Talk:Anti-Turkism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Anti-Turkism:

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

This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-Turkism article.
Article policies

Contents


[edit] POV

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.

  • This article appears to be a long list of anti-Turkish insults, and lacks reasoning. The article when re-written must not provide any justification for such insults. I agree that anti-semitism is different than most forms of racism, but Turcophobia has been quite prevalent in Western media recently. Tauphon 11:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It fails to trace really deep roots of anti-Turkism, to the times when the words like "mamluk" "bashibazouk", "arnaut", "janissary" filled people with dread.
  • The second item missed is Turkish Gastarbeiter not very much liked in Germany.
  • Third, the two-pronged Armenian Genocide issue: both as the base of Armenian anti-Turkism and as the base of accusations in anti-Turkism.

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)


  • This article doesn't seem to say much of anything. After reading it, I'm not sure if Anti-Turkism does or doesn't exist, or even what it is. If this is a legitimate subject for an article, then this needs to be rewritten and restructured.
  • Suggesting that people who are or have historically been repressed by Turkey are just "anti Turkish" is demeaning to those people.
  • The article seems to suggest that any resentment or negative feeling towards the nation of Turkey or any specific people thereof is Anti-Turkish. One can't attribute every negative opinion to anti-x.
  • The suggestion that Anti-Turkism has any parrallels to anti-semitism is also ridiculous. The
  • The article is written without nutrality, and as the author's comments above indicate, and lack objectivity.
  • The issue does not discuss the Cyprus issue, or the question of Turkey's entrance into the EU


I have added considerably to this article however I am disputing the General Information section for the following reasons:
  • It reflects the views of whoever wrote it.
  • I believe that yes some Anti-Turkism sentiments are misconstructions.
  • However I do believe that some people actually do believe hate all things Turkish.
  • I do believe that Anti-Turkism does have strong racial reasoning behind it. I have read and heard so many people call the Turks "Mongols" or Mongoloid, etc... 86.1.80.37 18:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason

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)

Ah, I see now. —Khoikhoi 18:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Turkism today

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)


The Iranian deputy interior minister for security affairs, Ali Asghar Ahmadi, admitted that the demonstrations in Tabriz were far more than a mere protest against a newspaper insult. In fact, there is much resentment in Iranian Azerbaijan about the region’s economic and social difficulties. That resentment is fed by the attitudes of ethnic Persians toward ethnic Azeris—an attitude well captured in the phrase "Torki khar" (Turkish donkey), used by Persians in reference to Azeris, whom they regard as the "muscle" of the Iranian economy to be dominated by Persian "brains". [1]
Approximately 50% of (Dutch) Turks and (Dutch) Moroccans indicate that they have been personally confronted with discrimination in the past year. This means that Turks and Moroccans regularly face the problem of discrimination, directed not only towards themselves, but also towards persons in their immediate social environment. [2] 80.5.34.222 14:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC) - Hey why has my I.P changed?


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)


[edit] More anti-Turkism

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.


[edit] Factual accuracy

The factual accuracy could only be disputed by the turks--Slogankid 11:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that you don't think highly of the opinions "the turks." AverageTurkishJoe 07:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary definitions

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)

Check these webster (interet archive), ref to Oxford (maybe not concise) or just check the main reference [5]. DenizTC 03:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary content

"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.


Please only post messages that are about improving this article, not about your personal opinions. Such messages do not serve Wikipedia, and only contribute to the creation of a hostile working environnement. Any such irrelevant banter can be moved to the talk pages of articles where they might be of more use to Wikipedia. Thank you. Baristarim 20:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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).

So what do you think about insults we see everyday like "barbarian, savage, bloodthirsty etc Turks" ? If you search the word Turk in various internet forums, you'll find out how people make racistic comments when it comes to Turks. US and Israel are always criticized like Turkey about their foreign policies but it's rare when you see comments like barbarian Americans, or barbarian Israelis/Jews. People generally criticize their policies based on their governments, not the people. But when it comes to Turks, you see comments insulting Turks. Turks are hated for various reasons, mainly for their history and current policies. And this is clearly anti-Turkism. You don't have to have a different skin color to face the Turkophobia.88.254.178.160 03:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Notwithstanding what is said above the section Modern Anti-turkism with the paragraphs on insults by football supporters is quite irrelevant. Nobody needs to read an encyclopedia to know that football supporters are rude or provocative towards opposing teams. That's just life, or else it belongs in an article on Football/Soccer hooligans. I propose to remove this section - it is lame--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
No dissent so I have removed the said lines--AssegaiAli (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vices?

I don't see how these fit in:

  1. The English expression "to talk Turkey to somebody" means to give a frank opinion to the opposite party.[citation needed]
  2. The German repertory ranged from "Türkenhund" ("Turkish dog") to "Türkenknecht" ("Turkish farm-hand"), "Kümmeltürke" ("caraway Turk") and "er qualmt wie ein Türke" ("he smokes like a Turk").[citation needed]

The first one seems positive to me, and the German ones don't explain their meanings. --AW 19:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Actually, Turcophobia is a more accepted scholarly term, used in several articles. So I think that's how the article should be named. Atabek 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. In my opinion "Anti-Turkism" works best. A brief Google search shows this term to be the most commonly used in the English language:
"Anti-Turkism" gets 32,400 hits, [6]
"Turkophobia" gets 1,140 hits, [7]
"Turcophobia" gets 569 hits, [8]
All the best, Aivazovsky 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not about Google hits, but about scholarly articles. Turcophobia (exactly as spelled) is a known term for centuries, written in articles as early as the beginning of 20th century. I added reference using term Turcophobia. Anti-Turkism not used in scholarly context. Atabek 07:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Google hits" is a method frequently used here on Wikipedia to demonstrate if a certain term (in this case "Anti-Turkism") is frequently used in the English language or not. It all comes down to the English language, not what a few scholars call it.
Also one reference alone does not justify a move without concensus, Atabek. Let's discuss this first and then act. Kindest regards, Aivazovsky 11:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Although your initial move was without consensus also, I agree that we can discuss this. However, the move does not justify your removal of references or getting rid of category on some pages. So, if you would like to prove your intentions of discussing, stick strictly to the references or categories even during forwards. I don't believe there is a scholarly term called anti-Turkism, however, Turcophobia is a well known and referenced term. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic environment, we dig up and use references here to conference and journal papers and books. Google is not a judge of what's considered a historically known term.
I am not going to waste my time on this absolutely useless attempt to rename one category to the other. Whether it's Turkophobia, Turcophobia, or anti-Turkism it means the same thing and the category will go onto every topic related to anti-Turk hatred, regardless of whether it appears in Greek or Latin spelling. Atabek 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] General information section

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)

Yes, that section does not seem to be very useful. Let's get rid of it and add some references to the article. Atabek 16:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by anon IP

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)

Your claims are wrong and misleading:
  • The Iran-Turan conflict is not really a conflict, but a mythical legend in ancient Persian folk tales. It has nothing to do with Turks, although nowadays Turks identify themselvs with the ancient Indo-European Turanians.
  • The Shahnameh regards the Turks as an inferior people with moderate intelligence, as slaves of the Turanians. This view was very common back then, and many Persian scholars and philosophers, even Farabi and Ibn Sina, regarded the Turks (as well as "Zangs", black Africans) as inferior people whose only purpose was to serve the superior Persians and Arabs. Both of them have comments about this Platonic world-view (see for example "al-madina al-fadhila" by Ibn Sina). Farabi's work has the same name and supports the same idea.
  • The rulers of Iran were indeed of Turkish ancestry, but they were not regarded Turks by the Iranian population. The kings themselvs patronized Iranian culture and identity, and from Ghaznavids to Safavids (with a few exceptions during the Mongol rule), all of the ruling Turkic and Turkicized dynasties were Iranian in identity and culture. Even the last Iranian monarchy, that of the Pahlavis, had a Turkic root. Ironically, it was the Pahlavis who banned the use of Turkish and the Turkish identity in Iran; in the same fashion that the Safavids ended the nominally Turkmen Ak Koyunlu rule and established a new Iranian Empire, headed by an Iranian Shahanshah.
  • The number of Oghuz nomads did not have any significant influence on the genetics of the region, because their number was very small compared to the native inhabitants of the region. Your this claim is unsourced and in some way Turkish-nationalist POV. It can be disproved with ease.

[edit] Armenia and midnight express.

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)

[edit] IP edits

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)

[edit] Edit by Alborz Fallah

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)

  • According to Handan Nezir Akmeshe, who describes the attempt to ingrain self-conscioussness to Turks of the Ottomon empire prior to WWI ( Handan Nezir Akmeşe, The Birth Of Modern Turkey: The Ottoman Military And The March To World War I, I.B.Tauris, 2005. pg 50)
“ 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)

  • According to Alfred J. Rieber and Alexei Miller( Alfred J. Rieber, Alexei Miller,Imperial Rule, Central European University Press, 2005. pg 33:
“ 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'. ”
  • Ozay Mehmet in his book Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery mentions,(Ozay Mehmet, Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery, Routledge, 1990. pg 115):
“ 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)

[edit] ASALA Removal

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:

  • Graham E. Fuller, Ian O. Lesser, Turkey's New Geopolitics: From the Balkans to Western China, Westview Press, 1993, p. 55, ISBN 0813386608:
    • "Because of Syria's anti-Western orientation and its specific grievances with Turkey, it has for several decades supporting political movements hostile to Ankara, including three of Turkey's most dangerous opponents: the Armenian Marxist terrorist organization ASALA, radical Kurdish groups, and Turkish radicals. All have had operational and training bases in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, from which they have conducted anti-Turkish operations."

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)

Organization killing Turkish diplomats just for being Turks is clearly anti-Turkic. I don't think there's much to discuss here. Grandmaster 06:34, 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)

Here is the reference::
  • "(ASALA) A leftist separatist terrorist group that, before 1984, was quite active in the European area, ASALA begain its operations before 1975. Before 1975 and 1983, it claimed credit for or was blamed for attacks on Turkish diplomats in 16 different countries." (John Jessup, An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Conflict and Conflict Resolution, 1945-1996, Greenwood Press, 1998, p. 39, ISBN 0313281122
By the way, after two references (I can bring another dozen), I still expect you to provide at least one reference proving that ASALA was not an anti-Turkish organization. And I don't see the point of argument against category, it's clear that there is Turkish-Armenian conflict, that ASALA was created as a militant group to target Turkish diplomats and civilians to force them to recognize claimed Armenian genocide. I don't see how the category questions these facts. Atabek 07:52, 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)

[edit] Cartoon

The cartoon has nothing to do with anti Turkism. It was drawn by a Turk (Iranian Azeri), it depicted a cockroach talking in Persian and using a Persian slang word which also happens to be a Azeri word, and it was never intended to be offensive.Hajji Piruz 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The cartoon caused widespread protests in Iran, with millions of ethnic Azeri Turks protesting in majority-Azerbaijani populated cities of Tabriz, Urmiya and others, resulting in police suppression, jailing of scores of people, firing of the editor and temporary closure of the newspaper. And this had nothing to do with anti-Turkism? Both intent and the consequences were specifically connected publication insulting Azeri Turks in Iran. Atabek 09:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That was a political unrest and not an ethnical conflict: the content of the cartoon is mentioned here: Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy.The reaction does not define the anti-Turkic content, because the political atmosphere was not normal due to the election of the new government. --Alborz Fallah 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anon

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)

Lets to not think about them as the Wiki is not a place for our POVs and original research (especially if we hadnt even any other references to discuss). We need reliable historical research asking that ASALA was an anti-Turkish organization, nothing more. PS- also see the discussion above and at the ASALA's talk page! Andranikpasha 13:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions section

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)


[edit] list

Is this article meant to be a list? DenizTC 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sayings

Some of these saying don't really seem like they are bad. For example:

  • Also, when a rare event occurs, a common saying is: "Tgħammed Tork!" ("A Turk was baptised!") because a Turk turning to Christianity from Islam is seen as a rare event.
  • The German repertory ranged from "Türkenhund" ("Turkish dog") to "Türkenknecht" ("Turkish farm-hand"), "Kümmeltürke" ("caraway Turk") and "er qualmt wie ein Türke" ("he smokes like a Turk").

Turks aren't often baptised, on the first one. And the second one needs some context, what do those mean? Are they meant as bad thing? A Turkish dog or farmer isn't a bad thing if you're not using it an as insult. It could just be a fact - a dog from Turkey, a farmer from Turkey. --AW 20:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? --AW 18:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to remove them unless someone clarifies them --AW 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-9/11 discrimination

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)

If you ask me, that section belongs to Anti-Islam and Anti-Arab articles. There is no indication that they were harassed and discriminated against because they were Turkish, instead because they were Muslim. VartanM 00:28, 26 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 was not arguing, nor do I want the section removed or changed. That was my opinion, I don't believe Hispanic lady cared if the person she was harassing was Turkish or Arab. Armenians were the only Christian people present in the Armenian highland, while Muslims are very diverse in the US, your argument doesn't stand. VartanM 18:28, 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

I think the quote right above this one should be added to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.41.21 (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Ethnic Cleansing/Pogroms/State Oppression and Repression of Turks

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

When it comes to mistreatment of Turks, especially in the Balkans, the sources are very inadequate as much as I know. If Turks were of Christian faith, I am pretty sure it would be a different case.
Even the Bosnian Genocide can be attributed to the centuries old Turcophobia in the region. I've seen and read interviews with the Serbians during the time of the incidents; in their eyes Bosnian Muslims were (and maybe still are) Ottoman Turkish leftovers and they deserved what was happening to them. Or the Bulgarisation attempts in Bulgaria, when thousands of Turks fled the country. Or still today Western Thracian Turks being denied their identity by the Greek government. Turkish diplomats murdered by ASALA members. These are just tip of the iceberg. It always puzzles me how these are treated as marginal issues while every 'atrocity' commited by Turks is being magnified a 100 times, and the term 'genocide' can be attached to them so easily. I think the problem is simple in the core but covered with deep and complex dogmas.--Doktor Gonzo 13:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
See Anti-Turkism at work at Turks in Bulgaria and talk. They are not even allowing to mention it when it is done to the Turks.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article should be floating with content

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)

[edit] An IP-Vandalism?

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)

[edit] Regarding Greek-Cypriot phrase in 'Saying' section

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)

I am sure they have more creative derogatory terms for Turks than stinky dogs. I personally heard plenty on the internet; with the anonymity it provides they tend to be more honest about their opinions. Turcophobia is out there, you just need to pick them up and put them in one place which I believe nobody did yet.--Doktor Gonzo 21:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
So you are basically saying you need to do more WP:OR.Xenovatis (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
What does ghiaur and raya mean btw? Any thoughts? How about pissyunan? Any idea what these terms mean? Might be interesting for the article.Xenovatis (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to do anything and I merely contributed to this article. I just don't know of any serious research done on anti-Turkism which puts all these things in one place. The Turcophobic actions are out there and they can be sourced and put here. What WP:OR says is you can't add stuff here citing yourself as the source. We can use newspapers, articles, reports etc. as sources of course and in fact many Wikipedia articles do this.
As for the deragotary terms for Greeks, I think that belongs to the related article.--Doktor Gonzo 21:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You mean "the derogatory terms for Greeks" used by Turks. The point is that you are commiting OR when YOU pronounce that said expression or opinion is anti-X unless it is sourced in a WP:RS that claims that this or that IS anti-X. What you basically need is a book or academic article describing anti-x'ism and citing examples which you can then use. Otherwise you searching the net is OR because it is you who decides what is anti-X and how snti-X'ism is defined.Xenovatis (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That was a pretty fast reply. The derogatory terms for Greeks used by whoever belongs to the related article. This article is about anti-Turkism... obviously.
We know what discrimination is. What do you mean how do we know what's anti-Turkish? Every informed person knows what discrimination is and can recognize it. If you're saying before we add anything to the article we need to wait for a book to be published about it by an academician, that is definitely not how Wikipedia works. How do you do that for current events for example.--Doktor Gonzo 22:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't be so sure about that. Unless there is a source claiming such and such is anti-xist than you can't really include because as you said you are basing this on an undefined and nebulous "we know...". So it is OR and when you are amassing a number of these refs and call them "modern anti-xism" this is SYN.Xenovatis (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No, we can't put any comment here. There has to be a published source that states it as anti-Turkish like in Marcos Baghdatis case which you deleted. It just doesn't need to be written by a scholar. You asked "What's anti-Turkism?" and it is discrimination directed towards Turks. "Anti-Xism" is discrimination against X. We know what discrimination is so we can understand what's Anti-Xism. If you check out other articles concerning discrimination you'll see they all have similar intros with only the subject being different. If a famous person calls a Turk "a stinking Turk", a newspaper doesn't need to wait for a scholar to determine whether if "stinking Turk" is anti-Turkish or racist.
If you're saying anti-Turkism doesn't exist and it is a made up term then that's another argument and you should suggest this article for deletion. Now I am off as I know Wikipedia arguments of this kind are meaningless and fruitless. Good night.--Doktor Gonzo 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say! Goodnight buddy and take care.Xenovatis (talk) 23:38, 23 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)

[edit] Bagdatis ref should be removed

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)

You pretty much mis-used and over-used [citation needed] in the article and turned it into a joke. You also deleted sourced information[9][10]. It is not the opinion of anybody here; the comment is considered anti-Turkish by the media, critics and Turkish Cypriots. None of the WP's you listed apply here really, your argument has no solid base. But I am not going to bother, this is the cancer that will eventually either kill Wikipedia or force it into chemo. Have fun.--Doktor Gonzo 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not delete any sourced information. What is a problem is all these anti-Xism articles based entirely on OR and SYN where people just scour the net for anything that personally annoys them and place it in WP. And they don't even cite some refs for their wild claims.Xenovatis (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes you pretty much did [11]. I see prior to deletion you also added a defense for him but apperantly he never clarified his comment if there was really a misunderstanding. Media labels it as anti-Turkish, critics see it that way, Turkish Cypriots see it that way.--Doktor Gonzo 22:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually the media ref is ambiguous since there is no standard def of anti-turkism. Further there are several articles (including B himself) that clarify he was refering to the invading and occupying army of Turkey and not to Turkish Cypriots. It is misleading to use it in this article since it implies the comments are antiturkish as defined by the article (ad hoc and without any citations I might add) i.e. directed against the Turkish Cypriot people as opposed to the state of Turkey. This is unacceptable in WP generally and under WP:BLP in particular. It's exactly what I meant when I was talking about WP:SYN and WP:OR that abound in this article. In fact the whole article is WP:OR and WP:SYN.Xenovatis (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OR and SYN

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)

[edit] Is this an encyclopedia?

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?