Talk:Grey Wolves/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
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)
