Talk:Mateus Soares de Azevedo

Writings

Hello Horse Eye's Back, the section "Writings" had 4 sub-sections: Books in English (3 titles), Books in Portuguese (8), Introductions (12) and Articles & Essays (20). You deleted everything except 2 introductions in Portuguese [1]. May I ask you the reason for deleting 41 titles? Manamaris (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Esowteric, I was looking for an experienced wikipedian familiar with the field this article is part of, and I thought your opinion might be helpful. As you can see, for Horse Eye's Back the list of books and articles that Azevedo published doesn't have its place in WP; is this principle applied to all living writers? If not, why in this case? We also had a little exchange under [2]. As I am fairly new to WP and don't like fighting, could you give your opinion here about Horse Eye's Back's revert of the bibliography? Thank you,--Manamaris (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Manamaris, I'm sorry: I don't have time to work on the article. It looks like Horse Eye's Back removed many publications for which notability has not been established, and left the only two which do at least show in the Notes section a snippet of praise from a review. If you can find reviews in reliable sources and cite them, then you could re-add the relevant publications.

Having said that I have come across many articles which list at least a subject's more important publications, whether they are individually notable or not. However, I don't want to become involved in the dispute and suggest you sort this out with Horse Eye's Back. If you want feedback from other uninvolved editors, and to establish a consensus about the list of publications, you could create a request for comment (RFC) in a new section on this talk page. Regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Above all, though, you need to find more reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject himself. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with the banner that reads "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" though it might have been warranted before a lot of content was recently removed. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

On another note, regarding references, have a look at using full citations to avoid link rot. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC on an author's notability

Is this author's notability sufficient to justify an article? Please have a look at the article before it was partially deleted by Horse Eye's Back: [3]. Manamaris (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Could we also instead decide how much of the now all but deleted (diff) and previously over-extensive list of publications by the subject can be justifiably reinstated? The deletion seemed like overkill to me. Thanks Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

We have a dedicated place for "RfC on an author's notability" its called WP:AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I removed the RfC tag. RfC is the wrong process. AfD is the correct process.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, SMcCandlish, the question we are primarily interested in is whether this author is notable enough to be included in WP. Since you refuse (by what criteria?) that I ask for other people's opinions via an RfC, it seems to me appropriate that you give me yours (based on the original article [4]). WP:BIO: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I do not assert a priori that Azevedo is notable -although I think he is-, I just need arguments from one or both of you explaining why he is not. I understand that WP favors discussions on TP before undertaking other processes (in this case an AfD). Thanks, --Manamaris (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC) @Esowteric

Repeat: The process for asking this question is WP:AFD, not WP:RFC. Just open an AfD about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Manamaris. First of all, we were both worried by the deletion of the subject's publications. The original list was probably too extensive, but to remove all but two of the publications (the two having notes about a reviewer offering praise) was, in my opinion overkill (I've seen many articles with a list of publications that aren't individually notable). I therefore suggested a request for comments (RfC) from other uninvolved editors to try to establish a consensus about which publications could be listed. I would favour a list of the more important and significant works; and it would be helpful to find more reliably sourced reviews of his books to warrant having them in the list.

I wasn't calling for an RfC about the subject's notability, which is barely adequate as it is. We really need more references from reliable sources to establish notability. The place for comments about the subject's notability is, as has been stated, AfD. I really wouldn't propose that yourself, however, as the consensus might just as likely be to delete the article as to keep it. Rather than delete the article, if that happened, I'd rather that the article was saved as a draft so you could continue working on it. See Articles for Creation. Then, once you think that the article is ready for republication, you'd submit it for review, and the reviewer would either accept and publish the draft or reject it, giving their reasons and suggestions.

So, regarding notability: just keep looking for significant mention of the subject in reliable sources, and be prepared for the possibility that another editor takes the article to AfD.

Regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft article

Hello Esowteric, I would appreciate your help, if you have the time. I will take care of the bare URLs, but first I would like to know 1) which sources are not acceptable in the Life and Work sections, i.e. references 1 to 10, and why they are not; 2) which parts of the article are promotional and should be removed. Thank you very much, Manamaris (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Esowteric, if you do not have the time or do not wish to reply, can you please inform me? Thank you, --Manamaris (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, as I said in response to your first message, I really don't have the time to work on this article. Sorry. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for help

Hello Randy Kryn, if you have the time, would you accept to read the current draft and let me know: 1) which sources are not acceptable in Life and Work sections (ref. 1 to 10), and why they are not; 2) which parts of the article are promotional and should be removed? If you don't have the time or the will to do it, can you recommend me someone? Thank you, --Manamaris (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Manamaris, thanks for thinking of me, but I'm not an expert on sourcing of this type. Most of the page seems fine to me, although the names of awards should not be italicized. Promotional material is in the eye of the beholder, what would seem promotional to someone just seems like information to others like myself. Apologies for not helping further. Don't know who else to suggest, you chose some good editors in the sections above. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello George Custer's Sabre, I see that you are very familiar with WP's policies and guidelines; if you have the time, would you accept to read the current draft and let me know: 1) which sources are not acceptable (according to Horse Eye's Back) in Life and Work sections (ref. 1 to 10), and why they are not; 2) which parts of the article are promotional (according to Horse Eye's Back) and should be removed? Shukran! --Manamaris (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

What is next?

Hello Quisqualis, I made the requested changes, can you tell me what I should do now? Thank you, --Manamaris (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I wasn't aware that you didn't use citation templates for your source citations. That's why you have those numbered links to the URLs of the various websites, which are very confusing. At this point, a template would be too much bother, but you must link a title with its URL for reader comprehension. I did it for references #1 through #3: [https://www.polareditorial.com.br/produtos/ordens-sufis-no-isla/ review of ''Ordens Sufis no Islã''] Notice that the brackets are single: URL first, one space, and then the title. Please fix them all

1. In the case of book citations, the ISBN numbers should be given in the citations.
2. The citation of "List of publications, Amazon" is not allowed, as you'll want to use publisher websites for those books, rather than booksellers.
3. Américo Sommerman, "Mateus Soares de Azevedo" is a bio on a publisher's website. FYI, Wikipedia considers such biographies to not be reliable sources for factual material.
4. Joseph Fitzgerald, "Mateus Soares de Azevedo's Life and Work": also an unreliable source. Who is Fitzgerald? When citing publishers to show that an author is published, use "Soares de Azevedo biography" or "Author Biography", rather than the title of the webpage, to prevent readers confusing a web page with a book.
5. When citing Joseph Fitzgerald, World Wisdom Books for his awards, use the 3 webpages of the actual awards to support your assertions, as your publisher only wants to promote its authors. Also, is Joseph Fitzgerald the web page designer, marketing manager, CEO or what?? He needs no credit for a simple webpage he didn't put his signature on. Same with Américo Sommerman, as his name is not on the web page, and thus his name doesn't help us to find that web page.
6. Samuel Bendeck Sotillos, Parabola Journal: this citation doesn't name the title of the article, which is an essential part of any article citation. I see that the URL you provided links to a different page of Parabola ("Anonymous, “Nomad Girl” retold by Barbara H. Berger "). If you can't find the article online and provide the correct URL, you don't need to cite the URL. URLs are a convenience for readers. Just find the title!

Thanks for asking! Quisqualis (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Quisqualis for your suggestions and examples. Could you check the modified References section? --Manamaris (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Manamaris, In the case of book citations, the ISBN numbers should be given in the citations. This is the last item left undone. I have taken care of two other issues, below:

• Kleiton Fontes/polareditorial the mythical Fontes is attributed as the author of the material on a commercial website. We must assume those words lack verifiability; hence paragraph has been cut.
• Samuel Bendeck Sotillos, Parabola Journal: the real title must be provided. Otherwise, it's an indication (perhaps an accurate one) that you did not read all the sources of the Portuguese article. Many Wikipedias have less-stringent standards for sources than the English Wikipedia. That is why the handy informational page on translating other WPs into English requires that translators evaluate each of the sources, and write the English article accordingly. I fear that the "review" may be marketing fluff, as Parabola and the publisher both exist to generate revenue. In any case, I've removed the statement and its Parabola citation.

