Talk:Azeem Azhar

Edit request

This request is for this to be added in the "Career" section, after listing his hosting of the Bloomberg Originals show. As listed above: disclosing that Exponential View/Azeem Azhar is a client.

• Specific text to be added or removed: Azhar is a co-chair of the Global Future Council on the Future of Complex Risks at the World Economic Forum.
• Reason for the change: This is a relevant role in a major non-governmental organization.
• References supporting change:

Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, my note here isn't specifically related to your request above but is just a courtesy note to say that I have today removed quite a large amount of material from the article. This was primarily to remove much of the significant promotionalism (especially re: positive press commentary and undue emphasis on awards), but was also necessary because a large amount of the text was either copied or only very loosely paraphrased (WP:CLOP) from the sources indicated, and is thus inadmissible for a Wikipedia article as a copyright violation.

No doubt you will want to look to re-establish some of the copied/paraphrased text, which will need to be done via an edit request which uses original language.

In terms of the promotionalism, there will be no point trying to re-include it - as Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of article subjects (as per WP:NOTPROMO). Axad12 (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you personally went a little overboard with removing content. You're absolutely right that material that is promotional in nature doesn't belong on a page, and should be removed. But generally speaking, a work being given an award by a reputable newspaper is something mentioned here. Take, for example, the article Kid A, a featured article - it includes that the work was listed as an "album of the year" by various newspapers. Is this promotional content? Of course not. But by your argument here, those would need to be removed as positive press commentary. In fact, if I were writing an article about a book, such coverage would be expected, not discouraged.

And no, quoting and close paraphrasing are not the same thing - nor is it a copyright violation to quote from sources. It would be one if there were no quotes. It's important not to confuse the two.

Generally speaking, a mass removal of content sourced to pretty reputable outlets like The Times should probably be done with a bit more care, and a better justification. I'm not here to contest or revert or get into some dispute over this - but it's something you should consider for the future. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

I would simply note that you have a paid conflict of interest in relation to this subject, whereas I do not. Similarly I spend most of my volunteer time on Wikipedia looking at promotional material, whereas I would assume that you do not.

With regard to close paraphrasing, please note that I am not referring there to the direct copying of comments by 3rd parties about the subject's book, I am referring to the large elements of the text which you took with minimal changes from sources and inserted in the article text.

Here is a quote from the relevant policy (WP:COPYVIO) which hopefully clarifies that close paraphrasing is a subset of copyvio: Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. Such situations should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. Adding amounts of text with minimal changes from various original sources is therefore copyvio.

Nor do I accept your reference to the album Kid A, which is one of the most famous works of popular music in relatively recent times and where the Critical Reception section is clearly of due length. Also, the article for Kid A is clearly not promotional in intent, as this one is. Also, when writing an article about a book, inserting indiscriminate amounts of glowing praise is indeed discouraged and certainly is not expected.

I assure you that the comments above are entirely in accordance with the relevant policies and guidelines and I would urge you to abide by the decision that I have made as a non-conflicted volunteer. Axad12 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You know what they say about assuming things - most of my editing isn’t in the COI sphere, and I’ve actually been editing here for well over 15 years at this point. Much of my editing relates to popular media - specifically music. But the same principles that apply to it apply to other categories. I will also note that, if you genuinely feel there is a copyright violation, you should apply for the edits that have said content to be removed - but I don’t think you’d be able to do that, because I don’t think you’re right on this one.

You’ve established that promotional material doesn’t belong on a page. We agree! What you've not established is that a ranking in a year-end list in The Times is promotional - and you’d have a hard time doing that. It’s pretty uniformly regarded as a great, authoritative source.

Much of your response seems pointed at the fact I have a COI. Which is true! That’s why, when I have one, I follow the applicable policies - including bringing major changes before other editors for review, something this page already met. But my status doesn’t mean you shouldn’t assume good faith and judge an edit by its merits. And I genuinely struggle to understand how a Times review, of all things, is something most editors would find objectionable, let alone promotional - especially given the content you kept in the page, cited to substantially less reputable sources. That’s more or less what I’m asking you to think more closely about. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have not failed to assume good faith, I have simply pointed out some straightforward policy violations in your work, some of which I have corrected. I have also provided some advice for you on how some of the removed text can potentially be restored.

Most of the issues at stake here are related to what is WP:DUE coverage, which is a topic on which the view of a non-conflicted editor carries more weight than that of an editor with a paid COI who is also the author of the article.

The fact that an article passed AfC does not imply that the article has no major issues, it only implies that the AfC reviewer felt that the article would have a >50% chance of surviving being referred to Articles for Deletion (AfD). Articles can even pass AfD despite having significant problems, especially if the subject is notable, although any problems noted would then be cleaned up fairly quickly. So, you should not assume that the fact that the article survived in its recent form until earlier today after being accepted at AfC meant that the content had all been approved as conforming with policies and guidelines. Indeed the article had been tagged as being promotional in July 2024, which clearly demonstrates that removals would be likely.

You will appreciate, I am sure, that is it assymetrical and unfair for a paid editor (who is on the clock) to expect a volunteer to engage in endless discussion.

If you wish to attempt to restore material to the article you should do so via COI edit requests, in which case another volunteer (or quite possibly myself) will view them on their merits in due course. However I would advise you not to engage in further close paraphrasing. Drafting material in your own words will save the time of all parties in the long run. Axad12 (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have now made the change requested in the original post of this edit request. I have done this by moving some other career relevant material from the Accolades section and embedding the appointment mentioned in this COI edit request within that text. Axad12 (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)