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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I apologize for tagging the article heavily. I understand that it is mainly an initial draft by a single person, who has no obligation to cover everything at once, but the article concentrates mainly on modern topics.
I am sure in time other editors will fill these and other gaps without much political quarrel. Inshallah. Mukadderat 01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the "What is Anti-Turkish?" section because it seemed rather unencyclopedic, especially the list of "clues". Suppose a news source criticizes both the PKK and the Turkish Army for human rights violations. Are they considered anti-Turkish because they try to provide both sides of an issue? Also the section was unsourced. —Khoikhoi 18:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you Kholkhoi I think it was just copied from a similar section from the Anti-Hellenism article. 86.1.80.37 18:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a section about this could be added. In the Netherlands for example, the term "Turk" as a degoratory term is used to say someone is "stupid". I believe the same thing is true in Russian. It's unfortunate, but it's true that this kind of racism happens. —Khoikhoi 18:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Really I didnt know about the use of the word Turk to denote "stupid" in the Netherlands and Russia. However I have heard it is used in Iran as a degoratory term. 86.1.80.37 18:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this picture should be uploaded The Caption states: 'A dispute arose as to which of the two - a Turk or a goat - smelt the worse. An enquiry was held - (1) The goat was brought in and the President fainted; (2) The Turk was brought in and the goat fainted. The enquiry was closed. [3]
[Image:http://www.zaman.com/2006/07/19/die_welt_b.jpg Die Welt Publishes Anti-Turkish News Article] The newspaper, accusing German citizen Turks of being responsible for the increasing crime rate in Germany, overlooked the streets over flowing with Turks waving the German flag. The newspaper implied instead that the country was under the sovereignty of Muslim Turks, publishing a photograph with the Turkish flag and Islamic crescent seen over the German Parliamentary building. The news headlined, "Tücken der Zuwanderung" "The Tricks of Emigration" is just one letter different from the expression "Türken der Zuwanderung" which means, "The Turks of Emigration." Publishing the "Turk/Trick" concept together with the provocative photo is intended to foment the fear of Germany’s becoming "Turkicized". [4] --80.5.34.222 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
“The American Islam expert Bernard Lewis has said that Europe will be Islamic at the end of this century,” he said.
“I do not know if this is right, or whether it will be at that speed, but if he is right, the liberation of Vienna in 1683 would have been in vain.” Frits Bolkestein 80.5.34.222 19:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Bull Of The Convocation of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Trent. by Pope Paul III
[...]
Whilst we desired the commonwealth to be safe and protected against the arms and insidious designs of the infidels, yet, because of our transgressions and the guilt of us all, indeed, because of the wrath of God hanging over us by reason of our sins, Rhodes had been lost, Hungary ravaged, war by land and sea intended and planned against Italy, and against Austria and Illyria, since the Turk, our godless and ruthless enemy, was never at rest and looked upon our mutual enmities and dissensions as his fitting opportunity to carry out his designs with success.
[...]
In the meantime, the Turk, our cruel and everlasting enemy, having attacked Italy with a powerful fleet, captured, sacked and ravaged several cities on the shores of Apulia and carried off as booty the inhabitants, while we, in the greatest fear and general danger, were occupied in fortifying our shores and in furnishing assistance to the nearest neighboring localities.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.34.222 (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The factual accuracy could only be disputed by the turks--Slogankid 11:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Those dictionary definitions seem odd - I went to the PDF and checked the dictionaries listed, and none of them have the anti-Turkish definitions that are stated in the PDF. For example, Merriam-Webster and Oxford both have normal, neutral definitions. I'm going to remove that reference, as the PDF doesn't say when the dictionary was looked at. --Awiseman 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
"I'd rather be a Paki than a Turk" I don't think this is worth adding to the page. Football fanatics insult everything about the opponent team. Have you ever been to an international match in Turkey? There are tons of incidents way more worse than this. Also this sentence is mainly insulting Pakis rather than Turks. They're just trying to make Turks annoyed.
