User talk:BoyTheKingCanDance

I am brand new, but have been a busy wikipedia user for years. Interests include military history, naval warfare, and philosophy.

Fifteenth

Hi, re this edit, just out of curiosity: what difference does it make? --Thrissel (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Yes, it is a very minor edit. I was just aiming for consistency. GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

When the following paragraph has 7th century, 13th century and 12th and 13th century, and the next 13th century, 14th century and 16th century, and so on, you changed 15th century into fifteenth century aiming for consistency? Well, there are things between heaven and earth... --Thrissel (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry: I'll get to those when time permits. Thanks again for the dialogue.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr Naik

Hello. It is not usual to give refer to people with their titles on wikipedia. See for example the articles for famous doctors like Paul Gachet and Christiaan Barnard. Still, you refer in the Naik-article to "Dr Naik" instead of "Zakir Naik." That is not correct. Thus, there are two options: or you remove Naik's titles, or you write something n the lead that Zakir Naik is usually referred to as "Dr. Naik." Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thank you kindly. I did not know the convention you mentioned and I accept its logic. Thanks. I just considered it strange that Dr Naik was repeatedly called Zakir (his first name) throughout the entry. I have no real interest in Naik, and have no position on the strengths and weaknesses of his preaching. I just watch the page because of the strident partisanship that I see almost every day. Naik seems to have passionate fans and equally passionate detractors. As a consequence the entry veers occasionally (actually, rather often) between uncritical praise and uncritical condemnation. I'm keen to see it remain neutral. This has not proven easy. Thanks again.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Good luck! Keeping an article about a controversial muslim neutral is one of the more difficult tasks on Wikipedia. But it is an important one. After all, we cannot leave those articles for islamophobics of fundies to edit it, can we?;-)Jeff5102 (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

---

NEUTRALITY ISSUES

I requested you not to revert the edit on Dr. Naik's page in view of the following facts.

Dear Mr. Gorge CustersSabre

May be you are truly unaware of Islamic sensitivities, may be not. To let you know, there are three distinct identities of Muslims, viz, Sunnis, Shias and Salafis.

Salafism or Salafi thought or Salafi school of thought was started in Saudi Arabia some time back. Their distinct faith is (1) God has hands, eyes, face and a distinct body and sits on the sky though his shape is not known to people. God is separated from people, sitting alone on the sky and knows people only by his Knowledge. - This belief is in total contrast with Sunni Islam.

Salafis do not believe in blind following of Imams (established Jurists) of Islam. They say that everyone should read Quran and Ahadith and deduce fiqh rules independently. They respect the Imams, but they consider that blind following of Imams is shirk. They started a new school of thought in Islam which is known as Salafi - This belief is in total contrast with Sunni Islam. All Sunni people believe in all 4 Imams of Fiqh and consider it important to follow them if you want to be on the right path of Islam.

Deobandis, who also call themselves Sunnis differ with Barelvi Sunnis in the issue of visiting the graves of Shaikhs. But they also believe in following of Imams as compulsory element of Islam.

Barelvi Sunnis believe visiting of Graves as important aspect of Islam. There are some more issues, which are not needed to be explained here.

Dr. Zakir Naik preaches all basic beliefs of Salafi Islam openly, on TV which is aired free of cost to over 100 countries.

The entire teachings of Dr. Naik on TV, in gatherings and in his writings clearly establish the fact that he follows Salafi Islam. Therefore, it is important that this fact is recognized and appreciated by people who follow Salafi Islam. If you write "Dr. Naik's faith as Sunni Islam", it will be misrepresentation of facts. When he is a scholar of Salafi Islam, how come we say that he is Sunni Scholar. This will be far from the truth and not as per the established rules of Wikipedia. We appreciate Wikipedia for their presentation of facts and their insistence on supporting evidence. Indeed, we are fan of Wikipedia and are very impressed from their network and feel lucky to have a site like Wikipedia on Internet.

The whole life of Dr. Naik is spent in believing and preaching Salafi Islam. Every lecture, every CD you find will show his beliefs very clearly. In such a situation, it is important that his believes are clearly written on his page. If you do not do it, it will be injustice to Dr. Naik, injustice to Wikipedia and misrepresentation of facts for the world.

We hope, we made our point very clear to you.

We will appreciate it very much if you revert back and write "Salafi Islam", in place of "Sunni Islam". It is in the interest of facts and truthfulness of information on Wikipedia.

We are neither follower of Dr. Naik nor his critics. We would like to maintain neutrality. We want factual information about him to be placed on Wikipedia and we hope you agree with us.

Thanks Mr. Gorge CustersSabre.

---

Some others have provided the following proof.

Naik as Salafi

Hi. If you want a source that says that Zakir Naik is a Salafi, see this: [1] . I have no idea how reliable the CIFIA is, however. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Guide99, I respectfully agree with Jeff5102. There is nothing wrong with stating that Zakir Naik is a Salafi if he is a Salafi, but there is something incorrect in making a statement about a person's faith without a reliable source. If you think the source mentioned by Jeff5102 is reliable (I'm unsure myself), why not add it?GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

---

I went to the above source, it look mostly reliable as they have provided proofs almost on every paragraph.

---

Mr.GorgeCustersSabre, you did not provide any proof against the above explanations and simply reverted the edit. I did not understand this uniqueness. I thought Wikipedia should be completely neutral. Mr. Sabre, I need to be explained the reasons for your reversion of edit and convinced. Because it is in the best interest and ethics of publication of information on Wikepedia. If you take unilateral actions, people will start doubting Wikipedia.

Therefore, we request you to reinstate the information on Dr. Naik's page by yourself. Thanks.