Talk:Nader El-Bizri/Archive 1

Wikified
Talk:Nader El-Bizri This article has been wikified with internal and external links as well as third-party references.

Arabian-Editor (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
Dear Wikipedia registered master editors, based on the recent editorial decisions that have been undertaken over the past two days 23-24 March 2017, with the placement of tags on the article "Nader El-Bizri", particularly in response to my 'casual edits' as a non-registered user who occasionally contributes to Wikipedia, I wanted to clarify the circumstances that might have resulted in some confusion around the Wikipedia entry "Nader El-Bizri". Perhaps these resulted from when I first un-did an edit by Edward321, and when I then contacted the Wikipedia NoticeBoard & Miscellaneous Queries about it, without knowing at the time that a casual editor like me should not do so, or should not even contact you individually via your talk pages! Tags were placed on the entry and even some suggested that it should be deleted altogether, or that it was copied from the website of a school in Lebanon (Jesus & Mary) even though the Wikipedia article dates back to 2008, and it is clear that it was mirrored by the school (since this school runs some reports on notable Lebanese figures to motivate its students, and many of the entries they have on their website are themselves taken from Wikipedia - I checked this after it was suggested by one of the Wikipedia editors, and it looks like the school mirrors Wikipedia in its reports on notable figures...). Moreover, the Wikipedia "Nader El-Bizri" article received over 359 edits since 2008, including many by some of your veteran master Wikipedia editors (as noted on their pages), and the article has numerous links across Wikipedia and to many reputable external websites as well... I am myself simply a casual editor and I did not know much about how to contact you, this is why I got in touch with you via your own talk pages or through the noticeboard or the miscellaneous queries, etc., until I figured out that the article itself has its own talk page, and hence I am using it now to communicate with you! I am just bringing this to your attention since maybe my unintentional edits and contacts with you may have caused all editorial confusions or issues. I acted at first in response to the edits of Edward321 with haste and in response to what I judged as being a radical editing or for concern over their implications. This was done in good faith since I contacted Edward321 and then contacted your noticeboard and miscellaneous queries at Wikipedia, yet not knowing at the time that this is not the protocol of contacts or communications on Wikipedia! I then contacted you individually via your talk pages, but some of you have been dismissive since I guess I am not a registered user/editor, and I guess my casualness in editing was perhaps misunderstood. What is mainly at issue here is that I do not want that my edits result in an indirect harm to the actual living person who is covered by this article, as this can be entailed from some of the editors' comments and tags. In any case, I have understood now that as casual editors we are not allowed to make edits unless we get fully registered with Wikipedia and master its technical procedures, or at least this is what has been conveyed to me through some responses from your talk pages. I guess it is clear that I should refrain from now on from making any contributions to edits in Wikipedia. Thank you anyway for your consideration of this matter in case it helps in your editing of this article and gives clarifications that result in fair and well measured interventions in this regard on your part 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:DCDF:6069:402F:B06 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A "casual" or novice editor has as much right as anyone else to raise questions in appropriate places. While this page is the best place for it, there's nothing wrong with asking Edward321 personally why he did what he did – but how did you "contact" him? You have not written on User talk:Edward321.  The first time you posted to WP:Reference Desk/Miscellaneous you were told to bring the matter here; that's not because you're "casual", it's because this is the right place.  I don't know which NoticeBoard you mean.
 * "Master Editor" and similar titles are jocular; they carry no privileges. The medals and so forth that go with them are intended to be a little bit absurd.
 * Could you perhaps suspend your moaning about poor treatment of newcomers (which is real) long enough to state your objection to what has happened here, clearly enough that a third party can form an opinion thereof? What harm do you think can come to Bizri from either Edward's actions or yours? —Tamfang (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining procedures and protocols. I was just surprised by the responses my edits received and I thought that I might have crossed into certain domains that are reserved for registered users or administrators. In any case I do not intend to edit here until I understand better how the Wikipedia rules and technicalities are applied. When I did my edits, some editors exchanged various communications around the "Nader El-Bizri" page and it was hinted that the whole entry should be removed given that it might have been taken from a school website in Lebanon, but then this was investigated, and the related tag removed by the editor who placed it, since it turned out that the school website mirrored an early version of the "Nader El-Bizri" page. It is just the level of attention that took me by surprise after my communications and back&forth edits with Edward321. In any case this is a matter to be handled by frequent regular and registered editors like you or those I contacted on their Wikipedia talk pages earlier when the incident happened2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:D179:221C:6AE1:4E51 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected
The semi-protection was till 24 June 2017 as announced by the user who placed it originally, but today is 27 June 2017 and it is locked!


 * I purged the page cache to fix the page. It shouldn't be locked anymore. — MRD 20  14  14:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

A Call for Wikipedia Experienced and Knowledgable Editors
The placement of the 'Press Release' tag is arbitrary since the article is fully supported by references, multiple wikipedia internal links, and key philosophical aspects of notability. It is also in contradiction with the other tag that judges the content as being 'technical', hence 'philosophical' and 'conceptual', which runs against the random claim that the article is routine or akin to a press release. It is essential that some experienced wikipedia editors look into this, especially given the very rare circumstances in our contemporary era to find an Arab Philosopher who has such international and multidisciplinary profile; and rather than harming such figures we are in need to support them in this terrible time that faces the Arab world. All this needs is a little bit of attention from knowledgable wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:482:32E3:431A:AFE (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the biggest issue with this article is really that it is too technical. It delves too deeply into what he does and why. The section about his "Intellectual profile" is just too much. It reads like a technical journal! For the reader, this section will cause him to abandon the article. This is supposed to be a biography of the man. It may seem sacrilegious to someone from his field, but the article should be aimed at a broader audience. Look at the article about Stephen Hawking. We could be bombarded with theoretical physics and quantum mechanics, but instead we get to meet the man.


 * And that's where we get the press release tag: Are we extolling his virtues here, or are we enumerating his triumphs as a man and a philosopher? The section "Academic and professional profile"... The first sentence consists of four different jobs he's held that could, should, be in a bullet list. The next line is "also this and also that." Add this to the bullet list.


 * What is with that "Selected publications" list? As a casual reader, after the first five entries, I would just stop looking. Who has time, outside of the field, to read all that? See also and External links are just as bad. After all that, there are only 35 references? I started trying to fill out the bare urls and found three out of four were dead links.


 * I'm sorry but I have no interest in the topic of this article, so I am not going to try editing it. I'll probably break something for not understanding it. As for the apparently contradictory tags: they are not. It reads like an overly technical press release in an obscure journal somewhere. I'll bet those students at the mirror site fall asleep trying to read this. — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 15:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The article can be improved by wikipedia editors who are interested in academic topics and in philosophy and Arabic studies in particular. It may need some copyediting and rechecking of the links it has to external sources in case some are no longer active. The examples to follow should come from articles about living philosophers, and in this case the current article is not too technical for philosophers or academics in the humanities. Greater care should be exercised in editing, especially if it is a living person in order not to cause harm or amount to vandalism (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:3872:3A8B:AFE3:BAB6 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC))

This article has to be judged by editors who are knowledgable in philosophy and the humanities and not just experienced in routine editing. What appears as too technical to a person who is not trained in philosophy may seem ordinary and within what is expected at the conceptual level from someone who knows philosophy. This article should be judged in comparison with the entries on modern philosophers, and based on this the improvements should be made (AcademeEditorial (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC))

Possible act of Vandalism or Malicious Intent
The nomination for deletion is possibly an act of vandalism or at least malicious, or requested by a user who has no clue about the content. This page has existed since 2008 with hundreds of edits and it is substantiated by many references, links, and very recent monitoring and edits. The call for considering deletion is utterly unsubstantiated and is arbitrary at best if not intent on causing harm and is malicious in motivation, or simply a deliberate polemic and act of vandalism. This is very serious and it seems that it requires immediate attention from other editors. The many remarks made on this talk page need also to be checked by editors who have knowledge in philosophy and in Islamic studies. Edwardx who requested the deletion is a user who focuses on businessmen and billionaires, and it is regrettable that academics and scholars have to be judged by users who have no clue about their areas of research and specialism. This is very serious and it lowers the integrity of Wikipedia altogether (AcademeEditorial (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)) (AcademeEditorial (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC))
 * You may want to participate at Articles for deletion/Nader El-Bizri as someone has nominated the article for WP:AFD (also see WP:AFDEQ for more information). — Paleo  Neonate  - 11:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate. EdwardX who placed the deletion request that you restored covers businessmen and billionaires. Check his Userpage. A request for deletion is a very serious matter and it cannot be done in an arbitrary fashion and with randomness, especially if it is not coming from someone who specializes in the content. The article exists since 2008 with hundreds of edits by multiple users and it has many references and links, and the person it reports has many entries in wikipedia that make reference to his wikipedia page. I am unsure why you felt ready to restore EdwardX's request for deletion? (AcademeEditorial (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC))
 * It is just that with the AfD procedure, we cannot remove such a tag but should instead participate in the (generally 7 days) debate. If the debate closes as "keep", it is unlikely to get nominated again soon and will be a demonstration of notability.  I don't personally know that editor, if there's a serious problem it's possible to address concerns on that editors' talk page, or if necessary at an administrator's noticeboard like WP:ANI (although this does not always have the intended consequences)...  — Paleo  Neonate  - 11:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

How can this be brought to the attention of serious and responsible administrators, and to those who have some clue about academia? Such randomness is unacceptable and harmful, especially when there are no grounds for it, and with an article that existed for 9 years and received hundreds of edits by numerous users and seasoned editors. The article is mentioned also in a very large number of wikipedia other articles, and the person that it covers received many awards and honors, etc. It is regrettable that someone from the corporate domain decides who stays and who goes in connection with academics, thinkers and scholars. This is an unchecked abuse of policy altogether. I hope that El-Bizri notices this and reports such libelous act (AcademeEditorial (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

Please check what is taking place around the article "Nader El-Bizri" since this was proposed for deletion, but the reasons put forward touch upon statements that harm the reputation of the living person it covers. The ranking and merits of the work of a living person should be judged by their peers and not simply by random wikipedia users, especially if the deletion has not been requested by someone specializing in academia but by someone who has been covering businessmen and billionaires. Please check this serious matter since it lowers the integrity of wikipedia and causes actual harm to living people, especially if they are in the public domain and well known in their field (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8170:FF93:C1C4:942C (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

The nomination for deletion may have violated the policies of wikipedia since this article exists since 2008 and received nearly 1000 edits; so it is not up to a single user to arbitrarily call for its deletion and disregard all the edits it received over 9 years; especially if the one calling for deletion specializes not at all in academia but in covering hundreds of businessmen! Is this a democratic open practice or randomness that causes harm? Is El-Bizri being deliberately targeted because he is an Arab thinker? (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8170:FF93:C1C4:942C (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC))


 * No violation of policy, and your statements regarding the rankings and merits of a living person is just bollocks. I shall be participating in the deletion discussion. I suggest that you read up on policy regarding deletion and notability and participate there too. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The article "Nader El-Bizri" that is about an academic philosopher and architect has been proposed for deletion by EdwardX who seems to specialize in businessmen and billionaires. The article "Nader El-Bizri" exists since 2008 and received over 100 edits by a vast number of diverse editors over the years. This article has on average 35 visits daily, which since 2008 might have accumulated to over 100,000 visit. Numerous wikipedia articles in the dozens make reference to the "Nader El-Bizri" article in various forms. The living person in question is a Full Professor, and a Director of three programs at the American University of Beirut; received many awards, including the one for the Advancement of Sciences from Kuwait, and has been ranked 59 as Thought Leader in the Arab world (3rd on top of all living Arab philosophers), with a vast array of publications with prestigious presses such as Oxford, Cambridge, Routledge, SUNY. The indicators of his CV, awards, rankings in the Arab world are accessible via the official external links at the bottom of the article. It is utterly arbitrary and damaging to the integrity of wikipedia that all of this is ignored by a single user who does not even seem to have a connection to academia. Such randomness is very harmful to the professor in question and it should not be left unmonitored and could even be motivated by malicious intents. It is essential that it receives immediate attention by responsible knowledgable editors, and such sensitive decisions should not be made with haste (AcademeEditorial (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC))
 * I shall be participating in the deletion discussion. I suggest that you read up on policy regarding deletion and notability and participate there too. As an aside may I ask if you are the IP editor 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8170:FF93:C1C4:942C posting here not logged in? -Roxy the dog. bark 12:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It is good Roxy that you will participate in the discussion, as for your other suggestion in connection with the other editor, I will not respond to it so that it does not turn into a debate with you rather than the article at hand. This article has had many followers and users who contributed to it or visited it, and hence there is an interest in fairness especially since I am an academic (AcademeEditorial (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC))


