Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Turkey Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It has been brought to my attention that Aybeg and several unregistered users have been edit warring over the use of the term "historian." Please refrain from any further reversions of the content in dispute or you will be subject to block. Please discuss the matter here before making a change and leave edit summaries when editing the article. Ergo Sum 21:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: If Mısıroğlu is called a "historian", it is like calling David Irving a "historian". Both of these people have written works with the perspectives given by their extremist ideologies, but neither of them are historians. Mısıroğlu has been a mockery in the Turkish media for his unscientific, superstitious statements at his conferences. He is not taken seriously in academia. As written in the article, "his works came under criticism by historian İlber Ortaylı for lacking scientific approach, knowledge and distorting the facts." In modern times, the professionals who have graduated from the history department of a college can be called historians. Otherwise, we should call every authors, journalists, or amateur researchers who have written books on history a "historian": Murat Bardakçı, Ergün Poyraz, Niyazi Berkes, Erdoğan Aydın, Murat Belge, İlhan Arsel, Necip Fazıl Kısakürek, Nihal Atsız, Celâl Şengör, etc... The reason for the insistence of the user who changes with the IP address 176.55.95.51 and different IP addresses is ideological. Due to he is an Islamist, he tries to give him prestige portraying him as a "historian". For ideological reasons, Islamists impose this guy on people. He is not described as a historian on the Turkish Wikipedia. Users I think can contribute to the discussion: @Superyetkin, @Dakmor Tojira, @Chansey, @Khutuck, @Vito Genovese, @E4024, @𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤, @Beshogur, @Nedim Ardoğa, @ToprakM, @Dr. Coal. - Aybeg (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aybeg: AFAIK he studied law, he's not a historian. Yes, he writes history books, but not sure if this make anyone a historian. Beshogur (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he claims Israel employs genies for intelligence gathering. He was a fringe theorist and a pseudohistorian; but definitely not a real historian. He is pretty much like an Islamist Erich von Däniken, except Däniken is more consistent and logical in his writings. Khutuck (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Aybeg is involved in edit warring and is in violation of the WP:3RR rule. Like I said before, I am not saying he is a historian but reputable Turkish media outlets are calling him a historian. You cannot delete reliably sourced content. No, I am not an Islamist. This is slander. And so what if I were? Why don't you focus on the discussion at hand instead of trying to label me? You are editing with a POV. 176.54.25.181 (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the article for persistent edit warring by IP addresses who disregarded this attempt to create a talk page consensus. Only registered users may edit the page while it is protected. Ergo Sum 17:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A certain user, User:Aybeg, is reverting serious content supported by reliable sources with conspiracy theories referenced by unreliable sources. He has a history of edit warring too. Needs to stop for good. 786wave (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@786wave Could you please detail which do you currently see as "conspiracy theories" and "unreliable sources" on the page, to give a better response about what are you talking about? You can quote from the article. Ahmetlii (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can do your own research and see the history of his edits. 786wave (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 786wave, when you make such accusations against another editor, you need to provide specific details rather than saying "do your own research". Also, it would have been courteous to notify Aybeg of this discussion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @786wave Well, in Wikipedia, you need to have proof for accuse someone. Of course, I did my own search on the page to try to see what caused you to think as that but I also want to hear the reason (or with other words, why are you thinking as such) from you as you have claimed that, because I am not a soothsayer and I may have misunderstood where are you pointing to. Please explain what are you really meant to say, and also see WP:POINTy. ahmetlii (Talk|Contribs) (Please ping me!) 19:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see a logical discussion going on. Both of you are not addressing my points but diverging from the subject at hand. 786wave (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

786wave, could you please indent your replies properly?

I see a logical discussion here. You accused another editor of adding "conspiracy theories referenced by unreliable sources", so now you need to back up that claim. And stating "do your own research" does not count.

Also, please drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. You apologised to me on your Talk Page, so now is the time to show whether you actually mean it. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of research for unlazy and serious editors will reveal what I mean. 786wave (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 786wave. Your have repeatedly reverted MB's edit saying "See Talk page", however it does not appear that there is a relevant discussion here? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a relevant discussion. You - with all due respect - fail to see it. Kind regards, 786wave (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might like to explain what that is, instead of replying vaguely with thinly veiled insults? Even kinder regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read the discussions above. Thanks. 786wave (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please be less vague. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has again been brought to my attention that there are editors edit warring on this article. Please consider this a warning that further edit warring will result in a block. Ergo Sum 03:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ergo Sum. Sorry that you have been dragged into this again. Could you please have a look at the section "August 2021" above? I believe that User:786wave is stonewalling to prevent genuine discussion, while accusing other editors of vandalism (which is untrue) and reverting their edits.

Could you please advise on how to resolve this? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've only briefly looked at the article history. From what I can tell, it is a content dispute. I'd like to remind everyone to observe WP:3RR and to always assume good faith. That means avoid calling other editors names and accusing them of foul motives without demonstrable proof. If there is an intractable dispute over content, please discuss it on the talk page and invoke WP:3O, and WP:DRN as necessary. In the past, I've found 30 quite helpful. Ergo Sum 18:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being vandalized by biased editors who are only here to defame the dead person with their bigotry. Where are all the admins? 786wave (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have readded reliable mainstream media sources yet again. If you delete it you will be reported this time. 786wave (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WP:3O folks. I am hoping for some independent input regarding NPOV please. The user 786wave prefers a positive tribute to the person like this, while I think this version presents a more balanced view of this controversial subject and would be a better starting point for future improvements.

Also, is it okay for 786wave to describe me as a bandal and a bigot above? I hope not.

Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statements in the lead need to be supported by body content. In this respect, the second version with shorter lead is preferred. Consider incorporating some of this content in the Criticism section and then summarizing it in a second lead paragraph. In a well-developed article, the lead itself does not need any citations.

There are personal attacks and bad-faith assumptions from both editors here and none of it is appropriate and none of it is going to help either of you get what you want. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kvng. Thank you for stepping in here as an independent opinion, it is very helpful.

Despite my frustrations with the other editor, I have tried hard to avoid any personal attacks. You mentioned that these have occurred "from both editors". Could you please let me know where I have slipped up, so I can learn from this mistake?

All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: both your replies in #August 2021 are antagonizing. I also can't find useful substance in the previous discussion and that's frustrating but antagonizing is not going to move this in the direction you want, probably the opposite. Repeat your request for help but don't respond to "veiled insults"; such a response is not WP:AGF and calling out it opens you to WP:ADHOM accusations. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, much appreciated. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted by me too. 786wave (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kvng, could you interfere with Aybeg too? He’s acting contrary to what you said above. Best regards, 786wave (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Kadirmısıroğlu.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misiroglu declared his opposition to theologian Fethullah Gulen. There are plenty of reliable sources for this online. Please do not remove this info just because you might disagree with him. 786wave (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please post these sources? Stating "there are plenty of reliable sources for this online" is not sufficient. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t worry dear, I did. But user Aybeg is uncomfortable with it and reverted it. Regards, 786wave (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he wrote two books on Islam out of more than 50 - one of which was in his younger years back in the 1960s - does not make one an Islamist, or does it? He was more of a history buff in his writings. I would love to hear the opinions of others on this matter. 786wave (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello sir, he is definetly an islamist. he is against mustafa kemal atatürk because of that. because he thinks atatürk destroyed or harmed islam. user:786wave ----Modern primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i suggest you to use translate program for turkish version of that article to understand more. ----Modern primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kadir_Mısıroğlu ----Modern primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page continues to be vandalized by editors with a biased POV. Keep going! Let everyone see how incompetent and non bona fide you are. 176.54.243.248 (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not delete all the sections in the article and leave it as “He was just a conspiracy theorist”? That’s how you view him and are trying to portray him after all. Save yourselves the effort! 176.54.243.248 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]