Talk:Rizieq Shihab

Birth Year

Please do not change the birth year to 1969. I will keep reverting any change on this particular one. The cited references all say he was born in 1965. Besides, the article says his father died in 1966 when Rizieq was 11 months old.

Vandalism Prevention

The article has been targeted for vandalism frequently. Is there anyway to prevent that? perhaps make the article semi-protected? Buhadram (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sayyid Verification

The body authorized to verify the family tree of a Sayyid person, especially descents of Imam Husayn bin Ali through imam Ahmad al-Muhajir in Indonesia is not Saudi Arabian government or any body in Saudi Arabia, but an organization called Al-Rabithah al-Alawiyyah located in Indonesia. See also Jamiat Kheir.

Buhadram (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

GAN?

Im not contributing significantly into this article, but anyone here that contributes to this article wants to nominate this to GA? It seems good enough Nyanardsan (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

As long as the section "Views" portrays him personally as a wolf in sheep's clothing, apologetically focussing on his rare moments of being tolerant with others, but hardly mentions his divisive demagoguery (the opening part is outspoken about FPI's glorification of violence, but does not link it to the person M. Rizieq Shihab): not a good idea. –Austronesier (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

So is it because the article is still fairly biased in coverage or just because what's him famous for in general bad?

If it's the second, I dont think "bad subjects" (bad is relative after all) cant be good articles. He's still an important figure in Indonesian politics especially on recent years after all. And his view on Shia Islam etc are still important to be covered. Since the article is B-class, it is actually already quite decent. Nyanardsan (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanardsan: Every topic has the potential for a good article (Adolf Hitler has GA status), but I don't see it yet for this article. My main issue is with "Views". For a realistic picture of his actual presence in Indonesian politics, we should in the first place rely on secondary sources (such academic sources and national and international mainstream media) and not primary material (such as overly long quotes), which partially turns out as blatantly promotional (such as the FPI declaration at the beginning of "Views", full of weasel words like "steadfast", "faithful", "strongly"). As for the previously existing apologetic bias, you have added some important material for balance, which is a good start. Maybe you can bring it up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia for more input. –Austronesier (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Protection

Given the controversy behind this article and persistent violaton of WP:NPOV from both sides, i think this article should be protected indefinitely Nyanardsan (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The page has seen 37 edits this year, which is highly static. Two vandal edits today do not warrant permanent PP yet. If it gets worse, we'll go to WP:RPP and ask for temporary semi. The degree of disruption to this article has been amazingly low this year compared to many other articles with much less controversial topics.

Last year saw a lot of content build-up, but with little edit warring. With most of those contributors having extended confirmed status anyway, what kind of page protection do you envisage? Protected against whom? If the current form of the article violates WP:NPOV, this calls for a cleanup (go for it!). Only in case this is met with major disruption from IPs and newly-created single-purpose accounts, page protection might help for a smooth editing process done by regulars; and only if regulars start banging their heads over it (with edit-warring and all), that might end in full protection (which is the worst that can happen, because in most cases, the page will end up frozen in a mess). –Austronesier (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) 何をしましたか？那晚安啦。 08:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Habib Rizieq → Rizieq Shihab – This so-called "habib" is called so because he wanted to. Now people here in Indonesia call him Rizieq Shihab. The fact that he is a controversial figure does not help. Angga (formerly Angga1061) 05:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME, and some actually challenges his title of Habib.

Nyanardsan (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support, but Habib Rizieq should still be redirected here, as Indonesian media still use Habib Rizieq more than Rizieq Shihab, and sometimes Indonesian media uses Habib Rizieq Shihab to call him. SunDawntalk 05:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:TITLESINTITLES: Honorifics and other titles [...] are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known. Yes "Habib Rizieq" is very commonly used, but not so much overwhelmingly more often than "Rizieq Shihab", so the exception in the naming policy for inclusion of the honorific does not apply. –Austronesier (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2022 (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.