Jump to content

Talk:Valley of the Wolves: Iraq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversy

[edit]

Is it really a controversy considering these events actually happened?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those statements should be considered controversy.Dumaka (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

The events didn't happen as depicted; and it would be similar to excusing blatantly racist depictions of arabs simply because you can find true events that are similar to what you're depicting.

Huge NPOV issues

[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Obseving the PKK...--88.243.64.31 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

in the news in germany

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


On the Central Council of Jews in Germany (Zentralrat Der Juden in Deutschland) official English-language website, after a wide search, I could not find a press release or speech saying that Valley of the Wolves: Iraq (Turkish: Kurtlar Vadisi: Irak) was anti-Semitic. Please someone find a citation for this. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In France

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

King Nothing, you can look at the figures. Maybe Turkey hasn't got a powerful industry to build war machines but you can be sure that we have a serious amount of money to spend on warfare. Look at the numbers of jets, troops, tanks. Those figures can amaze you ;) Deliogul 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But don't compair, if you look at the actual equipment and materials, to European NATO members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.7 (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice history lession, Deliogul, but those of us living in the 21st century tend to hold the opinion that any given peice of land should belong to the people who live there. And, despite the best efforts of NATO's two biggest killing machines, that would still be mostly Arab.74.47.29.63 (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey has the second strongest conventional land forces after USA in the NATO (That's not wishful thinking.). Historically Iraq has been a part of Ottoman Empire. Indeed about three dozen countries have some land that had shared the same fate. However both facts have no meaning for the presence of Turkish soldiers in Iraq. First of all, having a strong army does not give you the right to send soldiers abroad. Second, Turkey is not the heir of the Ottoman Empire. It is actually the last country to declare its independence from the Empire and by doing so making it defunct. Finally, even if it was its heir that would give no right to intervene. However all States make such interventions to ensure their national security or influence intergovernmental affairs. Turkey is no different. If the USA came all that way to invade Iraq it's natural for Turkey to send some soldiers over the border. It is just that Turkey's strength or history does not serve as sources of legitimacy for such intervention. Anyway this discussion in not necessary in the context of this movie or the underlying real life events as the Turkish soldiers in question were stationed in Iraq in 1996 through an agreement with the government (See the entry signed EG above.). Evren Güldoğan (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First blood II

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fictional events

[edit]

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

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

Repetition

[edit]

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

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

This is just a film

[edit]

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

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

This is not "just a film." History is no longer written in books, but is now created by film directors who have an agenda to push. This history is very dangerous because actors in a movie seem more real than words in a book. Future generations will believe the movie, not what is read in a history book.Lestrade (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]


This should be called a hate film, his latest glorifys the murder of Israelis and defense of Palestinian terrorismBasil rock (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locations?

[edit]

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

Objectiv information?

[edit]

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

Suicide over a bagging?

[edit]

I know it's just a movie but it also relates to the real-life event: is there some cultural taboo in the Near East against having one's face covered? Seems to be a fairly common method of restraining prisoners and preventing them from escaping.74.47.29.63 (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Turkey is concerned: no. However the act of hooding (which I find degrading and inhuman) is never used as a method of restraining prisoners in Turkey, even to terrorists. The act of hooding Turkish soldiers was therefore perceived as an insult. Evren Güldoğan (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of stoning rape victims to death, maybe they can just put a hood over their heads for a few days. Wouldn't that be a sufficiently terrible punishment for being a rape victim?Lestrade (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
There is no death penalty in Turkey, nobody gets stoned to death or receive physical suffering as a punishment. Criminals are simply sent to jail. You must talking about USA? Waterboarding, lethal injection etc ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.195.131 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been reading Lestrade's comments over the years -"he" is one idiot. Teetotaler

google

[edit]

This section seems to be of minor importance to me. A google count analysis could be added to every movie page with the same justification but why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.139.79 (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally and suggest that somebody should re-write the whole reception section. 翔太 「Shouta:talk」 18:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

This section is written as a list of trivia with headings. Maybe somebody can re-write it so that it is in paragraph form. I've added the

for the time being. If I have time I will try it myself.翔太 「Shouta:talk」 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing something

[edit]

Where is the colon between "Wolves" and "Iraq" in the title?Lestrade (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

The doctor: a Jew?

[edit]

Why does the article claim the doctor is a Jew? Where is the proof for that? Why do people even think he is Jewish? Is it because the organs are flown to Israel (among others). I think this argument would be too weak to keep this statement in the article. --213.39.217.122 (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody answered me, I have changed it now.--213.39.202.82 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They claim he's Jewish because the West in general deals poorly with criticism, and this movie is critical. Additionally it doesn't portray Americans as gilded heroes of democracy and Good, so everyone has to find reasons they're allowed to hate it instead of manning up and just saying "Waaaah this movie isn't sucking America's dick, it makes me feel bad because I might realize that America isn't perfect!"--203.73.254.106 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you kind of just proved his point there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.4.245 (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Stewart and 'The Daily Show' segment concerning this movie

[edit]

Ok. In the reference section - the editor or whoever wrote the blurb - wrote that after Stewart lampooned the movie he simply showed some clips of Arab/Muslim terrorists.

This is very dishonest. First of all, the tone of this blurb is disingenuous. The point of the segment was first to lampoon the movie and then to point out the HYPOCRISY of the mainstream media's reaction to the movie. So he lampoons it. Then, he juxtaposes the commentary of mainstream pundits next to Hollywood's depiction of Arabs and Muslims. Not all Arabs and Muslims by the way, but rather, within the same context as the perception of 'the other' within 'The Vally of the Wolves'. Example - the 'other' = Israelis viewing Palestinians AND NOT Israelis viewing Indonesians or Saudi Arabians. (This does not mean racism/bigotry exist primarily within the borders of a conflict but I'm trying to explain the Stewart's segment here.)

So I'm adding the term "stereotype" to the Arab/Muslims part of the explanation to Stewart's segment. I think this is obvious if you actually watch the video. This is not POV. It's the entire point of the joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.104.139 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to the TV serial?

[edit]

Is it part of the TV serial storyline. If so, where does it come in? Between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, or after 3? 109.77.22.244 (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative reactions?

[edit]

I'm wondering why there is a "Negative reactions" when it seems to draw on a German report and we have a "German" section under "International reception." This section would tend to violate WP:CRIT, especially the idea we should try and avoid "Criticism" sections: WP:CRITS. Best to rework it into the reception section, as long as we stick to WP:NPOV. (Emperor (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Valley of the Wolves: Iraq. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Valley of the Wolves: Iraq. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Valley of the Wolves: Iraq. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Valley of the Wolves: Iraq. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valley_of_the_Wolves:_Iraq&oldid=1205890568"