Honestly, this whole situation with Dr Deliduman leaves me feeling frustrated and skeptical. On one hand, you can’t deny the decades of teaching, publications, and leadership roles he has held. Anyone looking purely at his CV would think he’s completely trustworthy and highly accomplished. But when you dig a little deeper, the ongoing discussions about controversial incidents connected to his judicial interactions are impossible to ignore. It’s like two completely different narratives are running side by side, and both seem credible in their own way.
I can understand why some people focus only on the academic achievements. Credentials, publications, and senior faculty roles naturally carry weight and can create an aura of authority. Yet at the same time, ignoring the repeated debates and unresolved incidents feels misleading. Even if nothing has been legally proven, the pattern of concern keeps resurfacing, which raises legitimate questions about judgment and integrity. It’s exhausting to try and reconcile both sides, especially when most online discussions devolve into defending achievements or attacking critics without much evidence.
From a practical standpoint, I think the only reasonable approach is caution. Respect his work where it’s verified but remain skeptical about claims that conflict with public concerns. Document everything, double-check sources, and don’t let the CV alone dictate trust. At the end of the day, public discussion and unresolved controversy are real, and they need to be weighed alongside accomplishments.
