Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Quotes

Why did someone removed the quotes??? Yeah,I know its not nice,but it shows the kind of person Ataturk is.

Atatürks Memorial in Canberra, Australia

Can somebody please include this picture of Atatürks Memorial in Australia? --> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:AS_Kemal_Ataturk_1.jpg Thank you! --134.155.99.41 00:56, 8 April 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 [1] 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

This was prematurely archived since consensus has not been reached. Agha Nader 02:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

When a thread has been inactive for three months, it is generally assumed that it has died down :) I don't think it was premature archiving, but you are welcome to raise the issue again. Nevertheless, a thread cannot continue forever though - otherwise we can never archive! Sometimes it is better to archive and start fresh.. Baristarim 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You never responded to my last comment. According to WP:CONS, "Silence equals consent". I am sure you will agree that I gave you enough time to respond, and thus you remained silent. I think a Criticism section should be made, based on consensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agha Nader (talk • contribs) 03:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, I think that WP:CONS would apply to both parties, Agha. If no one from either side raises an issue, or comes to a conclusion, then the issue is in fact dead, so your interpretation of the policy is inaccurate. That said, Baristarim, even if you felt that the discussion had been concluded, it's usually good to wait about a week or so to make sure that the conversation has gone stale. This protects you from having folk accuse you of trying to hide edits (actually, this is impossible, but it never stopped contributors from making the claim anyway).

It's usually best to AGF in these cases, and act transparently, taking extra steps to make sure people understand what yu are doing. In this case, you could have posted a notice that you were planning to archive, sit back and see what happens. after a week, go wild.

Hope that helps. Cheers! Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who archived. :) And the thread had been dead since January. But thanks for the note anyways, it is appreciated..

As for the discussion, this issue has been discussed to death for ages, check the archives - you are dropping by the talk page every three months and saying "well, no-one replied to my comments, therefore I am going to include what I want". Wrong. This issue has been discussed for years, that's why no other editor bothered to reply in my opinion. This article underwent a huge rewrite in the last two months, where were you? :)) And "my" silence is irrelevant - there are at least fifteen users who make regular contributions to this article. It is not like I am the guardian of the gate or anything :)) There is no such concensus - this was raised but I will explain again: criticism sections are unencyclopedic and stupid: this is an encyclopedia article, not the wailing wall. Any "criticism" is supposed to be inserted into the relevant sections in the bio in a professional manner. There are no bios out there who have "criticism" sections. Have you ever read such a bio on paper? No. Well, Wikipedia strives to be better than common websites. Having a criticism section is pretty much saying "well, we have given up on spending our wits into making a coherent article, so anyone who has got beef, just dump them in this section because we cannot be bothered with discussing them". Right? :) Baristarim 04:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It was me who archived it. It was a dead discussion (so Agha Nader's restoring this section might be premature), but later discussions might have not been that dead, sorry about that. The talk page was too big to be useful, and it hasn't been archived for quite a while (the previous archivings were more regular). I archived it for those reasons. Anyway, a section exists on criticisms of the reforms: Atatürk's_reforms#Criticism. deniz^T_C 16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not agree if you say that Ataturk had a distaste for Ottoman's customs. Case by case maybe, for instance the fez introduced only about a hundred year ago from West has been replaced by hat, the current thing from the West, at that time. Caliphacy which was more Islamic than Ottoman, was transfered to the Grand Assembly not to be used again. But as far as I know, caliphacy was used by Ottomans first in the 19th (or 18th?) century against Russians who were no 'caliph's of Orthodox (an Ottoman was), so being a powerful Muslim nation was enough; Ottomans were more Roman emperors than caliphs before then. Arabs apparently did not care much about Ottomans' caliphacy (Sunni leadership) anyway, Iranians were Shia, Muslims in India (or further away) might have cared, Muslims in Anatolia have fought alongside with Mustafa Kemal, and they did care). Looking at what they did, I guess Ottoman sultans in 18th, 19th century, might have had a big distaste of some Ottoman customs, as one might say. deniz^T_C 16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion?

Had he a religion? Muslim? Sunni or Shia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.226.234 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

He was a nominal muslim; his actions indicate that he was in fact not a muslim in reality; there are quotes from 'The Grey Wolf' that suggest he hated islam, threw the book of the muslims, qur'an at khojas, spoke disparagingly of the prophet of islam and of islam itself. I'll quote the page numbers when i get a chance to look it up.

he was a sunni

nop, he was theist or agnostic. Filanca 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he was a Sunni Muslim because of his family but this doesn't mean that he was a religious man or an exercising believer. He was far above the dogmas of Islam, that's for sure ;) Deliogul 13:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He was named Mustafa referring to Prophet Muhammad. In all her pictures I know, Makbule Atadan, Ataturk's sister, had worn burqa. I think he was what a great number of Turks are today, Cultural Muslim. He just wanted to get the religion rid off Arabism. I don't think he was Shia, if for nothing else, because then the Islamists would know it and make use of it instead of the fact that his father had died early (calling his mother a prostitute, maybe forgetting that Mohammad and many other prophets were orphans as well, and Jesus was 'ever orphan'). Of course Shia is not any worse than Sunni Islam, and vice versa, but Turkish shia is Alevism, which is not Islam according to Islamists. deniz^T_C 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

they asked Atatürk's faith, not his family's. you dont automatically become a sunni muslim if your family are so. Filanca 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

and my answer is he was probably what we refer today as Cultural Muslim, probably with no Alevi background. deniz^T_C 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deniz is right. I couldn't remember the term "Cultural Muslim" while I was editing. Deliogul 13:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly as Filanca said, he was most probably a theist or agnostic; and certain modern bios consider him so. I really doubt that he was Shia/Alevi (even for background), Alevism is practically non-existant in Rumeli (as far as I know). But the Cultural Muslim thing is also kind of correct. Anyways, as Deniz said, he was primarily interested in getting rid off Arabism, if anything. Baristarim 13:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

- According to many scholars and Turks themselves, he had Jewish heritage of Spanish origins. Why do people delete that fact from the article? It's well known. He even knew several Jewish prayers even though he didn't consider himself Jewish but was well aware that his ancestors were.

I guess you are crazy, the unsigned user. Mustafa Kemal's origin has nothing to do with Jewish or Spanish origins. He was a member of the considerably large Turkish population of Macedonia at the time of his birth. Actually his mother was a strong believer of the Sunni branch of Islam. As I said before, he was above the dogmas of religion. Deliogul 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Youtube controversy

I think this might be worth mentioning, though the way it was in the article before relied on blogs. Apparently a Belgian book said Ataturk was gay, and Greeks started putting videos on Youtube saying the same thing. Turks responded, and then the Turkish government banned the site altogether, because insulting Ataturk or Turkishness is illegal. Here's a London Times article [2]--AW 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

~~ It wasn't a greek that put that video up. Yes, greeks were accused before any investigation was conducted since a greek username was used. The youtube user who loaded the video was using a British IP address. If you research youtube comments and note that a youtube user called MRSeanie was the first to point fingers at a Greek by posting his details, it would seem that the British user MrSeanie was behind it. Technically, there is no proof that a greek caused the problem. The user MrSeanie who has been hurling abuse at Greeks for some time now is equally suspicious of involvement. Besides, the accused Greek had stated that he didn't know who or how they got his private details. He had given his details to a British man through Ebay when he tried to purchase a DVD player. He never received the DVD player. (From the News). And as such, Greeks cannot be proven behind this with solid evidence. The only link to the Greek was a greek username which MrSeanie has been using to hurl more abuse and to incriminate the youth more. I have researched news reports as well which featured an interview with the accused and also Interpol were involved since the boys life was threatened by Turks. Investigation discovered that the video was uploaded through a british IP address. ApplesnPeaches ~~

Ok, I added the section about the ban with other reliable sources, the BBC and the Guardian --AW 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

AW, see Wikipedia:Recentism: "Recentism is the tendency by Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective...Established articles become skewed towards documenting controversy as it happens...and the relative emphasis on (more or less) timeless facets of a topic which Wikipedia consensus had previously established is often muddled". Now tell me, in ten years time, will this controversy initiated by a bunch of degenerate teens sit alongside Ataturks legacy of establishing the first secular and democratic Muslim state? For that reason, i'm removing it. --A.Garnet 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So we shouldn't have anything current about him? To me, this is something about him that's happening in the modern day, and that's interesting. He still inspires strong reactions. --AW 16:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Age 125"?

WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.190.75 (talk • contribs)

Done Deniz^T_C 00:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WDYM? Deniz^T_C 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

His memory will always live in our minds but we have to accept his physical death. This "125" thing is totally rubbish. Thanks for the correction. Deliogul 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to take an interest in this article

User Ottoman Reference has inspired me to consider introducing a number of edits to this article. I have come to admire his style and perseverence and as he has been so succesful in his approach I intend to imitate it in regards to this article and elsewhere. I am aware of a great deal of information concerning Ataturk that is not covered in this article do IMO to the extreme fawning and worshipful nature of most Turks (who have crafted it) concerning this man and what I percieve as the deliberate censoring of certain vital information that is out there that is not contained in the article or anywhere else within Wikipedia. Subjects (either within this article itself or as seperate articles linked to this article) that I am considering introducing include but are not limited to - "Ataturk's bloody legacy" - that will detail the great numbers of individuals whos deaths are directly attributable to Ataturk; "Ataturk the dictator" - an analysis of Ataturk's undemocratic political program and how it ultimatly jeaopordizes Turkey's entry into the EU; An Islamic perspective on Kemal Ataturk and his legacy; The supression (and genocide) of the Kurdish people as a result of political philosophy and policies initiated by Ataturk - with pictures of leveled Kurdish towns from the mid 1920's onward; "The beuatiful Fez and Ataturk's role in its destruction as a cultural icon" (speaks for itself); "Ataturk's initiative to destroy the first Republic of Armenia and complete the Armenian Genocide" detailed through correspondences and writting of Karim Karrabakir as well as from other observations - including an accounting of destroyed Armenian towns and villages and of course "Ataturk's afirmation of the Armenian Genocide" and eventual punishment of some of its initial purpetrators. In fact it is this latter subject that I shall no doubt work on first as part of a larger article concerning the punishment and eventual fate of perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide - a story that (Ottoman Reference has convinced me) absolutly must be told. Ataturk's pivotal role in bringing these scoundrels to justice is completely missing in the vast annals of Wikipedia and I cannot understand how decent folks who care about the spread of all knowledge can stand such a lapse. It may take me several weeks or months to assemble and source all of the relevent information - but most I already have what I need in my library - so its just a matter of me getting to it. I must say however, that you all should expect me to begin to take a special interest in this article which is clearly lacking in relevant details about such an important personage of our time on his expansive legacy. Oh and another area that should be brought out - since there is so much speculation concerning such (as Ottoman Refernce has clearly demonstrated the legitimacy in crafting article covering speculative history) is Ataturk's somewhat controversial sexual history. Good day. --THOTH 02:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article should be linked here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sun_Language_Theory - This theory was a centerpiece of Ataturk's philosophy and belief concerning the Turkish people. The article's expansion and linkage to this one is clearly in order. Some additional relevant information that could be added - http://www.aidanederland.nl/agenda/diversen/Turkish%20Journalist%20Imprisoned.html And this one that relates Ataturk's Sun language and related hypothosis concerning the origins of the Turkish "race" with that of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis http://books.google.com/books?id=E0U104S4msoC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=ataturk+sun+language+theory&source=web&ots=Cwd_bqhMGQ&sig=QAGtoa4kdGl-ey3sw4C7OocFFIY#PPA4,M1 Just as an aside - I have some replica examples of these sun disk motifs obtained from the Anatolian Civilizations museum in Ankara BTW - the subject has long been of interest to me. --THOTH 02:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"controversial sexual history" ?? "Nazi" ?? .. I have checked your so called contributions to wikipedia and I can clearly see why you are writing these. Totally nonsense. As you are a Greek nationalist, it is best that you stay away from this article.. --88.106.2.18 11:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality

How come no one is talking about his homosexuality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.141.128 (talk • contribs)

Care to enlighten us? --AW 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

he wasn't homosexual, for sure.--85.97.27.33 14:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

he was homosexual, for sure.

There is no way of definitively categorizing one as gay unless he/she came out of the closet during his/her lifetime. Hence, it is not possible to conclusively state that Ataturk, or Alexander the Great for that matter, were gay. One's gaydar is, alas, not enough to document historical personalities! Therefore any conclusive argument on such matters remains academic. However, is a fact that several biographers of Ataturk, including the Turkish author Irfan Orga (Orga, İrfan and Margarete Orga, Atatürk (London: Michael Joseph, 1962)) have written about Ataturk's alleged bisexuality. Needles to say, any discussion of Kemal's sexuality is not only taboo, but also punishable by law, in modern Turkey, where the cult of Ataturk remains a pillar of the state. Rastapopoulos 08:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Many people claim many different things about Mustafa Kemal. Claiming someting or writing books about it is not enough if we are talking about the academic level. Take care brother, Deliogul 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote for main article
Mustafa Kemal married only once. He married Latife Uşaklıgil on January 29, 1923. The marriage lasted until August 5, 1925. The circumstances of their divorce remain a closely guarded secret in Turkey, although it is believed that Usakligil had no patience for Atatürk's drinking habits or his late-night soirees. A 25-year old court order banned the publishing of his former wife's diaries and letters, which described the circumstances of their failed marriage. Upon expiration of the court order, the head of the Turkish History Foundation, where the letters are kept since 1975, said Latife Usakligil's family had demanded that the letters remain secret.

Maybe his wife diaries would prove that he was a homosexual, I mean think about it the guy was only married once and the marriage lasted for only 2 years and 7 months. And on top of this his former wife’s diaries and personal letters are a closely guarded secret in Turkey, 69 years after his death. What does his former wife’s diaries and personal letters contain to be national secrets? Could it be that the reason for his one and only short lived marriage be because of his homosexuality, maybe that’s the reason the circumstances of his divorce remain a closely guarded secret in Turkey. 71.222.68.128 07:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that people only have sex with their wives? I think it would be nice if you make some research about Mustafa Kemal's Sofia love affairs. The irony is that he was known as a woman chaser when he was a young student at the military academy. Deliogul 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That’s a stupid question you pose. Apparently he was Muslim, and Muslims are not supposed to have premarital sex. And let’s hope he was not having homosexual or any other sort of relationships during his marriage. But I suspect that might be the case, and might be the result of his short lived marriage. You know there have been and are many men who are married and some even with children and families that were homosexuals and had relationships with men besides their wives. I think this information is important and should be included in this article. Take a look at Abraham Lincoln for example, there is a whole article dedicated to his Sexuality. Take a look at the article Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. 71.222.68.128 07:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are missing a great deal of Mustafa Kemal's personality by talking about Islam. We talked about his religious orientation here for a long time. He wasn't a practicing Muslim and we decided that the most religious term that we can use about him is cultural Muslim. Also, I guess you don't have clue about why Mustafa Kemal married with Latife Hanım instead of Fikriye Hanım. He chose Latife because she was a role model for the Turkish woman which Mustafa Kemal was dreaming of. A lady who was educated with the Western notion seemed better at that time. Fikriye Hanım committed suicide when she heard the news of Mustafa Kemal's marriage. I guess Latife's diaries are not shown to public because of this love triangle and the hard life of Mustafa Kemal. I don't know if you heard it somewhere but he was working day and night during his marriage and it is a well known thing that Latife Hanım didn't like this heavy, political and crowded atmosphere of their home at all. There were problems in their marriage from the first moment. Mustafa Kemal's mother once said that Latife doesn't love her child Mustafa but she loves Atatürk. You know, the personality cult rather than the person himself. This can go further but I stop here. Deliogul 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

rumors of his Jewish background

Someone removed sourced content I added of the romours surrounding his Jewish background.There are so many sources and I specified that it was just a romour and has yet to be proven.Why was my edit removed?Vmrgrsergr 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A data can't be a "source" just because it exists. This is why your edit was removed. Mustafa Kemal was a member of the Turkish population of Macedonia. Deliogul 20:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What is a romour? Rastapopoulos 08:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

i provided several links to that section and I didnt write it was true i wrote its a romour and the fact that it is a question amongst many people makes it a romour so remeber it is still a romour even if it is untrue and it should go under his personal life section so please reconsider.-Vmrgrsergr 22:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it shouldn't go to anywhere in this article brother. We don't have place for rumors in Wikipedia. Deliogul 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So if there's an article that discusses the Armenian genocide or other things that are still considered rumour, it shouldn't be here?--Vmrgrsergr 03:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You can find supportive claims for the Genocide even if those claims are subjective or constructed by sided people. So you can find something, academically, to say about Armenians but Mustafa Kemal's sexuality is totally irrelevant to the academic circles because it is the business of popular culture instead of scholars. I guess you need more than poor word tricks to convince us. Deliogul 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there are reliable sources talking about him being Jewish, gay, or anything, we should add it. The pop culture vs. scholars argument is a bogus one, this website has plenty of both. --AW 16:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I can stand up and say that Bush and all his cabinet are homosexuals and they are ruling the world according to their nasty games but this would be just a useless comedy. The same thing goes for the so called "rumors" about Mustafa Kemal. Deliogul 23:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you're not a reliable source, so we wouldn't put it in. That's my point. Anybody can say anything, but if a reliable source says something, it should be included. --AW 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

~~ I have read that he was of Jewish background. In Thesalonika at the time, there was a large Jewish community living there. The theory goes that there was a group of secret jews that would outwardly appear as unothrodoxed muslim, but were really jewish, which may explain why he pushed for a secular Turkey. I read that many joined the "Young Turks". Can anyone back this up? Is there a large jewish community in Turkey? Does Turkey have close political ties with Israel? Does anyone know why/how Kemal came to know jewish? by ApplesnPeaches ~~

Atatürk was as Jewish as I am Japanese. His mother, Zübeyde Hanım, was a Yörük Turk (i.e. Turkmen), which had a clearly visible impact on the shape of Atatürk's face, head, and considerably pronounced cheekbones. My maternal family comes from Izmir and Mytilene, both of which had large Greek populations in the late Ottoman period. But they were Muslim Turks. Istanbul's Kumkapı and Bomonti neighbourhoods have traditionally large Armenian populations, but this doesn't mean that everyone who lives there is an Armenian; actually the number of Muslim Turks living there is relatively larger, just like the number of Muslim Turks living in Thessaloniki was relatively larger than the total number of Jews in that city during the late Ottoman period (the fact that Thessaloniki had a large Jewish community is something, the notion that they were the "largest" community (which is untrue) in that city during the late Ottoman period is something else. The Turkish and Greek communities were far larger than the Jewish community in Thessaloniki, which ranked as the 3rd largest ethnic group behind these two.) The non-existent "Jewishness" of Atatürk is a favourite theme (creation) of the Islamists, who are keen on turning him into an "Otherly" figure in order to de-popularise his reforms, especially regarding secularism. They believe that branding him as "Atajew" will help them to remove his pro-secular, pro-Enlightenment, pro-Western positivist reforms, and transform Turkey into a constitutionally Islamic, theocratic state; i.e. into a Sunnite version of Iran. Flavius Belisarius 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Young Turk doctorine was pro-Nationalist and militarist so it was a group which you would like to join if you are a young soldier or a military student (for example Mustafa Kemal, Enver Pasha etc.). Deliogul 11:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article is almost entirely pro-Ataturk and there is little criticism of any of his reforms or his anti-religious bigotry. I've added some quotes but this article still needs some sort of criticism section considering the large impact he has made on Turkey. --BlarghHgralb 00:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So you say that he made a wrong thing by ending the rule of sharia in Turkey. Criticism would be nice but you have to choose a more convincing topic to do it. Deliogul 17:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Kemal Ataturk has been criticized by many people and I think it's relevant to the article regardless of whether it's convincing or not. --BlarghHgralb 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why people don't understand me :) I tried to say that what kind of a criticism you have about Mustafa Kemal because he formed a secular state with a modern law structure. I guess you prefer to lose a hand because you stole something instead of going to jail with your full body... Deliogul 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue is his anti-religious stance; comments like "Islam, this theology of an immoral Arab, is a dead thing" show contempt for the religious and would probably be considered bigoted in most western countries. Not to mention his campaign against Turkish culture in favor of urban western fashions is controversial as well; for example, banning the fez. It is certainly no coincidence that his most fervent supporters are Turkish atheists. --BlarghHgralb 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be like critcising Europe for having human rights.... --Armanalp 07:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ataturk ruled as a dictator and killed thousands of people. I'm not so sure Ataturk's Turkey was a shining example of democracy. --BlarghHgralb 17:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately He is not alive now.Must.^{T C} 19:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything about the rights that Mustafa Kemal gave to his people? He even refused the throne of the Ottoman Empire to keep the parliament. If you try to form democracy immediately, it will go down immediately too. Just look at the Weimar Republic. Mustafa Kemal prepared the citizens for a democratic system and worked for the well being of them. Deliogul 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. I could have sworn that there were plenty of countries who have made a transition to democracy without tyranny (Japan, Canada, United States, etc). I don't find that it's necessary to rule as a dictator in order to implement democracy. I also don't know why you are arguing with me, since my point was that this article was biased towards Ataturk. I didn't invite a debate. --BlarghHgralb 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

read a little history of Turkey then post here. We are too lazy to explain you everything he did and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.150.116 (talk • contribs)

I am sorry to interrupt this. All of your opinions about the man is completely irrelevant. Please use verifiable, reliable and peer reviewed sources. Preferably neutral too. -- Cat ^chi? 01:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

BlarghHgralb is right, this article is way too biased and pro-Ataturk. Of course, in Turkey it is illegal to write anything negative about Ataturk or Turks in general is this correct? There is no mention of his roles in the Greek and Armenian genocides (or deportations), nothing about how he murdered other Neo-Turks so that no-one got in his way, nor is there anything about how many Muslims see him as an anti-Muslim because of the laws he passed. He wasn't the 'angel' you Turks are brainwashed to believe but a murderer too. If you want i could post some quotes about the atrocities he committed but they would just get deleted by some Turkish nationalists.--Waterfall999 12:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

and what would be your incontestable sources, Hellenicgenocide.com anything else?--laertes d 18:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We could start with the Turkish historian Taner Akcam and move on from there. AlexiusComnenus 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

so what are you waiting for, it is indeed so funny that you use the same sources only when they support your crazy greek nationalist "point of views"--laertes d 17:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal was a human just like me and you. Also, nobody brainwashed us to believe that he was an angel etc. If there are people who don't like the laws, they can go to Saudi Arabia or Iran. I can't believe that you are accusing Mustafa Kemal because he founded a modern republic. Deliogul 16:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal was a murderer, there are plenty of sources implicating him in the Armenian and Pontian genocides, and inspired Hitler for his genocides. There are rumors from many Islamists who have sources that he was a secret Jew (don't forget Thessaloniki had a very large Jewish population then) whos ancestors, like many non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire, were forced to convert to Islam and become Turks, and this may be why he is perceived by many Muslims as hating Islam (although i don't necessarily agree). He also killed many of his fellow Neo-Turks much like Stalin did to those he viewed as a threat to his dictatorship. All of this has to be included for a neutral POV. I am sure you would not like it if Abdullah Öcalan and the PKK were only represented as trying to liberate their lands from Turkish oppressors, and that they are "freedom-fighters" and not "terrorists". Same thing here, there has to be POV from all sides. In Turkey anything that is deemed anti-Turkish or anti-Ataturk could send you to jail, how is that freedom of speech? Many writers have been jailed for trying to show the truth about him and the genocides but the Ultra-Nationalist Turks will have none of that and censor everything like that.--Waterfall999 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In a parallel universe, things that you are saying can be true but in our universe they are just subjective comments. You must find reliable and objective sources for your claims. Until that moment, don't repeat your ideas again and again. Deliogul 13:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reliable sources about Ataturk regarding the Genocide of the Greeks, including quotes, which i will post on this discussion in afew days so you can see it, and i am sure there is information out there on his role in the Armenian genocides and other atrocities--Waterfall999 15:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Here here. I must say that while Kemal Attaturk might not be absolute evil, he sure as h**l is not a saint. In a world where, on this "imparital" encyclopedia, there is no mention on the articles about the Turkish armed forces that I saw of the mounting evidence that Turkey in WWII was considering joining the Axis, and instead merely paints it as something of a Sweden, always on high alert against the Axis, there should be no question that there is more than a few NPOV problems in regards to this. Now, that is no suprising, but to gloss over, to barely mention, and to simply rub out all evidence to the contrary is FAR from NPOV.

Let me put it this way: THERE IS NO QUESTION that Attaturk at the *very least* turned a blind eye to the excesses his men commited against the Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Slavic, and (to a lesser extent) Persian populace. Some have alleged that he was the "Eichmann" of these atrocities (read he directed the atrocities personally), but the evidence conflicts to some extent, and it remains a controversial topic even today, and thus is profoundly open to slant. However, there is no credible evidence that says that Attaturk did not know what was going on.

There is also NO QUESTION that he purged the religious establishments, even those that where not really a threat to his regime. This is not disputable. What is disputable is how valid was his reasoning, which IS a controversial and highly-debated subject.

Yes, Attaturk did make some important progress. I doubt one can deny that his abolition of the Caliphate (regardless of his motives) was not an important reform. However, this article is POV.

But we must also handle this in a fair and balanced way. It is wrong to have this as the "Saint Kemal of Turkey, apostle of Istanbul" wikipage, as it is now. It would ALSO be wrong to have this as the "Reichmarshall Attaturk, Chairman of the People's Comittee of the Reich, and Neo-Hitler/Stalin/Mao" wikipage that it COULD turn out to be. Two rights do not make a wrong, and this is one hell of a wrong. 71.146.149.129 04:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)ELV

Everyone, please sign your comments with four tildes - ~~~~. --AW 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the end of Caliphate was an important event. Mustafa Kemal wildly used his power and prestige to end the Sultanate (at a point, he said that someone would loose their heads if the law wouldn't be passed) but the Caliphate remained for a while. Citizens, especially people from Anatolia, had deep connections with the office of Caliphate and Abdülmecid Efendi used this connection politically. Mustafa Kemal realized it and the parliament abolished the Caliphate too. This was both for the secular state and the power of the parliament. Similar to what Robespierre did for the Assemblée Nationale by abolishing the Ancien Régime and I don’t remember any reign of terror afterwards in Turkey’s case ;). Deliogul 22:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK than, I DID say that the end of the Caliphate WAS an important reform, but looking back, I think I can see how one might be confused by my writing that, as I think I accidentally used a double negative in there. A more clear version of what I am saying was, I doubt that one could deny that the abolition of the Caliphate was an important reform, regardless of how charitable Attaturk's motives for doing so were. My main issue is that the article treats him like some saint, hence my sarcastic post above. The fact remains the man had the blood of thousands of civilians on his hands, even if he did not directly order the extermination of the Greeks/Armenians/Slavic peoples/Persians-Iranians via inaction (and a good case can be cobbled together for the POV that he did in fact sign the orders of the ethnic cleansings caused by his men, but that is beyond the scope of what I am trying to accomplish.)

I do not want to see this as a Attaturk=Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Uncle Ho wikipage, as THAT would be equally as biased. However, I sure as h*ll do not think that this 'Saint Kemal' treatment is fit for Wiki either. ELV 71.146.149.129 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just happened to see this article. Let me say it shortly, these are the articles that give Wikipedia a bad name. This is not Turkey, you are allowed to criticize the man, you dont have to make a Stalin or Hitler out of him, but a little criticism of the man would surely do good in this article. --Rasmus81 02:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you misread me, as I agree, and I have said so twice before. Even if Ataturk did order every single Greek/Slav/Persian/Religious death, I do not think he is comparable to monsters like those I mentioned above, if only in size. However, to turn this 180 degrees and make it an "Attaturk is the son of Satan" wikipage goes against WIKI policy, and I am not advocating it, though some of his other critics may wish to do that, given how much of a "hot" topic this man is. However, the saint attaturk wikipage is also damaging and wrong as well, glossing over the crimes that, if not ordered by the man himself, at the very least were commited in his name with him turning a blind eye.

I do NOT want to see this turn into an outright Attaturk=evil article, but I also do not believe that the Attaturk=Apostle-saint article that we have now can stand, for it chooses to ignore reality. ELV 71.146.149.129 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say i am seriously bored with the bands of greeks pouring into this article and keep mumbling something. The nameless user above, apparently dont even know one single thing about the subject he talks about as he mentions about "persian religious deaths" relating it with mustafa kemal, what persian are you talking about for heaven's sake?(Not to mention he doesnt even know how to write the name of the person he talks about)

In the case of criticism, i agree though, it might be added some additional information and there are things in the article that i dont like and i find exaggerated, in that respect i agree with Rasmus. There actually are some criticisms regarding his policy, it is not exactly one sided POV pushing an article Rasmus, if you read the article in its entirety..--laertes d 22:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Mustafa Kemal accomplished a lot, but a few lines about criticism from islamic groups do not alter my assessment of this article as being part of an Atatürk-Cult. Mustafa Kemal did this, Mustafa Kemal did that and so on. It seems that for every problem, Kemal had the right answer, which I, I am sorry to say, find hard to believe:

During the years of the War of Independence, Atatürk recognized the multiethnic character of the Muslim population in Turkey. On 8 December 1925, the Turkish Ministry of Education issued an order[citation needed] banning the use of ethnic terms such as Kurd, Circassian, Laz, Kurdistan and Lazistan.[57]

This part of the text for instance insinuates that Kemal did very well to recognize the multietnic character. He did it so well that he abolished traditional local names, that were not turkish. How can one "recognize" the multiethnic character and thereafter standardize everything and try to abolish minoritycultures? Beats me. I must admit, i am not an expert in Atatürk, but from our point of view to day, he seems to have been a somewhat authoritarian and to a large extent, when it comes to minorities in Turkey, pretty suppressing leader. That said, he still seems to have been one of the most remarkable and fascinating figures of the 20th century, but please, do not exaggerate. --Rasmus81 01:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the POV-sign should be put back on, until some of these things have been solved. --Rasmus81 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok than, to 'Laertes' whoever the h*ll you are, DO NOT DARE CALL ME GREEK! Yes, I am part Greek. However, my family was primarily of Italian-Dutch descent, and the ties to Greece are rather old and obscure. I am also part Danish, Swedish, Norweigan, Lappish/Finnish, English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, French, Belgian, and if we REALLY wanted to strech things a few dozen generations past, Armenian, Arab, and (back at the historical origion of Humanity) African.

And how this is relevant in the discussion is beyond me. My family has been in America since BEFORE the French-Indian War, and I identify myself as American. If you wish to discuss my geneology some more, you can look on the revelant history portions of the discussion page of Thermopolaye,

However, I believe that the article is "Kemal Mufasta At(t)aturk" and not "ELV's ancestry," so we are off topic.

And as for calling me stupid saying that I "cannot spell" the name of who I am referring too, I resent that. GREATLY. I am not calling him Camel Mufastya Uttatoik, as you seem to be implying, I call him Kemal Mufasta Attaturk. Which, by the way, is a VALID SPELLING, like there are arguments over if you spell "armor" or "armour." Attaturk is a valid spelling of the individual in question, it is just a DISPUTED spelling. You call him Ataturk, and I will call him Attaturk. No Harm done.

And as for the "Persian Religious" deaths, one wonders if you know the meaning of THIS: /. In case you do not know, I used it to seperate the names of several groups that Attaturk at the VERY LEAST did not bother restraining his men from killing. I said Greek/Slav/Persian/Religious, because it is so much easier to type than Greeks AND Slavs AND Persians AND Religious Groups.

And as for the questioning about what Persians I am referring to, I am talking about the Persians/Iranians who inhabited the North Western Border of Persia and the Eastern Border of Turkey.

Turkish Nationalist militas, whom were under the nominal command of Attaturk, were engaged in active attempts to "Turkify" the disputed border region. And Turkify being a nice-sounding euphenism for ethnic cleansing the are of ethnic Persians. It is estimated that in the decade from 1919-1929, over 67,000 Persians were either killed, missing, or otherwise "disposed off," with over 6,000 in March 1920 alone. Attaturk knew this was happening, as formal diplomatic complaints were loged almost daily by the Persian diplomatic mission in Istambul. But he did nothing to stop the bloodshed.

As for religious groups, Attaturk was well known for persecuting religious groups. This has been reiterated before and I shall not reiterate it again.

He also either turned a blind eye at the very least, or at the most directed the persecution of the following groups: Greeks, Arabs, descendents of non-Turks, Kurds, Slavs, Armenians, and Religious groups.

Of course, some would say, we do have a criticism section. And that is technically true. But what these people conveniently "forget" is that what passes for the Criticism section here is a wishy-washy paragraph on how those mean rural and religious types did not like Saint Attaturk's divine reforms.

Not. A. Single. Bloody. Word. Mentioning. Anything. Else. On his role in the persecutions of ethnic minorties (which at the very LEAST was a "see-no evil" affair, and at the very worst was a director of organized slaughter), the persecutions of religious groups of all stripes, and the authoritarian/dictatoral style of his reign.

And people wonder why those "stupid, Turcophobic Greeks" think the article give Attaturk a whitewash. ELV71.146.149.129 04:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Answering Rasmus, just saying it, the phrase you chose in order to demonstrate that article is POV actually was itself a criticization of Mustafa Kemal. He indeed recognized the multiethnic character of Turkey's population in times of war, during what is called to be Turkish war of independence, he had many speechs about that issue that i read.(If you want i can provide some in english) But then after the foundation of Turkish republic, he follow a program of Turkish nationalism ignoring the presence of other ethnic minorities, that was the criticization raised..

My dear nameless user, instead of continuous good writing you may choose to cite your sources and talk about solid facts, not about assumptions. Btw, i just wanted to remember you that te time period youre accusing "Attaturk" for turning a blind eye to the murder of non-muslim minorities were the time Allies and especially Greece invaded Turkey and Greece again carried out massacres of turkish civilians in occupied territories..Basically war of 1919-1922 in which kemal was almost never the single head, broke out because of these invasions..--laertes d 09:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, i doubt you realize that Ataturk continued the genocides which had first begun in 1914, and only ended after all the Greeks had been evicted from Anatolia in 1923. The failed Greek "invasion" prolonged the genocides in Western Anatolia. The majority of the population of coastal Anatolia, as well as Eastern Thrace had a Greek majority prior to WWI. Greece succeeded in liberating Greek cities like Smyrna but when the Greek soldiers had to leave Smyrna 120,000 Greeks were massacred (as well as 30,000 Armenians), and Ataturk encouraged this. The genocide of over 3 million Christian Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians was partly due to Ataturk. You Turks accuse us Greeks and Armenians of being "extremists" when we alledge this but it is the other way around! And don't forget to mention that Ataturk completed the destruction of the 3000 year old Greek cultural heritage in Anatolia.--Waterfall999 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Waterfall as it is written above in the beginning of this page this is not a discussion forum but a place you can provide citations from serious academic works, not from hellenicmumbojumbo.com..Funny thing about this "Greek liberations", whenever greeks "liberate" some place all the non-greeks gets butchered in the area of liberation. That happened in the Peloponnese in 1820's and then it happened again during the greco turkish war of 1919-1922..--laertes d 15:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal was forming a unitary nation state, not a federation, so the inaccuracy about the multi-ethnic structure of Turkey must be edited according to this fact. Mustafa Kemal changed the names of some places (for example, Diyarbekir to Diyarbakır) according to the Sun Language Theory. There is no problem about mentioning these clearly but claiming that Eastern Thrace had a Greek majority during the time period that Waterfall999 gives is just absurd. Deliogul 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, Greeks were the majority in the Peloponnese at that time as well. During the war of independence, the Turks had plans to massacre all the Greek men, take the women and children away as slaves, and repopulate the Peloponnese with Arabs. 100,000 civilians were killed by the Turks in the Greek island of Chios during the war of independence too. That genocide was to be repeated on a much larger scale 100 years later during 1914-1923. You need to stop getting your sources from Turkish propaganda and "tallaremniantales", and realise you are not being told the truth. Is it any wonder that anyone who has any evidence of the genocides are imprisoned?

And Deliogul, Greeks were the majority in Eastern Thrace, Pontos, Smyrna, and much of the Aegean coast. After Ataturk succeded in completing the task of removing the Greeks (and Armenians) from Anatolia and Thrace (either by genocide or population exchange), he then set about removing any traces of Greek civilization, including the renaming of Greek cities, and this should also be mentioned.--Waterfall999 09:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Waterfall, you still dont understand, nobody here is interested in your greek nationalist "opinions" as it is not a place for discussion, and i dont take my opinions from tall armenian tale sort of thing but you apparently do take yours from Hellenicmumbojumbo.com..Unless you can back your "opinions" wtih something serious they are worthless so please stop frequenting this place, go watch 300..--laertes d 10:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK then, since it is obvious that the discussion has bogged down, and the pathetic "criticisim (in a round-about way that will put Saint Attaturk in the most favorable light humanly possible)" section has not been bolstered, let me say THIS: It is true that Greeks did ethnically cleanse Turkish peoples from some areas. However, if you have actually STUDIED the damn thing, the majority of it was done by local militias, and while some cases showed local Greek military forces aiding said militia, even more showed the Greek troops putting down the Greek ultranationalist mobs. The Turkish case shows no such restrain. Rather than some individual mobs out for blood, it was a centralized genocide and ethnic fueled slaughter of groups as far apart as Persians, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgars, Slavs, and some Arabs.

The latter was a state-run operation before the downfall of the Turkish Empire and some sources say AFTER. And even if, for the sake of argument, we say that Attaturk loathed the ethnic butchering with every fiber of his being. Then, at the VERY least, he did not do anything, and allowed his underlings to run wild with the butchering without punishment. There is NO question he did not know of the situation, as countless diplomatic attaches were calling him on it frequently and regularly, and yet nothing happened to the men who killed a few hundred thousand ethnic minorities in the name of a "Turkey for (only) Turks."

This in contrast to the infamous trial and Salonkia, in which the Greeks sentenced 60 officers and 5,000 NCOs to death for ethnically cleansing Turkish civilians.

And also, to Laertes and Demagol, who counter evidence of Turkish ethnic cleansing with accusations with some proof of Greek ethnic cleansing: First of all, The Allies that you allege killed so many people were rather restrained in comparison. Does that make it OK? Absolutely not. However, you act as though everybody was turning their armies loose on Turkish civilians. That would be FALSE, as most of it was commited locally and with some isolated military units taking part. Whom were later punished, many with their lives.

And also, you two are trying to make this like a "cancel-out" issue, where if you can turn up as many cases of killings of ethnic Turks, than somehow they will all even out and cancel the need to mention the wholesale, government-backed butchering of Ethnic minorities in the old Ottoman Empire and in the Early Turkish state. A

And that line of reasoning MAY work out well in some card games, but it is NOT suitable for an encyclopedia. If the NDH kill 5,000 Serbs in one village in 1944, and the Chetniks kill 4,000 Croats in the same village, it does not mysteriously turn into the NDH killed 1,000 Serbs.

WE WOULD WRITE DOWN BOTH! AND THAT PIECE OF WHAT I WOULD HOPE WAS COMMON SENSE SEEMS TO HAVE ELUDED YOU. We would write down both. Which means writing down both Attaturk's crimes and Attaturk's good deeds. You cannot merely cover the one without the other. ELV 71.146.149.129 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i havent read all of what you wrote as it is too long and i am sleepy. But, let me repeat shortly,Greeks invaded Turkey after World War I in order to pursue its age old dreams of recovering Byzantine lands, and then also carried out in a systematic fashion massacres of turkish population.

And no, i can provide you a long list of quotes from allied officers whose governments were allied to Greeks at the time, saying that greek officials worked hand in hand with the local militias to kill of turks in many areas. Not to mention the wholese destruction of inner cities while fleeing..

And i am telling for the last time i hope, this is not a discussion forum, you better find yourself a forum in which you can freely express your ideas..youre supposed to back you opinion with something serious, good night now i am sleeping..--laertes d 23:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hum, sleeping. At least you have an excuse for not conveniently not noticing part of my response. It seems like you focous incessantly on the fact that there was ethnic cleansings by the Greeks (again, I am not saying there was no military aid given to said milita/Greek-ultranationalists, but you seem to forget that the Greek Gov'nt did indeed try to curtail them. Inefficiently, unevenly, inconsistenly, not-entirely-out-of-the-good-of-their-hearts, yes, but they still made an ATTEMPT)

And you also forget another part that I wrote. From the previous responses you said, your strategy is whenever someone brings up the atrocities that were commited by Turkish nationalists against whatever Ethnic minority was in the are in order to "Turkify" the area, your argument is that the Greeks also did ethnic cleansing. And you did not notice this the first time.

EVEN. IF. THE. GREEKS. KILLED. EIGHTY-TWO TRILLION. TURKS. IT. IS. NOT. AN. EXCUSE. TO. NOT. PUT. THE. TURKISH. ATROCITIES. UP. THIS. IS. AN. ENCYCLOPEDIA. THERE. IS. NO. CANCELLING-OUT. RULE. IN. REGARDS. TO. GENOCIDES. WE. PUT. UP. THE. CRIMES. COMMITED. BY. ALL. SIDES. AND. DETAILS. ABOUT. ALL. OF. THEM. AND. EVERYONE. WHO. COMMITED. THEM. AND. ATTATURK'S. SEEMING. UNCARING. FOR. THE. ATROCITIES. COMMITED. BY. HIS. UNDERLINGS. EVEN. IF. HE. DID. NOT. ORDER. HIM. TO. FOR. HE. DID. NOT. PUNISH. ANYONE. INVOLVED. WITH. THE. ETHNIC. CLEANSINGS. EVEN. WHEN. HE. WAS. INFORMED. BY. PROTESTING. GOVERNMENT. WHO. FOR. SOME. REASON. WERE. A. LITTLE. BIT. UNHAPPY. ABOUT. ETHNIC. MINORITIES. BEING. TAKEN. TO. THE. AX. FOR. NOT. BEING. TURKISH!

Is that clear enough? Even if the Greeks were operating a state-run, approved, and financed death-campaign without bothering to even pretend on restraining their troops (which they did not, as the executed at the Salonika trial would attest to), it still does not mean we give a free pass to Turkish atrocities. And even if it somehow did, it would still not explain away the Slavic, Persian, Armenian, and Arab deaths that were caused by the Turkish nationalists.

I DO NOT want to hear a response from EITHER of you until you understand the fact that as an encyclopedia, we record everyone's crimes and involvment. And that includes Kemal Mufasta Attaturk, for at the VERY LEAST inaction. Whatever reforms he made do not wash away the blood from his hands for that. But neither does the blood on his hands stain out the reforms he made. We must remain impartial, no matter how our personal feelings. And THAT includes writing down what Attaturk allowed to happen on his watch and go unpunished.

I repeat, I DO NOT want a response sent back until you have gotten that through your heads. ELV 71.146.149.129 02:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

~~ I would have to agree. If this site is to be a balanced informative site, the truth about Mustafa's stance on the ethnic cleansing of the natives of Asia Minor would have to be stated. It's documented and would explain why the native minorities population have dwindled. As for Greeks invading Turkey, let's then discuss the fact that the Greeks of Asia Minor were threatened by genocide, under opprsession by Turks who appeared as invaders and NOT peaceful settlers or migrants. You may then like to make known that they saw their act as liberating Greek soil from the "oppressing" Turks. For those that argue we could make a comparison with Turkey's invasion in Cyprus with the pretence of "saving" the Turkish Cypriots from the native Greek Cypriots. Now this would lead to further assessing of the populating of Northern Cyprus (under Turkey at the moment) with Turks of the mainland with the sole purpose of affecting the islands demographics. This may seem irrelevant, but then is this not Kemalist attitude carried forward? Any rebelion or move for freedom of the native people of Asia Minor is then translated as unjust attack/terrorism by the Kemalists. I think if Greece, Armenia, Kurdistan are disected as "threats" to Turkishness - by opening declaring the ethnicity of the minorities in Turkey, then all these issues I put forward should be addressed as these are the "fruits" of the Kemalist mantra. Who is right and wrong, perhaps is something that won't be resolved, but at least shed light on the the result of the Kemalist rule and ideologies that have persisted. by Applesnpeaches~~

bla bla bla...--laertes d 08:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Aswering you nameless user, my point is not to justify killings of Greek civilians by saying greeks committed mass killings in the areas that they invaded, but to say that it was a war and it was started by greek occupation of western anatolia as greeks wanted to build a neo-greek empire..Thats the thing you need to "have gotten through your head"..And kemal did not order killings of greeks, but he has "just" war to fight as it was greeks who started it, terrible it is that many greek civilians died during the greco turkish war of 1919-1922 but turks got slaughtered as well terribly in the occupied areas..

sorry but you seem to have very little knowledge on the issue as you keep talking about Perian or Arab death sin the hands of nationalist, there wasnt a significant Arab or almost no persian population in the aeras of Turkish rule especially by the end of WWI.Regards..

--laertes d 07:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Aswering you nameless user, my point is not to justify killings of Greek civilians by saying greeks committed mass killings in the areas that they invaded" Ok, sounds good. No more justifying of ethnic cleansing from the turkish side. "but turks got slaughtered as well terribly in the occupied areas". Ahhh, too bad. You couldnt help it :-) You have to come with a better reason for not mentioning Atatürks, minor as it may be, involvement in ethnic cleansing than throw rocks at the other side. --Rasmus81 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rasmus with the tiny bit knowledge of yours, if there is any, you better not involve too much in these debates as it seems you dont understand what it is meant. im saying that you cant show any reliable neutral source which is claiming Ataturk's involvement in the "ethnic cleansing" during greco turkish war..

Throw rocks at the other side, sure i do so, especially if we consider that the other side destroyed the areas that they occupied during their three years of occupation, killing thousands of turks..i dont consider it something to laugh at, do you?--laertes d 19:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I can provide many similar reports, just one example:

James Loder Park, the U.S. Vice-Consul in Constantinople at the time, who toured much of the devastated area immediately after the Greek evacuation, described the situation in the surrounding cities and towns of İzmir he has seen, as follows:

... Cassaba (present day Turgutlu) was a town of 40,000 souls, 3,000 of whom were non-Moslems. Of these 37,000 Turks only 6,000 could be accounted for among the living, while 1,000 Turks were known to have been shot or burned to death... Ample testimony was available to the effect that the city was systematically destroyed by Greek soldiers, assisted by a number of Greek and Armenian civilians. Kerosene and gasoline were freely used to make the destruction more certain, rapid and complete. Alasehir, hand pumps were used to soak the walls of the buildings with Kerosene. As we examined the ruins of the city, we discovered a number of skulls and bones, charred and black, with remnants of hair and flesh clinging to them. Upon our insistence a number of graves having a fresh-made appearance were actually opened for us as we were fully satisfied that these bodies were not more than four weeks old.[the time of the Greek retreat through Alasehir]

Consul Park concluded:

1.The destruction of the interior cities visited by our party was carried out by Greeks. 2.The percentages of buildings destroyed in each of the last four cities referred to were: Manisa 90 percent, Cassaba (Turgutlu) 90 percent, Alaşehir 70 percent, Salihli 65 percent. 3.The burning of these cities was not desultory, nor intermittent, nor accidental, but well planned and thoroughly organized. 4.There were many instances of physical violence, most of which was deliberate and wanton. Without complete figures, which were impossible to obtain, it may safely be surmised that 'atrocities' committed by retiring Greeks numbered well into thousands in the four cities under consideration. These consisted of all three of the usual type of such atrocities, namely murder, torture and rape.[62] --laertes d 19:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

if these are the things you laugh about, i would dare to say you dont have much a sense of humor..--laertes d 19:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mostly I am laughing of your inability to calm down, an your constant attempt to make Turkey the only victim of atrocities. Turkey should be happy that the Germans committed even bigger atrocities later on, making the turkish look smaller and irrelevant, though they were often quite horrible. Well that was a bit off topic, because Atatürk didnt have the sole responsibility for that, but this onesided victimizing strategy of yours is really annoying. Some terribly things happened under greek occupation, which I think fits perfectly in another article about that topic, but the other side wasnt as good as you want to make it look. I think the article about Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) explains it pretty good. --Rasmus81 01:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And ım laughing your inability to understand what ıs written, in no part of my writing ı ever tried to represent turkey as the only victim of atrocities as ı mentioned quite many times about the atrocities turks committed agaınst greeks..

But then ı noticed that your sole contribution to wikipedia is the anti-immigrant,anti-muslim bigotry, sorry for taking you too seriously..Cheers and my deepest regards..--laertes d 10:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So much for dialogue. Now I am just an anti-muslim-bigot, nice way to avoid discussion. But if i really were to be one, then I would probably be closer to the ideals of Atatürk than most turks :-) Cheers and regards (apparently you can always write that) --Rasmus81 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, you CANNOT have a door that is both open and closed at the same time. You say that you do not want to justify ethnic cleansing, but you go ahead and do so. I WILL NOT justify the crimes of either sides, for the simple fact that I do not think that civilians should have to bear the brunt of rascist, bloodthirsty attackers of ANY STIPE. However, you have shown yourself to be a hypocrit, for again, you seem to want to "cancel out" the crimes commited by the Turks by listing crimes comitted by Greek and other groups. It is A-OK to list them in the appropriate section on Greek atrocities, for this is an encyclopedia, we list the crimes of all sides, but it DOES NOT wash the blood off the hands of Turkish nationalists, who ran an organized campaign of slaughter against several ethnic groups in Turkish territory.

Also, I love the mudslinging. In spite of the fact that much of your "contribution," and I use that term lightly, to the discussion has shown to be Anti-Greek, Anti-Armenian, Anti-Persian, Anti-Kurdish, and Anti-Arab, NOT for citing that incident that you mentioned above. That would be an ACTUAL incident of Anti-Turkish crimes commited by mobs of Greeks and more than a few Armenians aided by a portion of the Greek army.

What makes your contribution Anti-Greek/Armenian/Kurdish/Persian/Arab, is that you, a person who say he does not want to justify ethnic cleansing, seems not to want to hold the Turkish nationalists to the standards of behavior you set for others. Now, I have NO PROBLEM listing anti-Turkish atrocities, like you seem to construe me as, but AT LEAST BE CONSISTENT!

You cannot list off Greek crimes but then do a 180 and justify Turkish nationalists doing the exact same things, on a far more organized and widespread basis I might add, commited by Turkish Nationalists against ethnic minorities. And THAT is what, by refusing to make note of the numbers of those butchered by Turkish nationalists and the indifference AT THE VERY LEAST that ran up to the very top of the Turkish authority of their fate, is what you are doing.

The Turkish Uprising was a bloody series of wars, there is not getting that wrong. But they cannot properly be remembered by insisting that one side was the only victim.

Nevertheless, this is NOT an article about ethnic cleansing perse, and it is covered elsewhere.

What we are trying to do is to show that AT THE VERY LEAST Attaturk knew what was happening and did nothing.

If Attaturk was as ignorant as the day he was born, THEN I could see a reason for the article being as it is. A very weak reason, but a reason nonetheless. However, there is NO QUESTION that he knew what his subordinantes were doing. The continuous bombardment of protests by the various diplomatic attaches in Istanbul made sure of that. And yet nobody was punished. No action was taken to curtail to slaugter. And this is not mentioned. As a matter of fact, in today's Turkey, one can be arrested for saying that it ever took place.

My point is that you may bring up Attaturk's reforms, and you may include Greek atrocities against Turks in the relevant page, but we also must put up the butchery that was inflicted upon the civilian populace who were NOT Turkish by the Turkish nationalists.

And how Attaturk did nothing as hundreds of thousands of Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, Persians, and Arabs were massacured or vanished into the desert sand. For this is an encyclopedia. It is our JOB to make sure that it is impartial, and represents both good and bad. And thus, we must put up Attaturk's silence in the wake of slaughter by men under his command. ELV 71.146.149.129 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"What we are trying to do is to show that AT THE VERY LEAST Ataturk knew what was happening and did nothing." You first have to find reliable sources to show "something" was happening during the early republican era before you write such a statement. Yep, we sent back the Greeks in Anatolia to Greece and we got back the Turkish population in Western Thrace. Yep, the Turkish Army launched operations against rebel Kurds in 1925 (later repeated during 1930's) and of course people died during this event. Also something like 54 rebels (Sheikh Said Piran and 47 of his followers and 6 Kurdish rebels from İstanbul) were hanged by the central authority after their trials in the İstiklal Mahkemesi (the Independence Court), after the events of 1925. I'm not sure that there are other important documented problems between the fractions of the country in the given time period. As I said before, don't try to draw a Robespierre and his reign of terror (simply the bloody revolutionary character) for Mustafa Kemal and his decisions. Deliogul 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

so far i havent made any "contribution" to wikipedia that can be listed as "anti armenian" or "anti kurd", thats your imagination. And what one has to do in order to make you understand that this is not a discussion forum? I gave it up, keep talking, anyway it seems i am the only person who took you seriously and bothered to give you answers..--laertes d 14:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Deliogul i advise you to do the same let him talking, in each of his post he writes an essay, but the unfortunete thing here is thats not the right place to do so..--laertes d 14:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

~~ I too believe Kemal Mustafa Ataturk is guilty of genocidal involvement. Any politician who is reknown for slogans such as "Turkey for Turks", "Happy to be called a Turk", etc is clearly showing a preference for Turks and not the native people of the region. Besides, he didn't respect the clearly defined rules and regulations of the treaty of Lausanne, so why would he then be cleared of involvement? There are third party acounts through George Horton American Embassador at the time also, isn't there? What about the Isles of Imbros and Tennedros and the fate of the natives there? Isn't the tragedy that occurred there the result of Kemalist regime? by ApplesnPeaches ~~

1-)About the islands... Turkey left Greece the Twelve Islands and you are still crying about Aegean Sea etc. Would it be nice if the Turkish Army wouldn’t stop at the western borders after winning the Independence War?

2-)You first have to read what a “Turk” means in the Turkish constitution before using Mustafa Kemal's words for your claims.

3-)At Lausanne, Turkey made the World accept that there would be no privileges given to the minorities and every Turkish citizen would have the same rights. I know that the minorities are still angry about losing their advantages against Anatolian Turks.

4-)If forming a unitary, democratic and a social state from the demolished structure of the past is bad, yes, the Kemalist Regime was a total tragedy.

Logic will save us, Deliogul 11:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-writing

Flavius, citations are taken from BBC and Australian War Memorial i guess they credible enough sources for their usage of the English language. The thing that i dont understand why you keep changing these things when many parts of the article lack cohesion and written with grammatical mistakes..

I think article needs rewriting some parts of it but some of your changes dont make things better than they originally are--laertes d 17:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Flavius correct grammatical mistakes but doing so do not change things from what they are, thats the thing i keep repeating..I still think the original intro was better before your changes..The original one was saying that Kemal was not liking to be think of as a great man as it would put him in the company of Mussolini and Hitler. Your version simply says he was not liking to be compared with them. These are not the same things right?

Whether such a statement is true or not, as whether Kemal indeed didnt like to be considered as a great is sure another issue, but earlier version is cool :)--laertes d 19:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• I only corrected the Tarzan style grammar/spelling/typing mistakes in the entire article. :)

A legacy of OttomanReference :)

You should actually thank me for this ;)

I'm a Kemalist, so I can only feel happy about a well-crafted Atatürk article, with proper typing, spelling and grammar.

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 20:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement about Hitler and Mussolini is not necessary and I'm removing it. --A.Garnet 08:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong flag in the infobox

In the infobox of the Atatürk article, the flag of the Ottoman Empire is shown as the Ottoman Navy flag of 1793-1844, with a crescent and "eight-pointed" star. This flag was never used as the Ottoman "national flag", but only as the "Navy flag".

The first official "Ottoman national flag" was adopted in 1844, with the Tanzimat reforms, and is practically equal to the present-day flag of Turkey.

Therefore, the current Turkish flag with a five-pointed star should also be used as the Ottoman Empire flag of Atatürk's lifetime in the infobox, regarding his birth place (Selanik) and his service for the Ottoman Army.

The Republic of Turkey didn't change the last Ottoman flag of 1844, but only introduced a law to standardize its geometric proportions in 1936.

• 
  Present-day Turkish flags at the Young Turk Revolution in 1908
• Present-day Turkish flag during the declaration of Jihad in 1914, marking the Ottoman Empire's entry to WWI
  Present-day Turkish flag during the declaration of Jihad in 1914, marking the Ottoman Empire's entry to WWI
• 
  Present-day Turkish flag during protests against Istanbul's occupation, 1919

Flavius Belisarius 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes Flavius Belisarius, he is another Taner Akcam, who is not afraid of telling the Truth. It is the same flag used while Armenians were murdered during Armenian Genocide. It was a stupid argument that Turkish flag was redigned and even if they had the same "moon" and "star" they are different flags because of the placement and color. Who cares for the exact color of the red or placement of star!!! This flag is not different than Young Turks' flag that were nothing but murderers. They all have the same blood on them. Seemsclose 19:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't care less about the Armenian deportations of 1915-1917. Being someone who did his compulsory military service as a blue beret mountain commando, you can be sure that I will personally break the bones of any Armenian who dares to extend his hand on Turkish lands. Flavius Belisarius 19:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No!! Flavius Belisarius, does not really understand these issues. "Moon" and "star" is a common theme in every established Turkish state. With this logic, there are no Turkish states but only one state through out the history of Turkish nation. That is not true. There are many Turkish states. Every flag has its own differences which makes them unique. You can not use current Turkish flag for the Ottoman Flag, simply because of these differences. Republic of Turkey after its establishment developed its current flag and on purpose used different shapes and color (Yes there is a moon and star). They are not replaceable. Hoverer Flavius Belisarius has shown many times that s/he is very quick to jump on these issues without good background. Thanks. OttomanReference 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Moon and star didn't exist on the Seljuk flag (which was inspired by the double headed Byzantine Eagle flag), and neither on the Ottoman flag before the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, where we first met the "Crescent of Artemis (Diana) and Star of Virgin Mary". The current Turkish flag has been in continuous use since 1844. OttomanReference, you are using the place "where the sun never shines" as your "reference", once again. Flavius Belisarius 19:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong to claim that Turkish flag and Young Turk's flag (or more correctly Ottoman government flag) is same. By the way Ottoman Dynasty who was the monarch or ruler did not claimed that flag. Also, you do not show the basic skill to recognize and accept your mistakes. Also, you do not have the right to open warfare to everything that does not fit to your ideology. If you are claiming that you had a military training, that is not the Turkish military training, which does not include the ideology of attacking everything. That behaviour was performed by Enver Pasha did during the WWI. Attacking people does not make your claims correct. OttomanReference 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You only proved that you are more illiterate than I suspected. The current Turkish flag is in continuous use since 1844, and was selected by Sultan Abdülmecid during the Tanzimat reforms.

It's even on the Ottoman Empire's crest:

• 
  Turkish flag on the Ottoman Crest

Flavius Belisarius 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Forget about me!! Just look at the images you posted. The "moon" and "star" is different. If these were colored images, you would recognize that the color was a different tone. Even today, there are other national flags with moon and star, you know. These are very important points. There is a law that punishes the person who changes the standard flag. As you do not recognize the differences, do not go to Turkey. They will arrest you for deformation of the flag. I can not say anything more on this issue. If you can not recognize these things by yourself.... Have a nice day. Thanks --OttomanReference 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, the Republic of Turkey used a different flag between 1923 (establishment of the Republic) and 1936 (Turkish Flag Law) according to your point of view. Sorry, but a few millimetric differences in terms of standardized legal proportions, or the supposed difference in the "tone of red" (hilarious) doesn't essentially make it a "different flag". But perhaps it's beyond your capacity to understand this. Flavius Belisarius 19:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not joking. If you use the Young Turks' flag in Turkey, **such that you put it on a flag post**, You will be performing a punishable crime. You do not have to believe to me, try it. I guess, we will see you in 30 years after you fulfill your time. OttomanReference 19:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as the "Young Turks' Flag". The current Turkish flag is in use since 1844, the time of Abdülmecid.

1) How old are you? 2) How do you manage to come up with all this inaccurate information? Flavius Belisarius 20:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The flag that was used during WWI, which by the way it was not the "deportation" as you claim but "temporary relocation" of Ottoman Armenians, is not the flag of Republic of Turkey. Just stop attacking me, and hang that flag on top of your house. That will solve the problem. --OttomanReference 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Poster of the first Orient Express voyage to Istanbul, in the winter of 1888-1889 (during the reign of Abdülhamid II, 20 years before the Young Turk Revolution)

• 
  Poster of the first Orient Express voyage to Istanbul (Winter 1888-1889) during the reign of Abdülhamid II

Flavius Belisarius 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not the flag of "Republic of Turkey" as you want to claim. Besides it is a drawing of a flag not a flag. The color is the choose of the print master not even the artist. Just hang that "thing" on top of your house and claim it is the flag of Republic of Turkey. You will be in jail in no time. I'm so having fun. :-) --OttomanReference 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Turkey may not be the Netherlands, but it's not "that" easy to go to jail :)

A copy of this "criminal" poster is hanged on the wall of the Orient Express Restaurant inside Sirkeci Train Station (the terminus of Orient Express) in Istanbul by the way.

Besides, what flag did the Republic of Turkey use between 1923 and 1936 (Turkish Flag Law)? A different flag?

HA HA HA :) Flavius Belisarius 08:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Turkish flags in Istanbul, 1920:

http://www.osmanzengin.com/ESKi__iSTANBUL/kararkoy02.jpg

http://www.osmanzengin.com/ESKi__iSTANBUL/tepebasi.jpg

Turkish flags in Istanbul, 1927:

http://www.azizistanbul.com/eskifoto05/bahcekapieminonu1927.jpg

http://www.istanbul.gov.tr/Portals/Istanbul/eskiimg/esk02.jpg

Flavius Belisarius 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia informs people based on facts, not based on number of websites. The root of the argument is that flags are symbols of sovereignty. Republic of Turkey's flag and the flag in question are two different flags which represent two different states. When the law was passed and defined the exact size and shape, it was to "punish" (criminalize) who claim to reverse the republic ("gerici":brought back the old ways using the symbols of past) , not because the parliament had a lot of time in its hand and they liked standardization. At that time that flag in question was used to symbolize the politics of the caliphate and sultan (Ottoman Empire). I bet many were hanged after the law. Today they are using the "turban" as a symbol. These are two different states. They represent different things. Ataturk was a clever man. He did things in slow steps. 1936 was the right time for him I guess. You can burn the Turkish flag, they will punish you because of your political statement. But if you hang that flag on top of your house, you will be punished along the people who hang the PKK flag. A Turanci and PKK militant in the same jail!!! Many times you claimed you are a turkish nationalist, but you ignore the Republic of Turkey as a product of Turkish independence war. The flag is related with the "sovereignty". You can not hang other states flags in Turkish soil. Exceptions do exist, such as EU, or special occasions, or anything that does not include threat to the sovereignty. In your case, you will be claiming your house belongs to another entity besides the Republic of Turkey. I guess you also deny the citizenship of Turkey. That makes sense, as you can not recognize its flag and put it higher than any other flag. Ability to accept an information is a virtue. A bigger virtue is to change. None you have shown yet. --OttomanReference 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Claim regarding İnönü's "posthumous Atatürk cult" is of doubtful accuracy

In the article, it is stated that:

His successor, İsmet İnönü, fostered a posthumous Atatürk personality cult which has survived to this day, even after Atatürk's own Republican People's Party lost power following democratic elections in 1950. Atatürk's face and name are seen and heard everywhere in Turkey: his portrait can be seen in all public buildings, in schools, in all kinds of school books, on all Turkish banknotes, and in the homes of many Turkish families. Even after so many years, on November 10, at 09:05 a.m. (the exact time of his death), almost all vehicles and people in the country's streets will pause for one minute in remembrance of Atatürk's memory.

This is incorrect.

İnönü actually removed Atatürk's portraits from the state institutions and currency, and inserted his own portraits (the Lira banknotes of the 1940s had İnönü's portraits)

Here are a few banknotes from the İnönü era:

http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/2emisyon1T_INONU.htm

http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/2emisyon2T_INONU_kul.htm

http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/3emisyonP01.htm

http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/3emisyonP02.htm

http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/4emisyon.htm

One of the first things that the DP of Menderes did was to put back Atatürk's portraits in state institutions and the currency.

Banknotes of the DP era:

http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/5emisyonP01.htm

http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/5emisyonP02.htm

İnönü concentrated more on creating his own personality cult, defining Atatürk as "Ebedi Şef" and himself as "Milli Şef", almost on par with the former.

But he lacked Atatürk's good looks, charm, charisma and genius, therefore he had to keep his memory alive.

Clearly not as much as the article claims, though.

Only "as much as necessary".

Flavius Belisarius 09:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Imho, it is so clear that İnönü used Atatürk's legacy to maintain his power. He proclaimed himself as the heir of the revolution and finally he was buried next to Atatürk. Just like some Ottoman Sultans and their sons who were buried next to each other. Therefore, I think that the part in the article must be kept as it is. Deliogul 10:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is Atatürk

It is obvious that that Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov is Lenin. Please refer to the Wikipedia article, and compare how many times he is referred too, by the name Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov versus just Lenin.

It is obvious that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is Atatürk, therefore, that should be the standard named reference to this person, in the article.

It would be beneficial if someone could post his death certificate. Byzerodivide 18:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

He started as Mustafa bin Ali Rıza, then became Kemal Pasha, then became Ghazi Pasha and finally he became Atatürk, the national chief (Milli Şef.). I'm not sure about which one is more suitable. The title/surname "Atatürk" was given to him. On the other hand, Lenin was already Lenin when he entered the political scene (for example the same goes for Pelé). Deliogul 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The point that Lenin used the name Lenin, and thus it should be the standard primary named reference to him is valid.

The point is equally valid for Atatürk unless it can be demonstrated that;

• He never answered to that name.
• He never signed a document with that name.
• His death certificate does not list that surname.

The fact that he only used that name during his final years, while Lenin used it for many more years is irrelevant. The weight of International historical text and custom, dictate that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk should be referenced primarily by the name, Atatürk in an encyclopedic article. -Byzerodivide 21:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus has been known simply as "Augustus" by the common people without taking the honorific title into account. You say that the same logic goes for Mustafa Kemal Atatürk too. I accept that you have valid grounds but we need the consensus of other Wikipedians. Deliogul 21:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

At the the start of WWI he was a veteran officer

• 1881
  • DOB Mustafa Kemal
• 1911
  • Trablusgarp (present-day Libya) fought against Italian invasion.
• 1912
  • The First Balkan War he fought against the Bulgarian army at Gallipoli and Bolayır on the coast of Thrace,
  • The Second Balkan War he was at Edirne and Didymoteicho
• 1914
  • Age~33 Promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel.
  • Middle Eastern theatre of World War I begins

Veteran: an experienced person who has been through many battles.

Yes, At the the start of WWI, he was a veteran officer, which is an applicable term, indicative of the fact that he was a career soldier involved in previous battles, from which he gained experience. His age is irrelevant. Byzerodivide 22:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Very true. If someone serving in three major wars cannot be called a veteran, I don't know who can. -- Kudret abi 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok but why to use that jargon? And why to call him a nationalist or a statesman, just two sentences below it is written that he led the Turkish national movement and built a nation state..I think these are quite unnecassary explanations and i agree with Flavius in that respect...Or what does it mean "primary commander", does such an expression exists?--laertes d 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you know the title "Başkumandan" which was given to Mustafa Kemal by TBMM to fight against the invasion with "fevkalade yetkiler" (extraordinary powers)? Deliogul 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

sure i know, what i am asking is there such an expression as "primary commander" do exist in the english language?

Im not sure but it seemed to me like a direct translation from Turkish to english..Commander in chief probably would be the right word..anyway i think old version of the intro was better, this one is repetitive, and to say he was a nationalist and statesman doesnt seem nice to me..--laertes d 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, it repeats itself a lot. Also you can edit it back to its old version by changing "primary commander" to "commander in chief" etc. Deliogul 20:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that in the introduction; concision, generalization, and a precursor iteration of the subject should be the goal. The usage of commander in chief, while specifically correct, is a cumbersome word, not really needed to convey a generalized concept, and in fact carries quite a few spurious connotations. The usage of primary commander, while not a common English phrase, leaves no doubt about the target concept. Repetition is good, especially if it goes from very general to more and more specific, I feel that 90% of people doing an essay could cut and paste the introduction and say all they need too, about his pre-presidential life. The usage of Nationalism and Statesmanship are common reoccurring concepts in pedagogy, and are important precursors to the article and thus should be iterated in the introduction. -Byzerodivide 02:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary commmander is not just uncommon in english but it is also wrong, obviuosly a direct translation of the Turkish word "baskumandan"..Intro already states that he led the Turkish national movement and built the Turkish nation-state, current intro is just unnecessary repetion..What about saying he was a human being in the intro? Sorry but current intro is simply bad i think, so please dont insist on this version..--laertes d 19:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Was poor English, reverted to original intro. --A.Garnet 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume that your criticism is of an aesthetic nature since, you did not enumerate any grammatical or syntactical errors or omissions. -Byzerodivide 00:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you could say that he was a human in the introduction, but that is not really a precursor to the article topics or concepts and would thus make the introduction in-concise. Primary Commander is is a general concept, which is used to alert the reader that this person was more influential then others.

Repetition is good, especially if it goes from very general to more and more specific, it helps people to assimilate the information in the article. -Byzerodivide 00:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Big mistake

There is a big translation mistake in this article.The part that saying his surname was Öz first,is a very bad translation.In the law that gives him his surname that part that is saying Kemal öz adlı means that his first and real name is Kemal.İt doesnt mean his surname is.I suggest you to change this funny translation mistake. --195.174.198.248 02:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I have no idea how this made its way into the article. Removed. --Kudret abi 05:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't Ataturk regarded to be a kafir by fundamental muslims?

He ignored and offenced lots of islamic traditions such as abolishing of sharia,and he drinks too much alcoholic drink while islam forbids muslims to drink any alcoholic drink.Why don't muslim fundamentalists and conservatives regard him as a kafir?222.225.109.161 06:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, fundamentalists don't like him at all. Some of them say it openly and some of them believe it secretly.Deliogul 09:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)