This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Necla Kelek from the German Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The heart of the "controversy" regarding Kelek is that - there is no "controversy".
The 60 scientists proved that she no longer works scientifically. There is a very simple way of doing so: Science since 300 years works according to the scientific method, in social science more precisely empirical research. She left this field and took data only to prove her POV. That's not science anymore, she is writing mere belletristics. You can prove points with articles/books from Kelek as well as you can take The Da Vince Code in church history. Given the chance to defend, she just called empirical research into question - like a toddler whose parents show the toy he broke, and he replies "but you're stupid!".
The "defenders" are a group of Marxists, and publicists without ANY scientific background. The "Welt" accused them of, to 3/4, not even working in the field of islamic research - which misses the point. If a sociologist deviates from scientific method, it is a danger to EVERY sociologist in EVERY field. Scientific method means you can take everything as a hypothesis - and have to either verify or falsify it. Kelek used her degree to give her rantings scientific authority. Scientists distanced themselves. There has yet to emerge a scientifically sound defence for her. THAT is the WP:SPOV. -- Hornsignal ( talk) 09:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Necla Kelek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://fr-online.de/ressorts/kultur_und_medien/feuilleton/?cnt=807291&{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nzz.ch/2006/02/11/fe/articleDK12G.print.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.uni-due.de/mercatorprofessur/mercatorprofessur_2006/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Necla Kelek from the German Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The heart of the "controversy" regarding Kelek is that - there is no "controversy".
The 60 scientists proved that she no longer works scientifically. There is a very simple way of doing so: Science since 300 years works according to the scientific method, in social science more precisely empirical research. She left this field and took data only to prove her POV. That's not science anymore, she is writing mere belletristics. You can prove points with articles/books from Kelek as well as you can take The Da Vince Code in church history. Given the chance to defend, she just called empirical research into question - like a toddler whose parents show the toy he broke, and he replies "but you're stupid!".
The "defenders" are a group of Marxists, and publicists without ANY scientific background. The "Welt" accused them of, to 3/4, not even working in the field of islamic research - which misses the point. If a sociologist deviates from scientific method, it is a danger to EVERY sociologist in EVERY field. Scientific method means you can take everything as a hypothesis - and have to either verify or falsify it. Kelek used her degree to give her rantings scientific authority. Scientists distanced themselves. There has yet to emerge a scientifically sound defence for her. THAT is the WP:SPOV. -- Hornsignal ( talk) 09:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Necla Kelek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://fr-online.de/ressorts/kultur_und_medien/feuilleton/?cnt=807291&{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nzz.ch/2006/02/11/fe/articleDK12G.print.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.uni-due.de/mercatorprofessur/mercatorprofessur_2006/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)