Talk:Kemalism

merged

This article is the result of a merger of two articles: Criticism of kemalism and Kemalist ideology per AFD JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Creation

There is an article about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk , but it does not contain enough information about Ataturk's principles and ideology, so this article has been created.

I would like to contribute more, however, I am too busy with school. A good book I read on Ataturk which has an extensive amount of objective material on the ideas that Mustafa embraced: Ataturk: The Rebirth of a Nation by Patrick Kinross, 2001, Published by Remzi Kitabevi. This book give a peek of his life, cradle to grave and the dynamic good, as well as bad person he was. Motownwingnut (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)motownwingnut, Oct. 21, 2008

POV

In the secularism section it implies that attaturk's reforms were not anti-Islamic in nature, but I think this is an opinion. Many people view banning the arabic manuscript and Islamic law as an anti-Islamic act. Seems a little POV to me thats all.Roc

• First of all, not attatürk... You must write it as Atatürk. Turkish nation was the only important thing in Atatürks life. He didn't talk about religion issues. He believed that a state must work for the physical world not for the other world. Deliogul 21:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

(Its not that easy Deliogul, Ataturk knew the importance of religion to for the nation, if you consider about Bursa speech, and visiting the Selimiye Camii in Edirne, deportation of missionaries(who in fact were more than a threat than any armies could be) you would understand his vision more easily, but this doesnt mean he was not an enlighted person, he was believing in science more than fıkıh, so showed another middle way to his nation what we call today is laicism.

Deliogul is right. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was the man of this world, he even couldn't have found time to sleep, so it is just the thougth of Islamists and the other people against Atatürk's revolutions. Ozzie 14:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly an expert of Turkish history, but the part about secularism has a Distinctly pro-secular pro-Atatürk view. Ydirbut 23:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nizroc; I am not aware of your knowledge about Religion before republic and Ataturk's effords on returning to turkish islam of Anatolia pre-16th century, because of this he demanded the most advanced Turkish Tefsir, banned catholic missions after 4 highschool girls in Bursa was converted, had numerous speaches about how beautiful is the Turkish religion(not arabic islam), tried to demolish clergy (this is the main reason why clerics blame him for being enemy of reigion cos their way of making a living is destroyed) which islam does not approve( even prophet of Islam isn't a cleric unlike other Mid-Estern religions) , Call to prayer is translated in to Turkish as it was before Ebusuud, etc etc. About his believes , he was not a good practiser as his prime minister and successor İsmet İnönü, was drinking alcohol, fond of dancing, intoduced first ever laic (not secular) state to Turkish nation.

So it is not true that his reforms were anti-islamic, Arabic script is the most catastrophic even ever happened to turkish language which had a phonetical script before islam, (Read hoca Ahmed Yesevi), Islamic laws were also abolished by Calipths of Ottoman (Ottoman empire was never a real theocracy). If you dont care about this tell me the only muslim nation which was never been ruled by christian imperialists, and who managed that, is the Arabic Emirs who even let british troops in to Makkah and Madina, or the Mullahs of Shiites welcomed Britain to Persia... I am sure you will find who is more muslim Ataturk or All of the arabs.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.72.194 (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ataturk was an absolute Anglophile. He loved the West, and tried to make his country part of it. And that meant erasing or limiting the influence of Islam. And he was pretty successful. 99.234.23.2 (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

About Revolutionism

According to some authorities in Turkey , Ataturk's revolutionism principle was reformism. But Ataturk was using the word that "inkılapçılık". "Inkılap" is a Ottoman Turkish word, there is also a word in Arabic Language , it means revolution in English, in modern Turkish this word is "Devrim", in Turkey these authorities prefer to use the old form of this word, not the modern form, because people don't use Arabic words or Ottoman Turkish in Turkey, these authorities want to make this principle misunderstood by people in Turkey, because they don't like a revolution idea. So when they are translating this word to English they use the word "reform". But the meaning of "inkılapçılık" in Ottoman Turkish as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk used in his speeches and in his book which was named Nutuk , means "revolutionism" not reformism. On the other hand the actions of Ataturk were revolutions, establishing the republic was a revolution also,like the French Revolution in 1789.

It may be used as "İnklapçılık" because of "Devrim" word seem closely related with Communism in Turkey. Like "Devrimcilik" mostly used by exterminist-Communists and mostly terror organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.176 (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it necessary?

Just replying to the suggestion that "Kemalist Ideology" should be merged with "Six Arrows". The former, which I was referred to after clicking on "Turkish nationalism" covers the Six Arrows extensively. I don't see the need for overlapping.

At the very least, there should be a link to "Six Arrows". I will add the link now.

XieChengnuo 02:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

nvm. I see that the merge has already been done.

XieChengnuo 02:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Secularism??

It must be laicism not secularism.I think it is a big difference.

Yes indeed there is a very big difference, secularism in US and Germany is the goal of the state to be in the same distance to all religions, while Turkey and France , declares goverment cant edit religious life and protect itself from religious manipulations, which we call laicism, freedom o belief(as well as not having any belief) is underprotection of government and state, this is what secular nations does not understand, they dont see how they impose their main religion to others..(GW BUSH declared Iraqi war is a crusade, all of the presidents of US swears on bible, although a muslim could swear on koran , but anyhow it is imposing of the religion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.42.184 (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging ?

The one is an ideology the other a political party. This would be like merging the U.S. Democrats with Democracy.

Claiming ownership does not automatically grant the right

Merging a political party and a state ideology would be unsound in an encyclopedia. Though CHP is the flag bearer for said ideology (mostly due to its age and certain rigidity), every political platform (party or otherwise) at least pays lip service to this ideology. In Turkey state nationalism is enforced with a heavy hand and it would be a political suicide. Each and every one of them could and would lay claim to the title, even for the sake of a pissing match.

Nationalism - Ulusalcılık?

I'm not sure about this translation. Nationalism is translated to Turkish as either "Milliyetçilik" or "Ulusçuluk" (Millet = Ulus = Nation).

Turkish speakers should check this out.

No, millet and ulus do mean 'nation' but they are not the same. If you say 'Türk milleti', you said 'Turkish people' so the ethnic Turks. If you say 'Türk ulusu', you said 'Turkish nation' and that includes anyone who lives in Turkey, race culture and belief is not important, you are a Turk in Turkey. It's a bit tricky to translate 'Milliyetcilik' and 'Ulusalcilik'. Both are 'Nationalism' but with different accents.

You are right. Nationalism = Ulusçuluk. Pls anyone change it. Ulusalcılık is different.

Ulus is nation(as American nation=Amerikan Ulusu not Amerikan milleti), millet is followers of a religion, or a distinctive group in a religion( like Bulgar milleti which includes macedonians following bulgarian orthodox church, rum milleti, following patriach of constantinpol, yunan milleti, chuch of athens after independance of greece, there was never a "Turk milleti" term before nationalist movement in ottoman empire started using it ),( See millet system of Ottoman)

No that is wrong. Nation = Ulus, National = Ulusal so Nationism = Ulusculuk and Nationalism = Ulusalcılık. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.215.193.142 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Nationalism means both milliyetçilik and ulusalcılık, they are synonymous - but their usage may differ slightly at times because of who is doing the rhetoric. The definition of "Türk" on Turkish Constitution clearly states as "a person bound to the Turkish Republic as a citizen", and as such it is not an ethnical definition. There ıs a lot of political polemic on the issue both by extreme right wing parties of turkish and kurdish ethnical background, trying to capitalize on ethnicity to gain political power and justify violence this causes. - Justin Case 13:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

They showed it to us as "milliyetçilik" back in the school :) If we consider that every student in the Turkish educational system reads the same history book, there mustn't be a doubt :) Deliogul 19:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• • It is interesting to see how this discussion is misplaced. We shouldn't be trying to translate the word "nationalism" into Turkish (it might be done elsewhere) but Milliyetçilik into English. "Milliyet" means "having the character of a nation", "millet" means a nation. One must not forget that as M. Kemal forged these terms, the only historical reference thereof was the French Revolution; not Hitler, nor Mussolini. --Ekindedeoglu (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Kemalism is a left-wing ideology

This is a reality. No matter what military junta says, Kemalism is not a "third way" or a sum of apolitical ideas.

Shouldn't this be cited? On what basis is Ataturk's ideology defined as left-wing? Hashshashin 02:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think that it doesn't reflect the reality. Right-wing is also accepting Kemalism as their ideology. Even extreme right parties like MHP (nationalist party) accepts Kemalism as teir ideology. Please note that this party would take that fact of being called as left, as an insult.

Kemalism as it stands today is not a left-wing ideology. Its interpretation by its defenders is almost a verbatim definition of state nationalism. Ataturk was a progressive and reformist leader, but today the Kemalist ideal promotes insularism, hiding behind secularism and laicism. Anybody conversant in Turkish politics should first take a brief look at the article on left wing here on Wikipedia, then see how it does not apply to political parties' agendas defining themselves as Kemalists. - Justin Case 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it is enough for a party to define itself as Kemalist to become Kemalist. We can clearly understand that MHP's ideology is something like Ottomanism (Turkish imperial background, power of Islam etc.). There is a term about it in Turkish, "Türk-İslam sentezi" (Turk-Islam synthesis). Kemalism is still a left-wing ideology but nobody uses it in practice. Deliogul 17:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kemalism is a third way because during it was imposed, there were only 2 ways in struggle(as materialsim pronounces) none of the schoolars nor politicians were believing there would be a middle. But as Lord Kinross states Kemalism brought the middle way that today we call State controlled economy or mixed economy as the middleway Europe couldnt manage to find out... by the help of that system turjey achieved highest development ratios during global economic crysis, even almost without inflation.

About left wing, .. nationalism is strictly an ideology against left as well as populism is same to right.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.72.194 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We have to understand that there are degrees in the leftist politics. You can be a social democrat, socialist or communist. There are also different schools for different degrees of the left like, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism etc. Therefore, there is not a single thing called "left wing party". Of course, everybody has some stereotypes concerning what do "left" and "right" mean. Clearly, there are ways that you can be, to some extent, nationalist and populist at the same time. For example you can favor your own culture, music and history against the values of other countries but you can still be a socialist republic where education and healthcare are totally free (see; Cuba). Also, as I stated before, claiming that you are a Kemalist is not enough to become one. George Bush argues that he spreads democracy around the world but he is a neoliberal politician in reality. Therefore his main goal is to spread FDIs and IMF assistance around the world to destroy welfare states and to form the rule of the "free market". Deliogul 20:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Kemalism is a clear example of left wing nationalism. If a political ideology supports laicite, populism and state intervention to economy, that party surely can't be a right wing or a liberal party. They all are left wing ideologies.

Peronism

Kemalism is very similar to Peronism. Do you think it should be mentioned?

I think this is not completely true. In Latin American World, Kemalism moch more similar to Bolivarism. Both ideology is anti-imperialist, and has direct effect from Enlightenment coming from French Revolution. As a result, both can be thought as Third World Enlightment revolution ideology.CeyhunC 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Kemailsm is not an ideology and does not bring ANY anti-imperialistic feature just declares to give up all imperialistic desires of turkish nation has ended with the motto "Peace at home peace in the world", and that home is boredered by Misak-ı Milli.If you want to call Kemalism as an ideology then you would only use superiority of science over any other though. this makes ( in theory) the state more flexible to changes in the world but, more robust to social changes inside(esp changes backwards, like racism, communism, pan-islamism, the first two were only handled in 50 years but the last still threatens the very excistance of the state and the nation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.42.184 (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from old Talk:Criticism of kemalism

The following are comments from the talk page of the article Criticism of kemalism, which was merged with the article Kemalist ideology on January 12, 2008.

About the photograph with the explanation: "Muslim university student girl is being hindered by kemalists"

It's not a photograph of a girl being hindered by kemalists, it's woman at her forties that's been having a seizure or heart-attack or something like that. And the two guys that's been present there doesn't look like they are hurting her, instead they look like they are helping her. And there is no sign of them being kemalists. I warn you, check closely before you believe any picture that's been put here.

It's unbeliavable. I have never seen or heard such thing in my life. Someone must have posted this intentionally. How on earth can you proove that those guys are Kemalists and they are attacking her? I'd like it to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.33.190 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• they are not helping her. they are trying to stop her. how can you help someone trying to stop him o her?

--Polysynaptic (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

POV template

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of kemalism, several editors questioned about neutrality of this article. Rebuttal of views should also be prensented. Here I tagged the article until this issue is resolved. Happy editing! Dekisugi (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• This article is neutral. Every argument is referenced with a peer reviewed publication. Court reports, journal articles, etc. also added. Therefore it is not fair to judge this article to be not neutral. This article is the a rebuttal of Kemalism. Therefore the rebuttal of the rebuttal is regressive. Ther is no such a thing. There can not be the criticism of criticism. Because criticism of criticism is the criticised one at first place. The opposing views are given in the Kemalism article. Criticism of kemalism is the rebuttal of Kemalism and it is initiated there with a link given as "main article". Therfore I suggest the removal of neutrality tag and deletion tag.
• --Polysynaptic (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course there's criticism of criticism. Not all critics are valid or reliable. To be able to stand as a page in Wikipedia, all pages without exception should endorse neutral point of view. Even for highly controversial criticism articles. Please read the policies and guidelines. Please also remember that you're not owning this article. Other editors have rights to say about neutrality of this article. Dekisugi (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • Of course I do not own this article. but i do blieve in the neccessity of this article. For the neutralilty of the article, as argued before, the arguments in this article are referenced with peer reviewed scienific publications. Someone who thinks that the neutrality condition is violated should point the reason. You can't just put the tag and go. An article can not be blamed by being not neutral without reason. Othwerways every article should be unneutral.
    • Critics of articles should not forget that knowlede is something that human constructs sociculturally. therefore there is no 100% objective perfectly neutral knowledge.that is nothing more than a logical positivist utopia.
    • Consequently, who puts the tag should state the reason. if there is no reason the tag should be removed. "Some editors have questions" is not a valid reason.
    • --Polysynaptic (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(unident). The reason is given here. And I have stated above per AfD discussion. Dekisugi (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• where did you get the information that Atatürk was the follower of fascism? jeez. There are quotes of him in several books saying that Hitler is a big threat and the europe should be aware of it. provide RELIABLE SOURCES! --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 10:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I did not get the information from somwhere else. I experienced and have been experiencing it as a person. Additionally, "talking against fascism" does not mean that the talker is not fascist. There are many "democratic" republics in Africa. You should consider the facts. I will extend this article. You haven't seen anything yet...
  • --Polysynaptic (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This way of speaking (i.e. "You haven't seen anything yet") is inappropriate for any encyclopedia entry writing purposes. This is not a place where you prove the superiority of your judgment. The neutrality of your point of view has been challenged because of expressions such as "it is obvious that..", the part that follows being all but obvious. One last thing: the ideology of the military junta is also controversial. Many Kemalists after the junta have denounced it, some have published works bearing striking titles such as "Ben Atatürkçü Değilim" (I am not a Kemalist), where one should understand, "if they are Kemalists, I am not one". A distinction should be made inside the ideology, distinguishing the form it held before the 1980 military coup, but in the meantime, the elements that could later on foster the political discourse of the junta should also be discussed. One must not forget in so doing that Kemalism was and still partially is one of the strongest tenets of Turkish socialists. The influential communist poet Nazim Hikmet wrote elegies for Mustafa Kemal; the revolutionary martyr Deniz Gezmiş spoke of himself as fervently adhering to the principles of Kemalism (he was hanged on decree of the generals who later established the "Kemalist" junta). Moreover, any comparison with African countries is inadequate, out of place and derisory. --Ekindedeoglu (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

POV

I added a POV warning to the criticism section because it's an EXACT copy of an article that was merged into this. Words "obviously" and the like are appearing. I question the neutrality. DodgerOfZion (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For those deleting the "criticism" section, directed here...

Please argue your point before deleting it again. Thank you. DodgerOfZion (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all clear to what extent the points of view offered by the cited sources are criticism of specifically Kemalism, and to what extent the interpretation as criticism of Kemalism is a case of original research, attaching a novel interpretation to these points of view. I can't find the Jung & Piccoli reference. The Google search ["Modern-Day Turkey in the Greater Middle East: Kemalism Faced with Its Ottoman Legacy"] has as its only hit this Wikipedia article.[1] There is a book by the authors named, with the same publisher, but its title is Turkey At the Crossroads: Ottoman Legacies and a Greater Middle East (ISBN 978-1856498678). I don't have this book and can't check its use as a source (if it is the intended source). For the sources I can check, such as the CEPS Working Document by Tocci, I do not see at all that the quoted statement is meant to be criticism. It is a non-judgemental statement about historical events. Other sources do offer criticism, but do not refer in any way to a Kemalist ideology. And who is criticizing Kemalist ideology in the statement that Islamist officers were dismissed? Perhaps this is praise of Kemalism. If we remove all uncited and unverifiable statements, plus those for which it is not clear that the cited sources mean to criticize Kemalism, nothing remains. Perhaps a good section on criticism is possible, but what we have here is not encyclopedic.  --Lambiam 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the comments in the criticism section don't sound that critical, really. 99.234.23.2 (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is largely the effect of removing the unsourced and unverifiable POV statements. For most remaining statements in this section it is not clear what point they are attempting to make, whether that point (if any) is meant to be criticism, and in fact why these statements are mentioned at all. This section consists largely of the remnants of the unfortunate outcome of the AfD debate not to delete the largely unsourced and badly written POV fork and attack article Criticism of kemalism, which was implemented by plunking it as a new section into this article.  --Lambiam 14:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Importance

Taking into consideration that Kemalism shaped Turkish government and politics the importance of this article should be high. Evren Güldoğan (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for nationality

"Everyone bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship is a Turk. Every citizen within the borders of Turkey is to be recognized as a Turk..."

This definition is useless because it does not clarify who is or how one becomes a citizen, so I added an introductory sentence. Yet, I am baffled by the last part, as it seems to imply that expatriates are not Turks. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

When that phrase was introduced[2], it was clearly intended as describing a new vision on national identity introduced by Atatürk's Reforms – although opinions can differ on the issue how accurate this description is; a citation would have been welcome.

As the text is now, it seems to be a further exposition of the constitutionally determined criteria for citizenship, or something like that. I have no strong opinion on whether the sentence should remain (in this or a modified form), but now it is out of place.  --Lambiam 00:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the French style, not the old German style. Deliogul (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of kemalism

since kemalism is an ideology, it has followers. and some wikipedians obviously are kemalist. those kemalist wikipedians continuosly blanking the section. at first they removed its own page and redirected "here". then they slowly removed the entire section of criticism. that's called sneaky vandalism. i was not around for a while. but i am back. so don't think i will let kemalists to sneak the content. please be respectful. and those other wikipedians who are aware of the issue should watch out the vandals. regards.--Polysynaptic (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC

I advise you to read WP:OR. You are pushing non-established arguments. Newspaper opinion sections are not credible sources. Everybody has right to have their own opinion but Wikipedia:Credibility is the bases of wikipedia. --Kemalist (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The content is well referenced. referenced mostly via peer reviewed articles. please do not remove well referenced content. --Polysynaptic (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You tried to create an article with the same content. The article was voted for deletion. The wide conclusion was that your content is the collection of minority views. They did not get acceptance with the mainstream history. The Wikipedia is not WP:OR. Your text is linking events that do not factually related to the ideology itself. --Kemalist (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The article i created wes deleted for adding the content in the article -i created- to the Kemalist ideology article. and it never was deleted because of being a collection of minority views, Mr. Kemalist.

you should actually be away from this article because you are a fanatic Kemalist so that it's impossible for you to be objective in that issue. please let others construct the knowledge.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are always welcomed to edit. This is about the content you are adding. The words like "fanatic" does not solve your issue. Be WP:CIVIL, do not WP:PERSONAL ATTACKs these are violations of normal conduct at Wikipedia. This and your talk page is filled with reactions to you. Most of them are objective arguments. You can improve your text based on these objections. There are wide ranging issues in your text. Most of the text is recent events. They belong to different articles, such as Secularism in Turkey, Human rights in Turkey. The link with these events and/or people with these events to this ideology is not established. Your text claims as these are established facts. Your text has inherent problems. You have to work with other editors. --Kemalist (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "fanatic" is quite proper. remember your user name. that's not a violation at all. i'm adding content which criticizes the Kemalist ideology. The articles you mention Secularism in Turkey, and Human rights in Turkey are related with the issue. but the references i have given were for specifically the ideology. Criticizing Kemalist ideology doesn't mean criticizing secularist implications in Turkey or secularism itself. you are trying to -obviously- trying to twist and misrepresent the issue. but you can not succeed. please do not vandalize the WELL-REFERENCED CONTENT BY BLANKING. writing down once again for you to understand easily: i am contributing with well-referenced content which discusses Kemalist ideology which is different then secularism in Turkey and secularism itself. i have to DECLINE YOUR SUGGESTION OF TOLARATING YOUR KEMALIST ROOTED VANDALISM. --Polysynaptic (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm questioning your citations. This is not the first time you are questioned. I'm stating that during the citation you are modifying or distorting the information. Will you cooperate to resolve this issue? --Kemalist (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The section fails all reasonable tests for neutrality. It is presented from an outspoken anti-Kemalist point of view. The claims as given are largely not supported by the sources. See also Persecution of Muslims#Persecution of Muslims in Republic of Turkey, added by the same editor.  --Lambiam 20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

An example of citing political critisim for those who don't know : According to .... Kemalism is an ideology that is bla bla or X feature of Kemalism might lead bla bla. Like there might be tons of critiques for state intervention to economics. Btw cases are not used to critisize an ideology. Theory is critisized theoretically. And Kemalism is a theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.123.57 (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism?

Why is there no article about the criticism of this political movement - or at least a section within the main article about it's criticism. I just read this article, and it seems very biased for this movement.

How about the claims of religious persicution, and limitations of practice of both majority (Islam) and minority (Christian, Jewish) religions, or the denial of the Armenian Genocide which seems to have stemmed from that, or past Ottoman thinking, whish is still - horrendously to this day - very present in Turkey. Also the Turkish Nationalism whish stemmed from this movement seems to deny the existance of many racial groups - ie Assyrians, labeling them as Arabs despite very clear linguistic, cultural and genetic variation.

I've got quite a lot of peer-reviewed articles from the US mainly concerning these, but since I'm currently very bussy with uni, I wont be able to put them up right now. Really appreciate it if anyone else who knows these can put them up. Pink Princess (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be driving a certain agenda, rather than motivated by a balanced review and critisism. What does Armenian genocide have anything to do with Kemalism? As the article explains, which you may not have absorbed being taken over by your Turkophobia, Kemalism is NOT nationalism. Past Ottoman thinking today? Kemalism was an anti-thesis of Ottoman thinking. Seems all that reading was a waste.

