Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taner Edis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:42, 23 November 2021

Taner Edis

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources either have conflicts of interest with the person or are reviews of his book rather than sources about the person. I therefore believe (and a DuckDuckGo search confirms) that outside of sources he has a COI with, his own publications, or niche blogs there is not enough coverage of him to merit an article based on lack of notability. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 22:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources (per diff)

Literally his CV
He is a "Scientific and Technical Consultant" for the parent company of this source
Same as (2).
This is a publication for the company he is a consultant to
A lecture given by him as part of a panel to approx. 100 people does not indicate notability.
This is a non-notable conference.
This is a citation to his own book. (Sidenote: Prometheus Books was founded by the co-founder of the company Edis consults for. Not that I think that's necessarily a COI, but worth noting.)
A review of his book
A review of his book
A review of his book
The award is given by the parent company to the one he consults for.

As can be seen, there are no reputable, independent sources that show Taner Edis is notable.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions.

Notified: Animalparty, Sgerbic, Krelnik, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Skepticism Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 23:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: since the start of this proposal more sources and text have been added, see below for a discussion as to whether these new sources indicate notability. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 11:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC) (appended Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 11:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Survey

Keep. When nominating for deletion, what matters (per WP:BEFORE's due diligence) is the not the sources used, but the sources that could be used. That Edis is quoted in conventional media (e.g. the New York Times, Reuters, and several national-level foreign-language news outlets) as an academic expert in his field is evidence of notability and that he rises above the level of "average professor". I shall try to add some of the sourcing to the article to make this more apparent. Alexbrn (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 2 sources you have added to the article the quotes mentioning him are as follows:

From "Creationism, Minus a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World":

One of the conference participants, Taner Edis, said he never encountered creationist undertones when he was growing up in Turkey in the 1970s. “I first noticed creationism when I came to America for graduate school,” said Dr. Edis, now a professor of physics at Truman State University in Missouri. He thought it an American oddity. Some years later, while browsing a bookstore on a visit to Turkey, Dr. Edis found books about creationism filed in the science section. “It actually caught me by surprise,” he said. In Turkey, officially a secular government but now ruled by an Islamic party, the teaching of evolution has largely disappeared, at least below the university level, and the science curriculum in public schools is written in deference to religious beliefs, Dr. Edis said."

I don't think this is evidence of much notability aside from the conference he attended. In fact, other people mentioned in the article are referred to as "prominent" (i.e. Dr. Hoodboy) while Edis is not.

Note, the article "Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World" is not about him. The only mention of Edis is quoting him:

Who finances these efforts is “a big question that no one knows the answer to,” said another recipient, Taner Edis, a physicist at Truman State University in Missouri who studies issues of science and religion, particularly Islam. Dr. Edis grew up in a secular household in Turkey and has lived in the United States since enrolling in graduate school at Johns Hopkins, where he earned his doctorate in 1994. He said Mr. Yahya’s activities were usually described in the Turkish press as financed by donations. “But what that can mean is anybody’s guess,” he said. Support for creationism is also widespread among Muslims, said Dr. Edis, whose book “An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam” was published by Prometheus Books this spring. “Taken at face value, the Koran is a creationist text,” he said, adding that it would be difficult to find a scholar of Islam “who is going to be gung-ho about Darwin.”

The sum of these quotes basically say he studies science and religion, grew up in a secular household, that Turkey is increasingly nonsecular, and that the Quran is creationist. This does not show he is notable enough for a BLP, but that he could be a valuable reference in articles such as Islamic_views_on_evolution. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 07:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that being quoted in conventional news media is a criterion for an academic's notability? Alexbrn (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be per WP:NACADEMIC if you take the perspective he should be assessed as an academic for notability. Note that in one of the sources he is quoted by virtue of being one of the speakers at the conference (not that the writers went out of their way to get his quote) and in the other his book is mentioned in passing and he is quoted for two sentences about Turkey and the Quran.

Per NACADEMIC: 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.

In Scopus, (see here) he is shown to have an average of 5 citations per published work. That is not high enough to argue he has had wide academic impact on the discipline. 67 of the 119 citations, by the way, are about his physics work ("Kosterlitz-Thouless transition and charge redistribution in the superconductivity of YBCO/PBCO superlattices", from 1991).

