Talk:Fethullah Gülen/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

1

"The moderate Turkish citizen trust Gulen" expression is not verifiable. There are supporters of Fethullah Gulen among Turkish citizens but there are many other "moderate" Turkish citizens who consider him as an activist against secularism of the Turkish state.

It needs to be changes. I changed it and removed the templete...

My objection is not to some of the words, it is to the general idea. The people who want to protect the secular state that are mentioned as "extreme" are the skeleton of the country, they are not extremists among Turkish citizens.

Discuss before edits

It is a standard in Wiki that we discuss before editing the articles. Could you please follow that policy? He has never convicted for a crime and currently free. I cannot see what you will gain by distorting the facts... 216.248.123.113 17:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not know that an edition needs a discussion in Wiki. I was thinking that it is free to write anything as long as they are not subject to copyright and they are verifyable. What I wrote needed more information because it was misleading in that form and you corrected me. Thank you for that. And about your discussion, I do not see what you will gain by attacking people personally. It was just a mistake and needed correction.
Thanks for correcting the mistake. I cannot see what you are considered being attacking people, especially after you see your mistake. Discussing before editing is a standard here. The merit of it is: it allows to reach a consensus and better understanding of eachother. For your addition for example: if you would discuss it here first, I could tell you that, the points you inserted are already discussed in the 'contraversies' section. So, it is needless. It includes many unnecessary detalis like the names of judges, numbers of the files, etc. It does not add any significant information to the article. Thanks. 216.248.123.43 22:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
While it is generally good form to check a given article's talk page for any editing issues prior to doing any significant editing on it, do not feel obligated to first discuss edits prior to doing them...but rather be bold and edit straight away. This appears to be a false attempt by a fellow editor to own this article and is very wrong. Netscott 07:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifing this point. I think actually that many people thinks that they own this article. Fethullah Gulen is quite a political figure and it seems like the most of the article is written by his political supporters. I am putting a "biased" sign because of this. Because it looks like it is impossible to edit this article if you are not a political supporter of Fethullah Gulen. His followers just remove the edits they do not like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.233.71 (talk • contribs).
He thinks he own this article. --Kokotek 07:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article

The article has a neutrality problem in overall. Even the controversies sections is written in a way to defend Fethullah Gulen. The article should be rewritten in a neutral way but it seems like it is impossible because even a few edits I tried to make were immediately removed. Somebody even told me that I have to discuss before I edit (then how can Wikipedia be a free resource?), see above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.233.71 (talk • contribs) .

Claiming that his followers wrote the article is not a good way to look at the issue. If you are making an edit and someone else is changing and correcting it, what is wrong with that? You should probably check if your edit is correct or not? Regarding posting a template, it does not seem to be a good idea unless you can show why? Why it is bias? Templates categorize the whole article and therefore for the articles like this which is written by many editors, it does not seem to be a good idea to me. Thanks for your contributions. Resid Gulerdem 04:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to make edits to this article to make it more neutral. Anybody who follows the history of the changes and the discussion will see that. That is why I am putting the bias template on the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.233.71 (talk • contribs) .

After User:Mokotok recent attempts at trying to move away from the fact that Gülen was imprisoned, I'm beginning to agree. Netscott 11:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I see that you succeeded to do edit to the article Netscott. Congratulations! It is so much effort to edit this article because of his followers who are biased and who argue with one so bluntly. However, the point to be sad is instead of working on real problems of Turkey, to increase the condition of economics, science, industry and agriculture, we are spending our efforts on a problem that is solved years ago by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk when he introduced laicism to the state.

Laicism and Fethullah Gulen

It is written in philosphy section that "Gülen found his philosopy and ideas based on faithful individuals, healthy society and strong state". That means that a person who is not "faithful" is not one of his ideal individuals. In a laicist country people are not differentiated based on their faith or their lack of faith. Therefore, a person who supports laicism can not be a supporter of that philosophy. So either that sentence in philosophy section should be changed/corrected (if it is wrong of course) or "some of the supporters of laicism" should remain "supporters of laicism". Whether one or more people (Ecevit or somebody else) behave that way or another can not remove this contradiction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.233.71 (talk • contribs) .

Unfortunately you are terribly wrong. I do not want to go into the chain of logic (or lack of thereof) you are following. I can only say that: 'it does not make sense', at the first place. The important point here is that: We are not doing original research here. If some secular sects are supporting him, it is a fact and should be stated as is. There are many left wing parties and people supporting him. Ecevit is one of them. He is without any doubt leader of the secular sects and left wing in Turkey. Can you, by the way, show a proof that all secular sects are against him. Noone can say that in my opinion! Mokotok 01:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok Mokotok. I just realized that I am wasting time editing this article as I wrote in Arrest section. I am not going to argue.

Question to the editor of this article

He is trained in theology by several Muslim scholars and also studied the principles and theories of social and physical sciences. I would very much appreciate if you could write which islamic scholars Mr. Gülen was trained by.

Mainly by Alvarli Muhammed Lutfi on the spiritual issues, and Osman Bektas on the theology part. 216.248.123.82 07:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

there are also radical religious groups who are critical about his methods and activities such as his effort on dialogue with Christians and Jews. Which religious groups are considered radical? And how was it decided that those groups were radical? What does radical imply here? What are the qualitisies of Mr. gülen's interfaith dialogue? On which idead of his (or another scholar's) ideas is this based?

The term 'radical' is used to express the idea that they may use or support to use violence. Please see interfaith dialogue intro part for a brief explanation of his approach. His ideas are based on the sole and main scripture: Quran, and the second most important source: Hadith.

many thanks in advance for your answers. Suleyman Habeeb 15:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome... I hope it is satisfactory. 216.248.123.82 07:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Money

All the money comes from the businessmann of Turkey. It is known to all. He has millions of followers to support the idea. 128.255.45.117 20:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The one estimate I've seen put the assets of Gülen's organizations at USD 25 billion.[1]. Millions of followers if you count everybody who has ever watched their TV station, or read one of their newspapers. Counting is difficult due to the number of organizations involved, but the guess of "Human Rights Without Frontiers" (who consider Gülen's orgs a repressed religious group) is two orders of magnitude lower: "tens of thousands"[2](p.41) Azate 14:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Arrest

He has been arrested while the court was making a decision. This is an era at which military gave an ultimatom. No democracy! He has never convicted in his lifetime. I provided a link from his official website. If you beleive (or know) otherwise why do not you prove it? Please do not do original research based on your logical conclusions. It should be possible to show that he was convicted if he was. That simple. Mokotok 12:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mokotok, you are biased. Why did you remove "supporters of laicism" from the article. Yes, supporters of laicism are suspicious of his aims. That simple. If you want this article to be neutral you have to stop doing edits against it.
I am sorry to say that but I think you are acting with no good faith. I am, for example, a supporter of laicism but have no problem with Mr. Gulen and his movement. As it is mentioned by many people many times here, even the leaders of left wing and secular sects are not against him and some symbolic leaders support him (Ecevit case). Can I ask what you are trying to get? Your vauge generalization is not true. Please stop sticking an incorrect statement in and sound like all supporters of laicisim are agains him. 216.248.124.154 20:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to say that I just can not understand the rational of a person who supports laicism and who does not have objections and suspicions against Fethullah Gulen's movement according to this article itself. I am pasting the section below.
"Philosophy and activities Gülen found his philosopy and ideas based on faithful individuals, healthy society and strong state. In defining these he mostly refer to Islamic sources. Once this established, he further formulates dialogue among different communities, tolerance, accepting the others as themselves and appreciating the other not only within a specific society but in a larger spectrum."
However I will not argue anymore. I read a Turkish wikipedian entry in vikipedi fethullah gulen article's discussion page. He says that people are discussing a poor man (Fethullah Gulen) but do not see the rotten system that is deep down which is exploiting the country and they are wasting their time. He is right. I have been doing exactly that here.

NPOV tags

I added a NPOV tag to the article. First and foremost, the "Philosophy and activities" section is so void of content, and so full of fluffy talk, that Gülen comes around as if he was the Dalei Llama, which he is most certainly not. The "controvery" section doesn't even describe what the controversies are about, only vaguely names the opponents. I have some good academic articles about Gülen at home, and will try to cobble together something of more substance. Last but not least, the omission of Nursi's influence from this article alone would suffice to make it dubious. Why is there no mention on this page at all about the very odd science/education angle that Gülen inherited from Nursi, and that is the main activity of the many Gülen-influenced schools? This strange mixture of Weberian protestant work ethics and fairytale science in the creationist+scientology vein, drawn from the Koran? Why no mention of the fact that Gülen's schools semi-admit to serve the purpose of educating a new 'elite', trained in mainstream science, and to be placed in positions of influence, but with the agenda to undermine the immoral conventional sciences, and replace them with versions that draw their 'proofs' not from the derided materialistic world of 'logic', but from the true moralic logic of the Quran? Why, actually, isn't this article in the category 'religious sects' and 'science denial', like their fundamentalist american christian brethen and their 'creation sciene' lunacy? Azate 03:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. If there is something need to be added, it should and can be added. It does not imply that the article is bias. I am taking that tag off. Your interpretation of the movement does not seem to be correct. I do not know what references you are refering to but I reviewed the links provided in the article. To my reading and understanding, Gulen movement is pro-science and education but they are religious people. Science and religion are not enemy of eachother. Light&Truth 06:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Light&Truth, you leave the tag where it is! You username makes it quite clear that you are one of Nursi's followers, and not one who is well placed to make judgments about the bias of the article Azate 11:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Azate is trying to sell his/her POV as a NPOV. It is clear in this statement, for example: with the agenda to undermine the immoral conventional sciences, and replace them with versions that draw their 'proofs' not from the derided materialistic world of 'logic', but from the true moralic logic of the Quran. The same is true for his statement Why, actually, isn't this article in the category 'religious sects' and 'science denial', like their fundamentalist american christian brethen and their 'creation sciene' lunacy? It is fine to be against something but no good if one try to sell his emotions and belief as being truth or NPOV.

There is some influence of the Nursi on Gulen and it can be added to the article. This does not make the article dubious, maybe incomplete instead. It should be noted that Gulen is reading Nursi differently than the others, on the other hand.

If one do not know what he is talking about, I would recommend him to read first either from the articles he may have at home or maybe a Wikipedia article about the issue. I would not attempt to put a tag to an article that I have no clear knowledge about. Wikipedia is a place to contribute and also learn. My recommendation would be: 'check the links in the article first'. By the way, any contribution in good faith is wellcome. Resid Gulerdem 11:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, as as first teaser I submit this[3] essay by Mustafa Akyol, who is the Director of the "platform for intercultural dialogue", Istanbul, one of the many outlets under the Gülen-umbrella. (there ary many of these, with equally fancy names, and if you poke them, they usually disclaim connections to each other and Gülen. But when you look at the individuals who run the show, you'll find that is the same dozen of people over and over again: Gülen's inner cadre. Fortunately, Reshid, I don't have to read up about Gülen's cemaat or Nur. I'm on home turf here. And, btw, POV is perfectly alright on talk pages, only the article has to be NPOV Azate 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Azate, I can see the link, but I could not quite see what is that for. The editor of the article is not known to me and I tend to refer to the official website and mainly the articles approved by him, not any commentary on it.

I am not sure if you are on turf but I can see that you know quite some about the movement. What I am missing is the academic and unbiased interpretation of the knowledge which is as important in my opinion. The talk pages are open to POV but sometimes they are alarming about how the quality of the contribution to the main article may be.

I should add that not all of your contributions seems to be problematic to me. I do not know how the others feel about it. I put it into an extended (and hopefully) better from using some of your points. Please review and let me know what you think. Quiting this 'tag the article' war seems to be pretty wise to me. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 07:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A brief summary

You claimed that POV is OK on the talk page when you answering my question about how come you can relate the Gulen Movement to Inteligent Design movement. But than you tried to put that category to the main article page. You are even saying that I am putting my POV so it is OK to tag the article with NPOV. I think you need some rest as your edits becoming tragicomic. Gulen is an Islamic scholar and as all Muslims believes that God cerated the whole universe. His indirect and a few 'sympathic' remarks about 'inteligent design' do not make the movement an ID movement. They have nothing in common. Please quit inserting your POV, you can do a better job on this article. Resid Gulerdem 05:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you (as you say above) "tend to refer to the official website and mainly the articles approved by him (Gülen), not any commentary on it". This is very bad practice indeed. Read up on how to write an encyclopedic article on WP:POL and move from there. That you don't know Mustafa Akyol is hardly believable (and wouldn't matter even if it were true). It's like somebody on the George W. Bush article claiming to not know Donald Rumsfeld, and doubting that he is in the Republican party, because GHB's homepage doesn't mention that. Like all sect-related articles, this one will need some serious outside intervention, and a clampdown on members of the sect in question deleting uncomfortable truths over and over again to make is acceptable, like it was done on the scientology article. Azate 14:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Refering to a commentary is good but it should not be biased. On the other hand, if the commentary is contradicting clear statements of the person in question I tend to listen to the person unless there is a strong evidence otherwise. Although I liked some of your contribution to the article, some others are unfortunaltely violates the common sense if you disregard the Wiki-rules and standards. I do not know Akyol, he is not in GWB-DR relation with Gulen, I am sure of it. I agree that members of a sect can write a bias article but I also know that enemies of some particluar sects are also as bias and as dangerous. For sect members there may be some uncomfortable truths but there are many such for the enemies as well. By the way, can I ask why you are trying to hide the fact that (the truth that) he has never been convicted? Was it uncomfortable for you? Resid Gulerdem 05:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with Resid here. The tag war shouldn't even be as removing such a tag over the objections of other editors on a given article is considered vandalism. Netscott 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Azate's POV need to be cleaned up from the article

You are adding your POV to the article, nothing else. You are also deleting many crucial information from the text. What is the rationale for your claim of inserting an exception to Kurds and Shities for example, while the scools are active in northern irak and educating kurdish students including the ones from barzani and talabani families? Get real and be neutral. We are trying to provide the reliable info about Gulen in a neutral way. You say the same but doing just the opposite. Mokotok 04:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mokotok, your tone is so angry. Maybe english is not your mother tongue and the way you learned english is quite insensitive. Please try to improve your tone. Also you were uncivil to Netscott in your edit summary. Be civil please. Thanks.
There is no rationale for adding that except it's a documented fact. I provided two sources: The Middle Eastern Journal 2001/37/3 p.111-144, and a book from Faik Bulut. Could have also added an Article from Walter Posch [4] in ISBN 3-902456-35-3 from the Austrian Army Academy, but that's in German, so I prefered the English and Turkish sources. Deleting well sourced content just because you don't like it is not the way forward. Azate 15:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
If you know the issue as you claimed so, you will realise that the truth is just the opposite. As I examplified above, there are 6 schools in Northern Irak and they are educationg the boys and girls of Barzani and Talabani families. That is a fact. I did not delete it because I do not like it, it was because the statement was incorrect as it contradicts the live facts. By the way, you are still posting a tag after all. Do not you listen what people are saying around? At least, you should quit posting it after each time you ruin the article. Oh boy, oh boy?!... Mokotok 05:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Can we have a reputable source for that? I quoted my sources. Let's see yours. Azate 06:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I will find some for you. The point is, you should know it already, should't you? Mokotok 06:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Here we go... You know Turkish, right? Mokotok 06:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. But I said reputable source. Not Zaman, which is Gülen's newspaper. Azate 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You can say they are overemphasising the importance of the schools there, but it does not change the fact that there are schools serving to local people there. You sometimes look smarter than for a person insisting on his mistakes. Mokotok 07:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

inclusion in category: Intelligent design movement

Why do you insist on removing this? I pointed it out above, but I'm glad to do it again:

1) See this [5] Intelligent Design article on IslamOnline by Mustafa Akyol

2) Mustafa Akyol is the director of the Intercultural Dialogue Platform (http://www.cul-dialogue.org/), see link at bottom of above article.