Ideologies similar to Kemalism in the West

The article should maybe try to further demonstrate that certain Western ideologies are very similar to Kemalism. There are various kinds of radical liberal nationalism in Europe and the Americas that integrate many of the Kemalist doctrines, such as Catalan nationalism, Belgian nationalism, the Kulturkampf regime, Spanish republicanism, Mexican republicanism, French republicanism and Quebec nationalism. ADM (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. Kemalism should be placed both in its historical and present context. It did not come out of the blue, Ataturk and his principles were very much part and product of his times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.118.177 (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

um, Kemalism is a "western ideology". Atatürk was trying to create a secular nation state based on western templates, moving away from Islamic religious law etc. As such, Kemalism is simply a clone of basic western ethnic nationalism (the völkisch movement) as it developed during say 1910-1930. Of course, the west was cured of this trend for good during 1939-1945, but it's still a thoroughly western development. Now, ethnic nationalism does survive in the west, but it is today a fringe movement which tends to lurk below 10% of the popular vote. It only seems to survive as a mainstream ideology in places not directly affected by WWII, especially in the former Ottoman Empire. See Rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire for a list of flavours. The astounding thing is that all these nationalisms are being pushed by people born after 1990 on the internet today. Before I came to Wikipedia I had no idea these ideologies still hold sway over practically all of western Asia plus the Balkans. Perhaps today in North Africa we see the first signs of a generation moving beyond this. Former Yugoslavia also had to learn the hard way that this won't work as desired. Turkey has been forced to move on by the EU, but this was imposed from above, the population seems to stick with ethnic nationalism. In North Africa, perhaps we see the first signs now of a generation moving beyond the ethnic nationalism vs. religious fundamentalism dichotomy. This is the 2010s, it is about time the spectre of the 1910s started to dissolve. --dab (𒁳) 05:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism.....

The term "Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene" was promoted against.....

That term is Turkish for 'The Turkish Hacker'. I tried it out on Google translate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.172.129 (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

-and the notion, google translate might be tweaked to show such translation havent come to your mind. translation of words; "ne; how", "mutlu; happy or enjoys", "Türk-üm; I am turk" "diyene; those who say" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.246.194.239 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC) The term "Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene"

May the term "Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene" be translated as "Happy he who says 'I am a Turk!'" --46.154.20.160 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Necdet Atabarut 29 August 2011

Revolutionism?

Translated as "revolutionism" is a wrong translation for "Inkılapçılık". "Inkılapçılık" is actually an Arabic word. Revolutionism mean in Turkish "Devrimcilik" or in Arabic-Turkish "İhtilalcilik". Wikipedia for all the wrong translations must be corrected. Because their meanings are very different. This is a big mistake politically. Calaygut (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"Progressivism" would be a better term. Inkılap in Turkish has more than one meanings in English other than "Revolution", such as Reform and Transformation. Therefore I suggest that it should be changed to the latter two. Policies can't be called as "Revolutionism." Aegesar (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Another Vandalism.

Some people try to associate Kemalism with the Nazis. With insufficient resources. Look what it says at the beginning of one of the sources. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/abs/ataturk-in-the-nazi-imagination-by-stefan-ihrig-cambridge-ma-harvard-university-press-2014-pp-311-cloth-2995-isbn-9780674368378/FA72EC0F1B47B3F1DF47867F788B8692 book is often chaotic, lacks clear devlopment, is repetitous, ank makes irrelevant jumps through time--all of which, in the end, needlesly blur his narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by İnsanayıdomuz (talk • contribs) 16:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

So he doesn't like the writing style, so what? You do understand the difference between style and substance? I see you also neglect to mention the review underneath Leo van Bergen's for some reason? FDW777 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not a style, it's a bad book writing. Don't know who is "Leo van Bergen" and i don't care. Like I said it is irrelevant to the page.İnsanayıdomuz (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

If you don't who he is and don't care, why are you hanging your hat on a brief excerpt from a book review he wrote? An excerpt that don't criticise anything except the style of writing, not the substance of what's been written. FDW777 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, your excerpt is completely meaningless. I have checked the journal article on Jstor. As even the index shows, the book review by Leo van Bergen begins on page 136 and continues on to page 138. However, it is not for the book cited in the article. It is a review of Durchhalten und Überleben an der Westfront: Raum und Körper im Ersten Weltkrieg by by Christoph Nübel. FDW777 (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems the actual sentence in the article is not backed up by the source provided. I don't see any content claiming, very strongly, that "The Nazis viewed Kemalist Turkey as a "postgenocidal paradise" worthy of emulation." within the pages mentioned. That aside, if the article is to claim something so extraordinary, it should cite stronger sources or provide contemporary sources of Nazi admiration, not just one author with a history of Armenian nationalism as is the case in The War of Independence.DriedGrape (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

DAB to do

DAB edit Kemalism#Fundamentals: Change [[Laicism]] (disambiguation) to [[Secularism|laicism]] 49.177.73.238 (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed propaganda

Deleted the pro Amenian propaganda with Armenian ultra nationalist sources. EnverTheHero (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@EnverTheHero: Hello! Good day to you. Please do not remove content that are well sourced without consensus. You opined that the source is ultra nationalist sources, could you provide sources that defines that the source used are unreliable and to be removed? SunDawn (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that the fact that one of the sources is of an Armenian historian with a history of ultranationalist works and obvious bias, coupled with the fact that the cited source does not even claim the same point in the article is reason enough to discuss further before adding it in, otherwise removing it. Also, WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The current sources are nowhere near enough to justify such bold claims.DriedGrape (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent external interpretations

The latest edit has some problems. Just the added sentences in the External interpretations of Kemalism part itself firstly: "In fact, National Socialism and Kemalism were depicted as 'twin movements'." by whom? The source does not specify either. In fact, the entire source article -which is the sole source of these sentences- is written with a lack of such important attributes and cites no sources for these claims. There is many sentences attributed to Hitler yet no mention of *where* they were written or spoken -if at all-. "In 1933, Nazis openly admired Kemalist Turkey." How? And what exactly is the use of this here? In 1933, France admired Kemalist Turkey as well. "Hitler described Mustafa Kemal as "the star shining in the darkness"." The source says "Nazis described..." and again, with no source to back it up. All that aside, I think this source is both unreliable and lacking. The author is neither established or knowledgable in this area it seems. So long as there is no evident and tangible sources to back up these claims, they shouldn't have a place in the article.

