Talk:Mohamed El Naschie

	This Pseudoscience related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

"No pages link to Mohamed El Naschie. "

Mark, can you find an appropriate article or two to link to this, please? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I linked pseudomathematics and peer review here. I'm thinking of writing a related page on Elsevier (the publishing firm) which could also link here. I think this may be on-mission given their involvement in publishing pseudoscience (they use bundling tactics to shove the journal Homeopathy down the throats of science libraries), and their production of fake journals paid for by drug companies (e.g. the notorious Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine). On the other hand this might be driven mostly by my own dislike of Elsevier, so I'm curious if others think this is appropriate. --TheRealMarkGall (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit threat

Got another lawsuit threat on this one. If someone wants to give it a quick go over to make sure there is nothing that got in that is actually libel or defamation? I will try and look more closely later. tmtoulouse 20:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, sorry about that. I think I'm the only real contributor to this page and I'd have no complaint if you just take it down. As far as I know it's entirely factual and just about every claim is cited, except the snark at the end of the introduction. If there's anything you'd like to me work on fixing up let me know, or again, just take it down -- I don't know how these things work and I don't want to make any trouble. --MarkGall (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the section Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals is probably arguable too (insofar as it calls him a crank, which is doubtless the case but I don't know if it's legal to say so). Should I remove this all? --MarkGall (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about the subject matter & haven't checked the sources which are cited, but I've tagged a few things which look like they probably need citations. In particular, the stuff about sockpuppeting & harassing bloggers needs some examples; otherwise it just looks like an empty accusation. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no, don't need to take it down and no need to apologize. It is not the first, nor will it be the last. My only goal in posting here is to alert people that someone is threatening and to make sure the article is as solid as possible in case they do decide to pursue things. tmtoulouse 20:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we maybe have an RW-space article on every threat or complaint we have ever received, and what we did in response? I know we have details of Andy whining over us copying CP articles to side-by-side them, but what else is there? It would be cool to have one stop shopping for our "legal" debacles. ħuman 04:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Was the threat specific about which statements are alleged to be defamatory? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ^{[citation needed]} tags. My thoughts on each, and I'll edit the article shortly to reflect this:

1. "El Naschie's theories are regarded as not even wrong by all but a tiny number of mathematicians, but have been greeted with great enthusiasm by a large number of his own sockpuppets." This is clearly the truth, but things like "all but a tiny number of mathematicians" and the sockpuppet claim are difficult to give real citations for. I'll remove it for now and later add specific citations to claims by mathematicians that this is nonsense. There are enough in the article already that it's not a big loss.
2. "El Naschie was previously forced to remove a claim to be affiliated with Cambridge University," I believe this is the case but the paragraph is already a bit repetetive with other claims about his credentials, so I'll remove for now.
3. "that the work of Gerard 't Hooft (an actual Nobel winner) is derivative of his own." This is a common claim made by his supporters/sockpuppets on message boards (e.g. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=53682) , but difficult to link to him. I'll link to the thread and change to "supporters".
4. "after some foot-dragging Elsevier obtained El Naschie's resignation as editor of the journal". Cited source already in list.
5. ", but they were quickly revealed to be sockpuppets of El Naschie himself,^{[citation needed]} or a small number of like-minded cranks who published in his journal" Removed.
6. "apparently in the face of legal threats from the El Naschie's representatives" Cited emails from Baez posted on El Naschie Watch. Is this sufficient? --MarkGall (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it necessary to remove all phrases like "Though generally considered a crank,"? This is absolutely true, but hard to actually back up. --MarkGall (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't think removing phrases like "crank" or "not even wrong" is necessary since these are so subjective. I took out the word "harassment" as it has a legal meaning & could arguably be construed as libellous. The sockpuppeteering stuff is very relevant to debunking this guy's work, so it would be a shame to skip it altogether. It just needs a couple of examples, if they're still preserved somewhere, & to be carefully phrased with a few choice weasel words ("allegedly", "according to", etc). Did he ultimately acknowledge that these supporters were sockpuppets? Otherwise, we can't actually prove that they were, only that they were believed to be socks. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll stick the "not even wrong" claim back in the intro. I think the sockpuppetry was decisively exposed at some point, though some of the sockpuppets are his supporters and not El Naschie himself. I'll see if I can dig it up, but there's a lot of articles asserting these things are sockpuppets without proof, so it may be hard for me to find the right thread. Maybe I'll email the guy who runs El Naschie Watch, he ought to know.

