Talk:Ravi Zacharias/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Political stance

Should it be included what political party Ravi Zacharias belongs to? Whether he is conservative Christian? --WongFeiHung 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a disingenuous statement. The article already states that he is of the evangelical stripe. Ravi himself has never aligned himself with any political party, although it is clear that he holds conservative values. 24.141.162.244


Disingenuous? I remember a sermon by a Southern evangelical minister who stated " God is not a Republican". You could have heard a pin drop - not even a breathe was taken for some time. The quietest, most shocked parishioners I have ever seen. Unbelieveably, he is still their minister - I thought he was a goner. Conservative values does not necessarily mean "Republican" and/or conservative Christian, though there can be some overlap. I still chuckle when I think of the sermon.

But you see, you just proved the point that it is disingenuous. The original contention was that the second sentence of the OP is a non-sequitur. What party Ravi Zacharias aligns himself to doesn't seem to directly relate to whether he's a conservative Christian or not--those are two different categories. I believe the original poster meant to ask if Ravi was a member of the Christian right.

contradiction

There is an obvious error in the introductory information about Ravi. If he was an atheist until he was 21, how was he preaching in his teens?

Ravi Zacharias tells of being converted at the age of 17, not 21, while in a hospital bed.

Added him to Asian Christians and Indian Christians

Added him to those categories

Mormon contrast?

Why is his speaking at the Mormon event in contrast to his editing the Martin book? I'm about to rephrase it to make it more sensible. Also added links to relevant terms. --ShawnLee 16:39, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Cults

Did Ravi's version include a Word-Faith criticism section?

WAVY 10 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Palpable dislike

It seems that an earlier author shows a palpable dislike for this person, Ravi Zacharias. Here are his previous comments, which I will edit,

"Ravi Zacharias (full name Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias, born 1946) is a Canadian-American Evangelical Protestant Christian Preacher who prefers to present himself as a philosopher and apologist.

Zacharias is descended from a long line of people who have made their living telling stories about the empirically unverifiable, first Hindu priests (of the Nambudiri Brahmin caste). and later as Christian preachers. "

I don't believe the comments about him being a preacher but preferring to call himself a philosopher and apologist conform to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, and neither do the comments about Brahmin priests and christian preachers making their lives telling stories about the empirically unverifiable. Wikipedia is not the place to throw 'digs' at philosophies we don't care for and to categorize their proponents as preachers rather than philosophers.

I'm going to change these paragraphs to read

"Ravi Zacharias (full name Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias, born 1946) is a Canadian-American Evangelical Protestant Christian philosopher, apologist and preacher.

Zacharias is a descendant of two rich religious traditions, first Hindu priests (of the Nambudiri Brahmin caste). and later Christian preachers. "

Unless someone can empirically verify that he is NOT a philosopher and apologist, or that somehow the title of preacher supercedes the title of philosopher and apologist which he lists in the 'about the author' section of his books, these edits should be more in line with the NPOV policy. Also the palpable dislike of religion has been removed and replaced with neutral terms. The fact that SOME religious beliefs and events are empirically unverifiable (while many are empirically verifiable) does not belong in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.168.46 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

This article has been tagged as having questionable notability, but given the accomplishments stated (albeit without sources), such as Zacharias' international organization, visiting professorships and honourary degrees from recognized institutions, and a notable speech at the Mormon church, this article seems to be deficient only in citing sources. If the info in this article can be verified from independent sources, I see no reason to question notability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.21.11 (talk) 11 June 2008

We have no indication as to how substantial this "international organisation" may be -- it may be simply sister organisations or individual friends/followers acting as mail-drops in these countries. Neither visiting professorships nor honorary degrees are notable in and of themselves, and a single speech is too transient an event to confer any lasting notability. Therefore the question over notability remains until the requirements in WP:BIO are met. HrafnTalkStalk 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


I agree, Ravi Zacharias is an extremely notable Christian apologist. There is no reason that this article should be deleted or flagged as unnotable. I think it should be given priority to be expanded and have its sources cited. His website rzim.org has extensive information on his ministry (in existence for almost 30 years), books and speaking. There is also lots around the internet about him. Also, he wrote an autobiography in 2006, God In The Shadows. Someone just needs to sit down and expand this article. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (emphasis in original) Information from his website, and his autobiography, are not "independent of the subject". Likewise information "around the internet" is only applicable if it is from "reliable sources". HrafnTalkStalk 03:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd never heard of this person before coming here, but it appears plausible he meets notability. The Times of India interviewed him.[1]Fox News and The Age[2] mentions him.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The Times of India interview, although of substantive length, is more puffery than probing -- simply letting him ramble on at length in response to three very easy questions. The Age & Fox News pieces only make the briefest mention of Zacharias in passing. Better than nothing, but still far from what is needed to build a solid article. HrafnTalkStalk 14:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh I was thinking about whether he was notable enough to even have an article. I think I was essentially saying "maybe, leaning toward yes." I didn't mean that was enough to make an article, although I've made stubs that survived for years on less.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand. The Age & Fox News pieces definitely wouldn't qualify as "significant coverage". The Times of India piece is in rather a grey area -- ToI is itself a WP:RS, but the format, which simply has Zacharias speaking in the first person for the bulk of it, would appear to render it unreliable except as a primary source that should not be considered to be "independent" of Zacharias himself. HrafnTalkStalk 15:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There is an article in the New York Times which devotes a paragraph to Zacharias being a possible alternative to Billy Graham after his retirement. The link is here (this is the last page in the article)[3]. --Wayfaringstranger1976 (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It only devotes a single sentence to him (along with a sentence each to three others), at the end of a five-page article -- again hardly "significant coverage". HrafnTalkStalk 17:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification of definition. I'm new to wiki editing. I just updated the Works list, added a picture from the press release on Ravi's website, and will be working on this page this week. I know that he has indeed received significant coverage, so I'll be working on getting that info. Kristamaranatha (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The pic will almost certainly fall prey to wikipedia's Nonfree Image Deletion Police: "Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project."[4] You might want to track down a "free-licensed" replacement before this happens. HrafnTalkStalk 06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Isn't this particular press release photo free to use? The website even gives instructions on how to save it (and other pictures from the press release) to your computer. Kristamaranatha (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless the image's owner gives an explicit license allowing free and untrammelled distribution (unlikely, as that would mean that they'd have no recourse on any usage of the image, even if highly negative), I suspect it is only allowing "fair use" not "free use". But again, that's up to wikipedia's Nonfree Image Deletion Police to argue. HrafnTalkStalk 03:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy regarding biographical information

There have been several attempts recently to introduce policy-noncompliant biographical information into this article. To avoid repetition of this problem, here are some of the most relevant policies:

I would suggest that editors familiarise themselves with these policies before attempting to introduce such information. HrafnTalkStalk 17:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO

Could editors please stop copying material verbatim out of www.rzim.org. It is a copyright violation, as well as being problematic under WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. HrafnTalkStalk 18:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

We need to get more sources in line with this, however I think Ravi Zacharias Qualifies under these notability criteria.

Creative professionals

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

   * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
          -He is frequently mentioned by other well-known authors/speakers in his field
   * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
          -He has his hand in creating the more recent versions of the popular Christian reference book the Kingdom of the Cults.

Academics

If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable:

   * The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.
        - I added a reference to an endorsement by the C.S. Lewis Institute

   * The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1].
   * The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.
         - His books have purportedly been endorsed by Billy Graham, Charles Swindoll, R.C. Sproul, Josh McDowell, Leighton Ford, and Norman Geisler according to well-known atheist web-site Infidels.com

--Kraftlos (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. "frequently mentioned" is not the same as "regarded as an important figure" or "widely cited"
  2. You have presented no evidence that Kingdom of the Cults is a "popular Christian reference book", let alone that he "played a major role in co-creating" it. He is generally listed as the "general editor" of it, not as a co-author.
  3. The CS Lewis Society reference is to Zacharias endorsing the Society, not vice versa.
  4. Infidels.com list prominent evangelicals that endorse him, it says nothing at all about his prominence in the academic community.

My impression to date is that Zacharias has generated great interest among his devotees, moderate interest from his fellow evangelical apologists, and very little interest from the wider academic and mainstream communities. As WP:GNP states: "For people who meet one of the following criteria, it is typically very likely that substantial secondary sources exist." I have yet to see any evidence of substantial secondary sources on Zacharias.

P.S.: please insert new threads at the bottom of a talkpage. HrafnTalkStalk 12:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed these were cited sources, at least please recognize the way I framed this information. I was just trying to get things going, I did not claim this was valid information that could go right over to the page; with the exception of the C.S. Lewis institute which I really should have read more carefully (sorry, it was late). The rest of the info in here I outlined as a strategy for establishing notability, if I believed what I had here constituted solid evidence it would have gone onto the page. This was to say, I or someone else working on this could start there to find a source.

