Jump to content

Talk:Gülen movement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

signing and flagging

Can you sign your contribution to this page, please? Anonymous judgments don't come across very well :).

I think this page is still in its infancy and it is premature to flag it. You will just put off any contributors. We need to remember that most people who know about events in Turkey use English as a foreign language and most of the western "experts" on Turkey have very poor Turkish. The cultural differences are quite big too (in, for example, attitudes to scholars and teachers, who tend to be much more highly respected in Muslim cultures), so if there is to be any good work done on these pages, it will require a great deal of humility and a cooperative spirit on all sides. Flagging at this stage would be too "forbidding". Hatice w (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Rubin reference

I removed the Rubin reference because Rubin is never accepted as having NPOV on anything connected with Islam or Muslims and in the article it is just conjecture about the funds. Hatice w (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Aras and Caha and dating of quotations articles, etc

While I don't dispute the POV of Aras and Caha, given the rapid rate of change that this movement seems to have undergone, I think that this paper may be being given undue weight. It is very likely to be outdated on statistics of numbers of schools etc. As well as on school numbers, it also apparently contradicts more recent research on the structure. The way this is presented in the article at the moment does not draw any attention to this contradiction - it seems like whoever added the next quote does not see the contradiction.

Plus, throughout the article there is a lot of use of "recent" and "recently". This is no use in an undated article so the dates of quotes and cited newpaper articles etc need to be added or at least the "recentlies" need to be removed.:) Hatice w (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference 18 does not seem to work any more ... 79.213.48.207 (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please can an admin block IP 50.15.97.118, which keeps blanking sections or removing content without an explanation. Thanks! Fullbucket (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Cited sources and Impartiality

Sources of most footnotes are highly biased, subjective and defamatory. Significantly enough, this type of sources comprise more than half of the notes. This is a huge problem with the article. This problem makes it almost impossible to use the article as reference.

Defamatory and apologetic sources (mostly referring to web pages or hastily set-up blogs) should be removed from the notes. Books, articles and other published material, especially those by reputable/university presses, should be referenced. Gulen movement is a very important part of social life in many countries in the world, the article should reflect the gravity of the matter, and treat it impartially, only with an aim to inform people, not to defame or propagate. mustail (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree! Much of this article is heavily biased in favor of the supporters of the Gulen movement. I tried to balance it out by adding alternative points of view in the section on education. Agree with comment below: many sources come from Gulen sponsored institutions: university journals, newspapers, etc. Those should be deleted. Fullbucket (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

To maintain NPOV, any references of self-promoted/sponsored resources should be removed including but not limited to Gulen Movement Newspapers Zaman, Today's Zaman, Sizinti; any book published by Gulen Movement's publishing houses Blue Dome Press, The Light Inc, Tughra Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.208.99 (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree! The request to remove references from so-called sponsored resources is absurd as it carries the potential for any "positive" source to be labeled as self-promotion. Reputable scholars and analysts have an independent standing regardless of where they publish. Thus any reference from a prominent scholar has to be accepted as valid whether s/he is published with even a press known with close ties to the Gulen movement.
Some major claims in the article heavily dependent on a single source, i.e., Berlinski's article, which is loaded with some unsubtantiated claims, isolated incidents, and unverified remarks by third persons. In certain parts, it is all copy-paste material and comprised of newspaper reports of allegations. Hsenturk (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
A remark by Hakan Yavuz is manipulated by a user. Yavuz calls the Nur movement, not the Gulen movement, a resistance movement against the on-going Kemalist modernization process and adds "it is a forward looking one." Yavuz's remark is altered and hand-picked.Hsenturk (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
But WP:PRIMARY sources are no less biased. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yavuz's remark is wrongly cited here. Yavuz's remark is on the Nur movement, not Gulen movement. There is a difference between the two. Hsenturk (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

History

History section needs to be re-written. This section needs to reflect gulen movement history and information related to Fethullah Gulen needs to be moved to that article.--GlobeNthink (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism and charter schools

The Criticism section contained content mainly copied from blogs with biased views and hateful content towards Turkish people, Muslims in general and Islam as a religion. These blogs extensively reference each other to support their claims creating a loop of shallow content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebibal (talk • contribs) 06:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Much of the material removed was referenced from non-blog sources. I have restored it. Remember to edit from a neutral point of view and avoid original research. ✤ JonHarder talk 12:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I combined material on schools (both praise and criticism) in one section. I referred a lot to a recent article by Claire Berlinski in City Journal, which is a thoroughly researched piece with quotations from other reliable sources. Much of the existing stuff on schools was singling praise to the movement - unacceptable bias! Fullbucket (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Berlinski's piece is a collection of newspaper reports that remain as allegations. She summarizes these newspaper reports, which doesn't qualify as "thorough research." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsenturk (talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Founding of Texas Charter Schools

A New York Times article in June of 2011 covered the involvement of Gülen followers, specifically The Cosmos Foundation in founding the Harmony Science Academy and other Texas Charter Schools [1]

Taxpayers money in other countries

"The United States of America is the only country in the world where the Gülen movement has been able to establish schools funded to a great extent by the host country’s taxpayers." No. In Germany the schools are so called "Ersatzschulen". This means they can substitute normal public schools. Schools substituting normal public schools get taxpayer´s money for this to a certain degree. This can be 60 % to 90 % of the expense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.15.235 (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


Sources

  1. ^ Saul, Stephanie (June 07, 2011). "Charter Schools Tied to Turkey Grow in Texas". The New York Times. p. 7. Retrieved June 07, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Hizmet Or Gülen Name of Article

Given major news sources refer to this as the Hizmet movement and not the Gulen movement, and given that the movement has no official name, why have Hizmet redirect to Gulen and not the other way around? Some news sources don't even mention Gulen, but they use Hizmet. I only object because naming it after an individual has a rhetorical slant. (128.111.95.102 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

This is the name the movement gives for itself on its many websites and public statements. "The Service" is probably a more rhetorically slanted name than the "Gülen movement", by your reasoning anyway.Ithinkicahn (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Information not true

The article states:

"The United States is the only country in the world where the Gülen movement has been able to establish schools funded to a great extent by the host country's taxpayers, mostly by establishing charter schools."

This is not true. For instance, in Belgium the Gülen inspired schools (named Lucerna schools) are also publicly funded. Moreover, the notion of 'paid by taxpayers' is politician/blogger language. I suggest to change by 'publicly funded'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorgundemokrat (talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks to Walter Görlitz for the necessary edits. Ithinkicahn (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. I would usually ask for additional support in the form of references, or the like, but this article suffers from a great many problems of extreme statements that are already unsupported, it wasn't really a problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong citation?

I was looking for the source of this statement:

The Gülen movement has also been implicated in what both Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as well as the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) have said were illegal court decisions against members of the Turkish military, including many during the Ergenekon investigation.

It looks like it has wrong citation link which is related to the following sentence. There's also nothing similar in cited NY Times article. Rustam (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I also suspect this and some other cites here as well Fethullah Gulen's article. I already discussed the ones that I suspected in that article. Please go ahead and remove this kind of hoax citations. Yakamoz51 (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Gülenist competitions

Gulen charter schools organized in many countries different kind of local/national/international competitions. The aim of all these competitions is to "promote" the high-quality of their education giving a lot of certificates or medals to them. In the international competitions organized by Turkish Private schools most of the international participants study from similar Turkish private schools from different countries. The following competitions are just a few of the most "important" Gulenist international competitions[1]:

  • I-SWEEEP, Houston, USA
  • INESPO, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • INEPO, Baku Azerbaijan
  • INEPO Euro-Asia, Ankara, Turkey
  • E-biko, Ankara, Turkey
  • Genius Olympiad, New York, USA
  • InfoMatrix, Bucharest, Romania
  • Firstep, Bucarest, Romania - local competitions between Romanian Gulenist high schools.
  • IYIPO, Tbilisi, Georgia
  • Dreamline, Turkey
  • Golden Climate Environmental Project Olympiad, Kenya
  • Gulen Institute Youth Platform — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.166.10 (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Important in what sense and whose eyes? I don't see any secondary sources supporting these "competitions". I removed the material from the article because of that and it's not really clear what the section is about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

History

Dear Walter Goerlitz. I am trying to add citations to the "History" section. You prematurely tagged my citation to establish the founding date of the Niagara Foundation as not containing the pertinent content. I removed your qualification and added (you can see it in the notes) the exact quotation from the website which contains information about the date. I hope this clarifies your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FetullahFan (talk • contribs) 19:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

