Talk:Fethullah Gülen/Archive 7

POV template - RE Old version again
POV pushing by likely Philscirel sockpuppet has started again. Reported on Sockpuppet_investigations/Philscirel. Due to extreme backlog there may take some time. Untill that is handled POV tag must stay up. Arnoutf (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And the same for the disputed tag. Removal without consensus will be considered vandalism and immediately be reported as such. Arnoutf (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After a 30 day semiprotection was set, I have reverted to the version that general agreement holds as best. This one.
 * Mind you, it is not perfect, so welcome to improve.
 * The other version (that I removed) is impossible to work from (POV, unreliable sourcing, etc.). That it is reappearing again and again is only because sockpuppets of User:Philscirel have been putting it up again over the last 2 years. If you look at the page history you will notice that every time in the past that that version was put up, the editor who made the move was subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet of Philscirel. Arnoutf (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I realized that Arnout's contributions to this Gulen biography is nicely listed here. I can add his hypocrisy to the list.. You are welcome if you like to add more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

please add Rumi Forum and related web site rumiforum.org
please add Rumi Forum and related web site rumiforum.org  - NB: Fethullah Gulen is the Honorary President of the Rumi Forum  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.251.161 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why presidency of a forum and website that are not notable in themselves should be added to this page. Can you please give a reason why this is important information. Arnoutf (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Arnoutf's contributions to this biography
I realized that Arnout's contributions to this Gulen biography is nicely listed here. I can add his hypocrisy to the list.. You are welcome if you like to add more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I = Philscirel I presume. Thank you for the personal attack; referring to "evidence" made by a now blocked sockpuppet of yourself. You must be proud of yourself that you have to revert to lying and cheating. I wonder what a religious scholar (like Gulen) think of that? He'd probably classify it as a sin in the context of his faith. Arnoutf (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheap rhetoric, baseless accusations.. no answers to the points raised: an indication of the quality of your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hey I just noticed you are indeed Philscirel as this exact same IP adress was recently blocked for being his sockpuppet. Speaking about cheap rhetoric. And I'll add some more (cheap rhetoric). Cheap rhetoric is not necessarily untrue, but putting up statements like "cheap rhetoric" is often an indication the 'so-called' cheap rhetoric touched a nerve and came uncomfortably close to the truth. Arnoutf (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the people alienated by you here are blocked through a checkuser verification.. So if this IP is blocked by some careless admins, you can blame them for it. And you know why it has happened: due to your cheap tactics.. You stop discussing, run to file a suckpuppet case to have them blocked. Because some facts are very uncomfortable for you. It is true that cheap rhetoric is not necessarily untrue, but it should have at least some ideas based on some facts in it if you are expecting an answer. In the list about you, all the facts are verified and linked to the logs. There are others I can add to it actually other than your hypocrisy as I mentioned above, but it does not worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of cours a changing IP address makes checkuser worthless, but you know this as you are using that tactic of lying, deceit cheating and fraud for almost 2 years now. Nevertheless many different Admins (most of whom were never before involved on this article) did not fall for that cheap tactic and deemed the evidence sufficient for a block. But as you said yourself, it is not worth it (to discuss this or any other topic for that matter with a convicted fraud) Arnoutf (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Another example of cheap tactic which fits you very well: if you have nothing to say, just run away from the discussion or answering. As a person with this history of contributions on a single page, you are not in a position to remind ethics or moral values to others. On the other hand, opening a new account, due to the close of an existing one unjustly without verification, to defend the truth is more honorable than distorting the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is always the easy way out; claim the moral high ground even after being (repeatedly) convicted for going against core rules of a game (Wikipedia) you yourself voluntarily entered (by starting to edit). Too bad for you that with all arguments gone nothing is left to you but hollow accusations and empty claims to moral superiority. Arnoutf (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Moral values are something you were referring to and I was answering back that you are far from the position of reminding such values. Do not mix apples with oranges. I can see now why you have been doing so though; because it is: "always the easy way out". As I said, I can list some more edits by you showing the quality of your edits but it does not worth. I did not get a response for the ones which are already listed at the first place. And yes, if you ignore those, nothing is left to me.. Maybe you can show to us three meaningful sentences or a short paragraph you have written in this article as an indication of your positive contributions to the biography?!... —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * My role on this specific article is not to create text but to guard it against the hordes of the vandal Philscirel. The police does not create the laws, they maintain them against unjustice. Arnoutf (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No answers, only cheap rhetoric and cheap tactics. Thanks for clarifying your position and summarizing your total contribution to the article though. You have not, do not, and actually cannot contribute to the biography because you know nothing about the issue. All you have is your racist, primitive motivations and prejudges against Islam and Turks. Unfortunately, you are not alone in this, and that makes the life easier for you. I do not feel responsible for your character and scientific education, so I leave you in your darkness. Good luck with alienation of naive editors, blocking others from editing and contribute while not producing a few meaningful sentence in the article. Bye for now.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Calling people racist is of course no cheap rhetoric, and that while you were doing so well until now in not falling for obvious personal attacks so far. Arnoutf (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
"Gülen teaches a moderate version of Sunni / Hanafi Islam, similar to that of Said Nursi." should be replaced by "Gülen teaches a moderate version of Sunni / Hanafi Islam, which derives from the teachings of Said Nursi."

The modernity in question does not lie in Said Nursi's teachings, but in Gülen's revision of his teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaddarca (talk • contribs)


 * The current text refers to a "moderate" rather than a "modern" version. So it is not very clear what you suggest here. Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gaddarca, you do not need to ask permission from anyone. Although Arnout sell himself as the owner of the article/biography, it is against wiki policies to own an article. He does not have enough knowledge about the topic at all, at the first place. All he wants is to refrain others from adding the facts he dislike. All he does is rhetoric. If you like, you can go ahead and do the changes as you wish. If you can review consensus version of the article, you will find many vandalized, verified pieces of information you can use in your revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if you are a confirmed user, you should be able to edit yourself. The recent semi-protection was put in place to limit the relentless POV pushing of sockpuppets of Philscirel after IP 71.72.81.83 started a spree of Philscirel sockpuppet reversions to an almost unanimously (i.e. the whole of the community minus Philscirel and his many socks) rejected version. Arnoutf (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I addressed sockpuppet issue above. If you like to see which one is most accepted version, you should review the history page for it. It is right there.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Appeal against admin blocks of sockpuppetry should not be discussed here. Unless you (and all other socks in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Philscirel/Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Philscirel} appeal and win, we have to assume guilty by verdict. Arnoutf (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This does not explain your cheap tactic of running from discussion and whining to the admins based on which they act unjustly. A homework to you: study the difference of law (actually misuse of power and rules) and justice. In any case, as I said above, opening a new account, due to the closure of an existing one unjustly without verification, to defend the truth is more honorable than distorting the facts. The verdict should be based on some facts or truth. The ones you are referring to shows the discretion of the admins nothing else or more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thus is the last line of self-justification of an editor banned for breaking core rules. But indeed, my block last year was gross injustice as I was only defending this article against your vandalist attacks. Since then I have indeed decided not to take defending the just cause into my own hand but instead rely on the law to enforce justice. So far it has done so admirably. Arnoutf (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So, you believe that they act unjustly, but still collaborating with them to form a base that they can continue acting unjustly about other editors.. Just because it works for you this time.. That way, you can have them block editors, so own the article, vandalize and blank the page as you wish, delete verified but uncomfortable facts, falsify references, and moreover no need to discuss your edits if you had any.. What an ethical argument! —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * I went outside the Wikilaw by engaging in an edit war, and was punished according to the letter of that law. Justice was no issue there. I learned from that that if you appeal to the "law" with reasonable arguments and strong evidence it does serve justice, but if you try to take justice in your own hands the same law punishes you (as it should). Nothing unethical about that.
 * And back again to the broken record of "whine whine whine" I am not allowed to put up huge amounts of pro Gulen propaganda supported only by sources owned by Gulen himself, while of course this material is objective, sourced etc. So the big bad Arnoutf is trying to own the article (whine whine), although he only ever reverts the unethical Wikicriminal Philscirels edits. Arnoutf (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what I am calling as cheap rhetoric. I have not time to deal with it. Good luck with your distortions of the facts and falsifications while claiming writing a free encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed free and anyone can edit. But freedom comes with responsbility to respect that you should give a neutral representation of facts verifiable on reliable 3rd parties sources. Freedom without responsibility is a negative form of anarchy, and Wikipedia put some safety nets in place to guard itself from that. Arnoutf (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

= Two versions of the biography =

There are two versions of the article. I would like to start a poll to get an idea about which one the editors like better. One is supported by some editors (Version A) and the other is by Arnoutf (Version B). Please vote for one of them below:
 * Irrelevant as Wikipedia is not a democracy; Turnurban is a blocked sockpuppet, and the proposing editor is a single purpose account who has no track record at all, so either does not know the arguments on this page, or is yet another Philscirel sock. Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No reason to fear, Arnout. Poll can help us to see which version is supported most. How can we determine consensus otherwise? We know very well now that anyone disapprove your version has to be a sockpuppet. 67.201.93.20 (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Arnoutf distort the facts in and owns the Fethullah Gulen Biography
while there is this kind of accusations |accusation, I highly recommend to Arnoutf  not to edit or discuss any more subject on this page. 141.217.43.158 (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Slanderous accusations by a repeatedly blocked proven sockmaster should not be taken on face value, or at all. Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Arnoutf is not contributing the page at all. Arnoutf accepts that above. He only brings edit wars to the page and prevent people from editing. He is consistently blanking the article and also the discussion page to hide his unacceptable behavior. Surprisingly he is always off the admins' sight.
 * Here are some info about his earlier edits. Turnurban (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If by "his" you mean Philscirel and his sockpuppets, indeed those archives give a comprehensive view how stubborn a vandal Philscirel is. If you mean by "his" Arnoutf, these same archives give a good view how tirelessly I have been guarding Wikipedia against relentless POV pushing of a Gulen fan. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By "his" I meant Arnoutf. And I can see that Wikipedia need to be guarded not only from fans, but also from Gulen enemies. Turnurban (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no feelings towards Gulen, neither positive nor negative. The version defended by Philscirel on the other hand is predominantly positive (to very positive) and more problematic, is largely based on sources published by Gulen (or his organisation) making its references highly unreliable, and therefore making that version unacceptable according to about a dozen core Wikipedia policies. But of course you know this, as your are most likely the most recent sock of Philscirel. Arnoutf (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with you. The other version seems to be more informative to me, includes more discussion and references. Only some of the references are are from the most selling Turkish newspaper: Zaman. By the way, if this is a problem, the same information can be supported by other references, which is not governed by Gulen movement. I can help with that for example, how about that? The information from Zaman are mostly the facts, not comments, by the way. Turnurban (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard all comments by Turnurban as he was blocked as being sockpuppet of Philscirel. Arnoutf (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Arnoutf terrorizing Fethullah Gulen Biography
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. THIS IS A FARCE, A BIASED ONE-SIDED OPINION OF GULEN BY ONE OF HIS FOLLOWERS IN THE GULEN MOVEMENT (HIZMET) GULEN IS A FAKE AND FRAUD. GULEN IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED BACK TO TURKEY AS HE WAS EXILED FOR WANTING TO OVERTHROW THE SECULAR GOVERNMENT, WHY DO YOU THINK HE HIDES OUT ON HIS FORTRESS IN THE POCONOS, PA AREA? GULEN IS NOT EDUCATED HE HAS A 5TH GRADE EDUCATION AND HIS FORTUNE IS ESTIMATED AT $25 BILLION. HIS FOLLOWERS HAVE TAKEN OVER HIS EMPIRE OF EDUCATION, MEDIA AND INTERWINED IT WITH POLITICS. THEIR MEDIA IS STRONG INSIDE TURKEY AND GAINING ON THE OUTSIDE. IN THE USA THIS KURD AND YES HE IS A KURD OWNS ZAMAN, ERBU TV, FOUNTAIN AND A TON MORE PUBLICATIONS THAT SPREAD MORE GULEN PROPAGANDA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FibroGuy (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I combined and compiled previous complaints in various places here into one list and hoping that it helps to someone to deal with the case. 67.201.93.20 (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we at least stick to the facts and keep some level of politeness. All these so called facts have been extensively discussed over the last two years, and all have been shown (repeatedly) to be false. I feel no reason to respond, again, to these accusations, by an editor whose only edits are (a) extremely recent and (b) have so far as only purpose to undo my work here Arnoutf (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Arnoutf owns the article: He does not collaborate, declare edit wars, instead. He gives impression to naive editors that all other editors should convince him to be able to edit the article.
 * 2) Arnoutf distorts the facts and falsifies information: Arnoutf distort the facts based on his seemingly racist/nastionalistic prejudges. Although the islamineurope reference does not mention "segregation of Turks" in this example, he add this incorrect, falsified information deliberately into the article and linking to the reference as if it is mentioned in the reference. A true encyclopedia editor would consider this as the most embarrassing behavior.
 * 3) Arnoutf alienates editors: Many naive editors are alienated by his disgusting POV pushing. Among recent a few: Hatice w, Gaddarca, Madaya2000, meco, Icaz. Please see the discussion page and archives for the full list. His main tactic seems to be blaming editors of being a sockpuppet and filing a sockpuppet case immediately once someone disapprove his POV version.
 * 4) Arnoutf does not know the topic has no intention to improve the article: Arnoutf does not improve the article nor working on it. He just blocks others from doing so. He only reverts the uncomfortable facts in his perspective from the article. Here is a self statement of the fact that he only policing the article.
 * 5) Arnoutf is vandalizing the page by blanking verified information: Arnoutf is vandalizing the page by blanking verified information and references. The history page is full of such similar logs.
 * 6) Arnoutf does not comply with the Wikipedia policies: Arnoutf disregards Wikipedia policies and set up new rules as he wishes and declare reliable references as invalid.
 * 7) Arnoutf is archiving to hide his edits: Once Arnoutf have an naive editor banned, he archives his discussions to hide the facts. He keep bringing the same issues inconsistently with his earlier statements. In the example of the use of the term 'philosopher', he first accepts the use of the term, then starts arguing the same issue with another naive editor.
 * 8) Arnoutf tragicomically disapproves his own version: The version Arnoutf is fighting against now is actually the version he edited using the information in an existing version before.
 * 9) Arnoutf ignores warnings: Not surprisingly  was already blocked before due to his edit wars on this page but he does continue exactly the same way.


 * As usual, Arnoutf does not tell the truth. Almost none of these points are discussed anywhere, and none of these points got any satisfactory answer at all. I urge Arnoutf to provide links for his answers or maybe better summarize his answers to these points right here as listed, instead of nonsense and general remarks like "those are all answered". It should be easy for him, if he is correct! My remarks are all polite and I have no attempts to undo his work. He has no work to undo at the first place. Arnoutf cannot hide behind subjective concepts like politeness or general statements anymore. 67.201.93.20 (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy to discuss, if I am taken in good faith. Words like "terrorising" and "does not tell the truth", let alone the accusations listed above do not reflect the assumption of good faith. Without assumption of good faith towards me I can say what I want (which I did in the past), but arguments going against the gut feeling of the other party will then be disregarded, or listed as lies; making any kind of discussion useless. Arnoutf (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If others do not assume good faith, you may look at your edit history for possible reasons behind it. 67.201.93.20 (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we archive this thread as it is a rather personal attack on me, and has been dormant for months now (the bot has to keep 3 threads alive, but I would prefer to get this one out of plain sight by now). Arnoutf (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Version A

 * 1) For being more informative and neutral -- 67.201.93.20 (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I think this should be archived Arnoutf (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Version B

 * 1) I think thes should be archived Arnoutf (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

birth date and M. initial
I know both this has been discussed before, but it still is not completelt satisfactory with me. So once again: is there a name to go with the initial "M." Also the birth date is never mentioned, yet there is a claim made of actions when he was 14. The problem with the birth date is that the registration (1941) is likely to be much later (up to 4 yrs) than the actual year of birth, as this was not uncommon. Do we just ignore birth year, or do we discuss it in some depth? Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * According to his website fethullah gulen life chronology: 1941-1993: "Born April 27, 1941 in Erzurum's Pasinler (Hasankale) County at the village of KorucukAnd later" and later they refer this date.
 * For initial M.: As far as I know, his name is "Fethullah Gülen" in official papers. However, he published most of his books, at least in Turkish, with the name: "M.Fethullah Gülen". And the initial M. stands for "Muhammed". Baharyakin (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Entry section
Given the controversy over Fethullah Gulen and his followers, this Wiki entry is very suspect. It lacks a neutral tone and does not discuss the negatives and positives of Imam Gulen. I gather that the Fethullisti have taken over the edit of the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.1.166 (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ur right. I want to work on it but no time.. Will do some changes in a week or so. Especially the views section is limited. KutluBoga (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely not neutral. This entry mentions nothing of his intervention in Turkish politics, his youtube videos that obviously show him quoting how to buy off high level authorities or eliminate them in the government etc. He has a lot of followers and I have no doubt they are editing this info all the time. This guy is a dangerous cult leader, a wolf in a sheep's clothing. Here he is depicted like a saint. There is a reason he's in exile in the US unable to return to Turkey. Please do not let information be muddled. Vigolo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.124.223 (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Another external link for your consideration
Hizmet Movement blog (http://hizmetmovement.blogspot.com) provides an easy access to various forms of articles including academic works, news stories, interviews, and opinion-editorial pieces about the Gulen Movement and Fethullah Gulen on a frequent basis; thus could be a nice fit in the list of external links. Hizmet Movement (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reaction to the Gaza Flotilla
Although, his Reaction to the Gaza Flotilla is important, it shouldn't be under theology section. Yakamoz51 (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk
old talks archived Yakamoz51 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism?
It looks like this was written by members of the 'Movement' who are well known for brooking no criticism of their dear leader with his fingers in many shadowy pies - perhaps someone less partial might be allowed to re-write this.Surely rules of impartiality have been broken here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.163.53.54 (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral
Dear Editors,

this article reads like a self presentation. Mr Gulen is not just a "interfaith" ambassador, he is the most controversial religious figure in turkey. The general public sees him as the biggest threat to secularism in Turkey. Furthermore, the "Army of the Imam" incident is not even mentioned! I request the editors to make some research and edit the article. I would edit it by myself but I am afraid my edits will just be removed because I have no account and no editing history. The German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is observing the Gulen movement and its schools. Another noteworthy scandal was the Deniz Feneri case, where the people the gulen movement was found guilty by a german court for donation fraud on turkish citizens in germany. The total amount disappeared was above 18 million Euros. Some resources (german and english) Deniz Feneri http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article13384879/Islam-Bewegung-breitet-sich-in-Deutschland-aus.html http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/650452e8-71c6-11e0-9adf-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1N8vEZEoG http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/democracy-turkey-4857 http://www.esslinger-zeitung.de/lokal/esslingen/kreisesslingen/Artikel711068.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.72.91 (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no reliable source that shows direct or indirect relationship with Gulen and Deniz Feneri e.V. case including sources that you posted. The "Army of the Imam" incident mentioned in the Gulen movement page. By the way, there are more than 300 articles/books published on him or the movement. At least 1/3 of them is critical. Should we mention all of them and why? Yakamoz51 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Revert of unreliably sourced pro-Gulen text
Today an anon editor without any other edits added about 25% to the content of this article; which was almost exclusively highly positive about Gulen.

As the post above complains the article is already biased towards being overly positive about Gulen, addition of even more positive praise of the man seems not something to engage in without consensus before addition.

Additionally, the used sourcing relies heavily on Gulen.com selfpublished website and Zaman (newspaper) which is linked to the Gulen movement. In earlier discussion both sources have been identified as not reliable and non-neutral towards Gulen

For those reasons I have reverted the recent additions and ask the editor to fairly look for consensus here before readding per WP:BRD. Arnoutf (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What I have added was only three paragraphs to the introduction section. It was in completely neutral tone. If a person is having positive action, reporting that cannot be considered as positive bias. Zaman is part of the Gulen network. On the other hand it is the most prestigious, best selling newspaper. It is managed by very famous Turkish journalists and columnists, not the Gulen himself. Moreover, the references from Zaman was just a few. Based on this, I change the version to more informative and neutral one, I edited earlier. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was the lede, not the introduction, and the lede should be a summary of the main text. Also you changed existing paragraphs e.g. naming Gulen philosopher (which was agreed he is not in the English connotation of the word) and adding an unsourced birth date (something that has lead to discussion in the past)
 * Well, he is definitely a philosopher; a philosopher of religion. He has a few books related to such topics (existence,universe,God's attributes,their relations,etc). By all means and according to the English use of the word "philosopher", he is one. If, Gazzali is a philosopher, so is Mr Gulen.
 * Your addition is not completely neutral. For example, the last paragraph opens with "Gülen and his movement have been praised by Islamic and non-Muslim organisations" and later states "There are also some controversies...". By the order of arguments (starting with positive) and the diminituve "some" with critisisms this text is definitely not neutrally written (but positive)
 * That can be fixed.
 * Indeed positive actions should be reported, in proportion to negative actions. The analysis of which action are prevalent is however synthesis, and ust naming a few from reports is implicit synthesis, which may or may not violate a neutral point of view, but most likely is original research by using selected primary sources.
 * What happens if one has far less negative sides? I think both sides are summarized in the current version.
 * I can be short about Zaman.... another newspaper News of the World was a famous prestigious and bestselling UK newspaper. These are not arguments for reliability.
 * I would not buy this argument. There are many reliable sources other than NoW. Why do not you compare with them. Note that Zaman IS NOT owned by Gulen. It is in the Gulen network. No one can degrade science produced in a church affiliated university, for example, right? There are many such universities, with a good reputation. If a newspaper is affiliated with a movement, this cannot degrade its reliability.
 * Moreover, I realized that you even marked Gulen's webpage as unreliable? Not for any subjective comments, for list of his books?!.. The online version of the books are already posted in the linked websites.. What else you are looking for? How come that a press release condemning terrorism through his website cannot be considered as an evidence of his attitude?
 * All together, in the light of the editor in the previous thread I am not convinced the article becomes more factually correct and neutral from your edits.
 * If you look carefully, you will see that it actually is a good summary of Mr Gulen's bio.
 * Finally, I base my comment that you are a new editor on your edit history (fact). If you are indeed an experienced editor, you have no history to show that. Arnoutf (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the movement. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * the lead seems a real mess after recent edits. Yakamoz51 (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I did revert the mess once, but as that was re-reverted following above argumentation by anon user 107.... I put in all the tags to highlight the many many problematic issues that were the consequence of the edits by the anon user, as apparently the anon user does not want to change the text before reinstating it; and reverting again would only lead to revert wars.... Arnoutf (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your marks do not make sense to me. The Dialoge of Civilization book by Caroll is itself a book that compares Gulen with other highly regarded philosophers in human history. I do not see what kind of verification you have in mind.. I tired to add some more references, and remove your tags when I believe is not appropriate. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I ask for verification that that source unambiguously names Gulen a philosopher, as the given link is dead, I cannot verify myself. In anycase, that is only a single issue raised by me, why did you remove all else? Arnoutf (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I corrected dead links and added new references that support Zaman's news. As mentioned above Zaman is in the Gulen network but this cannot be taken as a base for unreliability. No one can degrade science produced in a church affiliated university as there are many such universities with a good reputation in US. If a newspaper is affiliated with a movement, this cannot degrade its reliability. Zaman in the most selling, highly prestigious newspaper in Turkiye. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All publications about an organisation, by something in the control of that organisation is by definition as suspicious source as it is basically self published. This goes also for Church affiliated universities publishing about themselves (Their research is reliable as it is quality controlled by external independent peer reviewers before publication). However, even output by scientists that are not independently peer reviewed should also be considered with suspicion (like the book by Carroll which is co-published by the Gulen institute). A newspaper is no university. The undisputable facts (scarce as they are in humanities and social sciences) are fine, but any analysis should be considered as self-publication and therefore inherently unreliable. Arnoutf (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I read through the free section of the Carroll book on Google books, it is striking that Carroll carefully avoids calling Gulen a philosopher. He calls him a scholar (or islamic scholar) with his ideas grounded in humanities, but never a philosopher. So the source does not support the reference to Gulen being a philosopher (which in the English sense of the word is a specific specialist in the humanities using specific methods). Arnoutf (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your arguments do not sound right. Zaman is affiliated with the movement, it is not under the control of the movement. The administrative body maybe are people who feel themselves closer to the movement, that is it. The news are not and cannot be under control of any organization, including the movement, by definition. This is more true for a most selling newspaper as there are many competitors who are ready to eat Zaman alive at thei very first opportunity. As opposed to just two-three peer reviewers, there are many reviewers of a newspaper: competitors, the public community itself, and the people interviewed by the newspaper. Note that, the references from Zaman in the article do not includes subjective comments about Mr. Gulen or the movement by the administrators of the magazine, they are mainly news and interviews about the movement. None of the people interviewed deny their comments and all news in the newspaper can be verified by the third parties, as i did in the lede section.
 * She does not carefully avoids using the word "philosopher", she just does not need that statement explicitly. The comparisons themselves are indication of to which league she considers Gulen belongs to. It does not matter who publishes the book, it would be Mr. Gulen himself. What is important here is that an impartial outsider and social scientist studies the phenomena and writes a book. You should not except Gulen enemies publish the book. And again, he is not a philosopher of science, but philosopher of religion. He has several books in this subject as listed in the biography section which fits perfectly with even the definition you provided above. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "The news cannot be und control" ??? - It can be, that is what censorship and populism and commercial newpspers do all the time (think: News of the World).
 * Also, Philosopher of Science is the application of the philosophy specialisation towards the topic of science, I did not refer to that, but to the specialism itself. A philosopher of religion should use the same tools and methods as a philosopher of science (albeit used to study a different topic). As to carefully avoiding, she straightforwardly calls Kant a philosopher, but never Gulen. Gulens ideas are intesting, show scholarship of the topic, and have been studied by important philosophers in the past. However it is clear synthesis (or even speculation) to infer that by making the comparison between Gulens and Kants ideas that the author identifies Gulen as philosopher (in the modern English sense of the word). Personally, I do not see the problem with not labelling him as philosopher, Einstein nor Ghandi was a philosopher and nobody thinks them second rate thinkers. Arnoutf (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The news cannot be under control of an organization, especially in our age of technology. One could attempt to censor the facts but there will be other sources available to clarify them. As indicated above Zaman's news can be verified also by third parties.
 * Here is the definition of philosophy of religion: "Philosophy of religion is a branch of philosophy concerned with questions regarding religion, including the nature and existence of God, the examination of religious experience, analysis of religious language and texts, and the relationship of religion and science." This exactly describes Gulen's work. Caroll does not avoid using the word "philosopher", as she just does not need that statement explicitly in a book the she already compares Gulen with other philosophers. As you mentioned, there are philosophers who are not called such, and some others are called only after their lifetime. The term "philosopher" does not imply class/rate of a thinker, it just describes the thinker, as in Gulen's case. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is that easy to give the impartial third parties instead of Zaman in that case please do so.
 * What I am saying explains reliability of Zaman. If a source is reliable, there is no reason to exclude that or name otherwise. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "a branch of philosophy" implies that it uses the techniques and paradigms of philosoph to do thse analyses. I would not lable a scientist (who is thinking about science for a profession) a "philosopher of science"; as the philosophy of science is something else entirely from science. Similary I would not label a spiritual leader, and religious scholar (who is thinking about religion for a profession) a "philosopher of religion" (e.g. the current pope who has been full professor [i.e. the highest possible scientific rank] in theology, studying religion for over 25 years is not regarded a philosopher). Philosopher in the modern sense is a job description, with the associated methods and approaches, a job Gulen does not have. The title philosopher is not an empty honorific. Gulen is not explicitly named philosopher by reliable third parties, perhaps this may change in a few decades, but in that case we simply have to wait until that time. Arnoutf (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any job description like "philosopher". I am afraid you have a misunderstanding of the term. Almost all philosophers have their belief systems and based on their references they try to understand and explain existence, universe, its relation with God, etc. Gulen does just that in his written books. A person studying and teaching philosophy, even for years, could be classified as a professor, not a philosopher. Philosophers are thinkers who think and produce explanations for unsolved mysteries of human nature. Caroll is a reliable third party, impartial outsider, a reputable social scientist in a higly regarded scientific institution compares Gulen with the most famous philosophers of human history. That itself is a clear evidence of the case. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. Intestingly, his own website (http://en.fgulen.com/about-fethullah-gulen/introducing-fethullah-gulen) list many things he is which does NOT include philosopher. "Fethullah Gülen is an authoritative mainstream Turkish Muslim scholar, thinker, author, poet, opinion leader and educational activist". So the title philosopher remains unsourced and dubious. Arnoutf (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be comical, would not it? Do you know any one describes himself/herself as a philosopher? By the way, if he would do so, you would start arguing that it is a self-published claim and cannot be accepted?!... 107.10.147.174 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So far the sources that label Gulen as philosopher are zero, he does not even call himself a philosopher. Actually it seems only Wikipedia wants to call him philosopher explicitly, and THAT would be original research.
 * And yes I can show for example [] where Daniel Dennett describes him self asprofessor of Philosophy. In my view it all comes down to the definition of philosopher in the current (modern English) context. Is being a philosopher (A) a job description? In that case a respected entity should have appointed the person to a philosophy post. This is not the case for Gulen (but is for Dennett). Or is it (B) an honoric title granted to a thinker? In that case Gulen would probably qualify, but so should hundreds, if not thousands of scholars and practitioners in a broad range of disicplines. Obviously I support definition (A) of philosopher. But if you can come up with compelling evidence that definition (B) is in common use in the English language for modern scholars I might be willing to reconsider. Arnoutf (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Being professor of philosophy is different far different from being philosopher as I tried to explain above. I do not think that philosopher is a job description at all. For me it is not a title to honor people either: it is rather a descriptive word to describe a person doing certain things as I mentioned above. Moreover, I added a new ref and a few others are below use the word philosopher for Gulen (you can search the word "filozof" corresponds to "philosopher" in Turkish):
 * http://www.haberler.gen.al/2009-05-22/kazak-aydinlardan-fethullah-gulene-selam-var-ozel/ Kazakhistan thinkers think that Gulen is a philosopher, expressed in a scholarly meeting
 * http://www.gazetegercek.com/erasmus-ve-gulen-sempozyumu-kitaplastirildi.html A new book compares philosophies of Gulen and Erasmus
 * http://www.alevi.dk/BASIN%20ARSIV/Fethullah%20i%20oven%20izzettin%20Dogan%20a%20Tepki%20Yagiyor.htm Alevi leader harshly criticized for supporting Gulen in alevi circles. He also use the same word: philosopher to describe Gulen
 * http://daplatform.org/2058 A workshop discussing influential philosophers of modern era, including Gulen
 * http://gulen4humanity.blogspot.com/2011/05/fethullah-gulens-philosophy-of.html An article about his philosophy of eduaction
 * And a name I just searched in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_religion): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich
 * I agree, philosophy is something someone does (either as a job or for whatever reasons). However, repairing a motorcycle is also something some people do, and that is not generally seen as philosophy. Let's consider the opening of the Wikipedia article on philosophy "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument." I do agree that Gulen studies general and fundamental problems associated with the Islam in the modern era. However I am not fully convinced he does this in a critical way based on rational arguments. This is problematic for many believers as a critical analysis of holy texts requires one to seriously reconsider these texts, and is for example the reason why the current pope should not be called a philosopher (as he does not critically and rationally reviews bible texts but accepts these as starting point), but Tillich probably should be, as he reinterpreted the bible and connected existentialist philosophy with Christian revelations.
 * I said the "philosopher does something as explained above"; that means what it does is explained in my earlier post. No place to compare with a motorcyclist here. Your definition of philosophy and similar definitions are the reason why I believe that philosopher is the best word to describe him. Gulen is also a modernist philosopher, jut like Tillich. Gulen is reinterpreting so many areas of Islamic concepts using modern terminology of social sciences. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * However, this all said, even if we agree he would be a philosopher in the modern English use of the term, that would still be our own synthesis of sources and hence original research and we would still need an English language source to support that.
 * You changed your argument now from "no one uses that word" to "no English sources uses the word". I do not know, maybe somebody did, but anyways, it is not necessary the English sources uses that. His philosophy is studied in international meetings of social scientists and he is named as philosopher. He is new to western world and current uses already enough for this title; considering Caroll's book which compares him to the most famous philosophers, other references listed in the article, and just above. His philosophy of education is discussed in an article as documented separately and it is in English. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This all said, we are now splitting hairs over a single word. I had another look at the lede, and it is problematic at a more important level, i.e. that it is no longer a summary of the article below but lists a lot of unique facts. My suggestion would be to restructure the lede much more according to the article as follows: (1) Gulen the person - Links to biography section - is now already para 1 of the lede (2) Gulens theology - Links to theology section - is now para 3 in lede (3) Gulens societal involvement - Links to e.g. interfaith dialogue (now subsection) some of his views and Gulen movement (now not discussed) (4) Reactions on Gulen (Media attention, praise and controversies) - The information is there in the article but scattered around. Arnoutf (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The structure of the lede seems to be very compact and nice to me. I made a minor reorganization. Moreover it is very parallel to what you listed above, imo. P1: Gulen himself, P2: his ideas and schools, which is one of the main component of the movement, P3: interfaith dialogue; another main important component. P3: reactions. If you still like to discuss further, let us copy the section here and and analyze the lede paragraph by paragraph. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say wait & see Yakamoz51 (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hanafi
Mr Gülen is absolutely not Hanafi. He is Shafi'i or Baha'i, but not Hanafi. He calls himself a Shafi'i but there are some books about him saying that he is actually a Baha'i missionary. It is certian that he is not of school of Hanafism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.168.47.65 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

tagged
I've tagged this with peacock and spam as the sources just do not look like WP:RS --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"one of the world's most important Muslim figures .... described as one of the world's leading Muslim movements.... the subject of several academic studies. ... proclaimed ideal is to promote peaceful coexistence, and dialog of civilizations[14] at the international scale,[15][16][17]  and to see a renaissance of the modern Muslim world in the local scale.[18]  In many countries schools are opened according to his philosophy. These schools are intended to promote peace and dialog in general[8][19][20]  and offer a moderate vision of Islam in Muslim countries. ... traditional mainstream Islam.[23]  Gülen condemns any kind of terrorism,[24]  and supports interfaith dialog among the people of the book. He initiated such dialogue with the Vatican and some Jewish organizations by meeting Jewish and Christian  leaders, including the Pope." ... not very NPOV --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Untagged. Please be aware that 20 people already rated this version of the article as good, average 4/5 in all aspects. Make more responsible changes and discuss your edits instead of asking others to do so in your tags. you need to explain what are "not very NPOV" in the quotes. All statements are supported by reliable sources and references. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And how many of these 20 were Gulen supporters? Wikipedia is not a democracy. you will nead content relevant arguments rather than a poll. Arnoutf (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And how many of them are Gulen enemies? Maybe all of them, except me; they just liked the article?.. People supporting a version should be thinking that the version is full of content relevant arguments. Or you have a conspiracy theory? Or are you the only to decide about relevancy of the arguments? 107.10.147.174 (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, we do not know that. And that is the reason we should put little value in these polls: we cannot distinguish between people who score to promote (or degrade) the subject, and those who objectively assess the quality of arguments. Arnoutf (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, we can put little value to it, but it still has some value. I think that is why they generated such polls, aren't they? "Wikipedia is not democracy" should not mean that it is a tool of censorship, degradation, or manipulation as dictated by JW or someone else, right? If there is no evidence otherwise, a straightforward, optimistic, neutral approach would be: people liked it and scored the article high. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed some people liked it and scored it highly. I have never suggested anything else. You, however, have infered some kind of true and objective quality value of the article to these likings, not me. Also it is absolutely unclear how many people liked the early July version, and how many people liked the article after your dramatic, biased and undiscussed changes of early July. Arnoutf (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clear! The poll was started after my neutral, unbiased edits. I discussed my edits and offered further discussions above, even with/to you. I have been the third person voted for the article and the scores was even higher than today. Since than, I watched the votes carefully up until today. It was not surprising for me that people liked the article in all aspects. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a poll.
 * Indeed you discussed the infallacy of your edits to (not with) me. However a discussion with someone is a dialogue which will inevitably lead to some changes in the position of both. The edits you made were not influenced in any relevant way by my arguments, so no dialogue has been going on, instead this was somewhat of a hostile take-over of the article followed by a war of atrition in compiling evermore flawed arguments in the hope I would get tired of it, so you could win and shape this article to represent the divine nature of the infallible Gulen as represented by his holy disciple 107...... Arnoutf (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You called it a "poll" above too? I discussed with you whenever you have an argument. From your statements, it looks like you do not assume good faith to other editors, try to read their intentions, and getting sarcastic. It would be much better if you do not consider this as a battle and avoid inclining to conspiracy theories instead of the facts. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No you interpret it as a poll. So you agree there is no conspiracy involved in removing the unsourced reference to Gulen as a philosopher and there is no problem removing everything supported by demonstrably biased (read Zaman and Gulen.org) sources.
 * Thank you, I will do that and set it back to the stable version of early July (which has been up without hardly any discussion or reversion for about a year!!!). Arnoutf (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is evident of your conspiracy theories. All information on the page are verified by many reliable, scientific, third party references as we discussed before under another title above. Removing verified sources is censoring and vandalism, and is not a good practice in any media. I reverted back to the normal, stable version supported by many reviewers as indicated the poll under the page. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 107, do you seriously think your version of the article is going to withstand an examination by wikipedia, starting with a RfC? Most of the criticism leveled is of Gulen's movement, (which already has a big criticism section), rather them him personally, but not to include a sourced statement along the lines of "his influence has been criticized for lack of transparency" is censorship. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks this will shock you, but, yes, I certainly believe that the article can withstand an examination. And it looks I am not alone in this opinion. You can start a criticism section of course but it should also be in a neutral tone. If you add a comment by a journalist, you should be willing to add a response to it by another one. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the history of this article, previous RfC, and previous peer reviews, I am confident this article can withstand the examination of Gulen supporters, like user:Philscirel and his host of socks, but not of objective editors. Arnoutf (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you mean this by your statement above "Indeed some people liked it and scored it highly. I have never suggested anything else"? 107.10.147.174 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It is you after all Philscirel
Your latest edit summaries removed the last bit of doubts I had. IP 107.10.147.174 is acting like Philscirel on all typical behaviours now. I have requested a sockpuppet investigation and will repair damage done to the article after its conclusion. Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And blocked, I have reverted to the version before 107..... started editing. We need to take it from there to undo the harm done. Arnoutf (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

tweeks to structure
I made some tweeks to the structure. The lede now follows the same order as the rest: (1) Biography (2) Theology (3) Involvement in contemporary societal issues. In my view this is a clear structure, and one that allows for neutral reporting. Arnoutf (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR accusation
A new anonimous editor (75.118.134.234), without any prior edits just accused (probably) me of 3RR violation here. I did indeed revert or replace edits by anon user 107.....etc 3 times within 24 hours. The last time however was made AFTER the anon user 107.. was blocked for being a sockpuppet of banned user:Philscirel. WP:3RRNO makes an explicit exemption for reverting sockpuppets; which I explicitly mentioned in the edit summary of my final revert. Therefor the grounds for reverting of anon user 75.... are not justified and, if anything, show lack of assumption of good faith. Arnoutf (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Intereesting detail: Both 107.10.147.174 and 75.118.134.234 are located in ***************** according to http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip. Makes you wonder.... Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see why putting up the publicly available information that both IP's are in Columbus, Ohio, US (a city with 750,000+ inhabitants) is a personal attack or even giving away personal information as (1) Being pinned to such a large city is unlikely to give away your specific details (2) this information is freely available on the internet, and only a few clicks away, so hardly sensitive. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

tweeks to structure
I made some tweeks to the structure. The lede now follows the same order as the rest: (1) Biography (2) Theology (3) Involvement in contemporary societal issues. In my view this is a clear structure, and one that allows for neutral reporting. Arnoutf (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR accusation
A new anonimous editor (75.118.134.234), without any prior edits just accused (probably) me of 3RR violation here. I did indeed revert or replace edits by anon user 107.....etc 3 times within 24 hours. The last time however was made AFTER the anon user 107.. was blocked for being a sockpuppet of banned user:Philscirel. WP:3RRNO makes an explicit exemption for reverting sockpuppets; which I explicitly mentioned in the edit summary of my final revert. Therefor the grounds for reverting of anon user 75.... are not justified and, if anything, show lack of assumption of good faith. Arnoutf (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Intereesting detail: Both 107.10.147.174 and 75.118.134.234 are located in ***************** according to http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip. Makes you wonder.... Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see why putting up the publicly available information that both IP's are in Columbus, Ohio, US (a city with 750,000+ inhabitants) is a personal attack or even giving away personal information as (1) Being pinned to such a large city is unlikely to give away your specific details (2) this information is freely available on the internet, and only a few clicks away, so hardly sensitive. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Arnoutf edit log on this biography page
Arnoutf filed a sockpuppet case against me and it had immediately approved by someone even without allowing me to respond as I was blocked. While trying to understand the case I had to read through the earlier discussion pages. I realized that Arnoutf did the same for many other editors and forced them quit. There are also very serious accusations from vandalism and page blanking to falsifying info sources and adding racist remarks against Arnoutf as listed by some editors far ago and the claims are justified using Arnoutf's own edits. Here the previous accusations are:

Arnoutf's edit log

Frankly his racial comments about Turks reminded me Brevik's manifest in Norway.

I listed a few more comments below I have been observing during my editing experience to the page so that someone can stop Arnoutf doing more harm to the page. I tried to avoid repeating the same arguments although I agree most of the points listed before.


 * Arnoutf's is presenting content disputes as violation of Wikipedia rules and NPOV policy to have other editors blocked and quit. He is very successful in that which needs to be addressed by administrative body. He declares his version as the consensus version after pushing everybody away from the page 1.
 * A striking evidence of his strong POV binding is the main dispute over the descriptive word: "philosopher" I have been using for Gulen. Although the statement is verified by reliable sources 1, and although he had to admit propriety of the word 1, 2, he still cannot stop himself removing that statement 1 without any discussion. He even change the whole article just because his POV is not shared with other editors solely on this issue as the other parts of the lede section are mostly agreed upon 1.
 * It looks Arnoutf is already blocked over edit war on this page but still violating 3RR as can be seen here: 1, 2, 3 using nonsense edit summaries. When he cannot continue to discuss using reasonable arguments, he starts an edit war using Wikirules as pretexts.
 * During my edit period, the page was vandalized by some Gulen enemies differently from how Arnoutf has been doing; mainly by adding insulting statements. Although Arnoutf is very quick in reverting my edits, he has never, ever reverted any such vandalism in his edit history. This seems to be an indication of his motivation.
 * It is important to see that rating of the page after my edits and organization at the end of the page was highest: it was above 4/5 in all aspects of the article with 23 participants. After his massive reverts and removal of tens of reliable, scientific sources, the rating is now about 2/5 in objectivity and about 2.5/5 overall ratings. This is a clear evidence that Arnoutf, his aggressive POV pushing and owning the article harm the article and reduce its quality.
 * He also does not assume good faith attacks personally. In his last personal attack Arnoutf has added my personnel information (location) to the discussion page to justify his accusations. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A similar note raised to the administrators' attention. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Taken all together I think this is rather sad. The current article probably presents the case through a Western perspective and Philscirels view would definitely add context and perspective to the article (as I argued as far back as 2008, and probably the reason why I engage in discussion before demanding a sockpuppet investigation). However, and this is a big thing, a more global perspective should definitely take account of neutrality according to the highest standards. Perhaps it is me being an academic (supervising BSc, MSc and PhD theses and having several dozens of papers in peer reviewed international journals) that demands that the sources are reliable and neutral and that the content of the sources is not overinterpreted (as would be the case with the (rather trivial) philosopher issue), but that is where I draw the line: i.e. stay close to reliable secondary (or tertiary sources); especially in the cases where truth is somewhat subjective, as it is in social sciences and humanities. If other parties are not prepared to respect that, I think the lesser of evils is to lose the broader perspective and follow Wikipedia policies concerning provided evidence for claims. My continued willingness to discuss on this page, however, has resulted in me being led by the trolling ways of the Philscirel socks, that seemingly discuss reasonably but are not willing to concede even a minor point (like structure of the lede). Thus, we sadly do not get the full scope of the argument, as most editors who follow the Wikipedia ideals and do provide the required rigous of argumentation tend to be somewhat more critical than positive about the subject. (PS as an active member of a left wing social democratic green party I will not even comment on unfounded accusations above) Arnoutf (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And 107.... is blocked for a month being Philscirel Sockpuppet, I reverted the edits as being sockpuppet edits (being revertable at all times). Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

not the 100 thinkers again please
As the editors of prospect acknowledge, this vote was hi-jacked by Gulen supporters after best selling Gulen supporting journal Zaman asked people to vote for Gulen. The difference between the 2005 list (first person with Muslim background at position 10) compared to 2008 (first person WITHOUT Muslim background at position 11) see Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll is revealing as that would imply (Note I do not claim that the 2005 poll is more valid compared to the 2008 poll - only considering the results that) : (1) Between 2005 and 2008 a global cultural revolution has taken place that changed the worldwide view of who the most important intellectuals are. Such a landslide should of course be reported in many many reliable sources, which I cannot find anywhere; and should therefore be considered extremely unlikely. (2) If 1 is not the case, than the only alternative is that the methods for collecting these opinions are fundamentally flawed (as either the 2005 or the 2008 results or both must be considered unreliable), making all such results are intrinsically unreliable making such internet polls mere trivia and therefore not worthy of mention (per WP:TRIVIA). Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

about woman rules
http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/2000/issue4/jv4n4a4.ht this link is broken, and not telling the truth.I removed this sentence.now it's correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.11.120.181 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretending to be scientific, democratic and tolerant, Fethullah Gülen has never tolerated any violation of Sharia Law. For him Islamic values are vastly superior to secular values. So at least in the long run Gülen advocates the Nizam Islami (Islamic Order, Islamic System). 79.251.125.1 (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Gülen and Shariah Law
Pretending to be scientific, democratic and tolerant, Fethullah Gülen has never tolerated any violation of Shariah Law. For him Islamic values are vastly superior to secular values. So at least in the long run Gülen advocates the Nizam Islami (Islamic Order, Islamic System). 79.251.125.1 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism (added to discuss outside article space before readding)
According to Gulen, mythological mystic-metaphoric stories about prophets and of course of Mohammad, totally true and real. For example fictitious characters and stories such as Adam ‘s creation from clay, Eve, Noah, Lokman, Khidr (Green man), satan, jinns, angels, iblis, ifrites etc. According to Ihsan Eliachik an Islamic scholar F. Gulen’s ideas consist of not criticised or questioned ones. That is to say he had not throwed falsehood back and what his done is a new propagation of what was in past in a new way.

Above quote from the Ihsan eliacik is poorly written. Original Ihsan eliacik source has been reviewed. What he means has not been reflected in the above information. So I just removed that part from the article.--GlobeNthink (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edip Yuksel, one of the Quranist Muslim author, described Gulen as an ordinary mullah because of Gulen's view of cleaning and removing of bidat’s and superstitions from islamic believes and practices as a destructive action. Also accepts of some mythological- fictive traditions such as Gevshen’ul Kebir as true Islamic believes and practices by Gulen criticised by Yuksel.

Some Gulen’s arguments and teachings about heterodox Islamic groups were criticized as agressive.

F.Gulen as an Nur movement leader, radiates Said Nursi’s idioms and teachings in his sermonts. In case of secularism and of founder of secular republic in Turkey M. Kemal Atatürk F. Gulen has a different arguments from Nursi's teachings. That is to say according to Said Nursi’s opinion, M.Kemal Ataturk was sufyani dajjal and was a tyrant.

According to Gulen, Quran'ic narrations are totally full of right teachings. Gulen gave new interpretations to some expressions in Qur'anic stories criticized as a bad copy of the holy book by some Christian claims,  thus  Mary became Aaron’s (spiritual) sister instead of Miryam, in the Bible, on the contrary of normative meanings by Qur'anic usage.

Theology
Gulen does not advocate a new theology but refers to classical authorities of theology and takes up their line of argument. His understanding of Islam tends to be conservative and mainstream. Though he has never been a member of a Sufi tarekat and does not see tarekat membership as a necessity for Muslims, he teaches that Sufism is the inner dimension of Islam and the inner and outer dimensions must never be separated.

His teachings differ in emphasis from those of other mainstream, moderate Islamic scholars in two respects, both based on his interpretations of particular verses of the Quran: (1) he teaches that the Muslim community has a duty of service (Turkish: hizmet) to the “common good” of the community and the nation and to Muslims and non-Muslims all over the world; and (2), the Muslim community is obliged to conduct interfaith dialogue with the "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians). Although this does not extend to other religions and atheists. In fact he appears to be intolerant of atheism, as in 2004 Gülen commented to the effect that terrorism was as despicable as atheism. In a follow-up interview he explained he did not intend to equate atheists and murderers; rather, he wanted to highlight the fact that according to Islam both were destined to suffer eternal punishment.

Islamic beliefs and myths; Mystical-epic stories about Muhammad and of prophets decorated with surreal detailed elements, take place in prophetic biography books named Ahmadiyya,  Muhammediyye etc. Except scientific studies, the interest of society and of employees in profession of religious issues on these narratives, extends through “power of stories" rather than reality,  they are told throughout history.

Fethullah Gulen uses plenty of these religious narratives on his sermons. Some of these unworldly characters are devils,  gins,  angels and the legendary fictional characters such as Seven sleepers, Khidr, Lukman, Adam, Eve, Noah, and stories associated with them. Gulen’s ascription them completely reality rather than scientific perspective and objectivity, is remarkable.

Science and education
Another educational - scientific perspectives; Gulen's arguments according creation and of evolution is conservative; evolution is a Charles Darwin’s heresy. According to Gulen this is a heretic disbelief, and in these topics every man and women must be treated brainwashing and conditioning.

Secularism and sharia
Sharia; Gulen says sharia was equated with Islam generally. According to Gulen in democratic-secular countries ninety-five percent of Islamic principles permissible and practically feasible, and not a problem with them. And five percent remainder not worthy to fight.

Women's roles, Islamic veil, hijab
Changes on sexist understandings; Fethullah Gülen and his community’s attitudes offers some examples of social phenomena defined as “the changing face of devoutness over time"; In first period preaches and conferences (woman and the veiling of women in Islam conference by Gulen) Gulen’s expressions that Islam requires a woman absolute hijab and veils including covering her face, changed in time, Islam in the fact neither closed nor imprisoned women to home and the headscarf is not a fard, but a matter of a variety. Another concrete example of this may be seen in the comments about women of the community in every morning and evening prayer refuge in Allah from the evils of women's repeated three times.

Criticism
Changes of Fethullah Gulen's attitudes on some religious issues in time, taking and dissemination efforts of theological resources and mythological elements of these sources without any debugging, approaches to bidat’s and superstitions by him has some criticism within the theological environment and in the community itself.

--

New criticism section from article space
Anon user 46.196.241.178 added a large section on criticizm recently. I had removed this previously but it was readded. So instead of removing altogether I am moving it to talk for improvement and discussion now.

The section has multiple serious issues, which need to be solved adequately, the more so since this is a biography of a living person: 1) It seems to be largely original research as most of it appears synthesised from many arguments and (primary) sources 2) Used sources are of various quality and far from all reliable sources 3) The section is extremely long in the context of the article and may place undue emphasis on this, which in itself shows a non neutral point of view. 4) The language is extremely poor, and the tone and style are often unencyclopedic.

All these issues need to be solved prior to readding (if we think this section needs to be there at all). Either here or offline Arnoutf (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Means we avoid dedicated sections of endless critique of a living person. for balance it should be inline with the rest of the article. And preferable in proper English unlike that stuff i just deleted which, as an English speaker. i could not understand. --Inayity (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * revert back to old version.
 * I revert the article back to version: 13:12, 14 March 2013‎ by Arnoutf. Because there was a systematic major change w/o discussion since then by an IP. 86.36.66.12 (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Contributions or major changes
My contributions and minor regulations regarded as major changes by some users, discuss on this topic, please.88.250.221.177 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If I look at the edit summaries for the removal of your text, the problems are that much of the textr is very hard to understand because of poor English (actually your comment above is hard to read for the same reason). It is important that the text is of good quality and understandable before we even start to consider its contribution. We cannot proofread and correct additions of 10000 characters at one time. Try more modest edits (sentences instead of paragraphs) and work with other editors to get these sentences in high quality English instead. Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Some corrections made on text, if there is not any objection it will be added to article.88.250.221.177 (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Language is still very poor in the following text. Also it contains poorly sourced contentious material that should not included in the living persons bio.--GlobeNthink (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Awards
Fethullah gulen received several awards from independent organizations. I am planning to include them under Awards section. --GlobeNthink (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If these are notable rewards, granted by notable organisations independent of Gulen, and reported in reliable sources this is fine (e.g. an award granted by the local high school is not sufficiently notable). Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

An example: East-West Institute, a well recognized think-tank institution in U.S. and in the world, awarded him for 2011 peace building award. Source:http://www.ewi.info/annualreport page 39. More info on East-West Institute: http://www.ewi.info/who-we-are --GlobeNthink (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * EastWest Institute is notable enough for mentioning on Wikipedia, whether this goes for this specific award (not page 39 of the report) is in itself notable needs a bit more justification in my opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

More useful info for the Article
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_4_fethullah-gulen.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.5.67.73 (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

new comment
Fettullah Gulen is a highly controversial figure in Turkey. Any NPOV edit regarding Gulen's well-known strategy to infiltrate Turkish state institutions and use them for the Movement's political objectives gets reverted. Gulen himself orders his followers to infiltrate Turkish state institutions. See his own statement here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.144.228 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not very useful as not in English. In any case, what do you mean with your statement above, and how do you propose to improve the article with it? Arnoutf (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to underline my point again. This article has a strong bias towards the subject. It is a well known fact that police force led by Fetullah Gulen's "imams" has arrested over two thousand Kurdish journalists, politicians and civil society activists in the last 3 years. They have also arrested several journalists merely because they dared to write a book about Fetullah Gulen; Nedim Sener, Ahmet Sik, Soner Yalcin to name a few. Now the page on the other side of this talk, talks about "allegations," "civil society," "denials" blah blah blah. The page should state what it is out there, rather than repeating Gulen followers' disinformation. Wikipedia is not anyone's propaganda machine. It should not be. Here is the transcription of the tape i linked above. "Alleged," come on, we know better than that. Anyone who can read Turkish and are not followers of Gulen knows better than that.

"You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria … like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. The time is not yet right. You must wait for the time when you are complete and conditions are ripe, until we can shoulder the entire world and carry it … You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey … Until that time, any step taken would be too early—like breaking an egg without waiting the full forty days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside. The work to be done is [in] confronting the world. Now, I have expressed my feelings and thoughts to you all—in confidence … trusting your loyalty and secrecy. I know that when you leave here—[just] as you discard your empty juice boxes, you must discard the thoughts and the feelings that I expressed here." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.144.228 (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

POV and Sourcing problem in Split with Erdoğan section
I think there are several POV and Sourcing Problem in Split with Erdoğan section. I will give examples on only some of them:
 * Section says: These arrests led to the 2013 corruption scandal in Turkey, which the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP)'s supporters (along with Erdoğan himself) and the opposition parties alike have said was choreographed by Gülen (…) . Section references a BBC source.
 * But in the source there is no such claim
 * Section says: (…) revealed the existence of a well-organized and powerful "parallel state" directed by Gülen himself (…) . Section references a BBC source.
 * But in the source there is no such claim

It seems to me that somebody placed those reliable sources to support his POV w/o looking what is inside the references.

Lastly, Please do not remove Template:POV-Section until we reach some conclusion on the subject. Yakamoz51 (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

He is not a "cleric"
As there is no clergy in Sunni Islam. I see this is a very common misconception. --Mttll (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Death on 22 June 2015?
I heard it here, on Twitter. I am trying to get an NPOV source to cite for the article.--FeralOink (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Fethullah Gülen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041212092651/http://www.biu.ac.il:80/SOC/besa/meria/journal/2000/issue4/jv4n4a4.html to http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/2000/issue4/jv4n4a4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927235413/http://wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21432 to http://wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21432
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100206155723/http://press.princeton.edu:80/titles/8412.html to http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8412.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

REVERTING to invite for bold, revert, discuss cycle and 3rd opinion
I reverted one major (and appearing to be biased) edit by Alasss123 to invite him for bold, revert, discuss cycle and 3rd opinion. Please join us for 3rd opinion. I recommend not to make any major edit until a consensus. Thank you.--Yakamoz51 (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2016
can 'leader of Gulenist Terror Organisation (FETO)' to  'leader of Gulenist Organisation (FETO)' since there is no evidence that this organisation is linked to any terrorist activities nor the military coup. seems like propaganda

TheTruthLiesInfrontOfYou (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you. GABgab 14:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article should mention that Erdogan's government has designated the Gülen movement as terror organisation after their split in 2013. However since as long as that is only the view of the AKP government it shouldn't be as alternative article name in bold print in the lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hidden Armenians
Some resours says that Fethullah Gulen is Hidden Armenians  http://asekose.am/ru_RU/news/20/209791-glavniy-vrag-erdogana---fetulla-gulen---armanin-po-nacionalynosti.html and http://asekose.am/ru_RU/news/20/209791-glavniy-vrag-erdogana---fetulla-gulen---armanin-po-nacionalynosti.html  --Kaiyr (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic
Is he kurd?--Kaiyr (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Doubt it.. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, he is not kurd. Said Nursî is. --87.156.239.30 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016
Erhfb (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC) which has been

designated by the Turkish state as a terrorist organization under the name

Gulenist Terrorist Organization (FETO) or Parallel State Structure (PSS) (http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2016/07/20160723.pdf

Gülen is actively involved in the societal debate concerning the future of the

Turkish state, and Islam in the modern world. He has been described in the

English-language media as an imam &quot;who promotes a tolerant Islam which

emphasises altruism, hard work and education&quot; and as &quot;one of the world&#39;s most

important Muslim figures, although cables divulged by wikileaks show the

U.S. Department of State described Mr. Gulen as “a ‘radical Islamist’ whose

moderate message cloaks a more sinister and radical agenda.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/21/abraham-wagner- gulen- movement-a- threat-to- us-turke/ Erhfb (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * WP link seems to be mistyped. Bromley86 (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Excuse me http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/21/abraham-wagner-gulen-movement-a-threat-to-us-turke/

http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2016/07/20160723.pdf Erhfb (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Cheers. No good, I'm afraid.  The Wikileaks cable doesn't have State calling him a "radical islamist", merely the chief rabbi reporting his belief that "parts of the U.S. government [believe] that he is a 'radical Islamist'".  Very different.  Bromley86 (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Abraham Wagner is not "a chief rabbi" (!?) - but a Senior Fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies on Terrorism.--87.159.127.129 (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Mass changes?
Cheers,. You reverted my "mass changes". They were many, but only little edits concerning footnotes ect. I added only one new ref. Which chnage do you want to discusse? --87.156.230.57 (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you know how to do that? It's your first edit. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 23:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, my Darling! I contribute to WP since 2004/2005 in French, German, Portuguese and some times even English ;-) Boa noite, Amiga, e muitos beijinhos.--87.156.230.57 (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you want to discusse any changes? --87.156.239.30 (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Anonymous edits to sensitive articles like this are subject to pending changes review, and while I don't know enough about your edit to accept or deny it based on its content, I rejected it because it's very suspicious when anonymous users know how to do this stuff. Please, please do not install edits like this without an account. If you have an account at other languages' Wikipedias, you should have an account here too. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 16:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it very hard to assume good faith in this IP's case. His 8 edits to the article dramatically changed the content and tone. I agree with RunnyAmiga's concern, these kind of edits made by what appears to be an otherwise experienced editor, editing without being logged into an account on a sensible subject looks very suspicios. I believe even the simple fact that "primary school graduate" was left in the opening paragraph would be enough for a reasonable person to raise an eyebrow. The validity of the rest of the content is also highly debatable. ComplexParadigm (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * These are not little or minor edits. As ComplexParadigm argues above the edits change tone and content. With that the opening statement of the anon editors can not be accepted. To the anon editor - if you enter multiple edits into an article as sensitive as this one, it is up to you to find consensus for each single one before adding; not to other editors to weigh each individual edit on its merits. A blanket revert is only to be expected in such a case (and although I don't like blanket reverts in my view even justified here). Arnoutf (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Refs

 * 1) Assoc. Press: "One of Turkeys most-wanted clerics lives quietly in the Poconos": "... Turkey’s increasingly autocratic president, Recip Erdogan, has accused Gulen of plotting to overthrow the officially secular government from his Pennsylvania idyll ...." LINK
 * 2) Newsweek: "Turkey said on Monday it would strip citizenship from 130 people suspected of militant links, including the U.S.-based cleric it blames for orchestrating last July’s failed coup, unless they return to the country within three months. In a list of what it called fugitives from justice, the interior ministry named Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen, pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) lawmakers Faysal Sariyildiz and Tugba Hezer, and former HDP lawmaker Ozdal Ucer. Gulen, who has lived in self-imposed exile in Pennsylvania since 1999, has denied involvement in the coup and condemned it." LINK
 * 3) NYTimes: "[Mr. Erdogan] added that 'we do not see the same response from our strategic partner,' and called Mr. Gulen a terrorist. LINK--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Anti Kurdish ???
If he was anti Kurdish, why his supporters open schools and educate Kurdish people in Kurdistan and other Kurdish sites.Also, I have seen lots of Kurdish people who love him.I am a Kurdish person,too.He is also advicer of first private Kurdish TV channel in Turkey,which name is Dunya Tv.At the same time his books are translated to Kurdish at all accents.Opposite of the stuff written here, he always gives examples from Said Nursi's teachings in his preaches.Even he calls him "Bediuzzaman" which means "unique beauty of the time" and "Ustad" which means "Master".Have a look: Kurdyoung (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Gulen movement purge
"'A Turkish prosecutor recently accused the Vatican of appointing Mr Gulen as a 'secret cardinal' in the 1990s.'--September 10, 2016 The Economist"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fethullah Gülen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140917203545/http://en.fgulen.com/content/view/1052/14/ to http://en.fgulen.com/content/view/1052/14/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140311183400/http://tr.fgulen.com/content/section/30/3 to http://tr.fgulen.com/content/section/30/3/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110919100055/http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2000/issue4/jv4n4a4.html to http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2000/issue4/jv4n4a4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051028004718/http://www.meforum.org/article/404 to http://www.meforum.org/article/404

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Could we get an IPA transcription of this name?
Complete with indication of stressed syllables, please?--IfYouDoIfYouDon&#39;t (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

W rgd the subject's more than 40 books written to that date, the USCIS had argued not one was scholarly?
Where the blp "seat-of-the-pantses" it to the effect that lawyers for the USCIS refuted Gulen's claims his scores of books were scholarly is inaccurate. (For what their arguments were in actuality, see [LINK https://books.google.com/books?id=-nwTCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA59&dq=].)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully understand any distrustful mindset across the American political spectrum and w/in whatever US Administration w rgd some allegedly moderate Islamist wanting to base him- or herself in the US. That said, just 'cos no-name US-gov. functionaries @ the USCIS/wherever pooh-pooh mister Gulen, the renowned adept in Ottomanism/Arabicism's, scholarly bonafides (whose work's admired by the likes of such Middle Eastern studies hands as Dale Eickelman, John Esposito, and John Voll ) doesn't mean Wikipedia need follow suit. Of course, the Young Turks shared other folks-of-the-West's distrust, as above, carefully bifurcating Turkish state religious instruction from that of professions in secular areas, so, the young reverend Gulen could only become an autodidact in secular areas. For sourcing: High-brow pubs e.g London's The Economist and US-based Foreign Policy magazines have labeled Gülen a "most influential Muslim scholar"/placed him on an published list of the world's "top 100 public intellectuals" of whatever stripe, respectively.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

2011 break w Erdogan
Institute for Security and Development Policy: "In the 2011 elections, less than a handful of Gülenists were allowed in the party lists; Gülen responded by publishing an article on “arrogance”, naming no names but allowing his spokesmen to take on a visibly critical tone toward Erdoğan."--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Muhammet Fethullah Gülen.jpg

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fethullah gulen.jpg
 * Fetullah Gülen.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Portraitoffgulen.jpg

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fethullah Gülen namaz oncesi dua.jpg
 * Fethullah Gülen yazıları.jpg
 * Fethullah gulen dersten.jpg