Jump to content

Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Albanian???

WoW. Didn't realize Ataturk was Albanian in origins but then again this site has several questionable people on its list...Benito Mussolini one of the biggest promoters of fascism opressors of Arberesh in Italy "Albanian"? Proof please. [1] ~Mallaccaos, 4 May 2006 I have read about his Jewish roots. It is a fact that he attended Sefardic Jeshiva in Saloniki and alongside with Jamal Talaat and Enver was a graduate of that Jeshiva. I really believe that Ittihat va Taraky was a masonic lodge and Ataturk was Jewish himself. That is the reason he was so anti islamic as it is cited in the article.

  • Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was %100 Turkish. He was from the Yoruk Turks, a nomadic Turkish group that still lives in Antalya today. The Ottoman Emprie sent a big Turkish population to Balkans to form a stronger order on Europe. Atatürk's ancestors were from this group of people. Some would argue that he had an European look but this is all wrong. He was brown-haired. After his death, Turkish painters showed him as blond in their pictures because Atatürk is representing the sunrise on the Turkish nation. Deliogul 15:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Deliogul wikipedia is not the place to fabricate stories. He was blonde and he had blue eyes. Don't try to frame reality to fit your own ideology. I am a Turk by the way.


jIf you accept everything that they told to you, this is the outcome. Have you ever seen Atatürk? I am also defending that he was %100 Turkish but sadly I am not even sure if you know anything about Turkish roots, Yoruk Turks and other tribes. Yes, there are maybe millions of blonde Turkic people out there but Atatürk was light brown-haired and this doesn't mean that he can't has blue eyes. Thesedays people(maybe animals I don't know) argue that a blonde person can't be a Turk(they say that just to claim a wrong theory about the origins of Mustafa Kemal Pasha) but the funny thing is Turks can be blonde but actually Atatürk wasn't blonde and I only gave this data because it is interesting, it has nothing to do with ideologies. There is a little difference betwen light brown hair and the blonde hair of Turkish originated people and this is not a fabricated theory. Also stop talking about ideology. In Wikipedia, the only important thing is the academic writing and being polite. A polite person should introduce him/herself to the person that he/she talks to. You read my paragraph but you didn't understand anything and that makes me sad. With respect, the son of the nomadic warriors, Deliogul 11:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but wasn't he a dictator?

I didn't even finish the first paragraph. As soon as I saw the line about Kamal promoting democracy, I had to stop. The fact is that while he did institute many admirable reforms, he was in fact an iron-fisted dictator, controling the populace with a one party system similar to that of the Bolshiviks.

Mustafa Kemal was a dictator in many senses of the word. What sets him apart from other dictators however is the fact that he didn't share the fate of his contemporaries; Hitler committed suicide to avoid being captured alive, Mussolini was murdered by the Italian Communist Party, and Franco (despite living into the 1970s) was quickly forgotten (and reviled) after his death. Kemal left a legacy of reform and progress that perpetuates to this day, whereas the latter dictators left legacies of war, genocide, and the supression of human rights. Nicklob 04:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


His followers were/are dictators and the US loves Turkey's airbases so who cares if the Turkish people like him or not. His reforms were of the brand, like it or die.

I've got a question for the above 3, because I'm just stumped about this. Just how exactly do you manage to spew diarrhea from your mouth so ferociously that you manage to oversee the ludicrousness of the diarrhea? MonsterOfTheLake 05:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that's just nasty. —Khoikhoi 05:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In his words: "Many people accuse me to be a strongman. Sure, it is true that I have the might to do anything I please, but I have this might by winning the people's hearts, not by oppressing them."


How can you say that! Atatürk was the first President of the Turkish Republic. Still i am not sure if you even know what it means to be the "president". He defeated imperialist powers of Great Britain and he was also the first person to wage and to win a war against far- right religious system. Here i give you a citation;

"Thanks to the democracy seeds that he spreaded, Turkish nation won many victories in many hard situation inside and outside of the country. Stalin claimed that Atatürk was a Fascist. Hitler and Mussolini saw him as a Communist and even some said he was a dictator... But his nation called him the father of all Turks"

Atatürk formed democracy in Anatolia, a region that had never seen democracy before... From this moment, be polite. Deliogul 15:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

God! Deliogul, please come back when you grow up. Seriously I cannot help myself to comment on what you have been writing about Ataturk. Are you holding a political science degree? Obviously no. Are you familiar with politics? Obviously no. So, how can you just come with this ridicilious partisan defence and dictate fellow authors telling "From this moment, be polite?" What has he told that it offended you?

  • This was only a little detail from a documentary film. Also where do you get the right to insult to me? For example, I don't stand up and say Abraham Lincoln was a dictator. This passage only shows the place of Mustafa Kemal Pasha in the eyes of Turkish people. By the way, I am trying to get an international relations and politics degree so I know a bit and actually more than you know about the issues such as history of Turkey, history of the Ottoman- Seljuk- Hun and Gokturk Empires, regional politics, international politics of Turkey and politics of the other countries in this region. I am repeating it... Please be polite. With respect, the son of the nomadic warriors, Deliogul 11:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)



[hot-headed post deleted by its sender,or returned to it,whatever...].--CAN T 21:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Can, good points. But please keep the level cool :-) Best, Mu5ti 23:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. "Can," First, I am niethor Armenian nor European, but your conclusion that I am merely shows how closed-minded you are about this issue. And dolt? Where did you dig up that fossil of an insult. Anyway, if it doesn't offend you, allow me to use a touch of logic. Let's examine the circumstances under which Kemal came to power. You are wrong that there was no authority in Turkey. It was in fact ruled by the sultan, although he had become little more than a puppet of the two great European powers, Great Britain and France. At the time, those two powers were blatently encouraging a newly imperialistic Greece to invade Turkey, which it did. Kemal rose to power because he defied the orders of the sultan and fought the invaders. This was fine. In fact, it was admirable, eventually winning him the support from the very man he had defied, the sultan. Nevertheless, after he finished negotiating the Treaty of Lausanne, he immediately set out to clamp down on his own people with a strictness similar to the totalitarians that would rise ten years later. The fact is that your assertion that this was necessary to control his country is false. He had nearly total popular support, and only the Muslim fanatics and ethnic minorities resented him. No, his dictatorial measures were aimed at increasing Turkey's (and therefore his own) power by any means necessary, even if it meant crushing ethnic minorities, forcing his country to change its very culture, and stamping out any hope of democracy.

I think you are very off the mark, especially your accusation that he resembled Musollini or Hitler. Ataturk was revolutionary, he wanted to turn the Ottoman empire on its head. People were not ready for this, the majority of society was still argricultural and illiterate, they did not agree with his secularism, his abolition of the sultan, his western dress code, yet these were all measures Ataturk thought necessary to bring Turkey to western civilisational standards. The fact is Turkey was not ready for democracy, you cannot end a 630 year empire and implement a democracy immediately, a period of transition under a strong leader was essential. --A.Garnet 18:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Garnet, Perhaps you are misunderstanding my reference to the totalitarians. I am in no way implying that Ataturk was "evil" in the sense that Hitler was evil (though his ruthless treatment of ethnic minorities does draw that connection). Nevertheless, like the totalitarians, he aimed to control every aspect of the government, military, and society in order to increase the power of the state. I agree that Turkey could not jump straight to a democratic society, but there was a more moderate way to go about this. If he was really serious about promoting democracy, he would not have disposed of the sultan, and instituted a constitutional monarchy, which has been shown time and time again to be the best path to democracy. No, Ataturk was more concerned about his own power. Also, you mention bringing Turkey to "western civilisational standards." Why would he want to do this? Especially in the aftermath of World War One, it was increasingly difficult to argue that Europe was an enlightened society that would be ideal to emulate. Instead, one must conclude that he was only forcing change in his society in order to make Turkey more powerfull.

Your points are valid enough. A couple of small points, though.
  1. About the constitutional monarchy: your claim about it being "the best path to democracy" is fair, but also keep in mind that fairly fresh in the mind at that time and place were the Ottoman Empire's two previous experiments therewith, which either fizzled out pathetically into nothing at all (the first), or failed dazzlingly into the dictatorship of the Three Pashas (the second).
  2. About it being "increasingly difficult to argue that Europe was an enlightened society" post-World War One: this is true enough from a European perspective (hence Dada), but not necessarily from a perspective (i.e. Mustafa Kemal's) that was not (or at least not wholly) European, and which was, in fact, given to idolizing the West/Europe owing simply to the fact that the Ottoman Empire was in a pretty damned shoddy state for the whole of his life.
Anyway, them's my 2¢. —Saposcat 20:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is easy for us to sit here and write "there was a more moderate way to go about this" and criticse the man for being "ruthless". Why did he remove the Sultan? The Sultan had come to represent corruption and weakness, concerned more with his post, than the plight of his people. The theocracy which characterised the Ottoman empire had held back the technological and economical developments which had allowed the Western nations to surge ahead. When the Sultan agreed to partition Turkey among Western powers do you think Ataturk would allow him to carry on in office once he liberated the country? Ataturk was a Republican, he belived in rationalism and the enlightenment, everything the Sultan stood against. Now you make the accusation Ataturk should not have tried to emulate western standards, but over 80 years later, when western society has defeated facism, communism and theocracy, can you honestly say he made the wrong choice? And your final point, that he wanted to make Turkey more powerful, well...welcome to international relations my friend :) --A.Garnet 20:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

CAN here.

OK.Calmly...again:

"it was increasingly difficult to argue that Europe was an enlightened society that would be ideal to emulate"

No.Looking from this side/perspective it still was a rich and INDUSTRIOUS continent.Yes,its world leaders might be imperialistic greedy devils,but Ottoman State or what ruin's left of it was infinitesimally small and poorer compared to it.Yes,honor and integrity are lovely ideals,but they don't cloth shivering Anatolian Peasants,nor does it make citizens prosper,nor feed and arm an army.

"he would not have disposed of the sultan, and instituted a constitutional monarchy, which has been shown time and time again to be the best path to democracy..."

Eh???Constitutional Monarchy?It leads to democracy in rich countries with intellectual citizens,rich middle-class(the backbone of any nation),decent press-freedom,and strong infrastructure.We had none,and the Sultan committed several crimes in WW1,such as acting against the freedom movement and sending agents to incite riots(and thats right,amongst minorities and fanatical muslims!!!now give me a bottle of Guiness as reward),openly speaking to an English Sergeant on the same level while denying audience to envoys from Anatolian Independence Movement.That in itself is a massive insult to integrity of whats left of the Sultanate,and an open "eff you" to Atatürk's movement.

"No, his dictatorial measures were aimed at increasing Turkey's (and therefore his own) power by any means necessary, even if it meant crushing ethnic minorities, forcing his country to change its very culture, and stamping out any hope of democracy."

That's a deeply controversial issue,and might be needed to discuss in a whole new place.First possibility:

  • Atatürk had a superb vision of the future,and saw how Europeans managed to incite unrest amongst minorities (and got away with it,while seeing all of themselves as Europeans),and tried to amputate a future worry from the very beginning.

Second:

  • Atatürk lost his self control,and tried to erase everything accorded to the past,so that we might not be judged again.Mind you,Ottoman state was the first nation to be accused of "Crimes against humanity."(oh the hypocrisy!YES!The French didn't butcher Algerians,the Brits didn't want to gas the Kurds and Arabs,but we?Oohhh we are E-V-I-L!We butchered Pontus Greeks,Armenians,Kurds,Asuri Keldanis...[beeeeeeeep]you,Europe.)

Third:

  • Atatürk was evil to the core,and wanted Anatolia to be a culturally gelded,short sighted minority-less continent ripe for European control.(in short,Bullshit.)


End:Atatürk donated almost his whole property into a bank he founded,in order to allow us Turks who never got credit from Europe (since we are E-V-I-L,[beep] you again Europe) during this time to enjoy the fruits of banking,and a small bit he spent for his surviving family members.

His yacht Savarona is sold one year ago as far as I reckon.Muslim Fundies hated the ship.

BUT:A man challenges 400 years of defeat in a row,jams the wheel of time and makes the "Eastern Peoples"(badly loose term I know)enjoy victory in the face of "White Man",makes the place with most ethnic and political clashes and geostrategic importance a secure haven for next generations,assures European defeat,is a widely aknowledged leader.

Labeling,even thinking this man EVIL just makes a stinging pain in my conscience.

CAN out.(notice it's not the English can.It's read like John.A Turkish name meaning "life" in Ottoman)

--CAN T 09:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Think on this: One must take into consideration the difficult situation that Ataturk was in after the war before making assumptions about his form of rule. While he did run a dictatorship, one must consider what he had to work with before making statements that describe his actions as "clamping down on his own people with a strictness similar to the totalitarians that would rise ten years later." He was faced with a situation similer to that of the conflict in Iraq now. The Americans seek to insert a democratic, equal government, but various obsticles such as an un-even distribution of power between groups such as the Shiite and the Sunnis keep the government in a state of turmoil. Durring this power struggle to gain control of the country, general unrest tears up the land. Ataturk saw this situation in turkey, and used his popular support to prevent it from happening. He could not have immidiatly instigated a democratic government on the turkish people, firstly because the people were not ready to handle it, and second, because while the power struggle to gain a majority in a new democracy was going on, opposition groups (such as the group lead by Enver Pasa) would see that moment of unrest, and act, forcing the country into an internal power struggle that would have left turkey weak to outside forces, and , it those opposition groups did manage to gain control, there was the possibly that they would put in a harsher dictatorship than the one that Ataturk ran. I in no way deny the fact that he was a ruthless dictaor (but only to a point to make sure that turkey survived), but instead I want to point out to those hampered in the skill of observation that Ataturk might not have had a choice to turn the government into a dictatorship. -Versipellis Rex

This is all facinating but as per Wikipedia:Original research it cant be in the article. Also please use another form of comunication if the debate isn't about material in the article. Article talk pages are not ment for social gatherings... --Cat out 19:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've not edited on wikipedia before, so I'm sorry if I'm doing it incorrectly. In the article, introduction, it states: "...Mustafa Kemal led the Turkish national movement in what would become the Turkish War of Independence. Responsible for the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915. His successful military campaigns..." Not only is the genocide sentence awkardly inserted, but it is untrue. Regardless of your opinions of the Armenian Genocide, Kemal Ataturk could not have participated in it in 1915 since he was stationed at Gallipoli.

sorry i didnt have time to read the whole discussion but calling Ataturk a dictator is very stupid and ignorant since he spent his whole life on trying to bring multi party democracy while he had a chance to be a Sultan. If you are saying this about the minority or Islam issue, then you should know that all the developed nations in that era were(and still is like France) nation states not identifying any ethnic groups and about the islam thing, he just wanted Turkey to NOT be like afghanistan or Iran so he had to seperate the religion and government. Metb82 01:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

yes he didnt want a state like afganistan thats why he deported from their home land all christian people from asia minor and killed them.if you go to turkey you see his picture like the lenin ,stalin ,hilter and musolini on the walls and you think that you have enterd a dictatorship.hitler when started his genocide against jews had in mind the genocides he had commited against all minirities in the area of asia minor and was very sure that no one will remember his genocide because ataturk's genocide had left no signs,so his also won't.

This is probably one of the silliest remarks I have ever read, first of all the massacres (certainly not genocide) took place way before Ataturk came to power, he was in no way involved in the relocation of minorities only in maintaining the territorial integrity of what became modern Turkey. If it wasnt for him, there would be no Turkey but carved out provinces so he will forever be remembered in the hearts and minds of Turks because his deeds were simply awe inspiring. And please stop comparing him to evil thugs such as Hitler whose sole purpose was to exterminate the Jews. 83.77.131.179 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think too many ideas are brought forward into this discussion without much facts. Issues such as the population exchange with Greece are highly complex but carried out on a consensus with the legitimate Greek government of its' time. On many other fronts, most of the authors use their common knowledge and bias to post discussions rather than researching the topic well. Comparing Hitler and Ataturk if needs to be done, should clearly be documented and needs to be well researched rather than just merely accusing him. What are you reading before you post here? "The little prince?"?

The discussion here is should Ataturk be called a dictator? Dictator in wikipedia is cited as: "... a leader who holds an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly. It is comparable to (but not synonymous with) the ancient concept of a tyrant, although initially "tyrant," like "dictator," was not a negative term. A wide variety of leaders coming to power in a number of different kinds of regimes, such as military juntas, single-party states, and civilian governments under personal rule, have been described as dictators."

The decision should be left upon to the reader after this point since not many are interested upon our judgements.

One more note: For a majority of the Turkish people Ataturk denotes the way of living and Laicism as well as the modern state. it is great from this stance. However it may also be criticized that his accomplishments are not stated objectively and generations have been raised without questioning the state and its essentiality well enough. Even today Ataturk remains to be a symbol for those who do not believe to be governed under sheriah, and it is a bit sad really for Turks that they still need to hold on to Ataturk as a symbol to push the Sheriah a side. After all, this is very own reason for abolishing caliphacy. But then, Turkey still needs to face its recent past...

On this subject, I just wanted to quote Sir Percy Loraine, English ambassador to Ankara of Atatürk's time. He says: "Some people consider Atatürk as a dictator. I think that this opinion is wrong and it leads you wrongly. Anyone can call Hitler or Mussolini a dictator without hesitation, but nobody can really define what a dictator is. So you can ask: Then why do you exclude Atatürk from this quality?' There are lots of reasons. Primarily, Atatürk was working to found a system that would live after his death. (...) On the other hand, even during the Independence War, he hold on to an elected, national parliament. He always respected the parliament as the sole sovereign, which represents the people. If he could have survived -I guess- he would retire and evaluate if his system is working or not, by rejecting the next Presidential candidacy. Could his friends accept this? I am not sure."

Without him, Ottoman kings would survive to this day and it'd be definitely be a "saddam"ic dictatorship and it would possibly be a bloody enemy of greece, bulgaria, armenia and to other christian countries. There would be even a third world war going around. So, calm down. Praise him, he destroyed the middle age old muslim empire and converted Turkey to a modern ally of europe--JohnEmerald 17:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested move

Please REDIRECT all articles under the topics:

  • Atatürk
  • Mustafa Kemal
  • Kemal Atatürk

to HERE:

  • Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

OK, let me explain, he has been referred to as Mustafa, Mustafa Kemal, Mustafa Kemal Pasha, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk throughout his life and there after but he had never been referred to as "Kemal Atatürk" ever. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is his full name, thus he should be referred to as. I'm trying to corret this mistake, please stop resisting, otherwise I'll be doubting your good intentions. Kertenkelebek 16:11, 16 June 2006 (EET)

Survey

  • Oppose move. In non-Turkish literature He is usually referred to as "Mustafa Kemal", "Atatürk" or "Kemal Atatürk". People withouth an in-depth knowledge of Turkish history can get confused and get the impression that "Mustafa Kemal" and "Atatürk" were two different people. I thus believe "Kemal Atatürk", combining the two, is the appropriate term for this article. Please do not move the article until consensus is reached. Unilateral moves easily leaves a horrible mess with dead links, blank pages and ublicate pages. Bertilvidet 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, George W. Bush are all names preferred and used by the owner of the names themselves, therefore they're the most common names (actually most of the people don't even know about their real names). However as indicated before "Kemal Atatürk" alone is a missing thus wrong definition for Atatürk's name, just like referring to Bush as "Walker Bush". Kertenkelebek 07:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I guess the discussion ended here with a majority of SUPPORTERS vs. some opposers (who actually have no solid justifications but only excuses and a strange resistance to FULL and CORRECT information). Nobody requests deletion of the name "Kemal Atatürk" from the system, but it should be redirected to the most common and accurate form of his referral: "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk". I hereby call administrators to move this article under the topic of "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" as suggested (and the opposers to get along with it) in respect to the consensus achieved in favor of the supporters. I by the way would be very glad to help/do it myself. Kertenkelebek 20:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I have never really understood this debate. MKA is his full name, and that is what the article should be named. --A.Garnet 11:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I looked for this article expecting it to be under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and was supprised when it wasn't. I didn't really know anything about him before reading the article, so I guess that makes my experince, which is that I've only ever seen him refered to as "Atatürk" or "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk", one indicative of common usage. Poobarb 17:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Result

There is consensus for a move to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk; page moved. Eugène van der Pijll 22:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) please read again carefully the history before you reply.hitler didnt kill only jews but polish,yougoslavs,russians,greeks,gipsies,homosexuals and so on

Comments on the survey

Discussion

Oppose move. In non-Turkish literature He is usually referred to as "Mustafa Kemal", "Atatürk" or "Kemal Atatürk". People withouth an in-depth knowledge of Turkish history can get confused and get the impression that "Mustafa Kemal" and "Atatürk" were two different people. I thus believe "Kemal Atatürk", combining the two, is the appropriate term for this article. Please do not move the article until consensus is reached. Unilateral moves easily leaves a horrible mess with dead links, blank pages and ublicate pages. Bertilvidet 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What a logic. Are there people withouth an in-depth knowledge of Whereeveryoucomefrom that can get confused and get the impression that Bert, Ilvi and Det were three different people, and thus your username needs to be moved to Ilvidet, combining the two?--Matthead 16:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly. My point was that the title should include parts of both his original name and his later attributed name. Exactly like we have an article called Joseph Stalin and both Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili and Stalin redirects to this article. Thus, with this logic both Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Kemal Atatürk would be appropriate; my support for the latter is because of its prevalence in English language litterature and more succint character. Bertilvidet 10:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I withdraw my vote, which partially was based on irrational irritation because the page continuously was moved unilaterally by a single user witheout trying to reach a consensus. Both Kemal Atatürk and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk are perfectly appropriate. My initial oppose vote basically argued the case for any of the two possibilities, so I am surprised to see several users opposing the move per me. Bertilvidet 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Objection to oppose move Wikipedia is a place to learn thing and get yourself improved, if non-Turkish people are going to be confused then a small addition can be embedded inside the article to prevent such a confusion. However it's my personal opinion that it won't take a genius to understand that it's only one person since they're all going to be directed to the same page. Furthermore if one doesn't understand it's only one person he should understand it eventually after reading the article. If one doesn't make the distinction after all the articles are linked to a single page and even after reading just the first paragraph of the article he or she is clearly an idiot. In short it's not important how people understand, the important thing is the real information and people learning it. It's not that hard to do, is it? RESPECT HIS REAL NAME, he is called as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, no matter who is reading the article. He is even called so in the article. Apart from that, I left no blank pages since all relevant articles are directed to a single one. There's no single link broken or any page left blank. All are directed to the same article. Clear? Kertenkelebek 16:34, 16 June 2006 (EET)


The fact that his name in Turkish parlance is what it is is not relevant here; this is the English wikipedia, and according to conventions the page name should reflect common usage. In English, the man is referred to as "Kemal Ataturk". siafu 14:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You've also already violated 3RR, so I suggest you leave the page where it is until you can convince the rest of us that it should be moved. siafu 14:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
His name in Turkish parlance is relevant here and valid EVERYWHERE, because its correct form is in Turkish. Besides it is not a matter of Turkish or English, like every other man on earth, he has a single name and more than every single being on earth he deserves to be referred to as his CORRECT and FULL name (in Turkish because he is Turkish!). If you people don't know how to refer to him, this is your chance; LEARN IT and let athers learn the correct form of it, not how you understand.Kertenkelebek 18:01, 16 June 2006 (EET)
I refer you to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). siafu 15:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I've put up a notice on this 3RR violation (6 reverts now...) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. siafu 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you help me finding and editing the blank pages and dead links you claim to have occurred. I'm willing to correct these mistakes and work hard for it, just point me the errors instead of making destructive criticism and insisting on what's WRONG. Kertenkelebek 18:51, 16 June 2006 (EET)