 * You should learn to format your posts on talk pages. Use colons at the beginning to indent properly, thus giving meaning to your posts. Unfortunately, you appear to have forgotten to answer my question. It was a simple one, requiring you to answer simply. Unfortunately, it appears that there are two of you with WP:CIR related issues if you are not the IP. I am an academic too. I went to school. and I studied at the University of Google. Most importantly, I understand how wikipedia works, and you evidently dont, given your posts here. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Original research
You have been adding a lot of what we call "original research" to the article. This is normally not allowed. For the relevant policy, see No original research. Here is an example:


 * His research in history of science and philosophy, which also informs his investigations in architectural history, theory and criticism, is methodologically inspired by the legacies of scholars of history and philosophy of science like: Gaston Bachelard, Georges Canguilhem, and Alexandre Koyré (while being also tangentially aware and critical of the differential methods of Leo Strauss and Quentin Skinner).

What you have added here is not a citation to a reliable source. It's a conclusion you have reached by reading some of El-Bizri's publications. We do not do this kind of analysis on Wikipedia. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Please Kendall-K1 would you recheck the fixes? I think I managed to remove dead links and added new references instead now of having original research citations (i..e the way academics do in actual printed material when they reference sources in footnotes). I meant that I added reliable sources via weblinks etc. Thanks (AcademeEditorial (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Or in Wikipedia terms WP:OR (original research). It is unsurprising that a newbie does not understand this. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven't changed anything in the example I gave. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Slash and Burn
Now that the Deletion debate has been closed (not certain I agree with the result, but I didn't vote), I propose that all the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH be removed, and we look carefully at the huge over egging the pudding regarding the huge list of publications by him.

Lets bring this into line with policy, shall we? -Roxy the dog. bark 16:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Bringing the article into line with policy is a proper call for improvement, but why seeking to "slash and burn"? The list is minimal in comparison with how it was before, and DGG cut it down significantly. Please can you justify this call and on what basis would you select what to keep from the list or what you remove?  Would you rely on a citation index, and which one? Are you knowledgable in philosophy and the humanities to know what to keep or not? Please explain your criteria otherwise this borders on being baseless, and I am sure this is not your aim. Thanks a lot Roxy (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8536:2A0:F41E:CF93 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC))


 * In order to bring the article into line with policy I believe we will have to get rid of all the excess cruft that currently exists. To do that we will have to follow WP:PAG rather than what our three academics think wikipedia policy ought to be. Slash and burn is actually my response to the huge amount of cruft we have to divest from the article, not just Synth and OR, but also far too much stuff that is normally to be found on an academic CV, and not in a wikipedia encyclopeadia article. (and for the record, I am in fact the world's most famous expert regarding Philosophy and the Humanities). -Roxy the dog. bark 16:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being clearer in your statement. I hope these discussions do not border on personal issues. When I inquired whether you have expertise in philosophy and the humanities it was simply to know what criteria you would follow in determining what you keep or remove from the list of publications, since this is not a WP matter but an aspect that touches upon selecting actual published works in peer-refereed journals and books by notable publishers. I also asked what metrics you would follow if you rely on citations indices (and by "citations" I mean actual academic metrics in the real world of producing knowledge and not what "citations" mean here in the WP virtual sphere).  Be straight to the point, and there is no need for your to make such statements about your expertise, no offense is intended whatsoever (but please bear in mind that in academia making such statements borders on discrediting the soundness of the judgements of those who utter them) --- Please Roxy let us collaborate collectively and responsibly to improve the quality of WP. I am sure you appreciate that, and you have seen how I took your word in good faith and went in step-by-step edits and that i was willing to adapt my academic conventions bit-by-bit to meet how WP works, and I learnt in the process too from all of you here. Please let us collaborate, or else this becomes a futile exercise. I am willing to help and continue to learn, if we act reasonably and take steps that are substantiated and supported by evidence and careful decision-making.  Thanks kindly Roxy (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:520:68F3:80EE:7E69 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC))

