Talk:Adnan Oktar/Archive 2

WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE and Euro-centric bias
From what i see here, I am beginning to despair of creating an "informative balanced encyclopedic" article. My idea of balance is presenting both sides of an argument fairly using reasonable sources. What it looks like you are doing here is creating a list of random quotes from "indisputable" sources, raising the bar such that readability or understandability will never be achieved. I originally thought this article had been the victim of Euro-centric bias. Now I think it is destined to be a Frankenstein of wikipedia procedure. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly, and yet when you examine some of the featured articles you can see that it is possible to create extensive encyclopaedic articles that are readable and obey all these policies. This is, of course, far harder to achieve with biographies of living people and for controversial cases I would advocate slashing the article back to bare facts before rebuilding it based on agreed quality sources and consensual formats to avoid becoming the Frankenstein's monster of cold and badly matching body parts you fear. Fæ (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. You are placing the bar much higher here. Other biographies of living people are not prevented from quoting their own opinions, the own websites, or providing both sides of controversies that appear in the general press. The inability to achieve readable and informative prose using this approach is confirmed by reading the archive of this talk page. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Compare for example George Soros, someone no less controversial. The rules are completely different on his page, see the talk page there. Others who are held as religious leaders have full biographies including other leaders of the Creationism debate --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that Geoffry read WP:DUE (and WP:FRINGE):


 * Creationism is a minority, fringe view, rejected by the scientific community. Where the article touches on Oktar's creationist views and activities, the article needs to give WP:DUE weight to this perspective. All biographies should be written mainly from the perspective of how the wider world views an individual, not how the individual (and their fellow travellers) view themselves -- this is why we require independent WP:SECONDARY sources. But this is especially important for articles involving WP:FRINGE views. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read those articles and I claim that you are using them to unfairly limit information that is NOT controversial, for example how many websites the person has, or that he sees himself as a crusader for Islamic values. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, by using English language, mostly western secular sources about a religious figure, who has a large following in the middle and far east, you are creating an article that is Euro-centric, prejudiced article. You may have an indisputable article from wiki procedural point of view, but makes the subject totally incomprehensible and useless to someone wanting to understand the man, his impact, and why he gets into the news. Adnan Oktar is not just about Creationism, it is about Turkey, Iran, Armenia, Cyprus, "moderate" Islam and terrorism. It is about Ataturk and neo-Ottomanism. It is about messianism in Islam.  These are the subjects that you read in news clippings about the man.  But with your universal WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE claims, anyone searching wikipedia for information about the subject to understand those news clippings will leave more confused than when they came. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of wikipedia is not to parrot the contents of western secular media as fact. But to present the views of western secular media, clearly labeled as such, as one facet in a multi-faceted picture from reasonable sources of information. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

'Geoffry Thomas: the relevant POLICIES forbidding'' this are WP:NOR (specifically WP:SECONDARY) and WP:V (specifically WP:SELFPUB). If you can find reliable secondary sources for any of your claims (and WP:NONENG provides specifically for how non-English sources may be introduced), then do so. Continued advocacy of material based upon disallowable self-published sources, and upon OR, will not be tolerated, as disruptive WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT.' HrafnTalkStalk''(P) 07:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not further mention the subject. I have been silenced--Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have reliable published academic primary and secondary sources for my claims, some in foreign languages. If anyone wants to help me through the steps to work them into the article.  The bar has been raised to high for me to effectively participate. Alternatively one can re-read the references already included in the article. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you should have presented them rather than (i) first creating a radical rewrite based substantially on self-published material, and then (ii) arguing endlessly about the lede and the article structure in a vacuum sustained by your failure to present them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You sound angry. The "radical rewrite" was done in over 20 changes over a period of two weeks. Only the very last edits contained self-published material to the biography, clearly identifed as to their source. I was going to argue that they were collaborated by the Edip Yuksel article "Harun Yahya or Adnan Oktar: The Promised Mahdi?" as well as other sources.  I said I am new at this, and repeatedly asked for help and guidance, which I did not receive here. I did not argue endlessly about the lede article, I was arguing about the "Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre" which I did not know had not yet been recognized as a reliable source by wikipedia. Why argue? have it your way, see what it has produced over the last two years.  Lets see what it will produce in the next year. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction, I am not advocating unsourced or OR material. I am claim that you have changed WP:V's material challenged or likely to be challenged to impossible to challenge. And applied WP:SELFPUB's the material is not unduly self-serving to cover everything. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am disagreeing with, and disinterested in discussing, further changes to the article lede or structure, until after we have been presented new, WP:RS, information on the article contents that would support such further changes. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I am tired of wasting my time on mostly non-substantive discussion.
 * 2) As of this version, half of the biography section was Oktar's uncorroborated self-published self-serving self-glorification. (See above)
 * 3) was settled in 6 posts in 1.5 hours. Look at all the megabytes of discussion since.
 * I am disagreeing with, and disinterested in discussing this subject as well. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Only conviction overturned
According to this source, 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 The sources is a major Zaman (newspaper). I will look around for more sources. (The Vatan source is not for the newspaper).

Could someone help do something useful with this information. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot find English sources for the successful appeal on LexisNexis; the Turkish sources seem unambiguous and suitable as citations (using the above title translations as per WP:NONENG). Fæ (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is not neutral.
When you read this article you feel from the beginning that it tries to discredit Mr Oktar. To keep the neutrality of Wikipedia. I believe that this article should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.36.66.11 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, you may not want everyone to know you are writing from Qatar University. I suggest you consider the advice at WP:Why create an account?, set up an account and then start fixing any systemic bias you perceive by adding verifiable additional material to these articles. Fæ (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a good effort Fae or Geoffry [im not clear who wrote this], [i prefer the first version why make it as short as possible are we trying to save kilobytes, it may lead to another Y2K virus] Although i have two issues at present [i don't have time to look into the matter more deeply atm] the first being this line in both versions, "The social organization within the group become more hierarchical and, and took on a Messianic nature.[f4 2] Several members were claiming that Oktar saw himself as the Mahdi[f4 1], the Islamic savior that will come at the end of days." this is blatantly false since any cursory view of his website would show he has produced a number of videos about prophecies surrounding the Muslims awaited mahdi as well as recently publishing a 1100+ page book on the issue clearly showing he doesn't see him self as the mahdi and never had, i would say these are passing remarks by someone disgruntled and a serious accusation tantamount to disbelief among Muslims. see here and here for videos.

the other issue being neither version mention anything about what he is most famous for among Muslims which is essentially the reason why he is on the top 500 list and that is his work on Islam and science [see his site and click on nature and creation], both versions tend to focus on the more sensational aspects of his life and neglect the obvious which is this work i am speaking about. Most Muslims in the west grew up on these videos and books and know little about his work on evolution although i can understand why this wouldn't be as news worthy [and why it may have been overlooked] as his work on evolution but essentially this is the case.

Ibn kathir (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * both versions currently read like a time line and not a biography as if to rush facts at people reading the page, what about using this to elaborate more on his life's work which should be at the center of any biography since this is what the man is about and has chosen to dedicate his life to.


 * Adnan Oktar, under the pen-name Harun Yahya, has released more than 150 books. He originally writes in Turkish, and his studies, his books are translated into English afterwards. His articles are being published in many Turkish magazines/newspapers, and foreign Islamic magazines/papers. He is a respected writer who writes on various different topics: faith topics on the basic issues from the Quran, Quran & Science topics, anti-evolutionist studies, anti-masonic studies, and political issues concerning ummah, iman haqiqats.


 * One of the greatest publishers of England, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., has published eight titles by the author so far, which are namely; "Perished Nations", "The Evolution Deceit", "For Men of Understanding", "The Truth of the Life of This World", "Never Plead Ignorance", and "Deep Thinking," "The Miracle in the Ant," "Allah's Artistry in Color". All of the books have been sold out in a couple of months after their release. "Perished Nations" has a third edition, and the very same also applies for "The Evolution Deceit" and "For Men of Understanding," "Deep Thinking," "Truth of the Life of This World" have been printed for the second edition. There has been a tremendous reaction by the readers regarding his books and after his first four books were published in the U.K., he had become "a household name in the U.K." by the words of the publisher. In a review he had written, the publisher said that "their success lies surely in that they appeal to people at all levels those with knowledge and those without, the academic and the layperson, the young and the old."


 * Another international publishing house based in India, named Goodword Press, has published five titles by the author so far, which are namely; "The Morals of the Qur'an", "Basic Concepts in the Qur'an", "Allah is Known Through Reason", "The Miracle in the Ant", "Ever Thought About the Truth?," and "Crude Understanding of Disbelief". The book, "Death-Resurrection-Hell" has been published in Poland in Polish.


 * The book, "The Miracle in the Ant," and "Allah is Known Through Reason" have been published in Pakistan in Urdu; and several other books (The Evolution Deceit, Timelessness and the Reality of Fate, The Truth of the Life of This World, Perished Nations, For Men of Understanding) will be released by the same publisher in Urdu. The book, "Perished Nations," has been published in Portuguese in Portugal. "The Evolution Deceit" has been published in Russian. "Perished Nations" is currently being printed in Russian.


 * Other than his books in English, Harun Yahya's books are translated (and still being translated) into German, French, Itallian, Spanish, Arabic, Bosnian, Albanian, Portuguese, Indonesian, Malay, and will be published soon.

The source isn't great but it is factual.

Ibn kathir (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, when I see phrases like "One of the greatest publishers of England" I do not read any further as such prose is blatantly non-neutral. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, radioislam.org (Radio Islam) is a ludicrously unreliable source -- "one of the most radical right wing antisemitic homepages on the net". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

i acknowledged it wasn't a good source, but neither where those tabloid quotes which where in the article already so it would be double standards to say that simply becouse they are right wing they cant be used and that itself isn't neutral. regarding Fae's comments i only meant the facts in the piece not the entire piece itself as i said we should include more about his life's work not how great he is.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you acknowledged that it wasn't a "great" source. It is actually an appallingly bad source. And the claims made in it are not "factual" but fantastical -- Ta-Ha Publishers is not "one of the greatest publishers of England" but rather a small independent publisher specialising in Islamic literature -- a small niche market considering that only 3.3% of Britain is Muslim. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides mentioning the success of his works which isnt a fact being disputed you can alternately just go to his website and write about his work from their, do you need secondary sources to state the obvious, i don't think anyone will contest the fact he has written books about various topics and produced many videos which is essentially all the section would be talking about. Here is a list of books published by Ta Ha and Here is a list of books published by Goodword. His videos are sold in many bookstores across the net i dont know how usefull that would be as a source but i can list those as well, i think it is clear that he is a prolific author and producer.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A good article that can last in the long term would have to be seen to be neutral, encompass all viewpoints and be widely sourced. Arbitrarily listing all publications and regurgitating an author's promotional material would result in an advert or a personal résumé rather than an encyclopaedic article. Fæ (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but that isnt to say it cant be used to talk about his life's work [im certain you can find the appropriate wording], you have taken the extreme interpretation of my intent. At the moment their is little to no mention of what the individual has been doing throughout his life. Look at David atthenborough's page for example, For the Islamic community Adnan Oktar set the benchmark for Quality and production value while the rest of the Muslim world was still years behind in standards, even richard dawkins acknowledged the quality of his production, their is more to the individual than what is sensational.

Ibn kathir (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Quality"? This is the guy who published a plagiarised picture of a fishing lure as an insect. I rather suspect that you'll find that Dawkins has praise only for the quality of the (expensive and glossy) printing, not the composition. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

how does that help the content of the article, we are trying to be neutral remember, according to you one thing is enough to damn a person what kind of judgment is that. you may like to read Dawkins has taken the bait.

Ibn kathir (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am pointing out that your claim as to the "quality" of his books is not borne out by third party sources -- who have pointed out glaring flaws and have only praised the quality of printing (which is only a reflection of Oktar's budget, not the validity of his claims). And why on earth would I be interested in reading Oktar's WP:SELFPUBlished "unduly self-serving" propaganda about a "third party". Such material has no place whatsoever in a Wikipedia article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

im pointing out that this is the Muslim experience, he was far ahead of the rest of the Muslim world [at the time] in terms of Quality of production and was almost the sole inspiration and encouragement for them to actually lift their game, which is different than questioning actual content and this is of course relative since i am not comparing him to the western world which still far ahead of him. "self serving" is a claim that is little more than hot air, every man has a right to defend himself you are not judging the worthiness of the claim for it its inclusion into this encyclopedia but merely looking into what the man has to say about the matter, whether you read it or not is entirely up to you and of course any sincere person will look at both sides of an argument and not simply shut their eyes to anything the "other-side" has to say which is the basic's of the scientific process and honest investigation.

Ibn kathir (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You have now offered us two completely unusable sources in a row. Please stop wasting our time. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) To be relevant to the article, the claim of his "inspiration" etc to the Muslim world needs a reliable third party source.
 * No, calling it "unduly self-serving" is not "hot air". What is "hot air" is Oktar blowing his own trumpet by making grandiloquent claims like that his "work that has rocked the entire world." "What the man has to say about the matter" appears to indicate that he has an inflated sense of his own worth, and knows very little about "the scientific process and honest investigation" and simply seeks to smear those scientists who have made a significant contribution to evolutionary biology. None of this surprises me however -- and I don't see how having my nose further rubbed in this aids in improving the article.

