Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Remove the Kurds Entry

It is total disinformation from unverified sources. Don't degrade this important wikipedia page with irrelevant kurdish propaganda. You might as well write "Ataturk and the Swiss" and "Ataturk and Extraterrestrials" if you want to turn this article into more of a murky page than it is.

Greatest Muslim ever?

Didn't Kemal Ataturk deny the Armenian massacre and suppress the Kurdish people and their culture?! Hekar 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Mustafa Kemal had full respect to the believers of Islam but he was beyond the dogmas of the religion. Kurds rebelled against the unitary government of Turkey right in the beginning (maybe they wanted their own kingdom?!) so the relations between Mustafa Kemal and Kurds weren't "perfect". You know he once said "Turkey belongs to Turks". Of course, Mustafa Kemal's description of "Turk" can be discussed more deeply but the problem was a political one at the time of Atatürk. I don't understand where this "best Muslim" stuff came from?! Deliogul 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Gay?

The debate as to whether K. Ataturk was homosexual has been triggered by heuristic evidence and not hard facts. This includes:

1. The fact that his ex-wife's correspondence, regarding the circumstances of their divorce, remains undisclosed.

2. The Turkish authorities' excessive defensiveness on this touchy subject. For example , a Turkish author (Ipek Calislar) went on trial (but was aquitted) for the "crime" of having "accused" Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of having dressed as a woman to escape an assassination attempt, in a biography of Ataturk's ex-wife. More recently, a satirical video uploaded on YouTube by an Englishman (impersonating a Greek) purporting that Ataturk was gay caused a political crisis, and the Turkish authorities even moved to block access to YouTube in Turkey !

The issue of Ataturk's purported homosexuality should be conclusively resolved if and when the correspondence of Kemal's ex-wife is released. Rastapopoulos 12:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The debate, if triggered, would be triggered because of homosexuality being one of the first things that come to mind when a person in the region (including Greeks) tries to badmouth someone else.

There is a law in Turkey against insulting anyone and also Atatürk, who represents all the founding fathers, mothers, who represents the Independence War of Turkish people. That law does not make Atatürk gay, he might have been but most likely not. As you said, she was acquitted so having dressed as a woman is not seen as an insult. Besides, why would some lawyer in Turkey opening a trial against someone (for an unrelated thing) trigger the rumours that Atatürk is homosexual, does not make sense. Dressing as a woman is wearing a burqa on top of your own clothing there. deniz^T_C 17:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Several authors have also speculated on Ataturk's sexual orientation. Here is an example, from the classing biography of Patrick Balfour, Atatürk: A Biography of Mustafa Kemal, Father of Modern Turkey (1965): "Women, for Mustafa [Ataturk], were a means of satisfying masculine appetites, little more; nor, in his zest for experience, would he be inhibited from passing adventures with young boys, if the opportunity offered and the mood, in this bisexual fin de siecle Ottoman age, came upon him." Rastapopoulos 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Then mention that first. Apparently, Balfour is just SPECULATING what would have happened if this were that, that were this. It is imo parallel to saying that "Venizelos, or X might have been gay if s/he had lived in Ancient Greece, or earlier periods of Ottoman Empire". I would rather not include speculations, but it is up to you, you can mention such speculations, but you should indicate that they are just speculations. deniz^T_C 20:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

More references to Ataturk's sexuality by biographers, Irfan and Margaret Orga: "He has never loved a woman. He was used to the camaraderie of the Mess, the craze for handsome young men, [and] fleeting contacts with prostitutes,... His body burned, for a woman or a boy ..." I agree, these are speculations, hence not posted in the article. However, even if (for the sake of argument) his ex-wife's memoirs were published and stated that he was a homosexual, one would still argue that this were pure speculation ... Rastapopoulos 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about the names, I checked Amazon, he(?) seems to be a cooking book writer (he also has some biography). Which book is it(phoenix?), what page, please cite properly. I wonder how this Irfan person came to know Ataturk. deniz^T_C 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The book is: Orga, İrfan and Margarete Orga, Atatürk (London: Michael Joseph, 1962). I am afraid I cannot cite the page as I do not have the book. I have taken the quote from various sites in the internet in good faith, and can certainly not vouch for its authenticity. I have just ordered the book from a used book store on the internet, and will provide a accurate citation once I get it. If you are interested, check out here: http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=F.2TCODDoo4c7TYiZ8yH8KRYi1U_6239905939_2:1:1 By the way, Wikipedia also mentions that Irfan Orga (a Turkish author) wrote a controversial biography of Atatürk Rastapopoulos 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks deniz^T_C 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, he had many relations with women during his early ages. I don't know if he could satisfy his wife or not because if I were him, I wouldn't even look at my wifes face because I would be so busy (you know building a country is really hard). Actually we know that he was working without sleeping in many days and this was one of the main reason behind their divorce. Also, poor speculation isn't enough to label anybody with any attribution. Take care, Deliogul 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I found a detail today. Many of us (at least Turkish people) know Mustafa Kemal's love affair with Fikriye Hanım. Fikriye and Mustafa Kemal were living together during the independence era and according to Atatürk, a documentary film about his life, when Fikriye asked him about marriage, Mustafa Kemal replied her by saying "I'm married with my country". We know, he didn't see any problem to marry with Latife but, clearly, he was a politic man rather than a romantic one. His love affairs during his youth were also short lived which let us to think about the value he gave to love in his social life. In my humble opinion, this gay business comes from his approach to love. Take care, Deliogul 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hailed as the Greatest Muslim of the Modern Age

For his secular reforms and modernity:

He (Kemal Ataturk) was the greatest Musalman in the modern Islamic world and I am sure that the entire Musalman world will deeply mourn his passing away. It is impossible to express adequately in a press interview one,s appreciation of his remarkable and varied services, as the builder and the maker of Modern Turkey and an example to the rest of the world, especially to the Musalmans States in the Middle East. The remarkable way in which he rescused and built up his people against all odds has no parallel in the history of the world. He must have derived the greatest sense of satisfaction that he fully accomplished his mission during his lifetime and left his people and his country consolidated, united and a powerful nation. In him, not only the Musalmans but the whole world has lost one the greatest men that ever lived. (Jinnah - November 1938- press interview- "Quaid-e-Azam and the Islamic World" 1981)

One can argue that this proves that Pakistan's founders, being Modernists themselves, wanted Pakistan to be a modern secular republic like Turkey.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.163.67.241 (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Turkish Free Masons

Atatürk was a member of free masons,right? can you add it, source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:T%C3%BCrkischer_Freimaurer

No he was not.

That's a comedy. It is rumored that some of the Ottoman Emperors were masons but these claims are usually wrong too. Your theory is a product of an interesting dreaming capacity. See you, Deliogul 13:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Ataturk closed all freemason lodges in Turkey. Lodges reamined closed till he die.Isatay 02:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The following Masonic sites claim that Ataturk was a freemason:

http://www.freemasoninformation.com/famous/famous.htm

http://www.calodges.org/no406/FAMASONS.HTM

http://abbey.lodge.org.uk/famous-masons.htm

Cheers Rastapopoulos 19:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever they said, is not true. A man with such a power doesn't need to belong to a lodge. He closed all lodges in Turkey too. It was Ataturk's enemies, old government members and sultanate lovers who were freemasons. They did everything to end Ataturk's leadership and claim the government again but they failed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnEmerald (talk • contribs) 10:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

This is what happened, according to a Masonic website (http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/layiktez.html):

In 1935, the year when Freemasonry decided to hibernate, 6 ministers, the President of the Parliament, more than 60 deputies and many state governors, were Freemasons, Ataturk’s private doctor, M. Kemal Oke, was a Past Grand Master. In 1935 the English, Germans and Russians transformed Turkey into a vast stage for propaganda and espionage. The Nazi propaganda machine was also stressing the Judeo-Masonic danger. The Ministry of the Interior, Sukru Kaya, a 33° Scottish Rite Mason, in order to curb these activities passed a law from parliament closing all clubs and societies. Freemasonry was not mentioned in the text, but the minister warned his brothers that it would be wiser to stop the activity of Freemasonry by its own free will. That’s how things happened and the reason why Freemasonry was able to recover its buildings after the war. All lodges did not close. The Supreme Council continued its activity behind closed doors, even chartered 3 new lodges. Craft lodges met at the homes of brothers. The police showed a knowing tolerance to all this, with the tacit approval of the President of the Republic Ismet Inonu, who even gave a little financial aid to the Supreme Council.