It also seems the editor that added these tried to write the same content in Turkish War of Independence but it was removed, then he wrote them here instead. I believe the objections in the talk page for that article speak for themselves and I mostly agree with them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_War_of_Independence#Impact_on_Nazi_Germany DriedGrape (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Bumping as it seems there is no response to this topic and I'd rather discuss first than go into editing. I still believe Agos as a sole source is not reliable. The author is not a well established person in the field, nor is he of any academic stature to be cited here. Also, Agos being a newspaper with a clear agenda sticks out like a sore thumb here, being on the same level as Anadolu Ajansı. I am in the opinion of removing the sentence or at the very least, for now, to be edited to comply with WP:BIASEDSOURCES: "According to pro-Armenian newspaper Agos..." and such.DriedGrape (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason for the reversion of edits

• Aydınlık is an unreliable source according toReliable sources noticeboard. (The user deleted this source which was a right action. So, I have re-deleted that after the reversion.)
• Tbmm source is a record of the parlament speech, so it is a primary source.
• The book by Afet İnan was published in 1930s which makes it an obselete source.

--V. E. (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Add, so I am rollbacking edits according to "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page".--V. E. (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Statism

Thanks for checking my editings, but don't worry, I read Atatürk's and Mahmut Esat Bozkurt's books. My only edit was adding Atatürk's words about Statism. Thank you, if you don't undo. If you want, you can check my sources by downloading Medeni Bilgiler's PDF and by purchasing Altı Ok 1919-1938 book. They are obselete sources, and also November 1 Assembly speech is primary source. RussoTurkish (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we don't use primary sources to make original research. Also we don't use obselete sources because in Wikipedia WP:AGE MATTERS.--V. E. (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop the incorrect attribution

It's clear some people have not even looked at the references cited. And as also stated, page 114 of Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination covers plenty of Nazi fawning over Kemal, so it's unclear why we need to swap to an isolated instance of fawning from the previous page of the book. FDW777 (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Revertion to the stable version

I have reverted to the version by FDW777 of August 18. The reason is there were unexplained changes to the sourced content such as this one. Also, a source that was used in the article dates to 1930 which makes its reliability dubious.[3] Furthermore, this edit does not cite any sources.[4] Lastly, a disputed content was added without having a concensus.[5] Best regards.--V. E. (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed Nazi Edit

Hi all, I Deleted the Nazi section. Noticed there was no consensus when it was added and all the articles there are self citing. Also this book was rightfully denied in couple other wiki articles, and all those resons still apply here. There is also editorial biases which can be discussed here. Both side can now have proper discussion. Feel free to mention your approval or rejection of its removal. Oyond (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not a valid reason to remove the section, it is properly sourced and made clear that this is not the opinion of one person but has reached considerable level of support among reliable sources discussing the topic. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thats your opinion for now. In previous articles we established selective editorial biases. Dont revert unless you can explain yourself more. Also give proper explanation going forward. I want discussion to happen Buidhe. Wikipedia is for everyone. Once again this section was added without any concensus, and the source book was rejected couple of times in other topics. Oyond (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

No policy based objections have been made, nor has any evidence been provided to support the claims in the initial post. FDW777 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This was rather expected response from same group of people. Allright the book was rejected here for being a fringe theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beer_Hall_Putsch and similarly it was also rejected for being niche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ATurkish_War_of_Independence Both cases applies to this article, and once again in the TWOI we established selective policy and editorial bias by some of the users. It is a single book that is not widely accepted as of yet. Once again lets have proper discussion with your explanations of why it should be here and how it differs from the two cases I provided Oyond (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting his details of documented Nazi fawning over Kemal (genocidal birds of a feather, flock together) is in some way made up? FDW777 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Reverting it back, respond with constructive post. This is not a case of IDONTLIKEIT. I have been involved in few discussions when the opposing side was consistent and well articulated. In the end we agreed to keep the article as it is, said thank you and part our ways. Again niche and fringe applies to this topic. Since you and Buidhe was involved in both those discussions one way or another I am not going to recap it for you. However I do expect a decent explanation before adding it back Oyond (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The Beer Hall Putsch article is of no relevance as to whether the content is relevant in this article, the same applies to virtually any other article you care to name. FDW777 (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you elaborate why? Widely view of kemalism is not its influence on Nazis. This is single book being refered by selective articles. The content of the book was discussed previously and removed in topic with similar reasons. It is too niche and borderline fringe. Other then this book there isnt enough sources out there to back it up. With the exception of Agos and handful of Armenian authors. The motivation of such articles are in question which also we can get into if you like. Fully elaborate the reason why it should be added here, and try put your cognitive biases aside while doing it. Again please retain from throwing terms like IDONTLIKEIT and elaborate properly. I also would like to see other peoples opinion besides you two(INCLUDING the opposing side). I'll leave this discussion open for few days before I revert it back again. Oyond (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

