Talk:Fethullah Gülen/Archive 3

Fresh start
Recent edit war over. Fresh start.

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&amp;Truth 06:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Sockpuppet commentary struck. Netscott 15:23, 5 June 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 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)

Azate, I can see the link, but I could not quite see what is that for. The editor of the article is not known to me and I tend to refer to the official website and mainly the articles approved by him, not any commentary on it.

I am not sure if you are on turf but I can see that you know quite some about the movement. What I am missing is the academic and unbiased interpretation of the knowledge which is as important in my opinion. The talk pages are open to POV but sometimes they are alarming about how the quality of the contribution to the main article may be.

I should add that not all of your contributions seems to be problematic to me. I do not know how the others feel about it. I put it into an extended (and hopefully) better from using some of your points. Please review and let me know what you think. Quiting this 'tag the article' war seems to be pretty wise to me. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 07:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A brief summary
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Unprotection?
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)
 * Yes the disruptive editor who caused difficulties (and his sockpuppets) have been permanently blocked now. Netscott 01:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, give me just a second, and I'll unprotect it. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

tag
i took the tag off because it is not needed please do not post it without explaining why you think it should be posted  am I asking something hard to understand TheLightning 09:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Being that your very first edits are to remove the tag I believe you to be a sockpuppet of User:Rgulerdem whose previous sockpuppets behaved identically. If you contine you will be sent for WP:RFCU to determine if you are indeed User:Rgulerdem. Netscott 09:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I recently unprotected this article; however, seeing as there are already two individuals pushing the limit on 3RR, I'm starting to wonder if this was a correct decision. Please let me know if I need to protect again, and I'll be watching the changes to this article quite closely. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it may need be. The article indeed needs NPOV on it despite the apparent sockpuppet of User:Rgulerdem thinking otherwise. Netscott 09:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to protect it. Netscott 09:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Daniel, I am asking a valid question he is making an invalid accusation could you please help me to show him that if he is posting a tag there should be a reason for it thank you TheLightning 09:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If User:TheLightning is not a sockpuppet then this is an accurate description of that user as this is the first editing that account has done outside of their user and talk page. Netscott 09:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * experienced users should be more careful for not violating the rules you are violating 3rr at this point moreover no answering my question why you think the tag is needed thank you TheLightning 09:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely protect in the previously protected version if you would AmiDaniel which would allow you to do so in an unpartisan fashion. Thanks. Netscott 09:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

is it because you like that version TheLightning 10:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to avoid protecting and/or blocking for 3RR as long as I possibly can. Seeing as it was just unprotected today, I'm going to hope that you two can talk this out and refrain from edit-warring--but if you can't I'll be left with no other option. While I'm not going to endorse any version of the article, I would like to ask TheLightning to refrain from removing the tag, as it would seem that the neutrality of the article is disputed, but that's the closest to an opinion you'll get out of me. At the same time, if the tag's removed, don't add it back--discuss it. I really wish everyone could just stick to WP:1RR in these situations. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User:TheLightning is likely a sockpuppet and will likely be soon blocked. Please see this report. For these reasons the version should in an unpartisan fashion be reprotected on the previoulsy protected version. Netscott 10:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Daniel, i just wanted to know why nescott believes that the tag is necessary   if i know it we can fix the problem    he is not making any solid claim but just posting tag to the article    dont you think it is valid to ask why and till what specific time you want to have it     will the article have a tag all the time     if editors do not know what is the reason for the tag how can one fix it       thank you TheLightning 10:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Should have looked more carefully at the contribs. Given this user's brief edit history I have no doubt in my mind that he is a sock puppet of User:Rgulerdem and will block him accordingly. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User is now blocked, and the article has been restored to the previous version by Netscott. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I also see that Freakofnurture just s-protected, which I was just about to suggest. If you have anymore problems with sockpuppets, drop me a note. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * i think the tag is irrelevant as there is no explanation why it is needed. i would like to remove the tag if there is no objection.  if there is please explain why do you think it is NPOV and how can that be corrected. we cannot have a tag on this article forever and ever.  there is only one editor (Netscot) insisting on the tag and does not give any explanation at all why. he also does not contribute to the article other than tag posting. that is not acceptable. 12.206.233.75 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you remove the tag you are likely to face blocking. Until issues that are addressed above are remedied the tag stays. I would recommend that you write to User:Azate who originally placed the neutrality tag as to whether it should continue to still be displayed on this article or not. Netscott 15:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * i dont ask permission form neither you nor someone else. if one come and would like to post it we can discuss why. if you dont have an explanation for NPOV that is the end of the story. 12.206.233.75 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please prepare to be blocked shortly. Netscott 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * because admins are servants of your POV?
 * No, because of your editing pattern it is clear to see that you are the permanently blocked editor Resid Gulerdem editing via an anonymous IP address. Netscott 15:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * how many editors you made blocked by playing the same game. pattern? i think the admins are not as blind as you may think. 12.206.233.75 15:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

12.206.233.75 or Resid Gulerdem, please find yourself another job than vandalising this article. Caspase 00:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * do you think it is smart to name whoever edits this page (and you dislike) rgulerdem 12.206.233.75 21:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fellow editors like User:Caspase, User:Azate, User:Absar, and other IPs who've edited without the use of sockpuppets/sock IP addresses haven't been called Rgulerdem. Netscott 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are a phenomenon 12.206.233.75 or Resid Gulerdem in Wikipedia. I learned about your thinking and behaving patterns from your edits and I think you are a phenomenon. I repeat, please find yourself another job than vandalising this article.Caspase 23:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag: Third Party Opinion
Hi. I'm an administrator coming here based on a recent request on WP:AN/I. I have a long edit history at Wikipedia, and am nobody's sockpuppet. I don't know much about Turkish history, and I don't claim to be an expert or have any ideological axe to grind.

The template has a very specific purpose:  as a temporary tag to be put in place while the article is fixed. It is a serious tag, and should be taken seriously. However, there are responsibilities that go along with placing the tag. Specifically, it is an abuse of the tag to place it on an article without specifying precisely what in the article violates the NPOV policy. There's a tendency sometimes to slap the tag on the article just because a given article doesn't agree with one's point of view. If we allowed that as a valid use of the tag, every article in the encyclopedia would always have that tag on it.

In this case, the tag was added by User:Azate on May 18th. Azate called out two specific problems with the article: the fact that the "controversies" section did no more than just name various opponents, and did not actually describe their arguments, and that the article did not discuss the influence of Nursi on Gülen's thought. It appears to me that those issues are now adequately addressed in the article. I am therefore removing the NPOV tag. It seems to me that the various parties editing this article have become more interested in playing kick-the-can with the tag than with actually improving the article. I urge you to accept this third party perspective.

I ask that all parties honor the removal of the tag. If you believe the article is truly still violating WP:NPOV, create a subsection below and present your arguments. Do remember to be specific. For example "This article whitewashes Gülen!" is not a specific criticism. "This article fails to discuss Gülen's role in cooking and eating over 80 endangered white rhinos in 2002, as reported in (source)" is a specific criticism (and one I just completely made up, since as I indicated above, I know little about the topic.) If you can identify specific problems like this, I will gladly support re-adding the tag if the problems are not fixed in a timely fashion.

Hope this helps, Nandesuka 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is still so wrong in so many ways that I really don't know where to start. Alternatively, look at the archived talk pages. Since it has turned out to be almost impossible to edit this article, due to crossfire by User:Rgulerdem and his sucessive sockpuppets, or anon IP's, I can't presently be bothered to try again. This article has already eaten up too much of my time. Since you "don't know much about Turkish history" maybe this small analogy will be helpful: Imagine an article about Nixon without Watergate, or an article about L. Ron Hubbart without Scientology. Imagine further trying to argue with editors who insist that Nixon wasn't really a politician, but was mostly interested in gardening; that he was never convicted of anything in his life and it it therefore not worthwhile to discuss allegations about tape recorders. That "the american people really trust Nixon" and that he met with the Pope. Disallow links to the so-called "Vietnam war", because Nixon is a civilian and didn't take part in any alleged wars there. That the fact that Nixon falsely claims on his own official website (with link provided) to have been born on the day that Abe Lincoln died is a) not true b) irrelevant; that to call Nixon "controversial" would be to spoil the beauty of the article. And so on. I STRONGLY insist on the POV tag, until sombody ( and ideally not myself ) manages to add and maintain some semblance of NPOV here. Azate 01:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * your analogy does not make any sense as well as other statements. you are calling anyone edits on this page as sockpuppet or meatpuppet to strenghten your position which is so ugly. it is very clear from the history page that you rewrote the whole article from head to toe made modifications on the whole page. it is not understandable that now you are claiming that it is POV 12.206.233.75 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * People are called sockpuppets because they are. This includes at least five accounts to date. See RFCU evidence:[ [[User:Azate|Azate]] 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * i can see that rgulerdem's explanations are reasonable especially after i see that you are naming almost anyone as a suckpuppet. it is safe to think that there might be someone else in this planet other than rgulerdem who disagree with you and maybe agree with him it is not wise to call anyone you dislike as suckpuppet. it is not wise and honest to claim that the article you revised from the first to the last word is POV 12.206.233.75 03:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Azate, I can see that you feel strongly about this issue, and I understand that. Can you give me a concise summary -- say, one paragraph -- of what the "Watergate" equivalent is that is missing from this article?  I understand that there has been a lot of history on this article, and a lot of sockpuppetry.  I'm asking you to trust me that I will take that into account and act appropriately.  Rgulerdem, from what I understand, is banned at this point, so rehashing his objections doesn't seem like a productive use of anyone's time.  I'm asking you for what specific things are wrong with this article.  I'm not asking to jerk your chain, I'm asking because I want to help make the article better.  Meet me halfway.  Nandesuka 03:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell: FG, adherent and successor to the bizarre Turkish sect of Said Nursi became deeply entangled in politics in the 90's in a complex game of "use one enemy to fight another" with several parties in TR. his movement was used by several players to influence ex-soviet Turk states in favour of a neo-Osmanic policies, to fight the Kurdish PKK, to fight militant Islamists, rural vs. metropolitan elites, to dismantle trade unions etc. FG commands an empire of TV stations, a bank, companies worth ~$250 billion, unions and countless trusts interest groups,a university and several 'scientific' journals that create a flood of publications favorable of FG, which they 'peer-review' among themselves. in 1999 a video tape showing FG surfaced (for "internal use only" by his closest adherents) which was aired on TV. On the video, FG counsels his followers that their job of infiltrating the government, the judiciary the military etc. is not yet finished, that they should contiue to lay low, talk sweet and seek influence until the time comes to install an Islamic republic and resurrect the Osmanic empire. There was a big purge of his followers and FG fled to the USA. Here he continues to play the same game, letting himself used "as one enemy to fight another" and establishing countless funds, trusts, study groups, conferences etc. In this he is allies to the anti-science creationist and ID movement, used as a 'dialogue muslim' against violent islamism, and as an agent in the powerplay in postwar northeren Iraq in a complex power game involving several Kurdish factions, Turkey, US interests, and ex-soviet states. In Europe, his groups try to grab the levers that put them in positions of power, such as representing "the immigrant Muslim community". several of his groups (which usually disclaim any connections to each other or to FG) have been banned or are under surveillance by the intelligence community. His network operates on loyality, personal connections, infiltration and reciprocity. they spent big money training cadres to put in influential positions. Dissent within the group is quelled and persecuted. All of this is amply documented, and not only in Turkish. Azate 03:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Postscript: User:12.206.233.75 is now blocked for a month for being yet another sockpuppet of User:Rgulerdem. Azate 04:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * These are all your POV and they are unfortunately flat out wrong. Similar claims discussed in the Turkish courts and the decision made recently, as you very well know, is contrary to what you are claiming. Please note that this is not the place for original research. You should edit only the facts and truths not your interpretations. That is just fine that you may dislike him but you cannot write the article based on your feelings and misinterpretations. The claims you made are not well documented and in fact not documented at all. They are all incorrect and personal interpretations. 216.248.124.90 04:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Azate, your description makes the context a bit more clear. I think that what I see as the critical paragraph, then, is this:

Gülen became a controversial figure in 1997, when a number of video cassettes with his sermons were broadcast on TV. The authenticity of the tapes is debated. Some of Gülen's supporters claim they were fabricated. Gülen explained that the footage in question was completely taken out of context; that the advice he was giving was to a group of official employees who felt marginalized by other groups within the state system that wanted them gone. Gülen said that he advised them that they should not relinquish their careers and posts out of religious fervour but that they should remain in order to do good for the people, even if this meant not practicing their religion in the open.
 * The problem with this paragraph is that it doesn't actually explain to the reader what was controversial about the videocasettes, or what the "advice" was. Let's use this space to rewrite this paragraph, citing reliable sources for every assertion, in English wherever possible.  Remember, your job here is not to indict FG, but to describe how other significant, non-fringe, reliable sources have indicted him (good examples might be the Turkish government, well-known political opponents, newspapers with large circulations, or respected international agencies such as Amnesty International, etc.)  I want to emphasize this again:  we need reliable, verifiable sources.  If we have those, it is absolutely inappropriate to keep this sort of information out of the article.  If we don't have them, it is absolutely inappropriate to put it in.  The issue is not whether or not FG is a saint or a monster.  It is whether there are significant criticisms or him from well-known and verifiable sources, or not.
 * Once we have that paragraph written, we can look at revising the introduction appropriately, if that's warranted. Can I ask you to provide a substitute for the above paragraph here on the talk page?  I'm willing to help edit it from a copyediting standpoint, and to do whatever verification of English sources that I can. Nandesuka 04:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As an example, this BBC article gives a wonderfully concise summary of the criticism of Gülen: "he urges his followers in the judiciary and public service to work patiently to take control of the state." Nowhere in the paragraph I quoted above is that key concept communicated to the reader. Nandesuka 04:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Nandesuka, the claims Azate proposed and you partially copy-pasted above have been discussed in the Turkish courts for long and the decesion recently made: not guilty. The source I am providing is the #2 newpaper of Turkey. 216.248.124.90 04:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise here, "accused of plotting to overthrow the secular state". A reader reading the Wikipedia article would never know that Gülen was charged with this. Instead, there's some hand-waving about "Although he has been through some trials especially after the interruption of the democratic system, he has never been convicted of a crime and always found not guilty by the courts examining his case." That's not an acceptable level of detail. While it is certainly happy for Mr. Gülen that the decision was in his favor, that's no excuse for us to not discuss the accusations, the charges, and their outcome, all of which are credibly documented in some detail.  Azate's "article about Nixon that never mentions Watergate" comparison is indeed apropos. Nandesuka 04:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nandesuka, I am glad that you are looking for the reliable sources. I assure you from now that you will not see any such. By the way User:Azate is most likely User:barouqque who caused lots of trouble in the history of this article as you can see in the archives. He is doing original research and pushing his POV and interpretations as facts. All these claims you mentioned above are already discussed in the Caontraversial section. If the accusaitons are denied by the court there is no reason to include them. If it is needed it is already done in the contra secion. 216.248.124.90 04:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is part of the decision made by the court after considering all the accusations made against Gulen as Azate mentioned and you found in BBC website:

There is no evidence proving that Gulen aimed at changing the Constitutional System or resorted to force and violence. On the contrary, he was threatened by fundamentalist terrorist organizations for his friendly attitudes towards the state.

No evidence was found to support the case; on the contrary, he was threatened by fundamentalist terrorist groups for his friendly attitudes towards the state. As it is stated in the law, at least two people are needed for the establishment of an organization, and as the file does not include another suspect; on the charges of organization and structure, the court was unable to prosecute. Fethullah Gulen and his associate can not be tried within law No. 3713 of the Counter Terrorism Act as charged in police reports, as the described crime and the elements of any crime do not exist in accordance with the 1st item of law No. 3713 of the Counter Terrorism Act


 * The BBC and the New York Times both reported on the accusations against Gülen. So there is no question about whether or not we have reliable sources about these accusations.  We do.  "But this month, after a yearlong inquiry, a state security court issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Gulen. A prosecutor has accused him of inciting his followers to plot the overthrow of Turkey's secular government, a crime punishable by death."(NY Times, "Turkey Assails a Revered Islamic Moderate", 25 August 2000)  Are you seriously suggesting that being prosecuted for a crime punishable by death is something that should not be noted in an encyclopedia article?  By what possible logic?
 * To report on the accusations in clear, concise, and neutral language that does not pass judgment on their veracity is not only possible, it is required. I suggest that instead of coming up with excuses as to why a major event in the man's life that made headlines across the world should be omitted from the article, you start thinking about how to improve this encyclopedia.  I am not interested in how much you all hate each other.   Get over it.  You will work together to improve this article, and you will focus on the issues at hand rather than on each other's personalities or political differences.   Nandesuka 04:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You see how it goes... I've added sources such as the Middle Eastern Journal, the BBC, official (German language) government reports ... to no avail. FG's fangroup just keeps removing them over and over again. Attrition editing, if you will. Azate 04:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why dont you post them here again, let us see what are they. Noone will delete them from this talk page, I am sure. By the way, can you provide the diffs for when you added all those links and the diffs for when they are removed by FG fans?216.248.124.90 04:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, would you please sprotect the article again, reconsider your removal of the POV tag and check if 216.248.124.90 is yet another sock puppet of indef-blocked User:Rgulerdem, just like 12.206.233.75? I'm off for today. Azate 04:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha! you do not have answer but you have incredible desire to have that tag on. Is that fair? Let me tell you this: that is the problem here. Whoever you dislike is puppet of rgulerdem and need to be blocked right away. If the fact is something you dislike it is nothing but a POV. Your POV?!... It is actually NPOV (in your opinion). 216.248.124.90 05:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you guys missed the part where I indicated that I really could not possibly care less as to what you think of each other. Stop talking about each other and focus on the article.  I am re-adding in the information as to the substance of the accusations against Gulen.  If anyone takes them out again, without first gaining consensus on this talk page, I will consider that to be vandalism, and act accordingly.  Nandesuka 05:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nandesuka, you said: "Get over it. You will work together to improve this article, and you will focus on the issues at hand rather than on each other's personalities or political differences." . This is not how it's supposed to work at all. Rgulerdem was blocked indefinetely for POV pushing, edit warring and sockpuppetry on this very article. You can't expect me to work with him, and you certainly must not encourage him to edit here despite being blocked. The RFCU link I provided will give you all the evidence you never wanted that 216.248.124.90 is nobody but Rgulerdem. He has used several 216.248.124.XX ip's in the past.Azate 05:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What I expect is that you'll continue doing what you're doing: working on the talk page and in the article to improve it.  Now that the article contains sourced detail on the charges against Gülen, do you agree that it is no longer a hagiography?  If not, what specific changes do you feel are necessary?  Again: please avoid generalities.  Identify specific problem sentences and/or specific missing topics, and remember that this article must reflect opinions that others have reported on, not on those that we personal hold. Nandesuka 13:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's no longer a hagiography, but it's still so full of holes that the overall picture is anything but realistic. His biography, even including his date of birth (there's a big debate about that issue, look it up in the archive), is part wrong, part incomplete. The business angle of Gülen's is non-existent. The cooperation with US-intelligent design pushers is non-existent. his role in Turkish politics in the 90's in almost non-existent, and what there is, is misleading. The "philosophy and views" section omits mention of anything that Gülen actually holds as his views, but wich sounds bizarre to laymen ears. Two of the three things Gülen is most famous for in Turkey are not mentioned (his ideosyncratic style of preaching on TV, which frequently featured him dissolved in tears, and hospitalizing himself live on TV for "brokenheartedness" about the state of the world). His media empire needs naming names. I could go on. But I won't, because I hate editing this article, have football games to watch, and don't want to hurry things. I'd have to revisit a couple of books and articles for citations and sources. I'd have to find adeqate English language content. It's hard work I not willing to do right now. That does not give you license to remove the POV tag, nor does posting the tag (stll very necessary, I find) put me under any obligation to work on this article immediately. A POV tag on an article is not something that has to be cured immediately by me. I cannot be pressed to do superficial "emergency editing", so that the number of POV tags on WP can be reduced. POV tags are just a useful service to readers of this encyclopedia to remind them that the article is mor questionable than ususal. They are a service, not a stain. The argument that any controversial subject would then soon have a POV tag is just a red herring: I know plenty of controversial articles where all sides have agreed that no such tag is warranted. This article is not one of them. I put the POV tag back up. Please cease to remove it instantly again! You know this contravenes policy. Azate 13:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Putting the POV tag on an article without identifying specific problems in an article is considered both disruption and vandalism. "I don't have time to edit" isn't really an adequate excuse for that.  I will look into the claims you are making and try to find reputable sources for them, but "This article doesn't support my personal opinions" is, in fact, precisely the sort of use of the POV tag that the arbitration committee has banned users for in the past.  I recommend that you keep that in mind when you consider continuing to edit war over such an unimportant issue. Nandesuka 14:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I outlined at least 5 specific problem areas above. Nowhere do I say "I disagree with the overall tone of this article". Don't put words in my mouth. You jump into this article, say you know nothing about the topic, encourage banned user Rgulerdem to contribute here, and try to force me to come up with remedies for a crooked article overnight, and remove the POV tag because I don't do that. Why the hurry? The article will, I hope, become better over time. I may return to contributing to it, or I may not. This is my business exclusively, and totally independent of the POV tag (which, to add that detail, I didn't even introduce) The POV tag marks the article as disputed. I did dispute it at great length in the Archive of this talk page. So did others. I'm sill saying it's wide off the NPOV mark, and I outlined my reasons. I will put the tag back up. If you are serious about your threats about arbcom banning me, why don't you file an RFC or something? I thinks this is frivoluous. Azate 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Gee, you changed your last reply while I was writing mine. But I didn't say "This article doesn't support my personal opinions", either. Azate 15:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)