Talk:Ergun Caner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Continual edits reverted[edit]

Caner is now the President at Brewton Parker College [ SBC school]  : http://bpc.edu/PresidentialSearch/canerpressrelease.html In what sense are my edits ineligible? The edit stated that Ergun Caner, got the Shahada completely and utterly wrong, and it was supported by a video of him getting it wrong. To be ignorant of the Shahada and claim that you were once a devout Muslim is utterly preposterous - it is at the very heart of the Islamic faith. It's like claiming to have been a devout Catholic without knowing the names of Jesus or Mary.

There is no opinion in my edit; it's simply a statement of fact. If there was evidence of a self-proclaimed expert on Shakespeare (mis)quoting a line from Othello as "Wherefore art thou not to be a world's stage?", remarking that the 'expert' got the quote wrong would not be opinion, and it would not be original research. It would simply be a statement of fact. 90.209.80.240 (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The video in question is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT2ImYJsLco

Ergun Caner says: "Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim, Muhammmad al-Rahman al-Rahim." Translation of his words: "In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate; Muhammad is the Merciful, the Compassionate".

The actual Shahada is: "La ilaha illallah, Muhammadur rasulullah." The translation of which is: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Messenger."

Not only are his words inaccurate, they are heretical because they give Muhammad an exclusively divine attribute, al-Rahman (the Infinitely Merciful/Loving). It should be plain to see that this guy is a complete fraud, but the article need not say that. Simply acknowledging that he gets the Shahada wrong and explaining that the Shahada is the most basic Islamic creed is enough. 90.209.80.240 (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that doesn't make any sense, wikipedia doesn't work like that. besides, i have a vid showing a muslim pronouncing muhammed -mudamdam- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYatPRs-t2Q so.... this is worthless, i'm not saying he was a muslim but what i'm saying is stop trolling and ask for someone else to involve as a "judge" because i'm starting to get really bored of this. --41.235.40.166 (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The videos are not comparable - your video is of someone in the process of converting to Islam. My video is of Ergun Caner, acting in a supposedly expert capacity, who having claimed to have been raised as a devout Muslim gets the Shahada completely wrong. Furthermore, the man in your video is merely mispronouncing, not speaking a completely different phrase.
If you're bored of it, you are free to expend your time elsewhere. I have demonstrated that my addition is merely a statement of fact, just as making mention of Winston Churchill's "Fight them on the beaches" with a link to it is a statement of fact with a supporting source. I am not advancing any position that the source itself does not advance - it is not original research.
You haven't presented a counterargument - beyond the accusation of trolling. 90.209.80.240 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be true that Caner is mis-stating the phrase – and I wouldn't know as I certainly don't speak Arabic – nothing in the video says that he mis-stated it; we are presently relying on you for that, which is where the claim of original research comes in, I think. If it were an English phrase, I think it would be easier to justify citing on the English Wikipedia with just a YouTube video, although I'd still be reluctant at that. What would be infinitely better is a reliable source talking about this particular video and about how Caner mis-stated the phrase. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WP:NONENG - translations of non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. You are welcome to invite any editors concerned with Arabic language topics to corroborate the translation. 90.217.185.98 (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey anonymous, this one is for you, prince of Qatar calling a hadith a verse from the quran http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwCJ-T_AC8s got it? --Rrrlll (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy"[edit]

I have taken the Ergun Caner Controversy section from the Liberty University page and added it here. It was not very relevant to Liberty University as an institution, but the section was about Ergun Caner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedAdoudi (talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is under protection now, which is fine; in the meantime, interested parties can discuss here what are and what are not acceptable sources. Courcelles, in an edit summary, states that in their opinion that student newspaper and the Huffington Post are not acceptable, and I don't think those sources need to be used since there are reliable sources available to write a balanced article that is informative and not derogatory. That "fakeexmuslim" website should never reappear, of course. But reliable sources exist--this is one. This is not one. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is ridiculous. The protection has convalidated Jbolsec's page blanking. Before the many vandalisms I was adding sources in defense of the personage. You have supressed the criticism and left the defense. The whole controversy about his background, a fact that drove to his demotion as dean (officially anounced by Liberty University), has been suppressed. Even Caner's statements about his own place of birth, and his own explanations have been deleted, along with Liberty University's statement. With the current text you can't even know here this person was born (or claims to have been born). This is the last valid version of the article before the vandalisms. It should be restored, and starting from that we can talk about sources, one by one. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I agree that material ought to be restored to the article, but that version you point to is unacceptable: there is nothing valid whatsoever about that 'controversy' section--it is one of the most blatant BLP violations I have come across, with slander, innuendo, original research, and defamation all sourced to YouTube and other 'stuff'. There is no way that this piece of trash can count as a reliable source in a BLP.

Courcelles made a proposition on their talk page: to write a new and improved version that abides by BLP standards (as well as decency, for crying out loud), at which moment the full protection can be changed to semi-protection. That's the way it ought to be. And in that process, some of the info you are pointing at will be included, of course, but there has to be a rigorous examination of the sources, and in such a contentious topic an otherwise OK source such as a student newspaper may have to be treated differently. We'll see. Let's stop shouting and get to work--we can start a draft below. Courcelles, should a new version be written someplace else and then merged to preserve the history, or is that too much work? Drmies (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If by "piece of trash" you mean Caner´s statement, I agree. The man did say the Ramadan has 40 days, and that is indeed false. He did say that "owtara mowtara seeturuh" was a phrase in some language he did not identify, written in some mosque, and that's false. Some of his "self contradictory" statements (as his University called them) drove to his demotion as dean. The University did take in account the work of a blogger to reach that decision. Before assuming "slander", verify the facts. Otherwise, when you see a man presented, e.g., as "an American songwriter and criminal" you should blank and protect the page. Problem is Charles Manson is presented that way. Caner's faults are indeed much less serious, but he was presented as he was: a famous preacher with a controversial biography and some verified lies about his background. On the other hand, there was some original research in the article (i.e. the blog should be indirectly rather than directly cited), I was working on that before vandal Jbolsec dictated his final judgement. Instead of blocking the vandal, Courcelles blocked the article and convalidated the vandal, without any explanation. I wonder why only pro-Caner links (mostly added by me, by the way) were preserved.--Filius Rosadis (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. That website is trash and you know it. Some references were left: look in the history--you'll see that I also removed those websites but kept the pros, because a. some of them looked much more reliable and b. I simply didn't get around to evaluating in the flurry of the other editor's blankings. I do think you for contributing those--now let's get to work. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for "let's get to work", let me remind you that was exactly what I was doing before the blanking+protection. Now, since the article is still protected and Courcelles is still silent, there's not much I can do (I have requested the unprotection in the proper place). As for the site you mention, the only trash I can see there is directly spoken by Caner in the videos. Nonetheless, the site is anti-Caner, so it shouldn't be treated with any privilege the pro-Caner sites are not granted. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's get to work with an eye on WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New version[edit]

As suggested by Krakatoa, I guess this is how the template is used. Full text follows. All questioned sources have been deleted and replaced. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline this please, this is not a biography, it's a name and shame piece, though without the attack sites, the sources still aren't up to par- Youtube and a student paper are still included, and the writing is far from neutral. Courcelles 00:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Filius, but I agree with Courcelles. Filius, please have a look at User:Drmies/caner. You'll find that some of the sources are the same. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - Courcelles and Drmies are right. I've got a problem with this even remaining on this page. You just. can't. do. this. I've removed your request from the queue for the time being - just replace the template when you're ready. (Oh - and my name is 'Katie'. There is User:Krakatoa, who is not an admin and is not me. Please either use my whole username, KrakatoaKatie, or [preferably] just 'Katie'.) Thanks. :-) KrakatoaKatie 06:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this two pages before continuing:

Even when Liberty Student News is unobjectionable as a source, I have replaced it: exactly the same news is widely covered in the Associated Baptist Press, a source recommended by Drmies (it's just the University's official statement, no big deal). As for slogans like "far from neutral", etc., please be more specific. I think you misread the facts: you spotted the word "terrorist" and thought somebody was accusing this man of being a former terrorist. Au contraire: he claims to have been trained as a terrorist, which apparently is 100 % not true, but added a tremendous dramaticism to his sermons, especially short after 9-11. This claim is missing in Drmies' project (which is not a big problem, it can, and should, be added later). I can say the same about other -so far- missing point in Drmies draft: Caner pronouncing sentences in purported foreign languages and "translating" them to his audiences: this is a central fact and if we do not mention it we are not telling the truth or being neutral. It is duly sourced. If you find any sourced explanation about them, please post it, I couldn't (but there is an apparent indirect claim in Caner's Q&A, where he says he's been criticized because of his "pronounciation" of Arabic. Even when it doesn't look very convincing, I absolutely agree if you include this in the article. See the source in my project). A sourced translation of "bakhasha owtara mowtara seeturu" would be in order too, and I'm ready to accept any possible explanation about it from Katie, Drmies or Courcelles (and even from vandal Jbolsec), as long as you tell me what language that is and what the meaning is, word by word. Until then, I'm inclined to the sourced explanation Rev. White provided. About my own text, of course it's far from complete. A bio cannot contain only the negative facts. I had a problem finding positive facts, because the media covered, as usual, mainly the darker side. I hoped you would find and add sources with the "good news", but you have to admit that even Drmies' draft, if carefully read, drives to a dubios image of this person, to say the least. So don't worry so much about Caner's image: it's not yours or my fault, there's nothing you can do about it, you didn't invent a false background for him, you didn't pronounce sentences in imaginary languages and "translated" them for thousands of people, in a country where there are thousands of people who can perfectly understand Arabic or Turkish. Just know the facts, source the facts and let them talk. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies project says: "His father remained a devout Muslim; he was an architect who designed a mosque in Columbus", but the source only says that he built, not designed, a mosque in Columbus and died a Muslim, not necessarily a "devout" one. This is quite important in the context for various reasons. Within the very few not falsified facts Mr. Caner has stated about his background is the fact that his father Acar Caner was Turkish and Muslim. But "devout" Muslims were quite rare in the strongly laicist state of Turkey at the time, and Acar migrated to Sweden, where he married a Christian Swedish woman. Everything suggests he was a "Muslim by default", not a "devout Muslim", including the serious mistakes Mr. Caner commits when talking about very simple and widely known religious obligations (the "40 days of Ramadan", among them). Summary: delete the "devout" stuff, he remained a Muslim, that's what the source says, and he built a mosque somewhere in Columbus. Was he an architect? Don't blame me if I doubt it, everything is dubious when it comes to an exposed liar. Lets trust the source until another info comes up.--Filius Rosadis (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another note on Drmies's draft: "He emigrated to Ohio as a teenager, began frequenting a Baptist church in Columbus, and in 1982 converted to Christianity". That's what one of the sources (dated 2005) says, but most of the current sources (including Baptist ones) say otherwise, and you have to finish reading the section to know that "it was discovered that he had left TURKEY with his parents at age 3 or 4". The latter is also wrong: the referenced source actually says: "in a book he co-wrote with his younger brother, "Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs," he said their parents wed in SWEDEN and the family moved to Ohio when Ergun was a young boy (...) "his parents' divorce records showing the family moved to Ohio in 1970, when Caner was 3 or 4". So, what was discovered was that "he had left SWEDEN (not Turkey) with his parents at age 3 or 4". (Side note, not for the text: Mr. Caner also said once that he wore a turban, which is obviously false, since nobody wears a turban in Istanbul, except perhaps for the Great Mufti. Most probably Caner didn't even travel to Turkey except may be for a tourist package, and if so he doesn't have what I'd call amazing powers of observation). Finally, in the W.Post reference, I think the url should point to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/29/AR2010062905331_2.html (second page of the article). --Filius Rosadis (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief comments, since there is a bit much text here. The Washington Post URL is fine pointing at the first page--that's where the article starts. On the father: The Robesonian article (which is an AP article, and also ran in the Washington Post) calls him a devout Muslim," and that's the end of it. "Built" or "designed" a mosque, that's really not so to the point, but I've changed it. The article in Times Daily calls him an architect? Then we call him an architect, until that is proven wrong (accusations such as Caner being a pathological liar and therefore we should doubt everything, those are not helpful). I've removed the "teenager" part, since it's clear that that was hardly true--but stuffing an article full of "he claimed" is not helpful either and only contributes to what is rightly called a "name and shame" coloring.

