Talk:The Polymath

Paid editing declaration

This draft has been put into AFC because it was created while I was paid by Waqas Ahmed for a project to improve Wikipedia articles related to cognitive flexibility and polymathy. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that The Polymath is the first book-length treatment in English of the topic of polymathy? Source: "I was never unconscious of the immense responsibility that came with it being the first-ever book in the English language on the subject" Ahmed (2018), page xiv (ref 5 in current version)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lynching of Deborah Yakubu

Moved to mainspace by MartinPoulter (talk). Self-nominated at 15:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC).

• Date, size, refs, neutrality, copyvio spotcheck QPQ, all GTG. But the hook is problematic, as the claim about this being "the first" is from the author. We should attribute it in the hook, but frankly, I think we should have a different hook. This is effectively quoting the author praising his own work (point out its significance), and is not neutral. Ping me if an alt hook is presented and I'll review this again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... The Polymath's prologue is by Martin Kemp, a leading expert on Leonardo da Vinci? "His investigation of polymathy, its currently diminished practice and possible future revival, comes with a prologue by art historian Martin Kemp, a leading expert on da Vinci," Andrew Robinson The Lancet (ref 11 in current version of article)

@Piotrus: Thanks for your patience. I'll supplied ALT1 above. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Approving ALT1. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

The third sentence of the Background section, "He is also Artistic Director of the Khalili Collections." is no longer true. He is the former Artistic Director of the Khalili Collections and the current Executive Director of the Khalili Foundation. (see the Team section of the ref; see also his ArtUK profile) Please could somebody change the sentence.

Update 2023-06-05: this is taking a very long time and this is a simple factual change, I've gone ahead and made it myself. Please discuss on this talk page if there are any objections. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Waqas Ahmed has been described by multiple publications as a "renaissance man". See 1) the title of the New Arab article that is reference number 7 in the current version of the article. 2) 'In many ways, Waqas Ahmed and Martin Kemp [...] share the sort of omnivorous intellectual appetite that qualifies them, like their subject, as “Renaissance men.”' in ArtNet. 3) "Ahmed is something of a renaissance man himself" Men's Health. To the first sentence of the Background section "The author Waqas Ahmed..." could we add " who has been described as a Renaissance man"?

References

MartinPoulter (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• DONE - Ref. 3 could not be found, but the others were sufficient to make the edit. Ddjanna (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

This whole article should be scrapped.

Can we maybe talk about the fact that the majority of this article was written by Martin Poulter who is employed by the Khalili Foundation, of which Waqas Ahmed is the executive director? This is one of the most obvious examples of self-promotion I've come across on Wikipedia. 2A00:801:2FC:F4C3:2DE0:855E:1263:2076 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP, we don't tend to delete articles that conform to our notability policies, but if you have concerns about promotionalism in an article and want to have it cleaned up by experienced wikipedia editors, you can add a cleanup template to it. I've done that to this one for you. -- asilvering (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it's because of the COI (that I declared, as you can see on this page) that I put the article through Articles For Creation review and put an update request, so the major edits have been reviewed by uninvolved Wikipedians. The idea that the article should be scrapped is just ludicrous; this is a verifiably existing book, published by a major publisher, that has been reviewed in multiple third-party publications, which are summarised in the article. Of course people can raise concerns about the tone of the article and whether it can be improved for neutrality; that's the whole reason I've encouraged review of my edits. However, you actually need to identify ways in which the article is not neutral, not just speculate that they might exist because of the way the article was created. @Asilvering Do you think it would be fair to give some time for this critic (or others) to raise specific neutrality complaints, and if none are forthcoming, to remove the tag from the article? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, but since you have the COI I don't think you should be the one to do it. Give the IP some time to respond and uninvolved editors some time to happen across the page, but if nothing happens after a while, shoot me a ping and I'll get an uninvolved new page patroller to come have a look. -- asilvering (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)