Talk:Grey Wolves (organization)

Wrong flag: their current flag is not the white göktürk wolf, but the wolf with the crescent one.

I have seen that someone used the white version of Göktürk Khaganate flag for the flag for this organization. Their current flag is the wolf with the crescent one. You can see it on their own website.

Though, this is their official foundation in Turkey. Since the activities of Grey Wolves (who are known for the terrorist attacks) have died down mostly, as there is no longer a communist threat in Turkey and in surrounding areas. They are mostly a """""peaceful""""" foundation right now. insert heavy sarcasm in that peaceful word there

Anyway, since the latest organization that is somewhat part of the greywolves are using this flag as their official flag / logo, we might as well use this one instead of the göktürk one. 2knk (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

What does this WP:COMMENTARY have anything to do with the Göktürk flag, which is fictional anyway, or with the article itself? You still need to prove all of these claims (communist threat in Turkey, the Grey Wolves not operating as a terrorist organization anymore, etc.) that you have written here with evidence based on academic, reliable references that could demonstrate that what you're saying is true.... because the cited sources in the article state that the Grey Wolves are the MHP's youth wing, and are still very active in the country and elsewhere, among many other things. GenoV84 (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

hello, thanks for replying. first of all, i do not think this can be considered baseless commentary (like you have written on my profile's talk page). Secondly, i am not used to editing this website, so i am not good with how to edit or add sources to this talk page. i can't find the necessary button anywhere.

for the communist threat part, communism was seen as a threat by the Grey Wolves organization, so their agenda was also attacking communists alongside kurdish people.

after the 1980 military coup, the communist movement largely died down due to martial law and imprisonments of communist leaders. the new coup government also imprisoned right wing political leaders, but not as much as they did against left wing ones.

after the "communism threat" have died down in the country, grey wolves either went into drug trafficking business , or other illegal means . now they started going against kurds more instead of communists. or this is how it is perceived in the public's eye.

and yes, the current "grey wolves" is the youth movement of MHP, but MHP is also a form of political wing of the old grey wolves, the organization, which is what this page is about.

as far as i know, the old movement did not have any flag (because they weren't an organized entity, like political parties). however, the new youth movement, which bears the same name and has connections, has a proper logo / flag of their own, and its even displayed on their website.

the reason i did not just outright changed the flag in the wiki page is because i am not really sure about their history, but what i have written here can be considered a primary source, as i am also a turk who lives in turkey and who has seen or heard of these events happening in real time. that is also the reason why i decided to write here in the "talk page" so that we can actually "talk" about these things in good faith.

as far as i know, the old "grey wolves" paramilitary, terror and mafia organization have mostly died down and transformed into the structure of today's MHP party, or the "idealist heathes" (ülkü ocakları), which has active buildings spread around cities in the country. those "idealist hearthes" buildings and offices are considered to be successors of the old "grey wolves" movement from the 80's, where they organized and attacked communists or other nationalities / ethnicities living in the country. 2knk (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

the reason i did not just outright changed the flag in the wiki page is because i am not really sure about their history, but what i have written here can be considered a primary source, as i am also a turk who lives in turkey and who has seen or heard of these events happening in real time. Dubious claims without evidence, you just said it yourself.... I have no doubt about the fact that your edits were in good faith and you were genuinely trying to make an improvement, but as you said replacing the wrong flag with the right one (while explaining the reason for its replacement in the edit summary) would have been sufficient. However, informations must be based upon WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:VERIFY policies in order to be considered encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. GenoV84 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by academic, reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. New editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. GenoV84 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I have no doubt about the fact that your edits were in good faith and you were genuinely trying to make an improvement, but as you said replacing the wrong flag with the right one (while explaining the reason for its replacement in the edit summary) would have been sufficient. I think you are misunderstanding something. it wasn't me who edited the article / changed the flags. I simply asked people to verify whether the current flag was indeed the white göktürk, or their current official flag. Hence i even posted their official website. and like i said, i am not familiar with their official history, but only with their informal / primary source wise history. that is also one of the reasons why i just did not outright edit the pages, because for one, i do not have definite secondary hand sources on me, and for the second, i am not a historian. this doesn't fall on my profession. so ina good faith, i asked whether the flag was correct or not, in this talk page, so that more research could be made. because it is very clear that the flag they use today is different from what it was. or at least, their official, """""peaceful""""" youth wing. I know for a fact that the burden of proof is on the one who is doing the edits, and not for him to ask "you can find sources". that is exactly why i just did not edit the pages, because i did not have secondary sources on me, and instead, asked here if anyone had access to a good source about the flags. isn't this talk page is the place to talk about that? 2knk (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Correct classification and intentions of Grey Wolves please.

You are insisting on describing an islamophobic regime that has historically slaughtered Muslim minorities as being an "Islamic Regime" this is incorrect and a statement clearly only to please a racist. Please pay attention and do not undermine others, thank you. ~2025-37479-28 (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Description as the “largest right-wing extremist organization in Germany”

The article currently states that the Grey Wolves “are the largest right-wing extremist organization in Germany.” I think this wording should be reconsidered for precision. Recent German government material describes the Ülkücü movement as a broader right-wing extremist movement rather than a single organisation, and states that there is no common organisation encompassing the entire Ülkücü following in Germany. The movement is instead partly organised through several major umbrella associations. Would it therefore be more accurate to describe the Ülkücü/Grey Wolves milieu as one of the largest right-wing extremist movements in Germany, or to reproduce more precisely the terminology used by the German authorities and the source cited here?

Oswald Quinsley (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Accuracy and wording of several historical claims

I have noticed several statements in the History section where I think the wording could be made more precise and more closely reflect what the cited sources actually establish.

Abdullah Çatlı and the Susurluk crash

The article currently states that Abdullah Çatlı “was killed during the Susurluk car crash, which sparked the scandal.” I think “died in the Susurluk car crash” would be more neutral and precise. The crash is generally described as a traffic/car accident, while there have separately been allegations that Çatlı survived the initial collision and was subsequently killed. Unless the cited source specifically establishes that he was deliberately killed, Wikipedia should not use wording that could imply this interpretation. “Died in the Susurluk car crash” states the undisputed fact without taking a position on competing claims concerning the circumstances of his death.

Statement that information about the Grey Wolves is “scarce”

The History section begins with the statement, attributed to Ruben Safrastyan, that because the Grey Wolves are subtle and often formally operate as cultural and sports organisations, “information about them is scarce.” I question whether this broad formulation is sufficiently precise. There is substantial academic, governmental and journalistic literature concerning the Grey Wolves/Ülkücü movement. If Safrastyan was referring specifically to difficulties obtaining reliable information concerning internal organisation, membership, decision-making or clandestine activities, I think the article should clarify that narrower meaning rather than leaving readers with the general impression that information about the movement itself is scarce.

Grey Wolves and the Rhodesian Bush War

The article states that “there were also reports of Grey Wolves assisting Rhodesia during the Rhodesian Bush War.” I think this wording should be checked carefully against the cited source. There is an important distinction between individual Grey Wolves members or people associated with the movement travelling to Rhodesia and serving as volunteers or mercenaries, and the Grey Wolves as an organisation providing assistance to Rhodesia.

If the source establishes only the participation of individual members or sympathisers, the present wording risks attributing their actions to the organisation as a whole. In that case, wording such as “Some members associated with the Grey Wolves reportedly served with Rhodesian forces during the Rhodesian Bush War” would be more precise. If the source establishes organised involvement by the Grey Wolves themselves, however, the existing formulation could be retained with appropriate sourcing.

In all three cases, my concern is primarily one of precision and attribution. I think the wording should distinguish clearly between established facts, attributed interpretations, allegations, and actions undertaken by individual members rather than automatically attributing them to the organisation as a whole. Oswald Quinsley (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)