As it appears that you are the one who tagged this page for notability and have been the main one editing this page; what types of information would YOU accept as "substantial"? There are no biographies on the man. Please do not refer me to the guidelines when answering this question, I have already read them.

P.S.: sorry about the placement of the thread. I really had no idea that anyone cared, but I do see that there are guidelines for this that I was not previously aware of. --Kraftlos (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Working on the article

I'm working on rewriting this article to reflect Ravi's notability and academic noteworthiness, it's just taking a bit more time than I thought it would. If you would like one reference to start things off, Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson refers to Ravi Zacharias as the most influential apologist of our time.

I propose removing the notability warning at the top of the article. Any thoughts? Kristamaranatha (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Colson has co-written a number of books with Zacharias, so is hardly an independent source (per WP:NOTE). Also if Colson's hyperbolic characterisation of Zacharias as "the most influential apologist of our time" were accurate, we would expect to see far more mainstream attention of him than we do, so it is difficult to accept Colson as a WP:RS. Additionally Colson has been convicted and disbarred for grossly dishonest behaviour, further undercutting his reliability. As yet there is no grounds for accepting Zacharias' notability, so removal of the template would be disruptive editing. Please establish his notability first, with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as I requested a month ago. HrafnTalkStalk 03:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Both before and after his conversion, Colson has clearly demonstrated that he values loyalty above honesty. As such, he will always tend to be a grossly unreliable source where his loyalties (whether to Nixon or to his fellow evangelical apologists) come into play. HrafnTalkStalk 03:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
See http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/135261 for a news article published about him when he came to speak at Tech following the Virginia Tech massacre. I wouldn't put him on the order of Billy Graham or anything, but he is definitely one of the top 10 best known evangelical preachers (best known within evangelical circles, anyway). --B (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, there has been some media coverage here an there. No biographies about him. I doesn't exactly go around flashing his credentials; he appears to be pretty humble man. I don't see him making any effort to get into the spotlight, aside from going places and speaking. He is well known among evangelicals, and I think we have at least shown that MIGHT be notable.
I agree, we need better sources. This article has been a mess for quite some time; but I think deletion would be unwarranted.  :::--Kraftlos (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Colson was disbarred for his role in the Watergate scandal, something that happened before his conversion. Since then he has become an upstanding member of society and a contributor to progress in the prison system. I don't think you're justified in saying he is not a reliable source for said reason. You're going to have to provide some sources yourself if you still insist he is unreliable. He's quoted in Christianity Today among other places for the comment about Ravi Zacharias. Kristamaranatha (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No -- "since then he has become" a hatchet-man for the Religious Right. He has hypocritically criticised Mark Felt for the Deep Throat leaks, when he has admitted to leaking information on Nixon's orders. He has parroted the Discovery Institute's dishonest smear campaign of Republican-appointed Judge John E. Jones III.[5] He is also frequently cited by Religious Right-watchers for his distortions. He seems to have 'converted' from being a liar-for-Nixon to being a liar-for-Jesus. In any case, I don't need to "insist [that] he is unreliable" -- as I have proven that he isn't independent of Zacharias, and as his hyperbolic claim that "Ravi Zacharias as the most influential apologist of our time" is prima facie absurd. HrafnTalkStalk 07:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I find it annoying that Colson played up Zacharias to that degree, but a source does not become non-credible simply because it is a religious. You cited an example where Colson was claiming the judge in the ID case was not fairly applying the law. He is entitled to his opinion, it doesn't make him a liar; or at least you didn't demonstrate that he was an unreliable source simply by showing us something he wrote that you disagree with. And what about these "Religious Right-watchers", who are they? What is your source? --Kraftlos (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect an "independent" source to be from outside the heavily interconnected evangelical Christian echo-chamber. That fellow evangelical Christian & frequent co-author of Zacharias sings his praise is an over-the-top fashion in an evangelical newspaper, all seems much to incestuous to be credible. That the newspaper in question was founded by evangelical Billy Graham, who shared with Colson a close connection to Nixon, makes it seem even more so. HrafnTalkStalk 07:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have more sources "outside the heavily interconnected evangelical Christian echochamber" as you put it; but in order to establish notability we merely have to establish that he is "regarded as an important figure by independent notable academics in the same field." under Academics or "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" as a creative professional.
This has been demonstrated as we have shown a number of other Christian apologists and organizations who clearly recognize him; and this has been shown through reliable sources outside of RZIM. For this purpose, we don't need the kind of sources you have been demanding; we only need demonstrate that his peers regard him as a notable person.
It doesn't matter what you think about his peers. It doesn't matter how much you like the publications that are being cited. Notability is not about your personal opinion of the man or your opinions of evangelical Christianity, for which you have demonstrated a clear disdain. --Kraftlos (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Famous for being famous?

