Talk:Fethullah Gülen/Archive 1

message: I was planning to clean this article up, but it's too big a job for this hour of the morning.  Half the article is "he's our saviour", the other half "WHAT A FRAUD DON'T LISTEN TO THAT GUY HE'S BEEN BRAINWASHED".
"Brainwash" guy, you're almost certainly right, the original author(s) have taken the kool-aid for certs.  But vandalising the damn page is not the way to go about fixing the article.  How about, instead of writing dodgy graffiti all over the thing and complaining that it's not NPOV, you go in and write the article properly.
I might have a go at fixing the article properly in a couple days, if I a) get around to it, and b) find a trustworthy source.  Already I've been stymied by a quick Google: this page agrees with the article that he was born in November 1938, but Gülen himself claims to have been born April 27 1941.  When was this man born????  And that's the least of the troubles!
--MarkGallagher 19:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what a mess! 

message: Please discuss on this talk page prior to deleting significant content.  Thanks.  -- JamesTeterenko 16:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of significant content 

message: I haven't seen any apology anywhere except your claim here... I will not answer you if you do not sign your talk anymore. Do not write just a name, please sign it using four tilde. Isn't it a rule for a discussion talk here in Wikipedia? Why are you hiding? I want to know who I am talking to. 
You are not telling the truth, and not honest. I repetedly talked to you and asked you to stop deleting what I write in the discussion page... Would you like someone else delete what you wrote in a discussion page? How can an editor agree with you while you are breaking the rules?
If you show me where you apologized, and if you sign (four tilde) your talks in later correspondences, we can discuss further, but only then... I can forget about it this time...
Resid Gulerdem 05:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology? Where is it? 

message: The critical is deleted together with some links which are either out of contex or old. Some Turkish links are irrelevant here simply because the reader has no chance to check and verify. I havent touch them yet but they need to be removed. As a Turk with ability to evaluate the Turkish links, I consider that they are completely out of context. The links are no way justify the claims proposed. I can discuss further with anybody interested.
I will try to put some critical views in an objective manner without any misleading arguments soon. Moreover there in fact no reason to have another section while we have the section Recent Controversial.
Thanks Wolverine for your comments above...
Resid Gulerdem 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical 

message: There was no mention of his philosophy and what he has done so a seperate section is added and will be improved.
Resid Gulerdem 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Philosophy and activities 

message: This part is modified. It had false statements in it...
Resid Gulerdem 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Controversial 

message: I have just added two tags to the article.  One regarding NPOV and the other regarding style.  I have also left messages on Portal talk:Turkey and Portal talk:Islam inviting others to come by to take a look.  I think we need more editors familiar with the subject matter in order for this to be productive.  To start with my comment about style, please see the following: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context for a starting point.  There are way to many wikilinks in this article.  -- JamesTeterenko 04:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added tags 

message: James, thanks for pointing it out. I didn't know that policy regarding the internal links. The article is cleaned up now. It is also good idea to call others for more contributions... Best.
Resid Gulerdem 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up done 

message: You can argue wheather he is a Nurcu or not. But what you did you revert back to all these false statements. Why you just do not add the term Nurcu into the first paragraph, if that is the problem?
The current version is much objective and realistic. In your version you give a wrong and negative impression to the reader at the very first paragraph intentionally. It is not acceptable.
To return the whole article is a vandalism and you are doing it now. 
If his philosophy is stated in an unappeptable manner, why you didnt improve it but just deleted it?
Please stop reverting the article but discuss you opinions before doing it. One you get a ceoncensus then you can do it. 
I suggest to keep the version we had before and work on it gradually step by step till getting a copnsensus. Than you can make changes...
128.255.45.117 17:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for my incorrect edit summary (that your revision was not discussed on the talk page).  I'm not particularly knowledgeable on this topic, but I felt that your revision removed a lot of context that's important to understanding both sides of the article. For instance, in your revision, the controversial videotapes are mentioned but without ANY description of what "appeared" to be on them.  I think that inclusion is necessary for some balance (since the article goes on to describe Mr Gülen's assertion that the tapes were fabricated via cutting-and-pasting out-of-context talks. Maybe the current revision has areas that need to be toned down or balanced, but removal of large sections (as well as pro/con external links) makes it appear that the article has been "sanitized."  Ohnoitsjamie 17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You cleaned up whetever right in the article 

