Talk:Fethullah Gülen

Archives
1	2	3

The NPOV tag

I put the NPOV tag back into the article. I outlined my reasons above repeatedly. Inserting this tag does not constitute an "edit war", or "disruption and vandalism" from my side, as User:Nandesuka appears to claim[1][2]. Actually, I simply follow proper procedure (From Wikipedia:POV_Cleanup): "Guidelines for cleanup - 1. If the discussion presents major issues that have not been fixed in the current article version, even if the discussion is old, leave the NPOV tag on so it can be cleaned up in the future. 2. If the issues are minor and there is no recent discussion, remove the tag. (If someone disagrees they can just put it back!)". This tells me two things: 1. You (Nandesuka) shouldn't remove the NPOV tag. 2. I "can just put it back". No edit war here. Azate 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be an outstanding issue here that can't be corrected with some editing, I've removed the tag. We'd do much better to adress one point at a time until the article is fixed, rather than by simply having a tag there. Several points I've raised below, for example, are drawing serious silence as a result. - brenneman ^{L} 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

None of these points[3] have been addressed. That they could be "corrected with some editing" is a bit of a truism, and doesn't change the fact that they haven't been addressed yet. Your putting up apparently random bits of the article for discussion (see "Lead section" and "Biography" below) doen't change that either. These bits may still be unsourced, but they are not exactly disputed, so I don't see any urgency to address them in depth before the big picture is sound. Per Wikipedia:POV_Cleanup, I re-insert the POV tag, but I will not start to edit this article again until that football World Cup is over. Azate 11:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the skinny: Adding the tag w/o editing the article or taking part in talk is disruption, and if you do it again I'l block you. Was that clear enough? - brenneman ^{L} 12:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman, Wikipedia:POV_Cleanup does not apply here? Netscott 12:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What in that name of corn on the cob in that little page applies here? If there is ongoing discussion and you don't participate in it, you don't get to just drop a tag and run. The point of the tag is... what again? Edit the article: Clearly articulate specific concers with suggestions, provide examples of proposed re-writes with new sources. Re-applying the tag makes no effort to solve any problems with the article. - brenneman ^{L} 12:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I "don't participate in ongoing discussion"? Surely you're joking? Have you looked at the archieved talk pages? I have also edited this article a lot (and I don't mean the POV tag). Problem is, most of it was reverted by now-blocked editor User:Rgulerdem. This was pretty stressful and I need a break. Now you want to block me for disruption[4]? Who, exactly, am I disrupting? And the point of the POV tag, as you correctly say, is to indicate to editors that the article needs attention. (It still does - there are major omissions - or do you think it's NPOV as it is presently?) It doesnt mean that I, personally, have to edit it right now. Azate 12:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can somehow apply the tag without editing the page, go for it. But if you need a break, take it. Don't have one foot in the door to only put the tag on and to argue about it staying. It's up to the people who are editing the page do decide the fate of the tag, that's me as well as you. I opened some discussion, thundering silence. I make some big edits, louder silence. I remove the tag and then you re-apply the tag and come to the talk page? That's disruption. Work on the article, stop arguing about the tag. - brenneman ^{L} 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that this period of "loder than thundering silence" between your "big edit"[5] and your removal of the tag[6] was a mere 5 minutes. This makes your argument appear a lot less convincing than you probably intended. Your attempt to "open some discussion" (I assume you refer to the section "sources/lead section/biography" below) is really just a pretense of a discussion - a challenge and empty posturing: None of the fragments you listed there is disputed in the least, neither by Gülen's followers or opponents, nor by neutral observers with either in-depth or just rudimentary familiarity with the topic. All you did was outing yourself as somebody who has never even heard of the subject before, but still tries to enforce his editing pattern. I said it before, but I'll repeat it again for your benefit: This article is totally distorted not for what it contains, but for what it lacks, and an hour or two of googling will help little to cure it. A several years thick stash of old issues of the Middle Easten Journal and similar publications would be more likely to do the trick here. You want to improve this article now? Is this what I'm supposed to read into your removal of the NPOV tag? Great, go ahead! Or do you think the tag is unnecessary because the article is in good order already? Then you're just a fool. But I'm out of this one way or the other - I'm completely unwilling to work for free and on schedule and under the ill-tempered supervision of people who are both ignorant of the subject and maliciously arrogant in their interpretation of written policy or guidelines. Azate 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Or, maybe he's honestly trying to help improve the article, and you're being unreasonably hypersensitive. I mean, it's just a thought. Nandesuka 02:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, you're simply saying that you won't work on improving the parts of the article that I discussed. That if work doesn't progress on your part then the tag must remain? The tag is not there to be talked about, it is supposed to make ediotrs talk about the article. Make a concise suggestion about a specific part of the article, please. Enough about the tag. - brenneman ^{L} 03:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I'm suggest we look at this article a section at a time, including only statements that can provide a reliable source as a reference. Then the only question is around acceptable sources. After each bullet point can we list possible citations. - brenneman ^{L} 01:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

• Wikipedia:Lead section
  • "Fethullah Gülen is easily the most influential Turkish Islamic figure of his generation"
  • "groups in Turkey remain suspicious"
  • "Radical religious groups, on the other hand, object to his methods"

Biography

• "Gülen's audience base began to expand"
• "more versatile than that of most preachers"
• "referred to [...] as an exemplary Muslim"

State and social issues

This section is totally without sources. I'd propose that it be moved to the talk page until it does. - brenneman ^{L} 01:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the section here until it has some references. - brenneman ^{L} 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

State and social issues

Islamic movements of the 20th century were usually strongly influenced by Arab or Iranian revolutionary tradition, where political or militarist organizations are integral components. While these movements have influence in Turkey as well, Gülen based his movement on faithful individuals with strong moral values. He rejects imposing Islamic rules and regulations on the people by a take-over of the state, unlike other movements. The sole aim of a person should be pleasing God. Gülen expects that Turkish Islamic tradition will be widely accepted and liked in the West.

Gülen's approach puts the emphasis on representing Islam in a good manner, rather than spreading the Islamic message to others, deviating from many Islamic scholars in that regard. Being a modern and perfect representative of true Islam at the universal level is considered to be the main aim in the movement. This approach will turn out to be the tool for conveying Islamic consciousness to new generations in schools and other institutions. Morals cannot and must not be taught but will be absorbed from the example of a virtuous teacher.

Gülen suggests to avoid confrontation with the state, and to respect the establishment. Globalization is a fact and should be encouraged: Open borders are beneficial for Islam, as Islam is complete and strong. There is nothing to fear and isolation will not work. The material and ideological dependence on the West must be overcome. The Muslim World in general, and Turkey and Turks in particular must claim their place and right in world politics and should become a dominant factor.

Engagement in politics is prohibited and considered evil. Worldly desires like wealth, office and money should be fought with a 'spiritual jihad'.

Obstacles should be avoided, not engaged, for societal peace. Conflicts should be examined and preferably avoided.Opponents of the movement should be approached nicely, disregarding their behavior.

High work ethics and efficiency is akin to prayer. Human and material sources of the movement should be used wisely and efficiently, this not only being an Islamic rule but also because donations of Turkish businessman being limited.

Cemaat (loose circles of organizations, connected by personal contacts and common belief) are the most efficient form of organization, both for personal spiritual welfare and societal aims.

"Turkey and Turks in particular must claim their place and right in world politics and should become a dominant factor.": I propose to add that Gülen's vision of Turkey's "place and right" encompasses the entire Ex-Ottoman empire + Europe + the Ex-USSR + parts of China and other counties "up to the Pacific". Source: [7] Azate 12:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am totally unable to confirm what that citation says, but clearly that is my failing alone. I'd suggest that we treat the above paragraphs as a working template, and add the citations directly into it. - brenneman ^{L} 12:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

the dissertation is available online and for free as a PDF at the link I provided, so this can't be the problem. It's on page 128. Even if you don't speak German, you may get the gist of it. It's right behind the passage where Gülen's theory, that the American Indians are actually Turks, is discussed. I'm off for today: Football! Azate 13:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Err... it's actually that I can't get the page to load, but that information will help as I'm going to examine the link at the library webcentre. - brenneman ^{L} 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

brenneman, it appear that User:Azate has left the project. Bummer really he's been a great contributor on a wide variety of articles. See this as well. Netscott 00:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that does seem a shame. But isn't this exactly what I was saying?
brenneman ^{L} 01:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you kindly un-sprotect this article? With User:Azate's apparent departure from the project I fear that this article is a lost cause and because of that without a {{NPOV}} tag and low interest in editing on this article there's no need to sprotect it any longer. Thanks. I'm "unwatching" the article now. Netscott 14:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing sections

The sections Fethullah_Gülen#Religion_vs_Science and Fethullah_Gülen#Education are also without sources. I propose that they either be summarised down to two sentances each or be removed until sources are found to support them.
brenneman ^{L} 06:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed those sections until sources are provided. - brenneman ^{L} 09:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lots of words

It's much too long, this talk. I'm going to archive soon. - brenneman ^{L} 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Like now. - brenneman ^{L} 12:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Earlier points

I've tried to sumarise Azate's points. Please check my work. - brenneman ^{L} 06:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Biography part wrong, part incomplete.
  • Date of birth
  • Missing
    • The "business angle"
    • The cooperation with US-intelligent design pushers
    • Role in Turkish politics missing/wrong
• The "philosophy and views" section omits
  • Beiliefs that sound "bizarre to laymen ears."
  • Ideosyncratic style of preaching on TV
• His media empire needs naming names.

He is just not the person that he looks he is. --Mko 19:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

AZATE's contributions

First some history; I had contributed the bulk of the article back last year (the wording of the parts that I had contributed seem to have been twisted by Gulen's group), but then rgulerdem, almost certainly a follower of gulen, began modifying the article, and i had to spent my time almost exlusively to correct his modifications, a process that you can track from the discussion page, and at the end, was frustrated and left. Apparently he is now identified as a puppetmaster, both in the turkish and english wikis. Unfortunately, i do not think the article will be free of intervention; the following is a link to gulerdem's email to one of the mailing lists of gulens schools, in short, it complains of the treatment he received for this article, asks his friends to become membersof wikipedia, get a member of the group elected to being a moderator, and thereby modify the article as they see fit. Far-fetched plan, but is an indicator of what to expect. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Turk_Okullari/message/577

First suggestion: I read some of what Azate wrote, he knows the subject, its unfortunate he left the project, at the very least i suggest his previous deleted contributions are added back. Is there a way to bring him back? Second suggestion: I do not know wiki rules well,is there a category of protection, where only moderators can make a change? otherwise any attempt to improve the article will be moot in the long run. Third suggestion: If you read the discussions, you must at this point be aware that partly due to GUlen groups investment in education they have created their own literature, and for someone unfamiliar with the subject it is difficult to sort out objective articles from those written by members/affliates of the group. One solution I can suggest is to consult with Turkish wikipedia editors, who have survived through a similar attack, and have a better knowledge of the background and the actors. baroqqque

Some Changes

Im some changes in the article, who else is still working on it? The changes are reversions from changes by RGulerdem and his evil puppets and some more, listed in detail below: 1) Reverted first paragraph:hi sonly official position was that of a preacher, and his training in islamic sciences was informal, from other sectarian, religious figures in his town, so do not really deserve mention in the first paragraph. About him being an islamic thinker, and the interfaith issues, those are controversial, so I put two views on him in the second sentence. 2) The current biography follows more or less what I wrote, but with partial wording twists; i reverted back to the original biography, which also contains references. 3) I tried to make his belief system sound coherent based on what was already in the article. It still is inadequate; this is partly because the movement has adopted mystical approaches of Nursi while assuming a conservative public stance. 4) I added some turkish sources, as there is limited news coverage in English on Gulen, si that against the policy? baroqqque