I would point out that WP:NPOV, at WP:WEIGHT, states:

This means that if you want to this article to show a different balance of views, then you have to present reliable sources articulating these views, to demonstrate that these views have prominence (that they are "significant viewpoints"). Simply showing that this is the way that the topic views himself in WP:SPS, or that this is how a bunch of Swedish-Muslim extremists views him, does not meet this standard -- and thus is largely irrelevant to improving the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What language am i speaking, are you so obsessed with attacking him that you cant even read a few lines in english. I didn't quote that article for its inclusion into the wikki page, it was a reply to your fishing lure comment so you could read and learn on a personnel level.

Ibn kathir (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If I read the article, and other works of Oktar, I should rather say that it is Oktar who is obsessed with Darwin and Dawkins. As the article reads:

"It is Darwin whose ideas he defends to the hilt, the ignoramus who was unaware of the existence even of the sciences of biology, zoology, microbiology, genetics, paleontology, geology, molecular biology and paleoanthropology, who was expelled from all the schools he entered and had no other aim than to spend times with drunken mariners. Dawkins acts as supporter of a theory launched by Darwin, who was totally ignorant of science, in the outdated atmosphere of the 19th century, a theory that today even children find laughable."
 * This hardly looks like it is written by a person who is concerned about "moral issues", as Oktar claims to be.
 * Furthermore, I would say that the "quality" of Oktars work mainly applies for the expensive, glossy type of paper he uses for his books. In that aspect, he really is 'far ahead of the rest of the Muslim world'Jeff5102 (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to state the obvious Adnan oktar did not write that article and then go on to Quote himself, it is simply a site which bears his pen name, as it is already stated in the current biography he is the head of an organisation. Also who am i replying to is Jeff and Hrafn the same person, the way you began your reply gives that impression, you should also look into the "muslim world" contribution to world sciences and the scientific process itself which this society is based upon, if modern societies sense of morality hadn't degraded itself to the level of a child we wouldnt need big Glossy pages to catch the attention of children, the merits of the idea would be self evident irrespective of the paper it is printed on but now days an educated person needs "aids" to get their message across because words arnt enough anymore.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can find some WP:RS demonstrating that this article has failed to "fairly represents all significant viewpoints", then this thread is "not relevant to improving the article" and, per WP:TALK, should be archived as such. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ibn kathir, this talkpage is not for
 * 1) Promoting ludicrously unreliable sources
 * 2) Promoting what Oktar (or his followers writing anonymously on his website -- it really doesn't matter which) says about himself
 * 3) WP:SOAPBOXing, without substantiation about the "quality", "inspiration", etc, etc of Oktar's works.
 * 4) Making comments in violation of WP:AGF when your claims are rebutted.

Get of your high horse do you feel the need to lecture people when they talk back to you and quote wikki policy verbatim, i can say what i like you can simply choose to ignore it rather than quote irrelevant wiki dribble about things that have no relevance to what i have said. I mean really if im wrong i cant say it and i cant know im wrong until after i say it well done nice logic.

Ibn kathir (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources list
Rather than further circular argument, it may be useful to focus on which main sources are considered reliable and to what extent they can be used if the source is a strong advocate of one viewpoint. As an example of this in action Talk:Israel Shamir has a list of agreed sources that were used to re-build this controversial subject after it was reduced to a stub. With such a basic list of agreed sources, justifying text for inclusion creates far less heat. Fæ (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Some initial suggestions, online in english (particularly for the incidental biographical and contextual information): --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Reformated only, please add opinions on reliability or suggested limitations due to bias next to each source. Fæ (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

1-10
  
 * I am unable to find this listed on WorldCat. The link appears to be to the abstract rather than the article. The journal is and I am unclear on how significant or respected this journal is, there are very few citations to the Journal listed in Google Scholar. Fæ (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)



 Clash Of Discourses: The Discussions On Evolution And Creationism In Turkey Elif Cavuslu.
 * This appears unpublished and so probably not peer reviewed. I find no matches to this author on WorldCat. Fæ (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

<li> Evolving Allah: Can one man Succeed in Stirring up the Muslim World Against Darwin?, Nathan Schneider
 * No abstract and behind paywall. Unable to find this article on JSTOR or WorldCat. Fæ (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

<li>
 * I find this book cited in Google Scholar 21 times. Fæ (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

<li>
 * Appears to be a suitable summary though being 16 years old this might be superseded or factually out of date (see #34 below as an alternate). Fæ (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

also see review in Asian Studies Review

<li>
 * This news item (not an article) is probably covered in easier to access sources. The relevant text is extracted below for those without access:

PROLIFIC. An Istanbul court has sentenced an influential Islamic creationist to 3 years in prison for starting a criminal organization and profiting from it. But the conviction, which Adnan Oktar says he will appeal, seems unlikely to stem the flood of creationist books and DVDs he is publishing. Oktar, who uses the pen name Harun Yahya, became well-known outside Turkey when his Foundation for Scientific Research (BAV) widely distributed its Atlas of Creation, a stunning, 768-page tome (Science, 16 February 2007, p. 925). BAV is not directly linked to the activities that landed Oktar in trouble, and creationism had nothing to do with the charges. Even so, a BAV spokesperson says Oktar is being persecuted “because of his ideas.” Given the political pressures on Turkey’s justice system, that’s “not entirely implausible,” says physicist Taner Edis of Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri, who has followed the case closely. BAV says “the work will go on” even if its leader goes to prison. —Fæ (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC) <li>
 * Unable to find this paper on WorldCat. The author might be the author of the book "The glorious Qur'ān : text, translation and commentary". As the website/organization exists to "promote the understanding of al-Qur'an and Hadith in the light of modern knowledge" this website should be considered unsuitable as an independent source. As the website states "Anyone disagrees with any specific article, he/she may write an article with his/her opposing view points giving pertinent reference", it would fail WP:RS or WP:ELNO as it would count as an open forum rather than a publisher. Fæ (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

</ol>

11-20
<ol>
 * This is a relatively short feature, generally about creationism vs. evolutionism with one relevant statement - "Headed by Adnan Oktar, BAV made headlines internationally in February last year when it mailed copies of a weighty and lavishly illustrated Atlas of Creation to teachers and researchers both in Turkey and worldwide. BAV's activities are integrally connected to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey, where secularism and science have become more rooted and strongly established than in many other Islamic countries." Fæ (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

<li>
 * Brief mention on page 75. Probably too tangential to be a useful reference. Fæ (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

<li> Turkey's EU Accession Reaches an Impasse, William Chislett, Working Paper 34/2009, 3/7/2009, Elcano Royal Institute Madrid http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org
 * + Quality source (probably) but unlikely to be that useful as the only mention of Oktar in this long document is to say "Intelligent design is taught in some Turkish schools, thanks to some extent to Adnan Oktar, a preacher who set up the Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (Scientific Research Foundation), and the schools of Fetullah Gülen. Oktar’s Atlas of Creation has been distributed around the Muslim world and Europe." I would also like to see where exactly this is published in terms of judging authority, it is a working paper and does not appear on WorldCat. Fæ (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggested this source to provide context. The shift from Evolutionism to Creationism in Turkey was part of a general shift in political ideology accompanying the rejection of Turkey from joining the EU, and its leaning towards becoming a regional power. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Context is useful, however I would suggest a well respected book on the subject would be more authoritative than a (non-neutral) organization's working paper. Fæ (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

<li>
 * Unable to get access, not available via JSTOR. Fæ (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

<li>
 * Extensive paper, however the only mention of Oktar is once on page 429 in a footnote rather than in the text and even then he is only mentioned in a list of four writers. Fæ (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again for context, these and several of the following were to highlight Evolution vs Creation in Islamic thought. I thought it was better if the source at least mentioned Oktar. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

<li> Propagating Islamic Creationism on the Internet <li> (PDF)
 * Duplicate. Fæ (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggested for context, Islamic Messianism is mentioned in several of the sources already quoted, but not covered in the wikipage. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * + Possibly a reliable source, however the publishing organization has a particular non-academic political mission and their own statement "To contribute to the development of American policy options and public diplomacy efforts within the Muslim world and to strategies to prosecute and to win the war against radical Islam." seems rather partisan and may influence the choice and content of publications. Fæ (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

<li> The Anti‐Christ and the End of Time in Christian and Muslim Eschatological Literature <li> Apocalypse in Islam <li> Islam at the Dawn of the New Christian Millennium </ol>

21-30
<ol> Constantinople and the End Time: The Ottoman Conquest as a Portent of the Last Hour <li> New Muslim discourses on pluralism in the postmodern age: Nursi on religious pluralism and tolerance.
 * Suggested for context, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, and his influence on Oktar, is mentioned in several of the sources already quoted, but not covered in the wikipage. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

<li> Bediuzzaman Said Nursi's Discourse on Belief in Allah: A Study of Texts from Risale-i Nur Collection <li> God, Life, and the Cosmos: Christian and Islamic Perspectives Edited by Ted Peters, Muzaffar Iqbal and Syed Nomanul Haq <li> Reflections on Gülen Movement: How Islam is Promoting Liberal Democracy in Turkey <li> Turkish Islam's Moderate Face <li> Fethullah Gulen and His Liberal" Turkish Islam" Movement <li> Intercivilizational Conflict: Some Guidelines and Some Fault Lines <li> Post-Islamism and the Religious Discourse of Abd Al-Salam Yasin <li> Religion and politics in Turkey </ol>

31-
<ol> Towards an Islamic Jurisprudence of the Environment <li> Technology and religious change: Islam and the impact of print <li> Cultural transitions in the Middle East <li> Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace‎ <li> Summary: Compares "being Muslim" in Turkey with other Islamic countries and describes the regime changes of the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic. Explains evolution in Islamic understanding and discusses creationism's effects and evolution's place in the high school biology curriculum. Defines the Science Research Foundation's (BAV) and Harun Yahya's roles in the Creationist movement. <li>Emergence of the Islamic creationists by Jeffrey A. Stratford. Pdf-version here <li>Harun Yahya's Legal Troubles </ol>

General comments on sources
Will take a break now. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It would be preferable to have had information on where these were published, and who the author is -- the first two elements in checking reliability.
 * 2) The first three sources appear to be prima facie reliable.
 * 3) The fourth I've got insufficient information to assess reliability.
 * 4) The 5th seems to be reliable, but are behind a paywall (can't even find out what journal its from) -- please don't link to pdfs that are behind paywalls -- they're a complete and utter pain -- you end up with html mislabelled as pdf (and thus unreadable without changing file suffixes).
 * 5) 6 & 7 appear to be prima facie reliable.
 * 6) 8 I've got insufficient information to assess reliability.
 * 7) 9 behind a paywall, but reliable.
 * 8) 10 okay reliability (not published, but respectable author & website)
 * 9) 11 behind a paywall, but reliable.
 * 10) 12 reliable
 * 11) 13 no page from link
 * 12) 14&15 reliable
 * 13) 16=2

BLP Issue
Is the follow text overly graphic? Is it required for reporting an indictment?

I think the whole section should be examined, but this is an immediate issue to prevent unnecessary sensationalism, which WP:BLP recommends be dealt with quickly.


 * A 2008 indictment from the prosecutor’s office, cited by the daily Cumhuriyet, said Oktar's organisation used its female members to attract young scholars from rich families with the promise of sex in exchange for attending events. The sexual activities were videotaped with the purpose of blackmail, and the group recorded thousands of people in compromising positions. 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. The women who want to leave the group are threatened that the tapes will be made public.

--Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If this hadn't been published in what appears to be a respectable Spanish newspaper, with a Turkish journalist for their source, as well as the court record, I'd dismiss this as a hatchet job, particularly given the overturn-on-appeal. I think that we still have to make some mention of this, but should probably trim it. There is, incidentally, precedent for such practice -- Flirty Fishing back in the 70s/80s. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The spanish paper is quoting the Cumhuriyet, which I have not found the original article yet, but i expect that it accurately records the text of the indictment. The question is should the graphic text of an indictment of an ongoing case be quoted in wikipedia.  I don't know the rules. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Alternative sources for the same story (partial quotes included):

The answer to this question lies in the gunfight that took place at the Ceylan Inter-Continental Hotel Istanbul two months ago. The struggle between the two groups within the DYP lit the fuse for the operation. Adnan Hoca and his disciples were supporting Tansu Ciller and collecting confidential information on her rivals. The Adnan Hoca group, working as an organization, had a wealth of surveillance equipment ranging from hidden cameras disguised as buttons to high-tech eavesdropping equipment. The partnership between Tansu Ciller and her group and Adnan Hoca and his group began when Ciller began benefiting from Oktar's "professionalism." Among the many claims about this partnership is that Ciller had made promises to Adnan Hoca's group regarding the next elections in exchange for the work they were doing for her.

Unsettled as a result of this specialized work undertaken by Hoca and his followers, Adan and Agar, as opponents of Ciller, took on the roles of leaders in the anti-Hoca operation. The two men secretly prepared a report on Adnan Hoca's activities and turned it over to Interior Minister Tantan. The report detailed the illegal activities of the group, making reference to a rich archive of material to be used in blackmail. This included videotapes of many of the politicians and businessmen in Turkey having illicit sex. Filmed by hidden cameras over the course of several years and transferred to CDs, the documents are supposed to have been invaluable to Hoca's disciples, who are claimed to have used them to put pressure on important politicians.

Interior Minister Tantan, who took office asserting that his main goal would be to totally wipe out crime, instructed the Istanbul police chief to destroy Adnan Hoca's group. While these developments were taking place in Ankara very secretly, another development was taking place at the Istanbul State Security Court (DGM). DYP Istanbul parliamentarian Celal Adan applied to the DGM public prosecutor to begin criminal proceedings. The incidents progressed as Adan and Agar wished. All of Adnan Hoca and his group's secrets came out in public. The group, which had become a sex and blackmail team, were questioned for days, with two extensions of the legal custody period.

