Talk:Grey Wolves (organization)

Latest comment: 23 days ago by Grayfell in topic Unbalanced towards certain viewpoints

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) 19:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

France's alleged designation of the group as terrorist edit

I removed this from the infobox a while back, but it has since been readded by GenoV84. 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)Reply

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)Reply
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 ([1]). It should be fixed now. GenoV84 (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, and sorry for my inactivity. An anonymous username, not my real name 06:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

They are not on the EU terror list edit

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)Reply

Unbalanced towards certain viewpoints edit

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)Reply

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)Reply