Talk:Fethullah Gülen/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Controversy in Introduction

Fethullah Gulen is probably one of the most controversial figures in Turkey. This is a fact that nobody can deny and it should be mentioned in the introduction. It does not matter whether the critical or suspicious look against Gulen is wright or wrong, the fact is just that there is a large body of people who think and publish that way (there are at least five or six popular books denouncing him and his movement). There is no objective reason to hide such an obvious fact. I added the paragraph below, but it was deleted based on the grounds that controversy is already being discussed at the end of the article, and it occupies the longest section. For exactly that reason, controversy deserves a paragraph in the introduction. Please justify your stance here, otherwise, I will go ahead and reinsert the following paragraph:

"Gülen is a highly controversial figure in Turkey. Despite his large number of followers and significant influence in Turkish society and politics, he has been living in the US for several years. While his followers and a significant part of Turkish society respects him as a humanistic figure at the service of Islam, a large fraction of society perceives him as a significant threat who aims to transform the country's secular system, allegedly by gaining followers in high places and brainwashing school children[1]." Heapify (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • it is very clear from the section below that NPOV tag is not appropriate. you cannot insert a tag just because your addition is not agreed. there is long history of contributions.
  • an encyclopedia better not to use judgement expressions about people or events, like 'contraversial' or whatever... we should put the arguments and reader should decide.
  • there is a whole section about contraversies and i cannot see any claims missed in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly the point. If there is a long section on controversy (actually, the longest section of the article), controversy has to be mentioned in the introduction. Saying that there is controversy is not a "judgment", it is a "fact". There is controversy about Fethullah Gulen, and an entire se4ction discusses it, so why not mention it in the introduction? I am reinserting the NPOV disclaimer, please do not remove it until the issue is settled.
Also, please do not revert previous additions without any explanation. Heapify (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • so you want to make changes and even label the whole article with POV freely, but do not like your edit is reverted. do you think it is a fair request? being cotravesial is highly subjective description. including all relevent issues in the article and leaving the decesion to the reader is encyclopedic. it does not fit to intro section, as it is not 'introdcution', it is rather 'explanation'. you cannot stick in some contraversies in each and every section regardless of relevancy just because you feel so. all such claims are already expressed in a long section. does this whole page give you some idea about posting an unnecessary tag for the article just because one of your sentence is carried to a different place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If there are at least 10 popular books "against" a personality, if there are , and if the article's longest section is about controversies, that person is CONTROVERSIAL, that is a FACT. You can't just hide that. Just make your propaganda in your own web sites, this is an encyclopedia, not another poropaganda medium for the Gulen movement. Heapify (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, OK. So you need to name those books and prove the popularity of them using reliable sources. If I tell you that you are a "sneaky liar", would you prefer my claim appear in your biography, at the very introdcution, regardless of its being wrong? In civil societies, people go to the courts to claim something or to respond a claim about themselves. Courts judge. It is a universal rule that 'acquittal' is same as 'innocence'. In the versions of the article you are trying to hide, the last decision about Gulen is mentioned: acquittal. Please take a lesson from the discussions of this very page and stop reverting the article, deleting recent information, adding NPOV just because one of your sentences moved to the related section, not even deleted. Moreover it would be better if you quit adding unreliable Turkish sources as this is not a Turkish encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It sounds strange to me that Heapify is talking about discussion, but reverts without discussion. More strangely, a moderator reverts and protects the article twice on Heapify version. Much more strangely, the moderator is reverting the article before protection in the last case. I would like to thank to the moderator Nandesuka for his or her biased performance. It shows me early on that your wiki thing does not worth my time and does not deserve my efforts and contributions. I quit. PS: Mr. Nandesuka; happy preferential protections!
    • Actually, I was the one who has been providing explanations/justifications for every action they took, I always waited for responses here in the discussion page before reverting the article. However, almost all my edits were reverted without a single explanation. Only after I reverted the article three times, took time to write something, which, obviously, does not stand on any objective gorund and was only written here to be able to accuse me of reverting without discussion. Anybody who checks the time stamps will clearly see who has been trying to discuss in a consistent way.
In general, I believe that this article has to be revised thoroughly to satisfy the following NPOV requirements:
- It has to be an article about an individual's general influence in the society, not about how he presents himself.
- If there are two strong sides about an issue, both view points should be mentioned
- Not all information should depend on the individual's own web site and sources
- The wording should be objective, it should not be based on making a point or reaching a conclusion, either positive or negative, about this person.
Unfortunately, this article currently looks like a propaganda page for Fethullah Gulen, and this one-sided content is maintained by suppressing all negative or objective edits and intimidating editors such as that has been done against me. I agree that negative edits should not be allowed, but positive edits should not be enforced either. The article has to be neutral, this is a public encyclopedia, and it should be protected from fanatics who want to use it as a (pro or con) propaganda resource.
My edits that were deleted were:
- A paragraph in introduction, mentioning the infamous controversy about Gulen, with proper citation, and an objective language, explaning both view points clearly. This paragraph was moved to the Controversy section, based on the claim that its place is there and there is enough about controversy in the article. This was exactly my point, if there is a lot about controversy, then controversy is important for this personality, and it should have a place in the introduction. A list of popular books against Gulen can be found at: The content of these books is irrelevant, existence of so many books is sufficient evidence that there is significant controversy surrounding an indivudual.
- A revised sentence, to include all claims about court decisions involving Gulen. The original reference was only to Gulen's own website, and Gulen also agrees that there was a court order against him by a martial law court in 1972, but he claims that the sentence was nullified by an amnesty. However, this was paraphrased in the article that "there has been no court order against Gulen", which is not true becase, amnesty does not nullify a court order, it just removes its effect. I added the information that there exist claims that there was an approved sentence against Gulen, citing a source that provides the decision number for Military Supreme Court's approval of the sentence. This information was deleted on the grounds that the reference was in Turkish, which is clearly meaningles, as long as the source is legitimate. The least legitimate source about an individual is that individual's personal website, since it cannot be expected to be objective.
- Recent media coverage was inserted in introduction, with a significant load of subjective inferences and conclusions. In the introduction, it should be noted that there has been increasing media coverage about Gulen, indicating the most common viewpoints in these newspaper articles, and the details of this coverage should be discussed in a separate section, avoiding subjective conclusions and selective references (currently, only positive remarks are taken while these articles are being mentioned).

