Jump to content

Talk:Grey Wolves (organization)/Archive 1

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

Some Concerns About Factual Accuracy

1. The name refers to the youth-branch of a legal political party. It is true that the group agressive by nature (because of its exteremist ideology) and perpetrators of many violent acts have been associated with this group. However, they define themselves on legal grounds and they do not constitute a distinct political organization with a specified agenda. Legally, the charges on terrorist acts have been made on indivuduals or several militant branches, rather than the party or the entire group. Therefore, the term "terrorist group" does not stand on valid grounds and rather appears to be speculative.

2. The article is mainly superficial but focuses on irrelevant/minor details. The group was mainly active and violent between 1970 and 1980, when cold war was hot and socialism was in rise in Turkey. Actually, the party and hence the group got into power during that time as they were supported by global and local capitalism as an antidote against the danger of communism. The group was involved in clashes with many leftist groups during that period. There were series murders of intellectuals, ranging from university professors to labor union leaders, most of which are directly linked to the members or even leaders of the group. With the rise of Kurdish separatism at the end of 80's, they have again come into power as opponents of separatist groups. Hence, their major influence was/is on Turkey's internal politics, rather than foreign policies as implied by the article. The article has to be improved/corrected to highlight this point.

3. As any other extreme-nationalist group, they are anti- any nation that somehow has a conflict with Turkey or their ideology. Among these, being anti-Armenian is not a particularly significant characteristic. Since the conflict with Armenians has not been of particular popular interest in Turkey until recently, the Armenians have been hardly part of their agenda. I have not heard of any violent act of greywolves against Armenian targets, and I am pretty sure there has not been many. There is speculation about militants who are linked with this group being used against the Armenian terrorist group ASALA by the Turkish intelligence, but this remains speculative by nature (Similar to speculations about the acts of CIA). I believe that the paragraph discussing this issue is biased by Armenian nationalism, i.e., reflects how an Armenian nationalist perceives them rather than who they are, hence overlooks the main characteristics of the group. I don't believe that protesting a movie would be particularly important for the article about a group that has been influencing a country's internal political dynamics for more than 30 years -it won't make them terrorists either.

AldirmaGonul 07:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


Revision in the article

As I am in the same opinion, that the Gey Wolves cannot be called terrorists on factual basis, I have revised the article. I also removed the "anti-ASALA" part as there is no indication of MHP or Bozkurts action against ASALA

One curiosity is that before the edit as "anti-ASALA", article contained also the terms "anti-Armenian", "anti-Kurd", "anti-Greek" which are not true. But as in all articles in relation with Turkey, I´m finding similar disinformation, a clear sign that official Turkey has not done it´s homework and acted in this "media war" at all...

Pamir 13:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

In Germany at least, the state still considers the Grey Wolves, or those calling themselves with this name, as a threat to the democratic society by and has them under observation by the "Verfassungsschutz". A 2004 report on this (obviously in German, but I can try to translate excerpts if somebody is interested) is here. --Pjacobi
I believe that Pamir's revision does not address my concerns, it rather changes the direction of propaganda. I believe labeling these people as terrorist is subjective, but rejecting their involvement in many violent acts is not less subjective. Moreover, interpreting censorship as "successful" is offensive. I believe the status of the group in other countries should also be noted, as Pjacobi suggests. I will try to propose a draft for an objective article if I can find time. AldirmaGonul 19:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Previous Comments

we know that there are millions who call themselves greywolves in Turkey if so are u accusing millions of turks of being terrosrists? I think this title "terrorist" must be deleted.

the term "bozkurtlar" is not a widely used term to designate any legal or illegal organization in Turkey, and most of the accusations in the text (like acting of some group as paramilitaries in the southeast) are nothing but hearsay. could the author(s) give their sources? it is clear that current ones are by no means reliable, any news by any reputable agency is wellcome. and i think it is obvious that authors are trying to impose their POV. i even doubt whether this article should exist.128.103.11.241 20:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grey Wolves=terrorists/fascists

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story33.html

Alledged terroristic ties?

As I have understood it, the Grey Wolves are often associated with militant groups, sometimes even of terrorism. This should imho be included in the article, even if all the claims have eventually been refuted or withdrawn.

Is there any substantive information out there which comes from reputable sources we might be able to include in here? Anybody have an idea? The Minister of War 14:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Is CNN reputable?
Then we have paramilitary wing of the MHP at the CSM
Pjacobi 15:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, nice stories, though CNN is as always a bit dramatic. But it's worth it to include a paragraph on the paramilitray side. Do you know enough to include something? Otherwise i'll try to paraphrase the articles, because i have too little factual information on this. -- The Minister of War 11:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Concerns about POV

The references are a good start, but how many different points of view are there on this group that could still be added. Ansell 01:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is completely stupid. MHP is not faschist and it is founded by Ziya Gökalp(a Kurd born in Diyarbakır). A lot of Kurds(Sedat Bucak) support MHP. Turkish nationalism is similar to French nationalism.

"Kurds are our brothers and sisters" Alparsan Türkeş leader of MHP. Ruzgar 20:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User Ruzgar, "stupid" is not a sufficient argument for your claims. Deleting the pages edited by other users with no positive contribution, especially those with references, is considered as vandalism. Please, reveal your arguments or your allegations of POV with references. For example, please cite a source supporting one of your claims above, e. g. MHP was founded by Ziya Gökalp. Behemoth 04:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The origins of MHP is Türk Ocakları(founded by nationalist intelllectuals[one of them Ziya Gökalp]). And PKK is a terrorist organization they rape womans they kill babies. I can prove it hunderds of photos. And I don't understand what is the connection of MHP with Ararat film(that was a propaganda film full of lies). Ruzgar 21:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to see exact sentences about the Nazi and MHP connection. I have a lot of books which claim Bush is a faschist. But these claims don't prove anything. MHP always rejects Nazi or Facshist ideology. Alparslan Türkeş said "Faschism a way of Capitalism and Emperilaism". Ruzgar 00:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ruzgar, although we clearly do not agree, this does not mean we can't talk together. But you should'nt remove full sentences and sources, this is considered vandalism. If you feel a sentence is not proved and justified by a source, please add a [citation needed] template. Regards, Tazmaniacs 01:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

These sentences are completely lies. Mhp leaders always say that they reject facshicm or capitalism. And these sources are only opinion of the authors. The people who claims these tehories sholud prove it. And there cant be no unclaimed theories or lies in Wikipedia. Ruzgar 14:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not ok to delete sourced material

In this edit, Ruzgar essentially reduced the article from having 18 references to 4. Ruzgar, you are welcome to add {{fact}} tags to things that need sources, but please don't censor things that are already backed up by references. Thank you. —Khoikhoi 01:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, if you (or anyone) disputes a source currently in use in the article, here is the place to bring it up. Revert wars don't get anyone anywhere. --InShaneee 01:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

How can a facist organization be compared to pan arabism?? On what basis?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.200.173.27 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 16 July 2007

On the basis that the Grey Wolves are loyal supporters of pan-Turkism, a similarly constructed pan-ethnic philosophy. This does not nessesitae that all pan-ethnic ideologies promote facism, or that Pan-arabism has coresponding groups. The Myotis 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pov

Can you please explain your additions? --Vonones 19:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Anons

IP adresses have been removing or changing information in this article for awhile now. Anon's, please stop removing information and making changes without discussion.Hajji Piruz 15:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is the same IP from New York [1]. Please see WP:BITE and WP:OWN, you deleted some material as well without discussions. The anon did not only remove the neo fascist part etc, s/he also removed some red links, and made some more improvements to Wikipedia with this edit. Please if you are going to revert, don't revert everything before checking the edits completely, just revert the parts that you 'dislike'. Please also see WP:Consensus, especially the flowchart there, for the discussion about the things you 'dislike'. You might already know these, as you are an experienced editor. Sorry if that is the case. This person might possibly have an Azeri bias, and you seem to have an Iranian bias, none of them have any precedence in Wikipedia (neither Turkish nor Armenian nor American). DenizTC 16:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
These IP's have been reverted by more people than just me, so I dont know why your comments are towards me specifically. These anons/new users have not discussed their edits. Also, is it possible that you may have a Turkish bias? Considering I've hardly come in contact with you, if at all (I dont remember), I'd say no, you dont, yet you have seen me revert anon vandalism once and you come to accuse me of being baised? As far as I know, this is our first contact, and you're already accusing me of something, on what basis? Stop accusing people and assume good faith. The anon removed information, and removed references to the Armenian genocide. Also, red links should not necessarily be removed, because they provide the opportunity for others to create those articles. Removing red links is not a solution to anything, these articles should be created rather than disregarded. So far, all these newly created accounts and IP's have made relatively the same type of edits, and if you want to call everyone who reverted those edits biased, then go ahead, but remember WP:NPA.
And may I ask how you know that the IP is Azeri or his/her edits are Azeri bias? You shouldnt accuse users, whether IP's or registered, of such things.Hajji Piruz 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hajji Piruz (may I call you Piruz? yes this should our first conversation, nice to meet you) I seem to have offended you with that bias thing, please accept my apologies about that, it wasn't my intention at all. My last sentence did more bad than good, lets scratch that sentence it doesn't add much to my point. I guess I should have been more careful. I will come back to the bias thing unless I forget, let me try to tell you what my point is. First, I was talking only about 69.125.198.137. I don't think this anon is related to other anons, we should not equate them imo. I am not going to talk about these other anons.
When I checked the edits of 'our anon', I got the impression that s/he was just trying to improve Wikipedia. He made many edits, and imo if you check them carefully, you would not disagree with a good number of them. It is a bigger burden on us, but what I want us to do is to only revert the parts of edits that we disagree with and keep the rest. Failing to do so is quite discouraging to the editor, especially if the editor is new. I've been several times on the receiving end of this, and it was quite frustrating. I hope I will not fail to do what I suggest here. If you agree with this suggestion, maybe you can pass it forward, and who knows this can become a rule in the future, if it is something worthy of being a rule.
Now about the bias thing. It (or what I meant) is really not something to accuse of, imo. Due to our background (our country, our education, the books we have read, the things we have seen), we have a 'perspective' here on wiki. This affects our choice of the articles we edit and how we edit them. Imo, Wikipedia is not against this directly, it is/should be just of the same distance to the biases (Turkish, Azeri, American, Iranian, or whatever). In the matters of conflict, we can just try and have WP:Consensus as we have a common aim which is to improve Wikipedia. Just my two cents. Sorry again. DenizTC 20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

they are fascists, but how are they responsible for many killings in Europe? no one bothered to check source number 28. very objective wikipedia moderators i salute you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.175.188 (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Martin A. Lee[4] and Khitij Prabha"

Can you tell me why it is relevant that 2 individuals consider this group as terrorist? Who the hell is Martin A. Lee? An journalist who studied philosophy. And who the hell is "Khitij Prabha" ? Google gives 110 results for his name, and none of them are acadamic. My name gives far more results. Does this make a a reliable encyclopedia-source? As long as no state or community of states consider this group as a terrorist group, there is definitly no relevance to add this comment. XmuratX (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are just examples. The Goverment of Kazakhstan and dozens of others new sources have called it a terrorist organization, that's just how it operates. If you just want a bigger list, that's fine, but in the meantime, it should probably be included. And if your aim is to clear the name of the Grey wolves; don't bother, it is already in 3 terrorism-related categories. The Myotis (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont classify statements of wiki-users as reliable. As long as no one can provide a govermental source for recognizing the grey wolves as "terrorist organization", all statements, especially of mysterious and unknown persons like "Khitij Prabha" should not be included. Amateur human-right websites hosted as geocities are not reliable. Even if turcophob users put this article in 1000 terrorism-related groups, it doesnt change my aim. Aleykum Selam, XmuratX (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If Government sources are so important to you, then the Government of Kazakhstan should suffice nicely, as there is is an officially banned Terrorist Organization. http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/3f4e8cde-2fed-43d0-9859-ed8ca700d3ca.html Of course, if your aim is to try and turn radical terrorists into national heroes, than nothing will. Also, what evidence do you have that User:themightyquill and user:Cgingold are turkophobes? You seem pretty convinced that they are, so why?The Myotis (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I really wonder how the Government of Kazakhstan should be a source for the term i removed, as it has nothing to do with Kazakhstan. I also have to question the website you posted, as it is no primary source, it has a bunch of spelling mistakes and because of its date - in 2006 die Grey Wolves did not exist anymore. I dont know who these users are, but i know that there are extreme nationalist of various nations which paradoxically keep an eye on my countries land, and even hopelessly claim that our land is actually theirs. They formed real terrorist organizations, labeled as such by NATO, EU and USA, not by "Martin A. Lee" or "Khitij Prabha". Unfortunately, there are a plenty of these nationalists in Wikipedia which sympatize with these radical terrorist organizations and their ideas, and therefore therefore try to edit every Turkey-related topic. The criminal organization "Grey Wolves" are no national heroes, but they are no terrorists either. It may be true that terrorists are celebrated as heroes in some tiny, poor and irrelevant countries, but this is not possible in the Republic of Turkey.So your allegation is wrong, and your reliable source is still missing. XmuratX (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You asked for a governmental source, and I gave you one. RadioFreeEurope is by no means an unreliable source, and I saw none of these spelling errors you suggested. It is not for you to decide which country has the authority to label a group, and the Kazakhstan has as much right to call it a terrorist organization as US and the EU, and has the same significance in terms of wikipedia policy. Also, don't try and tell me that the Grey wolves no longer exist, as they most certainly do, and did not disappear in 2006. Also note that User:themightyquill and user:Cgingold are respected and experienced wikipedia editors who edit and enormous amount and variety of articles, and your ad hominem attack on them as being nationalists is laughable at best. Check their edit logs if you do not believe me.
" terrorists are celebrated as heroes in some tiny, poor and irrelevant countries, but this is not possible in the Republic of Turkey." There is no way this is a serious comment. I must admit, though, this is the funniest joke I have ever heard on a wikipedia talkpage. The Myotis (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop editing my comments [2]. Thank You. This is not the first time an apparently armenian user manipulates the comments i make on discussion pages. I replace the parts of my comment you changed, if you dont mind. My comment is very true, the Republic of Turkey, as a developed country (unlike its somewhat poor neighbor/s), does not treat criminals like the Grey Wolves as heroes. The fact that the founder of this organization, Alparslan Türkes, had to spend 4,5 years in a turkish prison is just one proof. I know that they are centuries of development between those two countries, but for example the "Hero of Arzach", a terrorist recognized as one by the international state community, is really celebrated as a hero by its country. You can learn more about him at Monte Melkonian. Shame on every individual (regardless of which nation) who treats a terrorist as a "hero". My comment about turkey and about other countries is unfortunately not a joke, even though you may want to deny its statement. But pass that. Your strange source does not provide a proof for the sentence i removed. As long as there is no international recognition of the grey wolves as a terrorist organization by relevant states or state communities (US, EU, NATO, UN), there is no need to label them as terrorist. A recognition by a central asian dictatorship is in no way comparable to a global recognition. XmuratX (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are becoming increasingly inane, and even as we speak, I becoming more and more convinced you are just stalling and making arguments that drag the discussion of-topic. You have your government, which is by no means a dictatorship, and you have two independent and unaffiliated Wikipedia editors who have declared it a Terrorist organization. You have several respectable journalists say the same thing. Your demands for an international organization to condemn them is irrelevant, no other wikipedia article has made that a standard just for notability, and these organization have better things to do than root out nationalists cults (particularly, in the Case of NATO an the US, who helped form the Grey Wolves). You cannot just raise your standards when they are met just because you want to keep certain words out of the article. And there are terrorists who are celebrated as heroes in all countries, even (or especially) Turkey. Consider that quite a few Turks consider Ogün Samast, despite being a racist murderer. In any case, I am going to re-add the removed information + the Kazakh article. This has gone on long enough, and if you feel I am violating wikipedia policy by doing this, contact an administrator. The Myotis (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide paragraph

It's so irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the Grey Wolves themselves; most Turks would rally against recognition, anyway. As such I'll be removing the paragraph. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying it is irrelevant does not make it irrelevant. Please give an actual argument with details. After all, a group as small as the Grey Wolves gains significance through its actions, and it does not make sense to take away information on one of the activities it has become best-known for. The Myotis (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant. We're talking nationalism, patriarchy and predjudice against all non-Turks, NOT the Armenian Genocide. Will you trolls ever stop spamming?

Grey Wolves

The last line of the first paragraph reads: " Khitij Prabha of the Indian Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA) and the Republic of Kazakhstan, where it is officially banned.[3]" Does anyone have any idea what this means? Better yet, would its author please rewrite it so that it actually says whatever it's actually supposed to mean? Thanks. 69.141.117.110 (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC) C. Ed Wright

it used to say "such and such considers the grey wolves a terrorist organization", but it got mangled by someone else. --Adoniscik(t, c) 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


Full of Information mistakes and Biased

This article is full of mistakes and information wrongs starting from the naming to the end. Mostly biased from a political look. The sources are the same kind,too and also insufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.235.255 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Logo/photos?

Do we have any photos of this group, in uniforms or anything? Or any logo or anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.84.32 (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong

Although they use some of the sayings in this text, Şehitler Ölmez, Vatan Bölünmez! (Martyrs don't die, Undividable Fatherland!) and Her Türk asker doğar! (Every Turk is born as a soldier.) are not grat wolf slogans, they are used by the army to drill soldiers [Her Türk asker doğar! (Every Turk is born as a soldier.)] and Turkish citizens who protested against PKK rebels killing Turkish soldiers, Respectfully--85.106.142.136 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

They are not nationslist.They are say "Turk and Kurd brother,racist is (kalleş)."They are kurdophilist fake nationalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.172.110 (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Problem

This article has a huge problem. First of all, although gray wolves and ülkücüler are extreme about nationalism, they are not terrorists although some of their members may comitted terrorist actions. Besides there is a section which tells the known members of gray wolves which doesn't show any proof for these members despite the first one. If any proof with a valid reference can't be found, that part should be removed.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, that problem is solved but the victims section doesn't show any reference that the assasins were grey wolves. so I am removing that section.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, the european grey wolves are not cited and needs citation for a long time, so I am removing that too.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
In fact I should and will remove everything that needs citation or not cited.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree anything that has no proof let alone a substantial one should be removed. Anyone can come up with claims and write them in.Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks

If anyone is interested there was a new leak posted about Grey Wolves on 4/24/11 http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2003/10/03ANKARA6535.html --Mark Barsky2 (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources 2,4,5

The sources above which accuse the Grey Wolves of being a terrorist organisation can not be accessed. Can someone please provide me links to these sources, so I can analyse them. If not I will have to remove the phrase. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Big Hurry to remove information and sources

It appears that someone is in a big hurry to remove information(Cyprus) and the corresponding reference without taking any time to check said reference.
From Irish Times:[4]
Tuesday 27 August 1996 €European court may hear Cyprus murder case(…)nationalist mainland Turkish "Grey Wolves" movement (founded in the 1950s by a Turkish Cypriot, Mr Alparslan Turkesh). And then there were the Turkish Cypriot police. Furthermore, in the view of Supt Cosgrave (…)By MICHAEL JANSEN - The Irish Times - Ireland

Thursday 15 August 1996 €Violence erupts at funeral of Greek Cypriot(…)of Mr Tassos Isaac, a 24 year old Greek Cypriot beaten to death on Sunday by Turkish Cypriot or Turkish militiamen, allegedly from the ultranationalist "Grey Wolves" movement, during clashes provoked (…)By MICHAEL JANSEN - The Irish Times - World

Tuesday 13 August 1996 €Greek and Turkish Cypriots stunned by casualty toll after biker protest(…)groups and were set upon by Turkish and Turkish Cypriot militants from the ultra nationalist "Grey Wolves" and "Hearth" movements, who were armed with guns, staves, clubs, stones and iron bars. According (…)By MICHAEL JANSEN - The Irish Times - World

"U.N. reports confirm that much of the violence appears to have been carried out by members of extremist groups, including the notorious Gray Wolves. The Turkish attackers seemed to be in accordance with a plan "to hit as many [Greek Cypriots] as possible," a senior U.N. official in Cyprus, Matt Cosgrave, told the Irish Times (August 27)."

