Talk:Adnan Oktar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adnan Oktar article.
Article policies

This article is part of the article assessment section of WikiProject Muslim scholars, a WikiProject for all articles about Muslim scholars.
Note: The project includes non-Muslim scholars of Islam.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Adnan Oktar:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents

[edit] Quote

"An Illusion of Harmony: Science And Religion in Islam (Hardcover)" by Taner Edis should have extensive discussion of Yahya. Due out in January, though much might be available online if you ask the author.

I think that there are far too many 'Harun Yahya' books for 'Harun Yahya' to be simply a pen name for Adnan Oktar - rather 'Harun Yahya' is the flag of convenience behind the entire Turkish creationist movement...

None can measure a person's talent from their point of view. Zahid 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


I hope we are allowed to put facts here nothing fictional about this person:

FACT: THERE ARE LAW-SUITS AGAINST THIS PERSON AS I TYPE THIS NOW. HE IS AND HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF CREATING AN ILLEGAL BLACKMAILING, BRIBING, THREATENING GROUP FOR HIS INTENTIONS. HERE IS ANOTHER FACT OF THIS. HE SPENT YEARS IN PRISON, AND ANOTHER FACT IS, HE HAS CREDIBLE 7 DOCTOR REPORTS THAT SAYS HE IS NOT MENTHALLY CAPABLE OF SERVING IN TURKISH MILITARY. SO HE SKIPPED MILITARY.

FACT: HE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RELIGIOUS OR UNIVERSITY EDUCATION. IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO GIVE FATCS IN THIS WEB SITE, NO ONE IS SUPPOSE TO ERASE THIS. ABSOLUTALY NO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, OR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. Thank you

I believe adnan oktar is the best known scientist and islamic scholar world has ever known. He has unveiled the conspiracies and filthy propagandas of western world. All you ultra-left, agnostic wikipedians can't do anything. If you can refute him, go research and show it to the world and we'll see how good you are!

For now spout off blasphemies and bite your nails. Hail Adnan Oktar, Islam Rules

[edit] Plagiarism

I believe that at least parts of many of the Harun Yahya creationist books are plagiarized translations of works by U.S.-based young-earth creationists, e.g., from the Institute for Creation Research. (Taner Edis may have documented this in one of his articles on Turkish creationism.) Lippard 19:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PoV

Just for the record, Harun Yahya is vastly popular throughout Asia and is acclaimed throughout the world by people of different religions, be they Muslims, Christians, Jews, or others. The article, which calls him an anti-this, anti-that, and a Holocaust denier, is therefore completely biased. Also for the record, Harun Yahya is not a Holocaust denier: he has referred to it in many of his books. Please, be neutral. Konstable and Jeff5102 are shooting their mouths off, and so are people like Darashala and Zahid. Zahid, I personally agree with most of what you're saying, but please don't be so vociferous about it. State it calmly and neutrally.

At the moment the article is written very much from the point of view of the subject; it needs to be edited into a more neutral style. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)



I thought the changes i made were self -expanatory: on each item i put in what each side thought, which seems to be the only plausible approach for this article since adnan oktar and his sect is highly controversial, very much like scientology in the US. A lot of the stuff that I deleted was his propaganda in any case, Mel, can you point to any part of the article which you thought was unfairly deleted?

You need to justify your removal of text, especially such a large amount of text. You claim that you deleted propaganda, but you need to back up that claim. I also don't understand the wholesale removal of the bibliography (nor the insistence on changing the headings to non-Wikipedia style). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I cannot understand what "a lot of text" means if it doesnot say anything. I mean i can put a lot of stuff there which says nothing, right? For the biography, it is not essential info, it is also listed in his web page. Do you think it adds a lot to our knowledge of him? About the controversiality of the issue, do you have anybody around you that knows turkish? he can verify the controversiality of the person, here is one news article about him that just came out today, mentioning he want to jail for cocain use in 1985, then went out by getting a mental illness report, he and his supporters were again jailed in 1999 for blackmailing Istanbul DYP deputy Celal Adan, stayed in jail for another tem months and so on. http://www.gecce.com/pages/haber_detay.asp?haber=44514

I don't follow all of this, but it seems to boil down to a repeated claim that your edits are justified, with no attempt to provide the justification, and the argument that, because the bibliography appears elsewhere it shouldn't appear in Wikipdia. That implies that you've misunderstood what Wikipedia is; it's an encyclopædia that doesn't allow original research — so everything here appears somewhere else. Look at other articles on writers, artists, musicians, composers, etc., and you'll see lists of works, all of which will appear elsewhere.
As for newspaper reports, it's fine to say that a newspaper has made a claim, but not to repeat the claim as simple fact. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


TO be hoonest i think you are being naive and turning wikipedia propaganda for a particular sect. As for the legal allegations on him, not even the sect memebers would deny, becuase they are common knowledge. I do not know how to make them more solid; perphaps go to turkish courts and scan the the court documents and post them? If I have time later I will try to do that, but for the momemnt i guess ill have to let you have your way and make this article a propaganda device for a controversial sect.

Motora binmeyi çok seven ve çeşit çeşit motorları olan, peşinde bi sürü adamın bize de motor düşer dolandığı, amerikan yaradılışçılarının kitaplarından intihal ile kitap yazan, sözde bi din adamı.


You need to (a) sign your posts (b) write in English in the English-language section of Wikipedia. There is a Turkish language section available.--Konstable 07:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda against a person. Please be neutral. Vandalism will not be allowed. False claims and links to the false sites(mainly Turkish) will be deleted. Zahid 19:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Zahid, I did not write those claims, but it seems to be that the language is as neutral as it can be. It does not present those accusations as facts, rather it presents them as allegations against him. And even says that he denies them. If you think that they are POV, please do not delete them before discussing them here first. If you feel that this article is not neutral or factually accurate, you can flag it with the {{totallydisputed}} tag.--Konstable 04:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This person is clearly documented to suffer from Paranoid Schizophrenia by the military hospitals in Turkey where he has many followers and is oficially criminally insane. Upon all that and understanding his remaining rights to be respected, I have difficulty seeing Wikipedia claiming him to be the leader cited in his website. I see most of the text cited here are from his website and needs to be marked clearly that this person is not sane enough to hold responsibility for what he says or writes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.95.229 (talk • contribs).

Unfortunately this article has very serious POV problems. I also suggest the contributors of the article to read WP:RS. What gives an article its quality is the quality of the sources, you can always find some obscure, self-serving source to cite. I even wonder whether he is worth for a wikipedia article at all, after all what is his contribution? From reading the article -if you never heard of him before- you can easily get the wrong idea that he is an intelectual or an important person in Turkey, which is not the case. The article doesn't mention his sect, his nicely dressed-up,upper class followers, his sex scandals, allegations etc,his ability to avoid judicial persecution, well the Turkish public forgot about all these events. There is also no evidence that he wrote all these books, if I remember correctly, in the court he even denied the authorship for some of them. It was also shown that for example his anti-Darwinist book is full of copy-paste material from American creationist books from 1950s. His books on Freemasonry are just list of names of Freemasons currently in Turkey and not call him an antisemite is really POV. It is sad that many articles in wikipedia about Turkey become propaganda material with very low quality. -Argonit 23:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

I have watched some of his documentaries, and the factual accuracy is pretty bad. And the facts and evidence that he does have are often used to mislead irrelevant. For example, while talking about Red Armies atrocities videos of White Army soldiers are shown. When talking about Social Realism he shows old people in an art class and talks about how true art is impossible in "materialistic" regimes. Etc. Perhaps there needs to be some mention of this.--Konstable 22:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I know, he says he cannot be refuted, but I read through several of his books and noticed quote-mining and lies almost straight away. He is either very ingnorant or very deceitful. He also seems to think that the stone age never happened, even though I've been to Stonehenge and many other stone-age sites. (217.17.112.173 14:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

In short,he is a nutcase.Talk to the hand,Girly-Messiah.--85.100.34.144 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't post personal comments.


I hope we are allowed to put facts here, nothing fictional about this person (no personal comments):

FACT: THERE ARE LAW-SUITS AGAINST THIS PERSON AS I TYPE THIS NOW. HE IS AND HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF CREATING AN ILLEGAL BLACKMAILING, BRIBING, THREATENING GROUP FOR HIS INTENTIONS. HERE IS ANOTHER FACT OF THIS. HE SPENT YEARS IN PRISON, AND ANOTHER FACT IS, HE HAS CREDIBLE 7 DOCTOR REPORTS THAT SAYS HE IS NOT MENTHALLY CAPABLE OF SERVING IN TURKISH MILITARY. SO HE SKIPPED MILITARY.

FACT: HE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RELIGIOUS OR UNIVERSITY EDUCATION. IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO GIVE FATCS IN THIS WEB SITE, NO ONE IS SUPPOSE TO ERASE THIS. ABSOLUTALY NO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, OR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. Thank you

[edit] Budhism

The new comments on Budhism which have been added need some cleaning up. There's probably some content that can be mined out from them but the section as it stands is more of an outburst than a encyclopaedic entry. --Nkv 15:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the Buddhism-part, but it remains somewhat POV. It is very difficult to write a serious article about someone who cannot be taken serious.Jeff5102 10:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harun Yahya wrote about them

Harun Yahya wrote about the ignorant society. You can download it from www.harunyahya.com . If you are an ignorant, you will not read them and say they are false. If you have slightest respect for knowledge, you will not accuse wise persons for their unintentional mistakes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zahidbuet (talk • contribs).

I have respect for knowledge. That is why I do not understand Oktar's agressive attack on Charles Darwin. ;)Anyway, I do not see what this has to do with the article.Jeff5102 09:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have watched a couple of Harun Yahya videos. A LOT of it was indeed based on strawman arguments, a lot of oppinions are stated as obvious facts, statements carefully designed to mislead, and plain out lies in some cases. This guy is a propagandist and a liar. In fact I plan to document some of those lies from his videos here when I get the time. So really, I think it's ignorance to be spreading his preachings.--Konstable 10:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I have striken my comment above as I don't wish to discuss my point of view regarding Harun Yahya / Adnan Oktar here.--Konstable 04:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't post personal comments.203.208.166.92 05:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the truth and I am not neutral about this. Darwin didn't proved anything and explained missing link as his proof. If you have something to say about your own research, wikipedia is not the place for this. Some people are trying to make Harun Yahya as a mad man and a criminal. Because, they don't have the capacity of writing books like Harun Yahya.Zahid 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Zahidebuet, First of all I have no intention to include my own research here. But I may write some more about his "inaccuacies". Also, I'm about to revert your deletion of the short statement about his education. If you don't like those references, the official Haru Yahya site itself agrees with this. And I see nothing POV in quoting his education.--Konstable 04:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I pointed out Yahya's mistakes because of jeasouy of his writng capacities, I would better be editing the William Shakespeare-article, wouldn't I? ;)Jeff5102 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Zahid, If you are a believer in this man's writings, then surely you are not suitable to be editing this as you cannot be POV neutral. Because after all, a belief is a POV. You believe your beliefs are correct, many do not, so that makes you biased --81.174.250.220 21:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Believer and unbeliever in Harun Yahya's writings, please be neutral. Don't post personal comments.203.208.166.92 05:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with the previous comment. Otherwise, no Muslim can supply information about Islam and no Christian may talk about Christianity. I guess it could be even that ridiculous that only atheists may contribute to the God-part. On the other hand, I do not understand why 203.208.166.92 is referring to the comments above as ‘personal’. After all, Adnan Oktar is a living person, isn’t he? Jeff5102 12:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article

Maybe some can edit this news article from 'The Pitch' for the Adnan Oktar-article? It contains interesting info.Jeff5102 09:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


A part of my ‘Oktar falsely quotes Orwell’-contribution to this article is deleted, because it is ´personal research’.

Well I did research on what Oktar said Orwell meant, and I did research on what Orwell meant, and there was a big difference between the two meanings.

And yes, this was a personal research. But what do the guidelines say about ‘original research’?

It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.”

As well Oktars text as Orwells text are published. That Oktar uses misquotes is already known. And looking for sources is allowed, and I did not do anything else.

So my question to the fellow wikipedians is: was my contribution according to the guidelines, or not?Jeff5102 13:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

How about something in the article referring to the large amounts of spam I get about this man's writings? It is after all the reason I looked him up. --81.174.250.220 21:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, on the OFTC network I got the following:
[00:54] <hillary___> Hello..foryou.. AN INVITATION TO THE TRUTH click please www.harunyahya.com (choose language please)
Can be said, it did strengthen my belief in evolution instead... :P Ailure 07:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much blog

This is not a blog site. So, don't write blog or give reference to blog sites. I found that, someone is deleting content terming it as official Harun Yahy..... The official site is better than the blog. I wonder, if they have so much prejudice against this man, then why they write about him. I found a person who thinks himself as a researcher. He continues to post his research though it has been deleted several times, hahaha. A person deleted content saying about copy pasting of official H. Y. site. Maybe he wants to create new things about H. Y., hahahaha. If want to know about this editor person, I will not look at his official site, I will write it my own and I will say I am neutral, hahahaha. Why don't we become more intelligent? Darashala 08:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm the "person" who reverted the edit which cut/pasted content from the authors official site. It's a given that someone's site will be biassed towards the owner. Cutting/pasting from there is pointless. It might be just as well to give a link to his site. That's not the point here. As for the links you deleted saying that it's "too much blog", I can't read Turkish and hence can't comment on them. Perhaps someone else will revert the edits if necessary. --Nkv 09:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but calling newspaper –archives ‘fake blog sites’ is way too easy. If you go to the index of the Hurriyet-archive [1], you can find the link to the so-called ‘fake blog’- article.
The same is the case for the Sabah-online newspaper archive [2]. Maybe Darashala can show us why these sites, which look like professional news-archives are ‘false blog sites’? Or show us the REAL Hurriyet news-archive?Jeff5102 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Darashala. I can post links of Bengali newspapers which say Harun Yahya is a great man, great scholar in Islam, and great scientist (to become a scientist, good academic result is not needed. Even Einstein did not get a job in the university). Zahid 10:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do so and state that "Many Bengalis (or any other party whose views you think the links your're quoting reflect) consider Harun Yahya to be a great man, a great scholar in Islam and a great scientist". No one is stopping you. However, you should also allow people who don't hold this view of him to state their views. --Nkv 10:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers have their views and ideology. If you reject the official website for your prejudice against Harun Yahya, then reject the newspapers too. Zahid 10:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No one is "rejecting" anything. A link to the main HY site which talks about his activities in a positive light is okay. Another link to justify a statment that "Some parties allege that he is sufferring from paranoid schizophrenia" is also okay. To censor any criticism of the man is to make the article one sided. It's a fact that atleast some people (for whatever agenda) consider him a paranoid schizophrenic (I can't read Turkish but I assume that's the point that the turkish links support). What problem do you see in stating that? --Nkv 10:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Well Zahid, as far as I can see you still have not answered the questions I asked you about Oktar’s Pompeii-text on your talk-page. And yet you believe that those who are sceptical about Oktars work are prejudiced. Please give me the proofs that Oktar is not making up his Pompeii-story. If I am prejudiced, and you are not, you can prove this by answering my questions. If not, my guess is that you are overestimating yourself. (By the way I added one remark about that Pompeii-text, That would not be much of a problem, would it? ;))Jeff5102 12:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a blind supporter. I use logic and for this, I have to study. I must build my academic career, too. Otherwise, someone will state that: Though I didn't studied this subject, I researched on it. And, you should know, my subjects are Mathematics, Biology, and Electronic Engineering, not archaeology. I need time to study my academic books, archaeology books and maintain my job. I don't want anybody to accuse me as a mad. Note: I didn't mention all my activities here.Zahid 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orwell section

Really people, we need to discuss this and arrive at a conclusion rather than play "revert the others changes". I invite you both User:Jitt and User:Jeff5102 to discuss this. --Nkv 06:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I already tried to discuss this matter under the ‘Article’-header. But so far nobody reacted, except by reverting, argued by empty words (“It is personal!” “It is blog!”). And as long as nobody wants to convince me and other wikipedians why the Orwell-part is wrong, it should stay there.Jeff5102 07:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that. I've left a comment in User:Jitts talk page. If we discuss this and clear it up, it'll be much better than reverting each other's changes. If he doesn't show up here to discuss this, we'll reinstate your changes and ask him to not remove them. --Nkv 10:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Orwell part consists a lot of percentage of this article. Is this relevant in a boigraphy? Jeff5102 is very keen to publish his research here and he doesn't have any other related place to publish it! He gave a link of Orwell's lablablab. Maybe that will work. But, don't put a lot of lablablab in the article. I think, maybe, Adnan Oktar will find this page and write a lot of argument against this (He has a habit of writing a lot)(just joking). Just say there are some misquotes and give the links. You don't have to put it all in his biography and make it more than 30 percent of it.Jitt 07:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what is meant by 'lablablab'. But still maybe I will expand the article, so the Orwell-part will take less space in the article. And another problem: if I quote other scientists, I would violate copyrights. And that is the last thing I want to do.Jeff5102 13:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this page while surfing and think the Orwell section is problematic. Basically, it qualifies as Original Research as it cites no source for the claim that HY is quote mining. I don't dispute that the section is correct, but unfortunately it is OR. WP is not the place to put our rebuttals of people's arguments. We can only report rebuttals that other, notable people have done.
TalkOrigins and many others have dissected HY's claims, it would be better to report and cite one of their rebuttals. Ashmoo 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jitt and Ashmoo . Hey Jeff5102 , will you stop this lablablab? Hehehehe. Darashala 07:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Well Ashmoo, the Orwell-section is gone. As well as the last critical parts of the article. And the Turkish newspaper-items are gone as well (and remember: English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability [3]) and who am I to dispute Oktars English-written webpages? With illegal 'original research'?). And because, as I said, I do not want to violate more copyrights as neccesary, my advise is to keep the article this way. I see no better option left.Jeff5102 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC) (although, if JoshuaZ reverts it back, my part might not be such a problem after all!)

[edit] Notability-deletion issues

This article is about a living person -thus a biography about a living person. I strongly suggest we discuss the notability issues. Reading WP:NNOT and WP:BIO could be useful. I can understand the motives of the creator of this article and but after reading those relevant wikipedia passages, i dont think Oktar article would pass the test. He is just not important enough. Maybe his name and contributions could be mentioned, if there were articles on Muslim creationism or Turkish anti-darwinism or Turkish sects etc. But he is just a controversial and mediatic figure, without prominence in either right-wing or Islamist circles. I saw much better articles with a POV or bias sign? Why not this one, are we afraid of the facts? Argonit 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

It appears that paragraphs that show Adnan Oktar in a not-so-flattering light are being removed. Gentlemen: if we want this article to be NPOV we have to show his faults as well! He wasn't perfect. Please accept that there are people that may disagree with you and see things differently. —Khoikhoi 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I can see for the existence of an wikipedia article about him is propaganda. Unfortunately, the content of the article reflects this. The article cannot be improved very easily because most people know very little about him. There is only his books, his sect and the foundation. Currently he is more engaged in evolution-Darwin-creationism issues. However, there is no public discussion about it. The article, in its current form with self-references is very weak. To improve it, one has to remove self-referential internet links and perhaps write more about the sect and its past activities. His books are many and some of them were distributed in universities for free! As mentioned in one of the links in the article, we are dealing here with a person with a lot of connections and criminal activity. I still don't understand why there is no NPOV{{POV}} sign -Argonit 20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I have a feeling the people who have been removing his criticism section are either members of his cult or just his supporters. Regardless, I've went ahead and added a {{POV}} tag to it, hope that helps. —Khoikhoi 20:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I also suupport the {{POV}} tag. Because, some people are so much against him that they even don't want a page about him. They are removing contents (that show good signs of Adnan Oktar) for their resemblance with the official harun Yahya site. Though I am not a member of his sect/followers/cult (I didn't know about their existence. Maybe Darwin have a sect/followers/cult! Just joking.), I can't support it. I support truth. Please, just admit that, he is not a messenger of God. He surely have some mistakes and faults. He also have done something which caused a wide publicity. I am writing from thosands of miles away. I read his books and seen the videos. I just make the decision from the contents of the books.Jitt 08:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Just follow the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and read it.Jitt 08:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that whether people are for or against him is the issue here. I couldn't care less about him, but I just want that the quality of the article gets better. But how this is possible, when people constantly will erase the nasty facts about him. After all, he had 7 independent medical reports about his mental health since 1983 and he himself used these reports not to get convicted. He himself wrote a book called "Holocause Lie". He and his groups threatened some politicians and journalists. These are all facts. Even if they will get constantly erased, you cannot change the facts. If he is not a Holocaust Denier, why then you(Oktar) spend your time for writing such a book? Therefore i cannot see the reason for recent edits of erasing all these facts, except being highly biased about him and not being able to accept these facts. How you can say that people are removing good things about him, when currently the article looks like his website? It is much more difficult to write a biography about a living person especially about such a contraversial figure with a lot of scandals. -Argonit 12:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Argonit , are you from Israel? If you are from Israel, I am an Arab. After watching Israel's crime (I am trying to be calm), I am a Holocaust Denier, too. You can call me a mad, I wouldn't give you a penny.Darashala 07:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

I guess to shorten the works section could improve this article in a significant way. We could mention he published so and so many books on Qu'ran etc, among them -mentioning only the most important ones-. Does anybody have any idea which ones would be the most influential-widely read-translated-important etc. ? Argonit 09:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust

In this article it has been stated that Harun Yahya is a Holocaust denier but in one of his books on Darwinism he says that the Holocaust actually happened. I'm providing a link to this book's official website.http://www.harunyahya.com/fascism4.php --DIGIwarez 11:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You have found that yourself? Shame! That is original research, and that is forbidden over here. Wikipedia prefers it, when you mention what other people write about other people who refer to books from Adnan Oktar.

And for the record: check out [4]Jeff5102 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the [following paragraph] does it seem probable that this guy is a holocaust denier?

The peoples of the occupied countries were subjected to terrible cruelty, especially those in the category of "inferior races" such as the Jews, Slavs and Gypsies. Millions of people were sent to camps to be used as slave labor. Soon, these camps turned into extermination camps according to the "Final Solution" adapted at the notorious Wannsee Conference by Hitler and his associates. The gas chambers specially designed to kill humans first used carbon monoxide and then Zyklon B. In the gas chambers and other methods of mass extermination, a total of 5.5 million Jews, 3 million Poles, almost 1 million Gypsies and hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war from various nations were brutally murdered. Btw. Jeff5102, your cited site says that it has been disputed. --Magabund 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As I painfully experienced, quoting original sources (like you do) is considered here as "original research", and that is not allowed on wikioedia. Howevever, according to the reports on the “Antisemitism and Xenophobia Today”-site, he really is credited as a Holocaust denier.

Please See the report of 1996 [5]:

“As in previous years, the Islamist organization Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (Foundation for Scientific Research), led by Adnan Oktar (better known as Adnan Hodja), continued to slander Jews. It draws support from educated and wealthy young men and women but, unlike RP, most of its followers do not adopt Muslim dress or attend mosques regularly. Oktar is notorious for his virulent attacks on Israel, Jews and Freemasons.

In 1996 the foundation distributed two books entitled the "Holocaust Lie The Inside Story of the Secret History of the Zionist-Nazi Co-operation and the Lie About Jewish Genocide" (originally published in 1995) and the "New Masonic Order”.

…

The publication in December 1995 of "Holocaust Lie The Inside Story of the Secret History of the Zionist-Nazi Co-operation and the Lie About Jewish Genocide" sparked much public debate throughout 1996.

In March 1996 a leading Turkish painter and intellectual, Bedri Baykam, published a strongly worded critique in the Ankara daily newspaper Siyah-Beyaz (Black and White). A legal suit for slander was subsequently brought against Baykam by Nuri Özbudak, who claimed to have written the book under the pseudonym of Harun Yahya. During the trial in September, Baykam exposed the real author of the book as Adnan Oktar, leader of Bilim Arastirma Vakfi ...

Baykam also stated in court that genocide against the Jews was an indisputable historical fact. He condemned the book and proclaimed that all Turks who upheld human rights and democracy should react strongly against it too. By the end of the year the trial had not yet been concluded, but it appeared that Özbudak would drop the case.”

Or otherwise the report of 1998 [6]:

“Oktar is responsible for virulent attacks on Jews and Freemasons. Two antisemitic books are distributed by the foundation: 'Holocaust Lie - The Inside Story of the Secret History of the Zionist-Nazi Co-operation and the Lie about Jewish Genocide' (originally published in 1995, see also Holocaust denial) and 'New Masonic Order'. It also publishes the bulletin Siyasi Cizgi (Political Line), launched in 1994, which is mailed to thousands of prominent Turks. In 1997 the foundation published the book 'Israel's Kurdish Card', which claims that Israel supports Kurdish terrorists.”

Or otherwise check out a more recent report of 2004 from the Stephen Roth Institute [7]:

“Numerous books by the Turkish Islamist Adnan Oktar, aka Adnan Hodja, are on display in almost every bookstore, under the pseudonym Harun Yahya. His revisionist writings focusing on Jews and Israel are rife with false accusations and caricatures. It should be noted, however, that Adnan Oktar has undergone a change and become more tolerant toward Jews and others; he now works toward promoting inter-religious dialogue.”

See also [8] I guess it wil do for now. Maybe we should include information from these reports in the article. Anyway, these sites prove he is credited as a Holocaust denier.Jeff5102 12:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No Jeff, you got something wrong - quoting original sources is not WP:OR. --Magabund 19:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How strange. I quoted original sources in the 'Orwell'-section as well, but that was eventually removed as WP:OR. Jeff5102 20:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He wrote a book called 'Soykırım Yalanı', meaning 'genocide lie' or 'holocaust lie'. The article should mention him as a holocaust denier. Please someone add it.--80.56.36.253 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Wiki rules"

ZambrottaNesta/Messadelrosa/SuperSantana, please tell me what "wiki rules" you are refering to that says you can delete sourced material if the newspaper is "false". First off, how do you know that it's false? Secondly, I suggest you have a look at WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please show me a source that says Oktar isn't a Holocaust-denier. —Khoikhoi 01:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fully protected

Fully protected, as it seems pretty obvious that someone is running a sock farm with matured socks to avoid the semi-protection. about five-six new accounts who only make edits to one page, and use edit summaries from the very first edit? Blnguyen | rant-line 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the fully protection until the dispute is resolved. Some people don't want to hear anything good about Harun Yahya. We have to be NPOV to write in encyclopaedia.Jitt 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think much of the Orwell sections by Jeff. They seem to be original research to me. However, the removal of all links to his *alleged* schizophrenia and criticism is a little too much. The man is popular. He has critics (right or wrong). Let's just say that and leave it at that. --Nkv 12:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Let me state this in case of the Orwell-part:

According to wikipedia-rules, in Original Research this all is excluded:

  • It introduces a theory or method of solution;

I do not introduce that.

  • It introduces original ideas;

It is already known that Oktar uses misquotes: nothing original here.

  • It defines new terms;

I do not define new terms

  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;

See above

  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;

I cited the two main sources: both writers.

  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

Maybe. I should give a link to critical websites, who support the claim of “Oktar using false quotes”, but then again, these links are in this article under the Critical Articles-section.

• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

And this I did not do either.

In short: I only used a new easy-to-verify example for an old analysis: I just considered that George Orwell was easier to refer to, than some scientists that are obscure to the general public. Thus, IMHO this is no Original ResearchJeff5102 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Orwell 'refutation' looks like WP:OR to me. It refers directly to primary material (the Orwell book) and doesn't identify who has decided that Oktar is misquoting in this instance. Just because someone has said that Oktar misquotes, doesn't mean an editor can carte-blanche add 'evidence' of anything that appears to be a misquote to them.
Pls note, I don't dispute the fact that he is misquoting in this instance, just that it is WP:Original Research. Ashmoo 05:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
And specific to the policy:
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
Ashmoo 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the Orwell refutation is on the article at all? I think the article will definitely benefit from its removal. About the alleged schizophrenia, I see no reason to put it in the article. Otherwise, we should also mention that George W Bush is a terrorist and megalomaniac (plenty of litterature about that). This article is the most biased I've seen so far on this great resource. Lixy 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Schizophrenia is a medical pathology with serious symptoms. The diagnosis was established on several occasions by different and well-known Turkish hospitals since 1983. As far as I understood, he never challenged these medical reports and actually used them to avoid his obligatory military service and later for his criminal offences. Argonit 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Seal used on Quran"

In this article mention is made that "this seal is used on the Qur'an" and Yahya is using to indicate the same authenticity.

If people have an issue, let them take issue and work it out, but do not make things up to try and support your argument. If it is on the Quran, cite it, but I have yet to see this on any copy of the Quran - not that it would be a problem, but the implication that Harun Yahya is mimicking this imaginary feature is ridiculous.

I am not Muslim and hence I'm not an expert on Qu'rans but I have just seen this seal in this article: Muhammad as a diplomat (Image:Muhammadseal2.jpg) which matches the seal on the Haryun Yahya book cover on this article. --Konstable 10:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The content about seal in the article is completely false. Konstable is correct. This seal is not used on the Quran. So, Harun Yahya used it for ..... is completely false. Zahid 04:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Zahid, you can read at Harun Yahya's own website that he says that this seal is an ‘attribute of the Qur'an and the Prophet’:
…. This seal is an indication that the Qur'an is the last book and the last word of God, and our Prophet Muhammad (May God bless him and grant him peace) is the last of His messengers. By taking this attribute of the Qur'an and the Prophet, the writer seeks, in all of his works, to refute all the basic claims of the systems of disbelief and utter the "last word" which will put a definite end to the assertions of infidelity. ...[9]
In this way, or you, or Oktar is correct in his statement about the seal. And I may be prejudiced, but I think you are correct. Jeff5102 12:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BEST author

Harun Yahya is the best author I've ever saw. His works are full of wisdom. They help me to realize the real meaning of life. God bless him.

I don't know your identity. But, I agree with you, brother. Assalamu Alaikum, brother. Zahid 05:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Too bad some of his videos couldn't even get the supposedly "Satanic" metal band's members or name's right (mixed up Marilyn Manson with Cradle of Filth, called KISS (band) Satanists when they're Jews, etc). Oh well.12.96.46.209 13:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So Jews can't be Satanists? If KISS was not Satanists, they were at least wanna-bes.  ;^) Yosemite1967 23:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Harun yahya is far from being an author. Now, I am sure you are asking me to prove it.

Here is the proof: Look at all his webpages, and find 1 single indication that he graduated from any type of college or university. His followers combine the info from other authors, and gather them to make it look like Harun Yahya wrote it. Any ex-follower is ready to testify it in ant court. They basiucally steal from other authors and make it look like they are his.

[edit] Insanity on Wikipedia

Adnan Oktar (or Harun Yahya) was previously sentenced and served a time in jail for using cocaine. Later on, to not serve mendatory military service in Turkey; he claimed himself to be "crazy". He was approved by Bakırköy Ruh ve Sinir Hastalıkları Hospital that he was actually insane and did not serve in the military.

He once claimed himself to be the "mehdi", (the guy that will come previously from Christ), and later on the mass sex scandals were in the media quite for a while. ( Link : http://www.vatanim.com.tr/root.vatan?exec=haberdetay&tarih=17.10.2005&Newsid=62568&Categoryid=1 ) or just make a google search on news. Use "Adnan Hoca" or "Adnan Oktar" instead of Harun Yahya. He tries this name, so once you make a google search you won't discover who he really is.

His followers were known as being extremly wealth, living extreme high quality life standards for Turkey. (Current minimum wage is 300 dollars in Turkey, back then it was about 90 dollars) His followers drives Range Rovers, Mercedeses and Ferraris. Many video tapes were caught, their followers catching new potentials by offering sex with prostitutes was always in the news in Turkey.

Currently he is backed up by Fethullah Güven; and he spends over one hundred million dollars a year to turn Turkey into an islamic regime.

Yet nothing "against" can be written about this insane human being ? (He is officially insane with an hospital report, and I'm allowed to call him this way)

Come on Wikipedia, don't be this low. You're the creation of the free mind, make some research !

He does have 7 reports from various hospitals that tells you he is mentally sick

--Nerval 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typical narrow mindedness

I am sorry to be sound very harsh on my first post but people here do not seem to have the ability to argue. If you have something to say against Harun Yahya's articles then go publish a book. If people have tried to argue against him then he is very quick to reply.

The military terrorrist junta of Turkey had ideological reasons to degrade Harun Yahya as much as possible. Thus, they tried to label him as mentally degenerate and one who deals with cocaine. Excellent reasoning behind the people who because of their narrow mindedness pick up on it.

Well guys, please look at this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/creationist_amorality.php and the comments below as well. Blackmail and theft are Oktars main weapons, it seems. Could we do something with this? Jeff5102 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Publish a book huh? You bet ya! Book is being written as we speak.

[edit] Recent edits 2

I'd just like to give my reasons for reverting Adamrafati:

  1. Sourced information should never be deleted - see WP:V. You are, however, more than welcome to add alternate claims as long as your sources are reliable.
  2. You cannot copy & paste from other websites - see WP:C. Harunyahya.com clearly says at the bottom of the page: "Harun Yahya International © 2006. All rights reserved".

So...there you have it. —Khoikhoi 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

I've removed some very non-neutral material from this article. MidgleyDJ 07:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you, and here is more:

I am shocked to see when I came here "(wiki). I always heard incredible things about wikipedia, finally today I had time to join. I looked up a lot of thing i was interested. When I saw a criminal, mentaly sick person portrayed as leader, thinker, educated person, I WAS SHOCKED.

adnan oktar is not only criminal, he has 7 or more mentally il reports from different institutions. Look at his life story, and you will see that he absolutely has not enought education to write 250 books (like he or his followers claim).

I hope someone wipe this terrible person off of here!

What I don't understand here is: If I am from Indonesia and put some rapist/serial killer's name here and write wonderful things and lies about him, everyone who reads it believes it? Or are they suppose to believe it? That's exactly what happened about adnan oktar here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatmuslim (talk • contribs)

[edit] odd bits (need verifying, clarifying).

Morning All -

I have no particular agenda with respect to this article, I thought I should make an effort to instill some NPOV into it. I have concerns whether the article satisfys WP:BIO. In my attempts to make it NPOV I've cut these confusing pieces from the article. Think they require appropriate verification/referencing before they should be reinstated.

[edit] Confusing sections

During these years, Oktar did not attend to Mimar Sinan University. He enrolled to a new faculty, Istanbul University, Philosophy Department.
According to Oktar, Allah draws the attention of Muslims and mentions the name of the Jews, as one of the greatest enemies of believers [10]. The conclusive result of his researches showed that the activities of Zionism in Turkey were carried out by freemasonry, a hidden group.
Also politicians such as Celal Adan (Member of the Parliament) and Mesut Yilmaz should have been victims of this group. Oktar's group arranged fake (photomontage) photos of Mesut Yilmaz in Freemason clothes and ceremonies, and forged a fake certificate of Freemasonary for him. This fake was taken seriously and published in several pro-Islamic newspapers (without knowing it was a fraud). The PM was seriously damaged politically as a result during the remainder of his government.
However, his followers call these accusations "groundless slanders, scenarios and lies

Unclear what this refers to exactly? Requires clarification.

Sorry, but these are all fragment, which are now placed out of context. I cannot make anything from it this way.10:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR / NPOV

The conclusive result of his researches showed that the activities of Zionism in Turkey were carried out by freemasonry, a hidden group.

[edit] NPOV

Potential slander, not indepedantly referenced, unverified. Removed. Unclear.

Edip Yuksel, his former teacher, suggested: He was acting like a paranoid schizophrenic in order to get medical report to dodge the draft. It was ironic, since he was indeed mentally sick; he was a delusional megalomaniac, yet he was cunningly acting for another mental illness. He was successful; he dodged the draft and since then he has been found lacking mental capability to be the subject of criminal law. So, he is getting away with sexual abuses, fraud, libel, blackmailing schemes, and other criminal activities.[11]

Sorry, but I quote mr. Yuksel from his very own website, and I said mr. Yuksel said it; not that this is a fact. Let's see: if I research something by myself and mention it, it is 'new research' and it has to be removed. If I quote someone elses research and mention it, it is not indepedantly referenced. What more do you want? Jeff5102 10:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verify

As a result most of the cases against these people were dismissed, with only two of them jail for one year each. Why dont these people have names? Surely this would have made the international news (at some level).

I just copied this from [12]. If the Mukto Mona-site doesnot give names, I cannot give them either, could I. And as long it is not Oktar who is sentenced, their names are not that relevant. And about the international media coverage: see [[13]]:

Anti-Semitism Worldwide 1999/2000 TURKEY ...On the other hand, there is an encouraging trend toward Holocaust education and condemnation of its distortion. For example, when Adnan Oktar, aka Harun Yahya, the author of several anti-Semitic and Holocaust denial books, including Holocaust Lies, was arrested for attempting to blackmail some influential Turkish figures, Hadi Ulungin, a columnist for Hürriyet, demanded that Oktar be tried also for denigrating the Holocaust...

So there you have it. By the way, many thanks for editing the parts where there were no problems with the contents. Jeff5102 10:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, no problem. I am glad you are also pleased with my recent edits... Assuming you were actually being sarcastic you would do well to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. As someone independant to the article, I tried to edit it to improve it in good faith - not to damage the work of others. Where I've asked for citations I think they would be useful, this isnt something I did for fun - but to improve the article. Edit comments like "this is silly but if Midgely (sic) wants it" are unhelpful. Enjoy the rest of your day. MidgleyDJ 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the thanks were not meant sarcastic. I must confess was abit bad tempered at at first. at first. You did a lot of editing on a text I worked hard on. I really tried to make a text that was based on other texts, and not by own investigation. However, I understood after a few hours you did it with the best interest, and for constructive reasons. That is why I wished to show some gratitude, and please accept my excuses if this was not clear.Jeff5102 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
also Jeff while we are here and having a frank exchange of views, I've noticed you use this "http://www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm" for the vast majority of the references. This doesnt seem like the best reference to be using. It's hardly an independant source of information. Your reference for international media is a Google discussion group? I'm all for providing NPOV articles - but they need to be properly referenced. MidgleyDJ 02:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, you were the one that asked citations on the spots that pointed to the Mukto Mona site. (While you also deleted a part from the Pro-Oktar-site). I can give some turkish sites with reverences, but searching at a search-engine on Oktars name and pseudonyms and the word "Blackmail" may give you enough information. Jeff5102 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is some info below. Why do you edit my page? I quit the original adnan oktar page, I dont understand this. This person is criminal, how a big institution like wikipedia promote a criminal?

How did people approve this adnan oktar page? Did they do an investigation? Did they ask around? Do they have any idea about how many family lifes shattered? Do they have any idea about how many lawsuits are still going on against him?

Who gave them right to publish this criminal as a hero and thinker? Who gave them right to make decision for this clown to be introduced to public via wikipedia? I am just curious, not mad yet..

Thank you(look below)

1980s, while he was alredy in trouble with government for radical Islam propoganda, he formed a group of young, rich, famous people. With his special mental abilities, he discovered that he can easily manipulate young brains. So, he started picking more bright, and rich people.

Because we all have right to edit, and because people or bots cancel your editings. I have to let everyone know that ADNAN OKTAR is absolutely Turkish best scam artist!!!

He has no sufficient education to write books, he has 7 "Unstable" reports from differen mental Hospitals in Turkey. I have the PROOF! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatmuslim (talk • contribs)

Please ask to MidgleyDJ how to edit this article. I have given up. A lot of my work on it was deleted because of not using "an independant source of information." Jeff5102 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This guy

''Can someone tell me who allows someone to start a description about a criminal as a good guy at Wiki?

Does that mean for example I can grab a rapist/serial killer in Finland, and make him look like a hero here? That's what adnan hoca is about! Did not anyone investigate this person before posting it on WIKI as a hero and good guy?'' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.171.193 (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

  • It is not about "being a hero" it is about Neutral Point of View, wich is a wikipedia official content policy, to quote the best part :

"Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position."

If you would like to add the fact about Adnan Hoca criminal views/life/whatever, that's ok, but don't add "He was a bastard" or weasel word or irony like "and guess what". You take your bio, rework it a litle, add the fact cite your sources (and if you see something else that you doubt Adnan Oktar never did or is overdone. You are free to report it.

Wikipedia policy is not transforming a rapist into an hero, it is to conserve an objective and neutral point of view on the event (whatever emotional content they may have), let's his deeds speeks for themselves. And btw, one of the wikipedia policy is not to give an undue weight to a viewpoint. So if you think that the guy is too much revered in this article, we incitate you to review the fact about the guy to make the bias more even. So please read WP:NPOV. -- Esurnir 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV biography

Here is a contribution that definitivly violate npov. But because there may be some stuff that you could salvage from this biography I copy and pasted it here :

==Biography Original Version==


Adnan Oktar (pen name: Harun Yahya) is claimed on his web page to be a 'world renown and respected scholar' who has devoted himself to writing about scientific and faith-related subjects such as the theory of evolution and miracles of God. He is further described by supporters as a respected 'scientist' who has publications in incredibly diverse areas of interest (actually he is not a university graduate).

The fact is that, his publications and his foundation (Science Research Foundation) have recently been banned in Turkey, and most members of his "sect" have been sent to court. This was not due to their Islamic and scientific activities, but due to crimes such as blackmail, extortion, possession of unlicensed weapons and sexual intercourse with minors.

About three years ago, upon complaints of victims and many years of suspicion, Turkish police raided residences of this group. The discoveries at the houses and testimony of the group members were shocking.

Under the mask of promoting Islam and scientific facts, the group members had been found to engage in extensive criminal activity. These crimes included blackmail, possession of unlicensed weapons and sexual intercourse with individuals under age 18.

The head of the group, Adnan Oktar (recorded by police cameras, leaked and shown on Turkish TV channels such as Kanal D, ATV, Star) confessed to blackmailing people who they regarded as an obstacle to their enterprises. These people included the reporters for the newspaper Hurriyet, Emin Colasan, and Fatih Altayli, after they questioned some of Harun Yahya's activities such as bribing the municipality of Ankara.

Also politicians such as Celal Adan (Member of the Parliament) and Mesut Yilmaz (former Prime Minister of Turkey) have been victims of this group. Oktar's group arranged fake (photomontage) photos of Mesut Yilmaz in Freemason clothes and ceremonies, and forged a fake certificate of Freemasonary for him. This fake was taken seriously and published in several pro-Islamic newspapers (without knowing it was a fraud). The PM was seriously damaged politically as a result during the remainder of his government.

Also coming forth, a fashion model named Ebru Simsek was blackmailed, and then slandered as a "prostitute" in fax messages sent to hundreds of different newspapers, TV channels, major business companies, foreign consulates, government offices etc. The reason for the slander? She refused to have sex with Adnan Oktar.

But the most shocking activities of Oktar's and his followers were not the above. In the sudden raid, 20 women and 2 other men were found at his residence. Most of the females (girls really) were under the age 18, (Oktar is his middle 40's) and they claimed that they had been having sexual intercourse with Oktar and members of his sect.

In his testimony, Oktar claimed that he had committed no crime as the intercourse was consensual, allowed under Turkish law. Further, Oktar insisted that this intercourse was also religiously permissible under Islam because he and his followers did not have a 'real sexual intercourse with these girls'.

He and his followers claimed that they had only engaged in 'anal and oral' sex. They preferred this kinds of sexual intercourse since according to Koran, he claimed, these acts are not impermissible outside of marriage. According to their interpretation 'vaginal' intercourse was 'haram' but 'anal and oral intercourse' was 'halal' when not married.

So you wonder what happened in the end?

Science Research Foundation was closed. Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya), and about 40 of his sect members were taken to the court and judged. Once there, they denied the truth of their original confessions, claiming that they were extracted under torture.

The judicial process lasted over 2 years, during which most of the complainants' retracted their claims because of threats or bribes from sect members. As a result most of the cases against these people were dismissed, with only two of them jail for 1 year each.

That said, coverage of the arrests and trials were so extensive in Turkey that the reputation (and money making opportunities) of the group were permanently destroyed. It is now taken seriously only in foreign countries where their legal troubles received little or no press coverage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esurnir (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

  • Ok the first thing that strike me as a man who never heard of that guy before is that there is a huge lack of date in that article (both the article and that *cough* contribution), because I really lack of sources about Adnan Oktar and most of them are written in a language that I can't understand nor read ^^' could you fill some date on the event (like when was he emprisoned, the date when he published his book... for the bio, not the list, the list will be handled in due time, and most certainly shortened). I will add a to do list on the top of the article so we can work more properly. -- Esurnir 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHY IS IT ALLOWED TO MAKE BAD PPL LOOK GOOD HERE?

WHY IS IT ALLOWED TO MAKE BAD PPL LOOK GOOD HERE?

I can't believe this! I know this guy, he is a criminal, he had many charges, how can I make it happen? How can I put the REAL stuff about this guy at front page?

I am excited, someone let me know please .....

Also, where is it written or shown who created this wiki adnan oktar page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.220.18.41 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

  • It is not about "making people look good" it is about Neutral Point of View, wich is a wikipedia official content policy, to quote the best part :

"Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position."

If you would like to add the fact about Adnan Hoca criminal views/life/whatever, that's ok, but don't add "He was a bastard" or weasel word or irony like "and guess what". You take your bio, rework it a litle, add the fact cite your sources (and if you see something else that you doubt Adnan Oktar never did or is overdone. You are free to report it.

Wikipedia policy is not transforming a rapist into an hero, it is to conserve an objective and neutral point of view on the event (whatever emotional content they may have), let's his deeds speeks for themselves. And btw, one of the wikipedia policy is not to give an undue weight to a viewpoint. So if you think that the guy is too much revered in this article, we incitate you to review the fact about the guy to make the bias more even. So please read WP:NPOV.

Oh btw, I'm currently (as you can see just on the previous section) working to get this unbiased. But if you got unbiased fact with source, feel free to add them (and without ironny). -- Esurnir 01:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV and cleanup tags removed

For now, I removed POV and cleanup tags.

Regarding the POV tag: I can't even guess, in what direction the article is considered POV: Too critical or nor critical enough. If you have NPOV concerns about this article, please state them here as specific as possible.

Regarding the cleanup tag: Requiring references, but tagging them for cleanup when they arrive, look rather silly to me. Yeah, there is room for improvement regarding the reference, but for now that doesn't seem to be the main problem here. Pjacobi 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! This ADNAN person has no University diploma, NO religious education. Proof is his own web site www.harunyahya.com. How do we change and edit things here athet are legal, ethical, and moral? There are still pending molestation, and drug charges about this person, he makes his followers memorize certain parts of KURAn that talks about "OBEYING" specifically. His followers do everything for him, including his dirty laundry, cleaning toilets, washing dishes... This person does not work, does nothing to earn money. Help me edit here so my editing will not be removed. I dont understand the rules about NPOV here, cause it is too complicated. Can someone explain it in plain language please?

Thank you kindly G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.246.70 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:NOR, WP:ATT, WP:RS. We should only be writing what the reliable, non-primary sources say, without adding any original research. Also see WP:NPOV denizTC 00:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I reverted the intro by Yosemite, for two reasons:

1.Yosemite claims that Oktar 'does not consider [masons] guilty of "fantastic crimes and misdeeds"'. If you follow the link, you see Oktar does not deny anything; he just claims that "Some have accused Masonry of fantastic crimes and misdeeds". 2. The antisemitism-part is deepened out later. I think we shouldn't emphsasize this too much in the intro.

Furthermore, I am curious about the cleanup-tag. Why is it there?Jeff5102 14:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

FACT: THERE ARE LAW-SUITS AGAINST THIS PERSON AS I TYPE THIS NOW. HE IS AND HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF CREATING AN ILLEGAL BLACKMAILING, BRIBING, THREATENING GROUP FOR HIS INTENTIONS. HERE IS ANOTHER FACT OF THIS. HE SPENT YEARS IN PRISON, AND ANOTHER FACT IS, HE HAS CREDIBLE 7 DOCTOR REPORTS THAT SAYS HE IS NOT MENTHALLY CAPABLE OF SERVING IN TURKISH MILITARY. SO HE SKIPPED MILITARY.

FACT: HE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RELIGIOUS OR UNIVERSITY EDUCATION. IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO GIVE FATCS IN THIS WEB SITE, NO ONE IS SUPPOSE TO ERASE THIS. ABSOLUTALY NO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, OR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. Thank you

If you weren't yelling so loud, someone might listen to you.  ;^)

[edit] Weasel Words

The sentence, "He and his organization are also regarded as a cult and are very controversial in Turkey.", is not only a weasel statement (see [weasel words]), but appeared to be supported by two false references. The first[1] is to a non-English page which doesn't appear to mention him at all. The second[2] doesn't even mention the word, "cult". Seeing all of the other comments on here and the apparent continual reversal of edits which actually would have brought balance to this article, I wonder--do we have some WikibullieS afoot? Let's see how long my edit lasts, shall we?

P.S. Some people on here appear to think that having a lawsuit brought against you makes you automatically guilty. Well, in America, we assume that people are innocent until they're PROVEN guilty. It's part of that weird thing that we call the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Yosemite1967 2007/08/02-07:24 (UTC)

Well, the first reference was from me, but is outdated at the moment. The original text can still be found here. Still, I do not know if copy-pasted texts on internet-fora are valid over here.
Ah, so the page was originally English but changed? Yeah, that copy-pasted version would be a little hard to take seriously, just because of all of the surrounding (and distracting) trash on the page that makes it all look like spammer heaven. I just tried to google portions of the text, but I couldn't find a better one, though I did see that some YouTuber used it in comments on a video. How did you find it? Yosemite1967 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I cannot remember how I found it; I guess I was just scrolling over the subjects in this forum. Anyway, I agree with your point: it is too hard to take it serious enough to return this to the article.Jeff5102 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The "Economist"-article tells us that he is "a charismatic but controversial Turkish preacher" and supports the text "He and his organization are also regarded as a cult and are very controversial in Turkey". It doesn't prove it is a cult, but it definately shows that Oktar is controversial. I do not understand why you call this a false reference.
Since it was attached directly to the cult statement, it looked like an attempt to validate the cult statement. I do agree that Mr. Oktar is very controversial, but so are you and I. "Controversial" is a relatively neutral term, but with the way that it was attached to the cult statement, it inherited a negative connotation. Perhaps if it were in a separate sentence, away from the cult statement, it could be given a feeling of neutrality. I'm going ahead and moving the controversy part. Let me know what you think. Yosemite1967 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Oktar was, according to his website, arrested in 1986, 1991 and 1999. Furthermore, he had lawsuits by biologists in 1999. Some sources say (like the FLAMER above) that Oktar evade punishment by showing a report that he is paranoid. Now that is what I call "controversial".Furthermore, I will check out the cult-part.Jeff5102 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I tried to find a more fitting place to put it, but everywhere I put it, it still sounded like a negative term. Perhaps you could try. Yosemite1967 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I will, but please continue editing the article while I am trying.Jeff5102 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Still, maybe it is an idea to add http://www.dailyestimate.com/article.asp?idarticle=9676 as a reference. This one covers the phrase "cult-like organisation".
Though that article has the word "analysis" in its title, it's far from being such. The text is clearly slanted against Oktar's organization and ideals, making it an opinion piece. Just for that deceptive titling, I would argue against this particular reference. If you could find another one that doesn't try to use such trickery, I would agree to attaching it to a statement about some considering his organization a cult. Please let me know if you find another reference that is what it calls itself, whether that be "analysis" or "opinion". I wouldn't even mind a pure opinion article, as long as it didn't try to pass itself off as non-opinion. Yosemite1967 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
See my comment above.Jeff5102 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
ps: It may sound weird, but if someone is brought to court, there is no problem in saying that he is brought to court. See all-American O.J. Simpson in his article. That is called "reporting the facts", and that doesn't sound weird to me at all.Jeff5102 21:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't sound weird to me at all. I agree whole-heartedly with it being said that he was brought to court, but it seems to do NPOV violence to state such while being silent on the outcomes of the proceedings. As far as I've been able to determine, all charges, against all members of his organization, have been dropped, despite repeated appeals by his accusers. That makes a pretty strong case in favour of Oktar's organization, but the way that it's presented here, without "the rest of the story", makes it look like a case AGAINST oktar's organization. I'll try to get some good references together for the outcomes of these proceedings. Thanks for discussing this reasonably. It's a breath of fresh air, compared with some of the others who have commented on here with obvious POV problems. Yosemite1967 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Good luck! However, there are only a few archives on the net that present us old Turkish news. I tried to investigate Oktar's arrest in 1999, and the best I could find was this. Hardly acceptable, I should say.Jeff5102 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balanced BAV Mentions

Since these mentions of BAV in the introductory paragraph only stated what anti-Oktar folks thought of his organization, I balanced it by adding a quote and reference about what the BAV's stated goal is. Also, since this is an English article, I changed "BAV" (Turkish name) to "SRF" (English name) and added a parenthetical statement to clarify the difference. Yosemite1967 00:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted last, purely speculative edit about Oktar's funding sources

The last edit (before my revert) was a purely speculative guess that Oktar must be getting large amounts of funding from some outside source. Just because the article referenced speculates about it doesn't make it any less speculative. Yosemite1967 06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Reference to Opinion Piece

