Talk:Oktay Sinanoğlu

message: This person may be a genius.  However, based on his comments and ramblings in a talk-show on Turkish Mesaj TV on February 23, 2008, I would like to add that he has a very mean streak and is an advanced conspiracy theorist, as well as a megalomaniac.  As mentioned by previous commenters, this article needs to be given a balanced point of view.  Sinanoglu is unabashedly anti-USA.  His social commentary books, such as the one on the current state of the Turkish language, are very difficult to read (in my opinion).  It could be said that he is the Turkish counterpart to Chomsky in the U.S., but I have never heard or watched Chomsky in person, and would be doing him an injustice, because Sinanoglu strikes me as a mad scientist whose few well-founded opinions are unfortunately shrouded by his nut-case personality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.217.231 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is senility. I would be interested to know if he made such remarks in his youth. --Adoniscik (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the support Adoniscik, much appreciated.  Incidentally, how are you aware of Sinanoglu?  Just curious. -Todd 85.106.141.176 (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theorist

message: I couldn't substantiate this prize. Only mention of Oktay Sinanoglu re this prize is the Wikipedia article on Humboldt Prize which bases the claim on this article. Are we doing circular references at Wikipedia?
Dmermerci (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humboldt prize 

message: This must be the most biased Wiki article i have seen. The ones who edited this article due supposed biases, actually know nothing better then that. Sinanoglu is a highly respected proficient Professor, no one can insult him with fraud and mock him. Especially not in a site which isn't their personal belonging. The whole article doesn't even contain one reference, even if it had, still keep your slanders to your own. If you have something to add do it on a respectful manner !!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.246.243 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article totally based on personal one sided hatred speeches ! 

message: While I believe the facts and opinions are well meant, the style is interfering with the subject as petit bickering, perhaps some university professionals politics. Oktay's position and reaction in his country after his return may have been some kind of disillusionment and reaction to imperialism after seeing the values and especially the reformed language he left could not be  protected. I'll listen to any repatriation psycologist on that as it may be a research area. 'Article' needs a new perspective and composing. Implied gimmicks must be Ivy Leage contests, plausable or rather tolerable for their times. 69.120.118.254 (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  article? a middle schooler cannot read this in class 

message: Much has been done on this article, but much more is needed, specifically a clean up of the formatting and more balanced content.  Also, it would benefit from the insertion of some paragraph breaks.  because B Version B version because   
As to all the accusations of "fake" achievements, I think it would be best to have a section entitled "Contested Achievements" - if and only if they have been actually contested by others.  If all those achievements are truly contested in reliable sources, then they can be included, but we must comply with the BLP standards and not put anything negative about a person that isn't well documented.    
I'm happy to help, so please let me know who's willing to pitch in on this.   Thanks Vertium (talk to me) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up needed 

message: uncle G asked me to take a look the this. A look is clearly not enough; I shall be rewriting it entirely. It will state the accomplishments as shown by the record, just as we do with others. No more, no less. I shall look at what has been written here previously, but I shall not base the article on it. Anyone who wishes to explain why this record is wrong or can be used to imply anything positive or negative about the subject is free within legal limits to do so -- elsewhere.  The situation is actually very simple. We do not do original research.    
We do not include sections labeled "contested achievements". It rather frequently happens that people make claims in autobiographies or elsewhere that can not be backed up in reliable sources. Normally, we accept autobiographies for plain statements of facts, but if there is good documentation for the actual facts in better sources that is what we use.  Unless the discrepancies have been a matter of published comment in reliable sources, we  give a basic presentation, in the fairest possible language about whatever may be significant. (On the specific matter of birthdates, a frequent discrepancy, we includes the person's statement and all reliably sourced data. On the question of degrees or positions held, we usually just include the record unless there is some published dispute.   We do not organize the material to imply a judgement. We do not use a bio article to explain the nature of a fellowship program, or a country's legislation, or the significance of the position in an author listings.  Otherwise,  I defer judgement on whether it is significant here, and if so, the fairest method of indicating this.)  DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: rewriting

message: I can publish all editions of this article as a book. This book's title can be "The Edit Warring In Wikipedia".--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think I have edited it substantially yet, so it is not yet possible to compare anything with my editing. When I do, yes indeed, if you want to compare your work with mine you are very welcome.  Anything I write here can be used elsewhere, if attribution is given to WP. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear Sirs 

message: A "Biography" is not "unequivocally primarily bibliography" nor the "unequivocally primarily list of publications".
For example: Living person Bill Clinton's biography tells his marriages, wife, loves, autobiograpic book, "perjury", etc.. (See: Wikipedia)
Living persons Bill Gates biography tells same thing about him. Lets read the biographies of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky etc., we see common subjects.  
If a man wrote his autobiography and published it as a bestseller book; the biography of that man, must be written in relation with his "bestseller autobiographical book".  If the author of biography saw a lot of wrong statements in published autobiography, he must rectify them as fairly.
As I did it.--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  About: He is unequivocally primarily a chemist, judging by his list of publications 

message: A subject of an Encyclopedia must be written only by the "Experts" of that subject (not by "Non-Experts"). 
For example, Assyria-Babylon subjects of the Encyclopedia Britannica has been written firstly by H.C.Rawlinson; because he excavated the area as archeological and deciphered the cuneiform writings of these civilizations as an "Expert". But no body said to Rawlinson that let him write on other subjects of Encyclopedia Britannica. Why? Because, the subjects of an encyclopedia must be written only by experts. And a man can not expert on every thing.
I excavated the Sinanoglu's autobiographical book and I deciphered his "cuneiform"(!) statements, and so I wrote on this article because of I'm an expert of this subject. (I didn't wrote any other subjects on wikipedia that I was not expert.)
I'm blockaged now. 
This subject will be written by DGG!
Is DGG expert on Sinanoglu?
A subject of an Encyclopedia must be written only by the "Experts" of that subject (not by "Non-Experts"). For example, Assyria-Babylon subjects of the Encyclopedia Britannica has been written firstly by H.C.Rawlinson; because he excavated the area as archeological and deciphered the cuneiform writings of these civilizations as an "Expert". But no body said to Rawlinson that let him write on other subjects of Encyclopedia Britannica. Why? Because, the subjects of an encyclopedia must be written only by experts. And a man can not expert on every thing. I excavated the Sinanoglu's autobiographical book and I deciphered his "cuneiform"(!) statements, and so I wrote on this article because of I'm an expert of this subject. (I didn't wrote any other subjects on wikipedia that I was not expert.) I'm blockaged now. This subject will be written by DGG! Is DGG expert on Sinanoglu?--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  See Wikipedia:Expert editors.  Jim.henderson (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why am I not writing on the other subjects of wikipedia?  

message: Yes, I suggest a new category for Wikipedia under the title of the "Biography of Living Person Who Published an Autobiographical Book" in addition to the "Biography of Living Person"
Because, If a person wrote and published an autobiography, so he accepted to be criticized and his biography will consist of criticizings of his autobiographical statements. Isn't it?
--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the autobiography has Wikipedia:Notability (books) then yes, an article about that book may be useful if well written.  Like other articles about a book it can refer to reviews of that book from Wikipedia:Reliable sources including adverse reviews, subject of course to usual ideas such as Wikipedia:Encyclopedic and the constraints of WP:BLP.  Jim.henderson (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest a new category for Wikipedia: "Biography of Living Person Who Published an Autobiographical Book" in addition to the "Biography of Living Person" 