I hadn't checked the scopus link until now, but seeing how low his academic impact is (36 citations for 13 non-physics works at an average of 2.8 citations per work). I believe even more strongly he is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 08:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So he's been cited by in New York Times, Reuters, The Sudan Tribune, T24 (newspaper), Tirto.ID (Indonesia), etc. These are not local news media. Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Add) Also, Scopus is not very useful for attempting to track citations in the humanities space because of its limited scope. It won't pick up that Edis' work is apparently important to current scholarship in many religio-political areas, as found in scholarly monographs and collections. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[The Reuters article] says this about him: “That seems implausible -- this book is expensive,” said Taner Edis, a Turkish-American physicist whose 2007 book “An Illusion of Harmony” analyzed Islam’s approach to science. “And to my knowledge, it’s not selling like hotcakes.” Edis doubted the rumors of funds from U.S. creationists, saying: “American creationists I talk to basically envy Harun Yahya’s financial resources. If there were any fund flowing, it would be from Adnan Oktar to the creationists.”. Again, a passing mention about him where Edis's work isn't discussed at all. He is just talking about an islamic creationist having a lot of money. Additionally, my point was not the locality of the news, but the frequency and prominence of his mentions within the news articles. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 08:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Sudan Tribune article's complete coverage of Taner Edis is a single phrase: In his paper “‘Quran-science’: scientific miracles from the 7th century?”, Taner Edis notes that “Astronomy is fertile territory for the imaginations of apologists seeking to show that the Quran exhibits knowledge far beyond what would be possible in the 7th century environment of its origin”. The paper? a blog post. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 08:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edis' work is not "discussed" in these new pieces of course (we'll get to that with the book reviews), but establishes that Edis is cited as an academic in a range of quality international news media. That bears on his notability and helps us with weighing up whether he passes the "average professor" test. Alexbrn (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 quotations by RS (I'm not including the Sudan one because that sources his blog post and not his academic work, and the T24 I would consider both a) a local source as his work is very focused on Turkey per his other mentions in the sources provided and b) an interview made during CSICon, which he has COI with as a CSI consultant) is in my opinion fitting of A small number of quotations is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 09:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that for a person who spent their childhood in Turkey, Turkish national news coverage counts as "a local source"? By that argument the New York Times is "local news" for every American, right? I am beginning to wonder about the good faith of this deletion attempt. Alexbrn (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If both NYT and the Reuters post quote him exclusively when talking about a Turkish celebrity or Turkey then yes I would consider it news local to the subject of his work. Not to him. Hope that clarifies my statement above. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 09:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An example would be that I would consider it local coverage if the Boston Herald cited an academic architectural critic specializing in Boston architecture, if that makes sense. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 09:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably WP:CIR then. National newspapers don't become local newspapers on the whim of Wikipedia editors. Turkey is a nation state, unlike Boston which is a city. Coverage of national topics in a national news source is by definition "national". Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC); amended 09:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. I understood national as a subset of local but if I misunderstood that then that's alright. I still think that the interview in T24 is immensely short (one of the 3 questions is just to repeat what he said in his speech) and that altogether his coverage by sources is not very indicative of notability, though. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 09:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated by editor who doesn't like GSoW and went ape at ANI over it. -Roxy the dog. wooF 08:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy the dog this AfD has no mention at all of GSoW, and I cannot help but take your comment as a personal attack. Please apologize and change your wording to not be an ad hominem. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 08:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See your topic ban. -Roxy the dog. wooF 09:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? What does that have to do with this. I am blocked only from ANI. Your statement above is still a hurtful personal attack, and I ask you to please apologize and move on to discussing the actual content of the AfD.Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 09:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See here for your antagonism toward GSoW. -Roxy the dog. wooF 09:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy the dog please keep the discussion in this talk page relevant to the AfD and don't attack me. It is hurtful, unconsiderate, and disruptive to the discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. C. Santacruz (talk • contribs) 09:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I notice the nominator has now modified the nomination to include the assertion book reviews added to the article merely "cover [...] Edis's books rather than Edis himself I still believe they don't indicate he is notable". This is to swerve around the guidance in WP:NPROF that, when considering impact, "Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations". If indeed it is the case that the nominator has misunderstood that the (copiously reviewed) output of Professor Edis somehow "doesn't count", then perhaps they could withdraw this deletion nomination and save the community wasted time? A biographical article covers the subject's life and work (except where the body of work is so notable it needs to split off). Alexbrn (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I'll append that. Note however that the criteria for academic mentions "highly cited" — one review per book in the article is not indicative that the works are highly influential. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 11:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The goalposts are moving so fast they're in danger of falling off the edge of the world. As you can find by searching, Edis's books are reviewed in many select academic venues, and I don't propose to include every review. What matters is what is out there not what is "in the article". Getting an academic book reviewed in New Scientist is kind of a big deal. Alexbrn (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how a review in a magazine by a political philosopher (and not a science philosopher) indicates he had a big impact on the field or that the works are highly cited. You don't need to include every review, but indicating some metric as to how cited he is is much more objective than saying a citation in a non-academic non-peer reviewed ("popular science and technology") magazine shows his influence on the field, per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes: To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books. and There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: significant academic awards and honors (see below); service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others. Additionally, For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, [...] Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose.. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 12:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small aside, I am in no way implying New Scientist is not reliable or whatnot (see WP:NEWSCIENTIST), just that it's not academic.Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 12:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Citations" and "book reviews" are different things, and you're quoting text about citations. Book reviews are by their nature rarely "peer reviewed". The fact that you think the New Scientist has chosen the wrong type of professor as a reviewer (at the time Gray was a Professor or European Thought) doesn't really weigh in assessing notability. The fact is that Edis's work gets attention in good RS, and that counts towards notability, contrary to your assertion in the nomination. I'm not sure why you're quoting guidance about colloquia and seminar talks, etc. It seems completely irrelevant. Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Edis was the co-author of "Why Intelligent Design Fails". This book has been reviewed in peer-reviewed journals like The Quarterly Review of Biology [1] and Politics and the Life Sciences [2]. There are also reviews of his books, The Ghost in the Universe at the NCSE website [3], and in the peer reviewed American Journal of Theology & Philosophy [4], Islam Evolving in the Publisher's Weekly [5] and Journal of Religion and Science [6], etc. Also reviews of his book An Illusion of Harmony in journals like Die Welt des Islams [7]. I could cite many more. This afd should not have been filed. The article can easily be updated. Many reliable book reviews have been published that mention Edis both in peer-reviewed journals and on reliable websites. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:subject is notable per sources shown by Alexbrn and Psychologist Guy. Also, this AfD proposal smells of WP:HOUND, as Roxy the dog so gracefully pointed out. Or did he? BTW, @A. C. Santacruz: when you say the sources have a "conflict of interest" with the subject of this article, I think what you meant to say is that they are not independent of him, which would be the relevant thing to bring up in a discussion of notability. VdSV9•♫ 21:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Here from watching WT:SKEPTIC, in case anyone is wondering.[reply]

