Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Genocide Lies

I will like to describe you the historical facts on so called Pontic Genocide, which has been created by greeks, not just that they teach and educate their kids the wrong history about themselves.

During the wars of Independence, Greek forces occupy Anatolia, first Izmir and then till to Kutahya which is in the Central Anatolia and during these occupations, they massacre turkish people and burn down villages on their way.

These massacres go beyond that the ally forces warn greeks in the convention to stop killing innocent civilians.

Unfortunately, there has not been an expert who would concern with the historical analyse of the Greeks in Pontus and the other side of the truth.

The arguments of the Pontus nationalists about what Pontus nation experienced between 1915 and 1924 do not present a truth which is no more than poor, swerve and decorated with lies.

When it is looked at theoretical point of view, the definition of revolution gets a real content only when an ethnic group that lives on a big land represents majority of the population. The situation that concerns us, however, the Greek population that lives in three provinces of Pontus is a minority which is important, small or completely unimportant.

Professor of Athena University Sotiriadis is the person who provided the statistics of 1912. Venezuela Government has used this data in various international negotiations to support their national aims.

In Trabzon providence Greeks constituted %25.9 of the population. That meant that Turkish population was 951.866 whereas Greek population was 353.533.

In Kastamonu providence, Greeks who represented %2.5 of the total population constituted an ethnic group which is unimportant in number and finally in Sivas providence the Greeks were %8.9 of the population.

Greek nationalists backed by British government tried to dominate Anatolia which is an occupation of Greek minority on Turkish majority.

After Ataturk has win the battle of Sakarya, the army lead by greek commders e.g. Papulas and Dusmanis has burnt down Izmir even, see The Great fire on izmir..

As greeks occupy Izmir, the first thing they did was to walk on the turkish flag..

But see what Ataturk said when he got Izmir back from greeks. Ataturk said "A flag represents a whole nation and can not be walked upon, this is a big shame to people of that nation"

Ataturk has been nominated by Venizelos Nobel Peace Prize on 1933

Ataturk and his vision can be described with his own words "Peace at home , Peace in the world—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogansolen (talk • contribs)

Quite a biased article containing many scholarly unsupportable positons (ie your stance on the Smyrna fire alone shows you to hold unaccepted minority Turkish biased position) - so I would suggest that everyone consider your input and suggestions with the degree of seriousness that they deserve - not much. I won't be one to apologize for the Greeks behavior - however there were mitigating factors - but I don't think they need to be discussed here. And of course while introducing and then denyiong the genocide/mass killings of Pontic Greeks you provide nothing to actually counter the assertion. In general your typically ovely simplisitc explanations and meaningless presentaion of numbers and percentages has no bearing on reality on the ground and provides no insite or understanding of events during this time and in this place. You need to quit relying on poster board level (so-called) "fact: sheets that do nothing it seems but muddle your brain and actually read a few (unbiased) history books of this period. pft --THOTH 17:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A few comments about the above edit by anon: u presented turkish statistics about Pontus... The Greek statistics do not show the same figures. in addition, u said that meant that Turkish population was 951.866... who told u that the rest were all turks? how about the Armenians, the Laz, the Georgians, Circassians, etc? also, do not forget the 100s of thousands of Greek muslims. The turkish flag had remained in Smyrna, flying, in the top of the buildings, so, do not say that the Greeks disrespected symbols. The Fire of Izmir occured immediately when the Turks entered the city, and when the Greek army had, not only lost the war, but already left... So, a reasonable, reader can guess who started it... Venizelos nominated Ataturk for the Nobel Prize, in an attempt to heal the wounds of the past and to preserve the recognised Greek minority that remained in Turkey. btw, i definately doubt if he would have done the same after the Istanbul pogrom... (or, alternatively, Venizelos knew that Ataturk would never had won the prize, so a nomination would not harm anyone...). as for the "Peace at home , Peace in the world" quote (which i see being used extensively in Turkey and by the Turks everywhere), actions speak on their own: Ataturk brought peace nowhere... neither "at home" (Kurdish issue, Istanbul pogrom, etc), nor on earth... btw, Bush had also said in a quote that "he wants to liberate and bring stability and peace in Iraq"... does anyone believe him now? Hectorian 18:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your ideas are really pro-Greek. As a Turkish extremist even I don't say such sided opinions here. Things you say are views not facts so they don't have a place in an academic writing since you are not an objective expert on the issue. By the way would you be happy if Ataturk ordered his army to re-conquer western thrace and northern side of Iraq since they were in the Misak-ı Milli(The National Borders)? In "my opinion" this is an evidence to say he was a peace-keeping leader. Deliogul 12:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on genocide