This detail is important: The court order against Gulen in 1972 is by a court established by a military coup. Also, why the hack a civilian was judged in a *military* court? Courtmarshalled??

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So, if we do not like something, we should just act like it never happened, huh? Wikipedia is about facts, not about what we think about them, you can question the legitimacy of a military court in a discussion forum. Heapify (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to plot a bad picture about Gulen, I am only trying to make sure that all facts about this individual are objectively presented without hiding or exaggerating anything. If there are people who are trying to insert negative POVs, I will stand against them as well. There is a lot of controversy surrounding this individual, and there will inescapably be many edit wars/vandalisms between his followers and those who are against him, so it is not fair or constructive to dictate one point of view by avoiding discussions and censoring POV tags. Thank you. Heapify (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph you are adding is put back after some tuning. It provides a more complete view of the controversies, if you are not for inserting an unbalanced negative picture of him... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So, without trying to respond to my argument, you just go ahead and rephrase everything to reflect your POV and shamelessly pose it as "tuning". It is just disgusting, that is all I can say. Wikipedia, another propaganda base for Hocaefendi. Congratulations! Get some moral values. Heapify (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV tag

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

Since there doesn't seem to be an outstanding issue here that can't be corrected with some editing, I've removed the tag. We'd do much better to adress one point at a time until the article is fixed, rather than by simply having a tag there. Several points I've raised below, for example, are drawing serious silence as a result. - brenneman {L} 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
None of these points[3] have been addressed. That they could be "corrected with some editing" is a bit of a truism, and doesn't change the fact that they haven't been addressed yet. Your putting up apparently random bits of the article for discussion (see "Lead section" and "Biography" below) doen't change that either. These bits may still be unsourced, but they are not exactly disputed, so I don't see any urgency to address them in depth before the big picture is sound. Per Wikipedia:POV_Cleanup, I re-insert the POV tag, but I will not start to edit this article again until that football World Cup is over. Azate 11:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's the skinny: Adding the tag w/o editing the article or taking part in talk is disruption, and if you do it again I'l block you. Was that clear enough? - brenneman {L} 12:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Aaron Brenneman, Wikipedia:POV_Cleanup does not apply here? Netscott 12:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
What in that name of corn on the cob in that little page applies here? If there is ongoing discussion and you don't participate in it, you don't get to just drop a tag and run. The point of the tag is... what again? Edit the article: Clearly articulate specific concers with suggestions, provide examples of proposed re-writes with new sources. Re-applying the tag makes no effort to solve any problems with the article. - brenneman {L} 12:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I "don't participate in ongoing discussion"? Surely you're joking? Have you looked at the archieved talk pages? I have also edited this article a lot (and I don't mean the POV tag). Problem is, most of it was reverted by now-blocked editor User:Rgulerdem. This was pretty stressful and I need a break. Now you want to block me for disruption[4]? Who, exactly, am I disrupting? And the point of the POV tag, as you correctly say, is to indicate to editors that the article needs attention. (It still does - there are major omissions - or do you think it's NPOV as it is presently?) It doesnt mean that I, personally, have to edit it right now. Azate 12:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If you can somehow apply the tag without editing the page, go for it. But if you need a break, take it. Don't have one foot in the door to only put the tag on and to argue about it staying. It's up to the people who are editing the page do decide the fate of the tag, that's me as well as you. I opened some discussion, thundering silence. I make some big edits, louder silence. I remove the tag and then you re-apply the tag and come to the talk page? That's disruption. Work on the article, stop arguing about the tag. - brenneman {L} 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that this period of "loder than thundering silence" between your "big edit"[5] and your removal of the tag[6] was a mere 5 minutes. This makes your argument appear a lot less convincing than you probably intended. Your attempt to "open some discussion" (I assume you refer to the section "sources/lead section/biography" below) is really just a pretense of a discussion - a challenge and empty posturing: None of the fragments you listed there is disputed in the least, neither by Gülen's followers or opponents, nor by neutral observers with either in-depth or just rudimentary familiarity with the topic. All you did was outing yourself as somebody who has never even heard of the subject before, but still tries to enforce his editing pattern. I said it before, but I'll repeat it again for your benefit: This article is totally distorted not for what it contains, but for what it lacks, and an hour or two of googling will help little to cure it. A several years thick stash of old issues of the Middle Easten Journal and similar publications would be more likely to do the trick here. You want to improve this article now? Is this what I'm supposed to read into your removal of the NPOV tag? Great, go ahead! Or do you think the tag is unnecessary because the article is in good order already? Then you're just a fool. But I'm out of this one way or the other - I'm completely unwilling to work for free and on schedule and under the ill-tempered supervision of people who are both ignorant of the subject and maliciously arrogant in their interpretation of written policy or guidelines. Azate 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Or, maybe he's honestly trying to help improve the article, and you're being unreasonably hypersensitive. I mean, it's just a thought. Nandesuka 02:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
So, if I understand you correctly, you're simply saying that you won't work on improving the parts of the article that I discussed. That if work doesn't progress on your part then the tag must remain? The tag is not there to be talked about, it is supposed to make ediotrs talk about the article. Make a concise suggestion about a specific part of the article, please. Enough about the tag. - brenneman {L} 03:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


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

Lead section

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


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

State and social issues

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

I've moved the section here until it has some references. - brenneman {L} 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
State and social issues
Islamic movements of the 20th century were usually strongly influenced by Arab or Iranian revolutionary tradition, where political or militarist organizations are integral components. While these movements have influence in Turkey as well, Gülen based his movement on faithful individuals with strong moral values. He rejects imposing Islamic rules and regulations on the people by a take-over of the state, unlike other movements. The sole aim of a person should be pleasing God. Gülen expects that Turkish Islamic tradition will be widely accepted and liked in the West.

Gülen's approach puts the emphasis on representing Islam in a good manner, rather than spreading the Islamic message to others, deviating from many Islamic scholars in that regard. Being a modern and perfect representative of true Islam at the universal level is considered to be the main aim in the movement. This approach will turn out to be the tool for conveying Islamic consciousness to new generations in schools and other institutions. Morals cannot and must not be taught but will be absorbed from the example of a virtuous teacher.

Gülen suggests to avoid confrontation with the state, and to respect the establishment. Globalization is a fact and should be encouraged: Open borders are beneficial for Islam, as Islam is complete and strong. There is nothing to fear and isolation will not work. The material and ideological dependence on the West must be overcome. The Muslim World in general, and Turkey and Turks in particular must claim their place and right in world politics and should become a dominant factor.

Engagement in politics is prohibited and considered evil. Worldly desires like wealth, office and money should be fought with a 'spiritual jihad'.

Obstacles should be avoided, not engaged, for societal peace. Conflicts should be examined and preferably avoided.Opponents of the movement should be approached nicely, disregarding their behavior.

High work ethics and efficiency is akin to prayer. Human and material sources of the movement should be used wisely and efficiently, this not only being an Islamic rule but also because donations of Turkish businessman being limited.

Cemaat (loose circles of organizations, connected by personal contacts and common belief) are the most efficient form of organization, both for personal spiritual welfare and societal aims.
"Turkey and Turks in particular must claim their place and right in world politics and should become a dominant factor.": I propose to add that Gülen's vision of Turkey's "place and right" encompasses the entire Ex-Ottoman empire + Europe + the Ex-USSR + parts of China and other counties "up to the Pacific". Source: [7] Azate 12:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I am totally unable to confirm what that citation says, but clearly that is my failing alone. I'd suggest that we treat the above paragraphs as a working template, and add the citations directly into it. - brenneman {L} 12:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
the dissertation is available online and for free as a PDF at the link I provided, so this can't be the problem. It's on page 128. Even if you don't speak German, you may get the gist of it. It's right behind the passage where Gülen's theory, that the American Indians are actually Turks, is discussed. I'm off for today: Football! Azate 13:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Err... it's actually that I can't get the page to load, but that information will help as I'm going to examine the link at the library webcentre. - brenneman {L} 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
brenneman, it appear that User:Azate has left the project. Bummer really he's been a great contributor on a wide variety of articles. See this as well. Netscott 00:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, that does seem a shame. But isn't this exactly what I was saying?
brenneman {L} 01:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you kindly un-sprotect this article? With User:Azate's apparent departure from the project I fear that this article is a lost cause and because of that without a {{NPOV}} tag and low interest in editing on this article there's no need to sprotect it any longer. Thanks. I'm "unwatching" the article now. Netscott 14:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing sections

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

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

Lots of words

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

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

Earlier points

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

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

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

AZATE's contributions

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

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

Baroqqque, I agree with your second suggestion. This page needs to be protected by moderator editions. Gulen is a controversial figure, having his supporters with a lot of love to him and his opponents with a lot of hate to him. This article needs to be saved from both of them. Contributions can be discussed at the talk page and then make their way to the original article.
As for your third suggestion. First of all you sounded it is very bad to invest on education. The criteria to find resource accountable cannot be reduced to affiliation. Then, you will have to discredit the works of those who hate Gulen as well. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, rival ideas collapse and a cooperative text is created.--Harput 19:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Some Changes

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

A concern

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

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

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

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


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

User:Bismihi, (probably same as is very likely User:Rgulerdem's newest sockpuppet incarnation. He is reverting the Artcle quickly and repeatedly to Rgulerdem's May/June 2006 version, thereby deleting content critical of Gülen and pimping up Gülen's image with flowery odes. He is also flat out lying in his edit comments. Watch out! Azate 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am ready to discuss any point you can make here. How many people you made regret to edit on this page so far. Are all puppets? Is there anyone in this world who think differently than you but not a puppet? Are you a puppet of barouqqq? Bismihi 21:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


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

Please do not wholesale revert the article to a previous revision. A lot of work has been done by independent editors to cite sources, and when you revert, that work is lost. Please identify the specific problems you have with the existing version before proceeding. Thanks. Nandesuka 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem starts with the citations themselves. It is a "specific enough" problem I believe. The references are not in English. They are not reliable on the other hand. This is an English Encyclopedia and there is no room for references in different languages. The reader no way can justify the claims in those remarks. I will revert the form once more which can form a basis for health discussions. It is clear from the history that the editor Azate himself also contributed to most of the version I am reverting to. I do not know what has changed now? I sincerely ask you please look at the history carefully, and do not revert back to a version that discussed a lot and eventually corrected in most parts. This version I am reverting to is supported by many editors for months. Can't you just please check the history of discussion and article pages. Isn't it waste of time to get into the same discussions again and again? If you want me specifically find evidences of my claims above I can find links for each of them. A quick review of the history will make it clear to you as well. Please not that, one-two people here having opportunist tactics. They keep others away from the article and revert it back to a years old version. All those contributions in between are getting lost. Moreover the article gets biased! Thank you. Bismihi 19:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Nandesuka, please be careful in reverting the article. The people acting opportunistly here are pushing a version dates back to August 2005. Here are the links if you do not want to check it yourself:

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

  1. Pay attention here to a name (the same editor barouqque reverted back to his/her version recently):

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

  1. and

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

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

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

Revisions to the introduction

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

  • detractors accuse him of illegal activities aimed at undermining the secular republic and replacing it with an Islamic state.
    • A recent Turkish court ruling contradicts with the above mentioned sentence. For example Turkish Daily News states: "An Ankara court acquitted Turkish religious leader Fethullah Gulen of trying to overturn Turkey's secular regime, the Anatolia news agency reported on Friday." (Turkish Daily News, 5/6/2006)
    • Everybody has a right to be suspicious about other’s intentions but any serious article cannot contain unverifiable suspicions.
  • His followers are sometimes referred to as Fethullahci (Supporters of Fethullah), while they choose to refer themselves as "Hizmet Insani" (Those devoted to service to others). His influence extends over much of Central Asia and Caucasus.

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

Image and Introduction Explanation

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

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

Image copyright

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


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

Image copyright question

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

Comment on the latest merge by Ohnoitsjamie and a new proposal

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

  • you maintained the following sentence: "...while detractors accuse him of illegal activities aimed at undermining the secular republic and replacing it with an Islamic state."
    • This is a big criminal accusation (intention to destruct the Turkish state) without any proof, especially after a Turkish court ruling that acquitted him after years of investigation. Isn't this statement similar to accusing somebody for a murder without any proof?
    • I remember the big incidence where biography of John Seigenthaler, a retired journalist, was modified with a false statement claiming that he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations. (See USA Today) Wikipedia had to apologize and modify its policies, such as not allowing anynomous editing on the articles after John made it public.
    • In this respect, I'd like to propose a less strong following sentence instead: "...whereas detractors accuse him of having a hidden political agenda for weakening Kemalist dominance in state institutions.
  • As for this sentence: "His followers are sometimes referred to as Fethullahci (Supporters of Fethullah) "
    • 'ci/cu/çı' type of suffixes in Turkish means somebody who sells something. E.g. "süt" means "milk" and "sütçü" means "somebody who sells milk". The term "Fethullahçı" (misspelled as Fethullahci in the article) is mainly used as means of belittling his supporters. Every group can use certain adjectives about politicians, their opponents but these type of adjectives does not fit into a formal article.
  • This sentence "His influence extends over much of Central Asia and Caucasus." has been redundant by the statement in the following paragraph which is "He has inspired several Turkish NGOs to open about 500 educational institutions in more than 90 countries including Eurasia, Africa and North America.". In my opinion it sounds better to remove this.

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

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

Let me first say that my knowledge of Gülen is mostly limited to things I've read in this article, and I'm not an expert on Turkey. As such, I think I'm reasonably neutral of opinion regarding this subject, so I occasionally try to help opposing sides reach a consensus.
Regarding the "criminal accusation" part; there's a big difference between declaring something as a fact in the article and mentioning what a particular person or group thinks. (The same goes for "Fethullahçı"; if his detractors commonly refer to his followers with that word, it's fair to mention it, though it should also be mentioned that it's pejorative. On the other hand, any controversial statement (whether positive or negative) can be legitimately challenged as needing a source. In such cases, it's often safest to quote directly from a source to eliminate any ambiguity. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It is always necessary to have a impartial mediator in any controversial discussion. It is great to have you on board for this matter Ohnoitsjamie.
I like your suggestion. A reliable source needs to be referenced for any accusations. Quoting directly from the source is a good idea. How do you suggest modifying this?
What do you think of the sentence: "... certain radical Islamists criticize him for initiating interfaith dialogue." His detractors are not all one group with the same idea, I believe this also needs to be noted in the introduction.

