Jump to content

Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

This article needs more Statesmanship and World History Events

Possible topics are

Byzerodivide 21:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A nice article about Büyükada days of Trotsky.[1] I also think that we need more data. Good luck, Deliogul 11:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Notes

  • There are three books listed in the references section: Kinross, Mango and Lengyel; but the notes section also refers to several others: Erik J. Zurcher, Macfie, Shaw, Stanford J. Shaw - all these books need to be added to the references section. (1b)
  • Some other references refer to the same books, but are formatted differently; references 70, 74 for example. these should be changed to be consistent. (1b)
  • Some of the references need to be formatted properly. (1b)
  • There are a few {{citation needed}} tags. (2a)
  • There are some sections with no references. (2a)
  • Image:Trablusgarp2.jpg has no copyright status tag. (6a)
  • There is a redlinked speech.

--HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 06:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


request for sources

Can anyone provide me with sources, either from Turkish leaders ot scholars (historians, anthropologists) about the extent to which people consider Turkish people to be a European people/nationality? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are a "European people"!!! The Turks' Seljuk, Danishmend and Ottoman ancestors were originally Tatar-Mongolic (Turanic) peoples with Asian chatacteristics that bear more resemblance to Uzbeks and Turkmenis than Europeans. Today's Turks who look somewhat "European" are the product of admixture with and forced turkicization of Byzantine Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Laz and other pre-turkish peoples of Asia Minor Cleander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleander (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing called Turanic. Turan is a designed federation which will cover the lands from Siberia to Anatolia when Turkic, Mongolic (don't forget that these two are different things but these people have common histories and cultures) people decide to live together, according to nationalist circles and Pan-Turkist people. It is a utopia which took its name from Shahnameh, an Iranian epic. Also, Tatars are Turkic but they only represent a portion of Turkic community and claiming that the term Turan only contains Tatars and Mongols (more tragically claiming that Turks came into being when Tatars and Mongols started to live together) is pathetic. By the way, Europe is a political term rather than a geographical one because it is actually a member of Eurasia. Therefore, the meaning of “European” can change if the European ideals and understanding change. I also must say that we are so thankful to Byzantines because they are the reason why we look this much European :) Deliogul 12:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
One of the most interesting comments about the borders of Europe belongs to Charles de Gaulle. He said "Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals". Deliogul 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Section

And which part is pure propaganda? --Vonones 13:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"...the one who continued and brought into conclusion the process of extermination..." - Even the main "extermination" which is accepted by some circles to be happened in 1915 is still a "claim".
"Moreover Mustafa Kemal is accused by many as the instigator of the Great Fire of Smyrna that destroyed the Greek and Armenian quarters of the city (now known as Izmir)..." - The city's name was İzmir during those events too. Also, there are many counter to claims to this interesting and long sentence. Maybe you will be shocked but many people think that the fire was started by the retreating Greek forces to stop and harm the Turkish cavalry and the residents of the city.
Logic will save us, Deliogul 14:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Right and I provided a source for the extermination a very reliable one. So that is your point of view obviously and you stating "Even the main "extermination" which is accepted by some circles to be happened in 1915 is still a "claim". --Vonones 14:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Taner Akçam is by no means a reliable source. His claims were contested and discredited by many. A simple google search will yield many of these, e.g. [2]. Just because somebody is given big titles by some entities is no proof of his credibility (see Orhan Pamuk for another example). Atatürk said "Ermeni katliamı külliyen yalan ve uydurma" in the closed meeting of TBMM and in the open meeting he said
which shows not he did not accept any genocide or massaccre.
Please do not add this information again to the article on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk which misinforms people on his position. You are of course more than welcome to add your contributions to the article on Taner Akcam. Best regards, --Kudret abi 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually he is reliable and that is why he has a wiki article, he is a historian and one of the first to openly discuss the Genocide. That is your point of view. --Vonones 20:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I stated it many times before. You can't mark people who don't accept the Genocide as subjective and the ones who accept the Armenian view as objective. You loose your academic basis by doing that. Also, your "historian + Turkish + Pro-Armenian = Reliable Source" logic is really wrong. On the other hand, a controversy section can make the article more neutral but you have to prepare this section with extreme care. Sadly, you did the opposite until this moment and, imho, you won't change your approach. Deliogul 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No you should change your approach the Armenian Genocide is widely known as it is, not the way Turkey sees it as. I have reliable sources and it is enough. --Vonones 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Armenian Genocide is a "claim" which is accepted by 20 countries in the world. Honestly, not an impressive number. Also, your source is weak at extremes because the logic you use to select your sources. Deliogul 21:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Right it is a 'claim' 20 countries is alot more than a dozen. Woah not a impressive number? many scholars and historians accept the events as Genocide, and sooner or later the US will recognize it too, when relations with Turkey go down after the Iraq War. Turkey can keep denying and making its self look silly the region of Kars and Van are well known to be ancient Armenian regions where the population was all cleansed during the Armenian Genocide. --Vonones 22:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
And interestingly enough no one buys Turkeys story. --Vonones 22:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Also, I want to know why other countries support Turkey in the region if they are working next Armenia to punish Turkey. Just have a look at the natural gas and industrial routes between the Central Asia and Europe (For example, [7]). They are just skipping Armenia, whatever the extra cost is. So thinking that one day Turkey will be left alone in the international arena is just absurd when we look at the growing social and economic ties between Turkey and the other countries. On the other hand, Armenia slowly becomes the playground of the Armenian Diaspora and if this economic exclusion will continue, they will have even harder times. I also didn't see any backfire from the West to Azerbaijan when Azeris said that they want Nagorno-Karabakh and other Armenian occupied territories back (they added that if Armenians don't give up these lands, Azerbaijan will invade Armenia). All of these can look irrelevant but actually they show the latest scores. Deliogul 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)" I guess I don't need to repeat what I think. My former view about the situation can be seen in Turkey's discussion page. I copy it here to save you from searching. Deliogul 22:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

? I'm not sure what you mean. --Vonones 22:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to be bro :) You don't have thing like me too. I don't think good things about Armenia, politically, but I merely show it in my edits. Academic basis is the only thing we have to obey here. I just wanted to show my view when you started to talk about the modern day politics ;) Deliogul 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with Turkey except on certain issues politically and historically. Taner Ackam is a historian and is well-known so I don't understand why we can't use him as a source. (since he is used on many pages; on Greek war of independence etc) --Vonones 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an article on Atatürk, and we cannot insert claims that he accepts genocide or massacre when his own words from the official TBMM documents that I gave above clearly state the contrary. As to Taner Akcam, I am in no position to claim that he should be totally dismissed; however, as I wrote before, many of his statements have been heavily contested and discredited by at least equally reputable and reliable researchers and scholars. So his claims always need to be taken with a grain of salt to say the least. Best, --Kudret abi 07:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You haven't shown any proof that it is heavily contested. --Vonones 12:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I added the section back since you didn't provide any evidence he is a reliable historian known for his works. --Vonones 01:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Please stop adding this section. It will be removed. You need to achieve consensus. See WP:Consensus. I provided you a link and Atatürk's own words. And here are more links from various sources:
  • Tulga, Derya, Taner Akçam'ın Yaptıkları Yetti, in: Millethaber.com, Pazartesi, 25 Haziran 2007. [3]
  • Tulga, Derya, Akçam'a Tulga'dan İkinci Cevap, in: Millethaber.com,Çarşamba, 27 Haziran 2007. [4]
  • Taner Akçam'dan kandırmacalar (1) Radikal 28/09/2005 Haluk Şahin[5]
  • Taner Akçam'ın kandırmacaları (2) Radikal 30/09/2005 Haluk Şahin
  • İspiyoncu Akademisyen : Taner Akçam [7]
  • Taner Akçam'ın ispiyonu Murad Gümen'i fanatik Ermenilerin hedefi haline getirdi [8]
  • Taner Akçam'ın ispiyonu masum bir kişiyi hedef haline getirdi [9]
  • Holdwater Hedefte [10]
  • Ruhat Mengi / Vatan [11]
  • Gümen Akçam`ın bulduğu 3. holdwater [12]
  • Holdwater'ın Taner Akçam'a cevabı [13]
  • Taner Akçam, Emekli Büyükelçi Şükrü Elekdağ'a hakeret suçundan tazminata mahkum edildi. [14]
Please stop trying to make Atatürk appear to have said and admitted something that he did not. You may have your own point of view on the topic but this is an encyclopedia. Atatürk 's words and position are well documented in his own words as provided above so there is no need to quote questionable sources to determine his position. You have been reverted many times for adding the same info and the fact that you keep adding the same thing without seeking consensus will be considered vandalism. --Kudret abi 05:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Not everyone speaks Turkish please see this: [15] right this is a encyclopedia and that is why I am adding this, the information is reliable there are many other sources confirming the section. Also please do not make threats to me, don't think calling my edits vandalism next time will change anything technically you are vandalizing for removing a big section, it is a content-dispute and you never answered my question. --Vonones 05:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal openly declares the so-called Armenian Genocide (Massacre at the time, since the term Genocide was coined some 20 years later) a defamation in his Nutuk, page 10, ISBN 9944-353-30-2. He was an intelligent man who saw through Western objectives in the Asia Minor and the methods they would use to achieve them. The accusations of an all-out extermination of Armenians by Turks and the annexation of Eastern provinces to Armenia and the establishment of Kurdistan were surely some of them. Greeks and Armenians don't like him simply because he didn't put up with it.--Doktor Gonzo 00:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ataturk reminds me of Tito

Does anyone else find it interesting how they are alike in what they did? Tito of Yugoslavia and Ataturk of Turkey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.16 (talk) 05:53, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that Turkey wasn't divided into pieces after Mustafa Kemal's death. Destinies of their countries are different for sure. Deliogul 09:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes that's true, but the way they both unified their countries and their charisma stand shoulder in shoulder, agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.16 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep :) Deliogul 09:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AG

Any thoughts on incorporating the following into the text?

In September 1919, the American General Harbord, who visited Mustafa Kemal in Sivas, says "he, too, disapproved the Armenian Massacre". According to Mustafa Kemal, "the massacre and deportation of Armenians was the work of a small committee who had seized the power".<ref>Taner Akçam, historian and sociologist, in "1915 Legends and Realities" in the Turkish daily "Radikal" (25 May 2003) as translated by Dikran D./Anna K. Piranian</ref>

DenizTC 04:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. --Vonones 04:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And this is a link to Radikal's May 25, 2003 edition: [16] Here is a link to commentators: [17] Could not find the mentioned article. DenizTC 04:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find this information in the source cited. We need to see the original text in the original language. This is crucial as many pro-genocide sources attempt to push their POV by "translating" the word tehcir as massacre, while its real meaning is nothing more than "emigration / immigration". --Kudret abi 05:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source saying that, written by Taner Ackam who is Turkish, [18] --Vonones 05:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, found the original version. [19] in Radikal 2. A newer one, [20]. Both in Turkish. Anyway, I should sleep now. DenizTC 06:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Vonones, you are doing the same thing again. "historian + Turkish + Pro-Armenian = Reliable Source" logic is really sick. Kudret Abi provided many references about what kind of a person Taner Akçam is. Even if he was the one who found the law of gravity, I wouldn't believe in his words. Deliogul 11:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
No he didn't obviously Turkish articles are going to talk nonsense about him, he is a reliable historian, and he is not Pro-Armenian just because he recognizes the Armenian Genocide. Again your personal POV. --Vonones 22:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
He can't be called a reliable source because you want him to be one. Enough is enough. Deliogul 08:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Right and he can't be one because you oppose him, for his recognition of the Genocide and his Turkish ethnicity. He has a article on wikipedia, which he has to be notable to have one first of all. Its silly what you say since he is basically quoted on all sites and reliable ones; Taner Akcam, a visiting professor of history at the University of Minnesota and a well-known defender of human rights in Turkey [21] --Vonones 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We can continue this fight forever if you want but if we can't make things according to WP:CON, no further changes will be possible as Kudret Abi mentioned before. Deliogul 18:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Denizz offered a great example of comprising yet you haven't you claim absurd things. --Vonones 19:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, whatever the merits of the quote, what is its relevance to this article? --A.Garnet 12:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where to place this on the main page, I don't also know whether we should do it at all, but I think we can have something like this on the main page, if we can find the right place, since Akçam is a (credible) historian, yet at the same time a controversial one: According to Taner Akçam, Mustafa Kemal stated that "the massacre and deportation of Armenians was the work of a small committee who had seized the power".<ref>Insert the link (with cite news or cite web) original article here, with quote to the English translation, if we can do it</ref>. If necessary, Harbord's statement can somehow be added.

Some other things: in my opinion, we should add some things about that controversial "Bursa nutku". Also on the religion we can add the quote that was something like "Our religion is the [best] of the religions, that's why it became the last" (of course we need a better translation that is found on the books). Also there was also this quote like "Our country won't be a land of sheikhs and their followers" I am not so good at translations, as you can see.

Also, should we change the citation style to the one on Suleiman I, which would save us some bytes? DenizTC 21:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Bursa Nutku is an important detail because Atatürk ordered the youth to fight against the system that he founded if it is necessary. Also, there are many sources which claim that it is a fake one. By the way, I have no problem with citing Akçam as long as we also mention that he is a controversial one. On the other hand, I must repeat that I won't accept "...the one who continued and brought into conclusion the process of extermination..." and things like that and I will delete those every time people add them, whatever the cost is (Logical explanations are welcomed). Deliogul 08:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleander

"Dünya yüzünde Türk’den daha büyük, ondan daha eski, ondan daha temiz bir millet yoktur ve bütün insanlık tarihinde görülmemiştir." (There is not a single nation in the world and in the history of humanity which is greater, older and cleaner than Turks.)

"Hayattaki yegane üstünlüğüm Türk doğmaktır." (Being born as a Turk is my only advantage in life.)

If you want controversy, we can create many of them just by using the statements above. Of course you must keep the definition of "Turk" in the Turkish constitution in mind. Whatever, we can use controversy in the article but I won't accept a crap like "...the one who continued and brought into conclusion the process of extermination..." etc. Deliogul 16:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Deliogul, second quote does not go well with what you wrote. Also one should be quite careful when quoting Atatürk, many of the quotes turned out to be non-genuine, as far as I know. I am not only talking about obvious ones like "Beni Türk şoförlerine emanet edin" DenizTC 12:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall we inform some administrators for the ongoing disruption Cleander caused in the article, he already violated the three revert rule long ago..--laertes d 13:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that [22], [23], and [24] are reverts (reverse temporal order), but I am not sure about [25]. I remember the same text from before, so it might be reverting the removal of that text some time ago, so it might be considered 4RR. By the way, this seems to be a single purpose, POV pushing edit, and according to some admins that is more than enough for an indef block, if you want something like that. I would wait for Cleander to revert himself/herself, I don't know for how long. DenizTC 15:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deniz, I'm aware of the situation. I just wanted show that, if you want, there are infinite ways to create controversy. Therefore, the main thing which we mustn't forget is to be consistent both with history and the academic understanding. Take care, Deliogul 22:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I checked the history and Cleander is in violation of 3RR and perhaps other policies. It is possible to report those who cause continuous disruption even without the 3RR is reached. However, in an attempt to be the civilized ones here, I decided to give him a final chance so I gave him a 3RR warning. If he still reverts despite all our efforts to communicate and educate him on the rules and importance of consensus, then we will have no choice but to file a report. --Kudret abi 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My Reply to Kudret abi et al

I have already replied to you in my personal page. However after I saw your clarification about the talkpage, I will reply to you here. So tell me: Are Great Fire of Smyrna, Chrysostomos of Smyrna, George Horton-the Blight of Asia, Pontian Genocide and Armenian Genocide "personal commentary"??? They are all well founded ARTICLES OF WIKIPEDIA and it is my right to use them. Believe it or not, any attempt of idolization of Kemal in Greece,Armenia,Cyprus or even Syria still raises a lot of eyebrows because he is blamed for the extermination of the pre-1922 Christian and non-turkish muslim (Arab) populations of Asia Minor. So NO article about Kemal is complete without any mention to the controversy that surrounds him about the events of 1919-1922. My addition was as follows: "

Controversy

Mustafa Kemal is however remembered both by Greeks and Armenians as the one who continued and brought into conclusion the process of extermination of the Christian populations of Asia Minor which started by the regime of the Young Turks and culminated in the Armenian Genocide (around 1.500.000 victims) and the Pontian Genocide (aprox.700.000 victims). Moreover Mustafa Kemal is accused by many (see George Horton: "The Blight of Asia", 1926) as the instigator of the Great Fire of Smyrna that destroyed the Greek and Armenian quarters of the city (now known as Izmir) that erupted after the entry of the turkish army at late August 1922 and also for the indiscrete massacre of many Greek and Armenian inhabitants of city, including the Greek Orthodox bishop Chrysostomos of Smyrna who was lynched by turkish mobs and soldiers (see Horton and Dido Sotiriou: Matomena Homata -eye witness account). Recently a lot of articles in international newsmedia have explored the issue of Kemal's sexuality, implying that at sometime of his early life he was engaged in homosexual activities."

IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS IT IS OR EVEN MODIFIED BECAUSE NO ARTICLE FOR KEMAL IS COMPLETE WITHOUT ANY MENTION TO THE EVENTS THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED ARTICLES OF WIKIPEDIA. I await your recommendations. Cleander

Read some serious stuff not propaganda materials from horton..Your greek army have invaded anatolia and started the war, have you forgotten that? And a wikipedia article is not a source for other articles, thats a rule of wikipedia..--laertes d 10:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleander, you forgot to mention the Bordurian Genocide which is, imho, the bloodiest massacre in the history of humanity :) Deliogul 12:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Cleander. In fact we should create a gossip section concerning Atatürk, where we gather all the rumours about his sexual orientation, his Jewish roots, him being a member of the Cabal, him being anti-Greek, him being anti-Armenian etc. Because the ideals we don't care, the gossips we like.--Doktor Gonzo 00:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Delioglu, whether you and all other Kemalist fascists like it, the Genocide of Pontic Greeks and Armenians IS a fact recognised by every respectable historian including a few of yours. Try to open your eyes because sometimes History repeats itself but with victs and victims reversed and you might not like what you will see in a few years in what you will now call "your" country... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleander (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I had replied to your challenge hoping to conduct some civilized dialogue with you but... ...what to expect from descendants of the Seljuk wild beasts that rampaged the whole of Byzantine Asia Minor and are still proud of it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleander (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You showed us a new level of the art of personal attack. Thanks. Deliogul 19:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why this user has not yet been banned with all his disruptions and racial slurs..--laertes d 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring? DenizTC 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I remove first comment because it wasnt a good comment and he or she do propogand to greeks...

New Reply to my fellow Mongols

Delioglu/Deliogul, there is not need to thank me for showing "a new level of the art of personal attack". Actually, we the Greeks and other Europeans have to thank you the Turks for "teaching" us sheer mongolic/asiatic barbarity. I mena how to rape, plunder, pillage, depopulate, islamize and turkicize a big area populated by at least 15.000.000 Byzantine Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Laz,Arabs etc. For this is what your ancestors, the Seljuks did when they arrived at Byzantine Asia Minor around 11th C.AD.


We won so much wars against Greeks and Europe.You hate us normal.We always win you in history right..If you win i will hate you but always we win...We are not mongols we are turks turks turks we teach you to how to a great empire can grow up...Please thank to us dont hate us we are not hate you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.242.52 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are schoolmasters of genocide and barbarity and Mustafa Kemal just added a "modern" facade to your murderous national character. You have given to humanity nothing else than horror, massacres, barbarity and ottoman backwardness. You will always be our enemies until Nemesis throws you back to Mongolia and Ulan Bator where you belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleander (talk • contribs) 10:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Turkish people hate you at extremes. That’s why Turkey sent its firefighters to Greece to help you during your bad days. Deliogul 10:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How good are you the Turks! First your MIT secret service makes the arson in our islands and our mainland and then you send firefighters so that we become grateful to you! Good old Ottoman policy! Cleander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleander (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's our favourite passtime. Kemalist Yurtsever 02:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How embarassing is it that people will still vandalize Wikipedia articles just to prove how "barbaric" people are. Before I lived in Turkey, I was told by Greeks how barbaric and backwards Turks were. How totally wrong and skewed that view was and still is. Whatever past events have occurred (almost ALL before you were even born, it is safe to say), keeping them ongoing and being petty and this small-minded is just not right. Monsieurdl 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right.Because we see we have a beautiful street like baghdat street but BBC came to Turkey and they visit where roman people lives.We feel so bad.Come to turkey and see the real turkey bacause televisions shows you bad places in turkey and they dont show good places.And this time you know us like barbaric people,islamic people,arab people,not clean people... we are so clean,hot blood people,not barbaric people and we are muslim but we dont want islamic revolution.Please see turkey with your eyes... 

             Please send me messages...
                            toolga  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toolga (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)





Stop calling Turks Mongols. It is proven that only a small majority of Turks are of central asian ancestry (less than 5%). Go and look up Greek history and you will be surprised at the large numbers of wars + massacres the Greek people have been part of, so dont talk about barbaric acts when it is Greeks that are the true barbarians.
Hımmm, actually, with this or that reason, every ethnic Turk comes from Central Asia. The problem is that Turks in Turkey are members of the Oghuz Turk branch of the Turkic people and not the Mongolic branch. Therefore, calling Turkish people "Mongols" is wrong but not because of the logic you follow. All important states in the world history were created with blood. Think about the Hellenic Empire, Roman Empire, Hunnic Empire, Ottoman Empire and British Empire. Somebody must become poor if you are going to be "great", which means that, this is the case for both Greeks and Turks, and actually for all big civilizations. Deliogul 12:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bursa444

Why is this page locked?--Bursa444 16:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is semi protected probably due to some past anonymous vandalisms. Anonymous users and new editors cannot edit the article. If you want to, just tell us about your edit here, and we can probably make the edit for you. DenizTC 12:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There are too many. I commented the following:

We should pick a 'few' of them (maybe none). Also I left the video links, but part 1 of that 9 part documentary might be enough. By the way, people, Wikipedia uses nofollow, so advertising your links on Wikipedia won't influence their rankings on popular search engines. DenizTC 02:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC) DenizTC 02:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of them look like sided pages. "Ulu Önder Atatürk" reminds me Big Brother, which is not a good thing for sure :) Deliogul 23:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

What is the status of this? I found it being removed as vandalism by anon users while looking at recent changes. It appears valid and a casual Google shows the passages to be basically factually accurate. If it keeps getting removed by unknown users without discussion I will request protection of this page. • Lawrence Cohen 13:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your call for discussion, but the sensible approach is usually to discuss controversial material before and not after forcing its inclusion, especially considering the extreme and unsourced nature of some of the claims. --A.Garnet 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed it numerous times too so it is not "removed by unknown users without discussion". Actually, we tried to talk to these vandals but they made personal attacks rather than discussing their questionable edits. Deliogul 17:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to go here on my protection request and endorse it? If the anon IPs are attacking only, they don't need to be editing the article. • Lawrence Cohen 17:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was a registered guy named Cleander but I guess he is banned or his account was deleted. Whatever, lets give a try to this protection business. Deliogul 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to have been a lot of whitewashing going on within this article. I don't see anything about the execution (often on trumped-up charges) of many of Ataturk's political rivals in 1925, or the forced retirement from politics of Karabekir as an alternative to his execution, or of the cult of Ataturk that was fostered by the Turkish state after his death (and which continues to this day). Current controversies should also perhaps mention something about the controversy within Turkey over the recent Turkish biography of Ataturk's wife, and the legal charges made against its author for insulting Ataturk's memeory. Meowy 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In a country which was builded via İstiklal Mahkemeleri, there is nothing bad about mentioning such events but you must add these data into the related sections of the article with strong references rather than summing them up in a Criticism or Controversy section. Of course, I would oppose to a total attack to the achievements of Mustafa Kemal (if people would try to accuse him of being a Genocide concluder etc). Deliogul 20:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Size Issues and other Main Articles

I think the article is gone a bit over-sized, shall we move some of the data incorporated by Ratesline into the separate article of Ataturk Reforms?--laertes d 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The same problem we have in the article of Turkey. There is still much to say about Kemal Pasha but the article is already too long. The main problem is to decide what will stay and what will go. For example I don't understand why we need such a long "multi party periods" part in the article. We can just say, Mustafa Kemal tried but not concluded it. Also, we can delete some of the images. Really, how many photos we need for Mustafa Kemal (maybe his trademark Gallipoli picture, TIME Magazine covers and his popular picture about aviation are enough). Deliogul 23:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, i actually dont like some of the photos in the article, in some of them Ataturk is barely visible..Alternatively we can select among pictures due to their quality..And i think we need some short info about the end of the Ottoman Sultanate, there is one about the Caliphate..It can be incorporated into War of Independence section..--laertes d 23:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ratesline, i do have some problems with these editings, why to remove the `emergence of the Republic` out of the section dealing with the period of 1923-1938? It wasnt about the War of Independence, as war had already been won, and the treaty of Lausanne previously signed..And why are you making the sections of `Turkish victory` and `End of sultanate` the subsections of Jurisdictional conflict? They are not really that much related to each other..Putting an end to centuries old Ottoman Sultanate is relevant enough to have its separate sub-section within the War of Independence, it was not just about the conflicts that were existing between Istanbul and ankara governments during the period of some three years..--laertes d 09:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And `presidency` for me is too much an individualistic naming, okay youre right that section covers his reforms but he hadnt done all alone, did he? And one of the most significant acts in his life was the building of the Turkish Republic, i guess it deserves a section of its own..--laertes d 09:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Che once said, "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves". So, Kemal Pasha didn't do all that stuff alone :) Laertes, maybe you can try to edit the part about the end of the Sultanate. Then we would look at it and decide on further edits. Deliogul 11:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, check the size of other important figures; bio wise. I use the last 4 USA presidents as a reference... They are all larger. Also there are more References in this article than the text itself. I guess one should consider that.

