Talk:Adnan Oktar/Archive 1

Quote
"An Illusion of Harmony: Science And Religion in Islam (Hardcover)" by Taner Edis should have extensive discussion of Yahya. Due out in January, though much might be available online if you ask the author.

I think that there are far too many 'Harun Yahya' books for 'Harun Yahya' to be simply a pen name for Adnan Oktar - rather 'Harun Yahya' is the flag of convenience behind the entire Turkish creationist movement...

None can measure a person's talent from their point of view. Zahid 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope we are allowed to put facts here nothing fictional about this person:

FACT: THERE ARE LAW-SUITS AGAINST THIS PERSON AS I TYPE THIS NOW. HE IS AND HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF CREATING AN ILLEGAL BLACKMAILING, BRIBING, THREATENING GROUP FOR HIS INTENTIONS. HERE IS ANOTHER FACT OF THIS. HE SPENT YEARS IN PRISON, AND ANOTHER FACT IS, HE HAS CREDIBLE 7 DOCTOR REPORTS THAT SAYS HE IS NOT MENTHALLY CAPABLE OF SERVING IN TURKISH MILITARY. SO HE SKIPPED MILITARY.

FACT: HE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RELIGIOUS OR UNIVERSITY EDUCATION. IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO GIVE FATCS IN THIS WEB SITE, NO ONE IS SUPPOSE TO ERASE THIS. ABSOLUTALY NO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, OR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. Thank you

I believe adnan oktar is the best known scientist and islamic scholar world has ever known. He has unveiled the conspiracies and filthy propagandas of western world. All you ultra-left, agnostic wikipedians can't do anything. If you can refute him, go research and show it to the world and we'll see how good you are!

For now spout off blasphemies and bite your nails. Hail Adnan Oktar, Islam Rules

Plagiarism
I believe that at least parts of many of the Harun Yahya creationist books are plagiarized translations of works by U.S.-based young-earth creationists, e.g., from the Institute for Creation Research. (Taner Edis may have documented this in one of his articles on Turkish creationism.) Lippard 19:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

PoV
Just for the record, Harun Yahya is vastly popular throughout Asia and is acclaimed throughout the world by people of different religions, be they Muslims, Christians, Jews, or others. The article, which calls him an anti-this, anti-that, and a Holocaust denier, is therefore completely biased. Also for the record, Harun Yahya is not a Holocaust denier: he has referred to it in many of his books. Please, be neutral. Konstable and Jeff5102 are shooting their mouths off, and so are people like Darashala and Zahid. Zahid, I personally agree with most of what you're saying, but please don't be so vociferous about it. State it calmly and neutrally.

At the moment the article is written very much from the point of view of the subject; it needs to be edited into a more neutral style. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought the changes i made were self -expanatory: on each item i put in what each side thought, which seems to be the only plausible approach for this article since adnan oktar and his sect is highly controversial, very much like scientology in the US. A lot of the stuff that I deleted was his propaganda in any case, Mel, can you point to any part of the article which you thought was unfairly deleted?


 * You need to justify your removal of text, especially such a large amount of text. You claim that you deleted propaganda, but you need to back up that claim.  I also don't understand the wholesale removal of the bibliography (nor the insistence on changing the headings to non-Wikipedia style). --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I cannot understand what "a lot of text" means if it doesnot say anything. I mean i can put a lot of stuff there which says nothing, right? For the biography, it is not essential info, it is also listed in his web page. Do you think it adds a lot to our knowledge of him? About the controversiality of the issue, do you have anybody around you that knows turkish? he can verify the controversiality of the person, here is one news article about him that just came out today, mentioning he want to jail for cocain use in 1985, then went out by getting a mental illness report, he and his supporters were again jailed in 1999 for blackmailing Istanbul DYP deputy Celal Adan, stayed in jail for another tem months and so on. http://www.gecce.com/pages/haber_detay.asp?haber=44514


 * I don't follow all of this, but it seems to boil down to a repeated claim that your edits are justified, with no attempt to provide the justification, and the argument that, because the bibliography appears elsewhere it shouldn't appear in Wikipdia. That implies that you've misunderstood what Wikipedia is; it's an encyclopædia that doesn't allow original research &mdash; so everything here appears somewhere else.  Look at other articles on writers, artists, musicians, composers, etc., and you'll see lists of works, all of which will appear elsewhere.
 * As for newspaper reports, it's fine to say that a newspaper has made a claim, but not to repeat the claim as simple fact. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

TO be hoonest i think you are being naive and turning wikipedia propaganda for a particular sect. As for the legal allegations on him, not even the sect memebers would deny, becuase they are common knowledge. I do not know how to make them more solid; perphaps go to turkish courts and scan the the court documents and post them? If I have time later I will try to do that, but for the momemnt i guess ill have to let you have your way and make this article a propaganda device for a controversial sect.

Motora binmeyi çok seven ve çeşit çeşit motorları olan, peşinde bi sürü adamın bize de motor düşer dolandığı, amerikan yaradılışçılarının kitaplarından intihal ile kitap yazan, sözde bi din adamı.


 * You need to (a) sign your posts (b) write in English in the English-language section of Wikipedia.  There is a Turkish language section available.--Konstable 07:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda against a person. Please be neutral. Vandalism will not be allowed. False claims and links to the false sites(mainly Turkish) will be deleted. Zahid 19:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Zahid, I did not write those claims, but it seems to be that the language is as neutral as it can be. It does not present those accusations as facts, rather it presents them as allegations against him. And even says that he denies them. If you think that they are POV, please do not delete them before discussing them here first. If you feel that this article is not neutral or factually accurate, you can flag it with the   tag.--Konstable 04:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This person is clearly documented to suffer from Paranoid Schizophrenia by the military hospitals in Turkey where he has many followers and is oficially criminally insane. Upon all that and understanding his remaining rights to be respected, I have difficulty seeing Wikipedia claiming him to be the leader cited in his website. I see most of the text cited here are from his website and needs to be marked clearly that this person is not sane enough to hold responsibility for what he says or writes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.95.229 (talk • contribs).

Unfortunately this article has very serious POV problems. I also suggest the contributors of the article to read WP:RS. What gives an article its quality is the quality of the sources, you can always find some obscure, self-serving source to cite. I even wonder whether he is worth for a wikipedia article at all, after all what is his contribution? From reading the article -if you never heard of him before- you can easily get the wrong idea that he is an intelectual or an important person in Turkey, which is not the case. The article doesn't mention his sect, his nicely dressed-up,upper class followers, his sex scandals, allegations etc,his ability to avoid judicial persecution, well the Turkish public forgot about all these events. There is also no evidence that he wrote all these books, if I remember correctly, in the court he even denied the authorship for some of them. It was also shown that for example his anti-Darwinist book is full of copy-paste material from American creationist books from 1950s. His books on Freemasonry are just list of names of Freemasons currently in Turkey and not call him an antisemite is really POV. It is sad that many articles in wikipedia about Turkey become propaganda material with very low quality. -Argonit 23:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy
I have watched some of his documentaries, and the factual accuracy is pretty bad. And the facts and evidence that he does have are often used to mislead irrelevant. For example, while talking about Red Armies atrocities videos of White Army soldiers are shown. When talking about Social Realism he shows old people in an art class and talks about how true art is impossible in "materialistic" regimes. Etc. Perhaps there needs to be some mention of this.--Konstable 22:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I know, he says he cannot be refuted, but I read through several of his books and noticed quote-mining and lies almost straight away. He is either very ingnorant or very deceitful. He also seems to think that the stone age never happened, even though I've been to Stonehenge and many other stone-age sites. (217.17.112.173 14:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

In short,he is a nutcase.Talk to the hand,Girly-Messiah.--85.100.34.144 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't post personal comments.

I hope we are allowed to put facts here, nothing fictional about this person (no personal comments):

FACT: THERE ARE LAW-SUITS AGAINST THIS PERSON AS I TYPE THIS NOW. HE IS AND HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF CREATING AN ILLEGAL BLACKMAILING, BRIBING, THREATENING GROUP FOR HIS INTENTIONS. HERE IS ANOTHER FACT OF THIS. HE SPENT YEARS IN PRISON, AND ANOTHER FACT IS, HE HAS CREDIBLE 7 DOCTOR REPORTS THAT SAYS HE IS NOT MENTHALLY CAPABLE OF SERVING IN TURKISH MILITARY. SO HE SKIPPED MILITARY.

FACT: HE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RELIGIOUS OR UNIVERSITY EDUCATION. IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO GIVE FATCS IN THIS WEB SITE, NO ONE IS SUPPOSE TO ERASE THIS. ABSOLUTALY NO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, OR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. Thank you

Budhism
The new comments on Budhism which have been added need some cleaning up. There's probably some content that can be mined out from them but the section as it stands is more of an outburst than a encyclopaedic entry. --Nkv 15:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the Buddhism-part, but it remains somewhat POV. It is very difficult to write a serious article about someone who cannot be taken serious.Jeff5102 10:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Harun Yahya wrote about them
Harun Yahya wrote about the ignorant society. You can download it from www.harunyahya.com. If you are an ignorant, you will not read them and say they are false. If you have slightest respect for knowledge, you will not accuse wise persons for their unintentional mistakes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zahidbuet (talk • contribs).

I have respect for knowledge. That is why I do not understand Oktar's agressive attack on Charles Darwin. ;)Anyway, I do not see what this has to do with the article.Jeff5102 09:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have watched a couple of Harun Yahya videos. A LOT of it was indeed based on strawman arguments, a lot of oppinions are stated as obvious facts, statements carefully designed to mislead, and plain out lies in some cases. This guy is a propagandist and a liar. In fact I plan to document some of those lies from his videos here when I get the time. So really, I think it's ignorance to be spreading his preachings.--Konstable 10:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Don't post personal comments.203.208.166.92 05:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have striken my comment above as I don't wish to discuss my point of view regarding Harun Yahya / Adnan Oktar here.--Konstable 04:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the truth and I am not neutral about this. Darwin didn't proved anything and explained missing link as his proof. If you have something to say about your own research, wikipedia is not the place for this. Some people are trying to make Harun Yahya as a mad man and a criminal. Because, they don't have the capacity of writing books like Harun Yahya.Zahid 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Zahidebuet, First of all I have no intention to include my own research here. But I may write some more about his "inaccuacies".  Also, I'm about to revert your deletion of the short statement about his education.  If you don't like those references, the official Haru Yahya site itself agrees with this.  And I see nothing POV in quoting his education.--Konstable 04:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If I pointed out Yahya's mistakes because of jeasouy of his writng capacities, I would better be editing the William Shakespeare-article, wouldn't I? ;)Jeff5102 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Zahid, If you are a believer in this man's writings, then surely you are not suitable to be editing this as you cannot be POV neutral. Because after all, a belief is a POV. You believe your beliefs are correct, many do not, so that makes you biased --81.174.250.220 21:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Believer and unbeliever in Harun Yahya's writings, please be neutral. Don't post personal comments.203.208.166.92 05:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the previous comment. Otherwise, no Muslim can supply information about Islam and no Christian may talk about Christianity. I guess it could be even that ridiculous that only atheists may contribute to the God-part. On the other hand, I do not understand why 203.208.166.92 is referring to the comments above as ‘personal’. After all, Adnan Oktar is a living person, isn’t he? Jeff5102 12:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Article
Maybe some can edit this news article from 'The Pitch' for the Adnan Oktar-article? It contains interesting info.Jeff5102 09:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A part of my ‘Oktar falsely quotes Orwell’-contribution to this article is deleted, because it is ´personal research’.

Well I did research on what Oktar said Orwell meant, and I did research on what Orwell meant, and there was a big difference between the two meanings.

And yes, this was a personal research. But what do the guidelines say about ‘original research’?

It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.”

As well Oktars text as Orwells text are published. That Oktar uses misquotes is already known. And looking for sources is allowed, and I did not do anything else.

So my question to the fellow wikipedians is: was my contribution according to the guidelines, or not?Jeff5102 13:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam
How about something in the article referring to the large amounts of spam I get about this man's writings? It is after all the reason I looked him up. --81.174.250.220 21:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, on the OFTC network I got the following:
 * [00:54]  Hello..foryou.. AN INVITATION TO THE TRUTH click please www.harunyahya.com (choose language please)
 * Can be said, it did strengthen my belief in evolution instead... :P Ailure 07:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Too much blog
This is not a blog site. So, don't write blog or give reference to blog sites. I found that, someone is deleting content terming it as official Harun Yahy..... The official site is better than the blog. I wonder, if they have so much prejudice against this man, then why they write about him. I found a person who thinks himself as a researcher. He continues to post his research though it has been deleted several times, hahaha. A person deleted content saying about copy pasting of official H. Y. site. Maybe he wants to create new things about H. Y., hahahaha. If want to know about this editor person, I will not look at his official site, I will write it my own and I will say I am neutral, hahahaha. Why don't we become more intelligent? Darashala 08:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'm the "person" who reverted the edit which cut/pasted content from the authors official site. It's a given that someone's site will be biassed towards the owner. Cutting/pasting from there is pointless. It might be just as well to give a link to his site. That's not the point here. As for the links you deleted saying that it's "too much blog", I can't read Turkish and hence can't comment on them. Perhaps someone else will revert the edits if necessary. --Nkv 09:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but calling newspaper –archives ‘fake blog sites’ is way too easy. If you go to the index of the Hurriyet-archive, you can find the link to the so-called ‘fake blog’- article.


 * The same is the case for the Sabah-online newspaper archive . Maybe Darashala can show us why these sites, which look like professional news-archives are ‘false blog sites’? Or show us the REAL Hurriyet news-archive?Jeff5102 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Darashala. I can post links of Bengali newspapers which say Harun Yahya is a great man, great scholar in Islam, and great scientist (to become a scientist, good academic result is not needed. Even Einstein did not get a job in the university). Zahid 10:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do so and state that "Many Bengalis (or any other party whose views you think the links your're quoting reflect) consider Harun Yahya to be a great man, a great scholar in Islam and a great scientist". No one is stopping you. However, you should also allow people who don't hold this view of him to state their views. --Nkv 10:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers have their views and ideology. If you reject the official website for your prejudice against Harun Yahya, then reject the newspapers too. Zahid 10:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No one is "rejecting" anything. A link to the main HY site which talks about his activities in a positive light is okay. Another link to justify a statment that "Some parties allege that he is sufferring from paranoid schizophrenia" is also okay. To censor any criticism of the man is to make the article one sided. It's a fact that atleast some people (for whatever agenda) consider him a paranoid schizophrenic (I can't read Turkish but I assume that's the point that the turkish links support). What problem do you see in stating that? --Nkv 10:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Zahid, as far as I can see you still have not answered the questions I asked you about Oktar’s Pompeii-text on your talk-page. And yet you believe that those who are sceptical about Oktars work are prejudiced. Please give me the proofs that Oktar is not making up his Pompeii-story. If I am prejudiced, and you are not, you can prove this by answering my questions. If not, my guess is that you are overestimating yourself. (By the way I added one remark about that Pompeii-text, That would not be much of a problem, would it? ;))Jeff5102 12:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a blind supporter. I use logic and for this, I have to study. I must build my academic career, too. Otherwise, someone will state that: Though I didn't studied this subject, I researched on it. And, you should know, my subjects are Mathematics, Biology, and Electronic Engineering, not archaeology. I need time to study my academic books, archaeology books and maintain my job. I don't want anybody to accuse me as a mad. Note: I didn't mention all my activities here.Zahid 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Orwell section
Really people, we need to discuss this and arrive at a conclusion rather than play "revert the others changes". I invite you both User:Jitt and User:Jeff5102 to discuss this. --Nkv 06:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I already tried to discuss this matter under the ‘Article’-header. But so far nobody reacted, except by reverting, argued by empty words (“It is personal!” “It is blog!”). And as long as nobody wants to convince me and other wikipedians why the Orwell-part is wrong, it should stay there.Jeff5102 07:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. I've left a comment in User:Jitts talk page. If we discuss this and clear it up, it'll be much better than reverting each other's changes. If he doesn't show up here to discuss this, we'll reinstate your changes and ask him to not remove them. --Nkv 10:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Orwell part consists a lot of percentage of this article. Is this relevant in a boigraphy? Jeff5102 is very keen to publish his research here and he doesn't have any other related place to publish it! He gave a link of Orwell's lablablab. Maybe that will work. But, don't put a lot of lablablab in the article. I think, maybe, Adnan Oktar will find this page and write a lot of argument against this (He has a habit of writing a lot)(just joking). Just say there are some misquotes and give the links. You don't have to put it all in his biography and make it more than 30 percent of it.Jitt 07:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what is meant by 'lablablab'. But still maybe I will expand the article, so the Orwell-part will take less space in the article. And another problem: if I quote other scientists, I would violate copyrights. And that is the last thing I want to do.Jeff5102 13:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just stumbled upon this page while surfing and think the Orwell section is problematic. Basically, it qualifies as Original Research as it cites no source for the claim that HY is quote mining. I don't dispute that the section is correct, but unfortunately it is OR. WP is not the place to put our rebuttals of people's arguments. We can only report rebuttals that other, notable people have done.
 * TalkOrigins and many others have dissected HY's claims, it would be better to report and cite one of their rebuttals. Ashmoo 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jitt and Ashmoo. Hey Jeff5102, will you stop this lablablab? Hehehehe. Darashala 07:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Ashmoo, the Orwell-section is gone. As well as the last critical parts of the article. And the Turkish newspaper-items are gone as well (and remember: English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability ) and who am I to dispute Oktars English-written webpages? With illegal 'original research'?). And because, as I said, I do not want to violate more copyrights as neccesary, my advise is to keep the article this way. I see no better option left.Jeff5102 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC) (although, if JoshuaZ reverts it back, my part might not be such a problem after all!)

Notability-deletion issues
This article is about a living person -thus a biography about a living person. I strongly suggest we discuss the notability issues. Reading WP:NNOT and WP:BIO could be useful. I can understand the motives of the creator of this article and but after reading those relevant wikipedia passages, i dont think Oktar article would pass the test. He is just not important enough. Maybe his name and contributions could be mentioned, if there were articles on Muslim creationism or Turkish anti-darwinism or Turkish sects etc. But he is just a controversial and mediatic figure, without prominence in either right-wing or Islamist circles. I saw much better articles with a POV or bias sign? Why not this one, are we afraid of the facts? Argonit 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
It appears that paragraphs that show Adnan Oktar in a not-so-flattering light are being removed. Gentlemen: if we want this article to be NPOV we have to show his faults as well! He wasn't perfect. Please accept that there are people that may disagree with you and see things differently. &mdash; Khoikhoi 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I can see for the existence of an wikipedia article about him is propaganda. Unfortunately, the content of the article reflects this. The article cannot be improved very easily because most people know very little about him. There is only his books, his sect and the foundation. Currently he is more engaged in evolution-Darwin-creationism issues. However, there is no public discussion about it. The article, in its current form with self-references is very weak. To improve it, one has to remove self-referential internet links and perhaps write more about the sect and its past activities. His books are many and some of them were distributed in universities for free! As mentioned in one of the links in the article, we are dealing here with a person with a lot of connections and criminal activity. I still don't understand why there is no NPOV  sign -Argonit 20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I have a feeling the people who have been removing his criticism section are either members of his cult or just his supporters. Regardless, I've went ahead and added a tag to it, hope that helps. &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I also suupport the tag. Because, some people are so much against him that they even don't want a page about him. They are removing contents (that show good signs of Adnan Oktar) for their resemblance with the official harun Yahya site. Though I am not a member of his sect/followers/cult (I didn't know about their existence. Maybe Darwin have a sect/followers/cult! Just joking.), I can't support it. I support truth. Please, just admit that, he is not a messenger of God. He surely have some mistakes and faults. He also have done something which caused a wide publicity. I am writing from thosands of miles away. I read his books and seen the videos. I just make the decision from the contents of the books.Jitt 08:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Just follow the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and read it.Jitt 08:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that whether people are for or against him is the issue here. I couldn't care less about him, but I just want that the quality of the article gets better. But how this is possible, when people constantly will erase the nasty facts about him. After all, he had 7 independent medical reports about his mental health since 1983 and he himself used these reports not to get convicted. He himself wrote a book called "Holocause Lie". He and his groups threatened some politicians and journalists. These are all facts. Even if they will get constantly erased, you cannot change the facts. If he is not a Holocaust Denier, why then you(Oktar) spend your time for writing such a book? Therefore i cannot see the reason for recent edits of erasing all these facts, except being highly biased about him and not being able to accept these facts. How you can say that people are removing good things about him, when currently the article looks like his website? It is much more difficult to write a biography about a living person especially about such a contraversial figure with a lot of scandals. -Argonit 12:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Argonit, are you from Israel? If you are from Israel, I am an Arab. After watching Israel's crime (I am trying to be calm), I am a Holocaust Denier, too. You can call me a mad, I wouldn't give you a penny.Darashala 07:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust
In this article it has been stated that Harun Yahya is a Holocaust denier but in one of his books on Darwinism he says that the Holocaust actually happened. I'm providing a link to this book's official website.http://www.harunyahya.com/fascism4.php --DIGIwarez 11:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You have found that yourself? Shame! That is original research, and that is forbidden over here. Wikipedia prefers it, when you mention what other people write about other people who refer to books from Adnan Oktar.

And for the record: check out Jeff5102 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Judging from the [following paragraph] does it seem probable that this guy is a holocaust denier?

''The peoples of the occupied countries were subjected to terrible cruelty, especially those in the category of "inferior races" such as the Jews, Slavs and Gypsies. Millions of people were sent to camps to be used as slave labor. Soon, these camps turned into extermination camps according to the "Final Solution" adapted at the notorious Wannsee Conference by Hitler and his associates. The gas chambers specially designed to kill humans first used carbon monoxide and then Zyklon B. In the gas chambers and other methods of mass extermination, a total of 5.5 million Jews, 3 million Poles, almost 1 million Gypsies and hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war from various nations were brutally murdered.'' Btw. Jeff5102, your cited site says that it has been disputed. --Magabund 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As I painfully experienced, quoting original sources (like you do) is considered here as "original research", and that is not allowed on wikioedia. Howevever, according to the reports on the “Antisemitism and Xenophobia Today”-site, he really is credited as a Holocaust denier.

Please See the report of 1996 :

''“As in previous years, the Islamist organization Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (Foundation for Scientific Research), led by Adnan Oktar (better known as Adnan Hodja), continued to slander Jews. It draws support from educated and wealthy young men and women but, unlike RP, most of its followers do not adopt Muslim dress or attend mosques regularly. Oktar is notorious for his virulent attacks on Israel, Jews and Freemasons.

''In 1996 the foundation distributed two books entitled the "Holocaust Lie The Inside Story of the Secret History of the Zionist-Nazi Co-operation and the Lie About Jewish Genocide" (originally published in 1995) and the "New Masonic Order”.

…

The publication in December 1995 of "Holocaust Lie The Inside Story of the Secret History of the Zionist-Nazi Co-operation and the Lie About Jewish Genocide" sparked much public debate throughout 1996.

''In March 1996 a leading Turkish painter and intellectual, Bedri Baykam, published a strongly worded critique in the Ankara daily newspaper Siyah-Beyaz (Black and White). A legal suit for slander was subsequently brought against Baykam by Nuri Özbudak, who claimed to have written the book under the pseudonym of Harun Yahya. During the trial in September, Baykam exposed the real author of the book as Adnan Oktar, leader of Bilim Arastirma Vakfi ...''

''Baykam also stated in court that genocide against the Jews was an indisputable historical fact. He condemned the book and proclaimed that all Turks who upheld human rights and democracy should react strongly against it too. By the end of the year the trial had not yet been concluded, but it appeared that Özbudak would drop the case''.”

Or otherwise the report of 1998 :

''“Oktar is responsible for virulent attacks on Jews and Freemasons. Two antisemitic books are distributed by the foundation: 'Holocaust Lie - The Inside Story of the Secret History of the Zionist-Nazi Co-operation and the Lie about Jewish Genocide' (originally published in 1995, see also Holocaust denial) and 'New Masonic Order'. It also publishes the bulletin Siyasi Cizgi (Political Line), launched in 1994, which is mailed to thousands of prominent Turks. In 1997 the foundation published the book 'Israel's Kurdish Card', which claims that Israel supports Kurdish terrorists.”''

Or otherwise check out a more recent report of 2004 from the Stephen Roth Institute :

''“Numerous books by the Turkish Islamist Adnan Oktar, aka Adnan Hodja, are on display in almost every bookstore, under the pseudonym Harun Yahya. His revisionist writings focusing on Jews and Israel are rife with false accusations and caricatures. It should be noted, however, that Adnan Oktar has undergone a change and become more tolerant toward Jews and others; he now works toward promoting inter-religious dialogue.”''

See also I guess it wil do for now. Maybe we should include information from these reports in the article. Anyway, these sites prove he is credited as a Holocaust denier.Jeff5102 12:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No Jeff, you got something wrong - quoting original sources is not WP:OR. --Magabund 19:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How strange. I quoted original sources in the 'Orwell'-section as well, but that was eventually removed as WP:OR. Jeff5102 20:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He wrote a book called 'Soykırım Yalanı', meaning 'genocide lie' or 'holocaust lie'. The article should mention him as a holocaust denier. Please someone add it.--80.56.36.253 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Wiki rules"
ZambrottaNesta/Messadelrosa/SuperSantana, please tell me what "wiki rules" you are refering to that says you can delete sourced material if the newspaper is "false". First off, how do you know that it's false? Secondly, I suggest you have a look at WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please show me a source that says Oktar isn't a Holocaust-denier. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

fully protected
Fully protected, as it seems pretty obvious that someone is running a sock farm with matured socks to avoid the semi-protection. about five-six new accounts who only make edits to one page, and use edit summaries from the very first edit? Blnguyen | rant-line 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the fully protection until the dispute is resolved. Some people don't want to hear anything good about Harun Yahya. We have to be NPOV to write in encyclopaedia.Jitt 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think much of the Orwell sections by Jeff. They seem to be original research to me. However, the removal of all links to his *alleged* schizophrenia and criticism is a little too much. The man is popular. He has critics (right or wrong). Let's just say that and leave it at that. --Nkv 12:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Let me state this in case of the Orwell-part:

According to wikipedia-rules, in Original Research this all is excluded:

I do not introduce that. It is already known that Oktar uses misquotes: nothing original here. I do not define new terms See above I cited the two main sources: both writers. ''Maybe. I should give a link to critical websites, who support the claim of “Oktar using false quotes”, but then again, these links are in this article under the Critical Articles-section.''
 * It introduces a theory or method of solution;
 * It introduces original ideas;
 * It defines new terms;
 * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
 * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

•	It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

And this I did not do either.

In short: I only used a new easy-to-verify example for an old analysis: I just considered that George Orwell was easier to refer to, than some scientists that are obscure to the general public. Thus, IMHO this is no Original ResearchJeff5102 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Orwell 'refutation' looks like WP:OR to me. It refers directly to primary material (the Orwell book) and doesn't identify who has decided that Oktar is misquoting in this instance. Just because someone has said that Oktar misquotes, doesn't mean an editor can carte-blanche add 'evidence' of anything that appears to be a misquote to them.
 * Pls note, I don't dispute the fact that he is misquoting in this instance, just that it is WP:Original Research. Ashmoo 05:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And specific to the policy:
 * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
 * Ashmoo 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the Orwell refutation is on the article at all? I think the article will definitely benefit from its removal. About the alleged schizophrenia, I see no reason to put it in the article. Otherwise, we should also mention that George W Bush is a terrorist and megalomaniac (plenty of litterature about that). This article is the most biased I've seen so far on this great resource. Lixy 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Schizophrenia is a medical pathology with serious symptoms. The diagnosis was established on several occasions by different and well-known Turkish hospitals since 1983. As far as I understood, he never challenged these medical reports and actually used them to avoid his obligatory military service and later for his criminal offences. Argonit 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Seal used on Quran"
In this article mention is made that "this seal is used on the Qur'an" and Yahya is using to indicate the same authenticity.

If people have an issue, let them take issue and work it out, but do not make things up to try and support your argument. If it is on the Quran, cite it, but I have yet to see this on any copy of the Quran - not that it would be a problem, but the implication that Harun Yahya is mimicking this imaginary feature is ridiculous.
 * I am not Muslim and hence I'm not an expert on Qu'rans but I have just seen this seal in this article: Muhammad as a diplomat (Image:Muhammadseal2.jpg) which matches the seal on the Haryun Yahya book cover on this article. --Konstable 10:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The content about seal in the article is completely false. Konstable is correct. This seal is not used on the Quran. So, Harun Yahya used it for ..... is completely false. Zahid 04:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Zahid, you can read at Harun Yahya's own website that he says that this seal is an ‘attribute of the Qur'an and the Prophet’:


 * …. This seal is an indication that the Qur'an is the last book and the last word of God, and our Prophet Muhammad (May God bless him and grant him peace) is the last of His messengers. By taking this attribute of the Qur'an and the Prophet, the writer seeks, in all of his works, to refute all the basic claims of the systems of disbelief and utter the "last word" which will put a definite end to the assertions of infidelity. ...


 * In this way, or you, or Oktar is correct in his statement about the seal. And I may be prejudiced, but I think you are correct. Jeff5102 12:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

BEST author
Harun Yahya is the best author I've ever saw. His works are full of wisdom. They help me to realize the real meaning of life. God bless him.

I don't know your identity. But, I agree with you, brother. Assalamu Alaikum, brother. Zahid 05:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Too bad some of his videos couldn't even get the supposedly "Satanic" metal band's members or name's right (mixed up Marilyn Manson with Cradle of Filth, called KISS (band) Satanists when they're Jews, etc). Oh well.12.96.46.209 13:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So Jews can't be Satanists? If KISS was not Satanists, they were at least wanna-bes.  ;^)  Yosemite1967 23:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Harun yahya is far from being an author. Now, I am sure you are asking me to prove it.

Here is the proof: Look at all his webpages, and find 1 single indication that he graduated from any type of college or university. His followers combine the info from other authors, and gather them to make it look like Harun Yahya wrote it. Any ex-follower is ready to testify it in ant court. They basiucally steal from other authors and make it look like they are his.

Insanity on Wikipedia
Adnan Oktar (or Harun Yahya) was previously sentenced and served a time in jail for using cocaine. Later on, to not serve mendatory military service in Turkey; he claimed himself to be "crazy". He was approved by Bakırköy Ruh ve Sinir Hastalıkları Hospital that he was actually insane and did not serve in the military.

He once claimed himself to be the "mehdi", (the guy that will come previously from Christ), and later on the mass sex scandals were in the media quite for a while. ( Link : http://www.vatanim.com.tr/root.vatan?exec=haberdetay&tarih=17.10.2005&Newsid=62568&Categoryid=1 ) or just make a google search on news. Use "Adnan Hoca" or "Adnan Oktar" instead of Harun Yahya. He tries this name, so once you make a google search you won't discover who he really is.

