Talk:Pınar Selek

Massive POV issues and terrible Article:lede

This article has massive POV issues and the lead of the article, which is meant as an overview, does not even mention the single biggest thing that makes this woman noteworthy (not to mention the focus of the majority of the article) namely: the fact that she is a convicted terrorist.--Cybermud (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

POV of article and notability

Hi Cybermud, thank you for starting this discussion. I would like to collaborate with you and all others interested in helping to improve this article in order to turn it into a Wikipedia:Featured articles (and hopefully Wikipedia:The perfect article). How can we improve the POV of the article? I think in its current form it presents the timeline of events in a neutral way, but I am eager to hear anyone's comments and suggestions.

First, although her case has not gained the attention of popular media organizations such as New York Times or Washington Post, the references used throughout the article come from highly reputable organizations such as Human Rights Watch, PEN International, the University of Strasbourg, the Index on Censorship, Middle East Studies Association, as well as scholarly sources such as Nature (journal) and the Middle East Research and Information Project. If you are aware of any additional sources that provide a different interpretation of her case, could you please add them or bring them to my attention on my talk page?

Second, the biggest thing that makes her noteworthy is not the criminal sentence handed to her on 24 January 2013 (she was noteworthy prior to this, and this page was created before the verdict was given). It might be more accurate to state she is known as the subject of a 15-year long judicial process, that she has been acquitted of any wrongdoing on three occasions, yet has been convicted once. Is the single, most recent conviction more important than the previous three acquittals? Instead, it is both of these 'facts' together that make the case against her so interesting and noteworthy. To label her outright as 'a convicted terrorist' oversimplifies a very complicated case. The court's most recent verdict is not more 'neutral' than the numerous individuals and organizations (all of whom are quoted and cited throughout the article) who have publicly criticized this verdict. However, if there are missing sources with differing or alternative interpretations of her case or trial, I agree with you that it would be great to reference them in the article.

Finally, as the lead of the article expresses, she is mainly notable for her work as a feminist and sociologist, particularly as the author of numerous books (which you can find listed on the foreign Wikipedia pages): Barışamadık (in Turkish), Maskeler süvariler gacılar (in Turkish), Yolgeçen Hanı (in Turkish), Sürüne sürüne erkek olmak (in Turkish), Zum Mann gehätschelt, zum Mann gedrillt: Männliche Identitäten (translation into German), La Maison du Bosphore (in French), and Loin de chez moi… mais jusqu'ou? (forthcoming, in French). Although she has been most prominent in the news recently because of the her January 2013 criminal sentence, a Wikipedia entry should not simply reflect the tone or style of recent news coverage, but aggregate a wide variety of sources that allow for independent judgments and a deeper understanding of a person or subject in an encyclopedic fashion. The lead to the biography of a living person should be stated in a way that reflects a high degree of sensitivity as well as a neutral point of view, and any mention of her recent conviction must take into consideration all of the unique aspects of this ongoing case.

I am looking forward to hearing your comments and suggestions on how to improve this article. Kaheathe (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Kaheathe

of course the new sentence to life cancels all previous acquittals. This is the law. This is the main information which must be on wikipedia. The opinions and the political support of occidental feminism are less important. Otherwise wikipedia should adopt the same standards for Andres Breivik, another writer sentenced to 21 years (first sentence). 68.65.81.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right. You created the page 6 days before the appeal was set aside: (cur | prev) 22:38, 18 January 2013‎ Kaheathe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,076 bytes) (+1,076)‎ . . (←Created page with 'Pınar Selek (b. 1971, Istanbul) is a Turkish sociologist, writer, and thinker. She attended the private, French-language high school, Notre ...') and 15 years after the terrorist act was committed so, really, she is only notable for being a convicted terrorist still working through the appeals process. Nice try but the history of the page is there for all to see.75.157.135.57 (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No original research

One can interpret the information contained in a Wikipedia entry according to personal judgments and standards, but there are strictly enforceable rules on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research that are intended to prevent editors from inserting their own opinions into articles. Kaheathe (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)