message: There is a Wikipedia article titled "Racism by Country".
This article was contained over 200 references at 12 February 2008. 
In this date, "User: Mattbuck" cleaned the "Racism in U.S.A" chapter of this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_by_country&diff=191000122&oldid=190999676
After he cleaned the "Racism in United Kingdom" chapter of this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_by_country&diff=191000589&oldid=191000122
And then, he cleaned the all chapters of the article. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_by_country&diff=191010388&oldid=191000831
And now, this article seems to be deleted as whole since 2008.
So the racists of all countries are happy. 
You are free to listen or not to listen of the happiness songs of them.    
Cleaning of the "09:58 16 July 10212 fightingsagaintlies" edition of Sinanoglu article is like this.
You are free to understand or not to understand that "some Wikipedia Users are doing vandalism by showing themselves as the advocates of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia." 
Thank you again, Sir.
And, Yours Sincerely, again.
--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep forgetting that this discussion, composed mainly of digressions, isn't closed.  Yes, we are pleased that the trimming of redundantly repetitive prose inspires song in all countries and yes, I await the arrival of the sound recording, hoping that it might reveal a relevance that is not yet evident.  The Super race article is mildly entertaining but does not mention the subject of our biography, nor do I know what if anything he has said about that topic, so its relevance also is not evident.  Perhaps some other online encyclopedia will be less interested in relevance or has already been delighted by the songs of your friends.  Jim.henderson (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to "Dear Jim Henderson" 

message: It has been a month since the edit warring over this page, and I suggest an admin lift the permanent page protection. Dialectric (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This stub must be developed. --E4024 (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that not only you but other users also should contribute to this article. As of this moment its English is even worse than mine and I feel like I am too lonely trying to develop this text. --E4024 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanent page protection  

message: Reliable 3rd party references should be used to support all claims beyond basic biographical information. WP:RS are always needed for extraordinary claims, such as the 'youngest Yale professor' claim I have removed. Sinanoğlu's personal page is not sufficient. English-language sources are preferred. I have no personal interest in this individual, but I want to avoid having this article return to the battleground evident on this talk page. Sticking to reliable sources will help avoid that course. Dialectric (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me chime in here: I removed the full protection some time ago, but if the whole kerfuffle restarts, I will simply fully protect again. Lectonar (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should not protect the article but control  an obsessed user. I am trying to contribute to this article but it is so difficult with the company I have got. Let me give an example "The person's father, when he was a child, has completed his consular assignment in Bari, Italy and has turned to Ankara, the capital of Turkey, in 1938. Our colleague, instead of simply adding this info (which means our object-matter lived the first years of his life in Italy) writes Atatürk  (the first president of Turkey, considered a national hero for Turks) "dismissed" the father. Nobody dismisses anybody. All Turkish diplomats and consular officials (from the lowest grade upwards) go to posts in the exterior based on a Decree signed by the President of the Republic. And they also come back to Ankara on a similar Decree. So saying that "Atatürk dismissed the father" is not a neutral way of stating facts. (Of course this is done without a source, simply using the Decree in the archives.) Indeed the gentleman (the consular official) has stayed more than average (generally four years) time for a Turkish diplomat in Bari. Therefore the wording (dismissed!) is a result of some (I do not know what) resentment of an "old man" (as they called themselves) on another, I guess. I recommend this user, if he has personal feelings (positive or negative) towards the object-matter of the article, he should stay away from editing it. WP is not a place to express our sentiments on notable people. Please... --E4024 (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sourcing for claims 

message: Is it not time to lift it? Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.196.102 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * It's not clear what you mean with your correction request. The dates are all sourced. Pls explain. --CeeGee 09:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi/protection 

message: Please change 
Oya Sinanoğlu (duaghter)
to
Oya Sinanoğlu (daughter)
Harunhasdal (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *  Thanks for your attention. --CeeGee 09:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015 - 'Daughter misspelled' 

message: Oktay sinanoglu is well-known for his Nobel nomination at chemistry twice. Although it has been mentioned in other languages why not here. Please add that he has been nominated Nobel twice because this lackness is creating really big gap on his page.
Mfddinc1919 (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Altamel (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2015 

message: Category:Alexander von Humboldt Fellows & Category:Humboldt Research Award recipients
should be added71.191.6.55 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  categories 

message: Not authored by subject of article 130.132.173.159 (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect citation 12