All Lodges reopened following the war. Rastapopoulos 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I can wait such a thing from İnönü because his support was weak and there was a considerable opposition against his presidency. On the other hand, Mustafa Kemal was above such Supreme Council relations. I think JohnEmerald is right in what he said. We can give many examples from Mustafa Kemal's life. For example, during the parliament meetings to abolish Caliphate, religiously oriented deputies were against such a decision. During the hottest debates, Mustafa Kemal said "If this law won't be passed, some heads will be chopped off"... It was enough, Caliphate was history. You see, he didn't have to play ritual games with masons while he had such a power and energy to shape his country. See you, Deliogul 20:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

2,3,4th president?

Please correct it! 2nd president is İnönü. He was selected 4 times, but he is only the 1st president.Paparokan 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is a comedy. I'm going to fix it immediately. Deliogul 17:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A president is elected for a limited period. Mustafa Kemal elected four times, so 1, 2, 3 ,4. I believe the misconception is based difference between "Office holder" and common *(aily) saying of "1 president among the others". The information is the "office holder". Thanks--OttomanReference 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The info is organized as this:
| order         = 1<sup>st</sup> 2<sup>nd</sup> 3<sup>th</sup> 4<sup>th</sup> [[List of Presidents of Turkey|President]]
| term_start    = [[1923]], [[1927]], [[1931]], [[1935]]
| term_end      = [[1927]], [[1931]], [[1935]], [[1938]]

Time to bring to a closure

I dont know why admins have allowed this discussion to fester, everyone has agreed the "opinions on genocide" section should be removed, we seem to have a consensus on this. So can we unlock and add the following instead:

Ataturk's reforms were regarded as being too rapid by some. In his quest to modernize Turkey, he effectively abolished centuries-old traditions by means of reforms to which much of the population was unaccustomed but nevertheless willing to adopt. In some cases, these reforms were seen as benefiting the urban elites rather than the generally illiterate inhabitants of the rural countryside^[1], where religious sentiments and customary norms tended to be stronger. In particular, Ataturk's strict religious reforms met with some opposition; and to this day, they continue to generate a considerable degree of social and political tension. In the future, political leaders would draw upon dormant forces of religion in order to secure positions of power, only to be blocked by the interventions of the powerful military (as in 1960 when Prime Minister Adnan Menderes was overthrown by the military)^[2], which has always regarded itself as the principal and most faithful guardian of secularism.

Kurds also criticise Ataturk of disregarding their cultural distinctions in pursuing a Turkish national identity. In 1925, an uprising for an independent Kurdistan led by Seyh Sait was put down quickly, and Sait and 36 of his followers were executed soon thereafter. Kurds accuse succesive Turkish governments of suppressing their identity through such means as the banning of Kurdish language in print and media. Ataturk believed the unity and stability of a country lay in a unitary political identity, relegating cultural and ethnic distinctions to the private sphere. Many Kurds did not relinquish their identities however, eventually giving rise to large-scale armed conflict between the Turkish armed forces and the PKK (a guerilla group fighting for an independent Kurdistan) throughout the 1980's and 1990's, leaving over 35,000 dead. Recent moves by Ankara have provided Kurds with greater rights and freedoms, particularly in such sensitive areas as the Kurdish language, education, and media given.

--A.Garnet 18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is good but I think is lacking suficient detail/explanation in some areas and I also think that the role of Ataturk directing nationalist forces (and subsequent actions) to eliminate (specifically) the remaining Armenian (and other Christian) presence in Anatolia during the War of Turkish Independence needs to be at least mentioned (and these things are even recounted by Kinross & Mango in their very pro-Ataturk biographies...not to mention the accounts from Karabakir's autobiography). Likewise, the supression of the Kurds/Kurdish rebellions did not only take the form of executions of principles involved but included the deliberate heavy handed destruction of hundreds of villages (and the killings of thousands - with a great many innocents among them) that were thought to harbor (ethnic) seperatist sentiment or which were thought to have been in support of (Kurdish) seperatist rebellion (again what is reality versus what is perception is/was perhaps an issue here - and the issue really is that Ataturk was deliberatly brutal in order to ensure complete sucess without compromise). Ataturk's advocacy and pursuit of these scortched earth policies are a significant aspect of his legacy that are noteworthy in and of themselves as well as a clear inspiration for the policies of sucessive Turkish governments (or more accuratly MIT secret governments who directed/pursued policy in this regard). These draconian policies led to the disenfranchisement and moving underground of a variety of ethnic and political movements and individuals (and political parties and journalists connected to such etc) who have been at various times outlawed and rigorously pursued - via leagal and quasi-legal (e death squads and such) means - and these abuses became the impetus of the rather poor human rights record by the Republic of Turkey in this regard. Also Ataturk's inclusion of substansial numbers of ex-CUP memebers within the early nationalist movement (and in subsequent early government offices in the Republic) and his eventual turn on them and on his former allies who began to oppose his assumption of personal (cult-like) dictatorial powers in the years following the formaton of the Republic and up to the time of Ataturk's death need to also be better explained and highlighted. I don't mean to undeservedly tarnish the image of someone whom I rightly see is viewed as a great man and a great (military and political) leader for Turkey - however I see these as very significant events and policies that have had lasting ramifications for the nation and are worthy of historical note. There is no doubt that Ataturk accomplished great things and was revolutionary in a number of remarkable and very progressive ways and had an incredible vision for his nation and his people and he had the understanding of how to get it done - but like nearly all poweful leaders - particualrly in dangerous and uncertain times - he made decisions regarding policies and approaches that had negative ramifications as well - and at times his actions were down right nasty and led to many subsequent problems for the nation (some he even foresaw - however many he perhaps did not) - if even he is largely adored by the great majority of Turks today (and rightly so). I hope you all take these comments as I have intended. I am not an "Ataturk basher" - far from it - I greatly admire the man and appreciate the import or his accomplishments, all the same I think that this is meant to be an unbiased historicaly accurate presentation and what I am proposing to be included in the article IMO gives proper balance and realism to the man and his legacy.--THOTH 20:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making your points in a very clear and calm way. Even though I never heard of some of these accusations, like "the deliberate heavy handed destruction of hundreds of villages and the killings of thousands" during the time of Atatürk, and I do not intend to believe these until I personally see sources of indisputable credibility, I am very glad to see these discussed in a civil way. But then again, as user Baristarim is constantly trying to make us remember, this is perhaps not the place for having these discussions. Our personal views about Atatürk mean almost nothing within the scope of this talk page. The only thing that matters is whether a certain edit on the article meets the criteria on Wikipedia:Verifiability and other related guidelines, and we should go on with building this wannabe encyclopedia. Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of my sources are in print and not on the internet - but I would recommend reading these two articles to at least give you some better understanding of the things I am talking about here - http://shr.aaas.org/scws/context.htm and http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/said.html The latter has some particualrly good analysis and the first one touches on how Ataturk's early outlawing of anything resembling Kurdsih cultural and/or political expression has carried through to policies and actions taken by the Republic of Yurkey towards the Kurds (and others expressing ethnic affiliation) within Turkey since that time.--THOTH 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actual content of the section proposed by A. Garnet can be discussed, modified and expanded if need be. If serious sources can be found indicating that he did this or that, they can be included. However, I definitely agree with A. Garnet that the current section in the article should be removed meanwhile. I am re-posting a comment by the mediator of an earlier case that involved similar issues. It was already posted above, but I thought that maybe it might have gotten lost somewhere:

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)" Baristarim 00:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article review

This article has been submitted for Good Article review. Baristarim 21:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

An anon has been changing "Many Kurds did not relinquish their identities however, eventually giving rise to large-scale armed conflict between the Turkish armed forces and the PKK (a guerilla group fighting for an independent Kurdistan) throughout the 1980's and 1990's", which is what User:A.Garnet had in his version, to "Many Kurds did not relinquish their separatist ideology, however, eventually giving rise to terrorism against the civilians as well as targeting the Turkish armed forces by the PKK (a far-left group with changing names all of which recognised as terrorist by the U.S. and the E.U.)" with the edit summary of "(talk page does not address or justivy white-washing terrorist organization and their murders, also does not belong a biography)". To me, the new edit is not NPOV, and "terrorist" is not supposed to be used in Wikipedia - see the PKK article for example. I don't want to appear to be edit warring, so I'm adding this here. The rest of the section says the PKK has killed 35,000 and so on. --AW 17:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What that has got to do with Atatürk? PKK had its beginnings in 1970's right? That part should be removed too. Filanca 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

agreed. What is more important is to discuss the origin of the Kurdish issue (of competing nationalism) and how Ataturk chose to deal with it (no comprimise - scortched earth ethnic cleansing and resettlement [destroying their rural power bases and driving them into urban areas which were under much tighter Turkish control] - and certainly no recognition of the legitimacy of any kind of Kurdish cultural self-expresion [or even acknowledgement of identity]and de-facto societal incorporation of Kurds as "Turks" whether they truly were or not) etc...leading to future unresolved conflict/issues..--THOTH 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean, talk about recent edits. The article has been undergoing constant sneak and overt vandalism attacks by anons since it has been unprotected. As for the edit in question, I will agree with THOTH on the idea of talking about the origin of the Kurdish issue rather than the PKK, however, I might have to disagree with some of the words he used :) Kidding aside, I think the appropriate approach would be to talk about its origins citing some good and impartial sources. How Kurds feel today might not seem too relevant to his biography, and might be more appropriate in other articles about Turkey. The paragraph should be strictly about what he did or didn't during his political life. Again, I think, we should be extremely careful about striking the right contextual balance. In the mean time, if these attacks by anons continue, it might be a good idea to semi-protect it for a while. Baristarim 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I think it's funny when vandals leave edit summaries with what vandalism they committed though :) --AW 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone familiar at all with this article (by Mango) - Ataturk and the Kurds From - Middle Eastern Studies - Date- October 1, 1999 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-57943444.html --THOTH 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Genocide on armenians/assyrians

Nowhere in this article mentions Atatürks participating in the Armenian and Assyrian Genocides. /Slarre 16:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't even start.. There are tons of archives on the top right corner, if you want more background info on the concensus reached, please check them.. And check the templates on top of the talk page as well. On the other hand, if you find any impartial information or source proving his participation in anything, please bring them in. Maybe he did not participate in them and that's why it is not mentioned, has that thought occurred to you my fellow?? We have been going over this for months now with many passers-by dropping in and asking the same questions and over and over and over again.. Funny thing is, nobody can bring in any sources. It is like Groundhog Day, it seems to start all over again :)) Baristarim 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I was attempting some humor, so don't take it the wrong way :) We had a very looong debate about this after the page got protected for edit-warring on this precise issue, and it just got unprotected yesterday, we put in the concensus version that was agreed on the talk page after a looong debate, and it had to be semi-protected again couple of hours ago because of random anon vandalism and edit-warring. So, we r a bit touchy :) But you are more than welcome to drop in and participate in the debate: many users would like that article to succeed in a GA review and an eventual FA review, so we need to cover all grounds with good references.. But just keep in mind that there is a live debate. Don't say I didn't warn you :)Baristarim 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Europe is plenty of fellows like this guy who are totally ignorant and prejudiced against Turks and their history, I mean who talks about Turkey's heroic deeds during WW2 whilst the "civilized" Europeans were busy slaughtering their fellow citizens for the sake of their religion? As Goldhagen documents in his book, ordinary people were all too willing executioners and now they have the audacity to claim authority on human rights issues? Give me a break! Thugs will always be thugs and its still the same stench under the hood. lutherian 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't post messages on pages that are completely irrelevant to the topic of the page. It can be seen as vandalism. Thank you. --AW 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Lutherian tries to explain the European ideologies on Turks and he is, in a sense, right. People come here and without looking at the archive for a second, they directly start to talk about the genocide issue! People have to be rational. With respect, Deliogul 22:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To Lutherian: i did not know that the WW2 was a religious war... And since i live in a country that suffered a lot fighting against nazism, racism and fascism (unlike others who declared war when the Soviet troops were in Berlin... LOL!), trust me, i know better... Regards Hectorian 23:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I think that user was just pulling our legs since I had left the end of the recent discussion on this issue when I had archived (for the precise reason that we don't have to go over this over and over and over again :))).. Baristarim 07:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. On the other hand, Hectorian could be more polite. He doesn't have to write perky answers just because others write their claims in perky ways. Actually, please don't make it Greeks vs Turks in this page because both sides have respectful military backgrounds and your comment on Turkey's WW2 politics really hurts because everybody knows how brave and talented warriors Turks are. With respect, Deliogul 13:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

U know, I think that so many looping discussions (whatever the subject) have stopped this article from getting to even GA-status. I mean, this article is a Featured Article in five other languages, including Esperanto (?!), along with Spanish, Portugese, French etc. It is a real pity in a way. Let's wait for the result of the GA review, than we can have an idea on how to improve it.. I hope that it makes GA at least.. Baristarim 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is irrelevant, as Baris has correctly said, but i will write one more comment:)... as a reply to above. When others make unhistorical claims (e.g. that the WWII was a religious war) in order to "strengthen" a claim that doesn't even has to do anything with it, i am trying to be as much polite as i can. This is neither a matter Greeks vs Turks, nor a matter Europeans vs Turks (as was originally implied). I cannot see why my comment hurts... Turkey did not take part in the WWII, so any further discussion is baseless (without judging whether the turkish soldiers were brave and talented or not-they did not take part, so i cannot say...). it is not my will to push this discussion further, though i could if i wished to (the internal link is for those who may figure out the connection). Hectorian 18:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply because he did not. Read the archieves on this discussion Korrybean 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk didn't participate in the genocide. And even no one can participate in the genocide because there is no Armenian genocide. If there is any about the genocide and that Mustafa Kemal is a part of it, prove it. Ozzie 14:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

How about you go educate yourself, and stop telling people to educate you. Nareklm 07:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ozzy, I don't understand why you write "Armenian" without the capital letter... Mustafa Kemal Pasha was a successful commander and an influential leader, mostly because of his war against imperialism. Nareklm, just go and read the archives rather than posting personal attacks to the forum. Deliogul 13:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It was not a thing I wanted to do, just a mistake, I am neither an enemy of Armenians nor against Armenian people, I wrote the capital letter again as you can see. And, you Nareklm, you go and educate yourself there is no problem with my education. We all can see easily that there is nothing you know. Gazi Mustafa Kemal is the greatest leader of all the time, don't forget this. How can you dare to put Mustafa Kemal in your stupid lies, you can say everything but you can not tell other people that Mustafa Kemal participated in the thing you call 'genocide'. Nareklm, just wondering, can the thing you call education be just a lie? Is this what they teached you, believe me Mustafa Kemal was the world's most humanist leader, 'genocide' and 'Mustafa Kemal' is the opposite words, understand? Ozzie 18:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Need supporting evidence that Ataturk was a fascist? All totalitarian regimes employ some form of brainwashing. But Ataturk's was so effective, Ozzie still falls for it!

Comments about the SUBJECT not the AUTHOR. And you have no validity if you dont sign your comments. 68.107.156.148 05:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to go and have a look at what fascism means. Mussolini's Italy was one of the best examples of a fascist state. Wow you also have to look at the definition of the totalitarian regimes. Stalin's Soviet Union is one of my favorites. Mustafa Kemal was a successful human but those guys were evil. Whatever, take care, Deliogul 22:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Title

Why Ismet Inonu rather than Mustafa Ismet Inonu, but here we have to have the awkward Mustafa Kemal Ataturk form? Ataturk is called either "Mustafa Kemal" or "Kemal Ataturk". He is almost never called "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" in English, and calling him this goes against the way we deal with other similar Turkish names - Ismet Inonu, Celal Bayar, Şükrü Saracoğlu... john k 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that Britannica and the Columbia Encyclopedia both have their articles at "Kemal Atatürk". john k 18:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to check the discussion people had about this exact same subject around June, on Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 4. Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know the discussion has already been had, and skimmed over the move discussion, which seems to have largely involved Turks. I stand by my statement. john k 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Brittanica's article about him is titled "Atatürk, Mustafa Kemal" [1].. We can change the title to that if you want :)) (kidding) Baristarim 18:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant, but i created the redirect 'Mustafa Ismet Inonu' to 'Ismet Inonu'; guess it is ok. Hectorian 21:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you must be happy because we didn't named the article as Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk :) Actually I haven't seen a single person who says Mustafa İsmet İnönü rather than İsmet İnönü in my entire life ;) Deliogul 10:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Small question in Kurdish section

I made a couple little changes that were reverted, let me explain. The sentence was

"Recent moves by Ankara have provided Kurds with greater rights and freedoms, particularly in such sensitive areas as the Kurdish language, education, and media given."

which I changed to "Recent moves by the Turkish government have provided Kurds with greater rights and freedoms, particularly in such areas as the Kurdish language, education, and media."

The Ankara->Turkish government is just simplifying, "sensitive" removed because who says they're sensitive, and "given" removed because "media given" doesn't really make any sense to me. Thoughts? --AW 22:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit makes sense to me. Perhaps the one who reverted the changes should respond in detail. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

True. One of the reasons I had reverted earlier was simply because I was afraid of more edit-wars if the concensus version was too much played upon without prior discussion in the talk page. Baristarim 06:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. I must've accidentally reverted AW's edit (I was trying to revert 172GAL). Khoi khoi 06:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this information is in this article. It is like mentioning USA's current policy towards its indian minority in the article on George Washington. Filanca 16:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination On Hold

This article is well-written and meticulously wikilinked. The coverage of the topic is certainly broad. I also noticed more than a few mentions of criticism of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk by various groups, which allays my fears about WP:NPOV. In many respects, this appears to be an outstanding article. Excellent work!

My only qualm — and it is a significant one — is that it does not go to any great lengths to satisfy attributes (2) and (2b) of Wikipedia:What is a good article?.

I didn't pepper the article with {{fact}} tags. Experience has taught me that some editors appreciate their use as a suggestion regarding where citations should be placed. On the other hand, it is not uncommon for editors to become quite irate at the extensive use of {{fact}} tags, because the tags make the appearance of the article unaesthetic. In general, though, assertions that would need inline citations would be similar to these examples:

Direct quotes: "Culture is the foundation of the Turkish Republic".
Acts of government: "Recent moves by the Turkish government have provided Kurds with greater rights and freedoms, particularly in areas such as the Kurdish language, education, and media."
Numbers, figures, dates, etc.: "...succeeded in achieving a substantial increase of the public literacy rate from 20% to over 90%."
Broad, strong generalizations: "...reforms to which much of the population was unaccustomed but nevertheless willing to adopt."
Specific Historical events:"...he was appointed the commander of Derne on March 6, 1912."

This article needs many such citations. Bearing in mind that WP:GA is not WP:FA, I wouldn't expect anything near perfection... but 75% of perfection is a reasonable goal for GA. That still leaves you needing a fairly large number of inline cites.

Feel free to drop me a line if you have questions, comments, or arguments. :-) --Ling.Nut 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You heard him! Everyone get to work with citations! :)) It is completely true that there needs to be a lot more references, that was also my primary concern when I had nominated it for GA. As soon as I am done with Turkey, I will try help out with this one.Baristarim 02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

New rights for minorities can be considered "not enough" when we compare them to the rights in some other countries but they are promising steps for Turkish democracy. [[2]], you can look at the minority rights section of this page to see the new rights. Saygılarımla, Deliogul 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's business to praise or blame Turkish democracy - or this article's to discuss it.

However, one of the criteria for a GA (and certainly for a featured article) is 4b: "all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic." I praise the editors for avoiding excessive praise, and pro-Turkish polemic; but I see little hint in this article that Ataturk's rule over Turks (aside from the minority questions) has ever been criticized - and of course it has. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

On closer reading, perhaps what is needed is a spreading of the criticism more evenly throughout the section on his rule; it can be missed, as I may have demonstrated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you by any chance miss the last few paragraphs of the reforms section? If you did, and given that part is about the current criticisms of Atatürk, I guess you mean a missing mention of how he was criticised by his contemporaries. If that's the case, could you please try to add a few of those missing mentions and improve the article? Atilim Gunes Baydin 04:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I did the first time; other readers also may. This is why I make the second suggestion, that they be spread out, perhaps in the form "Ataturk did X, which had results Y and Z", where Y is the benefit and Z is the criticism. But I do applaud the article; this is more a question of overall tone and local balance than anything else, and a FA nitpick rather than a GA objection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, and I did not notice your second comment (starting with "on closer reading") before posting mine. You're right and these should be made more homogenous. Me and another user have plans to do a clean-up and referencing work on this article sometime soon and I'll do my best to address this issue. Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Good article nomination On Hold — No GA Nomination template on page

Were the editors of this article aware of its Good Article nomination?

I do not see a GA nomination template on this talk page.

Ling.Nut 21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a regular contributor to this article, but I was not aware of the GA nomination. Atilim Gunes Baydin 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh.. I am sorry.. I nominated it for GA to get an outside review of the article about three weeks ago and I forgot to add the template. Sorry Atilim! Baristarim 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bitola and Salonika (Selanik) as "centers of Greek discontent towards the Ottoman administration."

The article suggests that Bitola and Salonika (Selanik) were "centers of Greek discontent towards the Ottoman administration." This is incorrect. At the time of Ataturk, Bitola had a population of Turks, Albanians and Macedonians, and Salonika's population was about 50 percent Jewish, thirty percent Muslim Turkish, with the rest (15 percent) being Macedonian, Albanian, Vlach, Bulgarian, European (Levantine), Armenian, and Greek. Hence, with nearly no Greeks in Bitola, and a small Greek minority in Salonika, neither of the two cities could have been "centers of Greek discontent towards the Ottoman administration" if they were centers of ethnic discontent at all.Cagaptay 03:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Should read "Bulgarian and Greek discontent", but both nationalities had networks throughout Macedonia. The question of which is larger or more important is infinitely disputeable - but this article doesn't need to go there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed Good Article

Hi,

There is an awful lot to like about this article, but controversial political figures need to have somewhat better inline cites. Certainly any direct quotes, plus any information that is like to be challenged because of its controversial nature, needs to be cited, Thanks! --Ling.Nut 14:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add oc and modify io

io:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk ; oc:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk . I've redirected the page in Ido, so your link must be modified. Thank you io:User:Joao Xavier, 09:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

A section should be added on criticism of Atatürk's reforms. Also I propose adding information -according to sources of course- about Atatürk's distaste for the culture and traditions of the Ottomans. I will implement these changes if there are no objections ( that are sustained by arguments). Agha Nader 07:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader

Yes, there are objections. The first one has to do with style... There shouldn't be a "criticism" section, that is very unprofessional: any such "criticisms" should be inserted directly to their relevant sections. This issue was discussed in length for a very long period of time with the involvement of many editors. "Criticism" sections are not encyclopedic. A seperate "Criticism of Ataturk" article was AfDed for this reason. He has been dead for the last seventy years, so there should be enough stable biographies out there.

There is already a section about the effects of Ataturk's reforms.. Nevertheless, this article is far from being FA and improvements are always possible. Just make sure to raise substantial changes in the talk page since there have been many debates and many parts of the article is a result of weeks of discussion. Cheers! Baristarim 10:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In order to create a NPOV article the criticism towards Atatürk must be addressed. If a separate section cannot be added, then at least a few lines that provide a balanced view of Atatürk. i.e "Ataturk rejected the Ottomans culturally. An example of this is his mocking of the Turk fez, which he banned. Ataturk depicted the Ottomans as immoral drunks, but now the wheels have turned and the Turks depict Ataturk as an alcoholic." This is a paraphrase of the book Islam Today: A Short Introduction to the Muslim World by Akbar S. Ahmed. Please see {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_S._Ahmed] for more information on the author of the book. Also it should be noted that "the abolition of the caliphate reverberated throughout the Muslim world".

I hope you are not referring to [3] as the place to put criticisms of Atatürk because these are broad topics that deal directly to Atatürk's life. Furthermore, it is imperative that we provide readers with a NPOV article. This cannot be accomplished by creating other articles to make up for this one. Agha Nader 22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

You misunderstood, nobody is keeping out any criticism et al from the article. However, under no circumstance, should there be a "seperate" section - that is very unprofessional from an encyclopedic POV.

Other than that, additions are welcome, but I would take statements from such a book with a grain of salt. :) "Turks depict Ataturk as an alcoholic"?? Cough cough.. Where did this come from? The statement about the caliphate is more than valid: it is very important. However, criticism also has to be contextualized and attributed correctly; meaning something like this "Ataturk's abolishment of the Caliphate was applauded by secularists and those who wanted the religion's influence to end over the state, and even though this decision has been credited with allowing Turkey to develop as a modern state, many religious Muslims have also made known their discontentement with that decision", or something along those lines.

There shouldn't be criticism for criticism's sake, either. I know that with such an article people are "keyboard"-happy, but since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, things have to be contextualized. That's all... Ataturk never depicted the Ottomans as immoral drunks, he only had a problem with the monarchy and the Shariah - that's not the same thing. I know that many religious people have an axe to grind against Ataturk, but this: "but now the wheels have turned and the Turks depict Ataturk as an alcoholic" will never be included in this article. That quote or paraphrase is nothing but weird POV. Come on... :) Baristarim 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But don't misunderstand, me and some other editors will start some serious work on this article soon, and will try to address all those issues - and any additions are more than welcome. Unfortunately, this article has seen way too many disputes that any new addition is always heavily scrutinized by many editors, that's all :) By the way, what do you think about the current structure of the article? Cheers! Baristarim 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you will have to elaborate on why you "take statements from such a book with a grain of salt." It is has won many awards, including "Best Non-Fiction of the Year" by the LA Times. Furthermore it has been written by a mainstream scholar. Akbar_S._Ahmed's schooling has been in the West, particularly from "Cambridge University (awarded as a fellow) and Ph.D. from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London". Also, "Dr. Ahmed was visiting professor at Harvard University, the University of Cambridge, and the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton." Why do you think he has "an axe to grind against Ataturk". By the way, I am not sure if you were referring to me or him, (or if you just wanted to lash out against religious people). I sense that you are taking "statements from such a book with a grain of salt" because it has been written by someone with a Muslim name, or that the book is about the Muslim world. In conclusion, you will have to explain why this source should not be used.

Now I will answer your question. You ask, "'Turks depict Atatürk as an alcoholic'?? Cough cough.. Where did this come from?". It is a direct quote from the book Islam Today: A Short Introduction to the Muslim World by Akbar S. Ahmed. Now I am not a scholar, and correct me if I'm wrong, neither are you. Is your understanding of Turkey and Atatürk so great that you can discredit Akbar_S._Ahmed? We can only base the content of this article on published works by mainstream scholars. If Akbar_S._Ahmed was schooled in a madrassah, then I might see your concern. But a scholar from Cambridge seems quite acceptable to me.

Even though some secular Turks may not like to think so, Turkey is 99.0% Muslim. Thus it is part of the Muslim world, and the book I mentioned earlier is highly relevant to Turkey. Also, it is highly relevant to Atatürk (it has a chapter on him). I have given you some time to make the edits you promised. Unfortunately you have not made them. Did you not say that you "will start some serious work on this article soon, and will try to address all those issues"? You have not even made the change on the abolition of the caliphate- which we agreed on.

To address your final point, I think the current structure is fine. Except for the weird media that has been added and removed sporadically. Agha Nader 03:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I think there must be a "military career" headline which contains all stuff from 1911 to 1919 rather than dividing his military career between different sections. After 1919, he became a war leader and a clear political figure so we can keep the Independence War separate. Also I found a mistake in the article. He wasn't sent to Libya, he voluntarily went there in dangerous conditions. See you, Deliogul 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Hi! I did not check whether there is a discussion about date of his birth. I was surfing on net and found on encarta that he was born in March 12 (Encarta Link Here). As far as I read before, when he was asked about his date of birth, he did not give the exact answer but instead said May 19. Now I am confused. If we take Encarta as a reference I think we should add this info. Regards.Ugur Olgun 20:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The claimed exact birth date of March 12 has never been recognized by any official documentation, however. According to old Turkish calendar, his birth year spans a period between March 11, 1880 and March 12, 1881, but there is no precise info about his birth date. Khoi khoi 06:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually dates don't alter within such a wide range while converting the old calendar to the new one. It's only about 13 days or so. Anyway, that's of about zero importance Okan 12:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The records weren't kept that well back in the day, and birthdays were never important in that part of the world until, cough cough, westernization. :) Kind of like New Year's, Valentine's Day etc. So we most probably wouldn't know when he was born, and he said "well, just assume that it was May 19". In any case, this should be mentioned somewhere in the early life section. Baristarim 11:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If we consider Mustafa Kemal, his real birth date is not important for him. Because he was born "like a sun" in 19th May 1919 in Samsun to Turkish nation. He started his indepedence war at that date and he became ATATÜRK (the ancestor of Turks, father of Turks) at that date again. So we can say he was born in 19th May 1881. At least he assumes he was born in 19th May and it is enough for us. And by the way, I looked the link you gave, there is no information about Atatürk; I don't say detailed information, there is 'NO INFORMATION'... I think encarta is not a good information source. Ozzie (a reader) 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC +02:00)

There's no information on historical sources about Atatürk's date of birth!! And this is not an important subject to Atatürk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.214.174.108 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Start to develop the article

Please see the relevant section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey! --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 21:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:OttomanReference's edits

I want to say that I don't like what OttomanReference has been doing with the article recently. The article structure is almost completely changed, which doesn't conform very much with similar good biographies on Wikipedia, material has been moved to newly created sub-articles, and all these fundamental changes happened without first asking for opinions and seeking consensus on the talk page. The English used by the editor is far from being fluent and contains grammatical mistakes. Please don't say "then why don't you do it yourself" or something on that line, because I currently don't have the time the importance of this article requires, but still, I think I can raise my concerns. Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns; I just wanted to say about "newly created sub-articles" The Atatürk's Reforms and Kemalism neither created by me nor they are new. These articles are developed for detailed analysis of these special concepts. Arguments regarding extend of reforms, or state related issues that pass beyond Atatürk's life, (he died in 1938), obviously should be developed in these articles. That does not decrease the importance of the content as we have links from the main article to these pages. Also we have a Wikiqote that extensively collects "Ataturks quotations. It is possible to give links within the article to these pages. Regarding the Image gallery section, wikicommans have developed a very beautiful catalog of Ataturk's pictures. I advise you to check that page. Pictures are collected on a time line and there exists the explanation of each picture. I believe these are all positive improvements. However I thank you for your consideration. --OttomanReference 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you have an immense knowledge on these subjects Ottoman, but the articles need to be formatted and written better. For example the infobox at the beginning has now become too cluttered, too many sections have been created, sometimes it is better to write a detailed description of something than reduce it to one or two sentences with links to another article. The way a small gallery has been added to the bottom of some sections makes the format ugly with big gaps around the picture. It is not your content that bothers me, but your presentation, format, grammar and style. --A.Garnet 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Regarding pictures, I wanted to distribute the pictures such that they would be related to the topic. I'm having trouble finding these pictures. I want to have a picture showing him voting, for the democracy section. Could not find one. I moved some of the pictures to Atatürk's Reforms page. I do not want to remove them, as I'm afraid I may not find them once more; but if you help finding pictures related to sections and format them that would be soooo great. Also regarding "than reduce it to one or two sentences with links to another article" I'm trying. It is a funny thing. You have to give people basic understanding of what to expect from the link. That makes the sentences really complex. I guess balance could only be reached if there are more than one editor. Because it takes more than one mind. --OttomanReference 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ottomanreference, thanks for the quick reply! I agree with you on almost everything, but could you please use the expected "proposal / discussion / consensus" cycle on this talk page before proceeding with very fundamental changes with the article (like the section hierarchy and moving of content between articles)? With the "newly created article" I was thinking more about Atatürk Centennial, I fear if we don't supply that with additional content on the history of that resolution etc., it could be nominated for deletion from Wikipedia because in it's current state it clearly belongs to Wikisource. And I think it was much better to have that text directly within the article, because I believe it will be less known if it stays separate from this biography (I don't expect many people to click on the "main article" link for that from this biography). I know Atatürk's Reforms is not new (I did put some effort to make that article better sometime around last year). My concerns regarding language fluency and mistakes remain but please know that I truly appreciate your effort. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Van Resistance

ArmenianReference has mentioned the Van Resistance, but what about the Van Massacres in which the Russo-Armenian forces practically "mass murdered" the local Kurdish and Turkish civilians? DragutBarbarossa 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, these are realities of the time. Command of XVI Corps was on Ataturk which was responsible from Bitlis and Mush. He fought against the enemy. If you do not believe citations, check the valilik web pages of these districts. They tell in detail how Mustafa Kemal captures these cities back. Guys, this is not Armenian propaganda. This is about war. If you censure the facts, how you gonna explain the realities? Think this way; if Ataturk did not fight with the Armenian Millitia; then who was he fighting against? The Van Resistance proves that there was an Armenian military activity. Ataturk was defending the front against an organized army. You are putting Attaturk in a position without any real force against him. That is the worst thing someone can do. +++If you want to talk "mass murdered" the local Kurdish and Turkish civilians no one is stopping you to develop that article. Why you are not doing it? Please be sensible. --OttomanReference 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So you are admitting that it was actually a "war" between the Turks and Armenians, and not "genocide". Good. But I'll make sure the massacred Kurds and Turks in Van will also be mentioned. DragutBarbarossa 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we please show some civility. I dont care if Ottoman is an eskimo, his contribution of Turkish related articles has been immense. Likewise your work on the Turkish navy and the pictures you've uploaded have been a great addition, if you could both work together Turkish articles would benefit greatly. --A.Garnet 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"cleansed from the local Kurds and Turks by the Russo-Armenian forces" this concept is not related with Ataturk. There is no bigger "vatan hainligi" if someone wants to develop these concepts under the Ataturk page. DragutBarbarossa if you have patience and sources; go and try to develop this under Armenian Genocide page. Please, it is factually not relevant to this article, especially if you do not have the citation. --OttomanReference 01:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tarzan Grammar

I have never seen a "worser" article on Wikipedia. The grammar errors are enormous, some paragraphs are absolutely incomprehensible (such as Atatürk's telegram to the Sultan from Syria, quoted from Andrew Mango's book).

Elementary school Tarzan English.

Once again, ArmenianReference is acting as if he is the "owner" of an article, despite being protested by many others for the bad quality of his editing work (not just me) and "completely changing" everything without asking for other people's opinions, especially those who gave their time and effort to edit the page in the past. DragutBarbarossa 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to correct the grammar errors, but after reaching the end of WWI, I gave up. It's hopeless... DragutBarbarossa 01:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

After a furious telegram to Sultan, "if we have a fool like Enver Pasha had not been the director-general of operations. If we did not have a commander (Ahmet Cemal Pasha) at the head of military force that abandoned the army. If above them we did not have group headquarters (Liman von Sanders) that lost the control within the first day of the battle... Now there is nothing left to do but to make peace[10].

Tarzan want Jane. DragutBarbarossa 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's right. E104421 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of a revert

I believe the article should be reverted to the version prior to Ottomans substantial edits, and sections from his edits integrated into that version. As it is, correcting the writing style, grammatical errors, format and presentation will simply be too time consuming. It is better to take what is good, such as the description of the military campaigns, and integrate it into the old version. As it is I simply dont see it as an improvement. Sorry, but thats just my view. --A.Garnet 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can read it and develop a position; that means, English of the article is good enough. The statements I added have citations. The correctness of every statement is verified.--OttomanReference 02:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia; it should be written in (literate) English. "Good enough" is not good enough. That being said, I would deplore any effort (not that I expect one) to use such a rewrite to drop sourced information. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. E104421 01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of a revert as proposed and I felt so much better when I saw the previous layout during the short-lived revert of E104421. It would be better to keep the article structure as it was before OttomanReference's major changes, and integrate his contributions into that version (his effort with citations and campaign maps should not be wasted). I, like A. Garnet, am more concerned with the structure and language issues than the content he's been adding. And for the English issue again, "readable English" is not good enough for the biography of Atatürk on an encyclopedia and on a web page coming first on the list with every search engine. Atilim Gunes Baydin 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys fix the format of the article. Improve the language.... However; If you look the sections, I developed them in a time line. The previous content did not obey the time line. The article (biography) looked like a conceptual article. There were statements regarding effectiveness of reforms, etc.. The results of the reforms should be discussed in Atatürk's Reforms. It is very very sad that I when I give my citations, even the most negative people accepts it. And they try to improve it. But you guys try to revert it. No wonder people fed-up and leave it as a mess. Especially E104421 and User talk:DragutBarbarossa exchanged e-mails (to communicated to personally and come up with a plan) to attach my edits. Check the discussions in my talk page and this group of messages this is their communication and declared attack to article. This is very very disappointing, especially when it comes from so called Turks. OttomanReference 03:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not correct. I can translate that conversation for the ones being interested. OttomanReference is misrepresenting this in a totally different way. By doing so, he's defocusing the discussion from its main point. Regards. E104421 04:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many brackets?

While reading, I realized that there are too many brackets through out the article. Here are a few: Selânik (Thessaloniki in present-day Greece) Manastır (Bitola in present day Republic of Macedonia)

There are also many brackets like this: Gallipoli (Turkish: Gelibolu) Chunuk Bair (Turkish: Conkbayırı)

In my opinion, we should remove these brackets. I also believe that Turkish equivalents are not necessary here since they are already given on their own pages. --Ugur Olgun 09:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Atatürk and Kurds‎

User User:Khoikhoi wants to develop a the relationship of Kurds and Ataturk. The concept is very controversial and can reach to a point that can extend beyond this article. The conept has its own page Atatürk and Kurds‎; could you please give your inputs under this page. Thanks --OttomanReference 17:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have re-written the paragraph based on the paper written by Andrew Mango who is extensively cited in the other parts of this article as well and has written the biography of Ataturk. I think that the relationship between Kurds and Ataturk deserves a short paragraph. However I agree that any mention should be clearly about Ataturk decisions and speeches about Kurds not rebellions or later political issues which have their own article.Heja Helweda 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi and Heja Helweda; both have rights to develop Kurdish issues; which a big junk of it is highly controversial. Question is; If you are sincere on this topic; but not just a "ONE LINER" persons (who just want to perform inflammatory activities), you should develop your materials before integrating into Ataturks page. The statements you want to add are very inflammatory "Kurds criticize Atatürk for disregarding their cultural distinctions in pursuing a Turkish national identity."; which I do not reject seeing them but in its own page. Who are these Kurds; what is their proof, are these claims substantial? It is not enough to cite one source and claims that "disregarding their cultural distinctions" is Ataturks policy. OttomanReference 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Please read my last edit. I am in favor of taking out that sentence(Kurds criticize ...), however the paragraph and cited from Anrdrew Mango paper is very important and clearly he was neutral on the issue.Heja Helweda 17:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What is not neutral is this: The statements that you want to keep is also inappropriate to this page; The person in question is dead more than 80 years. You guys are trying to solve "Within the political and social unity of today's Turkish nation" your issues under this guys page! OttomanReference 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep a cool head. I don't see why you think Ataturk decisions and decrees are inappropriate to mention in his own article. Please kindly explain it further. I personally respect him for modernizing Turkey. Thanks.Heja Helweda 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

One picks up special sentence and do not give before and after of the sentence can not be claimed neutral: When you cite a sentence it has to be linked to the issue that is developing. This sentence: "But these erroneous terms have brought nothing but sorrow to individual members of the nation, with the exception of a few brainless reactionaries, who became enemy's instruments" We do not know, under what conditions and what proposals (what is fallowed this sentence) Open sentences like this without any background is INFLAMMATORY. This is not neutral. Ataturk may not even talking about Kurdish nationalism, as far as this sentence goes. Was this sentence used in a paragraph explaining Sheikh Said Rebellion who was supported by British and to left Musol as a part of British Mandate of Mesopotamia. He could be easily pointing to the false claims; and destruction of a nation (Kurdish) aligned with a Tribal leader's interest. OttomanReference 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely do not understand why you guys do not develop your concepts under Atatürk and Kurds or Kurdish Revolts or Kurdish nationalism so that when you say cultural suppression; we do understand what is really suppressed. --OttomanReference 18:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at this introduction sentence: "During the years of War of Independence, Atatürk recognized the mutliethnic character of the muslim population in Turkey, and promised self-government for ethnic minorities" Lets divide the arguments; 1) mutliethnic character 2) muslim population 3)self-government for ethnic minorities. 1 and 2 is correct. And by the trustfulness of 1 and 2 you expect people to belive 3. Ataturk belived in unity (Centralized) government. It fought against capitulations. He claimed that we have "same rights" under this flag (state). He never claimed you have to be same in your house; but the state has to be neutral to everyone. If you guys are not FAKE and sincere in this pursue; develop it under its own page. RIGHT at this version; there is a lot of inflamatory; misinformation in these claims. OttomanReference 18:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this shouldn't be included here, or at least mentioned. It has sources which seem to be legit, whether it's controversial or not. --AW 19:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added the part of that which deals with Ataturk and removed a part which was entirely about post-Ataturk times. --AW 23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone else removed this. Why? It's sourced. --AW 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The key words here are "criticize" and "Kurds criticize". Websters Dictionary definition, if I may, is, 1 : to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : evaluate 2 : to find fault with : point out the faults of. Wikipedia, or any Encyclopedia, is not a medium where one ethnic group may evaluate, judge, critique, or evaluate historical figures of another ethnic group. The outcome is surely to be biased. There are some people who love Ataturk, and their positive feedback is not here on this page. The point is that a "critique" is ultimately an opinion. This is a history and a biography of facts about Ataturk, not a critique. If you notice, there are no "critiques" made by Turks saying "Turks criticize Ataturk for giving Kurds too much", and rightfully so. Furthermore, your "sources" do not speak for the entire Kurdish peoples. Some Kurds may love Ataturk and everything he has done. --Oguz1 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, this is a history, but not including critiques would make it POV. Nowhere does it say that biographies are supposed to be completely positive towards the subject and include no sourced critiques, whether you or I think they're valid. And how can you say there's a lack of positive things? What do you consider positive? He founded a country and defended it. Just a few examples in the article - it says he was a respected general, "proven to be correct in his every assessment," "he was the father of the Turkish state," his last name means "Father Turk" after all! I'm sure some Kurds love Ataturk, but as this shows, some Kurds don't. Also, I didn't write that section. --AW 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying not adding critiques (which are opinions) would make the article opinionated, thus POV? I don't get it. Also, I said positive feedback as in positive "critiques" or "evaluations", a feedback is a critique. His founding a nation is not an evaluation however, it happened whether or not somebody had an opinion about it. You can't un-critique that. Same goes for other things you mentioned as being positive, they are not critiques or evaluations, they happened. The tree did fall in the forest even if nobody heard it. For your critique and I can make counter-critiques and claims that say there are Kurds who love Ataturk - and that would undo your claims - do you understand? You are expressing the opinions of certain people...that's POV. You can do that on a blog or something, not here. I know you understand, so let's move on and let's stop wasting time on this. It's silly. --Oguz1 19:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oguz, saying "you know I understand" and "it's silly" is not fair, that's not how to discuss this. And again, I didn't write that section, OK? And if you have valid sources that say Kurds loved Ataturk, then feel free to put them in. It's obvious that not every Kurd criticizes Ataturk, and the article doesn't say "Every Kurd criticizes Ataturk." I think you are being too literal.

But in any case, I changed the article, I took out the sentence that said "Kurds criticize Atatürk for disregarding their cultural distinctions in pursuing a Turkish national identity." which I think is what you disagree with, and I moved the other part to the Ataturk and Kurds part. --AW 19:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In the critiques, you have to avoid certain POV words, but having no critique section at all is POV. In articles, you mostly just write about the things that person did, and to some people, this looks like glorification. To counter that, you must also provide the negative aspect of that person. Nishkid 64 22:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is more than enough good material in this article to turn it into a Featured Article

We should roll up our sleeves and dig in to sort this article out. AppleJuggler 04:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

worst muslim ever

he ended the caliphate and drank alcohol what kind of muslim is he —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dstfan (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

He sacrificed himself for his nation and for the republic. I think ending the caliphate is one of the best political moves he made in his career. If you think then you may understand that you can't include such an old fashion title in a modern democracy. Deliogul 13:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Turkey was the ONLY UNOCCUPİED MUSLİM STATE İN THE WORLD when Ataturk ilberated the country from western invaders. This status remained untill after W.W.II this should count for something; shouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isatay (talk • contribs)

Economical

I have corrected "economical" (which means cheap) to "economic" throughout the text, but cannot figure out how to edit the caption of the picture that says "economical"--can someone fix that?

Itahist 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is okay now. See you, Deliogul 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Armenia section

The article is as concise as possible or else certain aspects would only remain esoteric to those editors who are familiar about that part of history. I'm amenable to suggestions but the grammar and prose seem to flow well and the section is brief in regards to the entire article.

Also, you guys don't have to write Andrew Mango Ataturk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey ISBN: 158567334X page. 161 after every citation. You can just write Mango. Ataturk. p. 161 instead of listing miscellaneous information over and over again.--MarshallBagramyan 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Marshall, I am unhappy with the inclusion of this. I believe you are giving undue weight to this source, there may be some historians who consider Ataturk as extending the Armenian genocide, but the vast majority certainly do not associate him with those events. This is certainly something that is not elaborated on the Armenian genocide article, nor has it ever been included there to my mind. To come here therefore and insert this sentence which disregards Ataturk's prime motives in reclaiming land lost to the Treaty of Sevres, and to portray it (even if this was not your intention) as merely the extension of the Armenian genocide seems inherently pov. --A.Garnet 11:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm unhappy with the inclusion of many things on Wikipedia but so what? we cannot get what we all want.

There's a great deal of things the AG article is missing; frankly, I think it's in shambles and asides from a section or two, the page needs to be purged and rewritten all over again.

there may be some historians who consider Ataturk as extending the Armenian genocide, but the vast majority certainly do not associate him with those events. Well it depends on who this "vast majority" is. I never said that section was complete and you guys can go ahead of me and place a credible, 3rd party source that many other historians disagree with Bremmer's assertion. Being accused of a genocide is something notable enough, and something that other neutral contributors will surely agree to its inclusion.

Look, I have stated numerous times that I do not want a war on this article at all nor see it protected because of edit wars nor even get involved in the life Ataturk. But let's consider the number of reverts by Turkish users who have not even bothered to add anything to that specific passage or alter its wording and have simply removed on the grounds of "irrelevancy" with one Turkish user accusing me of being an "Armenian joke" [4]. I know what this man represents in Turkey, his stature, his reputation, but its laughable to hear you guys accuse me of inserting something that is "inherently" POV when even the mildest criticism of the man sends people up in arms that I am somehow engaged in pov warring.

To come here therefore and insert this sentence which disregards Ataturk's prime motives in reclaiming land lost to the Treaty of Sevres. I'm not mincing words here nor attempting to conceal my edits, but the fact of the matter is that by attacking the dilapidated state of Armenia, Ataturk essentially helped extend the suffering of Armenians. That's the views of the "number of credible historians" and not allowing it to be placed because it sounds POVish or damages the man's pristine character reeks of irony. I can only guess at what noble motives he had that you allude to asides from preserving the territory the state held. There is no reason why the source cannot be included. --MarshallBagramyan 17:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We will come back to this later more, however, the inclusion as is makes it sound like he wanted to or participated in a genocide. Something that is undue weight, and doesn't reflect any sort of academic concensus. "He extended the suffering of the Armenians" is not the same thing as "extended the genocide". Soviet invasion also "extended the suffering of the Armenians", but I see no such reference in scholarly opinion as to how "Soviet Union extended the Armenian genocide". As such, that interpretation is not correct and doesn't reflect scholarly concensus, and as such is undue weight. You can add something like "his actions during the TR war of independence had an adverse effect on Armenian ambitions to establish a bigger state in eastern anatolia and caucasus", which would most probably correct. This issue has been discussed to death already in the archives.Baristarim 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a real poor analogy with the USSR that I'm considering if I should even attempt to explain to you the glaring differences between the two. I haven't interpreted nor misconstrued the passage from the book one iota:

"There is evidence, in fact, that in the early 1920s, Kemal led military campaigns against Russian Armenians living within the borders of what would become the Turkish Republic. These Armenians had returned to their homes following the killings and mass deportations that Ottoman authorities began in 1915. A number of credible historians thus accuse Kemal of extending the Armenian Genocide." (Bremmer, p. 199)

Anything less, and you guys end up suppressing these facts.--MarshallBagramyan 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

? Am I missing something? Between 1920-22, he was busy in the battlefield fighting the Greeks, how did he lead campaigns to the Caucasus? By 1922, war was over already.. This is what I mean, there is no indication of in which way he intended, or did participate in "extending the AG" - listen, I know that the war wasn't good on the Armenians, but you cannot simply lump every single war and conflict in the beginning of the 20s with AG. Armenia was also state that fielded armies. That's why I am saying that it doesn't reflect concensus on this issue, in fact it is far away from being so. However, as I pointed out earlier this: "his actions during the TR war of independence had an adverse effect on Armenian ambitions to establish a bigger state in eastern anatolia and caucasus" is more than valid. I hope you see my point.. Baristarim 19:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok.....just because he was fighting the Greeks doesn't mean he wasn't concentrating his efforts in the east. Of course he wasn't complicit in planning or executing the Genocide but it certainly did not make matters any less difficult for us by launching offensives aimed at capturing territories that were to be awarded to the DROA. Your proposal broadly whitewashes the history: "adverse effects"? Armenians' suffering wasn't a byproduct of the "war of independence", to imply as if we got in mess with the Turks and by our own will, lost the lands.--MarshallBagramyan 19:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean the territory to be awarded to DROA under Sevres? As for Ataturk, otherwise you are saying more like "taking advantage of/using the weakness"? I can see where that interpretation can come from. Hmm.. Well as for the territory issue, Greece could say the same thing, right? However, most academics do refer to him saying "fought to have the Sevres revoked", not "steal other people's lands". No historical analysis considers Sevres to be legitimate vis-à-vis the Turkish people, considering that a republican revolution came right afterwards to overthrow the monarchy. It would be like saying the French revolution was "illegal" - it definitely was at the time, however historians have reached the conclusion that it is the opposite. Similar for Sevres and the revolution in Turkey. And legally, Lausanne confirmed it back in the day. Therefore there were no "territories to be awarded". I definitely understand and hear what you are trying to say, but portraying as if Ataturk had a particular beef with the Armenians is also not correct. That's why I think that my earlier suggestion is more appropriate. Obviously Armenians didn't loose anything on their own will, however war is also war and Armenians did have an ambition to establish a bigger state in eastern Anatolia and Caucasus - I have yet to see more than two-three books dedicated in its entireity to either AG or Ataturk that point to such a connection during wars between 1920-22. That's all I am saying. Baristarim 20:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"however war is also war and Armenians did have an ambition to establish a bigger state in eastern Anatolia and Caucasus" Armenian leaders were obliged to accept whatever boundaries the Allied powers would demarcate but their sole interest was self-preservation and safety, not territorial grabs against a still potent power.

"I have yet to see more than two-three books dedicated in its entireity to either AG or Ataturk that point to such a connection during wars between 1920-22" Take a quick trip to Google Books or Amazon.com, type in "Kemal" or Ataturk or "Mustafa Kemal" and "Armenian Genocide", you'll find at least a dozen books referring to not only Kemal's involvement in the eastern provinces but also the attacks by nationalist forces against repatriated Armenians and the French military in the region of Cilicia.--MarshallBagramyan 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I did the search ("Mustafa Kemal" AND "Armenian Genocide" on Google books, checked the first seven (Hovannisian, Dadrian, Balakian, Hovannisian, Hovannisian, Lewy, Melson, all except the last two are Armenian, several books of Hovannisian). I did not find any claim that Atatürk was related to genocide. deniz^T_C 21:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with our search engines? [http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-0514345-3563901?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=kemal+armenian+genocide&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go] and here [http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-0514345-3563901?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ataturk+armenian+genocide&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go]. Try not looking for the words "Ataturk continued the Genocide" and read through some of the pages and do some searching through the search function most of the books offer.--MarshallBagramyan 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please just tell us the books and some unusual text on the pages where the relation of Atatürk to genocide appear. I made only a Google book search, not an Amazon search. Kemal is not uncommon name in Turkey, I don't think it was uncommon back then. deniz^T_C 23:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that requires more in depth searching inside the books. Unfortunately I do not have time to be researching these few days but I would assume you would have no difficulty in doing this. If I understand what you're saying (double negatives), the context in the books are unequivocal, they are referring to Kemal, not someone with a similar last name. If you have any more questions, post on my talk page; due to the intransigence and reverts of users, apparently my being here does not yield a hospitable climate when it comes to criticizing dear leader. I doubt I'm going to make any headway arguing away my points here. --MarshallBagramyan 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We can discuss the issues about the article in depth later on, however I don't like the fact that you feel somehow intimidated. It is not correct that you being here doesn't lead a hospitable climate because of ethnicity concerns (however, the analogy with the Dear leader doesn't, cough cough, help :)). We know about the tension, but as far as I am concerned I have been discussing with an editor about the article, not "repulsing an "attack" by the Armenian gang". I am sure that there are editors out there who are biased, but you know that at the end of the day it is the serious editors who get the final say as the articles improve.. I am not going to hide the fact that I am against the inclusion of what I had deleted in that form into this article (per my prior posts), but it is not because I or most Turkish editors are trying to edict a "Juche monument" or anything. It is true that Turks consider him in high esteem, but they don't worship him either you know :) Anyways.. Baristarim 00:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan says: Ataturk essentially helped extend the suffering of Armenians: ADR is a nationalistic state. It is an Armenian national state established under the leadership of Armenian Revolutionary Federation. ARF waged a form of independence war (towards, Ottomans, Georgia, Ajeriz, and Soviets basically everybody). Their efforts to stabilize and extend their lands (prevent it becoming land locked state) continued during the Turkish-Armenian War. For the misery (to ARMENIANs) ARF caused during the achievement of their nationhood can only be attributed to ARF. It is like a child who do not accept the responsibility. ARF members are attacking everything they found honorable around, this time Ataturk. They are constantly deleting significant information that proves they made mistakes. Van Resistance is a good example. Van Resistance is Armenian revolt in Turkish history books. Instead of adding information, they delete information. They reject Turkish sources as biased. While doing the removal of information, they also accept the information is correct but claim that it does not work for their ideology (check this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 24 circular The person who asks the deletion of the article also accepts that it is correct). This became a game of hiding facts, and it is beyond any SERIOUS activity. That is my perception, and I hold it as truth. --OttomanReference 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this wording is not very precise: "With the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, three independent republics had been established in the Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Kemal and his movement were angered by the Ottoman government's decision to recognize the "principle of autonomy" in Armenia,[16] and this only galvanized after Ferid signed the Treaty of Sevres which stated that the country would recognize Armenia as a "free and independent state" and thus renounce any territorial claims against it.[17] In the early autumn of 1920, Kemal's forces attacked Armenia and captured much of the territory of the Republic. In December 1920, Armenia sued for peace and in the ensuing treaties with the Soviet Union (after Armenia was incorporated in to it) Turkey won control of much of territories of the DRA." The problem is that none of the territories the passage alludes to were Armenian -- there is not a single legal document (before Sevres) that recognizes them as Armenian. Neither were Armenians majority in any of the vilayats. Turkey was only RETURNING the previously occupied, by Russia, lands that belonged to it for centuries. So the words like:

1) "Kemal's forces attacked" -- not precise, because it were forces of Kazim Karabekir Pasha, who not only commanded those forces, but negotiated and signed the Alexandropol Treaty of November 1920. And they didn't attack out of the blue -- it was a response.

2) Armenians have previously attacked, as part of Russian forces, the Ottoman homeland, by crossing the borders in 1914, and keeping many lands under occupation.

3) Armenia (DRA) was never recognized de jure -- only de facto, and even that later, after Georgia and Azerbaijan, which were recognized before Armenia in January 1920. As such, it didn't have any undisputed borders -- it had disputed borders with all of its neighbors.

4) Treaty of Sevres was not as innocent as the wording suggests -- it didn't just concern itself with recognition of Armenia as a "free and independent state", but with reduction of Turkey into a small Anatolian state, with a mega-state of Armenia, and other new nations. As such, neither Ataturk nor others were opposed to an independent Armenia, but they were opposed to it if it were to happen at their own state's expense. It would have been better if MarshallBagramyan provided the full quote, as opposed to selectively quoting. --adil 22:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Photograps section

What is the logic behind putting photographs section into the middle of the article? I get used to see it as the last section from other wikipedia articles and at first glance thought that the article is over. --Ugur Olgun 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is as if A.Garnet removed the section. Now my problem is that wikiquote and wikicommons link is at a very bad place for readers. I suggest putting them somewhere between media and worldwide section.--Ugur Olgun 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

His birth name is Mustafa

Hey guys, yesterday i changed the wrong information about his birth name, but somebody reverted it. As you can see at early life section, his birth name is Mustafa,not Kemal. "Mustafa studied at the military secondary school in Selânik, where the additional name Kemal ("perfection" or "maturity", not an uncommon name) was given to him by his mathematics teacher in recognition of his academic excellence" So, please don`t revert to wrong version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.240.146.255 (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Ops, I am so sorry, i forgot to refresh the page :) . Then there is no mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.240.146.255 (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Removing muslim categories

An anon user and User:Maestroka both took out the Category:Muslim politicians and Category:Muslim reformers, with Maestroka saying "he was against a religious badge next to the title politician." Whether or not he was against being labeled as a Muslim politician, he was in fact a politician who was Muslim, right? And since this is a fact, I think it should stay. It's simply a descriptive category, just like if there were a category like "Politicians with dark hair" or "politicians born in Selânik" --AW 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted, please see my edit summary. There is a serious debate as to whether he espoused Islam, most sources consider him as Deist.. He could have been an atheist or Muslim, but I don't think he fits so easily into the same category as Ahmedinajad or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.. It is not just a "descriptive category" either, he must have put his Muslim identity into a prominent place in his life and policies for him to be put into that category in any case. Baristarim 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am one of them who just removed the Muslim reformers and Muslim categories from Ataturk.First of all,he is defenetly not a reformer of Islam.He just removed it away from public by force and insulted it.Here's something:According to his biographer Jacques Benoist-Mechin,in moments of anger,Ataturk described Islam as 'the absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin,' a 'putrefied corpse that poisons our'.

That is taken from a book.With that he defenetly was no Muslim,and was defenetly a Muslim killer and corruptor.I mean,he abolished the Caliphate.That's like someone abolishing the Pope.The Muslim world will in order and in a way much better position if Islam had a Caliphate.Muslims dont,and Ataturk is to blame.

Muslim reformer? Greatest Muslim? I beg to differ.Give me a break.^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.199.32 (talk • contribs)

Ok, well I guess we need a source then. --AW 14:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello AW,I'm the one who posted that above your post.You messaged me saying to add 60.50.199.32 12:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I dont quite understand 60.50.199.32 12:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

^ Kinross p.503
^ Kinros p.504

[1] Kinross p.503

[2] Kinros p.504

[1]

[2]