3) http://www.cul-dialogue.org/ is a redirect to http://www.gyv.org.tr

4) www.gyv.org.tr is the homepage of the 'Journalists and Writers Foundation', founded and controlled by Fethullah Gülen. Moreover, Gülen himself was quite upfront about his Darwin criticism. So why do you deny that?

Azate 06:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You are doing original research. Show me an academic link classifying the movement like you are doing. Noone in this world other than you relates 'inteligent design' to 'Gulen Movement'. A person in that movement may or may not support the 'inteligent design' thing. I cannot believe my eyes: You are claiming that a person (Akyol) believes that inteligent design should be sopported, and he is the director of a platform, and that platform is alies with JWF, and the Foundation is under the control of GUlen movement so this movement can be catergorize as 'inteligent desing'?!. You made me laugh man! Did you lose your conscious? Really.
By the way you are also hiding the most important fact that he has never been convicted, which tells me a lot about your intentions. Please stop deleting the information and facts from the article. It is considered to be vandalism. Mokotok 07:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I can give you academic sources, but they're not online in fulltext. How about this article[6] by Gülen himself instead? Azate 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Being against Darwinism does not mean that the movement is 'inteligent design movement'. I cannot see any further explanations other than what I told above. Why do not you delete the names, Muslim, Christian, and Jew and combine all these religions under the name 'inteligent design movements'? What you are doing is against Wiki rules: 'no original research'! You cannot give me any reference, I know the issue very well. All you can give is your interpretations as you are doing so far which falls under 'original research'. Mokotok 07:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You know very well that mainstream Islam or Christianity have no problem with Darwin. And Gülen uses the very words "intelligent design" to describe his position here[7]. What else do you need? A "leader of an intelligent design movement" tattoo on his forehead? Azate 07:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I needed an explanation how can this movement can be categorized as 'inteligent design movement'. The article you are refering to is translated to the English in that way, it is not the same in Turkish verswion. Moreover, if you even assume that that is the case, that does not make the movement 'inteligent design movement'. They have totally different motivations, system, human resources and such. These two movements have no a single mechanism in common. Wake up!
Moreover, I will repeat the last time that you are doing original research here. Leave your logical explanations (or lack of thereof) or conclusions outside the article. Talk about the facts. I, and noone else, would like to see how you interpret the movement. The important point is how this movement is conceived by people in general. How academicians name it, etc. Mokotok 07:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, now it is a translation error, yes? Or you deny that Gülen is the sole boss if the of the 'Journalists and Writers Foundation'? That's bizarre. But ok, sources: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Azate 08:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Your list of links does not tell anything to me. What is your point? Go and discuss these with Akyol. You cannot categorize Gulen movement by using one of his followers (if that is so) ideas. Man! Mokotok 08:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

4 of the links are about Gülen himself. And now you deny that Akyol is a major figure of the Gülen movement? Azate 08:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Some are not working and clearly none of those support any of your claims. Yes, I claim with my whole hart that Akyol is not a major figure. Let me see if I can make myself clear this time: NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH here! Mokotok 09:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Ehm, he is the director of the Intercultural Dialogue Platform. Azate 09:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

standards needed to label Fethullah Gülen's as a "Intelligent design movement"

Quote from Gülen[15]:

"Planets and stars move within an interrelated complexity of drifts and orbits that are infinitely more precise than anything we could ever design or make. If what we make is accepted as evidence of intelligent design, why is the far more vast and complicated universe considered an exception to this rule? [...] To claim that this extraordinarily subtle and ordered universe is the outcome of haphazard coincidences is absurd, contradictory, and quite unscientific, for all the evidence points to the exact opposite. [...] As the result of long experiments and reflection, Muller declared that reason could not explain the origin of life. He established, on the behalf of science and scientists, the absurdity of "coincidence" as a possible explanation. [...] For example, many textbooks and encyclopedias continue to present humanity's evolution from apes to human beings as fact instead of theory. In reality, a growing number of scientists, most particularly evolutionists, argue that Darwin's theory of evolution is not a truly scientific theory at all."

The Muller he's talking about is, of course, H. J. Muller, "Reversibility in Evolution Considered from the Standpoint of Genetics," Biological Reviews 14 (1939), the ancient godfather of Intelligent Design[16]

