Talk:Seyyed Hossein Nasr/Archive 2

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hossein Nasr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711135728/http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2007/02/20/News/Islamic.Scholar.Calls.Gw.Home-2730054.shtml to http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2007/02/20/News/Islamic.Scholar.Calls.Gw.Home-2730054.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Shrine of Abdul Qadir Jilani..jpg

Article title
I have moved the page back to its original title "Sayeed Hossein Nasr". It had been moved in November 2006 without an explanation: While seyyed is also a honorific title, Seyyed Hossein Nasr is known by this full name in his George Washington University faculty page, in his Britannica author page etc. --Pudeo (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Surely, WP:MOSISLAM applies here to the honorific "Sayyed"? The same could be said for folk like the Sufi teacher and author, Hazrat Inayat Khan, who lost the honorific "Hazrat", even though he is almost universally known by, and published under, that full name.  Esowteric + Talk  13:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but so does WP:COMMONNAME, though maybe this is indeed potentially so controversial that it should have gone through a move request. --Pudeo (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seyyed is usually an honorific term, but in this case it seems to be part of his legal name and used everywhere. It appears even in his GWU email address, shnasr@gwu, and if you've ever dealt with an academic IT bureaucracy, you know this is no light matter. :) Eperoton (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Views
Why is the views section limited to his remarks on evolution alone? Whoever wrote this section was obviously uninterested in Nasr's viewpoints if all that was included were his most controversial views on Darwinism. Where are his views Shi'ism or Sufism or Perrenialism? This section should be deleted or expanded, as it is obvious that the person who wrote it took issue with Nasr's views on Darwinism and felt the need to slander him.
 * This indeed strange. Nasr is known for his works on Islam and Iran, this seems to be a violation of WP:BLPBALANCE and should be removed until we can cover his views in a more balanced manner.VR talk 16:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

References section
Hello GoingBatty, if you look at S. H. Nasr's French page, you will see that the references are in a kind of lift, using {Références nombreuses|taille=25} template (= numerous references|size=25). Do you know which template can be used in WP.en? Thank you for your help, --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I am not aware of an English Wikipedia equivalent to fr:Modèle:Références nombreuses.  GoingBatty (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The scrolling reference list was deleted from English Wikipedia in 2007 following Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11. Mosesheron (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mosesheron, --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you GoingBatty. You have just improved the cite book template of Boylston and Hahn but now the references' links do no longer point to the book. May I revert your amendment? --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I fixed the references by adding ref parameters.  GoingBatty (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Promotional content
The article as it is currently written takes at the word of a third-party the ideas of this person as it relates to, for example, biology and other scientific matters, as true in Wikipedia's voice. These proposal are firmly WP:FRINGE in the context of the disciplines in which this commentary has been made, but this is not made clear at all. Wholesale removal may be called for, but I tagged the article in case there were those who think they can clean it up. jps (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Fringe or not, they are the views one can espouse and hold. And they are not the general conceptions to be taught at schools, rather, they represent Nasr's views. Could you be more specific as to which aspects of the article you find problematic? The language in which it is written? tone? They can be definitely improved. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We cannot simply have an article that stands as a stalking horse for these ideas which have received little notice in the relevant epistemic community. I have edited one section to show you a possible way forward. But to go on and on about his blinkered and WP:FRINGE proposals without offering any indication that anyone who is an expert has evaluated them is a violation of our sourcing policies at Wikipedia. We are here to show what others think is important about Nasr, not to uncritically parrot his claims. jps (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of your changes are great. Seems we are moving in the right direction. But I found your edit summaries and two edits about his status as a polymath (I have seen many sources which describe him so) to be very unprofessional, especially for an editor of this much experience. Anyway, Thanks for your invaluable contributions. Mosesheron (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a volunteer site. We aren't