From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Muslim scholars article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Muslim scholars. It has been rated - on the quality scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article is part of WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
1	2	3

Contents 1 The NPOV tag 2 Sources 2.1 Lead section 2.2 Biography 2.3 State and social issues 2.4 Removing sections 3 Lots of words 4 Earlier points 5 AZATE's contributions 6 Some Changes 7 A concern 7.1 Note 8 Changes 9 Revisions to the introduction 10 Image and Introduction Explanation 10.1 Image copyright 10.2 = Image copyright question 11 Comment on the latest merge by Ohnoitsjamie and a new proposal 12 On the introduction

[edit] The NPOV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Sources

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

[edit] Lead section

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

[edit] Biography

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

[edit] State and social issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Removing sections

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

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

[edit] Lots of words

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

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

[edit] Earlier points

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

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

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

[edit] AZATE's contributions

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

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

Baroqqque, I agree with your second suggestion. This page needs to be protected by moderator editions. Gulen is a controversial figure, having his supporters with a lot of love to him and his opponents with a lot of hate to him. This article needs to be saved from both of them. Contributions can be discussed at the talk page and then make their way to the original article.

As for your third suggestion. First of all you sounded it is very bad to invest on education. The criteria to find resource accountable cannot be reduced to affiliation. Then, you will have to discredit the works of those who hate Gulen as well. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, rival ideas collapse and a cooperative text is created.--Harput 19:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Changes

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

[edit] A concern

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

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

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

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

[edit] Note

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

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

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

[edit] Changes

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

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

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

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

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

1. Pay attention here to a name (the same editor barouqque reverted back to his/her version recently): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=prev&oldid=23140176
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=next&oldid=27934275

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

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=54128047&oldid=54126424 and
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=54150016&oldid=54149982

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

There is no reason to repeat the same discussions already made by some editors. It is not healthy that someone come and revert an article to a very old version. All contributions in between will be lost. Please note also that the references provided in their version are not English and not reliable. The comments supported by these citations are totally misleading.

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

[edit] Revisions to the introduction

I removed the following sentences since they do not comply with Wikipedia Guidelines on Living People Biographies, such as criteria of verifiablity, neutral point of view and no original research.

• detractors accuse him of illegal activities aimed at undermining the secular republic and replacing it with an Islamic state.
  • A recent Turkish court ruling contradicts with the above mentioned sentence. For example Turkish Daily News states: "An Ankara court acquitted Turkish religious leader Fethullah Gulen of trying to overturn Turkey's secular regime, the Anatolia news agency reported on Friday." (Turkish Daily News, 5/6/2006)
  • Everybody has a right to be suspicious about other’s intentions but any serious article cannot contain unverifiable suspicions.

• His followers are sometimes referred to as Fethullahci (Supporters of Fethullah), while they choose to refer themselves as "Hizmet Insani" (Those devoted to service to others). His influence extends over much of Central Asia and Caucasus.
  • Academic publications on Fethullah Gulen and his movement uses the term Gulen Movement. For example M. Hakan Yavuz and John L. Esposito, eds. Turkish Islam and the Secular State: The Gulen Movement (Syracuse University Press, 2003)

--Harput 18:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image and Introduction Explanation

I added a new image copied from http://www.sxc.hu/photo/455221 which does not have any copyright violation. This new image happens to be with the same name with a previously deleted image since it is the first and the last name of the person. I don't understand why Netscott deleted the quoted text just based on a suspicion? The text is completely new and meets the Wikipedia standards. There is a very detailed explanation about my changes above. It also includes two new references.

Please edit responsibly. I'm going to revert my changes. I spent several hours to revise the article so that it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. You can explain concerns here and I will try to answer as much as I can. Thanks. --Harput 19:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright

Regarding the image; though you say that there is "no copyright violation," I'm not sure that the image's license is compatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Note this section of the license (available via a link below the image):

SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!