Luckily it's hard to come up with anything funnier to write in this article than citing some of El Naschie's claims verbatim, so I don't think too much is lost by removing some of the other stuff. Thanks for your help. --MarkGall (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If there's a lot of articles asserting these commenters were sockpuppets, you could just cite those articles, as long as it's clear that it's just what those articles say, so we don't necessarily have to explicitly assert whether we believe that or not. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I just emailed the folks who run El Naschie Watch -- they should have a better idea about this then I do. Once I hear back I'll update the article to reflect whatever sources they suggest proving sockpuppetry, or just link to articles asserting it and word things carefully. --MarkGall (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hah, an update on the 't Hooft front: there's a picture of El Naschie with 't Hooft that's posted on his official site, but it turns out it's photoshopped and someone found the original on a reputable site. His supporters/socks claim that the "official site" actually isn't, but whois traces to one of his close associates... Maybe I'll add this in once I hear more about sockpuppetry --MarkGall (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

More Info from El Naschie Watch

I emailed one of the people who runs the site El Naschie Watch about some questions above. Here's his response:

> I'm wondering if you could fill me in on what's known about El Naschie's sockpuppetry

There is compelling stylistic evidence (use of backticks instead of apostrophes, and consistent use of certain unusual words like "goodself") that the person who maintains El Naschie's Web site goes to bat for him all over the Internet.

>has it ever been established that any of these posters are El Naschie himself?

There is contradictory info about that. El Naschie's sockpuppets claim he doesn't use the Internet at all. On the other hand he has recently given an Arabic news interview talking about how useful the Internet is to him for long-distance collaboration. He is very rich and may regard manual activity such as typing to be beneath his dignity. In such cases it is, we think, still reasonable to call his proxies sockpuppets.

>Is it known who posts things like the claim that he deserves the Nobel?

Oh, now that I can tell you 100%. El Naschie himself publicly makes that claim every damn time he is interviewed by Arabic media. So do many of his followers such as Ji-Huan He.

All the above statements are well documented on El Naschie Watch.

I hope you retract nothing and hope you can provide the legal threat. Good luck! I doubt he'll sue you though. He's busy with Nature, still fretting about Die Zeit, and then he has SIAM and El Naschie Watch to worry about. He's trying to intimidate you. Don't let him.

He was also kind enough to supply links to his site documenting some of these issues:

http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/apparent-sock-puppetry-again.html

http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/el-naschie-does-not-use-internet.html

http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/who-says-goodself.html

http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/science-prize-prediction-posted-on.html

http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/punctuation-issues-remain_25.html

Typical interview in Arabic claiming to be Nobel worthy:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.almasry-alyoum.com%2Farticle2.aspx%3FArticleID%3D232203&sl=ar&tl=en also supplied some links to his site documenting this:

I'll sift through this in the next couple days and adjust the article accordingly. --MarkGall (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. Glad to see you ended up with some really shit to do on this site ;). Anyway, my broad opinion is that if someone we write about threatens to sue us, our article should end up even more critical of them, but also even better sourced. Also, should we add that he/they threatened to sue us to the article itself? Has Trent released the exact contents of the threat? ħuman 04:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the Streisand effect. Prior to Bishop Manchester's threats, I hadn't considering doing much, but he inspired a lot of activity. So long as we're posting verifiable and reasonable claims then let's go to town! Attempts at intimidation and legal chicanery deserve no less than scrutiny and good natured ridicule. --^{Ask me about your mother} 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I second that. In fact, seeing him and his representatives and sockpuppets intimidate and insult critics and write comments full of racial hatred, involving innocent bystanders, defaming his uninvolved black-sheep family members etc. made me become active in the El Naschie Watchblog project in the first place. I could maybe live with him beeing a fraud, but not a fraud, a liar and a bully who seeds mischief between cultures just to protect his living a lie. His accusations that he's got no Nobel because he is a moslem was really too much. When the article in die ZEIT disappeared, I decided to help make all his comments and offences available for everybody even if he bullies some people out of the business. 109.250.189.102 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Martin Klicken

Lost case against die ZEIT

Maybe you should add a section about him sueing die ZEIT and losing in all aspects. I can't search all the links for you now, but everything is well documented and the article was among one of the first things discussed and archived in El Naschie Watch when we started. Cheers, Martin Klicken Please add some links to the law case and the article by Christoph Drösser here in the talk section and consider telling about it. Furthermore, many of his sockpuppets claim that all journalists, bloggers and scientists criticizing El Naschie are one and the same person. A court in Hamburg, Germany, prohibited specifically El Naschie to make these allegations.

He also changes lawyers a lot. ^{— Unsigned, by: 109.250.235.203 / talk / contribs} 12:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

attack on Rational Wiki by Mohamed El Naschie

Hi, I just wanted to alert you guys to an attack on Rational Wiki by Mohamed El Naschie in a daily newspaper column he writes for Rosa Al-Youssef, an Egyptian daily newspaper.

[1]

Best regards,

Jason of El Naschie Watch 24.18.228.33 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

“”And caution as well as university students and young researchers from dependence on Aloueckabidia source of information and there is worse, there is monster in the hands of suspicious persons or the so-called Rashenal wiki how a blogger writes suspects for purposes beyond what the public interest in many cases, and up to slander and assassinate the reputation of innocent Sometimes, in return for low pay as well as the marketing of goods through advertisements on the same page, which gives the information suspicious.

ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 22:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"There is monster in the hands of suspicious persons". I love it. Added to template:RationalWiki Slogan. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, not only does he not know the difference between slander and libel, but also can't even spell the name of the site he's spent so long "attacking". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a machine translation. Most probably he had transcribed or transliterated the name in the original text, so Google has failed to assemble it back. --ZooGuard (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah OK, I take it back (apart from him being stupid, that goes without saying). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki thwarts Amr S. Elnashai's vandalism

Hi, I was just reading the fossil record and I noticed the blanking attempts. FYI, there is new info about this on El Naschie Watch. [2] Best regards, and keep up the good work. Jason of El Naschie Watch 24.18.228.33 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice! I'm in a screenshot! I'm famous!!! The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 00:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

:) Jason 24.18.228.33 (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

News on El Naschie vs Nature suit

http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2011/06/el-naschie-vs-nature-major-newsflash.html 24.18.228.33 (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Jason of El Naschie Watch

Wikipedia article wanted

There is an open request for a Wikipedia article about El Naschie. http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2011/12/el-naschie-wikipedia-article-requested.html ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.18.228.33 / talk / contribs} 22:33, 28 December 2011 (presumably Jason of El Naschie Watch, as above)

Website

Website referred to seems to have done a bunk. Scream!! (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

El Naschie Watch is gone?

The blog El Naschie Watch seems to have vanished. Is the material available anywhere else? 75.87.99.152 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Translation of Mohamed El Naschie's Attack on RationalWiki

Hi, I'm relatively new here, so I've never contributed before, but I saw that since most people here only speak English no one has translated the post El Naschie wrote where he attacks RationalWiki. Since I know Arabic, I thought I might as well do it if anyone's interested.

Here is my translation of the full post (the part concerning RW is in the final paragraph):

"Many Israeli media officials stand amazed at the uproar of public opinion – especially among young people in Europe and America – against Israel. What happened? The world trusted Israel for at least half a century, and they believed the history that Israel wrote and their invalidation of verified facts well-known among Arabs. What happened? What caused the on-going reversal of public opinion which started only a short time ago?

I believe that this revolution arose because of the sweeping changes that occurred in means of communication and the ease of accessing information on the internet, including information on both contemporary and ancient history, in addition to scientific facts in every field of knowledge. Here began the war on historical revisionism, especially the history of Zionist colonialism in the Middle East.

In numerous conferences – the last of which was the most recent conference of the Arab Thought Foundation in Kuwait – I have strongly hinted at the dangers of the information marketed in an electronic dictionary which has become famous under the name Wikipedia. It should be known by intellectuals, the world, and Arab readers that the information on Wikipedia is not verified and anyone can change and manipulate the information to the point of blatant falsification without any kind of real moderation. Trying to complain is like entering an endless maze, and you will never reach justice. There is a lot of accurate information on Wikipedia, but there is flagrant misinformation regarding the history of Palestine and Islam, as well as many Arab intellectuals and national leaders of liberation movements in the Arab-Islamic world, especially in modern history. There are rabid disinformation campaigns employing professional internet criminals, and their agents are in the Arab world and particularly in Egypt. I wish to use my humble voice to express support for tackling internet crimes with an iron fist, as well as the falsification of history and the use of different sites for defamation, public slander, and undermining the regime and safety of Egypt.

I also warn university students and young researchers against relying on Wikipedia as a source of information, or even worse that monster run by suspicious people which calls itself rationalwiki.com. It is a blog where suspicious people write things which in many cases could not be further from the public interest, and are sometimes even slanderous and constitute a character assassination of innocent people. In exchange for this, they get a paltry sum of money, and they sell merchandise through advertising on the same pages on which they provide suspect information."

(Yes, he really does call RW a "monster run by suspicious people", as well as numerous minor errors like calling Wikipedia a dictionary and calling RW a blog - to say nothing of his conspiracy theory that Wikipedia is being used as a weapon to spread disinformation against the Arab world)

Bsmart (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)