Quisqualis (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

All I can see is that Parabola sells its magazines, which is perfectly legitimate and usual practice. Similarly, virtually all publishers sell their books. I can't see any mention of Parabola selling the book.

Parabola looks like a reliable source, but you could always ask about that at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Esowteric, given the tendency of this draft's citations to confuse promotional material with journal article,s and the fact that its oroginal creator didn't write it or use the sources, we are trusting the Portuguese-fluent editor on pt.wikipedia to have created that article in conformity with the standards of the English Wikipedia. I have zero cause to believe that any reliable sources support that article.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you seen the article on the Portuguese Wikipedia page?

The Mateus Soares de Azevedo article on the Portuguese Wikipedia site may be of use to you. Regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at that article in machine translation. The current draft appears to be a more or less direct translation of Mateus Soares de Azevedo It contains many passages with word-for word copying from the Portuguese version. Therefore, I think it would have been wise for the author to have given attribution in the edit summary at the time of creation. What was noted in the summary was a claim that the draft was a recreation/revision of an earlier article which had been draftified.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability

As it now stands, it really doesn't look like the article is sufficiently notable for publication on Wikipedia. You should be looking for a minimum of (say) three reliable, independent, secondary sources that give the subject significant mention. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

All the references that begin: "Mateus Soares de Azevedo, ..." are primary sources, and don't count toward notability. Nor do "Author biography ...". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Esowteric, 2 independent, secondary sources are: Cristina Tardáguila + Clovis de Almeida. A third one is Samuel Bendeck Sotillo's book review in Parabola, which was deleted by Quisqualis ("Draft creator has never seen the source, which may not be an objective review"); I have a scan of the 4 pages of that review, and can assure that everything that is mentioned in the deleted paragraph is to be found in that review. There are many other Brazilian newspaper articles about the author, some of them criticizing him, others not (I can give a list). --Manamaris (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's hope that you can more reliable sources, then, Manamaris. I would use them even if they are critical of Mateus Soares de Azevedo's work, in order to achieve notability (and a balance between positive and negative reception). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If, as you say, you have a scan of the Parabola review, then please provide some details from the review below: (a) the exact wording of the headline / review title; (b) any useful description of the book; (c) any direct quotations you can pull out of the review that praise or criticise the book. Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

After writing above: "There are many other Brazilian newspaper articles about the author...", I went through them one by one and I realize that there are actually very few that can be accepted as a source.
- In addition to the 3 sources mentioned above, there is, in the newspaper Folha de Sao Paolo (1 April 2006), a 24-line article by Paulo Daniel Farah, professor at the Faculty of Philosophy, Humanities and Social Sciences of the University of Sao Paolo; title of the article: "Work discusses inter-faith relations"; extract: “At a time when so many so-called insurmountable obstacles in inter-religious relations are announced and distortions and radicalizations are increasing, understanding the religious phenomenon is a pressing challenge. In A Inteligência da Fé ("The Intelligence of Faith"), Mateus Soares de Azevedo explains that, according to perennial philosophy, religions are determined by Ideas, in the Platonic sense of the term, or perennial spiritual archetypes, which manifest themselves from time to time in the world of history and mutability. Christianity embodies one of these spiritual archetypes, just as Islam, Judaism and the other religions do...".
- There is also this book review of Ordens Sufis no Islã ("Sufi Orders in Islam"): [5] (this site is neither the publisher's nor a seller's site).
- And there is also a second review by Sotillo, published in the journal Critique, Vol. 17, N° 1-2, 2021, pp. 99-101 [6], but I will not use it because it is as favourable to the author as the first one (Parabola). I will thus modify the draft according to these data and to your remarks. I would be very grateful if you could correct my English, and thank you for your comments and modifications. --Manamaris (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe submit the draft for review and see what the reviewer has to say. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)