Talk:Mohamed Gad-el-Hak

Came here from ANI
It's very clear that this person has done extensive, undisclosed COI edits to this article. The list of scholarly achievements is copied from his resume. There are multiple other issues with the layout and detail of this page. I am going to watch the ANI case closely, as I think a topic ban at least should be instituted. If any editors are up for it, ping me and I'd be happy to help work on this article once the COI thing is resolved. On a personal note, I'm pretty shocked that someone so high up in academia would think it's ethical/appropriate to edit Wikipedia about themselves. That's a pretty big no-no in academic circles in general.  M r A urelius R  Talk! 20:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They have now been blocked. I'd say WP:BEBOLD and edit the article as you see fit. I've made a start, but still a lot to do. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I took a knife to the article. I think a lot more still needs to be removed. I am not even convinced that he meets notability, but erring on the side of caution for now. Only things that can be found in references not published by him should be kept. That would eliminate most of the article as it is, but better references need to be found. https://egr.vcu.edu/directory/mohamedgadelhak/ is a possible reference for basic info. I would like to get the article to a state where we can completely remove his resume and self-published website as references, as they are very clearly primary (and likely biased) sources.  M r A urelius R   Talk! 03:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely notable under WP:NPROF it looks like. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"Engineering scientist"
Reads odd to me in the lede—is this a recognized term? I (a layman) would expect "materials scientist" or "engineer", but not the current formulation. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's something I've come across before, but not often, e.g. https://www.esm.psu.edu/academics/undergraduate/what-is-engineering-science.aspx -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Resume as source
I really don't think his resume should be used as a source. It's completely written by him, and anything that isn't his original opinion should be instead supported by sources from elsewhere (ie, awards, publications, etc.). I keep meaning to come back and take a longer, harder look at this article and spend time cleaning it up but my time is so limited right now. Ideally I think his resume and anything written entirely by him about himself should be scrapped.  M r A urelius R  Talk! 03:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that the resume citation has "better source needed" attached, so that's at least a start.  M r A urelius R   Talk! 03:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've also been intending to come back and try to work on this article some. But I think the resume is fine for basic, presumed-non-controversial facts like birthday, undergraduate education, perhaps some basic career details.  Anything approaching an assertion of notability should definitely have a RS; in this article, not all do. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)