As far as I can tell Ravi Zacharias is 'famous' primarily for being a famous evangelical apologist rather than for anything specific he has done. Lists of apologists frequently include him, but rarely say anything about his achievements. It could be that he is simply a minor, but very well-connected, apologist. In which case, he probably does not deserve an article of his own -- as it amounts to JAEA (Just Another Evangelical Apologist), born somewhere, grew up somewhere, educated somewhere, wrote some books, gave some talks (which were generally notable for where and/or when they were given rather than the fact that he gave them).

So my question is: what is he famous for? Has he written a particularly famous book? If so, then what was it, and where are the WP:RS secondary source reviews and discussion of it? Has he originated a novel and prominent form of apologetics or apologetic argument? If so, again, then what was it, and where is the WP:RS secondary source discussion of it? And for that matter, where are the prominent atheists and/or apologists for other Christian viewpoints who disagree with him? HrafnTalkStalk 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He is the founder of an organization that has offices in six countries; has travelled and spoken in dozens of countries, including Cambodia before it fell; this ministry has spanned 30 years; RZIM has a budget of over $5,000,000/year; was a visiting scholar at Cambridge University; current visiting professor and senior research fellow at Wycliff Hall at Oxford university; has spoken at such ivy league universities as Harvard and Princeton; has spoken twice at the National Prayer Breakfast at the United Nations; also spoken at the National Day of Prayer in Washington, DC; his speaking at the Mormon Temple was the first time an evangelical Christian has been allowed there since D.L. Moody one hundred years ago; has also spoken at Lenin Military Academy in Moscow (largely atheist at the time, not sympathetic to Christianity); he has a radio program that airs on over 1500 stations worldwide; he has authored over 20 books, published by such respectable houses as Zondervan and Multnomah, and including Can Man Live Without God, which won the Golden Medalion. I think all these things add to the case of Ravi Zacharias' notability. Kristamaranatha (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
His organisation, travels, speeches, etc don't really add much to his notability unless they had a notable impact. A big organisation and a large number of speeches that few have heard about is far less notable than a small organisation and a few speeches that everybody has heard of (contrast Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda). With satellite radio, it is extremely easy for even non-notable people to get wide coverage. What is this "Golden Medalion [sic]" award? I could find no evidence of it online. Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? HrafnTalkStalk 06:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

References that help establish his notability include:

  • This October 2007 story from a campus ministry at Virginia Tech, which refers to him as "a much sought after speaker".
  • This March 2007 story in a radio segment called "Business Matters" by Francis J. Kong, which refers to him as "the internationally famous Christian philosopher and evangelist..." and mentions "To say that his credentials are impressive is a grave understatement."
  • This August 2004 notice in the Chattanoogan, which calls him a "world-renowned Christian apologist".
  • This July 2003 article in The Washington Times, which calls him "one of the first Christian apologists to come out of the Third World" and goes on to say "his expertise on comparative religions has earned him audiences from Capitol Hill to Harvard".
  • This March 1997 article from The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution, which includes the title "Defender of the Faith" in its headline.

I think clearly he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." HokieRNB (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. A number of these sources appear to be 3rd-4th tier and seem to have a conservative/religious slant.
  2. The reports seem to be of the form of "he came here, he gave a speech/interview, oh and here's his pre-canned bio" rather than containing any in-depth coverage of his life and career.