My name is not Goerlitz. You may use Show preview to add your references, to confirm that no mistakes are present. The real problem, though, is your interpretation of the sources. The one I tagged does not clearly state that the Gülen movement was involved. I am not illiterate and saw the entire page so adding the quote was a waste of time, but not unappreciated to understand that you're literate as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Can we rewind and get off to a better start? My keyboard does not have an "Umlaut-O" function so I added the e after the o. I thought this was a common practice for German names and I apologize if it disturbed you. I am sorry, let's try to avoid judgmental words--literate/illiterate--I have neither the time nor the energy to cast aspersions.
I apologize but I just do not understand your point. The Niagara Foundation's own website (http://www.niagarafoundation.org/niagara/history/) states when it was formed and who organized it (granted, loosely defined). It ascribes FG as the source of the inspiration. This article is about the Gulen Movement, not about FG. I do not think it is necessary to state or infer that FG initiated the movement directly.
Let's work on this in a collaborative way on the Talk page. I will not edit your comments on the article page until we have a mutual understanding.
I have no interest in taking sides. Full disclosure: despite my FetullahFan name (intentially misspelled), I am a third generation member of a Gulen family and have respect for him and his movement. But I am thoroughly Americanized and, regretfully, don't speak or read more than a handful of words of Turkish. My interest in FG is from the perspective of my academic field within sociology which examines disruptive innovation led by charismatic leaders. I am rather new to Wikipedia and hope to learn from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FetullahFan (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
My point is that you cannot assume that reading people around the movement are actually a part of the movement, and that's what I'm reading. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
. Excuse me for my denseness, Walter Görlitz, but I still do not understand your point. Can you try to elaborate one more time? Perhaps this is a translation problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FetullahFan (talk • contribs) 19:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem. Here's the reference: http://www.niagarafoundation.org/niagara/history/
Where does it say that the Gülen movement was instrumental in establishing the Niagara Foundation? It says that it "was created in 2004 by a group of Turkish-American businessmen and educators in order to realize the vision of their spiritual leader, Fethullah Gulen" but there is no direct link to the movement. I suspect that's the case at that reference because of dubious nature of the movement and they want to keep an arms-length from it. So while you may understand that phrase to mean "the Gülen movement" I do not nor does any reasonable individual. If I were to dig into the other self-published references listed in that section would I find similar wording? So unless it explicitly lists the movement, it should either be removed as a reference and the citation needed tag be restored, or, and this would make most sense to me, the entry should be removed completely.
The only reason I am watching this article is because someone who was edit warring at this article was also edit warring at another I watched. I have no interest in the movement, their politics or religious views. That makes me a "hard nut to crack" when it comes to adding references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain your concerns. My apologies for the late response. I work in "Adjunctville" and things are quite crazy this summer.
I understand your POV now. I think you go right to the heart of the matter. For better or worse, as explained in the article itself, "The movement's structure has been described as a flexible organizational network.[8] Movement schools and businesses organize locally and link themselves into informal networks.[9]" Hizmet has taken root and prospered in the most difficult soil, transcending often hostile political climates, precisely because of its loosely coupled organizational structure. "In order to realize the vision of their spiritual leader" is the common unifying factor of this movement which depends on grassroots initiatives such as the Niagara Foundation.
I have to admit my semi-insider bias here but, frankly, this is what fascinates me (and, admittedly, worries others) about the Gülen movement and others like it.
Perhaps this quality needs to be emphasized more in the article to meet your concerns. Or, perhaps, the statement in question ("1999 Establishment of Niagara Foundation") should be revised to "1999 Establishment of Niagara Foundation, a group established by Turkish-American businessmen and educators to advance their vision of Mr. Gülen's goals.
What do you think? BTW, I changed "1999" to "2004" in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FetullahFan (talk • contribs) 09:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

14/July/2009 : It seems to me that this article is poorly written, containing many redundant parts and devoid of any critical approach. Does it seem suitable to anyone to flag this article in its present state ?

I have to agree with you on the "poorly written." I started working on a cosmetic rewrite, basically reworking Turglish to English. Please provide comments on my work on the "Nature and Participation" section. BTW, we need a better subtitle here, perhaps "Description and Membership"? Any thoughts from anyone? In the "History" section I've located several sources and removed the corresponding [citation needed] tags. I'm quite busy at present so it will probably take me a couple of months to finish just the cosmetic rewrite. After that I am willing to include more sources.
"Devoid of any critical approach"--I agree in general. Looking for criticism? The "Education" section has plenty of criticism! In fact, here the problem is a lack of balance from the other direction.
This is a very timely article because I anticipate oncoming shockwaves from the government and its supporters. Let's get ready for this by building a good foundational article now. Given the timeliness and importance, there should really be a lot more discussion on the Talk page!
Since I am a newcomer to Wikipedia I want to fully disclose my bias. As you can gather from my pen name, I have great admiration for Fethullah Gülen although I am not active in the movement. I am third generation and regrettably do not speak or read Turkish.
FetullahFan (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Gülen Education

The talk page has been very silent. If anyone is reading, please yell out! I would like some feedback on my June 29 and June 30th posts!

I finished a cosmetic rewrite of the "Nature and Participation" section. Are there any comments about the new version? BTW, any suggestions for retitling the section? Perhaps "Description and Membership" is clearer?

I would like to start a cosmetic rewrite of "Education" section. My overall impression is that it is much too long, almost to the point of rambling. Too many details are included and readers, I believe, could be drowning here.

My suggestion is to dramatically abbreviate this section because it overwhelms all the other sections and thus makes the article unbalanced. I suggest that we include basic facts: an overview of the number and location of Gülen schools and a brief mention that they have attracted both followers and critics.

I want to further suggest that we create an entire new article entitled "Gülen Schools." This article would include a much more detailed treatment of the schools as well as their criticisms. Let me emphasize that I am not suggesting that we minimize criticisms--just that we make sure they do not make so much noise that the contributions of Gülen schools are overshadowed.

Both articles should point to each other so (1) readers of the have the option of the "Gülen Movement" article have the option of obtaining more information about Gülen Schools and (2) readers of the "Gülen Schools" have the option of seeing this phenomenon in the context of the wider movement.

Please, please, please comment on these ideas. I do not feel it is healthy for me to operate unilaterally!

FetullahFan (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest you to go bold and make the minor changes you suggested. As discussed in WP:BRD, if somebody oppose, then tey would revert and you'd discuss it.
I also support your idea to create a new page for education. There is Turkish WP page on the subject and its name is " Gulen Movement's Schools " , literally. I think this would be a good name for the new page also. Yakamoz51 (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. I created the page "Gülen Movement Schools" and ported most of the content that was under the "Education" section. Both pages point to each other. I think this balances the education section with other sections such as Interfaith Dialogue.
Regrettably I do not speak or read Turkish. Can you compare the Turkish WP page on Gulen Movement Schools with the brand new page we just started here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FetullahFan (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone edited my changes and restored the information on Gulen schools. Please note that all the content was moved to the new site Gulen Movement Schools. My reasons for doing so are listed above and at least one other reader said go ahead. If you have thoughts or concerns, please share them on the talk page.

FetullahFan (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

On the section "Other Activities" there is a discussion of the Dutch government's criticism of Gulen schools. I would like to move that section to the new Gulen movement schools page. I think it fits better in the new page. It seems out-of-place and out-of-balance where it currently is placed. Before I take action can I please get some feedback? I do not want to act unilaterally.
I would like to leave in place the criticisms raised by the Dutch government about the movement as a whole. I deeply disagree with its contention but the finding deserves a place on the page.

FetullahFan (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Cosmetic Improvements

Alessandro57 restored the old version of the old education section and I disagree with his/her action. Reminder: I had moved the entire section to the new page Gulen movement schools and left in place a shortened couple of paragraphs. I would like to ask everyone's permission to revert to the abbreviated section on this page. We do not need two articles with the same content. The old section on education just overwhelms. It is far more detailed than any of the other section.

Hallo FetullahFan, I reverted you because I saw that almost all the critics disappeared from this page, but I did not realize that you moved it to another article. Sorry, my fault! Alex2006 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Alex2006. Let's work together. I have no interest in edit warring. Although I am obviously a fan of FG I am not affiliated with Hizmet. My academic interest is exploring agents of disruptive change (such as a Steve Jobs or Jeff Bezos) but in fields such as religion and education. I want to create a fair and balanced article that reflects the good work of Hizmet yet also reflects criticisms. My guiding lens--and dilemma--can be found in Theodore Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" speech [[2]].

