Talk:Valley of the Wolves Iraq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Valley of the Wolves Iraq article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
WikiProject Turkey This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for Valley of the Wolves Iraq: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

{{reqphotoin|Turkey

Contents

[edit] Comments

[edit] Huge NPOV issues

example: The story begins with a true story: “The Hood Event”… On 2003, the 4th of July, allied American forces come to the unofficial, half-secret Turkish headquarters consisting of eleven people. The Turkish soldiers suppose that this an ordinary visit from their allies. But this time it is different. In the changing conjuncture, America wants to be the only power “calling the shots”. To them, there is no place for Turks in the region any more…

A correction to the above example: The Turkish headquarters was not secret nor illegal. It was a liasion and observation base established according a bilateral agreement between Turkish and Iraqi governments. As that agreement was not annulled the existence of Turkish special forces was legal while that of American soldiers was illegal (under international public law).EG 15:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)EG


Someone needs to fix up this article it seems to have been written by a fan or soemthing wiht alot of misleading comments.

--I've just added the POV tag to notify of the obvious, but I've no time right now to rewrit^W^W^W^W^W^Wfix this article... ClementSeveillac 06:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a LOT of work and it needs it soon because this movie is getting more coverage in the west. I imagine it will be worked on shortly. Right now, it's ridden with POV and is almost unreadable. 67.52.38.172 18:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Have largely re-written original text to create what i feel is a fairly non-POV text. Is fairly minimal though.Lucasshark33

They should have supported the War On Terror. Answer this what were they doing in Iraq than?

[edit] Copyright of text?

Compare the text with the text from the official website. Appearantly the text was not written by a 'fan' but is part of the marketing material (or they copied from here ...). IMHO not a good starting point for a wikipedia article as its NPOV will be a big issue anyway. --The emm 14:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] in the news in germany

This film is shown in several cinemas in germany in original title and language. The strong anti-US (my friend from peru insists not to be mixed as Amerikan) is comented in the media in germany. The muslim minority (most from Turkey) make this movie a good bussines success here.217.185.17.172 15:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Could you incorperate this into the artcile? Reuvenk 20:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In Germany the conservative but prestigious daily newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) has launched, beginning last wednesday, severe attacks against this film, describing it as antisemitic, anti-American (meaning anti-US), turkish-nationalistic, racist and so on. The turkish member of parliament of the Green party has also accused that film and remarked: "Who defends that film, should be quiet on Mohammed-caricatures", maybe an allusion to Horkheimer's remark "Who wants to talk about capitalism, should not be silent on fascism." - Whereas the FAZ has a more pro-American leaning, the other business paper "Handelsblatt" of the more anti-American capital faction has had consequentially a more relaxed attitude towards that film. The conservative politician of the Bavarian CSU-party has meanwhile asked to take that film out of German theatres. Alex1011 13:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The film is shown in 65 theaters only in original language with german subtitles (which is not very common).Stone 21:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In cities with big Turkish communities like Berlin Turkish films are often shown in original language. De mortuis... 01:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In France

The importer of many Turkish films into France (Toocool) complains that, although they have announced a release date for 1 March, they are currently unable to conclude a contract with any one of the France's monopolistic film distributors (insidious censorship the importer comments). --Cretanforever 07:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And rightly so. This is the worst kind of propoganda film. cacophony 00:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...although Turkish special forces were not supposed to be in Iraq...

Should I extend that commentary remark to cover views expressed on the presences by troops of other countries in Iraq? --Cretanforever 07:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The region which the modern world calls Iraq today(Iraq is totally a made up country) was belong to the Ottoman Empire, even before, it was belong to another Turkish empire, the Seljuks. Turkey is the most powerful country in the region(second most powerful army in NATO after USA) so it has a rigth to know and control what is happenning in the borders and beyond the borders. Deliogul 20:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"(second most powerful army in NATO after USA)" Wishful thinking. King nothing 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkish forces were in Iraq before US invasion. Mko 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

King Nothing, you can look at the figures. Maybe Turkey hasn't got a powerful industry to build war machines but you can be sure that we have a serious amount of money to spend on warfare. Look at the numbers of jets, troops, tanks. Those figures can amaze you ;) Deliogul 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First blood II

The film has been perceived as anti-American for its negative portrayal of the US military and its actions in Iraq. There is no such sentence in the First blood II (Rambo), so why here? The film has been perceived as anti-Vietnamese for its negative portrayal of the Vietnamese military and its actions in Vietnam.Stone 09:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can find sources that say it's anti-Vietnamese - and I'm sure you can, because it's true - then you should add this information to the First Blood part II article. David Sneek 10:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My father is Turkish and he says the title actualy translates to "Promise of the Wolves," not "Valley." My dad's english is good, but i'd like some one to double check and change the title if nessecary.

lol your father is funny. "Vaad" means promise in Turkish. "Vadi" means "Valley". "Vaadi" mean someones promise. "Benim vaadim" means "My promise". "Benim vadiim" means "My valley".
I don't know much Turkish, but I doubt it: The German translation is "Tal der Wölfe", literally "Valley of the Wolves" - it's unlikely that the same translation error was done twice, in particular as in Germany the film is screened in Turkish with German subtitles, so probably the title has been translated by someone knowledgeable. Also Turkish "vadisi" is probably akin to Arabic "vadi", meaning valley. Just my 2pence. --DerHerrMigo 00:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Fans of the original TV series (I'm a huge fan too) usually calls the series simply Vadi (The Valley) so it has nothing to do with promises :) Deliogul 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional events

Maybe the criticism section should be altered somehow. While there were no reports about trade with organs from Iraq, the Abu Ghraib scandal actually happened. So it is a bit strange to list both as fictional events. De mortuis... 01:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed it.--Patrick 14:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repetition

Article has started to get quite repetative (sometimes repeating almost identical text in different sections). Have removed repetitions and also slightly changed some grammer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

Has an anonymous someone added slogans into the article? I think they should be removed. --Cretanforever 13:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is just a film

I didn't see anyone discussing on an American film this much. Every film has, in a sense, controvesy in it. I've never missed a single episode of the tv series of the Valley of the Wolves and I can easily say that the things you saw in the movie are "soft" if we compare them with the original tv series. In tv series, we have a Baron, Mehmet Karahanlı(the most successful businessman in Turkey but he is the servant of USA), we have secret organizations(Russian mafia and Turkish mafia) which want to control all the region. Polat Alemdar tries to destroy these organizations. In some episodes, the scenarios became so "hard" that the Turkish Government warned the production company. With respect, Deliogul 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You need to get out more if you don't think people discuss American film this much... where were you when Fight Club came out? This was the first violent movie after Columbine.... there was a bloodbath alright, just that it happened in the between the defenders of free speach and anti-violence.
Greroja 14:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Almost any film can walk the line between freedom of expression, and propaganda. It is always the perspective of the viewer that makes the difference. Also if the movie is 75% truth, 5% fiction, and 20% anti-muslim let's say... then the truth and the anti-muslim blurs. Nobody would confuse America World Police for reality, but let's say the fiction part is a jewish doctor illegalling harvesting organs to sell back to New Yorkers (who a lot of people believe are... Jews) would probably be accepted as a truth.
This is the defining problem, if the viewer believes it to be true... and it isn't, you are rewriting history, current events, and adding to the untruths that already exist.
Dialogue between religions.... who believes the director?
Greroja 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy induced by films is often irrational for the people not involved, Try to point out why "the passion of chris" induced so much controversy to an atheist! But the discussion of politicians was heavy to ban the fim here in germany.--Stone 08:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I just said that the things you saw in the movie was nothing when we compare it to the original tv series. Actually I'm sure that there are some Jewish doctors who sell organs of innocent people to America but I'm also sure that there are many people of that kind in every nation. The movie softly continues the theme of the tv series, there are powerful people in the region who serve to their bloody masters so our undercover agent must terminate them. It is not a big deal. It is some politics with good action scenes. With respect, Deliogul 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locations?

Apparently (see here), locations are Gaziantep, Karkamis and Nizip, Turkey. This info should be in the article. Who can check it? --Filius Rosadis 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectiv information?

Under the headline International reception/US, an author depicts a situation where US authorities seem to try to exercise some kind of pressure on US soldiers not to wiew the movie (implicitly to make sure that the personnel should be kept in ignorance of the events described in the movie): "The US Army recommended that Army personnel not watch the movie nor even get close to cinemas in which the movie is played. [8]". When I followed the link to the source of this - in my wiew outraging - US Army policy, I found an entirely different picture. Nowhere in the articel (Stars and Stripes) is the recommendation not to wiew the movie mentioned. The recommendation not to go near theaters where the movie is running is in addition to this clearly ment as a safety precaution (i.e. the Army personnel could find themselves in trouble if they meet audience upset with what they have seen). I have no problem with neither the movie nor the concept that the US Army is responsible for major atrocities in the Iraqi War, but we do not have to invent problematic situations in theese matters, it makes for negativ draw backs. Furthermore the existing, and factual, problems are so many and so obvious that there is no need for fictional ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hgus2038 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/a/l/Talk%7EValley_of_the_Wolves_Iraq_d54f.html"