Ataturk Reforms is a theoretical page (such as philosophy of editorial abuse or theory of quantum physics) which explain the reforms from a general perspective. Ataturk Reforms's context or claims extend beyond Ataturk and lifetime, reaching to 2000s. That page is not a sub page of ataturks biography and considering it likewise is somewhat problamatic

My main consideration is that Ataturk's page is a bio page. Like other bio pages tells what he did, why he did, what was the consequences... In this respect, I do not see why we should explain independce war in this article, especially when it has its own page. There are paragraphs which simply goes deep into the independence war without even giving a single reference on Atatürk! What is the significance of the text dwelling on Enver Pasha referring to his contributions to the independence war in this article? The reference to Enver and CUPs regarding the independence war should be under the independence war! Independence war was waged with many other significant people besides its leader... Considering, no one has developed that section, there has to be a section about CUP and Enver under Independence war.

if you add WWi and independence war it is only 9 years of Ataturks life. If you look at his presidency it is 16 years. Considering it is 16 years that section needs to get bigger. No one wants to talk or write about what happened during this period. I guess it is easy to write about nine years of blood and tears, using arguments like I killed you, you killed me, I'm hero you are criminal .... --Rateslines 14:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right about some of your concerns but I have to state that your logic "more years, more importance" is just not academic. For example the rule of Young Turks only lasted ten years but the controvesy that this ten years caused and things that happened during their reign are more significant than the events of the reigns of many Ottoman Sultans combined. Therefore, even if they lasted shorter, Young Turks deserve more research and mention. Take care, Deliogul 14:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Note: You won't lose anything if you first discuss than put your text into the article ;). By the way, Young Turks is just an example. Deliogul 14:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Young Turks has its own page. Independence war has its own page. Turkish national movement has its own page. Second constitutional period has its own page. Only common factor in this text is the "Independence war." I'm saying "this is a text that belong to "Independence war."" ALONG these points; Enver or Young Turks or Any other issue (such as if he is gay) do not disintegrate the importance of 16 years of presidency or can be a reason for you to say so. I assume; You claim in your response that 16 years is not important: A man's power originates from the resources he control. This 16 years is not retirement period for this person. Until the last three months (debilitation), he worked for what he believed to be his country. Like most of the revolutionaries lost their attraction when the bloodshed stops, He did not loose his attraction when he buried his gun. Ataturk reached his peak during his presidency. Rateslines 15:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Damn, I knew you will get it wrong. First, I decided to give the example by referring to Fenerbahçe SK but I thought that if you are not a football fan, you would find my example useless. Take the Fenerbahçe of 1989-2001. It is a complete mess if you exclude the Manchester United match and 1995/96 season championship. Then look at the Fenerbahçe of 2001-2007 which won four titles in seven years. International starts of the sport started to join Fenerbahçe in this new era and even if it is a shorter period than the 1989-2001 period, it is way more significant than its predecessor. In Atatürk's case, his presidency maybe more important than his military service but the reason of this, clearly, is not the lenght of his presidency. This is my point. Deliogul 16:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ratesline, there are points that i agree with you, but there wouldnt be `Ataturk` without what is called to be Turkish independence war, or without his career in the WW I..As all of his biographers would say, he largely built his power upon his success as a commander..and actually for many he was remembered as a brillant commander, especially for people of Turkey, he is revered as the saviour of the country. If we give less emphasis to this period of time, just because there is another article dealing with the whole issue of that war, i think we wouldnt acting justly to the subject of this article..

About your resentment of the large quantity of the references, actually we need references to get this article a good article status or even a Featured article status..You contributed quite well in this article, but we should get rid of the all unsourced quotations, and each paragraph in the article would need a reference..--laertes d 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
i put together the sections of `Political system` and `popular sovereignty`, they often say pretty much the same things and give repetitive info..And it is hard to follow for the readers what is being said..--laertes d 23:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Turkey used more or less the system of the Soviets in her early stages. Centralized state economy, protectionism and 5-year plans for the progress. Remembering that Soviets helped Turkey during the Independence War, the world, more importantly USA, could get Turkey totally wrong. They got us wrong in some extent and we became friends in some other fields. For example, US never ratified the Treaty of Lausanne (it was voted and rejected in 1927). On the other hand, with help of the first US ambassador to Turkey, Joseph Grew, Turkey managed to form an alliance with US. I think things like these must be mentioned in the article. I mean, "how Republican People's Party presented the new Turkey to the world" must be in this article too. Deliogul 10:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ratesline i think it is a pretty bad idea to have two separate sections named as `emergence of the Turkish Republic` and `Presidency` as both of them mean almost the same thing..To have one single heading is good enough for this article, after the emergence of the republic such reform movements were largely made possible and Ataturk became the president of the country..--laertes d 15:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Deliogul, we can add some info about the international relations of the Republic in this period of time..--laertes d 15:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Than I would advise you to consider this: "The Republic is a by product of Independence war." That is at least the official view. Republic is the recognition of independence by the Turkish people. It is solidified by forcing it to international community through Lausanne.Rateslines 15:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure it is, but what i am trrying to tell is all these reform movements had taken place after the republic came into existence, so the main heading of all these reforms has to be the emergence of the Republic..youre not really something different that i have been saying all this time, presidency of Ataturk was also the result of the independence war..--laertes d 15:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying "Turkish Republic` and `Presidency` is the same thing" decreases the value of the "All other people" who involved to establishment of Turkey. I condemn this position. This country is not Atatürk's country and it did not disappear after its death. He is the leader. But not sole owner of independence war or the Republic. Unlike Ottoman Empire (Ottoman Dynasty), this is not monarchy which the president is the owner of the state. This issues needs to be separated. Rateslines 15:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...You seem to not reading what has been written all this time, it was actually me who `condemned` you when you changed the title from Turkish Republic to Presidency, because it was too individualistic explanation of events that had taken place in this period of time..Let me repeat for you, to have two major titles as `turkish republic`, and `Presidency`, which you did, is pretty much a bad idea because all these refomrs movements and Ataturks presidency had occured after the republic was built, so they have to be parts of this upper heading...It doesnt mean Ataturk`s presidency and Turkish republic are equal things but, they refer to the events that had taken place in the same period of time, so it is abundance to have them both, Clear?

And why did you delete the Criticism section, it will do no harm to Ataturk to have small ciritism section in this article..--laertes d 15:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a biography. This is a LIFE STORY of a person. Not the history of Turkey or Emergence of Turkish Republic. I 'm sure that is what is the problem between your edits and my edits. We say "Military carrier during WWI" (this is not story of WWI). Leadership during Independence war (not independence war; which you reverted this edit that I introduced). Ataturk's life after 1923 is not the history of Republic of Turkey or Emergence of Turkish republic, but the history of a person who acts in the position of "President." I'm trying to keep the article aligned to what it is supposed to be. Issues behind a great "Leader" ...Clear?Rateslines 15:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The criticism was based on Religious freedoms. The "Trivia" and "Critisim" sections are violations and it is always asked to be integrated to relevant content instead of unconnected to a concept Rateslines 15:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that is a biography, and we can use a more neutral language while giving information about the life of the person in question, and major events in his life..I think current naming of the sections are good..--laertes d 16:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article needs to emphasize that this is a biography of a leader. The "naming of the sections" are not good. Some very general terms (emergence of republic or Independence War or Theoretical analysis (Ataturks Reforms) of Ataturks activities (policies)) should be explained in their articles. We should give links to these articles but keep this article as a Bio not a collection of big statements. I'm asking you cooperation. Rateslines 16:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There are things that i also dont like, however, in terms of a more neutral narrative, i think such namings are good like independence war or emergence of the Republic(And i united the latter one with your `presidency`). We not only explain what he personaly did, but give informations about the major periods in his life..--laertes d 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not personally know Ataturk, but I do not think that he was delusional. A delusional person would think that "Emergence of Republic" is the "major period" in his lifetime. People generally have major periods as: "President of Turkey="presidency"" or "leader of Turkish revolutionaries" or a soldier of the Ottoman Empire which fought during WWI ("military carrier in WWI"). The leaders (presidents) take decisions which we call them polices (educational policies) based on specific issues (religious freedom). After the event (such as death) historians (theoreticians) come and look at the activities the person did and summarize them as "reforms". Ataturk talked about his polcies to explain the ideas and defend the reasons, but he was hardly performing a conceptual analysis. Even the word "Atatürk's reforms" imply that we are talking a past event. We need to correct these and move general arguments (Did Turks need to abolish the caliphate?) to their own articles. Rateslines 17:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We keep discussing the same thing over and over again, just to give you a hint perhaps to convince you: one of his main biographers, Patrick Kinross, narrated Kemal`s life with section titles: `Rise of the Turkish Republic` and `the War of Independence`...Probably Kinross was also delusional according to your standarts..Problem with your editings, and with your insistence not to understand what is being said, is that i want to use a neutral language while narrating the life story of the person..

About your other suggestions, youre definitely wrong, Ataturk always considered what he did as a reform, or a revolution, it is not that only historians who anaylzed it and called it reform after his death..And there has been a conceptual framwork which guided all the reforms from the beginning..Another thing, the word `policies` when it comes to education has its some bad connatations, like implying an obvious act of dictatorship, refomrs is better suited in my opinion..Lets call `policies` for the changes in the economic sphere, but not in the educational area..
About your other sugestion, sure lets move detailed knowledges to their separate articles, i hope you will start doing so by moving all these detailed material you added to economic policies sections, do we really need all these info abot the importance of cotton and tobacco industries ? we need to write this article according to wikipedia summary style writing, however we have to mention of every significant act in his life, war of independence, and abolishing of the caliphate are most certainly are quite significant acts..--laertes d 18:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion to you Ratesline, spend half of the effort you are showing here, saying the same things again and again,to improve the article, please remove some of the unneceassary info you added to economic policies sections, instead put them to already existing separate article about the reforms..

Article in many respects is quite poor to spend so much time about rather trivial issues like whether to call it `Leadership in the war of independence` or simly `War of Independence`..--laertes d 19:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Cool! I will take into consideration of your points. I 'm willing to spend my time. What you say "to this shit!" I'm fine with it. I think a lot of valuable efforts are already put into this document. I will organize the sections as they fit to a "bio material". By the way! Lord Kinros was criticized as he build a myth around him in his book. His work is a historical novel, rather than a documentary. Today we know that it is Ataturks ability to communicate different interests as a president (channel the Turkish people) was his biggest power. We see communication skill working during his military activities, educational activities, economic activities, even keeping the "assembly" open during the most difficult times. Turkey had three coups and closed the Atatürk's assembly which did not closed during independence war. After him, there was no leader who managed a balance between different interests. Look at the current leadership. They could not select a president among 550. They did end up going to public. Look at the communication between us. What you named as "the same shit again and again" is really a negotiation process. I'm not Atatürk, so I can not say "shut up!" to you as you say to me.

Atatürk deserves a real bio with dates and activities, instead of myths around him, you should believe in that, right. Let's turn this thing to a real bio rather than a mythology. --Rateslines 21:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

First learn to read what is written, i didnt say `to this shit` but `to this thing`, and im a bit bored with your baseless assertions.. I cant see what is the point of all these sentences you wrote above..Criticizations of Kinross is not about how he organized his book or the style of writing, but the focuses on the content of the book..He is often acclaimed as a gifted author actually..Anyway, just keep in mind that you should contribute to this article writing in a summary style, in order not to make this article gone over size, and dont act like the owner of it but discuss your changes with the other editors..Cheers..--laertes d 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1908 Revolution

Young Turk Revolution is linked to a 24 year old man, who was graduated from military school in 1905! He did not plan it He cut his relationships to members of this group. Why not cite this part of his early military carrier. Why one sentence argument has its own title?? Specially at the same level as Independence War. --Rateslines 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh..My advice to you is to buy a history book and start reading it..Enver, one of the leaders of the movement in 1908, was at the same age with Kemal..Main point here is, the Young Turk Revolution had significanty changed the life of Kemal. And instead of saying childhood, early life fits better in my opinion..And also buy a book of mathematics, since that doesnt make 24, but 27..--laertes d 23:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please first discuss your problem and then edit the article, in your case it often happens just the contrary, you first edit it then you start discussing it..--laertes d 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1) If I implied that it is insignificant, sorry. But editorial manual says: section titles has to be representative of the content. The young Turk Revolution is an event in his early military carrier, but opposite: Military carrier is hardly an event of this revolution. This heading is appropriate for Enver, Talat. But not for this person. Even the text covers this specific event as a single sentence. You can develop it as a sub section of his "early military carrier". You might end up developing significant text. But would it add up as long as (or significant) Independence War? 2) Sorry it us 27. 3) I have no opposition to early life, but education seems to appropriate as more than 80% of that section is about his education. Rateslines 23:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there would be "Atatürk" if the Young Turk revolution didn't occur. If Abdulhamid II wasn't thrown from the top and, instead, managed to defeat Enver Bey and continued his rule over the empire until his death in 1918? What would happen to Trablusgarp, Balkan Wars, WWI? Do you think that Mustafa Kemal would be as big as "Atatürk"? Possibly he would stay as a successful Pasha if the Istanbul government wasn't that much weakened and war-torned. Deliogul 13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

Please note that there is a Mustafa Kemal Atatürk Road in New Delhi too. Wanted to add it but editing was locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.14.186 (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Polymath

List of recognized polymaths says, he was a polymath, but i can't find anything about this in current article. Any ideas? thessaysno | talk 18:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

He was an educated person and read a considerable number of books. He had researches on Turkish history and Turkic linguistic. He also wrote a geometry book in Turkish. Of course, he was also a successful general. On the other hand, this polymath business looks like a useless praise. Mustafa Kemal wanted people not to praise himself but to discuss and work for the future. Objectivity is a key issue here and as I stated couple of times before, I won't support turning Mustafa Kemal into the Big Brother. Deliogul 18:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this article looks much better than a few months ago especially with regards to sources and references. Going for FA? :) Baristarim 04:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, we must first try a GA nomination. At least, we can see the ups and downs of the article. Deliogul 09:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal life

I'm thinking of developing content related to Ataturk's personal life. It is my idea that a sub page Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life should be created. Also, this page can consolidate some of the issues covered in this article. Such as controversial birth date, name, children, marriage, his heritage, etc. This article become too big, this my give some relief. Any ideas? --Rateslines 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there an example of such an article in Wikipedia? If there is not, I think it would be bad to create one for Mustafa Kemal. I mean, how important can be the personal life of a political actor for the world community, even if the person we are talking about is him. Deliogul 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln; Abraham Lincoln's early life and career, Abraham Lincoln on slavery, Abraham Lincoln assassination, Abraham Lincoln's burial and exhumation, Abraham Lincoln and religion, Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, [[Lincoln's Tomb] ...... There is no sub-article limit. You can even create one for Nutuk, (if you can get as deep into as Gettysburg Address) --Rateslines 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Then, I'm okay with it. I think Americans went too far for Abraham Lincoln when we think that many people in the world know only one Lincoln and it is not a president, it is a car :) Deliogul 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose a Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. Instead please create a sub article on specific events such as Atatürk and the Turkish war of Independence or Atatürk and World War I. -- Cat chi? 22:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
O.K. Your position is correct position. Lets look at this this article. It is 119K. There is going to be Atatürk and the Turkish war of Independence, if you take it in your hand I would be willing to co-edit section. This is unavoidable. Somebody has to take that job. HOWEVER, there is going to be Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. The "personal life" is also a correct position. As much as Atatürk and the Turkish war of Independence. If you do want to keep your work (birth date) on the main page, 4 your personal reasons, I would not fight for it. If you want it, you can have it. It will look bad, but .... I'm here 4 improvement not to get into personal things. --Rateslines 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What is developed under personal life 1) "Mustafa's Family" 2) His own Marriage 3) Education 4) name-birth date-... 5) Interests 6) Why he died? (sickness) etc. These are important headings for this person. Right at this moment "12 November", it is 10K. I believe I can add information close to 15K to these headings. There is enough multimedia to make that page attractive. I am open to ideas to make that sub-page batter. --Rateslines 00:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose minor editorial changes to the Personal Life section to correct errors in grammar, improve and tighten language. Suggested edits: (1) "Mustafa Kemal was born in the Ottoman city of Salonika (Turkish: Selânik, modern-day Thessaloniki, Greece) from Ali Rıza Efendi and Zübeyde Hanım." The phrase "from Ali Riza Efendi ..." should be "to Ali Riza Efendi..."; (2) "He went to the military schools of Selânik and Manastır (present-day Bitola, Republic of Macedonia)" is better phrased as "He attended military schools in Selânik and ..."; (3) "Mustafa Kemal to Latife Uşaklıgil." is not a complete sentence and should be changed to something like "Mustafa Kemal married Latife Uşaklıgil. They were divorced after 3 years of marriage." (4) "Atatürk had seven adopted daughters and an adopted son." This sentence can be written more tightly as "Ataturk adopted seven daughters and a son." (5) "In times of leisure, he mainly enjoyed reading, horse riding, chess, and swimming. He was very interested in dancing, taking pleasure in waltz on almost every opportunity, as well as the traditional Zeybek folk dances." Suggested change: "In his leisure time, he enjoyed reading, horseback riding, chess and swimming. He was also an avid dancer and enjoyed dancing both the waltz and traditional Zeybek folk dances."Pebblicious (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional editorial change to the remainder of the Personal Life section to correct minor errors in grammar and tighten the language follows: “Ataturk’s precise birth date is unknown. The Ottoman Empire used two calendars: the Hijri and Rumi. Ataturk’s birth date was recorded only as 1296 without designating whether it was based on the Hijri or Rumi calendar. This date overlaps dates extending from 1880 to 1881 on the Gregorian calendar. Although it is known Ataturk was born in 1296, insufficient information exists to determine his birth day and month. Ataturk noted his mother said he was born in the spring, while his sister, Makbule Atadan, stated their mother said Ataturk was born on a stormy winter night. Ataturk accepted May 19, the date on which the Turkish War of Independence began, as his birth day and month in response to a gesture by historian Resit Saffet Atabinen.

Additional information regarding Ataturk’s personal life, education and family is developed under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s Personal Life.” Not sure how to get these onto the actual page if acceptable, please advise. Thanks. Pebblicious (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested changes to correct typos in most recently requested edits:
(1) “He attended military schools in of Selânik and Manastır (present-day Bitola, Republic of Macedonia)” should be “He attended military schools in Selanik and ….”
(2) “He enrolled into the Ottoman Army Academy at Manastır in 1895.” please note that "enrolled into" is incorrect grammar and this phrase is better stated as “In 1895, he enrolled in the Ottoman Army … in Manaster … “
(3) “Mustafa Kemal married to Latife Uşaklıgil.” please delete “to” to correct error in grammar.
(4) “They were divorced after 3 years of marriage.” Delete “were” to tighten language, “were” is unnecessary in this sentence and deleting all unnecessary words can reduce this article’s size, without changing its content, by up to 25%, which I understand is an issue here.
(5) "His birth date was recorded as 1296 with no sign whether this is based on the Rumî or Hijri calendar" please change to "1296 without designating" as "with no sign" is incorrect usage.
(5) ““In his leisure time, he enjoyed reading …” please delete quotation (“) inserted before the word In.
(6) “The extended information regarding the education, family, habits and traits can be reached under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life.” should be “Extended information regarding his education, family, habits and traits may be found under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s personal life.” Including “The” at the beginning of this sentence is incorrect grammar, and “reached under” is incorrect usage.
It also appears, that some internal linking was lost in the most recent request to edit the Personal life section such as: Ottoman Empire (see 2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph).
Thank you for making edits proposed. Please note that “the” and “of” are often overused and unnecessarily complicate prose. Sorry for the short/stiff commentary, I don’t intend to be rude, but don’t want to unnecessarily complicate the editorial message. This article contains excellent information and should be classified as GA and my hope is to get it there. I will propose additional edits to tighten prose and correct/improve grammar in due course. Cheers Pebblicious (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why no negatives in the intro?

Shouldn't "Ataturk"'s involvement in the Armenian holocaust receive mention in the first paragraph? Alongside his suppression of Kurds, Sufi tariqas, and so on? I'm afraid the article as it stands reflects Turkish national hero-worship more than objective scholarship. "Rationalist enlightenment" indeed. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is because Atatürk had nothing to do with the Tehcir Law? On the other hand, his relation with the Kurdish population even has its own headline in the article. Also, you can find data about the closure of "Tekke ve Zaviyeler" (dervish lodges) in the secularism part of the article. Deliogul (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
But he did lead military action against Armenian irregulars, no? And participate in the expulsions...? (One of the big reasons for his campaign was to prevent "Wilsonian Armenia" from existing.) And while it's nice that "the dark side" of secularism is mentioned in the article itself, I think this is noteworthy enough to deserve mention up front. (Compare with the articles on Hitler, Mao, or Richard Nixon, for example.)
Genocide, because of its definition, does not include conflicts between two armed units. Armenian irregulars, as the name implies, are armed units with the goal of establishing Armenian national state. Armenian irregulars (mainly members of Armenian Revolutionary Federation) achieved to build the first Armenian nation in 1918, Democratic Republic of Armenia. Wilsonian Armenia come to table in 1920 after the treaty of serves. The armed conflicts between Democratic Republic of Armenia and Turkish revolutionaries were in 1920. If deportations between 1915-1916 killed 1.5 million Armenian civilians, than there would not be any Armenian civilian left in 1920. Any serious Armenian historian do not claim that genocide happened beyond the deportations of 1915-1916. There are Armenians which try to define "civil wars" which ends with establishment of new nations (such as Democratic Republic of Armenia) as genocide. That is possible, but then we have to claim that all civil wars in the history were acts of Genocide. --Rateslines (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Turkish revolutionaries decisively defeated the Armenian forces and gained the Eastern Anatolia back. Armenians accepted it first with the Treaty of Alexandropol and the Soviet world ratified and expanded the conditions with the Treaty of Kars later on. Therefore, I didn't understand the link between the deportations of 1915-16 with Turkish-Armenian war. Deliogul (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I admit my fuzziness on the Armenian issue. What about other negatives? It seems misleading to trumpet that he stood for reason and enlightenment, when in fact he was a military dictator. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.167.184 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Atatürk wanted to pass the power to people because, in his own words, he didn't want to be remembered as a dictator. He tried it couple of times and end up with failures. It can be said that the way of the reforms were in "top-to-down" type and they were formulated as state policies of the single party period, instead of being the desired needs of the citizens but, again in Mustafa Kemal's words, "Why should I lower myself to their degree after all of those struggles? I prefer to raise them to my degree". Therefore, even if these things can be seen as suppression by some people, it is still hard to say that they were not "enlightened". Anatolian people created a success story in the interwar era, in numerous fields, and it would be impossible if Mustafa Kemal was only a military dictator. Deliogul (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless--regardless of what excuses or justifications he or others may have proposed--he WAS essentially a military dictator. Should the article not say so directly? The fact that Ataturk personally believed (or claimed to believe) in "enlightened" values ought to be treated no differently than the similar rhetoric by Turkmenbashi, Kim Jong-Il, and so on. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.160.230 (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, CHP's single party period was not totally under the control of Mustafa Kemal. It was more like a collective work of the Turkish revolutionaries, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, in accordance with the later formulated Kemalism. Also, if we are going to compare him to crazy men like Saparmurat Niyazov or Kim Jong-il, Mustafa Kemal would look like the Statue of Liberty against them. What I mean is that you are on the wrong path to define the CHP rule in Turkey. Deliogul (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
All dictators of the past, hitler, mussolini etc etc died and never wanted to be remembered again. They were enemies of some other countries, people hated them. People pissed on their corpses after they fell. Today you see Ataturk's pictures everywhere; let me say, JUST search for Ataturk's funeral video on Youtube and you'll see a sea of people, crying. No kind of DICTATOR had this before. People still cry on 10th of November, on his death anniversary. Yes, the government type looked like a dictatorship from outside. He was a powerful leader who united a country and created a new nation. Like Charlemagne or Bismark did. During his party period, Turkey lived with total peace with all countries in the world. We even didn't enter WW2. He was an enlightment period, first and last revolutionist between western democracy and eastern type monarchy/sultanate.--JohnEmerald (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, no--many dictators are remembered rather fondly--Napoleon among the French, Genghis Khan among the Mongols, Stalin among the Georgians. Many Spaniards cried when Franco died (and of course, many others cheered, as I'm sure also happened in Turkey). As for Ataturk's democratic credentials, he created a one--party state--then alternately allowed, then disbanded, opposition parties. Again I ask--shouldn't some mention be made in the opening of the fact that Ataturk was a military dictator? --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
By definition, must not a "military dictator" be in the military? And, if not, why not?Pebblicious (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Dawud, to follow up, Ataturk first openly advocated the separation of the military from the body politic during the CUP congress that opened on September 22, 1909 in Salonica. There, Mustafa Kemal argued that continued involvement of active military offiers in the CUP was bad for the army and Society. He, thus proposed (i) that officers remaining active in the CUP resign from the armed forces and (ii) passing a law banning the military from memebership in any political organization. See Ataturk by Andrew Mango, p. 92 (soft cover edition published 1999). To call Ataturk a military dictator would be factually and historically inaccurate. Also, with respect to your question about Armenian efforts to establish a "Wilsonian Armenia," reading about the "French Armenian Legion" will explain why the answer to your initial question, factually and historically, is no.Pebblicious 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cengiz Han was not a dictator but an emperor. If you want to see the difference, see, Roman dictator (God knows how its meaning had been changed over the time) and Imperator. This was one point. Another one is about the naming. We can't directly write that Mustafa Kemal was a dictator because it was not his official title. The same logic goes for comrade Stalin too. He was not officially a dictator but the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Of course, in his article, there are a lot of details about his absolute rule and the personality cult he built for himself. With this last sentence, we can pass to another problem of plainly writing "military dictator" in the article of Mustafa Kemal. Differently than you state, dictatorship of Mustafa Kemal is not a "fact" but one of the possible views to the CHP rule during 1923-38. As I stated before, it would be very harsh to compare Mustafa Kemal to some crazy men from Asia. CHP was not consisted of "Generalissimo Atatürk and his compradors" but "President Mustafa Kemal and his colleagues". You also have to understand that even if there weren't large scale elections in the past, like Turkey has today, there have been local elections since the first days of the Independence struggle. First term MPs of TBMM, which was opened on April 23, 1920, were not "appointed" by anybody. They were elected by people in their local regions and were sent to Ankara to represent their cities. CHP's system was also not built on "favoring" their own supporters. İsmet İnönü once even left his post because he wanted some advantage over the opposition (maybe you won't believe it but there were oppositions of many kind in Turkey). People like Adnan Menderes, who was "elected" as deputy of Aydın in 1930s, and Celal Bayar were also members of single-party government. When we look at all this data, I can't really accept to simply call Mustafa Kemal a dictator. Deliogul (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion shows that the article is missing a big chunk of Kemal's life. His political activities (Presidency). It is not 210.60.55.9's fault that he thinks Kemal is a dictator. It is hard to find a good review of his life between 1923-1938. All the information generally originates from sources that aim to analyze single event, or try to prove a specific point of view. If you look at this user's self assigned user name, it reflects a symbol. If you are following current events, it is not hard to know what he represents. The problem is not what he wants to propagate, but the lack of credible sources in English that tell us; 1 - During Ataturk's presidency the parliament did not closed once. 2 - In his presidency, left and right politics, found a way to exist. 3 - He curtailed the extremes in both sides. May be that is the reason all the extreme people hate him. He worked with a population whose democratic norms have in question after 80 years of his time. I want to finish this argument from Erdogan's (non-secular politician) latest public statement

"Erdoğan: Atatürk'e sahip çıkmak, evrensel demokratik normları büyütmektir.

" --Rateslines (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
How can someone who resigned from the Military to embark on a political career be deemed a military dictator? Silly question, but I have to ask. Isn't there an entire section in Mango's book discussing the nationalists' concern with mixing the military and politics? I seem to recall that Ataturk was the one who insisted that all military officers elected to parliament had to resign from the military to maintain their seats in parliament. In all fairness, the most that can be said is that Ataturk was a benevolent dictator, but that seems to be a stretch and not in keeping with the original intent of those who formed the first political body.Pebblicious (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
To follow up on the above comment, Ataturk began advocating the separation of the military from the politic as early as 1909, going so far as to advocate that a law be passed prohibiting the involvement of military officials in politics. See my response to Dawwud above for a citation to Mango on this.Pebblicious 04:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
since 1990, almost everybody, %90 of every head person in Turkish politics is military people. Presidents mostly. It is a fact that Turkish people raise their leaders among army personna. Actually it seems quite appropriate for a nation that has so much enemies abroad... Dictatorship is not an exact definition for Kemal's rule. Couldn't be some other word to describe it? Revolution committee?? Post-WW1 Founder parliament?? Extraordinary government?? Because it's not the same in the "Sid meier's Civilisation" computer series game; it's a special history. --JohnEmerald 00:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
JohnEmerald, wiki is not the place to create a new unfounded version of history or develop novel ideas, hypotheses or new words about or to describe past governments. Nor are computer games appropriate reference material.Pebblicious 04:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Dawud again. I do appreciate all your comments, and am learning a lot. I am not ready to admit Ataturk as a democrat (it doesn't count as "democracy" if the leader can cancel its results whenever he doesn't approve of them), but I see that I was technically wrong about him being a "military" dictator. And I can see how the word "dictator" could be criticized as non-technical, perhaps judgemental.
Did taking off his uniform have any real effect on his influence over the military? And if he went to so much trouble to separate the military from politics, how were all those later military coups possible? Did they disobey his legacy, or was this a part of his legacy?
An Armenian question, if I may: What were the war aims of the Armenian irregulars in Anatolia circa 1920, given that the massacres had already occurred? Did they still entertain hope of capturing territory? Were they defending remnant civilian populations? Seeking vengeance, perhaps? What?
Thanks to all. Tesekur and chokran.
Bir sey degil, you are welcome. Dawwud, the consensus is that the idea was to purge the southeastern portion of Anatolia of Ottoman muslims (comprised of ethnic Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Alevis, Circassians, etc., as the Empire was highly multi-ethnic, including the muslim population) and/or Ottoman power. There are oil reserves in the what was formerly the Ottoman Empire (it extended into what is now Syria and Iraq). The Entente powers (England, France and Russia, in particular) promised Armenians that a "Greater Armenia" would be formed that encompassed the eastern 1/3 of modern day Turkey after WWI if they fought with the Entente powers against the Ottoman regime. However, the Entente powers instead intended to rule those regions themselves so that they would control the oil fields. See e.g., the Sykes-Picot Agreement; Gregarin Pastermadjian's work published in 1918 entitled "Why Armenia Should be Free" (you can download this entire publication, which is relatively short, from google's ebooks); and there is also a documentary made by Marty Callaghan called "Blood and Oil: The Middle East in World War I" available on DVD (at Amazon.com) that explains the events of WWI, why the Entente powers wanted the Ottoman Empire to fall and their strategy for making it happen.
As for your other questions, I suggest you read some scholarly works on politics in modern day Turkey. Mango and others have written such books and it is likely the answers you seek are there.Pebblicious 09:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Pebblicious, I just tried to say that "Ataturk period" is a special period in which a new country, regime, alphabet, bureacracy etc etc are tried to be established from zero. YES, YOU ARE RIGHT: Ataturk period is named "Republic period"; it was NOT a true one. Turkey's republic (Ataturk) years is actually a training & development period; a 25 years period which people are taught to be democrats after 600 years of sultanate. You cannot teach democracy with dictatorship --JohnEmerald 15:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
JohnEmerald there is one other position that you did not consider. The Ataturk reforms or his political policies, which were theoretically perfect examples of social change by law, brought serious stress over political and administrative structures. There were (are) sections of the society which did not want to change centuries of traditions. Keeping the system within the rules of a "written document" such as magna carta or decleration of independence should not be confused with the dictatorship. The process that lead to the rule of "constitutional law" had been hard on every society that had passed through the same rocky roads. We do not name the people who wrote and enforced the "decleration of independence" as dictators. "Social change by law" is an established political science concept and perfectly fits to the period that is in question. I do not understand why it is difficult to accept "Social change by law" towards modernity as a viable method and what you called "dictatorship" is the enforcing of the law. Do we always have to look from the perspective of the outlaws. Outlaws in the sense that who reject the law. Outlaws not in the sense of genetically determined criminality, such as "jack the ripper". ***You can teach democracy with enforcing rules that are established with constitution, or rule of law to people who have born in the mountains and talk kart-kurt***. Rateslines 17:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Conventions for Citations to Sources

Please note the following as they will be classified as "typographical" errors by reviewers. When inserting sources cited please note the following:

1) Every word in the title of a book, journal or other source should be capitalized. However, the following words are not capitalized unless they are the first word of the title: a, of, in, its, it's, on, in, the, or, and, but, if, etc. For example, if these were book titles they should be written as follows-- The Life of Ataturk: The Man, Myth and Legend in contrast to Ataturk, His Life and Times in the Modern Republic of Turkey.
2) When including page rages in a citation do not use the hyphen key (-) which is next to the key that contains the plus and equals sign on a qwerty keyboard. Instead, insert this between the page numbers: &emdash; For example, to write pp. 1-5, you should type "1&emdash;5" This is a wiki style requirement. See the "Notes" section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style.
3) When inserting a footnote or other reference at the end of a sentence, the footnote should be placed after the period. For example, "...is the end of this sentence.[3]" Placing the footnote before the period again will be considered an error. It seems the same should be true for links that generate the arrow sign which is a link.