Improving the presentation of the article
Some issues have been highlighted with the presentation of the article "Nader El-Bizri" but it was not noted to other editors specific ways of improving them. Is there a chance any of the experienced editors can make some suggestions or steps as to how these issues would be resolved? There has been some lack of consensus lately, and there were worries that some arbitrary decisions on the part of come editors would result in some form of vandalizing the article, and it was hence locked for few months to protect it and not harm the biography of the living person concerned. How to make these improvements needs experienced Wikipedia editors to address them and not only to state them, or have lack of consensus over them with randomness and haste in decision and dismissiveness. Maybe experienced editors can flag this on noticeboards or via the article's talk page, and may know better what can be done to improve the article or entice other editors to do so. In any case, thanks for your editorial attention  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:352A:DF7E:4EE0:E04E (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I am looking into ways to improve the article since I have knowledge in philosophy and the humanities, and I am contacting experienced wikipedia editors who specialize in Arabic studies, Islamic studies, and in modern European philosophy and phenomenology, in addition to architecture theory to look into it too. When articles have a distinctive character to their content in novel and diversified areas of interdisciplinary research, they need to be handled with greater editorial care and not be subject to simple copyediting by users who have no background in the subject matter. This is to avoid harm since we are dealing with a living person and exchanges over wikipedia by none specialists can have effects on the person concerned and their standing. Comments and remarks have to be measured or else this forum can become malicious. This is therefore also a call for experienced wikipedia editors who specialize in philosophy, architectural theory, and Arabic/Islamic studies to look into this article's contents (AcademeEditorial (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC))


 * It is also because BPLs can be damaging, that by policy, any improperly sourced material should usually be removed (saying less than necessary is better than saying more than what reliable secondary sources provide, WP:BLPRS). Saying too much also makes the topic opaque to general readers who are our audience (although this is not the simple English Wikipedia, English Wikipedia articles should be comprehensible to college-level readers).  It's unclear if by forum you mean the article or this talk page.  But this talk page is not a general forum, so all conversations are expected to be related to article improvements, you are therefore right that debating technical aspects of philosophy or discussing personal aspects of the person is also off-topic here, we mostly care about improving the article itself.  — Paleo  Neonate  - 09:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, I am in agreement with your careful editing approach. I also hope that editors who have knowledge in Arabic/islamic thought, Continental philosophy, and architectural theory would contribute towards improving this interdisciplinary content, besides the more common technical improvement by generalist editors. The article merits enhancement and cleaning up given the uncommon research that it represents, and especially from someone who is a living modern Arab philosopher like the person in question. Discerning care is needed in such sensitive cases and measured judgement rather than editing haste. The webpage has been active since 2008 with very large numbers of edits and thousands of hits. So the recent interest in it should take into account that it has been edited over 9 years with many modifications (AcademeEditorial (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC))

Many of the external links issues have been addressed in the past couple of weeks with fixes and edits. This aspect may no longer be an issue as noted in the tag. This needs looking into in order to remove that tag. Thanks (AcademeEditorial (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC))


 * The bare-urls have recently been converted to better citation format indeed. The "bare-urls/link-rot" warning was also removed from the top tag.  — Paleo  Neonate  - 11:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It is good that you know how to function here but what I meant relates to actual specialism outside the cybernetic sphere of wikipedia or Google. Namely a specialism that can discern the internal aspects of specific academic fields and their nuances especially when it comes to biographies of living persons. This is not a debate between you and me over our own qualities and capabilities. I believe this is a rule that should be respected here rather than being abused. I am not as knowledgable in technical operations on wikipedia like you, but I know very well the subjects in the humanities that I teach at university, and academics should not be left to the mercy of technicians and their random decisions. We all need to exercise some responsible objectivity; this is not a chat room between you and me. You focus on the algorithm and cybernetics it seems, but I know the inner content of thought in the humanities and I have over fifty years of academic experience. This should have a voice here and not only giving the reign to technical matters (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:C8AF:7DAC:ADAA:6E10 (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

