User talk:Geoffry Thomas

Welcome
{{#if:|== #NOVAR#__undefined__} ==|}}

Archive 1

Oktar-archive
Hi Geoff, please read the archive of the talk-page of our Great Hero/Evil Genius to see what discussions have been around. You can find there various sources, approved and disapproved text-fragments, and the reasons why the article has become the way it is now. At this moment, I have no time for an extensive contribution, but I'll see what I can do. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have loved to write about "our Great Hero/Evil Genius". It is a fascinating and educational subject,  But for reasons that I wrote on the Talk:Adnan Oktar page, I don't think it will ever come about.


 * 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 they are doing is creating a list of random quotes from "undisputable" 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) 18:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe we are coming somewhere here. Oktar has an agressive and provoking way of crusading against Darwinism and/or Masonry and/or Zionism in favor of a sort of Islam and/or Creationism. In that way, he really is seen by some as a Great Hero and by others as an Evil Genius. And these extremes supply us almost only sources we can critisize for "having a POV." And thus, we are lacking, as you call it, "reasonable sources." It is too bad, but I'll keep looking what I can do about it. Anyway, good luck, peace and regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that what we have said in these paragraphs conveys more information than the entire Adnan Oktar wikipage. I think both sides of the controversy should be presented and clearly labeled, and let the reader choose.  Why censor WP:POV if it is published in major newspapers?  Label it and put it into context. At least the reader comes away informed and not confused. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

He has been meeting with Rabbis and Freemasons as well as Templars from different parts of the world and it is evident by the press meetings and news on the media that he is only against - atheist - Masonry and - atheist - Zionism. In fact he has clearly stated several times that this is not his personal belief, but in the Qur'an it is specifically noted that there are the People of the Book including the Jews and Christians with whom Muslims lead a peaceful life, marry their daughters and eat the same food. These are all lawful according to Islam.

I have noted that Wikipedia, which the entire world community is benefiting from, has a very prejudiced viewpoint against Adnan Oktar. This is really a negative attitude and makes Wikipedia lose credibility in the eyes of many scholars, academicians, politicians and the youth especially who hold a very esteemed viewpoint for Adnan Oktar.

Therefore, the rejections of Wikipedia editors and their highly prejudiced content for the author is outside the norms of 21st century thinking and freedom of thought. There is a certain censorship that filters any positive content for Adnan Oktar. I assume this needs to be clarified first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenbeehive (talk • contribs) 09:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, these are fair comments. But wikipedia has rules.  It is not interested in presenting "the truth" or even a "fair picture". It is only interested in accurately presenting what credible sources (newspapers, books, journals) have said about a person.  Most of the English language news has been extremely negative about Adnan Oktar, which in turn has made the wikipedia article "very negative", or at least not reflective what "the other half of the world thinks". If you can find credible sources - even in other languages - that report positive information, then it can be included in the wikipedia article. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Geoff, I see that the discussions around mr. Oktar exploded when I was off-line for only two days. I have only a little bit of time to work in the article, but I'll get back on it as soon as I can. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please make your comments now. I really don't want to go back and forth with many editors for several weeks only to have you revert it all because you weren't in the discussion. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot help it that the discussion-page is flooded with comments the last few days. Please don't hasten the process too much, will you? I don't want to be out of the discussion because I am quite busy this week.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would have thought the current on-going discussion about sources would take 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 (as I probably will). In general there should be no particular time-limit and I suggest we bend over backwards to incorporate comments from previously involved contributors if we are to establish a decent baseline version of the article supported by a consensus even if this were to take several weeks. Fæ (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion seems to have stalled. I hope to get involved myself in another couple of days after I finish some things.  Jeff, What do you think of my "Proposed Biography"?  Does it display both sides of the Great Hero/Evil Genius contraversy in a neutral way? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

YAHUDİLİK VE MASONLUK
Hi Geoff! I found an ancient Turkish version of Harun Yahya's book Judaism and Freemasonry here. Unfortunately, Google translate cannot make anything of it. Can you see if it is useful?Jeff5102 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt, that Adnan Oktar, like many in Turkey subscribe to conspiracy theories. Masons, Zionists, Communists, etc. all form a hidden hand in politics. In my own reading his teachings have evolved over time and these "hidden groups" have ceased to be actual people and taken on more of a spiritual nature.  He has even hosted Freemasons on his TV show!  What interests me personally are his views on terrorism, and the book Judaism and Freemasonry doesn't really talk about that. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your move
Hi. What is the use of removing Oktar's slander trial against Bedri Baykam from the "Conspiracy Theories"-section? If you move it to the trials-section, it hardly makes sense anymore. And furthermore, removing trials from every paragraph of the Adnan Oktar-article, apart from the trials part, is like removing Richard Burton from every part of Liz Taylor's article, apart from the Marriages-part. That wouldn't make sense either.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see that the trial and its details has anything to do with section Holocaust Denial other than to mention that the trial occurred and it was disclosed that Oktar was responsible for the book. That fact is mentioned in the Holocaust section.
 * The Legal Issues section is long and filled with many detailed pieces of information, dates, names, retrials, fines, appeals, etc. To include these details in the body of the text would make it unreadable.  Like listing the details of the alimony agreements of Liz Taylor in the body of her text.
 * In the Oktar article, each trial is mentioned chronologically with a one line summary and the reader is directed to Legal Section for details. This is the same with the Turkish painter's slander trial. This is a readability issue, we could ask others (Hafrn?) for their opinion. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)