"The foundation is offering as a speaker Turgut Aksu, a management graduate with no expertise on the topic. Moreover, this person went to court as a suspect in the trial against Oktar, in which the cult leader was accused of blackmail and forming a criminal gang," said Tunali, adding the case was thrown out because of the statute of limitations.

Born in 1972, Akyol has a master's degree in history and writes a column for a newspaper in Istanbul. He also has identified himself as a spokesman for the murky Bilim Arastirma Vakfi, a group with an innocuous-sounding name -- it means "Science Research Foundation" -- but a nasty reputation.

Said to have started as a religious cult that preyed on wealthy members of Turkish society, the Bilim Arastirma Vakfi has appeared in lurid media tales about sex rings, a blackmail prosecution and speculation about its charismatic leader, a man named Adnan Oktar. But if BAV's notoriety has been burnished by a sensationalist Turkish media, the secretive group has earned its reputation as a prodigious publisher of inexpensive ideological paperbacks. BAV has put out hundreds of titles written by "Harun Yahya" (a pseudonym) on various topics, but most of them are Islamic-based attacks on the theory of evolution.

Police headquarters attempting to dissolve the Adnan Hoca group have warned its members to leave Istanbul

Police operations are continuing against the Science Research Foundation (BAV) religious group directed by Adnan Oktar, who is better known among the public as Adnan Hoca. The former chairman of BAV, Altug Berker, and its new chairman Tarkan Yavas, who have previously been arrested and released, were arrested on suspicion of blackmail on Sunday. Berker and Yavas were taken into custody by police while leaving a TV studio and sent to Metris Prison.

After Adnan Hoca's activities of blackmailing former model Ebru Simsek with nude photos were exposed to the public, numerous contradictions surfaced. About 100 BAV members allegedly involved in blackmail were taken into custody, and among them Adnan Oktar and Firat Develioglu were formally arrested. Oktar and his disciples were sued by former Minister of Internal Affairs Mehmet Agar, Istanbul Deputy Celal Adan and Simsek. There have been claims of threats against Adnan and Agar.

On the other hand, it is curious why these operations are being conducted now when the Adnan Hoca group has been active for years. The Adnan Hoca disciples claim press entities and rival politicians banded together and plotted against the group. BAV archives are full of photos that confirm these claims as well as photos of Adnan Oktar with many politicians and scientists.

It was announced by the press that after the police operation against Adnan Hoca, Virtue Party (FP) leader Recai Kutan wanted to disclose the truth about the incident to the president. So why were BAV members, who had such a strong and widespread network, able to continue their illegal activities for so long?

Hurriyet said: "On Nov. 18 Adnan 'Hoca' Oktar and three of his disciples were arrested by the Istanbul State Security Court (DGM) where they are being investigated as a result of claims that they have been blackmailing prominent members of the business world and media. Oktar and Firat Develioglu have been put in Kartal prison while Hilmi Muftuoglu and Emre Nil will stay in the Bayrampasa prison."

Sabah said: "Adnan Hoca has a mole -- Interior Minister Sadettin Tantan said that Adnan Hoca heard about the police raid on his villa one hour in advance thanks to his mole in the police force. "Still, police managed to seize significant numbers of blackmail cassettes involving certain politicians,'Tantan said." Radikal said, "Oktar alters at the prosecutor's office the statement he had made to the police to the effect that he had prepared a blackmail file against Motherland Party (ANAP) leader Mesut Yilmaz in line with the wishes of Ankara Mayor Melih Gokcek of the opposition Virtue Party (FP)."

—Fæ (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * These are about other cases. Do you really want to deal with all the legal issues at one time? I was asking a specific question. Is the graphic text of an indictment appropriate for wikipedia? WP:BLP "wikipedia is not a tabloid". --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am unclear if these are other cases, I thought the sex video blackmail accusations were one event and that Oktar had only been prosecuted in a case for sex related blackmail once (the trial lasting eight years as stated in the Spanish paper you quoted above). Could you specify the dates so that we can separate the cases?
 * On repeating the text of an indictment, this is not unreasonable for a BLP if it has been reported in reliable sources and the nature and number of quotes stick to the UNDUE guidelines (i.e. proportionate weight would be given to any reporting of the case being overturned). An argument of over-sensationalism must be balanced by meeting the NOTCENSORED guideline. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a different case, and it is still in the courts (read the texts carefully). I am not advocating eliminating the issue, rather rewording/triming it. It reads to me like a tabloid. WP:BLP "wikipedia is not a tabloid".  Other opinions from other editors please? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I have carefully re-checked the two sources you re-pasted originally, and in particular the elperiodico.com article. Both of these sources relate to the same legal case and the evidence collected back in 1999/2000 when he was originally arrested. Fæ (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, we need to work on the wording to make that clear. But again, my original question was is the text overly graphic?  Couldn't the same information be conveyed in a less tabloid manner? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

New Proposed Biography
I agree with Fae that we should continue the on-going discussion about sources for at least another week or two. With over 30 sources to look at, contributors have to have time to run out of puff and then return a few days later to have another crack at making comments. I think only WP:BLP issues should be dealt with in a timely manner.

With that said, I will publish a new proposal for the biography section. This time without any WP:SELFPUB. I don't know that the above sources have much in the way of biographical information, but we can add it as we go. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text 1

 * Adnan Oktar was born in Ankara in 1956. He grew up in Ankara, and lived there through his high school years. During this period, his commitment to Islam increased. He studied the works of the traditional Islamic scholars. From an early age he took upon himself to share his religious experience these with people surrounding him. He was particularly influenced byBediüzzama Said Nursi , an Muslim Kurdish scholar who wrote Risale-i Nur Collection, a body of Qur'anic commentary exceeding six thousand pages, which included a comprehensive political and religious ideology.


 * In 1979, Adnan Oktar entered Istanbul’s Mimar Sinan University. These years were marked with violence and repression which led to a the installation of a military junta following the coup of September 1980. The environment in Turkey was one of political and cultural instability, threatened by Cold War politics, and a clash between Kemalist secular modernisers and a rising tide of Islamic militancy. According to Mr. Oktar, the university at the time was under the influence of various illegal Marxist-communist organizations. Ideologically atheist and materialist trends predominated among students and academic staff. Some members of the teaching staff would seize every opportunity to propagandize on behalf of materialist philosophy and Darwinism, even though these subjects had nothing to do with the curriculum.  This hostile environment was contrary to Mr. Oktar’s upbringing and understanding, so it encouraged him to be more aggressive in promoting religious values.  In an environment where matters of faith were rarely disclosed, he regularly went to the Molla Mosque to pray, regardless of threats. Edip Yuksel described him as a "Sunni zealot", pressure and threats making Oktar determined and resolute to promote religion and oppose secular ideologies.


 * In the early 1980s, he gathered young students around him to share his views of Islam. He argued against against Marxism, communism and materialistic philosophy. He attached special importance to refuting the Theory of Evolution because he felt that its had been turned into an ideology used to promote materialism and atheism, and numerous derivative ideologies. He personally funded a pamphlet entitled The Theory of Evolution, distributing it to students. According to Edip Yüksel, Oktar was "mixing mysticism with scientific rhetoric" based on the ideology of Said Nursi. These students belonged to socially-active and prosperous families of Istanbul. From 1982 to 1984, a group of 20 to 30 was formed. They were joined by private high schools students who were from socially active and well-known families with had a high economic status who had become newly religious.


 * In 1986 he relocated to Istanbul and enrolled in the Philosophy Department of Istanbul University. Adnan Oktar appeared as the cover story of Nokta (The Point) magazine, reporting how he gathered with his friends and held lectures in a mosque. Many university students, mostly from Bosphorus University, one of the most prestigious universities of Turkey,  started to participate.  Adnan Oktar's name began to appear regularly in the press, sometimes in the headlines.  Later that year he published a book "Jews and Freemasonry" based on conspiracy theories that state offices, universities, political groups and media were influecned by a "hidden group".


 * Oktar was arrested, charged with promoting a theocratic revolution for which he served 19 months, though he was never formally charged.  He was arrested because of a statement appeared in an interview which was published in a newspaper "I am from the nation of Ibrahim and Turkish ethnicity."  For the crime of promoting a theocratic revolution he was confined to a prison clinic, and then Bakirkoy Mental Hospital, where he was diagnosed with an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder and schizophrenia. Although doubts exist as to the accuracy of the diagnosis, and whether it was personally or politically motivated.


 * Throughout the 1980s and early ’90s, Oktar built up his community. His followers were especially active recruiting in the summer resorts along the shore of the Sea of Marmara. The social organization within the group become more hierarchical and, and took on a Messianic nature. Several members were claiming that Oktar saw himself as the Mahdi, the Islamic savior that will come at the end of days.


 * In 1990, he founded the Scientific Research Foundation (SRF, or, in Turkish, Bilim Araştırma Vakfı, or BAV). Oktar founded the Science Research Foundation "to [establish]...peace, tranquility and love", though some media describe the BAV as a "a secretive Islamic sect" and "cult-like organization, that jealously guards the secrets of its considerable wealth". Members of the BAV are sometimes referred to as Adnan Hocacılar ("Adherents of Adnan the Hodja") by the public


 * In 1994 the Islamist Welfare Party (Refah Partisi), the predecessor of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), won control of the municipalities of Istanbul and Ankara. The new mayors (in Istanbul this was Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, now Turkey’s Prime Minister) sought broader support. The journalist and editor Fatih Altayli claimed that Oktar made business agreements with municipalities under the control of the Welfare party. This claim denied by Oktar, and resulted in libel suits against Fatih Altayli with various results.


 * In 1995, Adnan Oktar founded Foundation for Protection of National Values (FPNV or in Turkish Millî Değerleri Koruma Vakfı), through which he networks with other conservative Turkish nationalist organizations and individuals based on the ideology of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the Republic of Turkey.


 * In 1997, after another military intervention, the “bloodless coup” of 1997, the government of Erbakan stepped down and the Welfare party disbanded. According to the New Humanist, the current AKP government avoids political connections with Oktar and his organization.


 * In 1998 the Science and Research Foundation, the group Oktar had formed in 1990, launched a major campaign against Darwinism, with a book "The Evolution Deceit"


 * In September 1999 Adnan Oktar was arrested and charged with using threats for personal benefit and creating an organization with the intent to commit a crime (see "Legal issues" below). After a court case lasting two years the charges were dismissed. On the day of his arrest in 1999, the secular Turkish newspaper Sabah documented that Mr. Oktar has been diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia in seven different reports issued by different hospitals from 1983 to 1993. In interviews with international media, Oktar states he was never mentally ill but was institutionalized to stifle his views and complains that Turkish media "propagated the idea that I was a lunatic."


 * After September 11, 2001 and the Word Trade Towers attacks, published a piece called “Islam condemns terror”, Oktar spoke more of interfaith dialogue, attempting to unify believers of all stripes. Muslims, Christians and Jews should unite against the corrupting influence of Darwinism, which he held responsible for Fascism, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust.


 * Between 2001 and present, BAV has organized hundreds of conferences on creationism in Turkey and worldwide.  He built a large publishing enterprise with publications 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.  Adnan Oktar has been preaching about the “Turkish-Islamic Union”, which would bring peace to the entire Muslim world under the leadership of Turkey.


 * 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 September 2008 Oktar issued a challenge offering "10 trillion Turkish lira to anyone who produces a single intermediate-form fossil demonstrating evolution".


 * In 2008, the 1999 case was reopened by another court (see "Legal issues" below). Adan Oktar was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison. But the verdict was appealed and in May 2010 it was overturned. During these years he engaged in numerous libel suits with various results (See "Legal Issues" below). In some cases he was successful in blocking high-profile websites in Turkey for slander (See "Blocking Internet Sites" below), including that of Richard Dawkins internationally renowned ethologist and evolutionary biologist.


 * 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 for his dissemination of creationism in an Islamic context, and other extensively distributed publications on Islamic topics.

Reasons for changes
The reasons are very simple, to provide context for the actions and activities of the subject for users of wikipedia trying to understand:
 * Why did Oktar choose Creationism?
 * Who are Oktar's ideological mentors? Said Nusri, etc
 * Are his aspirations religious or political?
 * Is the government / media in Turkey opposed or in favor of his views ?
 * Does political pressure affect the media coverage and court cases (in both directions)?
 * Is Adnan Oktar's message only Creationism or is part of a larger picture?
 * Is he a revivalist hero or a criminal ?

The goal is to write in Encyclopedic style, WP:N neutral, without WP:OR original research. There is no attempt to answer these questions where it has not been answered by reliable, unbiased sources - only to provide information. Hopefully the most ardent follower or bitter detractor would find the biography neutral. (This biography will be balanced by separate sections on Legal battles & harassments, Criminal cases, and discussion of his writings and publications) --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Issues
As I have now repeatedly challenged this point, please remove "the 500 most influential Muslims in the world". The list itself has a disclaimer saying it is subjective and the RISSC cannot be considered an independent, unbiased or reliable source even if some selected publications from academics within it might be. If the same information can be sourced from elsewhere that may be a better approach than repeatedly proposing this single-sourced information from a disputed source. On WP:RSN it was stated that "It isn't the best of sources for his biography." I have not examined the rest of your proposal as this is a critical deal-breaker on the quality of sources for this BLP. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On WP:RSN it says
 * The RISSC website is a good source for the fact that Oktar was in the list of 500 influential Muslims. We don't have an article on the centre, but we do have one on the list, 500 most influential Muslims - which has been tagged for notability since August this year. Whether it is relevant to include in the article that Oktar was on this list isn't really a sourcing question but a weight question. The list did get independent media attention. In the Google search I found a critical article in the Guardian, which specifically mentioned Oktar, too, so that would be a usable source. Whether you can use the potted profile in the list is a slightly separate matter. It isn't the best of sources for his biography. And at the moment I am only seeing this info in the lede. The correct place is the body of the article, and the lede should only summarise the article and not include new information. The research centre has an impressive number of professors associated with it. It is working within a particular political position, and whatever it says about independence, it is obviously associated with the Jordanian government. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, that does not make it suitable as a single source for BLP information. As it is "not the best of sources" and it has been challenged then you should be looking for better sources to support the information. To re-iterate; as a source it fails to be a quality source (per BLP) as it is not independent, the information it supports is single-sourced, it is subjective, it is not a recognized academic publication and fails to be peer reviewed, it is not based on any recognized statistical method and it has been created for blatantly promotional purposes though the document itself does not clarify the source of funding for its publication.
 * I have asked the WP:RSN commentator if they wish to clarify their statement. Fæ (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me what you are saying (and the WP:RSN commentator is saying) that it is proper to quote the website to say that Okrar was selected in the list of 500 influential Muslims, but the source should not be used for biographical or evaluation material. In that case it could be trimmed to "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" END or perhaps add "In that source he is called "The world’s foremost authority on Creationism and Islam" END. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, yes, I think it is fine to use the source to say that he was selected as a member of the list. I don't have a view on the further addition - I don't know what it would mean to be an "authority" on creationism and Islam, and it seems rather an awkward way to identify the reason he is notable. But including it with careful attribution wouldn't be obviously problematic. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of only adding one line why the report thought he was influential. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, change made above --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but the Ask the Jamiat-biography looks suspiciously the same as the biography on Adnan Oktar's own site. The only difference that I see is in Oktar's struggle against Judaism and Freemasonry, which is edited out on his own site. Anyway, I believe this is a violation of the WP:SELFPUB-rule again.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources used were ones already on the existing wikipage. Weren't they already approved? Anyway, does the above text achieve being informative while remaining neutral? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the rules, you will see that, among others, a personal website wouldn't be a problem, as long as (among others) the material is not unduly self-serving and it does not involve claims about third parties. The portrayal of Oktar as a religious, learned boy, that enters a hostile materialist university violates both conditions. Jeff5102 (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The "hostile materialist university environment" is quoted from the New Humanist article, which is certainly not WP:SELFPUB. Is the only doubt if Oktar claimed to be religious?  The question I am trying to answer is "why Creationism"? and "is this part of a bigger picture?" as both the New Humanist and especially the "Edip Yüksel" article explains.  Can you be more specific which lines you don't like, because I would really like to get this right.  I don't follow your thinking. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text 2
Well, this is more what I like:


 * Adnan Oktar was born in Ankara in 1956. He grew up in Ankara, and lived there through his high school years where he studied the works of Islamic scholars like Said_Nursi


 * In 1979, Adnan Oktar entered Istanbul’s Mimar Sinan University. These years were marked with violence and repression which led to a the installation of a military junta following the coup of September 1980. The environment in Turkey was one of political and cultural instability, threatened by Cold War politics, and a clash between Kemalist secular modernisers and a rising tide of Islamic militancy. In this environment he regularly went to the Molla Mosque to pray, regardless of threats. Edip Yuksel, who knew him during those years, described him as a "Sunni zealot."


 * In the early 1980s, he gathered young students around him to share his views of Islam. These students belonged to socially-active and prosperous families of Istanbul. From 1982 to 1984, a group of 20 to 30 was formed. They were joined by private high schools students who were from socially active and well-known families with had a high economic status who had become newly religious. Edip Yüksel said he presented his teachings "gently and in a modern fashion to the children of the privileged class, without intimidating them... a refined and urbanized version of Said Nursi."


 * In his religious teachings, he argued against against Marxism, communism and materialistic philosophy. He attached special importance to refuting the Theory of Evolution because he felt that its had been turned into an ideology used to promote materialism and atheism, and numerous derivative ideologies. He personally funded a pamphlet entitled The Theory of Evolution. which combined "mysticism with scientific rhetoric."


 * In 1986 he relocated to Istanbul and enrolled in the Philosophy Department of Istanbul University. Adnan Oktar appeared as the cover story of Nokta (The Point) magazine, reporting how he gathered with his friends and held lectures in a mosque. Many university students, mostly from Bosphorus University, one of the most prestigious universities of Turkey,  started to participate.  Adnan Oktar's name began to appear regularly in the press, sometimes in the headlines.  Later that year he published a book "Jews and Freemasonry" based on conspiracy theories that state offices, universities, political groups and media were influenced by a "hidden group".


 * Oktar was arrested, charged with promoting a theocratic revolution for which he served 19 months, though he was never formally charged.  He was confined to a prison clinic, and then Bakirkoy Mental Hospital, where he was diagnosed with an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder and schizophrenia. Although doubts exist as to the accuracy of the diagnosis, and whether it was personally or politically motivated.


 * Throughout the 1980s and early ’90s, Oktar built up his community. His followers were especially active recruiting in the summer resorts along the shore of the Sea of Marmara. The social organization within the group become more hierarchical and, and took on a Messianic nature. Several members were claiming that Oktar saw himself as the Mahdi, the Islamic savior that will come at the end of days.


 * In 1990, he founded the Scientific Research Foundation (SRF, or, in Turkish, Bilim Araştırma Vakfı, or BAV). Oktar founded the Science Research Foundation "to [establish]...peace, tranquility and love", though some media describe the BAV as a "a secretive Islamic sect" and "cult-like organization, that jealously guards the secrets of its considerable wealth". Members of the BAV are sometimes referred to as Adnan Hocacılar ("Adherents of Adnan the Hodja") by the public


 * In 1994 the Islamist Welfare Party (Refah Partisi), the predecessor of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), won control of the municipalities of Istanbul and Ankara. The new mayors (in Istanbul this was Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, now Turkey’s Prime Minister) sought broader support. The journalist and editor Fatih Altayli claimed that Oktar made business agreements with municipalities under the control of the Welfare party. This claim was denied by Oktar, and resulted in libel suits against Fatih Altayli with various results.


 * In 1995, Adnan Oktar founded Foundation for Protection of National Values (FPNV or in Turkish Millî Değerleri Koruma Vakfı), through which he networks with other conservative Turkish nationalist organizations and individuals based on the ideology of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the Republic of Turkey. Oktar himself disappeared and was not seen for four years.


 * In 1997, after another military intervention, the “bloodless coup” of 1997, the government of Erbakan stepped down and the Welfare Party disbanded. According to the New Humanist, the current AKP government avoids political connections with Oktar and his organization.


 * In September 1999 Adnan Oktar was arrested and charged with using threats for personal benefit and creating an organization with the intent to commit a crime (see "Legal issues" below). After a court case lasting two years the charges were dismissed.


 * After September 11, 2001 and the WTC attacks, Oktar published a piece called “Islam condemns terror”, Oktar spoke more of interfaith dialogue, attempting to unify believers of all stripes. Muslims, Christians and Jews should unite against the corrupting influence of Darwinism, which he held responsible for Fascism, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust.


 * Between that time and present, BAV has organized hundreds of conferences on creationism in Turkey and worldwide.  He built a large publishing enterprise with publications 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.  Adnan Oktar has been preaching about the “Turkish-Islamic Union”, which would bring peace to the entire Muslim world under the leadership of Turkey.


 * In 2007 he sent out thousands of unsolicited texts advocating Islam and creationism to schools and colleges in several European countries and the USA.


 * The next year the 1999 case was reopened by another court (see "Legal issues" below). Adan Oktar was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison. But the verdict was appealed and in May 2010 it was overturned. During these years he engaged in numerous libel suits with various results (See "Legal Issues" below). In some cases he was successful in blocking high-profile websites in Turkey for slander (See "Blocking Internet Sites" below), including that of Richard Dawkins, as well as the complete Wordpress-site.


 * 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 for his dissemination of creationism in an Islamic context, and other extensively distributed publications on Islamic topics.

I cut down everything I did not like, like the extensive reports on the university life, his so-called paranoid schizophrenia, and some parts which I thought were not important enough. I also added a few things. It is shorter, but the main points are still standing.We still need to work on the "In 1998 he.." routine; we should be able to write in a better style. If I come up with more improvements, I'll give them Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Comments --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence "and lived there through his high school years where he studied the works of Islamic scholars like Bediüzzama Said Nursi" looses its impact, Edip says that "Oktar was a modern Said Nursi" and this is lost in your paired down version.
 * Made a minor change to address this.
 * The line "Oktar himself disappeared and was not seen for four years." appears without context. I am not sure what it adds, even in the article it is not explained.
 * In general (even in my version) the idea that Oktar is seen as a religious figure by many is not really given due emphasis.


 * The reason of mentioning Oktar's disappearance was because it was notable enough for this small biography in the Turkish Daily News:

Who is Adnan Hoca? Adnan Oktar, publicly known as Adnan Hoca, or Teacher Adnan, first surfaced in the public as a religious figure after 1990. The children of Turkey's "famous" people became disciples of Adnan Hoca. Adnan Hoca was a name known to be close to all politicians, particularly Necmettin Erbakan, the founder and chairman of the now defunct Welfare Party (RP). He produced studies on Islam and political topics in books published under various names. Adnan Hoca, who disappeared after 1995, has not been seen for years except by his disciples.

Adnan Hoca's disciplines began to interest the public because of the attractive young men and women among them. Last year Adnan Hoca's name again came on the agenda when one of his group's members, Serkan Ciminli, was murdered. The murderers were arrested within a short period of time and, in their confession, they claimed Ciminli and the Adnan Hoca group had been blackmailing them.

The group operates under the name of the Scientific Research Foundation and shows itself as trying to be of service to Turkey.


 * Thus, I thought it would be notable as well. Maybe the Ciminli case is notable enough to mention as well, but I do not know if there are sufficient sources
 * Furthermore, I cut down the Said Nursi-fragment, because Wikipedia already got a Said Nursi-article. Anyone who wants to know more can find any useful information there.
 * And finally, Oktar is mostly known for the books in which he attacks evolution and atheism. Furthermore, for his plan of an "union of faiths" got some attention, but as far as I know, his religious teachings are hardly discussed outsite his own webspace. That explains the lack of emphasis on "Oktar as a religious figure" in my version of his biography.
 * Does this give you a proper explanation of my reasons for chnges, Geoff? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I accepted your text as you proposed. I left out the line about disappearing for four years because without context, I am not sure what message it is intended to give.  Did he hide from lawsuits? Did he retreat for meditation? Did he leave the country? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources List needs to be continued
I hope we can archive the "BLP Issue" and "New Proposed Biography" threads and re-open them again as needed. The biography is too long, but I want to work selections from the reliable sources listed above.

Also the other sections need work, there is a lot of WP:SELFPUB and WP:OR there, and some points mentioned by all the sources are not included at all, such as Oktar's approach to Creationism being based on Christian Creationism, and the Fly lure incident.

Oktar is an Islamic Creationist, yet there is only one small line that discusses his views: "Gerdien de Jong, of five biologists at Utrecht University who received a copy of the book, has described its reasoning as 'absurdly ridiculous'."

Lastly, I don't know how to judge, but are the labels "Anti-Zionism, Anti-Masonry, Anti-Buddhism" and the Category "Holocaust Denier" correct and noteworthy? (I don't recall anywhere it is written that Oktar is known for being anti-buddhist) --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Conspiracy theories section is particularly unsourced, although i think it contains an accurate presentation the general flavor of sources accepted so far. I will try and look in the Sources List above to try and rewrite that section with real sources. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything of his that is anti Buddhist, can someone provide some quotes and sources otherwise i think this should be removed from the page.

Ibn kathir (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism
Are Oktar's views on Buddhism really relevant? He has views on Capitalism, Democracy, European Union and Armenia. Whats the difference between them and Buddhism. The only source quoted is Oktar's material itself. By the same logic, anything else that Oktar wrote could be added to the article. Someone give me some guidelines here. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" why cant his works be used to state his views or in the least defend him against an accusation made against him [an example is the claim he believed himself to be the mahdi while in reality he produced numerous videos and books regarding prophecies surrounding the "awaited" Mahdi clearly showing the accusation is false], it would not be


 * 1) the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.

im not certain what 3 is referring to. Is the article simply recording what can be sourced regardless of accuracy or is an investigation occurring to ascertain the most accurate representation of the truth?

Just because it has a reliable source does not make it true, clearly their can be numerous conflicting sources.

Ibn kathir (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) (3) is referring to the fact that WP:SPSs should not be used for claims about events that the source's writer was not directly involved in.
 * 2) Read WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in original)
 * 3) Inclusion of his statements about Buddhism/Buddhist practices clearly violates (2) & (3)
 * 4) The standard is not whether or not his statements are "defend[ing] himself", but whether he is talking about himself or talking about others.

What i am talking about is if a source makes a claim [without proof], an accusation essentially, but the person being accused clearly holds a verifiable belief through his works to the contrary of the accusation, then why cant his works be used to state his belief. I think 3 is referring to a persons self published work being used as a source in a page about a topic eg a page about Buddhism and not a BLP in which the sulf pub work is only used to clarify his beliefs and not as an expert opinion about a matter. otherwise any published source can make any accusation against anyone and the individual can not clarify his beliefs unless a third party publishes his beliefs for him. He isn't being used as an expert on Buddhism but to state what he believes about Buddhism since he was accused of something regarding it.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "...then why cant his works be used to state his belief" -- if the views are about a third party (in this instance Buddhists), then it can't because it violates WP:SELFPUB. If you want to argue the ins and outs of that policy, then take it to WT:Verifiability.
 * 2) (3) is not "referring to a persons self published work being used as a source in a page about a topic eg a page about Buddhism", as the introductory statement of WP:SELFPUB "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" (emphasis original) does not allow its usage in contexts that are not "about themselves" -- "eg a page about Buddhism" (when the writer isn't a Buddhist). Your interpretation would amount to 'whilst doing something you're already generally forbidden to do, you can't do something specifically forbidden' -- it's essentially redundant.
 * 3) In any case, the Buddhism section did not contain any "claim [without proof]" or "accusation" against Oktar, just his self-published anti-Buddhism diatribes.


 * You guys have lost me here. Why is it a violation WP:V #2 and #3? the subject is not "Buddhism" but "Oktars views about Buddhism". The claim is not about a third party, but what the subject of the article believes about a third party. For the sake of understanding, the guidelines say "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" so why can't Oktar's own material be used a source for his views about a subject? Would it have made a difference if hte title of the section had been "Views on Buddhism"? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How are "Oktars views about Buddhism" not on the subject of Buddhism? How is his stating "that Buddhism as being a false religion built upon idolatry and falsehood" not a claim about the Buddhist community, a third party group? They cannot "be used a source for his views about a subject", when that subject is a third party. "Views on Buddhism" = claims about Buddhism = claims about a third party (given that Oktar isn't a Buddhist). Oktar is not an expert on either Buddhism or comparative religion -- so we really shouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to his views on the subject, unless a WP:SECONDARY source takes notice of them -- any more than we should give notice to the views of some random Buddhist chauvinist on the subject of Islam. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I follow your argument for WP:UNDUE, that we really shouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to his views on the subject, unless a WP:SECONDARY source takes notice of them. But I still don't see why the you think it is a violation of WP:V? What could be better than a primary source for a subjects views on something? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it would open up Wikipedia to every half-baked, self-published derogatory opinion by anybody with a sufficiently large megaphone (metaphorically speaking) to warrant an article. WP:SELFPUB can be considered a limited licence for them to talk about themselves, their activities and their beliefs -- it does not extend to talking about others, others' activities, or others' beliefs. For the latter you need to be a WP:RS on the subject. Oktar is not a Buddhist, nor an expert on Buddhism, so we should not include his self-published opinions on the subject -- that is both policy, and reasonable, in my opinion. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us suppose, as a fanciful example, that I won a Nobel Prize for Physics. This would almost certainly mean that I'd have an article on Wikipedia. Let us further suppose I had a blog, and that I spent a considerable amount of it talking about what a terrible actor I thought Keanu Reeves was, and how awful I thought his pictures were. Would it be appropriate to include this material in an article about me (given that I have no particular expertise in film criticism, and it's just the inexpert opinion of somebody who just happens to be famous for something completely unrelated)? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you say, but it still seems to me that it is covered by WP:UNDUE and WP:SECONDARY and not WP:V. How can you say that a WP:SELFPUB source is not verifiable WP:V for opinions by the subject? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because WP:V states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is ... whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source..." (my emphasis) -- this makes issues of reliability and publication directly relevant to WP:V. WP:V then spends the next four sections talking about reliability of sources -- and WP:SELFPUB is stated in this context -- a self-published and/or questionable source is only acceptable for the purposes of verifiability if it meets the five criteria of WP:SELFPUB. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls its self an encyclopedia so ultimately the aim of these guidelines are to arrive at the most accurate account of a subject by the simple fact of what an encyclopedia is. So this is the underlying intent. It is a gross injustice to deny any individual [after being accused by a published source] the right to defend himself or clarify his views simply because a third party hadn't published his views and why should we wait to hear a response from a third party when you can just go and hear it from the horses mouth so to speak. We are not discussing buhdism as a subject and this is where i think you are mistaken in your understanding their is a difference between a selfpub being used as an expert opinion about a matter [which isnt what is occurring here] and being used to clarify his individual beliefs. the issue is the accuracy of an accusation or criticism, if you cant get past buhdism as a subject then take the accusation that he saw himself as the mahdi, his own works clear him of this baseless accusation whose only credibility is that someone said it and it was published. Wikipedia is not a media repository where we simply collect media snippets their is an ultimate aim and intent behind these guidelines and you have to look at their real world effects and clearly by your interpretation a man can not defend himself unless a third party publishes his response to an accusation which is ludicrous.


 * OKTAR WAS NOT "ACCUSED BY A PUBLISHED SOURCE" IN THIS SECTION -- SO THERE IS NO "GROSS INJUCTICE" AND YOUR GRANDSTANDING (i.e. WP:SOAPBOXing) IS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT! <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ibn kathir (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

See Statutory interpretation, "To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose"..."The judiciary interprets how legislation should apply in a particular case as no legislation unambiguously and specifically addresses all matters". These guidelines should not be interpreted in a manner where a denial of a basic human right occurs and that is the the right of any individual to face his accusers and defend himself. This page is about Adnan Octar his life and beliefs so i don't think it is against wiki policy to state what these are according to him. The only other solution i can suggest is that we as human beings if we can clearly see that a source is wrong or false in its claims then the accusation should not be published on the wiki page nor its response by the individual. i would also suggest visiting mediawatch to see real world accounts of how often the media does get it wrong and in many cases deliberately falsifies information.

Ibn kathir (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (i) I don't give the proverbial "pair of fetid dingo's kidneys" what you "don't think", when it is against WP:SELFPUB. (ii) THERE WAS NO "ACCUSATION" IN THIS SECTION SO YOUR SOAPBOXING IS AGAIN UTTERLY IRRELEVANT! (iii) NO, I will not "see Statutory interpretation", as this is not a court of law, nor a matter the subject of legal proceedings. This is again UTTERLY IRRELEVANT! <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hrafn Get of your high horse, my post is not soap boxing, this is a talk page not an article so what right do you have to delete my comments. You seem to be a cynical by nature if you cant even adhere to Wikipedia good faith policy and claim every post is self serving. I am discussing the nature of wikki policy as brought up by Geoffry Thomas, my request for quotes on Buddhism is in the previous section so place your posts and comments their i am not discussing Buddhism here if you have no reply to my points stay silent other editors have a right to read the issues i brought up.

Ibn kathir (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Then kindly stop ranting about things that are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the section under discussion. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should read "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" which was my point exactly, unless you make some sort of attempt at accuracy all you are doing is collecting news headlines most of which are contradictory. Neutral and balanced does not equate to blind repetition and absolute neutrality does not exist as it is all subjective to each individuals perspective so whether you acknowledge it or not you are making some sort of judgment based on your perception and level of intelligence this is the nature of human beings.

Ibn kathir (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that nobody is proposing turning this article into "collections of external links or Internet directories", "collections of internal links", "collections of public domain or other source material" or "collections of photographs or media files", this is again UTTERLY IRRELEVANT!

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt
 * 1) This thread is about a (since-deleted) section on Oktar's view on Buddhism
 * 2) That section was sourced to nothing other than Oktar's (and/or his website's) statements about Buddhism -- so did not contain any accusations against him
 * 3) Neither that section, nor this thread, is the subject of legal proceedings (and thus not subject to "statutory interpretation")
 * 4) As the section has been deleted, nobody is attempting to turn it into "a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files"
 * 5) Unless somebody is making a claim that the deleted section did not violate WP:SELFPUB, I think this thread has concluded

Pay attention to peoples train of thought, "But I still don't see why the you think it is a violation of WP:V? What could be better than a primary source for a subjects views on something? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)" i was replying to this to which you said "Because it would open up Wikipedia to every half-baked, self-published derogatory opinion by anybody with a sufficiently large megaphone" which is an irrelevant point since essentially the size of the persons megaphone dose not deny them the right to reply to an accusation which was the issue being discussed. You where basically saying that you cant use a primary source to reply to an accusation or in plain english a person doesn't have a right to reply to something said about him in a published article unless he himself has his reply published. This is a warped interpretation of wikki guidelines [which is why i tried to point out that guidelines [similar to law] have various interpretations and just because one interpretation is fixed in your mind doesn't make it the absolute interpretation, you have to consider intent or its ultimate aim] with no consideration for Wikipedia's ultimate intent that it is an encyclopedia. The only issue of relevancy you have is that i was discussing it in the scope of the article at large and not simply buhdism which is why i mentioned the accusation that he declared himself the mahdi which is in the proposed article.

Ibn kathir (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it make it easier for you if i started a new section regarding the mahdi Quote and rehashed the same arguments their?

Ibn kathir (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No Ibn kathir, it is you who needs to "pay attention". You were blathering on about non-existent "accusations" long before Geoffry Thomas' "But I still don't see..." comment, and you continue to blather about it. THERE WAS NO ACCUSATION! Geoffry Thomas was not and never has been talking about an "accusation". There was just Oktar making a bunch of ignorant derogatory comments about Buddhism (in a WP:SPS, not merely a WP:PRIMARY one). Have you even read the (now deleted) section in question? You give no indication that you have. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Cant you separate issues in your mind, i was discussing wiki policy, principles and its interpretation which where brought up in the discussion as i quoted.

Ibn kathir (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You were "discussing [largely irelevant] wiki policy, principles and its interpretation" in the context of non-existent "accusations". (i) WP:NOTREPOSITORY was not "brought up", and is not relevant. (ii) Statutory_interpretation was not "brought up", and is not relevant. (iii) Even if these were brought up, or relevant, then discussing them in the context of non-existent accusations is no more relevant than discussing them in the context of Oktar's non-existent spaceship, or any other non-existent object or idea. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"He also asserts that evolution is directly related to the claimed evils of materialism, Nazism, communism, and Buddhism[35].

This is an accusation and primary research [the link is directly to his material], Adnan oktar is against idol worshiping [as the book is primarily concerned with this point] as are all individuals belonging to the abrahamic faiths, the evil is in worshiping a God other than the one true God he doesn't claim buhdist are evil people which is what is required to be anti buhdist, this is also why it is an inaccurate accusation. He is simply espousing basic Islamic tenants of faith so you may as well label Muslims Christians and Jews as Anti buhdist since to them worshiping any god other than the one true God is an evil act and part of their doctrine. Essentially the work is a comparative study between Islam and Buddhism what other conclusion would you have him draw then the religion is false, if he believed it to be true he would convert to it.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No Ibn kathir, the Buddhism part of that claim was removed by Geoffry Thomas before you made your first comment on this thread. It is thus also irrelevant. That many Eastern religions hold a very different worldview from Abrahamic religions is not an adequate excuse for his bile -- many (most?) Christians, Jews and Muslims seem able to accept this point. Buddhists have no more reason to accept that "worshiping any god other than [Oktar's] one true God is an evil act" (in actual fact, many don't worship any god at all) than a Muslim has a reason to accept that worshipping any god other than Shiva is an evil act. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The anti Buddhist tag is still stuck at the bottom of his page, so if your in agreement this is not from a reliable source as it is based on primary research then it should be removed. this inst about accepting anything, to a Buddhist other religions are equally wrong and evil since to them theirs is the only truth, you cant seem to separate a work discussing issues on the ideological level and one where it specifically talks about a race of people as being evil, next you will be claiming that each holy book is anti-[insert random group] since it declares itself to be the absolute truth while all else is false.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Critics of Buddhism category/Criticism of Buddhism link are accurate, given the large number of derogatory comments Oktar has made about Buddhism. However, and argument can be made that they're not noteworthy, given the lack of WP:SECONDARY sources commenting on this issue. I will therefore remove them. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hrafn. I opened this section by asking if his views on Buddhism were noteworthy. But I do find the discussion on what is noteworthy and not SOAPBOX enlightening. --Geoffry Thomas (talk)
 * Hrafn, do you know of an example of a WP:BLP about someone else which is a good example of how you envision a BLP on Oktar? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * William A. Dembski might prove useful, or perhaps Ken Ham. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of Publications
I agree with Ibn kathir to a point. For example, Oktar was claimed by reuters 'to be the most widely published Muslim in th world". His website has a count of websites, books and CDs that he has published, and because of the above strict application of WP:SELFPUB you would prevent publication of that information.  That is to say, these confirming details are left out, even though no source claims that Oktar is unreliable or exaggerates the number of his publications, and there are verifiable WP:SECONDARY sources which claim "many", "enormous", "large printing establishment" and even "most widely published in the Muslim world", and surely it is WP:DUE importance to the subject at hand. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Reliability is about accuracy and fact-checking, not volume. A sufficient number of RSs have commented adversely upon Oktar's claims (see Creationism, Conspiracy theories and Holocaust sections) that, even if you can argue that his publications are not WP:SPS, due to the size of his operations, they are still WP:QS, and thus still fall under WP:SELFPUB (also known as WP:SELFANDQUEST). Oktar is on the WP:FRINGE on a wide range of issues, and seems to have a strong tendency to make inflammatory statements on subjects well outside anything that could reasonably be considered his area of expertise. Wikipedia should not act as a WP:SOAPBOX for such statements, unless and until those statements garner WP:SECONDARY notice. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What are your sources for these claims? Especially "strong tendency to make inflammatory statements on subjects well outside anything that could reasonably be considered his area of expertise" which doesn't agree with my reading. Oktar is not at all WP:FRINGE in the Islamic world, many of his propositions are derived from classical Islamic teachings. Is wikipedia euro-centric? I expect when more of the article is based on the above Source List (books) rather than newspaper blurbs, that he won't appear WP:FRINGE or unreliable. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Is adding a confirming piece of data (number of publications) a Soapbox? The size of his publishing operation has gained WP:SECONDARY notice. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That advocacy of Creationism, Conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial are WP:FRINGE is not, I would have thought, in any doubt. But if you wish to argue the toss, we can take it to WP:FTN. That he "seems to have a strong tendency to make inflammatory statements on subjects well outside anything that could reasonably be considered his area of expertise" is my own analysis, relevant to analysing his reliability as a source. If you want to argue whether he is a WP:QS or a WP:RS, e.g. on the topic of Buddhism, I would likewise be happy to take it to WP:RSN for wider discussion. On neither point do I consider argumentum ad populum claims to be relevant -- what is reliable, or fringe, is an issue to be addressed by expert opinion, not popular opinion. I am not arguing the facts of "number of publications" -- but rather the relevance of this to Wikipedia's standards for inclusion (especially WP:V). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am asking about his catalog website being a RS on the specific number of websites, books Posters and CDs he has for sale, which has gained WP:SECONDARY notice. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a quite different point to that raised by Ibn kathir. The information in question would seem not to be either "unduly self-serving" or "about third parties", so sourcing it to a WP:SPS/WP:QS would not violate a "strict application of WP:SELFPUB" (as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources"). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Connected contributors
What does this tag mean on the Talk Page? Is this page under "special watch"? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It means that the user in question may have a WP:COI on this article, and so their edits may need greater scrutiny. As the last (and only) edit was in April 2009, it should probably be viewed as 'stale' and removed. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources List needs to be continued
Please everyone, instead of haggling over the wording of the meager sources that are currently listed - which are at best, only indirect sources. Please look at the Sources List above, most of the books and journals are available online. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is rated B-Class biography articles and B-Class Turkey articles, in my opinion both should be changed to "start"-Class articles. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography improvement
The bibliography is almost entirely missing ISBN information. Google Books has a long list of books under the authorship of "Hârun Yahya", and ISBNs can often be found in the Amazon or ABEbooks listings linked to from the individual book listings in this. OttoBib can often give additional details (in a filled out cite book) based upon the ISBN. I've made a start, but given the length of the list, it's likely to take some time. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that it would be wise or practical to list all of his books. I thought a list of the first ten and most recent ten publications would be better than from what I can tell is essentially a random list of publications. In this way one can get a flavor of early and later publications. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffry Thomas (talk • contribs)


 * I'm just saying that the info's there -- not that we should use all of it (2,500 books would probably make for a somewhat unbalanced article). The only book to date that I haven't been able to extract an ISBN off via Google Books is A Chain of Miracles. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WorldCat also doesn't have a listing for A Chain of Miracles. I'd therefore suggest removing it until its existence under this title (i.e. that the title isn't a typo, a translation of the title of an untranslated book, etc) can be confirmed. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact a WorldCat search of books from 1995-1997 doesn't reveal any books with English titles. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I turned the entire bibliography into cite books, and then ran Cite Bot on it (per the recommendation in ISBN) -- no new ISBNs. We should probably take a hard look at removing the listed books that lack ISBNs. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We may need to look harder. I found "The Signs of Jesus' Second Coming Author: Harun Yahya ISBN-13: 9789756426494 - ISBN-10: 9756426497" by using google. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Added. That book isn't in WorldCat (meaning none of the covered libraries have it), though it is in Internet Book Database. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Strand Bookstore, Atlas of Creation (Vol 1) is ISBN 1499086377 -- but I can't find this confirmed anywhere else. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazon.com and book123.net have the "Atlas of Creation" books listed using ASIN numbering. Do a search on the numbers I have listed. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ASIN codes are Amazon internal stock identifiers, and so should not be substituted for ISBNs. Also, a number of the ISBNs you've added turn up no hits, making me rather skeptical as to their validity. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding ASINs gives screwy results via the ISBN link, for instance ISBN B000U37CWQ (Atlas Of Creation (Volume 1)) takes you to this Internet Book Database link (essentially it strips all the letters out, leaving you with '00037'), and a number of other links do likewise. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought ASIN might be some Asian numbering system because it was in use at several websites. To get the numbers I googled the name of the book with the word "ISBN" and looked what the Islamic bookstores were using. I will try looking in other places. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A Chain of Miracles (1996) almost certainly doesn't exist, so its ISBN is almost certain to be bogus. Also, it's not uncommon for an ISBN to turn up in a single bookstore (see my Strand example above) without any indication that its used elsewhere (meaning that it's more likely to be a clerical blunder than a valid number). Adding such likely-invalid ISBNs is doing a disservice to the reader. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I placed a discuss tag on the remaining ISBNs that I think are particularly suspect. However, on running the database listings accessible through their ISBN tags, they're all confirmed though Internet Book Database -- so removed the tags again. It may be that this database is a bit too permissive in picking up ISBNs (as none of the other databases listed them) -- but it means that we can reasonably claim to be acting in good faith in including them. Problem solved (unless you wish to argue the toss over removing ASIN or A Chain of Miracles). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you have done. I wouldn't want to remove "Altas of Creation" though, even if we haven't found the isbn, because it is significant to the subject (it is even in the lede).  What do you think about including the first and most recent books?  The current list seems to me to be random, but representative.  What is missing are Okar's early political works on Turkish nationalism.  I would claim that that would be representative of his offerings, but you could claim that it is not significant. What do you say? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Altas of Creation is a special case, due to all the publicity it has received (making it the very last of Oktar's books we should ever consider removing). I do however think that this lack of an ISBN thing is rather screwy -- and given its prominence, it's probably the one that we most want to get bibliographic details straight for. I'm less certain on the "random, but representative" sample thing, given the shear numbers. I think we should stick to his more prominent works (for example ones that have garnered reviews, comments, controversies, etc). From what I saw in WorldCat (which may be a good place for you to start), I suspect that most of his early works were purely in Turkish -- meaning that Western databases are likely to be biased against inclusion -- so you may have difficulty finding details on them. Also, how would you tell which of them were prominent? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting a cut-off by the first ten and most recent ten. (I'm going to be unable to contribute to wikipedia until after the new year) --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Fringe
Hrafn, please don't get upset. I could raise these questions on the appropriate lists, and maybe in time I will. But I am really asking to understanding, and to benefit those who wish to edit the page. You write "That advocacy of Creationism, Conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial are WP:FRINGE is not, I would have thought, in any doubt.". --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Creationism - certainly is WP:FRINGE from a scientific point of view. But is it fringe from a religious point of view? It has been written about and discussed for centuries and is held by millions of people.
 * Conspiracy theories - I am looking for reliable sources, so I am not writing anything yet, but it seems that Oktar has actually become less FRINGE in this area. He appears to have started out with standard Conspiracy theories held by many in Turkey, including the former prime minister of Turkey and evolved into a more general notion of these groups. They no longer are referenced as specific individuals and groups, but are types and ideologies. If and when this is noticed by a WP:SECONDARY source, this would surely be worthy of inclusion.
 * Holocaust denial - From Oktar's point of view, he denies that he published the book. He currently sells (only) a different book that affirms the Holocaust. So whenever this is noticed by a WP:SECONDARY source, same as above.


 * (i) I'm not sure I'd agree with "actually become less FRINGE in this area" -- what the article states is "In recent publications and interviews (since 2004), Oktar qualifies his condemnations of Zionism and Freemasonry by adding the word atheist before them, as in atheist Zionists and atheist Freemasons." Whilst it would be possible to be an atheist Zionist (though I don't know if a significant number of Zionists are atheists), Freemasonry requires belief in a Supreme Being, so "atheist Freemasons" is an oxymoron. (ii) I find it hard to imagine how BAV, which Oktar controls, managed to publish, as its first book, something purporting-to-be-written-by-Oktar, but actually written by somebody else. I would note that The Guardian article expressed skepticism of this "unduly self-serving" claim: "Additionally, Yahya denies writing Holocaust Lies, but that is hard to believe." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Creationism
"Creationism - certainly is WP:FRINGE from a scientific point of view" i don't agree with this, evolution is a fringe theory in the world scientific community. A Muslim scientist can not be a Muslim and deny god created creation, similarly a christian or Jewish scientist as well as any scientist belonging to any other religion who believes in a higher being [such as Hinduism] can deny this while and still be considered as part of that faith. Atheistic evolution [different from creationist evolution] is a theory held by a minority of the worlds scientists as most hold some sort of religious belief.

Another point is creationism is a belief held by billions not millions of people around the world while the same cant be said for evolution.

Ibn kathir (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Soapbox kathir: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I was using Creationism in its common usage, "refer[ing] to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes, in particular much of evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth."
 * 2) See theistic evolution.
 * 3) See level of support for evolution.
 * 4) See WP:FRINGE.


 * Hrafn, Neither the Creationism page nor Theistic evolution is marked anywhere as WP:FRINGE, so on what grounds do you classify someone as holding to those views as WP:FRINGE? They may be a minority, they may be wrong, but they are not a priori WP:FRINGE. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (i) Pretty much every factual (as opposed to theological) claim that the various forms of creationism make are pseudoscientific -- that puts them into WP:FRINGE/PS. (ii) TE isn't WP:FRINGE, I was citing it to correct Ibn kathir's claims about Christian/Jewish/etc scientists. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your wikipedia source for that? If so every creationist in wikipedia should be tagged WP:FRINGE.  So far looking at the people tagged Category:Creationist and Category:Islamic Creationist, I haven't found anyone marked WP:FRINGE, or is this some unwritten wikipedia rule? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Statements from Scientific Organizations, cited in Creationism. Detailed deconstruction of their various claims can be found via An Index to Creationist Claims. As far as I know, WP:FRINGE does not require tagging of anybody. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You assume i accept Wikipedia as a credible source for anything, most of this site is classed primary research and not accepted among the academic community, see Criticism of Wikipedia.Ibn kathir (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Ibn kathir: I cited scientific sources, including the statements of dozens of scientific organisations. But no, based upon your behaviour to date, I had no expectation whatsoever that you'd accept any source with the least scientific credibility whatsoever -- but then, I did not give the sources in response to you, nor have I given the least impression whatsoever that I care in the slightest as to your distorted opinion of what constitutes "a credible source for anything". Except for the Christian-Muslim thing (making you mutual 'infidels'), I would expect that your viewpoint would be perfectly at home at Conservapedia -- maybe you should consider creating a Muslim equivalent. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Faith based scientific claims, did you do any of the research yourself....no but you have your faith placed in it as equally as others do in God. Its enough that a qualified biologist or geneticist miraculously becomes a theologian overnight when it comes to evolution and you have faith in that semantic game but through out this entire discussion you criticize Mr Oktar for talking about issues he isn't suitably Qualified in.

It must be crystal clear in your world or mind, all scientists agree on the same things their is no difference of opinion on anything and all is right in the world, spare me your fairy tale scientific claims most of which is mediocre attempts at forcing atheism upon the world otherwise they would have stated their claims impartially, waited for pier review and shut up about the theology, its truths would have become self evident. Instead we see this drive to force something upon the rest of us. Lets not forget it was men of faith who developed the scientific method to understand Gods creation better....and now where all descendant from monkeys...clap clap.

its often the conclusion that's idiotic not the science...

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ROFLMAO! This is one of the most ludicrously WP:POT tirades I've seen in a long time. Have you or Oktar spent several thousand lifetimes in laboratories peering through the mountains upon mountains of evidence supporting evolution, attempting to replicate or disprove it all? Of course you haven't You're just a pair of little children blocking your ears and screaming at the top of your (in Oktar's case very well-funded) lungs so you don't have to listen to what's going on in the outside world. When it's pointed out to you that many believe in both Christianity/Islam/etc as well as accepting evolution, you just scream louder. Oh look -- another creationist made the stupid "where all descendant from monkeys" caricature of evolution -- demonstrating his utter ignorance of evolutionary biology (humans don't descend from monkeys, humans, other apes, monkeys, etc radiate out from an extinct last common ancestor) and how "idiotic" he is. Can we ignore him now please? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

 * Holocaust denial is a serious charge. We know that in 2006 BAV published a book that clearly affirms the holocaust. He has had numerous pro-Jewish websites published in recent years. Even if he did write the book (which he has so many ghost writers is not certain anyway) it does not mean he is now. Lets try and get a quote from more recent reliable sources.--Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have any credible (i.e. not "hard to believe") evidence that the 1996 book did not go out with his approval (whether ghost-written by his organisation on his behalf, or written by him directly)? If not, then the Holocaust question over his WP:FRINGE-iness remains relevant (if diminished somewhat by the contradicting 2006 book -- but we have no more information on whether that was written by Oktar himself, or by a ghost writer, than we have on the 1996). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am looking in the Turkish sources. There is more information available, but it will take some time. Despite the claim by Bedri Baykam, I don't think it was ever determined who wrote the book.  I believe the only thing that is known for sure is that it was published under the Harun Yahya "brand" (remember BAV was only organized a year later), and that it was later determined that Adnan Oktar was the main force behind the Harun Yahya "brand". --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The state of affairs at least since 2006, is such that you cannot buy a Holocaust denial book from Oktar or download it from his websites. You can only buy a Holocaust affirming book.  So the question may be asked: even if he did write the book, if someone was once a Holocaust denier and then later retracts, should he still be tagged in Wikipedia as a Category:Holocaust denier? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

He has nothing to gain be denying he published the book, he has already tackled one of the most controversial issues of the day, evolution, been heavily criticized for it around the world and not shied away from the issue and as we can see from his distribution of the Atlas of creation he is bold in his actions and convictions and doesn't easily back away from them when he believes they are the truth. I think their is the underlying assumption that in the Islamic world they would actually care about being labeled a holocaust denier, little value is placed on criticism from the Jewish community and its lobbies their are far greater issues to worry about than what someone in a far away land thinks of you and the same stigma's are not relevant their.

Ibn kathir (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ibn kathir, this is not a far away land, this is wikipedia. We are all reading from the same page. The subject of his views on the holocaust has been mentioned in many of the articles (both in Turkey and internationally) written about him between 1996-2004, so apparently it does concern many credible media outlets.  So according to the rules of wikipedia, if it concerns "credible media outlets" it concerns wikipedia. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about him as an individual, he didn't shy away when the pressure was put on regarding evolution etc. Ibn kathir (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * People has the right to change their views. The book in which he denies the genocide is questionable, but if he is writer of this book, then his recent works show that he has changed his mind. Kavas (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr Oktars Interfaith efforts
In light of the current climate between Jews and Muslims these are pretty remarkable assertions, maybe more can be written on his efforts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BqPoaIzgqo&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOF2YQatoIw&feature=player_embedded

Ignore the titles. Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is notable enough for serious media to write about it, I believe that we should.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * mainstream media hardly writes about religion in general or anyone's efforts at interfaith dialogue, Jewish scholars take him serious enough to attend and believe him sincere enough to make binding comments [which bridge the gap] such as these which is what i thought was remarkable, Most other interfaith talks struggle to not be a debate. I think as other editors have discovered it is hard finding material on his life in general let alone specific activities in the media [otherwise if we write what was just in the media his entire life would seem a sensational tabloid affair and hardly reflect the individual in question] maybe we should take as "if it is notable enough in his life" as it is his biography page and any recourse to mainstream media is only in terms of sourcing, notability in the wider community is not required i don't think when it is about the individual himself and his activities. I'm looking at the results of strictly applying wikki policy in instances of obscure [relatively speaking] individuals.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." (WP:V) -- no WP:RS, no inclusion. This is bedrock policy. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * that misses the point of strictly applying it to obscure individuals and doesn't make sense about "editors think it is true", he has made efforts at interfaith dialogue the evidence is a youtube video with rabbis in it, [eyewitness verifiable video evidence] what part of that is in question and needs a published reliable source?Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Too bad, then. If no reliable third party believes that these videos are notable enough to be mentioned, then why should Wikipedia find it useful?Jeff5102 (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ibn kathir, YouTube.com has been specifically excluded as a reliable source by policy. If you feel that the policy "...misses the point..." you are free to bring it up at the RS talkpage and try to gain consensus for a change. Here however, we'll stick to policy. Doc  Tropics  22:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr Adnan Oktar's Views On The People Of The Book 1

Photos of Adnan Oktar and the Israeli delegation from the press conference (January 20, 2010)

Adnan Oktar's meeting with Sanhedrin Rabbis. same rabbis from the video.

If i upload the video to another site will that prove there existence....sarcasm intended....now he is also defending Islam!

http://www.interfaithunion.com/

Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but using Oktar's own links in a self-serving way would be a violation of the WP:SELFPUB-rule.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't disallow it it simply set guidelines.

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Follow the guidelines and it should be fine.

Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If i upload the video to another site will that prove there existence....sarcasm intended....now he is also defending Islam!.....i should over emphasis this, their Rabbi's from israel, the place at the front lines of the war with hizb allah and hamas and al Qaeda and...etc.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A lot of articles on Oktar's sites are violating no. 1: they ARE self-serving. See for example how Oktar selectively edited this New York Times article into this. That is why I must say: be extremely cautious by quoting Oktar's own sites.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It says Unduly self serving, and i mean in this context. Caution is always advised, i also object to you claiming everything on his site is his own words the site has his name but more than likely [as it sates in this wiki page] someone else is posting this material so i would advise unduly accusing him as an individual of anything based on what you said above.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Material that inst about him like this video cant be self serving its an interfaith discussion about Judaism and Islam, and wiki says unduly self serving which means excessively as self pubs are self serving to some extent as they have to defend their claims.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You lost me. Oktar claimed for a long time that he wrote everything. See the last sentence in this article from 2008. this became a tactical problem when he was AND the author of The Holocaust Deception AND promoting interfaith dialogue with the self-styled Sanhedrin. Then, he came with the story that The Holocaust Deception was “written and published by another person," even when the The Holocaust Deception (written by someone else) and The Holocaust Violence (written by Oktar) resemble a lot. See for details this blog from 2009.


 * Anyway, it's quite confusing, I must say.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We simply don't know. Taner Edis says that "Harun Yahya" is like a brand. Obviously there are other writers because Adnan Oktar only speaks Turkish.  Rather then speculate, I suggest we stick to Taner Edis' claims, he is the closest we have to someone doing an independent biography.  I posted links above, but have not had a chance yet to fold the info in. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * that is referring to the books i am talking about this website alone, the site speaks of Mr Oktar in the second and third person and not of an individual talking about himself, and if he only speaks Turkish that just proves it. regarding the books he more than likely has a team of researches but the final say and writing of the material is his, just my speculation.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Atlas of Creation - Separate article?
And before I forget: the "Atlas of Creation" caused that much uproar, that I believe it should get a separate article. Any objections?Jeff5102 (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Can it be presented in a neutral manner in light of wiki policy on sourcing. there is a plethora of media content against it but not much for it, which doesn't prove anything in and of itself just that this is the case.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources that discuss the contents of the "Atlas of Creation"? Is there enough for a separate article?  In any event, without the "Atlas of Creation" Adnan Oktar would probably be unknown, so it seems to me that there is a strong reason to keep them together. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There are enough sources that discuss the Atlas. However, discussing it here is discouraged, as it easily could violate WP:BLP. That is why the comments of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers on the Atlas were deleted from this article. Furthermore, if you check out the history of this article, you can see that Oktar already had a long article before the Atlas was published.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * IMHO, I don't know why comments of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers on the Atlas should be a violation of WP:BLP, as long as they really related to the content of the book. On the other hand I could see an argument for not wanting to give airtime to a WP:FRINGE theory. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I also don't see why PZ Myers' and Dawkins' blog are not considered reliable. In 2006, the journal Nature listed PZ Myers' blog, Pharyngula, as the top-ranked blog written by a scientist. Akutagawa10 (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, that some do not consider articles on Dawkins's OWN website, and on Myers's OWN blog as WP:RS for a WP:BLP per WP:SELFPUB. But I believe that would be another case when these articles are used for a book review.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like wikipedia legalism, I agree with you. But it should be something substantial, not just "this is a bunch of junk".  I think a real review would be nice. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

im just wondering how is creationism a fringe theory. wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and does not endorse the views of one scientific community over another. The existance of evolution does not automatically negate the existance of a creator, so x amount of scientists believing in evolution has no bearing on the existance of a creator and there opinions on theology can not be considered expert in that field.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b>(<b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b>)</i> 02:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (i) There is only a single scientific community. (ii) Creationism pervasively involves the denial of evolution. (iii) Creationism is most emphatically "a fringe theory". (iv) When the (1-x) of scientists not accepting evolution is a "tiny minority" then WP:UNDUE states that their views "should not be included at all" in articles on mainstream science and "appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view" in articles on this minority view. All of this is well-established multi-article WP:CONSENSUS -- so if you want to overturn it, then I'd suggest you take it up at WP:FTN. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Their are different kinds of sciences and i don't mean the material sciences. theology is a recognized field of study the majority of theologians accept the idea of a creator, their are other scientific fields of study.


 * Creationism pervasively involves the denial of evolution.
 * No it does not their are different types, the type that does is only the loudest, their are many Muslims that accept(His wiki page) evolution [(Hamzah yusuf) also found on this list.] just not its theological assertions [and the manner in which it is being taught] which it isn't qualified to make or even involve itself in as a material scientific theory. You also continuously ignore the billions of people who believe in creation along with there scientists or is wiki simply an American encyclopedia.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 08:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me quote the relevant parts of the WP:FRINGE-article:


 * Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research &mdash; denialist histories, for example &mdash; should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.


 * Does this answer your question, Ibn? Jeff5102 (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and i agree with that, it isn't simply labeled a fringe theory and ignored it is evaluated on a case by case basis for it's relevance and weight in each specific topic. For example you cant start an article about evolution and say it is wrong because i believe in creationism. That quote is far more reasoned than the assertions i have read on this talk page. To give you an example of the kind of logic that was coming across would you say God is a fringe theory, because creationism on its own when not at head with evolution is essentially an argument for God. But when looking at it in a science specific page [and not on this page] you have to separate creationism from evolution since denial of evolution is not an argument against God as many people who believe in God may also believe in evolution.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 06:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In a page about the Atlas of Creation creationism cant be treated as a fringe theory since it isn't a scientific page or a page about science and arguments for evolution can be balanced with arguments for creationism.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 07:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure that the Atlas of Creation claims to be a textbook about the natural world, and thus the natural sciences, rather than being a purely theological textbook. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The page itself isn't about evolution or science but the Atlas of creation.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 10:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

All right guys; The Atlas of Creation is ready. I like it, but please see for yourself if it fits the wikipedia-rules.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The page isn't neutral, one sided, unbalanced and an excuse to attack creationism as is evident by the fact that what the book says is treated in the third person rather than actually reporting it as is to the point of leaving the reader with only one impression "it" and 'they" are wrong.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 09:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:DUE. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why I continue to be against having the book separate page. No one has written a review of the theories and ideas contained in the book (that I know of), so there is no material to quote.  I do not see that making it a separate page has added any new information.  Instead it has only removed the book from the context of its author, and Islamic creationism in general. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The book on itself is notable enough, while it links to the page of the author. And the article quotes eleven references, so I fail to understand why you say that "No one has written a review of the theories and ideas contained in the book." Are you implying that we should expand the part of the european commission?Jeff5102 (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't reply just now. I will answer in a couple of days. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The book is barely notable, it isn't considered an authority on creationism or its standard text if you like, its rather a refutation of evolution it doesn't actually teach you Islamic creationism for that you will have to see Al Ghazali and the like.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 09:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Holocaust Lie
Didn't he deny publishing this book? how has this been attributed to him and why is it more notable than his other hundred works which have no issue of being attributed to him and are far more prominent than this obscure work which you cant even easily Google to find a copy.

It contradicts what is clearly on his website,

THE HOLOCAUST VIOLENCE :How Did The Nazis Massacre Millions Of Jews, Gypsies And The Disabled? What Was The Secret Agreement Between Nazism And Radical Zionism? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 11:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

im referring to the Bibliography not the article, its not one of his main works or even clearly sourced as being his work.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 12:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It was notable, as it got quite a lot of publicity. Furthermore,the main issue in Lie (The Inside Story of the Secret History of the Zionist-Nazi Co-operation and the Lie about Jewish Genocide’) resembles the one in Violence: (How Did The Nazis Massacre Millions Of Jews, Gypsies And The Disabled? What Was The Secret Agreement Between Nazism And Radical Zionism). Likewise, chapter one and three of the Lie is almost identical of chapter one and four of the Violence.  And even more: both books have appendices called "Israel, Third-World Fascism, and Gladio" and "Israeli-Serbian Relations."


 * So Oktar denies having written one book, while he acknowledges to be the author of another book, while they are largely the same? Sorry, but that is too strange to be true. See also Jeff5102 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be accurate, in the interview quoted he does not claim to have written either book, but he said the second one reflects his thinking.
 * Iβn Kᾱτhir, he does not deny publishing the book, he denies authorizing it.
 * Jeff, the differences are significant. Although he continues to be a Holocaust conspiracy theorist, as well as placing blame on one party or the other, he does not deny that the Holocaust happened. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right. The differences are significant. However, the similarities are significant as well. Anyway, if you compare the books, you can see that the newer version is the better one of them, which is good news. I think is reflected well in the article, by the way.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a page about adnan oktar not the groups he is a part of, he has denied writing the book and you can only attribute it to his group through tertiary sources, even so since it has nothing to do with him as an individual, it should be removed and only the more prominent books should be in the Bibliography since it is his Bibliography not the groups he is a part of.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 01:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He has not denied publishing it and this book has been prominently discussed in several prominent interviews. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * he has denied writting it and said he has nothing to do with it and it is not his views, if he specifically didnt deny his group publishing it then that is just symantics and the point still stands this page is about him not his group.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 21:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Oktar: The book, "The Holocaust Lie," is by one of my friends, Nuri Özbudak. It is not one of my books. He published his own essays under that title. Later, we protested against this through the Public Notary and declared the fact to the public. I did not take any other legal action but only protested through the Public Notary because he used my name. My book expressing my own ideas was published later." source. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 21:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not impressed. If this was the case, why then did Oktar wait more than ten years before he started protesting? After all, he was already in 1996 exposed as the writer of the Lie. If Oktar had complained then, his words would have had some credibility. But for now, I cannot imagine how Oktar could be ignorant of the existence of a book that was published and attributed to him 10 years before, and was the subject of a legal suit for slander, brought by his own organisation. It doesn;t make sense at all.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Speculation does not prove a case it is just that speculation, you don't have to understand his reasons we are not here to judge the truthfulness of people that is primary research you have to conclusively prove he is lying with clear evidence from secondary sources not sources that simply speculate and whose standard of evidence is "well his name is on the book that proves it". that doesn't cut it especially when it is standard practice for them to publish books by various people under one name [according to those who accuse him]. If you want me to speculate on the issue i would add he comes from a different non western culture whose values and way of thinking are different than yours you wont ever understand them unless you go and live there.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 06:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

according to this site Nuri Özbudak himself claimed to have written the book under the name Harun Yahya and signed a document to that effect.On a side note regarding the assertion by the site that Adnan should have distanced himself from Nuri he clearly has no clue about Turkish culture or how denying the holocaust is seen in non western countries it isnt the same controversy it is in the west or anything to loose friends over. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 07:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the holocaust section in the article i think something should be said about Adnan Oktar denying having written the book and Nuri having signed a document declaring he had, there is sufficient evidence to warrant this inclusion in the article and that section talks about works published by the group not all of which had anything to do with Adnan Oktar the individual.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 07:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that link. You forgot to quote the conclusion of the writer: " The Holocaust denial material has been replaced with anti-evolutionist screeds, but clearly parts of both books have a common authorship." Furthermore, don't make it personal with your "you wont ever understand"-remarks.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * it may have seemed personnel but that comment was based on a universal principle that you cant understand a thing truly until you experience it and until that occurs all you can do is conjecture, it wasn't an attack of any kind. I didn't fail to mention his conclusions, they where not relevant to the fact that Nuri had signed a document stating he was the author which was the entire point. Nothing the author said or provided disproved he singed the document. The author simply conjectured about the reasons for the similarities, they both are a part of the same organization and the second book could easily have been a correction by Odnan to Nuri's views, its already accepted that the second book was a correction to the first but now it's clear it was Odnan correcting Nuri and not himself, all the sites conjecture can amount to is that parts of the material was used in the later book by Odnan, he hasn't established why.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 04:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. You pick out a fragment of a text, claim that as the truth, and you dismiss the conclusions of the author as 'speculation'? But for the sake of the argument: in 1995 Oktar publishes a book, then in 2003 he claims it was never published, and in 2008 Oktar says that someone else wrote and published "his own essays" under Oktar's name, while in 2009, Oktar's lawyer claims that the 'Lie' where not the essays of the other guy, but that 'materials prepared for Holocaust Violence were misinterpreted by Özbudak in order to create Holocaust Deception.' . Weird. It sounds a lot like a damage control-action to me.
 * By the way: shouldn't we just better delete the complete bibliography? After all, following your reasoning, there is no proof that Oktar wrote any of those books.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jeff. If the argument is that this page is for Oktar's personal work, and "Harun Yahya" might represent other people, then the entire Bibliography should be deleted. Each book needs explicit evidence that it is actually written by Oktar, in order to be included in the bibliography. Oyherwise without such explicit evidence, it is only "speculation" that he wrote it. On the other hand, if the bibliography is kept, then "The Holocaust Lie" should be kept. Akutagawa10 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just two suggestions: 1. How about keeping the book in the bibliography, but add a note right after that entry that he later denied writing it. I know there is already a comment about his denial in the text, but add another short note right after the entry in the bibliography. Perhaps this would be fair enough? 2. The bibliography section started with the words "Oktar's books" but all the listed books are under the name "Harun Yahya". Since it is not clear anymore whether the two are exactly the same (e.g. the claim in the case of "Holocaust Lie"), make it clear in the Bibliography, that the following list are books published under the name "Harun Yahya" which is associated to Oktar but not necessarily written by him - and this comment applies to all books on the list. Akutagawa10 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Akutagawa10 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeff..You seem to be having trouble distinguishing between what is evidence and what is mere opinion or speculation. A sworn statement is evidence, the conclusion of that page is speculation since he based it on Pure conjecture without providing other pieces of evidence to contradict the sworn statement that is why it isn't relevant. The sites opinion is no more authoritative then you or me conjecturing on this topic, his only true value is that he [a third party] acknowledged the existence of a piece of evidence [the sworn statement by Nuri]. You cant speculate further, provide no real evidence and say you have proven something, by analogy in a court of law conjecture and speculation are not acceptable and cant prove anything.

Akutagawa10.. you are missing two points he has said he is the author of those books explicitly and denied being the author of this one while the real author has signed a statement declaring himself so.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#1000"> Iβn Kᾱτhir </b><b style="color:#902">τᾱℓк</b></i> 08:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Kathir, if a sworn statement is the standard, then the other books also need sworn statements from Oktar that he wrote them. Not just comments from him here and there, but signed sworn statements. Do you have them? Otherwise they all should be deleted from the list. Akutagawa10 (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Kathir, since when is a member of Oktar's own group is an independent third party?Jeff5102 (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets be reasonable here. We need to stick to what the sources say.  Taner Edis, explains that "Harun Yahya" is like a brand name controlled by Adnan Oktar.  We have a source that says "Holocaust Lie" was published under the "Harun Yahya" label.  We have a source that says that BAV distributed the book in its early years (1996).  We have a source that says that the book did not reflect the views of Adnan Oktar and was replaced by "Holocaust Violence".  That is what we have to go on.  So based on that it should remain in the bibliography. Perhaps with a note saying it is no longer printed and has been replaced by another book which does not deny the holocaust.  We cannot speculate what "really" happened, only what the sources say. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, perhaps a good way to resolve this dispute is to keep the book in the bibliography, but add a note to that entry. This seems fair enough. It reflects everything we know. Akutagawa10 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

How to describe him in other articles?
How should he be described in other articles? A TV show host? a philosopher? a theologian? Please put a on my talk page.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why the opening sentence says only that he is an Islamic creationist when that seems to be only one of his interests. BigJim707 (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is by far the one he is most prominent for -- particularly in English-language sources (which are the ones most readily available to this encyclopaedia). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my post on the BLP notice board. I brought up this issue and another one. Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Harun Yahya and his "Holocaust Lie"
[moved from User talk:Hrafn ]

Hello Hrafn,

To return to an old dispute on the Adnan Oktar-article, I would like to draw your attention to these fragments:


 * In 1996, BAV distributed its first book, originally published the previous year, entitled Soykırım Yalanı (The Holocaust Lie). 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."


 * In 1996, during a slander suit brought against Turkish painter and intellectual, Bedri Baykam, Baykam charged that Adnan Oktar was responsible for the publication of The Holocaust Lie.

And


 * In 1996, a Turkish painter and intellectual, Bedri Baykam, published a strongly worded critique of the book in the Ankara daily newspaper Siyah-Beyaz ("Black and White"). A legal suit for slander was brought against him. During the trial in September, Baykam exposed Adnan Oktar as responsible for the publication of The Holocaust Lie. The suit was withdrawn in March 1997.

These fragments once stood in one section. However, User:Geoffry Thomas's idea was to put a summary on Oktar's history of Holocaust Denial in one section, and his legal disputes in another. Geoffrey and me discussed it in the 'Your move'-section of User talk:Geoffry Thomas. Could you see provide an opinion to us on this issue? Thanks in advance,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think:
 * 1) That spreading this sort of discussion over multiple user talks is a very bad idea.
 * 2) That it is probably best to treat The Holocaust Lie in a single narrative, in a single section, if possible. Having it pop in and out of multiple sections will tend to confuse the reader.
 * 3) In this case, as 'Legal issues, arrest, trial, and sentencing' runs straight after 'Holocaust Denial and Affirmation', it is in fact quite easy:
 * 4) Move all the The Holocaust Lie material back into 'Holocaust Denial and Affirmation'
 * 5) Rename 'Legal issues, arrest, trial, and sentencing' to ' Other legal issues, arrest, trial, and sentencing'
 * 6) Have its opening sentence briefly mention the slander trial in setting the scene: "Apart from the slander trial over The Holocaust Lie, in the last two decades, Oktar has been involved in a number of legal cases..." (though could do with some additional polishing)
 * This way the 'legal' section becomes 'legal matters not tied to any previously discussed themes' -- which is I think a reasonable ordering of things, rather than taking theme-related legal matters out of their theme-section and dumping them into legal, where they lose a lot of their context.

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Before you rush to make changes, let me have a chance to respond. Can you dig up my comments from before and add them to this discussion? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand wanting to partition an article into themed sections, but the material related to "The Holocaust Lie" is all closely linked and effectively forms a single incident. Therefor, it seems to make sense to keep the material together. That part of his history will be more coherent if presented in a single, comprehensive section on the subject. Hrafn's suggested wording sounds good. Doc  Tropics  16:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But as I understand it, the slander case was incidental to Holocaust Lie. This was only an statement that came out by the press during proceedings. The slander case was for other issues. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not the way the relevant paragraph describes it, irrespective of where that paragraph's been placed at the time. It describes the slander case as being about Bedri Baykam's "critique of the book". If this is not in fact correct, then we really need to work out what the slander suit was about before we decide where to put it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also my original point that burdening the main biography and topics with the details of court dates, hearings, counter hearings, legal issues involved, reliability f evidence, etc. will make most of the paragraphs unreadable. Again I think topics should be placed in one set of paragraphs mentioning the court hearings when applicable, but resere the detailed legal information for its own paragraph. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hrafn and Doc Tropics. My opinion is that the readability of the article would suffer more if we split sections in two, just because there is a legal proceeding involved. Jeff5102 (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" -- WP:IINFO. There is no requirement to include excessive "details of court dates, hearings, counter hearings, legal issues involved, reliability f evidence, etc" anywhere -- and I would suggest that if it is sufficiently excessive that it interferes with the narrative, then it should either (i) be relegated to the footnotes or (ii) removed entirely. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

very biased page full of bullsh!t
he never denied the holocaust wtf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.87.154.218 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sunni?
Do you have any proof he's a sunni? His website seems to be very shia based.--88.111.120.39 (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

anti mason
not sure about that lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VzVN_7vo9k — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.110.59 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal Information
The entry

"where he was diagnosed with an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder and schizophrenia"

is not in compliance with the wikipedia guideline on the autobiographies of living persons. The source is not of indisputable quality, and merely mentions this without providing a citation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons)

While mr. Oktar definitely is indisputably a force of ignorance in this world, he is entitled to the same standards as everyone else. I would propose immediate deletion of the questionable content.

82.74.58.206 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comment has opened up a can of WP:RS worms. You are correct that the source in support of this particular assertion is not reliable. For that reason, I will remove the assertion. However, that same unreliable source is cited in the article many, many times. Indeed, I opened up a topic on the reliability of the source at WP:RSN, and the two other editors who've commented agree with me. That means I should review each assertion - not just the one you rightfully complain about - and potentially remove each assertion or tag it as unsourced, depending on what it is. Anyway, the first thing I will do is to remove the one you challenge. Thanks (sort of :-) ) for bringing this up.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Adnan Oktar does not seem to take that statement as an offence. He, in fact, uses those past issues himself as a kind of proof of his "power", or his being Mahdi. A psychiatrist might really had diagnosed him with some psychiatric illnessess, because he had been put in a mental hospital for some time. According to his account and to some other accounts he was placed into the most dangerous patients' ward.  . 88.233.194.81 (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation
, can you tell me what you are referring to by copyright violations? It definitely needs to go in the lead paragraphs, he is much more known for his cult than his creationism, at least for the last 5 years or so; I imagine most readers who are currently directed to this page are probably here because of the cult and the 'kittens'. In the past he was also known for his creationist work; not so much today, but it is still relevant and it's how he built his reputation; that's why I left it in the first paragraph.--Orwellianist (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your material:
 * In more recent years, Adnan Oktar has been known for his televangelism on his TV channel, a9 TV; and has been described as the most notorious cult leader in Turkey. His shows are noted for featuring 'kittens', his female devotees who apply heavy makeup, and undergo plastic surgery, and are usually wealthy socialites. It has been described as a 'feminist cult' and an 'Islamic sex cult'.   He is also known to be extremely litigious, having filed more than 5 thousand lawsuit against individuals in the last decade.
 * Here are the phrases that are either copied verbatim or closely paraphrased from the first source: "the most notorious cult leader in Turkey" (verbatim); "apply heavy makeup, and undergo plastic surgery. They also happen to be wealthy socialites." (a combination of verbatim and close paraphrasing.
 * As for the last sentence, it's in Turkish and I wasn't referring to it with my comment about copyright violations. I would say, though, that it's better not to describe the litigiousness ("known to be extremely litigious") but allow the facts to speak for themselves, i.e., "He has filed more than 5,000 lawsuits against individuals in the [specify the precise decade as "last" will change over time]." The same problem, btw, with the phrase "In more recent years". You should always avoid words like recent and current, etc.
 * As for the lead, it is supposed to summarize what's already in the body of the article. So, the material, when fixed, should go in the body first and then a "summary" of it in the lead if you and others think it's important enough to be included there.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I didn't imagine the phrase "most notorious cult leader" could possibly be subject to copyright protection. I guess I will make it "most infamous cult leader" then. Same for the other sentence. Also, I am aware that statements relative to the time of writing like recently should be avoided. But here it is meant to say "more recently", i.e. more recent than the events that the previous paragraph describes; it is not relative to the current time. You can still edit it if you like.


 * As for what to include in the lead section; the article already mentions the cult-nature of his group. The lead paragraphs didn't mention it, and perhaps it was appropriate 5 years ago, but thanks to his televangelism since then, it has gotten further attention. At the moment, the lead paragraph doesn't conform to WP:UNDUE; his reputation is currently based on his cult and his kittens, and his creationism is secondary, whereas the lead paragraph only focuses on creationism. I was merely trying to fix that. Television broadcasting section could use some expanding as well.--Orwellianist (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have readded the paragraph, as well as other info. Tell me if you think there is anything wrong, or just edit them yourself if you like.--Orwellianist (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)