Revision as of 19:05, 26 June 2009

Fethullah Gülen received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Fethullah Gülen received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Fethullah Gülen received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Fethullah Gülen received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam: Muslim scholars This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Muslim scholars task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Amputate or restore?

Before we start removing unreliable sources, we should contemplate restoring an older version instead in order to save time. --Adoniscik 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Something does need to be done at the awfully propaganda style bias this has towards Gulen and the small number of those who refuse for a NPOV to exist on this article Jk54 (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I restored the best version I could find. Anyone reading this article should feel free to fix it. Just be sure to cite your source (see below). --Adoniscik 23:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Resources for citations

Help yourself to these sources:

• Fethullah Gülen and his Liberal "Turkish Islam" movement
• Turkish Islam's Moderate Face
• The Gülen Movement: a modern expression of Turkish Islam
• The Nurcu Movement in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan
• Turkey's Champion of Interfaith Dialogue
• The Economist- Fethullah Gülen- A farm boy on the world stage
• Reuters - Turkish Islamic preacher - threat or benefactor?
• Prospect Magazine - Islam 1 Prospect 0
• IHT - Turkish Preacher
• Fethullah Gülen sources and documents
• Meet Fethullah Gülen, the World’s Top Public Intellectual, Interview with Foreign Policy, Aug 2008.
• Fethullah Gülen ile 11 gun
• Revelations hurt Gulen, prosecutor demands punishment

Strike off the ones you have cited. --Adoniscik 05:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

All articles has similar section for the external links. See for example Force, just one simple example. Please don not delete important informative links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WP! Our policy is not to stuff articles with a length list of ELs (external links). Rather, it is desirable to use resources as citations; to back up assertions contained in the text. An article that disobeys this unwritten rule invariably attracts yet more ELs (linkcruft). For further guidance, see WP:EL, WP:RS, and WP:PERFECT.

As you can see, I have already removed a bunch of links. If you have some news article you would like cited, just do it, or post it here. --Adoniscik 04:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That can be done too of course. But having some extra related links in the articles is a common practice. You should not create new rules, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not making it up. I have 10,000 edits so I know the rules pretty well, thanks. --Adoniscik 04:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate your help, though: if you know any interesting articles from reputable third party sources--not in any way related to his movement--just post them here and we can work them in. The version of the article you were restoring to relied far too heavily on Gulen's sources, so they fail a strict test of impartiality. --Adoniscik 04:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well tell me which source is incorrect. We can work on it. Stop blanking the article. It is what called Vandalism. You are not using your experience for good. That is bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision of the article

I would like to contribute the revision of the article, and work on it. If someone thinks there is a problem, he or she should explain which points is of some concern. Please do not use vague statements about the whole article, as it does not help. Point out where the problem is and specify the problem. The points raised in the template are so vague to deal with. I on the other hand am not agree with those points mentioned in the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the archives if you want to fix the article. The version you reverted to was accepted as being whitewashed. You can help my removing all citations from Gulen-friendly sources, and replacing them with third party sources. Peer-reviewed Western academic journals and books are best. Failing that, Western newspapers. You can start by simply sharing your sources, and we can debate their reliability. --Adoniscik 05:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not appropriate that you exclude some sources and labeling them as Gulen friendly. Even so you cannot exclude them. It is like writing an article about Christianity without mentioning from Bible. In the old discussion pages you just hid, this issue is also discussed. Other sources may be called otherwise. The fact is that all the sources are verified. If you think something is wrong let us discuss it. Many news about Gulen can be verified from different sources. Now I am asking again: Please specify and locate the problems below, so that we can discuss the issues and work together on them, sentence by sentence. When I say specify and locate, I mean something like 'this specific link is not correct', 'this specific sentence includes incorrect info' etc. apparently not vague and unclear statements like 'change Gulen friendly sources', or 'the whole article is POV', etc. Mastercasper (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Philscirel/Mastercasper, you should stop editing this article. Your points have been addressed but you are incorrigible. --Adoniscik 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

AA/Various IPs/Adoniscik. I, Mastercasper, will keep editing the article. I think it is not appropriate to ask someone stop editing, not kind at all. That is why, I wont ask you quit. Read more about Misplaced Pages philosophy. Was your call on editing the article at the top of this page for only the ones vandalize and blank the page, like you? Or is this a new cheap tactic you are using to hail my question and for not answering it? Mastercasper (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What part of "indefinitely blocked" do you not understand? --Adoniscik 17:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

? Mastercasper (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Philscirel, you are forbidden from editing on Misplaced Pages. I don't know how else to explain it. --Adoniscik 17:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me try again: I am not Phil. Mastercasper (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the article and blanking the page. Mastercasper (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Mastercasper by your talk on User talk:Ohnoitsjamie page you identified yourself as identical to IP:71.72.81.230; which means you have already violated 3RR rule. And you just violated the 3RR rule under your own name (including your IP sockpuppet it is 4RR). Your change has been reverted by 3 different editors, that should say something about which version is the consensus version. Stop it now. Arnoutf (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Abdullah Aymaz

Abdullah Aymaz is said to be the second-in-command of the Gülen Movement. Does he merit an article of his own? __meco (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Did he do anything notable? --Adoniscik 14:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say: Possibly, if he did do anything notable Arnoutf (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He's often the spokesperson for the Gülen Movement it appears. He's also European Director for one of Turkey's largest newspapers. __meco (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a biography in Turkish (which I don't read). __meco (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not an WP:RS. --Adoniscik 14:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to find some information on him. __meco (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nurettin Veren is 2nd-in command and has been for 30+ years. 213.211.213.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

Repeated reversion by editors with no mainspace edits besides this one

Recently several reversion to versions deviating from agreed consensus were implemented by several extremey new editors. These editors use Misplaced Pages jargon (e.g. reverting to consensus version), to imply my reversion to established consensus versions are vandalism, while their own is stated as a revert to consensus version.

This makes me highly suspicious some sockpuppeting is going on. I will keep reverting all edits by accounts with as only mainspace edits this single artilce to the accepted version; as I (in the light of the sockpuppeting history of this article) can simply not assume good faith of single article editors. If changes are to be made by such editors, discussion will be needed, as well as truly reliable source (ie sources that have no dependency with the topic at all). Estabslihed editors with good track records will of course be happily invited to contribute. Arnoutf (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no agreed consensus. If there is, it is on the version I just posted. Repeating the word 'consensus' 100 times does not make it occur. Please note that new editors have also right to edit. By the way, it is also OK to edit on a single article. It is not required to have a broad interest like you, to edit in Misplaced Pages. Thanks, YusrSehl (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that sources printed by organisations related to Gulen are not reliable. It has been established that the top-thinker election was influenced by active campaigning, it has been agreed that the introduction should not been overreferenced. All this is in the archives. That is the consensus.

Of course as you are a very new editor (since feb 13 209) you may not know; but I cannot help that; please read all archives; and discuss changes from there. Arnoutf (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I did and look what I found. Here is who started the leading section of the longer version .

• There is no consensus about having the intro being not overreferenced. What does that mean? What wiki standard you are referring to. Why this intro section cannot be like any other bio intro sections? Do you have rules apply to this article alone?
• Top thinker section reflects all details, including controversies about the case, then what?
• You cannot call a reference being unreliable as you wish. You cannot write an article about Jesus without referring to Christianity either. Nevertheless I can find references from other sources instead of the ones used from Zaman. Zaman is highly reliable source, it is the most selling newspaper of Turkey. It is not Gulens newsapaper. YusrSehl (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

YusrSehl philscirel, please can you leave the article alone? We can go through another sock check if you want... --Adoniscik 15:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

YusrSehl confirmed and blocked as PhilScirel puppet. Discussion closed. Arnoutf (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Itemize the concerns

This section is opened for discussion of the current version. Please note that deletion of the huge portion of the article is considered as vandalizing the article. Deleting verified sources and important info from the article is page blanking. Using edit summaries as discussion page is starting edit war. This section is started to discuss the points one think is not appropriate in the article. Please discuss before deleting information from the article. Please specify where in the article is the problem and what is it. Thanks. YusrSehl (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear about the current version. There are two current versions. A brief one, advocated by me and Adoniscik, and a huge inflate one with many verified BUT unreliable sources. Verifiability of the existence of a source has no meaning in Misplaced Pages. (cut up remark by YursSehl - part of Arnoutf original remark)

• The sources are reliable. Zaman is the most selling newspaper in Turkey. It is not Gulen's magazine. There are many intellectuals writing in it. The managers are in Gulen movement. All the points made in the article can be referenced from other sources as well. So we do not need to delete them. I can find the same points from other resources. YusrSehl (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sun is a major newspaper in the UK, nobody sees them as authorative. You acknowledge Zaman is under Gulen movement management. You also agree that other sources can be found. Fine, no problem then, find the other sources and omit Zaman. (btw archive talk has already identified Zaman as biased in relation to Gulen). Arnoutf (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of unreliable sources and a non neutral point of view is not vandalism - adding huge amounts of non-neutral point of view information, on the other hand is. (cut up remark by YursSehl - part of Arnoutf original remark)

• I think the problem is calling some resources as unreliable. There should be objective criteria for saying so. It does not make it unreliable even if you repeat it 100 times. YusrSehl (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See the archives of this page; where most sources have been shown to be unreliable. In any case any sources that have dependancies to the movement are at best suspicious and should be avoided. This has been repeatedly shown for many of the sources. Arnoutf (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It may seem that there are only two editors complaining against a mass of others. But all other editors have limited themselves to mainspace edits of this single article. Although I like to assume good faith, this makes it very tough for me to do so, as in my opinion this points towards at best a group of people agreeing outside Misplaced Pages to get their point of view through, and at worst as a coordinated sock-puppet operation. In any case, being implicitly accused of vandalism, makes the last bit of an assumption of good faith disappear. (cut up remark by YursSehl - part of Arnoutf original remark)

• So how should I interpret that you are against your version of introduction. How sould one assume good faith? YusrSehl (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

??? You mean my July 2008 effort to try to achieve a compromise ??? That was never my version, only an effort to find an in between version where most of the problematic issues introduced by PhilScirel were contextualised. Since then PhilScirel has shown himself to be a POV pusher, a vandal and a sockpuppeteer; so I have discontinued my effort to assume good faith in any of the material provided by PhilScirel. (BTW that you are aware of this long ago edit seems highly suspicious that you are indeed a sockpuppet of abovementioned PhilScirel Arnoutf (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the article can be longer, and have more material. But all sources added from the short version MUST BE RELIABLE, and all information MUST HAVE A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Both are not the case for the long version, which therefore is unacceptable as a starting point for discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Let us try to have an agreement on the resources. Zaman cannot be considered as unreliable. If so how and why? You cannot make that decision yourself. As I said, you cannot write a bio of Moses, for example, without referring to the Judaism.
• Suggestion Let us do this then: Let us take the longer version as a start point. And discuss each and every sentence of it. The reliability, neutral tone of it, etc and delete, edit or keep the information as is. How about that? YusrSehl (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Zaman is unrelialbe per above. You can only write a bio of for example Moses using the best available sources. Fundamentalist Judaic sources are to be avoided for such an article.

Re the longer version: No. Most of the sentences were already discussed and many shown to violate NPOV. Stripping a fundamentally flawed version sentence by sentence is likely to lead to problems; while all the while the problematic version is the version shown. Building up from the short version will not lead to unacceptably biased in-between versions. So that is the only acceptable starting version. Arnoutf (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, it is not a decision you can make yourself. Zaman is the most selling and reliable source with many international awards. You need to have evidence show that Zaman is unreliable. It is not like a fundamentalist Judaic source. It is the mainstream media in Turkey. Moreover there is a main separation in Turkey: Gulen supporters and critics. It is not possible to have critical references but not responses. Will we omit all the resources from Turkish media? Will we write an article about a Turkish figure without referring to Turkish media? Anyways, I will find evidence from other sources as well. YusrSehl (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK let us start from the shorter version and built on it. I will copy paste info from longer version after discussing here. I think the intro section is pretty short, compact and well-done. It is discussed earlier in great detail in archives. You formed the skeleton of the the section already. So, I suggest to keep it as is. Let us start with the biography section, OK? YusrSehl (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

YusrSehl confirmed and blocked as PhilScirel puppet. Discussion closed. Arnoutf (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Article protected

OK, enough. Please discuss wide-ranging changes to the page here, rather than blindly reverting each other. Page protected for 7 days. Black Kite 11:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfect timing my dear unbiased admin. YusrSehl (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

YusrSehl confirmed and blocked as PhilScirel puppet. Arnoutf (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This article still needs work to remove pov and provide citations for a many assertions... Jk54 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Longer version is unacceptably POV

In the light of recent reinstatement of the long version. Consensus is that this is an unacceptably biased version, riddled with unreliable sources. See most of the discussion on this talk page, and its archives. Reverting to that version is unacceptable (and editors have been blocked for doing so in the past). Let's not start this again. Arnoutf (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A list of the arguments why the long version is unacceptable in itself

1. Many sources are published by Gulen, his movement or companies he has influence over and are therefore not reliable.
2. The use of sources is highly speculative, even of those that are reliable
3. Many minor issues are taken out of perspective and gain undue attention
4. The whole long version reads like a highly pro-Gulen argument
5. All of this has been discussed extensively on the Gulen talk page. Consensus is that the long version is not acceptable. We follow that consensus as it is the core Misplaced Pages rule.

On top of that the edit summary given was "The information is sourced, verified, and cannot be deleted". However by reverting to that specific older version many sources, verified and all were deleted. Hence the edit summary in itself disqualifies the edit. You will just have to build (gradually) from what there is now, instead of piecemeal replacing Arnoutf (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You want it clearer. Fine examples of point 1 and 3.

• Zaman newspaper is an example of a non-reliable source. Gulens movement pages are primary sources and therefore not reliable.
• The whole best most important thinker issue has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is that it should not get attention due to flaws in Internet voting (out of perspective).

Even worse. Dawud has added a lot of information. You have removed that. You may have an argument with me, but it is now your task to merge Dawuds information into yours, as deletion of Dawuds work is clear and blatant vandalism. Arnoutf (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

summary of status quo in article

The undeniable facts:

• Fact: Since this edit on February 14th the shorter version has been the base of the article until May 27.
  • Conclusion: The time span alone that the shorter version has been the leading version makes it the consensus version.
• Fact: On May 27 new user Nurefsan reverted all (dozens of) edits since February 14th , thus removing sourced additions between 14 february and 27 may.
• Fact: No edit summary for this move was given.
• Fact: Subsequently 3 editors have reverted this action , , and
  • Conclusion: That 3 independent editors (2 of whom active editors for over 3 years; both with clean block logs) reverted to the long standing version, confirms that that version must be seen as consensus version.
• Fact: Since this started User:Dawud has seriously worked on the article, expanded it and provided many references .
• Fact: Reverting to the old version undoes all this work; there is no effort to integrate the additions.
• Fact: User:Nurefsan claims to answer my objections above in one of his edit summaries
• Fact: User:Nurefsan has not given any response on this talk page, which is the only page he can answer to these objections.
  • Fact: User:Nurefsan has not answered to my points, at least not in any relevant way to the discussion.
• Fact: Since User:Nurefsan has not made any talk page edits, yet he claims not to get answers to his points. (for evidence see above links).
  • Conclusion: User:Nurefsan has not listed any points for discussion, since there are no points raised, there are obviously no answers to these imaginary points.

The only conclusion can be that Nurefsans edits are disruptive, his edit summary inpolite (at best) and the version he proposed is not the consensus version. Arnoutf (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite by me

I just found out about the Gulen movement yesterday, and went to look for information on it here. I should mention that while I am not a follower, I have no problem with Gulen or his movement--they strike me as similar to other moderate religious groups, with both good and bad points. In other words, I'm as neutral as you're going to get.

I found serious problems with the article. As a previous poster indicated, there were too many quotes whose sole purpose seemed to be to praise Gulen and his movement. (A word to the wise: propaganda that looks like propaganda, is bad propaganda.) Worse yet, crucial information about the size, nature, and activities of the movement was missing. Who are these people, and what do they do? I had to study the source links to find this out. (Think of the "who? what? when? where? why?" questions journalists are supposed to answer.)

By now I have changed the article almost beyond recognition, but am not happy with it yet, by any means. So I hope that you will continue to work on it (and I will too). What I would most like to see added is:

(1) a list of Gulen's most important writings, along with a description of their contents

(2) a summary of Gulen's most distinctive teachings, with quotes and sources. (interfaith dialogue is already well-represented, and I'll look for something on science)

(3) a list of Gulen-affiliated organizations, schools, lobby groups, etc., together with something about their history

(4) a more precise explanation of his relationship to the Nurcu movement--when he joined, why he left, and the status of Said Nursi within Gulen's movement

(5) a more precise explanation of his relationship to Refah and the AK Party

I wonder if it might be preferable to have separate articles on Gulen himself, and the Gulen movement...?

Best wishes, Dawud (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, your edits look good; although you may have deleted more than some other editors would agree to be reasonable (even if some of it were propaganda material). I agree there could be a better article. This article is however one in the worst tradition of Misplaced Pages where supporters of Gulen with too much time on their hands try to push a highly pro Gulen version.

The problem is that the version you started from is a hard fought minimally propaganda version; which is reverted frequently to an unacceptably pro-Gulen version (see the recent edits by Nurefsan in the history of the page). The supporters of Gulen have been so aggressive in the past that reasonable editors (incl me) have lost all energy to work on this page. We are now entrenched to keep the "mostly harmless" version alive.

Anyway, thanks for the effort, and let's see whether we can work from here. Arnoutf (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Gulen people--come on, let's have a fair article. If I were your PR person, I would advise you to let the "true facts" come out, and not try to spin them. Your activities are generally unobjectionable (except to Turkish ultra-secularists who themselves flirt with the same conspiracies they accuse you of). The USA must have thousands of similar private religious denominations, each with their own schools and so on.

More questions: One source says FG was born in 1938. What's up with that--simple mistake?

What's Gulen's relationship with Sufism? Some journalists call it Sufi-inspired, but except for the tariqa-type structure--and the sort of literary influence that every Turkish writer would have--I don't see it. (What kind of Sufis do people think they are--Mevlevi? Nakshbandi?)

It would be nice to have a list of "prominant Gulen followers" (or however that should be worded). Difficult to distinguish these from run-of-the-mill politicians who approach them for votes, though... Dawud (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note of caution. The Zaman newspaper is heavily biased towards a positive POV on Gulen, using it for anything but the most trivial facts should be done with the utmost restraint.

Also I note you use a lot of quotes, those are a bit primary source so some interpretation (by other sources) would be useful. Arnoutf (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Did I use Zaman for something? I can't remember where.

Writings by knowledgeable outsiders describing the Gulen network should be considered secondary sources, no? Most of these quotes are of that nature. I thought the quotes would be preferable to venturing a possibly sensitive or contentious interpretation of my own, but admit that there seem to be too many of them. Not sure what should be done.

Primary sources would include the works of Gulen, their website, etc.. I see no reason why these could not be used, especially for sensitive issues where their actual, precise view ought to be given. On feminism, the opening paragraph already alludes to the controversy, and the Gulen quotes I put in are hardly calculated to please their PR department. For the record, I append them below. Dawud (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Only one use of Zaman, and a relatively harmless one at that, but a lot of the bickering before was about "Zaman is reliable" "No we can prove it is not" Ït is reliable" etc. So just to make you aware of some historic sensitivities here.

Re Feminism: Your choice to lift these issues/quotes out of a paper is in itself already some kind of synthesis of the primary statements by Gulen. You probably need a source stating something like "Gulen's views on feminism are controversial (some kind of good source)" which then can be harmlessly followed by something like you wrote, e.g. " as is illustrated by the comments made by Gulen in a 2008 article (add primary quote now).". Otherwise you maybe going into original research e.g. by placing undue attention on these views. Arnoutf (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Gulen on Feminism

In a 2008 article, Gülen made the following comments about Islam and feminism:

"Islam saved women who were exploited, enslaved, and regarded as second class If the essential sources of religion and the exemplary lives of the first two generations of Muslims who lived after God's Messenger are carefully studied, it will be seen that Muslim women were absolutely not confined to their home and they were never oppressed.

"As a reaction to all the injustice done to women (such as their lack of civil and property rights and the absence of justice toward women in family law) a movement to claim women's rights emerged, particularly in the West. Even though this movement is considered an awakening of women, it occurred as a reaction and was doomed to imbalance like all other reactionary movements and ended up in extremism. Although the starting point was to defend women, in time it deviated from the original aim to the degree of being full of hatred towards men and to feeling a grudge against them. The movement named feminism, which was born from the idea of protecting women and providing them with rights equal to those of men, has only left behind longing, sorrow, and wreckage as a movement of discontentment."

UPDATE: I have summarized the above into a couple of sentences. Is there anything else which is important to say about Gulen's views on women? More generally--what needs to be said about Gulen's theology? To me, it all seems fairly boilerplate, i.e. the same sort of thing half of Turkey must believe. I fail to see much of interest in it. His appeal seems to consist simultaneously of modernism and conservatism (or is it just the money?), though I detect conflicting statements about evolution which I will try to track down.

Oh yes, I see we have had a visit from our (apparently banned) friend, who is under the impression that material cannot be deleted from Misplaced Pages articles. I hope that he will read our discussion here, and realize that he is harming his own case.Dawud (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Split

I just split "Gulen" from "Gulen movement." (Seems logical.) Both articles need a lot of work, though.

I visited the local center and hopefully persuaded the guys there to join in. Maybe this will help molify the concerns of Nurefsan. Speaking of which, his latest version has some promising material in it, but cries out to be NPOV'd. Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&oldid=295946005

Nurefsan, let's work together on this. For example, your list of books is a good start. However, I would like to see the full bibliographic information (including publisher and year of publication) as well as a description of the contents. It's fine to give the Turkish title, but please give the English as well. (If it has already been translated into English, please write "translated as..." and then the translated title; if not, put your own translation into .)

The new Alevi dialogue is interesting, and I would like to see it mentioned. However, "just the facts, ma'am." (Who, what, when, where, why.) No hagiography please.

Many of your additions take the form of selected (and selective) testimonials by various dignitaries to the effect that Gulen is a fine person and doing good work. If we are going to include such reactions, they must include positive as well as negative responses, and accurately indicate the range of public or scholarly opinion about Gulen. (I am reminded of the Falungong, which proudly points to all the certificates and honorary citizenships their founder has received from various chambers of commerce and the like.)

"Top Thinker" is POV. (Duh.)

One thing I think this article lacks is a systematic survey of Gulen movement activities. Exactly how many schools do they have, and where? Can we get a fuller, itemized list of enterprises and initiatives? (I just learned today about their African charity.)

Of course, that is now properly a subject of the other article (on the Gulen movement). As to the man himself, well, can we get a proper timeline accounting for what he was doing at each stage of his life? Also...is he married? Has he ever been married? Any kids? If so, I can't believe that's not in here. Dawud (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the split is a good idea. It will help distinguish between the man (his good points and controversies about the person) and the movement. Perhaps, in the future, we can have brief mention of the movement with a reference to the Gulen movement article as main article. For now I included a link in a new "see also" section. I think this may help, altough I acknowledge the Gulen Movement article is not fully developed yet. Arnoutf (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Working Together

I am open to any collaborative efforts for an improvement in the article. I would only be glad to see the article in a neutral tone if you think it is not. The last thing I like to have a positive or negative propaganda of Gulen. My only reserve is having the version I am posting as a base for our further discussions. We can discuss everyting in it; sentence by sentence, reference by reference, and all the statements. Please list each and every concerns you have below for a through discussion if you agree. We can address them one by one. Nurefsan (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate to work together.

Thanks. Nurefsan (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

However, the version you suggest is identical to an earlier version that was considered higly problematic by many editors (including me).

As that version is a very bold deviation from the long standing version (from February); it is therefor not a foregone conclusion your version should take precedence over the long standing version and serve as a starting point for further development of the article.

I checked the version I posted. It has been posted much more longer than the one you like. Nurefsan (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It has never been stable though, while the version I prefer (which is not the same as like) has been stable for most of the time. Arnoutf (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the sneaky, well experienced editors.. Just like you are doing recently, a quick review of the history pages indicates that they pushed the naive editors to the border, played dirty, misused the wiki policies, and got some help from their admins fellows to push them forward into the cliff. If you kill all the others, the town will be pretty stable for you! Nurefsan (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but such conspiracy theory thinking is beyond me. If the admins supported the objections we just have to accept that and work from there. If you put in all experienced editors and admins in a big conspiracy, there is really no way out of this. Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In the section "longer version is unacceptable POV" I have listed five general objections against that version. None of them have been answered.

Your points are vauge and fuzzy. It does not include any specific poits to answer. Nurefsan (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That is why they are "general objections". Feel free to answer for the whole article, or for each sentence one by one. They are valid though. Arnoutf (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My anwer is 'no that is not the case' for each of them. Sorry for a general answer. Nurefsan (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

True, it is not the case for each line. But these points are valid for a large number of lines; that is why a complete replacement with the version you suggest is not a good thing, as we only want the lines that are good from your version; and at no stage in the process the bad lines as that may confuse readers. Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to introduce your own opinion, but for your version to be inserted as a whole, you have to convince us of te added value of a complete replacement of almost all content. This is unlikely to happen.

It is not my version. It has been a version posted for long time. See the history page. Nurefsan (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is the version you propose. All previous effort to support this version has resulted in blocking of editors pushing that version. That should indicate something. Arnoutf (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I explained above what that indicates. Nurefsan (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it means that the independent admins of Misplaced Pages found the evidence that a single editor (Philscirel) was behind all support of that version. Something which is called sockpuppeteering; and is seen as highly disruptive. Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This involves another issue that is problematic, and that is by replacing the article with a version of early February (which in turn is identical to an even older version) you have removed a lot of incremental (step by step) work by others. A more incremental improvement approach would have avoided this problem.

The version I am posting has also been improved gradually. They deserve the same respeck you are expecting for your version. Nurefsan (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not from the last stable 14-feb to 27-may version. So no, it is not gradual improvement on the last stable version. Repect is irrelevant here. Arnoutf (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I just added how an active duty high rank military officer had plans to degrade the Gulen movement. The case is under investigation recently. That is an improvement. Can't even that news open your eyes? Nurefsan (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add it to the other version (I have been inviting you to work on that version from the start). Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you agree to take the last stable version (which is undeniably the version before you inserted your version; as that was stable for over 3 months) as a starting point I am happy to cooperate; but it is not me who has to show the other version is a problem for several reasons (1) Generic concerns to the version supported by you are voiced but not answered (2) Specific concerns with that version can be found in the archives of this talk page, these problems have not been answered, which resulted in the removal of the material in the first place.

No, my only reserve is to have this version as a start point. The archived pages cannot be summarized as you did as far as I can see.

Please provide a better summary then. Arnoutf (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My summary is that the intro part is written by many in consensus and remaining parts has been worked by many editors. Nurefsan (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you count all sockpuppets of Philscirel as one (as you should) there are many fewer editors involved. Also consider that some of the effort in writing that intro was done in an effort to reach a compromise with Philscirel. When Philscirel, however, continued to demand more, the compromise was abandoned. Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In conclusion, you have to provide positive arguments for everything (in your own words) "sentence by sentence, reference by reference, and all the statements" before material of the long version is acceptable.

The evidence is already in the article. Almost all statements are supported by references. You need to tell me which ones you dislike. I can find better ones for you. Nurefsan (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the previous argument was about reliability of references. All Zaman, all Gulen owned sites are unreliable and must be replaced. The whole Top Thinker issue received undue attention. Furthermore, sources were handpicked to create a positive image. Critical sources need to be added. Arnoutf (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Zaman is the most selling journal in Turkey. They sell about a million. Sum of the next two is even less than Zaman. The newspaper is internationally recognized and award winning.. And it is not Gulen's nexspaper. The movement is governing it. It is the most reliable source in Turkey. But anyways, I can find references from somewhere else for the same news if it is a concern. Gulen has only his personal website nothing else. You cannot write an article about Jesus without referring to the Christianity. Why do not you please add criticals sources as much as you like? It looks The Top thinker issue bothers you somewhat, can you explain why? That is a fact! Nurefsan (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Sun is the most selling newspaper in the UK; that does not say it is reliable. And yes you can write articles about Jesus using sources beyond the bible. Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So here we stand; I can at this stage only accept the long standing stable version, (with the incremental recent additions of Dawud) as a starting point.

It look that that is the point we cannot agree on. ~~

Indeed, and why would you opinion have preference over mine? Arnoutf (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Because there is no reason for otherwise. Nurefsan (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There are 5 generic problems listed not to use your version. That is 5 reasons. There is not a single (intrinsic) problem listed with the shorter version; other than that it is not the same as the one you suggest (which is not a problem of the shorter version). Therefore there is a reason to take the non-problematic (shorter) version as starting point. Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know you have no argument why that is not acceptable, while I have repeatedly given arguments why the long version cannot serve as a starting point.

It is not neutral and encyclopedic. Two or three authors ideas cannot constitute an ensyclopedia article.

You are alone, so the same goes the other way. Arnoutf (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Briefly: I am willing to cooperate if we take the version I am supporting as starting point (and I can support this stance by very strong arguments). Arnoutf (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is totally against my offer. Thanks. Nurefsan (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No it is not. I want to cooperate; that aligns with your offer. I cannot however agree with your demands accept a version supported only by blocked editors and yourself as starting point. Arnoutf (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned about how I read the blocked editors issue above. Nurefsan (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that is just denying the value of the Misplaced Pages process. Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have some strong doubts about your intentions, sincerity and honesty. You list me for 3rr while you are doing the same. At the same time, you are presenting yourself discussing with me in a good faith here? What a cheap tactic?!.. Nurefsan (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubted your motives for a long time. So far you refrained from a 4th revert within 24 hrs. Today, after my response to your suggestion you broke that limit. The truly cheap and vengeful tactic is filing a counter 3rr report. If you were so sure I was vandalising or edit warring, you should have reported me a long time ago, or never have mentioned it in your edit summary. Arnoutf (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you file any report about me doing vandalism anywhere and complained about me while asking for collaboration here and there? You use the word vandalism repeatedly and consistently in the edit summaries... Nurefsan (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If filed a 3RR report because you kept reverting to your version. As I said above, I am willing to cooperate if you accept to leave the long version buried in the past. Otherwise, there are simpy no grounds for cooperation. By the way, I would even welcome Philscirel back, if he could only accept that his supported version is in the past and shoud stay there. Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have answers for all your points but have no time for rhetoric. I would like to involve in productive discussions. Nurefsan (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And I know the cure for cancer but have not time to write it up ;-). I am happy to invove in productive discussion, and as you have not answered my comments it will be a constructive discussion about the shorter version Dawud has been working on. Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If Nurefsan is not in fact banned for being a "sock puppet," then one way we might proceed is to discuss each proposed line or paragraph here first before adding it. Cumbersome, I know, but less so than the constant reversions.

Why did you revert the page than? I am ready to discuss each line on the article. Nurefsan (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

On to substantive issues: Nurefsan, when Gulen was born? And why is there confusion over this? (1938 vs. 1941, one article said 1942--and reports of his present age similarly diverge). Is he married, or has he ever been married? Any kids?Dawud (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

See below. Nurefsan (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Version without worst POV, undue, and things that have nothing to do with Gulen at all

I have seriously considered your version, section by section.

I have removed all clearly non-neutral points of view, issues that receive undue attention, issues that are only marginally related to Gülen and should not be in this article at all. I have provided section wise edit summaries.

This leaves a very much reduced version. If you accept that reduced version as a next step, we may have something to discuss. If you want to revert parts of your version; please do so section by section; line by line, and with each line address on this talk page for each reentered line why it does not link to my edit summary with that section.

For me offering starting from the version that I based on your version is a major compromise. You will also have to convince Dawud of this.

If you are not willing to adopt the reduced version of I can only conclude you are not willing to co-operate and only want to push your own point of view. I will retract my offer for compromise, and once again lend my full support to the other version. As it stands now I am already convinced that that other version, especially with all the work of Dawud, is a much better starting point; as it is more complete, better sourced and better written compared to cleaned version proposed by you. Could you please honestly and openmindedly read that version and say where you disagree with it. Arnoutf (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I accept your suggestion. I took the shortened version as a base. I modified it with edit summaries explaining why. Please discuss further modification here section by section before changing. Nurefsan (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not willing to go along with a mere revision of Nurefsan's version. For one thing, it wrongfully rewards Nurefsan for his persistance, when he is disrespecting a ban even by being here. For another, the "starting point" is far too pro-Gulen. Whittling down the praises to half as many still leaves us with a POV-tainted article.

If Nurefsan is permitted to remain (i.e., pending a decision by the administrators over whether he is a sock-puppet), then I think we should proceed by discussing revisions here first.Dawud (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dawud, I respect that opinion. To Nurefsan, please try to convince Dawud, and don't see this as an excuse to add anything without talk page discussion. If you do, the deal is off from my perspective as well and I will revert to the other version. Arnoutf (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am ready to discuss anything you like to.. willing to neutralize the language without deleting valuable information. Please start to list your concerns below section by section for further discussions, if any. Nurefsan (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Deal is off

By this edit , with the associated edit summary Nurefsan makes it clear there is no compromise possible. I herewith retract my compromise offer. If I would have been negotiating about a price of a commodity, and my opening offer would have been 1 Euro and Nurefsans 100, I feel that with my compromise I have gone beyond 90 Euros (i.e. have given 90%); Nurefsan is not even willing to give the measly 10%. I can only walk away from this proposal now and go back to my preference; as I am not prepared to give in to every whim of an editor supporting a highly POV article.

It is your own decision not to take my compromise seriously, it is now Nurefsans turn to discuss, sentence by sentence, concern by concern issues by issue what should be added/changed from the version proposed by me and Dawud. Arnoutf (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I took it seriously, I followed the agreement conditions. I explained each of my edits as you suggested. I do not have more explanations about them. If you have concerns you needed to explain here for further discussions. How can I explain my edits, if I think that the statements are nice to have? It is you who should raise concern sentence by sentence about my edits. It way your deal, and now you are breaking it yourself. Bye for now. Nurefsan (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is not your fault, everybody is out there to get you; and no blame or responsibility lies with you. It's a sad sad world. Arnoutf (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Birth year and birthplace

The Esperanto version of this article says that Gulen was

"naskita la 27-an de aprilo 1941 en Korucuk ĉe Erzurum aŭ, laŭ aliaj, en 1938 en Pasinler ĉe Erzurum" La preciza naskiĝdato de Gülen estas necerta; li mem iam diris, ke estas la mortodato de Kemal Atatürk (10-a de novembro 1938).

Although unsourced, at least this suggests a plausible explanation for the discrepency. Dawud (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems an explanation for the 1941-1938 difference. But it may actually be 1938, with 1941 being wrong.

We don't have a source for 1942 either. Google does not help. Perhaps somebody with good knowledge of Turkish language can try and find this information? Arnoutf (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I may have found some evidence that it is 1941, . This looks like a site run by Gulen and his people, so if they report that date it is probably the best we get. Can we accept this source for this fact? (I would not mind in this specific case as it is a rather trivial fact, with little consequence, or sensitivity surrounding it) Arnoutf (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

His official birthday is the one I have posted. Different accounts of the birth date is due to the recording capabilities of that time. I do not think he himself knows his exact birthday. It has not been unusual that birth certificates are issued for the kids couple of years after their birth. Some families got the certificate when they visit the cities for all their children at once. Many people of the same age has no exact birthday, especially the ones in rural areas. Nurefsan (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So it seems we can agree that his official birthday is 27 april 1941. Perhaps we should add some of the caveats Nurefsan provides above as a footnote; something like "Although this is the official date of birth, different accounts are given. This maybe due to the registration system in Turkey atof that time. At that time it was not unusual that birth certificates were issued for children up to some years after their birth. Some families received certificates for multiple children at once, when they visited the city. Therefore, especially the ones in rural areas, of many Turkish people born around the same time as Gülen no exact date is known." Or something similar. Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how we can reach any conclusion about which date, if any, is correct. At most we can say that Gulen has apparently agreed to recognize the 1941 date as his birthdate, and that it seems to be accurate within a few years. By the way, even recent articles disagree by the same amount over how old he is now. (I did see one source for 1942, but am tempted to ignore it as a probable error by the journalist.) Dawud (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You can see more information here from his personal web page. He and his brother got the certificate together due to the conditions I mentioned. Both mistakenly written as 1942. Later due to his job application had to change the date to a year earlier: 1941. But actual birth date is around 1938. Nurefsan (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected again

For a week, this time. I have no problem in protecting for longer, but if the current issues continue, a more probable outcome is the blocking of one or more editors. Discuss major changes here, please. Black Kite 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure Arnoutf does not know this Black Kite guy. These admins know on which version the article must be protected, for sure. And I also know that this is just a conspiracy theory.

Someone play dirty in this Wiki game. You can not write history, biographies, and social issues here according to your personal or group beliefs or prejudges or agenda, can just account the events. At least it should be done so.. Abusing the bright idea of wiki movement does not bring any honor to the project, to you, to anybody else, if it is not started solely for this reason. It just prove the quality of the project and/or how can a good idea can be ruined. Do not forget: the truth always shines..

Keep in mind: A muslim thinker can be good, can won international attention, can have influence internationally, can be voted number one, can fix and address the modern problems the societies face to, can get respect from all colors of the humanity.. And an encyclopedic article should account on both critics and recognitions in a neutral tone.

I followed the agreement conditions. I explained each of my edits. I do not have more explanations about them. If you have concerns you needed to explain here for further discussions. How can I explain my edits, if I think that the statements are nice to have? Bye until the article is on. Nurefsan (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No I don't know Black Kite. Actually he announced that if this would continue multiple editors risk a block and that includes me, so why do you feel offended; I have a clean record of 3.5 years and about 13,000 edits which could get spoiled with this. But of course we are all out to get only you.....

In any case, Nurefsan's remark above is illustrative how neutral Nurefsan is towards this issue. I have nothing further to add to your own nice overview just how much Nurefsan's point of view is not neutral. Arnoutf (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think anyone, even those with little knowledge of the subject (like myself) can see that it is fairly clear which version is the more encyclopedic. That, however, had nothing to do with which version I protected it in. Black Kite 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course not! Who claimed so?!.. It is just your responsibility, maybe you did that even regretfully! I am in the conspiracy mode today and listing the theories in mind. Just brainstorming..

When you look at the history of the page, on the other hand, the blockages and banns tell a slightly different story, but who cares?.. It is a Muslim scholar, how come the article does not leave a negative taste to the reader? The one which does that is the naturally the neutral one! Right?..

By the way, you mentioned above that 'a more probable outcome is the blocking of one or more editors' above. You know what, I know what is going to happen. If an edit war takes place in the future, only one editor will be banned. I even know who s/he is.. Bingo! (Arnoutf, tough times waiting for you, dear friend.) Later.. Nurefsan (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course muslim thinker can be great. But to be honest (I quote) "can fix and address the modern problems the societies face" shows just how unrealisticly positive you are. There is still hunger, poverty, disease and violence. This specific muslim thinker has clearly failed to fix these problems. And if a supporter of a non muslim thinker would make a similar claim I would respond exactly the same. Muslim thinkers are not by definition worse than other thinkers, but they are also not by definition better. You stress that we play the first argument (Muslim thinker should be considered worse by all) in your victim/conspiracy role, but are not willing to understand that the in our opinion the problem lies in your relentless adoption of the second argument (everyone should consider Muslim thinkers superior). Arnoutf (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am having hard time to follow your reasoning in deriving your conclusions.. All I am saying is that Muslim scholars or Islam related topics in general treated differently due to the prejudges against Muslim scholars and Islam. Why I am saying that: One example is your attitude towards accepting his being voted top thinker, for example. I believe that, that is one of the main reasons you disapprove the version I am supporting. It is a fact, cannot be hidden, ignored, or denied. Why are you so unhappy about this fact or mentioning this fact in the article? Can you answer this? I am not saying that he fixed the problems, just saying that he can fix and he address these problems. He and the institutions developed based on his philosophy are fighting against religious intolerance, ethnic discrimination, poverty, clash of civilizations, anti-democratic approaches, etc. That is why he is getting incredible respect from many people. There are some controversies around his name deliberately created by fundamentalist, radical secularists for more than 30 years in his native country. Unfortunately he is facing to prejudges outside of Turkey as well, like we are experiencing here. And, I am trying to write an encyclopedia article that account his biography, philosophy, accomplishments, etc. neurally as well as critics of him. Nurefsan (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Top thinker recognition should be on objective, academic merit; not on popular vote. A Nobel prize is worth emphasising a popular vote is not. There are many indications the internet voted was high-jacked. Both are neutral objective reasons against emphasising top thinker as the election was fundamentally flawed and the outcomes therefore next to worthless (just as I am against the Grootste Nederlander election for much the same reasons)

We are not recognizing him as the top thinker here. Do not confuse apples with oranges. We are accounting a case of his being elected the top thinker by a prestigious journal through internet votes. A fact is neutrally mentioned.. Nurefsan (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes it a topic for that newspaper article, not this one (unless it is a single trivia level line). It is only worth mentioning in some detail here if we accept the reliability and validity of the election. Since we all agree (including the journal) that both were problematic, the outcome is saying a lot about the problems with internet surveys and nothing (much) about Fethullah Gulen (thus it has hardly any relevance for this page). Arnoutf (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, what we should look at is verifiability of the information by reliable sources. We cannot discuss reliability of the election. This is not a place for original research. You can only account the case neutrally. If, even in a election based on popular votes, he voted number one, we should mention that fact. If there are concerns about the results, we can mention that as well, together with the response to the critics by Gulen. The reader can decide if the results are reliable or not based on the neutral account of the case. If you get into discussions about validity of the election results, we should do it for all the other arguments in the article including the critics.. Most of the critics may turn out to be invalid. Nurefsan (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The claim is strong (top thinker) but made by a commercial journal. That an internet election by a commercial outlet hasany validity is not straightforward and requires sources (i.e. the person making this claim should provide evidence of the validity of the system); without that the only thing we can say is that "In an Internet vote by a newspaper he was elected top thinker" - Any futher conclusions linked to that (rather hollow statement) are original research. In any case, there are reports on the problems with that election; they have been part of the article in the past. Arnoutf (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And that is why the old version is better as it address the case from all sides. Nurefsan (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that that version neither reports all relevant facts, and what it reports is neither neutral nor balanced. Arnoutf (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Then we can report all relavant facts in a neutral tone. Nurefsan (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You say that he can fix these problems. That is a bold claim that can only be supported if he would have indeed fixed them indeed. An American economist claiming to solve the current financial crisis will be judged on his actual performance in doing so, not on the claim. That goes for a Muslim thinker too. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Without proof of these claims they are worthless.

Again apples and oranges.. I am explaining here on the discussion page, my personal opinion. It is not part of the article. Nurefsan (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Whenever there is controversy there are two sides of the coin that deserve equal respect; and reporting based on undeniable facts, not sentiments and feelings/assumptions of certainty.

I agree. Why did you say this? Nurefsan (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Because your remark: "There are some controversies around his name deliberately created by fundamentalist, radical secularists for more than 30 years in his native country. Unfortunately he is facing to prejudges outside of Turkey as well, like we are experiencing here." implies that opponents view in this case is flawed. And that is in my view, too easy an approach (newspapers will not be sufficiently strong sources to support such view). Arnoutf (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This document caused a political earthquake in Turkey. It is not a newspaper commentary. Next week even the EU Parliament will discuss the case. You can find it in any sources about Turkish politics. Moreover, Gulen is acquitted from all the accusations based on the faked up and manufactured evidence by Ergenekon gangs, after a long trial period, by court decisions, unanimously. Lastly, both sides of the case is already mentioned in the article. What else? Nurefsan (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah you were referring to the court case again. That is only an outlet of the controversy. It seems most of the controversy is around is influence on politics. In a secular state religious leaders should be very wary about influencing politics; Gulen seems to have made this political influence part of his agenda. Arnoutf (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent results indicate that for more than 30 years some people in the high ranks of military and other gang members in press and other institutions, manufacturing evidence to degrade Gulen his movement systematically. The Ergenekon gangs is under investigation now. Some of them who are responsible for faked up evidence already escaped from Turkey. It is the most important investigation of Turkey history. The controversies are the product of their relentless efforts. And they proved incorrect by the court decisions. The controversies is not about his political influence. The opponents read his intentions and worry about his so called hidden agenda. You again started doing original research here: The facts need to be mentioned in the article neutrally, not someone's interpretations or inferences. Nurefsan (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

All facts need to be mention neutrally and balanced without giving undue attention to details. We will have to agree about relevance neutraility and balance of facts. By the way, if you argue Gulen goes free because he has not be convicted (an argument I agree with), you will (by the same rationale) also have to maintain the innocence of (e.g.) the Ergenekon gangs until these are actually convicted. This kind of argument goes two ways, even if you don't like the implications you will have to stand for this (again referring to the core of the neutral point of view issue). Arnoutf (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If I would write an article about Ergenekon gangs, I would do it exactly as you suggested. Nurefsan (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I know above emphasis on methods and facts is rather empiricist, I also know that this (scientific) tradition is far from dominant in most of the world (including parts of Europe). It is however very dominant in the AngloSaxon world. And as En.Misplaced Pages is based in the AngloSaxon culture (and language) Misplaced Pages lives by this philosophy.

I answered above.. Nurefsan (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

PS I agree it is not always easy to uphold a neutral view, and I (have) spend a serious amount of my Wiki time fighting natiolist sentiments (including Dutch natiolism on e.g. the Dutch people page). That I am now fighting for neutrality on a muslim thinker page does not mean anything; my fight for neutrality is not focussed on muslims, or nations at all; I protest as easily against pro Western sentiment if I find it. Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Nurefsan (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Before the protection expires

The situation as I see it (without going into the content of the article, as that will not be resolved here):

• Many of the edits on this article have been an edit war on which version should serve as a starting point for further development.
  
• Before we get into another edit war it is clear that we have to find an agreement which of the two article versions should serve as a starting point for further development of the article. If we do not come to an agreement it seems inevitable that a new edit war will erupt as soon as the protection expires.
  
• At the moment there is 1 editor in favour of the versions with the many references and the expansive top thinker section (Let's call this the Nuresfan-version) there are 2 editor in favour of the other version (the ArnotufDawud-version). The protectiing administrator (BlakcKite) also implied preference for this version.
  
• In the past, edit wars have gone on on this page, with the same issue (Nurefsan version - earlier ArnoutfDawud-versions). All these edit wars have resulted in a majority for the ArnoutfDawud-versions, and an end to the discussion where this version stayed.
  
• In all these cases the editor pushing the Nurefsan-version was blocked; usually because it was proven the editor was a sockpuppet of Philscirel (the original author of most of the Nurefsan version).
• The edit wars and blocking of editors resulted in periods of edit war, followed by relatively long stable periods with an earlier Arnoutf-Dawud version being in place.
• Both parties have invoked Wikipolicies on sourcing, POV, undue attention, etc. to make contrary points. Without mediation or arbritation references to these policies from both sides should be ignored as there is clearly no agreement on the implications of these policies for the article. Arnoutf (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on my analysis above I think the only way to avoid future edit wars is to choose one version.
Ignoring references to Wikipolicies (see analysis above why), we can only look for past and current majorities.
If we consider past and current majorities; and previous administrator actions (I do not mean BlackKites freezing of page here, as that is accidentily supporting one version) in the disputes on this page the obvious choice as a working version is the ArnoutfDawud-version. Arnoutf (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If you agree or disagree, feel free to comment and or amend. However, do not involve the content of the article in the discussion, as there is already 70k discussion on that without it bringing us the slightest closer to a solution. Let's try a process approach now. Arnoutf (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion: I took your earlier offer seriously, went over the article, moved relevent parts to the Movement article, and shortened as much as I can. Now at this point, I believe that the "Nurefsan version" (N-version) is the one we should work on further. It is the one with much more references and has been worked for much longer time. I would like to put the article into a good biography article form which does not include any negative or positive statements; only the facts in a neutral tone. If there are some POV statements in the version I am supporting, since I cannot see it, I would be glad to hear about them and change them into the neutral ones. I formulate my suggestion as follows:

(i) N-version is the one we will start with.

(ii) We will discuss the article section by section, sentence by sentence.

(iii) You need to specify the problem; where in the section, what, and why. You will avoid vauge, general statements..

(iv) You will offer a suggestion for a replacement.

(v) I will respond your suggestions.

(vi) If we agree we will replace the statement with the new one. If not, we will look for a compromise based on the wiki policies.

(vii) We will further discuss the section as a whole for adding new information. Nurefsan (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My offer for compromise was to work from seriously reduced N -version; adding sentence by sentence. By adding sections at a time you showed you did not take the compromise seriously, so any references to that idea are now moot.

In my overview I carefully avoided content issues (my version has better but my versio has more references). So that I will neglect that argument by you.

That leaves that it has been worked on much longer. I contest that claim. I was (long ago) a first effort. With the banning of Philscirel that version was abandoned. Only convicted socks of Philscirel have since suggested to re-introduce that version of the article. Sockpuppeteering cannot be counted as working on an article in honest, and therefore all time and effort on the N-version after Philscirle cannot be counted.

I have serious doubts about existence of Philscirel's sockpuppets. They seems to be administrative discretion to me. Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not my problem, a convicted criminal is guilty until the case is reopened. Not the forum for that here. Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot see the POV statements, for example in the Top thinker section, please read the 30k (or so) of diuscussion on that section alone.

You have not answered to the fact that only Philscirel (and his socks) and Nurefsan support the N-version while many editors have supported the other version.

I am sure as many editors are supporting N-version. They basically alienated and got tired of dealing with sneaky experienced users and determined admins. If a healty working environment is established, we will see more to come and contribute. Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure this is not the case. I have the numbers of editors to support my claim from the past, you do not. Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot go to the history page and list the editors supported N-version as it requires more time than I have. If you have a chance to do so, you will see it. The suckpupet list of Philscirel is already a few person. Look at the Melitop decision, for example. The admin blocks the user with a note like 'highly likely'. If you remember the Oscar case (was it Oscar, or something similar?), it seems to be that he was a big liar himself and was the trustworthy wiki officer to decide who are suckpuppet.. As I said there are editors contributed to the page much more than you think. You can check the history page to convince yourself. Nurefsan (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What you formulate is not so much a suggestion as an ultimatum. Your step (i) is the big issue that needs to be solved before all else. Unless we reach consensus on that all subsequent steps are irrelevant.

I cannot see your rationale for your conclusion. Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What conclusion. Most of your suggestions only apply if the N-version is taken as starting point. So that implicitly posits that it WILL be taken as starting point. That sounds like an ultimatum. Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a suggestion to me. Nurefsan (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that your first edit after the page protection expired was the resoration of the flawed N-version shows that you are not seriously looking for a compromise.

Why? Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Because you implemented something you are well aware of it being a controversial edit, while the discussion was not yet closed. Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is, for some reason, you think that the version you are supporting is superior then mine. I made a suggession here and took the action accordingly two days later. Nurefsan (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you think your version is superior and that can be proven by comments and edits. I have tried to give suggestions how to take something from your version into the compromise, you have not done anything about material in the other version. Arnoutf (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I took your suggestion seriously and I did all my best. I started from the shortened version you suggested and added the text I think has to be in the article. You can check the history page for this. Now it is your turn to show what is the problem with my edits, if any. Nurefsan (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Another problem with your is step iii. That goes against a very important Wiki principle. When a section is doubted, it is to the person supporting it to defend it BEFORE it can be allowed in, not to the person having problems attacking it.

Which wiki policies you are refering to. If there is it needs to be cahnged immediately as it is agains common sense and logic of a prudent person. When I support a section, that means that I believe it is appropriate. Wiki allows, as a free ensiclopedia, the editors edit articles as they think appropriate. If other editors see problems, they need to expalain their concerns. Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Policies demanding reliable sources and undue attention put the burden with the editor adding the information. Change them but until you manage to, live by them Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources are reliable. Your repeating that they are not does not make them unreliable. Zaman is the most prestigiour newspaper of Turkey, not only due to its being most selling magazine, due also to its impact. Besides, all references from Zaman can be supported from other sources as well. As I said earlier, you cannot write an article about Jesus without referring to the Christianity and sources from that belief (I am not saying Bible, as it is not appropriate in our case. Your answer above does not address my point). Regarding the undue issue: You are very willing to have the critical POV, I have no objection to that, but hesitate to include the comments about the critics from the movement. You cannot label them undue and exclude from the article if you really like to have a balanced and fair account. Nurefsan (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is like a broken record. This argument has been refuted again and again. If you still don't understand the difference between a popular newspaper (such as the Sun in the UK) and a reliable source (such as a peer reviewed scientific publication), you just do not understand the basics of referencing. It is up to you to familiarise yourself with that. Arnoutf (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very familiar with referencing scientific articles more than you can imagine. It is something that does not apply here. Is it a new wiki rule that only scientific journals can be referenced in wiki articles? I think you should try not to confuse apples with oranges. According to wiki policies verifiable information can be included from reliable sources. And reliability does not mean scientific. Zaman is like any other major newspaper and can be used as a reference according to wiki policies as it has been done in all the other articles of wikipedia. I do not know Sun in UK and cannot compare them. Zaman is a serious newspaper, not just a popular one only. It is an international, award winning, most selling, reference newspaper. Nurefsan (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To show that whatever I try, you will not work seriously to a comprimse I comment on the Top thinker section again. I am sure you will not agree with any of the below, but that is again evidence in case you are not at all serious about a neutral article.

And this indicates that my earlier assesment about your being unhappy most about top thinker section is validated. I would recommend you sincerely reconsider if the top thinker was from West, let us say a Danish thinker, would you still be worried as much? Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course another conspiracy theory claim; funny how these always appear when there is no chance to come up with an argument that has any merit. From your comments, I guess you are from Turkey and/or a muslim. Can you honestly and truly say none of your edits are coloured by any form of nationalist thought whatsoever. BTW See Pim Fortuyn where I think his "Grootste Nederlander" (Most important Dutchman of all times) section is already pushing it, but is just acceptable. Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate to see that you are classifying my arguments the ones without merit. No, I am addressing the core issues here, without conspiracy theories, honestly. I am afraid you do not think on what I am saying carefully. I could not find the section you are referring to in Fortuyn article and I cannot understand why you think it is just acceptible for him in your opinion. If I have any POV statemet in the article, I am willing to replace it by fair, balanced, and neutral ones. I am sure everyone has his POV, but the point is being ready to neutralize it when it comes to an ensyclopedia article. Nurefsan (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is there somewhere in the Fortuyn article, I think within the legacy, hidden indeed, and I still think it gets too much attention. Arnoutf (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• TOP thinker the facts:
• In an internet poll by Foreign policy Gulen was ranked top public thinker

Yes, and mentioned in the article. Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't argue with that Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Foreign Policy is a magazine, not an academic source, making its authority to organise any such lists weak (at best)

It does nto to be an academic journal. This is your interpretation, not a fact. Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See reliable sources. In any case, Foreign policy magazine is a primary source here. Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• It has furthermore been shown that this specific election was problematic due to attention to it in Turkey, dramateically raising votes for Gulen (the only Turkish thinker on the list).

This is mentioned in the article. Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't argue with that Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• For both above reasons the outcome of this election has almost no relevance at allo.

Incorrect conclusion. We are talking about a movement leader and he got votes from all around the world. A more than half million votes are remarkable in whatever way you consider it. Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Half a million is not very many if you consider repeated voting is likely possible, and this was a worldwide vote; Fortuyn received 130,000 votes calling him largest Dutchmen from the Netherlands alone (with a total of 300,000 votes cast in the Netherlands). Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I consider a conspiracy theory. The FM editors already say that they had all technical protections in place to avoid multiple votes. Besides, Gulen movement has no need to do so. THey have already millions of people all around the world. Nurefsan (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And here I see your own argument WHY this election was flawed - i.e. if the Gulen movement was at any time at any moment responding to the vote before it closed, it implies that it was willfully hijacked, much like the GM nation debate in the UK. Arnoutf (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are trying hard to find a reason to ignore the election results. It is not a good approach. I cannot see what you mean above, but I think you believe you had some important conclusion. I am saying that, it is cleart that Zaman mentioned about the poll when the poll was open. And there are millions of people all around the world respect the movement. They may chose to vote, it is their right to do so. The poll started for public opinion. There is no need to multiple votes as you mentioned. If the movement could decide to ask from all its members, the voteds could be in millions, not just a half million. This shows that when they are aware of the poll, some of them may chose to vote, biut surely most of them did not care about the poll. Nurefsan (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thus any reference going beyond small mentioing is undue attention.

It can be shortened. But the short version should be balanced, fair and neutral. Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It MUST be shortened. We agree it should be balanced fair and neutral. Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a must. I am accepting your version just for the sake of compromise. Nurefsan (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It MUST be shortened because of WP:UNDUE. Arnoutf (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not because of WP:UNDUE, but maybe because of Arnoutf:Undue. Your definition of Undue is different from WP one. If you include a critic you need to include the response if any for a balanced account. Nurefsan (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Further POV remains in the section as a comment about the Hijacking is trivialised; while Zaman's editor (note Zaman had nothing to do with the election so its editor is not a reliable source at all because he lacks the necessary information to make such claims, besides this Zaman has a tendency of pro Gulen sentiment is not neutral in that regard).

You cannot be serious. I cannot see what do you exactly mean by hijacking? His followers support and vote for him? It is a term used by a columnist without a clear explanation of the appropriateness of the term. You claim that Zaman's adv increased the votes but do not think a response from Zaman is relevant. You think that Zaman belongs to Gulen network and votes from the members of movement increased Gulen's votes but do not like to hear a response from them? You think a cloumnist can say that the election is hijacked but another one can't say; no, it did not? Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The call by Zaman to vote for Gulen, or at least making clear that he was competing gave him unfair advantage. The Zaman newspaper was not neutral in this (whether it was intentional or not), therefore it is likely that Zaman comments following up will have been intended to state their role has not been decisive. Zaman being one of the parties in the issue is therefore a primary source, and therefore has to be treated as an unreliable source in this issue. (Hijacking is a phrase attributed to the Zaman editor, not from me). Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No hijaking is used by and Bulent Kenes, editor-in-chief of Today's Zaman newspaper, responded.

This is already a public poll organized by a magazine. It is just fair to mention it in another newspaper. It may give Gulen an advantage, but that is mentioned already in the article. I addressed reliability issue in many places and above again. Nurefsan (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To remove all above problems my proposal is to

• Mention the elections in the media section (it is media attention after all).

So you want it be in a less attractive position in the article not as a whole section.. OK. Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• To limit it to a short factual statement: "In a recent internet poll of Foreign Policy magazine Gülen was named as the top public thinker. However, serious doubts about the validity of this poll were raised, as it seems likely that press attention to the poll in Turkey increased voting for Gülen dramatically."

Yes, this is short but not factual. It includes non-neutral personal interpretation. It should definitely include Gulen's response to the results as well. How aout the following:

"In a recent internet poll of Foreign Policy magazine Gülen was named as the top thinker. Some concerns about the poll were raised though, as it seems likely that press attention to the poll in Turkey increased voting for Gülen dramatically." plus Gulen's evaluation of the results... If you agree with this, I will move the section to the media coverage and make this change. Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I can live with some concerns. Please add "public" to thinker as that is the context of the election. Further comment by Gulen are over the top to my mind. Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the change in the section and replaced the old version. I kept related news and information from other magazines. Nurefsan (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think this is not neutral and fair; you (not me) have shown that you are pushing a non-neutral point of view.

So if I think your version is not neutral, then am I being the one who pushing non-neutral POV? Is neutrality an intrinsic attribute of your statements? A pretty new definition of neutrality.. Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Most other section have similar problems, and since there is a perfectly fine alternative version of the article, it is not to me to identify these. Solve them and then come back with bit by bit proposal for expansion. Arnoutf (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No. All editors have right to edit the information they think is appropriate in terms of wiki regulations. If you see a problem you need to show where, what and why. It is illogical to expect one to find the problems s/he think do not exist. Nurefsan (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Done that zillions of times before; but that is a two edged argument. The Philscirel version has been replaced by another long time age and you have NEVER EVER shown a problem with that other version. The only you problem you have with that one is that it is not your version. So the challenge stands. What is intrinsically wrong with the other version if you would seriously consider that the N-version does not at all exist. Because, as you are free to edit, so are others, and you have to show what is wrong with their work. Arnoutf (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, the A-version deletes many important information, verified, sourced information from the article. I said this repeatedly but you do not like to hear it. Besides, when you change a long lasting version you should have a reason for it. The whole article cannot be deleted with 100 references. Some old users here alienated and pushed out of the project. That does not make the article neutral. Killing all the others in the town may make the town stable for you, but does not mean that you are right. If not me, someones else will come and attempt to put it into neutral tone. The article can be stabilized, if and only if we can work together and have a neutral version. And I am working to that end. Nurefsan (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So called deletion of material is not intrinsically problematic with that version, as it is a comparison to the other version. That argument is therefore invalid.

The A version has been (more or less) stable for the last year. That makes it the current long lasting version. Where is your argument what is intrinsically wrong with that version (comparison to the N version is invalid as that is not intrinsic to te A version)

Since you have given no arguments what is intrinsically wrong with the A version, and I (and other editors) have given many, repeatedly over the last year what is wrong with the other version; it is clear which version has the least problems; and has to serve as starting point. If you can come up with a number of strong arguments what is intrinsically wrong with the 'A version' I am willing to reconsider otherwise I will reinstate the non-critisised A version as starting point for further discussion.

The next time you start whining about conspiracies, pushing out editors, non-acceptability of reference removal and other things like that I will stop arguing all together and just have it my way. Take it on good faith that nobody is out there after you. Most of the problems you are encountering here is placing all opposition as something not related to things you do, but to the unwillingness of others to work with you. Well my friend, discussion, empathy and compromise is two way traffic and is based on building up credits. Arnoutf (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You cannot invalidate a version at your discretion.

Which is what you do all the timeArnoutf (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you do not like to hear and think carefully what I am saying, you may reach such a conclusion. Nurefsan (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

According to wiki policies page blanking and deleting verified information is vandalism. If you do so, some other editors can do the same to your version as well, and you cannot even whine for it as it becomes reflection of your mistake.

There is no page blanking, read the relevant policy; before you lay claims to it (all involved admins have rejected claims to page blanking repeatedly). Arnoutf (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is. The whole N-version is deleted. It includes 100+ references, from all sort of sources, from academic to prestigious journals. None of the admin rejection I am aware of. I would not care if one of them be so ignorant to the policies they are expected to reinforce. The written material WP:vandalism or WP:page blanking clearly indicates so. Nurefsan (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The article need to be gradually improved considering and addressing all concerns.

I agree Arnoutf (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I did my part for a compromise: I took your earlier suggestion seriously and worked from there, added the text i believe should be included.

You added complete sections that I had removed as problematic, without rewriting them. That is not taking an offer seriously. Arnoutf (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I think the whole section should be in. As I said repeatedly, if I think they are problematic, I would not post them back. If you think they are problematic you should show why? Nurefsan (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am expecting you raise your concerns about the current text for a discussion.

I did repeatedly Arnoutf (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No you did not, except Top Thinker section. And the section is modified accordingly. Nurefsan (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems it is working as we reached a consensus in Top thinker case. We can workout other parts similarly.

We have not yet, as my proposal was to limit it to 2 lines, without a separate header. We did make some progress though. You place all of the burden for flagging up issues with me. That is unfair division of labour. Arnoutf (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The two lines as you suggested are already in place. It is completely irrelevant to ask something that is not based on wiki policies. Misplaced Pages is a free ensyclopedia, not Arnoutf's ensyclopedia. There is no retionale behind deleting the seperate header. On the other hand, just for the sake of compromise, I will delete it this time. But keep in mind that its being less visible in the article does not add any value to the article. It may just make you feel better for some reason.. This is a remarkable achievement of Gulen and mentioning and openly accepting other people's achievements is a merit. Trying to hide them is not so noble. Nurefsan (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding intrinsically wrong parts of A version: It is non-neutral, imbalanced, unfair account of Gulen.

Do you have specific examples

Oh, now are you asking me for some examples? That is something you hesitate to provide for N-version. The examples are mentioned below. Nurefsan (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is mostly based on 3 authors and mainly their critics.

Do you mean 3 sources? In any case, for referencing it is not the number of sources but the quality and relevance of the sources. A number does not mean anything. Arnoutf (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes 3 sources. If there are information from well qualified 100 surces in an article, trading them with 3 other sources is a comical argument. Nurefsan (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Even their overall ideas are not mentioned neutrally.

Whose? Those of the sources?

Yes, of those sources. Nurefsan (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The relevant parts from A-version can be added to N-version too, in a balanced, fair, neutral tone, if you think it includes important information, by the way.

That is a symmetric argument. N-version stuff can be added to the A-version if we agree addition is needed. Arnoutf (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We cannot discuss two version in parellel as we are having difficulty with one of them. If you like to incorporate A-version to N-version, I would be willing to discuss that option. Nurefsan (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It excludes many internationally verified information that N-version has.

Much of the discussion has revolved around doubts of reliability of just that information. Arnoutf (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That is your personal interpretation. Nurefsan (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is non-neutral, and is a negative dominant version.

Explicit and precise evidence has been provided for many sections where the N-version was non-neutral and positive dominant. Without such references your critisism is empty. Please provide clear examples of statement you consider negative and non neutral. Arnoutf (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no explicit and precise evidence at all. All I had as specific critics was for the Top Thinker version and it has been modified accordingly, including your inappropriate requests for the sake of compromise.. See previous ansver. Nurefsan (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you like to take the issue again to an edit war stage, and do not like to discuss, I have no further arguments to persuade you. All I can say is that I would not prefer that. Nurefsan (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither would I, but you still have not satisfactorily given problems that lie only in the A version. Arnoutf (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The problems are listed above, if you really like to understand them. Your putting a sentence below my argument does not mean what I have set forth is answered. Your responses sound like a response for the sake of response. We cannot work two versions in parallel as even one is hard to deal with. Nurefsan (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have had it, I am talking to a wall.
Anyone who wants to check the history. All compromise proposals for over a year are made by me (Arnoutf). Evidence of non-reliability of sources has been provided by multiple editors (among others Adoniscik and myself), references to point of view violation in the N version have been made by multiple editors (among others Adoniscik, Dawud and myself)
Suddenly the other party claims to have been willing to compromise. That is plain laughable. Arnoutf (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you still did not get it and it is likely that you won't get it in the near future.. If all compromise proposals are made by you, it is not your success, it is more of the success of the editors who tolerated your version for the sake of compromise. I am not sure if you are mentally mature enough to be able to see this. Maybe that is the difference between your and my approach. One is sincere effort to compromise, the other is rather pushy one. Guess who is who? An immediate example is your recent relentless efforts, which shows how my earlier assessment of your motivation was correct, to hide the fact that Gulen is voted the top thinker. Congratulations, you could delete the references one by one referring to this fact. You will most likely present this as your success too sometime in the future. As I said before, hiding other peoples achievements is not a noble behavior. Not a single specific POV reference, nor a single specific evidence of non-reliability is provided. All I could hear so far were fuzzy, general, vauge, and cheap overall statements. The only exception to this is your favorite topic; the top thinker. The agreement was not reached by your self-sacrifice though. Nurefsan (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting worldview. Relentless edit-warring is not pushy, while proposing a compromise where someone gives in on several major points is. Arnoutf (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

acquited -> acquitted. Best regards. Symplectic Map (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Mehmet his first name?

Is Mehmet his first name? As far as I know it is "Muhammed" not Mehmet. Also several birth dates are given which confuses the reader. I think we should only mention to "27 April 1941" since it is his common known birth date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.43.147 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The official name is Fethullah Gulen without Mehmet or Muhammed. Nurefsan (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

use of sources

All critical sources are being trivialised or contextualised with pro-Gulen views. If we want to do this fairly, we have to add to each and every single reference of Zaman the following: known Gulen supportive and Gulen movement owned paper Zaman reports. Otherwise it is clear the use of sources. All Gulen website sources should have the comment added "Gulen claims himself on his website". I dont do this source use is unacceptable pro Gulen; and we can only go to the shorter version, were all these issues are solved. Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I did this in the lede. It now looks horrible, put at least non neutral sources are exposed; so the reader can form his/her own judgement. Arnoutf (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, we have to get rid of biased sources, for all but the most trivial truths. Zaman is owned by Gulen and therefore suspect. Gulen's own website is obviously non neutral.

Another compromise by me (making clear in the text that the sources is suspicious) has been reverted.

So this is it.

• Proposing compromises leads to me being called pushy and unfair.
• Removal of biased texts, references not supporting claims, and highly biased sources is called vanadalism
• Trying to add some balance results in my references being shoved into minor remarks contextualised with a lot of pro Gulen propaganda (or they are "accidentily" deleted)
• Contextualising Gulen propaganda is reverted.

There is really nothing more I can do. I have given, given, given in this debate. Nurefsan has only made some trivial changes in the margin of the text (he is not even prepared to mention in the article that the date of birth is not clear cut, although he himself provided that information).

There is only one solution. We work word by word from the version as Dawud has been working on. Arnoutf (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting edit summary by Nurefsan on yet another revert: "Neither removal not deliberate falsification by User Arnoutf will be tolerated anymore. He stoped discussing (see discussion page) and started an edit war instead.".
I have been the only one starting discussion, so indeed, if I stop diplomacy while the enemy has violently conquered most of my country I am starting a war. Let's call it a last ditch defense against obvious aggressive invasive edit war instead. Arnoutf (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

1. http://religion.info/english/interviews/article_74.shtml
2. http://en.fgulen.com/recent-articles/2897-women-confined-and-mistreated.html
3. Schwartz, Stephen (2008). "The real Fethullah Gülen". Prospect Magazine. Retrieved 2008-07-24. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
4. Islamic scholar is world's No. 1 thinker

• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Islam-related articles
• Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
• Unassessed Muslim scholars articles
• Unknown-importance Muslim scholars articles
• Muslim scholars task force articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Turkey articles
• Low-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics