Talk:Grey Wolves (organization)

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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Grey Wolves Gokturk Flag.svg

France's alleged designation of the group as terrorist
I removed this from the infobox a while back, but it has since been readded by. The cited source makes only one mention of an organization being designated as terrorist: the PKK by Turkey. It does not say anything about the Grey Wolves being considered a terrorist organization by France or anyone else. We cannot take a ban to be synonymous with terrorist designation. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The governments of Azerbaijan and France have both banned the Grey Wolves from their respective countries for political violence and terrorist activities, although at the same time neither of those countries have designated the Grey Wolves as a terrorist organization.
 * Frankly, I think that the problem would be easily solved by adding the parameter "Countries from which they have been banned" to the Infobox, but I don't know if there is such a parameter for cases like this one. We could propose its creation, though. GenoV84 (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I couldn't find any other suitable parameter in the template documentation of the Infobox militant organization except for "status", therefore I moved the informations and related sources about the respective bans in France and Azerbaijan to that section of the Infobox . It should be fixed now. GenoV84 (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and sorry for my inactivity. An anonymous username, not my real name  06:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

They are not on the EU terror list
See here and please fix the info box accordingly: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-006101-ASW_EN.html 2A02:3100:55A0:D100:F5F3:EC0C:6C32:18C3 (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Unbalanced towards certain viewpoints
The article's first paragraphs focus too much on claims of terrorism. This constitutes unbalanced rhetoric. Even openly terrorist organizations do not contain such rhetoric in Wikipedia. I suggest softening the tone in the opening paragraphs. 46.31.118.93 (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, and the lead is intended to be a summary of the body. If you have some specific reason to think this isn't the case, you can explain it, but other articles have their own set of sources. Further, "unbalanced" is subjective, and balance should not be conflated with false balance. Grayfell (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. The sources chosen in the article are one-sided and are skewed towards a certain point of view. Would this not merit the article to be tagged "unbalanced"? 46.31.118.93 (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)