Opinion pieces are OK to establish that "so-n-so thinks or said such-n-such", but not to be passed off as a reference for factual evidence, so I just removed a reference that did exactly that. Yosemite1967 06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reference I see that is dropped is in this fragment:
Several years later, it was noted that Adnan Oktar has undergone a change and become more tolerant toward Jews and others; he now works toward promoting inter-religious dialogue.” With reference: http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2004/turkey.htm
Am I mistaken, or do you seriously mean that a report from a university-based Institute is an opinion piece? Maybe I overlooked something?Jeff5102 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You are not mistaken--I seriously mean that, because it IS an opinion piece.  Do you think that people who write for "university-based institutes" never write opinion pieces in their publications?  Even the sentence just preceding the sentence that you quoted starts out with, "His revisionist writings...".  If calling someone's writings "revisionist" isn't opinion, I don't know what is.  Yosemite1967 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. So you call all Red Cross-reports "opinion pieces" as well? Or do we have to delete all references to Amnesty International- or Unicef-reports? Those institutes are not even "university-based institutes"! So who can trust their people?
Is English not your first language?  You seem to have missed my point again.  I didn't say that university-based institutions ("institutes") couldn't be trusted to publish factual articles.  I was wondering why you seemed to think that just because the article was published by such an institution, it was not opinionated.  My point was and still is that individuals working at university-based institutions, government institutions, and pretty much every other kind of institution can and do publish opinionated articles, and when they do, those articles should NOT be passed off as fully factual reports but should be recognized for the opinion pieces that they are.  I will restore my NPOV changes until you figure out how to make it NPOV yourself.  Yosemite1967 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the point remains that at Amnesty International and Unicef individuals work as well. As well at Reuters, CNN, and all other organisations. Even courtrooms. What you are saying, is that EVERY source is disqualified on the basis of "being opinionated".
No, I'm not, and you're STILL missing the point.  I'm not disqualifying the article because of who wrote it or because of what organization they work for.  I'm disqualifying it because its content is clearly opinion, rather than fact.  Using it to corroborate that someone holds a particular opinion would be fine, but using it to corroborate a fact is unacceptable.
By the way, the mentioned "article" of the Stephen Roth Institute is in fact an extract of an annual report of worldwide antisemitism. That is something else than an opinion piece by a crazy professor.Jeff5102 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, it doesn't matter who wrote it, what organization they work for, or that they call it a "report".  Though the "report" might contain some facts, it mingles them with opinion, so it's an opinion piece, just as your "crazy professor" comment is an opinion and not necessarily a fact.
We could go on and on for ever, but the Stephen Roth Institute-problem is now solved properly. You changed it as proposed by the third parties, so let us stick to that.Jeff5102 10:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
But seriously, If you check [14] you can see Harun Yahya writes himself that his book will be " the vanguard of historical revisionism in Turkey" . So if repeating someone elses text is an opinion, I do not know what isn't. I will restore the text.Jeff5102 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Being that his book was probably written by a non-American, I'm sure that they don't realize the negative connotation that the terms "revisionism" and "revisionist" carry these days.  Perhaps you didn't realize this either, but "revisionist" suggests someone who CHANGES history (even lies about it), to deceive the masses.  Yosemite1967 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I see. So you consider "What is presented as Holocaust is the death of some Jews due to the tiffus plague during the war and the famine towards the end of the war caused by the defeat of the Germans." is no lie? Jeff5102 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, you consider it a lie, which demonstrates a non-neutral point of view.  Writing with neutral point of view means that we don't make our writing assume that it's either a lie or the truth.  We can make an assumption in our own minds (as we all do), but what we write on Wikipedia should not reveal assumption.  We, instead, lay the facts out on the table in proper statistical balance and let readers make their own assumptions.  If your contributions make your assumptions obvious, then you are not writing with NPOV.
What you are saying is that the Auschwitz article needs a great deal of editing. It doesn't mention typhus or famine as a main reason for the "death of some Jews". The Holocaust-article doesn't mention "famine" either. Do you mean we have to change that?Jeff5102 10:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. On a side note, I'm curious: Are you Jewish? (Of course you don't have to answer that, if you don't want to.) Yosemite1967 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No. Are you?Jeff5102 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
No, but I have nothing against them.  It just seems like some of your edits defend Jewry almost to non-neutrality sometimes.  I don't blame you, and I can't say that I've never done the same thing myself.  I'm just making an observation.  Yosemite1967 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not defending Jewry. I am just defending history.Jeff5102 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Circular and Contradictory References in "Campaign Against Evolution" Section

I just removed all of the references in the Campaign Against Evolution section, and here's why:

(1) One was a link to a personal user's web page at geocities.
(2) Another was a link to an opinion article which got its information from the same personal user's web page at geocities.  (I kid you not.)
(3) Another was a link to yet another opinion article which was being used to establish supposed facts.
(4) Another was a link to the same opinion article again.

By the way, one of these articles said that the amount that the court awarded the defendants was the equivalent of $11,500; while another one said that the amount was $4,000 per defendant (six defendants = $24,000), and yet another one said that the amount was $6,000 per defendant ($36,000).  What's going on here?  I asked for REAL references to replace those that I deleted, so that we can find out just how accurate this whole section is in the first place.  Yosemite1967 22:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of the huge Turish inflation? Anyway, I think we better can look for some experts who will look after this article. When I call a source "a thorough analysis", you call it "a opinion article". I think we can agree that we do not agree in this.Jeff5102 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opnion

I'm responding to the posting at 3O looking for some disinterested feedback. I am not an expert on the subject; however, I do share a general concern about the quality of references at WP and a tendency for people to represent any published information as gospel, not to mention editorials, blogs, etc.

There are certainly biases among academics and even institutional biases at major universities, foundations, and government institutions. Ferreting out the truth is not an easy task. This is not unlike any controversial topic and there is no easy solution. I see Jeff and Yosemite both making valid assertions above, but I assume that there is some level of POV inherent in each of their presentations.

What we really need is an emphasis on what is best for WP as opposed to what best supports any particular POV. A solution which is commonly used, but frequently abused is to present multiple points of view, but clearly label them as opinions. The risk is over emphasizing a particular POV and/or the article resembling a debate. --Kevin Murray 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion 3b

I think case-by-case basis might apply.

As far as the source here, I must admit that I would also resist using it to source factual claims, since unlike many university publications it seems to be itself unreferenced. (The sentence as it existed before removal in mid-September was also apparently an unintentional copyright violation, since it closed quote, but did not indicate where verbatim quoting from the source began.) I agree that it reads like an opinion piece. However, I feel it would be appropriate and consistent with WP:BLP policies to state "In 2004, the Stephen Roth Institute of Tel-Aviv University described Adnan Oktar as having increased his tolerance towards others, asserting that "he now works towards promoting inter-religious dialogue".[15] As Kevin Murray says, labeling it as opinion eliminates concern that readers might perceive this noted change as somehow scientifically documented. The opinions of the Stephen Roth Institute seem inherently notable and worthy of mention, given its stature, as long as WP:WEIGHT is kept in mind.

With regards to the others, it's true that this is a geocities website. I would not use it, even though it purports to be faithfully replicating a newspaper article which itself would be usable. There's no way to ensure that the information has not been altered. It might be beneficial to seek the assistance here of a Turkish Wikipedian or somebody involved with WikiProject Turkey to see if a usable source can be located.

This article seems thoroughly referenced, although since it is published by the National Center for Science Education, one might suspect a POV and information culled from it must be carefully checked for it. I don't see any reason to presume from their reference to Dr. Taner Edis, a physics professor from Istanbul and the author of several books on the subject, that they used the geocities site as a source. But perhaps that's not the one you mean as "2"? Or maybe I'm missing the part that indicates that. :) Since we're talking about generalities and not specifics, I didn't read the entire article. But given that one of the authors is Turkish, it seems that he might have been able to locate sources on his own.

The piece in the weekly newspaper The Pitch has a strong and obvious bias. However, the paper does have editorial oversight (per WP:RS and so in my opinion may be used for reporting minimal facts, if not replicating conclusions. You might say "The Pitch concludes John is a jerk",<ref>the pitch</ref> but you could not say "John is a jerk"<ref>the pitch</ref>. There's absolutely nothing inappropriate, in my opinion, with saying, "According to a profile in The Pitch, this happened on this date." --Moonriddengirl 18:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Kevin asked me to pitch in. I've reviewed the four sources, and I found there is not much I can add to Moonriddengirl's excellent analysis. I would actually rate the Pitch Article slightly higher - yes, it has a clear and stated POV, but I don't think that that calls into question the facts presented. The Geocities translation, on the other thing, does not appear to be a useful source at all. --Stephan Schulz 03:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] additional opinion

I was asked by Kevin to take a look. In general I subscribe to the position that for figures who propound controversial theories that some consider objectionable, the best way to describe what the espouse is simply to cite in an appropriate way from their published works, and in default of accessible works in English, that such sources as their official web site, or the web site of their political movement, are acceptable sources for a quote. I am not happy taking such quotes from sources operated by their opponents, especially when translation is involved. As for judgments of their work, we can quote what other people say. We can say for example, that organisations opposing antisemitism consider him anti-semitic. But if their are neutral published sources saying that, it is better to cite them, and there appear to be such sources. I don't think we can make that judgement--the reader will make his own judgments from the material presented. I am not really happy with taking facts about his life directly from such sources either--or, if controversial as appears to be the case here, from organisations favorable to him--they are best taken from public sources unless the opposing POV sources agree. The way to deal with disputed details on peripheral concerns is to eliminate them. The amounts of judgments against him in a civil suit are peripheral. That in such a suit he admitted an identity needs to be sourced either from an official report, or a neutral source. I do not regard the reports of http://www.axt.org.uk/ or similar organisations as neutral. I further do not like vague accusations in the lead paragraph. "though some consider the SRF to be a "cult" , sourced or not , is inappropriate there. (and it is not sourced and the term seems used only by a hostile blogger). This does not mean I have the least conceivable sympathy with anything he says, or that I consider the reports of http://www.axt.org.uk/ and similar organisations inaccurate. But there are better sources available, and they should be the ones used. There should furthermore be some effort to update the current status of the legal cases and the WordPress affair. Is it still banned? DGG (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)