Talk:Mohamed El Naschie

July 2012

Removed the BLP template and added a reference to the Nature story. There has been a lot about Prod. Naschie in the last couple of days. Will work on this sporadically, feel free to dive in. MuppetLabTech (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note Freudian slip above! I meant "Prof Naschie" obviously! MuppetLabTech (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The banner above says this article was nominated for deletion, and the outcome of the discussion was "delete". Is that a typo? (Obviously the article is here, so it wasn't deleted.)Flau98bert (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted, twice, in November 2008 and again in December 2008. It was created again early this month. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP concern edits

I just edited some things down out of WP:BLP concerns.

• Saying he was criticized "in Nature" makes it sound like Nature criticized him editorially, rather than just covering that there was criticism. There was also some (weak) defense there. We cite Nature as a reliable souce that criticism occured, but it would be improper to use it in ways that increase the value of the criticism.
• The Nature article noted the self-publication, but the criticism was largely aimed at the quality of that work. If we are covering criticism, we need to be precise.
• They said almost 60 articles, not over. (Accuracy concern, rather than a BLP concern.)
• They noted the impact factor question in a way that a reader could certainly suspect that upping the impact factor was the intent, but they don't make the accusation. Given the WP:BLP restrictions in particular (and the WP:V guidelines in general), we should not be covering things as we read it.

Even as I've edited it, we probably need to reflect any balance from the articles, and cite specific accusers rather than just state vaguely that there was criticism. I don't have time at the moment to wade through a translation of the German article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Have tried to keep tone neutral. Can't find any RS that he was a candidate for the Egyptian presidential election or is trying to found a nanotech lad in Egypt, though there is a lot of chatter about both. MuppetLabTech (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Impact factor manipulation in C,S,F and Ji-Huan He's IJNSNS was proven by an analysis of the citation databases by the past-president of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. The results were published in the Nature magazine-equivalent for mathematics, namely the Notices of the American Mathematical Society [ see http://www.ams.org/notices/201103/rtx110300434p.pdf and also http://www.siam.org/news/news.php?id=1663 ]. I would also like to point out that in an attempt at some perceived or imagined need for balance this article attempts to whitewash some of the FACTS about El Naschie that A COURT OF LAW ruled to be true. For example, the "positive" quotes in earlier sections (before the lawsuit summary) and the allusion that E-infinity may in fact be a theory (instead of a collection of english words that may or may not form grammatical sentences but have no content). This is a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia, especially since the most important part of the article comes last. I won't attempt an edit because it seems the two people above are more experiences with this type of article, but I do hope they seriously consider these things. 68.226.146.186 (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The Notices of AMS paper actually only says "citations that may be viewed as subject to editorial influence or control" rather than explicitly proving IF manipulation. Since this is a biography of a living person we have have to be very careful in sourcing every potentially controversial statement. And balance - in WP terms a "neutral point of view" - is Wikipedia policy. The article uses the quotes that I could find. I haven't found many good reliable sources - newspaper & journal articles - to quote, although there is a lot about El Naschie in the blogosphere. If you know of more, either add them yourself or post them here. MuppetLabTech (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If your have a source on the court ruling that covers what you say, please put it forth. But even then, we have to be careful about using court rulings as adjudicators of science; courts aren't exactly known as the source of scientific enlightenment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

El Naschie watch

There is a LOT about the subject at http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.ca/ with unfortunatly few links ro reliable sources, unless you speak arabic, which I don't. The fact this blog exists may be notable in itself but as I can't find mention of it in RS am not putting in the article for now. Comments ? MuppetLabTech (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Have added link now, along with link to an "official" site. MuppetLabTech (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe this blog qualifies as an "attack page" of the type that should not be listed, per WP:ELBLP. It may be useful indirectly as a way of finding reliable sources about Naschie but is not itself reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Presidential bid

This http://massai.ahram.org.eg/Inner.aspx?ContentID=39936 is appently an article from Al Ahram reporting that El Naschie was a candidate in the recent Egyption presidential election. Can an Arabic speaker confirm - if so worth adding to the article I think MuppetLabTech (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article in English confirming his candidacy: http://amwalalghad.com/en/news/egypt-news/2397-egyptian-scientist-el-naschie-to-run-for-president.html BoBSlo (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Weibel quote

The article says "Peter Weibel of the Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe has said that "El Naschie is very highly regarded in the community" and is "always spoken of as a possible Nobel prize candidate"." What 'community' is Weibel referring to? He is associated with the Center for Art and Media, so is he saying El Naschie is highly regarded in the community of Art and Media? Or just in the community where he lives? Or is he saying El Naschie is highly regarded in the community of physicists? If the former, this should be clarified. If the latter, what are his qualifications are for making such a statement? Surely a more suitable source for such a statement could be found. Also, could we have some clarification on the meaning of the phrase "always spoken of as a possible Nobel prize candidate"? This seems like a strange quote, and not really a matter of opinion. A prize in what category? Literature? Peace? Medicine? Physics? Who speaks of it? I've heard that Gerard t'Hooft has been quoted as saying favorable things about El Naschie (though perhaps not about his ideas in physics), so wouldn't it be better to quote him, if indeed the quote is intended to be discussing the view in the physics community? It just seems to me that if we're trying to give quotes on how El Naschie is viewed in the physics community we should quote someone in the physics community, rather than the center for Art and Media.Flau98bert (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Weibel is one of El Naschie's groupies (e.g., he edited, together with Ord and Roessler, a book on the occasion of El Naschie's 60th birthday: http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/08/el-naschies-birthday-book.html). El Naschie's groupies are notorious for making extraordinary claims: Roessler (the guy who tries to stop LHC from producing Earth devouring black holes) thinks El Naschie is a genius, Ji-Huan He (the guy who was gambling the IF of his former journal IJNSNS - the story was brought to the attention of the mathematical community by SIAM president Arnold) compares him with Newton and Einstein, etc. As for the claims of El Naschie deserving the Nobel in physics many times over, well, have a look at this interview (part 3 in particular): http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2010/04/full-english-and-german-subtitles-are.html --BoBSlo (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but I think my question still stands, i.e., what "community" is Weibel referring to in that quote? And is Weibel a member of that community? Lacking any clarification, I think perhaps the quote should be deleted, or else placed in context by prefacing it with something like "Some individuals outside the physics community have expressed the opinion that El Naschie is highly regarded in the physics community. For example, ...", and then give the Weibel quote. Admittedly this is a bit wacky, but isn't that essentially what the article is saying? I think this at least would make it more clear.

By the way, lest it appear that I'm just trying to remove the "pro" quote, I also have some reservations about the "anti" quote, not for it's clarity or relevance, but for its sourcing. See the comment on the Baez quote below.Flau98bert (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's typical of El Naschie and his followers to make claims which are unfounded. Weibel's claim falls into the same category. I think it's clear from the judgment how El Naschie is regarded by the scientific community (Paragraph 3): "The Claimant describes himself in the Particulars of Claim as an eminent and highly respected academic, scientist and scientific publisher in the fields of Structural Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Applied Mechanics and Nuclear and High Energy Physics. These claims are not admitted by the Defendants. It is common ground that the Claimant is a structural engineer by training, a subject in which he has a PhD, and that he was the Founding Editor of an international scientific journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (CSF). He served as its Editor-in-Chief for 17 years from June 1990, until late 2008/early 2009 when he retired in circumstances which are controversial in this action." Even calling him a physicist is questionable. --BoBSlo (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that calling him a physicist is questionable. He's certainly got the credentials to be called an engineer, but it's much less clear that he has the qualifications to be called a physicist. (Perhaps the article should just say he's "an engineer who founded and edited a controversial journal called Chaos, Solitons and Fractals".) But as to the Weibel quote, I'm thinking it should be replaced with a quote from some reputable and qualified source saying something favorable about El Naschie's writings on physics. If no such reference can be found, then I guess we shouldn't have one in the article. I don't think even-handedness requires us to make up favorable references if there are none. That's a difficulty of editing an article like this, trying to be balanced when all the reputable sources are on one side.Flau98bert (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Source of Baez quote?

What is the source of the Baez quote? Is it from his blog?Flau98bert (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think so but it got taken down. It can still be found at http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/02/that-hard-to-find-baez-material.html —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but does this meet the Wikipedia sourcing requirements? I read in previous comments that the El Naschie Watch blog is not considered a suitable source for a biog of a living person, and yet apparently that is the only extant source for the quote... so we're obliged to simply go without an attribution, because we can't link it to any acceptable source. Does this really meet Wikipedia standards of verifiability? Don't misunderstand me - I have no doubt Baez wrote that - I'm just questioning the propriety of using it in this article, given that we have no source for it that we're willing to acknowledge.

I can see now why the article was deleted previously. There is a real shortage of good reputable sources.Flau98bert (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the quote is taken from Baez's post on his blog which is now missing; but the same quote is reproduced in Die Zeit's article "Der Felix Krull der Mathematik" which is a suitable source. --BoBSlo (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a missing blog entry is not a suitable source, but the Die Zeit article you mentioned does sound like a suitable source, so I suggest adding that cite to the article. (I would add it myself but I haven't actually seen it.) Thanks!Flau98bert (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I added it, before you posted this reply. It was already a source in the article, so all that was needed was to link it as a footnote one more time. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary; Turok testimony; affiliation vs. profession

I only heard about the El Naschie controversy some days ago and, after reading up on the available online material, in particular the Nature libel judgment, see the current state of the Wikipedia article as somewhat problematic.

The sentence in the lede (always a difficult bit) stating that El Naschie "is known for publishing many papers in theoretical physics", is an example: Where's the source for that? Going by the articles cited in the reference section (which, since such coverage is one standard way of establishing WP:Notability, are surely the way of telling what that notability is for), it would appear that what El Naschie is known for in wider circles is the controversy - his controversial editorship and so on. I see no sign that the quantity of his published articles has ever caught public attention on its own, independent of the controversy.

There's another aspect we might want to include in the lede, though, which concerns his role in the controversy about academic rankings. This was reported on e.g. in the New York Times [1] and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [2]. At the very least, it should be mentioned somewhere in the main text.

Then, there's the question of the Turok testimony. It's referred to, and described, in the Guardian article quoted in the main text [3], so surely it should be admissible in the current section on publications, next to the Baez and Weibel quotes. Even further, since the Guardian reference establishes notability of Turok's testimony, it should be admissible following WP:BLPPRIMARY to include quotation from the original court transcript on that particular subject matter.

On a more subtle matter of balance, I think we should be consistent when introducing the Weibel and Baez quotes. Currently, Baez is introduced using his profession, Weibel using his affiliation. I'd even matters out by making this "Mathematical physicist professor John C. Baez of UC Riverside" and "artist and art theoretician Peter Weibel of the Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe". That still leaves the question why an artist/art theoretician is qualified to comment on this topic in the first place, of course.

Markus Poessel (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit hectic today, but it would be worthwhile to do some Google News Archive search to see the prevalence of mention of El Naschie before and after the emergence of the conflict to judge whether the lede should be changed as suggested. I agree on the identification of professions; as for whether Weibel deserves inclusion, we should give at least some (although not sole) weight to the fact that Der Zeit chose to include him. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No rush; thanks for commenting on this. Following your suggestion, I used the Google News Archive (more precisely, news.google.com/archivesearch) to search for "Naschie"; unfortunately, the "date added to archive" doesn't seem to be what we want (I found not a single hit when I used a specified date range [4]). Anyway, searching for "Naschie" without any date restriction [5] only gives 26 results in total, so I just browsed them.