Question/Comment regarding policies on Wikipedia: The most recent edits to the article have been done by administrators or experienced Wikipedia editors, and it is clear that discussions or edits will continue, but these have slowed down significantly. Is it therefore OK if some minor typos and a couple of citations are added, and that some repetitions are grouped together? I am asking this to know whether the article can be edited now by any user/editor, including myself, or that only administrators or experienced editors are allowed to do so following these discussions... (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:D08F:C723:CCA7:4C91 (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC))


 * Just to be very clear, "Anybody can edit Wikipedia" and the editor who wants us to change Policy for him, just doesn't know what he is talking about. Academics demanding wikipedia does things his way or else will not get much done here. OF COURSE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO EDIT HERE. (Some of us may be watching, just in case you need help)


 * Just noticed ... you appear to be AcademerEditorial, from your edit history. I asked you once before, but you wouldn't answer. Are you? -Roxy the dog. bark 15:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Roxy. Should I when I edit note exactly what I have done in the summary box before I save or should I return here to the talk page to seek consensus? I noticed typing errors, floating punctuation marks, some repetitions that can be grouped together? Would you help if I go step by step? I am not myself AcademeEditor. What I am asking about now is collaborating in editing (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:D08F:C723:CCA7:4C91 (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC))


 * Just follow WP:PAG. lots of us will help. I personally would suggest doing things in small chunks, rather than changing things wholesale. Imho it is far more likely that a huge major change will be reverted immediately, but smaller ones are easier to understand. Be careful about dealing with repetition. It is policy that the lead of an article covers the most salient points from the body, so don't let that deliberate repetition fool you. OK? -Roxy the dog. bark 15:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC) -Roxy the dog. bark 15:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

EDITS 13 July 2017 : I made a series of step by step small edits today as discussed just above with Roxy. I explained what each of these consisted of. I covered the sequence up to "Architectural career"). I will continue with the rest and would be be grateful for any help, advice, or collaboration. There might be sources in Arabic and Persian that can assist too while being checked via Google Translate (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:D08F:C723:CCA7:4C91 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)) Please can someone help with technical aspect since the lines after the word Toposophia in "Academic career" all became italics when they need not be as such (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:D08F:C723:CCA7:4C91 (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC))
 * fixed the italics issues and will resume editing ("Intellectual profile" next ) after I receive some feedback and help or suggestions from admin or experienced WP editors (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:4012:C63A:DEDD:F9F1 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC))


 * Waiting a bit for some feedback from Wikipedia administrators and experienced editors before I begin edits on the "intellectual profile". That next section can benefit from help or advice from editors interested in philosophy, but bearing in mind that this is not strictly Analytic nor Continental philosophy school approach, rather interdisciplinary. Any comments are appreciated (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:936:5C07:63B3:137 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC))


 * PLEASE READ THIS NOTE: as noted above, I went through a long series of step by step, bit by bit careful edits while trying to follow WP:PAG as far as I can. Mainly cleaning minor aspects, and also added what I considered to be relevant references etc. I have done what is within the bounds of my knowledge as academic and also in learning more about the WP technicalities and policies etc. My edits will hopefully be checked by experienced editors and administrators at WP to see if they assisted in the collective effort to improve the article. Thank you for reading this clarification while checking my edits (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:936:5C07:63B3:137 (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC))
 * You've got a few problems. We don't say "at present" or "currently", as there is no way for the reader to know when "present" is without checking the article history; the natural assumption would be that "present" refers to "now, while I'm reading this", which isn't true. You can't use the CV as a source for facts about the subject, only for what the subject says. So you can't say "...was previously a Lecturer in architecture...", you have to say "...says he was previously a Lecturer in architecture...". You've got some duplicate refs. I didn't go through the rest of it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks "Kendall-K1" for your suggestions, they would help with future edits (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:A1E3:4081:27D5:3CF (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC))