Users are invited here to post their votes and oppinions to delete or keep the Opinions on genocide section in article.Must^TC 18:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

See m:Voting is evil. Khoikhoi 18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think voting is a good idea for this situation, neither is there any policy to enforce the outcome of a possible voting now and in the future. Atilim Gunes Baydin 18:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is that I personally do not want this section to be deleted, or kept as it is. I think Atatürk's opinions about the genocide and Young Turks are quite remarkable, if there are verifyable credible sources backing these up, and these should be included in the article. But I think any mention of Atatürk as one of the perpetrators of the genocide is wrong. I again want to point out that the main definition of the events place these to a period of World War I between 1915 - 1918, before Atatürk's rise to power, the Turkish War of Independence, and the foundation of Turkey. Also of utmost importance to me is that any mention of Atatürk's involvement in these events is nowhere to be found in the Armenian Genocide article. I largely agree with THOTH's comments about Atatürk's non-involvement in the main events, excluding the issue he calls "the final elimination of Armenians" during early Republic. I think that part could also be mentioned in the article with a neutral language, provided credible sources are found. The issue here is more complex than counting numbers on keep / delete camps. Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, first find evidence then build a thesis and finally offer your final paragraph to us. We can discuss it more deeply here. I think the section must be deleted until you show us a complete academic writing. With respect, Deliogul 23:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I kinda concur that voting is not the solution, since there is a much larger argument at stake. However, I am of the opinion that this section should be deleted and rewritten (reformed whatever) until some more credible and academic stuff is brought from approximately thousands of books written by impartial biographers and historians about Ataturk, as deliogul said. And please remember that this talk page is about improvements to this article, not to other articles, as such any importation of arguments going on at other talk pages should be avoided. Baristarim 04:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete

1. Delete Has ANYONE noticed that armainain genocide.com says ONE sentance about him being involved in the armainian genocide, WITHOUT ANY proof! If I'm not mistaken, he was at he was at Gallipoli at the time, how could he have been involved with it?

Have you ever thought that armenian genocide.com MIGHT be biased? At least Ataturk.com Gives evidence to back up it's claims. Armanalp 19:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

According to most sources the genocides were organized primarily by the Turkish nationalists. The young Turks participated at a much smaller degree, but they did participate. Whether it was Kemal or his generals is irrelevant. Miskin 00:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Whow whow... What are we talking about here? Doesn't anybody bother to read the talkheaders on top of the pages any more? This talk page is about the improvements that could be made to this article, not some other article. And no, Ataturk's (non-)participation is extremely relevant to this article since this is his bio. Both sides, please take the arguments about the AG to the relevant pages. And don't be complaining about vicious cycles, "he started it", "oh no, he did". Miskin, as a sign of good faith, I really would like you to read my posts and notes above under A. Garnet's suggestion. Please let's not jump into this as if it is some kinda nationalistic battleground. And no, I am sorry to say this, but neither armeniangenocide.org or ataturk.org can be seriously considered as "impartial". I have read both sites, I am not taking a particular position about their content, but considering that there have been thousand of books written about the life and reforms of Ataturk, many by completely impartial biographers, I think we can do better. That's the whole point, find some good academic sources, and don't forget about what I said about the French Wiki: This article has FA status in French, and there is no mention of the Armenian Genocide anywhere in the article. It is common knowledge that the French like to give it to the Turks "rough" these days, so if they were satisfied with the article's version, that should be good enough for us too. Particularly since there more Armenians living in France than Turks, so don't be claiming a "Turkish lobby" in the French wiki I don't understand why this weird discussion is taking so long. A. Garnet's suggestion was pretty good, and instead of bickering over who did what, all the truly interested parties in this article should put forward ideas on how to reform existing paragraphs to include more "criticism", since that "je ne sais quoi" seems to be missing from them apparently. Baristarim 04:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To Armanalp: read the article please... He was not only in Gallipoli, but also in the Caucasus (the area where the Armenian Genocide took place) that time... Hectorian 04:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To Hectorian, please base your claims to a credible source (historic document - weather directly (actual document) or indirectly (some history book quoting a document)) or else do not insist. --Cat out 13:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? why? is it a secret that Kemal was in Diyarbakır in 1916 and also in Muş and Bitlis, and that he was given the rank of Major General on April 1, 1916? i have not directly linked him with the genocide, but pls... don't say that he did not even set foot in the area during that time! Hectorian 17:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep

change and accept to discern

[[Apocolocynthosis 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)]]I AM AGAINST VOTING! - Truth has nothing to do with votes. But it is a good start to talk together and I wished some day Armenians and Turks could try to write their narratives together and match them and show diffferences in a single volume! A lot of things are much more complicated than they seem to be at the beginning.

1. Mustafa Kemal Pasha Atatürk is responsible for a mini-genocide of Kazim Karabekir's troops in 1920 in Russian Armenia with a death toll of 100.000 - 200.000 Armenian civilians. --> 100.000 according to A.J. Grant and Howard Temperly, Europe in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (1789-1950), 6th ed. (London: Longmans, 1962), p. 450 ---> 200.000 according to Vahakn Dadrian, History of the Armenian Genocide, pp. 360-361.

2. Mustafa Kemal Pasha Atatürk sometimes is confused with general Mustafa Nazim Pasha (a war criminal of WWI).

3. One could say Mustafa Kemal Pasha indirectly enabled the Young Turk triumvirate to annihilate the Armenians in 1915/16. He was not directly responsible. <--- Combining two quotations from Lord Kinross

3a) Atatürk's 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)

3b) 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

4. Mustafa Kemal Pasha had many Young Turkish war criminals on his side. After fleeing from Istanbul to Ankara (with the help of different organisations such as Karakol or famous persons like Halide Edip it would have been a bad idea to punish genocide perpetrators who helped Atatürk after 1921/22/23 Atatürk. ---> a 'nice' list of criminals which shows how Atatürk had to deal with Young Turks after founding the modern Republic. [[1]] Atatürk was in a dilemma! He surely condemned the (big) Armenian Genocide of 1915/16 but convicted genocide perpetrators only if they were dangerous for his own powerplay. If more sources have to be found I will try to help! [[Apocolocynthosis 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)]]

This is utter ... So what are you saying? That Ataturk fought at Gallipoli, not because he was defending his country, but just to let some bunch of shadowy characters continue to "pursue" something else? That's great. I am sure that's what the 250,000 soldiers that died in Gallipoli were thinking right before they died: "thousands of Armenians will die too 1000km away, isn't that great??!!".. Well, I would really advise you to stop trolling here. As Lord Kinross's book's title so rightly suggested i 3b, you can take that to the relevant page. And stop your flimsy attempt at original research. You are trying to convince us that 3a+3b = 3. Your personal convictions are utterly irrelevant here. However I respect your opinions, and I wish you luck in getting your book(s) published, outside of Wiki servers. If you need any help with that, I will try to help too!! :)) As you said in 3, "one could say".. Well, we don't give a damn about what "one" could say, this is not a coffee-shop, better bring in impartial bios and history books written about Ataturk and WW1, where those claims are said (not could have been saids) by those "ones". Period. Baristarim 04:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If Must^TC hadn't asked me to contribute to the discussion I would not have dared to enter your hagiographic & unwelcoming sphere of Atatürk's discussion page.

In future I have no troubles in refraining from reading or writing on this page. Indeed, compared to many others on this page, I am not obsessed!

I have better - and more effective - channels to spread my ideas in real life. ;-) Thank you very much for reading No. 3)! I am not asking you to read No. 1), 2) and 4)!

End of discussion![[Apocolocynthosis 08:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)]]

Down with the vote

• Unsourced and biased material can be removed without a discussion. There is no need for a vote. People who insist on adding biased and unsourced material has been blocked before. --Cat out 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment

• This person has devoted his life to Turkey. He managed to lead his country into safety from great perils and later on, he transformed the nation tremendously. There is much to say on what Atatürk did or thought. That the "opinions on genocide" is a 1st rank header in his article is a shame. I know Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so it may go into depths of knowledge, but there must be a balance in the articles on the level and presentation of detail. Such a controversial topic about him should have been somewhere amongst the details of his political thoughts. So why is it the 3rd main topic in his life? I would guess some people is trying to make Turks look like christian-butcherers, and they use every opportunity they find, including biographies of famous Turks. This is becoming disgusting. Filanca 20:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Can an admin take off that section out until the disputes is settled? Please read many of the discussions above. Filanca is right, what is it doing as the third main section for his bio???? Nobody has been able to present any arguments as to why a whole section only supported by the two most impartial web-sites out there, armeniangenocide.org and ataturk.org, should stay.. Baristarim 04:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete

While I fully believe the quote of Ataturk's concerning the Armenian Genocide (ill-treatment/massacre of Christians) and his expressed disgust regarding the CUP to be accurate I don't see that these views warrent highlighting as presented. I could see a mention of these views in a section regarding Ataturk's views regarding the Ottoman Empire (and perhaps its leadership in WWI - and as I recall Ataturk was strongly against Ottoman involvement in the war). But I don't feel that the Armenian (or more accuratly Christian...though meaning Armenian primarily) quote per se warrents specific treatment/highlighting considering all of the other actions, deeds, events and thoughts of the man that seem to be more important for defining the man and his life and legacy. I do think that in another article - such as the Armenian Genocide article - such a statement obviously warrents highlighting - but not here. In addition I do believe that it is entirely legitimate - and well documented - to mention Ataturk's role in ethnic cleansing of Armenians and other Anatolian Christians as part of the Turkish War of Independence and the relationship of his thinking in regards to ethnic (& religious) minorities vis a vis "Turks" and what he envisioned regarding Turkish citizenship and affiliation (regarding self identity as "Turkish") and how these attitudes have carried through the history of the Turkish Republic - often creating conflict with and supression of minority groups within the Republic. Additionally, the article as it stands seems to imply that Turks readily accepted Ataturk's reforms form the get go - and this was not entirely true - in fact he faced a great deal of resitance from a number of places/groups - again much of which continued and continues - in one form or another in the Republic to the present day. The Kurdish issue being the most obvious example and the underlying, persitance and now growing role of fundementalist Islam in Turkey is another - despite the secular "revolution" that Ataturk imposed.--THOTH 23:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting filth on the Turks' national hero

O.K., it is quite understandable that people prefer to side with those who claim to be the "victims" (even though it was the "victims" who invaded Turkey from Izmir and marched all the way to Ankara between 1919 and 1922). This is my protest regarding the Pontian absurdity.

Blaming Atatürk with the Armenian Genocide (1915) in Eastern Turkey, especially when in 1915 he was fighting at Gallipoli on the far western section of the country, is also a bit "over the top". Note that at the time Atatürk was only a minor military commander while the Ottoman Empire was run by the "Three Pashas" (Enver-Talat-Cemal).

Turks are people who refuse to "cry" and "weep" to seek for the help of others. It is simply against our culture and national pride. Turks didn't weep when they were mass-butchered in the Balkans during the final decades of the 19th century and early years of the 20th century, migrating towards Anatolia in the millions (those who could make it alive.) Atatürk's family was also one of them, leaving all their belongings in Thessaloniki (Selanik) behind. My mother's family is from Mytilene (Greece), and today in my grandfather's house a Greek family is living. My grandfather's brother lost his life during the Turkish War of Independence.

The fact that we Turks refuse to cry, weep and yell should not bring you the wrong impression that we didn't suffer anything in the hands of those who claim to be the "victims". But usually people feel more sympathy for the "losers". CalicoJackRackham 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the winner always writes the history but in the Turkish Independence fact, this rule didn't work because the "losers" were actually the imperialist superpowers of the time (Britain, France). Armenians and Greeks were pawns who were working for imperialists to satisfy their extreme national politics. As we all know Turks defeated them and formed the unitary state of Turkey. This was one of the first victories of its kind so they tried to overshadow the Turkish victory. This "blood-thirsty barbarian Turk" image was just one of the parts of their dirty game. Deliogul 16:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Consolation for the Losers

It's so pathetic how those who had their butts kicked by the Turks are trying to make up the ante by spreading their vindictive filth across Wikipedia. Unfortunately for them, such masturbative acts won't make Istanbul and Izmir a part of Greece, Mt. Ararat and Ani a part of Armenia, or Atatürk (who defeated their forces and shattered their dreams) a genocidal murderer.

The Greeks and Armenians should learn to get over with it: The Treaty of Sevrés has become toilet paper.

There will no longer be a Megali Hellas or a Greater Armenia.

I know, you guys are still living with those dreams; inventing stories of spiced up genocide with the hope that the world will side with you and in the very first opportunity seize the lands of Turkey and give them to your pathetic little countries.

But I'm afraid this won't happen.

From now on, Turkey can only grow bigger, not smaller.

Take that as a friendly advice from your former master. CalicoJackRackham 07:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

These offensive comments of yours have nothing to do with either this article or with reality. I urge you to just keep it to yourself if you have nothing of substance to add.--THOTH 15:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer a more academic explanation but he is right. Treaty of Serves became a toilet paper. Actually if you are supporting a green party, you can prefer to recycle it too ;) Don't forget the output still can be a toilet paper rather than a A4 :) Deliogul 16:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Deliogul: the Treaty of Serves became a toilet paper... But i will go further by saying that the Treaty of Lausanne also became a toilet paper... A treaty that has been violated a million times (u know by whom) can no longer be consider valid... It will take some time for the world to realise it, and for the Turkish elite to understand that they cannot accept only the articles that suits them (u know... Kemal signed the whole treaty, not just parts of it:)...). then, a new treaty will may be signed, whatever this may suppose to mean... Hectorian 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - agree with mediator

I think the section should be deleted. I think the mediator on the case, Shawn Fitzgibbons, summed it up well above:

"As the mediator of Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-15 Ataturk and genocide, I think the paragraph on genocide should be removed unless more credible sources can be used for reference. While Wikipedia is against censorship, it also desires the highest quality of articles possible. Serious charges (e.g. genocide) need to rest on solid ground. Trusted sources in print should be used to reference such claims.Shawn Fitzgibbons 15:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)" Lima6 20:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My take on this

You all obviously know my opinion on this, but I wish people would remain calm and tone down the nastiness about it. As for the sources, they're obviously biased, that's the idea - one is Armenian, the other Turkish. But if the mediator says leave it out, then that's what we should do. I think THOTH has a lot to say on it though, and there should be some criticism section, like the one A.Garnet wrote earlier with the additions that people added. Also, where is the mediator's response? I don't see it on the talk page --AW 04:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The mediator's comment is on this page, under the section "Revert warring/disputes" - it's the very last comment. Lima6 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --AW 03:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The historical inaccuracies of the Genocide claims

The whole notion of trying to link Mustafa Kamal Pasha to the so-called debatable genocide and the complete new-age invention called Pontion genocide which is not accepted by any objective mainstream historians is ridiculous. If there was a genocide against Pontian Greeks then there was also a genocide against Turks because the Greek army had invaded Turkey and reached as far as the region of Kayseri. There is overwhelming evidence of the massacres they comitted on the local populations. These must be included if were going to include everything else.

The Armenian allegations are directed towards 1915, in this period Mustafa Kamal Pasha had no authority over the Ottoman State which was in power at the time. He was a general in the army and busy battling in Gallipoli. He became known as AtaTurk during the War of Independance, which was a revolution against the Ottoman State and war against the powers trying to carve up the lands now called Turkey. After 1923 when the state was officially declared and internationally recognised did he become official leader of the Turkish Republic.

Prior to this event he was a general and resistance war leader, he cannot be connected to the accusations being put forward as he was not involved in fighting in those regions at that particular period and as he was not in charge of the state or the Head of Millitary Affairs he does not bare responsibility.

If anything, the massacres on the population he and his resistance fighters were trying to protect should be included, the cities of Erzerum, Van, Bitlis, Erzincan, Sivas, GaziAntep, SanliUrfa, KahramanMaras wer raized parts of the city burnt and civillian populations were under attack.

Please stop the historical lies and inaccuracies, this is meant to be an objective forum, not a extremist nationalist front to push racist agenda's.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 11:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes i am sure you can make a case that a "genocide" was comitted against Turks in Anatolia (not). I'm not discounting the atrocities commited by a leaderless Greek army as it was being routed halfway accross Western Anatolia - and this is certainly shameful and sorrowful for all of the innocents affected - however - you cannot as well discount the State sponsored mass killings and expulsions experienced by the Pontian Greeks and other Christians of Anatolia during this period. All of these events are extremely well documented and by very credible witnesses who provided a great amount of cooraborated detail. I think, however that you and others here are straying off the point of the article and into the realm of propoganda. I understand why you might be upset at the tarnishing of the image of Ataturk - and I agree with you that he cannot be held accountable for the Armenian Genocide proper and attempts to do so are perhaps misguided - however there is plenty of unbiased historical accounts concerning events of the Turkish War of Independence as well as his policies and actions during and after the establishment of the Republic of Turkey that are deserving of more realistic (warts and all as it were) treatment then how they are presented in the article. I second the thoughts already expressed here on this talk page that this is not the place to debate the Armenian Genocide - and I urge you to resit the urge to demonstrate your racist bias in this regard - and instead urge you to stick to the facts regarding Mustapha Kemal. I would likewise urge any Armenian who thinks to tie Ataturk in with the Armenian Genocide to get theri facts straight first and not just rely on tangental references that are not properly sourced or understood.--THOTH 15:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what this being "more realistic" means exactly. Yes the article is not clear enough on how he struggled to transform a traditional society into a modern one. If you think that his reforms were not welcome by many people at his time, right, this is why we talk of Atatürk's "revolutions". He was surely not a democrat, but how brilliant a revolutionary dictator he was! Instead of making extravagant plans to create a new empire, like many dictators of his time did, he pourred all his energy into pushing his nation to become a modern one. There is not a hidden, horrible fact about Atatürk which is not yet mentioned in the article. Still the greatest thing missing is the many details of miracolous and unparalelled changes one person brought over millions. Today even the right wing conservative Turkish parties praise his revolutions as irreversible, while what the other great dictators of the first part of 20th century; Lenin, Stalin, Franco, Mussolini, Hitler are all undone. Filanca 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't at all disagree with what you are saying here - however I stand by my comment that the article does not present the history accuratly (realistically) but is more of a propoganda piece. The reader gets no feel for the incrdible transformation he initiated in Turkish society - and the fact that such was done under tremendous resitance. The process of this transition also included a very strict move to "Turkify" the nation which included adoption of many harsh policies versus the ethnic components of Turkish society that have had significant ramifications to this very day. Also the "hidden horrible fact" (actually facts) are related to this policy (of Tukification) as they resulted in the conclusion of the ethnic cleansing of Armenians (and other Christians) from Anatolia (in several phases - beginning during the Turkish War of Independence) and also the related moves against the Kurds (to bring them into the Turkish ethnic & secular) fold against their will. These (very significant) events (and deliberate policy emplaced and carried out by Ataturk and those who followed him) are due a balanced, non-partisan and historically accurate treatment in the article. They are key to understanding of much of the history and politics of the Republic of Turkey since this time. --THOTH 01:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification for Education requested

Turkish thesis is that the ethnic group of Armenian citizens were fighting against both the armed forces of the country as renegade rebel forces internally as well as slaughtering the Turkish fellow civilians as part of their uprising, during the first world war (WW1), against their legitimate government. Turks claim that they forced Eastern population of Armenian civilians, innocent or active rebel, all, without distinction to relocate to South, to Syria, expelling them with the understanding that most will perish , as an act of war, instead of than killing them where they resided. Ottomans apparently did not touch Armenian members of the Ottoman Parliement in Istanbul and the Armenian civilians outside the Eastern Anatolia. Can someone please explain to me the diffence between our carpet bombing of German cities with hundreds of thousands of German civilians killed or nuking Hiroshima and Nagazaki to vaporize the Japs (let alone forcing them to live in the concentration camps in our motherland in the midwest) to win the World War 2 against their act of war to US and our allies, and the Turkish war act against revolting fighters a similar destructive war act? What has all got to do with Ataturk also? (please dont give me with lobbying money fed diasphora defending US lawmaker talk. Only asking for rationale explanation) Thanks. Maurice 160.79.139.10 18:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this has little to do with Ataturk per se - however I must also point out that what you present here is factually wrong in about its entirety - however this is not the place for this discussion.--THOTH 01:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Important Note

Posts that have nothing to do with this specific article, no matter which viewpoint they represent, will be taken down and moved to the talk pages of articles where they might be relevant, if there are any. This is not a forum or a blog of any kind. Debate and discussion is encouraged, however endless looping discussions that do not conribute to the improvement of this article and that only serve to create a hostile working environnement have no place in this talk page. Please do not import disputes from the talk pages of other articles. There have been many interesting and thought-provoking posts, but please ask yourself how relevant they are to this article and if they could not be of more use in the talk page of a more relevant article. Thanks... Baristarim 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear!! --AW 16:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)