Talk:Fethullah Gülen/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Lead is summary

The lead needs to follow guidelines in WP:LEAD. Specifically it needs to a summary of the article; and have about 4 sections. This lead contains much information that is not in the article, hence it is not a summary. This lead is 10 sections long and hence too long. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

i will work on this part. can you please help? Philscirel (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I will do some suggestions. Detailed overview of problems below.

I think a lot of the content of the current intro should be moved to the main text of the article. So I don't ask to throw it away, but I do ask it moving away from the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for new lead section

I am no expert on the topic. I think the best way forward is to design 4 sections of about 4-5 lines each (per WP LEAD).

1) Description of life: Where he was born, where he lives, etc. Just plain biographical facts.

2) What he is known for: Brief summary of his philosophy and movement. Try to be as factual as possible, so boring neutral description.

3) Where he is known from: Brief summary of academic studies, (inter)national media attention. Again being as factual as possible (he received attention from journal X, is neutral - He was highly praised by X, is non neutral (even if it is true) As the choice for X can make it subjective (why not choose Y which opposes him)).

4) Support and critisism: Why do people like him; Why do people do not like him. A brief summary of support and critics. Do not interpret the quality of supporters or critics (So not frame it like: the high standing journal X said he is brilliant while the lousy journal Y had some critics, which were shown unfounded).

Does that sound like a way forward? Arnoutf (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, i think it is a good way to proceed. i created three new sections and carried the relevant paragraphs there. will summarize each sec as you described above briefly in intro. Philscirel (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues in lead

First of all, it is not up to me to remove NPOV detail by detail, it is up to the original author not to add it. If I go through the intro of this article much is trivial (too much detail) or pro Gulen POV. See below what is left after I cleaned up.

Per section:

• Fethullah Gülen (born 27 April 1941) is a modernist Islamic scholar[2], writer, and leader of the Gülen movement. He is the author of over 60 books.[citation needed] (No problems)

• Gülen was recently listed among the top hundred public intellectuals by Foreign Policy magazine.[3] He got most of the votes in the online ballot, in which more than half a million people participated, and has come out as the number one in the competition [4]. (This is not relevant and promotes the subject hence POV)

which part is not relevant? this is an incredible achievement. Philscirel (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Zaman,the offical newspaper of the movement, organized campaings to make his followers vote, so number of the votes are over inflated. FP magazine itself does not even have regular 500k readers. So how could you define this as an incredible achievement like Gulen had won Nobel Prize. Gulen has 1,5 million well organized fanatic followers who could do whatever ordered. This section is totally irrelevant and must be removed. (AA (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

• The organizers stated that the votes in the favor of Gülen is accelerated after Turkey's biggest-selling newspaper, Zaman, which is closely aligned with Gülen, publicized the poll. The result of the poll is accounted in the Guardian along with a news video from Turkey, in an article titled 'Islamic scholar voted world's No 1 thinker' [5]. (Irrelevant section; too much detail for the lead)

this sec is added because some people would like to add that after the ballot is publicized the votes accelerated. i will omit this part.

If the previous section is not removed, in sake of objectivity, this sec must stayed to explain what happened behind the curtains. I suggest all online ballot story removed, since it's not relevant. (AA (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

• Gülen was described as the modern face of the Sufi Ottoman tradition in an article in the center-left British monthly, the Prospect. It is pointed out that 'millions of people inside and outside Turkey have been inspired by Gülen,'. He insists on friendship among people of all faiths and that 'no one should be seen as an outsider.', is another statement of the article. The magazine cited 'a combination of charisma, good organization and an attractive message' as reasons for his overwhelming support worldwide [6]. (Clear breach of NPOV as only positive arguments are listed based on two sources that cannot be considered neutral)

how mnay sources are needed? the quotes from the mainstream media and they reported after some research. Philscirel (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Sufi Ottoman Tradition" (please provide references, if you can), Gulen is trying to hijack 'Sufism' keyword from its original meaning and historical context and associate it with his movement. Gulen knows Sufism is a something already popular/known among western people and intent to use it as a self-marketing tool, if we can associate himself with Sufism. In reality, there is no link between Sufism and Gulen whatsoever.(AA (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

• Gülen has been the subject of several academic studies.[7] A recent conference was held at the House of Lords, under the sponsorship of the London School of Economics, and the University of London to study Gülen and his movement. Two other conferences will be held soon; one at Georgetown University, which is titled Islam in the age of global challenges, Alternative Perspectives of the Gülen Movement, the other at University of Oklahoma titled The Fethullah Gülen Movement in Thought and Practice. (Too much detail for the lead, the first line is acceptable, the rest should not be in the lead).
  • Suggestion "Gülen has been the subject of several academic studies.[7]"

i copied this sec to academic studies section. Philscirel (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• The ideas of Fethullah Gülen, and the schools opened by his followers in many countries have recently been the subject of articles by Forbes magazine and the French daily Le Monde. In the Forbes article entitled 'Gulen Inspires Muslims Worldwide', the chief characteristic of the Gülen movement is identified as not seeking to subvert modern secular states but rather encouraging practicing Muslims to use to the fullest the opportunities those countries offer [8]. In an article in The Economist, the Gülen movement is reported as a Turkish-based movement, vying to be recognized as the world's leading Muslim network [9], and Gülen himself as one of the world's most important Muslim figures. Reuters also analyzed Gülen and Gülen movement in a recent article [10]: Gulen wants to see a renaissance of the modern Muslim world with Turkey at the forefront. (Again too much detail)
  • Suggestion "The ideas of Fethullah Gülen, and the schools opened by his followers in many countries have received attention in the international media."

but them the intro will not introduce him. i think how he is mentioned in the media should also briefly be described. because that is more or less who he is..

• Dr. B. Jill Carroll of Rice University compared the view of Gülen and those of Confucius, Plato, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and Jean Paul Sartre on inherent human value, moral dignity, freedom, education and responsibility, in her book titled 'A Dialogue of Civilizations: Gulen's Islamic Ideals and Humanistic Discourse'.[11] She also stated in an Interfaith Voices program, an independent public radio show that promotes interfaith understanding through dialog, that it is surprising that the West knows little about Fethullah Gülen, a respected Turkish intellectual and scholar: 'I am baffled by the fact that Gülen is not known adequately by the West though he has served a great deal to the improvement of dialogue between faiths and cultures for so many years'. She analyzed Gülen’s understanding of religion as: 'Gülen’s understanding of religion has a liberal and democratic nature. His main objective is to contribute to the education of world children and improve inter-religious dialogue' [12]. Another academics, Ann Munley, the president of Pennsylvania's Marywood University, has likened Turkish schools to islands of peace.[13] (Again too much detail)

carried to acad stu section and will be shortened. Philscirel (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Too long, Please do not try to associate Gulen with well-known philosophers. This book recalls "Simpsons and Philosophy". [AA]

• Gülen and his movement have won praise from many non-Muslim quarters, with their belief in science, interfaith dialogue and multi-party democracy. They are viewed as modernist and all-embracing Muslims, who can counterbalance extremism in the Muslim world. For instance, Sabrina Tavernise of New York Times has stated that they come from a 'moderate blend of Islam that is very inclusive.' [14][15] In the same newspaper, Turkish schools opened and operated by Gülen movement are accounted in an article titled, 'Turkish Schools Offer Pakistan a Gentler Vision of Islam'[16] exclusively based on the Pakistan example. In fact, in a prestigious weekly journal of Pakistan, Cutting Edge, Gülen and his movement is analyzed, recently. Gülen is described as 'An icon of universal peace' in an article with the same title [17]. (too much unbalanced praise, hence breach of NPOV)
  • Suggestion: "Gülen and his movement have been prasied by the non-Muslim as a moderate blend of Islam."

when you consider the number of sources and the research their article is based, i think the info is fair. the article gives info why and how he is praised. it does not include original -from the author- statements. why should this many newspaper be so positive to him? if there is a reason, why should not that perception from the communities mentioned? Philscirel (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Gülen gets respect from the Jewish circles of the international society as well. Center for Interreligious Understanding Director Rabbi Jack Bemporad has said the Gülen movement, led by well-respected Turkish intellectual and scholar Fethullah Gülen, aims to create a more peaceful world and invites all people to unity [18]. (This is the same as above, does not add anything)

a jewish intellectual supporting a muslim intellectual... does not that add? copy pasted to community section. Philscirel (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• In a recent interview [19], İzzettin Doğan, a well-known leader of Alevi circles and President of Cem Foundation, mentioned Gülen as a thinker and a philosopher. He expressed his respect and said that: 'He has made positive contributions to the construction of cemevis (Alevi places of worship). Years ago, he said, "Cemevis should be constructed next to mosques." This is a considerably important statement. In addition, he is open to discussion. In this regard, I never had any doubts about Gülen's ideas' [20]. (utterly irrelevant level of detail for lead).

copy pasted to community section. similar as above. Philscirel (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

unbalanced praise, one sided story, remaining of the interview removed, hence breach of NPOV. Please we need little bit honesty here. In the very same interview, very same person also said: "Ten years ago, [by then prime minister] Ecevit asked me about Gulen's intention, I said, his purpose is clear and obvious, Gulen is trying to do an islamic revolution by democratic means in next 15-20 years through education [in Turkey]. I don't know if he changed his views since then." [Full Transcript of the Original Interview in Turkish: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/default.aspx?aType=SonDakika&ArticleID=877055] The interview must be quoted as whole [AA]

• A decision made by the local government of Houston, Texas indicates the appearance of Gülen's ideas in the Western world. Feb. 21 is declared Gülen Institute Day in Houston. It is stated in the decision letter that the organization, whose honorary president is Fethullah Gülen, serves all humanity without discrimination and boosts mutual understanding and respect and cooperation among people from diverse backgrounds. Similarly, Former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik has said the ideas of Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish-Muslim scholar, and the activities of his movement are in complete harmony with the approach of The Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights, which Bondevik currently heads. He stated that: 'We both believe in dialogue, in respecting and trying to understand each other, in building bridges between main cultures and religions.'[21] (fits non muslim praise section adds nothing but trivial details)

a governmental institution is different from unofficial one. copy pated into the community section.

• His followers and a significant part of Turkish society respects Gülen[22]. There are also some controversies around his name in Turkey. In spite of the court decisions, some secularists claim that his objective is to abolish Turkey's secular state. On the other hand, some radical groups severely criticize his actions, especially interfaith dialog efforts, as a diversion from Islam. (this is all controversy and it takes the form of an rebuttal of critics, in the light of about 8 very positive sections this section should receive equal attention, and critical view should be treated with equal level of scrutiny as the positive sources. The balance between this section and all above is the clearest breach of NPOV you can imagine).
  • Suggestion. "There are several controversies around Gülen and his organisation. Secularists claim he wants to establish an islamic state in Turkey. Some radical groups however critise him for being to outgoing to non-muslims."

after the intro is shortened i think the current one balances positives. your version does not imply why he is criticized by radicals.

This would lead to a new intro:

Fethullah Gülen (born 27 April 1941) is a modernist Islamic scholar[2], writer, and leader of the Gülen movement. He is the author of over 60 books.[citation needed] Gülen and his movement have been praised by the non-Muslim as a moderate blend of Islam Gülen has been the subject of several academic studies.[7] The ideas of Fethullah Gülen, and the schools opened by his followers in many countries have received attention in the international media. There are several controversies around Gülen and his organisation. Secularists claim he wants to establish an islamic state in Turkey. Some radical groups however critise him for being to outgoing to non-muslims.

The rest is either non neutral or too specific for the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

i think this is a little too short. i reorganized the article with three new section under biography. i copy pasted relevant parts from intro. i think that intro should contain at least a brief paragraph on:

• general intro: birth date, place
• academic studies about him
• brief media coverage
• community perception (muslim and nonmuslim quarters)
• controversies

Philscirel (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We should add following as well:

• Critics
• Famous Followers
• Closely Tied Organizations (such as newspapers Today's Zaman et. al, The Light Inc, Rumi Forum etc) [AA]

I agree that above is too short, that was just my rough cleanout action that lead to this. I agree with your suggested lead structure, but would personally merge Academic and Media coverage into a single paragraph, but that is a detail. Try to make sure the paragraphs don't become too long (4-5 lines should be enough for each section). Arnoutf (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

the main structure seems to be established to me. please let me know how do you feel about the current lead section, and is there any statements need to be neutralized in your opinion. Philscirel (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Way too long, of course. If anyone is going to trim anything (as they should), they should take care to protect named references. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 21:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

i do not think that it is long, at least not too long. compare with other bios. regarding the repetitions; the intro summarizes the article. in the body it is further explained. it seems to be normal to me. Philscirel (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it too long, it discusses issues of trivial importance. Do we really need to know that February 21 is Gulen Institute Day in Houston, TX? The sources are also suspect since they rely heavily on his personal site, and mouthpiece, Zaman. A person reading the intro barely gets an idea of what the issues are. The justice ministry investigation - the core of the article's controversy - is reduced to a speck in the article, and mentioned only at the tail end of the intro rather than at the beginning. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

neither too long, nor includes trivial info. do you know anyone else for whom a state agency issued an award, or one day is named after him. i do not mean there is no, it is just rare. this is a critical info shows community perception. a muslim scholar acknowledged in a different, non-muslim country is monumental. it is not true that the sources rely on the personal site. the list of the references is provided. Zaman is the biggest selling newspaper of Turkey and reliable. if you think otherwise you should show that the claim is incorrect from a more reliable source. justice ministry investigation is ended with an acquittal [4]. it is mentioned in the article. acquittal shows that the claims against him were incorrect. why incorrect statements should come first? as a historical fact, the process is mentioned in its own right in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.224.82 (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Too long per WP:LEAD. As I have stated repeatedly above, some of this information maybe of relevance for the main text of the article while it is not for the lead. This also includes that named references are not necessarily essential to an lede section (and therefore open for deletion), as the named references will be in the main text. Arnoutf (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ok i will further shorten it. Philscirel (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Who cares if Zaman is the biggest newspaper? It is his newspaper; that's what matters. This makes it unreliable for reporting on matters that pertain to him. The result of the Justice Ministry's investigation is not the point, but the fact that it took place, and what it was about. If it had been opened by some anonymous person it would not matter, but this is the Justice Ministry. This should be featured right at the top. This is what the contention is about, not what state officials in Houston think of him.

76.181.224.82 (talk)'s contempt for the truth is evident in edits like this. Before my edit the statement stood "The ballot is mentioned in some media reviews", which gives no impression of what went on.

Finally, the lede is about twice the length recommended by WP:LEDE#Length. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

i think your approach is clear. how come you would like to veil the fact that he voted top intellectual. all the details including the editors subjective comment is already in the body. how come you like all the details mentioned in the lead sec and still mention keeping it short? editors comment is just a subjective feeling. not a fact. the fact is he got most votes in the ballot. Philscirel (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to hide the poll. Please do mention it. I merely demand that its media coverage be properly explained, otherwise the article becomes biased. You can't leave it at "he received top marks" without mentioning the fact that Zaman publicized the poll as a the result of which the magazine's editor said Gulen's supporters had "made a mockery" of the poll. The editor's comment is a fact. It is not rumoured that he said it; read the Guardian article. The fact is the poll was rigged. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The editors comment provides context, the context in this place is essential as it makes the relevance of the fact less big (he also has two arms - fact, not in the lead, why, because it is irrelevant).

I agree it was way too long, I tried to clean up, using the previous version (ie the long one) as starting point. Arnoutf (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back to the version I had put in place of the very long POV-intro. Please keep an intro short, clean and factual. About this "intellectual"-thing: I agree with Adoniscik and Arnoutf. The "intellectual"-poll can be mentioned, but in the right context and not in the intro, because it's trivial information. --Jeroen (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your last revision is a great lede (except for the unsourced statement.) Once this debacle is over, if anyone wants to recover the named references, refer to this revision. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 03:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

based on Arnoutf i made some modifications. the complete context for his being top intellectual is given in the body. it has to be mentioned in the intro. that is critical and very relevant information. the editor's comment reflects his feeling. to me, it looks like an insult to the voters. i still cannot understand what he exactly means though. it is not based on the facts, and very subjective. how can one separate 'mockery' votes with others? subjective interpretations cannot veil the facts. Philscirel (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not make modifications based on Arnoutf. You are pushing your biased POV. I advise you not to work on this subject anymore, because it seems you cannot be neutral in this subject. About the "intellectuel"-poll: that poll is held by a select audience that are Gülen-friendly. That is why the results are trivial and not important in a NPOV-encyclopaedia. --Jeroen (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

this bio need to be protected from followers and enemies who like to create a negative image about Gulen at the very first sentence of the intro. check a biography example Noam Chomsky, check [5] and [6] for my attempts to neutralize the intro section by recruiting more people into the discussion, compare [7] and [8] to see -for the sake of compromise- based on whose version i made modifications, and finally grade your behavior out of 10. Philscirel (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not an enemy of Gulen. You must be a follower, because when you put things like; "has been compared with philosopher like Confucius, Plato [...]" in the intro that can only mean you have a agenda. Also you try to push your agenda with different IP's. I will put the neutral version back, but will reverse the critic lines with the follower lines. --Jeroen (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the lead can be a bit longer; WP lead is talking about 4 short sections.

The version started by me is already on the edge of pushing a supporter POV, where indeed the comparsion with Plato et al, and the "significant part of turkey" are dubious claims. For the rest I think it is fairly neutral, tring to present facts and opinions where relevant from all sides. Trivial stuff like top 1 of 100, should NOT be added as that is trivial and in the light of previous discussion likely based on an unreliable poll. Arnoutf (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

although it is NOT true AT ALL that the poll results are trivial, and the works about him defines his position, for the sake of compromise, i deleted the parts you mentioned above from the intro. a wiki article with less info cannot change the facts and does not bring honor to Wikipedia, it just shows its quality. Philscirel (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose to split Gulen and his Movement to different wikipedia articles since both subject is too long to cover within one page (AA (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

conviction

in the official page of Gulen it is clearly stated that he is not convicted. this is the truth, although there are people out there dislike it. if there are other claims, they have to be proven. this is a historical fact and no space for speculations. please stop using nonsense pretexts to delete his being a philosopher and a thinker from intro. Philscirel (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There are verifiable, reliable sources -- the National Review magazine -- that claim that Gülen was convicted. They might be wrong, but they are still reliable, verifiable sources. It is clearly unacceptable to try to sanitize the article of such significant claims based merely on the say-so of the subject's web site. The revised text notes that the article's subject contests those claims and thinks that they are false. That's a better alternative than pretending that reliable sources don't discuss Gulen's conviction. Nandesuka (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

what is this? if there is an edit war, it is the one you just started. i am not side of your war. regarding your notes:

• i hope you do not interpret verifiability as having a link for it.
• we are talking about a columnist comments, not NR magazine. he does not include any reliable source for his claim.
• in the offcial site of Gulen it is clearly stated that, he has not been convicted. his explanation about his life should be taken to be true unless it is proved otherwise. there is no place for speculation, it is either true or not.
• the quotes in the controversies section were proved incorrect based on the court decisions. what is your aim in posting incorrect, montaged texts?
• i cannot understand last two statements above.

i am reverting back, thinking that i addressed your concerns. we are both for having a neutral and correct bio of him, are we? please note that for a stable article, a neutral tone and fair account should be used. Philscirel (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The official site of Gülen is not a reliable source, because it will (necessarily) present his point of view. As such it is a primary source or opinion piece. WP:reliable clearly states that reliable, secondary sources have prevalence over primary sources. Arnoutf (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

this is only true for claims and comments that may include some interpretations. for example, a statement like 'he is a nice guy'. it is possible to come up with a different comment like, 'he is ok, but there is also...', in that case. it cannot be applied for historical facts, like 'he was born in erzurum'. it is either true or not. if gulen says that he was born in erzurum, it is the case. if someone else thinks that it is not the case, that means that he thinks gulen is a lier. that person should explain why he think that way and prove that it is not the case by providing some evidences like an official record of his birth, etc. based on this simple example, his being convicted should be well documented. there is no place for speculation or interpretation here. the owner of the claim should prove that he is actually convicted. who could take that risk of lying publicly in an official website, especially if there are people watching every step of him? . again, please note that only fair account and neutral tone of the article can make it stable. a wiki article with distorted info does not add to wikipedia. Philscirel (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Philscirel, you have in fact not addressed my concerns. Gülen's argument that he was never convicted only makes sense in the context of others claiming that he was. The period in the early 1970s when he was in jail has been commented on by a number of commentators -- just from one Google search you can find an article in th Turkish Daily News that discusses it, for example. The way to present this neutrally is as I framed it: present the claims, present Gülen's counterclaims, make no judgment between them. The option you've chosen, of "pretend it never happened because the subject of the article says so on his web site" does not comport with the tenets of good writing. If there is anything "distorted" here, it is your attempt to claim that we should prefer an involved primary source over reliable secondary sources. Nandesuka (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

it looks like you are pretty emotional on this issue and i have no interest in and as a matter of fact it is not possible to address your emotional concerns. a regular editor should be able to distinguish between 'point of view', 'comment', 'interpretation' and 'historical facts' and 'historical events'; whether they took place or not. if i claim that you were born in china, for example, would you like this claim appears in your biography, when you become a famous man? i would recommend reconsider. Philscirel (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

@ Nandesuke, could you provide the link google search you used, and the article you located. Gulen seems to have been in prison in the 1970's; while I think Philscirel is referring to more recent cases.

@ Philscirel, if I write an autobiography where I claim to have been born on Mars, and someone else provides a reference to a reliable source I was actually born on the Moon; the latter source is to be preferred albeit probably annotated "In his own autobiogrpahy he reports being born on Mars". The same goes in this case, if there is a reliable source that states Gulen was convicted it should be mentioned; or it should be made very clear that we are only discussing a recent case. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

if it is a reliable source... i think the difference between claim and source need to clarified. The columnist comment, in our case, is a claim without any source. Philscirel (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf, sure: here. "In 1971 he was convicted to three years in prison for his pro-Islamic activities." Nandesuka (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

for a deeper understanding of the case, from Claim 9: Fethullah Gulen was arrested in 1971 by the Izmir Martial Law Court and sentenced because of his "Nurcu" activities. Answer: Martial law is an extraordinary kind of rule and martial courts are extraordinary courts. The reason why I was arrested after the 1971 coup was explained by the prosecutor for the Izmir Martial Law court as, "We arrested and punished many people from the left. What's the matter with our taking in a few people like you in order to balance the situation?" Later the decision made by the lower court was abrogated by the Supreme Military Court, and the case, which was being heard again, was dropped in view of a general amnesty that was given at that time. In this situation, according to the basic principle of law that "a person is innocent until proven guilty," it's obvious that there can be no talk of any conviction. As was mentioned above, for at least 40 of my 60 years of life, I've been under close scrutiny and in spite of dozens of imputations, slanders, accusations and false publications, there have never been any court decisions against me in the past. If there are worries that a person will act in the future exactly opposite to what he did in the past, then there's no one in the world about whose future acts there will be no doubt. Moreover, just as those who have made these imputations against me were involved in many activities against the government in the past and were convicted by the courts, even now their situation is suspect.

the distinction need to be done here is between arrest (custody) and conviction. as it explained, under extraordinary conditions, he is arrested. the lower court made a decision, but it was not a final one. i think Nandeshuka's 'sources' are referring to this decision. this decision was abrogated by a higher court. while the case is about being heard again, a general amnesty dropped the case. now is it possible to say that he is convicted, although the higher court abrogated the decision, and while the judiciary process ongoing the case is dropped by a general amnesty? if this is not, what is distorting a fact? gulen went through a similar process recently for 8 years, and the final decision was acquittal. Philscirel (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In US law, we would say something like "So-and-so was convicted of assault, but the conviction was overturned on appeal". In any event, it is a significant event, appropriate for a mention in a biography, and we can discuss it while providing a neutral point of view. Sanitizing the article of all mention of this extraordinary event is what fails Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV. Nandesuka (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

i am always for neutral language and fair account. i think your NPOV is, at least now, different from this. Philscirel (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Green Card

The Turkish Daily News (TDN) had an article discussing denial of a Green Card. That was used as the citation to support a claim that certain CIA officials signed an application. 1. Those names are not in the article. 2. The entire TDN article is suspect

The point counterpoint of those two items might be worth including (especially for controversies) or might be too fleeting but as it stood it seemed one sided and suspect Gentlemath (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you're using a blog to discredit a major newspaper? That's ridiculous on its face. Nandesuka (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The restored edit has the line

According to press reports 27 people submitted letters of reference to support his case in U.S. federal court. Among the

names are a George Fidas – retired CIA director of analysis and production; Graham Fuller - former CIA agent and deputy chair of National Intelligence Council

And then references the TDN article. That is a news report but it

never mentions those names. It does mention the CIA but the actual court ruling referenced does not (see below). It might support a headline "Gullen denied preference visa as an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of education" The ruling is quite interesting reading and not that friendly to Mr. Gulen but also seems to say he is not that big a deal one way or the other (a very loose reading on my part, read it yourself). It is pretty narrow. It says that if Albert Einstein applied for a green card exemption based on being an extraordinary educator, he would be denied, he was a physicist. Gulen might or might not be a leader in the field of Interfaith dialog but it does not matter, there is no special exemption in theology. It mentions lots of self promotion. It also mentions that he can't claim to head a network because it is only inspired by him. I can't say, but maybe the US wants to stay out of any fight between Gulen and the Turkish courts and a badly filed motion for special consideration allowed them to avoid short cutting a green card application.

An article in Zaman -Gulen's newspaper- admits Graham Fuller -former CIA agent and deputy chair of National Intelligence Council- indeed provided a reference letter for Gulen. So then Graham Fuller part of the story is CORRECT and SHOULD not be deleted. (AA (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Read it for yourself: http://www.novatv.nl/uploaded/FILES/Response%20to%20Plaintiff's%20Motion%20for%20Jhttps___ecf.paed.uscourts.gov_cgi-bin_show_temp.pdf

or google "Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD" Gentlemath (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting claims from US Attorney MARY CATHERINE FRYE about Gulen's Green Card Case

"he is not a scholar and his work is not the subject of serious scholarship. He is a religious and political figure attempting to buy academic prestige by paying people to write papers about him."

"Bill Park describes the movement's use of education as a way to "Islamize" society"

"Questions regarding the financing of these numerous and expensive projects are periodically raised by both critics of the Gulen Movement and newcomers to the movement who are invited to Gulen related events. Because of the large amounts of money involved in these projects, on occasion people have raised the possibility of a collusion between the movement and various governments, especially Saudi Arabia and/or Iran, and including the Turkish government. There have even been suspicions that the American *** CIA *** may be a financial partner behind the projects."

To be more precise: The US Attorney says that a certain (pro Gullen?) article is full of unattributed anecdotes and then quotes that disparaged article which says that "some people" have raised the (outlandish?) possibility that Suadi Arabia ... and even (more outlandish?) that the CIA... That whole section of the main article is very marginal. Gentlemath (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

@Gentlemath, First: CIA connection doesn't seem too outlandish as newspaper Zaman admits at least one letter written by Fuller, possible another one written by Fidas but we have no proof. Second: "some people" are two scholars namely Helen Rose Ebaugh and Dogan Koc and paper called "Funding Gulen-Inspired Good Works" where widespread questions about the movement's financing mentioned. (AA (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Not exactly, Helen Rose Ebaugh and Dogan Koc might or might not be scholars but they are NOT people who say "CIA.." . They are Gulen fans. Does that make their scholarly credentials more or less lusterous? I explained it more below. ALSO: Maybe the entire Gulen movement is all a giant CIA operation, or maybe the CIA slips them some cash, or maybe just some CIA guy says "gosh, this guy is a moderate Moslem who says terrorism is nuts, religion should not be forced on anyone, lets be friends with the US etc. etc. With all the crazies out there this seems like a good guy, lets not kick him out" I don't know, but let's stick to useful solid information.Gentlemath (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The projects sponsored by Gulen-inspired followers today number in the thousands, span international borders and are costly in terms of human and financial capital. These initiatives include over 2000 schools and seven universities in more than ninety countries in five continents, two modern hospitals, the Zaman newspaper (now in both a Turkish and English edition), a television channel(Samanyolu), a radio channel (Burc FM), CHA (a major Turkish news agency), Aksiyon (a leading weekly news magazine), national and international Gulen conferences, Ramadan interfaith dinners, interfaith dialog trips to Turkey from countries around the globe and the many programs sponsored by the Journalists and Writers Foundation. In addition, the Isik insurance company and Bank Asya, an Islamic bank, are affiliated with the Gulen community."

".. suggests that the academic conferences plaintiff relies on to support his claim that he is recognized as a scholar are in fact organized and ** paid ** for by the Gulen movement, rather than by independent academics."

".. twenty-eight supporting letters .." [Note:US Attorney does not reveal all authors of the reference letters, but throughout the motion, she mentions some of them where she quotes. Unless we see the full petition file can't tell whether ex-CIA directors are among the referrers]

But since she does not mention the sources and the one mention of the CIA is in a quote from another source long previous to the signatures, the Wikipedia article should not say that the two fellows signed the petition and especially should not imply that there is a newspaper article saying they did. Gentlemath (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"First, it should be noted that all of the books authored by plaintiff which were submitted to the agency in English were published not by university presses or scholarly publishing houses, but by plaintiff's own publishing company, The Light Publishing Co., Inc."

"plaintiff presents no evidence that any of these books are considered "scholarly work" by others"

"Plaintiff has presented no evidence that any of the conferences which focused on his work were major; indeed, at least some of them appear to have been sponsored by groups associated with him."

"Plaintiff can point to no entire courses devoted to his work; nor has he identified any "major universities" where his work is the subject of entire courses."

"Plaintiff has never performed scholarly research in the field of education. He has never advised other academics in the field of education. And consulting on conferences about his own work is essentially continuing to promote himself and his movement by paying academics to write papers about him. None of this can be considered continuing to perform outstanding work in the field of education." (AA (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

this claim is an indictment and will see what the decision of the court be. can you see any difference between indictment and court decision? Philscirel (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

@Philscirel,I used the word "claims", so should be ok (AA (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

{{editprotected}} The article from the Turkish Daily News does say what is claimed in the article but the actual court documents (quoted in the talk section) show that the prosocuter actually said "there is a paper which says ` some people say.. and even suspect CIA ' " so really that section and the totally unsupported claim about two specific CIA people should be removed (IMHO) so I request that it be done. Gentlemath (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Article from Turkish Daily News about Gulen's CIA connection and the movements involment of an espionage case in Russia

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/archives.php?id=30463

Russian secret service claims: Turkish religious brotherhood works for CIA HURRIYET said: "The FSB, the Russian intelligence organization formerly called the KGB, has claimed that the 'Nurcus' religious brotherhood in Turkey has engaged in espionage on behalf of the CIA through the companies and foundations it has founded. FSB head Nikolay Patrushev has mentioned the names of these companies and foundations, saying, 'The brotherhood engages in anti-Russian activities via two companies, Serhad and Eflak, as well as foundations such as Toros, Tolerans and Ufuk.' Patrushev has accused the brotherhood of conducting pan-Turkish propaganda, of trying to convert Russian youths to Islam by sowing the seeds of enmity, and of engaging in certain lobbying activities. These companies and foundations have turned up in the internet site of Fethullah Gulen [alleged leader of the Nurcu religious community currently living in the United States who is a defendant in several court cases in Turkey, accused of engaging in anti-secularist activities.]" (AA (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.21 (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

this link is interpretation of this i guess, and it goes far beyond the news itself. gulens school is open in russia, does it say something? Philscirel (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected by expiration. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

@Gentlemath, I don't get why you deleted this section. It's the most important contraversial and it's based on court documents. There is significant claims made by the attorney and we should state them as is. I know your hodja efendy is pushing hard on you to make his wiki account clean, but we can't neglects the truth. There is such court document and there are a number of bold claims made, we have to reflect them as it. Second important point, I provided you a proof from Zaman, admitting Fuller -the former CIA director- indeed provided a reference letter, so this is a fact -existance of such claims- and it's well sourced, then must be documented here in this controversies section. Moreover I confirmed that the us attorney SHALL appeal to the high court, so this is NOT "the end" of the story, your hodja efendy won't get away easly this time. (AA 01:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs)

If you want to see why I deleted it go down to what is currently section 7 Request to delete end of controversies section immediately and see that the actual court documents do not at all say what the Turkish Daily News Article said they did. Why does having provably false claims (the claim being that a US attorney said certain things) removed from Wikipedia establish that I am a Gulen fan? George Bush the senior was a CIA director. Does anyone he endorses automatically become a CIA puppetor even a CIA associate? When I give a detailed and reasoned discussion I really think that you need to respond to what I said (down at Request to delete end of controversies section immediately ) and until you do you need to stop restoring it. I don't think that insulting people will gain you any credibility. Calm down, read what I wrote down there, think it over and respond to the substance of what I said or move on to something else Gentlemath (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

@Gentlemath, please see the discussions under Request to delete end of controversies section immediately and if you have any comments let me know by sentence number. US Attorney's claims -pay attention we used the word:*CLAIM*- MUST stay in the contoversaries section, since it's a fact that there are some credible and serious accusations. Meanwhile we are also providing info about the coutry ruling, outcome of the litigation etc. That's what contoversials section about, naturally there would be claims and responses. Regarding the CIA, pay attention, we are not commenting but we only state a fact, the fact is a CIA director wrote a letter. That's a fact, we can't hide this info. I don't see anyone judging Gulen as a CIA purpetrator. If George Bush wrote that letter, we should also refer it too.

Also we shoud noted that the Gulen followers insisting removing anything against their master, so far I recall, (1) Izmir conviction in 1971 (2) His court case in 1999, (3) surfaced tapes in 1999 (4) green card contrevesal. I beleive all should be mentioned in wikipedia since readers should have very right to know the critical moments of one's life. All of these events are happened and of course we should include the outcomes -like he is acquitted etc-, but it's simply wrong to pretent like they never happened.

(please see Ergenekon's article, all suspects are listed despite there is no court ruling agaist them yet. If the court rules in favour of suspects, they would be still listed in the wiki page, we just can not pretent it never happened) (AA 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

References

Protected

Due to the recent edit warring, this page has been protected for 4 days. Please try to use this time to come to a consensus on what should and should not be included in the article. If you need to make an urgent, agreed edit, please place {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit required and an admin will come along and deal with it. If you have agreed before the expiry of the 4 days and will not recommence edit warring, list this page at WP:RFPU. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

philosopher

i cannot see why some people would like to delete his being a philosopher (i do not mean i really can't). the refs are provided. he is a person that there are academic conferences devoted to understand his philosophy, and books which compares his view and those of Confucius, Plato, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and Jean Paul Sartre on various issues, by well-known authors in prestigious academic institutions, and voted no 1 thinker in an online ballot in which more than half a million people participated. i will add that part when the article is open for editing. Philscirel (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't. This is an uttermost nonsense. Please do not turn Wikipedia to a Gulen's propagan phamplet. Let me ask you this question: Is Paris Hilton a philosopher? If FP Magazine puts her among other contenders , she would surely grabs more votes than Gulen. Would the votes make her a philosopher? Since when the philosophers declared by online votes? This is shallow apporach destructing everything philosophy stands for. Yet alone we know Gulen's newspaper Zaman organized campaings among his followers to vote in this ballot.

Let me asks you a second question: Is Homer Simpson a philosopher? In broad meaning, yes, he is! Like Paris he is doing some philosophical excersises by asking questions about live, universe and everthing. This is what philosophy about. Even there is even a best seller book written called "Simpsons and Philosophy" comparing Homer's thoughts with those of Plato and Aristotle even Marx. But it's still not sufficent evidence to define Homer as a philosopher.

So, the book -actually a propaganda phamplet with a philosophy sauce- you cite which is written by a 5th grade scholar teaching in a 6th grade institution sponsored by the very same company -The Light, Inc- publishing -only- Gulen's books, is also doing -academical!- level comparision of Gulen views with those of Confucius, Plato, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and Jean Paul Sartre within 128 pages! Note that introduction of Plato's Republic is larger than this book! So your main argument collaps here.

Another interesting point is the author does not mention her book in his academical home page, I assume even author doesn't like to be associated with such book which could damage her academical reputation and objectivity.

As the US Attorney/Prosecutor claims in Green Card case, Gulen is seeking academical recognition by paying others to write books about himself and publishing such material by using blanket publishing companies. Besides all alleged conferences organized and sponsored by entities directly under Gulen's control, such as Rumi forum and Raindrop foundation etc. If you check the speakers in these conferences, you will notice most of them are young Gulen's followers and some of them not even have PhD degrees.

Gulen does not recognized by academia as a philosopher, for example he does not have an entry in Stanford's famous philosophy dictionary where anyone contributed to the world of philosophy listed. Also I checked "Philosophy of Religion" article under wikipedia and verified that Gulen's name is mention at all. Please go and do this discussion in "Philosophy of Religion" page, do the fight, let everyone expert in this field accept his entry into "Philosophy of Religion", then you can adjust this article.

If he is a philosopher, what is the branch of philosophy he is mastering? Is he considered as contemporary? if so, is he analytic or continental? What is his influences and what are the other philosophers he influenced? None of these questions answered.

Why his books are not published by well known publishers of Philosophical works such as Oxford Press, MIT Press or Cambridge Press, but published only by his own company, -The Light, Inc-? (Note: Light means Isik in Turkish and Gulen Movement also known as Isik Movement in Turkey)

We know that he doesn't speak english or any other foreign language, how does he communicate his ideas to the intellectuals all over the world? Why don't we see him in conferences/panels discussing philosophy like other philosophers often does? I see Chomsky or Habermas speaking here and there, but not Gulen. Why is he not teaching in a philosophy department of a reputable University? None of these questions answered.

I wouldn't even consider Gulen as a scholar, since he has no academical contributions so far, I don't know any single paper written by Gulen submitted to any academical reviews and critized by other scholars. Afterall he is just a preacher, drop out elementary school, illogical to expect anything else out of him.

Please stop diluting meaning of philosopher and meaning of scholar. Once the page is unlocked, I intent change him to a 'Preacher' and 'Religious Leader'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.7 (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You cannot even accept his being a philosopher?!... Wikipedia is not a place for original research, it is an encyclopedia. More than 500,000 people saying that he is the No 1 thinker, do you still hesitate calling him a philosopher?!... That is your problem, sorry. 76.181.224.82 (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Philopsopher and thinker are not necessarily the same. Albert Einstein was an important thinker (ie physical theorist) but not a philosopher. Arnoutf (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

sometimes are... considering your emphasis on verifiability even over the truth, i think you missed the references and verifications. one could find much more than this, but just a few of them again are:

• philosopher
  • from an interview of a leader of alevi denomination, Izzettin Dogan, which is in some ways unusual.
  • Institute of Interfaith Dialog
• thinker
  • Foreing Policy
• Islamic scholar and intellectual
  • Foreign Policy
• one of the conferences devoted to his philosophy
  • Gulen conference[9]
• from his works:
  • Conceptual and philosophical fundamentals of Sufism which falls into philosophy of religion area.[10]
  • Questions and answers which address the important concepts such as existence and uniqueness of God, destiny, free will, ethics, scientific issues, and various other philosophical topics. [11]
  • Creation and evolution. he also gave conferences and talks about evolution, creation, and various other issues.[12] Philscirel (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting quotes from Prospects editor (Prospect is the co-organizer of alleged poll along with Foreign Policy)

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10262

How Gulen Triumped?

"The truth turned out to be more interesting. On 1st May, Zaman—the highest-selling newspaper in Turkey, with a circulation of over 700,000 and a string of international editions—ran a story on its front page alerting its readership to the appearance of Gülen on the Prospect/FP list, and to the fact that we were inviting people to vote. Zaman is known to be close to the Gülen movement, and over the coming weeks the paper made regular reference to the cleric’s appearance on our list. The poll was also noted in other Turkish newspapers, as well as on every single Gülen website, official and unofficial, we were able to find."

"The efficiency and discipline of the Fethullahçi is legendary—so in retrospect, for them, a poll like ours was simple to ** hijack **."

"In one respect, then, Gülen’s crushing win tells us little about what the world thinks about its intellectuals; it merely exhibits the organisational ability of one movement’s followers."

"On the other hand, perhaps we can see through Gülen’s victory the emergence of a new kind of intellectual—one whose influence is expressed through a personal network, aided by the internet, rather than publications or institutions."

[Added by AA on 16th July 2006] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.21 (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

some of those discussed in the corresponding section of the article and nothing to do with this talk. an answer to some of those can be found here. Philscirel (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that nobod argues he is a scholar (which is much broader than philosopher). However calling yourself philopsopher on your website is not a reliable (and hence not verifiable) source (I could call myself Superman on my own site, that would not make me able to fly). We need a source that has no relations to Gulen to name him philosopher. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

when you say that his own website link is not a 'verification', then you are getting into a 'truth' discussion. just for some consistency... anyways, none of the links above is from gulen's web site, except his books. i gave names of 3 books by him about philosophy, addressing issues at the heart of philosophy and studied by philosophers throughout the history, such as existence and uniqueness of God, destiny, free will, ethics, scientific issues, and various other philosophical topics. so, are you saying that we cannot accept that because he listed his books in his web site? let me tell you that gulen has no organizational ties to any of the institutions managed by gulen movement. people respecting his ideas follow his suggestions as necessary, that is the only connection. so, it is not appropriate to call other links as his. another one was a conference at Rice University, it is too big to get sold, right? let me also provide you with a new source you will like. the first link, i provided above was just a report of an alevi leader's interview. i provided that source because it was english translation of the appropriate part. there have been some friction between sunnies and alevis, and so his support was kind of unusual. he is criticized by other alevi groups for his support. his interview was actually given to another newspaper, in the opposite side with gulen, vatan gazetesi. the link for the original interview can be found here. the very first sentence explain the case. Philscirel (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

all of your references manifactured by Gulen himself or followers, thus they are obviously invalid. The only credible source you provided is FP and FP does NOT claim Gulen is philosopher. If you be so kind to check the links you provided, FP define Gulen as a "cleric", a "religous leader" and an "Islamic scholar", but NOT philosopher. In fact I don't think he is even defined a scholar, but in sake of dialog/peace/humanity/life/universe and everthing else Gulen stands for, I would have no objection to call him as "Islamic Scholar" and feel free to add "modernist" too.. [by AA 16thJuly08] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.228.223 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

i think you did not have a chance to check all the links. let me copy paste and highlight the appropriate places for your convenience in foreign policy and guardian.

• Religious leader. A modernist Islamic scholar and leader of the movement named after him, Gülen is widely considered one of the most important Muslim thinkers alive today. He has authored more than 60 books. FP
• Religious leader. An Islamic scholar with a global network of millions of followers, Gülen is both revered and reviled in his native Turkey. To members of the Gülen movement, he is an inspirational leader who encourages a life guided by moderate Islamic principles. To his detractors, he represents a threat to Turkey’s secular order. FP
• No one spread the word as effectively as the man who tops the list. In early May, the Top 100 list was mentioned on the front page of Zaman, a Turkish daily newspaper closely aligned with Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen. Within hours, votes in his favor began to pour in. His supporters—typically educated, upwardly mobile Muslims—were eager to cast ballots not only for their champion but for other Muslims in the Top 100. Thanks to this groundswell, the top 10 public intellectuals in this year’s reader poll are all Muslim. The ideas for which they are known, particularly concerning Islam, differ significantly. It’s clear that, in this case, identity politics carried the day. FP
• Islamic scholar voted world's No 1 thinker. A hitherto largely unknown Turkish Islamic scholar, Fethullah Gülen, has been voted the world's top intellectual in a poll to find the leading 100 thinkers. Philscirel (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! So we pretty much in the same page to calling Gulen as a "Islamic Scholar", but NOT a philosopher. Can we conclude this debate with a conclusion now? The censensus is that defining him as an [Modernist] Islamic Scholar / Religious Leader / Leader of a Movement is appropriate, but not philosopher . [by AA 17th July 2008] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.10 (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, we concluded the debate. as i provided the verification from a source no way related to the gulen movement, he is a philosopher. the recent copy-pastes above shows that he is also a thinker and intellectual. i already deleted the poll results and information about an academic book which compares his philosophy to the well known philosophers from the introduction, just for the sake of compromise. that is it. hiding a valid info with valid verification is breaking WP:NPOV. Philscirel (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, there is no agreement reached. Please accept Gulen is NOT a philosopher, you argue unrealisticly and became funny. I think hodja efendi expect you to defend him within logical limits. The reference link you provided does not verify anything, despite falsify your claim. First, this person (Dogan) used the word 'bilge' which means 'wise/sapient/learned/sagacious', does not absolutely mean 'philosopher'. Second a religious sect leader thinks another sect leader is 'a wise man', so who cares? Also this guys expertise area is law, especially international law, he is not a subject matter expert on philosophy to declare someone as philosopher. Moreover, why do you care about some of his comments and ignore the rest? The rest of the article, he says "In long term Gulen is trying to establish an islamic government in Turkey using education". This is very sentence in the same link you provided. [by AA on 17th July] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.10 (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

you are not saying the truth, what a shame! he says that 'Fethullah Hoca’yı tanırım. Saydığım bir insan. Onu İslam’la ilgilenen bir düşünür, bir filozof olarak görüyorum.' As once can understand from any language that the word filozof means philosopher. The literal translation becomes: 'I know Fethullah hodja. I respect him. I see him as a thinker and a philosopher interested in Islamic studies'. so, are you the person with good intentions? by the way, 'gulen expect me defend him in a reasonable way' is another lie you have. your other lies are answered by User: Gentlemath in the last section. when you did once, the other lies look to come pretty fast, aren't they? all the other points he raised in the interview is already in the article. Philscirel (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the article, it's indeed saying "'I know Fethullah hodja. I respect him. I see him as a thinker and a philosopher interested in Islamic studies" in english. But it still doesn't verify anything. If some thinks someelse is something, so what? Who is Izzettin Dogan? Is he a subject matter expert in Philosophy? No! A leader of a sect called -Alevis-, thinks about yet another leader of another sect -Fethullah- is something. Besides If you count his this sentence, you should also accept that 'Fethullah Gulen is trying to establish a islamic goverment in Turkey using education', do you also accept this because your favorite man Izzettin Dogan said so? Would you agree if we put BOTH sentences in wikipedia citing the same reference? Earlier Homer Simpson named "philosopher of decade" by "Men's Health" magazine and a number of books written to compare his views to those of Aristotel and Plato, and his views are discussed in Philosophy classes in universities. So would you call him as philosopher? Your argument falls apart. Just a friendly advise, please go and do this discussion under "Philosophy of Religion" article. There are some significant well-established philosophy scholars editing that page. Please do your fight there and put your man into that page, then nobody would object you to call Gulen as a philosopher, so your main reference would be wiki itself. [by AA 18th July]

My Turkish is not up to reading that. However, that leads me to the following idea why this debate is going on.

I think in some cultural settings a philosopher is considered as more than a mere scholar (e.g. a thinker and religious leader). In other words Philosopher is of higher, or at least different standing than scholar. Editors from such settings would argue Gulen is a philosopher

In Western culture philosophy is a scholarly discipline. Philosopher are just one type of scholar (just as physics, psychologists etc are). There is no hierarchy in the scholarly disciplines; and societal leadership, being an intellectual or scholar etc. have nothing to do with a person being a philosopher or not. These editors would agree that Gulen is a scholar; but would not see any relevance for adding philosopher to that (as it is just a scholarly subdiscipline), and do not find the sources convincing that the scholarly discipline of Gulen is that what constitutes philosophy according to Western culture and language. Hence these editors would argue Gulen is not a philosopher.

Personally I recognise myself as an editor of the second type.

I argue that this second interpretation should indeed be the dominant view here, as this is the English wikipedia, where English language use words and (culturally dependant) interpretation of these words should be used.

Two questions,

1. Do you agree with my summary of different points of view on this issue between cultures (ie do you recognise yourself in either)?
2. Do you agree that the English meaning of the word philosopher should be adopted here, regardless of the use in other languages and cultures. Arnoutf (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

you will find the explanation above for the Turkish text and its translation. the discussion is diverting from verifiability to interpretations of the facts. my question would be: do you recognize you are using double standards? how come when it is about a false accusation of gulen, the verifiability is the only criteria -as you repeatedly mentioned on this page- but not when something supposedly not so negative about him. do you think it is appropriate? does it fit to an academic mind? i would not see any relevance adding many other false accusations found incorrect by the courts in the text, but due to the standards of wiki, like verifiability, i just accept it. will we go ahead and delete all such baseless accusations from the text using the same logic and forgetting verifiability?

i know the motivation of the editor without a name, who very much dislike his being called philosopher. his aim is to degrade gulen and his movement. here is an example where he claims 'Gulen is NOT philosopher and didn't even graduated from elementary school.' he has an impression of gulen such as a person knows nothing other then some religious issues, a hidden fundamentalist with bad intentions, less educated person, a CIA agent who buys academics, etc. and he is pushing his POV. his lies proven on this page in the talks above and below, shows his intention. not because philosopher is very high meaning in Turkish culture, he dislikes anything does not sound negative to describe gulen.

i am talking about his being philosopher in western standard. do you think turkey is a country in the moon? turkey is the center of the civilization from which west inspired its renaissance. he has at least 4 whole books written about philosophy. you can check any higher institution in US, where i am living for long, with philosophy departments to see those topics are taught as a separate course.

the bottom line is, principles matter. in either western or eastern standards, he deserve that recognition. in both turkish and english philosopher has the same meaning and interpretation. it is not a complement to him, it is the truth and a correct recognition. it is one of the words that describes him better. why we should delete such an expression only for a gulen enemy with big lies dislike it? or should i also add a western prejudges about eastern thinkers to his enmity? Philscirel (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as I said my remark started with me not knowing sufficient Turkish to understand the subtleties; but the phrase "I see him as philosopher" is clearly stated as a personal opinion, and therefore not a definitive evidence.

Please keep in mind that in English a scholar is the category, and philosopher is just a detail specification what type of scholar the person is. I do not think the detail is very important (unless some other meaning is attributed to the word philosopher). If the English meaning is indeed intended, the word philosopher can be removed from the introduction without problem as that is only a further specification of the type of scholar Gulen is and such details could well be delegated to more explanation possible in the main text. Arnoutf (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

frankly speaking, i am looking for some consistency and sincerity of course. let's play it fair and nice. you asked verifications, i found many. you asked it in a different source, i provided. now, you are making interpretation of the sources. i quote from one of your earlier repetitive talks: Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability. If the article claims schools in Russia have been shut down another source must be provided that shows this is untrue; and even then the sources should be both mentioned. Arnoutf (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC) how come you are making some logical inference now for this case and conclude that the source is not a definitive evidence. so you are discussing the truth of the sources. why when a columnist claim that he is convicted you consider his personal opinion as a source to be mentioned, but not here. both are telling their personal opinions. if you like to start from head to toe and clean up all the false accusations from the text, i am for it. we can do deep research together and clarify what is true or not. but if your earlier talk is a standard here, the change in your approach does not look fair and nice.

let us take an example Noam Chomsky. he is described as American linguist, philosopher, political activist, author and lecturer. Although most of his works is in the area of linguistic and political science, he is also described as a philosopher, likely because some of his linguistic works is important in philosophy of language and mind. if you take one of these descriptions, you are describing him less efficiently. similarly, gulen is not only an Islamic scholar. he has 4 books i could name above, and i know, addressing the problems at the heart of philosophy, more specifically philosophy of religion. missing this description will lower the efficiency of the introduction. Philscirel (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would not list Chomsky as a philosopher. But your argument is well made. I will no longer object to the philosopher issue. Cheers. Arnoutf (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks. Philscirel (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Chomsky to Gulen is a good example to clarify why Gulen is not even considered as a scholar yet along a philosopher. Let's compare the facts: Education: Chomsky received his PhD and tenure from the one of most the respectable universities in world. Whereas Gulen is a dropout from elementary school, continued his informal islamic education madrases. Affiliation & Expertise : Chomsky is a professor in Department of Linguistics and ==> Philosopy <== in MIT (!) and his offical MIT page lists "philosophy of language" as his subject/expert area. Gulen is never set a foot and given a lecture in any University including "Fatih University" under his influence. Research & Work: Chomsky came up with ground breaking theory called universal language in late sixties and it's still under discussion among scholars. Gulen has no significant academical work so far discussed among scholars (except his followers and some sixth grade scholars). Wikipedia: Chomsky's name mention numerious times in "Philosophy of Language" article in wiki. But Gulen's name never mentioned in "Philosophy of Religion", not even once! Chomsky has a number of entries in Stanfords "Encyclopedia of Philosophy", where as Gulen has ZERO entries! As Arnoutf says, even Chomsky's definition as a philosopher is debated, despite truck loads of evidence, so Gulen's claim to defined as a philosopher is just insanity. [by AA 18th July]

Philscirel, I am just curious. Why don't you add your hodja efendi's name to "Philosophy of Religion" page in wiki. I know that there are significant philosophy scholars there editing the page, I wonder if why you hesitate to debate your view in Philosophy of Religion" page at the first place. Do your fight there, proof your point, let's see what other scholars say. If Gulen is endorsed/accepted as philosopher in "Philosophy of Religion" by editors, then nobody would object you. Also you can write to "Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy", the most compherensive source to track philosophers & their work, to add your hodja efendi as a philosopher/master of universe/whatever you wish then let us know... by the way ,of course, Good Luck! [by AA 18th July]

Ditto same thing for Sufism, I checked Sufism page and did not see anything related Gulen himself. Not even a single quote or reference, isn't it very interesting? Please go and do the fight there, then come here and edit Gulen as Sufist. [by AA 18th July] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.6 (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

regarding your talk above and here: this is not a place for original research. the editing guidelines are specified. we only report the facts. no editorial guidelines imply getting approval from another group. just to ease your understanding: important part of his work devoted to topics from philosophy. there are academic conferences in well reputed universities studying his educational philosophy. thousands of schools all around the world are opened based on his educational philosophy, and they are incredibly successful. the source and verifications are provided. that is more than enough. Philscirel (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, please only report the facts. There is no credible proof/source to define him as a philosopher. It's absolutely not sufficent if you quote from a local newspaper saying "a turkish -alevi- sect leader thinks Gulen -another sect leader- is something" nor so-called "academic" conferences sponsored by closely associated organizations. By the way, I checked "philosophy of education" wiki page and surprisingly I did not see his name again! His name just can not be associated with philosophy how hard his followers try. There is no reputable source citing him as philosopher including FP. Having "important part of his work devoted ... from philosophy" doesn't make someone philosopher, as students write essay about philosophy everyday. Having "thousands of schools all around" is also not related attribute to be a philosopher. I can't see any "the source and verifications" at all(AA (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

please stop pushing your POV again, against consensus. majority (for example, myself, Nandesuka per [13], Arnoutf per talk above) agrees on keeping 'philosopher' description. Philscirel (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

@Philscirel, there is no concensus whatsoever, all of your 3 references are invalid. First one, FP defines him as an intellectual, cleric and islamis scholar, not a philosopher, this is a FLAT OUT LIE, just provide me a one single quote from FP claims he is a philosopher. Second reference, Carrols book defines him as "Gülen is a Turkish intellectual, scholar, and activist", please take a look to the back of the book & introduction section. It's freely available on Amazon. His views compared but he is not defined as a philosopher. Third reference is totally irrelevant, it's not sufficent and higly contreversal if an unknown foundation -Cem Foundation- called him a philosopher in an interview, you can not make such a bold claim based on an interview transcription. The proper way to quote this interview would be "some people claims Gulen is a philosopher", not he is indeed a philosopher. And I check your edits, you are not reverting back only the philosophy part (which is indeed one word). You are pretty much reverting everthing against Gulen. That's what I called sanitation. (AA 12:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs)

it sounds like when you are not in, there is no consensus. i specified what descriptions were used in what source. i even highlighted them for your convenience. i named his books devoted to pure philosophical topics, academic conferences in well reputed universities address his educational philosophy (here is an exemplary article), two sources explicitly use 'philosopher' tile for him. i just checked a dictionary, in Collins Essential Thesaurus 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2005, 2006 philosopher is explained as noun: thinker, wise man, metaphysician, among a few others. these titles are also used for gulen so often, including the references above. so, these titles are also supporting facts that 'philosopher' is an appropriate title for him. anyways, i am not expecting you accept any of these explanations here or above, the sources, and verifications. your edits on this page show your emotional tightness, against gulen. it seems to be an emotional issue for you instead of an intellectual effort to built an encyclopedia. the other two paragraphs i deleted was the quotes from controversies, which i believe have no place in this article, as a matter of fact in an encyclopedia. i opened a new section for it below. Philscirel (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

additional evidence is in the last paragraph. Philscirel (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In your evidence, The Hurriyet newspaper mentions Gulen has books about philosophy. Having some writing in philosophy doesn't define someone a philosopher. Everday thousands college kids in US writing essays to pass Philsophy class, but none of them considered as philosopher. Also the authors of the book called "The Simpsons and Philosophy" -which is widely studied in philosophy classes in US- is not considered as philosophers. What matters most the quality of the scholar work and its reception among philosophy scholars, which we clearly see Gulen fails to meet. All the proof is that "another sect leader thinks Gulen is a philosopher" and "a turkish newspaper says Gulen has books about philosophy". (AA 20:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

The word philosopher has different meanings depend on the context. For example, if someone using a superior language, he/she is talking philosophically or philosopher called wise man, wise man also means mafia leader. So dictionary games are not funny. Here we discuss about the narrow meaning, which is a scholarly disipline subject to academical procedures and peer reviews. If we don't focus on scholar meaning, then homer simpson should well deserve to be a philosopher. (AA 20:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

The so-called academic paper you provided is also interesting. It's about "Pedagogical Model of Gulen", nothing to do with educational philosophy. More interesting part is the author indeed a computer scientist. I assume he is trying to do some far-reached inter-disiplinary essays, from computer science to educational (pedagogical) models, indeed a huge leap. This paper is not endorsed by any institution, in academical papers, scholars label their institution name along with their names. Also this paper is not submitted to any scientific journal (or maybe it's submitted but and dismissed). More interestingly, according the court papers, it's appeared that this paper furnished as evidence in Green Card case and Y. Alp Aslandogan is editor of The Fountain magazine and vice-president of the Institute of Interfaith Dialog, both Gulen movement associated organizations. (AA 20:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

i am giving list of his philosophy books which address the questions discussed by the philosophers all along the history of mankind, and at the heart of philosophy, such as existence and oneness of God, ethics, destiny, free will, scientific issues, conceptual and philosophical fundamentals of sufism, metaphysical aspects of the existence, and various other philosophical topics.. providing links from conferences, from the newspapers you love to quote from because they are against gulen, and from alevi community leaders who traditionally considered to be distant from gulens ideas because of some historical friction between the denominations, using the same description, calling him a philosopher.. academic conference talks and academic books which compares his philosophy with the top philosophers humanity has ever heard.. the conferences and talks that he gave at the early stages of his career about evolution, creation, and various other issues.. so, calling him a philosopher is the most appropriate, verified, well documented with reliable sources. the issue seems to be emotional for you. it is not an intellectual one to built a biography with neutral tone for the encyclopedia. i am sorry to say that it is not appropriate to introduce someone depend on how much you dislike, and i cannot address your feelings against him. Philscirel (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Is it correct to have any mention of controversy in this article? Other articles on people tend to excise the controversy sections. Would it be proper to get rid of any controversy mentions in this article? Pop6 (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

i think you have a real encyclopedia in mind. wikipedia is a technical dictionary at this point. at the controversial social issues admins ideology determine the article's color, or the version over which the article needs to be protected. for this article, there are gulen enemies all around. they would like to give a negative image of gulen at each and every sentence of his bio. if something sounds positive, they tend to distort the facts and try to find ways for some negative implications. if one can neutralize the tone and have a fair account of the cases including the controversial ones, that would be the best at this level of the wiki movement. Philscirel (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[Turkish Islamic preacher - threat or benefactor? http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSL0939033920080514?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0]

Very Interesting quotes from an Reuters article which MUST be included in sake of being objective:

"It is a political movement ... and it has always been political. They think power is very important. They want to train an elitist class which will then turn Turkey into a centre of the religious world, Islamise the country," said Hakan Yavuz, a professor of political science at the University of Utah.

"It is the most powerful movement right now in the country. They are powerful in the media, the education ministry and the police force... The point where they are today scares me. There is no other movement to balance them in society." [Hakan Yavuz continued]

Why this article is important?

• Reuters credibility can not be discussed, its reputation is very clear
• The article written in very objective manner, both sides had a chance to argue and present the facts.
• Hakan Yavuz is the most important scholar studying Gulen's movement
• Hakan Yavuz authored two academical books on Gulen Movement published by a credible source, Syracuse University Press. -Please pay attention, most of books about Gulen sponsored/published by fishy company The Light, Inc under direct control of Gulen himself.-
• Hakan Yavuz was a regular contributor to Today's Zaman. Being as an insider, he has good idea and credibly internal contacts to reveal inside out of the Gulen's Movement. [Added by AA on 16th July 2006] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.21 (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

this article is already mentioned in the article and nothing to do with this talk. Philscirel (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article raises serious questions about Gulen's movement and can not be downplayed/under expressed/hidden away in a link which burried in the media coverage section. The link should be moved to Controversy section where it makes most sense along with Yavuz's comments (or better, rephrased version in one sentence) since the sources -Yavuz and Reuters- are very credible and cast serius doubts over the movement. By the way, please stop hiding/discrediting anything against Gulen, wiki is not PRsite, if you need PR, just read Zaman you'll get overloaded instantly. If you object to inclusion of Yavuz comments, I seriously doubt your intentions. [AA 16th July 2008]

please add it to the appropriate place. i will see what you have in mind. since you claim that i am hiding something, that is your responsibility to prove it. you do not need long proofs, just give me an example. Philscirel (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FACTS (???) and correction on FACTS - case in Russia

• Russia has banned all of Gulen's madrassas, and in April of this year, banned the Nurcu Movement completely.[14]
• The Supreme Court in Russia described the Nurcu as a “fundamentalist group” and banned all its activities in the Russian Federation[15]
• Russia has banned all of Gulen's madrassas, and in April of this year, banned the Nurcu Movement completely.[16]
• Russia takes over Gulen school for alleged ties with Islamist sect[17]

--92.113.37.118 (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/archives.php?id=30463

• Gulen is not Nurcu (see claim 4) A follower cannot deny his master, right? These two movements are different from each other.
• The references given above mainly refer to the news in Hurriyet. For some purpose, the article mixed two different issues together: "Russia, which had earlier shut down the schools of the Gülen Movement, has now decided to ban the Nurcu Movement in the country." First issue is 'the schools were shut down', and second one is 'Nurcu movement is banned'. There is no connection between them. The article does not and cannot establish a connection.
• The title and context of the last reference do not match. As indicated in the article, closing was due to the curriculum issues. In any case, the school filed an appeal for the restoration of its rights. The 13th Court of Appeals ruled that the grounds on which the school’s license had been revoked were unsubstantiated.[18] The school is reopened.
• Gulen movement has no madrassa, they have school. Anyone knows that. This is the end of Russia story. 76.181.224.82 (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if the claim is not right (from Gulens' sempatisans side) there is a court decision. This can't be masked. We are not court, we are not judges. We have to write down all. Here the fact is "Russian court decision", "related news on media", "mirror of the Gulen movement on peoples/media". If they call it madrassa, the fact is that they call it madrassa. Nobody can prevent people and media saying what they want, how they prefer. Wikipedia must show all facts. Look who writes this article. There are biased editors who only writes on this article! This article can't be neutral with that facts!

--92.113.37.118 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

because the names are not important anymore, can i call you mr. smith? john smith? Philscirel (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability. If the article claims schools in Russia have been shut down another source must be provided that shows this is untrue; and even then the sources should be both mentioned. Arnoutf (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

russia case was already mentioned in the media section. Philscirel (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not mentioning that the schools have been closed for some time. The problem is intermixing the schools with madrassa's (informal, religious educational organizations), and Gulen movement with Nurcu movement. It can be mentioned that the schools were closed and reopened. The ban of Nurcu movement, however, cannot be used to give false impressions that Gulen movement is baned. 76.181.224.82 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, as it appears the Nurcu and the Gulen movements are different, this confusion should be avoided in the article. Arnoutf (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Gulen's CIA Connection and Espionage case in Russia [19] [Added by AA]

this link has also nothing to do with what you has just claimed. regarding your previous edits, please note that original research is no good in wikipedia. what you like to say gets lost in long copy-pastes, a link would work better, i think. so, you claim that gulen works for cia, gets financial support from saudi arabia, iran, and turkish goverments. what a combination?! he would like to Islamize Turkey. gulen buys academicians and academic institutions (isn't this an insult to all those guys?), etc... some of those claims sound like in parallel to the claims of Ergenekon to me, am i right? let me just say that, this media tends to become an encyclopedia, not a bulletin of conspiracy theories. Philscirel (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are dawn right. this media tends to become an encyclopedia, not Gulen's PR page, even his followers try too hard to make it so. These are not conspiracy theories, but mentioned in a court document written by an US attorney which I think very credibly source. An indicement doesn't mean/proof Gulen "buys academicians etc", but it shows there is a huge accusation and wiki should mention the accusations. then the court ruling.. you logic is simply flawed, if you think we should ignore the accusations and remove everthing else if there is no conviction. Regarding Ergenekon, I suggest you to check Ergekon's suspects' wikis, especially Generals, it's all mention there why the generals detained and what the accusation is -seeking a coup and stuff whatever- and this info will be updated later -but won't deleted ever- once the court rules. [AA 16th July 2008] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.228.223 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

after many years of academic life, i was thinking that my logic is ok. you seem to caught a flaw, huh? although i cannot see where, it looks like you are pretty sure of it. anyways, i checked the Ergenekon page and the only common editor of this and that page was User: Adoniscik, out of curiosity, are you him? it looks like you know wiki but do not sign your name, neither IP number. all such claims and baseless accusations against gulen are emanating from Ergenekon gangs and the media under their control. As User: Gentlemath explained above, attorney does not endow the claims, he just reports and narrates them. moreover, the long last paragraph of the controversies was mentioning this case, and i simply kept it as is. so what is the problem? Philscirel (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not that anonymous editor — I'm always signed in — however I support his/her view that sourced information should not be deleted. That's called sanitization. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 01:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

there is no reason to request an IP check, at least for now, of course. that is fine, if you say so. by the way, it seems to me that, your logic applies our talk above related to gulen being a philosopher considering the sources and verifications provided. Philscirel (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Request to delete end of controversies section immediately

{{editprotected}} A misleading article from the Turkish daily news is quoted and is used in a way which appears to support claims about CIA officials which are not even in the article. The incorrect details should be deleted and the further claims which are not even in the article should be removed or given some actual support.

In brief: 1) In a Gulen **supporting** article the authors say [we need to explain who really funds Gulen because questions about finances make some people suspect the CIA so Gulen says we should clear this up... actually it is generous businessmen] 2) In arguing against granting Gulen a special exemption green card as an ***extraordinarily talented academic*** the US attorney (who was the defendant and NOT the public prosecutor!) quotes that article mainly to argue that the explanations it does give are all anecdotal. 3) The Turkish Daily News (TDN) reports that the prosecute said the CIA supports Gulen 4) That incorrect report is repeated in a section of the Wikipedia article along with the statement that two CIA officials signed letters of support. The reference given is the TDN article.

Is there any dispute that that section of the Wikipedia article should be deleted because the TDN report is incorrect and says NOTHING about those two men? It may be that they signed letters but no support has been given. Nor did I find any support other than in blogs. Even if they did sign letters, I'm not sure what that proves.. but if it is to be put in the Wikipedia article, there needs to be some support and there is none, not even the erroneous TDN report.

Details:

1) The Gulen supporting article is and the relevant paragraph is

Questions regarding the financing of these numerous and expensive projects are periodically raised by both critics of the Gülen Movement and newcomers to the movement who are invited to Gülen related events. Because of the large amounts of money involved in these projects, on occasion people have raised the possibility of a collusion between the movement and various governments, especially Saudi Arabia and/or Iran, and including the Turkish government. There has even been suspicion that the American CIA may be a financial partner behind the projects. ==>Aware of these criticisms, in a recent comment to a group of visiting followers, Fethullah Gülen indicated that a priority must be proactive financial transparency.<== it goes on to say that wealthy businessmen and humble followers give generously.

2) The defense brief is (I can't find this directly from the court but maybe someone else can if they really want to) It quotes the paragraph above verbatim but leaves out ==>Aware of these criticisms, in a recent comment to a group of visiting followers, Fethullah Gülen indicated that a priority must be proactive financial transparency.<==. It then goes on to say

Despite this explanation of their purpose, the authors made no systematic study of the sources, or even amounts, of Gulen movement funding.

3) The Turkish daily News article is and it says:

Gülen's financial resources were detailed in the public prosecutor's arguments, which claimed that Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Turkish government, and the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, were behind the Gülen movement. It stated that some businessmen in Ankara donated 10 to 70 percent of their annual income to the movement and that it corresponded to $20,000 to $300,000 per year per person. It added that one businessman in Istanbul donated $4-5 million each year and that young people graduating from Gülen's schools donated between $2,000 and $5,000 each year.

4) The Wikipedia paragraph I want deleted says:

the public prosecutor's arguments, which claimed that Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Turkish government, and the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, were behind the Gülen movement.The prosecutor said ...[SNIP 7 lines] ..According to press reports 27 people submitted letters of reference to support his case in U.S. federal court. Among the names are a George Fidas retired CIA director of analysis and production; Graham Fuller - former CIA agent and deputy chair of National Intelligence Council (reference to the TDN article)

So again: It wasn't the public prosecutor, she didn't say that, she quoted an article which supports Gullen and denies those claims, The TDN does say that she said that but it is flat out wrong. The TDN does not say anything about Fida Fuller or the CIA except the quote which says [CIA? no! it is Turkish followers] Gentlemath (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

An article in Zaman -Gulen's newspaper- admits Graham Fuller -former CIA agent and deputy chair of National Intelligence Council- indeed provided a reference letter for Gulen. So then Graham Fuller part of the story is CORRECT and SHOULD not be deleted. Zaman(AA (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

i am not surprised. thanks for the detailed research. some of these guys editing the article are used to distort the facts and put them in a form that their hearts in enmity are satisfied. it has to be corrected and neutralized. the montaged quotas which are found incorrect by the court should also taken from that section. a neutral account of the case is enough. Philscirel (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

it looks the court made the decision and ruled that there is no problem with his US visa. Philscirel (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The court has overturned the denial fo the green card application. This doesn't mean that a green card awarded. His green card application shall be reviewed and the court scheduled another hearing next month: "The U.S. court’s decision means that Gulen can now apply for permanent residency under a more favorable category. The judge scheduled another hearing for next month and could order the government to decide on Gulen’s residency application." U.S. court greenlights a green card for Turk sect leader (194.237.142.6 (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)) Unprotected by expiration. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK no one has disputed for several days that the paragraph echos a flat out wrong section of a certain TDN article and that it goes on and adds claims not even in the fsulty article. So I deleted it. If someone wants to put insomething supported by the court documents like: xxx

never mind.. it looks like a judge just ruled against the defense (Chertoff et al) and in favor of Gulen... I did not read it yet. but YOU can! Gentlemath (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do NOT restore the section I deleted until you respond to the detailed explanation above. There was a newspaper article, it was wrong. Gentlemath (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

@Gentlemath, you can not remove anything related to his Green Card case. Please remove the party you don't agree (financing, fidas, but left the other claims of the attorney and fuller's). By the way, Fuller's reference letter should not be deleted since it's admitted. Also this part of the article is very accurate "The prosecutor said Gülen was a religious and political figure and that, aiming to gain academic prestige, paid academics to write about him and his movement." emphasising the us attorney's claims. (AA 10:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs)

@Gentlemath, I incorporated your points above (1),(2),(3) and (4). I deleted paragraph you want to be removed (as you requested on your 4th point -financing paragraph and some unreferenced part of CIA connection (Fidas). I removed TDN's article all together, now completely relaying on court documents and Zaman Newspaper. Let's work more methodical, I re-edited the alleged section and numbered the sentences. If you have any objection please let me know by providing sentence number:

(1) In June 2008, Gülen's application for a U.S. Permanent Resident Card, widely known as the green card,has been refused by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS.

(2) He filed lawsuit for the reconsideration of the verdict.

(3) (financing issues removed)

(4) The U.S. Attorney defending USCIS said Gülen was a religious and political figure and that, aiming to gain academic prestige, paid academics to write about him and his movement.

(5) The U.S. Attorney added, none of Gülen's books are about education or educational models; they are entirely religious works.

(6) Moreover, the statement that an educational model has been created by blending traditional secular educational system and tolerance toward faiths is not convincing.

(7) According to press reports 27 people submitted letters of reference to support his case in U.S. federal court. Among the names are a Graham Fuller - former CIA agent and deputy chair of National Intelligence Council

(8) The court has overturned the denial of the green card application.

(9) The judiciary process about his application is currently ongoing. (AA 11:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

Quotes of Gulen

I have checked the source of the quotes of Mr. Gulen, and all I found was a German website. This is an English wiki and all the sources provided has to be in English. Unless you provide an English source for the quotations of Mr. Gulen, the deleted parts cannot be included... 68.100.44.111 13:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course they can. See WP:V on how to use foreign-language quotes when they are not available in English. Azate 13:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It says that the original quotations should be sourced in clear citations. I cannot figure out which page your quotations are. Please provide the needed source in either MLA or APA style, and then include it in here. Otherwise, it doesn't look very reliable. 68.100.44.111 08:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's on page 69. And the footnote says so, too. A Turkish contemporary news report (albeit with garbled characters, maybe archive.org's fault) can be found here: [20]. Also, please sign your posts in the future (using four ~~~~), so I won't have to do it for you. Azate

It would be good if someone who knows the actual quotes of Gülen would update this section as the current version combines all into a single paragraph hiding an important point that the quotes are from different parts of one or several talk(s). It would also be good if the section gives the approximate date of the quotes. Littleraindrop 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that the new party line now? "different parts of one or several talk(s)"? Last year it was "employment advice". The year before it was "I can't be judged for intentions, only deeds". The year before it was "a joke". The year before it was high-tech CIA/Hollywood-style voice and image falsification. And it's always "wrongly translated", too, of course. Azate 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is only something I found quite unfair, presenting all the negative bits of several talks in one single paragraph as if they were said consecutively. Yes, they were "wrongly translated", I don't believe that Gulen has urged anyone to 'undermine' the system. Littleraindrop 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are only fooling yourself. The quote, as it is in the article now, is from one speech, consecutive, unedited. Azate 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Azate, if I didn’t see how you insisted in quoting the wrongly translated bits from Gülen's statement on the Pope Benedict’s controversial comments I would think twice what you are saying. Because of that bad experience with you I instead have tried to investigate the truth. Here what I have found. (A) Gülen didn’t leave Turkey shortly before the tapes surfaced; Gülen left Turkey in March 1999, tapes were surfaced in June 1999.(B) He was not charged ‘within weeks’ with conspiring against the republic but it was more than a year later; end of August 2000. (C) If the quoted paragraph were from one speech, consecutive, unedited Nuh Mete Yuksel would have definitely included this paragraph in the file he prepared against Gülen as it is far more serious than any of the quotations in the file. The file makes it explicit that the quotations are from several (muhtelif) speeches. Littleraindrop 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

a) He did. March 99 is shortly before June 99. b) "A judicial investigation against him was launched last year after the release of video tapes"[21]. Since he was absent, they had to wait a year to open the trial. c) I don't understand. Because this Nuh Mete Yuksel doesn't mention something, it cannot be true? Remeber: The a-tv video was from various speeches. That's what Yuksel says, and nobody ever denied that. The quotation we have, is from one speech, consecutive, unedited. Azate 13:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

quotes (cont)

i tried to archive inactive talks. it is archive #4 if you would like to find some old talks. i copy pasted quotes section above, i would like to discuss the issue further. Philscirel (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

the quotes provided in the controversies section is not appropriate.

• it is not from a reliable source. the cassettes themselves are montaged.
• the court decision clearly indicate that those claims are not correct. we cannot post incorrect information.
• the process of his trial should be neutrally mentioned but the montaged, incorrect information cannot be posted.
• it is not encyclopedic and appropriate.

i would like to delete the quotes. the trial needs to be accounted fairly and the main points are already mentioned in the current article. Philscirel (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

@Philscirel, I don't get why you needed to introduce a new -albeit redundant- section, since the sec above named "Quotes of Gulen" addressing same issue -Gulen's tapes-, please integrate your comments under "Quotes of Gulen" (AA 17:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

ok, i combined into one. Philscirel (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

@Philscirel, since wikipedia considers video transcriptions as primary sources. Could you provide a link to the court document which -as you claimed- nullifies the tapes as "fabricated/montaged"? I am reading the court documents now, it's quite long scanned pdf file indeed, but so far I didn't see any expert opinion report (called "bilirkisi raporu" in Turkish) or any other quote against the tapes authenticity in the documents? The transcription of the tapes are also in prosecutors motion. Maybe I'm missing something, please provide info from first the account -which is the court documents-, but please not from Zaman, since Zaman's objectivity is questionable in this case since it is closely tied to defendant. (you can still quote from Zaman to provide a wider perspective but it would be a bit suspicious). Since Wikipedia also considers the court documents as primary resources which has higher priority than newspapers/blogs, so you have to either provide qoutes from the court document saying the tapes are montaged or we have to rely upon the transcripts. (AA 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs)

I rapidly glanced through the court documents and jumped to the last pages where the court ruling explained. Gulen acquitted based on his movement is not using "physical violence" to dictate their ideas. (in turkish more pricesly "cebir ve siddet") This MAY mean the court indirectly accepted the tapes as evidence, but I need to read entire document(s) to make sure I'm not missing anything. or maybe someone else will provide the relevant quotes soon.(AA 20:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs)

can you please post the pdf link (court decision) you mentioned? i unfortunately do not have a source for the transcripts. the one you were using was a terrible non-academic document with a terrible referencing and with all broken url links, which has no value.

• you know very well that, the cassettes were the main motion of the prosecutors. his trial exclusively started after their broadcasting. their being montaged was also one of the main arguments used in the defense by gulens lawyer. i cannot locate a link for it for now though.
• the court decision clearly indicates that the main motion of the prosecutors side was in fact not a crime according to the Turkish laws. the decision indicates that even if he said what was claimed by montaged cassettes, it was not a problem.
• i can provide you with evidence that the illegal organization, BCG, in the military was behind the montage issue and then they serviced the montage cassettes to the media. you most likely know that BCG is later get closed, and the era was called 28 Feb postmodern military coup. the recent Ergenekon investigation has some common actors with 28 Feb postmodern military takeover.
• many liberal left-wing thinkers (eg t. ates) explain that even in the montaged forms, there was no problem with the cassettes. gulen was just asking the ones marginalized by the BCG like unofficial and illegal military organizations to claims their positions, do not left their offices, etc... was defensive in nature, rather than attacking. under the postmodern military coup era, they had to defend themselves.
• as you likely know, some other liberal thinkers (eg, g. gokturk) also stated that any Turkish citizen may like to obtain the bureaucratic ranks. that is completely fine. the state is ours and its our right to have it.

i think you do not need the sources for the claims that the tapes were montaged. a google search will give more than you want, including gulens own explanations. i hope it helps. if i see a related source from the courts, i will post here for your reference. Philscirel (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that the primary sources of wikipedia is the court documents and the transcriptions of video. In this case, the transcriptions is in the court documents and there is nothing else in the court documents to refute the videos. I also watched the videos and didn't feel like they are montaged. In the videos, Gulen speaks longer enough (more than 3-4 minutes) to convey his thoughts clearly. Unless you provide a credible evidence to refute the videos, I'm putting the transcript back (AA 22:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs)

the links are already provided in the article. here is a news about recent court documents in ergenekon case: one of the gangs member clearly states that they fabricated gulen's video cassettes. Philscirel (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I am planning to add a section called "Critics" to provide a balanced view. The main motivation is that the imminent need to provide the other side of the story from verifiable sources since the article pretty much looking like Gulen's web site containing full of propaganda material. As the header indicated, this section contains only voices of critics. All figures mentioned in wikipedia has a criticism section (please see Chomsky et al), it's very suspicious why Gulen should not have one. Please note that Controversies section CAN NOT be subsitute critisism since it's intended to address contreversial issues such as tapes and green card. (AA 17:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

Indeed, controversy is different from criticism. A controversy is an objectively recorded issue (e.g. Green card); regardless of the outcome of such issues. Critisism consists of argument of opponents and is something else. Arnoutf (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

no, it is not a god idea. is there any other biographies in wikipedia include critics section?

• the critics you posted -and almost all of them- are controversial. they are better be in controversies section. if you have a critics which can be proven and not controversial, let us see what is it.
• all critics you posted is a repetitions of the ones in the article. you are not saying anything new but combining the same critics all around the article.
• you are rephrasing the critics out of context, without the comments from the gulen's side. creating a new section which is sanitized from the other perspectives is not acceptable.
• the critics are proved incorrect by the court decisions.
• is it appropriate for a biography?

i combine them into one. please delete the repetitions in the newly added paragraph, combine the references, if you like. Philscirel (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

@Philscirel, what is it your problem? are you trying to hide your hodja efendy's dirt deeds? Criticism section is on every wiki article, check Chomsky's article, there you can see there is a WHOLE article -not a section- dedicated to his critics. Why don't you take any single quote against your hodja efendy? This section about the critics of Gulen, it's not about white washing him. You have all article turned out a propaganda phamplet, this is the only section readers find critics. I quoted from most respectable authors, namely Hakan Yavuz. Don't try to hide his comments. And please there is a consensus here, Arnoutf and I agreed to have this section. It's logically different than controversial section. For example, tapes and green card issues are a contreversal, but not Yavuz's comments. And in sake of objectivity, you have to dig and find a number of articles where Gulen is criticisied. (AA 00:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

It's very interestingly that most of your bold claims quoted from Zaman, nowadays Zaman is working too hard to fabricate lies as their majesty orders so. It's very important readers to know Zaman is an associated organization under Gulen's direct control. I am planning to introduce a new section "Associated Organization" to list these sources to alert readers that some sources might be very biased favoring Gulen as we see criticising Gulen is a big taboo among his followers. Afterall it's a religious structure, you have to either beleive or would burn in hell, there is no point between. That's the part it different from western thought.(AA 00:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

i know your motivation. your enmity to gulen is evident. the sources you are using is under the ergenekon gans control, no supreior to media under the movement. we can discuss and add all info in a neutral tone. we should both include the organizations under the control of gulen movement and also ergenokon gangs. stop adding incorrect information. critics including Yavuz comment is controversial, as indicated by a link from Michel. stop sanitizing article by gathering incorrect information out of context, and without critics by others on the same issue. Philscirel (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

@Philscirel Ok, let's do it, I will add the fact that the Zaman outlet is under Gulen's control and please feel free to add whatever you think under Ergenekons influence but with sources please. Yavuz comments are critical not controversal, he criticize the movement by being policial and having a secret agenda. This is a critics section, we should include his argument. I quoted him from most balanced news outlet in the world -Reuters-. If Gulen is a thinker as you claim, there must be critics, if no critics then he is not producing anything significant. Having critics is a good think for intellectuals, it means they are getting some attention. Also stop doing Gulen propaganda, we know you are a follower and you can do anything for Gulen, since you BELEIVE in him. According your logic, Gulen can't be wrong because Gulen is a holly person sent by God. (AA 01:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

@Philscirel, I claim you are a follower and you can not criticize Gulen due to religious reasons -because you think he is a holly person sent by God and can't do wrong-. To prof your objectivity, you should make contributions to "Criticism" section, please cite a number of Gulen critics and quote or rephrease them. Then we would have a reason to beleive you are not biased. (AA 01:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

i do not need to prove anything to you. your lies (i am sorry for the language) and distortion of the facts are filling the whole page and are well documented. this is an intellectual effort to write a bio. it is not a place to degrade gulen, satisfy your emotions motivated by hate. if someone claim that someone else is political and another academician is claiming that it is not, than the issue is controversial. if someone claim that gulen has a hidden agenda, some other people are saying 'no', including the courts, then the issue is controversial. media under the ergenekon gangs is no was more reliable to other sources including the ones governed by the movement. i recommend you read the explanations by Tuncay Güney, who is a rabbi in Canada, about the ergenekon case. Philscirel (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC

@Philscirel Criticism is different than controversial. Let's define criticism first: crit·i·cism the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything / a critical comment, article, or essay; critique In wiki, Criticism explained as the activity of judgement or informed interpretation Back to our subject, Yavuz is passing his personal *judgement* about Gulen's movement, whereas another professor thinks the opposite. Since Yavuz is well-known scholar researched Gulen's movement's for years, his expression can be very *properly* considered as criticism, along with other professor you claimed. On the other hand, controversials are debates in wider sense where more than two participants pass judgement and they are more in public form where everyone express his idea such as 9/11 controversial. Back to Gulen's page, Green card and tapes are very well considered as controversials since everyone is the part of the dicussion (TVs, wiki, newspapers, books, court, prosecutors et al, you and me). If this is -your words- "an intellectual effort to write a bio", there will be room for critics and controversials as well. Check the other wiki pages, the most appropriate example is Chomky's page [22]. There is a whole article reserved for his critics. If you read, you will see -I'm using your own words- "if someone claim that someone else is political and another academician is claiming that it is not" considered as criticism. For your convinience, I cut&paste some parts to help your convinience: (critic example one) "Schlesinger wrote of Chomsky: He begins as a preacher ...[I cut]... In his reply to Schlesinger's criticism, published in the February 1970 issue of Commentary, Chomsky admitted that some of the quotations", (critic example two) "In Prospect Magazine, Oliver Kamm attacked Chomsky's political writings for ... [ I cut] .... Chomsky responded to Kamm's accusations..." So it's very appropriate, if I quote some of Yavuz comments as criticism and you quote some one else as response. This is completely OK.

it is good that you started some research instead of putting your own imaginations to the article. i would recommend you to also check the meaning of biography. no other bios have controversies section, set the criticism aside. we can start a critics article like in chomsky example, and carry controversies section to that too. we can discuss those issues there and leave this bio to the account of a person's life written, composed, or produced by another, an account of the series of events making up a person's life life history, life story, life, a record or narrative description of past events. Philscirel (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope now you see what the criticism section is for and how it's been used. I understand that it's very hard for you to accept any criticism against the people you hold religious believes like Gulen or Mohammed, after all they sent by god and can't do wrong. But the foundation of western civilization based upon the criticism, and this tradition goes far back to early writings of Plato. (AA 12:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

this is the most absurd part. is it your tactic to call others as followers of gulen, to hide your enmity against him? if you can calm down and think about my edits, you will see that i am only for neutral account of the events, for neither his propaganda, nor degradation as you are attempting to do. in spite of your words, your edits implies that you are using cheap eastern tactics to push your pov. it makes this wiki experience as an unpleasant one. by the way, i do not consider, neither know anyone consider, gulen sent by God and cant do wrong. this also indicates your prejudges about the others. with this in mind, you cannot appreciate other efforts, edits, contributions to the article. as you expressed somewhere above, it is a fight for you, against gulen. for me, a discussion and an intellectual effort to produce a neutral bio. i hope you got a lesson from this brief ethic class and watch your further edits and attitude. Philscirel (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

your reference to Yavuz in the contro section turned out to be incorrect. dogan was not also criticizing him, but supporting him. and of course he did not say, what you added in the article as if he said. your edits highly suspicious. Philscirel (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In order to maintain an objective and neutral tone, I removed claims of a Gulen movement critic which I beleive could be biased since it's closely associated with a number of Ergenekon's suspects. (AA 20:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs)

in order to maintain objective tone, you have to be careful, not only for IP, but also for Cumhuriyet magazine, whose senior writers and officers are arrested and currently under investigation. Dogan media (Hurriyet, Milliyet, Vatan, etc) are also highly suspect as widely discussed in the media. they have recently started seeing this huge trial in their news. Philscirel (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

@Philscirel, would you explain why you need to delete all of Yavuz comments intead of fixing the reference? I find your intentions hihgly suspicion, you are trying to hide information. Yavuz is very obvious example. You took his quotes completely out. What's it your motivation? is it efendy's order? I will fix it and put it back with correct link. You can't hide the truts.

sure, just because i did not know what he said, and where.. i checked your refs and caught a mismatch, but did not surprised. so, i was not able to correct it. what were you thinking?!.. you still are putting your words into others mouths. i cleared out what yavuz did not say, and you added as if he said, from the article. your edits remains suspicious. please note that someone will check your references, if no me, and edit accordingly. Philscirel (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

@Philscirel,

(1) I did not quote anyhthing from Cumhuriyet newspaper, you are shamlessly lying, If I did, tell me I remove it immediatelly.

(2) You are the one who brought Vatan's quote first, because some part of it was supporting hodja efendy. Now the very same article becomes suspicious when I used it against hodja efendy? Your intentions are too obvious. Don't try to act like his lawyer. Don't distord the facts.

(3) Dogan Grup is not an -officially- suspect. There is no even a single journalist or writer or executive arrested or questioned so far. Provide sources, just don't throw bullshit. Moreover, in the prosecutor's indicement, there is nothing against Dogan. (by the way I don't know internal discussions among Gulen Movement,you know better since it's known that you are closely tied to Police Department and you might have some insider information.)

(4) You are always quoting from Zaman -which is an offical propaganda phamplet- under direct control of Gulen and all quotes from Zaman are highly biased and should not be used in this article -along with qoutes from Gulen's website-. (AA 22:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

i would recommend you read what i said first and then try to answer. i just suggest you be careful in using those sources, similar to your extra caution for Zaman, the most-selling newspaper of Turkey. my only tie with gulen is; i am not an enemy of him. Philscirel (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I got your point! I see you are also being careful by providing most of your citiations from Zaman. In this article, I counted 30 of 90 citiations from Zaman, roughly 1/3.. Another 1/3 is linking to gulen's web site and we've been careful (AA 23:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

@Philscirel, just to have a historical note. would you please tell us which sources you think is relaible? I understand you ruled out all Dogan Group's media including newspapers Hurriyet, Milliyet, Posta, Vatan, Radikal, Referans and also Cumhuriyet. How about Karamehmet Group, is Aksam OK? Before you remind, I ruled out Tercuman since the editor is arrested because doing dirty talking about prime minister. How about Ciner group? is it ok to quote from HaberTurk for example? How about NTV? wait Nergis group is also critical to Erdogan government I ruled it out too. So what left is the usual suspects, Zaman, Taraf, Bugun, Star and of course Sabah! Let's see, Zaman is very objective since it's Gulen's.. Good, let's move, Bugun is owned someone has emotional relation to Gulen.. Good then must be relaible! Star is bought by Alaaddin Karaman, founder of Zaman.. then must be very relaible.. Sabah is bought by Erdogan's son-in-law, then very relaible.. let's See the rest, Taraf is printed in Sabah's facilities, umm then it's very relaible.. Ok, Thanks for the advice. I know preceisly where to quote now! (AA 23:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

you can use Yeni Safak, Vakit, Todays Zaman, TDN, and international journals too of course. the main point here is, i think, whatever you use, make sure that your edits and references match. this has not been a practice you are observing, unfortunately. Philscirel (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

@Philscirel, 'i checked your refs and caught a mismatch, but did not surprised. so, i was not able to correct it', I had to delete your last paragraph since none of those guys -Hakan Yavuz, Izzettin Dogan, Michael Rubin and Economist Magazine- are the suspects of Ergenecon, if we miss something provide a citiation. it's disturbing the integrity of the article. Please whatever you use, make sure that your edits and references match (AA 23:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs)

your reorganization of the paragraphs left the paragraph you mentioned alone. first sentence rephrased now. Philscirel (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

@Philscirel, Just a friendly advice, this sentence a bit wierd, please rephrase it. It's distorded: "Dogan stated in an interview, in which he expressed his respect and support to Gulen by saying 'I have never doubt about his ideas', that Gulen aims to Islamise Turkey by democratic means using education". Its logic is flawed, please revise. When I read it, I understand "Fethullah is islamising Turkey" and Dogan "has no doubts" [about gulen ideas regarding islamising turkey] and Dogan [supporting and respecting him] [because he is islamising Turkey". What a nonsense. Dogan is alevi and never want to live in a Turkey ruled by islam. So you have to really clarify, since it's really wierd. (AA 23:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs)

@Philscirel, 'i checked your refs and caught a mismatch, but did not surprised.' do not throw flat out lies -again-, there is no ties between ergenokon and hitler, please read your reference again, it's written to critic Baykal's comments drawing paralels with ergenekon detentions with hitler's eras prosecution of political opponents. see the background story here [23]. Actually Baykal is thinking the methods used in Ergenekon prosecution resembles those of hitler's to crush opposition, not the other way around. To get more background, please read Night of the Long Knives to see how hitler swept his opposition, then you would see what Baykal means and what your citiation trying to refute. Linking Ergenekon with Hitler is something totaly different and it's very BOLD claim you should cite severel sources and you should establish a concrate and verifyable link, such as hitler was the founder ergenekon etc. or one of the founders of ergenekon hitler's aide or so. (AA 00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

i worked on dogan part please let me know how it looks. more refs to hitler's ideology connection... Philscirel (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your first reference still doesn't explain any connections to Hitler and must be removed. it's intended purpose is to refute Baykal's comments. The others provide links to Neo-Nazi organizations, rather than the direct connection with Hitler. I think it's approprite to state it correctly. (AA 00:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs)

Possible references

In case anyone wants to work on this article here are two possible things to look at:

1) http://www.scribd.com/doc/2684636/Gulen-Phenomenon This has pretty dense and stilted academic language but seems to be have lots of detailed information with high quality references and be reasonably neutral in tone. I have not found it easy to find this kind of information elsewhere (on line...)

2) http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080703/FOREIGN/714298990/1013/NEWS&Profile=1013 This is an Abu Dabi paper. It is not so detailed on facts but seems to me to give an example of an article which describes views of Gulen without taking sides one way or the other. It starts out

Praised by his followers as a representative of a modern and peaceful Islam and bedevilled by his critics as a fundamentalist bent on destroying Turkey’s secular republic...

Good luck and stay calm Gentlemath (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made some edits to reduce the size, npov and moving some material to appropriate sections... that's my neutral point of view to improve the article... Jk54 (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

the version you cut by half and deleted more than 40 links - well documented information, worked out for weeks, word by word. NPOV is not deleting information from the article, as far as i know.. please be more considerate other editors and discuss your edits first. Philscirel (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

well, as well as I see, this page is intentionally dead-locked by Gulen's followers. Anything against him immediatelly get removed, the article is very hostile to independent editors. Once again, I'd like to remind you that there is no page/article ownership in wikipedia. This is a collaborative process, so people has ties to Gulen has no priority over others. As far as I see the editor -JK- tried to make article look more NPOV, since the most significant problem with this article is not having NPOV. It's more looking like Gulen & Co marketing page. For example, one third of references from Gulen's newspaper Zaman, the other one third is pointing Gulen's web site. What we need is to attract independent editors here to maintain positive NPOV and reduce the bias. So JK's contribution is crucially important. (AA 22:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs)

i think this article needs to be protected from both followers and enemies (who sometimes has more than one username). this is not a place to degrade gulen and his movement. using 'NPOV policy' to push an agenda is a cheap eastern tactic. deleting well documented information from the article does not serve NPOV policy. blanking the article from uncomfortable truths is not NPOV either. zaman is the most selling newspaper of Turkey, has english edition. it cover related issues correctly. on the other hand, there are many other references from the media under the control of ergenekon gangs, who were radically against gulen, and has no superiority over zaman. Philscirel (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Zaman and Today's Zaman are owned by supporters of Gullen and they have a (very) admiring POV. The bigest papers in Turkey are owned by a powerful group and can be quite derisive. I would say that for matters of fact (Gullen said X, The US attorney said Y...) Zaman is at least as good as (and probably better than) any other Turkish source. If Today's Zaman says "Noted intellectual F. Gullen has won a court case" and the Turkish Daily News says "Turkish sect leader F. Gullen must leave US and US attorney says he is funded by the CIA" then I would disregard both characterizations, and suspect that the first was closer to the facts than the second. As with many efforts of the Gullen (inspired..) movement, the papers are very professional and have won awards for quality. Today's Zaman has an agreement with the influential British daily The Times and each carries articles which appear in the other. Here is a useful article from the Christian Science Monitor which discusses coverage of the recent constitutional court case: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0729/p07s01-woeu.html

Media critics fault both press camps for their coverage of recent events. Pro-government papers have frequently shown a slavish devotion to the AKP and its defense, they say, while the competition has often gone out of its way to attack the government.

Are the US courts and major media are "reasonably" independent of the daily political struggles? I'd say so, one could argue about it. There is no question that in Turkey there is much less independence. However Turkey is way ahead of many parts of the world and seems to be moving in a good direction.

As a side note: I am sure that, for Turkish issues, Turkish language sources carry much more information than English ones (accurate and innaccurate). However, I would advocate using English language sources. Is there Wikipedia wisdom on this matter? Otherwise nuetral minded writers are kind of sidelined. Gentlemath (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in Gulen either way. I was invited to provide a NPOV contribution which I have done - please feel free to consider my other contributions. The article is very strongly biased towards Gulen which anyone can see and needs to read like an encyclopaedia and not a promotional leaflet. Just because there are a lot of references does not mean anything - the references that count for anything are academic references that are peer reviewed. No doubt many people feel passionate about this topic but please, this is not the place for such things. The Gulen website can promote bias as much as it would like - but try to consider npov in wiki. Jk54 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

your edits are a clear indication of your motivation. the intro section is written by third parties and in a neutral tone. each and every sentence well documented with many sources. your distortions can be called anything other than introduction. other changes on the other parts are no better than that. if you really like to do something for wiki, stop deleting well documented information. do you think your pov should replace his being chosen a top thinker? why do you change the title? is your pov more important than a well respected journal and more than a half million people? using NPOV policy to push your POV is a cheap tactic, goes nowhere. by the way, i am not sure if you really believe that it may work, but let me tell you at least that threatening is not a valid course of discussion. please note that we are writing an encyclopedia article, reporting verified information, and not using this media to degrade a person and his activities. Philscirel (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

IP check

Some editors are using the edit summaries as the discussion page and making inappropriate changes without bothering themselves discussing the issues. I suspect that there are some people with different user names and ip's but very similar edits, and moreover giving the impression in their talks that they are different. I think i will need to request an ip check soon, if the things go like this.. Philscirel (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for requesting checks. Let's have this article vetted for neutrality, what do you say? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

do you have a group of people ready to support your views somewhere? you can check my attempts at the top of this page to get support for the neutrality of the article from other editors. it would only please me to discuss with the neutral editors the neutrality of the article. i am close to whom use NPOV as a pretext to push their hidden agenda, to degrade gulen, to satisfy their emotions, and to have their enmity apparent in the article. regarding the ip check, i think i will need to post it sooner than later. i will watch the article a bit more to that point. Philscirel (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The best thing is to ask a bunch of people who have no particular interest in this subject to take an outsider's look. I can see glaring violations of NPOV but you will perhaps find this more believable when you hear it from other people. Don't worry, we'll get this article straightened out soon. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 01:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

for clarity, let me try again: my earlier attempts at the top of this page indicates that i have no worries at all discussing the article with neutral people. the requests were posted on the appropriate pages and have driven some attention. i have no concern with repeating that again. my concern is with people who use NPOV as a pretext to push their agenda. i am ready to discuss the issues with any neutral editor. considering your edits, i doubt that the people you are talking about bring any good to this article. for the sake of NPOV and any other wiki policies, or for the sake of common sense of humanity, can you explain your reasoning by posting an indictment which proved to be incorrect by the courts to the article. that is a real indictment and it really proved to be incorrect by the real courts. is 'posting incorrect information' your definition of NPOV? that is what i have some concerns about... Philscirel (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the philosophy of Wikipedia. We don't cover up information just because he got acquitted. We bring it out in the open and cite reliable sources; that means third parties, that have no conflict of interest (this excludes publications by the Gulen movement, obviously.) I see a recurring pattern of covering up unflattering information, and so have many other people. This must stop. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Adoniscik. Is there anyone else besides Philscirel who believes the indictment should be removed just because he was acquitted? Nandesuka (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

well, i hope you do not classify yourself as third parties... i will requested another peer review to recruit more people into the discussion. please stop adding nonsense labels which ruins the peer review process. neither wiki not common sense justify posting incorrect information. the summary of the indictment is already mentioned in the article. Philscirel (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

i posted a peer review request. it hopefully attracts a handful of neutral editors with common sense. discussion of their points and modifications based on the consensus may stabilize the article. Philscirel (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

phil, stop posting those PR requests; that's for stable articles. This is the place to debate the article's issues for the time being. The indictment is not mentioned in the article; it was once again removed. You'd think such a charge as grand as conspiring to overthrow the state would merit a little attention, don't you? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

here is what you say above: The best thing is to ask a bunch of people who have no particular interest in this subject to take an outsider's look. I can see glaring violations of NPOV but you will perhaps find this more believable when you hear it from other people. Don't worry, we'll get this article straightened out soon. now you disagree with PR? the indictment is mentioned on the page in detail. --Philscirel

Philscirel is currently blocked. If this is you Philscirel, you are in blatant evasion, if it is not you, your identity is stolen by anon 76.181.224.82. Arnoutf (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

oooppps. i quit for a week. --Phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.224.82 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Where in the article is the indictment mentioned in detail? The word "indictment" is not mentioned once. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Top thinker

the title top thinker is the most appropriate title for the section. the title awards nonsense; does not explain even not an appropriate title. it is likely coming from the motivation of hiding the poll results. i wish the editor(s) doing this stop this nonsense change and be neutral. we are just reporting the facts. Philscirel (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

IF we are "just reporting the facts" what happened to the citations where the editors of the magazine responded to the result? I clearly remember citing some quotes. Now they are nowhere to be seen... --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, it is true. but you have a bad memory. i also posted a remark from another academician regarding western ignorance and you deleted that comment, remember?!... --Philscirel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.224.82 (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Please jog my memory. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

2000 trial and 2006 acquittal

I have re-added this material to the article:

Despite his large number of followers and significant influence in Turkish society and politics, he has been living in the US since 1998. Several months after Gülen had moved to the United States to receive better treatment for his health problems (he suffers from diabetes and a range of its side effects) a scandal developed. Gülen was claimed to have urged his followers in the judiciary and public service to "work patiently for the sake of the (Islamic) state." In 2000 Gülen was prosecuted for inciting his followers to plot the overthrow of Turkey's secular government. He was acquitted unanimously in 2006. The Supreme Court of Appeals has rejected the Chief Prosecutor's Office's objection to the acquittal of Fethullah Gülen.

This reads to me like a neutral summary, using perfectly reliable sources. It notes that he was prosecuted, and that he was acquitted. If you believe this should be removed from the article, or alternatively, if you believe it should stay in, please discuss that issue here. Thank you. Nandesuka (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine but the rebuttals that follow it are from trashy or COI sources. The scandal should also be mentioned in the lede, given the claims. This article is a long way from being neutral, but we have to start from somewhere. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm trying to get out of this pattern of wholesale reverts, and reduce the scope of topics, so we can develop consensus about specific issues that should either be covered in the article, or not covered. It seems unquestionable to me that a major prosecution should be covered - but Phil evidenctly disagrees. Hence this section. Nandesuka (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

that section repeats in the contra sec. i combined into one and in a more neutral tone. if you like it in the bio section, that is fine... Philscirel (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I support to include the prosecutions since it's one of the most important events in Gulen's life. It can't be missed. I notice that there is a ongoing information hiding pattern in this article led by an editor. Anything degrades Gulen's image is being removed regardless the fact whether it's really happened. (see the green card case and tapes). The prosecutions in 1973, 2000 and 2007 is happened and must be mentioned along with the references to THE COURT documents, so the curious readers have an opportunity to dig in and explore the incident. Moreover the court documents are the primary sources of wikipedia, which means all over everthing it's references first. (AA 16:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpay (talk • contribs)

everyting including gulens trials are mentioned. what are you talking aboout? the court documents indicate that the prosecutors' indictments are incorrect. incorrect info cannot be posted. which part is hard for you to grasp? --Phil

The part you can't grasp is that a court acquittal does not mean the case should not be mentioned. The case deserves a whole section, concluding with the court's conclusion. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Issues Part 1: Self Published Material

Here we will discuss self published material (aka vanity press) which is damaging article's NPOV. This is a temporary placeholder. Nearly 70 percent of this articles references are self-published. As a rule of thumb in wikipedia, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, blogs similar sources are largely not acceptable. The details will follow up. More info please see the link [24](AA 15:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

none of the references are incorrect and only a few can be considered as self published. most of the references can be supported from other sources as well. please stop labeling the whole article and list here with which ref or section you have concern about. Philscirel (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the sources come from Gulen sources (his Web site and Zaman, for starters). Therefore it is justified to tag the whole article. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

His own website is definitely self-published. Zaman (newspaper) is less obviously so (but has other problems) Arnoutf (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Following references MUST be removed in sake of objectivity and what wikipedia stands for:

(1) Anything from Gulen's Web Site is to go first. Absolutely doubtless!

(2) Anything from Gulen's Newspaper -Zaman- must be removed. Zaman is under his direct control and it's the movements offical newspaper. Zaman's objectivity and accuracy is questionable when it comes to Gulen related news. Here is a basic test: There is no single article published in entire history of Zaman slighly critizising Gulen and his Movement. Refences to Zaman clearly voilates wikipedia's self publishing policy.

(3) Movement's recently acquired media outlets including Star and Bugun Newspapers. (Star bought by one of the founders of Zaman, Bugun bought by someone admitted to be in Gulen Movement and has emotional ties with Gulen, so we can't expect those outlets are objective)

(4) Anything from the publisher "Light, Inc." which published Jill Carrols' book considering gulen as Philosopher. "Light, Inc." is under direct control of Gulen himself and this book is the most shameless example of how to do a spineless self/vanity press to promote someone. Gulen actually PAID the author to write a book to consider himself as a philosopher. I can not think anything more disgusting to use this book here as a reference. Please do respect the wikipedia and do not attempt rape its foundation.

At the summmary, when the all articles from those sources removed, then we can consider removing those tags if other issues are resolved.

@PHIL, PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE TAGS SO THERE IS A CONCENSUS AMONG EDITORS HERE. I know you feel like the owner of the article because of your close ties to Gulen movement, however this is not the way how wikipedia works. (AA 16:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

@PHIL, Please sign in when you intent do UNDO. I catched you doing undos from as anonymous user. (AA 16:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

Re the Carroll book, I have not seen the evidence she was actually paid as I found no acknowledgement. In the conclusion of the book (google books) she does state however that she is an admirer and that scholarly research should set out to improve the world (which introduces some kind of subjectivity into any debate -not necessarily bad in humanities, but making evidence less easy to accept on face value). For these reasons alone it is a suspicious source and should be interpreted with the utmost care. If AA has evidence that the financial backer is indeed Gulen, this makes it more suspicious; and requires even more careful weighing of anything it includes (ie nothing that is possible contested can be used unless other (non-suspect) sources agree; or alternatively, as an example to the ongoing debate, where it is placed in opposition from an anti Gulen (suspicious) source.) Arnoutf (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the book is commissioned. It should not be used to support claims about him. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the author (Carroll) explicitly states in that interview "the movement and they asked me if I would be interested in writing a book about it. And I said well sure, you know" and "They have a publishing arm that mostly publishes Gulen's work - it is Light Publishing which is based in New Jersey. It is a stateside version of a Turkish publisher in Istanbul. So yeh, they published it."

Note that grants and sponsorships are very common in the academic world. She also stated in the same interview "They had no control over the content of it.".

This does not remove the suspicion of a point of view in her analysis, but it also shows that she is transparent in here sponsors and tries to maintain academic standards. (note that the US military through DARPA is one of the largest science sponsors in the US, and that many companies, foundations and churches sponsor research - This will require critical review of the outcomes but not necessarily outright disqualification).

In this specific case, with humanities having a more subjective element than some other scientific domains I uphold that this source cannot be used as the single source for a potentially contested statement (either support from other source, or as an illustration of one point of view against a source from the opposite). So I think I am slightly, but not much, more moderate about this source then you guys. Arnoutf (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf: Light, Inc. is a PR organization. They can not be compared to DARPA's sponsoring of academic articles. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the source is highly suspicious, but if Light Inc is luckily enough to find a good faith academic willing to write a positive book about Gulen, they may have a trump up their sleeve that cannot be instantly disqualified. This is a very grey situation where the very tight line between violating academic code of conduct is in question (as the author is an academic from an accepted university). The evidence for breech of conduct is fairly strong, but mostly circumstantial (as Light inc may have been lucky). So I stay with my original statement; yes the source is highly suspicious and cannot be used as stand alone material, but it is by a scientist, so the case for outright disqualification based on publisher and organisation alone cannot be supported sufficiently for me (I do understand your worry, but my "jury vote" would be "not guilty because of lack of evidence" - would not dream of using it myself though as I don't trust it one bit). Arnoutf (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Issues Part 2: Reliable sources

This is a temporary placeholder. Adding new section to discuss reliability of the sources and general discussion to incorporate third-party sources to establish NPOV. Please welcome to contribute. More info here [25] (AA 15:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

most certainly, if you can specify your concerns and locate the problem. Philscirel (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, the Zaman refs must go. Gulen's Web site must be used only to document what Gulen has to say and not to support or disprove allegations about him. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Zaman (newspaper) a turkish newspaper has a specific (pro-islam) agenda and is therefore very unlikely to be neutral on pro-islam Turkish scholar. So without additional evidence of the opposite we should assume Zaman reporting is not presenting a neutral point of view; and is hence not reliable for neutral points of view. Arnoutf (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This article should be ZAMAN-free, since it's under direct control/influence of Gulen himself, Zaman can't be neutral at all. (AA 16:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

So it appears that there is concensus among the editor, so then please feel free to go ahead and remove anything quotes from Zaman. (AA 16:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

Article Issues Part 3: Cleanup

This is a temporary placeholder. Adding new section to discuss the imminent need of a general cleanup of this article, especially to remove self-published references. More info here [26] (AA 15:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

most certainly, if you can specify your concerns and locate the problem. one title would be more than enough for the last there section you created here. Philscirel (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought we are very clear here, but I feel obligated to repeat again to make it understandable by even a 6 years old could

(1) CLEAN REFERENCES from GULEN WEB SITE

(2) CLEAN REFERENCES from ZAMAN

(3) CLEAN REFERENCES from LIGHT,INC (AA 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

this is not a specific statement. tell me which ref you are talking about? i can most likely find a ref from other sources for the one you have in mind... --Phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.224.82 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, any claim supported only by the above sources can be removed. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Requests - suggestion for this article only - 2 independent sponsors

Situation
This article is among the articles with the most peer review requests I have seen in the 2 1/2 years I have been around. Even more, I have never before seen so little input from Reviews as in this article, which is not the reviewers fault. Peer review is for an article that is already at a very high standard (ie no major controversies, reasonably stable, high level referencing, good level of language, almost complete support material - and most likely at GA level [note that this article is ranked B or C respectively). Such a good article may have reached a deadlock is looking how to improve further.
This article is not yet at any level near a high standard article (many controversies, many reverts, serious discussion about references) and is therefore not ready for Peer Review.
Why is it harmful to list it for peer review. Well simple, the peer review system is overloaded as it is, futile requests only frustrate the system and will upset reviewers in relation to this article.
As this article has been listed for four!! peer reviews in the last few months I think this message has not come across.

Proposed article specific guideline
I propose to introduce an article specific guideline: Any peer review untill March 2009 (ie half a year from now) to be submitted for this specific page requires at least two supporters independent from the original peer review requestee to go ahead.
I hope that will solve the issue (and buy us time). If we reach consensus on this, would be an argument to speedy close future unwarranted peer reviews for this page.

• Support as my own idea. Arnoutf (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support though this proposal is redundant, since WP policy already requires that the article be stable. philscirel is the only person requesting PR, so once he stops doing that I think we won't see any more requests. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support I support but I don't think philscirel cares about the consensus here. (AA 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC))
• Support and Surprised: the editor Adon in IP check section is mentioning from a PR as i quoted above, and AA, if s/he is a different person, himself requested a PR. the reason i am requesting a PR is hopefully to get some neutral people in the discussion. --Phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.224.82 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Attracting Neutral Point of view is exactly what Peer Review is not for.

By the way, either you are Philscirel, in which case you are evading your current block, which is bad, or you are not, in which case you are trying to steal his identity, which is worse. Therefore I made a report on your recent edits on this talk page. Either of the behavior I outlined above are so blatantly against core policies I did not see an alternative Arnoutf (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Philscirel seems a one man band hell bent on promoting Gulen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8