Talk:Anti-Turkish sentiment

"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:

• Abolqasem Ferdowsi. "Rostam: Tales of Love and War from the Shahnameh" by Dick Davis, Penguin, 2009:

"Besides, you're not a Turk, I know you trace Your lineage from a far more splendid race";

• "Turan of the Shahnama are not the historic Turks with which Firdausi anachronistically equates them"
• Igor Diakonoff, in the "The Paths of History", Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 100: "Shahnameh had anti-Arab and anti-Turk bias".
• Colin Thubron. "Shadow of the Silk Road", HarperCollins, 2008, p. 273

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;

• Afshin Molavi. "The soul of Iran: a nation's journey to freedom", W. W. Norton & Company, 2005, p.70-71

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.

• Contrary to the claim made by contributor that Turan (the Persian name of Cenral Asia or Transoxania) was not the land of Turks (Turkic peoples), one can simply review the history of Seljuk Turks to see that these Turkic people were contemporaries of Ferdowsi in control of Central Asia in 10th century. Moreover, Ferdowsi's own homeland came under the control of Mahmud of Ghazni, who was an ethnic Turk, representing an ethnic Turkic Ghaznavid dynasty. Atabəy (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

I'm from Turkey and i'm not agree with you.You said barbaric raids? How about your ancesters in migration period. Second there isn't any genocide lately(for 2000 years or since beginning of writing?)i can say when turkish enters a war and wins it you say genocide(for all of genocide thing you said)Frequent raids in chinese empire 2000 years ago,yes,but now china rules over turks in central asia doing worser things and i reminding you mutual raids. I'm not sure about mughals but every war started with persian conquests over ottoman cities and seljuk empire was founded in eastern persia so we are the local people of persia(today northern parts are turkish majority)and there isn't any slaving culture of turks like you(i mean you have that culture) 'yeniçeri' or janissary was taking prisoner of wars and trained them into a new army they, weren't always children and their parents were giving permisson also not all of them were becoming soldiers also ottoman empire was multi-national country not only turks(except pow's of course) in the 16th,17th,18th,19th centuries foreign affaires was made by greeks and armenians. I'think you even don't know what is harem.It's not a brothel.It's same with your royal families(mistress)and it's illegal since 1923. Turks were muslim too so we can control holy cities.And again i say there isn't any enslaving.Slavery in Ottoman was legal ,yes, but only to the POW's. Slave trading of Blacks into Europe and Central Asia. arabs and europeans(the most civilised nations!!!) were doing that but not us. You're wrong again because crusades were against us.

Now the modern issues; There is Armenian expulsion not genocide. And that happened because of Armenian mobs. They were raiding every turk villages in eastern anotalia in wwi and they deserve an exoulsion. Because of poor government(literally poor) we weren't able to supply traitor and there are few thousand deads(all were mobs).2-You know PKK? A terrorist organization ruining our cities and killing our people? We're fighting against them not against all Kurds. Yes we conquered Kurdistan like Russian Asia and we're proud of it.And again there isn't any slavery.(I don't know what to say anything else.)We secured a living place for Turkish Cypriots and that's our self-determination rights.In 6th issue you're really right but conflicts isn't increasing because of us. And we have rights to embargo syria and so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Sorry for bad english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.234.250 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

historical: 1-bullshit,if you want to know murder and rape,give a search on bulgarian genocides on turks,genocide on crimean turks,genocide of armenians over turks,genocide of greeks over turks,genocides of turks all over balkans,russian genocides on turks etc. etc. etc.

2-which ones?

3-if you talk about that era,think of what barbarians (which are european nations's ancestors anyway) did at the time,turks at least,never in 3500 years of history did cannibalised people or did human sacrifices...

4-slavery done by europeans at best,you enslaved tens of millions,and not like your groundless allegations,you literally did the best of it...

5-europeans brainwashed their own children (children's crusade) and families gave their children with approval

6-dunno,it's not the business of ordianary turks,it's the work of the cosmopolite elite

7-plain bullshit

8-not the ottomans,it's the client kingdoms that did it and only the seller is guilty huh?

9- what?

modern: both are equally bullshit,kurds becoming to grow in proportion year by year,and never in your lifetime you would find factual evidences that would back the allegation of genocide upon kurds... Girayhankaya (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2013 (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.