It took two and a half hours to fix all the errors in the citations on this page, which was not very much fun. So please please take note! Also, the 2nd and 3rd to last citations contain "ISSN" numbers and for some reason the wiki program has injected blank spaces after the ISSN number and before the period. I could not remove those spaces, which will be construed as typos. If someone can figure out how to fix that, that would be great (and please let me know how you did it). Thanks! Pebblicious 09:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


QUESTION! What citation form has been agreed to for this page? It looks like the Harvard short citation form footnoted in the text, with full references below the footnotes. However, there is a way to link what shows up as a footnote to the full length citation and no one seems to be using that... ? I am specifically referencing the discussion and templates provided in the section entitled "Harvard Referencing" (Section 3.3.2) at Wikipedia:Citing sources. I was planned to add a number of citations to sources to text without any citations, but am reluctant to do so before knowing if everyone's agreed to use a specific convention, which does not seem to be the Harvard Referencing described, but sure looks like it. Please let me know, so there won't be a need to spend hours editing them later.Pebblicious 10:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kemal about Islam

What was the real opinion of Kemal Ataturk about Islam ? What was the opinion of Kemal Ataturk about the Greek and Byzantine legacy of Turkey ?

He didn't like religion based education and the religious emphasis in the state system, that's for sure. On the other hand, his period was a smooth one for normal believers but a nightmare for extremists. Deliogul (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
His opinion was Greeks made good triathletes.--Doktor Gonzo 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox picture

It is an artistic expression. I don't think that is very encyclopedic.--Doktor Gonzo 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for selection should be based on relevancy to the content. The article needs "authentic" images. Touched (modified) images decrease the value of the article. The user who added the images thinks he is doing a good thing, but in reality he is trivializing the content. He also changed the images from commons by reloading his images on the original images. Why people do not put their works at the commons picture gallery? --Rateslines (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The historical fidelity of any digital picture is always questionable, I have no objection to using an altered image, as long as the alteration is acknowledged and the original image is readily available for comparison. Byzerodivide (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A.Garnet 's total elimination of sections

I have issues on removing the sections and huge text, especially cited, in the article. Without giving extensive explanation these edits in my view decreases the quality of the text. --Rateslines (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to keep most of the changes performed by "A.Garnet." which indeed were very good. --Rateslines (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the article is extremely inaccessible to readers. Before my reorganisation there were too many short sections when they could be easily merged, this you seem to agree to. The other problem is other sections are just unnecessarily long, but more importantly, they are extremely poorly written. The prose is just so bad that it is better to reduce the size of these sections and allow editors a chance to expand from scratch in good clear English. Trying to rewrite some of this is an absoloute nightmare. I don’t know if this is down to you or Ottomanreference, but so many important Turkish articles have suffered from editors who cant write in clear English or have not yet mastered an encylopedic tone. For this reason, I would be happy to do away with much in this article and keep the parts that make good clear sense. --A.Garnet (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I should say "You hurt my feelings, but I will try to continue." The controversial articles suffer from the same problem. Authors generally want to add one or two sentences, but not try to develop the article. Removing these one liners generally causes edit wars. I learned to keep them. In most of my edits, I preserve the previous text even if I know they are problematic. Yes, there is what you can call as Turkish tone. You may say that it is not an "encylopedic tone." Doesn't other nationals have their tone? This is content traceable more than a person. Indians generally do not know Ataturk, Turks generally do not know Gandhi. Turkish related articles have one tone and Indian related articles another. Besides there is also copy and paste issue, which I'm guilty of. It propagates the problem. Claiming Turks or any other nationality do not have the "encylopedic tone" is basically a prejudice. If you are limiting this to me it is a personal attack. For your second position; I want to understand what does "keep the parts that make good clear sense" really mean. Good clear sense is extension of understanding of the content besides the word and grammar. I'm sure the section "Kurd" does not fall into this definition. But you kept it. It is incomprehensible as a section. --Rateslines (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
Excuse me my friend, where on earth did I claim "Turks or any other nationality do not have the "encylopedic tone""? What I said was whoever wrote large parts of this article (and other imporant Turkish related articles such as Ottoman Empire, Turkish War of Independence etc) has neither a good grasp of English or a proper understanding of how to write in an encylopedic tone. My issue is with a specific few editors, and this has been acknowledged by other Turkish editors also. In fact, I consider it irresponsible for an editor who is aware of his weakness in English to fill a page with poorly written material and expect everyone else to clear up after him. My comment is not aimed directly at you, I dont know who is responsible for this writing but I am sure it is putting people off contributing. Regarding the section on Kurds, I was not finished editing the article. --A.Garnet (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the irony...--Doktor Gonzo 11:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to make something clear...

When Ataturk is critisised in Turkey it's because of his secularist attitudes, not so called (and in my opinion trumped-up)dictatorship allegations. FYI --88.242.83.12 (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ataturk was [...not cited...]

The article should mention his homosexuality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.128.67 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no proof of his homosexuality. As far as I am concerned, it is just another libel sponsored by Turkophobics.--194.27.64.188 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, then I'm Augustus. Stop covering Wikipedia with biased data and become a little bit academic. Deliogul (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not post biased unverifiable information in wikipedia talk pages, this isn't a tabloid. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Military Promotion and Postings record

Comparative_military_ranks_of_World_War_I

  • 1907 promoted to the rank of Kolağası and was posted to the 3rd Army, stationed in Manastır


Please update the above list with the correct Turkish and Ottoman named ranks if you know them -thanks Byzerodivide (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Communist Party of Turkey

That article (Communist Party of Turkey (Official)) has this information: "TKF was set-up by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1920, in order to counter the influence of the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP)" can a source be found for this? is this true?--Kiyarrllston 16:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This was a well known tactic of Mustafa Kemal which he used in order to control the opposition in the country . You open parties which are supporting some opposing views to your government and the anger among the opposition becomes neutralized for a certain time as they get interested in the process of this newly formed party. Finally, you shut down the party you formed because the opposition really starts to gather around your "regime-friendly" "soft-opposition" party. Serbest Cumhuriyet Fırkası is a good example of this kind. Deliogul (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

His origin

His mother was Roma and his father was half Albanian half Jew.Shouldn't this be mentioned?To prevent any bigotry i must say that i note this for historical accuracy purposes only, and no way to degrade him.(In case a Turkish might find his non Turkic and his non Turkish (also) roots as a sth negative) Eagle of Pontus (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Provide a valid citation for your claims. There's no mention of what you assert in any official biography. And, PS, the population of the Republic of Turkey is documented to be comprised of over 50 ethnicities. "Turkish" is not an ethnicity. Turkish is a nationality and a language. There are probably no pure "ethnic Turks" in the Republic of Turkey today so that he was or may not have been Turkic in origin ethnically is really of no moment. Also, Ottoman officials did not track ethnicities, only religion. By the turn of the 20th Century, the vast majority of the population in Anatolia was not pure Turkic, but a mix of ethnicities from the Balkans, Crimea, Circassia and the Caucasus as well as descendants of those who had crossed the Asian plains 600 years before and mixed with people along the way. This is most likely the reason no official biography conclusively makes the statements you assert, because reliable information about his genetic ethnicity is unattainable.Pebblicious (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Mustafa Kemal was recorded as a Muslim child back in the day. This can only be possible if his father was a Muslim in the male-centric system of the Ottoman Empire. His religion is definitely not enough to determine his ethnic background as many of the Albanians are Muslims like many Turks. We can only say that this is just one of the numerous possibilities. Also, his father of being half Jew is questionable too. Marriage between the people from different millets was not easy as all millets were living within their own communities. It is still a possibility as love has no boundaries but when we gather all the odds, we can see that it is just blind-fighting to determine the ethnicity of Mustafa Kemal with the data we have about the past. Just to note, according to the citizenship definition of Turkey, which was adopted by the French version, there is only the brotherhood of soil, not the blood. Deliogul (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Mustafa Kemal was a Muslim, but if any of his parents were not, and there was a verifiable source, then it probably can be included, but wouldn't really make any difference or be any use to the reader. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

what is the intention behind the section "Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk#Nature_of_the_state"

Could someone help me to understand the meaning behind this section? Is it about democracy and Ataturk? State is a loaded word and the section does not cover all the aspects. --Rateslines (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to make a sense out of it. I did a Google search using the text. There was a match to article "Parliament Membership during the Single-Party System in Turkey (1925-1945)." Used that article to re-organize the text. Do whatever pleases you. My valentine and I will be enjoying the weekend after a long week. --Kemalist (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk/Archive_10&oldid=1079499483"