Quite frankly, since I don't think the page should be moved in the manner in which you're moving it, and you haven't expressed any indication that understand wikipedia policy, I have no interest in "helping" you destructive behavior. siafu 15:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

per all other oppositions above. Incidentally, "RESPECT[ing] HIS REAL NAME" and naming him in the article title "in Turkish because he is Turkish" would also lead to—to give some examples—أبو الوليد محمد بن احمد بن محمد بن احمد بن احمد بن رشد for Averroes, 毛澤東 for Mao Zedong, నాగార్జునా for Nagarjuna, and, on the Turkish side of the equation, اسماعيل انور for Enver Pasha. So let's not talk about "real names" and so forth unless we're willing to get real serious about it. —Saposcat 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Another proponent of weird logic. If you oppose Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, then you also have to request a shortening to Zedong and Enver, or to John Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt. Besides, the Turkish alphabet is derived from the latin one, see Alphabets derived from the Latin, before that gets also messed up by far-fetched non-analogies. --Matthead 18:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the lesson in both logic and the Turkish alphabet, Matthead; I greatly appreciate it. I hereby withdraw my vote of "oppose" and enter no vote in its place. Anyhow, the issue has been discussed once, twice, and now thrice: always the same logic (or lack thereof), always the same results, always the same manasızlık. Cheers. —Saposcat 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" is not the way he is commonly known in the English speaking world. Yes, it's the same alphabet, but just because it's his complete name doesn't mean it's the common name. Bill Clinton's name is actually William Jefferson Clinton (a redirect), but the article title uses the common version (again, it's all there to be read in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). It also says "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" right in the first line of the article, so anyone reading it will know immediately what his complete name is. (BTW, that should really be 毛泽东, since he's the one who introduced 简体字). siafu 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(You are, of course, absolutely right about the simplified Chinese characters; I've just always been partial to the traditional characters myself. My bad. —Saposcat 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment: I refuse to vote here as at least half of the people are politicaly motivated voters. I also have no tolerance to the rant such as the ones above. As far as google is concerned Ataturk has no "common" name but two common names: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Kemal Atatürk and guideline is pretty clear with such cases. If guideline was followed we wouldn't be discussing. --Cat out 21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • How have you done a google test here? The three "options" are subsets of each other, so any result for "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" is also going to be a hit for the other two. siafu 02:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Coolcat, would you please elaborate this abit? This debate seems to be well conducted about how we best capture the name of the person in the title of his article. How is that political motivated? What kind of rants do you see here, that you have no tolerance to? Cheers Bertilvidet 10:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should be named Atatürk, that's Mustafa Kemal's most common name, both within Turkey and abroad (see e.g. the two major English-language biographies, by Lord Kinross and Andrew Mango). ----Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the people articles on wikipedia must be under their full name. Metb82 22:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is neither policy nor practice. For a non-political example, see Ada Lovelace. Septentrionalis 23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it why people don't get it. Did those who vote "oppose" actually read and understand the article? Hardly. His normal name, "Mustafa Kemal" (that is first name, last name, not two first names) was extended with the title "Atatürk" to the final official name of "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" that went into history books. Only these three versions are valid to cover aspects of his life, and only the full version is appropriate to be used for the article. "Kemal Atatürk" is a stub, just like calling the current US-President "W. Bush". --Matthead 21:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL they dont even have to read the article matt, because these people love us(Turks) so much! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_13#Template:Turkic look here for the same group opposing in an other vote about Turks. They are our friendly! geographical neighbors and some sincere supports :) Metb82 00:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If it's so wrong, why does Britannica use "Kemal Ataturk"? —Khoikhoi 22:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Brittanica got it wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. -- Danny Yee 23:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
And Columbia? —Khoikhoi 00:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
And is there any reason that Wikipedia can't be more accurate than both? Is there any reason to repeat a MISTAKE?Kertenkelebek 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Also check Britannica again please!Kertenkelebek 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, Matthead, the "Kemal" in "Mustafa Kemal" is not, as you claim, a "last name", but—as the article that you indirectly accuse people of not having read explicitly states—an "additional name"; i.e. not quite a first name, perhaps, but certainly not a last name. —Saposcat 08:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't pretend to have ideas before you have enough knowledge about the subject topic! If you have no information about the topic AT ALL (this part goes to Matthead) at least read the subject article once. Even a 7-year-old reading the article can see and understand that "Kemal" in "Mustafa Kemal" is NOT a surname, but a part of his forename (given by his math teacher), so (this goes to all who oppose) that's why you can't split it from the half. Kertenkelebek 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE And while talking about politically motivated voters, strangely most (maybe all, because not all can be seen clearly) of the opposing voters are strangely GREEK(and they don't even bother to state the basis of their opposal; what a coincidence isn't it? (see: Hectorian, NikoSilver, TigranTheGreat) Kertenkelebek 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, lizard-butterfly, there's no call for that sort of statement, whether it be "right" or "wrong". Remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith. —Saposcat 21:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. As if such things matter, isn't it more likely that User:TigranTheGreat is Armenian, rather than "GREEK"? —Saposcat 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It's just one sentence, read it carefully: "Assume that others intend to follow the policies and guidelines of WP participation, UNLESS THERE IS CLEAR AND PRESENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.". Rechecking my previous NOTE, you'll see it presents CLEAR AND PRESENT EVIDENCE on the existence of politically motivated voters: Greek users opposing without even bothering to supporting their basis.
Kertenkelebek 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Your claim, "Greek users opposing without even bothering to supporting their basis", is all well and good, but please consider that said supporters did support their votes by means of the claim "per Bertilvidet"; i.e., they opposed for the same reasons stated by User:Bertilvidet.
P.S. Your statement, "[a]s if Greek or Armenian would differ from one another when it comes to being anti-Turkish" (now deleted), was not particularly fair, I think. But, to each his own. —Saposcat 21:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
My statement "As if Greek or Armenian would differ from one another when it comes to being anti-Turkish" did NOT mean that ALL Greeks and ALL Armenians are anti-Turkish, I tried to mean that both Greeks and Armenians COULD be equally anti-Turkish if they wish to be, it is a matter of preference of the person. I'm not going to make a debate on this, sorry for any inconvenience and any misunderstandings but I'm behind my word. Re-statement: "A Greek or an Armenian could be equally motivated to be anti-Turkish if they wish to be." Kertenkelebek 22:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sayın Kertenkelebek, isim değişikliğini gerçekleştirmek için muhtaç olduğunuz kudret damarlarınızdaki asil kanda mevcuttur. Cretanforever

I have never really understood this debate. MKA is his full name, and that is what the article should be named. --A.Garnet 11:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Infobox copied from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names):
Thank you. :NikoSilver: 12:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Google test using http://www.google.co.uk

  • about 200,000 English pages for "Kemal Ataturk" -"Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" -wikipedia
  • about 147,000 English pages for "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" -wikipedia
  • about 220,000 English pages for "Kemal Atatürk" -"Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" -wikipedia
  • about 147,000 English pages for "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" -wikipedia

Cross check that it works:

  • about 286,000 English pages for "Kemal Ataturk" -wikipedia
  • about 285,000 English pages for "Kemal Atatürk" -wikipedia
  • about 285,000 English pages for "Kemal Ataturk" "Kemal Atatürk" -wikipedia

Totals not smack on and there must be some indexing problem but indicates that "Kemal Ataturk" is more common than "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" on the net
Diacritic test:

  • about 177,000 English pages for "Kemal Ataturk" -"Kemal Atatürk" -wikipedia
  • about 81,900 English pages for -"Kemal Ataturk" "Kemal Atatürk" -wikipedia

Without the diacritic is more common on the net in English. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

atatürk -"kemal mustafa atatürk" -"mustafa atatürk" -"kemal atatürk": 1,580,000 pages ... --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Move war

Please stop the move war; this discussion should decide, not unilateral moves. Septentrionalis 23:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Move War???

What war? My move is not unilateral anymore, if you don't respect FULL and CORRECT information, RESPECT the decision and consensus of Wikipedians, and don't turn this into a war. Kertenkelebek 08:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus until this straw-poll is over (someone should specify a reasonable timeframe). The tally now is 7/10 (ha ha, rings any bell?) A proposal has to have at least 60% (while now it has 58.8%) to show clear consensus. Anyway, since I'm supposed to be one of those anti-Turk guys (according to Kertenkelebek) here, who don't justify their votes (like as if I should flood the page repeating what Bertilvidet said), here you go:
  • "Kemal Ataturk" -Mustafa -Kemal -wikipedia -.tr: 806 hits
  • "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" -"Kemal Ataturk" -Kemal -wikipedia -.tr: only 2 hits!
Evidently, plain "Kemal" is the most common English appellation. However, if we exclude it from both "Kemal Ataturk" and "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk", we end up with the result that "Kemal Ataturk" is some 400 times more common. I really don't understand why Wikipedia should choose to call someone with a name that only (some) Turks use. I also don't understand why we are making such a big deal about it, and why this can be considered an anti-Turk gesture! Please enlighten me. :NikoSilver: 09:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is normal that the shortest form of the name to be the most common one, the thing is that even people just typing "Kemal" should be reaching this article, no argument on that. Once again, I'm not arguing that all other names should be removed or deleted, I'm proposing that all relevant articles to be directed to the FULL and CORRECT name of this great person which is NOT a very difficult thing to do. I'm proposing that the article should bear the title with his FULL name and MOST COMMON name should be redirected to that so that people can LEARN THE CORRECT INFORMATION. IT IS NOT A NAME ONLY ALL TURKS CALL HIM; IT HIS HIS NAME THAT EVERYBODY DOES CALL HIM. It is his FULL name given in the article itself, is it so hard to understand?

And by the way Nikko, if you don't consider 58.8% majority as a consensus and yet wait for a 1.2% then I can't assume good faith of yours anymore.

Why do you have to be so aggressive? And who decides when the straw-poll ends? Also, please, don't SHOUT. If you admittedly think that "Kemal Ataturk" is more common, then this is how it should be called. Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Now, you still haven't answered my question: "I also don't understand why we are making such a big deal about it, and why this can be considered an anti-Turk gesture! Please enlighten me." :NikoSilver: 11:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, Niko, I'm afraid I don't quite follow your Google arithmetics. Of course, every page that contains "M.K.A." also contains "K.A." etc., so a search for '"M.K.A." -"K.A."' should rightfully return zero anyway. Shouldn't it? I calculate as follows:
  • (A) "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk": 2,110,000 Gh
  • (B) "Kemal Ataturk": 2,620,000 Gh
  • Since every member of (A) evidently is also a member of (B), the number of pages that contain only "K.A." should be 2,620,000 - 2,110,000 = 510,000. Thus, "M.K.A." may be about four times more frequent than "K.A." alone. The results are similar if I exclude "-site:.tr". And mark that the results for "K.A." alone still include tokens of abbreviated "M. Kemal Atatürk", or tokens where authors may have felt "K.A." was a complex last name, so referring to just "K.A." would be like referring to simply "Bush" or "Clinton" - okay in running text, but still not the form you'd choose in an encyclopedia entry. - I must admit, though, that the figures for "M.K.A." drop considerably if I restrict to "site:.edu" or "site:.uk". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, Google lets you request hits for MKA -KA. The result shows the exact arithmetic you did. I also removed -K. So I did BOTH searches like this:
+Option -Other options
...and google returns only those articles that include the full term (MKA), and atthe same time do not include KA alone. In other words, all articles that only call him MKA. I still can't understand why I must tolerate "Anti-Turk" characterizations for something as silly as that. Maybe Kertenkelebek can tell us why he wants "Mustafa" so desperately in the name, while for some nationalistic(?) reason Greeks shouldn't want it? :NikoSilver: 11:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what exactly you're doing there, Niko, but I have the strong impression that the '-"multi-word phrase"' syntax in Google really doesn't return 'anything' reliable. Especially if in a '+"phrase1" -"phrase2"' search phrase1 or phrase2 are contained within each other. When I do +KA -MKA, then among the first few pages that come up are in fact several that do contain MKA. And if I do +MKA -KA, although by rights the result should be zero, I get only slightly fewer results than for +MKA alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, I just read the hidden code in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Examples: 


==Examples==
Examples of common names that Wikipedia uses instead of a more elaborate, more formal
or more scientifically precise version include:
*[[Bill Clinton]] (not [[William Jefferson Clinton]])
*[[George W. Bush]] (not [[George Walker Bush]])
*[[Tony Blair]] (not [[Anthony Charles Lynton Blair]])
*[[Julius Caesar]] (not [[Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus]])
*[[Pelé]] (not [[Edson Arantes do Nascimento]])
*[[Occam's Razor]] (not [[Ockham's Razor]])
<!-- A contested example. I'd like to see it go unless we make
a point of including other contested examples. -->
*[[Venus de Milo]] (not [[Aphrodite of Melos]])
*[[Dog]] (not [[Canis lupus familiaris]]) 
*[[Guinea pig]] (not [[Cavia]])
*[[Sea cucumber]] (not [[Holothurian]])
<!-- This could go as far as I'm concerned though if we have three modern
politicians we might as well have three animals too. -->
<!--*[[Burping]] (not [[eructation]])> 
//I see no reason to remove this one - I do!-->

:NikoSilver: 11:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Those examples are out of date. Currently, Bill Clinton redirects to William Jefferson Clinton, Tony Blair redirects to Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, and George W Bush redirects to George Walker Bush. The contrast between scientific and common names in taxonomy is not relevant. If people use "Kemal Ataturk" then that should similarly redirect to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. -- Danny Yee 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Every single one of those examples is incorrect. siafu 03:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right. But they were all the other way around last night. Either that or I was hallucinating... That's really strange. -- Danny Yee 05:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Fut.Perf. and Google: Whatever. Google tests aside, do we really argue here logically if "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" is more common to uninformed readers than "Kemal Ataturk" alone? :NikoSilver: 12:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I would object to making specifically uninformed readers the norm here. Uninformed readers can use the redirects and be happy. Informed readers may well prefer MKA over KA. And the relative advantage in commonness of "Julius Caesar" over "Gaius Iulius Caesar" (among well-informed writers) is far greater than any supposed advantage of "KA" over "MKA" - if there is any such advantage at all, which I doubt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
But you yourself said "I must admit, though, that the figures for "M.K.A." drop considerably if I restrict to "site:.edu" or "site:.uk"." Ergo? :NikoSilver: 12:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I now count 14:7 votes, which makes it a clean 2/3 majority - more than enough for a minor issue like this. I'd say, unless someone strongly feels that the full MKA form is not only unncessesary but actually harmful, we should move towards closure of this poll rather soon. Shall we give it another few hours until midnight UTC? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, although I had a-week-since-started in mind (16+7=June 23rd). Can you please explain why I would object to adding "Mustafa" if I was anti-Turk? What exactly would be Greece's benefit from that? I still sincerely believe that "Kemal Ataturk" is much more common. You can name it "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of Ali Rıza and Zübeyde Hanım" if you so wish. The more difficult it is for readers to locate the article name, the greater the benefit (a nationalist Greek would think)! :NikoSilver: 13:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all I apologize from all who might felt offended with my UPPERCASE quotes, it was never my intention to shout or insult anyone, I wrote the key aspects of my comments in uppercase to attract more attention, just because I can't underline them here. What I call shouting is writing all the comment in uppercase which I have never done; nevertheless I'll pay more attention to that from now on, not to unintentionally offend anyone. Once again let me explain more clearly: He has been referred to as different names throughout history (in chronological order):

  • Mustafa (infancy)
  • Mustafa Kemal or Kemal (after high school)
  • Kemal Paşa or Mustafa Kemal Paşa (after having general's rank at Gelibolu)
  • Gazi or Gazi Paşa or Gazi Mustafa Kemal or Gazi Mustafa Kemal Paşa (after Turkish War of Independence)
  • Atatürk or Mustafa Kemal Atatürk or Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (after surname legislation in Turkey.)

Preferably among these referrals one can pick the most common one ("Atatürk") or the most accurate one ("Mustafa Kemal Atatürk") as the title of the article or unpreferably (yet still correctly) any of the mentioned names above. But any other combination of his names would be a wrong referral more than being inaccurate. So, please, stop insisting on a mistake! PS:

  • Question:I also don't understand why we are making such a big deal about it, and why this can be considered an anti-Turk gesture?
  • Answer:Because it is not a controversial topic to rename an article, this is a free encylopedia and given the justifications and within some basic rules anyone can edit anything as he/she feels neccessary. But some people are insisting on making a big deal about it and trying to make the situation "controversial" by opposing just to oppose (without even bothering to write their own reasons for opposal). They don't care about what others say, they don't listen they just oppose. There's no good faith in continuously stopping someone from making an edit; who already accepted to do all the work neccessary not to leave anything missing or messy behind. Those are the ones making a big deal of it, those are the ones undoing my edits without showing the patience for me to finish my work and strangely almost all of those are Greeks. Enough? Kertenkelebek 13:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. Enough. I understand how you may feel, but please keep in mind that not all people are crazy here. Probably your tone was not appreciated to the extent that users would object to just anything you proposed (see Bert's comment after removing vote). This is wrong, maybe more wrong than your tone, so I apologise on behalf of them (if there are any). However, next time you face what you sense as irrational opposition, better check if it was you that attracted it in the first place. My consideration was in terms of being more common as an English appellation. There is no cabal against you, or Turkey, or... Kemal, and I'll be happy to protect the version that will gain majority in votes. And if anybody says that the article is controversial because of a "Mustafa" in the name, I'll be the first to LMTO! So, peace? :NikoSilver: 14:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Unlike William Jefferson Clinton, or the others quoted above, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is not his formal name, but his commonly used name. Kemal Ataturk has just become a shorthand. A quick look on Encarta shows that MKA is a commonly used name. --A.Garnet 14:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In any event, the main article is William Jefferson Clinton, with Bill Clinton as a redirect to that. -- Danny Yee 02:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
No it's not. siafu 03:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, George W. Bush are all names preferred and used by the owner of the names themselves, therefore they're the most common names (actually most of the people don't even know about their real names). However as indicated before "Kemal Atatürk" alone is a missing thus wrong definition for Atatürk's name, just like referring to Bush as "Walker Bush". Peace. Kertenkelebek 07:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed my vote for now. If you provide a source that Kemal himself preferred any (combination) of these names, I will vote support for that option. :-) :NikoSilver: 12:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not they are preferred by the person whose name it was is not the most important piece here. Please reaed the guideline, and address your argument to deal with that. siafu 13:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right Siafu. As I have posted numerous times above, the guideline says that the most frequently used name should be the title. I just thought of 3 things:

  • Had it been preferred, it would definitely be more frequent than if it hadn't
  • The whole naming conflict situation here is -excuse me- bollocks, so it doesn't matter anyway. Neither Turks, nor anti-Turks (nationalists or not) will benefit from one name or the other. All redirects will exist anyway.
  • There can't possibly be any sources to support one self-identification more than the other.

Hope that answers it for you, and wish we get done with this sooner, one way or the other. :NikoSilver: 14:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

he was a murderer

Another example of a perverted POV of a fanatic anti-Turkish Greek; above quote is posted by (check [2] with the IP address below):

IP Address: 83.235.189.136 Country (Full): Greece Region: Attiki City: Athens ISP: Otenet

It is intentionally not removed for display and proof purposes of my previous quotes. Kertenkelebek 11:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that obviously there are many Greeks who criticise such POVs and would even add to your comment, if its aim was not to generalise this behavior to the whole of the Greek (wiki) population. I am one of those who certainly discourage such inflammatory edits from fellow Greeks. For the record, I think that most political leaders (Turk, or Greek or whatever) of that time, were indeed voluntary or involuntary murderers with today's standards. They weren't murderers (or they were justified murderers) with the standards of their time. Kemal was a very wise man and I almost envy Turks for having him! Regardless if he was forced by the circumstances to be a-sort-of-what-you'd-call-today-a-murderer, you must be proud (and I know you are)! :NikoSilver: 12:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I refuse get into more discussion to anyone so ignorant and so small minded to call Atatürk a murderer. That's of course the twisted POV of the bearer but calling a man murderer, (even with sugar coated words) whose greatest words of wisdom are: "Peace in nation, peace in the world" is out of bounds of logic and clearly either an intentional insult or a result of ignorancy combined with lack of wisdom. It may be one's narrow minded vision to collect every single leader of the time under the same adjective murderer but Atatürk is no one to be resembled or even be compared to anyone else in the entire timeline. This is not a debate, conversation is over.  Kertenkel ebek (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Refuse it or not, the fact is that he was the leader of Turks. Where I come from, a leader, is responsible even for the actions of his subortinates (hence my "unwillingly" above) because:

  • He could either not control all of them effectively
  • Or he made a poor selection of some of them
  • Or he ordered them to do so.

Personally I don't think that it is option #3. One of the results however is quoted in Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)#The Stalemate and the Turkish Strategic Offensive:

Having breached the Greek defences, the Turks advanced very rapidly to Smyrna (İzmir), which they captured after the withdrawal of the Greek troops. During the confusion and anarchy that followed, a great proportion of the city was set ablaze, and the properties of the Greeks were pillaged. A massacre of a significant part of the Christian population (including the lynching and brutal murder of the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Smyrna) by the Turkish Army occurred during the days remembered by the Greeks as "the Catastrophe of Smyrna". However, the majority of the Greeks managed to seek refuge on Greek and Allied ships at the harbor of Izmir and other coastal towns.

The paragraphs that follow specify that it is highly disputed that it could have been the Greek forces who burned (themselves?) and that Kemal issued an order (after) that would punish every vandalising Turk, which was not enforced!

There are other examples too, as there are examples for many out of hand situations in most peoples history for most leaders of most sides during war. If things like that happened today, Kemal would probably be in Hague with charges for war crimes, despite the fact that he himself may have not endorsed them. However, hard times, required hard solutions, and those times were indeed hard for all of us. Please respect my POV, which is also the POV that prevails in WP articles, and stop using personal attacks, especially as I am very polite and very agreeable with you. :NikoSilver: 11:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough! There's no difference between calling all greek mothers whores along other Greeks sons of bitches and calling the Father of Turks a murderer. There can be no justification to such an insult. Actually there is more to say about greek mothers but sorry for not being equally uncivilized as these bunch of Slavs. The point of discussion here is to move this article not to debate on the personality of greatest man of the 20th century upon biased fand falsified claims. If you are to call someone murderer, call entire ancestry of greeks murderers, call them savages. Those greeks invaded our homeland, raped Turkish women, killed everything on their way even infants and pregnant women whlie invading as well as while fleeing from the might of Turkish soldiers rightfully defending their homeland in the lead of Atatürk, and now HE is the murderer; is it so? Of course it is teached like this to all greeks;the fact is that they're all brainwashed with false history from the infancy. They're not taught the brutalities they've caused during the invasion of Anatolia, they're not taught the inhumanities they've committed on the Turkish Cypriots before 1974, they were not taught that Alexander who was actually a Macedonian (not greek) as well as being homosexual, they were not taught the destruction they've made on the Ottoman monuments in greece, they're not taught that the captured general of greek invading forces, Trikopis, was treated like a guest by Atatürk rather than an animal until he returned back to greece. If any one thinks that Atatürk was a murderer my POV is that he/she is a complete idiot. What he did was to free Anatolia from warmongering savages came to Anatlia to destroy the Turkish nation. Go spread your poisoned greek propaganda elsewhere. Kertenkelebek(talk) 13:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words of wisdom. It was the Turkish inhabited metropolis' that were pillaged, burnt, ethnic-cleansed and scorched by Greeks! I will seek forgiveness for my sinful soul in the hands of Kemal Almighty when I die. I am sorry for insulting your religious beliefs! (PS: My mother is still a virgin too!) :NikoSilver: 13:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You are ranting here but you do make sore points that need adressing.
  • "Those greeks invaded our homeland, raped Turkish women, killed everything on their way even infants and pregnant women whlie invading as well as while fleeing from the might of Turkish soldiers rightfully defending their homeland in the lead of Atatürk, and now HE is the murderer". Remember that according to the Megali Idea your homeland was a Greek homeland and Turks a relatively recent conqueror. Regardless of Anatolia having partly Turkish populations since at least the 11th century! You are probably right on the rapes, particularly during the retreat since the Hellenic Army forces were more or less reduced to a disorganized pack with military discipline being a memory. Killings of civilians were not out of the question either. However what do you mean "killed everything on their way". If this was the case any Greek-held territorry would have no Turkish population to be liberated by Kemal. They would have already been deceased!
  • "They're not taught the brutalities they've caused during the invasion of Anatolia". If you mean school history you are 100% right. Would not fit with having a "heroic" version of Greek history. Greeks alternatively being the "sole resistance" to tyranny and "liberators" of "our" lands from an assortment of conquerors. Not being the tyrants and conquerors ourselves in several cases. However more serious historians tend to adress the atrocities of both sides and so does a popular genre of Greek literature which focuses on the lives of Anatolian Greeks from late 19th century to 1923.

Books like "Matomena Homata" (Bloody Grounds) make a point of pointing an accusing finger at both sides and how both people managed to annihilate each other while blinded by their "patriotic" ideologies.

  • "they're not taught the inhumanities they've committed on the Turkish Cypriots before 1974". Or anything else about the history of Cyprus but a few minor glimpses when a change of hands occurs. However you find references to "bloody incidents" by extremists of both sides in the "History of the Greek Nation" vol. 16 and Nikos Sampson is singled out as a prime instigator of such "events".
  • "they were not taught that Alexander who was actually a Macedonian (not greek) as well as being homosexual". Actually we were taught that Macedonians argued they were Greeks and the view was supported by figures such as Herodotus and Isocrates. Their view as barbarians and non-Greeks originates from such fervant political opponents as Demosthenes. Naturally bias was evident in the works of both sides. References to the homosexuality or bisexuality of Alexander can be found in many modern Greek resources. Unfortunately the majority of the Greek public has never heard of them and many legitimate historians dismiss the notion of a heroe not being straight as an arrow. Cultural bias against homosexuality.
  • "they were not taught the destruction they've made on the Ottoman monuments in greece". Again not in school history or resources by the official Greek state. But other historical researches are not bound by this bias. For example "Haunted Balkans" by George Stamkos contains entire chapters to efforts since of "clensing our history" by destroying any monument with no Greek and Orthodox legacy. Destructions of Muslim mosques and graveyards, monuments left by centuries of prevailance of Bogomilism in areas of Macedonia and Thrace, Roman Catholic forts and churches, etc.
  • "they're not taught that the captured general of greek invading forces, Trikopis, was treated like a guest by Atatürk rather than an animal until he returned back to greece." That would be Nikolaos Trikoupis (1867 - 1959) who is mentioned captured by Turkish forces on 20 August, 1922. He is not much of a celebrity nowadays but you are right, he was returned more or less safe. He was discharged after his return, recalled to duty in 1927 as an antistrategos and even served as the chief administrator of both Attica and Boeotia Prefecture from 1928 to 1930. User:Dimadick

Roots of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Father Side:

Family of Ali Rıza Efendi, who is father of "Mustafa Kemal", were Kocacık (Kocahamza) Yörüks who were settled down to "Manastır Province" from "Aydın".

Ali Rıza Efendi was born in 1839 at Manastır's "Kocacık sub-district" where was dependent to "Debre-i Bala sanjak". The family had flee to Selanik later. Father of Ali Rıza Efendi was "Kızıl Hafız Ahmet Efendi" who was a primary school teacher and his uncle was "Kızıl Hafız Mehmet Efendi". Nickname of "Kızıl" and it was called "Kocacık" where they were settled down show that his roots from "Kızıl - Oghuz Turkmens" who were one of the most important Turkish tribes about Turkization of Anatolia. And only aristocrat Turks (princes, imams, high bureaucrats, high educated ones, powerfull ones, who had slaves and so on) had that "Efendi" title in Ottoman Empire. So father of Atatürk came from a noble Turkish family.


Mother Side:

Family of Zübeyde Hanım who is mother of "Mustafa Kemal" were Turkmens who had settled down in "Sarıgöl (Balkans)" from "Taşkale town" where was dependent to "Karaman (Anatolia) province" after collapsaded of "Karaman Principality". There was - Sarıgöl - a Turkish inhabitting where was founded after the Ottoman Empire conquered the "Macedonia" and "Thessaly". "Sarıgöl sub-district", where was at the west of "Vodina sanjak", were 16 Turkish villages which were compeletly existed by Turkmens. Zübeyde Hanım's father "Fethullah Ağa", who was from "Sofu - Zade" family, had flee from "Sarıgöl" to "Lanzaka" where was near of Selanik and purchased a farm there at the top of 1800's. Zübeyde Hanım was born in here in 1857. Zübeyde Hanım's grandfather "Feyzullah Efendi's" big uncle had gone back to Konya again and joined to "Mevlevi Denomination". Family name of Zübeyde Hanım's family were saved as "Konyarlar" to Ottoman municipality and they were called with that name becasue they were from "Konya". One of the farms of Atatürk was "Sarıtay" farm in "Kızıllar" village where is 41 km far away from "Taşkale" where the family of Atatürk's mother emigrated.

That's to say he was neither Jewish nor Albanian as the Greeks claim. Regards. Doluca 19:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A person is what him/herself self-identifies to be. Fortunately, our brains don't have a ROM with pre-programmed ethnicities according to our geneaology. People are raised to be Greeks, Albanians, Jews, Americans or Turks. I think there is no doubt whatsoever about Kemal in that sense. Anything else is redundant, unless ofcourse you mean that Jewish or Albanian genes are inferior, so a man as wise as Kemal is in danger of belonging to some sort of lesser people! :NikoSilver: 22:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Would you mind wikifying some of the information as an "ancestry" or "family" subsection of the article? User:Dimadick

Nikosilver, do not take the disscussion to another path. I've just written the real roots of him against the effort of changing history of greeks and for enlighten the people. Could you please show me where I mean "Jewish or Albanian genes are inferior"?! YOU greeks think so as we can see from massacres of Jews and Albanians (along with Turks) in Peloponessia by Greeks. --Doluca 20:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, now. Let's remain civil. —Khoikhoi 20:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've personally beheaded lots of them. Can you please stop this complete lack of WP:AGF in whatever a Greek says? Didn't you understand that my comment was actually supporting? Add your info in the article, but keep in mind it doesn't matter if his genes were Sumerian/Chinese because he was raised to be a Turk and he felt like one. End of story. :NikoSilver: 20:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Add it or not, I don't mind. I'm writng the truth. That's all what I do. --Doluca 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Suit yourself. I'd add it as a plus if there were claims otherwise. And it is a much better argument than genes-talk which is largely considered a pseudoscience.:NikoSilver: 21:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

bias

this article is too glorifying of attaturk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rm uk (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 September 2006.

The article tries to convey Atatürk's life and deeds and I think that it is still only a quarter of what it should be in terms of length and quality. I urge you to explain how this article differs from, say, the articles of Winston Churchill, Otto von Bismarck, or George Washington, in what you call "glorifying". You should also present solid cases from the article, instead of putting here an unsigned, vague comment for the article as a whole. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no mention of any criticisms of Ataturk. I know many members of the Greek-American community were outraged when Antonio Banderas was going to portray Ataturk in a film about his life, so he certainly isn't universally supported. -- Augustgrahl 16:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you should mind using the word "support". The most important point to realize here is that this is not a support / oppose page and that Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia. I personally am against dividing people into ideological camps and assuming them to hold certain views solely based on their ethnicity. But if we were to think like you've stated, there are numerous wikipedians of Greek ethnicity actively working on the English Wikipedia, and if there were widespread criticisms of Atatürk, by them, like you hinted at (you actually did not present an instance of criticism and say what is criticisized, but just stated your observation that criticisms exist) these would have been certainly included in the article, standing right here since August 2002. This is the way Wikipedia works. Please let me stress again that I regret mentioning the name of the Greek nation in an hypothetical discussion of bias.
I do want this article to be complete and it certainly should include every notable aspect within its scope. The article is open to the whole world to edit in a way complying with the ethics of Wikipedia, so please do not worry. I can of course understand if one picks a certain part of the article and opens a discussion about any bias that might be present in it on the talk page, or states any obvious and widely recognized issue as overlooked in the article. But I do not understand the motive behind complaining on the talk page for not finding enough criticism on an encyclopedic biography article, without talking about what these missing criticisms are. Generally, people do directly modify the article to improve it the way they see fit, and the issue is brought to the talk page only if there are any serious objections from other editors. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 18:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


I was merely suggesting why somebody would see the article as being glorifying of Ataturk. I'm not in any way an expert on Ataturk, so I can't make a point by point argument about what criticism should be added to the article. -- Augustgrahl 20:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Lord Kinross, turkophile thogh NOT a Armenian genocide denier

Lord Kinross, the notorious turkophile, eminent biographer of Kemal Mustafa Atatürk did not deny the Armenian Genocide. ---> The British failure at Gallipolli gave a breathing-space to the Young Turk triumvirate, leaving it free to pursue, without external interference, a premeditated internal policy for the final elimination of the Armenian race. Kinross The Ottoman Empire London, 2003, p. 614Apocolocynthosis 18:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How exactly does it refer to Ataturk? Wouldn't the triumvirate be the Three Pashas? -- Augustgrahl 19:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The correct question is: How does this relate to the article at hand and what kind of a change do you propose to be done with the article, in light of the citation you provided? This talk page is not a forum about Atatürk or Turkish / Armenian history, and the sole purpose for its existence is to improve the contents of the article. Also see Help:Talk page. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
INDRA: Atatürks fierce and successfull resistance at the Dardanelles gave a momentary psychological lift to the Turkish people. (Kinross: Atatürk. The rebirth of a nation; p. 96). ----> NEXT STEP---> The British failure at Gallipolli gave a breathing-space to the Young Turk triumvirate, leaving it free to pursue, without external interference, a premeditated internal policy for the final elimination of the Armenian race. Kinross The Ottoman Empire London, 2003, p. 614 There is a link between both historic events.Apocolocynthosis 17:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems dubious to imply that the Turks defended Gallipoli in order to be able to successfully commit a genocide. I think defending their country is a more likely rationale. -- Augustgrahl 18:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Where do I imply that? Kinross writes that Atatürk's victory at the Dardannelles gave a breathing-space to the Young Turks to pursue their genocidal policy. He made it possible but I do not think it was Atatürk's intention (causa finalis). He surely defended his country. It is so easy to understand. --Apocolocynthosis 09:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
By the same token you could argue that Russians and the western powers (for that matter) were indirectly responsible for the massacres of armenians as they encouraged them and then turned a blind eye, or that Neville Chamberlain through his policy of appeasement was responsible for the death of more than 60 million souls. Very silly reasoning indeed lutherian 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Not at all! It didn't necessarily follow to exterminate the Armenians but was a logical step. A next step, further stage isn't necessarrily causa finalis. Atatürk indirectly enabled the pursuit of genocidal young turkish policy.... Kinross I (Atatürk footnote) + Kinrosss II (Ottoman Empire footnote) --> nothing but logical as shown above.
One must be blind not to see how these facts are connected. Threat of defeat, danger and finally a welcome solution to whipe out all Christians of Turkey! - Hmm, as far as I know Chamberlain was not German. But Atatürk was on fighting on the same Turkish front as the Young Turks.... the analogy does not work in your example. And have a look at this page to see the continuity of young Turks and Kemalists: le recyclage des jeune-turcs[[3]] Apocolocynthosis 06:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK Ataturk was in no way affiliated with the YT movement, and to provide you a more accurate analogy, its like blaming the Weimar republic for WW2. In any case I dont see what your point is??? So what if Ataturk's victory boosted the moral of the YT movement??? You seem keen to sully Ataturks image in any way possible, but this is just plain ridiculous!!! lutherian 10:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Please, do not feed the troll
Well, I do not understand your chronological analogies. If the Young Turk movement corresponds to the Weimar Republic how does Atatürk equivalate the NAZI era? He was not THAT evil!
PS. What does AFAIK mean?
Apocolocynthosis 12:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
uhhh, I was under the impression that your point was that Ataturk's victory gave the YT a boost of morale and beefed up their nationalistic designs leading to the armenian massacres. Well, using the same logic the Weimar republic, being a puppet regime set up by the victors gave Hitler an opportunity to beat up on them and help build on his popularity. If Ataturk had failed, Turkey would be totally different today just like if the Weimar republic had been more credible, maybe Hitler would have never come to power. Do you understand the analogy now? And what exactly do you mean when you say that Ataturk was not that evil? What exaclty was evil about him? That he wanted to defend his nation from being annihilated by a group of racist thugs? Are you kidding me? lutherian 15:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Your analogies do not convince me, yet. - Hmm, as you mix up completely different ways of thought and belief like Calvin and Luther I understand your so-called (=sözde) analogies a little bit better now.
May I add that Mustafa Kemal joined the YT party in 1907? He didn't become a party boss. But to say Ataturk was in no way affiliated with the YT movement is a mere lie
I see that you are in the business of making things up! Where exactly did I say that it was a fact that he he was in no way affiliated with the YT movement? From my sentance, its clear that it is a supposition, not a fact so please do your homework before jumping to conclusions! lutherian 05:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Apocolocynthosis: You wrote what you wrote and now you deny that out of a suden? Well, done my lutherian specialist in denialism, revisionism, cognitive dissonance. :-)

lutherian: AFAIK Ataturk was in no way affiliated with the YT movement, and to provide you a more accurate analogy, its like blaming the Weimar republic for WW2. In any case I dont see what your point is??? So what if Ataturk's victory boosted the moral of the YT movement??? You seem keen to sully Ataturks image in any way possible, but this is just plain ridiculous!!! lutherian 10:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC) That's exactly what you wrote and forgot. Bravo. Da Capo! --Apocolocynthosis 07:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
WTF are you saying acropolis? Have you been skipping on your meds again? lutherian 16:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Lay off the personal attacks, Lutherian. It doesn't serve anything. siafu 17:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
What does AFAIK Ataturk mean exactly?

As Far As I Know, it is a fair question. Bertilvidet 06:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


But surely I like Kinross' thoughts! Apocolocynthosis 21:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I see this discussion has arrived at the reductio ad Hitlerum, and I'd like to point out that, any commentary on Ataturk aside, this analogy is ridiculous. I suggest any who believe in this version of German history spend a bit more time studying the Weimar Republic. siafu 17:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Come again? lutherian 18:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

References

Please, do not feed the troll

Check out Sabbateans. Found this stuff there:

1.WHEN KEMAL ATATURK RECITED SHEMA YISRAEL "It's My Secret Prayer, Too," He Confessed. FORWARD, A Progressive Jewish Newspaper published in New York. January 28, 1994

2.Satanic Voices, Ancient and Modern A book a British convert to Islam, David Musa Pidcock on the Sabbateans.



WP:Civil

??no wonder genocide denial is a cultivated hobby among turkish people ?? What kind of an edit summary is this User:Apocolocynthosis?? Please go read WP:CIVIL and refrain from engaging in such racist attacks.. Baristarim 09:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Lutherian wrote that Ataturk was in no way affiliatet with the Young Turk movement. Against all evidence! - That equals denial!Apocolocynthosis 14:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk/Archive_4&oldid=1140440851"