Talk:Grey Wolves (organization)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Turkey (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Organizations (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

İt is not a terorist organization[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 22:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[]

GA Review[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

  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[edit]

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[edit]

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/. Missing or empty |title= (help)

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

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[edit]

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)[]