Talk:Shabir Ally

Date of birth

1993? that can't be right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.84.149 (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

List of debates

Regarding the list of debates, I don't think its length merits a separate list article spin-off. What do you think? This is responding to the "overly detailed" tag. Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The separate list of debates is excessive and inadequately referenced (YouTube won't cut it), the notability of the debates isn't established by reliable and published third-party sources. Let's see an attempt made to establish the importance of these debates from decent sources. George Custer's Sabre 08:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear @GorgeCustersSabre: Michael R. Licona has the same list. Should it also be removed? And as for YouTube, it could be used at times. The point here is listing the debates he had with reputable opponents to establish his career. It's like Michael Jackson's discography, for example.

RfC about the list of debates

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No, a list of debates should not be included in the article. A paragraph summarizing the debates could be included if supported by non-WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. A separate list article may or may not be created in the future contingent on establishing the same criteria. Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the list of debates in this revision be included (as the case in Michael R. Licona, for instance)? Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Only those which have received significant coverage in independent sources. Which isn't any, as far as I can see. StAnselm (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks @StAnselm for participating. Does this mean you're, similarly, for removing the list in Licona? Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I would be. StAnselm (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

OK. Agreeing on the similarity to Michael R. Licona, let me move to another point. You say: "Only those which have received significant coverage in independent sources", does that mean we should remove the books or publications as well, unless they're significantly covered? Do we do that for every book, song, record, TV appearance, etc for other people on WP? Notice here, that we're not discussing making a WP article for each of the debates, we're just discussing listing them as done in discographies, filmographies and bibliographies for other figures on WP. Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I remain persuaded that the proposed list of debates involving Shabir Ally is unwarranted and excessive, especially given that there are no third-party sources provided as evidence that the debates are in any way noteworthy. Citing YouTube clips is entirely unsatisfactory. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre 12:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I moved your comment to a new bullet as it doesn't relate to the immediately preceding discussion. If you don't like it, please feel free to undo it. Regarding YouTube being unsatisfactory, it does show for 2~4 hours a debate taking place between the two (or more) people mentioned on the said topic. Could you tell me why doesn't it satisfy you on account of showing that this debate did, in fact, take place? Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, but a separate article would be fine Wow... that is an impressive list. It should probably be its own article. These debates seem noteworthy in their own merit given that they are events that demonstrate that the subject of this article has been an active apologetic of his religion. In fact, without that list, he'd seem like just another run-of-the-mill Canadian Muslim preacher. Ender and Peter 04:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe they should be included in the article OR presented as a separate article. Cf. the pages on Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who are public intellectual of significant fame. Their innumerable debates aren't listed in their bio articles or in separate pages. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre 06:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins's main body of work consists not of debates, rather, of books; that's why there's Richard Dawkins bibliography. Shabir's main body of work, however, is predominantly debates. As I stated earlier, do we have to remove every filmography, discography and bibliography from WP for "excessiveness"? Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• In an attempt for the article to look less "excessive", I've removed the table and rewrote it to look exactly like Licona's article. Please share your opinions. Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• No, no list of debates--not in here, and not in a separate articles. A Dawkins bibliography is easily bolstered by a million secondary sources; this, not so likely. I don't know why a list of sermons or speeches would prove notability or whatever; secondary sources should do that, and that's what's already seriously lacking in this article. In fact, I don't see any reliable sources whatsoever: I am not convinced of the Shenk book, and that other book, The Truth About...", is by a Christian TV preacher, John Ankerberg. BTW the Michael R. Licona article is now also without list of debates. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep only a selected ones - if they are supported by RS and are notable, of course. I would prefer prose over list per WP:USEPROSE for NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. The full list may or may not have it's stand alone page in the near future. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• No list, no separate article. In fact... At most, all that is called for here is mentioning that the subject has engaged in such debates in the prose and maybe (and it's a big maybe) mentioning one or two. Actually the issue of the RfC raises a much more profound issue here: note that every single of the seventy some-odd links in that table is a link to a youtube video, not a single one of which constitutes a WP:reliable source under this project's criteria. When you take that table and those links out, the article is left with virtually no contentt, and even among the sources that are left, I don't think there is a single one which is both nonWP:PRIMARY and an RS. So unless someone can find some independent reliable secondary sources to establish WP:notability in a fashion consistent with policy, this article is probably a candidate for WP:AFD. The subject is certainly not sufficient to carry two articles when the basic case for the base article has not even been remotely established as yet. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC),
• No full list, here or elsewhere (invited by the bot) As others have said, even this article itself has zero sources of the type require to satisfy wp:gng. I'm guessing that such sources do exist, but if none can be found IMO this article itself could be an AFD candidate. But that aside:.....While I think that some have mistakenly implied applying the too-high wp:notability criteria to content in an articles, individual debates by this person IMO miss that "bar" by several levels and don't achieve even much lower criteria for full inclusion in this or another article. And to me an analogy to books by an author is not valid. A debate is a a conversation, a book is a book. The scale is different, and a book is a usually a subject of coverage in sources, e.g. published independent reviews. I think that one sourced summary paragraph on debates would be good and about right. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2019 (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.

Lede

It would be good if the lede described who he is and why he is notable a bit more clearly. I have read this sentence from the lede many times and still do not understand what it is trying to say. Can any modify it to be clearer? The cited link is dead:

  He is best known for his contextual interpretation of the Qur'anic verses, and justification in similar expressions within the Christian Bible.[6]
  

Ashmoo (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)