professionals here. I have no doubt there are sources which identify him as a polymath, but we cannot in WP's voice claim he is such just as we cannot in WP's voice claim he is "a genius" or "brilliant" or any other judgement call that is opinion and not fact. See WP:PEACOCK. jps (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't revert you again on this. But I thought the word "described" did not state his polymath status in the language of wikipedia. It would be if the article simply claimed that he was so. Mosesheron (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying it is "described" as such is a phrasing that demands a subject (nearly begging the question). Who so describes him? Moving to the passive phrasing of "He has been described" or "It has been said" is just avoiding the problem. We can either say precisely who has described him as a polymath and let the reader decide whether they are qualified to make that judgement or we can remove the opinion. jps (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think the quotations that refer to his credentials over and over again should be removed? Mosesheron (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed some in the text, but it can come across a bit like WP:RESUME. His credentials are verifiable facts and, if relevant, serve to explain something to the reader. When they're part of quotations, I don't think it is that problematic since the reader can check who is saying it and then we just leave it up to them to decide whether there is good justification for the rehash. jps (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They are promotional. Aren't they? If they are not, then which part of the bio seems promotional to you now? Mosesheron (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The most egregious examples are now gone and as long as they stay gone, I think we can remove the tag. I'm a little worried that the conversation below may result in renewed conflict, but I have tagged that section specifically, so perhaps the article tag can go. Are you comfortable with the current text? jps (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You can remove the tag then, if you want. Perhaps other editors will engage in developing the evolution section. I will get back to you, if I decide to expand the text a little. I am not sure though. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Theory of evolution
If you want to rewrite the section on evolution, Being Human in Islam: The Impact of the Evolutionary Worldview by Damian Howard can serve as an excellent secondary source with much details on Nasr's take on evolution. The section in its current state does not do justice to Nasr's extensive treatment of the subject. I can send you the PDF format of this book if you want. Mosesheron (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Damian Howard can be used as a source for how Nasr's thought fits into the religious implications of his work, but the specific scientific claims that Nasr makes cannot be referenced to this work since Howard is not an expert in biology, geology, or other relevant scientific fields. See WP:REDFLAG. Unfortunately, if there isn't any notice of Nasr's ideas by relevant experts, Wikipedia is not the place where they can be explicated at any length. See WP:SOAP. jps (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right on this. But there are other sources as well. Mosesheron (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Better sources would definitely be welcome. The best I have found was an editorial published in Science which mentioned him in two sentences and identified his thoughts as being essentially Islamic creationism. Other than that I have found absolutely no scientists engaging with his work. jps (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I came across some sources. Anyway, will consult you regarding their credentials. Mosesheron (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I have a hard time imagining that any biologist has reviewed his list of objections. They're very similar to the litany that has been documented at the talk.origins archive for example. It seems pretty clear that he has been reading creationist literature from Institute of Creation Research, for example, and, although not as profane as Adnan Oktar, he does maintain an alliance with Islamic creationism as best I can see. In fact, we may wish to include a bit about him at that page. jps (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then we can put emphasis on his philosophical arguments. In fact, his arguments against evolution is not much based on biological sciences, rather, they are philosophical arguments. There is no harm in presenting these philosophical arguments if they can be supported by secondary reliable sources. Mosesheron (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "philosophical arguments". The list I removed was essentially points that could be shown to be incorrect empirically (such as proposing that there were "missing links" in the fossil record that cast doubt on evolution as an explanation for biodiversity). jps (talk)
 * The list you removed did not represent his "philosophical arguments." I have no idea if they were wrong or not, but by Wikipedia's standards, they were extremely problematic and needed to be supported by references to relevant academic sources. I was in fact referring to the philosophy of science in general, which Nasr has discussed extensively. I'll have to go through the sources again if I'm going to talk about it here. But I am a little busy in life, and not sure whether I will have the time to go through them or not. Mosesheron (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like we are on the same page. Do present some sources which show how Nasr's ideas have been received by relevant philosophers of science if you get a chance. jps (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * jps I am continuing here the discussion you started on my Talk Page. You would be right if this were an article about evolution, but it is an article about a person's ideas. If in order to expose the ideas of a person they had to be accepted by "relevant experts", we could delete thousands of pages from WP. You know as well as I do that the scientific world is constantly replacing theories defended by "relevant experts" by new theories; can the ideas of the scientists who reject the initial theories appear in WP only once they are accepted by new "relevant experts"? Why shouldn't WP have the right to inform correctly a reader who wants to know what Nasr thinks about evolution? The 3 links you mention (WP:COAT WP:REDFLAG WP:FRIND) apply only to articles about a topic, not about a person. So I restore the original version and ask you to please discuss before deleting. I'm not saying that this section cannot be improved, but we should do it gradually. Thank you. Hamza Alaoui (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * jps I shall now modify Notable aspects of his works. 1) you replaced "as well as an understanding of science at the university level" by "and the history of science". He indeed has a PhD in history of science but he also has a bachelor's in physics and a master's in geology and geophysics. So I will write "as well as an understanding of physics, geology, geophysics and the history of science at the university level". 2) Original text: "its "perennial" or universalist perspective takes into account the essence of all religions, beyond their formal particularities or their current state". Your text: "its 'perennialist' perspective is based on the acceptance of 'universalism'".The original text gives the reader clearer informations than the second one; the article "universalism" that you propose is too broad when a few words are enough. Thank you for your understanding. Hamza Alaoui (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect about your genre argument. Wikipedia doesn't change its policies just because the article is a biography. That's what WP:COAT is all about. You aren't allowed to hide behind primary sourced documents in a biography to promote ideas that a person has which have been noticed by no relevant experts. That's the situation we have here. I am a little alarmed by the rhetoric you are using here as it seems close to a WP:POVPUSH on behalf of what I assume is your own predilection for Nasr's ideas. Our job here is not to promote Nasr and his ideas. Our job is to see what others have said are important about his ideas. This article still needs work in that regard, but the evolution section you restored, in particular, did not contextualize the work properly at all. The request to do the editing "gradually" is not okay at this point as the section as you prefer it is essentially an advertisement for Nasr's ideas without the slightest hint that others might disagree. That's not the way we write articles here and it's not even a place to start. Here are some other responses to your comments in turh:


 * You say, If in order to expose the ideas of a person they had to be accepted by "relevant experts", we could delete thousands of pages from WP. This is true if you replace the word "accepted" with "noticed". And we do! You can look through the thousands of discussions at WP:AfD that have resulted in such deletions.


 * You know as well as I do that the scientific world is constantly replacing theories defended by "relevant experts" by new theories; can the ideas of the scientists who reject the initial theories appear in WP only once they are accepted by new "relevant experts"? Why shouldn't WP have the right to inform correctly a reader who wants to know what Nasr thinks about evolution? This is wholly not a problem for Wikipedia. See WP:RGW. We are here to report what third parties say about subjects. We are not here to "inform correctly" if it means engaging in the kind of promotionalism that the section about evolution contained.
 * jps (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Put another way: Wikipedia has lots of articles about people who do not understand evolution and oppose it (or rather, oppose what they perceive as it). Those people talk a lot of nonsense, usually the same nonsense which has been refuted by talk.origins thirty years ago. We do not mention such unfounded opinions in the articles about those people, unless someone more knowledgeable has commented on specifically that person's mistakes. This article belongs right in the same category: some layman who thinks he can revolutionize a field he has only superficial knowledge of. Or rather, it seems as if he just rehashes the same false rumors that have have circulating in the creationist subculture for decades, which makes it even less worth mentioning.