FetullahFan (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at the lead paragraphs. I would like to change the final sentence ("Others have described it as "having the characteristics of a cult" and likened its secretiveness and influence in Turkish politics to an "Islamic Opus Dei".[4]) to (Others have described it as "having the characteristics of a cult" and have expressed concern about its secretiveness and influence in Turkish politics.[4]" IMHO the reference to an "Islamic Opus Dei" rings so many bells and is so descriptively pejorative and value-laden that it simply does not belong in a lead. I don't have strong objectives if other editors feel its importance merits a presence in the "Criticisms" section. It just irks and jolts me in the lead. FetullahFan (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

pov and sources

Re [3]. This material may *appear* to be well sourced but it's not. One source is from a political enemy of the movement. Not in the lede. The other sources - the New York Times, the Atlantic, the Diplomat are of course reliable ... but they don't say anything about "investigation in multiple jurisdictions for terrorism charges". This is somebody just making stuff up and misrepresenting sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I don't care about this thing one way or another, and I have no problem with criticism of this movement in the lede. But it needs to be sourced for real not for pretend.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 06:34, 28 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)

The claims I made were backed up by relevant and reliable sources. Some provided new and current information on the group, and some provided an alternative view on issues. You have not provided any explanations as to why they are bias, and therefore claiming it's bias is not enough to justify its removal.

In fact, it is rather your edits that appear to be bias, as you are omitting certain information about the movement, including those that provide alternative views to certain issues.

As a result, I have made adjustments to your reverting.

I urge you to provide a detailed explanation as to why it is bias, and to why the sources are not enough to satisfy you in keeping the statements.

Alasss123 (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  • As I said earlier, to starting discuss these subjects, I will follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to reach a consensus. ( What you have done was "BOLD", What I am doing was "REVERT", and What we should do is "DISCUSS"). Instead of waiting for 3rd opinion and/or consensus, you continue to adding previous biased pieces. (Reverting to the biased edition and discussing) From your behaviour , what I understand is you are here to insist your ideas to the respected pages instead of discussing and finding a common ground. I am sorry but, I am not here make an edit war with you!Yakamoz51 (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Note

I have removed some rather poorly-sourced material under a "lobbying in the United States" header. I'm fine with including properly sourced information that is put in context. But two posts from a partisan blog (the Daily Caller) chock-full of innuendo, repeated by two "Turkish pro-government newspapers," falls far short of this standard.

If there is something actually here, it will be reported in the mainstream press or by one or more of the many scholars who study modern Turkey. Until then, this kind of nonsense should stay out. It's not encyclopedic. Neutralitytalk 07:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

What DO they stand for, for Gülen's sake?!

This article is all defensive, saying all what he's/they're NOT, and NOTHING really of what they do stand for: combining Sufi Ottoman values with modern life, OK, but HOW? What values, goals, to be reached through what means? What concrete religious, social, cultural, political ways do they preach? What is their approach to Allah & redemption, communal & self-improvement (the base of any religion), what means are justified, choice of Hadith, Islam and historical change, THE FINAL GOAL ("Ottoman Empire of the mind is a slogan", but fill it up w. content) etc. For the current events: how is the Gülen movement different from the AKP in ideology, goals, strategy? Sorry, but all I took from reading this page is headlines from broadband media, and comments on the pattern of A answered to B about accusations against the GM. So? Thanks, ArmindenArminden (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the Gülen movement is, that it is (with some similarity to Scientology or Falun Gong) rather intransparent. That leads to a lot of confliction and partially contradicting claims about it (even by statements made it its members or "associated" figures).
As far as those differences to the AK is concerned. As I understand it both ultimately seek to promote islam, but the AKP is pursuing a more change in shorter time frame as political party and driven from the "bottom" of society (with some orientation at the Muslim Brotherhood and Millî Görüş) being less tolerant towards others. The Gülen movement in contrast to that aims primarily at influencing/overtaking the intelligentsia of society (hence its focus and promotion of modern schools and education) and gearing them "softly" towards islam and hence creating a change driven from the "top" (with some similarity to the The long march through the institutions that some left movement pursued). while pursuing that it is (at least on the surface) more tolerant or conciliatory towards other faith (interfaith dialogue) and less (open) political.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

infobox and terror organisation

WP isn't a propaganda out for Erdogan and the AKP government. That means it particular it should not prominently push the "gülen terror organization" notion or meme as long as this is not a common or accepted name in English has well - neither as bold print (reserved for the common names of topic) nor through the info box. The opinion or assessment of AKP government needs to mentioned of course, but just for what it currently is (as mere and currently isolated opinion of the AKP government) and at the current state it cannot be pushed as a supposedly accepted alternative name/designation. So place no bold print or infobox placement creating that impression.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Unless/until the coup attempt is clearly tied to Gülen, i.e. that view being generally accepted, the Gülen movement should be treated similarly to Falun Gong (a slightly similar case) and the handling there might serve as an orientation for this article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Kmhkmh: I can only agree, though we don't even have to recur to Falun Gong. While we generally mention "terrorist" denominations in the text, we usually don't embrace them, unless overwhelmingly supported by WP:RS. A single country considers the Gülen movement a "terrorist organization", and it's a country with a recent track record of declaring almost every oppositional voice as a "terrorist danger". Seemingly all English-language news outlets that aren't affiliated with the AKP, don't take the "terrorist" label serious. What's more, even if the coup attempt was clearly tied to Gülen, that wouldn't make his movement a "terrorist organization". Military coups are military coups, not terrorism. --PanchoS (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I just brought up Falun Gong to give people not being familiar with WP some idea how such cases are handled. After all the repeated introduction of terror organization stuff might not always be due to "bad faith" propagandists but simply due to people not being aware of WP policies and practices and/or not being fully aware of the international coverage of the Gülen movement.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton

How should I put this? The US election shouldn't be artificially dragged into this.

The daily caller article covers quite a number of Gülen associated activities and only 2-3 lines are about Clinton and yet that is essentially all ending up in the WP article. That doesn't appear to be an appropriate summary of Gülen associated lobbying in the US. There is nothing wrong with mentioning clinton, but we should turn an article on Gülen lobbying into a paragraph on Clinton, i.e. the source needs to summarized appropriately.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Kmhkmh: Did you read the referenced Sabah and Yeni Şafak articles? Major AKP-aligned newspapers didn't only publish the allegations once, but several times, and focussed it on Clinton, as the two Daily Caller articles did before. True or not, these allegations have been covered by mainstream Turkish newspapers (yes, unfortunately, AKP-aligned has become the mainstream there), in depth and not only in passing, effectively making the allegations notable. By the way, I don't see how this would interfere with the US election, as I don't think having ties to Gülen is particularly frowned upon in the US. --PanchoS (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
For the Turkish newspapers in general see below. Stating that hey published such allegation might be ok, but that doesn't change the fact that the daily caller article needs to summarized appropriately and cannot (falsely) be reduced into a Clinton piece.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sentence doesn't make any sense

"Investigations of the group are continuing into several accusations" is a nonsensical statement in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiminezwaldorf (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

resource

Criticism

Fethullah Gülen's and the Gülen movement's views and practices have been discussed in international conferences. [...]

Well, okay, but what did all of these people have to say about the movement at their conferences? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"major turkish newspapers"

Turkish newspapers are overall a rather bad source for now. This simply due to the state of the press in Turkey in recent years (there is little press freedom, most outlet are directly or indirectly controlled by the AKP government, independent outlets get shut down), which leads to often journalistic integrityand unreliability with regards to facts.

This doesn't mean Turkish newspapers can't be used at all, but they should be avoided in doubt, in particular those known for "printing the party line". They certainly should not be used for sourcing seemingly statement of facts and if used should come with an intext attribution.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: They're still a good primary source, though not reliable as a secondary source. Obviously citations have to be attributed in text, and are subject to WP:DUEWEIGHT but should otherwise not be avoided, as they remain influential and relevant. --PanchoS (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources are usually to be avoided if possible as well. And remaining "influential and releveant" doesn't qualify them as sources for WP, unless there is a need to directly quote their opinion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
This specially affects the Gulen-cult-affiliated "major turkish newspapers".--91.10.8.240 (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Really funny that i'm Turkish -not AKP supporter but, i love my country and not support children killers- and i don't know anything about your "little press freedom". Maybe because you read it from leftist-exterminist sources or any source cited that sources and just because you want to believe it, it becomes a trusted source. How unbiased. Most of the media today is indirectly related with some religious, philosophic, political view. Why AKP sources -according to you- are bad sources and others good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.194 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This Wikipedia page is obviously a big lie