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

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

On the introduction

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

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

First, the anonymous & harput are both me. I forgot to login before editing. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not warn when editing anonymously, I wish it did. I don't like leaving my account logged in but I will try to be more careful. I don't know rgulerdem at all. You can criticize my ideas, but disputing my text by just generalizing as being similar to someone else is not right. If you have followed my contributions you will see that I was very careful to not every sentence but every word. I think I have the right to expect the same from you as well.
Secondly, how can you be the only authority to make the judgment whether he is known for interfaith? On the other hand, it is easy to point out even only in US many of NGOs influenced by him (yes, they are subject to 503-C in US with valid bylaws, accepted as non-profit organization by the federal and state governments) that are devoted to interfaith dialogue. Rumi Forum is just one example to this.
You are just reverting the text without giving a valid reason. I'd be very happy if unbiased moderators, such as Ohnoitsjamie, help us here in the merge. It is not fair to make the text one man's or one idea's show. It is normal to have controversies, and I'm sure civilized people can find comprises to reach consensus.

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

Haven't heard back from Baroqqque or anyone else on the matter. I'm reverting my changes. Please explain in the talk page if you want to modify it. --Harput 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Read Azate for comment on NGO and Rumi forum. The comments you try to add are relevant, but belong to the main text, otherwise it is also possible to add sources about why his interfaith announcement and his purpoted health problem are controversial to the introduction, which would make it too long. Read the history to understand why introduction is kept minimal. Praises to editors for being unbiased, a positive tone followed by insistence on POV comments etc have all been tried before.Baroqqque 01:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Baroqqque makes a good point; an introduction should be concise. I see that the paragraph about him inspiring others to open institutions in other countries is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. I restored the note about his most recent whereabouts. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Baroqqque, I totally mean what I say about the need for an unbiased, impartial moderator. It is not a praise to any one. That would be seeing someone very naive and I would consider it as an insult to that person. If a moderator is balanced towards any view, he's not doing his job, there is no question in that. What's POV, by the way? As I noted in Azate's comments section, Gulen is a controversial figure. That's true that the text might be tried to altered by his supporters but it is also true that his opponents try to put as much false information as possible to discredit him. I would support your view to protect this page. My contributions to this article is very recent and it is not very pleasant to be judged by wrongdoings of someone else. Judge me according to my own contributions please.
OhNoitsJamie, I agree with Baraqqques point of making the introduction concise too. However I strongly believe that "inspiring people to open about 500 educational institutions in more than 90 countries" would make it to the introduction about someone. Whether we like it or not this is an unprecedented achievement. Those schools at different countries (Asia, Africa, Europe, Americas, etc.) are all subject to the rules of local governments and they're always under deep scrutiny from local authorities, yet they're supported by them. I don't think the phrase "His influence extends over much of Central Asia and Caucasus." is sufficient to express this. We have a saying in Turkish "Yiğidi öldür, hakkını yeme." (can be translated as "Even if you kill a brave man, at least give him credit for his achievements" or maybe equivalent to "give the devil his due"). --Harput 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • THe reason editors are cautious is because gulen supporters has repeateadly vandalized the page, and the problem is likely to persist; in fact, i provided a link above from a Gulen group mailing list calling for a concerted and gradual program to bring the wikipedia article in line with the biography propagated by the group. I strongly suggest you go through the archive before starting edit wars. The article definitely needs improvement, but your contributions up to now seem to be too much in line with the groups ow view of Gulen, and are not encyclopedic or ctitical in nature. In particular, if you are close to the group, more about the internal workings and organization of the group will be appreciated.It is likely objective and factual contributions, rather than edits that tilt the article towards a more favorable view of Gulen, will prevent the accusations of being a puppet or metapuppet of Rgulerdem that you were subjected to.
  • I do not object the Gulen followers adding their view of Gulen to the article, the issue is they seem unwilling to acknowledge Gulen is a highly controversial figure in TUrkey. Gulen supporters often bring out comments supportive of Gulen, but the fact of the matter is there are a similar number or more arguments and comments that are highly critical of Gulen. This also holds true for the educational institutions that you mentioned; note that the Gulen group were banned in Russia and Ozbekistan for influence mendling . When the opinions about him are so divergent, it is inevitable that the article will carry the "both side of the story" format, instead of the celebratory praise that Gueln supporters believe that he is due. Baroqqque 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think current version of the introduction is an ideal one. In the introduction we say Gulen is accused of working for replacing the secular republic with an Islamic state (a claim rejected by Turkish courts) then in the text accusers say he has ties with US implying that he is working for the benefit of US government. Which claim is true? (I believe both claims are false). If they believe both claims are true then it would be great to learn how they explain US government's recent war in Afghanistan. Wasn't it for replacing a theocratic government with a democratic one? Littleraindrop 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Resid! you're back! Let's see how long it'll be before your old editing habits will see you blocked again. (Netscott) 00:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not Resid. What is wrong with indicating a contradiction in the article? Littleraindrop 10:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I also think he is Resid. The reason I am not 100% sure is anybody who has read the Gulen literature and interacted with GUlen supporters knows they have a standard playbook for interacting with nonmembers; i.e. being extra polite, assuming a nonconfrontational attitude, appealing to emotions rather than factual information/ rational arguments, reference to dialagoe,tolerance, working together constructively etc, a positive approach; reference to the causes of the oppressed, such as palestinians; superflous than you notes and praises even after a passing interaction etc. Thus it is easy to mistake one member of the Gulen group for another. NOt that being polite is bad, but if you go through all the contributions of Gulen supporters and their comments in the edit wars you will notice the information content is minimal while the "appeals to emotions", personal comments about editors and themselves etc. takes up much of the space.Baroqqque 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Baroqqque, you are lying, I was not (unfortunately) polite at all, based on your constant insult. Anybody can see it quite easily if they check my edit summaries.Littleraindrop 22:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • another common theme is oppression by tyrants, the tyrant being, for turkey, the secular offiials that ban headscarf in universities, for wikipedia, partial moderatirs, and for middle east the jews; check rgulerdem's and littleraidrops histories for examples of the argument. Its ironic that you can trace the theme all the way back to Kuran, and from there, to the old testament, the opppression of the jews by the phroah.Baroqqque 18:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Baroqqque, you say "the tyrant being, for Turkey, the secular officials", how do you know I'm not in favour of secular state? Littleraindrop 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Gülen's movement

This section on the movement has ABSOLUTELY NO REFS!!! Is it true we shouldkeep it? I think it is partly biased and the only link in this section is a bunch of schools out of no where! Waiting responses....

Well, though call... Your edit history suggests you are interested in and familiar with the movement; much of the facts discussed in the section, such as universities, "dersane"s, Zaman newspaper and so on are public knowledge and could be easily sourced, though of course somebody must spend time. Do you have a specific statement in mind that you think is factually inaccurate?Baroqqque 21:18, 7 January 2007 (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... 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. 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's fault) can be found here: [8]. 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"[9]. 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) source citations

This artilce is relying upon for too many citations. As well there are a number of Gülen associated sources being cited. This is poor form in that due to this the article is easy to pick apart from an objectivity standpoint. (Netscott) 23:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article should not be a summary of, it should objectively cite all points of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Protecting for a period of time

I have protected this article from editing due to continuing edit warring. Please discuss proposed changes on the talk page, here, in the interim. Nandesuka (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It sounds strange to me that Heapify is talking about discussion, but reverts without discussion. More strangely, a moderator reverts and protects the article twice on Heapify version. Much more strangely, the moderator is reverting the article before protection in the last case. I would like to thank to the moderator Nandesuka for his or her biased performance. It shows me early on that your wiki thing does not worth my time and does not deserve my efforts and contributions. I quit. PS: Mr. Nandesuka; happy preferential protections!
    • Actually, I tried to protect the article on a given version (without actually reading to see what version was) but made a mistake. That protection failed, but the template was put in place. Someone then came in and reverted to a different version. I reverted to the version that I had put the protection template on, and correctly protected the article.
    • As to your claims regarding "preferential protection," I refer you to m:The Wrong Version. Nandesuka (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


This article has been taken over by fawning supporters, edits don't match sources, no due weight given anywhere. Compare this paragraph ([10]) with what the sources really said:

Gülen was recently listed among the top hundred public intellectuals by Foreign Policy magazine.[2] He got most of the votes in the ballot, in which more than half a million people participated, and has come out as the number one in the competition [11]. 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' [12]. 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 [13].

From the referenced article:

Gülen, the author of more than 60 books, won a landslide triumph after the survey - which is organised by the British magazine, Prospect, and Foreign Policy, a US publication - attracted more than 500,000 votes.
The top 10 individuals were all Muslim and included two Nobel laureates, the novelist Orhan Pamuk, who is also Turkish, at No 4, and the Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi, in 10th.
The result surprised organisers, who attributed it to a sustained campaign by Gülen's followers, known as the Gülen Movement, after Turkey's biggest-selling newspaper, Zaman, publicised the poll.
Prospect's editor, David Goohart, admitted to not having previously heard of Gülen and said his supporters had "made a mockery" of the poll. But he said the result flagged up significant political trends in Turkey.
The article doesn't even mention that it was an online poll and that all top 10 individuals were exclusively Muslim; all paragraphs badly need cleanup, presently it's worthless disinformation. --tickle me 14:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
what are you talking about? why do not you correct it? the poll is documented with a link, it is clear from the link that the poll is an online poll. if you read *and think* about what you read, you will see that people supported Gulen also supports the others. that is the reason for having first ten of them from the Muslim intellectuals. there are many other intellectuals from all around the world in the poll. worthless disinformation? an example? please help for the improvement if you can. do not attempt to distort the facts by labeling as you wish.
please show where you think the problem is and how to fix it. if you are for improving the article, of course... specify the problem. (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I won't do your work for sure. Presently, the article is a fawning eulogy, a mockery of basic WP standards like NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR. You are to check these items and edit accordingly. Until then I'll tag the article as ({{NPOV}}{{cleanup}}). I'm no admin, but I'll ask one for assistance if this abuse goes one. --tickle me 14:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
i am glad you are not. and if you do not stop labeling the article i will ask an admin take care of the article. it is unfair to label the whole article claiming NPOV without specifying where the problem is. you can do the same for the all wiki articles. if you can specify and locate the problem, it can be worked out. i cannot read your mind. please stop labeling the work by many wikipadians just because it is not parallel to your POV. for me the article follows all guidelines specified in NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR. if you think otherwise, it is your task to show where and how... again, before taking the issue to the admin level, please stop labeling. thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
> taking the issue to the admin level
Please do, no trouble with that, and stop cross-posting. --tickle me 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
but, i asked a peer review first. hoping that you will be respectful by comment from some other experienced wikipedians. during the process the article should be free of the labels. please see the peer review page. so, stop doing that. Philscirel (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tickle me, there is a lot of (implicit) positive (ie non neutral) POV throuhout this article, including the controversy section. Arnoutf (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed. The whole intro is one large advertisement. I think I'm going to delete 80% of the intro, because most of them are not relevant or clearly there for POV reasons. --Jeroen (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Dank uw, Jeroen. This article attracts his minions like moths to a flame. Perhaps we should block this article to anonymous editors? --Adoniscik(t, c) 00:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

the last thing is needed for the article is labels. the references can be corrected, if you could help that would be great. the peer review process is ongoing and label are not allowed during the process (see the relevant page for info). the last form was missing lots of recent info. it can be long and can be shortened, maybe neutralized, but cannot be deleted completely. Philscirel (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not see announcement of ongoing peer review, only an archived one.
Secondly the article was submitted for that peer review when it had the tags on top. That does not mean that the tags were wrong, only that the article was not yet ready for peer review and should never have been submitted to that procedure.
User Jeroen did not delete the intro only shortened and neutralised it. If you want that information, it should go into the main article anyway. Sometimes it is better to reduce too much and build from there instead of trying to imporve a fundamentally flawed version; sometimes it is go back into time to the last neutral version and accept work done in vain. Arnoutf (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

someone has archived it right after the process is started. i guess some people does not want the article go through that process. why? the intro has many recent info and they cannot be deleted. i think the best strategy is to locate the problem, where NPOV statement is. it can be corrected. it is not fair to claim NPOV and does not specify it. Gulen has supporters but also enemies. neither one should be tolerated. as far as i see, all the statement in intro are from the mainstream media. how can that be labeled as NPOV? the introduction should be introducing the person. it is not enough to say he has followers and critics. to help to improve project, please discuss it here and show where the NPOV is before deleting it from the article. i will try another peer review thing. Philscirel (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Peer-Review. The peer review is intended for high-quality articles. This article is not yet a high quality article. One: There are many copy-edit things: It needs work, for example it uses a mix of footnote style and hyperlink intext references. Only one style per article is accepted. Also prose and grammar need to tightened up by a very good English speaker. Also the structure and coverage need a lot of work (among other related to NPOV issues). Thus I would rate this article at C class (somewhere between Start and B class) while peer review is intended for Good Article or A class articles. So I agree with a quick close because this article is not yet at a level it would benefit from peer review. (mind you peer review process is overburdened and you should not approach these editors with tasks you should have done yourself).
I am happy to try to help, but am no expert on the topic. See ideas below Arnoutf (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)