Talk:Fethullah Gülen/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: OK, as as first teaser I submit this 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV tags 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A brief summary 

message: A request for unprotection was posted at WP:RPP. Do the other contributors here also feel that enough time has elapsed and that the edit-warring will stop? AmiDaniel (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the disruptive editor who caused difficulties (and his sockpuppets) have been permanently blocked now. Netscott 01:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, give me just a second, and I'll unprotect it. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection?