Talk:Kemalist historiography

Notability

@Nanahuatl: There are lots of reliable sources about the article. It is definitely notable. This template needs to be removed.--Visnelma (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Can be considered about merging. Besides, an original research chech must be done, I am not sure if all the sources describe a term such as "Kemalist historiography" or that's just the idea of the Wikipedia editor.--Nanahuatl (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are determined by the topic, not the term used. The topic of this article is "history-writing from a Kemalist perspective". So as long as the source is clearly discussing history-writing from a Kemalist perspective, it does not matter if it uses the exact phrase "Kemalist historiography" or not. Otherwise we would have different articles for Selanik and Thessaloniki. (t · c) buidhe 19:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Buidhe.--Visnelma (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not Turkish historiography? There are various "schools of thought", Kemalist being only one of them, and it's not the dominant one any more, so why is it alone under the microscope? It has to compete with Ottomanism on one hand, more class-focused frameworks on another, post-modern deconstructionist views... etc. Furthermore, the link between political views and historical views isn't quite so perfect; there are people who do not subscribe to what the page describes as "Kemalist historiography" but would proudly identify with Kemalism politically (for example "the break with the Ottoman period was not sharp enough"), and vice versa ("the modern Turkish state unjustly usurped the Empire/Caliphate against the will of the people"). Applying a political label to a historiographical framework can confuse people. --Calthinus (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

As you said, there are a variety of approaches to historiography in Turkey using diverse viewpoints, interpretations, methodology, academic rigor etc. So I wouldn't say there's really one "Turkish historiography", although there is certainly a "Historiography of Turkey", that would cover all different views of Turkish history including external (i.e. non-Turkish) perspectives. Nevertheless, sources do say that there is such a thing as historiography based more or less on the Nutuk speech and it does meet GNG so I would not support deleting this article.

For example, Fatma Muge Gocek states, "I conjecture here that it was the famous Speech (Nutuk) delivered by Mustafa Kemal in 1927 at the Second Congress of the Republican People’s Party, which he had founded and now led, that laid the foundation stone for the official historiography of the Turkish Republic."[1] Melis Çağan states, "This speech was later transcribed into a book, appropriately named Nutuk (The Speech), and is considered the foundational text on the history of the modern Turkish state."[2]

So this article subject goes under multiple names (sometimes considered "official", "state", "Turkish nationalist", etc. historiography), but it's certainly notable and worth having a (better developed!) article about it. (t · c) buidhe 03:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, fair. I wasn't saying we should necessarily delete it but I do think it is more informative to have Historiography of Turkey. In the long term. --Calthinus (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, Calthinus (happy new year!), to make things interesting, at this point article is nominated for GA, and now that that happened, it would be really useful if you guys would spare few moments to chip in some thoughts on that interesting development. I wanted to take the job of reviewing the article, but then I realized it wouldn't be fair, there is nothing to review here - it's a start-class article at best, with an editor involved in its creation, development and nomination being barely more than a single-purpose account (which is never good thing in an area of high controversy and heated contention).

Here's mine: I haven't read one decent whole paragraph about actual historiography in this entire article - not even last section (Archives and journals) is on topic, or it simply has no contextual ties supported in source. In my view this article is just extension on Kemalism, basicly a WP:COATRACK and WP:FORK. The same thing, or even worse, can be said for the article on cult of personality of Ataturk.

Simple Google search with a query Kemalist historiography will give a whole host of links to books and papers, so notability is not a problem, the article discourse is. First, half or more of the article just regurgitate bunch of history, pre-Ottoman's and Ottoman's, but how and why is that from the Kemalist ideology point of view is nowhere to be found - given sources almost never mention Kemalist historiography. There is no mention of Arabs in Kemalist historiography, for instance, the Kemalist Turkish historiographic view of the Abbasids, and other such concrete insights but with a sources that actually put it in context; is it, how and why sanctioned by the regime, and so on and so forth.

I haven't count, but from the top of my mind, entire article mentions few actual history books or researches, not to mention description and elaboration on how and why is particular book written from the perspective of Kemalism, how and why are authors part of the Kemalism promotion in historiography. Well, I am not that familiar with Turkish history and politics, but I can say that I would never recommend this article to a reader who wants to get acquainted with Turkish historiography, Kemalist or any other kind.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's a notable subtopic, same with the cult of personality article. Kemalism is about the political ideology, merging this content to Kemalism would give undue weight to the historical views promoted in order to legitimize the ideology (which the article is about). Changing to "historiography of Turkey" would require radical changes to the article in order to include non-Kemalist views. The article as it exists was mostly written by John the Janitor, but you didn't ping them. (t · c) buidhe 00:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The current criticism on the article by Santa is mostly based on two points: (1) it is a WP:Content fork aka POV forking, not mirror websites as it is accidentally linked (2) the article does not discuss the historiography and it is not good in general. Let me start with the second one. The term Kemalist historiography goes by multiple names, one of them being "official history [of Turkey]", as Kemalism had been the official state ideology for 80 years. Therefore, its later interpretations during multiparty era is related to the article. For the same reason, official journals and archives which laid the ground for this historiography is related to the article. Another criticism related to this claim is that the article does not discuss why particular books (i.e. the ones influenced by Kemalism) took such an understanding of history. However, this is wrongful claim; the article multiple times state that the Kemalism, which was a nationalist and staunchly secular ideology, viewed its Ottoman past regressive and corrupted by Islam and instead adopted Central Asian heritage in order to legitimize modernizing reforms of Atatürk. Also in a 30.000 byte article, claiming there are virtually no good paragraphs is a very bold statement, which I also disagree. Regarding second point that the article is POV forking, I not only disagree with this claim but also find it insincere. Content forking is, by definition, "the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." The article Kemalism is about an ideology. However, Kemalist historiography is the interpretation of Turkish history based on Kemalism, which laid the ground for foundation myths of Republic of Turkey and became its official historiography. It is clear they are different subjects.

Unfortunately, I think Santa judges my edits unfairly, not just in this article but in general. First accusing me of having "ethnic issues". Right after that, editing an article, which I also had edited.[3]. Then, accusing here me of SPA and content forking. I think this is a WP:HOUNDy behavior and discouraging for me to edit Wikipedia. Best regards.--John the Janitor (public) (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, buidhe and John. I did not ping John as he just happens to be in the process of nomination of this article for promotion into GA, so it was expected that he's going to defend it, and I am interested to here buidhe and Calthinus opinion on that, anyway. Buideh, you didn't address my concern on two main points, John at least tried. These are: can this article be considered for the nomination (not to mention promotion), and to which extent is this article on topic, and whether the given sources provide a cover or real evidence for the statements. I never suggested merging, let alone deletion, my opinion on forking and coat is there just to underline extent of my concerns. I specifically said topic is notable, however, I also pointed that article has a problem of discourse not notability - its current content is fork or coat, not its topic. If we add problematic referencing we could claim SYNTH and OR as well. So, what do you, buidhe, think about quality of this article, and its nomination. (By the way, "cult" article is similarly bad, with sources being inadequate or out of touch with statements, and so on.)

What will happen if I take the job of reviewing it? Who is going to explain lack of discussion on historiography itself, because John is doing poor job on that - he continues to maintain that topic is being well covered by article's discussion of politics and general history of Turkey mixed with general discussion on Kemalist ideology. That's not the topic of this article, and sources almost never talk about it in context of "historiography" Kemalist or otherwise. I do not wish to repeat points of my concern from the above further - I will address John's latest post later.

John, you think wrong vis-a-vis hounding - your contribution provide enough peculiarities for caution, and my observation (not accusation) of you being "nearly single-purpose account" managing around extremely well is rooted in reality, don't you think? Your account was recently activated with an odd sets of edits - I consider myself fairly intelligent and savvy, but I needed years, really, before fully grasping inner dynamics of this project. However, this is not the place for such discussion, observation maybe if it's legitimate and looking at your contribution it's struck me as a legit. My observation in those edits also stands.

I don't know what would be the best way to explain all the shortcomings, but maybe look at other well developed articles on "historiography" would be helpful - here's my advice: historiography article should be focused on historians and their ideas, not specific territories, dates, events and episodes, these should be left to their respective articles - if you want to write about this and that massacre and how it fared among media and scholars, you should start article on the subject, not write about it in this one.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Expected" me "to defend it", huh? I think you should read WP:AGF, before making presumptions about other editors. Content forking is related to NPOV policy; it is hardly related to SYNTH or OR. So, your claim that it is content fork is false. Besides, I nominated the article only after asking Buidhe if it was good enough, and there are other editors like @GGT: and @Uness232:, who contributed to the article, but did not claim that the article is OR or SYNTH. Also, I think it would be the best for you if you explain the relationship between cağ kebabı and Kemalist historiography to substitute your SPA accusation and also explain your reasoning for that I have "ethnic issues". "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" and "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race ... or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc." is considered a personal attack and is disruptive. Best regards.--John the Janitor (public) (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Since you are (and I hope this is still you, same John from previous post) that well acquainted with project's quite intricate web of guidelines and policies and rather profoundly experienced editor, with a one month +few days old account almost entirely dedicated to editing one article, you know what option you have at your disposal in this case - this TP is not one of them. However, diversion from the article problems to a discussion about nonexistent "accusations", word you are now throwing around with ease, will not help making them invisible.

So, let's first make this one clear: you asked buidhe if article is good enough for the GA nomination, and she said it's good enough?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Santa, the accusation of "ethnic issues" is not acceptable. I suggest you withdraw it. John used to edit under a different account; this one is a clean start. He does not want the accounts to be connected, possibly because of concerns about harassment that both of us were receiving for our edits.

I think the article is ready to be nominated for GA, although the reviewer may suggest improvements before promoting it. (t · c) buidhe 14:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, we are now discussing articles issues, and I doubt that any reviewer is going to bypass that fact. Article is of topic, with sources used as a cover. This is not article on historiography it is an incoherent mix of historical events and episodes, with a pinch of politics, a lots of ideology, some . Now, what are you talking about when you say "the accusation of "ethnic issues" is not acceptable. I suggest you withdraw it"? Withdraw what accusation, would you mind being specific?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It was already linked in one of my previous posts, but I am linking it again for the clarity purposes[4]. Best regards.--John the Janitor (public) (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If your concerns are about the article, I suggest you highlight specific examples from the article that you think need to be fixed and make specific suggestions for improvement rather than writing walls of text vaguely accusing the entire article of being original research, without substantiating such claims.

In this diff you accuse John of making an edit because of "ethnic identity issue". I feel the need to emphasize that personal attacks are not acceptable because you don't seem to have gotten this point. (t · c) buidhe 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I will start with an obvious - it is nothing of the sort, but you know what is a proper venue for that kind of expression, although now that you revealed to me that you both perceive yourself as being victims, as you said, of targeted harassment, no wonder you see accusations on ethnic basis lurking. Now if we are done with a distractions based on accusation upon accusations happening or not at some other page, can we talk about article issues. I will later ask for the clarification on why would I (or anyone else, for that matter, because I don't see myself uniquely incapable to understand what is going on here with John's participation) think that John is SPA, and the matter of editing via multiple accounts or under multiple usernames. Are you willing to respond on my inquiries about article - this article. --౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Perceive"? When you have no idea what's going on, it's better to keep your mouth shut. Yes, it's something that really happened. (t · c) buidhe 19:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you perceive yourself as a victim, still. Either my written expressions are quite incomprehensible or you really jumping to conclusions every time you interact with someone who may or may not share your conviction and/or opinion. Stay cool and read with care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You are the one who is jumping to conclusions about things that you evidently know nothing about. (t · c) buidhe 10:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

About what, buidhe? This response either has some hidden substance with a meaning and a message, or is just immature reflex. We are barely persons here (on wikipedia), hiding behind ones and zeros, we are just indistinguishable pile called "editors" (we struggle to distinguish ourselves with a colorful signatures formats) - respect inner dynamics and don't bring your worldly grievances to it.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on why undersigned editor thinks article is mostly off-topic (new sec.to get edit-link)

I will start, and since neither of you seem to feel tagging of the article, while discussion is underway, would be appropriate, I will tag the article and maybe later ask editors to take part in this discussion via Projects. Let's start with a simplest issue: why we have images of "general" and "party leader / activist" in the article?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be in favor of removing the majority of the images. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to replace disputed images with more-on-topic ones, if you've suggestions.--John the Janitor (public) (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead - first statement Kemalist historiography is a narrative of history promoted by the political ideology of Kemalism and influenced by Atatürk's cult of personality. - who said this, where and when? (I do not expect refing in the Lede, but I can't find specific definition nowhere else in the body, with sources, of course. If I omitted it, please refer to the specific line.)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

While on the Lede, one particular statement - Today, Kemalist historiography is embraced by Turkish neo-nationalism (Ulusalcılık), and sometimes by anti-Kemalist conservatism and Islamism, (...) takes significant place in the article narrative. However, it has no significance for the topic of "historiography" beyond the short elaboration, that can serve to explain utilization - it can't be subject of, or main purpose for the article on historiography.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It's clearly relevant to say who is endorsing the article topic. (t · c) buidhe 19:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• To state - yes; to turn it into meta-narrative no !--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that Ulusalcılık deserves its own article to discuss it in more detail. However, the current material only superficially mentions it. Two short paragraphs in the body and one sentence in the lead. I think a closely successor historiography deserves such a mention in the article, somewhat similar to World War One article having "aftermath" and "legacy" sections, still having its own article to discuss it extensively.--John the Janitor (public) (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Still Lede - It asserts that the Republic of Turkey represented a clean break with the Ottoman Empire, and that the Republican People's Party did not succeed the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP). These claims have been widely rejected by scholars, notably by Taner Akçam, Erik-Jan Zürcher, Uğur Ümit Üngör and Hans-Lukas Kieser. Who made such an assessment. where - why the distinction, aren't these opposing scholars part of the historiography with their own research of history?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Part of historiography—yes—part of Kemalist historiography, clearly not. (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• So, basically, there are two parallel historiographies concerned with TUR history - or are we going to take usual approach and consider it to be simply a historiography, with an episodes of ideological misuse, like in many other cases (Serbia and Croatia comes to mind)? What exactly sets TUR apart from Croatia, Serbia, or Greece and Armenia for that matter?

• Not really, there is one history that is exclusive to Turkey, this can be termed Kemalist or official and has different variations, there is another one that is practiced by some Turks, and also by historians outside of Turkey. This former, official historiography is ignored internationally. See eg. Gocek, here. (t · c) buidhe 19:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am not sure if you are aware, I do not exactly give a damn about Turks, Turkish history or historiography, rights nor wrongs of it - I am not rooting for any particular version of it either. But i wouldn't take part in the project if I am not serious about it. I hold no bias on the issue, beyond usual conditioning all persons experience. I am certain there is always one historiography, so it should be one concerning Turkish history too. Then, the article should have sections on different approaches to the history of Turkey - including ones you listed above. Article on historiography should be focused on historians and their ideas, not specific places, dates, events and episodes, these should be left to their respective articles. As I noted, there is abuse in historiography in many countries, but our article should cover historiography and not its particularism. Hell, even Kemalist approach has its light side, for instance, it can be read in one of the sources here talking about its take on women emancipation. Then, you have in bibliography section title that goes like this: The Ottoman Empire in the Historiography of the Kemalist Era - historiography of the Kemalist era, which is the proper approach, not the Kemalist historiography.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest you focus on specific changes that you want to make to the article instead of vague and poorly supported contentions regarding the article as a whole and/or its editors. (t · c) buidhe 10:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Really? It's me who makes unfocused remarks in attempt to divert attention and derail this (mine) engagement here? My contention of this article is flawless from the start - it's you and John who tried to derail it into discussion on editors, and you are still very much concerned with editor-issue. Your replies so far did nothing to change my mind, and we have not yet moved past the introduction to the next chapter.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In relation to previous post - is the KH only historiography in its milieu, if yes, is it appropriate name "Official", if not what other exist and how two relate.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

For much of Turkey's history, it is not legal to publish any histories that do not conform to this viewpoint. (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This can help to determine which one is more common

Kemalist historiography: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Official Turkish historiography: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL--John the Janitor (public) (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that Kemalist historiography is more commonly preferred on an academic level (scholar). OTH is more commonly preffered by non-academic sources (plain google).--John the Janitor (public) (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Googleing for hits is not a proper way of determining these things, John.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that is wrong to solely rely on it, but it can give a general clue regarding usage.--John the Janitor (public) (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The article as I first found it clearly had a very WP:COATRACK-esque feeling to it. Some more of my feedback can be found here. Since then, I've removed some bits and added some material, but I must say that there has been some considerable pushback against this feedback, and I don't consider this sort of editing to be compatible with a clean start - I've raised this issue on the user's talk page. The article's problems still remain, however. It has a tendency towards overgeneralisation to the extent that it is actually misleading; this is without a doubt exacerbated by the approach towards sourcing the article, which completely eschews any Turkish-language research and often resorts to literature that only tangentially touches upon historiography (e.g. this one). The post-1980 historiography, under the heavy influence of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis, was a completely different beast from the early republican historiography (see Hakkı Göker Önen's chapter in the recent volume about Darbeler: Tarihi, Siyaseti, İdeolojisi). Historiography in the early republican period was not monolithic; with notable Kemalist sceptics of the official line such as Mehmet Fuat Köprülü. It is simply impossible to give an account of early republican historiography without giving an overview of the First and the Second Turkish Historical Congresses (see Büşra Ersanlı's excellent work from İletişim Yayınları, İktidar ve Tarih: Türkiye'de Resmî Tarih Tezinin Oluşumu (1929-1937)) and yet this article fails to even mention them. It also completely omits the fact that the Turkish Historical Thesis essentially lost all currency following Atatürk's death. On the other hand, any opportunities to turn this article into a list of the misdeeds of the Kemalists are not missed - Uluğ's 1932 book on Dersim is of course part of the discourse in the early republican period but the source does not present this as an instance of Kemalist historiography because well, it is not a historical work but rather a pseudo-sociological observation about Dersim. This material may belong somewhere on Wikipedia but not here, and yet there has been insistence to keep it here - which is why the COATRACK criticism is partly justified. I could go on and on or try to fix things, but there are too many such problems throughout this article and there is quite a bit of resistance against most suggestions. The article is fundamentally flawed and certainly should not be considered for GA status. --GGT (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, GGT, a very much appreciated input, I will have more time to reply and re-start discussion in an hour or so. I hope you are interested and that you will stick around.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

John the Janitor (public), buidhe, GGT, now that we have broadened discussion with another contesting voice, we could, at least, now agree to tag the article properly (no need to withdraw the nomination). Buidhe would you choose proper template and tag the article?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@GGT: Thank you for the feedback. I will try to make the necessary adjustments in a subpage. However, I'd like to note that I actually said I was open to collaboration with you, and you said that you were going to discuss the disputed points in the talk page in due time. With all due respect, it kinda felt weird to hear you calling it coatrack when you said nothing for a period of one month. Best regards. (See here for the earlier discussion in question)--John the Janitor (public) (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean, tag the article? Tags are optional, and if you feel the article needs to be tagged, I'm sure you'll do it yourself. Personally, I think it is more valuable to fix the problem than just slap a tag on. (t · c) buidhe 12:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of tagging in such cases, otherwise I'd have done it myself, but I wouldn't object to it being done. I'm not even sure whether there is an appropriate tag for the sort of concerns that I've raised - it's not a simple POV issue, for instance. John the Janitor, I don't know what makes you think that editors need to be continually active and responsive to article-related discussions in their personal talk pages. Silence does not equate to approval. Dealing with this sort of article by oneself, especially when one is being continually messaged or pushed back by what at that time appeared to be an SPA, takes a lot of intellectual effort and resources that I wouldn't necessarily have considered well-spent. Now I see that another editor is sharing their concerns about the article, so it's a good time voice my concerns again. --GGT (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@GGT: Partially disagree. Silence can be interpreted as consensus. (Please see WP:SILENCE) Considering it has been over a month and you indicated to reply in due time, anyone could have a similar impression as me. Best regards.--John the Janitor (public) (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

John, you really need to read that nutshell-guideline in full and thoroughly.

GGT, you are right, there is no template that properly describes our predicament here.

(I will be back shortly to continue discussion.)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not very sure about which guideline you are referring to. Could you please link it?--John the Janitor (public) (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes, per WP:SILENCE: "As far as the difference between dissent and silence is concerned, if you voice dissent, failure to make your dissent heated and continuous does not constitute silence and therefore does not constitute consent." --GGT (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion 2

@GGT:, @John the Janitor (public):, @Buidhe:, I see that John is making some changes, but since my familiarity of Turkish history does not extend beyond what any avid reader would know about it, and while my familiarity with its historiography is even less profound (nor do I speak Turkish), I will ask GGT to assess eventual developments in terms of content, also sources in Turkish, in accordance with his available time and an extent of his interest to participate. Having said this, the fact that I am not familiar with Turkish historiography does not mean that I do not know what historiography as a discipline is, and how should article on topic look like, sound like.
GGT, after reading all your posts related to this article (your links including), you strike me as a person who knows what (s)he's talking about when (s)he talks about Turkish historiography. If you are interested in giving us at least a basic outline of what you think this article should look like, specific historians and other intellectuals names, their significance, some turning points and dates (you mentioned some in your first post - by the way, your first post could be very first step in explaining how should article on historiography be written), what changes would be meaningful, and of course what sources, including from Turkish authors. I have noticed that the sources, at least those available to me, cover for very specific statements in paragraphs, but they do not speak in the context of the subject of historiography, and as such serve only as a cover, supporting only specific claim. That could be wider problem - I checked Perry Anderson and Alexandre Toumarkine.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

   1 Origins and development
       1.1 Young Turks era
       1.2 First Turkish History Congress
       1.3 Second Turkish History Congress
       1.4 Adoption by Western historians
   2 Axioms
       2.1 Turkish History Thesis
       2.2 Sun Language Theory
       2.3 Ottoman Decline Thesis
   3 Political motivations
       3.1 Nationalism
       3.2 Secularism
       3.3 Modernism
       3.4 Atatürk's cult of personality
   4 Refutation
       4.1 Turkish-Islamic synthesis
       4.2 Revisionist historiography
   5 Contemporary impact
       5.1 Ideologies
       5.2 Education
   6 Notes
   7 References

I planning to create an article structure something like this.--John the Janitor (public) (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, let's see what GGT thinks, if and when (s)he returns. Look, by all accounts, or at least it's my impression, you have an excellent connoisseur of Turkish historiography in GGT. If (s)he is willing, hopefully, you should rely on him/her and really take notice of what (s)he has to say. In just a few paragraphs (s)he managed to persuade me that (s)he really knows what (s)he's talking about - what (s)he wrote above can only be written by someone who has some kind of formal training in, or at least profound grasp of, this or related discipline. I also don't see any neutrality concerns, so, have a little faith in eventual cooperation.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@GGT:, @John the Janitor (public):, @Buidhe:, I would like to discuss lede - it makes variety of statements, and John has included three new refs. First, I would like, please, if someone could provide me with some links, pirated or otherwise, doesn't matter, I would like to read them, so that I can check if they talk about specifically or tangentially on KH, in what context, etc. These refs in lede could be problem in GA review, and the article lacks a section which explains theoretically what KH is, its definition, who defined it, when, in which environment, and such - usually, terms, ideas, etc. have "Etymology" section, here we should have "Theoretical background" or whatever? That would be, then, proper place to include refs.

The lede also mention notable scholars who rejected it, but not notable proponents, which should be priority.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Except those new three refs, the rest of the lede is still without source confirmation, because the lede summary doesn't appear later in the text?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You state, my familiarity of Turkish history does not extend beyond what any avid reader would know about it, and while my familiarity with its historiography is even less profound Well, perhaps you should try to familiarize yourself with it before trying to contribute in a topic area you profess not to understand. I'm not sure why you expect theoretical background or etymology. Any claimed omissions should be backed up by providing the source(s) that cover such issues. Do not ask or provide any links to copyright violations. It's strictly against Wikipedia policy, see WP:COPYVIO. And lastly, stop pinging me to this discussion. (t · c) buidhe 18:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not need to know Turkish history to know what historiography is ! Yes, we need to explain the scope of the article, and for that we need summary of everything characteristic for a discipline in particular Turkish context. And I asked links for my personal use, so that I can check what is written in those refed sources.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, you speak too highly of me - I'm just a Turkish speaker with an interest in Turkish intellectual history. :)

John the Janitor (public), I think the most important thing to do is to define the scope of the article first, and then we can talk about how to structure it. I would strongly suggest that this article's focus is limited to early republican historiography (i.e. at most until the end of the single-party rule). This is how many scholars use the term Kemalist historiography, e.g. Büşra Ersanlı [5], Ahmet Serdar Aktürk [6], Şefik Taylan Akman [7]. Cangül Örnek makes this distinction between Kemalist historiography and later official historiography very clear in her chapter n the recent book Türk Tarihçiliğinde Tezler/Teoriler (2020, Yeni İnsan Yayınevi; it's an excellent overview of Turkish historiography if you speak Turkish). There is simply no other way to avoid getting bogged down in the conceptual complexity. I would not really consider Kemalist historiography synonymous with official historiography - although governments until the 2000s used Kemalist iconography, there is literature that considers the post-1980s infusion of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis into official histories anathema to Kemalist values. Note that Turkish-language scholarship often uses the terms "Kemalist tarih yazımı" (Kemalist historiography) and "erken cumhuriyet dönemi tarih yazımı" ("early republican period historiography" or variations) interchangeably - although the use of the former usually indicates some intellectual distance from Kemalism - but "resmî tarih" ("official history") is something else. We could have a more general article at historiography of Turkey to give an account of the different schools of thought and how they have interacted over time to give rise to various official and alternative accounts.

--GGT (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Whatever, man, it's more than obvious that you know this inside out, and that there is no reason whatsoever for anyone building the encyclopedia to rejects your valuable suggestions.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@John the Janitor (public):, I agree with GGT, among other things on need for broadening scope to "Historiography of Turkey" (as GGT suggested), before structuralizing it. Then, as I suggested above, we need a whole section where this scope is going to be defined and explained. GGT gave us some authors and their works for this specific task.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify that this is a subtopic of the historiography of Turkey that is notable in its own right, so the two articles can coexist. Historiography of Turkey currently redirects here though, it might be worth at least deleting that. --GGT (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case maybe to let the redirect stays in case someone decide to create extended article comprising entire Historiography of Turkey, that would have summarized section on Kemalist era? (What do you think about renaming this one into Historiography of the Kemalist era - something like a chapter in The Ottomans and the Balkans?)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)