........Partisan Conservatives, have been using this argument to try and smear the guy, and discredit the book. It's perfectly obvious to anyone without an agenda, that his PhD is in Sociology of Religions Cjmooney9 (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we track down his actual job title while at the University of Iowa? From what I can tell, he was a "visiting assistant professor of religion," not a "Professor of Islam," as per his employer. --Bagwhan (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your link, I would advocate seeing if you can get it changed. A formal University of Iowa press release is certainly credible. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The overview of Aslan states he is a "scholar of religion". Aslan has stated this himself, but his actual qualifications do not justify this title. He has a masters in theology (same degree I have). His PhD is clearly in sociology with an emphasis in religion. At the very least that makes the assertion that he is a "scholar of religion" an opinion rather than an established fact. This is further supported by the fact that he is a professor of creative writing and not of religion.

Here's a relevant article discussing how Aslan has misrepresented his own credentials by claiming to be a "historian" and "scholar of religion": http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/07/29/scholarly-misrepresentation/

TJ Turner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnerjazz (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, stating that one is a "historian" or a "scholar of religion" describes participating within a field of inquiry and is not a claim about a degree. Sociologists of Religion are one kind of scholars of religion and they are historians in so far as they work professionally with historical sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Conservative, partisan, agenda-driven rubbish, I've been reading on poor right wing blogs for weeks. It's not an attempt to write an encyclopedic article. It's an attempt to try and discredit a person, and a book, by evangelical Christians. Having an opinion, on his credentials is fine. But keep them on the blogs. They're not based on fact, or any logic.

A "scholar of religion" is someone who researches/writes/studies it. Nothing more. What's more, all of his degrees are on religion - a degree in religion, a masters in theology, and a PhD in Sociology of Religions. He's more than qualified to claim he's an academic in the subject (which he doesn't even try to do)

Cjmooney9 (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. In the section "Fox News interview controversy" it should be noted that the credentials that Reza Aslan mentioned during the interview do not match his actual credentials. He lied about what his job is and the various degrees he has earned. According to this very wiki page He is a professor of creative writing not a "professor of religion" as he claimed. He does not have a PhD in religion he has a Bachelor of Arts degree in religions according to this page's own "Background" section. Truex365 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] Nope, it should not be noted. Because it is false and not a notable viewpoint in reliable sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] It is not false. He lies and Maunus lies. 1. Aslan lied about being a "professor of religions." The school website describes him as "Associate Professor Department of Creative Writing" http://meis.ucr.edu/people/faculty/ 2. Aslan lied about having a PhD in history. His degree is in sociology http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/getreligion/files/2013/07/Verification_Certificate_106896848.pdf Truex365 —Preceding undated comment added 14:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] Not done:. The sources you cite do not appear to support your contention, and you may be in violation of the policy on biographical content to make such unsupported allegations on this talk page. For that reason, I am collapsing this thread. If you know of an impeccably reliable source that specifically, unequivocally says he lied, you're welcome to present it in a new edit request. Before you do, please read WP:SOAPBOX, and please also be aware that unsupported assertions about your fellow Wikipedia users are unacceptable. Rivertorch (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] might have something useful for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

While The Washington Post observed Green had asked "astonishingly absurd questions," it also dubbed Aslan a "moving target" and described him as being "eager — perhaps overeager — to present himself as a formidable academic with special bona fides in religion and history" and "boast[ing] of academic laurels he does not have." The piece noted one of Aslan's four degrees was in creative writing and that his descriptions of his doctorate as being in 'the history of religions' or a doctorate in 'the sociology of religions' were imprecise. It also observed that Aslan was an associate professor in the creative writing department of the University of California at Riverside, and it noted a discrepancy in Aslan's claims to be a "cooperative faculty member" at UCR's Department of Religious Studies.[16]

'AFTER THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH, ADD THE FOLLOWING

The Washington Post profile was condemned for its unfair treatment of Aslan by both the New Republic, which published a piece demanding the Post apologize to Aslan, noting that Aslan’s own dissertation adviser, Mark Jeurgensmeyer, has said he “doesn’t have a problem with Aslan’s characterization of his doctorate, noting that his former student did most of his course work in religion,” and by The Daily Beast, which criticized the Post’s “hair-splitting attacks on Reza Aslan’s credentials.”'

Denizfirataslan (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you include citations in this edit request? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the inclusion of quotes questioning the legitimacy of his expertise implies that those quotes have merit. But I wonder . . . As written now, the Wikipedia article has the following to say about a Washington Post piece on Aslan: "The piece noted one of Aslan's four degrees was in creative writing and that his descriptions of his doctorate as being in 'the history of religions' or a doctorate in 'the sociology of religions' were imprecise." OK, I've got two problems with this. First, if his doctorate degree really is in "Sociology, focusing in the history of religion," isn't it rather extreme hairsplitting to say that it would be "imprecise" to describe it as a doctorate in the history of religions? I honestly can't figure out the practical difference, especially in the context under question, in which Aslan's point was that he has a degree dealing with this topic. That much seems to be an objective fact. I mean, all opinions aside, he's either got a degree dealing with this topic, or he doesn't. Second, if he's really got a BA in religion, a Master's in theology, and a sociology doctorate that specifically focused on the history of religion, how, exactly, does the fact that he also has a degree in creative writing somehow make him less qualified as an expert? That seems pretty ludicrous to me. Again, I would argue that even mentioning such bizaare arguments implies that they are legitimate, when I don't see how they are.

On the other hand, I do acknowledge that the Washington Post (to use the above example) isn't exactly considered a fringe publication. If, anyone wants to counter-argue that these quotes are included merely for the purpose of completionism, that's fine with me. I just wanted to raise this question, and let wiser editors than me decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.191.181 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Oh, after reading the other section of this talk page, I see I'm not the only one who calls this hairsplitting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.191.181 (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the whole “academic credentials” controversy is hair-splitting, but it is a notable controversy that deserves a fuller, more balanced treatment than it currently has. I created a subsection underneath the FoxNews interview controversy. This allows a more extensive, balanced discussion of the controversy (i.e., Aslan misrepresented/overstated his credentials v. he accurately summarized his academic background). AbuRuud (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the undue weight flag on Aslan's Academic credentials. Section is a quote farm and lengthy. I could edit down the section. Input appreciated. Jppcap (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fixing up the section. Jppcap (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Aslan made it clear on the Fox interview, that he was a Ph.D in the history of religions, and I quote "I am an expert with a PhD in the history of religions". It says in the article he has a Ph.D in sociology. Which one is it? 129.180.137.107 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is literally addressed in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to create just a FWI notification here that directs people for this specific issue, it has been discussed god knows how long yet there still isn't a consensus I suppose and people bring it up again a month later, It'd be better to just track down info and put it to rest what his education is in.