    Oh, one final thing about the things 'missing' in my version: we DO NOT have to list every single damn thing that happened in this man's life, every thing he said, every thing that was exposed. That he mistranslated, cited incorrectly, whatever, I have tried to cover that in a condensed and readable way; the links to the articles are there for further detail. It is not Wikipedia's job to cover everything. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I've added a sentence that uses the two ABP stories you linked to above; thank you for those links. But honestly, I think by now that part of the article is covered well enough. Again, we do not have to be exhaustive and list every fact and link to every story: the references I have now do that well enough, in my opinion. Oh, to some involved parties: please stop insinuating that I am trying to whitewash this article or this person--that's really a personal slur and kind of a revolting thought. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you start your draft with the words "A Muslim born in Turkey, he emigrated to the United States and converted to Christianity". He said he was born in Stockholm, Sweden, his family emigrated from Sweden to the USA. Then he somewhere explained he was statutorily a Turkish citizen, due to some Swedish law, and that was one of the confussions that led to unfair accusations against him.--Filius Rosadis (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was born in Sweden, with a Turkish father and our mother who was a Turkish citizen, SBC Today, Statement from Dr. Ergun Caner, Febrary 25, 2010, reproduced by permission of the author --Filius Rosadis (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ergun was born in Sweden, but he was a Turkish citizen. According to Swedish law a child born in Sweden has the nationality of his father, and Ergun’s father was Turkish, In Defense of Dr. Ergun Caner: A Response to His Critics, By Dr. Norman L. Geisler. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking this is not true. Swedish law cannot make someone Turkish; it can only make someone not Swedish. Turkish law is what allows the children of at least male Turkish citizens to be Turkish even if born abroad. It is possible for some people to end up stateless (or have multiple citzenships) if born in certain circumstances. However I doubt Geisler is an expert on citizenship laws. --Erp (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are valid points, but you have to remember one thing: I begun the article from scratch, not from a trimmed-down version of an unacceptable article. So, why did I begin the article thusly? Because that is what the sources that I had said. Simple. That should not be an impediment; it is the kind of thing that can be resolved through normal editing, and I'll add that in my sandbox version. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not your fault. I asked because I thought you had some source in mind. I think it's the very dear old Ergun who said that, but not lately. Gee, it's difficult to write an article when even the birth place is controversial! And we have not talked about the name yet. Ergun Micheal or the more convenient Ergun Mehmet? --Filius Rosadis (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is indeed a problem, and I thank you for clarifying the matter. I do think that the sources we both have contributed have led to a fairly accurate and fairly objective draft. Now, if it's OK with you, let's ask an admin to move (merge?) the version in my sandbox (to which you have contributed heavily, even if by proxy) to the main article space. Further edit requests can take place here on the talk page, and I imagine they will be minor edits compared to the large-scale editing we have done. That's much more manageable, and I think (though I'm not sure about the proper process here) that a more or less stable version that at least some editors can agree with is a prerequisite for the article being unprotected (or less protected). I hope you can agree with the current sandbox at least in principle, and that the editors above can agree as well--Courcelles and Katie. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your current sandbox as a platform for future, more thorough editions. I'm clearing my draft and sending it to my own sandbox.--Filius Rosadis (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First suggestions: "A Muslim of Turkish descent born in Sweden, he emigrated at a young age to the United States and converted to Christianity." He's no longer a Muslim, so I suggest: Born in Sweden, he emigrated at a young age to the United States and converted from Islam to Christianity". So what happens with his Turkish descent? I suggest to deal with this issue a few lines lower in the article. Which confronts us with the next problem: current proposal is "Born to Turkish parents who had emigrated to Sweden". His father was Muslim and Turkish, that's out of discussion. What about his mother, apparently born Monica Inez Hunt? We know she is or was a Christian but, I think, originally from Sweden or perhaps some other place. There are of course many Christians in Turkey, but nothing suggests this is the case. Nothing? Well, almost. Again, Mr. Caner's words generate some confusion: I was born in Sweden, with a Turkish father and our mother who was a Turkish citizen. Did he mean: "my mother adopted the Turkish nationality"? Or is it just another lie, purportedly deleted from Caner's page and inconveniently surviving in a friendly webpage, which still shows the [dead link? Or it's the whole truth, and Monica Inez Hunt, ex Caner, is or was a plain Turkish national, perhaps the sister of a Swedish immigrant (since her name doesn't look like Armenian, Greek, or Turkish?). I can't say so far. There's more info on this Calvinist blogosphera site. Calvinists seem not to like Caner, and this one doesn's seem to be fond of any kind of Muslims either. Anyway, until we can be sure I suggest "The son of a Turk who had emigrated to Sweden" instead of "Born to Turkish parents who had emigrated to Sweden". Apparently Acar Caner married Monica Inez Hunt on April 1966 in Stockholm. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the sandbox and the dialogue above. This is why we occasionally have to lock articles - to get this kind of discussion. You're well on the way. Be careful about WP:RS, and keep up the good work! Courcelles should be by shortly, as we're usually here at the same time of day/night. I'll check in later today! :-) KrakatoaKatie 22:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The sandbox draft reads much more like a cohesive NPOV biography, whereas the previous versions were more like a dirt file. Good work, Filius and Drmies. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Katie...you and Courcelles...interesting... Drmies (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to change "he had left TURKEY with his parents at age 3 or 4" for "he had left SWEDEN with his parents at age 3 or 4". It's still in the draft.--Filius Rosadis (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. I changed it to agree with the wording in the big Washington Post article. Ha, what a mess. I wonder if he himself got confused--I'm sure we'll hear all about that in a few years on Oprah. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is everybody happy with the draft? Are there more issues that should be addressed? KrakatoaKatie 23:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are more issues but the starting point is ready. I'll summarize some issues here later.--Filius Rosadis (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why if THREE links are provided to pages defending the man, why there is not at least ONE link to a site containing criticisms of him, or at least summarising legitimate news articles that criticise him? Why is this being censored so heavily? I could come up with dozens of Wikipedia pages of notable people with all kinds of factual information criticising them. Wish2bflying (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on a topic like this that start by mentioning censorship are usually not very productive comments. Clearly you have not looked through the provided references. Note also WP:EL and WP:UNDUE. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two discussions for a future stable version[edit]