Seven are about El Naschie suing nature [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (including sources like BBC, New Scientist)

Five (six if you count two separate hits for the NY Times article) are about the influence on university rankings I mentioned above: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] (including the NY Times, Die Zeit and Chile's La Nacion)

One includes a critical mention of El Naschie and "Chaos, Solitons & Fractals" pre-trial [19], another one uses CSF as an example of a bad Elsevier journal [20], and one is about the inflated impact factor [21]

One is by the Kuwait News Agency; a brief item Arab Nobel nominee calls for Arab nanotechnology cooperation.

One is inaccessible: [22]

There are one announcement for and one summary of a conference: [23], [24]

Two have nothing to do with El Naschie: [25], [26], [27]

One is an interview with Otto Rossler by La Stampa about the European Court of Human Rights dismissing Rossler's lawsuit intended to keep CERN from switching on the Large Hadron Collider. Rossler briefly mentiones El Nashie's theory as part of what he bases his objections on: [28]

Another one is from a comment a reader added to a Scientific American article [29]

Now, this is likely to be imperfect (as should be obvious from the fact that Google News did not find a number of references from news sources included in the Wikipedia article). But by that sample, it would indeed look as if his controversial editorship is what El Naschie is known for - both in the context of the Nature trial and in the context of the university ranking controversy. Unless there's better data, that's probably what the lede should reflect. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable change to me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So the change would be to replace "He is known for publishing many papers in theoretical physics, and for his controversial editorship of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals." with "He is known for his controversial editorship of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals." in the lead section, but to keep the part about his many papers within the text of the article, right? That seems well justified by your research here, to me. I also agree with identifying Weibel by profession. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I guess the question is whether the summary "controversial editorship" carries sufficient information - if someone reads just this summary, will they get the right idea? There's many different ways of being controversial - some have no bearing on the question of scientific integrity, while some (as in this case) definitely do. I haven't found a suitably encyclopedic way of putting this, yet. You'd need to have the mishandling of the editorial process in there (no proper peer review), the self-citations/citation cartel, possibly even the impact on university rankings and on the journal's impact factor. Only, of course, in a much more concise way. I'll have to think about this some more... Markus Poessel (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's my first attempt. Feedback welcome; some comments of why I wrote it that way below:

"Dr. Mohamed El Naschie is an Egyptian theoretical physicist and engineer. He is known for his controversial editorship of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. The controversy concerned El Naschie's practice of extensively publishing poor-quality work authored by himself in his own journal, as well as related quality issues; it has played a role in more general discussions of the impact factor as a quality measure for scientific journals, and of university rankings."

Reasoning: going by the articles already quoted in the current article version and by the ones I found in the Google news search, this is what the media found most important; on re-reading Nat Gertler's "BLP editing concerns" above with Nat's summary of the media coverage, I added the bit about the "poor-quality work" (polishing welcome!) to reflect the role of article quality in that discussion.

Since the impact factor and ranking issues are a key part of what gives this importance beyond the case of a single person, it should get its own sentence in the lede. That is supported by the reporting in this context by a number of news media, including some really major ones.

I've looked at a few other WP articles of similar size to see if my gut feeling about lede length is still well calibrated, and the lede proposed above seems to have about the right length. I'm sure the text can be improved, though, and am myself not quite happy with some of the wording. Markus Poessel (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think putting editorial judgements such as "poor quality" into our article is a bad idea. The facts are damning enough; we should present them as objectively as possible and let readers form their own opinions from them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid editorial judgements, but I'm not sure referring to questions about the quality of El Naschie's papers necessarily constitute editorial judgements. It is an objective fact that questions about the scientific merit of El Naschie's numerous papers, and the apparent lack of quality review, have been publically and notably raised. The delicate task is to describe this without making editorial judgements.

