Talk:Grey Wolves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grey Wolves article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
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.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Grey Wolves:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Archive
Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives:

Contents

[edit] Comments

How can a facist organization be compared to pan arabism?? On what basis??

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)

[edit] Bad Links

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).

[edit] Bias

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)

Indeed!


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)

[edit] Real Turks in Turkey 5-7%

Turkic nationalism in Turkey pure demagogie. Real Turkic blood in Turkey 5-7%.--Warhunne 03:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The above sentence is one of the most ridiculous things that I've ever heard in my life :) --88.238.197.22 (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are funny.

[edit] 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?


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

[edit] Pov

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • Yes that is a drill song. Also lots of Turks use that sentence daily. Because if you know Turkish history, you'll see that Turks are a warrior nation, or at least they think they are. Ruzgar 17:58, 24 January 2008 (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)

[edit] "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 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)