However, I've gotten more than a little sick of all this -- work the Washington Times & Atlanta Journal-Constitution pieces into the article & I'll accept them as establishing notability. I will however delete anything that is not substantiated by these meagre offerings. HrafnTalkStalk 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the best characterisation of the verifiable coverage of Zacharias is that he's a notable public speaker who just happens to be a Christian philosopher/apologist. HrafnTalkStalk 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would also note that the only sources currently listed in the article that are independent of Zacharias are the Deseret Morning News and The Roanoke Times -- hardly first tier sources, and each only for a single speech (so likely to run afoul of WP:NOTE#Notability is not temporary). To be blunt you were decidedly premature in taking off the notability template. HrafnTalkStalk 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I must be missing something here. Whenever he goes somewhere to speak, it makes the local news - that doesn't happen with non-notable people. We're not talking about a random guy on local Christian radio - we're talking about one of the more sought after Christian speakers, who has authored a number of books and has a nationally syndicated radio show. --B (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You are missing something -- local news outlets tend to focus on local-interest stories, so would tend to cover 'celebrities', no matter how minor, who turn up in their locality. Given the vast number of such local news outlets, if we were to set them as the bar for notability, we would be flooded with articles on people, events and the like that possess no real notability. HrafnTalkStalk 05:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I give up. He's so obviously notable, it isn't worth discussing. If you google his name, it gets 376K g-hits. PBS considered him enough of an expert to include him on a program on Hindu-Christian relations in India [6]. Infidels.org detests him enough to review his book [7]. The Daily Utah Chronicle calls him a modern day CS Lewis [8]. The Valdosta Daily Times reviewed one of his books [9]. Christianity Today interview [10]. You can look through the google hits yourself and find plenty of other sources of information independent of the subject. --B (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>No. You never actually tried and have "obviously" not read WP:NOTE & WP:BIO. You dump yet another compost heap of fourth-tier trivia, which you have not even managed to work into the article, and expect me to be impressed. If the bar is set this abysmally low then I could probably establish notability for a local footbridge. I don't give a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys if you can find a dozen more student papers/local rags that mention him, or if he was once a talking-head in some obscure radio discussion. I'm tired of swatting at midges -- and will not respond to any more pseudocitations that you cannot, or cannot be bothered to, work into the article (thereby establishing that they actually have something substantive to say about Zacharias). If Zacharias is "so obviously notable" then why is he [almost] never mentioned, let alone discussed in detail, in first-tier sources? HrafnTalkStalk 06:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC) [Updated HrafnTalkStalk 15:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC) ]

Ignoring for the moment that "first-tier sources" is a completely new standard, does the New York Times count as one? [11] --B (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal quoted him in a brief piece on the King James Bible [12]. The Boston Globe felt that his appearance in Utah was significant enough to mention [13] because it tells us who "Standing Together Ministries" is. The Times of India interviewed him [14] twice [15]. You can look through the 302 stories in Google's news archive to find whatever suits you [16] and I would bet that if you have access to a university library, you could find more from Newsbank or something similar. --B (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, I "will not respond to any more pseudocitations that you cannot, or cannot be bothered to, work into the article (thereby establishing that they actually have something substantive to say about Zacharias)." If you think they have something to say then work them into the article. Otherwise I don't give a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys about them. HrafnTalkStalk 15:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I never said it was a "standard", I just thought that it was strange that if Zacharias was meant to be "so obviously notable", that I was being bombarded by fouth-tier sources (which would most probably also report things like the town's 'Fireman of the Year', prize-winning pumpkins, and other excessively notable events). And as a matter of interest, the NYT piece is indeed a bare mention at the very end of the article, with no discussion in detail. Is there anything in this brief mention that can be worked into the article? If not, then how does it count as in any way "significant coverage"? HrafnTalkStalk 15:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
compost heap of fourth-tier trivia and fetid dingoes kidneys are hardly within the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility. Ravi Zacharias meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. Please remove yourself from the discussion if you find that so difficult to swallow. If one man was reported in 17 cities and 8 major universities as their "Fireman of the Year", you'd have more than enough for a Wikipedia article. He doesn't have to be front-page news. He doesn't even have to make the news. The fact that he does in so many places merely demonstrates that he is notable. HokieRNB (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Could somebody tell me:

  • How being being "honorary chairman of the 2008 National Day of Prayer task force" is in any way a significant/substantive position? It gives every impression of the sort of meaningless honour that might bestow on somebody to curry their favour.
  • How giving speeches at Virginia Tech six months after the Virginia Tech massacre is in any way significant? Are we saying that nobody of any importance gave a speech there in the intervening six months? That seems somewhat unlikely.