I think it’s a good idea to identify Weibel more clearly, since he’s quoted on a subject (physics) in which he has no apparent qualifications. (In fact, I think it would be okay to delete that quote entirely.) I also agree that the Lead needs some work. First, on a minor note, I think the “Dr.” prefix should be removed, as it doesn’t seem consistent with other Wiki articles on physicists. (I couldn’t find any other article on a physicist that led with “Dr.”)

On a side note, it would be helpful to know what El Naschie’s doctorate was in. Does anyone know? The article says his original education was in engineering, and then it says he got “a doctorate” for a dissertation on “buckling”, which still sounds like engineering to me. Does he actually have a doctorate in theoretical physics? If so, we should state that. If not, is it accurate to identify him as a “theoretical physicist”? In that case it might be more accurate to identify him as “engineer and editor of a controversial physics journal”.

Overall, I agree that the focus of the Lead should be the controversial editorship. I think that is by far the main source of his notability, including his removal from the editorship, and the subsequent news reports of his removal, and the court case that followed. So, I’d suggest adjusting your proposed words like this:

Mohamed El Naschie is an Egyptian engineer and former editor of a controversial journal, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. The controversy concerned El Naschie's publication, over many years, of a large number of papers of questioned scientific merit authored by himself in his own journal with little or no apparent peer review. Published reports of his eventual departure from the editorship of the journal led to a lengthy libel court case that raised questions about the libel laws in Great Britain. The controversy has also played a role in discussions of the “impact factor” as a quality measure for scientific journals.Flau98bert (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure mentioning the poor quality is not editorial judgement, it's a key part of what was going on and what was being criticized (as Nat already pointed out above. The Nature article claimed that "Most scientists contacted by Nature comment that El Naschie's papers tend to be of poor quality." El Naschie, in his lawsuit, named this statement in particular as one of those he objected to ([30], number 20, Lucas-Box meaning (b): "The Claimant's articles tended to be of poor quality."). The judge, seeing this as one of the key points of the whole lawsuit (no. 123), considered in detail the testimony of the defendant's expert witness (Neil Turok), the claimant's respondent Leila Marek-Crnjac and El Naschies objections ([31], in numbers 119-160, going into quite a lot of detail about specific articles, and giving specific criteria auch as "Statements which are meaningless or obscure, even to a reader with expertise in the field", "Statements that are simply wrong", and "Lack of any, or any substantial, contribution of new knowledge to the field"). The lack of quality is picked up in the news stories reporting on the trial and its outcome [32], [33], [34]. All in all, this would appear to be a key part of the substantiated criticism of El Naschie, and I think we would distort the situation if we were to leave it out.

That said, I like Flau98bert's version; the "questioned" sounds a bit unusual to my ear, though. And I would add ", and of university rankings", since that was why El Naschie is reported on by the NY Times and Die Zeit (second of Die Zeit articles). Markus Poessel (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: As for the other points raised by Flau98bert: Not putting the "Dr." in front of the first mention is indeed what the style manual tells us to do: WP:CREDENTIALS. On the subject of the PhD, the British Library's EThOS data base [35] lists it as "The roll of formulation in elastic buckling". That is obviously engineering of some kind, and I'm inclined to think that going from this to writing "has a PhD in engineering" doesn't constitute WP:Original research, as it's basically a summary. I don't think we should delete Weibel completely; he is mentioned and quoted in Die Zeit article and we leaving Weibel out is too close to picking and choosing for my taste. We might want to relate the context of "Die Zeit" article, though, namely that El Naschie managed to secure the support of some influential personages (which, admittedly, in an article whose title likens El Naschie to the con man Felix Krull is decidedly ambiguous). Markus Poessel (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the discussion has somewhat ground to a halt, I'll implement those parts about which there appears to be some consensus: Flau98berts version with my extra sentence tacked on, removing the "Dr." as per WP:CREDENTIALS, and stating Weibel's profession just as we do for Baez. Additional improvements are doubtlessly possible, but at least for me, don't have a high priority right now. Markus Poessel (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just realized we do need to substantiate the paper quality statement that is now in the lede. I'm adding a brief version of the Turok testimony taking my cue from the Rössler testimony description and mentioning the fact that Turok was testifying as an expert for the other side. Same goes for the coverage of university rankings; I'll add a brief section on that. Markus Poessel (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thesis location