Notability of M. Khan and his blog. Inelegibility as source. Elegibility as external link[edit]

Mohammad Khan, who initiated the blogosphera boom about Ergun Caner, is a notable person by Wikipedia standards. He's been covered and expressely mentioned by the Associated Press, The Washington Post, half a dozen Baptist media and hundreds of blogs. A few links (there are many more):

Fakeexmuslims is the site that started the blog boom, it's part of the history, so its use as a reference would envolve original research. Instead, it should be included in the external links section.--Filius Rosadis (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no problem with that. I do hope that such inclusion in the EL section will also be an incentive for the blogger to not edit the article, because the COI is all-too clear. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinan52 has used Fakeexmuslims.com as a source even though it is not an acceptable source for this site. MosesModel (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinan52 has deleted sourced information and replaced it with unsourced information. "David McGee is a staff writer for the Bristol Herald Courier and a senior member of the newsroom staff. He joined the daily newspaper in 2001 after 14 years as the editor and general manager of the former Sullivan County News weekly newspaper, based in Blountville, Tennessee. McGee has won journalism awards from both the Virginia and Tennessee press associations and currently covers Bristol Virginia city government, schools, politics and business." This is the individual that Kinan52 is claiming is an unacceptable source. MosesModel (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptability of youtube material as reference[edit]

Ergun Caner and Arabic: A Review, by James White, is a suitable source and reference, since it's not original research but analysis by a third, qualified person. Author is a notable person by Wikipedia standards (he even has a Wikipedia article). It's identifiable since it's his official Youtube chanel. Finally, youtube references are allowed in bio (including BLP) articles. Among many other:

So this source should be used when dealing with the notorious "mispronunciations" of existing languages or made up ones (e.g. "muwtara seeturu", "masjidatos", "jihadeen", "khesh", etc.). --Filius Rosadis (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You mean this guy, James White (theologian)? My question is, and I'd like to hear about this from other editors, how much detail is necessary? Isn't a general statement about Caner's linguistic screw-ups enough? Before you know it, the article will be flooded again by examples of lies and what not, and we'll be right back where we started, given the prerogative for due weight. I think this is not a good way to go. A general statement, perhaps with one abundantly clear example, is much more encyclopedic, if sourced to a reliable source--and by that I mean in a reliable publication, which is much stronger than a notable person's YouTube channel: do not confuse notable with reliable! Glenn Beck is plenty notable, but I wouldn't even take his advice on how to pick a Christmas sweater. Drmies (tdalk) 02:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • :) Yes, I meant the theologian. Te be frank, I didn't know about him before I came here. Do you think he's generally reliable? I saw the video and thought he was quite fair and calm. I also think it's a good option as a source, because it's indirect research. About the risk of degradation to forum level if too much detail is provided: ok, it's a point. External links is still a possibility, pro and hostile sites are not uncommon in EL sections.--Filius Rosadis (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Filius--I'm inclined to say that if White is cited somewhere as a critic that his own words can be brought in; that is, if another source establishes his notability (and possibly credibility) on this topic. I really don't want to sound like I want to keep criticism out, far from it: you know I began the rewrite with the highly critical Wan article in the Washington Post. But it seems all too easy to find a thousand critics of Caner and dump them in. (Likewise, I don't care if the local Baptist minister defends him.)

Hot off the press: the Wan article actually cites him.

"They haven't come clean and explained what exactly they investigated and found," said James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, who dug into Caner's past. "One can only offer forgiveness if there's repentance, and they've basically said nothing with their statement."

I think that makes his commentary relevant, at least as an external link--though again, the EL noticeboard and other editors might disagree since it's a YouTube video. White can certainly be mentioned in the article, even if it's only in one sentence, perhaps with other critics from the same denominational persuasion. Good point, and thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute between MosesModel and DSEppling[edit]

DSEppling who identifies himself as "the Executive Vice President of Ergun Caner Ministries" has been making massive deletions to the Ergun Caner wiki. The additions I made in response to this come from a number of sources. 1. I cited his brother's book about their conversion. 2. I cited the book Ergun Caner co-authored with Emir Caner, Unveiling Islam. 3. I cited two unedited videos of speeches Ergun Caner gave to the USMC in North Carolina. 4. I cited two articles written by David McGee about events that Caner spoke at in Bristol, VA. 5. I cited once, the blog of the man who acquired the videos by the Freedom of Information Act. I attempted to appease DSEppling by adding the only content that I could find that he wanted added. Everything else was massive deletions. I asked repeatedly why the Caner brothers were not legitimate sources for Ergun Caner's wikipedia page. I am sorry for the 3 revision rule. I did not know about it and I will not break it again. Please do not block me. MosesModel (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also if I may, I would like to make a polite case for the inclusion of the two viddler videos. One, they are unedited. I would never cite an edited video in this Wikipedia entry. Two, I only typed what Ergun Caner said. I made no judgement statement to whether or not it was true. However it is definitely true that he said it. In one video, he is introduced as Ergun Caner and in both videos he self-identifies as Ergun Caner. His speeches to the troops should be part of the Wikipedia page and it is not libel. MosesModel (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DSEppling of the edit war appears to be Professor Dave Eppling of Liberty described as "Dave Eppling serves as the Director of Administrative and Academic Projects. He comes to the law school from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School where he served as Chief of Staff." http://law.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=22651 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.39.84 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content Dispute Between Mosesmodel and Mythbuster09[edit]

Mythbuster09 has been making massive deletions to the Ergun Caner wiki. The deletions are properly sourced and come from a number of sources. 1. I cited his brother's book about their conversion. 2. I cited the book Ergun Caner co-authored with Emir Caner, Unveiling Islam. 3. I cited two unedited videos of speeches Ergun Caner gave to the USMC in North Carolina. 4. I cited two articles written by David McGee about events that Caner spoke at in Bristol, VA. 5. I cited once, the blog of the man who acquired the videos by the Freedom of Information Act. He said the content in these articles show a clear bias and this is not a place to recount every speech Ergun Caner has ever made. However, he himself attempted to recount the controversy in summary, but deletes the material from the local reporters. I do not wish to start an edit war so I am taking this to the talk page. I have tried talking to Mythbuster09. He has only responded by editing the page. MosesModel 01:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosesModel (talk • contribs)


Good Afternoon. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood a Wikipedia policy, as I am still pretty new to this site and learning the ropes. I am baffled that Mosesmodel's edits have been allowed to continue on Ergun Caner's page, as he has failed to demonstrate his ability to maintain verifiable sources and is clearly not writing from a neutral and disinterested point of view. I have edited Ergun Caner's page to fall within the guidelines of Wikipedia's BLP policy and would ask that this page be reverted to my previous form and protected from further editing by Mosesmodel. I will address Mosesmodel's complaints and explain my reasoning below.

Mosesmodel Complaints: 1. I have still cited each book mentioned by Mosesmodel as a source, perhaps not in the same structure, but certainly referencing the same material. 2. Through reading the talk page, it is my understanding that the videos that Mosesmodel has attempted to post have already been debated and determined to be primary sources, of which there is no place for in a BLP. 3. I had no problem with the sourcing of the McGee article, however, again as I read through the "Talk" page associated with Ergun Caner's article, I found the determination, by an editor, that stated this page was not a place to recount every speaking engagement this man has ever made. 4. Mosesmodel cited a blog from which one of these videos was taken. To only cite specific videos that purport one side of the story is neither neutral, nor disinterested. Mosesmodel thus is not using his editing abilities to present a neutral, encyclopedic entry. 5. Yes, I have tried to recount the controversy, in summary, and give the average reader a neutral overview of the controversy. I have not deleted every reference to the controversy, nor did I intend to. I merely, as stated in the BLP policy, paired back the information so that it remained neutral and within BLP guidelines.

Mythbuster09 Concerns: 1. I have done everything in my power to correct the bias writing and create a page that is encyclopedic, not a tabloid page. 2. In so doing, I have edited out specific references to one or two speeches that Ergun Caner presented, as they are not reflective of his entire speaking career. I have several hundred videos and transcripts available from his career where he negates the information Mosesmodel wishes to use in his videos. Instead of flood this page with hundreds of cited speaking engagements, I merely deleted the select few that Mosesmodel used, and did not add any, in order to maintain a neutral tone in this article. 3. If you look further back in the page history, you will see that Mosesmodel has attempted to give disproportionate space to this "controversy" time and time again. This, to my understanding, is yet another violation of the BLP policy. Both criticism and praise should be presented responsibly, which I have tried to do. I have addressed the controversy, I have cited articles that detail the controversy, and I have moved on. Mosesmodel attempts to make this entire article about the controversy, which again, is against BLP policy. 4. All in all, the policy of Wikipedia seems to be that, when in doubt, pair back the article to comply with the BLP policy. I think if you read my article in its most complete form, that you will find I have presented Ergun Caner's history, career, and the controversy in a fair and neutral way. 5. It appears that this is not the first time Mosesmodel has tried to dispute other users. A quick search on the internet pulled up a Twitter account and a YouTube page of his where a majority of his energy is spent trying to "expose Ergun Caner." This is hardly then a user who can be trusted to write from a neutral or disinterested tone. I would ask again that you would protect this page from his edits and allow my neutral article to presented in full.

Thank you for your quick response to this situation. I hope that this can be resolved fairly.--Mythbuster09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythbuster09 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have my personal views on the nature of the Dr. Caner controversy. However, I have never cited them. I would never cite edited sources. Also I place articles from Dr. Caner's involvement with the Columbine Massacre, but these were taken down. They were considered irrelevant. The controversy has been the primary source of news about Dr. Caner from reliable sources lately and therefore I have placed much of it on the wiki. Most of it includes defenses of Dr.Caner, since he is who the article is about. In providing the Marine videos I attempted to give balance to the controversy since even in the Geisler defenses extremely edited quotes are used. Still, I can agree that the Marine videos are not well sourced. The individual identifies himself as Dr. Caner, but there is no reliable third party verification to where they came from. I can agree that these quotes cannot be used. However, I must insist that third party news, (even about his pastoral role with Columbine & the Shipp article), should be available for use. I do wish to keep this neutral. Neutral sources about the controversy should be used. Also, in my defense I have been defending this wiki from Muslims slandering Dr. Caner with claims they cannot source or prove. Mythbuster09, I would appreciate some help with that. MosesModel 04:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosesModel (talk • contribs)

WP:BLP edit[edit]

Following up on a discussion thread at WP:BLPN, I've made a few edits to this article. It would be nice to have dates of tenure in the lead paragraphs, based either on a primary source or secondary source. I've also removed a cite to a primary source/blog/press release, which in the context of accomplishments is uncalled for. A reliable third-party source mentioning sales and awards would be appropriate. In the meantime, I left much of the text in question intact because I don't genuinely see notability as a concern so much as noteworthiness as far as enduring biographical significance according to reliable sources. There's still a lot of detail that might be innocuous but still essentially undue because it occupies a large part of the article and I assume it's based on the subject's self-publications. Here are some links that might provide reliable coverage of the events and details that might be noteworthy for an encyclopedic biography. Remember, they might be in another language!

Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 05:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions regarding accuracy and possible bias of article[edit]

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia. I only came here to look up Ergun Caner because I read about a recent twist in his controversy. There were two main issues that I had regarding the accuracy of the article.

1. The controversy seems to claim that Caner is lying about his background as a devout Sunni. This article, on several occasions, makes claims that Caner's mother adopted Islam, etc., and each time offered only Caner's own autobiography as evidence to support those statements. This would seem to be conflict of interest regarding the accuracy and supposed lack of bias of this entry.

2. The article also claims that Caner's father gained a court order to have his sons raised as Muslims. However, it links to a supporting document that shows a scanned copy of the court order itself. Article one of this article states:

"“The minor children shall receive religious training through each parent during the periods when the children are under each parent's respective care and control, according to the desires of each parent. The children shall then be better able to make their own choices in the future when they are of sufficient age to make such decision for themselves.”[1]

So this document clearly disagrees with the article's statement (which it is allegedly supporting) that Caner's father gained a court order insisting that the boys be raised as Muslims. Rather, they could be raised as Muslims if he so desired while they were in his care, and while they were with their mother, she could raise them with her own religious background. Whether or not she originally converted to Islam (which is a possibility, despite a seeming lack of unbiased evidence on that point), it is entirely possible that after her divorce she chose to live with a different religion, and teach her children the same while they were in her care.

Thanks for your time.

TiaraliShylah (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.witnessesuntome.com/caner/caner-motion-decision-june-8-1978-web.pdf

Christianity Today is a reliable source[edit]

Someone has repeatedly removed material based on Christianity Today. The CT article already is bare-bones enough and is commonly thought to under report the controversy. To disallow it (1) makes no sense and (2) skews this entry for Caner's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.30.170 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Inaccuracies in "Early Life"[edit]

A previous version of "Early Life" accepted as fact Caner's claim that his mother converted to Islam. However, court documents show that Monica Caner contested the court order to raise her children as Muslim, something that would be unusual if she were really Muslim. Caner's autobiography can only be accepted as evidence of what Caner claims, not as fact.

Caner's mother Monica successfully fought against the provision in the divorce decree that the children be raised Muslim by making an appeal to the court on June 8th 1978. The court overturned the former condition of April 14th 1978, by allowing religious instruction "according to the desires of each parent" while in their custody. See the court order here: http://www.fakeexmuslims.com/caner-religion-web.pdf. Now, if Monica Caner was really a Muslim, why did she appeal to the court to let her instruct her children in religion other than Islam? This goes against Caner's insistence that he was raised in a devoutly Muslim home and that his mother was Muslim. Caner came to the USA in 1969, at the age of 2 and attended public school. How could he, then, have only learned about American culture by what he saw on TV as a child growing up in Turkey as he claims? Here's Caner's father's immigration record, showing him coming in 1969: http://www.witnessesuntome.com/caner/Acar_Caner_Naturalization_duplicate-compressed.PDF

Ergun Caner's words testify against him. Caner has claimed BOTH to have come to the USA in 1969 and 1978. Which was it? Listen to this video at 1:56 and again at about 4:00: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcXXq6n28-k). He claims to both be born in Stockholm, Sweden and Istanbul, Turkey: listen to him yourself at the above video. There are also serious questions as to his basic knowledge of Islam and about whether he publicly pretended to speak Arabic. Here's an example of Caner's "Arabic": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwdITMs6VDY. And another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYSLJ2oeebY Here's Caner making a false claim about Muslim's dating non-Muslims: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il5PG0jcVM8 More Caner vs. Caner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVEClc1b8K0&list=PLC_INr9C02AER0U42bgNFrf-SnCluJuhi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.30.170 (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ergun Caner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ergun Caner. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ergun_Caner&oldid=1206530928"