All this serves only to confirm my previous opinion of his being barely notable and famous primarily for being famous. HrafnTalkStalk 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Classes end for the summer in May and resume in late August. So for a good chunk of that six months, there wouldn't have been very many students for him to talk with. --B (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's how:

  • Being named "honorary chairman of the 2008 National Day of Prayer task force" establishes Zacharias as a prominent figure in the evangelical community, alongside former people who held that title such as Charles R. Swindoll (2007), Henry Blackaby (2006), and Max Lucado (2005).
    • You failed to mention Oliver North (2004) -- hardly a theological heavyweight. Neither Swindoll's, Lucado's nor Luis Palau's (2003) articles bother mentioning this position. And Blackaby is so prominent a "figure in the evangelical community" as to not warrant an article at all. HrafnTalkStalk 04:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Being a keynote speaker at such events like the one in Blacksburg, or the University of Georgia's Stegeman Coliseum ([17]), or the University of Michigan's Rackham Auditorium ([18]), or Penn State's Eisenhower Auditorium ([19]), establishes Zacharias as a noted lecturer outside the evangelical community, much like being a keynote speaker at the Future of Truth conference in 2004 ([20]), or the largest Christian Communications Convention in 2005, ([21]), or the National Conference on Christian Apologetics in 2006 ([22]), or the largest missions conference in Central Canada ([23]) does so within the evangelical community.
    • These citations you provided are to very minor local papers (do any of them even warrant a wikipedia article?), which tend to almost exclusively cover local-interest stories, and are extremely easy for even the most minor and transitory of celebrities to get into, if they happen to turn up in the locality in question. As such, they have far less weight in establishing notability than a source that actually has some chance of being heard of outside their home city. HrafnTalkStalk 04:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How many pieces of the puzzle do you need to understand the picture that Zacharias is notable? HokieRNB (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"How many" is irrelevant when we are dealing with "pieces of the puzzle" that are so ephemeral in establishing notability that they might as well be grains of sand. That is why I suggested that if you could Washington Times & Atlanta Journal-Constitution pieces into the article, I'd stop arguing the point. Although not internationally known newspapers, they at least have reasonable national prominence. But you failed to work them in, so the argument goes on. HrafnTalkStalk 04:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Further on the subject of trivia, the Gold Medallion Book Award was awarded in a total of 22 categories in 1995 (and continued with a similar number of categories until 2005, after which it was reformed down to six categories -- meaning that this award has had hundreds of recipients). The main award is the 'Christian Book of the Year', which Zacharias did not win. According to Special:Whatlinkshere/Gold_Medallion_Book_Award, only a handful of articles on recipients bother to mention the Gold Medallion. Trying to establish Zacharias' notability using this sort of trivia is exactly what makes me so skeptical about the subject. HrafnTalkStalk 05:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

On several points -
  • I didn't find a reference for Oliver North, but if that's true, it's further evidence that the honorary title, however meaningless in practice, still points to notability. None of those people are "theological heavyweights", but that doesn't matter, since it's not intended to to make that argument. It merely points to esteem within the evangelical community. Since Wikipedia doesn't establish notability, the fact that Blackaby doesn't have an article is meaningless.
  • On local papers, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why you would exclude them? Zacharias is not some local preacher that gets in the local news in one location - he lectures to thousands at a time on university campuses and in churches and other forums around the world.
  • On Gold Medallion Book Awards, see how The Departed is listed as an Academy Award winning film, even though it didn't win "best picture"? However, inclusion of an author's award is not necessary to establish notability. Notability has already been established.

HokieRNB (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. The Departed won best picture.
  2. It won a total of 4 Oscars, so listing them individually in the lead would be unwieldy.
  3. Everybody knows what the Oscars are, and that they are awarded for multiple categories (often for the same film), few would have heard of the Gold Medallion or whether it was a singular or multiple award. Best Christian book is one thing, only best in one of 22 categories is something far less.

HrafnTalkStalk 18:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. That was a silly mistake. The analogy still stands. Pick any Academy Award winning film that didn't win Best Picture (I don't follow the Academy Awards...) and it is still referred to as an Academy Award winning film. HokieRNB (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Job

Great job Hokie at editing this bio. Thanks for getting those sources, helping with the case for Ravi's notability, and writing a great summary of his ministry activities. I definitely look forward to expanding this article a bit more and making it great. Thanks Hrafn, B and everyone else for jumping into the discussion and helping make things happen here. Being new to wiki, this was extremely helpful and helped show me how things work around here. Blessings! Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading through the article again and would like to propose adding a few headings: Personal Life; Education (and Awards?); Ministry; and Criticism. Perhaps we should wait until we have a little more info, but I think these would be a good place to start. Ravi has a great autobiography (which qualifies as an acceptable source per wiki guidelines) Thoughts? Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That looks good, I've found some articles about his books in some academic search databases, one of them was written by Biola's J. P. Moreland Not sure where something like that could be worked in, I guess I'll have to do a closer reading of the articles. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've come across the J.P. Moreland article a while back... do you have the link? From what I remember it could probably be useful to this section and incorporated. Kristamaranatha (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)