A concern

Hi, I would like to thank to the people contributed to this page. I am planning to contribute to it too. I quickly realized that some of the contributors are acting bias. They are posting the claims answered before on this page. The answers can be found here. In fact some of them are side of the argument and still insist on their incorrect statements.

Another tactic they used to use is declaring someone being puppet of someone else contributed to this page earlier. That is certainly unacceptable. I would like people refrain themselves from naming others who do not think as they do as puppets.

It is clear that the current contributors are not able to get a consensus. Therefore I ask someone moderate the discussion.

Thanks in advance. Bismihi 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Note

I askled user Azate to stop violating 3rr rule on his/her talk page. Bismihi 18:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Bismihi, (probably same as 128.101.154.52) is very likely User:Rgulerdem's newest sockpuppet incarnation. He is reverting the Artcle quickly and repeatedly to Rgulerdem's May/June 2006 version, thereby deleting content critical of Gülen and pimping up Gülen's image with flowery odes. He is also flat out lying in his edit comments. Watch out! Azate 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am ready to discuss any point you can make here. How many people you made regret to edit on this page so far. Are all puppets? Is there anyone in this world who think differently than you but not a puppet? Are you a puppet of barouqqq? Bismihi 21:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes

While the article protected, there have been some changes made to it. I am reverting it back to the version many worked on for long. It is surprising that Azate is also reverting the version to which he made many contributions. The history page is full of its evidence. What has changed? It is not possible that the facts about a person change from one day to other. Bismihi 21:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not wholesale revert the article to a previous revision. A lot of work has been done by independent editors to cite sources, and when you revert, that work is lost. Please identify the specific problems you have with the existing version before proceeding. Thanks. Nandesuka 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem starts with the citations themselves. It is a "specific enough" problem I believe. The references are not in English. They are not reliable on the other hand. This is an English Encyclopedia and there is no room for references in different languages. The reader no way can justify the claims in those remarks. I will revert the form once more which can form a basis for health discussions. It is clear from the history that the editor Azate himself also contributed to most of the version I am reverting to. I do not know what has changed now? I sincerely ask you please look at the history carefully, and do not revert back to a version that discussed a lot and eventually corrected in most parts. This version I am reverting to is supported by many editors for months. Can't you just please check the history of discussion and article pages. Isn't it waste of time to get into the same discussions again and again? If you want me specifically find evidences of my claims above I can find links for each of them. A quick review of the history will make it clear to you as well. Please not that, one-two people here having opportunist tactics. They keep others away from the article and revert it back to a years old version. All those contributions in between are getting lost. Moreover the article gets biased! Thank you. Bismihi 19:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, please be careful in reverting the article. The people acting opportunistly here are pushing a version dates back to August 2005. Here are the links if you do not want to check it yourself:

If you want to check how old this version is, please look at the following links:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=next&oldid=21039033
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=prev&oldid=21247847
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=next&oldid=21343813
4. Pay attention here to a name you might think familiar (the same editor reverted back to his/her version recently): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=next&oldid=21967074
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=prev&oldid=23140176
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=prev&oldid=32286866
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=next&oldid=27934275

If you want to see that Azate was one of the contributor of this version I reverted to, you can see the edits from the edits

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=54128047&oldid=54126424

to

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=54150016&oldid=54149982

or others around the same time. If you want to see how barouqque behaved in this discussion, check the history of the discussion page. I do not want to believe that you would like to revert to an antient and biased version.

Thanks for understanding. Bismihi 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)