His followers were known as being extremly wealth, living extreme high quality life standards for Turkey. (Current minimum wage is 300 dollars in Turkey, back then it was about 90 dollars) His followers drives Range Rovers, Mercedeses and Ferraris. Many video tapes were caught, their followers catching new potentials by offering sex with prostitutes was always in the news in Turkey.

Currently he is backed up by Fethullah Güven; and he spends over one hundred million dollars a year to turn Turkey into an islamic regime.

Yet nothing "against" can be written about this insane human being ? (He is officially insane with an hospital report, and I'm allowed to call him this way)

Come on Wikipedia, don't be this low. You're the creation of the free mind, make some research !

He does have 7 reports from various hospitals that tells you he is mentally sick

--Nerval 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Typical narrow mindedness
I am sorry to be sound very harsh on my first post but people here do not seem to have the ability to argue. If you have something to say against Harun Yahya's articles then go publish a book. If people have tried to argue against him then he is very quick to reply.

The military terrorrist junta of Turkey had ideological reasons to degrade Harun Yahya as much as possible. Thus, they tried to label him as mentally degenerate and one who deals with cocaine. Excellent reasoning behind the people who because of their narrow mindedness pick up on it.

Well guys, please look at this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/creationist_amorality.php and the comments below as well. Blackmail and theft are Oktars main weapons, it seems. Could we do something with this? Jeff5102 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Publish a book huh? You bet ya! Book is being written as we speak.

Recent edits 2
I'd just like to give my reasons for reverting Adamrafati:


 * 1) Sourced information should never be deleted - see WP:V. You are, however, more than welcome to add alternate claims as long as your sources are reliable.
 * 2) You cannot copy & paste from other websites - see WP:C. Harunyahya.com clearly says at the bottom of the page: "Harun Yahya International © 2006. All rights reserved".

So...there you have it. &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
I've removed some very non-neutral material from this article. MidgleyDJ 07:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you, and here is more:

I am shocked to see when I came here "(wiki). I always heard incredible things about wikipedia, finally today I had time to join. I looked up a lot of thing i was interested. When I saw a criminal, mentaly sick person portrayed as leader, thinker, educated person, I WAS SHOCKED.

adnan oktar is not only criminal, he has 7 or more mentally il reports from different institutions. Look at his life story, and you will see that he absolutely has not enought education to write 250 books (like he or his followers claim).

I hope someone wipe this terrible person off of here!

What I don't understand here is: If I am from Indonesia and put some rapist/serial killer's name here and write wonderful things and lies about him, everyone who reads it believes it? Or are they suppose to believe it? That's exactly what happened about adnan oktar here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatmuslim (talk • contribs)

odd bits (need verifying, clarifying).
Morning All -

I have no particular agenda with respect to this article, I thought I should make an effort to instill some NPOV into it. I have concerns whether the article satisfys WP:BIO. In my attempts to make it NPOV I've cut these confusing pieces from the article. Think they require appropriate verification/referencing before they should be reinstated.

Confusing sections

 * During these years, Oktar did not attend to Mimar Sinan University. He enrolled to a new faculty, Istanbul University, Philosophy Department.


 * According to Oktar, Allah draws the attention of Muslims and mentions the name of the Jews, as one of the greatest enemies of believers . The conclusive result of his researches showed that the activities of Zionism in Turkey were carried out by freemasonry, a hidden group.


 * Also politicians such as Celal Adan (Member of the Parliament) and Mesut Yilmaz should have been victims of this group. Oktar's group arranged fake (photomontage) photos of Mesut Yilmaz in Freemason clothes and ceremonies, and forged a fake certificate of Freemasonary for him. This fake was taken seriously and published in several pro-Islamic newspapers (without knowing it was a fraud). The PM was seriously damaged politically as a result during the remainder of his government.


 * However, his followers call these accusations "groundless slanders, scenarios and lies

Unclear what this refers to exactly? Requires clarification.


 * Sorry, but these are all fragment, which are now placed out of context. I cannot make anything from it this way.10:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR / NPOV

 * The conclusive result of his researches showed that the activities of Zionism in Turkey were carried out by freemasonry, a hidden group.

NPOV
Potential slander, not indepedantly referenced, unverified. Removed. Unclear.


 * Edip Yuksel, his former teacher, suggested: '''He was acting like a paranoid schizophrenic in order to get medical report to dodge the draft. It was ironic, since he was indeed mentally sick; he was a delusional megalomaniac, yet he was cunningly acting for another mental illness. He was successful; he dodged the draft and since then he has been found lacking mental capability to be the subject of criminal law. So, he is getting away with sexual abuses, fraud, libel, blackmailing schemes, and other criminal activities.

Sorry, but I quote mr. Yuksel from his very own website, and I said mr. Yuksel said it; not that this is a fact. Let's see: if I research something by myself and mention it, it is 'new research' and it has to be removed. If I quote someone elses research and mention it, it is not indepedantly referenced. What more do you want? Jeff5102 10:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Verify
As a result most of the cases against these people were dismissed, with only two of them jail for one year each. Why dont these people have names? Surely this would have made the international news (at some level).


 * I just copied this from . If the Mukto Mona-site doesnot give names, I cannot give them either, could I. And as long it is not Oktar who is sentenced, their names are not that relevant. And about the international media coverage: see []:

Anti-Semitism Worldwide 1999/2000 TURKEY

...On the other hand, there is an encouraging trend toward Holocaust education and condemnation of its distortion. For example, when Adnan Oktar, aka Harun Yahya, the author of several anti-Semitic and Holocaust denial books, including Holocaust Lies, was arrested for attempting to blackmail some influential Turkish figures, Hadi Ulungin, a columnist for Hürriyet, demanded that Oktar be tried also for denigrating the Holocaust...


 * So there you have it. By the way, many thanks for editing the parts where there were no problems with the contents. Jeff5102 10:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeff, no problem. I am glad you are also pleased with my recent edits... Assuming you were actually being sarcastic you would do well to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. As someone independant to the article, I tried to edit it to improve it in good faith - not to damage the work of others. Where I've asked for citations I think they would be useful, this isnt something I did for fun - but to improve the article. Edit comments like "this is silly but if Midgely (sic) wants it" are unhelpful. Enjoy the rest of your day. MidgleyDJ 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the thanks were not meant sarcastic. I must confess was abit bad tempered at at first. at first. You did a lot of editing on a text I worked hard on. I really tried to make a text that was based on other texts, and not by own investigation.  However, I understood after a few hours you did it with the best interest, and for constructive reasons. That is why I wished to show some gratitude, and please accept my excuses if this was not clear.Jeff5102 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * also Jeff while we are here and having a frank exchange of views, I've noticed you use this "http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm" for the vast majority of the references. This doesnt seem like the best reference to be using. It's hardly an independant source of information. Your reference for international media is a Google discussion group? I'm all for providing NPOV articles - but they need to be properly referenced. MidgleyDJ 02:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, you were the one that asked citations on the spots that pointed to the Mukto Mona site. (While you also deleted a part from the Pro-Oktar-site). I can give some turkish sites with reverences, but searching at a search-engine on Oktars name and pseudonyms and the word "Blackmail" may give you enough information. Jeff5102 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is some info below. Why do you edit my page? I quit the original adnan oktar page, I dont understand this. This person is criminal, how a big institution like wikipedia promote a criminal?

How did people approve this adnan oktar page? Did they do an investigation? Did they ask around? Do they have any idea about how many family lifes shattered? Do they have any idea about how many lawsuits are still going on against him?

Who gave them right to publish this criminal as a hero and thinker? Who gave them right to make decision for this clown to be introduced to public via wikipedia? I am just curious, not mad yet..

Thank you(look below)

1980s, while he was alredy in trouble with government for radical Islam propoganda, he formed a group of young, rich, famous people. With his special mental abilities, he discovered that he can easily manipulate young brains. So, he started picking more bright, and rich people.

Because we all have right to edit, and because people or bots cancel your editings. I have to let everyone know that ADNAN OKTAR is absolutely Turkish best scam artist!!!

He has no sufficient education to write books, he has 7 "Unstable" reports from differen mental Hospitals in Turkey. I have the PROOF! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatmuslim (talk • contribs)

Please ask to MidgleyDJ how to edit this article. I have given up. A lot of my work on it was deleted because of not using "an independant source of information." Jeff5102 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This guy
'Can someone tell me who allows someone to start a description about a criminal as a good guy at Wiki?

Does that mean for example I can grab a rapist/serial killer in Finland, and make him look like a hero here? That's what adnan hoca is about! Did not anyone investigate this person before posting it on WIKI as a hero and good guy?' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.171.193 (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

"Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:
 * It is not about "being a hero" it is about Neutral Point of View, wich is a wikipedia official content policy, to quote the best part :
 * You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position."

If you would like to add the fact about Adnan Hoca criminal views/life/whatever, that's ok, but don't add "He was a bastard" or weasel word or irony like "and guess what". You take your bio, rework it a litle, add the fact cite your sources (and if you see something else that you doubt Adnan Oktar never did or is overdone. You are free to report it.

Wikipedia policy is not transforming a rapist into an hero, it is to conserve an objective and neutral point of view on the event (whatever emotional content they may have), let's his deeds speeks for themselves. And btw, one of the wikipedia policy is not to give an undue weight to a viewpoint. So if you think that the guy is too much revered in this article, we incitate you to review the fact about the guy to make the bias more even. So please read WP:NPOV. -- Esurnir 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

POV biography
Here is a contribution that definitivly violate npov. But because there may be some stuff that you could salvage from this biography I copy and pasted it here : "==Biography Original Version=="

Adnan Oktar (pen name: Harun Yahya) is claimed on his web page to be a 'world renown and respected scholar' who has devoted himself to writing about scientific and faith-related subjects such as the theory of evolution and miracles of God. He is further described by supporters as a respected 'scientist' who has publications in incredibly diverse areas of interest (actually he is not a university graduate).

The fact is that, his publications and his foundation (Science Research Foundation) have recently been banned in Turkey, and most members of his "sect" have been sent to court. This was not due to their Islamic and scientific activities, but due to crimes such as blackmail, extortion, possession of unlicensed weapons and sexual intercourse with minors.

About three years ago, upon complaints of victims and many years of suspicion, Turkish police raided residences of this group. The discoveries at the houses and testimony of the group members were shocking.

Under the mask of promoting Islam and scientific facts, the group members had been found to engage in extensive criminal activity. These crimes included blackmail, possession of unlicensed weapons and sexual intercourse with individuals under age 18.

The head of the group, Adnan Oktar (recorded by police cameras, leaked and shown on Turkish TV channels such as Kanal D, ATV, Star) confessed to blackmailing people who they regarded as an obstacle to their enterprises. These people included the reporters for the newspaper Hurriyet, Emin Colasan, and Fatih Altayli, after they questioned some of Harun Yahya's activities such as bribing the municipality of Ankara.

Also politicians such as Celal Adan (Member of the Parliament) and Mesut Yilmaz (former Prime Minister of Turkey) have been victims of this group. Oktar's group arranged fake (photomontage) photos of Mesut Yilmaz in Freemason clothes and ceremonies, and forged a fake certificate of Freemasonary for him. This fake was taken seriously and published in several pro-Islamic newspapers (without knowing it was a fraud). The PM was seriously damaged politically as a result during the remainder of his government.

Also coming forth, a fashion model named Ebru Simsek was blackmailed, and then slandered as a "prostitute" in fax messages sent to hundreds of different newspapers, TV channels, major business companies, foreign consulates, government offices etc. The reason for the slander? She refused to have sex with Adnan Oktar.

But the most shocking activities of Oktar's and his followers were not the above. In the sudden raid, 20 women and 2 other men were found at his residence. Most of the females (girls really) were under the age 18, (Oktar is his middle 40's) and they claimed that they had been having sexual intercourse with Oktar and members of his sect.

In his testimony, Oktar claimed that he had committed no crime as the intercourse was consensual, allowed under Turkish law. Further, Oktar insisted that this intercourse was also religiously permissible under Islam because he and his followers did not have a 'real sexual intercourse with these girls'.

He and his followers claimed that they had only engaged in 'anal and oral' sex. They preferred this kinds of sexual intercourse since according to Koran, he claimed, these acts are not impermissible outside of marriage. According to their interpretation 'vaginal' intercourse was 'haram' but 'anal and oral intercourse' was 'halal' when not married.

So you wonder what happened in the end?

Science Research Foundation was closed. Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya), and about 40 of his sect members were taken to the court and judged. Once there, they denied the truth of their original confessions, claiming that they were extracted under torture.

The judicial process lasted over 2 years, during which most of the complainants' retracted their claims because of threats or bribes from sect members. As a result most of the cases against these people were dismissed, with only two of them jail for 1 year each.

That said, coverage of the arrests and trials were so extensive in Turkey that the reputation (and money making opportunities) of the group were permanently destroyed. It is now taken seriously only in foreign countries where their legal troubles received little or no press coverage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esurnir (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Ok the first thing that strike me as a man who never heard of that guy before is that there is a huge lack of date in that article (both the article and that *cough* contribution), because I really lack of sources about Adnan Oktar and most of them are written in a language that I can't understand nor read ^^' could you fill some date on the event (like when was he emprisoned, the date when he published his book... for the bio, not the list, the list will be handled in due time, and most certainly shortened). I will add a to do list on the top of the article so we can work more properly. -- Esurnir 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WHY IS IT ALLOWED TO MAKE BAD PPL LOOK GOOD HERE?
WHY IS IT ALLOWED TO MAKE BAD PPL LOOK GOOD HERE?

I can't believe this! I know this guy, he is a criminal, he had many charges, how can I make it happen? How can I put the REAL stuff about this guy at front page?

I am excited, someone let me know please .....

Also, where is it written or shown who created this wiki adnan oktar page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.220.18.41 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

"Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:
 * It is not about "making people look good" it is about Neutral Point of View, wich is a wikipedia official content policy, to quote the best part :
 * You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position."

If you would like to add the fact about Adnan Hoca criminal views/life/whatever, that's ok, but don't add "He was a bastard" or weasel word or irony like "and guess what". You take your bio, rework it a litle, add the fact cite your sources (and if you see something else that you doubt Adnan Oktar never did or is overdone. You are free to report it.

Wikipedia policy is not transforming a rapist into an hero, it is to conserve an objective and neutral point of view on the event (whatever emotional content they may have), let's his deeds speeks for themselves. And btw, one of the wikipedia policy is not to give an undue weight to a viewpoint. So if you think that the guy is too much revered in this article, we incitate you to review the fact about the guy to make the bias more even. So please read WP:NPOV.

Oh btw, I'm currently (as you can see just on the previous section) working to get this unbiased. But if you got unbiased fact with source, feel free to add them (and without ironny). -- Esurnir 01:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

POV and cleanup tags removed
For now, I removed POV and cleanup tags.

Regarding the POV tag: I can't even guess, in what direction the article is considered POV: Too critical or nor critical enough. If you have NPOV concerns about this article, please state them here as specific as possible.

Regarding the cleanup tag: Requiring references, but tagging them for cleanup when they arrive, look rather silly to me. Yeah, there is room for improvement regarding the reference, but for now that doesn't seem to be the main problem here. Pjacobi 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! This ADNAN person has no University diploma, NO religious education. Proof is his own web site www.harunyahya.com. How do we change and edit things here athet are legal, ethical, and moral? There are still pending molestation, and drug charges about this person, he makes his followers memorize certain parts of KURAn that talks about "OBEYING" specifically. His followers do everything for him, including his dirty laundry, cleaning toilets, washing dishes... This person does not work, does nothing to earn money. Help me edit here so my editing will not be removed. I dont understand the rules about NPOV here, cause it is too complicated. Can someone explain it in plain language please?

Thank you kindly G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.246.70 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:NOR, WP:ATT, WP:RS. We should only be writing what the reliable, non-primary sources say, without adding any original research. Also see WP:NPOV denizTC 00:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro
I reverted the intro by Yosemite, for two reasons:

1.Yosemite claims that Oktar 'does not consider [masons] guilty of "fantastic crimes and misdeeds"'. If you follow the link, you see Oktar does not deny anything; he just claims that "Some have accused Masonry of fantastic crimes and misdeeds". 2. The antisemitism-part is deepened out later. I think we shouldn't emphsasize this too much in the intro.

Furthermore, I am curious about the cleanup-tag. Why is it there?Jeff5102 14:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

FACT: THERE ARE LAW-SUITS AGAINST THIS PERSON AS I TYPE THIS NOW. HE IS AND HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF CREATING AN ILLEGAL BLACKMAILING, BRIBING, THREATENING GROUP FOR HIS INTENTIONS. HERE IS ANOTHER FACT OF THIS. HE SPENT YEARS IN PRISON, AND ANOTHER FACT IS, HE HAS CREDIBLE 7 DOCTOR REPORTS THAT SAYS HE IS NOT MENTHALLY CAPABLE OF SERVING IN TURKISH MILITARY. SO HE SKIPPED MILITARY.

FACT: HE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RELIGIOUS OR UNIVERSITY EDUCATION. IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO GIVE FATCS IN THIS WEB SITE, NO ONE IS SUPPOSE TO ERASE THIS. ABSOLUTALY NO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, OR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. Thank you


 * If you weren't yelling so loud, someone might listen to you. ;^)

Weasel Words
The sentence, "He and his organization are also regarded as a cult and are very controversial in Turkey.", is not only a weasel statement (see ), but appeared to be supported by two false references. The first is to a non-English page which doesn't appear to mention him at all. The second doesn't even mention the word, "cult". Seeing all of the other comments on here and the apparent continual reversal of edits which actually would have brought balance to this article, I wonder--do we have some WikibullieS afoot? Let's see how long my edit lasts, shall we?

P.S. Some people on here appear to think that having a lawsuit brought against you makes you automatically guilty. Well, in America, we assume that people are innocent until they're PROVEN guilty. It's part of that weird thing that we call the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Yosemite1967 2007/08/02-07:24 (UTC)


 * Well, the first reference was from me, but is outdated at the moment. The original text can still be found here. Still, I do not know if copy-pasted texts on internet-fora are valid over here.


 * Ah, so the page was originally English but changed? Yeah, that copy-pasted version would be a little hard to take seriously, just because of all of the surrounding (and distracting) trash on the page that makes it all look like spammer heaven.  I just tried to google portions of the text, but I couldn't find a better one, though I did see that some YouTuber used it in comments on a video.  How did you find it?  Yosemite1967 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot remember how I found it; I guess I was just scrolling over the subjects in this forum. Anyway, I agree with your point: it is too hard to take it serious enough to return this to the article.Jeff5102 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Economist"-article tells us that he is "a charismatic but controversial Turkish preacher" and supports the text "He and his organization are also regarded as a cult and are very controversial in Turkey". It doesn't prove it is a cult, but it definately shows that Oktar is controversial. I do not understand why you call this a false reference.


 * Since it was attached directly to the cult statement, it looked like an attempt to validate the cult statement. I do agree that Mr. Oktar is very controversial, but so are you and I.  "Controversial" is a relatively neutral term, but with the way that it was attached to the cult statement, it inherited a negative connotation.  Perhaps if it were in a separate sentence, away from the cult statement, it could be given a feeling of neutrality.  I'm going ahead and moving the controversy part.  Let me know what you think.  Yosemite1967 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Oktar was, according to his website, arrested in 1986, 1991 and 1999. Furthermore, he had lawsuits by biologists in 1999. Some sources say (like the FLAMER above) that Oktar evade punishment by showing a report that he is paranoid. Now that is what I call "controversial".Furthermore, I will check out the cult-part.Jeff5102 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I tried to find a more fitting place to put it, but everywhere I put it, it still sounded like a negative term.  Perhaps you could try.  Yosemite1967 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will, but please continue editing the article while I am trying.Jeff5102 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, maybe it is an idea to add http://www.dailyestimate.com/article.asp?idarticle=9676 as a reference. This one covers the phrase "cult-like organisation".


 * Though that article has the word "analysis" in its title, it's far from being such. The text is clearly slanted against Oktar's organization and ideals, making it an opinion piece.  Just for that deceptive titling, I would argue against this particular reference.  If you could find another one that doesn't try to use such trickery, I would agree to attaching it to a statement about some considering his organization a cult.  Please let me know if you find another reference that is what it calls itself, whether that be "analysis" or "opinion".  I wouldn't even mind a pure opinion article, as long as it didn't try to pass itself off as non-opinion.  Yosemite1967 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See my comment above.Jeff5102 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ps: It may sound weird, but if someone is brought to court, there is no problem in saying that he is brought to court. See all-American O.J. Simpson in his article. That is called "reporting the facts", and that doesn't sound weird to me at all.Jeff5102 21:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't sound weird to me at all. I agree whole-heartedly with it being said that he was brought to court, but it seems to do NPOV violence to state such while being silent on the outcomes of the proceedings.  As far as I've been able to determine, all charges, against all members of his organization, have been dropped, despite repeated appeals by his accusers.  That makes a pretty strong case in favour of Oktar's organization, but the way that it's presented here, without "the rest of the story", makes it look like a case AGAINST oktar's organization.  I'll try to get some good references together for the outcomes of these proceedings.  Thanks for discussing this reasonably.  It's a breath of fresh air, compared with some of the others who have commented on here with obvious POV problems.  Yosemite1967 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good luck! However, there are only a few archives on the net that present us old Turkish news. I tried to investigate Oktar's arrest in 1999, and the best I could find was this. Hardly acceptable, I should say.Jeff5102 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Balanced BAV Mentions
Since these mentions of BAV in the introductory paragraph only stated what anti-Oktar folks thought of his organization, I balanced it by adding a quote and reference about what the BAV's stated goal is. Also, since this is an English article, I changed "BAV" (Turkish name) to "SRF" (English name) and added a parenthetical statement to clarify the difference. Yosemite1967 00:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted last, purely speculative edit about Oktar's funding sources
The last edit (before my revert) was a purely speculative guess that Oktar must be getting large amounts of funding from some outside source. Just because the article referenced speculates about it doesn't make it any less speculative. Yosemite1967 06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Reference to Opinion Piece
Opinion pieces are OK to establish that "so-n-so thinks or said such-n-such", but not to be passed off as a reference for factual evidence, so I just removed a reference that did exactly that. Yosemite1967 06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reference I see that is dropped is in this fragment:


 * Several years later, it was noted that Adnan Oktar has undergone a change and become more tolerant toward Jews and others; he now works toward promoting inter-religious dialogue.” With reference: http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2004/turkey.htm


 * Am I mistaken, or do you seriously mean that a report from a university-based Institute is an opinion piece? Maybe I overlooked something?Jeff5102 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not mistaken--I seriously mean that, because it IS an opinion piece.&#160; Do you think that people who write for "university-based institutes" never write opinion pieces in their publications?&#160; Even the sentence just preceding the sentence that you quoted starts out with, "His revisionist writings...".&#160; If calling someone's writings "revisionist" isn't opinion, I don't know what is.&#160; Yosemite1967 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. So you call all Red Cross-reports "opinion pieces" as well? Or do we have to delete all references to Amnesty International- or Unicef-reports? Those institutes are not even "university-based institutes"! So who can trust their people?


 * Is English not your first language?&#160; You seem to have missed my point again.&#160; I didn't say that university-based institutions ("institutes") couldn't be trusted to publish factual articles.&#160; I was wondering why you seemed to think that just because the article was published by such an institution, it was not opinionated.&#160; My point was and still is that individuals working at university-based institutions, government institutions, and pretty much every other kind of institution can and do publish opinionated articles, and when they do, those articles should NOT be passed off as fully factual reports but should be recognized for the opinion pieces that they are.&#160; I will restore my NPOV changes until you figure out how to make it NPOV yourself.&#160; Yosemite1967 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the point remains that at Amnesty International and Unicef individuals work as well. As well at Reuters, CNN, and all other organisations. Even courtrooms. What you are saying, is that EVERY source is disqualified on the basis of "being opinionated".


 * No, I'm not, and you're STILL missing the point.&#160; I'm not disqualifying the article because of who wrote it or because of what organization they work for.&#160; I'm disqualifying it because its content is clearly opinion, rather than fact.&#160; Using it to corroborate that someone holds a particular opinion would be fine, but using it to corroborate a fact is unacceptable.


 * By the way, the mentioned "article" of the Stephen Roth Institute is in fact an extract of an annual report of worldwide antisemitism. That is something else than an opinion piece by a crazy professor.Jeff5102 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said, it doesn't matter who wrote it, what organization they work for, or that they call it a "report".&#160; Though the "report" might contain some facts, it mingles them with opinion, so it's an opinion piece, just as your "crazy professor" comment is an opinion and not necessarily a fact.


 * We could go on and on for ever, but the Stephen Roth Institute-problem is now solved properly. You changed it as proposed by the third parties, so let us stick to that.Jeff5102 10:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But seriously, If you check you can see Harun Yahya writes himself that his book will be " the vanguard of historical revisionism in Turkey" .  So if repeating someone elses text is an opinion, I do not know what isn't. I will restore the text.Jeff5102 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Being that his book was probably written by a non-American, I'm sure that they don't realize the negative connotation that the terms "revisionism" and "revisionist" carry these days.&#160; Perhaps you didn't realize this either, but "revisionist" suggests someone who CHANGES history (even lies about it), to deceive the masses.&#160; Yosemite1967 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. So you consider "What is presented as Holocaust is the death of some Jews due to the tiffus plague during the war and the famine towards the end of the war caused by the defeat of the Germans." is no lie? Jeff5102 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, you consider it a lie, which demonstrates a non-neutral point of view.&#160; Writing with neutral point of view means that we don't make our writing assume that it's either a lie or the truth.&#160; We can make an assumption in our own minds (as we all do), but what we write on Wikipedia should not reveal assumption.&#160; We, instead, lay the facts out on the table in proper statistical balance and let readers make their own assumptions.&#160; If your contributions make your assumptions obvious, then you are not writing with NPOV.


 * What you are saying is that the Auschwitz article needs a great deal of editing. It doesn't mention typhus or famine as a main reason for the "death of some Jews". The Holocaust-article doesn't mention "famine" either. Do you mean we have to change that?Jeff5102 10:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. On a side note, I'm curious:  Are you Jewish?  (Of course you don't have to answer that, if you don't want to.)  Yosemite1967 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Are you?Jeff5102 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but I have nothing against them.&#160; It just seems like some of your edits defend Jewry almost to non-neutrality sometimes.&#160; I don't blame you, and I can't say that I've never done the same thing myself.&#160; I'm just making an observation.&#160; Yosemite1967 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not defending Jewry. I am just defending history.Jeff5102 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Circular and Contradictory References in "Campaign Against Evolution" Section
I just removed all of the references in the Campaign Against Evolution section, and here's why:


 * (1) One was a link to a personal user's web page at geocities.


 * (2) Another was a link to an opinion article which got its information from the same personal user's web page at geocities.&#160; (I kid you not.)


 * (3) Another was a link to yet another opinion article which was being used to establish supposed facts.


 * (4) Another was a link to the same opinion article again.

By the way, one of these articles said that the amount that the court awarded the defendants was the equivalent of $11,500; while another one said that the amount was $4,000 per defendant (six defendants = $24,000), and yet another one said that the amount was $6,000 per defendant ($36,000).&#160; What's going on here?&#160; I asked for REAL references to replace those that I deleted, so that we can find out just how accurate this whole section is in the first place.&#160; Yosemite1967 22:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ever heard of the huge Turish inflation? Anyway, I think we better can look for some experts who will look after this article. When I call a source "a thorough analysis", you call it "a opinion article". I think we can agree that we do not agree in this.Jeff5102 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Third opnion
I'm responding to the posting at 3O looking for some disinterested feedback. I am not an expert on the subject; however, I do share a general concern about the quality of references at WP and a tendency for people to represent any published information as gospel, not to mention editorials, blogs, etc.

There are certainly biases among academics and even institutional biases at major universities, foundations, and government institutions. Ferreting out the truth is not an easy task. This is not unlike any controversial topic and there is no easy solution. I see Jeff and Yosemite both making valid assertions above, but I assume that there is some level of POV inherent in each of their presentations.

What we really need is an emphasis on what is best for WP as opposed to what best supports any particular POV. A solution which is commonly used, but frequently abused is to present multiple points of view, but clearly label them as opinions. The risk is over emphasizing a particular POV and/or the article resembling a debate. --Kevin Murray 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion 3b
I think case-by-case basis might apply.

As far as the source here, I must admit that I would also resist using it to source factual claims, since unlike many university publications it seems to be itself unreferenced. (The sentence as it existed before removal in mid-September was also apparently an unintentional copyright violation, since it closed quote, but did not indicate where verbatim quoting from the source began.) I agree that it reads like an opinion piece. However, I feel it would be appropriate and consistent with WP:BLP policies to state "In 2004, the Stephen Roth Institute of Tel-Aviv University described Adnan Oktar as having increased his tolerance towards others, asserting that "he now works towards promoting inter-religious dialogue". As Kevin Murray says, labeling it as opinion eliminates concern that readers might perceive this noted change as somehow scientifically documented. The opinions of the Stephen Roth Institute seem inherently notable and worthy of mention, given its stature, as long as WP:WEIGHT is kept in mind.

With regards to the others, it's true that this is a geocities website. I would not use it, even though it purports to be faithfully replicating a newspaper article which itself would be usable. There's no way to ensure that the information has not been altered. It might be beneficial to seek the assistance here of a Turkish Wikipedian or somebody involved with WikiProject Turkey to see if a usable source can be located.

This article seems thoroughly referenced, although since it is published by the National Center for Science Education, one might suspect a POV and information culled from it must be carefully checked for it. I don't see any reason to presume from their reference to Dr. Taner Edis, a physics professor from Istanbul and the author of several books on the subject, that they used the geocities site as a source. But perhaps that's not the one you mean as "2"? Or maybe I'm missing the part that indicates that. :) Since we're talking about generalities and not specifics, I didn't read the entire article. But given that one of the authors is Turkish, it seems that he might have been able to locate sources on his own.

The piece in the weekly newspaper The Pitch has a strong and obvious bias. However, the paper does have editorial oversight (per WP:RS and so in my opinion may be used for reporting minimal facts, if not replicating conclusions. You might say "The Pitch concludes John is a jerk", but you could not say "John is a jerk" . There's absolutely nothing inappropriate, in my opinion, with saying, "According to a profile in The Pitch, this happened on this date." --Moonriddengirl 18:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Kevin asked me to pitch in. I've reviewed the four sources, and I found there is not much I can add to Moonriddengirl's excellent analysis. I would actually rate the Pitch Article slightly higher - yes, it has a clear and stated POV, but I don't think that that calls into question the facts presented. The Geocities translation, on the other thing, does not appear to be a useful source at all. --Stephan Schulz 03:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

additional opinion
I was asked by Kevin to take a look. In general I subscribe to the position that for figures who propound controversial theories that some consider objectionable, the best way to describe what the espouse is simply to cite in an appropriate way from their published works, and in default of accessible works in English, that such sources as their  official web site, or the web site of their political movement, are acceptable sources for a quote. I am not happy taking such quotes from sources operated by their opponents, especially when translation is involved. As for judgments of their work, we can quote what other people say. We can say for example, that organisations opposing antisemitism consider him anti-semitic. But if their are neutral published sources saying that, it is better to cite them, and there appear to be such sources. I don't think we can make that judgement--the reader will make his own judgments from the material presented. I am not really happy with taking facts about his life directly from such sources either--or, if controversial as appears to be the case here, from organisations favorable to him--they are best taken from public sources unless the opposing POV sources agree. The way to deal with disputed details on peripheral concerns is to eliminate them. The amounts of judgments against him in a civil suit are peripheral. That in such a suit he admitted an identity needs to be sourced either from an official report, or a neutral source. I do not regard the reports of http://www.axt.org.uk/ or similar organisations as neutral. I further do not like vague accusations in the lead paragraph. "though some consider the SRF to be a "cult", sourced or not , is inappropriate there. (and it is not sourced and the term seems used only by a hostile blogger). This does not mean I have the least conceivable sympathy with anything he says, or that I consider the reports of http://www.axt.org.uk/ and similar organisations inaccurate. But there are better sources available, and they should be the ones used. There should furthermore be some effort to update the current status of the legal cases and the WordPress affair. Is it still banned?  DGG (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

His atricles on Imam Mahdi and End Times Prophecies
AO has competition in the online world.

Farook Mohammed aka Al-Faarooq who founded the UMN Intl (United Muslim Nations International)

Look at Al-Faarooq's article ( Ark of the Covenant/ Tabut Al Sakina and Imam Mahdi Prophecy)

More logical evidence...

AO is out to gain worldly wealth, name and fame whereas FM is freely handing out for all mankind to inherit from him a wealth of wisdom and knowledge.

A blog on wordpress posts his articles only by his permission much of his works is withheld from the public. AO's move to block wordpress from Turkey is probably a strategy to keep FM's online works from reaching his local audiences.

AO will shrink in finances if FM had to write Books for publishing as his works are becoming the latest craze. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.202.5.104 (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of information from lead
I would like to know why the resident editors don't find it important to include pivotal information about the allegations against the subject of the article, his subsequent arrest and imprisonment in the lead paragraph?

For now that material is going back up in the lead.

ephix (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * His prison sentence is noted. We66er (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not charged with rape
Harun Yahya alias Adnon Oktar was not charged with rape, etc. read this article by Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSL0992091620080509?sp=true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.146.135.49 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is referring to a more recent case. We66er (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

ONLY FREE-MASONRY IS THE CAUSE OF IMMORAL LIFESTYLES, NOT JEWS...
You can read the reference number 12. A.O blames freemasonry to be a problem for Turkish Society but Jews are not included. The name of the book is Judaism and Freemasonry but the book is making a connection between them. I repeat, A.O always said that Jewish people are the people of book and we believe in the same God.

It is a mistake made on purpose to say that immoral lifestyles were indoctrinated to the society as a whole by Jews. A.O never said something like this.

READ THE REFERENCE MORE CAREFULLY, and show me the sentence that A.O is blaming the jewish people for being the cause of immoral lifestyles.

Sasha moss (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me quote the part:


 * Judaism and Freemasonry
 * By this time, Adnan Oktar's researches about Jews and Freemasonry were ready for publishing. Adnan Oktar concentrated all his efforts on this subject since in the Qur'an, Allah draws the attention of Muslims and mentions the name of the Jews, as one of the greatest enemies of believers. The conclusive result of his researches showed that the activities of Zionism in Turkey were carried out by freemasonry, a hidden group. There was a covert yet profound influence of freemasonry on state offices, universities, political groups and media.


 * Their principal mission was to gradually alienate the Turkish nation from spiritual, religious and moral values and make them like animals as stated in the verse of Distorted Torrah. To achieve this goal, materialist standpoint, the evolution theory, anti-religious and immoral way of living were indoctrinated to the society as a whole. Freemasons in the government, media and educational institutions assumed a leading role in carrying out this massive indoctrination.


 * In the way I read it, A.O. sees jews as enemies of believers. To destroy faith, the henchmen of the jews, the freemasons, destroy faith in Turkey. Take note that Oktar nowhere makes a distinction between Freemasons and jews in this fragment. Furthermore, I do not understand why Freemasons should use a "Distorted Torrah" if jews were NOT involved.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sasha says: "since in the Qur'an, Allah draws the attention of Muslims and mentions the name of the Jews, as one of the greatest enemies of believers". Is this Adnan Oktar's argument or argument of Quran? I still cannot see any proposing of Adnan Oktar to say that Jews are the reason of the immoral lifestyles in Turkey. This can be the opinion of this website also. But I have watched many interviews of Adnan Oktar and he insist on saying that Jewish people are the grandchildren of Moses and they are considered as people of the book in Quran. He even says that the Jewish people should continue living in Israel and Jerusalem because it is also a holy land for them like it is holy for Muslims. Maybe he is the only Muslim person to say such a thing in Muslim society. Jews maybe the biggest enemies of believers in the time of Prophet Mohammed and this seems very logical because their authority were being collapsed because of Islam. There was a big challange between Jewish Rabbi and Muslim believers. Jewish Rabbis tried to show Islam as a fake belief. This subject is a historical thing and I think it is not a problem of today. Turkish people and Jewish people lived in peace for centuries together.

Adnan Oktar always said that he is not against the Jewish people he always said that he is against the athesist-zionists who are actually free-masons who are using the religion to reach their secret targets. Freemasons always use the religion to alter things in the society. Can we say that freemason is not using Islam. Using it does not mean believing in it.

If I can find the English translation of the Adnan Oktar's interviews about the Jews, I will post it here for proof.

Daabbah (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not need interviews with A.O; his current views on Judaism have changed positively a lot from those of 22 years ago. I would be glad if I found a complete version of the 1986 text of "Judaism and Freemasonry" in English. So far I only found summaries, and in those summaries was stated that "Masonry is an international movement closely akin to Judaism". It is strange that Oktar sees Masonry and Judaism as movements with similar aims, EXCEPT for indoctrinating the Turkish soceity. Anyway, if you can provide me a full version of Judaism And Freemasonry in English, we discuss further. I am particularly interested in the chapters "How does Masonry serve Judaism for their goal of World Government?", "The original resources of Masonry confess the covert relationship between Judaism and Masonry" and "Sexual perversion and barbarism in the distorted Old Testament"Jeff5102 (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with that. Judaism is, by the way, the oldest known religion in the world. It has given rise to the other two dominant religions. This sort of condemnation is not right.--116.73.130.81 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of this Article?
Okay, just one look at this article and I see "bias" written all over it. But what does matter, there are tons of articles on Wikipedia that are the same. Why bother helping this lost cause that is Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.248.67 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, prolific editor. --Adoniscik(t, c) 03:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, just one look at your comment and I see "wild accusation, wholly lacking specifics or verifiable evidence" written all over it. But what does it matter, there are tons of such useless drive-by comments on Wikipedia article talkpages. Why bother to write something that might be useful to improving the article? HrafnTalkStalk 03:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What is biased or incorrect? BBiiis08 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead is euphemistic and reads like a press release okayed by Oktar. --dab (𒁳) 12:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Admonishment
no matter what opinion one may have on this man. it is obvious that there is a lot of critizism of him, his views and actions. this needs to be objectively and honestly included in the article.82.117.110.159 (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly. We try to do that following the general Wikipedia guidelines for dealing with contentious matters. __meco (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A disgrace for Islam?
I think something along the lines of "Many of Oktar's illegal actions are against the teaching of Islam, such as blackmailing, forced sex, drugs etc. Simply for the sake of clearing that up. Wikipedia has to remain neutral and informative. From the current phrasing of the article, it seems that his activities are, at the very least, not discouraged by the Islamic world. If there are no objections in the next few days, I'll add it myself. If someone else who is more experienced could add it, it would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.202.231 (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Such an opinion would need a (preferably prominent) WP:RS stating it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

images
the article currently has seven images, two book covers and five showing the author. All of these are taken from Oktar's website, with permission. Judging from the huge galleries presented in the "about the author" sections of the website, there is a considerable amount of vanity involved here, and our article is given the appearance of a Harun Yahya publication by using so many "approved", and in part heavily photoshopped, images of the subject. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely Ridiculous "profile information"
This was an absolute sham of character sketch on this man. Is wikipedia becoming an exclusive club for the anti-muslim junkies ! Who are these authors and what are their credentials. Absolute ridiculous use of the English language in providing a neutral depiction of this individual. Rest assured individuals putting this crap here only lower wikipedia's quality and reduce wikipedia authors as unprofessional loons with wiki skills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.112.184 (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Specifically, what needs fixing? Cite some errors and we'll correct them. We66er (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You can read the reference number 12. A.O blames freemasonry to be a problem for Turkish Society but Jews are not included. The name of the book is Judaism and Freemasonry but the book is making a connection between them. I repeat, A.O always said that Jewish people are the people of book and we believe in the same God.

It is a mistake made on purpose to say that immoral lifestyles were indoctrinated to the society as a whole by Jews. A.O never said something like this.

READ THE REFERENCE MORE CAREFULLY, and show me the sentence that A.O is blaming the jewish people for being the cause of immoral lifestyles. Sasha moss (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but as it was explained below, the sources clearly show you are wrong. We66er (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but Adnan Oktar is just nuts, and he really hates Jews (and most of the human race, really.) Some of his views are just damn funny, though. Just check this "Romanticism: A Weapon of Satan." ROFL. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Usage of blogs as sources
Looking through the references for this article, I can see quite a bit of content that’s cited to blogs, particularly the blogs of P.Z. Myers (Pharyngula) and Richard Dawkins. This goes against Wikipedia’s policy for articles about living people: “Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. ‘Self-published blogs’ in this context refers to personal and group blogs.”

Some of this content has been in the article for several months, and I’m kind of surprised that nobody has complained before now about it violating BLP policy. Does anybody have any objections to me removing it? --Captain Occam (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In a BLP any blog that is not the blog of the subject and is challenged or considered by any editor to be controversial can be removed under WP:SPS. If the Dawkins blog represents the view of an organization rather than being a personal blog, then this is more tricky as it may be the organization's published and notable opinion (rather than any claimed facts) that is being sourced and it could be argued to be a reliable source for that opinion. In general if the opinion is notable then it would be published or quoted in a secondary source, and consequently the blog could be replaced in order to fully meet the spirit of the guidance. In summary, I'm agreeing with removal but suggest it is copied here for comment and to help find alternative sources. Fæ (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the Dawkins blog would be considered a group blog, per the sentence that I quoted. The only types of blogs that are considered acceptable are online columns from news organizations, which are still subject to the newspaper’s editorial control, and Dawkins’ blog doesn’t seem to be an example of that.


 * There were a few places in the article where a sentence was cited to both a reliable source and one of questionable reliability, and where the reliable source was sufficient on its own. I’ve fixed all of those.  There are also several parts of the article that are badly sourced and where there isn’t anything immediately apparent for the current sources to be replaced with, though.  Here are the examples of this that I’ve found:


 * "In the early 1980s, he gathered young students around him to share his views of Islam. According to his former mentor, Edip Yüksel, Oktar was attempting to '[mix] mysticism with scientific rhetoric'."


 * "Following the publication of Judaism and Freemasonry in 1986, Adnan Oktar was arrested and imprisoned for 19 months."


 * "Oktar propagates a number of anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic conspiracy theories, beginning with his 1986 Yahudilik ve Masonluk (Judaism and Freemasonry), following the publication of which he was arrested and imprisoned."


 * All three of these passages are cited to this page, which appears to have been self-published. The page also states, “The following article is mostly a personal attack.”  I suspect that this source isn’t sufficient for a BLP article.


 * "This book claims that 'what is presented as Holocaust is the death of some Jews due to the typhus plague during the war and the famine towards the end of the war caused by the defeat of the Germans.'"


 * This is cited to a page at Fortunecity, which means it’s self-published.


 * "Biologist PZ Myers responded: 'The US government should immediately send a plane to pick up Mr Oktar, bring him to our country, and take him on a guided tour of the Smithsonian and the American Museum of Natural History, accompanied by Niles Eldredge, Kevin Padian, Jerry Coyne, Sean Carroll, and the entire scientific staff of those museums. Afterwards, they can accept the check from Mr Oktar, run down to the local bank and cash it, and use one trillion dollars to resolve the current financial crisis, seven trillion can be sunk immediately into the American educational system, and they can send the change left over to me as a reward for coming up with this brilliant plan.' Oktar's offer is similar to creationist Kent Hovind's $250,000 offer, which has been dismissed by creationists and scientists as a misleading gimmick where those who applied for the challenge have questioned his sincerity about paying and understanding of evolution."


 * This whole paragraph is badly sourced. Part of it is cited to P.Z. Myers’ blog Pharyngula, which is self-published, part of it is cited to “No Answers in Genesis”, which is also self-published, and part of it is cited to Drdino.com, which is not a reliable source by any standard.


 * "Larry Arnhart has pointed out that Oktar is not only a critic of evolution, but is critical of intelligent design, which he has called Michael Behe's work 'a product of a Masonic conspiracy for promoting atheism and Deism.'"


 * The Larry Arnhart article being cited is at blogspot, meaning it’s obviously a blog.


 * "Most of his anti-evolution resources are identical to Christian creationist arguments."


 * This is cited to this page at Tabsir.net, which appears to be a blog post.


 * "Biologist PZ Myers wrote: 'The general pattern of the book is repetitious and predictable: the book shows a picture of a fossil and a photo of a living animal, and declares that they haven't changed a bit, therefore evolution is false. Over and over. It gets old fast, and it's usually wrong (they have changed!) and the photography, while lovely, is entirely stolen.'"


 * This is cited to P. Z. Myers’ blog Pharyngula again.


 * "Richard Dawkins reviewed the book (later translated into Turkish) noting that it contains a number of factual errors, such as the misidentification of a sea snake as an eel (two very different species) and in two places uses images of fishing-lures copied from the internet instead of actual species. A number of other modern species are mislabelled. However, Oktar himself claims that Nicolas Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair were influenced by his book."


 * This parargraph is cited to Richard Dawkins’ blog, a blog entry at Wordpress.com and this article in the Arab Daily News. I suppose Arab Daily News might be a reliable source, but it doesn’t support most of what’s stated in this paragraph.


 * "Oktar increased his pleas to block websites throughout 2008. On April 10, 2008, Google Groups was blocked in Turkey following a libel complaint by Adnan Oktar."


 * This is cited to this page, which is a dead link.


 * "In response, Dawkins posted a Turkish translation of his 'Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya' article ('Zehirli Yilanlar, Kaygan Yilanbaliklari ve Harun Yahya') on his website."


 * This is cited to Richard Dawkins’ blog again.


 * I don’t know all that much about the subject of this article, so I don’t know whether reliable sources exist for some of these claims. But the bad sourcing on this article has bothered me for a long time, so one way or another it’ll need to be fixed.  What I’d recommend is that other people who are more familiar than I am with Adnan Oktar find reliable sources for as many of these statements in the article as possible, and replace the existing citations with those.  And if there are any of these statements for which no reliable source can be found, they’ll need to be removed. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be a problem. Mr. Oktar has a special talent in removing internet pages with unfavourable information about him. Thus, one has to dig deep in the internet to find some information about him.
 * But on the other hand, I wonder what the problem is. PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Larry Arnhart and Edip Yüksel have comments on Adnan Oktar's books and career. These are not presented as facts in the article. Just as comments by PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Larry Arnhart and Edip Yüksel. If this is a problem, I wonder what we should think of the inclusion of Roger Ebert's view on particular movies in the aticle of those movies. And in the other hand, if articles are placed in a blog-format, does this aumatically dicredit them from being a valid source?


