Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

You should add

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

"Greek forces"

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

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

Vandalism Fix Requested

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

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

Gabor and Ataturk

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

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

• "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
• Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
• Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
• Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
• Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
• Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.

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

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

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

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

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

It's not out of context though. You can hear it straight from the horse's mouth, and I've provided five additional sources that accept the claim. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Three of those sources are fluff pieces written by non-historians, and another is a Larry King interview that's functionally a primary source (as was explained to you above). Why would you even bother citing them to verify claims in the biography of a historical figure? Remsense ‥ 论 02:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there is room for an editorial judgement on how relevant it is. It is kind of salacious, so a newspaper would put mention it. However, a serious encyclopedia might not. I think you are also wrong about WP:OR and WP:ONUS applies here. The onus is on those arguing for inclusion. Not everything can go into an article. It might be trivial. WP:CONSENSUS should decide this. If sources are weak, find better sources. I suggest google books. A biography on Atatürk would be a better source than a newspaper article, because the biographer would have done more research. Maybe the local library has one. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This was on the NPOV noticeboard for three months and nobody was interested in tackling the issue. Since it is exhaustively sourced I am restoring the information to both Gabor's and Ataturk's pages. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No, you do not have consensus for this and were given reasons for why your formulation is unacceptable POV. That you frame the NPOVN thread as "no one arguing against it" is telling, since absolutely no one I've seen agrees with your position in any venue. You do not get to move unilaterally regarding your interpretation of whether disputed content adheres to site policy, see WP:ONUS. Remsense ‥ 论 01:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to at least a mention their liaison, alleged or otherwise, when there are so many sources saying there was something going on. Count me as a supporter for the edit Benlittlewiki (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There's not, though. There is one plausible source that has been cited (i.e. non-tertiary works of history that can be assumed not to just be citing each other, and therefore represent broader analysis among those who might know), which is extremely marginal for a claim such as this in an article as broad as it is. In addition to the articles above, one of the two books is, let's see here... Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi: The Truth about Porfirio Rubirosa, the Last Playboy: Based on His Memoirs and the FBI File: Spy? Assassin? Or Just a Gigolo?. Isabella Wall. ISBN 978-0-9764765-2-8. Note that this book appears to be a self-published book-length gossip rag, in addition to not even being about Atatürk. Remsense ‥ 论 04:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, could we support a compromise something like this: "according to Zsa Zsa Gabor, herself and Atatürk had a liaison, though the veracity of this relationship is disputed."? Benlittlewiki (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No, there's no reason to do that! When we quote sources giving their opinion, we assume it's a particularly well-established (if disputed) position in the literature. We're still holding the position that the source is reliable, and the bar for including attributed positions is higher, not lower! Remsense ‥ 论 04:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Imho, the edit by @PromQueenCarrie was a reasonable action, but it was also wrong based on policy and the purpose of this encyclopaedia.

The conversation had withered with no clear consensus that the removal was justified (the reason for this Talk section). WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments seemed to pervade the reasoning more than policy. Lacking a strong defence for that removal (and based solely on that), I don't think that PQC's replacement of the original info (with added sources) was unreasonable.

However, what seems to have been lost in the noise is the fact that this is an article about Atatürk. The fact that a famous (and famously promiscuous) woman might have had sex with him does nothing whatsoever to illuminate Atatürk. If the same claim had been made at the same time by, say, Rock Hudson or Shirley Temple or Rin Tin Tin, it would be important and would be discussed across many Atatürk sources. The fact that he copulated with a sexy, adult female of his own species is less than mere trivia, especially since no one (not even Gabor) claimed that it was a long-lived or life-changing affair. The discussion here (imho) should never have been about WP:RS but about WP:N.

The factoid is covered appropriately in the Zsa Zsa article -- Atatürk listed with other lovers under the names of her eight husbands. It is arguably relevant there. It has absolutely no claim to notability here other than WP:BUTITSTRUE. In my opinion, this should stay out of the article until mainstream sources specifically and explicitly about Atatürk say that this was a pivotal datum about the man, or at least useful in understanding the subject of this article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Extra note that this is only used by Islamists to denigrate Atatürk. It has no proof except for the autobiography of that person. Also it's ridiculous to use Gabor dated as if it's factual. Beshogur (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A more neutral phrasing:

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

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

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

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

I think that sweeping is neutral, but extensive is more encyclopedic. If a source can back up the social change claim, then I support your proposed change. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Would this be better?

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

FOUNDER of the Turkish Republic 88.207.24.255 (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)