Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Turkish sentiment/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"citation needed", Original Research and Synthesis tags

Pretty much all the "citation needed" tags have been addressed, by either adding multiple verifiable and reliable sources, and/or rewording the sentences to make sure it conforms to the article and has answers included already in the article's paragraphs. Please go through the article and add any additional sources if needed, can't hurt to have more. Same applies to any WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that might still be in the article. Let's improve it. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Turk sentiment in Ferdowsi's "Shahnameh"

It has been suggested by several reliable authors that the famous 10th century "Shahnameh" by Persian poet Ferdowsi contained an anti-Turkish bias and nationalist tone. If so, this merits brief mentioning (along with the arguments to contrary) in the Iran section of Anti-Turkism article. Atabəy (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Greetings--

I am one of the editors who have volunteered to assist with RfC, and was forwarded this topic. I'm in the process of reviewing the history of the previous discussion on Dbachman's page. I have briefly read the article, and the material below. Am I corrwect in that the comment(s) requested have only to do with the matter broached in the paragraph above? Best regards, Drieux 02:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drieux (talk • contribs)


Comments in support of the argument

Below are the supporting facts:

"Besides, you're not a Turk, I know you trace Your lineage from a far more splendid race";
Among a nation of dissonant identities, the Shahnama popularises the idea of an ancient and proud race, born of a single line. Sometimes it dramatises the antipathy between Iran and Turan, the Persian and the Turk;
Popular legend has it that as Ferdowsi polished off his epic in 1010, a new invader appeared on Iran's doorstep, a Turkic dynasty, known as the Seljuks, that attacked Iran from the east. The new Seljuk ruler saw little reason to reward Ferdowsi for his work, which bristled with anti-Turkic sentiment and had been commissioned by the previous rulers. Just before Ferdowsi's death in 1020, however, the Seljuk ruler had a change of heart. Perhaps he realized the extraordinary achievement of the Iranian poet and did not want to be remembered as the king who failed to reward such prowess. Alas, it was too late. Just as mourners removed Ferdowsi's dead body from his home, a truck of gold appeared at his door.
  • Note: Comments that appear below from User:Folantin and User:Dbachmann were not made by either on this talk page or within this RfC, because both contributors did not express any desire to get involved in this article editing issues. The comments were copied by User:Khodabandeh14 from talk page of User:Dbachmann, while the former was soliciting comments on mixed set of concerns, which have nothing to do with the essence of this RfC. I shall remind that neither of the mentioned contributors is an expert on the subject of Shahnameh or the history of ethnic groups mentioned in it. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments against the argument

I am going to break this into five parts here.

Third party opinion already given

I have already asked for 3rd party opinion here: [1]I will quote a portion of it here:
Start here:
In Anti-Turkism, should Ferdowsi be included? Does the fact that Ferdowsi grieves about Turkish invaders and makes some negative comments about them sufficient reason to include him in the article given the fact that "Turks" for Ferdowsi was equivalent to Central Asian nomads (who happen to be Altaic speakers), and not the various modern groups such as Anatolian Turks, Uzbeks, Azeris, Meshketians and etc. whose ethno-genesis came long after Ferdowsi? Can a wide diverse linguistic group (Turkic being a linguistic family not an ethnic group) have one article? It is like including anti-French, anti-Portoguese, anti-Spanish and anti-Italian in one article because they speak romance language family (hence anti-Romanicism which probably would be most wikipedia losers). What happens then to the recent clash between Uzbeks and Kyrghyz which was more severe than the simple stereotypes in that article? Also is it expected that Ferdowsi greets an invading group with rose petals? Or should the article concentrate on modern issues? Your two cents would be valuable. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(Butting in) In my experience almost every "Anti-X Nationality/Ethnicity" article on Wikipedia is completely dreadful, a context-free litany of complaints. Your point about Anti-Turkism lumping all kinds of disparate things together is well taken. I suppose it's possible to be against Turkic-speakers in general just as Hitler was avowedly anti-Slav (although his treatment of Croats and Slovaks was very different from the way he behaved towards Poles and Russians, for instance) and we have a stubby article on Anti-Slavism, but far longer articles on Russophobia, Anti-Polonism and Serbophobia. In practice, most European "anti-Turk" feeling has been anti-Ottoman. I doubt if there has ever been any strong prejudice against the Kyrgyz in Britain, France or Italy. You would need some pretty solid sourcing to include Ferdowsi as part of the Anti-Turkist brigade. I recently overhauled the Ferdowsi page and wrote "The new ruler Mahmud of Ghazni, a Turk, may have lacked the interest in Ferdowsi's work shown by the Samanids, resulting in him losing favor with the royal court", i.e. he got less patronage from a Turkic ruler than from an Iranian ruler for writing a poem about the glories of the Persian past. That seems like simple common sense. I also believe that Turkic people(s) later adopted Ferdowsi's Shahnameh as part of their own culture (I must find a quote for that). So maybe they were much less thin-skinned back then. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Folantin is right. Any sane patriot concerned with a decent representation of their country or people on Wikipedia should try to muck out as much material as possible from the respective "anti-X-ism" articles. I mean, of course there are obvious cases with encyclopedic value, such as Antisemitism, but "Anti-Turkism", "Anti-Albanian sentiment", "Anti-Persian sentiment"? These articles are full of lame whining by people trying to denigrate some group they not like and trying to make their own group appear as a victim. Yes, there should be an article on the Armenian genocide. But no, there should not be an article about "Anti-Armenianism". This is just lame. I know this is the thing to do in the USA, where everybody wants to be some marginalized group victimised by the WASPs, because it means they get carte blanche and nobody can touch them because, come on, it would be politically incorrect, if not racist. This perverse sort of logic which makes people want to be victims is not in any way encyclopedic, or something we should encourage in the least. If you want to see one of the most disgraceful corners of anti-encyclopedism on Wikipedia, look through the voluminous {{Discrimination}}, {{Discrimination sidebar}}, Category:Discrimination. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"is Khodabandeh14 your spokesperson?" Khodabandeh has made some sensible, evidence-based comments about Ferdowsi. You have compared Ferdowsi to Hitler. Who is responsible for your coming across as a fool here, him or you? Now if you don't mind I'm off to add Geoffrey of Monmouth to the Anglophobia article. His stories about King Arthur's resistance to the Anglo-Saxon invasion are dreadfully biased against my ancestors. Let's ignore the fact the English later adopted Arthur as one of their own, it doesn't disguise the innate racism and Celtic supremacism of Merlin and his bigoted ilk. There is no difference between The History of the Kings of Britain and Mein Kampf. --Folantin (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Consequently, as seen the users Dbachmann and Folantin see this inclusion as baseless. But I shall go on below.

Turan in the Shahnameh is not a place of Turks
  • The stories of Shahnama end in the 7th century..when the area was still Iranian speaking.
  • Despite some popular belief, the Turanians of Shahnama have no relationship with the ethno-liguistic group Turk today. The Turanians of Shahnama are an Iranian people representing Iranian nomads of the Steppes and have no relationship to the culture of Turks.
  • Bosworth, C. E. "Barbarian Incursions: The Coming of the Turks into the Islamic World." In Islamic Civilization, Edited by D. S. Richards. Oxford, 1973. pg 2: "Firdawsi's Turan are, of course, really Indo-European nomads of Eurasian Steppes...Hence as Kowalski has pointed out, a Turkologist seeking for information in the Shahnama on the primitive culture of the Turks would definitely be disappointed."
  • Turan or Persian for the areas of Central Asia beyond the Oxus up to the 7th century (where the story of the Shahnama ends) was generally an Iranian speaking land. Reference:
  • C.E. Bosworth, "The Appearance of the Arabs in Central Asia under the Umayyads and the establishment of Islam", in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV: The Age of Achievement: AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, edited by M. S. Asimov and C. E. Bosworth. Multiple History Series. Paris: Motilal Banarsidass Publ./UNESCO Publishing, 1999. excerpt from page 23: "Central Asia in the early seventh century, was ethnically, still largely an Iranian land whose people used various Middle Iranian languages."
  • Ferdowsi's sources are based on Avesta/Pahlavi texts which is long before the advent of Turks in the area.
  • It is true that in medieval historigraphy Turan and Turkestan became conflated, but the stories of Shahnama end by the 7th century A.D., long before the advents of Turks.
  • IN addition, I should note the Iranica article is about a Turan in Baluchistan [2]. "ṬURĀN (ṬOVARĀN), the mediaeval Islamic name for the mountainous district of east-central Baluchistan lying to the north of the mediaeval coastal region of Makrān (q.v.), what was in recent centuries, until 1947, the Aḥmadzay Khanate of Kalat (see BALUCHISTAN i. Geography, History, and Ethnography, sec. 7-8). Tomaschek (part 1, 1883, p. 56) thought that the name possibly stemmed from the Iranian term tura(n) “hostile, non-Iranian land”; the name usually applied in the Iranian national epic to the lands beyond Khorasan and the Oxus river, subsequently regarded as the home of the Turks and other non-Iranian peoples par excellence."
  • As mentioned, Turks adopted the mythologies of Shahnama to an extend. But the Shahnama's historiography ends in the 7th century A.D., which is way before the advent of Turks.
  • Again the Turan in Shahnama ends in the 7th century, long before the Saljuq Turks and Ghaznavids.. The attitude of Saljuq Turks towards the Shahnama is sufficiently clear that they accepted it (as shown by the specialist sources above). There is no proof that Saljuq Turks felt some sort of "anti-Turkism" specially since they commisioned and recited the Shahnama verses themselves. All of this is discussed in the Shahnama article. And this article is not about Saljuq TUrks who felt no vague term such as "anti-Turkism" but modern groups whose names and labels come much later than Saljuq Turks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Need I mention that the etymological roots of the Turanians of Shahnama such as Afrasiyab, Piran, Ashkabus, Manijah, Farangis,Arjasp, Namkhwast, Vidarafsh are all purely Iranian terms? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Vagueness of the term Turk in the 10th century
  • M.A. Shaban, “Islamic History”, Cambridge University Press, v.2 1978. Page 63:"These new troops were the so-called “Turks”. It must be said without hesitation that this is the most misleading misnomer which has led some scholars to harp ad nauseam on utterly unfounded interpretation of the following era, during which they unreasonably ascribe all events to Turkish domination. In fact the great majority of these troops were not Turks. It has been frequently pointed out that Arabic sources use the term Turk in a very loose manner. The Hephthalites are referred to as Turks, so are the peoples of Gurgan, Khwarizm and Sistan. Indeed, with the exception of the Soghdians, Arabic sources refer to all peoples not subjects of the Sassanian empire as Turks. In Samarra separate quarters were provided for new recruits from every locality. The group from Farghana were called after their district, and the name continued in usage because it was easy to pronounce. But such groups as the Ishtakhanjiyya, the Isbijabbiya and groups from similar localities who were in small numbers at first, were lumped together under the general term Turks, because of the obvious difficulties the Arabs had in pronouncing such foreign names. The Khazars who also came from small localities which could not even be identified, as they were mostly nomads, were perhaps the only group that deserved to be called Turks on the ground of racial affinity. However, other groups from Transcaucasia were classed together with the Khazars under the general description."
  • ʻUthmān Sayyid Aḥmad Ismāʻīl Bīlī, "Prelude to the Generals", Published by Garnet & Ithaca Press, 2001. pg 47:"The name Turk was given to all these troops, despite the inclusion amongst them of some elements of Iranian origin, Ferghana, Ushrusana, and Shash – places were in fact the centers were the slave material was collected together....Judging from the specific names of their origin, Soghd, Farghana, Urshusuna, Shahs, the majority of them might have been of Iranian origin"
  • It is not clear what sort of groups today can claim to be related to the Turanians of Shahnama. In actuality, none of the groups mentioned in this article are related to the Turanians of the Shahnama.
Afshin Molavi vs Three real scholars in the field/Richard Frye

Afshin Molavi is by no means a specialist in Persian literature. I have brought scholarly sources already that the Saljuqs appreciated and highly valued the Shahnama. Neither is Diakonov a specialist in this area (he is a specialist of Old languages). I will however bring three specialist sources on the positive impact of the Shahnama on Turks.

  • Osman G. Özgüdenli, “ŠĀH-NĀMA TRANSLATIONS i. INTO TURKISH”, [3]:"Turks have been influenced by the Šāh-nāma since the advent of the Saljuqs in Persia. Their last prince in Persia, Ṭoḡrel III, recited verses from the Šāh-nāma while swinging his mace in battle (Jovayni, II, p. 31). There is a great deal of evidence that this influence continued in a more powerful way in Anatolia in the 13th-14th centuries (Ebn Bibi, pp. 71-72, 126, 202; Riāḥi, tr. pp. 52, 55)."
  • Sheila Blair, "The Monumental inscriptions from early Islamic Iran and Transoxiana", BRILL, 1992 . pp 11: "According to Ibn Bibi, in 618/1221 the Saljuq of Rum Ala' al-Din Kay-kubad decorated the walls of Konya and Sivas with verses from the Shah- nama".
  • Mehmed Fuad Koprulu's , Early Mystics in Turkish Literature, Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff , Routledge, 2006, pg 149: "Mean­while, the Mongol invasion, which caused a great number of scholars and artisans to flee from Turkistan, Iran, and Khwarazm and settle within the Empire of the Seljuks of Anatolia, resulted in a reinforcing of Persian influence on the Anatolian Turks. Indeed, despite all claims to the contrary, there is no question that Persian influence was paramount among the Seljuks of Anatolia. This is clearly revealed by the fact that the sultans who ascended the throne after Ghiyath al-Din Kai-Khusraw I assumed titles taken from ancient Persian mythology, like Kai-Khusraw, Kai-Ka us, and Kai-Qubad; and that. Ala' al-Din Kai-Qubad I had some passages from the Shahname inscribed on the walls of Konya and Sivas. When we take into consideration domestic life in the Konya courts and the sincerity of the favor and attachment of the rulers to Persian poets and Persian literature, then this fact {i.e. the importance of Persian influence} is undeniable. With- regard to the private lives of the rulers, their amusements, and palace ceremonial, the most definite influence was also that of Iran, mixed with the early Turkish traditions, and not that of Byzantium" (Mehmed Fuad Koprulu's , Early Mystics in Turkish Literature, Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff , Routledge, 2006, pg 149)."

Consequently the Seljuqs totally embraced the Shahnama unlike the short sentence of Mr. Molavi. The difference between the quality of sources is telling. Note two of the three authors above are well established Turkish scholars. The first source is specialized with regards to Turks and Shahnama.

I shall also note that the one-liner by Diakonoff (more a specialist on ancient history like Urartu/Medes) is also very mild compared to the stuff in this article. However the term "Turk" itself in the 10th century had different meanings as illustrated below and does not necessarily equate to modern groups.

  • Richard Frye]: "Although the Tura in the Avestan Age were most probably Iranian, perhaps the memory of the struggles with aborigines played a part in the development of the epic. Later, of course, the Turks conveniently took the role of the great enemies of Iran. The extent of the influence of the Iranian epic is shown by the Turks who accepted it as their own history as well as that of Iran. The Turks were so much influenced by this cycle of stories that in the eleventh century AD we find the Qarakhanid dynasty in Central Asia calling itself the 'family of Afrasiyab' and so it is known in the Islamic history”(R.N. Frye, The Heritage of Persia: The pre-Islamic History of One of the World's Great Civilizations, World Publishing Company, New York, 1963. Pg 40-41)"
Anti-Turkism and Shahnama..it is a violation of synthesis

This whole article is one big synthesis of unrelated items as mentioned already by by Dbachmann and Folantin (above). A treament of Shahnama and Turks needs to be balanced and that can be put in the article Shahnama. I have already started a section here: [4]. Shahnama and Ferdowsi do not related to modern Tukic language groups. A whole long section is written here which is being refined currently: [5]. As we can see the variety of Turkish dynasties and groups did not feel anti-Turkism and embraced the Shahnama. The modern nationalist 19th century Turkish viewpoint might have a different take, but this is not historical as the Shahnameh written in the 10th century cannot be reintrepreted within a 19th century paradaigmn. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The complexity of the issue again with variety of sources can be brought here: [6]. There is a variety and wealth of information on Turks and Shahnama brought in that article. It does not belong to a WP:synthesis article as this, since it is further violation of WP:synthesis as the whole article is one big WP:OR/WP:synthesis. If someone is interested, they can create an article on Shahnama and Turan, but as noted a whole section is already developed here: [7]..It is already extensive but I will be refining/expanding it. It should provide a balanced view of the situation which has no commonality with a WP:synthesis/WP:OR article like this. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

i am against the proposal of atabey. Dohezarsersdah (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Turkism on Wikipedia!

I can show you hundreds of articles like that. Böri (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can't fix it yourself, could you show us some of these? I'd be happy to try to fix it if I perceive any anti-Turkish bias on those pages. Regards, --Quintucket (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The name of this article: Istanbul riots was Istanbul Pogrom before. On talk page, I wrote: Deaths? No one died! (Write the names who were killed then!)/ There are many examples like that Böri (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
They are deleting the name of Turkey from List of Western European automobile manufacturers again and again! Böri (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Böri: I can't comment on the Istanbul riots, I don't know anything about it. But Turkey isn't a Western European country. It's a Southern European (EU/COE, etc), Eurasian(several US gov agencies) or West Asian(UN) country, depending on who you ask. On the other hand, Greece is in there, and Greece isn't Western Europe either. I think the criterion might be "West" in the Cold War sense, in which case both countries definitely belong. I've brought it up on the talk page, and I'll keep an eye on it. Regards, Quintucket (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Turkey is not in Eastern Europe! The List of Eastern European cars are about ex-communist countries! Böri (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Unverifiable Information

I am removing two unsourced entries because they appear to be pure speculation.

From the section, Within the Ottoman Empire:

"There were many protesters in Turkey from Australia that had escaped from England claiming that Turkey was destined for doom. Even today, they sometimes march on to the street protesting, and the police have to be involved each time. There have been rumors lately that the Australian government has supported these protesters. Also, people say that Sweden despises Turkey for being "Ugly" in their opinions."

From the section, 17th Century:

"It's also proven that many Australians despise Turkey, due to unknown reasons. Even though they never true show their opinion, they have released in 1637 that the Ottomans must be destroyed. At this time, they were still a little prison island, but they knew how to express their feelings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolypsistPolyp (talk • contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"Tarrakni" ("He turkified me") in reference to the corruption of the Ottoman rule of Tunisia. It means "he ruined me".

Source??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.19.108 (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason for anti turkism.

The article misses out the reasons for anti turkism in Asia, Europe, Africa and the rest of the world.

How about having detailed sections on the below.

Historical allegations

1. Barbaric raids on all of Europe mass murder pillage and rape. 2. Total extermination and ethnic cleansing of all Indo-European or Caucasian peoples throughout Central Asia. 3. Frequent raids on the Chinese empires and abduction of women and children. 4. Crushing the Persian and Indian people and enslaving them under strict Ottoman Sultans. 5. Abducting and enslaving children from Europe conscripting child soldiers by brain washing them and then making them wage war against their own people. 6. Building the worlds biggest Harem or Brothel of sex slavery over a converted Christian monastery which is known as the Ärtogrul Gazy Mosque. Enslaving europeans, middle eastern and African peoples breaking down their families and making the women including children and using them as sex slaves. 7. Enslaving Arabs and defiling the holy cities of Arabs the Mecca and Medina. 8. Slave trading of Blacks into Europe and Central Asia. 9. The bloody crusades.

Modern day issues relating to anti Turkish.

1. The biggest genocide of modern times - The Armenian genocide and constantly denying the same. 2. Appalling human rights record and ethnic cleansing of Kurds. 3. Conquering Kurdistan and enslaving the nation of Kurdistan. 4. Enslavement of Cyprus and suppression of Greece and Indo European culture and peoples. 5. Racism against Kurds, other Ethnic Aryans and Caucasians 6. Meddling in Jewish and Arab affairs and increasing conflicts in the middle east. 7. Economic embargo against caucus and choking the middle east. 8. Suppressing minorities and their extermination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.18.99 (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Singling out Turkey or Turks for these historic crimes is in and of itself an expression of anti-Turkism. Virtually every single one of those charges could be levelled at many different peoples.Thannad (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"Historical allegations" I am sorry, do win live in the 18th century or in the 2000's ??? how about you stop trying to use the actions of dead people to be racist to people born in the last 90 years that didn't do anything. Let's do the same for every country. Every group on earth except the Jains have been atrocious historically. I bet when someone brings up crusades or inquisitions to you you say oh well that was the past, but somehow things that happened in the 1800s or the 1900s, things most Turks didn't have anything to do with (I mean turks born today) are their fault? Let me trace your ancestry, as soon as I find a crime how about I punish you for it. Get over it, just because your great great great something died doesn't mean you get to act like the victim or act like the decedent of the one who did that to yours is justifiably a target for racism or violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Armenian Genocide

I think a section of this article should be dedicated to Armenian Genocide. Turks killed over 1.5 million Christian Armenians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Combating Ignorance (talk • contribs) 07:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the unfair discrimination based on racist ideals against Turks. It has nothing to do with the Armenian so-called Genocide. Moreover, between 1900 and 1922 over 8.7 Million Muslim Turks were killed, and nobody recognizes that as a genocide despite all the evidence. So, get out please. Batuhan Erdoğan (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, so the 80 million turks today deserve blame for something that happened 100 years ago aka something only like 4 turks could still be around from and even then would have been kids at the time? the Armenians who died and the Turks who did it are dead, give it a rest already, this is the 21st century, and history shows how violent and disgusting the human race is. So stope with the dramatics of needing to try people for the crimes of their ancestors because some feel some sort of personal offence based on words of history in a book. If you can't read history without becoming emotional and getting angry at today's people based on the only connection - their ethnicity or religion to people that lived and died before they saw the light of day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Quotes

I think this needs to be cleaned up. Right now it's just a list of quotes about Turks being bad. It seems like original research and needs to be put into a paragraph or something. --AW (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Greek section : Purchase of Turkish land with soft loans

Both citations point to the same Helsinki 1990 report. I will not go into the specifics of that report (citing a single (now dead) person as a witness etc). Instead I will point to the fact that this is a 25 year old report! Can you point to something that is more recent? If not, maybe the passage should be in the past tense. For example: "This [possibly] stems from various past practices of the Greek administration whereby ethnic Greeks were encouraged to purchase Turkish land with soft loans granted by the state." Vflouris (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

POV

This whole article reeks of pro-turk bias.71.174.254.233 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The word Turk was an insult in the Ottoman Empire

For Ottoman Notables it was an unsult to be called Turks.--Galliard Prides (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference, please. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anti-Turkism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-Turkism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anti-Turkism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Albanophobia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop to Turkic racist propaganda!

It's all Pan-Turkist counter Islam Turkic racist propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.172.58.15 (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of cleanup

There are many sections that are complerely unsourced and the grammar and basic laguage structure in many sections is seriously suboptimal. I will try to clean it up by first removing the unsourced and OR material. Dr. K. 06:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K., thanks for your removal of the innately problematic and I suspect mostly OR "sayings" section. Looking through that, I remember having personally noted that some of the material there is salvageable at the time. One such part that strikes me at this moment is "Τούρκος καλός μόνο νεκρός" ("The only good Turk is a dead Turk"), of which the occurrence in Cyprus and Greece is documented by a multitude of RS: [8] [9] [10] [11]. Just noting here for reference. --GGT (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@GGT: Hi GGT. Thank you for your feedback. I am glad to see that you also understand the magnitude of this problem. That section was terrible. As I noted in my edit-summary, I have no objection for the restoration of any material that can be backed by RS and is devoid of OR or SYNTH. I know you are a great editor, so please be my guest and salvage/restore anything you can. I appreciate any help in that direction. Let me know if you need me for anything. Dr. K. 01:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
By the way, the phrase Τούρκος καλός μόνο νεκρός was unknown to me. It is also grammatically incorrect in that version. Looking at your sources, two of them are from Cyprus and refer to inter-community violence, one during the 1974 invasion. The other is from an official from Chios, whose comment is characterised in the article as "racist frenzy" and "racist delirium". Far from being a common phrase, this slogan is described as racist in the Greek source and is accompanied by clarifications by the perpetrator, who said he directed it at the Turkish deep state and not the common people. Therefore, this is an infrequent slogan, which is unacceptable to most Greeks, who may not even have heard of it. Not sure if we can include it. If we decide to do so, I think we should also add that it is considered a racist slur in Greece and is not acceptable. Dr. K. 01:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Checking further, this phrase is a variation of the English expression "The only good X is a dead X" which was originally attributed to American Civil War general Philip Sheridan. As I suspected, this is not a Greek phrase, but an imported one, by some racists. I don't think it has caught on in Greece. Dr. K. 01:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Snowclones is not RS of course. The phrase simply means, in the context of subject peoples of the Ottoman Empire, that there were no good Turks, that there was no such thing as good Turkish administrators or governance and that reform was impossible - the whole thing had to go. It has nothing to do with proclaiming all Turks should be dead. As for the general tone of the article - apparently it is anti-Turkish to have bad feelings against those who are butchering you, and it is anti-Turkish to fear those who profess strong desires to butcher you but whose current military capacity does not make said butchery immediately possible. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Turkism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Turkism by Ottomans

i added this part to article, the sources are legit. As a sophisticated ruling class, the Ottomans looked down upon the Turkish peasantry, calling them Eşek Turk (the donkey Turk) and Kaba Turk (stupid Turk). Expressions like "Turk-head" and "Turk-person" were contemptuously used by Ottomans when they wanted to denigrate each other.[1][2][3] 188.158.71.177 (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Extremist Shiites: The Ghulat Sects, by Matti Moosa, page 430
  2. ^ The Balkans Since 1453, Leften Stavros Stavrianos, page 94
  3. ^ The Ottoman Empire, its record and legacy, Wayne S. Vucinich, page 68

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Anti-Turkism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

iran

A banned account wrote this madeup about iran; no source. then this ip restored them by adding some random news links. and another ip added their own research to it; no reliable study or research again. the section "iran" was based by non-sourced text of a banned account and then some ips which were related to that user. actually most of listed countries are a work of those user and his ips which should be checked by a trusted user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.71.83 (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of the late additions are not in align with the spirit of the article

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey and WikiProject Discrimination, however some of the written stuff is about justifying the racism against Turks rather than portraying the racism against the Turks, which is the main goal of the article. Another article, "The causes for the racism against the Turks" can be made separately.

For example in Europe section it starts directly with "But Turks conquered west" "They invaded Cyprus" without any citation. This section is about the negative portrayal of the Turkish people in Europe, not the why of it. It could go more like "After coming into contact with Ottomans" in the beginning or "..which is a result of the contact with Ottomans" rather than just blatanltly going "Yeah but they deserved it" attitude from the start.

Or this like in the first paragraph of the 17-18th century "However, some contemporary reports documented brutality and corrupt governance against subjugated Christians, including a law that forced all Christian families to relinquish at least one child to the Janissaries in order to fulfill the Quranic requirement of jizya." is added later, clearly by a defender of anti-turkism as a way to challenge the first sentence. It's unrelated, doesn't belong there and doesn't even address the main issue of the article. I ask to remove things like these and keep the spirit of the article intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanbaptistelully (talk • contribs) 07:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Compare this article to the Antisemitism article. Does this article seem fair?

This article is written in a tone that aims to justify Anti-Turkism. Pretty much every section in this article talks about the causes that lead to anti-turkism. The entire article is a list of bad things done by Turk-ish/-ic governments.

Anti-Turkism is generalizing every Turk-ish/-ic person to be evil/barbarian/uncivilized/etc. It is about racism and discrimination against a group of people, not about what their governments did. The article shouldn't be about what Turkish and Turkic states did, it should be about Turkish and Turkic PEOPLE. The article should talk about how anti-turkism manifests, how it affects Turkish and Turkic people. Just check the Antisemitism article and see the stark contrast. Does the antisemitism article try to justify why the hatred towards jewish people might be justified? What would you think if it did? It only has a small "Causes" section where it makes it clear that anti-semitism is unjustfied.

Hatred towards an entire group of people, regardless of reasons, is unjustified and prejudiced. Does the article even hint at any bad effects of anti-turkism? Does it even hint at how it is wrong to label an entire group of people as monsters?

In most sections there isn't even any mention of racism against Turks, there are just mentions of Turkish wrong-doings. The statements like:

  • The Yemenis had a long history of resisting Ottoman and Turkish influence, and have rebelled against the Turks in a number of times, causing tensions between Yemenis and the Turks.
  • 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu's son, Yair Netanyahu, published his tweet criticizing Turkey and warned that Istanbul shall be renamed Constantinople, sparking a political crisis between Turkey and Israel.
  • Armenia–Turkey relations have historically been hostile,[175] primarily because of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and Turkey's denial that it happened. According to a 2007 survey, 78% of Armenians see Turkey as a threat.[176]

have no place in this article because they don't talk about anti-turkism, they talk about geopolitical tensions between Turkey and other countries. How do they relate to the article, what is being implied here? The only thing I can think of is that the article indirectly implies that these actions justify racism against Turkish people. It's insane. A lot of the sections ONLY have statements like this and no actual mention of racism and discrimination against Turks.

When I have the time I am planning to make major changes to the article to make it more like the antisemitism article.

Homorebelus (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Anti Turkism even portrayed in the article?

The lead is WP:OR if Armenians and Arabs during the Ottoman Empire the only source for a general hostile feeling against all Turkic peoples. Uzbekhs and Kyrgyz, Uyghurs are also Turkic people and have nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire. Seeing the article, most countries are against a certain part of Turkic peoples, but not one is against Turkic people in general. Syria is against Turkey, Armenia is against the perpetrators of the Genocide, Saudi Arabia is against Turkey, in Libya Haftars recognition of the Armenian Genocide is also qualified as being Anti-Turkism. In Lebanon, the Armenians are also the cause of Anti-Turkism. In Yemen it is the Ottoman Empire and Turkey who is opposed. The slurs also mainly stem from the role of the Ottoman Turks and directed at Turkish Turks. The references about the movies are simply WP:OR if what is seen in the movies is being portrayed as an evidence for a movie to be against all Turkic people.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree. The same user is a bit "overqualifying" the meaning, as did in the former template.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC))

What is Anti-Turkism?

Is it really Anti Turkism to be against the conversion of the Hagia Sophia into a Mosque? Is it really Anti Turkism to be against Erdogans anti-semitism? Is it Anti Turkism that one warns Istanbul should be named to Constantinople? Is it Anti Turkism to refuse to hand over "coup plotters" to Turkey? Is being against ar recognizing the Armenian Genocide really Anti-Turkism? Is it not being Anti-Genocide? I can go on, but as some editors want to keep this sections I ask.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Turkism is sure related to Anti-Turkism, and I used the same source as is used at Pan-Turkism. Turkism was used first as Pan Turkism as stated in the article. If you want an article about Anti-Turkish sentiment, then create one.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Paradise Chronicle,
my remark is also meant to the discussion above, I may reinforce to you and Beshogur what I told earlier, moreover per WP:BANREVERT any former edits of Saotura may be fairly reverted. Hence, the article's disputed parts touching the edits of the earlier mentioned should be restored to status quo ante, and the discussion should be about if anything was useful among them (however, the user really pushed many strange and extreme ideas). Try to settle this with Beshogur, friendly, he is thoughtful editor.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC))
@KIENGIR: thanks for your approach. My problem is, Paradise Chronicle thinking Anti-Turkism is being against Pan-Turkism, not against Turks/Turkish people. He doesn't understand the term's meaning at all. Second, removing notable Turkophobic actions in Greece, Cyprus, Iraq, etc. I also agree there is lot of OR to check, but first this should be settled. Beshogur (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Turk is a disambiguation page and includes both Turkish people and Turkic people. And under both Turkic people and Turkish people is mentioned the two should not be confused with eachother. A lot of info in the sections are caused by bilateral conflicts and are not related to a general hostility against Turkic or Turkish people. The first phrase is sourced with books on Modern Armenian and Arabs during the Ottoman Empire when the Turks tried to Turkify the Arab population. This is directed at policies of Turkish policies during the Ottoman Empire and Turkeys approach to such policies. I'd still support a split of the article in Anti Turkish sentiment where the racism against Turkey or its diaspora can be displayed, and an Anti Turkism page where the general hostility against the Turkic people is described. The Anti-Turkmen sentiment can be shown also in a separate article.
Anti-Turkism means Anti-Turkish sentiment, why would we split? Turkophobia is another synonym too. Anti-Turkmen sentiment is almost non existent term. Only thing I found was this. And not about Turkish people but Turkmens from Turkmenistan. Also see Anti-German sentiment. I would agree to move the page to Anti-Turkish sentiment but redirect Anti-Turkism here, that seems like a more common term. But I hold my position that these two terms are synonyms of eachother. Beshogur (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Then let's go with the move to Anti-Turkish sentiment. This would also be better to source, as the majority of the article is against Turkish people from Turkey or the Ottoman Empire. Most (I have not found any, but there is doubt) sources don't mention Turkic people per se, just events in a bilateral conflict. The issue about the apparent non existence of Anti-Turkmen sentiment is also there for other Turkic peoples, but the including of the section on Turkmens in Iraq is a compromise in the way that they are a different Turkic people but the region in dispute was also part of the Ottoman Empire at the time. But also I stand firm on the position that as to me, to be against (members of) one Turkic people in a bilateral conflict is not the same as to be against all Turkic people. I can't find sources for this, too. But I will wait for consensus, go through the article section per section and suggest improvements, when I see them as appropriate.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@Paradise Chronicle: Turkmens in Iraq is a compromise in the way that they are a different Turkic people, they're not different from Turkish people. They are considered Turkish, such as Balkan Turks, etc. Beshogur (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Just move on with the resolution guys. Paradise Chronicle has right that the banned editor considered everything anti-Turkism on anything any Turk(ic) was involved, even it has nothing to with ethnic hatred, but uprising/revenge/protest again Ottoman policies and occupation, and/or similar modern examples etc. The Greek-Turkish conflicts in manner are akin with Armenian-Turk conflicts, however the cause and effect should not be erroneusly conflated as well, similarly as the earlier mentioned. Hope you'll find the best solution.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC))
Iraqi Turkmen and Turkish people have the same Ottoman Turkish heritage, but their languages and scripture have developed differently since. But yes, many Iraqi Turkmen (not the same Turkmen from Turkmenistan), identify as Turkish people. I have performed the move now, and now am much less opposed to the info displayed. Separate sections for racism and hostility etc. would be good, so that the Saudi, UAE, Libya etc. are not accused of racism against Turkic people and then in their section the reader sees that they are just opposed to Ottoman Turkish policies.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll check these too when I have time. But I think "boycots" etc should stay imo. Beshogur (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

About Anti Turkism by Ottomans.

Ottomans saw Oghuz Khagan(Legendary Oghuz Turkic khagan) as their ancestor so they are accept reality of they are Oghuz Turks. How can they insult themselves. It seems like a bit propaganda. The word of "Etrak-i Bi-idrak" used for nomads of east(Turkomans, kurds etc.) by the way. Tarik289 (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Iran section needs a rewrite

The Reuters source states:

"The Committee expresses concern at the limited enjoyment of political, economic, social and cultural rights by... Arab, Azeri, Balochi, Kurdish communities and some communities of non-citizens," it said in a report on a regular review of Iran's compliance with a 1969 international treaty banning racism."

Yet the article states:

The same year, UN urged Iran to tackle racism against its ethnic minorities including Turks.

As for the Farenet.org source, it says, in relation to Iran:

Khar (in English: “donkey”) Used in combination with the word “Turkish”, directed at Azeri fans in anti-Azeri chants.– “Turkish donkey” – “Donkey, get lost!”– “There is no braying from the donkeys!” – “The Turkish donkeys are silent!”

The source also states:

Aadam khaar –Racial discrimination against black players in Iran is not commonly recorded. However in one witnessed incident a coach called a black player from the opposing team “Aadam khaar”, which translates into English as “cannibal”.

Whereas the article here on Wikipedia states:

In June 2017, FARE (Football Against Racism in Europe), an organization working under the auspices of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), published a report called “Global Guide to Discriminatory Practices in Football,” which examines “discriminatory practices displayed inside football stadiums around the world”. In its Iran section, the report pointed out to anti-Turkish, racist, and dehumanizing chants that directed at Turkish fans in Iranian stadiums.

The written text here in Wikipedia is ridden with editorialized text. In addition, the section completely refrains from mentioning "Azeri" even once, even though thats the very word all cited sources, including Radio Free Europe, excplicitly use or mention. Instead, whoever wrote this section, seemingly conveniently swapped "Azeri" with "Turk" on every occassion without proper introduction. And no, a few vague mentions of "Iranian Azerbaijan" doesn't cut it. I have added a rewrite tag at the top of the section in addition to two failed verification tags. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: I rewrote most of Iran subsection. Would you take a look at it? A lot of other sections also contained generous amounts of editorialising and synthesis which I removed/reworded as best as I could. Kevo327 (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Bulgaria

@Beshogur:, I am pinging you as you are fairly interested in this article, I rewrote most of the Bulgaria section on the article by trimming the extensive details and some linguistic differences. Could you take a look at it to see if changes are needed? I tried my best to improve the section while keeping the essential information and making the tone more encyclopaedic. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kevo327: looks good, thanks. Beshogur (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Etrak i bi idrak

Removing this vague term which of course did not come from the Ottoman dynasty itself. I could not verify the sources but found others here about 17th century book, includes also slurs about other nations like "erdel-i erzel" (shameless Transylvanians), also it detonates these are not taken seriously. here Ottoman historian Naima using it. Definetely not Ottoman dynasty. Either whoever added it changes the phrasing, or removing it completely the misleading vague sentence. Beshogur (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: after seeing your comment I went to check the reference, and it didn't have a link (I hate references that can't be verified) so I have looked it up and added the link to the reference if want to check that out (fourth ref per current revision) As for the phrase itself I think the authors meant that the urban population used it to discriminate against the peasantry, "the Ottomans" mentioned aren't the royal dynasty. I have to agree about someone having changed the phrasing of references, I did some to encorporate content from all the references, others have sometimes editorialising or even changing facts, But I disagree on removing something that has four references with specific page numbers cited just because the sources didn't specify who used the term thus making that part vague, the vague tag is usually used to reword something into not being vague, not to remove it altogether. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Kevo327, Its etrak-i bi idrak slur said by nomad Turkomans of east that worked with Shah Ismail once upon time, at that time Turks call themselves and called by ottomans as rûmis(Romans). This article mention for this like "Ottomans called all Turks as this slur". Someone must change it. 78.190.11.81 (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Please Do not delete whole article If there is a subject you do not agree with

You can't hide history with silly excuses guys if i did the same thing i know i will be banned in 10 seconds.. Please do not delete the article according to your feelings & without discussing what is wrong. THANKS Cengizsogutlu (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Being against Turkey, their expansionist policies and being against the Armenian Genocide is not being against Turkic people.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Paradise Chronicle: you just explained what anti Turkism is. Please avoid doing that for second time. Also it's funny that you claim there is no Turkophobia in Cyprus etc. considering removing all these stuff. Beshogur (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Beshogur and Beshogure: No, he/she didn't do anything like that. Criticizing Turkish colonialism, invasions, and genocides is not anti-Turkism. Now, anti-Turkic sentiment is certainly a legitimate subject, but it needs to be properly studied and written about. Don't try to use Wikipedia as a means to wage a propaganda campaign for genocide and invasion. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess I should say a hundred thousand times again. The Armenian section which is 8k reduced to 3k. Secondly, how do you use a 3k article as an excuse for a reason and delete 75k + wide sourced articles?, this is vandalism. Finally thank you for being honest and confession that you are against Turkey but i already knew this. I do not understand, for ex why did you erase the hostilities in Yugoslavia by excuse of the Armenian genocide in the article?It is difficult to understand your purpose, and I am extremely sorry that the world famous encyclopedia has turned into a ring of ethnic hostility. The time we devoted to these meaningless discussions could be devoted to more beautiful things.So please, I would like to know why using the 3k article as an excuse to delete the 75 + thousand long article? For what purpose did you delete? Do you explain please what kinda information is not true in a 75 thousand-sized article with references? Kind regards Cengizsogutlu (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Beshogur There is a opposition to the Turkish occupation of the northern party of Cyprus, this is what exists in Cyprus. Cyprus is not holding any general hostility against Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyzs etc. This is an opposition to a policy, not about racism against Turkic people. Cengizsogutlu In the other sections of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, etc.: Those countries oppose Turkish expansionist policies, they have nothing against Turks per se much less against Turkic people per se. To accuse Egypt, the Saudi or other countries of anti-Turkic racism there is a bit more needed. Most slurs refer to Turks and the Ottoman Empire. The one from China I can't read as it is in Chinese. The movie is also only about Turks, and the TV Series friends is a perfect example of WP:OR. That edit war the info back in is very questionable. I'll leave you time now to revert yourself, but I'll soon go to the noticeboards, if this information stays up.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Paradise Chronicle: I advice you to research background of Cyprus dispute. You will almost claim there is nothing like Anti-Turkism because "it is directed to Turkey not to Turkish people. With this mentality, there is no Anti-x sentiment in the world. See similar articles. With your edit, you claim that massacres and persecution against Turks, claiming massacred in Iraq or communist Bulgaria's oppressions are not anti-Turk motived. Beshogur (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I guess we probably have a misunderstanding. There sure exists an Anti-Turkish sentiment, but being against Turkey and their policies is not Anti-Turkism, as Anti-Turkism covers Turkic people in general. To classify a country of holding potentially racist and hostile views against an ethnic group due to their ethnic group, the ethnic group should be the topic and not a dispute of Turkey and another country due to a bilateral conflict of interests.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
but being against Turkey and their policies is not Anti-Turkism, as Anti-Turkism covers Turkic people in general. can you explain how being against Turkey is not Anti-Turkism? They're against Turkey because they're anti Turkish and vice versa. There is a parallel between the two. Beshogur (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
This will be my last answer before I report the article if you don't start to remove the WP:OR. Just check the lead, Anti Turkism is portrayed as being hostile, racist or having an intolerance against Turkic people (per se/itself). Nor the Saudi, nor the Egyptians or the Armenians are having hostile or racist sentiments against Turkic people. They are against Turkeys policies. Nothing against Kazakhstan, nothing against Uzbekistan, much less against the Uyghurs. Opposing Turkish expansionism is not automatically racism, hostility or intolerance against all Turkic people. Then also Turkism was influenced by Turkish racists, which is not included in the article, but this is a whole other discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: huh, sure Egypt and Saudis have nothing to Uyghurs. And you fail to understand that this article is more based on Turkey rather than Turkic peoples, and anti "Turkism" being Turkishness rather than the ideology of Turkism. Beshogur (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

ParadiseChronicle manipulating people by claiming the term anti-Turkism means anti-Turkism (as a nationalistic ideology) but not "anti-Turk"ism, which means anti Turkishness or hatred against Turks. Can compare to Antisemitism. He also claims Turkish people are not Turkic people, which is absolutely ridiculous. Beshogur (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I have not claimed Turks are not Turkic people. They count to the Turkic peoples, as is easily shown at Turkic peoples. But Turkey and Turkish people are just one people and country of many Turkic people and many Turkic peoples. I'd support the split of the article into Anti-Turkish sentiment to make it clear it is about Turkey as it is also made at Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. Anti-Turkism would stay but would either focus on the ideology or the general Turkic people, culture and countries. The article could also be split into three.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

References to US Anti-Turkism?

Although perhaps best consigned to an era marked '"bygones" nevertheless I am puzzled that upon my reading, there is no mention of Mark Twain's rabid hatred of Turks. Or, William Milligan Sloane for example.

It could possibly fit in the article when contextualized. Turkey's vicious and sometimes genocidal policies towards non-Turks and Christians caused a lot of anti-Turkish sentiment in the US. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Pro Turkish bias

Especially when it comes to the political side of stuff, this article is hugely biased and imprecise. I mean, it does, and rightly so, talk about discrimination and killings of Turkish people in various countries, but it fails to say that in many places, the same exact people suffered the same fate, and many times it wasn't even a subject of ethnicity. So for example, in Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriots collaborated in large part with the British to secure their colonial dominion and in the end betrayed the island by attacking it to seize its northern half. Massive genocides ensued. Greek organizations targeted the main collaborators not because they were racists, but because the liberation of the island would fail if the Turks collaborated from the inside, which they did. LightningLighting (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The unsourced "information" you share about the example you gave is meaningless unless you give a significant source. Cahilipedya (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

In the Antisemitism page should it also mention people who are killed by Jews as well then? I agree though, that the article confuses being against the Turkish government, and actual anti-Turkish sentiment. As a Turk I actually feel pretty bad about this article because I think these things done by Turk-ish/ic governments and dynasties throughout history do not justify having negative sentiments against all Turks. It is not anti-Turkish to hate the Turkish government, if that were the case then I would be anti-Turkish as a Turk. But also, what the Turkish government did and does is not justification for hating all Turkish people. The geopolitical history between Greece and Turkey does not give the right to a Greek to call me a "roach" for example. The article needs to be updated with actual anti-Turkish sentiments, against Turkish people. Negative sentiments against the government need to be removed. They can be interpreted as "negative sentiments against the Turkish government are anti-Turkish" which isn't true. It can also be seen as "these bad things done by the Turkish government is justification for hating all Turks" which is even worse. Homorebelus (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

adding my two cents here, as one of the major contributors to this article, i have to say that things aren't that clearly cut.
  • ancient historic was removed from this article when it was found inappropriate. Wars in China in 600AD for example. But historic issues that cause hatred till now are kept, Greeks and Turks have historic reasons to dislike each other but yhe mindsets of both populations haven't changed that much as to forgive each other yet. giving the historic reason of why X population hates Turks isn't justifying that hatred, it gives context.
  • geopolitics have been removed as much as possible as well. But some cases are necessary to keep as such geopolitics have real world implications that cause hatred. Kurds from northern Syria can attest to that. Government actions are almost always supported by the general population of that country (to varying degrees), and defended by keyboard warriors online (to make matters worse). It is reallly easy to hate an entire country because of that country's government and some number of extremists that support them (Arabs and Israel are a good example). - Kevo327 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sentiments of Kurds are not affected by religion?

In the Kurds section it says religion doesn't play a role in their sentiments. Yet https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8SB4D4W/download and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Kurdistan says the opposite. The source is fictitious. Kafkasmurat (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The source is fictitious is almost comical. It's a survey published by a peer-reviewed journal and Routledge. I have reverted your edit. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The remark of The source is fictitious is not correct, I believe, considering Routledge has been listed as the 26th A+ and 16th A ranked journal in terms of APSA's ranking in 2007 (see Rankings of academic publishers); hence relatively reliable source of information and academic view in comparison to a PhD thesis. Having said that there could be counter-arguments in other journal papers - this is a branch of science after all. If that's the case, I believe, those can be added into the discussion as well as a counter-argument in this branch of science. Hope this helps. 17kuti (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Turkish_sentiment/Archive_3&oldid=1067555187"