Talk:Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on January 3, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
prod
Even though this is only a stub, I do not feel that this meets the
WP:OR
.
Also read Talk:Imamate: The Vicegerency of the Prophet to see where this article is part of a house of cards by the author to create a false impression of notability for subjects by using the same "published" source for this and other articles. --72.75.72.174 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- The scholar is notable for publishing multiple books. And books are widely distributed in their entirety on online Shi'a sites. --Striver - talk 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Questioning on notability of writer/compiler of more than 30 books (with ISBN Nos) should be reviewed and a flag of Writer and Scholar be honored to him as the writer of any language, region or religion is a writer irrespective branch of science - because science itself is benign and has no language, region or religion. I have read some of his articles, therefore commenting that he was very good in his research. Nannadeem (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- @WP:AUTHOR.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)]
- @Anders Feder Thanks. Science means knowledge/learning, that I mean. The religion/language is part of social science, besides a subject of communications and ethics. If you disagree I welcome you. Nannadeem (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Nannadeem: It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it is a matter of true and false. You can find an index of branches of science here and religion isn't among them.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC).
- I found in the prescribed list Evolutionary linguistics For Language and Theology for religion. I am afraid of edit war, so refraining myself from discussion of creating difference between science and scientific approach. My start is physics and end is in sociology (ultimate return to physics). I love physics because law of nature is still the same where is sociology is an evolutionary project (including religion and language).Nannadeem (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- I noticed that list was only created last week, and probably not reliable. Please refer to Outline of science. Religion (and theology) belongs under the humanities, never science.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- I found in the prescribed list Evolutionary linguistics For Language and Theology for religion. I am afraid of edit war, so refraining myself from discussion of creating difference between science and scientific approach. My start is physics and end is in sociology (ultimate return to physics). I love physics because law of nature is still the same where is sociology is an evolutionary project (including religion and language).Nannadeem (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Nannadeem: It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it is a matter of true and false. You can find an index of branches of science here and religion isn't among them.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC).
- @Anders Feder Thanks. Science means knowledge/learning, that I mean. The religion/language is part of social science, besides a subject of communications and ethics. If you disagree I welcome you. Nannadeem (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- @
- Questioning on notability of writer/compiler of more than 30 books (with ISBN Nos) should be reviewed and a flag of Writer and Scholar be honored to him as the writer of any language, region or religion is a writer irrespective branch of science - because science itself is benign and has no language, region or religion. I have read some of his articles, therefore commenting that he was very good in his research. Nannadeem (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)