Talk:Selman Akbulut

message: Due to ongoing edit warring and BLP violations, this article has been protected again. Discussion of the section should take place on this page, and a consensus needs to be reached before any further changes are made to the article. Further changes made without consensus, or BLP violations such as accusations of professional dishonestly (including on this talkpage) will result in blocks. Pinging the parties involved: , , . Yunshui 雲水 06:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but if they refuse to discuss the article's content until September 4, I will make the changes on that day which I believe are appropriate.  I see no point waiting until then to discuss changes with them. Ylevental (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  I will submit a request to remove the entire controversy section for now.  It is for the better. Ylevental (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: Based on discussion at Talk:Selman_Akbulut#Page_protected, the entire controversy section of the article should be removed.  Both sources for that section are primary, not secondary.  I believe that this complies with the rules of Wikipedia far more than any other arrangement. Ylevental (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done For now, out of the interest of our policy on biographies of living people. Izno (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 23 August 2019 

message: The Career section must have the allegations (specifically statements of "formal charges" that just refer to an internal process at the university) removed per WP:BLPCRIME. This person isn't a public-figure, and these appear to only be "charges"/allegations from his former employer. Unless and until those are proven in a court of law, they should not be mentioned at all in the article and most certainly should not be in the lead (pinging  because they in good-faith repeatedly re-added that to the lead). The article can state he was removed from his position at the university after disagreements about his teaching attendance (or some such), as that is factual without potentially smearing Akbulut. But using primary sources to deem the removal was due to "formal charges" appears entirely out of order. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans //  19:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with it being reworded.  However, it should indicate that the reason he was terminated is that it was determined that he repeatedly attacked several of his colleagues by email (which is in the sources). Ylevental (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Wikipedia is not the place to relitigate these issues, especially things that don't admit a one-line summary; the fact that Dr Akbulut was fired from MSU is undisputed and relevant to the article. The wording of "formal charges" is deeply inappropriate (considering that it implies criminality); moreover, given that there are ongoing disputes between Dr Akbulut and MSU about this (per his website...), it is not appropriate to uncritically quote that set of documents as if they are factually proven. It would be equally wrong to uncritically quote Dr Akbulut's response. 128.252.25.2 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I repeatedly reverted it because the other editor was removing it due to edit warring violations and COI. Note I later moved it out of the lede with this edit. I don't think BLPCRIME applies because this isn't a criminal act; he violated policy, but as far as I know no criminal charges have been filed (and it's not even clear that this is a criminal act.) That could be re-worded, such as "On February 14, 2020, he was officially terminated from MSU due to repeatedly sending emails unsubstantially attacking individuals.  Akbulut has disputed this." The problem is that by removing "charged" it sounds like even more of a statement (that he did send emails attacking individuals.) How else do you phrase it? "Accusation" also carries that tinge of criminality even though it doesn't apply here. I'm open to rewording. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sticking my nose in. How about this? "On February 14, 2020, he was officially terminated from MSU due to allegedly sending emails repeatedly unsubstantially attacking individuals. Akbulut has disputed this." The core of the issue with the edit warring is the imputation that he did do it for certain, and that seems to be in dispute. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:3123:2F7A:A4DD:3593 (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we are going to be more specific from the WWMT article: "The professor then began to undertake a campaign directed at the individuals who were involved in the brief review..." It does not say that he and he only was involved with the campaign. There's a reason there's a COIN on this right now. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *  The most descriptive it needs to be is "On February 14, 2020, Akbulut was removed from his tenured position at MSU after complaints regarding his teaching attendance and method of communications with fellow staff." Saying he "attacked" anyone is completely not acceptable without more evidence. "Attacking" implies harassment or verbal assault (which could be considered a criminal matter), and "charges" implies those done in a court of law (once again reaching into BLPCRIME territory). As Akbulut is NOTAPUBLICFIGURE, our policy dictates that we handle anything that can harm such a person's reputation with extreme caution. We are NOTNEWS, so we should try to adhere more to our BLP policy than to attempt focusing on unproven, and salacious, accusations. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans //  06:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   "Attacked" is a quote from interim Provost Teresa A. Sullivan, for the record; no one is making it up. Dr. Sullivan is well-respected and I do not think she would have used that specific word lightly. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether she used the term lightly or not is not relevant to this discussion. If reliable sources do not state these accusations as facts, they cannot be treated as facts. Sullivan holding an esteemed position does not make her a reliable source about other living people for the purposes of this encyclopedia, you (or many other people) holding her in high opinion is not good enough either. If reliable sources can be found that discuss the accusations as if they are more than allegations, and not in the university's voice, I would consider stating more detail. But, given the information currently available, I am replacing the current wording with more neutrally worded facts. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans //  07:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that gives us the opportunity to be both more descriptive and still in keeping with Wikipedia policy: "On February 14, 2020, Akbulut was removed from his tenured position at MSU by the Board of Trustees after complaints regarding his teaching attendance and treatment of colleagues." Thoughts? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds almost perfect, how about: "On February 14, 2020, Akbulut was removed from his tenured position at MSU by the Board of Trustees after complaints regarding his teaching attendance and communications with colleagues." I recommend this, simply because "treatment" could imply a broad range of things he was not even accused of. Decent compromise? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans //  07:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that's fine. I'm not sure if other editors wish to comment, but for now (and given what sources we have) it seems reasonable and in keeping with BLP policy. Thanks. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I've made the changes to keep the article as compliant with BLP as possible. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans //  07:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  This wording seems fine to me, too. It has, however, subsequently been edited by another editor, and I have asked them (see post below) to self-revert in order to maintain the status quo. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Since they can't self-revert due to protection, can you please do this? Sorry to bother you. Hopefully the COI incident is addressed soon. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Yes, I gave them a few hours first, lest they were awake and online, then sorted it myself, before protecting the page. I forgot to update my request, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The statement regarding allegations in the Career section needs to go 

message: The State News says "Selman Akbulut — a former professor of mathematics in the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University — was dismissed after he refused to teach a class.", and also later says "The university withheld part of his salary after his refusal to teach MTH124 during the spring semester of 2015.".  The latter statement is true, not the former one.
Additionally, there was an administrative review carried out, but the State News says "the grievance was dismissed".  In reality, there was an academic review, according to the WWMT source. 
I'm just letting everyone know this, and will be removing the source. Ylevental (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming that statenews.com is an unreliable source, or simply that this article is incorrect in some way? I see no reason to remove the citation at all, and feel its inclusion gives a degree of balance of sources. Also, having thought editors had reached some consensus in the post above, your addition of further detail is now adding more undue wait on accusations, which isn't appropriate, as explained by , and tends to make me wonder at your own reasons for editing the article in this way. I've no idea what MTH124 is - I'm guessing a course code, though I don't see what the point of splitting hairs is. The (I assume) independent statenews source seems to indicate some sort of long-standing disagreement amongst staff and pupils and their board of management. Wikipedia's role is to provide links to what reliable sources state (even if they're not correct in all details), and to provide balance in those sources, but not to dwell unduly on the minutiae of accusations and counter-accusations which might even end up in the courts at some stage. Thus I feel it would be appropriate if you were to revert these two edits as soon as possible, please.  I have now reverted those edits. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  State News source is unreliable