I'd have said "bluntly" but "gracefully" is good. -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are accusing me of hounding, VdSV9, you should point at the specific editors which I am hounding. None of my edits are made to cause distress and I avoid personal attacks, nor do I follow anyone's edits. The burden is on you to provide evidence of hounding if that is the case. I made this AfD in good faith seeing how a DuckDuckGo search and a google scholar search did not show many citations. Users above have found a number of them, that if the community feels is enough to warrant keeping this article can be used to improve the article itself. How is that inhibiting any editors' work? How is that indicative of me following others around? Is the net result of this AfD, if the article is kept, not a net positive seeing how many new sources have been found that can be added? Is the net result of this AfD, if the article is removed, not a net positive seeing how an article meriting deletion would have been removed? What exactly is the issue that keeps being raised about me in no certain nor cordial terms? Calling me an ape and a hound and making rhetorical questions does nothing but clutter and distract the discussion from the valuable inputs that Psychologist Guy and Alexbrn have raised. If you have issues with me I'd warmly encourage you to instead go to my talk page so that we can have a calm, good-faith conversation there and keep the AfD on-topic. I've made peace before, and don't see a reason not to do it now. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 22:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 *'''Keep''':subject is notable per sources shown by {{u|Alexbrn}} and {{u|Psychologist Guy}}. Also, this AfD proposal smells of [[WP:HOUND]], as {{u|Roxy the dog}} so gracefully pointed out. Or did he? BTW, {{ping|A._C._Santacruz}} when you say the sources have a "conflict of interest" with the subject of this article, I think what you meant to say is that they are not independent of him, which would be the relevant thing to bring up in a discussion of notability. [[User:VdSV9|<b style="color:#070">VdSV9</b>]]•[[User talk:VdSV9|<big>♫</big>]] 21:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC) <small>Here from watching [[WT:SKEPTIC]], in case anyone is wondering.</small>
 ::I'd have said "bluntly" but "gracefully" is good. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 22:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
+:* If you are accusing me of hounding, {{u|VdSV9}}, you should point at the specific editors which I am hounding. None of my edits are made to cause distress and I avoid personal attacks, nor do I follow anyone's edits. The burden is on you to provide evidence of hounding if that is the case. I made this AfD in good faith seeing how a DuckDuckGo search and a google scholar search did not show many citations. Users above have found a number of them, that if the community feels is enough to warrant keeping this article can be used to improve the article itself. How is that inhibiting any editors' work? How is that indicative of me following others around? Is the net result of this AfD, if the article is kept, not a net positive seeing how many new sources have been found that can be added? Is the net result of this AfD, if the article is removed, not a net positive seeing how an article meriting deletion would have been removed? What exactly is the issue that keeps being raised about me in no certain nor cordial terms? Calling me an ape and a hound and making rhetorical questions does nothing but clutter and distract the discussion from the valuable inputs that Psychologist Guy and Alexbrn have raised. If you have issues with me I'd warmly encourage you to instead go to my talk page so that we can have a calm, good-faith conversation there and keep the AfD on-topic. I've [[User_talk:Roxy_the_dog#Burrying_the_hatchet?|made peace before]], and don't see a reason not to do it now. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">&#8258;</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please tag me!</span>]]</span> 22:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)