 * And I have no clue what the problem is with the page at Fortunecity. Because a) this was a page that was made mr. Oktar's people, and b) a quick look shows that fortunecity-pages were about 1200 times used as a source for a wikipedia-article. What would be the problem in this specific case?


 * Nevertheless, we should look for replacements for the dead links.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In this specific case, the problem with citing blogs and pages at Fortunecity is that it’s an article about a living person. Wikipedia’s policy about what sources are acceptable in articles about living people is different from what it is for most articles.


 * I recommend that you read the linked page (BLP policy), and see whether you still disagree that citing blogs and pages at Fortunecity is still a problem here. If you do, we can ask about this at the  BLP noticeboard. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Concerning the blogs: I am discussing this at the BLP-talk-page at the moment. The Fortunecity-page is a completely other thing. As the guidelines say: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if it is not unduly self-serving. In this case, the link to Oktar/Yahya's old Fortune-city-page is only here to illustrate his previous views concerning the Holocaust. See also this old page, which is identical to the Fortunecity-page. By the way, please take a look at the dates on the site. It clearly is an old webpage from the old days, when serious institutions were usinggeocities- and Fortunecty-pages.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The appropriate place to bring up questions like this is the BLP noticeboard. If you have questions about this, you should probably post them there.


 * If you don’t, I’ll probably bring it up there myself, but I’ll give you the chance to be the one who introduces this topic there in case you prefer that. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. The BLP noticeboard is for individual cases. Like I wrote elsewhere, Myers's blog is used as a source in the articles of Cheri Yecke, Jonathan Wells, Richard Dawkins, Caroline Crocker Guillermo Gonzalez, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Kary Mullis, Michael Egnor, John G. West, Casey Luskin, Randy Olson, Richard Cohen, Carl Baugh, Christine Comer, Antony Flew, Ray Kurzweil, Stephen C. Meyer, Monica Crowley, Rom Houben, Hugh Ross, Jonathan Sarfati and Lonnie Latham.


 * By the way, Dawkins's site is used as source in the articles of Ray Comfort, Pat Condell, Mark Ravenhill, John Lennox, Matt Dillahunty, PZ Myers, Dinesh D'Souza,Ben Stein, Nicholas Humphrey, Jonathon Keats, William A. Dembski, Bill Maher, Todd Thomsen, Andrew McIntosh and many others.


 * Thus, we have a fundamental problem here, which goes beyond this Adnan Oktar-article alone. And that is why I believe that the BLP noticeboard wouldnot apply here.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, in response to your inquiry on the BLP policy talk page, the only answer you’ve received is that blogs (even blogs from experts) aren’t adequate as sources for BLP articles, and that the article ought to be reworked in order to remove these sources. If the other BLP articles that you’ve linked to also use blogs as sources, then those probably ought to be reworked also.  It’s now been around four days since you asked about this, so this is probably the only answer you’re going to receive about it.


 * Is that satisfactory as an answer to you? If not, I’m still willing to ask about this at the BLP noticeTalk:Caroline_Crocker#Scienceblogs_and_PZ_Myers.27_criticism board, but otherwise the article needs to be reworked. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been off-line for a few days. I am not ready yet with the discussion on the BLP-page. As far as I could read the article, the key sentence is that "it would be irresponsible of us to use the writings of just one person without editorial oversight to source facts on a living person." And, apart from Edip Yüksel's memoires, the blogs in this article are used for comments/reviews/responses instead of facts. In this way, it means that the discussion is not over yet. But please edit the article in the way you like. I will not have time to look at itr until Friday, so please make yourself useful. Also, please find a source for the statement that Oktar has something against "Rosicrucians." Till today I had not paid attention to that sentence, and it is horribly unsourced. Good luck, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * O, and before I forget it: hereby the new link to the archives of the Turkish Daily News. I hope the archive is useful for you.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that I've contested the view of Scienceblogs.com blogs as self-published over at Talk:Caroline_Crocker. It's not clear to me why we would consider scienceblogs, which is run by the business Seed Media Group and specifically selects experts in their fields to blog on science, self-published and somehow less reliable than some blog hosted by Time or something. II  | (t - c) 04:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Locking This Page
Its better that this article should be locked so that changes made in the future are only made by authorized persons. Mudslinging and accusations (such as sexual harrasments,...etc) can be avoided Best of all the quality of this article shall improve

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid bin waleed (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Information Outdated and has now been proven factually incorrect
i would like to know why this page hasn't been corrected in light of the clear evidence provided against the accusation found here which are nothing more than gossip and tabloid statements.

on the site http://www.replytowikipedia.com/#1 each one of these issues has been addressed and the moderators should at least consider which information to allow on Wikipedia and not simply be arbitrary and say any one can say anything as long as it is within our guidelines, i.e. irrespective of whether it has a basis in reality or later found to be false.

wikki states

"Amidst ambiguous circumstances, all charges were dropped by that court, only to be picked up by another court eight years later. In 2008 Oktar was convicted of creating an illegal organization for personal gain, and he and 17 other members of his organization were sentenced to three years in prison.[46][54][54][56] though a BAV spokeswoman claimed that the judge was pressured by special-interest groups.[54] Oktar also denies the charges and is appealing the verdict.[57][58]"

the reply found on the site,

The Groundless Nature of the Allegations of a "Supposed Criminal Enterprise" Made against Adnan Oktar:

The Wikipedia web site also carried various false statements about the court ruling and guilty verdict issued against Adnan Oktar and a number of members of the BAV (SRF [Science Research Foundation]) circle, but an important fact was totally ignored: The guilty verdict handed down by the court was OVERTURNED by the Supreme Court of Appeals on 28.12.2009 because of the legal errors it contained.

The guilty verdict and 3-year sentence handed down in 2008 to Adnan Oktar and various members of the BAV community was actually appealed to by the prosecutor, on the grounds of totally improper practice and statements taken and signed at the Security Directorate under duress and in the absence of a lawyer, and which were therefore legally inadmissible. The prosecutor also stated there had been various errors of law and practice committed. He TWICE REQUESTED ACQUITTAL during the court proceedings on the grounds that THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS AND OF THE PROCEDURAL ERRORS COMMITTED BY THE COURT. He also APPEALED AGAINST THE SENTENCE following the ruling. We have complete respect for the court, but this state of affairs showed that the ruling should again be considered by the judicial authorities. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Appeals took this up straight away and OVERTURNED the ruling, citing 5 separate legal violations. (You can find detailed information on the subject here, here and here.)

well clearly we have moved pass the year 2008 so this site should also correct the information.

wikki states "According to the indictment, one of the women had to perform oral sex with 16 men, which was recorded with hidden cameras and the tapes were given to Oktar.[55] The women who want to leave the group are threatened that the tapes will be made public.[55]"

the site reports, "Ebru Simsek is the Only Person to Slander with Sexual Allegations, but All Her Claims Were Nullified with the Acquittal Rulings Issued by the Courts" and then goes on to provide the rulings and evidence. should a tabloid report hold up against a court ruling simply because one was written online and is within wikki policy or should we now consider the eventuality of these claims and report thier eventuality instead of just leaving people in suspense and guessing the reality. remember her evidence wasn't upheld in a court of law and so this isn't simply rhetoric.

the list of false accusations and reports goes on, the cocaine claim to which scotland yard itself refuted, "Mr. Oktar was kept in the Security Headquarters for 72 hours before the analysis was performed. Scientifically, however, it can be calculated how much cocaine a man has taken and how many hours before by measuring the cocaine by-product in his blood. In Mr. Oktar's blood, that level was so high that had he taken that much cocaine 72 hours before, it would have killed him. This showed that the cocaine had entered his body while he was in detention. In other words, it was given Mr. Oktar by being mixed with his food while he was in detention.

This was confirmed by some 30 international forensic medicine institutions, including Scotland Yard. To the file sent to them for examination, all gave a common response: The cocaine had been administered while Mr. Adnan Oktar was in detention by being mixed with his food.

Subsequently, the Turkish Forensic Medicine Institution CONFIRMED that the incident was a conspiracy, THAT THE COCAINE HAD BEEN ADMINISTERED DURING THE DETENTION PERIOD BY BEING MIXED WITH HIS FOOD, and Mr. Oktar was cleared by the court and released."

the site goes through each one of these claims and refutes them, the least wikki can do is report on the refutation in each section of this page with the evidence provided. since when is tabloid journalism on par with a court ruling. also "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." this article is entirely in violation of this and is contentious in nature you only have to read the opening paragraph which focus's on controversy rather than being neutral in nature.

Ibn kathir (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC) minor edits.

Science?
I read a few of his books and he seems quite knowledgeable in scientific concepts (ie. physics, cell biology). Where did he obtain such education? I couldn't find it any where in the article and I believe this should be stated. 119.224.48.92 (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe nobody actually has been able to verify the answer? If you find the information somewhere, please let us know (along with a citation for where you found it) so that the article can be updated and everyone can learn. DMacks (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

people may also like to comment on some of his influences, such a said nursi, or the reasons for his dislike of freemasonry who are a part of Turkish history and many blame for the downfall of the Ottoman Turkish empire. see http://www.jstor.org/pss/4283298 and the abstract to this journal and their connection to the young turks who where a part of that history.

more importantly he is known for his books and documentaries on science throughout the world especially among Muslims not his stance on evolution or freemasonry. if you take a look at his website http://www.harunyahya.com/ you will see most videos their deal with matters of science, his interfaith website is also interesting http://www.unionoffaiths.com/.

Ibn kathir (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm, this is the same guy who accidentally published a (plagiarised) photo of a fishing lure among his pictures of insects, in one of his glossy (and scientifically vapid) books? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB
Might I ask why the first three [& 3/4] paragraphs of the biography section ( nearly [over] half that section) is cited to Oktar's own website? Not only does this violate WP:SELFPUB #1: "unduly self-serving" on a number of occasions (e.g. "During this period, his devotion to Islamic moral values grew strong." "He studied the great Islamic scholars" "From an early age he took upon himself to speak about Islam’s moral values and knowledge."), but also #5: "based primarily on such sources". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and proposal for rollback
The article has recently been radically changed and become one-sided and non-neutral (see diff). Criticism has been removed and the legal issues have been represented solely from Oktar's point of view with no context for what the complaints against him were in a number of the legal cases. Alternative or critical viewpoints have been ignored or appear to be deliberately removed from the article. Single purpose accounts with likely conflict of interest include and.

To correct these blatant non-neutral edits I propose the article is rolled back to the version before Geoffry Thomas started his/her re-write. Alternative suggestions, comments or clarifications from these contributing accounts as to why their contributions may not be a conflict of interest or non-neutral are welcome. This matter has also been flagged at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Fæ (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just come in but, based on what I've seen to date, I'd be agreeable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I've also flagged this at WP:FTN. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems sensible to roll back the entry, but please take care to look at the various claims made in the entry that are critical of the subject after doing so. We need to make sure the self-serving fluff goes away of course, but there is a tendency when someone promotes unpopular or fringey ideas not to take as much care with their entry per WP:BLP standards.  I think the best way to defend against POV pushing of the kind identified here is to make the entry as neutral as possible.Griswaldo (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely in agreement, the version I suggest rolling back to above I would not advocate and requires some hearty trimming of weaker material before being allowed to regrow in a balanced way, supported by quality reliable sources. Fæ (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * After a second look, I suggest rolling back to 7 November 2010 which is the version before the single edit account (presumably a parody name) made sweeping changes and then a series of other SPA accounts continued driving the article in the same direction. Unless there are some realistic alternative suggestions, I shall rollback slightly later today as there seems enough support from experienced independent editors without needing a lengthy discussion. Fæ (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. The current form is terrible, better off going back before it became this bad and then continuing to improve from that basis. DMacks (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputing rollback, current version violates Biographies_of_living_persons

 * I was recently ask a friend of mine to look at the Adnan Oktar page. In addition I was shown the "Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan" which ranked this person as 45th of the most influence Muslims in the world.  The Adnan Oktar page clearly seemed to violate Biographies_of_living_persons in the following respects:
 * It was not written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy
 * It was written like a tabloid
 * It was not written in encyclopedic fashion rather lists of court cases and negative information without context or connecting prose
 * The legal issues were quoted twice, repeating information in both the Biography and also the Legal sections
 * Most of the sources are openly hostile to the subjectt. The first line of one source, quoted several times, explicitly says "The following article is mostly a personal attack."
 * So I began slowly, over the course of two weeks to add additional information:
 * The fact that the latest court case was appealed and overturned
 * The "Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan"
 * A couple of book covers to illustrate the style of the subject
 * I DID NOT DELETE NEGATIVE information
 * Instead I added a quote from the subject's websites where he claims the court cases are harassment. I assume this is allowed in WP:SELFPUB because I am quoting the subject point of view and clearly labeling it as such.
 * Lastly, I added some highly toned down information from their website to the biographical section. WP:SELFPUB specifically allows adding context from self published websites that is not unduly self serving.  There is no reason to doubt the information I added because it is even confirmed by highly negative article
 * Then before I can turn around, the page is reverted, I am labeled as "Conflict of Interest"
 * I challenge the "Conflict of Interest", but I do not know where.
 * PLEASE I REQUEST ARBITRATION IN HANDLING THIS PAGE AS IT TOUCHES ON THE BIOGRAPHY OF A LIVING PERSON --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not the right person to help you (having started the above discussion resulting in a rollback) however I would like to point you to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard which would be a good location to find someone uninvolved to advise you and secondly to point out that editing on behalf of a friend is specifically covered by the WP:COI guidelines. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am NOT editing on behalf of a friend. I was drawn attention the the page by a friend.  ALL the text, ideas and thoughts are my own, in an attempt to improve the enyclopedic quality of the article.  It is not possible to read the current article without getting a thoroughly negative impression of the subject.
 * Again, I wish to dispute your claim of conflict of interest. You have brought incorrect information.  CONTRARY TO YOUR CLAIMS. I do not knows any of the other authors.  I have not deleted any references from the original text.  Were do I dispute YOUR claim of conflict of interest? I wish to dispute your behavior in handling this page. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish to complain about me, you are free to follow any of the processes described at Dispute resolution and if you need help choosing one, I suggest you ask at Help desk. Fæ (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not know these procedures, I have requested assistance from a system administrator. I will wait for their advice. I think it is very unprofessional that a case was open and closed without giving me ANY CHANCE TO REPLY. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
I am waiting for advice on how to rectify the situation. The version that I made over the course of two weeks was not disputed at the time. I only added information, I did NOT delete references in the text. This role back was decided in a most unprofessional manner, without soliciting any explanation or feedback from the author of the changes. However, assuming for the moment that the editors here acted in good faith,

I propose posting each section from the pre-rolled back version here on the talk page, and if there is no objection, moving it to the main page. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please indicate your agreement by signing below:


 * I agree --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, that sounds like a good idea, but go slow if possible. I'd recommend giving the other editors at least 24 hours for each section.  And if possible explain what --- if anything --- each of your new sections would eliminate in the present article.  You might find strikethrough ( like this ) and bold (like this ) to be useful ways of showing what edits you're proposing, but of course that's totally up to you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this in principle, though I would suggest extreme caution about allowing any WP:SELFPUB information in, as (i) Adnan Oktar's views are decidedly scientifically WP:FRINGE, making WP:DUE weight a strong concern, (ii) much of what was originally introduced was "unduly self-serving", (iii) Oktar does not have a reputation for fact-checking (e.g. the fishing lure incident). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPN
There is an ongoing discussion about this article at the BLP Noticeboard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text
Adnan Oktar (born Ankara, February 2, 1956), also known by his pen name, Harun Yahya, is a Turkish proponent of Islamic creationism,, in particular, he supports Old Earth creationism.

He has organized hundreds of conferences on creationism in Turkey and worldwide. His organization has a large publishing enterprise. His publications are sold though Islamic bookstore worldwide. He is considered "one of the most widely distributed authors in the Muslim world". His television show is viewed by many in the Arab world. In 2007 he sent out thousands of unsolicited texts advocating Islam and creationism to schools and colleges in several European countries and the USA.

In 2010, Adnan Oktar was selected as one of the top fifty of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan. In that source he is called "The world’s foremost authority on Creationism and Islam, has a huge fan base of more than 1.6 million people". His influence categorized as "Scholarly, Scientific". In addition to creationism, he "also garners influence from his numerous and extensively distributed publications about Islam, and Islamic children’s books. He is vocal about his stance against concepts such as Darwinism and materialism and is outspoken on the necessity to implement these ideas in the West."

Oktar runs two organizations: Bilim Araştırma Vakfı ("Science Research Foundation", BAV, established 1990), which promotes creationism and  Milli Değerleri Koruma Vakfı ("Foundation to Protect National Values", established 1995), which focuses on "moral issues". Oktar is also known to make use of numerous ghostwriters to produce widely distributed works in multiple languages.

In the last two decades, Oktar has been involved in a number of legal battles, both defending himself against accusations of criminal activity, and well as his reputation through litigation. Libel suites, upheld by the courts, in some cases resulted in the blocking of several high-profile Websites in Turkey.
 * References

Changes and reasons for change
Please discuss each item, under its description, or add new item:
 * The "Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan" report is brought as a significant and important description of the subject. It is important for WP:Notability.  It is also the ONLY source quoted in this wikipage which claims to have an impartial biography (two pages) of the subject.
 * I added the words "He holds lectures on creationism worldwide, and has created a library of literature on the subject in multiple languages. He has nightly broadcasts on Turkish television and radio, and has set up dozens of internet websites." because I know of no reason to doubt these statements - they are readily verified - and they provides a little bit of context for why the "Strategic Studies" report says the subject is influential and popular.
 * The words "also known ..[as] a Turkish proponent of anti-Zionism,[1], Pan-Islamism" has been changed. 1) these words are inserted between "proponent of Islamic creationism" and "more particularly, supports Old Earth creationism." 2) the references provided do not mention anti-Zionism and Pan-Islamism.  3) while the subject may indeed be anti-Zionist, Pan-Islamism, and anti-Buddist (there are sections later on for each of these subjects) I claim that he is not known or notable for these subjects.  4) these terms are not used  anywhere in the "Strategic Studies" biography.  I recommend dealing with them - as they are - later on in the wikipage and not "labeling" the subject with them at the beginning.  This is to follow wikipedia policy of WP:BLP to write conservatively and not sensationally, avoiding buzz words without context.
 * The words "After publication of his book, Judaism and Freemasonry, in 1986 he spent 19 months in jail for promoting a theocratic revolution, despite not being formally charged.[6] In 2008, he was convicted of creating an illegal organization for personal gain, and he and 17 other members of his organisation were sentenced to three years in prison." has been replaced with "Over the last twenty years Oktar has had several legal issues with Turkish authorities." to point to a later section on this topic. It is not encyclopedic to repeat legal issues in three places in the wikipage 1) Introduction, 2) Biography, 3) Legal Issues section. This IS discussed in length in the legal issues section
 * I added "blocking internet websites", which I propose IS notable, and a candidate for a summary line in the introduction, pointing to a later section.

Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre
Is the RISSCoJ a WP:RS? Its website is only thinly cited on Wikipedia, and almost completely uncited cited on Google News, Google Books & Google Scholar. I would suspect that many editors on this article are coming from a creationism/evolutionary biology background, so may need some hand-holding on Islamic sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at its website . The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre is an independent research entity affiliated with the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought. It is headquartered in Amman, the capital of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The members include a distinguished list of Professors and Politicians . The 2009 version of the report was done in conjunction with The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service Georgetown University cmcu.georgetown.edu. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The report itself is mentioned a quarter of a million times on Google, including all the major newspapers New York Times, etc as well as BBC, CNN, Fox, etc. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, the chief editors (Joseph E.B. Lumbard & Aref Ali Nayed) check out, so it's reliable -- should have their names listed in the citation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you make the change in the proposed text above, I don't know what you mean. Also, if you had left out the words "of Jordan" you would have had many more citations on Google News, Google Books & Google Scholar --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the lead, every sentence is sourced by different sources. THe exeption however, is the paragraph that is completely referenced by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre, which reads more as an expanded jury-report than as an encyclopedic article. And a sentence in that paragraph like "He is vocal about his stance against concepts such as Darwinism and materialism" is hardly used outside the creationist hemisphere. Thus I have my doubts if that report is REALLY an "impartial biography." I should only put the first sentence in of that paragraph in the lead.
 * On the other hand, Adnan Oktar IS known for his anti-zionism and antisemitism. Please see the "Conspiracy theories"-section and its links in the article. See also the news article and Oktar's own book on an old website of him. (See in that book particularly chapter 2-C concerning Schindler's List: "Why did Spielberg not include a gas chamber scene in his movie?.. This can have one and only one answer. Spielberg was aware of the strokes the gas chamber lies recently received and did not want to ruin his film with such an ambiguous allegation." )
 * Furthermore, there is no trace in the lead that indicates that the most sources have a negative judgement of Oktar and his group. His book is "nonsense" (ref 3), the BAV is "a shadowy group" (ref 4), "a radical fundamentalist foundation" (ref 5) or "a powerful cult" (ref 7&12). Meanwhile Oktar himself is described as "blatantly anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, and anti-Freemasonry." (ref 6). Thus, it is strange that the lead just portrays him as a religious leader with a huge media-reach. It just doesn't do justice to him.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the references "the BAV is "a shadowy group" (ref 4), "a radical fundamentalist foundation" (ref 5) or "a powerful cult" (ref 7&12)." they probably should be included. In my proposed version (that was rolled back), I did include all those quotes.  I hope that today we can approve a slightly modified structure, then go on to court cases, then biography, and then BAV and Family Values group. I am with you on including those quotes. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"He holds lectures ... dozens of internet websites" - provide verification

 * "He holds lectures ... dozens of internet websites." -- "because I know of no reason to doubt these statements" is not sufficient for inclusion (particularly in a controversial WP:BLP). If "they are readily verified", then please provide verification. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to doubt this? Does anyone deny it?  There is his own archive of broadcasts  which you can check yourself each evening, his own list of websites  which could be clicked on one by one to verify they are produced by Harun Yahya. As far as lectures, a quick google search gives 10,000 hits . I do not know where to find a single source for this claim, maybe you have an idea?  It is my opinion that this information is important and useful to understanding the subject discussed. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it requires a secondary source citation. If the information is "important", then it's also important that this information is verifiable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the claims sound like WP:OR on your part. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:Verifiability "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS ACTUALLY BE ATTRIBUTED. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question". I claim that this material is not likely to be challenged. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I contest your assertion that EVERYTHING on a WP:BLP must be sourced. According to WP:BLP quoting WP:V this is not the case.  Should we do a WP:RFC? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone challenges it and requests a source, then it can be removed unless a reliable source is provided. That is what Hrafn has done -- challenged it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats not what he said. He did not challenge it.  He said that it was a requirement that every single statements in a WP:BLP must have a source.  I expressed my opinion that I did not believe that this was the case, and would lead to an unwieldy article. IMHO It is not wikipedia policy to reject outright unsourced or WP:SELFPUB statements simply because they are unsourced or WP:SELFPUB, am I not correct? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, I could write
 * "His organization is one of the Muslim world’s biggest publishing outfits with over 65 million of his books in circulation worldwide. With more than 260 books in 52 languages, over 80 DVDs and dozens of websites, his glossy books and DVDs on religion and science sell in Islamic bookshops around the globe. He gives away thousands of expensive volumes and lets readers download much of his work from his websites. His television show is viewed by millions in the Arab world.

Instead I wrote, a more neutral
 * He holds lectures on creationism worldwide, and has created a library of literature on the subject in multiple languages. He has nightly broadcasts on Turkish television and radio, and has set up dozens of internet websites.

Because, for the sake of improving the quality of the article, I think their own website WP:SELFPUB actually provides more reliable information than these news clippings. Alternatively, it could be left unsourced. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Four points: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) When a BLP gets as controversial and disputed as this has, "Every single statement in WP:BLP must sourced" is not a bad rule of thumb.
 * 2) Based upon your statements to date, I think I have a valid concern that the material in question may be OR.
 * 3) If sourcing it "lead[s] to an unwieldy article", then I would suggest that this proves (i) that the material is WP:SYNTH, and (ii) that your original claim that "they are readily verified" is disproven.
 * 4) WP:SELFPUB explicitly places severe restrictions on the use of self-published (or otherwise questionably-sourced) material.
 * As I sent a RFC below, I think it gets ridiculous if you call counting a list of links as WP:OR. In any event, do you think the alternate version above is better?  It is fully sourced, and in my opinion less accurate (but that is WP:OR). If you prefer I will insert the alternate version which is fully sourced. You do understand that I am TRYING TO TONE DOWN the text to be more neutral. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "When a BLP gets as controversial and disputed as this has". I think this is a critical point, no-one has disputed that the subject has many websites. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Similar discussions in BLP articles occur around "obvious" statements like "he is a famous actor" or "he is a controversial writer". In this case if many websites are listed the reader can draw their own conclusion unless it is an analytical statement made in multiple reliable sources. The basic principle is that any challenged statement needs to be sourced, see WP:Five pillars#2 and WP:BURDEN. The highest quality articles about living people we have on Wikipedia are listed at WP:Featured articles and if you take any random sample (I strongly recommend it) you can see almost every fact stated about them has an associated citation. By the way, you may wish to avoid writing statements in upper-case, try italics if you must emphasis a point, see WP:SHOUT. Fæ (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I accept your points. Please comment on new proposed text below. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as the proposed alternative goes: (i) WND is a grossly unreliable source. (ii) "biggest publishing outfits" is very informal. "largest publishing enterprises" would be better. (iii) Paraphrase don't quote: "his publications are sold worldwide though Islamic bookstores" would be better. I also think we should be able to find something better than just calling them simply 'giveaways' -- when they are in fact completely "unsolicited".. (iv) I would also suggest that this belongs in the article body, not in the lead (which should summarise with a brief mention of a "diverse media enterprise" or similar). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As with the point made above, it may be better so revise a lead once the article body is revised. The proposed lead text includes problematic non-specific statements such as "glossy", "one of the Muslim world's biggest", "more than", "viewed by millions", "hundreds of" and "almost every". The guideline WP:WORDS quite helpfully explains why this is without a doubt one of Wikipedia's most unfortunate issues. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Points noted, placing new version in text at top of section

I am getting rather sick of continually having to add all the time in order to see the references. Could we please have a single references section at the bottom of this talkpage? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A better solution is to use the "group" parameter in tags and reflist templates so that each proposed text has it's own mini specific reflist. Having a generic reflist will be rapidly confusing and variations of citations are going to be repeated in each proposed text, plus it is more awkward to read a proposed paragraph and jump back and forth to another location for the references. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am new at this. I am doing the best I can. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No Fæ, the KISS principle is the better approach. Currently, I can't see most of the references. And to be blunt, I refuse to comment on text whose referencing I can't see. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your point, we may be a cross-purposes. If something like is listing the all the references immediately below the proposed text that contains them, why would you be unable to see them? In terms of KISS, having a specific short list of footnoted citations to look at is simpler than having to ferret through a ever increasing list where citations are duplicated. Other controversial articles I have helped with used this system effectively. The only dis-benefit is having to remove the group parameters when pasting back into the article. Fæ (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it relies on getting the right "group=" parameter into all of the tags. If material is transferred from one group to another, it has to be rewritten. This is not keeping things simple. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I rather take WikEd for granted now it's a standard gadget in user preferences, this means that changing group names in ref tags en-mass is a simple one-off search and replace job, not even requiring an understanding of how to use RegEx. Fæ (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you want proposed text to be noticed, and particularly if its just a small snippet, then put it in a quotation-box. Otherwise there's a reasonable chance that it'll be overlooked. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry again. I asked for help with these discussions. I really don't know how to do all this. I am doing the best I can. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have done my best to combine all your suggestions into a single text. This is placed at the top of the section.--Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Last lines of intro
On what I can see, I'd recommend moving "Oktar runs two organizations..." into the article body (the details of the organisations' names doesn't really need to be in a summary, and the lede already mentions his organisations). I'm also not exactly thrill by the wording of the final sentence ("Over the last twenty years Oktar..."), which seems a bit clumsy. Yes, we need to mention his legal battles (both offensive and defensive), but I think we should be able to do this more concisely. Maybe: "In the last two decades, Oktar has been involved in a number of legal battles, both defending himself against accusations of criminal activity, and successfully having a number of major websites blocked in Turkey as slandering him." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This was in the original intro, so I kept it. In my revision (what I wanted to discuss tomorrow) I changed the ordering slightly and recommended a complete section for each of BAV and FPVN, since they have significant information written about them, their own websites, hierarchy, goals, and publications.  So lets keep it for now. The language change I made above. ---Geoffry Thomas (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, recommendations have again been folded in. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

With the changes made today, the lead reads as if the outcome of legal cases has always been in his favour. The only legal outcomes mentioned in the lead are cases he has won for libel. This appears to me to fail the WP:UNDUE policy and fails to fairly summarize the article body. Fæ (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fae, please name a case that he has lost, or has not been overturned by appeal. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN applies, so far there is no source to show that this case has been won on appeal and so the guilty verdict stands. Fæ (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And do not forget this: "But beginning in 1998, BAV spearheaded an effort to attack Turkish academics who taught Darwinian theory. Professors there say they were harassed and threatened, and some of them were slandered in fliers that labeled them "Maoists" for teaching evolution. In 1999, six of the professors won a civil court case against BAV for defamation and were awarded $4,000 each."
 * While Oktar's court case against Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion was lost by Oktar as well. Too bad that Dawkins' writings on Oktar's books were dismissed in this articles for "being blog."Jeff5102 (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No WP:BLP applies. Jeff you should read that again. Writing conservatively. I gave you two links above that the only conviction was appealed and overturned.  You certainly look like your out to get the guy.  I'm pretty sure the case against Dawkins was a libel case that was lost, not a conviction. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? You were asking for "a case that he has lost", not about "a conviction." Do not play the game of the shifting goalposts, please.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Sources for Biography of Living Person
I would like an opinion on adding the words "He... has set up dozens of internet websites." by either leaving it unsourced, or pointing to the website itself WP:SELFPUB for a list of 109 links to websites. I propose that in this case either unsourced or WP:SELFPUB would be a better solution than quoting several news clippings that mention "dozens of websites" in passing, without any attempt to be accurate. Alternatively this could be called WP:OR (see dicussion above) --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: this would appear to be both borderline violation of WP:OR, and clear violation of WP:DUE (in that if no secondary source has seen fit to comment on the issue, it is assumed not to be important enough for inclusion -- particularly not in the lead), and probably of WP:LEDE ("Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" -- and I've seen no indication that it is intended to cover this further). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Thinking about it, that section of WP:LEDE probably means that we should discuss the article body first, and the lede last -- as only then will we know what's in the article body for the lede to summarise.) <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole last section "Publications" is dedicated to this. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Original structure

 * 1 Biography
 * 2 Conspiracy theories
 * 3 Creationism
 * 4 Writings
 * 4.1 The Atlas of Creation
 * 5 Blocking of Internet sites
 * 6 Legal issues, arrest, trial, and sentencing
 * 7 Bibliography
 * 8 References
 * 9 External links

Proposed structure

 * 1 Biography
 * 2 Scientific Research Foundation
 * 3 Foundation for Protection of National Values
 * 4 Writings
 * 4.1 Creationism
 * 4.1.1 The Atlas of Creation
 * 4.2 Conspiracy theories
 * 4.3 Holocaust Denial
 * 4.4 Buddhism
 * 5 Legal issues, court cases
 * 6 Blocking of Internet sites
 * 7 Bibliography
 * 8 References
 * 9 External links

Changes and reasons for change
Please discuss each item, under its description, or add new item:


 * I recommend for this change no deletion or addition of any text, only simple reorganization.
 * A complete section for each of BAV and FPVN, since there is significant information available about them, their own websites, hierarchy, goals, and publications.
 * Moving "Creationism","Conspiracy theories","Holocaust Denial","Buddhism" under Writings because they represent different major topics in Mr. Oktar's publications.
 * Placing "Creationism" first because Mr. Oktar is most notable for his theories on Creationism
 * Changing "Legal issues, arrest, trial, and sentencing" to "Legal issues, Court cases". This is to follow wikipedia policy of WP:BLP to write conservatively and not sensationally.
 * Placing "Blocking of Internet sites" after "Legal issues, Court cases" because the blocking of sites occurred both chronologically and logically after the court cases.


 * Similar to my previous comment, the choice of titles suggests that the only legal outcomes have been in Oktar's favour and resulting in blocking websites. To address the UNDUE policy we would either have neutral titles or a balance in proportion to the outcomes of all legal cases. Fæ (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning that title I would make these points:
 * I claim that "Court Cases" does not suggest that outcomes have been in Oktar's favor, but is a neutral title. "trial and sentencing" is not neutral.
 * The majority, if not all of the cases have been dismissed or overturned, according to the existing text.
 * According to these sources, In May 2010, the Court of Appeals overturned the only conviction and dismissed the charges. Zaman Newspaper Online: The Court of Appeals overturned the decision of conviction about Adnan Oktar Vatan: Adnan Oktar conviction annulled. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest a 'Legal disputes' section and 'Criminal charges' and 'Internet websites' subsections. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I claim that words like "Sentencing" or "Criminal" in titles is not in the spirit of writing conservatively WP:BLP. These sensational words should be reserved for the text. Should we requet an WP:RFC?--Geoffry Thomas (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The law is divided into two branches, civil and criminal. Oktar's 'legal disputes' or 'legal issues' or whatever are clearly divided into civil matters dealing with purportedly slanderous websites and criminal matters relating to charges formally laid against him. How else can we describe the latter (without conflating it with the former)? And no an RfC is not called for every time a single editor disagrees with you on article talk. The reasonable things to do first are to (i) discuss it further (ii) see if anybody else active here has an opinion (iii) seek a WP:3O (if nobody else speaks up) (iv) and only if all these options fail to result in a satisfactory WP:CONSENSUS, seek an RfC. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish one or two more editors who have not expressed prior bias should be involved in this discussion. How do I advertise that request?  Isn't WP:RFC the mechanism? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Geoffry, the links you use are in Turkish, and I cannot read that language. Don't you have a neutral source in the English language? (The same goes for the accusation that Oktar is schizophrenic. I wouldn't mind that we skip Oktar's mental state, unles we find a reliable source in an understandable language).Jeff5102 (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As pointed out to you several times, the options available are described at Dispute resolution and Consensus. RfCs are used for issues of interest community-wide and often run for 30 days of discussion, not ideal for relatively minor local layout considerations. Your issues with this article have already been raised on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as well as off-wikipedia in sites such as http://www.replytowikipedia.com; to "advertise" further seems excessive. Fæ (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeff5102, this subject is about a person who lives in Turkey, so it is natural that information will be in Turkish. Try http://translate.google.com for a rough translation or perhaps we can borrow a Turkish speaking admin from tr.wikipedia.com --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fae, if I understand wikipedia properly, posting a notice is not enough. One is supposed to be "bold" and make the changes that are needed, not wait for someone else to do the work. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a different question. WP:BOLD is clear is that by all means you can go ahead and make changes to any article, however if your changes are reverted or further changed by editing then discussion (and thereby consensus) is the route to follow. As you have already posted major rewrites to the article and these were reverted in their entirety, a process of proposal and consensus first is beneficial and experience on other articles shows this to reduce confrontation, though this is not mandatory and there is nothing to stop you continuing to literally follow the B-R-D cycle so long as you comply with the The three-revert rule guidelines. Fæ (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment about WP:BOLD was referring to not relying on posting to Noticeboards alone. Concerning the changes here, I proposed a procedure - to discuss each change one at a time, review the comments, make changes, and when there were no more comments, then post it. This is what we have been doing for over 20 pages on this Talk page. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fae, concerning "though this is not mandatory and there is nothing to stop you continuing to literally follow the B-R-D cycle". I am trying to follow an orderly procedure, you are advocating random simultaneous changes.  That is a recipe for chaos. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
Other than title "Legal issues, arrest, trial, and sentencing", I see no other comments or objections to the structure I propose above. So... May I go ahead and make the change leaving the title "Legal issues, arrest, trial, and sentencing" unchanged for the time being? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My first point above has not yet been addressed and I was waiting to see if that would be resolved before commenting any further. A section on "Blocking of Internet sites" gives undue weight to one legal case outcome, other case outcomes should have similar sections (a table of all his organization's legal cases would be useful) or this should be merged into the one section on legal cases. Other issues with the structure you suggest include:
 * "Writings" is not meaningful and may be value laden in a religious context, as in "Writings of the Masters" as used in Theosophy articles, giving his and his organization's publications more weight than necessary. It is unclear why this needs to be separate from Bibliography or a section on Publications.
 * "Holocaust Denial" is a can of worms. Yes he might have written "The Holocaust Lie" but the title implies that he is a "Holocaust Denier" which is a lot stronger and may be challenged as undue weight as its own section than being part of a section about prosecutions or publications.
 * "The Atlas of Creation", it is unclear why this one publication has its own sub-title compared to all other publications.
 * "Buddhism", again unclear why this now needs a second level title.
 * "Scientific Research Foundation" it may be better to have a more generic title that encompasses both his organizations (or any other that may pop up). There may be good reasons to have a sub-section on each but I am unclear on why that would be particularly helpful considering their goals must be very similar.
 * —Fæ (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe The Atlas of Creation was the book that he sent out unsolicited to so many countries. It probably does deserve its own section, given the coverage this got -- but a more informative title (e.g. "Unsolicited distribution of The Atlas of Creation") would probably be preferable. I'd also tend to favour deciding on titles, and whether content deserves their own sections after we've taken a look at the content, and decided how prominent it is, and whether it's reliable enough to include. It may be, for example, that the (civil/criminal) legal issues are small enough that we can throw them into a single section -- meaning that we don't need to worry about a neutral title for a 'criminal' subsection. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I understand "Scientific Research Foundation" is the organization that holds Creationism seminars. "Foundation for Protection of National Values" is only in Turkish and has to do with nationalistic values, especially those of Ataturk. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for more neutral and trimmed lead text
I propose trimming the lead, possibly for later re-expansion based on a neutral article body:

Trimmed text: —Fæ (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Footnotes removed, not necessary for lead text if neutral and only reflecting the article body (though if further challenged then WP:LEADCITE applies).
 * 2) Paragraph single sourced to the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan removed (as it may not be a neutral or reliable source).
 * 3) Mention of legal cases trimmed to be completely neutral (to avoid mis-representing case outcomes).
 * Support (conditionally): - I claim that the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre, (chief editors Prof. Joseph E.B. Lumbard Prof. Aref Ali Nayed) is the most authoritative source in this entire wikipage, being that it is the only academic study quoted. the rest being news clipping and blogs.
 * Note, I have raised this source for review at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you wish to demonstrate the RISSC is notable, you may wish to create an article for it. Fæ (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets see what people say. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The RISSC report should be in biography in addition to the intro. I claim it is significant, no less than "sending unsolicited texts" or running two organizations which should also be in the Biography. If you delete the the RISSC report, why not delete all three points? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, YOU claim (twice!) that it is significant, but I fail to see why. Why, for example, should we give it more value than the report on antisemitism of the Stephen Roth Institute of the Tel Aviv University? That report was dismissed as in this article as a heavyweight academic source, because "unlike many university publications it seems to be itself unreferenced." Now, we are facing the same problem with the Jordanian source. Please accept that.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Jordanian source is referenced, see Reliable sources/Noticeboard. What wikipedia rule dismisses academic sources because they are heavyweight? I was not part to those previous discussions. I probably would have allowed those antisemitism sources, in context. In fact I think they are crucial to understanding the subject. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I support this text if the Jordanian report (and his media organization as context), goes into the bio AND we revisit its importance when more text has been approved. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support It is short and neutral. I don't mind if there would be sources in the lead, though.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Second stab: —Fæ (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: you don't 'prosecute' in a civil case, it should probably read "...both as defendant and plaintiff." I also think the scale of his media empire is more important than the names of the two organisations he runs (neither of which is a household name in the English-speaking world). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you suggest some suitable text? Struck the 'prosecute' phrase and replaced with your more accurate version. Fæ (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Something like "He controls a substantial publishing and multimedia enterprise, and in 2007 he sent out thousands..." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I suggest that there should be a period after "Islamic Creationist." (capital C) and then "He established an international publishing and multimedia organization." They are separate thoughts. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike Christian, I do not believe that creationist is normally capitalized. It is a theory but not a religion or organization in its own right or named after a person (like Freudian). One does not expect to capitalize evolutionist and the same principle should apply to creationist. No problem with the full stop though. Fæ (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Normal convention in Wikipedia articles on creationism is not to capitalise it (though there will be almost certainly exceptions to this, or any other, rule). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Would prefer the following (I think the publishing & the texts are clearly linked to each other, so should be in the same sentence):


 * <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is logical to link publishing and sending texts. But this gives no hint that the publishing goes beyond a single mailing in 2007. The subject is known for producing a wide range of Creationalist materials from DVDs to Posters, not just a one time mailing, see the reuters article that was originally included. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "a substantial publishing and multimedia organization"≠"no hint that the publishing goes beyond a single mailing in 2007" If you want to suggest a word or two for inclusion on the focus of this substantial publishing and multimedia organization (e.g. "...organisation, focusing on creationist and Islamic apologetics materials"), that wouldn't be unreasonable. But at this state the sentence does become unwieldy, and needs to be split up again. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen/women Please
We must do this in an orderly fashion. Editors who wish to participate in the process of reviewing this page, please sign section above. It says there that we will discuss changes one at a time. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather follow the standard policy for consensus building, locally agreed processes are more likely to confuse or alienate new contributors. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not a local agreed process. It was the recommended procedure by the senior editors at the BLP/Noticeboard.  It seems to be breaking down, so I request a neutral moderator for this page, how do I do that? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The BLPN discussion you refer to recommends "discuss specific changes as necessary on the article talk page". There is nothing there about requiring contributors to sign up to a or that alternative proposals for neutral text should not supersede others. You may want to go back to the BLPN discussion and ask for a clarification if that was not your understanding. Fæ (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It clearly recommended discussing them one at a time. IMHO We need a neutral moderator, you are advocating chaos. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Chaos? You will note that my proposal for a more neutral lead section was made after you re-wrote the lead (diff) and thereby can be assumed to have terminated any discussion of your above proposal to change the lead text, your posting of changes does not mean that you have a full or final consensus and in this case I obviously still have unresolved issues with neutrality of your proposal. Fæ (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The text was jointly written. You made no further comments for 24 hours. If you wish to bring it up again, as you have done, then it is fine.  Nothing is final in wikipedia, but it must be orderly.  Concerning deleting an academic review from the lead, I would strong object and insist on a WP:RFC. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 24 Hours? Come on! People have also something to do in real life. And by the way: you posted your version of the intro 15 minutes after I made my comments on it, and you did not bother to reply to it before you inserted your version of the lead. I do not believe that is the way to discuss on Wikipedia.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fae rolled back two weeks of my changes after a quick vote in 6 hours. In any event, we have a new intro candidate above. Lets continue to discuss. --Geoffry Thomas --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no expertise in Islamic politics, culture or theology. My involvement in this article is due to an impartial interest in BLP quality and because my opinion was originally requested by a third party. There is no guarantee that I will hotly monitor this article or be in a rush to comment on technical detail that I am not an expert on. As you have made it clear that you are writing a thesis on Islamic leaders, by default your contributions are from the perspective of an expert and you may find this essay useful. You might keep in mind that non-experts may find it easier to judge what prose is accessible for the layman reader, non-geographically biased and represents a wide spectrum of opinion. Fæ (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I share your concern for BLP quality. I would like to see this article contain lots of information from clearly identified sources.  There is no sense to argue.  I would have accepted your streamlined article based on the comments of Itsmejudith, providing that he report really did make it into the biography.  But wholesale reverts, editing the talk page in ten places at one time, are not a professional way to work. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not pre-empt consensus on proposals. Note that in the discussion of my original roll-back above I gained several independent opinions, confirmed discussion closure and then formally closed and summarized the discussion. You have posted in my proposed neutral text (with the addition of your own footnotes) without giving any similar consideration for how to close down the above proposal. Though I may be happy to see more neutral text, I would rather a lasting consensus is first established with several opinions and a clear process followed even if done over a relatively short time. Pre-emptively posting the proposal will tend to stop anyone else from expressing an opinion as they will naturally assume the discussion is over. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC) According to WP:BLP guidelines, biased or WP:POV material should be deleted immediately. While not perfect, I think your streamlined version was an improvement over the previous version. I am open to discussing another intro. Or as Hrafn has suggested, we should cover some content and then go back to the Intro. What do the people here suggest to tackle next: Bio or Legal, or another version of the Intro? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Rejected by three editors
Fæ says "Reverted 1 edit by Geoffry Thomas (talk); #3 it is rejected now by 3 different contributors, consensus is obviously not established." And just where did this discussion occur? Where is the justification for rejecting the consensus text? You can't just revert without discussing a reason? Where are Hrafn's comments? Where are Anythingyouwant comments? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My original comment against your changes to the lead is at . This postdated your change and pre-dated my reversion of your multiply re-added change. Fæ (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where was the orderly rejection by three editors? You yourself had offered a new proposal that was under discussion. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Next change to discuss?
I am open to discussing another intro. Or as Hrafn has suggested, we should cover some content and then go back to the Intro. What do the people here suggest to tackle next: Bio or Legal, or another version of the Intro? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your name here if you want us to wait for your opinion before posting:
 * --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP issue
This material, as sourced, does not meet WP:BLP guidelines. "Oktar propagates a number of anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic conspiracy theories, beginning with his 1986 Yahudilik ve Masonluk (Judaism and Freemasonry), following the publication of which he was arrested and imprisoned."source. This source has no indication of meeting WP:RS, and even contains a disclaimer - ''The following article is mostly a personal attack. However, I am not committing the logical fallacy known as ad hominem, since the attack is relevant to the argument and is justified. After reading the article, you will decide it for yourself.'' Please find better sources for making statements about a living subjects promotion of "anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic conspiracy theories" and being "arrested and imprisoned." As I commented before the first concern for a BLP article is to make sure it meets BLP. After that we can start discussing NPOV issues, self-serving promotional materials, etc. This article clearly needed work in those areas but first and foremost it needs attention to WP:BLP guidelines. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BLP guidelines, it should be immediately deleted. (The sad part is that this source is the ONLY complete biographical information outside of Oktar's own website, and in many places they agree. I would have hoped that when two opposing sources agree, the information could be taken as credible). --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Removed [anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic], this was a minimal change you may wish to trim further better to comply with WP:BLP or propose an alternative text. Fæ (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)