Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

You should add

Founder of the Republic of Turkey 88.232.168.170 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"Greek forces"

the article says "he defeated the forces sent by the Allies".

Wouldn't it be better to rewrite this as "he defeated the Greek Army invasion force supported by the Allies". I don't think there is any disagreement on the fact that Ataturk defeated "Greek Army" sent by Allies to invade western Turkey? ACosarTR (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism Fix Requested

I do not know how to untangle the three most recent changes. Two posts by a newer account with similar edits on related articles pretty clearly constitute vandalism. One deleted sourced content [1] and the second replaced sourced content racist material [2]. An editor rightly reverted part of the second change [3] but not all of it. Is there an easy way to restore the old content other than manually updating the page? I avoid reverting content whenever possible, so I'm not good at it.

Also, do we need to strengthen the page protection again? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Gabor and Ataturk

This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It has never been resolved.

Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 autobiography Zsa Zsa Gabor: My Story. This liaison been in the public discourse ever since. Some additional references:

• "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
• Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
• Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
• Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
• Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.

A couple of editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. Removing this information violates WP:NOTCENSORED. I have restored it for the time being, but it's bound to get deleted again unless more editors enforce having the content retained. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Came here from noticeboard The (now removed) text lacks context at least. This liaison (has) been in the public discourse ever since should read "This alleged liaison (has)been in the public discourse ever since". Seemingly nothing and nobody confirms the 'deflowering' except Gabor herself. A few sources accept the story, but they were never in a position to verify or disprove anyway. This thin evidence would be problematic with any 'stale' claim, but with somone whose public image in part rested on the sheer number and breadth of wealthy and powerful men who had seduced her/ had tried to seduced her/ wished they could have seduced her, it's especially 'iffy'. The previous text didn't 'take a position' as to whether the Gabor claim was true, but neither did it give any context to establish how likely/supported/widely accepted the claim was. Not very seems to be the answer to all three. Probably shouldn't be on this page but only on 'her' page IMO.Pincrete (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. This issue is only brought by Islamists to denigrate Atatürk. There is zero proof. Beshogur (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This (like all arguments in the encyclopaedia) should come down to sourcing. We have a single, primary source which is an autobio and thus inherently suspicious. Prom provided four secondary cites above (Larry King is a throwaway; an interview with an autobiographer completely fails the WP:SECONDARY criteria). The strongest is probably the article from The Guardian. That would usually be seen as enough to support a brief mention, at most, but deleting the info without a counter-source seems to be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. I agree with Pincrete that context was missing, but no source is offered to establish how [un]likely/[un]supported/widely [un]accepted the claim is amongst scholars. Without that, entirely removing the (weakly) sourced statement is WP:OR. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Placing her name here is out of context compared to other women. I agree this can be mentioned in her article, but not here because as I told, it is out of context. Beshogur (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"He undertook sweeping progressive reforms, which modernized Turkey into a secular, industrializing nation."

I don't believe this employs the neutral tone of Wikipedia.The placement of this statement here has the effect of a positive outlook on Ataturk from the neutral, unlearned reader. Also, the statement doesn't really say anything specific, it's too vague. 21fafs (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Didn't he? Beshogur (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Really, each word in that sentence save for the functors is unencyclopedically incomprehensive, and always has a positive, nationalistic connotation, leading to my suspicion of leader-reverent bias. It frame's Ataturk's reforms as universally positive ("sweeping progressive reforms") and implies that secularism and industrialization were unquestionably beneficial without acknowledging the significant controversy and opposition these changes caused. There's no neutrality; it presents a one-sided view that overlooks the cultural and religious upheaval experienced by segments of the population. As a matter of fact, the entire lead section of the article reads like a dedication plaque straight out of Ankara.

A more neutral phrasing:

"He implemented extensive reforms that established secular governance and promoted industrialization in Turkey, leading to substantial advancements in various sectors as well as significant societal tensions." 21fafs (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Kemal Atatürk's reforms did not cause societal tension. The ones who instigated turmoil were reactionary zealots and monarchists resenting they lost their wealth and rights as a result of abolition of the archaic institutions of Sultanate, Sufi lodges and Zawiyas. They were against the transformation of Turkey into a democratic state. They were misogynistic and did not want women to have the right to access education, obtain property and vote. Furthermore, they collaborated with the British to undermine the government and destabilize the country. They provided weapons and political support to rebels to advance their agenda. They had ties to anarchist Sheikh Said, who falsely claimed to be of Muhammad's lineage. Not only that, but they were prosecuted for their crimes and found guilty. Let's stick to the facts and avoid entertaining ideas aimed at tarnishing Atatürk's legacy. Wallis sabiti (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"... avoid entertaining ideas aimed at tarnishing Atatürk's legacy."

Why should we avoid entertaining ideas aimed at tarnishing Atatürk's legacy, or anyone's, for that matter? Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. Perhaps I missed it; when did Atatürk become a prophet? 21fafs (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Would this be better?

Instead of "During this time, the Ottoman Empire perpetrated genocides against its Greek, Armenian and Assyrian subjects; while never involved, Atatürk's role in their aftermath was the subject of discussion.", is "Atatürk wasn't involved in the genocides committed by the Ottomans during this time, but his role in their aftermath was the subject of discussion." better? Youprayteas ^{talk/contribs} 19:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)