Is this an important example for Anti-Turkism ? No, I don't think so.
I am Greek and I would like to clarify something about the Turkish nationality. During the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, and Serbia) and Cyprus many people were forced or just made to become Muslims. These people were Minor Asians, Hellenes (the nation that is not correctly called by the western Europeans Greeks, Grecs, Griechen etc.) , Slavs (Bosnians), Bulgarians, Albanians (the tribe of the Ghegs) etc. When somebody referred to a Christian, he called him “Romios” or “Roum”. Romios comes from the greek word “Romaios” which means Roman (The Roman Empire existed till 1453, when the Turks entered Constantinople) . On the other hand, when somebody referred to a muslim, he called him “Turk”, no matter which his nationality was. So there are no legal citizens in Cyprus that are actually Turks. There are just muslim Cypriots, who are occupied by Turkish troops and an illegal government. The state of Cyprus is one and it should be governed by the Cypriots (Christians and Muslims). As far as the anti-turkism is concerned, I think that, if the Turkish government could act democratically without the interference of the Turkish army, things would be better. Anti-turkism is the result of the actions of the Turkish state, which are against their neighbors and the minorities in turkey.
I think that what the guy is trying to say is that anti-turkism today is based rather on the political practices of the modern turkish state than on racial preconceptions, e.g. the ethnic inferiority of Turks. It's worth pointing out that there is a difference between attacking someone who is a moslem citizen of the Ottoman Empire (of Arabic, Albanian, Bosnian, Greek, Russian or even Italian origin)and a citizen of modern-day Turkey.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.1.249.248 (talk • contribs).
I don't see how these fit in:
The first one seems positive to me, and the German ones don't explain their meanings. --AW 19:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
So why do we have this section, or why do we have it the way it is now? It is the original research of someone and it is the reason for the POV tag on top. I am going to remove the section if nobody disagrees. DenizTC 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Anon IP editor (75.19.56.80) needs to properly present his/her arguments against the edits before removing them. The sources will be provided soon. Atabek 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No mention of this sentiment which is possibly most widespread amongst amrenians today as well as that movie the mid-night express.Thoese 2 are dfeintately worth mentioning.Maybe create one section titled "Armenia" or "amongst Amrenians" and for the midnight express we can create "in hollywood." --Vmrgrsergr 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Reverted to Scarian's edit. There is no such word as "banishment" used in regards to events of 1915 anywhere. Also, TRNC is not a recognized entity, which should be indicated in the article. Atabek 08:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The link provided does not contain any mentioning of Torke-khar or that such ever originated in Ottoman Empire. Please, provide legitimate links or evidence to support your edit. Thanks. Atabek 07:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
“ | One consequence was to reinforce these officers sense of their Turkish nationality, and a sense of national grievance arising out of die contrast between the non-Muslim communities, with their prosperous, European-educated elites, and "the poor Turks [who] inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plough." Unlike the non-Muslim and non-Turkish communities, they noted with some bitterness, the Turks did not even have a proper sense of their own national identity, and used to make fun of each other, calling themselves “donkey Turk” | ” |
--Alborz Fallah 10:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
“ | In the Ottoman Empire the very name 'Turk' was even rather insulting and was used to denote backwoodsmen, bumpkins, illiterate peasants in Anatolia ' etraki-bi-idrak in an Ottoman (Arabic) play on words 'the stupid Turk'. | ” |
“ | The ordinary Turks did not have a sense of belonging to a ruling ethnic group. In particular, they had a confused sense of self-image. Who were they: Turks, Muslims or Ottomans? Their literature was sometimes Persian, sometimes Arabic, but always courtly and elitist. There was always a huge social and cultural distance between the Imperial centre and the Anatolian periphery. As Bernard Lewis expressed it: ‘’in the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages.’’(Lewis 1968: 1) In the words of a British observer of the Ottoman values and institutions at the start of the twentieth century: The surest way to insult an Ottoman gentleman is to call him a 'Turk'. His face will straightway wear the expression a Londoner's assumes, when he hears himself frankly styled a Cockney. He is no Turk, no savage, he will assure you, but an Ottoman subject of the Sultan, by no means to be confounded with certain barbarians styled Turcomans, and from whom indeed, on the male side, he may possibly be descended. (Davey 1907: 209) |
” |
--Alborz Fallah 10:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I incorporated Alborz's material into the article in the new section about anti-Turkism within the Ottoman Empire.Hajji Piruz 16:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Andranikpasha, ASALA was anti-Turkish organization, because its stated objective was to attack Turkish targets, its victims were primarily Turkish diplomats and civilians. Besides that, here is the reference:
Do not remove the reference without proper discussion or proof that ASALA was pro-Turkish and/or neutral to Turkey. Atabek 22:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Lets to discuss it in one place, OK? better if to continue it in ASALA's talk page, as a discussion is currently going on. Thank you! Andranikpasha 06:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"just for being Turks"? -citation needed! To their announcements- just for being the representatives of the government of Turkey. PS- Pls lets to discuss in ONE place, a long discussion is going on (finished?) there on ASALA's talk page! Andranikpasha 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, please, if you want to contunue the discussion with me, read the quotations which you provade to prove something more carefully (there isnt such a description in Anti-Turkism : attacks of Turkish diplomats or even officials!!!), and then, pls read and answer here Talk:Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia as the topic is related to ASALA and a discussion is first started there with quotations etc. We cant discuss the same things both in Arran and Cauc. Albania, ASALA and Anti-Turkism etc. Andranikpasha 08:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So, talk about ASALA here, why would it not be Anti-Turkism? Are you Andranikpasha? Should we repeat the sources above, should we ask again to just stop and think, why would one even need a source (though it is certainly better to supply one) to list them anti-Turkish, an organization that was once one of the most lethal terrorist organizations in US, that was targeting people only because they were Turkish diplomats or their wives/children, or people waiting in a Turkish Airlines booth (fatal, commercial, reputational). Lets discuss it once, I can understand that, and we did that, but why should we discuss it over and over, it is such a simple thing, if you stop and think about it, and please do that. DenizTC 03:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It does not say what these definitions are of. I read some of this talk page, and was able to figure out that at least one of them is the definition of Turk. Perhaps it should say that. If I was confused maybe others are too? BCapp 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this article meant to be a list? DenizTC 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
are you kidding? This is the best you guys can come up with? I see worse every day at school. Goddamn.24.188.128.48 21:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
They were harassed because Turks are Muslim, and because of negative image of Turks established by some group of people interested in such image. So anti-Turkism is clearly present. Besides, if your argument above holds water, then World War I events in Eastern Anatolia were also more Muslim-Christian conflict rather than Turkish-Armenian one. Thanks. Atabek 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what exactly is the point of this article? Making out like Turks are some kind of oppressed or hated minority? Why else the reproduction of all the "slander" quotes from the Renaissance and later about Turks? Here's the problem: MOST OF THEM ARE FACTUAL. Turkey has invaded eastern and central Europe so many times that Balkan historians have lost count, sponsored the piracy and enslavement of Western Europeans until 1826, and kick-started the century of genocide with its death camps in the Syrian desert. And most Turks are Muslims, and no matter how you slice it, Islam has a problem with domestic issues and gender roles - Voltaire's sin may have been stating his case in an extreme manner, but the facts were there.
Turkey is one of the most powerful Muslim countries in the world, especially considering that its government feels comfortable in its power to demand censorship of historical discussions in the Western world. Certainly not weak enough to justify having a sob story article such as this. I think it should be deleted. Orzhovcrusader 06:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Orzhovcrusader
The justification for the POV tag. None of the incidents has anything to do with Anti-Turkism, its Anti-Islam. Those people were discriminated against because of their religion not nationality. VartanM (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I find it curious that the article doesnt mention the violent and inarguably racially and ethnically tinged manifestation of Turcophobia in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Millions of Turks, many of whom lived in Europe for generations were ethnically cleansed, either made into refugees or slaughtered throughout that time period. I realize that many of you probably feel that Ottoman policies justified it and that the Turks deserved it...that's your opinion...regardless, I believe that an article concerning Anti-Turkism or Turcophobia would be startlingly incomplete without a discussion of such an important chain of events. The violence was directed towards Turks, people associated with Turks, people perceived to be Turks, and its perpetrators and supporters often used the word Turk when it was being carried out. Some of the violence was reciprocated in kind, but much of it was not. Just as Turkish violence against other groups makes it to their anti-x pages, their violence against Turks should make it to this one. Can we add some information about that please? Chillinchillin 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Chillinchillin
I can't recall any other nationality loathed as much as the Turkish, not even Americans come close.--Doktor Gonzo 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Arm. consp. theories are added. Despite its quite irrelevant, and have nothing to do with anti-Turkism, but is a part of anti-Armenianism.Andranikpasha (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In the Sayings section, it reads The Greek Cypriots often call Turks "vromoskillous" ("stinking/ dirty dog"). The referenced document does not say that.
The word "vromoshilloi" is mentioned ONCE in the document, in the following segment which I present to you verbatim. Note that the pupil in the conversation that follows is a 6th grade, Greek-Cypriot girl (around 10-11 years old).
[quote] Consider the following example where the teacher is careful to draw a distinction between goverments and people, between politicians and ordinary citizens:
Charitini: "In Greece they call the Turks stinky dogs (vromoshilloi)." Teacher: "Is it good to say these things?"
In mild protest, Charitini said that the Turks did bad things to 'us'. The teacher proceeded to explain that many Turks had no choice but to follow the orders of those above them--their leaders-- when they invaded Cyprus. [/quote]
Somehow I doubt this qualifies as proof of the widespread use of the name "vromoskillous" to describe Turks. Also, did any of you scholars verify these references prior to adding them? This article reeks of pro-Turkish POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.195.250.2 (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have now removed the unsubstantiated claim from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.195.250.2 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The statement made in the artile, that Greek-Cypriots call Turks stinky dogs, was FALSE. What you think or what you may have been, perhaps justifiably, called on the Internet, is IRRELEVANT. This is a clear-cut case of Turkish POV. I wouldn't be surprised if the other claims to anti-Turkish sayings proved equally unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.195.250.2 (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Including the Bagdatis reference is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as well as WP:SYN since it assumes the "anti-turkish comment" reffered in the article implies the same definition espoused by the article and which is unsourced. In fact the article author does not clarify what they mean by anti-turkish and whether that complies with the definition used in this article which is WP:OR and ad-hoc. For all these reasons it should be removed. In the main Bagdatis article it is described as a controversy and WP does not take a position endorsing the spurious allegation that this statement is "anti-turkish" in the way defined in WP.Xenovatis (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:OR and WP:SYN would pretty well describe this article. The def is OR and most of the sections are SYN and OR. WP:RS sources defining antiturkish and presenting these facts in that light are needed. Please discuss. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get the point in this topic, there are talks of two men: Voltaire and William and then you make a thought with its relative points and name this internet site as a encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.43.31 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need an individuals section, it's just going to lead to argument over whether a person is Anti-Turkish or pro-whatever. --AW (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
yeah alot of people hate Turks but the prouducers of the Simpsons?? has anyone else heard of Grasping for straws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.95 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
...for starters, what is the point of the "Anti-Turkish examples in film and theatre" section? I move that it should be deleted entirely. The purpose of the section is to presumably show examples of anti-Turkish film and theater, but instead it's a list of shows where one character is (arguably) anti-Turkish. To me, this is the same thing as putting Schindler's List in a section titled "Anti-semetic examples in film and theater"; it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
That's the theory; in practice, though, I don't even think it lives up to what it's trying to do. Let's start with the Shakespeare example: I admit that I'm no Shakespeare scholar, but to me the quotation is not a slight against all Turks, but a specific one. The article claims that Lawrence of Arabia is anti-Turkish because of something that happened in real life that was left out of the movie! Even if the rape had been in the movie, it wouldn't be anti-Turkish if it actually happened. A similar line of reasoning is used for Midnight Express: a depiction of a rape by Turkish people is only anti-Turk if it implies that all Turks are racists. Otherwise it's just showing a rape by peope who happen to be Turk. The fact that Stone apologized leads me to believe, as well, that any offence was unintentional. The quote from Lolita is specifically not anti-Turkish, seeing as how she says "I wouldn't care if your maternal grandfather turned out to be a Turk". You don't hear many neo-Nazis saying "I wouldn't care if your maternal grandfather turned out to be a Jew" do you? Lastly, the Simpsons quote is just silly. For one, the Simpsons is a satire, and the character of Homer is a doofus. There's only two potentially "anti-Turkish" portions of the quotation: "Cyprus-splitting" and "jerks". As I understand it, Cyprus was split into two entities when the Turks invaded, so "Cyprus-splitting" is accurate, if satirical. "Jerks" hardly qualifies as anti-Turkism. Anti-Turkism is not any slight against a Turkish person; instead, it is a slight against a person because they are Turkish.
For now I have put an OR tag on the section, because as far as I can see there are no citations that claim any of the given movies, actors, directors, or whatever the article is claiming is anti-Turkish, are in fact anti-Turkish. If we can't find purpose for this section, I'd be happy to have it deleted, as I think even a perfectly written section wouldn't add anything to the article. JazzMan 19:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
sigh, some people are very eager to present any conflict in terms of "discrimination". So European hostility to the Ottoman forces in the Ottoman wars in Europe amounts to "anti-Turkish sentiment". In this case, the Ottoman hostility towards Europe translates to "anti-European sentiment", then? I have an idea, let's create two "anti-X sentiment" articles for every war or battle in history. In other words, wth. If we need an "X-phobia" article, at least make sure it discusses actual phobias, not just plain old conflict. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Translate my words
Hz Muhammed ile ilgili yazdıklarınızı lütfen silin. O bizim peygamberimizdir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.202.66 (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
"According to some theologians the word Turk came from "torquere" ("torture")."
This statement is false and outrageous. In the Göktürk scripts, Turks referred to themselves as Türük Boyu, which date back to 8th century and therefore way before the contact of Turks with any European civilization. --Muratkaval (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following section from the article, and here is why. "Philipp Melanchthon claimed that the Turks were the Red Jews - Jews because they circumcised their sons and had other Jewish manners and Jewish customs and Red because they were bloodhounds that murdered and warred."
Circumcision was exercised by all Muslim at that time, so this statement is rather dull. Also, this is discriminatory to both Turks and Jews and therefore has no place in Wikipedia. --Muratkaval (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Ibn Sīnā states in his book "Al-Shifā":
"since the Turks and Africans live in harsh territories which are not suitable for the cultivation of intellectualism, consequently they are far away from knowledge and thus obliged to serve the people of the city of virtue ...[14]"
Sadly many Turkish enthusiasts have attached figures like Ibn Sina to their race..as well as other Persian heritage figures like Molana, Biruni, Nasir Tusi, Nezami Ganjavi, etc. Perhaps this can be attributed to the Persian animosity towards Turks. Can someone add this to the article, it's worth a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello can I ask why on earth were all the mentions of anti-Turkish vocabulary in the Netherlands deleted? Even until today there are racist descriptions of "Turks" in many Dutch dictionaires. I had documented this for the page, including multiple sources. Why were these deleted??NeoRetro (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)