Which verifies the source from the Embassy of Cyprus, which was deemed "unreliable".
Also, the concern over references 4[5] and 5[6] can be easily verified via google books. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This source[7] makes no mention of Grey Wolves, thus this paragraph;
"The Grey Wolves also rally around Pan-Turkic Causes including: the economic isolation and territorial integrity of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus; the Armenian military occupation<ref-Mr David Atkinson, United Kingdom, European Democrat Group, (Rapporteur) http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10364.htm "The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference", Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 29 November 2004-/ref> of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas, and the subsequent displacement of Azeri civilians; the assimilation campaigns and suppression of the Iraqi Turkmens in Kirkuk and adjacent regions in Northern Iraq by the Kurdistan Regional Government; and the suppression of Uygur culture and Chinese colonization of Eastern Turkestan. The Grey Wolves are also known to be supporters of Azeri activists that campaign for greater cultural rights in Iran."
..needs to be removed since it is unsourced. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As you can see Kansas I am not afraid to admit that I was wrong in removing such a source. However I still belive the source must be incorparated in the presence of the sources you have presented such as the UN report and the newspaper reports. Could we also insert a sentence describing motivation for the violence e.g. attempting to pull down the Turkish flag (although such an action does not warrant killing, in no means am I justifying what happened) it would just give a clearer picture to the reader. Regards,11:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Tugrulirmak (talk)

The UN report can be found on the Embassy of Cyprus source. Please, post the Cyprus section here along with the "attempting to pull down the Turkish flag" addition. That way we can both decide on the section's wording. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
After waiting 8 days, I am re-adding the Cyprus section. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Group name question

There was a post-WWII group of ex-Nazis "with a similar name" - who were they? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(nb - the group is Werwolf) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Pppppt forget it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.144.21 (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Mistranslation: "Ocak"

"Ocak" has been translated in this article as "forge," which does not feel quite correct. The Turkish Linguistic Association (Turkish speaking contributers, see this link: http://www.tdk.gov.tr/TR/sozbul.ASPX?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF05A79F75456518CA&Kelime=aya%u011f%u0131n%u0131+kayd%u0131rmak) lists eleven different entries for the meaning of "ocak," and probably just as many different English translations are possible. In the context of the phrase "Ülkü Ocağı," it would be more appropriate to translate it in a way that would imply a meaning similar to "place of gathering." The word "guild" comes to mind... Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilge Han (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 July 2007

I agree that the translation of 'ocak' to 'forge' is rather horrible. The word 'hearth' comes to mind both in terms of also having a folk-cultural origin and as it carries an analogue to 'ocak' in being both the sustenance of a household and the gathering place of a family. If no objections arise I very strongly suggest its use. - silent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.236.182 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 May 2008

Hearth is good. "Hearths of idealism", then? --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"House" is way more suitable, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.199.123 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

National Democratic Party

The article suggests that the organization is the youth wing of the National Democratic Party. I think it is Nationalist Movement Party of Turkey. A party called National Democratic Party does not exist in Turkey. There is a party called Nationalist Democracy Party in the history of Turkey which has no relation with the Grey Wolves. It is probably a mistake made by someone who does not speak Turkish and wrote the sentence without making any research. Moreover there is not a youth wing called Grey Wolves. The article mainly tries to talk about a group/movement called Idealists or Idealism (Ülkücülük in Turkish) which is a political view rather than a youth wing of a party. The article should be completely revised. - Inspectortr (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Youth branch of NMP?

I removed from the article the claim that Ülkü Ocakları was the "youth branch" of the Nationalist Movement Party. As you may see here, in this news report titled "We are not NPM's youth branch" from Gazete2023 the Samsun branch President of the Ülkü Ocakları says that they are not and do not like ("we are disturbed") to be taken as the NMP's youth branch. --E4024 (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Bias

National Movement Party and Ülkü Ocakları are legal organizations not terrorists and this article is highly subjective, even i can say ridiculously senseless. You can't make people terrorist from internet. Neo-fasists, terrorists, bounded with many crime and assasination hahaha really funny article :)

This text is totally false! Everything is false. This is a text against the Turks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.195.114.17 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 February 2007

Indeed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.132.221 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 13 March 2007

This text is only visible part of eisberg.--CrnyBa (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it must be biast because it prints the truth and some may not like that. Next you will be writing that it is a Kurdish-Zionist-Western-Arab-Armenian conspiricy against the Turks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.29.234 (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased and hostile; anyone can see that easily. Wikipedia should not be the platform for insulting political opponents. Is neutralism only a lie in this establishment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.25.207 (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree this article uses mainly false data. The article is contra-turkish and should be removed. I dont see any neutralism here. Other minoritys like the Pkk part of the BBP use these ways to weaken the faith of the turks and the way others think of them. Deniz Ernst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.44.112.44 (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is accurate and shows dark side of this fascist group. I don't know why some Turks think everyone is conspiring against them. There are many other fascist groups in other countries and no one come to defend them. Fascists are scums.--99.125.249.166 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Should'nt this article be semi-protected against IPs ?

5 attacks by IPs in the last two days, is this not enough ? The vandalizing pro-Grey Wolves IP(s) (only intervening on this article) are (is) all coming from the University of California in Los Angeles: 164.67.214.42 (also active the same day on tr.viki), 164.67.214.175 and 164.67.214.45 . --Pylambert (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

How can you understand people's ideology from their IP's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerimcan123 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

How can you blatantly removed referenced information, without discussion or explanation? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Neo-fascism

I think Neo-fascism should removed because in their oath they say they are against Communism, fascism, Capitalism, Zionism and all kinds of Imperialism --37.75.14.254 (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Grey Wolves (organization)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Brambleclawx (talk · contribs) 01:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hi there. I am Brambleclawx, and I will be reviewing this GA Nomination! My appearances may be a bit sporadic, so please bear with me. Brambleclawx 01:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Upon a quick preliminary read-through, the article definitely does not meet any quick-fail criteria, which is good. Seeing as this is an article about a currently-active political party, I will be looking in particular for NPOV, reliable sources, and article stability. Brambleclawx 01:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably, I have not been as able to edit as I thought I'd be; as suggested by User:BlueMoonset this article will be returned to the list to allow participants in the GA Cup a chance to look this article over instead. Regards, Brambleclawx 00:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

As I am unclear as to the procedure to return a nomination to the pool, I will tag this review for 2nd opinion. Brambleclawx 00:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: Brambleclawx, returning the nomination to the pool does not involve the second opinion option; the nomination is more likely to languish waiting for a second opinion, especially with the GA Cup in full swing—participants get credit for new reviews, not second opinions. I'll take care of everything; the next review will be started on a GA2 page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't aware of the procedure for that. Brambleclawx 01:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Comments:
    • In the "Name and symbolism" section, the article says "They are "characterised by...""; it's not very clear what the word "they" is referring to here (the political group, or actual wolves). Also, the last two paragraphs of the section in particular don't seem to fit the section name. Either change the name of the section, or move those into another section please. Brambleclawx 17:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 21 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Funnyguy127.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Grey Wolves (organization). DrKiernan (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Grey Wolves → Grey Wolves (Turkey) – (or Grey Wolves (organization)) Is this organization prominent enough to have this title? I'd think readers searching for "Grey Wolves" would expect to find Gray wolf. Some sources use title-case capitalization for species, and we have even done so in the past. If I had to guess, I'd also suspect that "grey" is more common in English than "gray" (cf. Grey). I definitely think it makes sense to retarget Grey wolves there, but this title might be acceptable per WP:DIFFCAPS. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Support a move either way. GregKaye 16:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment: GregKaye, as per Google search "Grey Wolves" AND ("Pan-Turkism" OR "Turkish nationalism" OR "Turkish nationalist") gets about 21,900 results, but "Gray Wolves" AND ("Pan-Turkism" OR "Turkish nationalism" OR "Turkish nationalist") gets only about 1,230 results. So we can be sure the spelling "Grey" is many times more common than "Gray" to refer to the group. Khestwol (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit warring by Unknowledge

I would suggest user:Unknowledge explain why they continue to edit war to remove referenced information from this article.[8][9][10]

"Neo-Fascist", referenced by;

  • Sullivan, Colleen (2011). "Grey Wolves". In Martin, Gus. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. pp. 236–7.
  • Aslan, Fikret; Bozay, Kemal, eds. (2012). Graue Wölfe heulen wieder: Türkische Faschisten und ihre Vernetzung in Deutschland [Grey wolves howl again: Turkish fascists and their networks in Germany] (in German) (3rd. ed.). Unrast Verlag. ISBN 978-3-89771-035-1.
  • Canefe, Nergis; Bora, Tanıl (2004). "Intellectual Roots of Anti-European Sentiments in Turkish Politics: The Case of Radical Turkish Nationalism". In Çarkoğlu, Ali; Rubin, Barry. Turkey and the European Union: Domestic Politics, Economic Integration and International Dynamics. Routledge. p. 125, 129. ISBN 9781135761202.
  • Cooley, John K. (2002). Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism (3rd ed.). London: Pluto Press. p. 195. ISBN 9780745319179. "A Turkish Fascist youth group, the "Grey Wolves," was recruited to fight with the Chechens."

"Assassinations, bombings", referenced by;

  • Lee, Martin A. (12 April 1998). "Turkish Dirty War Revealed, but Papal Shooting Still Obscured". Los Angeles Times.

Unknowledge does not have a strong understanding of English;

  • "These informations do not show the truth", shows that Unknowledge is here to right great wrongs
  • "There is no resources.it does not show the truth", same as above.
  • "I think this page made by leftist terrorist organizations in Turkey such as dhkp-c, pkk and hdp", blatantly calls other editors that have constructed this article, terrorists!
  • "Undid revision 672730812 by Yerevantsi (talk).You are sided. Obey the rules of wikipedia", again making judgments of other editors, so as to continue edit warring
  • "No resource.it is sided", yet has removed references and referenced information from the article, [11][12]
  • "No resource and its absolutely wrong", disruptive editing:see above. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In Syria?

http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/politics/view/34436 ....member of the Turkish Ülkü Ocaklari organization, Burak Mishinji, who had left for Syria to fight has been killed by the Syrian national defense forces. According to Demokrathaber website, prior to this departure to Syria, Mishinji had announced that he “was going to cut heads of Armenians and Alevis”. He was killed in a clash between Turkmens of and the National Defense Forces of Syria in Latakia. Mishinji was buried in Istanbul. His funeral was attended by his family, Member of Parliament Meral Aksener of MHP party, as well as others of party leadership. Turkmens were attending too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.157.241 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wrong

Grey Wolves aren't a "organization" which this article indicates. They're just centers for Turkish youth. No one can't blame any nationalistic orgazization for every moves their people makes/made. Yes they're helping Turkmens in Iraq and Syria. (maybe even with guns) I can't really express myself in English but you should already get the idea. For exemple a coup d'état in Azerbaijan, it's just irrelevant. Or bombing in Thailand. They don't have the means because it's depended on their members not selling drugs or human trafficking... Even the sources are shady. (the one i looked are all Russian or some other language with Cyrillic) So this article needs to be changed heavly.

Note: I'm not denying about 1980's because that was real it was a time of chaos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.5.128.47 (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please dont be silly :)

This article is so ridiculously wrong, MHP and Ülkü Ocakları are legal organizations in Turkey and EU and they are not fasists, terrorists or racists. In Ülkücü oath they say "against communism, fasism and imperialism". I think person who write this article is really clever and he/she/gay try to make them terrorist on internet and mislead people. In Turkish we have a say "Ananı mı siktiler/Herhalde anasını sikmişler" this saying fits to this persons position. :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.42.252.249 (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Turkish nationalist organization.

ideology = Turkish nationalism Pan-Turkism Anti-communism

The Grey Wolves (Turkish: Bozkurtlar), officially known as Ülkü Ocakları; "Idealist Clubs" or "Idealist Hearths"),is a Turkish nationalist organization. The Grey Wolves, also commonly referred to as the Ülkü Ocakları (Idealist Hearths), are a youth organization with close links to the MHP. It has been described as MHP's "lover youth organisation." Established by Colonel Alparslan Türkeş in the 1960s, it was the main nationalist force during the political violence in 1976–80 in Turkey. During this period, the organization became a "anti-communist patriots"


Under Devlet Bahçeli, who assumed the leadership of MHP and Grey Wolves after Türkeş's death in 1997, the organization has been reformed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Türkü (talk • contribs) 19:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Relevance?

What is the relevance of this sentence;

  • "In 2005 Kaveh Farrokh describes the Grey Wolves as "perhaps the most actively racist pan-Turanian organization in existence today""

Considering Kaveh Farrokh is not an academic historian or political scientist, I do not see how Farrokh's opinion, that of a school counselor, on the Grey Wolves would be relevant. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Grey Wolves (organization). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Drug involvement

Dear user Beshogur,

You are removing sources and details that are sourced. Also, you added tags that are not appropriate. Source clearly mentions that the group has involved in drug dealing and quote is from the source.Ferakp (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"According to the Armenian newspaper News.am, almost 85% of heroin imported to the Europe came through Turkey." has nothing to do with Grey Wolves article. Check the source. Beshogur (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Grey Wolves (organization). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

China, Volga Region

Yerevantsi, can you revert your edit please? How does become Grey Wolves active in China while they're inactive in Russia according you? Beshogur (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There are reliable sources which explicitly say they are active in Uyghurstan. None of the sources in the article said they are active in Russia. Simple as that.--Երևանցի talk 12:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I never saw any thing about Grey Wolves-affiliated organizations being active in China. Uyghur nationalist organization /=/ Grey Wolves, while the Russian ones are not part of Grey Wolves but Grey Wolves-afilliated. Ok, this can be discussed, why do you removed Ukraine then? Beshogur (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you take the time and read Grey_Wolves_(organization)#China_.28Xinjiang.29? There are several sources from authoritative sources which confirm that they operate in China. Again, none of the cited sources said a word about Grey Wolves. If they are in fact active in Tatarstan, for example, why don't you add a reliable source for that claim. As for Ukraine, there are only speculations that Grey Wolves exist in Crimea. And those are largely unconfirmed Russian speculations. --Երևանցի talk 12:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Look, Here: Noman Çelebicihan Battalion is a newly formed paramilitary group in Ukraine. If you look at their pictures, they have a flag with three moons, which is the flag of the Nationalist Movement Party, also there is a red gray wolf flag. I'm 100% sure, this group is affiliated with Grey Wolves in Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's pure speculation, even if you're 100% convinced. We write articles on Wikipedia using published reliable sources, not personal opinion. Please, please add a sources instead of speculating. I'm sure if they're connected there must be some kind of article on it.--Երևանցի talk 13:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Analyst "Ankaralı Jan"

Who is the analyst "Ankaralı Jan" who is mentioned in the article? This name means "Jan from Ankara" and it is a synonym. Can't find anything other than a Twitter account in the web. Wikipedia shouldn't use unknown sources like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:72:6F15:1500:4807:30DF:53AA:F3DC (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Grey Wolves (organization). 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) 19:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grey Wolves (organization). 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) 04:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grey Wolves (organization). 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) 13:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the Link 42 does not lead to the article the link states, but more importantly, Link 1 doesn't either. Link 1 is supporting most of the questionable and controversial material and I can't verify whether the source is credible.

- Mr. Char 3/22/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.101.17.53 (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

- I followed link 76 to the LA times article, and there are some claims made in the "Links to the Turkish government and Nato", that seem unsubstantiated. Specifically, the claim that the CIA facilitated the transfer of arms between militant groups appears to either be false, or have come from a different source than is cited. Either way, I believe that claims about the CIA's involvement should be removed, or cited to a source that actually makes that claim. --Funnyguy127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

İt is not a terorist organization

Grey wolves is not a terorist organization.However it is legal in Turkey as a association and most of their actions and notable attacks in this page are absolutely wrong and biassed.dhkp-c and pkk etc.leftist partisans (terorist organizations) don't like them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknowledge (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Grey Wolves (organization)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 01:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing, be back with comments soon. Wugapodes (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    AGFing that sources are used appropriately and undue weight is not being given as I can't read through all 150 sources
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

