Wednesday, December 28, 2011

El Naschie Wikipedia article requested

Readers may recall that in the past there has been controversy over Wikipedia articles about El Naschie. The English language page was deleted, re-created, and then deleted again in late 2008. See parts one, two and three for the history. I myself was involved in edit wars in the Arabic language page. My contributions were vandalized. See parts one, two, three and four for the backstory on that.

And now back to the present. In an email, Shrink brings to my attention this interesting 12 November 2011 entry in the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession page:

Mohamed El Naschie (requested 2011-11-12) who is suing the journal Nature over allegations that he is a pseudoscientist. German Wikipedia article here. Arabic Wikipedia article here. RationalWiki article here. A critical blog here, with many additional sources here.

Between his law suit against Nature, his sacking by Elsevier from Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, his citation scamming scandal with Ji-Huan He, and his candidacy for the Egyptian presidency, El Naschie has become more famous and more infamous than he used to be, and it seems no longer possible to object to him on the basis of Wikipedia's notability criteria. It helps that there are numerous secondary sources of information about him. And there are other Wikipedia articles, like the Elsevier one, that would benefit by a link to his page.

This surely would be a worthy project for some enterprising Wikipedian among the readers of El Naschie Watch. I'd be happy to help but I'd rather not be the primary author. Note that Wikipedia is a bit prickly about biographies of living persons.

Translate English to Arabic
محمد النشائى El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائى محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى


  1. If it can stay in the german Wikipedia - it should stand a chance elsewhere. From what I understand, the german Wikipedia is rather on the exclusionist's side. But some publications, I think for scientific authors, 4, are enough to tackle the relevance threshold. El Naschie published enough to get his own lemma.

  2. Thanks, Martin! That's encouraging. Well, if no one else does it I may have to, but I'm not the ideal person, being famously critical of him.

    Happy new year!

  3. Just yesterday (no need to mention why) it's been created (one-line stub). Let's see how many edits it will have and how long it will last before being removed. :D