Is it really necessary to state in the article that El Naschie's thesis can no longer be found? I'm sure that's true of many other 1970s graduates and no particular disgrace. The source given seems to me to be quite convincing that he did indeed graduate with a thesis of that title. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Really much better known as a theoretical physicist (regardless of how one views his papers) than as an engineer

Maybe it's really the case with that but, ironically, El Naschie considers himself an engineer first while physics is just a hobby for him. Therefore I would label him a hobby physicist, at most. --BoBSlo (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Elnaschie

Elnaschie, who is presumably the subject of the article, has twice added the following to the article itself. As David Eppstein has pointed out, this page is where it belongs. So I have put it here. Maproom (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

your staff or who ever is writing these untrue and inacurat things about me have been pushed to do . here is my real CV and you should SEARCH the CV OF THOSE WHO ARE DEFAMING ME AND CONSPIRING EVEN WHEN THEY ARE DOCORATED.AT A MINIMUM AND AT 72 I HAVE THE WRITE TO BE FORGOTTEN. Short C V. M.S. El Naschie was born in Cairo, Egypt in 1943. In 2012 he ran for the Presidency of Egypt. Between these two important dates he went to Germany where he received his high school and University education in Hannover. After attaining a Diploma in structural engineering and working for a few years as a consulting engineer, he moved to the UK where he obtained a Doctor of Philosophy from University College, London in 1974 under the supervision of Prof. J.M.T. Thompson, FRS and became a member of the Stability Research Group founded by Lord Henry Chilver. Subsequent important stations in his career are a full professorship in Kind Saud University, a Visiting Professor in Cornell and a Senior Visiting Professor and Scholar in the University of Cambridge. At a seminal point of time he was associated with Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine, Sir Herman Bondi,Sir Jams Lighthell Nobel Laureate G'tHooft and Prof. S. Al Athel, Minister of Science of Saudi Araia. In his long research career Prof. El Naschie published more than a thousand papers and articles in engineering sciences, mathematics, theoretical physics, cosmology, political science, history and art and had at one time or another his own weekly TV science program on Egyptian TV and a daily column in Rose Al-Youssef. Prof. El Naschie was a long time scientific advisor to the Egyptian and Saudi Arabian governments. Prof. El Naschie is acknowledged as one of the three pioneers of fractal spacetime theory along with Garnet Ord and Laurent Nottale and is the creator of the physical E-infinity theory of high energy physics. He was honoured for his achievements in Arabia, Germany and the USA. He was elected a Fellow of the Institute of Physics in the U.K. and was honoured in Germany by the bestowal of the title of Distinguished Fellow of the Frankfurt Association for the Advancement of Fundamental Research, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt. He presently works on the development of zero vacuum point energy reactors to utilize and amplify spacetime topological effects such as the Casimir effect and dark energy. El Naschie has recently given a new insightful interpretation of E = mc2 of Einstein where it was shown to have quantum roots, namely E = mc2/22 and E = mc2(21/22). At present(2-3-2015) his h-index is 62 and his i-10 index is 625. His Research gate index is 56.85 and impact index is 559.48

Why is the above written in Pidgin-English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.89.142 (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Because the person who wrote it is not a native speaker of English, I would assume. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Then who wrote all of his dubious physics papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.176.193 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Arabic characters

I see the Arabic version of El Naschie's name given in the article as محمد النشائي, which my browser (Chrome, on Windows) renders mainly as white boxes. This is odd, as it renders whole pages of ar:Wikipedia correctly. And it renders it correctly here. Maproom (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohamed El Naschie. 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/20120714074013/http://www.zeit.de/2009/03/N-El-Naschie to http://www.zeit.de/2009/03/N-El-Naschie

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)