 * The same applies to other sciences. All this is ruled by WP:FRINGEBLP: Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * jps I understand. Question 1: what happens if I cannot find criticisms of his ideas on evolution other than the 2 you found? Question 2: you refered to Farzin Vahdat published by JSTOR: on sep 26 Arjavay deleted a JSTOR reference from Nasr's page with the following comment: "370‎ Rm reference citing IOSRJournals - a predatory publisher, not a reliable source"; do you agree with him? [added later: I confused IOSR with JSTOR, sorry!]. Question 3: may I delete what is left from the Evolution section until something more consistent and neutral can be proposed? Hamza Alaoui (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * (1) If you cannot find reliable third-party sources which mention his ideas (who knows? maybe they aren't criticisms! -- I doubt it, but it actually is irrelevant to the point), then I'm afraid those ideas do not deserve inclusion at Wikipedia. You could encourage the creation of such sources and then we could discuss them, but until that happens our hands are tied. (2) I had a look at IOSR Journal's website: . They look like a scam at best and have been included at https://beallslist.net/. We definitely cannot use them. (3) I don't understand why you want to delete what is left at the evolution section. It seems well-sourced and neutral to me. What do you think is a problem? jps (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Notable aspects of his works
jps I shall now modify Notable aspects of his works. 1) you replaced "as well as an understanding of science at the university level" by "and the history of science". He indeed has a PhD in history of science but he also has a bachelor's in physics and a master's in geology and geophysics. So I will write "as well as an understanding of physics, geology, geophysics and the history of science at the university level". 2) Original text: "its "perennial" or universalist perspective takes into account the essence of all religions, beyond their formal particularities or their current state". Your text: "its 'perennialist' perspective is based on the acceptance of 'universalism'".The original text gives the reader clearer informations than the second one; the article "universalism" that you propose is too broad when a few words are enough. Thank you for your understanding. Hamza Alaoui (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I shall now modify Notable aspects of his works. 1) you replaced "as well as an understanding of science at the university level" by "and the history of science". He indeed has a PhD in history of science but he also has a bachelor's in physics and a master's in geology and geophysics. So I will write "as well as an understanding of physics, geology, geophysics and the history of science at the university level". Just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they have a "university level understanding". That's WP:SYNTH. We can say he has a degree. We know nothing about his understanding. As a published author in the history of science, philosophy, and religion, he can be acknowledged as an expert. But he does not publish anything scientific which means that we have no real way of saying that he is an expert in any scientific ideas. Judging from the absurd statements he makes about evolution, it is pretty clear to me he has a great deal of ignorance about science as well.


 * Original text: "its "perennial" or universalist perspective takes into account the essence of all religions, beyond their formal particularities or their current state". Your text: "its 'perennialist' perspective is based on the acceptance of 'universalism'".The original text gives the reader clearer informations than the second one; the article "universalism" that you propose is too broad when a few words are enough. Thank you for your understanding. The original wording assumes that there is an "essence of all religions". Certainly Nasr and others believe that, but it is by no mean a fact. Therefore we would need to say something much more awkward if you want to keep an expanded vision of this text. Something like "its "perennial" or universalist perspective takes into account what Nasr believes to be the essence of all religions, beyond what Nasr considers their formal particularities or their current state." That's a pretty difficult sentence to parse, in my opinion, but that would, minimally, be what we would need to have in order to comply with WP:ASF. Linking to universalism, I would argue, is fairly important for a reader who needs to see how those ideas are typically engaged -- even if that article needs improvement.
 * jps (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Text on evolution
I appreciate the changes you made to the text in the section on evolution. This appears to be more neutral and better now. In fact, I am not a native English speaker, and I occasionally struggle to grasp the essentials. Anyway, you've rephrased "modern sciences of nature" as "modern scientific investigation of nature," which I believe may be confusing to many. Because I don't believe Nasr has any issues with how modern scientific investigation is conducted. The phrase "modern sciences of nature" was also used by the source I cited. Should I make a change? Mosesheron (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We could change it to "the results of modern scientific investigation of nature". I struggled with this phrase because I believe that the sources are trying to refer to the superstructure of the science, but many people define science to be the process itself and thus the investigations are what makes science. However, if Nasr is referring only to the conclusions that are drawn, then we should be clear about that. Simply saying "modern sciences of nature" is a little awkward wording because it isn't clear to me what those "sciences" are. I know what the results are, however. jps (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)