Writing Wikipedia don't make anything truth, as experts (rather than you) we Turkish People know Gülen movement is a terror organization for so many years with their private teaching institutions, their twisted religious beliefs and their money oriented structure. And we all know they tried to take advantage of poor people and kids to spy government institutions. Lots of Turkish at least know more than one former Gulenist from their relatives, friends and co-workers. All of them accepts they deceived by false mahdi and curse him. Even people burn his house in his hometown and changed "FG" licence plates. They changed their "Gülen" surnames. I know poor people who gone Gülen private schools and always complain about they force people to pray. I also been their religious "sohbet"s have you? And you know better than us? You can write and edit anything but, it not makes Gülen innocent. It makes you defender of terrorists (you have blood on your hands your too) and it damages Wikipedia's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.194 (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, the AKP is more of a conspirational organization hostile to open society than Cemaat ever was. The worst thing to say about Gülen is that there was a time when he enabled AKP. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu (so-called) accident and FETÖ connection

Can someone add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.176 (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess you can ;). I have no idea what you mean here. Zezen (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Too short

I still do not know how this movement has operated, who paid for this, what its real aims are, etc. The article is just too short. Zezen (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Purge

"[...S]everal pieces of evidence can suggest that you may be a member of FETO, including having had an account at Bank Asya, which was founded by Gulenists; running the ByLock encrypted communication app on your phone (thought to have facilitated planning for the coup attempt); possessing those F-series dollar bills; sending your children to a school associated with Gulen; working at a Gulen-affiliated institution (a university, say, or a hospital); having subscribed to the Gulen newspaper Zaman; or having Gulen’s books in your house. ... ... ... In the A.K. Party’s view, anyone devoted to Gulen, the man accused of being behind the coup attempt, is assumed to do whatever he says, and so all Gulenists, even teachers and tradesmen who couldn’t possibly have been involved, can also legally be considered terrorists, or members of FETO. In defining his enemies so broadly, Erdogan is also grabbing an opportunity: He is finishing off not only the Gulenists but all opposition, including journalists, academics, liberals and Kurdish activists. ... ... ... More than 100,000 people have been suspected of being part of the coup attempt; 71,000 people have been detained, and 41,000 have been arrested. About 35,000 have been detained and then released. Six thousand people in academia have lost their jobs, as have 4,000 judges and prosecutors, 24,000 policemen and security personnel and 200 governors and their staff members. Seven thousand military personnel have been relieved of their posts. Fifteen universities, 1,000 schools, 28 TV channels, 66 newspapers, 19 magazines, 36 radio stations, 26 publishing houses and five news agencies have been shut down. "--April 13, 2017 New York Times

"A leaked report by Intcen, the EU’s joint intelligence service, concluded that Erdogan had planned a purge before July 2016 and an array of soldiers, fearing the upcoming mass firings, hastily launched a coup."--Foreign Policy magazine

"US officials say privately that the evidence [alleging coup plotting by Gulen] provided by Turkey is not compelling."--May 4, 2017 Financial Times

"Rumours of an expected purge joined army followers of the exiled cleric Fetullah Gulen, secularists, and those opposed to Mr Erdogan’s policies against the Kurds together, providing the momentum for the dramatic failed July 15 takeover. European intelligence officials also found that the Turkish government’s claim that Fethullah Gulen - whom the country is trying to extradite from the US - was behind the plot were unsubstantiated."--January 18, 2017 Independent

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gülen movement. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 27 October 2017 (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) 21:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Terrorism?

The article says that some countries regard it as a terrorist organisation, but the article doesn't say why - nor does it mention any terrorist involvement by the movement or its members. Jim Michael (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It does mention why, they are blamed for the 2016 coup and the assassination of a Russian diplomat by the Turkish government and these events are what led to Turkey and several other entities declaring them a terrorist organization. 2605:6001:E39D:C900:6054:3330:45BD:C5EC (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Designation as a terrorist group

Hi,

It's unclear when the Gülen movement was classified as a terrorist organization.

In this article, in the introduction: "Since May 2016, the Gülen movement has been classified as a terrorist organization by Turkey under the assigned names Fethullahist Terrorist Organization (Turkish: Fethullahçı Terör Örgütü) (FETÖ) and Parallel State Structure (Turkish: Paralel Devlet Yapılanması) (PDY)." (Reuters)

Below in the section "Crackdown against the Gülen movement from 2014": "The Turkish government took over the Gülenist Zaman Daily, on 4 March 2016. Turkish police entered the Zaman's headquarters by force and fired tear gas at the protesting journalists and civilians. Hundreds of protestors were injured. In his efforts to eradicate the movement within the country the Turkish National Security Council has identified the movement as the "Gülenist Terror Organisation" ("Fethullahçı Terör Örgütü", FETÖ). The government has also been targeting individuals and businessmen who have supported the movement's organizations and activities."

And on the government website: "After the designation of FETO as a terrorist organization in 2014, the government adopted a strategy of tackling the organization as a matter of national security." source

So when was the Gülen movement officially and publicly classified as a terrorist organization? And why is there a difference of 2 years between those sources?

A455bcd9 (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

And according to the Home Office (but this document is hosted on the website of the U.S. Department of Justice): "‘Once their common enemy was destroyed, the AKP-Gulen alliance began to crack. The alliance came to a bitter end in 2013 when pro-Gulen judges levelled corruption charges against Erdogan. Shortly after the corruption crisis, the AKP labelled the Gulen movement a state within a state, a parallel structure, and a terrorist organization determined to overthrow the democratically elected government of Turkey." (page 11) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
In the introduction, it is said that the movement is referred as FETÖ since 2015: "as FETO (Fethullahist Terrorist Organisation or more commonly Fethullah Terrorist Organisation) (Turkish: Fethullahçı Terör Örgütü), by the Government of Turkey after 2015". So even the introduction isn't clear. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This page is under attack by Pro AKP users. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Accusations without citations

There a lot of questionable and biased sources in this article, and quite a few accusations are made without any citations at all. 2600:6C58:4D7F:95CA:7438:AAB5:2C68:6F26 (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Many sources are from state-controlled Turkish media, and make accusations without proof.

This whole thing needs to be fact checked by Wikipedia. 2600:6C58:4D7F:95CA:7438:AAB5:2C68:6F26 (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I doubt any Turkish media source these days can be called RS. They are all government controlled, and many are essentially government owned. 88.110.121.212 (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Potential disinformation regarding Finland's stance

Some of the fresh edits added the claims that Finland has taken a stance on the Gülen movement explicitly not being a terrorist organization. These claims are sourced from a Finnish news article that does not cite any government-affiliated persons. Presenting the article's claims as an official government stance seems like misinformation at best, and like intentional disinformation at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revelsigns (talk • contribs) 14:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Some edits on the Earth page do not explicitly state that the earth is not flat; this makes claims that the earth is spherical seem like misinformation at best, and like intentional Gulenist disinformation at worst. Countries and intelligence agencies generally do not go around explicitly stating that organisations that are not terrorist organisations are not terrorist organisations; it is taken as said by them that such things are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.121.212 (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"MC EU TV" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MC EU TV and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 5 § MC EU TV until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 03:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Article Clean-up

If the information is not verifiable or related to the topic, you must not include it under any circumstances. Thank you.

Komorijuno (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I have made a few revision to Gülen, self-promoting, advertising, and marketing is does not belong on Wikipedia articles. Do not revise them. I would like to thank you in advance. Komorijuno (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Please do not delete ontopic stuff like their structure.Shadow4dark (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
There is no need to mention FETO 121 times in an article. FETO is not even accurate, the Gulen movement prefers to be called Hizmet. Komorijuno (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree you 213.74.87.11 (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Removing Tag and improving article

Came across this article and as per the post above, it could do with a massive improvement. It appears to be a contentious subject matter and I know literally nothing about them or the history which makes me ideal due to a lack of bias and being independent, but it also makes me the worst candidate due to a lack of knowledge. Im going to go away and read up and may then comeback and see what I can do. Or maybe this is in the too hard basket. Will see. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sunni Islam

Gullen movement is similar to Ahmadiyah movement. Seems to be Islam but it is not. 186.82.99.49 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gülen_movement/Archive_1&oldid=1244543337"