Comment/Clarification/Query/ : Dear Participating Editors. I continued adding references and sources today 15 July 2017 and building on earlier edits and improvements done by DGG, Kendall-K1 and other editors. I explained my edits step-by-step as recommended by some of you, including the helpful suggestions from Roxy. Given that this discussion has been taking place for a week and many significant edits have been implemented, will the article receive now an overall re-evaluation to see if the discussions and edits resolved most of the issues or generated significant improvements? The feedback and update is needed. I am also personally curious to know more about the protocols in terms of decision-making in this case; namely when would the discussion and improvements be judged as being sufficient and adequate, and who decides from administrators or participating editors on the next move etc.? Thank you for your helpful advice and looking forward to your responses (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:CD4:ECC3:F175:CCA6 (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Are you sure you're not AcademeEditorial? Your styles are identical, and you are making the same mistakes. Please read the section below titled "Original research". Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not AcademeEd but I have similar background as an academic in the humanities! (look at that user's page). In any case this discussion is not about my identity, and I already responded...

I guess I did not notice that the use of research citation that we are accustomed to in our references is not accepted here. For example you removed a whole set of sentences in the intellectual profile that are supported by El-Bizri's own views on how he approaches the history of mathematics. In published works this is normal as a footnote and is sufficient. If you prefer you can look it up in the volume that is cited and it appears in its introduction (this is just an example of how guidelines differ and where perhaps I need to be more careful in WP citations). One question about consulting Public Records, since Ancestry.UK gives access to records of birth and marriages etc., and you can get the info about El-Bizri's birthplace and birthdate if you register on that site, so why is this not accepted, and where would you alternatively get the info from, call his university's Human Resources? Should we not also eliminate his pre-university school (College de Notre Dame...)? (Or place it as I did in the footnotes while [as I did] noting that there is no independent source on this?). There are many sources on ElBizri in Arabic (I checked a bit while being aided by Google Translate). Regarding your other re-edits they do refine what I have done and for this thank you. [A wider question I addressed about process and decision-making in WP about the page issues etc.; namely: how and when these are undertaken and on whose authority, and for how long? Can anyone knowledgable and experienced or serves as administrator clarify this please?) (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8536:2A0:F41E:CF93 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Is the last question asking when can the article be completed? If so, although articles can have milestones (they can get quality-assessed, i.e. see WP:COUNCIL/AFAQ and WP:ASSESSMENT, the current class is "start-class"), Wikipedia is always a work in progress (WP:WIP)...  If the question is about the AfD discussion, it was closed with a "keep" consensus, meaning that the subject is considered notable enough to have an article in the encyclopedia.  — Paleo  Neonate  - 15:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you PaleoNeonate. Yes I noticed that the AfD has been closed with a consensus to "keep", so this answers in part my wider query, and the rest of what you noted further clarifies that the article will continue to receive further assessment beyond the "start" class. May I inquire with you and others about a shorter timeframe namely: the "tags" about the "issues" of the page: have these been addressed with the significant edits this article received through DGG, Kendall-K1, Roxy, many others including myself? And if not entirely, then what is still needed to rectify them? Many citations and reliable sources have been added, the possible promotional tone rectified, the external links cleaned-up, the heavy "technical" (philosophical language) almost removed.  So the tags that predated the main recent edits, have they met most of the concerns?  This is just to know how we function in WP and how the conditions that originally necessitated the "tags" have been or can be addressed in order to remove them (since removing them is also the aim behind placing them, which is namely that editing attention is given to the article [which happened] and that improvements are introduced [which also took place through the precise efforts of many of you here]).  Thanks for any further clarifications from you and others, and the steps to be taken further while we all still recall with awareness what we have done here... (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8536:2A0:F41E:CF93 (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia is not a research paper. It is an encyclopedia. We simply repeat what has already been reported by reliable sources. I suggest you start by reading WP:RS and WP:BLP. As a general rule, don't add anything unless you can cite it to a reliable source that is independent of the subject. That means no more citations to anything El-Bizri has authored, and no more "an example can be found in ...". If it's important enough to include in this article, then it will have appeared in print somewhere. That goes for his birth date too. If there are sources in Arabic, feel free to use them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Related note: the H:CS1 templates support the language parameter which can be used to specify when a source is not in English. — Paleo  Neonate  - 19:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That is helpful indeed. Thank you Kendall-K1 and PaleoNeonate (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:520:68F3:80EE:7E69 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC))


 * Hello Kendall-K1 regarding the two 'Notes' you generated, this is fine indeed, but since they looked almost the same, I removed 'note 1' to avoid repetition since the sentence it supports: "El-Bizri composed commentaries on phenomenology and Martin Heidegger" has already two references that support it. While what you converted as 'note 2' should stay as you noted since it supports the last sentence in the section. I hope what I did improves on your latest edit.  Thanks (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8D5A:12EC:697C:AF4E (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC))

Bithdate and Birthplace of Nader El-Bizri
Hello Justlettersandnumbers. Ancestry.Uk or similar websites allow those who register on them to access official records of birthdates, birthplaces and marriages, etc. there you find that El-Bizri is British of Lebanese descent and his birthdate is actually 6 July 1966 and born in Sidon, Lebanon. there is also marriage certificate, his sons birth certificates in Uk etc. I placed this as online source but one editors/user said that it is not allowed to use public records. Please what are your views on this? Thanks (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8D5A:12EC:697C:AF4E (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC))
 * IP editor, I don't know enough about that ancestry site to have an opinion on it. Doubtless someone else will tell you whether it is considered a reliable source for an article such as this (my guess is that it isn't). Our policy relating to personal detail on living people is quite clear – in the absence of reliable sources for personal information, we presumptively favour privacy. Dates of birth and the like are only ever included in such pages if they are well supported by strong sources. By the way, most of the rest of that policy page is also of considerable relevance here; may I recommend reading it in full? What this page needs now is for anyone and everyone connected with El-Bizri to step right away from it and allow editors who know what they are doing to start shaping it into something resembling an encyclopaedia article. Your collaboration in that would be much appreciated. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, I removed the source citation because we don't cite public records in a BLP, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. I probably should have removed the birth date and place too, and I support leaving them out in the absence of proper sourcing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Arabic transliteration of the name
Hello JustLettersandNumbers: In the first line, your transliteration it should appear as nādir al-bizrī, since the Arabic ي is usually ī like you show the aleph as ā instead of a. It is preferable to show it also as Nādir al-Bizrī since it is a person’s name and not a term or word per se, and this means using capitals (you can look at Arabic transliterated terms in other articles on WP to see the conventions); otherwise it should be in italics if you intend it only as a phonetic-sounding of the Arabic name while using the Latin alphabet (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:3D51:4414:93C1:1F1F (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC))

Dates cleanup
I noticed that the article and citations use a mix of ymd, mdy and dmy dates. The appropriate use-format-dates template should probably be applied and all dates made to conform to that format. I could do this but will not be able immediately, so I'm leaving this note in case someone else wants to do it. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  - 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Useful sources?
I've redirected The Phenomenological Quest between Avicenna and Heidegger to this page, as there was no rescuable content there and little indication that the book is independently WP:notable. It said this: "The book has been reviewed in several publications, including the following: Richard J. Bernstein (endorsement and assessment on the back-cover of the book); Ronald Bruzina, Transcendent Philosophy, III/1 (2002), pp. 95-104; Jules Janssens, Arabica (E. J. Brill), Tome LI/3 (2004), pp. 381-382; Massimo Campanini, Rivista di storia della filosofia, no3 (2005), pp. 584-586. Those are apparently independent sources discussing El-Bizri's work, so might be useful here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
More than one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting request edit (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request. Requests that are unduly long, or are not supported by independent reliable sources, are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Have the issues noted above been cleared given that the references and citations are now related to websites of universities, academic publishers, institutions of higher education, and official bio-notes as hosted in academic settings? Requests have been made to address the issue and clear any flagged aspects, so can the editor who had placed the tag recheck this matter or ask other Wikipedia editors to look into it to improve the article? As for the material on "Ideas" that have been removed, they were referenced to actual published works as peer-refereed articles in academic journals, as chapters in edited volumes, and as books; so they followed what academics normally do in citing their sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.144.15 (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

talk, would you have a look again at the article and the way it is now referenced in case you can improve it further or also invite others who are experienced Wikipedians to assist in doing so and in clearing up the issues you flagged?