Maybe, if the links I provided above are not to your liking, we should simply include Gülen's quote instead? Azate 11:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You are continuously trying not to understand me and distrot the facts. Gulen as a religious person is claiming that everything is created by God. Is it a surprise for you? If so why? He is giving examples of scientists who is at some proximity of creation. I like the truths and I ceratinly doublt if you do. You are continously deleting facts about his acquittla for example.
I am losing my hope that you will be able to see that you are doing original research here which is not allowed in Wiki. IF Gulen is quoting from a scientist (by the way, as another example of insincerety you are deleting the fact that he studied science) about an issue, an if he is an 'inteligent design' person, it does not imply that so is Gulen. But more importantly, this kind of reasoning is not allowed here. It should be widely accepted that Gulen movement is an 'inteligent design' movement by researcher to be able to say that. What is hard for you here to see?
We can add anything Mr. Gulen said into the article. We simply cannot add your interpretations. Mokotok 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I read this article and it seemed to me to make the teleological argument against atheism in a way that supports the statement that Gulen is an advocate of Islamic creationism. The article states that "he talked about" it, but gives no indication of his views other than an oblique reference in the Religion vs Science section "(see also: Teleological argument)". This section is uninformative, and should give a clear indication of his views which this article presumably reflects. He refers to "evidence of intelligent design", but while the writing suggests sympathy with that movement, this is common amongst creationists who see it as credible support for their position. It states at the foot of the page "Fethullah Gulen's Web Site Last Update: 05.05.2004 13:45 GMT -5" which suggests that it was written at a time when ID had more credibility, but the fact that it has not been updated suggests that Gulen's views have not changed. In conclusion, I see only indirect evidence that he can be considered part of the ID movement, but it is clear that he is an advocate of Islamic creationism and this should be made explicit in the article. ...dave souza, talk 22:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with dave souza. I wish people here could learn to read and be able to make a decision based solely on their knowledge. Gulen is an Islamic scholar. He believes that the whole universe is created by God. That is nothing to do with ID. Moreover when you are talking about a movement, you are talking about many components like human souces, material sources, techniques, hinterland, etc... There is no common factor or component between these two movements. Resid Gulerdem 06:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that Fethullah Gulen studied science well. If he did he would not talk about "scientific truths" in his webpage. There is nothing called "scientific truth". There are hypothesis, theories and laws in science which are all subject to change or modification through scientific methods. Theory of evolution is a theory and it can be changed or modified by scientific methods not with islam's, christianity's or any other religion's rules. I think Fethullah Gulen has to start from ABC of science for understanding it a little :) Caspase 02:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool down

I advise the most frequent contributors to this debate to be aware of WP:3RR. I suspect some of you might have run afoul of it already. Have a nice cup of tea instead... Deizio talk 09:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott (talk • contribs), Mokotok (talk • contribs) and Azate (talk • contribs) have been listed at WP:AN3 after analysis of the events on this article earlier today. This doesn't mean you will be blocked, especially as the article has been protected. I'd be happy to see everybody warned, but if another admin takes a look and decides that there was a breach of policy that warrants a block they would be within their rights to do so. Under 3RR guidelines, you should all be treated equally. Hopefully you guys can work out your differences on this one. Deizio talk 16:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that this edit war is mainly steming from Mokotok's unreasonability. He is fighting with Azate and Netscott who are trying to make the article neutral and not "an article of Fethullah Gulen's followers". It will be hard to work this war out because Mokotok is biasedCaspase 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see: Azate is hiding imporatant facts by blanking these facts from the article. Insisting to tag the article in contrast to me and the comunity here. Netscott is surprisingly support his actions by reverting the removal of the tag. He is not contributing the text largely. Mokotok, fortunately, is passionate about keeping the truths in the article. Light&Truth 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Azate is trying to hide the facts he dislike: he is trying to hide the fact that Gulen has never been conviced. How come you say that he is making the article neutral? He is doing original research and claiming that Gulen movement is 'inteligent design movement'. There is no any source about it other than his feling. How come in this world you are claiming that he is making the artcile neutral. What a shame! Mokotok 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you really believe that? Mokotok 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • New comments have been inserted into the middle of this dialog, which makes it very difficult to see who was replying to and agreeing with whom. My original comment, now removed to avoid such misinterpretation, followed Caspase's comment. It basically said that Woohookitty made a good block and that hopefully Mokotok, and anyone involved in breaching 3RR can and will get blocked for edit warring. There are thousands of controversial articles on WP, and editors are usually able to work together somewhat more harmoniously than has been demonstrated here thus far. I hope you guys work it out, I really don't anticipate any more involvement here on my part. Deizio talk 02:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I should say that unfortunately User:Deiz took a good picture of 'Turkish way of discussing the issues'. Yes, there are many other disputes all around but are not dealth with similar to how people are doing on this page. I think I will also reduce my appearence on this article, although I am one of the main editor of this article. I am tired of discussing issues at a fighting format, I am tired of explaining the same facts to the same people again and again, I am tired of seeing people do not know the issue but pretend like they know, I am tired of people trying to hide the facts they feel uncomfortable with, I am tired of seeing people who are egger to stick one more negative comment about the person in question into the article, etc. Writing a biased and negative article contradicts the main purpose of Wikipedia. Anybody cares? Really tired... Resid Gulerdem 06:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I protected this page due to the horrible edit war going on. I came across this page via AIV. Please discuss here, NOT in edit summaries. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me any rationale that you blocked me from editing but not Azate? Mokotok 21:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The current status of Gülen's 2000 trial

from the US department of state:[17]

"In August 2000, Islamic leader Fetullah Gulen was indicted for "attempting to change the characteristics of the Republic" by allegedly trying to establish a theocratic Islamic state. The prosecutor also alleged that Gulen attempted to "infiltrate" the military. The Government is seeking a maximum 10-year sentence based on Turkey's Anti-Terror Law. At the time of the indictment, the Chief of the Turkish General Staff said publicly that Gulen "plans to undermine the State" and has supporters in the civil service. Gulen, who is in the United States, is still being tried in absentia."

AFAIK, in 2003(sorry, typo) 2006 the case was dropped under a general amnesty.

