This is an archive of past discussions about Fethullah Gülen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

RGulerdem: Bias Article

This article need to be reviewed, eddited and put into a form that is acceptable by everyone. It is an article which has a strong bias against Gulen between the lines. Almost all sentences are problematic. I suggest to replace my version, I added recently, and work on it till a concensus.

Best,

ON DELETING THE TURKISH LINKS: I think they should stay, there is no rule all the links should be in ENglish, and for a reseracher it gives a starting point for etting the know what the critics think: the critics don tave too many web pages in English

RESPONSE AND BEGAN EDITING: I dont see why "Cumhuriyet" is not a reliable source. Certainly it has a secularist bias, but it is not suprising that it is a secularist newspaper that challanges Gulen. About Hulki Cevizoglu, your argument doesnt make sense; "what does "every knower knows" mean? Besides, Hulki Cevizolu is hardly the only respected journalist to accuse him. About Veren, are you denying that he was the right hand man of Gulen and is it surprising that he is denounced once he breaks away from the group.

2) Im planning to rewrite the article, my plan is to add the actual events and then provide the views of supporters and adverseries of Gulen on the event. think we can really get a good article out of this, so I would appreciate if you could help me with the Gulen's supporters views of the events. Here are the events that I plan to add

a) his anticomunist activities before 1980

b) the rise of the movement through educational activities

c) Gulen's political connections

d) the tape incident and the ensuing legal battle, gulen's move to the US

e) the nurettin veren controversies

All the events above are facts, and as I said, i think we might put the two sides of the story for each.

I also started editing the existing page. Im taking out highly subjeective comments, like he "surpassed his peers at an early age", he inspired generations of students, his efforts were warmly welcomed by almost all walks of life, he is hailed as an innovator, he is admired by leading politicians etc. These comments dont belong to an encyclopedia. But I kept the factual events that these comments were based on.

I removed the part that said he shied away from politics; he had highly publicized one-to one meetings with two former prime ministers while they were in office, Bulent Ecevit and Tansu Ciller, this can easily be verified.

Some objective editor should check and verify that these removals are intended to make the article impartial and are not vandalisms. Im particularly willing to retract my mention of him going thorugh fits of emotion and crying during the sermons; I was amazed to see his intensity and certainly think his uniqiue way of preaching is worthy of note, but I can see his supporters finding it offensive to mention.

About my recent additions, they are mostly verifable public information, from newspapers, if anybody of them seem controversial I am happy to quote the sources. I tried to differtiate opinions from facts, you can bring up the points where I failed to do it and we can correct.

Ok, so much for now, ill continue later..

=

Hello,

I challenge you to prove any of the occusements you mentioned hereunder! Giving writings of the newspaper "Cumhuriyet" is certainly not objective, since that newspaper is totally against any religion, wether it is islam or christianity! As for the thing about Nurettin Veren .. I suggest you to read the interview given to the newspaper Milliyet: http://en.fgulen.com/a.page/press/interview/interview.with.mehmet.gundem.of.milliyet.daily/c277p1.html

About Cevizoglu. I can only say that this person wrote a lot of untrue things in his books. Every knower knows that. I hope that one day you will also be able to make a difference between trues and lies.

=

Response: Let me once again point out other respected journalists, such as Hulki Cevizoglu, has mentioned having received death threats, as well as the main media outlets broadcasting Fethullah Gulen's "hate preaches". Because of these tapes Gulen has been in the United States for the last 5 years. Gulen has denounced these tapes as being montages, and while I cant check the authenticty of the claim from here, the claim seems unlikely. In fact, recently, Gulen's former right hand man, Nurettin Veren has come out open on the group's secret dealings with the US government and conservative parties in Turkey. Veren has claimed he has been osrtacized from the sect for his alleged role in giving Gulen's preaching tapes to the media outlets. About the sources of debate: UNfortunately, as i mentioned earlier, it is hard to reach relable sources on this subject. One problem is well panned and executed PR efforts by the GUlen group. For example, Gulen's followers are notorious for undertaking mass mailing to any media outlet if any negative comment on GUlen is published. The interested reader who has acces to TUrkish media can verify this by checking TUrkish newspapers for negative comments against GUlen; within a day or two, the columnist more often than not write an article about the overwhelming response they get from readers with concerted positive views about Gulen. THe websites quoated below belong to Gulen's supporters, and upon first read the reader can immidiately tell they are not objective but rather promotion efforts. Gulen's main adverseries are groups with secular roots in Turkey, including the army. As Turkish republic was founded by the army, it has taken the unusual role of guarding country's republic and secularism. While this role is highly debated, and the army has been less eager to push the politicians, it remains staunchly opposed to Gulen. It is interesting that while there are numerous islamic groups in Turkey, the army has singularly focused on the GUlen group as a threat. This is due to the almost totalitarian nature of the organization and its concious efforts to infiltate into state by placing its followers into important positions. In particular, Gulen group is very strong in the bureacuracy of Interior Ministry and the Education ministry . As a response, the army asks a number of officers to leave its ranks for alleged connections to the organization. On the secular side, it is mostly groups tat are on the left and with insistence on the secular nature of the state that challange Gulen Group. Particularly, the daily "Cunhuriyet" has various exposes on the matter. The mainstream media seems to take shifting position on the subject. This is a reflection of the fact that the media is owned by groups which are financially dependent on state contracts. As the fortunes of the Islamic parties rose in the early 90s, the media represented Gulen as his own websites do; a tolerant "Islamic pope". He was embraced by center right parties who were feeling the pressure from far right, on this note, former Prime Minister Tansu Ciller, who had a one-to one meeting with GUlen, has to be mentioned. Interestingly, recently Nurettin Veren declared that GUlen was not sure whether to hold the meeting until the last minute, as he wanted to avoid touching a woman's hand, an act he considered religiously forbidden. THe mainstream media's position changed in 1996, when the military indirectly forced the prime minister to resign on the charges of eroding the republic's secular regime. It is at this time Gulen's tapes surfaced, which shocked the people who had accostomed to see hi preaching tolerence. In the tapes, he preaches a fanatical verion of Islam, lamenting the secular turkish republic and its founders, and promising an islamic state after a concerted effort to capture the organs of the state. While many documents and testimonials to the same effect had surfaced before, it had not reached to the general public before. Soon after Gulen left for the US. Gulen claims this was due to health reasons, while his critics point tp the legal problems he faced with exlicit denounciations of the republic. Recently the tide has been turning again. In 2002 elections "Ak parti" largely a contiunation of the former Islamic "Reah Partisi" won a landslide victory, and several of Gulen's followers are now in the cabinet. While skepticism in the mainstream media remains, Gulen has found more space to express himself. OK, so much for now. I hope this is not deleted. And we want to go towards an article, i hope people comment on the specific events on the timeline, rather than sweeping remarks and quotations from Gulen's websites. Thanks..

=

Time to clean up

Hello all,

First I would like to mention that I, also, am quite new to the wikipedia encyclopedia. I would like to apologize for my unknowing actions I made before this.

I would like to mention that a real small, marginal, group thinks the same way as the 'negative' person hereunder does so. I know that it's hard to be objective about all things and beings, and being 100% objective about persons belonging to a certain religion is impossible ... The person hereunder has presented old claims that turned to be untrue and are proved so a few years ago... I wonder why he still mentions them without being bored himself.

Fethullah Gulen is a well-respected scholar, not only in Islamic environments, but all over the world. Several interviews were held with him this year and published in prominent newspapers like, for instance, Sabah and Milliyet (both aren't religious at all). A very prominent journalist Mehmet Ali Birand(also a presentator on CNN-Turk) has written a very objective, recent column about Fethullah Gulen under the title: Why does Fetullah Gülen Scare Us? (http://www.fethullahgulen.org/a.page/press/columns/2005/a1911.html?PHPSESSID=7a91956966715568d98b38db6e383d81).

Yes, in Turkey there are still a few persons who try to blacken every islamic scholar by making an elephant of a fly and by making up lies about them. Fethullah Gulen is someone who hates terror and also says so. This is known world wide. He has nothing to do with violance but somehow after 30/40 years there are still people who don't believe this. How much time do they need more, I wonder!

I hope that wikipedia will quard his objectiveness by giving value to real facts, instead of lies and accusements.

Thank you very much.

NOTICE: On the website it states that Fethullah Gulen has been born in 1941. This is true according to the birthrecord. But, in reality, he was born in 1938. At that time it was quite normal that birth-dates weren't administrated on time in places like Erzurum and other cities and villages in the east of Turkey. I advice you to use the year 1941, like it is stated on the official web site of Fethullah Gulen.

what a mess!

I was planning to clean this article up, but it's too big a job for this hour of the morning. Half the article is "he's our saviour", the other half "WHAT A FRAUD DON'T LISTEN TO THAT GUY HE'S BEEN BRAINWASHED".

"Brainwash" guy, you're almost certainly right, the original author(s) have taken the kool-aid for certs. But vandalising the damn page is not the way to go about fixing the article. How about, instead of writing dodgy graffiti all over the thing and complaining that it's not NPOV, you go in and write the article properly.

I might have a go at fixing the article properly in a couple days, if I a) get around to it, and b) find a trustworthy source. Already I've been stymied by a quick Google: this page agrees with the article that he was born in November 1938, but Gülen himself claims to have been born April 27 1941. When was this man born???? And that's the least of the troubles! --MarkGallagher 19:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

=

ANSWER: First of all, im new to wikipedia and thats why i didnt go about fixing it. And i wasnt the one to put the NPOV sign. For my part, i was content with putting my comments on the discussion secition and i did. And lastly, you yourself are vandalizing it by deleting my comments, and so i paste them once more. As for the comment that the article is a mess, I agree. As, for your efforts, I am not sure an editor who is untrained about turkish politics/religous life can separate fact from fiction. This is all the more true as the subject of the debate has an ardent following and has invested heavily in promoting his ideas and image. As for my part, I will be content that his controversial side is represented in the article and provide a starting point for those interested in inquiring more into the subject.

Very Controversial Figure: Fethullah Gulen and his activities are very controversial in his native country, much like scientology is in the US. The article, obviously written by a supporter of his, represents the image actively promoted by his group, which is one of the best organized Islamic groups in the world. The most dangerous strategy of this group is that it is not organized in mosques or private foundations only, but among students; therefore, it has its own network of schools, dorms, rented or owned apartments. In particular, the group recruits bright students at an early age, supports them financially, and mobilizes their support once they graduate from select schools around the world. Students stay in dorms or apartments governed by the people of Gulen's group and learn about teachings of Said-i Nursi (an Islamic figure of first half of 20th century) and Fethullah Gulen. The bright students are recruited by intriguing offers such as free private lessons, help on getting into a good university, free food etc. After making sure that these kids or youngsters are followers of Gulens ideology, they work to get even more students around them. This Islamic undercover group gives extreme importance to getting the best students to become their followers, especially students successful in math and science. For the interested parties, the more controversial side of Gulen and his group was revealed in 1997. Following the confrontation between in the Islamic Refah Party and secular minded Turkish military, Fethullah Gulen's preaching tapes from mosques were broadcast on national television. In the tapes, Gulen advises his supporters to "hide their real intensions until the conditions are ripe". Meanwhile, the supporters are advised to acquire key positions in the judicial and executive branches of the government "without leaving any trace", building upto a vaguely described Islamic government. Gulen expresses grave sorrow at having to tolerate a secular government and makes deragatory remarks about Kemal Ataturk, the modernist founder of the Turkish republic. Due to the public outrage and the legal problems associated with the tapes, Fethullah Gulen fled the country and has since been residing in the United States. However, he still exerts enormous influence in Turkey. In particular, his supporters control some of the best education institutions in Turkey, in line with the groups focus on recruiting bright minds at young ages. His network of schools are spread all over the world, including all Asian countries, Africa and even United States. There are credible claims that his moderate Islamic ideology is getting active support from USA.

CLAIMS OF INTIMIDATION: There have been claims of intimidation by the group members, including well respected investigative journalist Hulki Cevizoglu, who claims to have been threatened following his articles on the group. Around the same time, a bomb was discovered under his car before it went off.

ON THE ROLE OF THE U.S.: US's position regarding Gulen is disputed. While on one hand US has been sheltering Gulen for the last 8 years, it is hard to reconcile This with the fact that Gulen is promoting a non-secular state in Turkey. One theory contends that the interests of the two are alinged in the central Asia, where Gulen's schools aim to break the Russian influence in the region. Still, it is hard to reconcile the cooperation in the Post september 11 world.

ON SECRET NATURE OF THE ORGANIZATION: For a reader from the western world, the description of the Gulen's organization above is likely to be seen as a conspiracy theory, but the reader unfamiliar with the Islamic movements should place it in the right context. First, in TUrkey and other secular Islamic countries, Islamic movements have endured long periods of suprresion and thus have developed the capacity to organize in secretive ways that would seem unnecasary for a civil society organization in the Western world. Second, in the Middle East and Turkey, the state has a disproportinate say in the public domain, and thus, different groups in the society are ready to take extreme measures to ensure the capture of te state appratus. While inconspicous sects/ organizations with an Islamic agenda are common in the MIddle EAst, The gulen organization is unmatched in its spohistication and achivements. This is a result of their extensive focus on education. In the las 20 years, a disproportionate share of the best minds from rural Turkey have been recruited by the Gulen organization. These students both lack the financial means to go through with their education and have not been exposed to the more cosmopolitan and modernist culture of the larger cities. The Gulen organization supports ther education while imbuing them with their Islamist/ conservative goals. AS a result of the process, the supporters of the group, while highly intelligent and educated, feel uncondional obedience to their superiors in the group and are actively dicouraged from critical thinking. I hope to add confessions by former members when I have time to translate them.

Just a man of religion

ResponseHe announced he equated a murderer to an atheist

To be perfectly blunt, when I first read the line above in 2004 I got what he meant. Although I don't know if the line completely reflects what he dictated or not (fake news or changing speech is quite common in Turkey), I am pretty sure he aimed to have attention on that a murderer can not be a religous person considering some main themes of all religions are common like not allowing anyone killing other.

When it comes to comments of the last person about his and his followers' activities above. Your comments sound to me more than those of anyone else in Public. You are either a former follower of him or someone in the contrary part the author of this subject mentioned. Anyway, this is not the point.

I want to have your attention on another point. When Fethullah Gulen went to Makkah as a pilgrim, the prosecutor sued him for the reasons mentioned in the main body of this thread. While he was there, the court took thousands of his cassettes under investigation and found nothing dangerous against both the Republic of Turkey and system of government.

There is still no trial against him although otherwise is known by everyone. Do you know how many people are currently living in US or in other foreign countries for medical reasons? Does't Fethullah Gulen have a right to be one of them? Don't you think Turkey would ask America to hand him over . Why Turkey never tried it as done in the case of some other culprits living in foreign countries?

Of course some have answers for this question. "Because Fethullah Gulen works for America". Claiming Michael Jackson is a German wouldn't be more trivial than this.

Deletion of significant content

Please discuss on this talk page prior to deleting significant content. Thanks. -- JamesTeterenko 16:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A Version to start from

Somebody keeps changing the article to previous form. I will cange it to my version again. Please let me know if it is NOT OK with you? We can make further corrections on this version. This version is at least not as bias as the previous version against Gulen.

I would like to know if anybody want to discuss what was wrong with the previous version. We can discuss it sentence by sentence. Please do not convert it back if you dont want to discuss the muistakes and misstatements. Let us try get a concensus on the article.

Best,

Resid Gulerdem 19:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it would be best to start with the previous version. Some of the following is why I believe this:

The previous article closer aligns to the Manual of Style. e.g. article bolded in the first sentance, usage of wikilinks
The history of the changes are hard to read. This is a slightly picky item, but I find it very difficult to destinguish what you have reworded, deleted, added or just moved.

I suggest you start with modified wording that you find contentious. I'll help with the article formating, but I will not do that in the middle of a revert war. -- JamesTeterenko 19:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gulerdem and James, I honestly do not understand writing up a new article and declaring as the version to start from, as the bulk of the previous one has been up there at least for the last 6 months and has been improved through contributions of many, including self declared supporters of Fethullah Gulen. Moreover it contains verifable links. Third, you add a lot of quotes from Gulen, which make the article look like a propaganda tool rather than giving the encyclopedic and critical tone that it is supposed to have. As James suggests, I propose to start with the article that was there before , and if you propose changes, Id be happy to contribute in dicussing them one at a time.

Just to make myself clear, I think there is room for letting Gulen supporters summarize their own views, perhaps under the section works, but throwing in quotes from him and hailing him without critically analyzing his approach lowers the quality of the article.

Dear ???

OK I will go with that. I woudl appreciate if you could sign your name so I know who I am talking to. Many contribution so far is good, I hope there is some room for one more contribution. It is possible that I find out some mistakes there. In fack there are many.

I would like to start with the very first paragraph, I do not think that it is a good paragraph. There is no reason starting vith contraversial issues before even define who Mr. Gulen is actually is.

I propose to change the first paragfraph to: (Please see the article)

Thanks

Resid Gulerdem 21:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph

I changed the first paragraph. I would appreciate any comment, correction, suggestions on this. There might be some grammer errors. With this version, I believe, before starting to who the people following him are, how are they named, etc. reader will have a chance to learn who in fact he is briefly.

I will have more time to work on the other paragraphs but not today. Please let me know how does it sound.

Thanks,

Resid Gulerdem 21:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In order not to break the three reverts rule, I will not revert the article to its original from today, but I think the change is for worse than for better.

In any wikipedia article for important people, the first paragraph gives a summary of what they are significant for. Ceheck HItler Gandhi Ataturk etc. The previous version did that: it highlighted Fethullah Gulen leads an Islamic movbement, which, all the sources agree, stemmed from the Nur movement, but he is also a highly controversial figure in the big debate in Turkish polity over the role of Islam in state and politics. What you changed into was:

"M. Fethullah Gülen is a former Islamic preacher, thinker and writer. He is one of the leaders of the Turkish people who identify themselves primarily as Muslim over other identifications in Turkey. He is fluent in Arabic and Persian and can communicate in English and French. He hasn't been married. Mr. Gulen's influence extends over much of Central Asia and Caucasus."

The first sentence is itself cotroversial; his critics do not consider him a thinker, that is the public stance by his supporters. If you dont take the meaning of word ligthly, publishing books is not necesssarily same as being a thinker. I am not sure what the second sentence is saying; are you saying trying to say he claims to be an Islamic figure without actually saying it? The third and fourth sentences are not significant enough to be in the first paragraph. And the last sentence is out of context; what is his influence about? It refers to the influence of the Fethullahci in these countries but because you deleted it the sentence does not mean much.

I am aware that breaking down even the best written paragraph can result in criticism as I presented above, but that does not change the fact that your version only makes the article worse and I cannot see any justification for the changes that you propose. baroqqque jan 5 2006

I agree, and I will revert the edit. Please read through Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Sections. The introduction and lead should state the reason why they are important enough to have an article. References to Nur, Fethullahci, Hizmet Insani, etc. have been removed. Unless these are not accurate, they should be included. -- JamesTeterenko 23:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A new version of first paragraph and related discussions

Thanks for the critiques. I understand that it might be hard for a person who are not familiar with a culture (in this case our culture) to fully capture what is going on. In that sense I will try to make it clear to James as much as I can. I have a feeling that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.22.220.53 (talk • contribs) . has some familiarity with the issues. Of course I will answer all the statements posed by —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.22.220.53 (talk • contribs) . as well.

Having said that, we can go into the discussion further. I believe you stated the rule correctly regarding the standard for first paragraph in Wikipedia articles. On the other hand first paragraph you want to have for Mr Gulen article do just the opposite what the rule suggests. The statements there do not show why he is important. It simply implicitly implies that he is a highly controversial figure and it leaves a negative taste to the readers' curiosity. It has many negative statements. If I was someone who does not know him, I would just stop reading further after that introduction. I know that it might be hard to see it for James but I will try to make these statements clearer...

Why it is so negative:

1. Fethullah Gulen is a philosopher and scholar. Not just a preacher. Can you see the difference? Yes he has given talks in the masques, but he also has many scientific conferences. He has his own school, one could say. You even do not accept that I call him a thinker?... I would recommend you to check a dictionary for it as I did. Please look at the following quotes. Note that these people are not his followers, even not Muslims:

a. "Gulen speaks about Islam and science, democracy, modernity, religious and ideological tolerance, the importance of education, and current events." - Dale F. Eickelman Professor of Antropology and Human Relations, Darmouth College

b. "Gulen is an example of harmony and tolerance for all of us, and a model of high values for all humanity" - Phanariot Greek Patriarch Bartholomeos I (He is like Pope for Orthodox denomination)

c. "Gulen's educational vision is one that embraces societies throughout the world" Thomas Michel, Secretary for interreligious Dialogue, Vatikan.

2. Gulen is never claimed that he is a leader of the "Nur" movement. Are we going to write this article with rumors or facts? Who is spreading this word is left to ones imagination.

3. We are at the sentence: "His supporters hail him as an important Islamic scholar with liberal ideas, while detractors accuse him for illegal activities aimed at undermining the secular republic and replacing it with an Islamic state." Will this sentence give the impression why he is important? Look at this statement closer: "illegal activities aimed at undermining the secular republic and replacing it with an Islamic state." That is why I am saying that I would stop reading further when I see this if I was not aware of who really Mr. Gulen is... Even before the reader know what Mr. Gulen has done, what are his ideas the reader will have image of a 'monster' in his mind as he keeps reading if s/he is more patient than me. I would prefer to put similar statement at the part 'Critical' if necessary, not to the beginning. Can I just ask James, what was his impression when you first saw this statement? You do not have to answer it, of course...

I looked at the article on Ataturk, as you suggested. Here is the introduction:

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881–10 November 1938), until 1934 Mustafa Kemal, Turkish army officer and revolutionist statesman, was the founder and first President of the Republic of Turkey.

That is it. It is brief, to the point, and short. I want a similar introduction for Mr. Gulen. What is wrong with that?

As you know, in the current version of the article about Mr. Gulen, is stated that, Mr. Gulen called Ataturk as 'concrete Mustafa'. It is nothing but a slander which I am going to come to that later. I would like to make another point now. (I actually can promise to stop making this editing about Mr. Gulen's article if one could show me some concrete evidence of it, not the rumors, I should add). Another statement in the current version goes like this: "As such, he succeeded in recruiting large sections of the society who felt alienated by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's reforms at the founding of the Turkish Republic."

Now would that be acceptable in your opinion to change the introductory statement about Ataturk to this one: "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881–10 November 1938), until 1934 Mustafa Kemal, Turkish army officer and revolutionist statesman, was the founder and first President of the Republic of Turkey. His supporters hail him as an important person, while detractors accuse him for being an infidel who converted a Muslim country into a secular republic." What do you think? Could you say it would be a good start? I wouldn't say that... I hope you can see that, the very similar statements are not good introduction for Mr. Gulen as well.

4. Let's go further: We are on the phrase 'His followers "commonly" refered to' now. Can you explain what make you think that it is common? I know there are some people call them as Fethullahci but who says it is common. In fact it is not. It is considered as an insult. Mr. Gulen himself states that: "I am saddened as if someone called my mom as prostitute when I hear the term Fehullahci". It is that bad... No one claims to be a follower or supporter of Mr. Gulen, but people only respect him for being a good follower of Islam and Prophet Muhammad. I hope it is clear now why I would like to remove the phrase.

5. They never call themselves "Hizmet Insani" as it is against their understanding of modesty, but some other people say that to appreciate what these people do for humanity.

6. Now we are at the sentence: "His influence extends over much of Central Asia and Caucasus." I cannot see why you think it is in context here but not in my version?!...

I do not know if I could make it a little clear to James too, why these nuances are are important regarding the objectivity and reliability of the article.

There shouldn't be some 'sneaky' statements that at the very beginning impose a prejudgment to the reader even before they know a bit about Mr. Gulen. The first paragraph should be impressive and invite the reader to keep going. The current version does just the opposite in my opinion.

My first suggestion for the first paragraph, I know that, was not perfect at all. I would like to suggest a better version now. Since the day is over I will change the current version with this one. To the best of my knowledge, it is not against the rules. Any further suggestions, comments are appreciated.

Thanks...

M. Fethullah Gulen is an Islamic scholar and thinker, a prolific writer and poet. He is trained in the religious sciences by several Muslim scholars and also studied the principals and theories of social and physical sciences.

He has over 30 books and many articles published in different journals and magazines written on different themes from social to religious issues, and from art and science to music, sports and politics.

He is fluent in Arabic and Persian and can communicate in English and French. He hasn't been married. Mr. Gulen's influence through his ideas extends over much of Central Asia and Caucasus.

Resid Gulerdem 03:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC:)

I am 70.22.220.53, the same person as baroqqque, sorry for the confusion. i am travelling and could not remember my pasword. And yes, I have training in both TUrkish history and political economy. The arguments above are well versed and will take time to write a detailed response, I hope to do it by saturday evening or sunday, please give me time before you change the article. Overall , let me summarize the source of the dicrepancy.

1) Resid I believe in an eloquent fashion you repeal some common knowledge about Gulen, like the fact that he has long been a part of the Nur movement, over time became the largest group within the movement shadowing Yeni Asya group lead by Mehmet Kutlular. It is true that starting with 90s Gulen has denounced being called a "nurcu" in line with the group's attempts to appeal to a larger audience, but both in terms of its teaching and organization the "nurcu" movement still forms the core of the group. In all the works about Gulen, his close association with Saidi Nursi's teaching is mentioned, with the possible exception of the groups' official publications since the 90s. If you do not agree, lets make this point a test case regarding my criticism to your objectivity, I will then take time to prove that this is the case and you can take time to find documents that argue otherwise.

2) Let me point out once again GUlen is perhaps the most polarizing Islamic/political figure in Turkey. People either love him or hate him. I believe Resid is also aware of this. Aside from many of the facts stated in the article, letme give abrief example; Hakan Sukur, the most famous Turkish soccer player, time and again faces controversy regarding his devotion to Gulen. In the last couple of months, another scandal erupted when Fethullah GUlen's former right hand man Nureddin Veren severed ties with the group and began criticizing GUlen's dealings with politicans. The degree of controversy on Gulen cannot in any way be compared to Ataturk, whose role in leading the national war and his reforms are the first thing that comes to mind when his name is mentioned. I think the number of reversions on this article is itself evidence on the controversy. As such, I do not think Resid's suggestion characterizing him as a thinker and moving on the languages , marriages etc presents a good characterization.

My point is, Resid criticizes every statement on Gulen by referring to Gulen's own words and group's formlal statetements in the 90s. I find that approach misleading; one nice thing about the current article is it first highlights the controversial nature of the subject and then presents arguments and counterarguments.

Lastly, I thought we had agreed on first discussing and then changing, but you insisted on changing on your wish. MAybe its best the article is locked.

baroqqque jan 5

Dear baroqqque,

I will be waiting for your full answer. I was wondering why you think the article should stay in this form (in the form you liked) but not I prefered? Since you will write an answer, I would prefer to have my version on, up untill if a change is necessary after your answer...

But I won't revert the article this time. I will wait for James' action on it.

Best regards,

Resid Gulerdem 04:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Resid, I started with the intention of cutting it short, by the time I finished, I think I gave you plenty of counter arguments; I have already touched the NUr controversy, Ataturk, and more borady, what I believed was the general flaw of your approach; denying common knowledge on the group based on their own statements in the 90s. As a test cae, I have proposed to discuss whether GUlen has ties to Nur movement or not. I will not insist on HIzmet insani, that point was added by someone who I believe is a supporter, and as I am not a member of the group, I do not know whether it is true, so it can be deleted. As such, why dont u present your counter arguments , and instead of eloborating futher on the backbone that I presented, I can work on your counterarguments. Or , if you are willing to propose a new text, that, as I argue above , mentions his folollowers, the groups history, influence, and controversy, and is more represntative of the public view of GUlen, i can contribute or highlight points of disaggrement. thanks. Baroqque.

Hi,

1. I couldn't find any satisfactory response from what you had all above. I only can see that you are trying to concentrate on a point (if he is in 'Nurcu' movement) at which you think you are right. That is pretty much a summary of your arguments to me. Ironically you are expecting me prove your claim?!... It is your claim and in fact I am expecting an answer for it? He has never been in the Nurcu movement, and in fact critisized by the leading people of that movement all along the way.

2. Regarding your sentence: "if you are willing to propose a new text..." I will definitely work on a new text for the Gulen's article.

3. Lastly and more importantly, I should say that it is not acceptable at all that you vandalized my contribution in Vikipedi (Turkish Version, Wikipedia). I lost great deal of my trust to you. I doubt that you are looking for the truth. It was very disappointing for me. I talked to the admins about the issue and waiting for their response. In general, I do not continue on talking to people who are getting agressive when they feel their knowledge is not enough to go further. I will discuss my points with James from now on.

Resid Gulerdem 08:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

1) At this point, to sum the whole discussion, the disaggrement between us reduces to your insistence on deleting two facts from the introduction a) Fethullah Gulen is the leader of an Islamic movement in Turkey b) There is a lot of duiscussion in Turkey on what GUlen represents and aims. I cannot understand why you think these two points are attacks on his personality, the text below presents enough verifable evidence that this is the case. Isnt the fact that there is so much edit war in this version and the turkish version evidence that people hold dofferent views of GUlen?

2) Do we aggree on the two points that I mention above are the points of dissagrement? I do not think that if you come up with another text that talks about GUlen's marriage, language skills, number of publications etc I will be able to agree with you on it. PLease let me know why you find the points above controversial and why you dont want to include them, because that's what we disagree about, more than anything else.

3) For those who cannot read the turkish version. what i did was combining two diferrent discussion threads on the discussion page into one, because they exhibited continuity. I did not even for one moment think MR GUlerdem could be offended by such an editing change which was designed to make the discussion easier to read. After he got pissed off about it and wrote to the editors about my "misdeed"s, i apologized and explained this was the case. The only editor that responded agreed with me. What he writes above, at the very least, I find childish, but more likely, an oppurtunistic attempt to cut the discussion and propogate an edit war. baroqqque jan 6

Apology? Where is it?

I haven't seen any apology anywhere except your claim here... I will not answer you if you do not sign your talk anymore. Do not write just a name, please sign it using four tilde. Isn't it a rule for a discussion talk here in Wikipedia? Why are you hiding? I want to know who I am talking to.

You are not telling the truth, and not honest. I repetedly talked to you and asked you to stop deleting what I write in the discussion page... Would you like someone else delete what you wrote in a discussion page? How can an editor agree with you while you are breaking the rules?

If you show me where you apologized, and if you sign (four tilde) your talks in later correspondences, we can discuss further, but only then... I can forget about it this time...

Resid Gulerdem 05:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is really getting out of hand, plesase be serious. baroqqque

wow.. this discussion seems like it turned into a battlefield.

Dear baroqqque, To be honest with you, in your words I sense a personal hostility against Gulen more than critisism or purpose of seeking-truth. Your objection seems to have prevailed your objectivity. You blame Resid for citing the quotes of his followers but I myself read more quotes of non-muslim people stated by Resid above. You are either skipping what you read or just concentrating on to defeat your enemy at the battlefield without considering either you are right or not.

well you said putting Ataturk into the same discussion wouldn't be the same thing. As a Turkish, I am pretty sure that the number of detractors of Ataturk is as big as his supporters in Turkey. Probably more. I have been to many cities of Turkey for some reasons. In some rural areas you cannot freely say you appreciate what he has done for us. Morover most of his supporters is unfortunatelly using Ataturk love for their own benefits in some social and political arenas(this saddens me more than the fact of existence of derogators).

And another point. There are many forums welcoming Gulen detractors. I make the same offer for you.

Morover, you cannot claim that you dont have a mission of yours while blaming a person whose mission is to spread indulgence for being a part of a movement or not being what he is actually. You sound to me like a detractor more than someone seeking the reality. Whereas, the reality is conspicuous.

Besides, here, in a website open to world, you reflect a nation's culture. Millions of people learn about you, your culture, your nation and your values more than Fethullah Gulen while reading his page. Dont you think this is ironic? I guess it is the time to put an end to this nonsense argument. If you think trying to write intellectual sentences here doesn't degrade some things, keep going. And please no one else respond anymore because this fight degrades us.

To the author of the main article. Your first article must have been the least affected one. As a foreigner I dont think you had any good or hard feelings against Fethullah Gulen. If you really think you acquired the info from neutral sources, why dont you close your eyes and ears ignoring all these cycling arguments.

Wolverine

Critical

The critical is deleted together with some links which are either out of contex or old. Some Turkish links are irrelevant here simply because the reader has no chance to check and verify. I havent touch them yet but they need to be removed. As a Turk with ability to evaluate the Turkish links, I consider that they are completely out of context. The links are no way justify the claims proposed. I can discuss further with anybody interested.

I will try to put some critical views in an objective manner without any misleading arguments soon. Moreover there in fact no reason to have another section while we have the section Recent Controversial.

Thanks Wolverine for your comments above...

Resid Gulerdem 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

His Philosophy and activities

There was no mention of his philosophy and what he has done so a seperate section is added and will be improved.

Resid Gulerdem 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent Controversial

This part is modified. It had false statements in it...

Resid Gulerdem 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Added tags

I have just added two tags to the article. One regarding NPOV and the other regarding style. I have also left messages on Portal talk:Turkey and Portal talk:Islam inviting others to come by to take a look. I think we need more editors familiar with the subject matter in order for this to be productive. To start with my comment about style, please see the following: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context for a starting point. There are way to many wikilinks in this article. -- JamesTeterenko 04:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up done

James, thanks for pointing it out. I didn't know that policy regarding the internal links. The article is cleaned up now. It is also good idea to call others for more contributions... Best.

Resid Gulerdem 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up

Sorry for the late reply, I had been travelling and could just start workin on the article.

1) Regarding the controversy: Let me remind once again what happened. I merged two subsections in the TUrkish discussion, hoping to ease the readers job. Your reply, is above; you cried foul. Then in the turkish version I said i did not have a bad intention, I did not think you would not get offended, i was mistaken, I would accept what the administrators would do about it. I meant it as an apology , but if you do not consider so, I can see that. So let me give my apology for merging two sections by deleting a subheading, which you interpreted as vandalism aggresivness and theratened not to talk to me again. To be honest, I want to leave these personal discussions, and controversy regarding wording etc behind and move on with the real subject, if i were the vandal that u made me into I wouldnt spend so much time on writing these replies anyway. You also demanded that I sign in with my wikipedia account, otherwise you will not talk to me. honestly, you have no right to demand that, but if it takes me to do that to take away your excuse ill do that.

2) The last time I wrote we had agreed introduction was very important and were discussing it. The discussion had reduced to two points. The fIrst was whether Gulen was member of the Nurcu movement, which Mr. Gulerdem said he was not, and which I found very doubtful. So lets begin with that issue. The following academic article, clearly supports the argument his group evolved from the Nurcu movement :

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2000/issue4/jv4n4a4.htm To the same effect, in reviweing the following book on Gulen, MEQ writes "The editors of this timely volume on the Fethullah movement (as it is known) introduce Gülen as a ‘Turkish spiritual and social leader’ and rightly place his movement within the context of the Said-i Nursi phenomenon." http://www.syracuseuniversitypress.syr.edu/fall-2003-catalog/turkish-islam.html FOr a more clear account of the group's evolution as a brach of NUr movement into its current form, and an account of the some of the events mentioned in the article, a very recent 9-part investigative report was published in the Turkish daily Sabah: http://www.sabah.com.tr/ozel/said542/dosya_542.html Without going into details of each article, even the heading of each part gives support to the overall argument I lay: Gulen's break with the Nur movement in the 70s, GUlen's investment on education in the 80s, GUlen's coming out in 1995, Gulen's relationship with the islamic political movement in the 90s, the "tape controversy", his large support base and what it might lead to if Gulen ever decided to come back from the US, his "muslim missionaries" in central asia, the controversy regarding his former right hand man, nurettin veren, and whether he is a "neo-nurcu" . The article concludes even though his roots are in the Nurcu movement, GUlen attempts to dissassociate himself because the name "nurcu" has a negative stigma in the mainstream.

The second point was whether he is controversial or not. Correct me if I am wrong, I think at this point we both agree he is a controversial personality in Turkey; i.e. evidence in the main article, the fact that one of the two best selling newspapers in Turkey publishes a nine part article on him, the military purges those it believes to be a supporter of him, crticism of former prime minister ecevit on being to kind to him etc. One counter argument that comes above is that all important people have critics and that should not be mentioned in the introduction. I partly answered this counterargument above; of course everybody has critics, but there is a certain treshold of controversy beyond which the controversy warrants being included in the lead in to the article. Also, the version that you repeatedly propose gives a very strong impression that he is a philospoher etc. Let me highlight the fact that I do not disagrre with putting in group's own vision of him, but why should the way he is seen by a very large section of the society, and is part of an unconcluded trial be excluded? A second counter argument is in a webpage that is read by te whole world it is unnationalistic to put criticisms of GUlen. This argument does not fit well with the concept of an encyclopedia. The reason I had proposed first discussing the introduction was to go by step step by step, because a big problem with the discussion that when there are multiple issues to be discussed the arguments usually get lost each side emphasizing his strong front. I think we partly succeded, correct me if I am wrong, by reducing the discussion in the introduction in the two points which a neutral observer can follow and do some self fact checking. For example, a reader can check whether Gulen is part of the Nurcu movement or not.

3)As I wrote above, I do not oppose GUlen's views to be included, I think the article deserves a good section on that, but the changes proposed lowers the article's quality significantly. It is as if one of Gulen's sermons is pasted here. In an article, the key points of his arguments should be summarized in a critical fashion. I personally am interested in religion and have read many articles in wikipedia on religious personalities, there may be some, but I do not remember any other religious personalities whose views are presented as in a "sermon" form.

4)And the crtical section, why are the links in the article deleted???? there was a long discussion about the claims on that section, and it was agreed that all the facts put up there should be supported by links.

5) I apolgize for not answering promptly, but the previous article was written step by step, and such gorss changes, without justfying the individual claims do not make sense.

6) I removed the dead and redundant links, this can be verified. Deleting all the external links is misguided.

You cleaned up whetever right in the article

You can argue wheather he is a Nurcu or not. But what you did you revert back to all these false statements. Why you just do not add the term Nurcu into the first paragraph, if that is the problem? The current version is much objective and realistic. In your version you give a wrong and negative impression to the reader at the very first paragraph intentionally. It is not acceptable.

To return the whole article is a vandalism and you are doing it now.

If his philosophy is stated in an unappeptable manner, why you didnt improve it but just deleted it?

Please stop reverting the article but discuss you opinions before doing it. One you get a ceoncensus then you can do it.

I suggest to keep the version we had before and work on it gradually step by step till getting a copnsensus. Than you can make changes...

128.255.45.117 17:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my incorrect edit summary (that your revision was not discussed on the talk page). I'm not particularly knowledgeable on this topic, but I felt that your revision removed a lot of context that's important to understanding both sides of the article. For instance, in your revision, the controversial videotapes are mentioned but without ANY description of what "appeared" to be on them. I think that inclusion is necessary for some balance (since the article goes on to describe Mr Gülen's assertion that the tapes were fabricated via cutting-and-pasting out-of-context talks. Maybe the current revision has areas that need to be toned down or balanced, but removal of large sections (as well as pro/con external links) makes it appear that the article has been "sanitized." Ohnoitsjamie 17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted myself

I apologize for reverting this in haste. I do have a tendency to put less faith in anonymous edits; I need to be more careful in that regard.

I still think that the "controversey" section is a bit lacking in information. As I don't know much about this topic, my question to the current revision would be, "OK, so he and his supporters claim the tapes are fabrications, but what did they supposedly say?"

This paragraph, from the revision I originally reverted to, answers that question:

"Gulen became a highly controversial figure in 1997, when a number of videocassetes with his sermons were broadcast on TV. While he was always viewed with suspicion among certain secular groups, it was the accesible nature of the tapes that made the controversy reach the general public. In the tapes, allegedly distributed exclusively among his supporters, he tells those present that if revealing their commitment to the movement will jeopardise their official post then they should shun away from this. In justifying this, Gulen comments if the true of the movement is revealed before garnering sufficient support, the movement might suffer the fate of Islamists in Algeria. Gulen encourages capturing key posts in the judiciary, administrative and military institutions as stepping stones to a broader plan to further the goals the movement [1]. Most controversially, Gulen makes deragatory remarks about the founder of the secular Turkish republic, Mustafa Kemal, such as "concerete Mustafa", an allusion to his statues in provincial towns. Shortly before the tapes surfaced, Gulen left Turkey and settled in the US, allegedly for health reasons. Within weeks, he was charged with conspiring against the republic, but he did not attend the trials. In 2003, the trial was postponed, subject to reprocessing if he is indicted with a similar crime in the following 5 years. Gulen has since been living in the US, but his popularity among his supporters has not waned."

What is the objection to this paragraph? Ohnoitsjamie 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jamie,

Wellcome aboard. I am happy to see you here and hope you stay with us till the discussion comes to a meaningful end.

First I would ask you please read my response to Mr. Baruqque (He has a bad habit to not sign his name! And also reorganizing what I wrote on a discussion page. He claims that he has a good intension. I would like to agree on it at this point.). I do not want to repeat the same things again. It is right above.

There is a fundamental mistake in this article. He tries to give a negative impression to the reader right at the first paragraph. Please compare his and my version. As I explained above, there are many insult in the very first paragraph.

We worked on this article for couple of days and he reverted back the whole article. I think what he did should be considered a vandalism. I explaind all actions I took here. Now he is reverting back to an earlier version.

I can of course add what was on the tape if it is a problem. But together with what has really happened. You know you can find something in any speach to blame the speaker, especially if you want to do so. What was happenning in the tapes is different from how Mr. Baroqqque interprets them. If you look at carefully he doesn't quote what Mr. Gulen said, he summarize as he wish. And unfortunately it is bias.

Regarding the Turkish links, is it fair in an article written in English? The reader have no chance to check it. And in fact they are out of context and, if you believe me, do not support Mr. Baroqqqu's claims. In the link to a Turkish journal Sabah, in the very first part the writer explains why Mr. Gulen is not Nurcu. I do not believe that Mr. Barouqqqe is honest with what he is doing. If you do not believe me, please try to find someone who know Turkish. Or if you like you can go ahead and use an online converter if you can find one to see what it really says. The first link he gave above is not working. The third link gives a comment by a journal about his being Nurcu. You can also look at that link and the book to see what kind of a person he really is. My point is: He is not, he never claimed so. If one do not claim being something, how come someone else can. The truth is, he had some connections with the leaders of the Nurcu movement but after he is at the age of 25 or so, he had no further relation with them. He is now about 65... Let us assume a moment that, he really is, and I am wrong. THan Mr. Barouqqque could add a sentence about it to the first paragraph. Why he choose to revert back to a form that we discussed above. The article is, as if, prepared to impress the reader at the very first minute about how bad Mr. Gulen is, maybe a monster!

What does that mean that his ideas proposed as a sermon? Can you understand that? If so what? Why he is not improving it and deleting his philosophy instead? Please note that for Mr. Barouqqque this is not an article to introduce Gulen, it is an opportunity to blame on him. How come, otherwise you do not include a persons ideas in his life. I hope you do not miss this point.

Is there a need to have two parts: 1. Critical, 2. Recent Controversials? He is using both to put something negative in.

We worked on it hard for a while and he reverted back to a 3-4 days earlier version. I believe what he did should be considered as vandalism. I would prefer if you consider reverting back to the last form.

Again for only the first paragraph, I would recommend you, to see what I wrote above. That would make it clear that why I believe it is too wrong tho have such a beginning. Throughly, I havent had a chance to look at the other parts so seriously.

Dear Jamie, I am an academician. I am teaching at a university and for an academic conference I am out of my place. I tried to write quicly and if there is grammer mistakes, etc. I am sorry about that. Because it is not comportable for me to discuss the issue regularly, there might be some delays in my answers.

Please stay with us, and help to resolve the issue. Please look at the eralier discussions too. Thanks for being here...

Respectfully...

Resid Gulerdem 18:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear Jamie, The objection of that paragraph is partially given above. They are not what Mr. Gulen really said. They are what Mr. Brouqqque and a few others who put their ideological view in the place of the truth say. I will say just one thing to show you the credibility of the statements you just asked the objection for: If Mr. Barouqqque or anybody else in this world prove me that Mr. Gulen, in those tape casettes or anywhere else before or after the tapes, call Ataturk as 'concrete Mustafa', I will stop editting to this article. I am challanging Mr. Barouqqque to prove his claims. I do not think that an article can be written with rumors or based on ideological enmities.

I will try to answer your questions if you have more. If you want to see some more about Mr. Gulen please look at [2] to decide yourself. Thanks for reverting it back... I appreciate it.

I am sorry if I am slow in my future responses because of this conference thing.

Best,

Resid Gulerdem 18:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

SUMMING UP

1) Methodology of discussion: As it is evident from above, unfortunately we keep repeating the same points. One thing we could do to facilitate discussion is leave out all subjective comments (i.e. i am subjective you are not, i no longer trust you etc.) and just reduce to basic points. The simpler the discussion gets, and the more we can reduce it to the disagrements that can be verified,the faster we will proceed. ill try to do that, and along the way will characterize the arguments and counter arguments in simpler fashion, correct me if i mischaracterize.

2)REGARDING VANDALISM: This is a very very important point that we should make clear before proceeding. The version that I revert to is the version from january 5. It is around that date this edit war started (therewere vandalisms starting a few days before, but without any justification), the version before that was more or less stable for 6 months. Thus my position is to preserve that version and only to improve it grardually. Controversial wholesale changes on that version is vandalism, trying to preserve it is not. The reader can verify from the history that this is indeed the chronology of events.

3) REGARDING WHOLESALE CHANGES: As can be checked from above, there was somewhat of a consensus (including GUlerdem) over going through changes step by step. The process had started with the introduction to the article, and we had reduced to argument whether two points should be included onr not, so I cannot really follow why the wholesale changes all at once. It takes tome to discuss, and its hard to evaluate all at once.

4) Regarding Ohnoitsjamie's comment: I agree. And I think the point you are making is an example why the current changes only blur the originial article.

5) REGARDING THE INTRODUCTION: The claim that the article tries to give a misleading impression is misguided. The point was discussed again and again above; Gulen is admired by some and harshly criticized by others. All in all, Gulen is perhaps the most controversial figure in Islamic politics in Turkey. I do not want to repeat my arguments above, please give sources if you claim he is not controversial.

6) Regarding the tapes, naturally the article focuses on the most controversial poinst mentioned in the tapes, and it gives references. I think there is room for improvement, but can you be more clear on what the criticsim on that section is? IS it that he also said good things on the tapes, or you think the tapes were fabricated, the quotes that are given in the article are outright wrong etc? I still think resolving the the introduction first and moving to tapes later is a better idea, but if you want to focus on the tapes please give sources so that we can discuss. For example, even tough Gulen's interpretation of the tapes is included in the article, no source is quoted, that is, even though there is sources for critical claims in the tapes, none so for the counterarguments.

7) GULEN AND NUR MOVEMENT:

My reading of the literature is the following: GUeln started as a member of the NUr group,which, as all islamic groups have many branches, i.e. Yeni Asya group under the leadership of Mehmet Kutlular, Mehmed Kirkinci Hoca and his group etc. In the 70s, Gulen became increasingly prominent and began to form his own group within the movement, still extensively relying on teachings of Saidi Nursi. Gulen also seperated from other groups on his political preferences, i.e whether to support Suleyman Demirel and "Justice Party", a mainstreaim right wing party, and later whether to support the military coup of 1980. Regardless, the writings of saidi Nursi remained the core teachings within the group, only to be supplanted by Gulen's own writings. The article contends Gulen later denounced the label "Nurcu" for its stigma and adopted a universal message.

I honestly canot follow your last position on the NUrcu issue, do you accept he has connections with tehe group? Or do you claim he did but does not anymore? This is one point where we seem to approach to a common answer, please proceed on that Also, I deduce you accept that the investigative report in Sabah, carries credibility, if you do, let's talk bassed on the facts in the article, that will save us and immense amount of time.

8) Including the Turkish links is because of absence of ENglish links. I agree it seems awkward in an English article, we could discuss how to improve that. I am not sure leaving no external links is a better idea. About discussing it in turkish, I have already offered taking the discussion to turkish version, coming up with a consensus, and only after that changing the article that has been the consensus article for wuite a while.

9) For the philosophy part: this had been a subject of controversy before. I agree this part should be improved, but it should not be made worse. There was , what i believe, a critical and analytical summary of his approach in the original version:

"More broadly, he envisoned a society of devout Muslims who nevertheless would adopt methods and technical knowledge that led to West's superiority over the Muslim world. As such, he succedded in recruiting large sections of the society who felt alienated by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's reforms at the founding of the Turkish Republic. " I definitely think this deserves to be expanded, Serif Mardin has impressive works on why SAidi Nursi and later GUlen fills a void left by the secular/republican reform program. But what was added is uncritical, contains too many qutations, and dare me to say partial view of his philosophy. To make my point clear, let me highlight that it is hard to find an article in wikipedia on religious people, thinkers and even prophets which contains the uncritical attitude regarding their philosophy.

10)I still do not understand why all the links in the main article is deleted: they were added there after long discussion in an effort to limit the article to only verifable information. The journal article, which is an acedemic article contains a relatively positive view of him, yet it was deleted because it also said Gulen was "NUrcu". Mr. Gulerdem asks for evidence on whether he is nurcu, but dismisses any article that mentions he is ? How can we be proceed any futher on the issue?

11) About personal claims about me: Let me summarize my position once again, as workin in the area, I hope tha both sides of the argument is included in the article, rather thatn unconditional praise of Gulen, as was the case in the original aricle. Naturally, for those who defend unconditional praise, since I make the case that there another side to the story, I come out as an adversary of Gulen. But discussing personal biases will take the article no wehere, I could easily make the case that those who think GUlen is a philosopher is his followers, trained in one of the schools he founded in Turkey. So lets stick with the facts, and not emotions or personal connections.

12) I still think the article could be improved, so once again I propose going point by point.

Please stop vandalizing!

Dear Mr ??? I still do not know why you hesitate to put your name on? Who are you? Why you are doing this? It is not so hard to put -four tilde-, is it?

1. We discussed the first paragraph, and you revert back, why? It includes insult to him and people respect him. Besides, your claims are not true... Refer back to my previous answer about it. Which any other portrait you could show me that at the very first sentence it tries to blame on the person in question. I gave an exaple of Ataturk. We both like him. But at the same time he is as contraversial as Mr. Gulen in Turkey. That is a fact... In fact your article claims that at leaset Mr. Gulen and his followers do not like him. As I said before, would that be good to start with an insult to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, just because many people dislike him: "M. Kemal Ataturk, first president. His supporter call him as a genious, bur detractors call him an 'infidel' who converted a religious society to a secular state which has no tolerance to religious people"? Why do not answer this? Let us make this change for Ataturk article... Would you? I wouldn't... It would not be good in terms of academic objectivity...

The point was made above so i will cut it short: First I deduce you accept that GUlen is controversial, correct me if I am wrong. As for Ataturk, everybody has critics, so whether to include that in the introduction depends on the degree of controversy. In evaluating Ataturk, the first things that come to mind are the national independence war and his reforms. No mainstream political group questions Ataturk's reform in current Turkey, each classroom still has his pictures. EVen tough critical of his reforms attribute excesses to deragators after his death. GUlen is a far far more controversial person. To make my point more clearly, note that L. Ron Hubbard article in wikipedia mentions he is controversial, becuase of the magnitude of public controversy surrounding the movement. DOnt get me wrong, Fethullah Gulen is very different from him in his relation to Islam and his teachings, but wouldnt you say the degree of controversy regarding GUlen in TUrkey is comparable? I assume you are old enough to remeber the shock the tapes caused back in 1997, and you probably follow the extent of coverage Turkish newspapers devote to various controversies surrounding the group, which probably is more than that devoted to HUbbard in the US.

2. In your very links (Sabah) I just showed you that, in fact the article talks about why he is not Nurcu. Couldn't you check it?

I dont have the exact same impression, that's why i quoted it in the first place, if you agree with the methodology i propose below let go further into this topic.

3. Why do not you let there be a section which explain his ideas. It might not be perfect, but I will work on it. I am sure many other people will help on it... What is your point?

I do, but why you add material that significantly lowers the quality of the article, both in terms of style and content, why make an article wose than it is with the hope that later some other person can make it better?

4. Please stop reverting back, again and again. Let us talk about the article starting from the first paragraph.

See below, the proposal

Is the first paragraph I propose bad for you? And if so why?

See below, the proposal. BAroqqque jan 10

Resid Gulerdem 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Barouqque, please stop vandalizing =

Mr. Barouqqque,

What are you trying to do, by repeating the same questions whcih are answered? Why you are not proving your claims?

Could you please stop reverting back to your version. Can you show us why the first paragraph is not good for you? I that just because there is no false statements in it?

Calm down! Please...

MR. GULERDEM, Please stop vandalizing the January 3 text and present evidence on spesific points =

Please stop ignoring my comments, as it takes time and effort to write them. Only today, i spent 6 hours reverting back to the consensus version before your changes and rebutting your claims. And once again, please lets talk about the spesific topics, the general remarks like "why dont you get my arguments" are self serving. I am trying to clarify the argument, reduce it to verifable points. Yet you have not yet quoted a single source.

And please stop starting a new discussion thread each time the argument seems to converge on specific factual points.

And please stop insulting me at various Wikipedia pages, as being a con, vandal, and aggresor.

I absolutely agree we should start forom the first paragraph, why do you keep changing the article before we even agree on the first one? Why do you vandalize the version that was created by others before you got into it in the beginning of january? For the one last time, please stop ignoring the article before you started changing it, there is an existing text that should be improved, it doesnt save you to assume your own article writtenin the beginning of january as the starting point and call reversions to the consensus article (which, unlike your version, has links) as vandalism. Baroqque jan 10

PROPOSAL FOR GOING FORWARD

The discussion is getting too complicated and repetive for the avarage reader, I try to go in a systematic way but when done in an unsystematic fashion is still gets lost, so I propose to do in the following way

1) Let's start headings for each point that we discuss above, and lets focus only on that point. Mr Gulerdem, for that you will have to stop starting new headings. Also we have to agree on the headings. Ideally we would discuss one point at a time. I have implictly pushed forward the controversy regarding whether he is nurcu or not, but if you choose to, we could also focus on whether he is controversial or not, or the specifics of the tape controversy.

2) In each discussion lets agree we will leave aside all the personal issues, just focus on factual evidence that we can provide on the the topic in hand. Lets keep the discussion focused, we will not go anywhere like this. Baroqqque jan 10

I think Baroqqqe makes good points here regarding how to go about the debate. In carefully reviewing the two disputes versions of the article, my (outsider) opinion is that Gulerdem's version has a few problems with neutral point of view. For instance, consider the paragraph below:

"Do not despair in the face of adversity, and do not yield to those without direction", he emphasizes, lest we give up hope. He views hopelessness as a quicksand that buries human progress and kills the will to succeed, a noose that chokes and drowns people. With his acute perception, Gülen perceives that the world's spiritual climate is undergoing a positive change. He envisions a twenty-first century in which we shall witness the sprouting of a spiritual dynamic that will revive the now-dormant moral values. He envisions an age of tolerance and understanding that will lead to cooperation among civilizations and their ultimate fusion into one body. The human spirit shall triumph in the form of an intercivilizational dialogue and a sharing of values. Gülen tries to bridge the past with his image of the future. His deep desire to find solutions for contemporary social problems reflected in his works.

I think most Wikipedia editors would agree that this article contains some POV wording...e.g., "...lest we give up hope...", "With his acute perception..." such that it reads more like a book jacket than a neutral encyclopedia article. Nonetheless, I also think there is work do be done on Baroqqqe's version as well; there is certainly more room for "what supporters say" about the subject, as long as it is written in a neutral point of view. Granted, it is very tricky to perfectly balance an article like this. If the two camps cannot agree on what constitutes a balance, there is a Request for moderation process that can be used as a last resort. Again, I'm a neutral outsider; I'm not Turkish, and I'd never heard of Fethullah Gülen before reading the Wikipedia entry. I am aware of the basics of Turkey's history, and the friction between Islam and secularism that is going on in Turkey as well as other traditionally secular nations in the Islamic world. Ohnoitsjamie 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I subscribe to your view on both points. The reason I reverted the supporters section was not only it contains little critical analysis, but also the wording is so distant from an encyclopedia article. I actually think the two academic articles in the external links section offer some critical evaluation of the Gulen's ideas, but I did not really get involved in that part, as I have not personally studied Gulen's teachings in detail. Another source to check is Serif Mardin's articles, but he focuses on SAidi Nursi rather than Gulen. baroqque jan 10

RE: L. Ron Hubbard comparisons

I'm not sure if that is a fair comparison, as Hubbard has little credibility outside of the relatively small population of Scientologists. Perhaps Jesse Jackson or Rick Santorum would be a better examples of controversial politicians? Ohnoitsjamie 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested plan

Dear Jamie,

Good to have you here again...

Mr. Barouqqque is just repeating what I was offering for a long time, especially in Turkish version.

We need a plan first!

Here is my suggestion for it:

1. Let us delete the whole article first! I do not want to have a wrong version be on. So we will start from nothing...

I'm not sure that starting from scratch is the best approach. Surely there are some sections that can be aggreed on? Ohnoitsjamie 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. I see that you deleted the majority of the article, and there was no consensus to do so on this talk page. So, I have reverted the edit. For any changes so drastic, please discuss here first and only make the change once there is agreement to do so. -- JamesTeterenko 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Start with the introduction, to get an agreemet. Then go to the other sections one by one.

3. Discuss each point one by one.

4. Each claim on the article need to be proved.

5. We can choose a comparison as Jamie suggested. But he should be a religious figure...

Clarification Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that a comparable figure had to be cited in the article, I was just trying to think of significant figures with supporters and detractors as a reference, a way to get ideas on how to write a balanced and neutral article (which is no easy task). Hubbard is a decidedly "fringe" figure in the American landscape; I'm under the impression that Mr. Gulen is not that controversial. I also don't think that Mr. Gulen needs to be compared to anyone in the actual Wikipedia entry. Ohnoitsjamie 00:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RG Thanks for the clarification...

Now, do we agree to have the following sections:

1. Introduction

2. Biography

3. His philosophy and activities

4. Work

5. Critical

6. Links

I am understanding from what you have said above that it is OK with you. I am deleting all the rest but keeping the introduction part.

Proposal for new introduction

Here is my version for introduction:

---

M. Fethullah Gulen is an Islamic scholar and thinker, a prolific writer and poet. He is trained in the religious sciences by several Muslim scholars and also studied the principals and theories of social and physical sciences.

Mr. Gulen is known as the idealogue of dialogue (especially interfaith dialogue) among different communities, cultures and nations, tolerance, and appreciation of diversity versus crash of civilization. He puts a strong emphasis on education of the new generations, in the direction of creating an athmosphere based on mutual respect, and accepting 'the other' as s/he is. Mr. Gulen's influence through his ideas extends over much of Central Asia, Caucasus and recently over Europe and United States.

He has over 30 books and many articles published in different journals and magazines written on different themes from social to religious issues, and from art and science to music, sports and politics. He is fluent in Arabic and Persian and can communicate in English and French. He hasn't been married.

Criticism of current version

And the reasons I think Mr. Baruqqque's version is completely unacceptible is as follows (I copy some of my earlier arguments as necessary):

Your version leaves a negative taste to the readers' curiosity. It has many negative statements. If I was someone who does not know him, I would just stop reading further after that introduction.

Why it is so negative:

1. Fethullah Gulen is a philosopher and scholar. Not just a preacher. Can you see the difference? Yes he has given talks in the masques, but he also has many scientific conferences. He has his own school, one could say. Please look at the following quotes. Note that these people are not his followers, even not Muslims:

a. "Gulen speaks about Islam and science, democracy, modernity, religious and ideological tolerance, the importance of education, and current events." - Dale F. Eickelman Professor of Antropology and Human Relations, Darmouth College

b. "Gulen is an example of harmony and tolerance for all of us, and a model of high values for all humanity" - Phanariot Greek Patriarch Bartholomeos I (He is like Pope for Orthodox denomination)

c. "Gulen's educational vision is one that embraces societies throughout the world" Thomas Michel, Secretary for interreligious Dialogue, Vatikan.

Comment Quoted or not, those are still point-of-view statements. 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Baroqqque I aggre. the links below contain claims that he is a subverter, and the indictment by the government presecution for the unresolved case makes similar claims, does that mean that should be included. The only official title Gulen carried was a preacher for the state (it is a job in Turkey). I also strongly believe his position as the leader of a n islamic group should also be included, is there any diaggrement on that?

RG This idea is very strange. Do you know anybody given a title like 'philosopher', 'writer', 'poet' by the government. What does that mean that you are using only official titles? We are writing an article in English here. The audience is no way aware of what is happening in Turkey. They will think according to their understanding from the concepts. My point is: when you are mentioning, say David (prophet), you do not say he was an 'ironmaster', although he was. You mention his most remarkable titles especially at the begining. Resid Gulerdem 07:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RG I agree too, but I put these quotes to show Mr. Baroqqque that he is a great philosopher according to many world leaders. I skiped quite many. I do not ask these be included in the article. I am just trying to show him that he is not just a regular preacher. He was claiming before that Mr. Gulen is even not a thinker... Resid Gulerdem 01:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Gulen is never claimed that he is a leader of the "Nur" movement. Are we going to write this article with rumors or facts? He was together with some people when he was very young. After that he had his own way. It is called Gulen Movement.

BaroqqqueThis is a big topic, which we discussed above, and for which I gave newspaper links. We can do it more formally below, under a separate heading.

RG Just fine with me...

3. You prefer to say: "His supporters hail him as an important Islamic scholar with liberal ideas, while detractors accuse him for illegal activities aimed at undermining the secular republic and replacing it with an Islamic state." Look at this statement closer: "illegal activities aimed at undermining the secular republic and replacing it with an Islamic state." That is why I am saying that I would stop reading further when I see this if I was not aware of who really Mr. Gulen is... Even before the reader know what Mr. Gulen has done, what are his ideas the reader will have image of a 'monster' in his mind as he keeps reading if s/he is more patient than me. I would prefer to put similar statement at the part 'Critical' if necessary, not to the beginning.

Comment I think it's absolutely important to include supporter's views AND detractor's views. When I mentioned other political figures before (Jesse Jackson and Newt Gingrich my point was that both of these articles present both views. The "negative" comment above is clearly qualified as being a "detractor" viewpoint. Ohnoitsjamie 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Baroqqque Agree

RG Absolutely, agree... But not at the first sentence, We have a separate section for it... Resid Gulerdem 01:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

4. We can try Ataturk as an example if you like or another religious figues as Jamie suggested. Here is the introduction:

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881–10 November 1938), until 1934 Mustafa Kemal, Turkish army officer and revolutionist statesman, was the founder and first President of the Republic of Turkey.

That is it. He is also controversial. The introduction is brief, to the point, and short. I want a similar introduction for Mr. Gulen. What is wrong with that?

Comment I agree; I think it's good practice for an opening statement to just state facts and save the "pros and cons" for later. Ohnoitsjamie

Baroqqque I can buy that, but then the stuff about Gulen being a philosoipher etc should also be relaged to second and third sentences, with the claims of detractors. Ataturk's decription is restricted to verifable positions, for Gulen, philospoher is too controversial to be there.

RG That is another point you should reconsider. You have an impression that even the title 'philosopher' is a too good for him. You are even jelaous about someone calling him philosopher. It is really unbelievable to me. I have never heard his being a philosopher controversial. Even in the links your mentioned earlier, the book was about Gulen's philosophy and movement. Look, many world class leaders respect him, I just quote there above. He even met Pope when he was alive, they had a very friendly talk. He has over 30 books, etc, etc. Who is a philosopher in you opinion? I can agree that according to some people his final aim is controversial. I havent heard anyone claiming that he is actually not a philosopher.

As you know, in the current version of the article about Mr. Gulen, is stated that, Mr. Gulen called Ataturk as 'concrete Mustafa'. It is nothing but a slander which I am going to come to that later. I would like to make another point now. (I actually can promise to stop making this editing about Mr. Gulen's article if one could show me some concrete evidence of it, not the rumors, I should add). Another statement in the current version goes like this: "As such, he succeeded in recruiting large sections of the society who felt alienated by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's reforms at the founding of the Turkish Republic."

Comment The 'concrete Mustafa' quote should be sourced to meet the verifiable standard. The second statement is a bit tougher to judge. Ohnoitsjamie 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Baroqqque Honestly, I have heard the claim before, for sources, it should be checked, but arent we ggoing step by step. But still if this is the only reason for deleting all the rest of the article, I dont mind it being temporarily deleted. For the second statement, it is perhaps the only analytical statement in the article on the success of group, and to the extent I am familiar with the literature is the conventional wisdon on the group. Do you want me to eoborate on this?

RG That is the point. You are writing what you have heard from someone. Is it how to write an article in an ansiklopedia? Almost all of your clasims are the same, not only this one. Just false statements, no proofs. But we are coming to each of them one by one... Resid Gulerdem 01:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RG Regarding the second statement: What is sneaky here in this statement is the part: 'who felt alienated by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's reforms at the founding of the Turkish Republic'. That is not true. By this, Mr. B is trying to imply a conflict between the founder of the republic and Mr. Gulen. It is not the case. Mr. Gulen explained from time to time that he has no problem with Ataturk. The truth is: Mr Gulen has succeeded in recruiting large sections of the society. He has a deep impact on the avarage people in Turkey with his very moderate, modern ideas. Resid Gulerdem 07:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Now would that be acceptable in your opinion to change the introductory statement about Ataturk to this one: "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881–10 November 1938), until 1934 Mustafa Kemal, Turkish army officer and revolutionist statesman, was the founder and first President of the Republic of Turkey. His supporters hail him as an important person, while detractors accuse him for being an 'infidel' who converted a Muslim country into a secular republic which does not tolerate any Islamic activity." What do you think? Could you say it would be a good start? I wouldn't say that... I hope you can see that, the very similar statements are not good introduction for Mr. Gulen as well.

Baroqqque The counter argument on this point was given before.

RG I missed that counterexample, what is it?

4. You say in the introduction 'His followers "commonly" refered to' now. Can you explain what make you think that it is common? I know there are some people call them as Fethullahci but who says it is common. In fact it is not. It is considered as an insult. Mr. Gulen himself states that: "I am saddened as if someone called my mom as prostitute when I hear the term Fehullahci". It is that bad... No one claims to be a follower or supporter of Mr. Gulen, but people only respect him for being a good follower of Islam and Prophet Muhammad. I hope it is clear now why I would like to remove the phrase.

5. They never call themselves "Hizmet Insani" as it is against their understanding of modesty, but some other people say that to appreciate what these people do for humanity.

Comment I don't know the facts regarding what his followers are called, but care must be exercised in making such assertions. For example, in the US a conservative might describe an opponent as a "Harvard boutique liberal," but I doubt that anyone would describe themselves in that way. Ohnoitsjamie 01:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RG Here is an objective view and common sense...

There shouldn't be some 'sneaky' statements that at the very beginning impose a prejudgment to the reader even before they know a bit about Mr. Gulen. The first paragraph should be impressive and invite the reader to keep going. The current version does just the opposite in my opinion.

Mr Barouqqque I am expecting an answer for each of the following above and I believe Jamie will be together with us during this process.

If the current version is not acceptable for you, I would like to learn why? It is very important for me to see why you do not think that it is good. I havent heard anything about it so far. If we cannot agree on this I can work a shorter one...

Thanks...

Resid Gulerdem 00:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

---

1) I am ok with the plan, but please stop deleting the article, write you proposal here and let's discuss. I have written numerous times that the version before the edit war was created over time (not by me, but a group of people) and stayed more or less constant for months. I do not see where this going, for each section you will propose your january 3-5 version and we'll take that as starting point? Come on, be fair, how is that any different from accepting your january 3-5 major edit as the starting point and then arguing over that. Also, as observed above, even though the current version has a lot of missing points, especially regarding GUlen's ideas, in a lot of other points it is supported by links. Unless you think all of the pre edit war version is of no value, which, let me remind you, contains contributions from many people, it will also save effort. And to be very honest, I think we will not get anywhere by writing a totally new article, improving the existing is both the sensible, efficient, and considerate option. So I am reverting back from your wholesale change one more time.

RG Please try to see this: I am together with some friends here put our effort to work on the article. Why do not you respect my contribution while giving an impression that you are respecting the others? I am thankful to the ones who contributed, what a nice... Isn't there a room for my contribution? And corrections? Resid Gulerdem 07:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

2)As for the claim that you originally had the proposal to discuss point by point, focus on one disaggrement at a time, and i am not honest in pretending it was my idea; I do not think thats the case but i dont really care as long as we do it.

3) So why dont you start with what is misleading about the before edit war version (not that we havent discussed this, but you should pick one point, and not throw them all out at once, which wouldnt be any different then what happened up this point.) You can make it as the heading of a new discussion thread below, so that we dont get lost. that is, the discussion threads should better be categorized by topic by topic( whether he is controversial, evidence on the tape controversy etc), not section by section (introduction, biography etc).

RG What are we talking here from the beginning???!!... I am expalining to you what is misleading all along the way. There are 'sneaky' statements between the lines, wrong information, links do not match the statement proposed, insults, etc, etc... What else I should say? I gave examles for each of those above. I am seperating section by section because each section there are many misleading statements. If we agree on a section than we can go to further sections to discuss. All my explanations above was regarding the introduction alone... We will come to other sections too. You can consider each item above as a topic. I do not know if I understand wht you mean? Resid Gulerdem 07:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

4) Lastly, I do not mind doing it here, but it might be a better option to create the article in Turkish vikipedia, where more people at one point or another got involved in the discussion, and where the links can be verified by the administrators, and then trasnlate the article into english. The article in Turkish vikipedia is currently locked, but if you agree i am pretty sure we can get it unlocked. And we might save time in explaining the related issues; Ohnoitsjamie is informed on the contreversy in Turkey about secularims and role of religion in public life, but for any other administrator the whole background might be alien, and the whole discussion that we engage in might seem absurd.

baroqqque jan 10

RG What is the point? First, we havent made a conclusion yet regarding the first paragraph... Did we? So, what is our decision. Is my version OK with you? I am sure that you can make the turkish version unprotected. I was asking the article be unprotected for 5 days. All my request are ignored. Since you and admin Dbi2010 is working in a great harmony, I am sure you can make it unprotected. But why are not we discussing here? Jamie knows nothing about the issue. He is an objective person from outside. This is the best medium for me to discuss... I do not want to deal with bias actions of your (admin) friends there in the Turkish version.

I read your detailed criticism right now, and i will answer point by point,a nd actually I agree with some of the points I make. But before that, 1)can we first agree in the methodological points I make above, and 2) Can we touch one point at a time. I mean if i answer all at once, and like you did, copy and paste my arguments from above, this wont take us anywhere. The one I propose, is whether you think any critical view of him, propagared by some secular segments of the society should be included to begin with. If you already agree that, I can talk about your first point, about how he should be described regardig occupation or main role he plays in society.

Deleting some sections

That is the point, I and some other people also contributred to this version. If you want to have some sections, I can agree on the biography section alone after some discussion, there is also some mistake in it. As I stated many times, you have lots of wrong statements in the contraversial and critical parts. Why should they be there?!... THat is why I am here and show that they are wrong.

On are not answering my questions. For example about my point on 'concrete Mustafa'. That is just an example indicates how the arguments you used are misleading and incorrect. There are many others alike. Why all these false information should stay there?

Dear Gulerdem, I honestly ask you to continue below the points that I made, each time you start a new section some information and contunity gets lost, you can see I try to answer below your points as much as possible. Each time I have to start anew I honestly feel like I lost my whole day for nothing. SO for example, why cant you paste your point about other peoples' contributions below my first point above. So please, lets stop jumping around, I assume we are both busy people.

I added my comment on "Concrete Mustafa" above, but please lets establish a methodology firsy, and go point by point. I would really really appreciate if you continue below the 5 points that I added above, and also, if you went add counter arguments below the comments to your own points.

Baroqqque Jan 10

---

Dear Mr. Barouqqqque,

It is not as you thought. I am here at a very uncomportable situation trying to ansewr your questions. I lost lots of paragraphs because of edit conflicts. This section titles help me to deal with smaller sections, so I do not lose my answers. My computer here I am using is so slow...

I will answer all your question, do not worry about it. I am here...

I am sure, but my point is lets take them one by one. And one heading for each topic. If your problem is with preserving information, can you find another way to it? For example, perhaps you can type it in word first and then copy and paste? The way tou keep starting new sections not based ob topicallity costs a lot of time. also, if you are wiling to take my prposal to start with the turish version first (point 4 above, maybe you should start with addresing that.

baroqque

INTRODUCTION Ok then, since you expressed full trust in Jamie, can I ask you Jamie, to pick topics from below, one or more, make them into headings for discussioin, so that we can discuss in detail rather than jumping up and down. The preedit war version was

RG I have no reason for not trusting him. Fortunately, he is spending his with us here, he is objective.

"Fethullah GülenM. Fethullah Gülen is a former Islamic preacher, and the foremost leader of the "Nur" movement in Turkey. His supporters hail him as an important Islamic scholar with liberal ideas, while detractors accuse him for illegal activities aimed at undermining the secular republic and replacing it with an Islamic state. His followers are commonly 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."

GULERDEM version:M. Fethullah Gulen is an Islamic scholar and thinker, a prolific writer and poet. He is trained in the religious sciences by several Muslim scholars and also studied the principals and theories of social and physical sciences. Mr. Gulen is known as the idealogue of dialogue (especially interfaith dialogue) among different communities, cultures and nations, tolerance, and appreciation of diversity versus crash of civilization. He puts a strong emphasis on education of the new generations, in the direction of creating an athmosphere based on mutual respect, and accepting 'the other' as s/he is. Mr. Gulen's influence through his ideas extends over much of Central Asia, Caucasus and recently over Europe and United States. He has over 30 books and many articles published in different journals and magazines written on different themes from social to religious issues, and from art and science to music, sports and politics. He is fluent in Arabic and Persian and can communicate in English and French. He hasn't been married.

Points of diagreement: 1) Format: Diagree:B thinks the proposed version is too long , the introduction should be similar in length to the preedit war version 2) First sentence: Agree: As in the current version pracher should be included(???) Disgree: G thinks philosopher, poet should be added, B thinks as in the preedit war version they should be left for later, as they are controversial. Diagree: G thinks he should not be qualified as a Nurcu as it is in the preedit war version, B partially aggrees, but contends the senetence should contain a reference to his strong influence on a well organized islamic group. 2) Second/ third sentences: Disagree: B thinks, as in the current version, the controversy regarding Gulen's group should be included, G does not

RG it will be included but not in the first sentence. You are always skipping my question. Why do not we go ahead and change Ataturk artcile using the same approach you are doing to Gulen? Can you please find any article which starts with 'what his supporter call him and what they call that person'? Resid Gulerdem 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

3) The rest: Diagree: G thinks GUlen's marriage, language skills, education in islamic, social ,, natural sciences, books published, etc should be added, B thinks, as in the current version, they should be left for later.

RG You are trying to just ignore his intellectual side. He spend all his life to write these books and article. You will skip the term 'philosopher', you wont mention about his books, and will just say 'he is a preacher'? Why you want to exclude everything shows his intellectual strength? Why do you want to hide his intellectual side from the reader? Resid Gulerdem 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Before we move on, let me put my problem in your choice of proceeding in the english version in record. Since the great deal of related material is in TUrkish, well have to find an online transltor or something of that sort, which will greatly reduce the speed. So let me ask you to reconsider your decision, and please, for god's sake stopolabeling anybody who doesnt agree with your changes as my con identity or co-conspirator.

RG I am not labeling anybody just because he is disagree with me. I am talking on the facts and wht was happpening. I cannot also see why you are insisting on discussing there. Remember what happened: I offered a similar version in the Turkish Vikipedi and my version which is a translation of the one I am proposing here. And it is widely accepted. And then you went and revert back without any explanation. Surprisingly right after that it is protected. I asked for unprotection but my request is just ignored.

My revisions to Baroqqqe's last revision

I've reviewed the latest revision and deleted a few things and made slight modifications to other areas. My deletions are not reflections of things I feel to be untrue, but rather passages that probably require a bit more discussion and sources.

I do feel strongly that there is no point to putting links to Turkish-language pages in an English version of Wikipedia. I spent some time trying to find a few websites that were critical of Gulen that were written in English, but was unable to. Hopefully, someone else will be able to find a few to add a little bit of balance to the links section.

I realize that Islam/secularism is a very hot topic in Turkey (I've had a few Turkish friends, and I've read a fair amount about the history of Turkish politics). However, I do not speak Turkish which greatly limits my access to other sources of information on Gulen.

I realize that it may seem that I am taking sides with Baroqqqe, but that is more of a function of Baroqqqe adhering to Wikipedia's general policy of neutral point of view. I don't know if Baroqqqe is a fierce critic of Gulen or not, but for the most part his edits are closer to NPOV than some of the other edits.

RG Completely agree... Resid Gulerdem 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

B Agree what?? THAT PRE EDIT WAR VERSION IS MORE OBJECTIVE?

I'm doing my best to be a neutral party in this case, relying on general Wikipedia style guidelines versus my knowledge of this subject. Criticism of my edits is welcome. Ohnoitsjamie 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jamie,

1)concerning my identity, I have stated above I have no loyalties to any religious or political group, and indeed working on politics ans an academician. The reason I seem to defend one way is because once a person takes one side of the issue, if you are neutral, you have to take the other.

RG Certainly not. You are not neutral. Well, I am not neutral on the issue, but at least I do not let my perspective appear in the article instead of the facts. You cannot even prove your statements in the article. That is the difference and it shows why you are not neutral. What kind of academic discipline allows one to write an article based on unverifiable rumors? Resid Gulerdem 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

B we discussed this over and over. you know these are empty words, please see above for the coommmens by an administrator whom you called neutral and objetive yourself

2) As for your edits, the big difference that you make is to take the critical view section out, which , clarifies the view of his critics greatly. that section largely relies on the state presecutor's indictment of Gulen in the unresolved legal case. Is the reason that you are doing it because the you cannot read and verify the claims? So I guess the way around it would be to find some way to confirm that the links indeed contain the listed claims? I strongly believe taking the discussion to turkish vesion would be more sensible, to avoid such problems. I am not not sure how to proceed otherwise, do you have a suggestion about the way out?

RG As you said it is just an indictment. It is not a decision. Noone can be declared guilty if there is no any verdict against him. All in all, Mr. Gulen has no verdcit at all in his lifetime. Just the claims. If you consider that, that claims are coming from a prosecutor of a secular state like Turkey (with French style (not US style) democrasy), and the prosecutor himself is being under prosecution now for his embarrassing behaviour, and also this prosecution is started at a time of the interference of the army to democratic system (28 Feb), you can see why all these claims are contraversial. They are not proved. So what? Everybody is innocent unless there is a verdict against him. I am telling the truth about what is happening in the Turkish Vikipedi and you think that my claims are not acceptable for you. Why (in such an important issue) the ideas of a person (prosecutor) who has major flaws in his caracter, during an uneasy time of democracy in Turkey, should be OK? Resid Gulerdem 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

B NObody claims are true, thats why they are called claims, and they are in the critics section

3) The other big chunk that you take out is the section on the tension between army and Gulen. There we again run into the same problem, the links are Turkish journal articles, but there is also some indirect evidence tha you can verify. The following link was given above by Gulerdem, an interview by GUlen, published in his official website. The section in the interview on relations with military, and the very fact that he takes pain to dispel the notion he organizes within the military should provide indirect evidence on the authenticity of the section in the main article.

http://en.fgulen.com/a.page/press/interview/interview.with.mehmet.gundem.of.milliyet.daily/a1909.html

You should also check the academic article

http://www.meforum.org/article/404

RG What does this mean: 'he takes pain to dispel the notion he organizes within the military should provide indirect evidence'? He is expalaining he has nothing to roganize in the military and you say it is an evidence for him being organized in the military? An example: Say, I claim that you and {User:Dbi2010} are in fact the same person but using just different machines and usernames. While you are arguing with me, he is misusing his admin previllidges to protect the article although there is a concensus in the Turkish version about what I am proposing. What would you do? You would defend yourself, right? What is Mr. Gulen doing was exactly defending himself that there is no such organization. I would definitely recommend to Jamie to make some time to see that article, if possible. It is enlightening already. Thanks for refering to these articles... Resid Gulerdem 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

B which part of the military paragraph do you not agree? that there is tension between the groups, that members are expelled?

baroqqque jan 10

I wasn't trying to remove all critical views; I removed two paragraphs that I thought merited more discussion on the talk page. I don't want to dispute anything like a legal matter that could easily be verified, just talk that can't easily be verified nor is accepted as conventional wisdom. Ohnoitsjamie 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see, ok, i follow your point. SO what do you think would bethe best way to proceed at this point? Baroqque jan 10.

RG The way we proceed is as follows: You have to prove all your claims. That is it! Even when we are talking about the critical views we shold phrase it in an academically acceptible, objective manner.

RG I will hardly be available for the coming 5-7 days. I keep my rights to come an continue from where I stop. The changes made should not be considered as permanent. I am also reverting the introduction becase he didnt make any comment to justify his version. Why it is better. I didnt get satisfactory answers to my questions regarding the introduction above either. To say something doesn't mean to answer the question. Especially Barouqqqe insist on not answering my question regarding the Ataturk article case: Why he thinks we shouldn't change it using the same approach he is suggesting for Mr. Gulen? There is no reason to give a negative view to the reader at the first sentence, There will be a seperate section for who are interested. There is no such example in Wikipedia that starts with 'what supporters or detrators call him or what they are called, etc...' As Jamie suggested, 'save the "pros and cons" for later'.

Bcome on, i cant believe this, so after all the discussion and commenst above by an objective observer, you will do the same thing? god, i wasted so much time, but at least for future reference it provides a starting point.

I am also adding the section about his philosophy. There should be a section about it. I will work on it more later. Resid Gulerdem 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

= ?????????

What? After all the discussion, Ohnoitsjamie proposes a version and you vandalize it too???????? FOr all others please read the text above. Well, at this point I am not sure anything will keep you from vandalizing in the future. BUt the moral ground for your actions not there anymore. Jamie, I had to revert it, and im pretty sure Ill have to do it in the future. What's your take on this? Baroqqqque 11

RG What you say above makes no sense to me at all. I added a section. It is not vandalism. To take the whole section back: It is vandalism.

Regarding your answers above, after all discussions, do you think that you gave satisfactory answers to my concerns about the first paragraph? I would recommend you to read the discussions above, once again.

We are still at the first paragraph, you are not answering my questions precisely, as I said above like in Ataturk example, and others... Another example, why you think your version is better?

I wont have time to discuss further today. Please do not take the philosophy part back. People shold learn his philosopy too. That is what that article for. And do not revert the first paragraph, if you do not answer all my concerns, or explain why your is better. You pretend like you have answered all my questions and disapointed with why I am adding a section now?!...

I will also let Jamie to determine if I have right to add a section. I do not think that he is approving your introduction part. As far as understand he also thinks that we need to leave the controversial issues later in the article. Please read carefully! Resid Gulerdem 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment No one (except maybe Jimbo Wales) has the final say in any Wikipedia matter; I can only offer my opinion. That said, I think some of the additions in this edit [3] have some point-of-view problems with the language. Take this passage: He views hopelessness as a quicksand that buries human progress and kills the will to succeed, a noose that chokes and drowns people. With his acute perception, Gülen perceives that the world's spiritual climate is undergoing a positive change. That has some major POV issues. I think there is more room to discuss Gulens accomplishments, but the language shouldn't read like it was written by his public-relations person. Ohnoitsjamie 17:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the version that you changed wasnt mine; it was proposed by Jamie, am I wrong?!!!!!!!!!!!! As for adding a section, we already agreed adding more on his ideas, but after it is discussed, as there should be more added to criticism. BTW, the problem with what you add, once again, where is the analysis part, it is same as before??? You said you were an academician, in social sciences? did you ever read an article in social sciences? Come on, dot turn this into a farce, you are a smart guy, and you had written about vandalism and morals before, take a minute and think about what you are doing.

Good source for English speakers

I haven't added much to the article, as I'm not sure if I feel knowledgeable about the Gulen to add new information without a lot of study. The best I can do is try address some of the POV problems that existed in earlier revisions. I think this article has a lot of great information: [4]. While it doesn't shy away from criticism, I think it's well-balanced, and describes multiple viewpoints on Gulen's activities. In fact, I think the overall spin of the article is a slightly positive one; it certainly doesn't focus on critism. Ohnoitsjamie 02:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The problem with academic sources is, the group's move to mainstream is relatively recent, so the existing body of work has not really reached maturity, and as evident from the events accounted in the article, the whole issue is politically charged. Another problem is the group heavily invests in education and at least some of the work on the subject is done by those who have a relatively uncritical view of Gulen. In fact, it is claimed, a disproportinately large share of recent PhD in Turkey have some sort of emotional attachment, or whatever you might call it , to Gulen. Under such condition, academic politics restrict pushing for critical analysis. On the other side, work by secularists, of course, contain harsh statements regarding a conspiracy, which, in universities where they are dominant, undermines the chances for any positive evaluation of the group.

To highlight the importance of critical reading of the article, let me point out it was published in MEQ, whose motto is "promoting american interests"; it is not a respected scholoarly journal, in the sense of APSR, but rather the extension of a conservative think thank.

But I agree with you, if we are to restrict ourselves to english sources on the web, the two articles are the only ones that I could see that at least mention the critical side of the coin. I think the relevant section in the two articles can be the starting point for the supporter's view section, I do not want to write it myself in order not to start an edit war again, but I can contribute with comments if you propose a text based on the two articles. I also think the section you took out on military's role should be reconsidered, the article also gives a similar account, so if you propose a text I would give my own comments. Lastly, the article states some of the view ( for example the claim that he aims an iranian style teocracy), for other claims the preedit war relied largely on the indictment by the state prosecutor, which references the trasncritos of the video tapes and extracts from books by Gulen which were published before the 90s. AS long as the sources are quoted, I still think these are good sources for summarizing the view of detractors. baroqqqqu jan 11

Intro

Hi,

I think that there is no concensus about the intro yet. You declared (in Turkish version) an early victory... As far as I got from Jamie's contributions that he also agreed on leaving the critics to the article itself not at the introduction.

I reverted back the intro. In my version there is no comment at all. It is completely objective. On the versions you insist, there are insults far beyond the critiques.

I havent reverted the whole article...

216.248.123.207 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

His Philosopy

I have right to add a section and I did that. You cannot just delete it. That is called vandalism. If you do not like some parts we should discuss first. See, I have lots of objections to your version but I am discussing those. Is that fair you just delete my contribution?

Thanks,

216.248.123.207 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Let's be more careful about what we call "vandalism." I think a more appropriate characterization would be an Wikipedia:Edit war. I've attempted to merge the last intro with the previous one. Given that there appears to be a polarized consensus on Mr. Gulen, I think it's important to state that in the intro paragraph, though I do agree that the insulting term for his followers is not appropriate in that section.

I toned down the second paragraph a bit, as it was straying toward the "sanitized public relations" version a bit.

Again, my opinion/revision is certainly not the last word on the matter; I'm just trying to find an acceptible common ground. Oh no itsJamie 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jamie, I think in this last version, with the aim of finding middle ground, you are putting to much stuff. I thought we had reached a common groun but if this is going to go on, then we should perhaps reduce to it to a minimum; undisputed facts in the first sentence, and he controversial ones, according to two sides in the second and third. I understand that you want to reach a common ground, but th version that you propose now is different from what you propoesed a few days aga. The problem is, if it really reduces to mixixng the two version proposed by the discussants, I could have (and can ) propose a much more radical version by the critics of GUlen, and then the middle ground would have been much to closer to the critics view. THe fact that I did not do so should be punished?

I wrote a new version,; i took out the languages, marriages etc. I added he was trained in religious and amaterial sciences; though i think that should be changed; his training was by respected local religious leaders rather than a formal education in a religious research institution etc. It is, in that sense, a very strong statement to put in the introduction. ANd education in material sciences,by that the supporters refer to his reading in his private time; he has no education in that. And the term "ideologue of dilaogue", what is meant by that?

Baroqqque`

Dear All,

I support Jamies version, as I trust him as a neutral observer. It doesnt mean that I copmletely agree with all statements in the intro part. But we will discuss it further as time allows.

I strongly recommend Mr. Baruque stop deleting this version and insist on his. It wont take us anywhere... As I said although I am not completely agree on the current one, it looks to me that, it forms a text for future discussions.

And also, although I repeted many times, Mr. Barouque still deleting my contribution. How come Mr. Barouque? Why you are doing this? Please discusss the mistakes there if there is any, as I am doing for your misstatements.

'Ideologue of dialogue among different communities' is a clear statement to me, what do you think is wrong with that?

Again although we both do not agree on the intro, I also want Jamies verion be a ground for further discussions. Please discuss and let us know why do you think it is not good? Can you do that?

I am looking for productive discussions as time is a concern for all. I am also looking for honesty and academic objectivity. I hope Mr. Baroqque could think on these issues more carefully...

Best, Resid Gulerdem 20:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gulerdem, Ill cut it short. On january 12 the same moderator prposed a version, and in order not to start an edit war, I proposed all the discussion be made on this page and later added to that version. But instead , on jan 16, today, without any discussion and argument, you again made the changes on the page, not here. So I did the same thing. One thing i suggest is to leave these discussions behind and go point by point, very spesific, which I did below. Why dont you contribute there, it is much simpler and we can really cover distance. I also start a section on the edit war, so that we dont have to start a new each time.Baroqqque 21:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION ON EDIT WAR

I start this section so we can follow up on arguments over the edit war without starting a new each time.Baroqqque 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION ON INTRODUCTION

I had summarized points of aggrement and disaagrement on the introduction before; in order to facilitiate coming up a neutral version I paste it again. Points of diagreement:

1) Format:

Disagree:B thinks the proposed version is too long , the introduction should be similar in length to the preedit war version

2) First sentence:

Agree: As in the current version preacher should be included(???)

Disgree: G thinks philosopher, poet should be added, B thinks as in the preedit war version they should be left for later, as they are controversial.

Disagree: G thinks he should not be qualified as a Nurcu as it is in the preedit war version, B partially aggrees, but contends the sentence should contain a reference to his strong influence on a well organized islamic group.

3) Second/ third sentences:

Disagree: B thinks, as in the current version, the controversy regarding Gulen's group, in the larger context of debate on secularism should be included, G does notBaroqqque 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A base for further discussions

Dear Barouqque,

I can no way accept your introduction. It is not objective and includes insults...

Jamie has a version which I support as a base for further discussion. I have some concerns about the statements in it too. But for the sake of reconsiliation, I do not change it without discussion. Why do not you try that?

And I cannot get an answer, what make you think that you can delete my contributions. I edited a section about his philosopy but you are just deelting it? Why?

We cannot go anywhere if you insis on your version. Let us discuss on Jamie's version.

Thanks...Resid Gulerdem 21:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, when I did that last merge, I didn't realize that more had been altered than the introduction. This [5] was the last version prior to today that I thought was reasonable. I was trying to accomodate both sides in the introduction (not mentioning a name that followers of Gulen find offensive, but retaining mention in the introduction of the fact that he is controversial. I think that nearly the entire "Philosophies and activities" section proposed by Rgulerdem is 90% point-of-view in that it reads like a public relations statement instead of an encylopedia. In the edit previously referenced, I'd distilled that "Philosophy and activies" section into this statement in an attempt to remove the POV parts:

He was a founder of the Journalists' and Writers' Foundation, a group that promotes dialogue and tolerance among all social strata. He regularly visits and receives leading Turkish and international figures: the Vatican's Ambassador to Turkey, the Patriarch of the Turkish Orthodox community, the Patriarch of the Turkish Armenian community, the Chief Rabbi of the Turkish Jewish community, as well as leading journalists, columnists, television and film stars, and thinkers of varying views.

While I think it would be fine to include a few quotes or core beliefs (as entries of other similar figures might contain), it's important that the writing sound like an encylopedia, not a press release. Oh no itsJamie 21:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RG Dear Jamie, although I said couple of times that this is not the last version, I respect yur point as a neutral observer and delete 'philosophy' section. I will rewrite it that part.

Dear Gulerdem, the problem is when I agreed not touching the last base version without discussion, you did change it, repatedly, so I cannot follow your argument. It is not fair to engage in repated vandalism for the versions that you do not like, and then, once you get an appeasement, change your point and demand no changes be made until discussion is over.

If you say "I cannot accpet your introduction" it is a vague and general condemnation, and no discussion will move forward if you start like that. And once again, our discussion is not just on the material but also on methodology; I want to make it point by point as much as possible, avoid confusion due to demogogical tricks and disorganization, do you agree with that? If you do please lets continue above not here.

And can you be spesific, what is the insult, that a large segment of the society, including the army, thinks GUlen aims an Islamic state. It may be true or not, but would you disagree that this issue is probably one of the the biggest debate in TUrkey on relations of Islam and politics?

Please, lets go in a systematic fashion, I myself take the bait and make the same points as if I had never made them before. If you agree to continue in the section above, we can avoid that, and move onto finer points instead of repeating ourselves

IN order to repeat my proposal, let me move the new section headings that I added to below. I do not think this constitutes a violation of policy, but if it does, a modertor should reverse it.

Baroqqque 21:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear Barouqque,

I cannot accept you intro not because I just do not like it. It is because there are insults and misstatements in it. You cannot give an example with similar introduction at all. I have valid reasons for it, but you insist on not seeing them...

It is good that you have some concerns with methodology. Surprisingly, you are repeating what I have been saying from the beginnning of our discussions here. I am completely for discussing issues one by one till a concensus.

The point here is, we should get an agreement on which version should be a base for further discussions. Although I am not completely agree with the statements therein, for the sake of reconciliation (A term you might not be very familiar with) I am accepting Jamie's (not mine!) version for a base to discuss further. What is wrong with that?

Resid Gulerdem 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

JAMIE'S PROPOSAL

Dear GUlerdem, I quote from above, the last edit by Jamie:

"Actually, when I did that last merge, I didn't realize that more had been altered than the introduction. This [6] was the last version prior to today that I thought was reasonable. I was trying to accomodate both sides in the introduction (not mentioning a name that followers of Gulen find offensive, but retaining mention in the introduction of the fact that he is controversial. I think that nearly the entire "Philosophies and activities" section proposed by Rgulerdem is 90% point-of-view in that it reads like a public relations statement instead of an encylopedia"

So if you agree I revert to version that he references to, and paste the philosophy section that he proposes. Do we agree on this?22:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well, I did also mention that I thought it was appropriate to include a bit more information about his philosophies provided that the writing style remained encylopedic. For instance, the following passage that was just reverted was at least a step in the right direction:

Gulen found his philosopy and ideas based on faithful individuals, healthy society and strong state. In defining these he mostly refer to Islamic sources. Once this established, he further formulates dialogue among different communities, tolerance, accepting the others as themselves and appreciating the other not only within a specific society but in a larger spectrum.

I might rewrite it as:

Gulen describes his philosopy and ideas as based on individual faith, a healthy society, and a strong state. He speaks of an "Anatolian Islam" strongly rooted in tolerance and dialogue while eschewing fanaticism and severe restrictions. Thoughts on this?? Oh no itsJamie 22:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, it think thats a fair addition, its just I am getting lost in the flurry of changes that Resid is making. Jamie, can you make your position clear, like propose a version and say this is my version on the history page, each time Gulerdem makes a change he argues its what you propose and im getting lost.Baroqqque 22:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Baroqqque,

I already changed philosophy part due to his comment. Wht did you delete it and why did you delete the intro.

I am agree on Jamie's intro part as a base for further discussion. Do you agree on this? I made a change on Philosophy part due to his comment. I cannot see what are you asking about?

I like to listen the perspectives of the other people, do you?

Resid Gulerdem 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Dear GUlerdem, I rv to the version Jamie gave a link above, check it.

FIrst and foremost, I ask you to stop jumping around, and stick to a point by point discussion. SO can you comment on the points that I highligihted above before cutting and pasting things. Whenever I try to to do that , you say you proposed it before i did but then again make general comments. Whats wrong with the diaggrements points that i highlighted? ILl passte it for one more time below, hopefully youll make your points there after now. Baroqqque 22:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION ON INTRODUCTION

I had summarized points of aggrement and disaagrement on the introduction before; in order to facilitiate coming up a neutral version I paste it again. Points of diagreement:

1) Format:

Disagree:B thinks the proposed version is too long , the introduction should be similar in length to the preedit war version

2) First sentence:

Agree: As in the current version preacher should be included(???)

Disgree: G thinks philosopher, poet should be added, B thinks as in the preedit war version they should be left for later, as they are controversial.

Disagree: G thinks he should not be qualified as a Nurcu as it is in the preedit war version, B partially aggrees, but contends the sentence should contain a reference to his strong influence on a well organized islamic group.

3) Second/ third sentences:

Disagree: B thinks, as in the current version, the controversy regarding Gulen's group, in the larger context of debate on secularism should be included, G does notBaroqqque 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You might not be aware, but Wikipedia does have a policy called that 3-revert-rule, which in an attempt to prevent edits wars forbids three (non-vandalism) edit reverts in a row. (And I don't think any of these reversion are vandalism, either). I'm going to revert back to the version before today's "edit war" not because I think it's the ideal version, but only because it was the pre-edit-war version. I'm starting to wonder if this disagreement might require a request for mediation process. Oh no itsJamie 22:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with a request for mediation. Some of the source material is in Turkish, what's the policy regarding that?Baroqqque 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I think based on your contribution upto this point and your attitude, I think you would be a good mediator, and Gulerdem also expressed his confidence in you at various points. What I hope for is that somebody let us present evidence or dicuss point by point, its frustrating to repeat same points over an over. Well, actually, this point itself has been repated over and over.

The Mediation Cabal to the rescue

I've just finished a request to the Mediation Cabal, which is a much less formal process than a request for moderation. Perhaps some fresh perspectives can help us resolve this. Please feel free to add a comment of your own to the request via this link. Oh no itsJamie 23:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I actualy prefer a more formal way of resolving disputes; at this point, my impression is Gulerdem's contributions are more reflections of a deep convinction and love for Gulen rather than disaggrements on factual issues, and as such, I see little hope in coming to an aggrement on a text that would satisfy the objectivity criteria for a wikipedia article.Baroqqque 00:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just picked up the "medcabal" request. I'd be happy to help, although I know zero about Turkish politics.

The conflict seems to be confined to the "introduction" section [7]. Just looking at the current state of the paragraph [8], it seems -- assuming the facts themselves are correct -- quite NPOV and "good to go." Introduction sections should be very brief and present only the essentials of the story.

In any case, I'd be happy to help in the discussion. If you want to go to a more "formal" situation, you can do that, but while tempers seem a little frayed, I have a feeling that it can be worked out. Just let me know.

Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sdedeo, and thanks in advance for helping out. I have only a rudimentary knowledge of Turkish politics myself, but I think the gist of this issue is the Gulen is a former cleric who is preaching a (very moderate) form of Islam in a country that has been strongly secular for many years. Baroqqque and Rgulerdem, I hope that's an acceptible one-sentence explanation. In addition to the introduction, there is contention over the newer edit in this diff [9]. As I've said in the discussion above, I think it's appropriate to include more information about Mr. Gulen's philosphies and perhaps a few quotes, but in a way that is a bit more neutral than presented in that edit and acceptable to both sides of this debate. Oh no itsJamie 01:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ohnoitsjamie -- what I'll do is wait to see if the other people in the discussion are OK with the short paragraph as it stands. Sdedeo (tips) 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

RG Jamie, thanks for filling a request for moderation. Please stay around... Thanks for your time with us here. I would prefer arbitration but anyways let us try this first.

RG Dear Sdedeo,

Wellcome... It is good that you do not know much about Turkish politics. All we need here is a neutral observer.

The problem is not only about the intro part but we couldnt find an opportunity to start discussing other parts yet. Just a quick start the intro part Mr Barouqque's suggestion is full of misstatements, mistakes and even insults.

I would like to take the version suggested by Jamie, the previous moderator, as a base for our discussion. I am reverting to his version because I feel that it can form a base for further discussion. Barouqques version is totally unacceptable in terms of academic objectivity and it is bias.

Let us try to discuss the issues one by one. Intro part first and then the other parts. I would appreciate if you could find some time to review previous discusions.

Best, Resid Gulerdem 01:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear parties, as I suggested above, I am either for Jamie doing the the moderation, or a formal moderation. Sdodo, I really think some background in TUrkish politics and secularism debate is needed, because much of the argument stems not only from what are the facts but also what is wortwhile to be included or not, which naturally requires at least some knowledge of the background. It will also save us time explaining the basics of the debate. Actually, the best method would be to discuss in he turkish version, where more people join and spources can be verified by the moderatirs, and bring it here, if Mr. Gulerdem agrees.

Dear Gulerdem, please do not start the edit war once again, im reverting to pre-edit war version.Baroqqque 01:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK -- no problem. I wish you guys luck in figuring out a solution. I will close out the mediation request. I strongly suggest not reverting each other any more. Stay with this latest version, the result of Baroqque's last revert. Allow the article to stand in (what you may consider) a flawed state, and discuss things further here. All the best, Sdedeo (tips) 01:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sdedeo, I would prefer if you stay here as well. There is no way I can find a solution with Mr. Barouqqque. In Turkish version, the article is already locked by an admin friend of Barouqqque (if it is not himself with a different login name).

The problem is the latest version is not objective at all. It is bias and includes insults.

I cannot see any other way to discuss it other than accepting Jamie's version as a base. I am not insisting on my version. I hope Barouqque can see that too. Resid Gulerdem 02:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Friend??? What are you talking about? Isnt there a code for wikipedia for personal accuastions based on conspiracy theories?

I am reverting to predit war version, before you started edit war today.Baroqqque 02:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can only work if all of the parties want me here; otherwise I can't be "neutral". This is a very informal thing, and it is totally fine if Baroqqque prefers some other form of conflict resolution. I wish everyone the best of luck in resolving problems. Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 02:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

---

RG: Dear Sdedeo, sorry about that... I wish you could stay. One more contribution would do nothing but help. I respect your decision though...

Dear Jamie, can you please help us to apply for arbitration. I think there is no other solution for this issue.

Best, Resid Gulerdem 02:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Formal mediation

I suggest that one of you initiate a request for mediation process for this article. Oh no itsJamie 03:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Did itBaroqqque 03:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just read it....well stated. Good luck, Oh no itsJamie 03:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Jamie. I should thank to Mr. Barouqque for doing it, too. I would prefer arbitration instead... What do you think Mr. Barouqque? Resid Gulerdem 03:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we are gonna discuss on it, once again, I opt for mediation in Turkish, the trasnlation issue will make the discussion very very hard and time consuming. The problem is, of course, you think the turkish mediators are me under fake identities.Baroqqque 03:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the pre-edit-war version (labeled TimBentley) might be the most appropriate version to settle with until the mediation process can begin. Oh no itsJamie 03:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jamie, can you revert it to that version, so that it becomes clear which version you opt for. Unless Mr. GUlerdem starts an edit war by changing it, I promise not to change it.Baroqqque 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think we are too late. Mr. Gulerdem, you got what you wanted, but please note the discussion above.

Introduction

I improved intro a little bit and put into an unbiased form. The critics should be left to critical section in the article. Resid Gulerdem 02:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Contraversies

The critical part is slightly modified. Irrelevant and Turkish links deleted. The reader no way can understand a Turkish link, besides some are irrelevant.

Need more work... Resid Gulerdem 02:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation was made about a month ago here. Although this was a while ago, the mediation has been accepted and opened. If the issues that caused the mediation to be requested still haven't been resolved, then please join the mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Fethullah Gulen/Workshop. If there is no longer a need for mediation, let me know.

While the mediation is active, please keep any discussion related to whether Fethullah Gülen is being depicted in a neutral manner or not on the mediation page, so that we don't have many arguments spread out over the wiki.

Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the mediation request was put in, both sides seem to have put forth efforts to resolve some of the POV issues. Looking at the current version, there still may be one or two sections that could stand to be toned down a little. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll leave the mediation up for another few days in case anyone feels different. However, if things are starting to be resolved here, it may be best to let them continue as they are going, and not spark up any more disagreements on the mediation page. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)