Talk:Fethullah Gülen/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Laicism and Fethullah Gulen

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: You are welcome... I hope it is satisfactory. 216.248.123.82 07:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question to the editor of this article

message: 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)
replies: text: The one estimate I've seen put the assets of Gülen's organizations at USD 25 billion.. 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"(p.41) Azate 14:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money 

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: 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)
replies: text: ,  and  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  Do you really believe that? Mokotok 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Cool down 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[User:Azate|Azate]]'s vandalism and violation of [[WP:OWN]] 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Assume good faith and be smart 

message: 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)
thread_title: Do not make comments about my mental capability

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction sentences 

message: * 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)
replies: text: Change "Conrtoversial" to "Controversies" and I'm in. Azate 02:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Structure of the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: RFCU has confirmed 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)
thread_title: Sockpuppet RFCU