Has somebody a good source that says otherwise? Azate 12:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is, you can definitely find the current situation from etiher Turkish or English sources. It is not surprising to me anymore that you are playing with the issue with some hope for distortion. Nevertheless I will help you on this:
Mokotok 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
He was aquitted because the law he was indicted and sentenced under in absentia was altered subsequently, under EU pressure. Those whose trial was based on the parts of the old anti-terror law that is no longer in effect got an amnesty. Azate 23:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
So you know what has happened but asking a question above: 'has someone a good source...'? Why is that? He did not get an amnesty. His advocates applied continuously for continuation of the trial because they believe that he was innocent. Eventually the case is reopened and is concluded based on the current laws. Mokotok 10:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nature and scope of suspicions against Gülen

"The state turned its worries into an indictment, accusing Gulen of quietly plotting an Islamic groundswell by gaining followers in high places and "brainwashing" school children. [...] the country's military and other groups still harbor doubts about Gulen's objectives. They are not alone. Many researchers find inconsistencies between the movement's pro-Western views and its appeal among Turkey's many conservative Muslims. 'That is why reactions to the movement have concentrated on the issue of having double agendas: public face and private truth,' said Hayrettin Yucesoy, a professor at Saint Louis University. 'Many are not sure if they see the movement and its aims clearly.'" (source: Human Rights Without Frontiers, 2005 report on Turkey[18])

Quote from the Gülen video tapes: (from HURRIYET, via Anadolu[19]) "Muslims must continue to serve like this until a certain point. If they strike early, the world will crush their heads like it happened it Algeria We should proceed further without making our presence felt too much. If we are going to return, we must not suffer any losses. This is very important for our future"

Gülen claimed first that the tapes were fabrications, then that he was giving employment advice, and finally that "the law tries actions, not the intentions" (ZAMAN, via Anadolu[20])

Of course, he was giving the advice to people about working in Algeria :)Caspase 13:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point. It must have benn about public sector work, too. Otherwise to "proceed further without making our presence felt too much" would be bad advice. Azate 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish Court's decision about Gülen for the accusations above and many other similar stories

If you do not share the decision made by a Turkish court to which I think you have some respect, that is your problem. The truth is the accusations above and many others resulted in acquittal. Mokotok 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in the end he was not sentenced. Exactly like Nixon. But while mentioning Watergate on the Article about NIxon doen't appear to be a problem, you removed any and all references to the substance of Gülen's Watergate moment, and insist that they not be mentioned because he was aquitted. That, dear Mokotok, will not happen. Azate 23:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
So, how come you are reverting my edits which state that he was acqitted? Can you further explain or find evidence for your claim: 'you removed any and all references to the substance of Gülen's Watergate moment, and insist that they not be mentioned because he was aquitted.'
I can feel your animosity towards Gulen but, Dear Azate, you will not able to hide the truth, even the ones you do not like. Mokotok 10:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Birthday of F. Gülen

Many may wonder why such a mundane detail is disputed here on the talk page (see Archive). But there's a weird history behind this. When he was young, Gülen said he was born in 1937[21]. Then, until quite recently, Gülen claimed to be born on 10 November 1938 (see here, for example, on his german homepage:[22]). Recently, this has changed to 27 April 1941 (see here, for example, on his english homepage:[23]). Why 1937, I don't know. Maybe he thought he would gain more repect by claiming to be older that he actually was. Maybe 1937 is true. Why 10 November 1938, is obvious to anybody in Turkey: It's the day Kemal Atatürk died, and is consequently loaded with symbolism his followers enjoy a lot. Why now 27 April 1941, again, I don't know. Maybe, now that he's old, he feels a litte rejuvenation is in order, or maybe it's true. Maybe it's because that was the day the war on the Soviet Union begun in WW II, and the day Athens fell. Azate 18:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

At the time he was born, as anybody in Turkey knows, the records especially in villages were not accurate. I know from my dad and mom that they never know the exact date they born. They do not know their exact age either. You can check it with your parents and grandparents. Knowing this and claiming such is not good. I am not sure that if he knows the exact date he was born or not.
I do not know German, and could not read your reference -and I do not care about it, simply because it is not a document showing that Gulen use different birthdays- but all I can say is that, Gulen has always been used his official birthday. Mokotok 22:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the german link. I will help you with a translation: 10 November 1938 in German is "10 November 1938". It's in the first line of the text. Why, again, does Gülen's german official page[24] say 10 November 1938, but his english official page[25] 27 April 1941 ?Azate 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I cannot see why you do not understand my remark above: At that time, the records are not accurate and I am not even sure Gulen himself know his birthday. I gave an example from my parents. That is possibly the reason for different account of the case. On the other hand, your links are not correct. The only german official website I am aware of is: this and his birthday is consistent on this version and on the english version. It is 1941. Mokotok 10:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
That's the Danish site, not the German one. Azate 17:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is the German site. The same date. Mokotok 18:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats de.fgulen.com. I was refering to www.fgulen.de [26], where, on the main page it says "Welcome to the official Fethullah Gülen site"[27](animation, top right) Azate 20:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Azate's vandalism and violation of WP:OWN

I would like to warn the editors and sysops about User:Azate's edits:

  • He is vandalising the page (blanking the page especially the facts that Gulen has never been convicted a crime)
  • He is insisting on his points (WP:POINT)
  • He is continuously posting an irrelevant tag which is removed by many editors on this article as the history page clearly indicates. It is irrelevant because:
    • He is able to make changes on the article and in fact changing it from head to toe anytime someone else edits the article
    • There is an ongoing work here
    • Taging an article with NPOV give a negative impression about the whole article. He does not bother himself explaining why it is POV especially after he make the revisions?
    • It is funny that he is inserting his POV and than using that to justify his NPOV tag
  • He is pretending like the article is his which violates WP:OWN. He is continuously reverting my edits, for example.
  • He is categorizing the page in an original way which has never been heard of. That violates the rule that 'original research' is not allowed.

I wonder if someone will say him: Stop! This is not your article to include your research and own interpretations. Light&Truth 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an attempt against the first property of Wikipedia: to be free!

The people who edited this article were extremely biased. I strongly believe that they are among the people who follow Gulen. I also believe that Light&Truth and Mokotok are followers of Fethullah Gulen. Because of that, they get angry with Azate's edits who is trying to give the view of people who are not Gulen's followers. Now, Light&Truth is trying to encourage force against Azate. I do not agree with that. Wikipedia is not theirs to write an article of their own and not allow other people to edit it. Caspase 02:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith and be smart

Well, what can I say: I am not even religious, set being a follower of an Islamic scholar. The difference between my edit above and your poor response here is: I am talking objectively about actions done by User:Azate, each and every one of them is well documented on this page, you are making a claim about my ideology which is not known to you. Can you see the difference? Wikipedia has set of rules I realized so far all violated by Azate: He is censoring the truth (no censorship), blanking the truth from the page (vandalism), reverting other editors edits (3rr), acting as an owner (wp:own). Assuming good faith is another rule here which I loved best, the other part of the title above is my suggestion to you. Light&Truth 02:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not make comments about my mental capability

OK. I can not know your ideology of course. This is internet. You can say anything about your ideology and I can not disprove it. I did not say that you had some ideology. I said "I believe". And from my experience in this particular Fethullah Gulen article that the editors here are very very rude, and attacking personnaly. I do not know where you guys learned it. In Wikipedia too? I do not think so.

Is there a regulation against people who are attacking personally? I do not like this at all. Netscott did not complain about it but Mokotok made a nasty attack to him also. In edit summary he wrote something like, go play with people who have the same low IQ with you. These are nasty personal attacks. If there is not, there should be some regulation for people's this kind of nasty behaviours. Can editors or sysopts that who will read this give me information about what to do for personal attacks? Thanks. Caspase 03:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So now what?

This talkpage should have made it abundantly clear that this is a hot topic. And yet, the defenders of Gülen don't even allow for inclusion of the adjective 'controversial'[28], let alone {{NPOV}} tags[29].

Instead they they make vitriolic remarks: "I have no time to play with kids. Be mature Netscott. Or go and play with the people of your IQ level :) The work is in progress and no tag is needed"[30] or "The NPOV tag is not needed because you ruined the whole article as you wished still crying. You are vandalizing the article still crying. You are hiding the facts and truth and pretending like you are trying to put it into NPOV form. It is so bad man, it is so bad."[31]

Even in the simplest of questions, like Gülen's date of birth, obvious contradictions beween two of Gülen's own official sites are simply denied to even exist.[32]

And this is not a recent phenomenon. Same thing as a year ago:[33]. So now what? How was this dealt with at, say, L. Ron Hubbard? Azate 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me tell you what we need to do now:
  • You should stop vandalising the page by blanking and removing necessary information and truth from it: It should not bother your that Gulen acquitted from the trial. It should not bother you that some secular groups supporting Gulen.
  • You should not insist on your tag in contrast to the community here. You are rewriting the whole article still tag'ing. (You are apperantly doing the same for years as you documented above.)
  • You should stop acting like it is your article.
  • You should not revert fellow editors edits.
  • You should stop categorizing the page with your POV.
  • You should quit calling the editors who would like to have an unbias article as follower or defenders of Gulen.
Then we will have a nice unbiased article. Mokotok 09:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This is obviously futile. The very people who got blocks for vandalism for reverting my edits now accuse me of vandalism and blanking and whatnot. People are being sytematically driven away from this article[34] [35]and drowned in empty accusations. Let's do substance, and start at the top, with the first sentences: Azate 19:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
To change the facts and truth or attempt to hide them is considered to be censorship and vandalism. These are the kindest terms I can come up with. If you do not change your attitude, any further attempts from you will be meaningless. You sound like you are new to this discussion and actually stating that explicitely here or there. It is clear from the references you are providing above that you are doing the same distortion for years. If you do not change your attitude, you will not be able to do any good to this article or Wikipedia. Mokotok 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
What? The first time I saw this article was less than a week ago. Attitude? Distortion for years? Just like everybody else, I can look up the history of this article. And what exactly is wrong with that diff[36] you're touting here? Is that all you can come up with? Azate 02:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I can find a better one actually but I think the discussion is going in the positive direction so I wont do it. I have a recommendation: It is good to think about the futre and ask the question: 'Now what?'. It would be more meaningful if you can also ask 'what have I been doing wrong so far?' to yourself. I think that would secure the healtiness of the future steps. If you cannot see what kind of mistakes you have had so far, you can review my last message. I can find some proofs from the history page for each claim there, if necessary. Light&Truth 04:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction sentences

This was the first section before I first edited this article, 4 days ago:

  • M. Fethullah Gulen is an Islamic scholar and thinker, a prolific writer and poet. He is trained in theology by several Muslim scholars and also studied the principles and theories of social and physical sciences.

This is the present one:

  • Muhammed Fethullah Gülen is a Turkish Islamic scholar and thinker, a prolific writer and poet, and the spiritual leader of Gulen's movement. He is trained in Islamic theology.

This is my proposal:

  • Muhammed Fethullah Gülen (born 10 November 1938/27 April 1941 in Pasinler, Turkey) is a controversial Islamic theologian and scholar, writer and poet, and the spiritual leader of of a network of schools, media, companies, activist groups and religious circles (cemaat).

because: a) when he is trained in theology, he is a theologian, and (due to his writing) scholar. This already encompasses thinker by definition. b) He is, predominatly, controversial. c) inclusion of place and date of birth in the firts sentence is standard. d) 'prolific' is subjective. 30 books isn't outstanding for somebody his age. e) he has not 'studied the principles and theories of social and physical sciences' in any meaningful way. (university, or equivalent). e) "Gülen's movement" isn't terribly precise: Better to summarize what the movement is and does. Azate 19:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Giving two dates for Gulen's birthday will not be meaningful to general audience. It can be mentioned that his official websites in German and English give both days. Caspase 00:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision of the article

Before getting into details, we should determine the structure of the article. The general structure can be as follows:

Structure of the article

  • Introduction
  • Biography
  • Philosophy
  • Works
  • Controversial
  • Bibliography

It is necessary to be cautious regarding the language used in this article and any other portraits. Trying to stick some irrelevant, contraversial, sarcastic expressions are not acceptable. I unfortunately can see that, people talking about my expressions and their being vitriolic do not hesitate to make similar even worse descriptions about the person in question. This is not the place to insult a person you dislike, it is a place to provide useful and correct information.

If you agree with the note above and general structure of the article, we can start working on the article. Mokotok 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Change "Conrtoversial" to "Controversies" and I'm in. Azate 02:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Works for me well, too. Let us see if we are able to write an article together. I would surprise but worths to try. I %100 agree with the statement that this article should not be used to insult a person. The facts need to be stated objectively. It may lead us to a relatively permanent version, at the end of the day. I will try to contribute as much as I can. Light&Truth 05:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Here is my suggestion for the first sentence of the introduction:

  • This is the old one: M. Fethullah Gulen is an Islamic scholar and thinker, a prolific writer and poet. He is trained in theology by several Muslim scholars and also studied the principles and theories of social and physical sciences.
  • This is the present one: Muhammed Fethullah Gülen is a Turkish Islamic scholar and thinker, a prolific writer and poet, and the spiritual leader of Gulen's movement. He is trained in Islamic theology.
  • This is Azate's proposal: Muhammed Fethullah Gülen (born 10 November 1938/27 April 1941 in Pasinler, Turkey) is a controversial Islamic theologian and scholar, writer and poet, and the spiritual leader of of a network of schools, media, companies, activist groups and religious circles (cemaat).
  • This is L&T's proposal: Muhammed Fethullah Gülen, born in 1941 in Erzurum, Turkey, is an Islamic scholar, writer and poet, and the spiritual leader of Gülen's movement. He is trained in Islamic theology by some Muslim scholars and studied the principles and theories of social and physical sciences by himself.
  • I definitely disagree with sticking the word 'contraversial' everywhere. In the intro there is a paragraph already clearly describe the nature of the controversies. There is another section at the end. We need to let everyone decide herself about the controversy part. There are many contraversial peoples with a plain introduction. Why this should be an exception.
  • I think 'teologian' is repetitive and needless. Because we alredy saying that he studied theology. Second thing is, anyone can be a Islamic theologian; Muslim or non-Muslim. So the description is not discriminatory. 'Scholar' better describe the case and enough.
  • I just check his website for the exact number of his books. There are 66 of them. Moreover he has countlessly many articles. I think the adj prolific is the least you can say. But if you want to take it off, I do not understand, but do not mind much. This make me feel that people suggesting to take it away are not looking at the issue objectively, on the other hand.
  • 'thinker' is needed, because he deserve more than that. I remember, one of the idol of my youth, Cem Karaca, an Armenian origin Turkish singer, was calling Gulen as 'a great philoshoper'. I agree with him. Gulen is really open minded person and that is why I am here.
  • It sounds like he studied the basics of especially social but also physical sciences. It is very obvious in any piece of his work. That is another reason I am interested in the works of this person. We used to see the religious leaders who are not aware of any scientific developments. He has an extra-ordinary genious and know science very well: philosophy, sociology, phychology, history.. If you review his conference on Darwinism (agree or disagree with him) for example, you will see how he is using the physical sciences (biology, thermodynamics, physics) and mathematics (probability and such) as an expert. It is important to explain that he knows these stuff becasue it is another important point which makes him distinct from the others. Moreover he studied all he knows mainly by himself, so if calling him a teologian is maningful, this statement should make sense as well. Lastly, if someone know something, it is really absurd -sorry for my language- try not to mention or hide that. I cannot understand that approcah at all. As an history major, I learned quite a lot from his works about history, for example.
  • The description of the Gulen movement need not to be in a single sentence at the beginning. A reference to the movement, as I did, is way to go. The beginning sentence better be brief. We have the ability of putting links in our disposal. Light&Truth 05:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet RFCU

RFCU has confirmed[37] User:Rgulerdem to be the puppeteer of User:Mokotok and User:Light&Truth. All 3 were blocked indefinitely. Azate 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/t/Talk%7EFethullah_G%C3%BClen_Archive_2_fd9f.html"