Talk:Oktay Sinanoğlu

Comments

Is this the same person that is listed at Oktay Sinanoglu? RickK 06:14, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Even if he isn't, he looks more notable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:22, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

"In the 1980s, he theorized a new method from 180 theories concerning mathematics and physics, considered revolutionary, which enables chemists to predict the ways in which chemicals combine in the laboratory and to solve other complex problems in chemistry using simple pictures and periodic tables."

I don't understand what this sentence says--"theorized a new method from 180 theories"??

---

I think this article need rewriting--there is a lot of hype for this person in his home country (which is where I am from), and this article seems to be written by some of his enthusiasts, without a detailed understanding of his scientific work. Any quantum chemists out there who feel like up to this job?

---

The article says: He was born on February 25, 1935 in Bari, Italy. As appointed professor in 1963 at the age of only 26... 1963-1935=28. Whish information is correct? 68.241.47.138 23:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

27 !

---

Apparently this article was written by some nationalist fan of Oktay Sinanoglu. His scientific work is highly exaggerated. What are the names of 180 theory mentioned in the article. Writer of the article is lack of real scientific vision.

Conspiracy theorist

This person may be a genius. However, based on his comments and ramblings in a talk-show on Turkish Mesaj TV on February 23, 2008, I would like to add that he has a very mean streak and is an advanced conspiracy theorist, as well as a megalomaniac. As mentioned by previous commenters, this article needs to be given a balanced point of view. Sinanoglu is unabashedly anti-USA. His social commentary books, such as the one on the current state of the Turkish language, are very difficult to read (in my opinion). It could be said that he is the Turkish counterpart to Chomsky in the U.S., but I have never heard or watched Chomsky in person, and would be doing him an injustice, because Sinanoglu strikes me as a mad scientist whose few well-founded opinions are unfortunately shrouded by his nut-case personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.217.231 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is senility. I would be interested to know if he made such remarks in his youth. --Adoniscik (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Adoniscik, much appreciated. Incidentally, how are you aware of Sinanoglu? Just curious. -Todd 85.106.141.176 (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Humboldt prize

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

Article totally based on personal one sided hatred speeches !

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

article? a middle schooler cannot read this in class

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

Clean up needed

Much has been done on this article, but much more is needed, specifically a clean up of the formatting and more balanced content. Also, it would benefit from the insertion of some paragraph breaks. because B Version B version because

As to all the accusations of "fake" achievements, I think it would be best to have a section entitled "Contested Achievements" - if and only if they have been actually contested by others. If all those achievements are truly contested in reliable sources, then they can be included, but we must comply with the BLP standards and not put anything negative about a person that isn't well documented.

I'm happy to help, so please let me know who's willing to pitch in on this. Thanks Vertium (talk to me) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please leave the maintenance tags in place until this article gets cleaned up significantly. It is not NPOV at the moment and its style of writing is not yet encyclopedic, but instead just one sentence after another of "facts". Thank you. Vertium (talk to me) 16:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

rewriting

uncle G asked me to take a look the this. A look is clearly not enough; I shall be rewriting it entirely. It will state the accomplishments as shown by the record, just as we do with others. No more, no less. I shall look at what has been written here previously, but I shall not base the article on it. Anyone who wishes to explain why this record is wrong or can be used to imply anything positive or negative about the subject is free within legal limits to do so -- elsewhere. The situation is actually very simple. We do not do original research.

We do not include sections labeled "contested achievements". It rather frequently happens that people make claims in autobiographies or elsewhere that can not be backed up in reliable sources. Normally, we accept autobiographies for plain statements of facts, but if there is good documentation for the actual facts in better sources that is what we use. Unless the discrepancies have been a matter of published comment in reliable sources, we give a basic presentation, in the fairest possible language about whatever may be significant. (On the specific matter of birthdates, a frequent discrepancy, we includes the person's statement and all reliably sourced data. On the question of degrees or positions held, we usually just include the record unless there is some published dispute. We do not organize the material to imply a judgement. We do not use a bio article to explain the nature of a fellowship program, or a country's legislation, or the significance of the position in an author listings. Otherwise, I defer judgement on whether it is significant here, and if so, the fairest method of indicating this.) DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I can publish all editions of this article as a book. This book's title can be "The Edit Warring In Wikipedia".

Dear Sirs

I can publish all editions of this article as a book. This book's title can be "The Edit Warring In Wikipedia".--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So, everybody can read and compare "The Editing of Fightingagaistlies" and "The Editing of David Goodman" and they can see who is true "Goodman", David or Fightingagainstlies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightingagainstlies (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So, everybody can read and compare "The Editing of Fightingagaistlies" and "The Editing of David Goodman" and they can see who is true "Goodman", David or Fightingagainstlies.--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear DGG, You stated that: "The article had content that could not be verified". But, in fact, every word, every sentence and every paragraph of my editing is verifiable with secure documents which are shown in over 200 references. Please show me that which of them "could not be verified". Thank you from now. Yours sincerely.--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not think I have edited it substantially yet, so it is not yet possible to compare anything with my editing. When I do, yes indeed, if you want to compare your work with mine you are very welcome. Anything I write here can be used elsewhere, if attribution is given to WP. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

About: He is unequivocally primarily a chemist, judging by his list of publications

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

Why am I not writing on the other subjects of wikipedia?

A subject of an Encyclopedia must be written only by the "Experts" of that subject (not by "Non-Experts"). For example, Assyria-Babylon subjects of the Encyclopedia Britannica has been written firstly by H.C.Rawlinson; because he excavated the area as archeological and deciphered the cuneiform writings of these civilizations as an "Expert". But no body said to Rawlinson that let him write on other subjects of Encyclopedia Britannica. Why? Because, the subjects of an encyclopedia must be written only by experts. And a man can not expert on every thing. I excavated the Sinanoglu's autobiographical book and I deciphered his "cuneiform"(!) statements, and so I wrote on this article because of I'm an expert of this subject. (I didn't wrote any other subjects on wikipedia that I was not expert.) I'm blockaged now. This subject will be written by DGG! Is DGG expert on Sinanoglu?

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

No. See Wikipedia:Expert editors. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a new category for Wikipedia: "Biography of Living Person Who Published an Autobiographical Book" in addition to the "Biography of Living Person"

Yes, I suggest a new category for Wikipedia under the title of the "Biography of Living Person Who Published an Autobiographical Book" in addition to the "Biography of Living Person" Because, If a person wrote and published an autobiography, so he accepted to be criticized and his biography will consist of criticizings of his autobiographical statements. Isn't it? --Fightingagainstlies (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If the autobiography has Wikipedia:Notability (books) then yes, an article about that book may be useful if well written. Like other articles about a book it can refer to reviews of that book from Wikipedia:Reliable sources including adverse reviews, subject of course to usual ideas such as Wikipedia:Encyclopedic and the constraints of WP:BLP. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, having found a ref for the subject's birth in 1935, I am slightly surprised to find the article to be protected beyond my access level. If this were a major concern I would apply for a higher level, but I do not want the additional duties such as David's that go with higher privileges. If you wish to add a complication to the category structure that organizes biographical articles, this might affect many articles, so Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography would be a good place to discuss the proposal after you have studied Wikipedia:Categorization. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Birth Date of Subject is August 2, 1934 (not 1935)

Do you mean that: "Sinanoglu was born in 1935" --Fightingagainstlies (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the 09:58 16 july 2012 fightingagainstlies edition of the article. You will see these sentences and references:

-"Sinanoglu had declared three different birth dates in the United States: First was the public record of August 2, 1934.[34][35] The second was December 1, 1934,[36][37] And the third was February 25, 1935.[38] His exact and true birth date was given as August 2, 1934 in the U.S. Public Records[39][40] (not February 25, 1935 and not December 1, 1934)."

If you look the documents shown in references of this edition of the article, you will see the Alachua County - Court Record so Party: Sinanoglu, Oktay - Date of Birth: August 02, 1934- Case Number: 01 2005 CT 001552A. Which reference can be [verifiable + secure + neutral + exact + fairy] than a Court Record? I want to know which reference that you found for 1935.--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This was [encyclo.co] and no, I do not expect dates that are written either in a commercial online encyclopdedia written by experts, or in court records, to be perfect, Epecially I don't assume that they are always correct about events of many years before. Not very important anyway, given the relatively small importance of this person. Why someone cares to write a long refutation of his autobiography, I don't know, and more important I don't see why such a refutation should be part of English Wikipedia. The French Wikipedia treats the subject at a length that seems appropriate to me, though my French is too poor to serve for translating it. The Turkish Wikipedia article is very much longer, but knowing no Turkish I cannot qualify it further.

And, as I see now, the encyclo.co article is referenced to an old version of this Wikipedia article, which of course makes it useless for our purposes. Fortunately, it's all a matter of very small importance.Jim.henderson (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Indented line

You can learn why the born date of this person was important by reading the 09:58 16 July 2012 fightingaganstlies edition of this article:

"Youngest Professor" Record:

Sinanoglu became a full professor at Yale University, effective 1 July 1963, at the age of 28 years and 11 months. At this time, the record of the "Youngest Professor at Yale" had belonged to Robert Maynard Hutchins since 1927, he being a full professor at Yale at the age of 28 years and 4 months.[29][30] Sinanoglu broke the record of "The Youngest Professor at Yale" by using a false birth date (February 25, 1935) to show himself, at the age of 28 years and 3 months, to be six weeks younger than the youngest professor record holder Robert Hutchins.[31] And so, he was mistakenly proclaimed by Yale as "the youngest person in the past century at Yale to attain status as a full professor."[32][33]

Using Three Different Birthdates:

Sinanoglu had declared three different birth dates in the United States: First was the public record of August 2, 1934.[34][35] The second was December 1, 1934,[36][37] And the third was February 25, 1935.[38] His exact and true birth date was given as August 2, 1934 in the U.S. Public Records[39][40] (not February 25, 1935 and not December 1, 1934). When he was made full professor, effective July 1, 1963 at Yale University, he was aged 28 years 11 months—actually 7 months older than “Youngest Professor” record holder Robert Maynard Hutchins. Sinanoglu acquired the title of “Youngest Professor” by declaring a false birth date of February 25, 1935. And by announcing as “The Youngest Professor” through international news agencies, he rid himself of his obligation to return to Turkey for military service.[41] So he went to Turkey for a short time in 1963, and by changing the title "youngest person in the past century at Yale to attain status as a full professor", he proclaimed himself as "The World's Youngest Professor in the past 300 years" in Turkey.[42] All of this was part of an advertising campaign by Yale University President Kingman Brewster, Jr., in accordance with "Cold War" policy. (The New York Times, 13 October 1963, page 1, col. 3). Because of these, Brewster papers in Yale are closed to research until 2052.[43]

--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All right; if this were a particularly interesting person such controversies would be worth handling. Perhaps someone who cares but is neutral will think they ought to be arranged with due regard to WP:NEUTRAL and WP:UNDUE and other usual practices so they can be in Wikipedia. Meanwhile the biography can be fleshed out with easier, that is uncontroversial material if any is available, with a hope of dealing with the controversies afterwards. Or maybe nobody will take enough interest. Incidentally, I don't know what the "Brewster papers in Yale" are. Are they important for some reason? Jim.henderson (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you know the superracist "Sinanoglu Youth Movement" in Turkey?

The person who is subject of that article (Oktay Sinanoglu) published autobiographical book in 2001 in Turkey by using the fake title of the “World’s Youngest Professor”, “Lord of U.S.A”, “at the peak point of science in U.S.A”, “The Turkish Einsten” etc. so he gained a lot of prestige and a few million Turkish boy accept him their idol, and They occurred the “Sinanoglu Youth Movement” believing the fake titles of Sinanoglu are exactly true. The last ten year (2001 – 2011) Sinanoglu became the “Hero of People” in Turkey by using these fake titles in his bestseller autobiographical book. Today, by contributing a few million college student, the “Sinanoglu Youth Movement” is like the superracist “Hitler Youth Movement” in Turkey. By reading the autobiographical book of Sinanoglu, all of them became “superracist Turks” under the influence of Sinanoglu’s megalomanic and fake titles. So, they are conducting the election campaign: “Sinanoglu must be the President of The Republic of Turkey!”

Eight year ago, The first edition of this article is written by some members of “Sinanoglu Youth Movement” as the summary of Sinanoglu’s autobiographical book and this Wikipedia article was used as a proof that the titles of Sinanoglu had been accepted as true in whole world, so every Turk must believe that this titles of Sinanoglu was exactly true. That is the begining and developing of the "Sinanoglu Youth Movement" in Turkey.

Did you understand now why I was interested and why I am working to edit this article?

Please look at the edit history of the article.

You will see a lot of vandal attacks to clean my editings.

The last vandal attacks came from “Salvador21”-“Khazar2”-“Bobrayner”

If you look at these users pages, you will see that these users are related with “Ottoman Empire” articles in wikipedia and they advocated “New-Ottomanist Imperialist Ideology” that Sinanoglu propagated this ideology in his autobiographic book.

As a result, the some members of the superracist "Sinanoglu Youth Movement" cleaned the all words the article which is writen by me and they provided to put blockage to my editings.

The “Sinanoglu Youth Movement” are in joy now.

They sing a song: “Long Live the Five Pillar of Wikipedia!”

--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)