On the talk page of the article Beer Hall Putsch, other users found it fringe only on the spesific part that BHP was influenced by TWoI; they didn't object that Kemalism influenced Nazis in general. However, I still disagree with them even on that spesific context; they thought it was fringe because almost all of the sources the users cited, which did not mention Kemalist influence, were published before 2014, the date when Ihrig's book was published; however, if you look at the more recent sources regarding Nazism, there is a general trend towards mentioning Kemalist influence and cite Ihrig's work. Besides, on the talk page of TWoI, the user GGT said that he found it niche (but not fringe); his objection was based on the text regarding the influence was undue, which was lated redacted accordingly, and he did not object. Best regards.--V. E. (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You say that Ihrig's work is only supported by a "handful of Armenian authors". Well, in fact the book was reviewed positively by several major academic journals and in most cases by non Armenians. Ihrig is not Armenian. Paul Kubicek is not Armenian. Brian JK Miller is not Armenian. Margaret Lavinia Anderson is not Armenian. Marc David Baer is not Armenian. Erik Jan Zürcher is not Armenian either. (t · c) buidhe 00:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe and V.E. I am going to put on my good will hat on, and assume you misunderstood my comment. I will also keep it short and sweet. I did not talk about book reviews, what I meant work is not accepted outside few circles and not many other sources reference same line of thinking. As for book reviews, I can find unfavorable in equal number. The point was: besides one Armenian author Ataturk's extreme influence to Nazis is not widely accepted view and it is Niece(and in my opinion one dimensional analysis). Besides that V.E. has history of picking most sensational part of the book(suits a certain POV) and avoid rest of the context. The whole argument in Beer Haall was based on the work being too Fringe. Example: "Reviews of the book do not count as reliable sources unless they are written by subject experts, and the subject here is Hitler, not Ataturk or Turkish history. The book in question is Ataturk in the Nazi Imagination by Stefan Ihrig. Ihrig is a historian, but not a specialist on Hitler or Nazi Germany, his special interest is German-Turkish relations, which may have predisposed him to overstate Ataturk's influence on Hitler.If Hitler was inspired by Ataturk in deciding to stage the Beer Hall Putsch, then other actual subject experts should mention this. Let's see: Burleigh - The Third Reich - no mention of Ataturk Bullock - Hitler: A Study in Tyranny - no mention of Ataturk Bullock - Hitler and Stalin - no mention of Ataturk Evans - The Third Reich trilogy - no mention of Ataturk Fest - Hitler - 2 mentions of Ataturk (pp.157 & 168), but not in relation to the Putsch Kershaw - Hitler (2 vols) - no mention of Ataturk Shirer - The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - no mention of Ataturk Toland - Hitler - no mention of Ataturk Ullrich - Hitler (2 vols) - no mention of Ataturk Weber - Becoming Hitler - 3 mentions of Ataturk (pp.214,275,310), one about how German right-wingers admired him, one about an article written by Hans Tröbst about Kemalist activity (Hitler wanted to meet Tröbst but never did), and one about Hitler's speeches in his trial; none are about Ataturk being an inspiration for the Beer Hall Putsch." Oyond (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Stop talking about the Beer Hall Putsch, it's of zero relevance to this article. FDW777 (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not the same because the Beer Hall Putsch article addition was solely concerned with Turkish influence on Hitler in specific relation to the Beer Hall Putsch, whereas this article takes a far broader view of Turkish influence on Nazis in general. FDW777 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Oyond here. I have read through Talk:Beer Hall Putsch and Beyond My Ken makes a valid case for the sources being fringe to both the Beer Hall Putsch and the Nazis general view towards Kemalism. Considering the evident lack of reliability and current general acceptance in the field of the said sources, the section should be removed. As by your own admittance, Ihrig's minor influence is as recent as 2014 and quite niche. As such, needs more acceptance and credibility before being used as boldly as here.DriedGrape (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Once again, whether something is undue weight in the Beer Hall Putsch article is of absolutely zero relevance as to whether it is undue weight in this article. Evident lack of reliability? Is that a paraphrase for "I don't like what it says"? FDW777 (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with User:FDW777 here. Removal of sourced content based on WP:RS just based on personal opinions it is not how things work here. If any editors are certain that there is really a problem with the RS, they are welcome to ask for a third opinion at the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Noticeboard which is the most appropriate place for resolving cases where a source's reliability is put into question. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Bad sourcing

References 54-57 specify the same book in three different ways and reference a review of said book. Should be turned into a single reference to "Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination". The preceding paragraph is a good comparison - exhaustive, properly sourced. Puts the next one in a bad light through contrast with the sourcing salad.

I partially agree. The book is duplicated twice is wrong; however, I think that we shouldn't delete the newspaper review because it helps someone who doesn't have access to the book to get an overview of the content.--V. E. (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect analysis on the meaning of Atatürk's quote on minority ethnicities of the Republic of Turkey.

I will highlight why the following quote has an incorrect analysis:

Kemalists saw non-Muslims as only nominal citizens, and they have often been treated as second-class citizens in the Republic of Turkey.[34][35] The identity of Kurds in Turkey was denied for decades with Kurds described as "Mountain Turks".[36][37] Kemal stated in 1930:

Within the political and social unity of today's Turkish nation, there are citizens and co-nationals who have been incited to think of themselves as Kurds, Circassians, Laz or Bosnians. But these erroneous appellations - the product of past periods of tyranny - have brought nothing but sorrow to individual members of the nation, with the exception of a few brainless reactionaries, who became the enemy's instruments.[38]

In the first instance it is important to recognise when this quote was taken, which is the same year of which Kurdish Islamists beheaded an innocent man seen here in reaction to Atatürk's secularisation policies, the full story here in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menemen_Incident

Secondly it is important to realise that when Atatürk references the nation, he is talking about the political representation of the people of the state, the Republic. This is seen here in the same article before this analysis where the definition of the state is defined as the Sovereign people: "Sovereignty

Kemalist social theory (populism) does not accept any adjectives placed before the definition of a nation [a nation of ...] Sovereignty must belong solely to people without any term, condition, etc.:

Sovereignty belongs to the people/nation unrestrictedly and unconditionally.

— Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" In this context I would say it disproves the analysis but at the very least casts doubt on its validity and for this reason I argue it is removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 01:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

External interpretations of Kemalism

I find this portion under the 'Analysis' Section very politically biased and motivated. It seems to make a connection between Turkey's slide towards increased Islamism and 'cultural relativism' and specifically mentions Jacques Derrida. This seems like a blatantly politically motivated edit that the source does not back up. I can find absolutely no evidence of Derrida's philosophy's influence on Turkish politics or culture. Would suggest a revision of this section. 2A00:23C8:4D99:DF01:DDBA:2B15:FC56:788B (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Atatürksrevolution.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Turkish translation "Kemalcilik" is not correct

The Dictionaries of the Turkish Language Association (which is official, ending with .gov.tr) does not have an entry for "Kemalcilik". No source for that translation was given either. The correct translation would be "Kemalizm", which does have an entry. Mathdotrandom (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

pov tag

i have added a pov tag as this article seems to have been influenced by turkish nationalists.

the second sentence alone goes like so:

Kemalism, as it was implemented by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk after the declaration of Republic in 1923, was defined by sweeping political, social, cultural and religious reforms designed to separate the new Turkish state from its Ottoman predecessor and embrace a Western-style modernized lifestyle including the establishment of secularism/laicism, state support of the sciences, free education, gender equality, economic statism and many more.

all empty promotion. sweeping political, social, cultural and religious reforms? a Western-style modernized lifestyle?

the final sentence of the lead:

After the demise of the Ottoman Empire, Atatürk, influenced by both the Young Ottomans and the Young Turks, as well as by their successes and failures, led the declaration of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, borrowing from the earlier movements' ideas of secularism and Turkish nationalism, while bringing about, for the first time, free education and other reforms that have been enshrined by later leaders into guidelines for governing Turkey.

enshrined by later leaders is a giveaway.

and the final paragraph:

Although Kemalist secularism has deep roots in Enlightenment era thought, the postmodernist movement in Western philosophy has, since the 1960s and 1970s, cast the Enlightenment in a negative light. Postmodernist thinkers like Jacques Derrida have assaulted the Western hegemony and imperialism associated with European colonialism. The declining appeal of secularism, perceived as a Western value, has given occasion to postmodernist cultural relativism emphasizing the populist appeal of collective religious identities like the political Islam espoused by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's AKP.

i'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, other than trying to just whitewash kemalism.

there is basically no mention of any criticism of kemalism anywhere in the article, and everything written just within glorifies the ideology. ltbdl (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The article should include more third party analysis and connections between ideology and practice. (t · c) buidhe 14:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Your use of language like "whitewash" already starts from a biased position. If you think this well-sourced article is biased, use reliable sources to balance the biases. Also, do not assume anyone who writes about Ataturk's reforms and achievements is influenced by "Turkish nationalists" since the article is likely to be written by people of diverse nationalities. LeonChrisfield (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

And indeed, bias in favor of Turkish nationalists has indeed been observed in "people of diverse nationalities". What's at issue here is the article content not who wrote it. A lot of the references are primary sources so by definition biased in favor of the article topic. (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe You removed a peer-reviewed journal article for "pro-Turkish bias". You cannot a remove source for perceived "bias". Read WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Furthermore, the article was written by Morris Singer, who is not a Turk. The page history shows you have been in an edit war with LeonChrisfield, which is sanctionable. Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed the text for being biased, not the source (although I expect the source is biased as well; the conflict of interest in Ottoman/Turkish studies prior to around 2005—given that it was extensively funded by the Turkish government—are well documented). It's not unreasonable to request a source that is recent for a topic that is widely studied. If the best source you can find is from 1980s why is the content WP:DUE?

You added failed verification to the external interpretations section of the article.

BTW have you ever edited Wikipedia under another username? (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether you believe the source is biased. Wikipedia allows biased sources as long as they meet WP:RS. Similarly, source reliability is not determined by whether it is funded by a government/institute/think-tank etc but by the author's expertise and the publisher's credentials. The text you removed simply mentioned Atatürk supported public-private sector co-operation (mixed economy) and passed a labor law in 1936. Can you explain what was "biased" about this?

Regarding my additions, if you specifically tell me which one of them you failed to verify, I can gladly share brief quotations from the book. Are you asking for Hanioğlu's, Bülent's or Asker's work? Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there is an English comprehension issue. The text was removed because the text was biased, not because the source was biased. As stated in the edit summary whether something is "balanced" in its priorities is not something Wikipedia can judge.

You edited the content cited to Parla & Davison to read: "However, Kemalism should not be confused with the ideologies of liberalism and socialism that derived from the Enlightenment." But, that is not what the source says. I did not check any of the sources you added. (t · c) buidhe 05:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe, you removed the source along with the POV text. I have removed what you believe were POV, but the source itself was peer-reviewed and reliable, which Wikipedia allows. Even if you believe it's biased, it doesn't matter. Biased sources are completely allowed on Wikipedia as long as you can provide alternative sources to balance it. LeonChrisfield (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I believe "those who view Kemalism in a positive light" is preferrable to "admirers of Kemalism" since the language is more nuanced. . LeonChrisfield (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring to include UNDUE/OR content

There are many recent scholarly sources about Kemalism and the article should be based on these. If the only source you can cite is from 40 years ago, and only mentions the subject once, it is hard to see how you can argue that this is WP:DUE even if you argue it is somehow not OR. (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources of this article are academically peer-reviewed and I don’t find any evidence of why they are “biased” or “unreliable”. The Wikipedia policy of reliability of the W:RS policy does not include this. LeonChrisfield (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I find the claim that the 20th century sources are biased in favor of Kemalism insufficient to remove a peer-reviewed British academic source relevant to the topic. But if you can prove the historian of the source is biased, I am happy to remove it. I don’t think the article is relevant when it explicitly focused on statism and Ataturk’s economic policies. LeonChrisfield (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Economic policies are affected by a lot of things besides ideology, such as public opinion, budget constraints, etc.

This article is about the ideology and therefore you should cite sources specifically about Kemalism as an ideology. It is not about the public policies pursued by Mustafa Kemal. You could write a different article about that. (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

However, the article explicitly stated “statism” directed the public-private policy cooperation, which was why I find it relevant. LeonChrisfield (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

W:Undue is when giving a specific view point unbalanced weight. However, the other cited article in the same section had similar conclusions about the Kemalist economic policy promoting public-private sector cooperation and state intervention, and there is no contradiction between these statements. Unless there are academic sources that contradict this view point, it’s not giving undue weight to the argument. LeonChrisfield (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It's undue because it's not about the ideology. It's just a coatrack for stuff that does not have a verifiable connection to the ideology called "Kemalism".

Morris Singer was an economist, it's unclear why he would be considered an expert on the history of ideas. (t · c) buidhe 07:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

"Hartford Courant – Your source for Connecticut breaking news" ... setting aside its "This content is not available in your region" message, it is unclear why the Hartford Courant would be considered an expert on economists and whether the field requires some degree of expertise on the history of ideas. Sorry for that, although I agree with your issues with the source, I found your method of dismissing it wide open to ridicule! But I have to disagree with your statement that Kemalism has nothing to do with "the public policies pursued by Mustafa Kemal". Surely Kemalism, when Mustafa Kemal was alive, had EVERYTHING to do with the public policies pursued by Mustafa Kemal? Public policies were part of how it was enacted inside Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.135.157 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article should cover how the ideology influenced the policies pursued by the Turkish government, but it has to do so by way of sources that are explicitly connecting the two. (t · c) buidhe 03:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)