Talk:Selman Akbulut

How the controversy section should be written

Akbulut tought Topics in Topology Course in 2015. Chair maintained the course didn't exist by changing its numbering with the claim that there were less than 5 students in it. However, the course ran with 5 students and 2 visiting scholars regularly attending the class. All 5 enrolled students have signed an affidavit stating that the course ran . Akbulut was penalized for refusing to teach an extra replacement course he was assigned, with a penalty of 10% salary reduction. He has disputed the claims made against him. When he requested corrections, he was accused of sending numerous insulting emails. As a result, he was put in dismissal for cause process. The dismissal hearings for Akbulut are scheduled starting August 16, 2019 with the possibility of termination.

At the end of the second day of hearings, Selman Akbulut tweeted several excerpts from the meetings. Some of these tweets (and replies to them) show department chair Keith Promislow admitting to his lies. @Selman_Akbulut (August 20, 2019). "Question: "Did you lie about paying 5K for an Iranian visitors health insurance?" Answer: "Yes I did" #ReclaimMSU" (Tweet) – via Twitter. @Selman_Akbulut (August 20, 2019). "Question: "Did you lie about UCFA Chair Tom Tomlinson recommending Akbulut to be sent for serious discipline, because of his website?" Answer: "Yes I did". #ReclaimMSU" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

Moreover when witnesses were asked to provide an example of an email that could be considered harassment they were unable to provide one. @Selman_Akbulut (August 20, 2019). "Witness 3 of the charging party: "Akbulut offends us by calling us minions and cronies in emails" Defense attorney: "Show us one such email" Answer: "..umm maybe not.."" (Tweet) – via Twitter. @Selman_Akbulut (August 20, 2019). "Defense to Charging party witness: "You wrote a report stating that Akbulut wrote many insulting and threatening emails to people, can you produce one example?" Answer: "umm.. I don't remember, I can't produce any"" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

When Akbulut asked former OIE (Office of Institutional Equity) attorney Elizabeth Abdnour at MSU why she was not more vigorous in her Title 6-7 investigations, she replied back by @lizabdnour (August 9, 2019). "Hi Selman, I'm not sure how much more vigor you are looking for- I was fired after repeatedly attempting to raise concerns and then telling MSU I was going to report to OCR" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

Please tell me which part of this is not cited properly. There is a notarized affidavit by the students saying that they have taken the course. Ustun YILDIRIM (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ustun YILDIRIM: please do not outright delete my version. It is here for reference https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Selman_Akbulut&oldid=911842019

I don't think the first source is necessary, since that is all in the "Dismissal for Cause Proceedings" document. Keep in mind that just because the students signed an affidavit saying that the course ran as MTH 996 does not mean that the course actually ran under official recognition as a teaching requirement. Additionally, tweets are rarely used as sources unless they contain extremely important information. Also, he was accused of sending numerous insulting emails. Everything else is fine though. Ylevental (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ylevental: 1) I believe having extra sources is a good thing, not a bad thing. 2) A course is a regular meeting of students with a professor and the notarized affidavits of students show that this has happened and the content was "Special Topics in Topology". On top of that we are still saying the course code has been changed. 3) We say that Selman Akbulut tweeted certain things. That is a factual statement which can (most easily) be verified by citing the relevant tweets. 4) Then, add the word numerous. Ustun YILDIRIM (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ustun YILDIRIM: 1) and 3) the tweets have to be highly significant with regards to the controversy to be included. See WP:NOTE 2) You need to show me proof that the course code changed. 4) done Ylevental (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The tweets are highly relevant as they are written during the hearing of Selman Akbulut about the hearings mentioned in this section but they are not independent enough to be granted their own article. See WP:NOTE. Also, see the changes. --Ustun YILDIRIM (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ustun YILDIRIM: I see that your course was not listed as 996, however, I still don't see any evidence that the chair himself directly changed MTH 996 to MTH 890 or something like that Ylevental (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Page protected

Due to ongoing edit warring and BLP violations, this article has been protected again. Discussion of the section should take place on this page, and a consensus needs to be reached before any further changes are made to the article. Further changes made without consensus, or BLP violations such as accusations of professional dishonestly (including on this talkpage) will result in blocks. Pinging the parties involved: @Eylem Z Yildiz:, @Ustun YILDIRIM:, @Ylevental:. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but if they refuse to discuss the article's content until September 4, I will make the changes on that day which I believe are appropriate. I see no point waiting until then to discuss changes with them. Ylevental (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I came accross this article today and see that it has just been protected, which is probably a good thing, under the circumstances. Here are some thoughts about the matter:

1. There are currently only two sources cited in the Controversy section, and both of them are primary sources. That's pretty bad, given that the section deals with controversial WP:BLP issues. It would be highly desirable, and in my opinion, necessary, to include at least some WP:SECONDARY sources in this section, e.g. news articles about the case. If it turns out that such sources do not exist, it may be better to remove the entire section from the article for the time being.
2. In general, the Controversy section, if it is ultimately retained in the article, needs to be kept brief and consise, preferably just a few sentences, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. The section should not be a blow-by-blow account of the controversy and should not overwhelm the rest of the article space-wise.
3. Twitter posts and posts by the subject at his personal webpage about the case cannot be used as sources and references for the article. In general, Twitter is not a WP:RS. In limited circumstances a Twitter post by the subject of a Wikipedia article about themselves may be allowed, as explained in WP:TWITTER and WP:SELFSOURCE, but only subject to several restrictions. These restrictions include: "1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. 2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)." These conditions are not satisfied here, so the subject's posts about the case may not be used as references.
4. It appears that some of the editors involved in the dispute about the Controversy section in the article have a conflict of interest in relation to the subject of the article. E.g. being a current or recent PhD student of the subject, or a current or recent collaborator of the subject would qualify as conflict of interest here. As WP:COIEDIT explains, editors with a conflict of interest should explicitly disclose such a conflict of interest at the talk page of the affected article and are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly. They should certainly not edit the article directly in cases where an ongoing WP:BLP controversy exists, which is the case here. If such editors insist on continuing to edit the article, a COI tag would need to be placed on the article, and a relevant WP:TOPICBAN may be requested at WP:ANI.
5. The current text of the Controversy section appears to be problematic in several regards. First, the fact that Prof. Akbulut refused to teach the newly assigned course, after the originally assigned course was cancelled, needs to be mentioned explicitly. From reading Ref no. 14[1] it appears that the refusal to teach the assigned course is the main allegation made by the MSU administration in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against Prof Akbulut. Second, the text currently mentions that "He still taught the initially assigned course, with 5 students (which was the minimum enrollment requirement at the time) and 2 visiting scholars regularly attending the class." I looked at both sources cited in the Controversy section and neither one mentions anything about Prof Akbulut's having, presumably unofficially, having taught that initially assigned course. So, unless this info can be sourced and referenced to an independent WP:RS source, the sentence would need to be removed from my article.
6. Editors should keep in mind that the WP:BLP policy applies to article talk pages, as well as articles themselves.
7. Coming back to point no. 1. Since the controversy involves a sensitive WP:BLP matter, unless independent secondary WP:RS sources can be found, I think it would be much better to remove the entire Controversy section from the article for the time being. Nsk92 (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will submit a request to remove the entire controversy section for now. It is for the better. Ylevental (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 August 2019

Based on discussion at Talk:Selman_Akbulut#Page_protected, the entire controversy section of the article should be removed. Both sources for that section are primary, not secondary. I believe that this complies with the rules of Wikipedia far more than any other arrangement. Ylevental (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done For now, out of the interest of our policy on biographies of living people. Izno (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Very good, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The statement regarding allegations in the Career section needs to go

The Career section must have the allegations (specifically statements of "formal charges" that just refer to an internal process at the university) removed per WP:BLPCRIME. This person isn't a public-figure, and these appear to only be "charges"/allegations from his former employer. Unless and until those are proven in a court of law, they should not be mentioned at all in the article and most certainly should not be in the lead (pinging Mr. Vernon because they in good-faith repeatedly re-added that to the lead). The article can state he was removed from his position at the university after disagreements about his teaching attendance (or some such), as that is factual without potentially smearing Akbulut. But using primary sources to deem the removal was due to "formal charges" appears entirely out of order. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with it being reworded. However, it should indicate that the reason he was terminated is that it was determined that he repeatedly attacked several of his colleagues by email (which is in the sources). Ylevental (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ylevental: Wikipedia is not the place to relitigate these issues, especially things that don't admit a one-line summary; the fact that Dr Akbulut was fired from MSU is undisputed and relevant to the article. The wording of "formal charges" is deeply inappropriate (considering that it implies criminality); moreover, given that there are ongoing disputes between Dr Akbulut and MSU about this (per his website...), it is not appropriate to uncritically quote that set of documents as if they are factually proven. It would be equally wrong to uncritically quote Dr Akbulut's response. 128.252.25.2 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Coffee I repeatedly reverted it because the other editor was removing it due to edit warring violations and COI. Note I later moved it out of the lede with this edit. I don't think BLPCRIME applies because this isn't a criminal act; he violated policy, but as far as I know no criminal charges have been filed (and it's not even clear that this is a criminal act.) That could be re-worded, such as "On February 14, 2020, he was officially terminated from MSU due to repeatedly sending emails unsubstantially attacking individuals. Akbulut has disputed this." The problem is that by removing "charged" it sounds like even more of a statement (that he did send emails attacking individuals.) How else do you phrase it? "Accusation" also carries that tinge of criminality even though it doesn't apply here. I'm open to rewording. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sticking my nose in. How about this? "On February 14, 2020, he was officially terminated from MSU due to allegedly sending emails repeatedly unsubstantially attacking individuals. Akbulut has disputed this." The core of the issue with the edit warring is the imputation that he did do it for certain, and that seems to be in dispute. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:3123:2F7A:A4DD:3593 (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to be more specific from the WWMT article: "The professor then began to undertake a campaign directed at the individuals who were involved in the brief review..." It does not say that he and he only was involved with the campaign. There's a reason there's a COIN on this right now. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Mr. Vernon: The most descriptive it needs to be is "On February 14, 2020, Akbulut was removed from his tenured position at MSU after complaints regarding his teaching attendance and method of communications with fellow staff." Saying he "attacked" anyone is completely not acceptable without more evidence. "Attacking" implies harassment or verbal assault (which could be considered a criminal matter), and "charges" implies those done in a court of law (once again reaching into BLPCRIME territory). As Akbulut is NOTAPUBLICFIGURE, our policy dictates that we handle anything that can harm such a person's reputation with extreme caution. We are NOTNEWS, so we should try to adhere more to our BLP policy than to attempt focusing on unproven, and salacious, accusations. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Coffee: "Attacked" is a quote from interim Provost Teresa A. Sullivan, for the record; no one is making it up. Dr. Sullivan is well-respected and I do not think she would have used that specific word lightly. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Whether she used the term lightly or not is not relevant to this discussion. If reliable sources do not state these accusations as facts, they cannot be treated as facts. Sullivan holding an esteemed position does not make her a reliable source about other living people for the purposes of this encyclopedia, you (or many other people) holding her in high opinion is not good enough either. If reliable sources can be found that discuss the accusations as if they are more than allegations, and not in the university's voice, I would consider stating more detail. But, given the information currently available, I am replacing the current wording with more neutrally worded facts. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Coffee: I think that gives us the opportunity to be both more descriptive and still in keeping with Wikipedia policy: "On February 14, 2020, Akbulut was removed from his tenured position at MSU by the Board of Trustees after complaints regarding his teaching attendance and treatment of colleagues." Thoughts? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Vernon: That sounds almost perfect, how about: "On February 14, 2020, Akbulut was removed from his tenured position at MSU by the Board of Trustees after complaints regarding his teaching attendance and communications with colleagues." I recommend this, simply because "treatment" could imply a broad range of things he was not even accused of. Decent compromise? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Coffee: I think that's fine. I'm not sure if other editors wish to comment, but for now (and given what sources we have) it seems reasonable and in keeping with BLP policy. Thanks. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've made the changes to keep the article as compliant with BLP as possible. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This wording seems fine to me, too. It has, however, subsequently been edited by another editor, and I have asked them (see post below) to self-revert in order to maintain the status quo. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Since they can't self-revert due to protection, can you please do this? Sorry to bother you. Hopefully the COI incident is addressed soon. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Vernon: Thanks. Yes, I gave them a few hours first, lest they were awake and online, then sorted it myself, before protecting the page. I forgot to update my request, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

State News source is unreliable

The State News says "Selman Akbulut — a former professor of mathematics in the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University — was dismissed after he refused to teach a class.", and also later says "The university withheld part of his salary after his refusal to teach MTH124 during the spring semester of 2015.". The latter statement is true, not the former one.

Additionally, there was an administrative review carried out, but the State News says "the grievance was dismissed". In reality, there was an academic review, according to the WWMT source.

I'm just letting everyone know this, and will be removing the source. Ylevental (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ylevental: Are you claiming that statenews.com is an unreliable source, or simply that this article is incorrect in some way? I see no reason to remove the citation at all, and feel its inclusion gives a degree of balance of sources. Also, having thought editors had reached some consensus in the post above, your addition of further detail is now adding more undue wait on accusations, which isn't appropriate, as explained by Coffee, and tends to make me wonder at your own reasons for editing the article in this way. I've no idea what MTH124 is - I'm guessing a course code, though I don't see what the point of splitting hairs is. The (I assume) independent statenews source seems to indicate some sort of long-standing disagreement amongst staff and pupils and their board of management. Wikipedia's role is to provide links to what reliable sources state (even if they're not correct in all details), and to provide balance in those sources, but not to dwell unduly on the minutiae of accusations and counter-accusations which might even end up in the courts at some stage. Thus I feel it would be appropriate if you were to revert these two edits as soon as possible, please.  I have now reverted those edits. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)