Talk:Necla Kelek

message: The heart of the "controversy" regarding Kelek is that - there is no "controversy".
The 60 scientists proved that she no longer works scientifically. There is a very simple way of doing so: Science since 300 years works according to the scientific method, in social science more precisely empirical research. She left this field and took data only to prove her POV. That's not science anymore, she is writing mere belletristics. You can prove points with articles/books from Kelek as well as you can take The Da Vince Code in church history. Given the chance to defend, she just called empirical research into question - like a toddler whose parents show the toy he broke, and he replies "but you're stupid!".
The "defenders" are a group of Marxists, and publicists without ANY scientific background. The "Welt" accused them of, to 3/4, not even working in the field of islamic research - which misses the point. If a sociologist deviates from scientific method, it is a danger to EVERY sociologist in EVERY field. Scientific method means you can take everything as a hypothesis - and have to either verify or falsify it. Kelek used her degree to give her rantings scientific authority. Scientists distanced themselves. There has yet to emerge a scientifically sound defence for her. THAT is the WP:SPOV. --Hornsignal (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Du bewegst dich hart an der Grenze zur üblen Nachrede, das würde ich bleiben lassen...--93.219.116.46 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelek "controversy" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Necla Kelek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929084228/http://www.bmfsfj.de/RedaktionBMFSFJ/Abteilung4/Pdf-Anlagen/langfassung-studie-frauen,property=pdf,bereich=,rwb=true.pdf to http://www.bmfsfj.de/RedaktionBMFSFJ/Abteilung4/Pdf-Anlagen/langfassung-studie-frauen,property=pdf,bereich=,rwb=true.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926233942/http://www.frauenrechte.de/tdf/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=311&Itemid=86&pop=1&page=0 to http://www.frauenrechte.de/tdf/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=311&Itemid=86&pop=1&page=0
*Added  tag to http://fr-online.de/ressorts/kultur_und_medien/feuilleton/?cnt=807291&
*Added  tag to http://www.nzz.ch/2006/02/11/fe/articleDK12G.print.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928152106/http://islamfaz.de/9.2.06Archiv.htm to http://islamfaz.de/9.2.06Archiv.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715081419/http://www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.de/Aktuell/kelekkontroverse.html to http://www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.de/Aktuell/kelekkontroverse.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070617155711/http://emma.de/06_2_offene_antwort.html to http://www.emma.de/06_2_offene_antwort.html
*Added  tag to http://www.uni-due.de/mercatorprofessur/mercatorprofessur_2006/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927020308/http://www.buchhandel-bayern.de/geschwister-scholl-preis/2005_laudatio.shtml to http://www.buchhandel-bayern.de/geschwister-scholl-preis/2005_laudatio.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625191401/http://www.dradio.de/dlr/sendungen/buchtipp/352843/ to http://www.dradio.de/dlr/sendungen/buchtipp/352843/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212120146/http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/17.09.2005/2059440.asp to http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/17.09.2005/2059440.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified