Talk:Gülen movement

Marginal and long statement in the infobox

@Ecrusized You added “designated as terrorist organization” claims in the infobox, but this a heavily contested claim. Only the Turkish government which is not democratic government and a small number of its political allies recognize the movement as a terrorist organization, while all the major democratic states (EU, US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) explicitly do not . Per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, this designation should be attributed and discussed in the article body, not stated without context in the infobox .

The terrorist claim is already in the body and should stay there kromium (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Unforgvn20 (talk · contribs) Your editing history shows that your account entirely focused on promoting this organization. This includes your removal of the terrorist designation from the infobox a few months ago. Something which had been placed there for over 8 years. There is really no point in arguing with you on this topic, since your account's sole purpose is to promote the Gulen Movement. Nevertheless I'll say that the terrorist designation by the Gulf Cooperation Council and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which have over 57 member countries is a massive WP:DUE to warrant inclusion at the infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

== Infobox Designation and WP:NPOV Compliance ==

@Ecrusized

Previously I attempted to balance the infobox by adding the counterclaim that major democratic governments reject this designation. Later on someone noted these don't belong to the infobox so I have removed both the claim and counterclaim, so it was not that I only removed the pro claim. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, this should not be presented as a global consensus in the infobox, especially as none of the democratic governments recognize this status.

At the time of the OIC resolution Freedom House categorized 34 of the 57 OIC members as "Not Free" and 20 as "Partly Free". All of the Gulf Cooperation members are listed as authoritarion and "Not Free" regimes.

To maintain neutrality, we should avoid giving "undue weight" to a designation recognized primarily by one authoritarian state and its political allies.

Some of the international bodies and democratic governments that rejected the terrorist designation are below; besides Norway, South Korea, New Zealand , Switzerland , so none of the democratic governments accepted the terrorist claim:

• United Nations: The WGAD has stated that the basis for these designations often lacks legal merit. "Working Group on Arbitrary Detention". United Nations Human Rights Council. 2019.
• European Union(27 countries): Has stated it requires "concrete evidence" currently not provided by Turkey. "EU says needs concrete evidence from Turkey to deem Gulen network as terrorist". Reuters. 2017.
• United States: "Daily Press Briefing - June 1, 2016". U.S. Department of State.
• Australia: DFAT Country Information Report: Türkiye (PDF) (Report). Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2016.
• Japan: "Turkish ambassador urges Japan to crack down on businesses backing Gulen". The Japan Times. 2016.

Other government-related references are already integrated into the main text

kromium (talk) kromium (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Unforgvn20 (talk · contribs) You're a single purpose account. I am assuming that you're either a member of this organization, or you're being paid for them to remove their controversies from Wikipedia. Which is not allowed. You're argument completely lack genuineness. This is a Muslim organization, that has been designated as a terrorist organization by ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES. And you trying to play this off as WP:UNDUE is the clearest example of conflict of interest I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Ecrusized (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Kromium has responded with what I see as reliable and independent sources for why additional context is needed. You can deal with account/conduct issues elsewhere but for this talk page I think you should focus on the content in the page and the sources provided. Czarking0 (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@SpragueThomson Why did you revert the last edit unforgvn20 (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

For the same reasons ecrusize said SpragueThomson^talk 01:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@SpragueThomson

My sources are reliable and independent sources so they have no valid reason to revert

As @Czarking0 said you should focus on the content and the sources provided, if you cannot point out problems in my edits you cannot revert them

As discussed on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard I am not a paid editor and don't have COI, if you cannot prove it this is violation of WP:AGF , even if I was SPA account that does not give you bulk revert right unforgvn20 (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The content Unforgvn20 added was marked as possibly having AI generated citations. Can someone confirm or deny the quality of the citations? Again this page is not for conduct discussions. Strictly speaking about this talk page Unforgvn has provided relaible sources supporting their viewpoint, no one has provided alternative sources or explained why theirs are inadequate. I will eventually restore Unforgvn's content if that does not change.Czarking0 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

LEt me know if anyone has any concerns about my citations? unforgvn20 (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The citations and content I added are reliable and verifiable. If there si any concerns about them happy to address them unforgvn20 (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0: User:Unforgvn20 has made nearly 30,000 bytes of edits over 3 months. Tilting the balance of the article into a promo page of the organization. The dispute is not regarding reliable sources, but promotions being pushed by a single purpose account. Ecrusized (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You are welcome to suggest specific edits or edit the article yourself. This page is not about their conduct and in this thread you have focused on the user rather than the content. Please use this talk page to focus on the content, and address the conduct elsewhere. Czarking0 (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Did you attempt to review edits from other users during this time (and accidentally missed mine) or did you just revert everything? LordCollaboration (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I was just restoring the reverted version. I see now that will not suffice here. Czarking0 (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear; I was responding to Ecrusized, who reverted my edit when they reverted unforgvn. The current version has the copyright infringement, unforgvn's does not. Just restoring unforgvn's version would be fine for my particular issue. LordCollaboration (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, since you, myself, and presummably unforgvn agree on the preferred version I will call that concensus and make an edit request Czarking0 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

sounds good to me unforgvn20 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Page has now been fully protected. I suggest restoring the most recent version by unforgvn20 and incorporating the edits from LordCollaboration.Czarking0 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration and Czarking0: Responding to your previous question, no I did not see your edit. Also i didn't go through all the edits of unforgvn20, but vast majority of these edits seem to be promotional edits, regardless of whether they use reliable sources or not, and since unforgvn20 is a WP:SPA, their edits shouldn't be kept, since promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia per WP:PROMO. Ecrusized (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You just keep repeating user based accusations without any focus on what actual content you object to. This is not a good way to build consensus. unforgvn20 has provided reliable sources to support their position. You need to focus on what content you object to. Czarking0 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I discussed content disputes with user unforgvn20 briefly above, I will mention some troubling content here. In the removal of terrorist designation of the organization from infobox, user unforgvn20 has argued that it was wp:undue, because the designators did not include EU or US despite including nearly all Muslim majority nations. There is the usage of primary sources such as "stockholmcf.org", which is a website run directly by the Gulen movement. There is also the removal citations critical of the movement, , User unforgvn20 has also spammed the page with extremely POV images which blatantly break WP:NPOV, such as a the poster of a movie that dramatizes the purged members of the movement, as well as an image of a person who was allegedly tortured in a Turkish prison, yet the only source backing this is the primary source run by the organization I mentioned above. Given these, and in addition to the user's entire editing history being focused on this movement, I have deduced that it falls into WP:COIEDIT. Which states that:

• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;

So I believe the best course of action regarding these hundreds of edits which were done in a short period of time is to mass revert them. Ecrusized (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you bring some salient points. I am not going speculate on unforgvn's COI here as there are better venues for that. I suggest we restore unforgvn's version as it at least does not have the copyright violations that LordCollaboration is concerned about. Then we add the COI banner to the top. The removal of sourced content should not be done without talk consensus so next edit would be to restore that content. For now, I am in favor of keeping the movie poster, but a encourage a new talk thread regarding that. Then another thread questioning all the claims that are not supported by independent reliable and primary sources. After a few days if unforgvn does not provide a better rationale for their inclusion we should remove all such claims. Czarking0 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind removing the troubling content mentioned above part by part. I also want to remind you that just because something is properly sourced doesn't mean that it has to be included, WP:VNOT. Such as in the case that if the said content is breaking wp:npov. Ecrusized (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok can you make an edit request or modify the one below to show the text that should be restored which you have already mentioned above. Czarking0 (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I've made some changes, namely, removing the problematic first party source mentioned above, removed some of the npov images, made some minor changes to the lede, I also entirely removed the timeline section at the bottom of the page because it was giving mostly trivial information and was not in Wikipedia format. With these changes, I think the COI template can be removed. Ecrusized (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I m fine removing stockholmctnr, I didn't rely on it as the only reference, I used it together with Independent Newspaper.

Besides this there are many other independent, reliable sources about Gökhan Açıkkollu including UN Human Rights Committee:

https://www.euronews.com/2018/02/28/turkish-teacher-given-job-back-18-months-after-his-death

https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f136%2fD%2f3730%2f2020&Lang=en

https://ccprcentre.org/files/documents/INT_CCPR_ICS_TUR_44933_E.pdf

https://assedel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ASSEDEL-TR-Report-CAT_2405121.pdf

I see you re-added terrorist claim to the infobox and removed a lot of other valid content, why unforgvn20 (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree Ecrusized does not have consensus for these changes. You should revert if you would like.

After unforgvn20 reverts and I would support reremoving the primary source claims. At this time I do not think those images should be removed or changes to the lead be made. If unforgvn20 agrees I also support removing the timeline. Czarking0 (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I think timeline is valuable info for the most part, it contains some useless details so it can be shortened

I made these changes above and removed the primary source unforgvn20 (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Replying to Czarking, I do have consensus to restore the terrorist designation, as @Shadow4dark: also restored this content before you reverted him. Also, I will not discuss content changes here with @Unforgvn20:, since it has a clear undisclosed WP:COI with this organization. However, since it has mass reverted the problematic content after you and I agreed to partially restore its edits, I have made an administrator noticeboard post, hopefully their COI issue's will also be reviewed there. Ecrusized (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You do not have consensus. Two people agreeing without providing a policy based argument for their position is not consensus. Unforgvn20 has provided reliable sources that demonstrate the terrorism claims need more context than can be provided in an infobox. Czarking0 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Second protection

Now that the article is again fully protected. I suggest the same as last time. That is restore this version and add COI banner then Ecrusized makes a new edit request for the content that was removed and should be readded. Then we discuss the images. Czarking0 (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

After recent updates, I still think this is the best course of action. I think @Unforgvn20 and Ecrusized: are unlikely to solve this between the two of them and other parties will be good for consensus building here. @Shadow4dark, LordCollaboration, and SpragueThomson: thoughts? Czarking0 (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting until the ANI thread closes. If that concludes without finding credible evidence of a COI, then I would remove that COI banner entirely, since three different boards will not have concluded that. And I would use the most recent version from Unforgvn20 (absent the COI banner) which cut those primary sources. Ecrusized and Unforgvn20 can then discuss the content, although I agree others getting involved probably will end up being necessary. LordCollaboration (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Given the silence from all involved and the expiration of the ANI thread with no action I will go ahead with my suggestion. Czarking0 (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Major Inaccuracies in the article

I am highlighting major inaccuracies in the article that I corrected that I can think of. There are still many inaccuracies that need to be corrected:

Overall in the article a global civic, educational movement is portrayed as a terrorist organization , blamed for  assassinations and all kind of  illegal activities without any evidence, except for primary sources.

As a result of the purges against the movement,  millions of people were tried on terrorism charges in Turkey since 2016, at least 520 000 arrested, and hundreds lost their life either escaping the country and some due to torture in jail.

Turkey ranks among one of the highest in inflation in the world and among one of the lowest in freedom and press freedom since the purges began,here, here, here , here

Any concerned Turkish citizen is worried about these

I see that in the article sometimes  primary sources are used to support inaccurate claims, and sometimes the citations are not supporting the claims.

Some of the corrrections I made are below with some of the relevant diffs :

• I added how the "terrorist" claim is rejected by UN and major democratic organizations, this is explained in detail in the above section "Marginal and long statement in the infobox". A significant comment is also valuable here, this is the comment of a secularist journalist who attacked the movement for 40 years

• The lead sentence was portraying the movement as an "Islamist" movement.The movement is not a political Islamist movement,  I explained this in the above section "Islamism and totalitarian goals of the movement"

• Assasination of Russian Ambassador blamed on the movement, when one of the suspects clearly said he had allegiance to another religious community in Turkey

• Assasination of Hrant Dink blamed on the movement, I added the opinion Dink's family

• Baykal Sex tapes were blamed on the movement when Baykal himself opposed this theory and stated this is a government operation (this diff belongs to another editor )

• Removed some other irrelevant/biased citations:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%BClen_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1310086256 , this is a primary source --a Gulenist media-- and irrelevant to the topic
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%BClen_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1313859480 , this is again primary source, owned by Erdogan
  •  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%BClen_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1326009298 removed duplicate content
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%BClen_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1310087648, citation is irrelevant to the topic
• The article doesn't give enough context about the Gulen movement's conflict with the government, which does not make it clear why the events are happening. I added context about the conflict including the 2013 corruption scandal in Turkey , major members of the movement. Some diffs on that

• The movement is blamed for 2016 Coup Attempt by the government, I added content , here to show other side of the story

• They claimed the movement got support from Erdogan because Erdogan invited Gulen to Turkey in 2012 , this is a very absurd statement, which I corrected

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%BClen_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1334231697 unforgvn20 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

"a global civic, educational movement" This is untrue, Gulen Movement was deeply integrated into Turkish state institutions until 2016, including members holding key judicial, military and parliamentary positions.

The movement has been designated a terrorist organization in all Muslim majority nations under Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. This is a key information that belongs in the lede and infobox, considering that the vast majority of educational and civic operations of the movement are/were being conducted in Muslim majority nations. Not including this because the designation does not extend to EU and US would be pure a promotional NPOV violation.

The controversies section is fully backed by sources, and probably vastly incomplete considering the endless scandals surrounding it. If anything the article is unbalanced because it places an emphasis on the for-profit educational institutes run by the movement, instead of focusing on its political conflict with the Turkish government, which is what made it so internationally known and infamous. Ecrusized (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Please provide references to support your claims unforgvn20 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Everything I said is backed by references inside the article. Ecrusized (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It has explained to you multiple times how OIC's opinion is not enough and I removed both pro and contea POV's from the infobox, you keep repeating the same stuff unforgvn20 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

OIC statements are primary sources. I recommend removing any claims that rely only on their docs Czarking0 (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Will do that, they also did mass reverts on Fethullah Gülen article, how can we approach that unforgvn20 (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding consensus against the obvious Turkish brigading of this and FG article.

How does one approach getting an actual neutral article here with so much false or badly sourced content behind a protected and uneditable article so nobody can contribute to actually make it better? ~2026-46984-52 (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)