I think Wikipedia requires less restrictive licensing, except in "fair use" cases where no other image is available. I'm not an expert on this topic, but that's my take on it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] = Image copyright question

Dear [[User:Ohnoitsjamie | Ohnoitsjamie], I agree with you on requiring a less restrictive licensing. I am confused about your comment though. According to the website (http://www.sxc.hu/photo/455221) that I downloaded the image from , on the Restrictions section it clearly states that "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." Doesn't it qualify for Wikipedia licencing requirements? --71.136.15.191 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on the latest merge by Ohnoitsjamie and a new proposal

Ohnoitsjamie, I have some questions and proposals for your latest merge (13:16, 26 October 2006):

• you maintained the following sentence: "...while detractors accuse him of illegal activities aimed at undermining the secular republic and replacing it with an Islamic state."
  • This is a big criminal accusation (intention to destruct the Turkish state) without any proof, especially after a Turkish court ruling that acquitted him after years of investigation. Isn't this statement similar to accusing somebody for a murder without any proof?
  • I remember the big incidence where biography of John Seigenthaler, a retired journalist, was modified with a false statement claiming that he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations. (See USA Today) Wikipedia had to apologize and modify its policies, such as not allowing anynomous editing on the articles after John made it public.
  • In this respect, I'd like to propose a less strong following sentence instead: "...whereas detractors accuse him of having a hidden political agenda for weakening Kemalist dominance in state institutions.

• You removed the sentence "... certain radical Islamists criticize him for initiating interfaith dialogue.".
  • I agree that this statement needs a reference. Following article discusses the critics of Haydar Baş, Islamic terrorist group IBDA-Cs to Gülen movement's interfaith dialogues.
    • Ahmet T.Kuru, “Globalization and Diversification of Islamic Movements: Three Turkish Cases,” Political Science Quarterly 120 (2): 253-274.)

• As for this sentence: "His followers are sometimes referred to as Fethullahci (Supporters of Fethullah) "
  • 'ci/cu/çı' type of suffixes in Turkish means somebody who sells something. E.g. "süt" means "milk" and "sütçü" means "somebody who sells milk". The term "Fethullahçı" (misspelled as Fethullahci in the article) is mainly used as means of belittling his supporters. Every group can use certain adjectives about politicians, their opponents but these type of adjectives does not fit into a formal article.

• This sentence "His influence extends over much of Central Asia and Caucasus." has been redundant by the statement in the following paragraph which is "He has inspired several Turkish NGOs to open about 500 educational institutions in more than 90 countries including Eurasia, Africa and North America.". In my opinion it sounds better to remove this.

I won't make changes before I hear from you and reaching a consensus.

--Harput 08:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me first say that my knowledge of Gülen is mostly limited to things I've read in this article, and I'm not an expert on Turkey. As such, I think I'm reasonably neutral of opinion regarding this subject, so I occasionally try to help opposing sides reach a consensus.

Regarding the "criminal accusation" part; there's a big difference between declaring something as a fact in the article and mentioning what a particular person or group thinks. (The same goes for "Fethullahçı"; if his detractors commonly refer to his followers with that word, it's fair to mention it, though it should also be mentioned that it's pejorative. On the other hand, any controversial statement (whether positive or negative) can be legitimately challenged as needing a source. In such cases, it's often safest to quote directly from a source to eliminate any ambiguity. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is always necessary to have a impartial mediator in any controversial discussion. It is great to have you on board for this matter Ohnoitsjamie.

I like your suggestion. A reliable source needs to be referenced for any accusations. Quoting directly from the source is a good idea. How do you suggest modifying this?

What do you think of the sentence: "... certain radical Islamists criticize him for initiating interfaith dialogue." His detractors are not all one group with the same idea, I believe this also needs to be noted in the introduction.

Quote from above: 'ci/cu/çı' type of suffixes in Turkish means somebody who sells something. E.g. "süt" means "milk" and "sütçü" means "somebody who sells milk". The term "Fethullahçı" (misspelled as Fethullahci in the article) is mainly used as means of belittling his supporters. Well, not quite. 'ci/cu/çı' means lots of things, like the English suffixes 'er/ers', 'an/ans' or 'ist/ists' do. It's like saying "Republicans", where you can mean, and are then generally understood to have meant, the members and supporters of the U.S. American party in question plus their hundreds of affiliate or supportive organizations, even if the particular organizations have a name that doesn't contain the phrase "republican" at all (eg. the American Enterprise Institute). It's just a shorthand, and there is no belittlement at all in the word itself. Their only objection to and problem with the term Fethullaci is: Many of the "Fethullahçı" organizations now try to camouflage their connections to each other and pretend to be independent, because too open association with F.Gülen would 'taint' them, too. As a matter of fact, as far as individuals in leading positions are concerned, all these many hundreds organizations form one big interwoven, overlapping network, with F.Gülen at the top. (many cadres are in leading positions of dozens of legally independent organizations). You'll frequently encounter single-purpose, throw-away organizations with a big name "United European-Asian World Peace Interfaith Conference" or some such, that are founded, quickly organize a conference at some rented facility, issue big press releases, award a couple of awards to sister-organizations, and vanish. These sister organizations then sport that award forever, and use is to impress hapless bureaucrats abroad, where they campaign for influence of some sort. That's "Fethullaci". Legally, F.Gülen is a pennyless pensioner without any influence. In practice, he leads the whole shebang. Azate 12:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Azate, I think it is not correct to base Gülen group's success on "throw-away organizations with a big name". As you may have heard one of the previous prime ministers, Bülent Ecevit, died this Sunday. His past away reminded me his mention of Turkish schools abroad in his speech in Davos 2000 World Economic Forum. I also remember that previous Turkish presidents used to be reference for these schools. Littleraindrop 21:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the introduction

Modified Baroqqque's changes. He opposed the use of the term NGO and I replaced it with "volunteers". In the introduction it is good to mention important aspects. That's why I kept the information about the education institutions and interfaith dialogue. His current stay in US can also be included here with the same reason.

• RV: single purpose accounts, first by harput then bythe anonymous editor above, similar to rgulerdem; gulen is not known primariliy for interfaith as rest of text makes clear, at least not to a degree that deserves mention in introduction, does not mention departure concides with legal proceedings etcBaroqqque 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

First, the anonymous & harput are both me. I forgot to login before editing. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not warn when editing anonymously, I wish it did. I don't like leaving my account logged in but I will try to be more careful. I don't know rgulerdem at all. You can criticize my ideas, but disputing my text by just generalizing as being similar to someone else is not right. If you have followed my contributions you will see that I was very careful to not every sentence but every word. I think I have the right to expect the same from you as well.

Secondly, how can you be the only authority to make the judgment whether he is known for interfaith? On the other hand, it is easy to point out even only in US many of NGOs influenced by him (yes, they are subject to 503-C in US with valid bylaws, accepted as non-profit organization by the federal and state governments) that are devoted to interfaith dialogue. Rumi Forum is just one example to this.

You are just reverting the text without giving a valid reason. I'd be very happy if unbiased moderators, such as Ohnoitsjamie, help us here in the merge. It is not fair to make the text one man's or one idea's show. It is normal to have controversies, and I'm sure civilized people can find comprises to reach consensus.

--Harput 07:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Haven't heard back from Baroqqque or anyone else on the matter. I'm reverting my changes. Please explain in the talk page if you want to modify it. --Harput 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Read Azate for comment on NGO and Rumi forum. The comments you try to add are relevant, but belong to the main text, otherwise it is also possible to add sources about why his interfaith announcement and his purpoted health problem are controversial to the introduction, which would make it too long. Read the history to understand why introduction is kept minimal. Praises to editors for being unbiased, a positive tone followed by insistence on POV comments etc have all been tried before.Baroqqque 01:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Baroqqque makes a good point; an introduction should be concise. I see that the paragraph about him inspiring others to open institutions in other countries is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. I restored the note about his most recent whereabouts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Baroqqque, I totally mean what I say about the need for an unbiased, impartial moderator. It is not a praise to any one. That would be seeing someone very naive and I would consider it as an insult to that person. If a moderator is balanced towards any view, he's not doing his job, there is no question in that. What's POV, by the way? As I noted in Azate's comments section, Gulen is a controversial figure. That's true that the text might be tried to altered by his supporters but it is also true that his opponents try to put as much false information as possible to discredit him. I would support your view to protect this page. My contributions to this article is very recent and it is not very pleasant to be judged by wrongdoings of someone else. Judge me according to my own contributions please.

OhNoitsJamie, I agree with Baraqqques point of making the introduction concise too. However I strongly believe that "inspiring people to open about 500 educational institutions in more than 90 countries" would make it to the introduction about someone. Whether we like it or not this is an unprecedented achievement. Those schools at different countries (Asia, Africa, Europe, Americas, etc.) are all subject to the rules of local governments and they're always under deep scrutiny from local authorities, yet they're supported by them. I don't think the phrase "His influence extends over much of Central Asia and Caucasus." is sufficient to express this. We have a saying in Turkish "Yiğidi öldür, hakkını yeme." (can be translated as "Even if you kill a brave man, at least give him credit for his achievements" or maybe equivalent to "give the devil his due"). --Harput 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• THe reason editors are cautious is because gulen supporters has repeateadly vandalized the page, and the problem is likely to persist; in fact, i provided a link above from a Gulen group mailing list calling for a concerted and gradual program to bring the wikipedia article in line with the biography propagated by the group. I strongly suggest you go through the archive before starting edit wars. The article definitely needs improvement, but your contributions up to now seem to be too much in line with the groups ow view of Gulen, and are not encyclopedic or ctitical in nature. In particular, if you are close to the group, more about the internal workings and organization of the group will be appreciated.It is likely objective and factual contributions, rather than edits that tilt the article towards a more favorable view of Gulen, will prevent the accusations of being a puppet or metapuppet of Rgulerdem that you were subjected to.
• I do not object the Gulen followers adding their view of Gulen to the article, the issue is they seem unwilling to acknowledge Gulen is a highly controversial figure in TUrkey. Gulen supporters often bring out comments supportive of Gulen, but the fact of the matter is there are a similar number or more arguments and comments that are highly critical of Gulen. This also holds true for the educational institutions that you mentioned; note that the Gulen group were banned in Russia and Ozbekistan for influence mendling . When the opinions about him are so divergent, it is inevitable that the article will carry the "both side of the story" format, instead of the celebratory praise that Gueln supporters believe that he is due. Baroqqque 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think current version of the introduction is an ideal one. In the introduction we say Gulen is accused of working for replacing the secular republic with an Islamic state (a claim rejected by Turkish courts) then in the text accusers say he has ties with US implying that he is working for the benefit of US government. Which claim is true? (I believe both claims are false). If they believe both claims are true then it would be great to learn how they explain US government's recent war in Afghanistan. Wasn't it for replacing a theocratic government with a democratic one? Littleraindrop 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Resid! you're back! Let's see how long it'll be before your old editing habits will see you blocked again. (→Netscott) 00:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not Resid. What is wrong with indicating a contradiction in the article? Littleraindrop 10:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• I also think he is Resid. The reason I am not 100% sure is anybody who has read the Gulen literature and interacted with GUlen supporters knows they have a standard playbook for interacting with nonmembers; i.e. being extra polite, assuming a nonconfrontational attitude, appealing to emotions rather than factual information/ rational arguments, reference to dialagoe,tolerance, working together constructively etc, a positive approach; reference to the causes of the oppressed, such as palestinians; superflous than you notes and praises even after a passing interaction etc. Thus it is easy to mistake one member of the Gulen group for another. NOt that being polite is bad, but if you go through all the contributions of Gulen supporters and their comments in the edit wars you will notice the information content is minimal while the "appeals to emotions", personal comments about editors and themselves etc. takes up much of the space.Baroqqque 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Baroqqque, you are lying, I was not (unfortunately) polite at all, based on your constant insult. Anybody can see it quite easily if they check my edit summaries.Littleraindrop 22:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• another common theme is oppression by tyrants, the tyrant being, for turkey, the secular offiials that ban headscarf in universities, for wikipedia, partial moderatirs, and for middle east the jews; check rgulerdem's and littleraidrops histories for examples of the argument. Its ironic that you can trace the theme all the way back to Kuran, and from there, to the old testament, the opppression of the jews by the phroah.Baroqqque 18:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Baroqqque, you say "the tyrant being, for Turkey, the secular officials", how do you know I'm not in favour of secular state? Littleraindrop 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)