Fethullah Gülen edit
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we -the editors- would like to clarify if it's appropriate to define this person as a philosopher. Since we don't see any refences mentioning him under "Philosophy of Religion" and "Philosophy of Education" pages, it's causing major disputes among editos. We would like the editors contributing subjects related to "Philosophy and Religion" review both article & discussion pages to provide us some input, so then this dispute would -hopefully- be resolved.
Thanks, AA 21:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am archiving this per Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy - I would suggest opening a request for comment to decide this issue instead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
it is actually decided by consensus of the contributing editors after a long discussion.[1] additional evidence can be found here for his philosophy books, in the last paragraph of the news. Philscirel (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC) I don't think we have the consensus after all, otherwise as an editor, I wouldn't escalate the issue here. Nonethless I will raise a request for comment. Regarding concensus, I remember we had a concensus (2-to-1) to include "Criticism" session, but you objected. Please see the discussions for "Criticism". (AA 20:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC))
- please stop using this media to degrade gulen. we are trying to write a biography. using wiki standards, just like in the Noam Chomsky example you provided, we can move the related info to a different article. Philscirel (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)