Talk:Fethullah Gülen/Archive 3

"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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.233.71 (talk)

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)

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[1] 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)