  1. The lead seems overly cited, but they may be results of consensus and citing controversial statements. I'll look through WP:LEAD again to make sure it's okay.
  2. There should not be an interlanguage link in the middle of the prose like there is with "Ahmet İnsel (tr)" and "Jacob M. Landau (ger)". Either make it a WP:REDLINK or put it in a see also if the person is intimately related to the topic.
  3. The first paragraph of Ideology is almost entirely quotes. Which, will not an overt violation of the criteria, I think has larger problems including copyright (as one quotation is incredibly long), a lack of summary of sources, unencyclopedic voice, and neutrality. I recommend seeing the essay WP:QUOTE, particularly WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE.
  4. As I'm reading more, I think the article has an issue with citation overkill and may benefit from bundling citations. For example: "described by scholars and journalists as a terrorist organization.[5][24][27][28][29]", "It is made by holding up the forefinger and little finger.[39][40]", "The Grey Wolves are Pan-Turkist[2][3]", and the worst I've seen so far, "In their ideology and activities, they are hostile to virtually all non-Turkish elements within Turkey, including Kurds,[3][46][48] Alevis,[49] Armenians,[8][48] Greeks,[8][48] and Christians in general.[8][50]" which has 10 citations and repeats ref 8 and ref 48 for almost every item.
  5. After finishing the Ideology section, I'm not even sure I fully understand what the ideology is. I got distracted by the quotes and jumping in and out of them. The section needs to be rewritten to adequately summarize the quotations in it.
  6. Also, the map doesn't make sense. It's not immediately apparent why the map is there or what the map is showing.
  7. You shouldn't pipe the link to Political violence in Turkey (1976–80) to remove the "in Turkey" part as "political violence between 1976 and 1980" is ambiguous.
  8. "Their most significant attack of this period was the Maraş massacre in December 1978 when hundreds of Alevis were killed.[14][21][22][58][59]" way too many citations.

Results

Not Listed I believe this article requires a fundamental rewrite to satisfy the criteria. The article is at least a quarter quotations. The instances of prose that are not quotations have so many citations that reading is broken up by a row of blue numbers 3 to 5 items long. Some instances have sentences fragmented by every other word being cited. I did not list every instance in my comments as it would be largely repetitive. But I think that this article is a long way from satisfying criterion one. I strongly recommend looking through WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:OVERCITE before renomination as this is a prime example of how those two issues can kill readability. Wugapodes (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Grey Wolves" is indeed a terrorist organization, according to at least one UN member state. It being legal in Turkey or not does not matter at all when it comes to whether it is considered a terrorist organization by other countries.

I believe you are the biased one here for labeling people who wrote the truth giving credible references as PKK-supporting leftist partisans. Miracsies (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Islamism

The Grey Wolves are known and proven supporters of MHP (kind of like a paramilitary wing, even), and now that MHP is a vocal supporter of Erdoğan and AKP, both MHP and The Grey Wolves have transformed their main ideology into Islamism, rather than Turkism, and for that, a substantial proportion of Turkists have stopped voting for or supporting TGW and MHP.

Islamism has always been a part of the ideology of TGW, but it has never been their main ideology, until now.

I propose to add "Islamism" to the list of TGW ideologies.

You can see on their official website that they are indeed Islamists.

[1]

Nonsense. Stop your Islamophobia. And please sign your post at the end. Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

How are they islamists? there is all religious affiliations in the gray wolves you have alos tengrists and ateists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.196.188.16 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.ulkuocaklari.org.tr/ulku-ocaklari-hakkinda/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Germany - umbrella organisations: Türk Federasyon, ATIB (ATİB Avrupa Türk-İslam Birliği), and, ATB

Another important organisation of Grey Wolves are the ATIB (Avrupa Türk-İslam Birliği (ATİB), in German: „Union der Türkisch-Islamischen Kulturvereine in Europa“. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avrupa_T%C3%BCrk-%C4%B0slam_Birli%C4%9Fi in Dachverbänden wie Türk Federasyon, ATIB oder ATB https://www.bpb.de/politik/extremismus/rechtsextremismus/260333/graue-woelfe-die-groesste-rechtsextreme-organisation-in-deutschland 87.143.177.244 (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

infobox, anti sentiment

There is to much "anti sentiment" ideology in infobox and should be renoved. It is already part of Ultranationalism. From that page, "Ultranationalism is "extreme nationalism that promotes the interest of one state or people above all others", or simply "extreme devotion to one's own nation". So they already oppose all other groups above own race/nation. Shadow4dark (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but I think it was meant to be a sort of who they are strongly against list of groups. Maybe worth having a section on it or removing very small cases and putting those into the article. Just my thoughts. --TataofTata (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
That what happens when they're against everything non-Turkish. Looks close to reality to me. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Should we merge them on Turkic supremacism ? Shadow4dark (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Ultranationalism doesn't equal being anti-Armenian/Greek/etc., nor does the position of being anti-Armenian/Greek/etc. necessarily equal ultranationalism. Unless, there's a clear source that attests to this group being "anti-every nation", which obviously doesn't exist, I think the information should stay. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I guess you could create a RfC for that. This should be thoroughly vetted by members of the community. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why this was removed. I kept the infobox short but restored it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

Change incorrect spelling of 'Andrey Klipash' to 'Andrey Klishas'. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Klishas Realsaygashow (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grey_Wolves_(organization)/Archive_1&oldid=1235746897"