message: Dear Mr ???
I still do not know why you hesitate to put your name on? Who are you? Why you are doing this? It is  not so hard to put -four tilde-, is it?
1. We discussed the first paragraph, and you revert back, why? It includes insult to him and people respect him. Besides, your claims are not true... Refer back to my previous answer about it. Which any other portrait you could show me that at the very first sentence it tries to blame on the person in question. I gave an exaple of Ataturk. We both like him. But at the same time he is as contraversial as Mr. Gulen in Turkey. That is a fact... In fact your article claims that at leaset Mr. Gulen and his followers do not like him. As I said before, would that be good to start with an insult to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, just because many people dislike him: "M. Kemal Ataturk, first president. His supporter call him as a genious, bur detractors call him an 'infidel' who converted a religious society to a secular state which has no tolerance to religious people"? Why do not answer this? Let us make this change for Ataturk article... Would you? I wouldn't... It would not be good in terms of academic objectivity...
: The point was made above so i will cut it short: First I deduce you accept that GUlen is controversial, correct me if  I am wrong. As for Ataturk, everybody has critics, so whether to include that in the introduction depends on the degree of controversy. In evaluating Ataturk, the first things that come to mind are the national independence war and his reforms. No mainstream political group questions Ataturk's reform in current Turkey, each classroom still has his pictures. EVen tough critical of his reforms attribute excesses to deragators after his death. GUlen is a far far more controversial person. To make my point more clearly, note that L. Ron Hubbard article in wikipedia mentions he is controversial, becuase of the magnitude of public controversy surrounding the movement.  DOnt get me wrong, Fethullah Gulen is very different from him in his relation to Islam and his teachings, but wouldnt you say the degree of controversy regarding GUlen in TUrkey is comparable? I assume you are old enough to remeber the shock the tapes caused back in 1997, and you probably follow the extent of coverage Turkish newspapers devote to various controversies surrounding the group, which probably is more than that devoted to HUbbard in the US.
2. In your very links (Sabah) I just showed you that, in fact the article talks about why he is not Nurcu. Couldn't you check it?
: I dont have the exact same impression, that's why i quoted it in the first place, if you agree with the methodology i propose below let go further into this topic.
3. Why do not you let there be a section which explain his ideas. It might not be perfect, but I will work on it. I am sure many other people will help on it... What is your point? 
: I do, but why you add material that significantly lowers the quality of the article, both in terms of style and content, why make an article wose than it is with the hope that later some other person can make it better? 
4. Please stop reverting back, again and again.  Let us talk about the article starting from the first paragraph. 
: See below, the proposal
Is the first paragraph I propose bad for you? And if so why?
:See below,  the proposal. BAroqqque jan 10
Resid Gulerdem 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop vandalizing! 

message: Hi,
I think that there is no concensus about the intro yet. You declared (in Turkish version) an early victory... As far as I got from Jamie's contributions that he also agreed on leaving the critics to the article itself not at the introduction. 
I reverted back the intro. In my version there is no comment at all. It is completely objective. On the versions you insist, there are insults far beyond the critiques.
I havent reverted the whole article...
216.248.123.207 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I start this section so we can follow up on arguments over the edit war without starting a new each time.Baroqqque 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DISCUSSION ON EDIT WAR

message: I had summarized points of aggrement and disaagrement on the introduction before;  in order to facilitiate coming  up a neutral version I paste it again. 
Points of diagreement: 
:1) Format: 
::Disagree:B thinks the proposed version is too long , the introduction should be similar in length to the preedit war version 
:2) First sentence: 
::Agree: As in the current version preacher should be included(???) 
::Disgree: G thinks philosopher, poet should be added, B thinks as in the preedit war version they should be left for later, as they are controversial. 
::Disagree: G thinks he should not be qualified as a Nurcu as it is in the preedit war version, B partially aggrees, but contends the sentence should contain a reference to his strong influence on a well organized islamic group. 
:3) Second/ third sentences: 
::Disagree: B thinks, as in the current version, the controversy regarding Gulen's group, in the larger context of debate on secularism should be included, G does notBaroqqque 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DISCUSSION ON INTRODUCTION

message: I improved intro a little bit and put into an unbiased form. The critics should be left to critical section in the article. Resid Gulerdem 02:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The critical part is slightly modified. Irrelevant and Turkish links deleted. The reader no way can understand a Turkish link, besides some are irrelevant.
Need more work... Resid Gulerdem 02:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contraversies 

message: A request for mediation was made about a month ago here. Although this was a while ago, the mediation has been accepted and opened. If the issues that caused the mediation to be requested still haven't been resolved, then please join the mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Fethullah Gulen/Workshop. If there is no longer a need for mediation, let me know.
While the mediation is active, please keep any discussion related to whether Fethullah Gülen is being depicted in a neutral manner or not on the mediation page, so that we don't have many arguments spread out over the wiki.
Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk  (RFC) 21:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the mediation request was put in, both sides seem to have put forth efforts to resolve some of the POV issues. Looking at the current version, there still may be one or two sections that could stand to be toned down a little. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I'll leave the mediation up for another few days in case anyone feels different. However, if things are starting to be resolved here, it may be best to let them continue as they are going, and not spark up any more disagreements on the mediation page. — Asbestos | Talk  (RFC) 14:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation