Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

Get rid of the first two sentences in this paragraph, in other words, change this (fourth paragraph) :

His government carried out a policy of Turkicisation, trying to create a homogeneous and unified nation.[10][11][12] Under Atatürk, non-Turkish minorities were pressured to speak Turkish in public,[13] non-Turkish toponyms and last names of minorities had to be changed to Turkish renditions.[14][15] The Turkish Parliament granted him the surname Atatürk in 1934, which means "Father of the Turks", in recognition of the role he played in building the modern Turkish Republic.[16] He died on 10 November 1938 at Dolmabahçe Palace in Istanbul, at the age of 57;[17] he was succeeded as President by his long-time Prime Minister İsmet İnönü[18] and was honored with a state funeral. His iconic mausoleum in Ankara, built and opened in 1953, is surrounded by a park called the Peace Park in honor of his famous expression "Peace at Home, Peace in the World".

to this:

"The Turkish Parliament granted him the surname Atatürk in 1934, which means "Father of the Turks", in recognition of the role he played in building the modern Turkish Republic.[16] He died on 10 November 1938 at Dolmabahçe Palace in Istanbul, at the age of 57;[17] he was succeeded as President by his long-time Prime Minister İsmet İnönü[18] and was honored with a state funeral. His iconic mausoleum in Ankara, built and opened in 1953, is surrounded by a park called the Peace Park in honor of his famous expression "Peace at Home, Peace in the World".

Extended content

The first two sentences of these paragraphs are historically inaccurate. First, Turkicisation mentioned in the paragraph refers to Turkicisation Wikipedia page, which suggests that the page has multiple issues stemming from personal opinions and original research. Therefore it would not be good to include such ambiguous reference in the intro section. There are vague and absurd statements in this Turkicisation page such as a Turkish law mandating all parliamentarians wear Turkish clothes made in Turkey, being a "Turkicisation" process. While such law was never implemented and it was only proposed, it also did not pass the voting stage. This surely cannot be an example of Turkicisation as similar ridiculous demands are made in many parliaments but not recorded as an attempt to homogenize the public which this sentence claims. In any case for a leader like Ataturk to have such an ugly and unsubstantiated claim is a disgrace to Wikipedia and faciliates the general view of public on Wikipedia as an untrusted and unverified source of disinformation. We are all here to make Wikipedia better. Secondly, with regards to Ataturk-ruled government, the word homogenization is never explicitly stated in the sources 11, and 12. It is an ugly word which may mislead a first time reader into thinking of Ataturk as having to create a master race and associating him to likes of Hitler and Mussolini. This statement of homogenization should not be in this intro paragraph where a summary of the historical figure is given as this would not be a coherent and accurate wording. Thirdly, Ataturk's government did not carry out such processes as he was the head of Turkish parliament until 1923, after which he has become President of Turkey for 15 years. These laws were made after 1923. First constitution that passed in 1921 did not have such laws and Republic of Turkey had not been declared until 1923 anyways. By 1923, he was not the head of the political party, he was neither in charge nor the head of the parliament and such reforms made after 1923 cannot be attributed to be of 'his government'. This is outright inaccurate. Paragraph literally starts with 'His government' . Presidency of Turkish Republic serves merely as a place of right to veto for laws passed by parliament. Prime Ministers are the leader of the government. PM and the head of the ruling party at the time(1923 on) was Ismet Inonu. So it should be Inonu's government if such claimed laws are made since Ataturk was no longer leader of government. Fourth, one of the sources 11 - "Toktas, Sule (2005) is cited as the source of first sentence in this paragraph. Toktas states in this source:" Despite the protection of minorities and their rights in the Leausanne treaty, the non-Muslim minorities, from time to time, had been superseded by the universal norms of citizenship in Turkey." This doesn't hint at neither homogenization nor Turkicisation. It just states that special rights were not given to minorities in Turkey. They were to adhere by same laws granted to Anatolian muslims. Fifth, one of the sources 12 - "Jongerden, Joost; Verheij, Jelle, eds. (3 August 2012). Social relations in Ottoman Diyarbekir, 1870–1915" is cited as the source of first sentence in this paragraph. This book investigates social relations between 1870-1915 with documents and is a historical source for only between that period. In this book, there is no documentation post Turkish Republic which was declared in 1923. Therefore this book cannot be a source for the sentence "His government carried out a policy of Turkicisation, trying to create a homogeneous and unified nation." as the stated period and documents are during Ottoman period where Ataturk was only a young soldier not in charge of government affairs. Sixth, one of the sources 10 - "Sofos, Umut Özkırımlı & Spyros A. (2008). Tormented by history: nationalism in Greece and Turkey. New York: Columbia University Press" is cited as the source of first sentence in the paragraph. This book contains many factual errors regarding historical facts. Furthermore, it is a book of sociology that use a fictional view of history. I will show this by revealing related historical inaccuracies in the work. In fifth chapter of the book Ozkirimli claims "While Turkish nationalism avoided expansionism, it constructed Anatolia as the homeland of the Turks, instituting an unforgiving project of social engineering (begun in the Young Turk era) and cultural assimilation, which explicitly and legally rejected the multiplicity of identities in Turkey. As a result, peoples of Muslim origin were to become Turks, while non-Muslims remained outside the purview of the imagined nation. The transformation of space included the changing of place names and the forced transfer of populations within the territory to facilitate Turkification." This is factually inaccurate as a. Anatolia was already majority Turkish and Turkish homeland by that date. http://turksandarmenians.marmara.edu.tr/tr/1914-nufus-istatistigine-gore-ermeni-cemaatinin-nufusu/ (Marmara University) b. Book suggests non muslims remained as purview of imagined nation. This is historically opposite of the fact. As discussed in fourth point, Toktas's paper which the Wiki page gives as credible source, it is stated that: "Despite the protection of minorities and their rights in the Leausanne treaty, the non-Muslim minorities, from time to time, had been superseded by the universal norms of citizenship in Turkey." Therefore, not only they were not excluded from the nation but they were included into the nation and national unity despite the Leusanne treaty demanding otherwise. Minorities were not given extra rights and hence included into whole of Turkish nation. Ozkirimli is again historically inaccurate. I'm using your sources here. c. In this paragraph, Ozkirimli claims "The transformation of space included the changing of place names and the forced transfer of populations within the territory to facilitate Turkification." As suggested by Marmara University study on Turkish-Armenia relations : http://turksandarmenians.marmara.edu.tr/tr/1914-nufus-istatistigine-gore-ermeni-cemaatinin-nufusu/ in almost all of the places in Anatolia by 1919 there was a greater Muslim population, Armenian Massacres took place around 1915-1918 in Ottoman times. During Ataturk's charge, the population exchange only occurred between Turkey and Greece reciprocally in a governmental and legal manner. More than a million Turks were forced to leave their Balkan homelands according to agreement between Turkish-Greek government. Therefore, since Greeks did not constitute any majority in Anatolia by 1919 they cannot be driven to homogenization or Turkicization by Ataturk government since the land was already muslim majority. In addition, it is important to note that Hellenic peoples have colonized Anatolia in expense of previously living Anatolian civilizations such as Hitites, Phyrigias, and Urartus. They have destroyed cultural heritage of such native population, pillaged, raped and enslaved their people and renamed the locations. In light of all these points, source 10 cannot and should not be used as a source and first sentence should be abandoned altogether. Seventh, now we're moving to second sentence. This sentence continues from the previous one and hence is disassociating when the first sentence is removed. Eighth, the second sentence once again starts by under Ataturk, hinting that Ataturk was in charge of government or policies where as Ataturk was only a President and not the head of the government where various laws were passed. In addition, such a historical misstatement cannot be part of intro as it would give an inaccurate impression of the historical person. Ninth, according to source 13 Kieser, Hans-Lukas, ed. (2006), sentence suggests non-Turkish minorities were pressured to speak Turkish. This is historically bogus as pressure is a vague term - one that does not belong to the scholarly research. Being pressured into a language cannot be measured or quantified as non-Muslims in Ottomans are also better off speaking Ottoman Turkish, Greeks in Eastern Roman Empire are better off speaking Latin for trade, Turks in Timuroid Empire are better off speaking Persian for communication. This is because it is more advantageous to do so. Are Quebecois not better off speaking English today? Wouldn't being able to speak English would be a more valuable asset for any citizen of the world today, than their own tongue(etc. Chinese) ? Doesn't this constitute pressure? The sentence doesn't draw a contrast between pressure and incentivizing. In addition, Ottoman Turkish were also used as primary education source for Muslim Ottomans for centuries, therefore faulting Ataturk as the source and purveyor of such pressure is inaccurate especially for an intro sentence. Tenth. Ataturk states in his Medeni Bilgiler (Information for the Modern World, published in 1930) in a section titled Ulus(Nation)regarding different peoples who are part of Turkey: "Turkiye'yi kuran halka Turk milleti denir." (Peoples that have founded Turkey are called Turkish nation) This statement has no reference to any Turkish ethnicity or race and encompass all the peoples living in Anatolia at the time. In addition Ataturk states in Medeni Bilgiler in a section titled Ulus (Nation): "Bugunku Turk ulusu siyasal ve toplumsal birligi icinde kendilerine Kurtluk dusuncesi, Cerkezlik dusuncesi ve hatta Lazlik dusuncesi ya da Bosnaklik dusuncesi propaganda edilmek istenmis yurttas ve ulustaslarimiz vardir. Fakat gecmisin zorbalik donemleri urunleri olan bu yanlis adlandirmalar - birkac dusman aleti gerici beyinsizden baska- hicbir ulus bireyi uzerinde uzuntuden baska bir etki gostermemistir. Cunku bu ulusun bireyleri de genel Turk toplumu gibi ortak gecmise, tarihe, ahlaka, hukuka sahip bulunuyorlar. Ayri ve buyuk cogunluklu topluluklara sahip olduklarini ileri surmus ve bu yuzden Turklerle birlesip bir ulus olusturmak istememis Araplar- hem de dinlerini kabul ettigimiz halde- acaba bugunku tutsakliklarindan hosnut mudurlar? Bugun icimizde bulunan Hristiyan, Musevi yurttaslar, yazgilarini ve geleceklerini Turk ulusalligina vicdanlarindan gelen istekleriyle baglandiktan sonra kendilerine yan gozle , yabanci gozuyle bakilmasi uygar Turk ulusunun soylu ahlakindan beklenebilir mi?" (In today's contemporary Turkish nation's political and societial union, there exists compatriots and fellow countrymen to whom the propaganda of idea of Kurdishness, Circasianness, even Lazness, or Bosnianness have been forwarded. But these misnamings that are products of past's bullying have - aside from some mindless and backwards few who are tools of the enemy- never given members of this nation anything but sadness. This is because individuals from these aforementioned nations have -just as the general Turkish public- a common past, a common history, a common set of morals and a common set of laws. Arabs who have claimed to have masses so unique and greater in numbers and consequently did not want to form a nation with Turks -despite Turks accepting their religion-, are they happy with their captivity today? Can it be expected from the modern Turkish nation's noble morals that Christians and Jewish compatriots, who have merged their fate and future with Turkish nation via the will of their conscience, are looked upon hostilely, or xenophobically?) If anything, these historical statements by Ataturk indicate that there was no attempt to look at non-Turks within the republic with a side eye(hostilely) and on the contrary regions of non-Turkish muslims in Southeastern Turkey like Kurds were saved from colonialist British or French colonization that Iraq and Syrian people suffered. It also suggests that Ataturk believed that Kurds and other non-Turks wanted to become part of Turkish movement and counter suggestions have cause such pain in minorities, serving the enemies of the Turkish nation. This also suggests that Ataturk was also very aware and conscious of the feelings of non-Turkish compatriots and did not want to discriminate. Eleventh. Finally, in the second half of this second sentence, it is stated that non-Muslims had to acquire Turkish surnames. This is another incomplete fact as per the surname law all people within Turkish Republic needed to acquire Turkish surnames, not just non-muslims. This information is also redundant in an intro page about Ataturk as this is about a law irrelevant to Ataturk's life. In addition, in Wikipedia page Surname Law(Turkey) which claims 'such non-muslim ethnicities were and are to this date forced to have a more Turkish surname' is entirely false. It cites two citations first one: the paper "İnce, Başak (2012-04-26). Citizenship and identity in Turkey : from Atatürk's republic to the present day. London: I.B. Tauris." and second one says 'citation needed.' Another false Wikipedia page that promote falsehoods about the republic. There is also no law mandating or forcing foreigners at the time to adopt more Turkish like surname.

Farfaraci (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Content appears to be well-sourced. If you have to resort to this much reasoning, you'll likely need to establish a consensus for this removal first before making such an edit request. On a side note, you'll see I've hidden it in a collapse box, not because there's necessarily anything wrong with it, but because of the sheer volume. Please see WP:WALLOFTEXT. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Atatürk's stance on communism

On Turkish Wikiquote, there are multiple quotes of Atatürk denouncing communism. Do these quotes necessarily make him an anti-communist? Should I add him in 'Turkish anti-communists' category?

I can translate the quotes and write their sources near them if any of you guys want.

Note: He is included in the 'Anti-communists' category on English Wikiquote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravern52 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ravern52: Yes, he was an anti-communist. He approved the "Arrests of Communists in 1927" (1927 Komünist Tevkifatı) and the censorship of articles by the communist writer Hikmet Kıvılcımlı in 1937. There are three references on this aspect in Turkish Wikipedia. See Antikomünizm#II. Dünya Savaşı öncesi ve savaş yılları. - 178.233.24.152 (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Names of cities in the Ottoman era

@Aybeg: Re: usage of historical names of Ottoman cities

I am aware that some modern sources do use Ankara, Izmir, Istanbul, etc. partly for ease of reading. However someone on the Wikimedia Commons gave a good analogy: It would be a little strange to call St. Petersburg "St. Petersburg" in World War II material when it was very much "Leningrad". I do think the readability should be a factor, but I think historical accuracy is also an important factor. The article on St. Petersburg in Saint_Petersburg#World_War_II_(1941–1945) describes the city as "Leningrad" during that time.

Do bear in mind the names in English changed in 1930. The names as such were in the old style for most of Ataturk's life, as he was born in 1881 and died in 1938.

Also re: historians being the only people who would take interest to the claims, I believe historians would be a major clientele of this article. People studying history generally focus on historical figures like Ataturk.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Atatürk is an Internationalist.

Not A nationalist. Turkfromturkey (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Turkfromturkey: It's important to base such descriptions off of published reliable sources. If a majority of sources about Ataturk call him a nationalist, I could see the encyclopedia doing that. See also Wikipedia:WEIGHT. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

British English

After reading the article, I garnered that a good majority of it is written in British English. However, there are still some spots where the spellings are not consistent. For good measure, can we come to a consensus that the article should be written in British English and that we could add the British English template to the top of the talk page?

There are no ulterior motives here, since I personally prefer to write in American English. GeneralPoxter (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralPoxter: I'm OK with either variety, but if it would take more work to turn it into American English, it may be better to stick to British English WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I do believe it will take more work to turn it into American English. Last time I checked, there were still some discrepancies which I fixed, but I don't believe I covered all of them.

Role in Tafas massacre

What role did Ataturk play in the 1918 Tafas massacre? Makeandtoss (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Good and/or Featured Article Nomination

I checked this page's history, and it seems to not have been applied for any article status nominations recently.

I was reviewed some of the complaints made in the declined featured article nomination and was wondering:

1. Will this article be ready for a good or featured article nomination in the near future?

2. What do we need to focus on right now to get it to a superior level?

This is probably my first endeavor to get an article to Good or Featured status and would like the opinion of some of this article's veteran editors.

Thanks, GeneralPoxter (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Just the be honest, if I were to be the judge, the article wouldn't pass in the current state. The article is informative, sure, but several things are missing like the Tunceli Law, the Dersim Rebellion, the Insepctorate Generals in Thrakya and the Kurdish territories etc. Then some things could be simplified like the different policies of Turkification. Then if we name two first factories like of cotton and airplanes, why not name all firsts? These two factories had an influence in the lives of some thousand people, the Inspectorate Generals had an influence on the lives of millions of people, and for decades. Then the airplanes are also mentioned in separate paragraphs... This just after a short overview.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Seal of the Turkish Parliament (Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Photo

The previous picture was a photograph and was fine as a portrait. I could not understand that it was suspected to be a photograph. Due to being a vertical photograph, "Atatürk Kemal.jpg" is better than "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk .jpg". - Aybeg (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I have now noticed that Paradise Chronicle undoes Editchi's change. - Aybeg (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I also prefer the current one to the former one. This one has a presence while the other one has a bit a focus to the sky. So I thought if the discussion ended with a recommendation that a change should be addressed here, I revert it and wait for editors like Aybeg to share their experience.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aybeg and Paradise Chronicle: Rather than base the change on a preference or which one has more 'presence', I was basing it on Wikipedia guidelines. Like I said when I made the edit, the current photo is not that great quality-wise. I don't think the article has to use the photo I added, but what other options do you think should be considered? Would like to hear your suggestions. -Editchi (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You engage in unnecessary discussions. Also, the photo added does not belong to the final version of Mustafa Kemal, please do not choose the photo from his youth. --Mühendis ve bilim insanı yazarı kişi (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Genocides

I think the article should have at least a reference to the genocides that he did during his governance. Taxydromeio (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

What genocides are you referring to? GeneralPoxter (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV: "Benevolent dictatorship"?

The opening paragraph refers to Kemal's "belevolent dictatorship." This strikes me as a statement of opinion, which if included at all, should be attributed. It should not be stated factually, in Wikipedia's authoritative voice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I've also changed "one of the greatest leaders" to "one of the most important political leaders." The latter is more neutral, as it does not involve any value judgments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Attack on his house in 1955

Who did that? The Turkish Govt. blamed the Greeks in Istanbul, and used it as an excuse to liquidate them. A site with an admitted pro-Greek bias says:

“The Turkish government, press, and nation "justified" this savagery on the false pretext that the Greeks had bombed the house of Ataturk in Thessaloniki. In reality the Greeks had not placed the bomb in the Turkish consular complex in that city on September 6. It had been put there by a Turk, in collusion with the Turkish government, in order to provide the pretext for a carefully laid plan to destroy the houses, the businesses, the property, the churches, the schools, the newspapers of the Greeks in Constantinople.”

Well, what actually happened? Whatever it was, it shows the importance of Ataturk and his memory, and deserves a mention in the article. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:F110:7B50:5361:ED7D (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Images

There are many images at the Atatürk article, and also many on both sides of the text. This goes against MOS:SANDWICHING So I thought to remove some not so important images like a second image to the Hat Law, the second image to Picardie maneuvers. A Flag at the Gezi Park protests with his face on it, images of two statues. There would still be an image of a statue of Atatürk and also of the hat law and also of the Picardie maneuvers, just not a second one. Anyway, I was reverted twice by a new user who thought he knew it better, and told me to get consensus at the talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PC it should be reduced. Shadow4dark (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Both of you are obviously Kurdish nationalists (based on your edits) and don't have a positive view of the Turkish Republic and its founder. I apologize for my straightforward honesty, but I'm not convinced regarding the "neutrality" of your arguments for the deletions. Nørmær (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I adapted the images according to MOS:SANDWICHING, removed several images that were less important, and moved several others to the right side of the Wikipedia page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

After thinking on it with a cool head, I began to agree with the idea that there were way too many images (sandwiching the text) and decided to give a hand. I apologize for being grouchy and prejudiced, I felt very sad afterwards. Nørmær (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Complete lack of recent material

There is no content at all about the ongoing Ataturk-related issues in contemporary Turkey. For example, the following text could be added to the legacy section: In 2013, during a parliamentary debate about a proposed law restricting the sale of alcohol, Turkish prime minister Erdogan cited Islamic law and referred to Atatürk and İsmet İnönü as "those two drunks". However at the end of 2016, after the attempted coup, he embarked on a series of pro-‎Atatürkist speeches and tweets, the sincerity of which were questioned by Turkish secularists, and with commentators speculating that the change in direction was because Erdogan had decided that criticizing Ataturk's image was not electorally advantageous. source: https://dayan.org/content/erdogans-u-turn-ataturk-avenue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.77.10 (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Armenians should stop messing with it

Dont do that Banana6cake. (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think that there should be clearly the two opinions about Kemal at the article. Turkish love him and consider he is the father of their nation, while Greeks and Armenians see him as a killer and consider him responsible for the genocide of their people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.9.193 (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2021

Please change the category Category:People who died in office to Category:Politicians who died in office. 2601:241:300:B610:2827:6075:D9FB:E6EE (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a single usage of the word genocide in the article proper

See title. This maybe should be fixed. I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTime05 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@TTTime05: In which way? Armenian genocide is automatically recognized as such (outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan) and the UN definition of genocide states "Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Raphael Lemkin, who created the term "genocide", did so upon consideration of what happened to the Armenians. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean that there's literally not a single usage of the word in the article. I text searched it.TTTime05 (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@TTTime05: Indeed he definitely had a role with the Greek genocide so a source saying explicitly that he was a power behind the Greek genocide would be welcomed along with the wording "Greek genocide" WhisperToMe (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

ALL LANGUAGES VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE SAME

""""alongside the massacres of 5,000–12,000 Armenians, spelling the end of the remaining Armenian population in the region"""" can you add this sentence on all of language versions of this article? im sorry for bad english. Modern primat (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Modern primat: Each Wikipedia edition is its own project with its own user base. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: truth is one, not many. i know every wikipedia version should not same, but there is a fact that M.K Atatürk didnt killed armenians.Modern primat (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Modern primat: Yeah Talaat Pasha is fingered in regards to the Armenian genocide. I think Ataturk is fingered with the Greek genocide (such as the burning of Smyrna, now Izmir) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

View on the Armenian genocide

Hi,

The article is in the category "Deniers of the Armenian genocide." And yet, neither the genocide nor the views of Atatürk on the genocide are mentioned in the article. According to Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide it seems that Atatürk condemned the "massacres" (he could not have used the word "genocide" as it didn't exist at that time).

Therefore, should the category "Deniers of the Armenian genocide" be removed? Should we add a paragraph about Atatürk's view on the genocide? A455bcd9 (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The term Armenian Genocide has recently regained prominence and Turkey's treatment of ethnic and racial minorities has always been a major point of discussion. I was a bit shocked to find the Ataturk article lacked more than a passing mention of cultural persecution. Even the blatant cultural jingoism of the Surname Law rates only a sugar-coated aside about it's corrosive long-term impacts. Subjects such as the treatment of Kurds, Seyfo (the Assyrian cleansing which was ongoing literally as Ataturk built modern Turkey), and Turkish treatment of refugees (see the Circassians in Turkey for an example but there are many others) are completely missing from this article. Ataturk is an amazing and fascinating figure with an extraordinary mixture of positive and negative morals and ideals, but the article reads as more of an apologia than an encyclopaedic piece. The question now is whether the article requires a small fix (perhaps one of the ubiquitous 'Controversies' section often used to house facts inconvenient to an article's POV) or whether it needs a massive overhaul. Last1in (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I would prefer to start with a small fix (i.e., the ubiquitous 'Controversies' section). And then to see if a "massive overhaul" is necessary. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Last1in: @A455bcd9: You may wish to consider Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies (it's an essay, so this is merely a viewpoint and not a guideline nor a policy) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Read Jimbo Wales' criticism of consolidation of such info into criticism sections WhisperToMe (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You may notice that I openly disparaged the 'Criticism' idea, but there is a valid reason they exist: To quickly add important contextual info pending a rewrite of a POV article. The problem is that such sections, like any stopgap measure, can easily become a perpetual excuse for "the shoddy research, writing, and organization" that we see in this article already. I don't have the subject-matter expertise nor the time to do proper research, but having no info at all about Atatürk's willing participation in -- and (imho) enthusiastic embrace of -- genocidal policies skews the article to its detriment.Last1in (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Last1in: I'm sure theres a source that states that Ataturk was involved in the Greek genocide (see burning of Smyrna), and a sourcing using that exact phrasing will be key in citing that and adding the word "genocide" to the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, no one is claiming that Mustafa Kemal used the word genocide. The question is, what was the view of Mustafa Kemal? How was he involved? Don't tell me that as an official, he was not aware of what was going on in his own country. Yes, it should be discussed in this article. It is part of who he is. Mustafa Kemal and such people form the identity of Turkey. The genocide also forms the identity of Turkey. The same treatment should be given to any other major historical person. Vmelkon (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2021

In the 4th paragraph, in the sentence Under Atatürk, non-Turkish minorities were pressured to speak Turkish in public; non-Turkish toponyms and last names of minorities had to be changed to Turkish renditions change the link embedded in the word toponyms from Toponymy to Place name changes in Turkey. 94.252.98.59 (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for this move. People disagree which title best fits the WP:CRITERIA. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk → Kemal Atatürk – Given that there hasn't been much discussion about the name of this article, I think that it is worth looking at now since the most recent discussion was in 2006. The Ngrams here show that the first name is the most popular. Britannica uses Kemal Ataturk in its article. Interstellarity (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's misleading because the full name includes "Kemal Atatürk" as well. Beshogur (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional comment: The surname law came in 1934, so he was known as Mustafa Kemal before. Using ngram is misleading because Mustafa Kemal would be the common name, not Kemal Atatürk. So the current name is fine. Beshogur (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Kemal Atatürk is indeed his WP:COMMONNAME in the English-speaking world, as confirmed by the above-mentioned main title header of his Britannica entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Support: I think COMMONNAME is misleading as most people don't think of a first (or second) name, just as few know there's and umlaut in there. A whole name is used for most articles of historical figures unless it is misleading or confusing (this is neither). 00:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Last1in (talk • contribs) Paradise Chronicle provides a persuasive argument for the change. Last1in (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Paradise Chronicle's ngram is incorrect because "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" contains "Kemal Atatürk" and so we need to control for it, to allow us to compare use of "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" vs "Kemal Atatürk" without the "Mustafa". BilledMammal (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The ngrams query was improperly written; a properly written ngrams query shows that "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" is the common name. BilledMammal (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That may be (your version has math so I can't evaluate it, and the other way is how I've always done it; it's odd that we're getting different results, and I'd be interested to know more). But even assuming that your graph is more correct... (struck out 03:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)) Yes your Ngram querey is the correct one, so let's use that one. So using your graph...

For one thing, he area below each line matters, probably more in toto than the current position. People come to the Wikipedia from books written in 1963 as well as today's papers. According to your Ngram query, up until 2012, the two-name version was more common in books, and in 2000 it was twice as common, and in the 20th century overwhelmingly more common.

For another thing, depending on how you smooth the graph, even at the current time the three-name version is only slightly more common, or slightly less; smoothing of 20 or above gives the advantage to the the two-name version. (I have little idea of smoothing is or what an appropriate value is.)

And also speaking of the current position, this Google Trends graph (which shows what people are searching on) shows the two as pretty close, but gives a 57-43% advantage worldwide to the two-name version (I don't think Google Trends can distinguish umlauted letters). FWIW this seems true in Turkey itself if I'm reading the chart correctly. (The United States and Canada slightly favor the two-name version, altho in Britain and Australia the three-name version is a bit more common.) Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The way ngrams works is that every use of "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" will register as a use of "Kemal Atatürk". We don't want this, so we need to subtract the former from the latter. As for smoothing, we have a good article on the method used in ngrams at moving average. In this case, twenty is probably too high.

I would also note that when determining the common name, we want the name that is in use, and so we typically give recent usage more weight than historic usage. BilledMammal (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You're correct about the Ngram query but "we want the name that is in use, and so we typically give recent usage more weight than historic usage" -- yes that makes sense and I suppose we do, but the question is how much more weight. In this case, in the 20th century the two-name version was very much more common in books, and that matters. People come to this page for many reasons, but a typical use (I would think) would be someone finding a reference to Ataturk in a book and wanting to know more. And there's a good chance the book was published in 1993. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It is possible that they will come here from a thirty year old book, but as "Kemal Atatürk" redirects here that won't cause issues. Further, they be surprised to end up here, so that won't cause issue. In general, I'm not seeing a reason to ignore what is the modern common name. BilledMammal (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but we generally use full names. Like people don't much use Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but Tayyip Erdogan commonly. Beshogur (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually we seldom use middle names. If there's a different rubric for Turks in English-language source, let's see it. WP:AT has no exception for Turks AFAIK, and Conciseness says to using titles as short as possible, all equal.

• Support per data as I discussed above.

1) Extrapolating current trends into the future favors the three-name version.

2) Current use seems pretty even. There may be a small advantage to the two-name version or a small advantage to the three-name version, depending on what data you look at and how it's presented.

3) Past use (including recent past) favors the two-name version by a good amount.

I'd have to conclude that "Kemal Atatürk" meets our COMMONNAME criteria. Enough to justify a move? Yes, I think so. Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC) (Slight edit 03:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC))

• Comment "Atatürk" may actually be the common name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think "Kemal" alone is used more, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support per above. Also I have done my own ngrams with compositions which I guess is a more "proper" way to do it. And there (Kemal Atatürk+Kemal Ataturk) is way above (Mustafa Kemal Atatürk+Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) combined with the ngram made with Kemal Atatürk and Kemal Ataturk this gives a currently much more common Kemal Atatürk.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You forgot to subtract (Mustafa Kemal Atatürk+Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) from (Kemal Atatürk+Kemal Ataturk), as every result for "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" will also return a result for "Kemal Atatürk". BilledMammal (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh now I get it. searching on "Kemal Ataturk" will return all instances of the string "Kemal Ataturk", whether it appears in "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk", "that traitor Kemal Ataturk", etc etc. So "Kemal Ataturk" will always show more instances than "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" unless you control for that. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• ...NOTE: User:BilledMammal's query is correct I think. Use this Ngram and ignore the other ones. (Or this one, which uses the same query but different smoothing and gives opposite results.) Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Beshogur we usually go with the commonname, not the full name: compare with Mustafa Ismet Inönü, Mustafa Fevzi Cakmak, Huseyin Rauf Orbay, Mehmet Recep Peker, MahmutCelâl Bayar to give a few examples. I have not read much about a Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, but a lot about a Recep Tayyip Erdogan.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: because 99% persons do not know those people's first name, but they know Atatürk's and Erdogan, because being more popular. Beshogur (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment (actually Questions): Does the fact that he was born with neither the Kemal nor the Atatürk bear on keeping Mustafa in the title? Also, are we spending a lot of time debating something that actually mocks COMMONNAME: that most people would simply call him Atatürk? Are there other Ataturks or Atatürks? If not, is that the right name for the article after all and this discussion is missing the point entirely? Last1in (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Well yes there are redirects everywhere, we could name the article "Oysters in Berlin" and people would still get there. The title is so that the biggest plurality of readers, when they do get here, find the title that is least surprising and maximally understandable in one second. It may be that "Atatürk" would be the correct title. It would be more concise, which is one of the Fiver Virtues of titles per WP:AT. Herostratus (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Last1in: mock? What are you talking about? Literally every official organization (military, ministries, presidency, etc.) uses the full name Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Beshogur (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I know him as either Mustafa Kemal or Atatürk and adding just those names to the ngram shows that I am right. Srnec (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright, but if you smooth the Ngram to 20, "Kemal Ataturk" comes out ahead, even today, not considering the 20th century and 2010s. (I have no idea what appropriate smoothing is.) Also, more people worldwide google "Kemal Ataturk" than "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk", by about 5:4 or something, per Google Trends. (For my part, I've hardly ever read the name with the Mustafa prepended, but data is not the plural of anecdote.) Herostratus (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

How do you know? Mustafa Kemal Atatürk includes Mustafa Kemal. Also until 1934 he was only known as Gazi Mustafa Kemal. You can not remove Mustafa, because he wasn't referred as "Kemal" alone. Beshogur (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that Google Trends, unlike Ngrams, deals only with the whole term entered in the search box. This must be so, otherwise searches on "a famous albino" would cause "a" and "famous" to spike and this would be make the database pretty noisy. I don't know for 100% sure. (however, to be fair, many searches are probably just on "attaturk" (and some on "ataturk" and "kemal") because there's no gain to type more, for searching. So not sure how useful Google Trends is. Herostratus (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. We should use full names not half names because of old ottoman laws turks had no surnames Shadow4dark (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

But in Kemal's time they did. He made them. Herostratus (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If we move this page under common name we should then move to only Atatürk,Shadow4dark (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Shadow4dark, you can start a RfC on a move on Atatürk if you like, but I guess this one will get rejected per WP:SNOWBALL. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ofc it has NPOV issues, that is why Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is best name because Atatürk is commonnname but it is POV. Shadow4dark (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. per WP:SINGLENAME and WP:MIDDLE. Majority of the other wikis seem to use the full name, Google results for "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" full phrase have more results, in fact, "Mustafa Kemal" as the full phrase has even more. Considering those, the faulty ngrams the supporters made and these examples among many others: Sait Faik Abasıyanık, Orhan Veli Kanık, Halid Ziya Uşaklıgil, Mehmet Akif Ersoy, there is no justification for the move, the current title is as stable as it gets. DriedGrape (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Full name and first sentence

Is there any particular reason why the lede displays his two last names (Kemal Atatürk) and the full name (Mustafa Kemal Atatürk) separately, instead of just the full name alone – that is, "Kemal Atatürk, commonly referred to as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" rather than simply "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk"? MOS:FIRST recommends that the first sentence should simply state the full name concisely without many "alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read". There is that ID card, but it's nowhere indicated that the first name was ever officially abandoned. The discussions in the archives all concern the title and common name specifically, not how the name should be displayed in the lede, and in none of them it is denied that "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" is the subject's full name. Am I missing something here? Avilich (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Surnames in ottman didnt exist? Tkipsizad (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality issue

I would like to raise my concern that this article violates the NPOV policy. Atatürk's lauding as a genius man of the century like figure is present throughout; there is not enough analysis of him, nor discussion of his controversial legacy. There are as many academic works condemning him as there are ones praising him. This must be taken into account. --Aubernas (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no sentence that alludes to Atatürk's ingenuity or intelligence. If you call his objectively successful warfare tactics biased then this is not a relevant discussion. Unfortunately you have not given a single example as to how this article violates the NPOV policy, so we're bound to assume what made you think that this is the case. Bubirkullaniciadi (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

1. The article does not remotely mention the genocides enough (and didn't at all before I took the time to mention it myself)
2. It doesn't have a section on criticism of him, despite him being exceedingly controversial
3. "His iconic mausoleum in Ankara, built and opened in 1953, is surrounded by a park called the Peace Park in honor of his famous expression "Peace at Home, Peace in the World". In 1981, the centennial of Atatürk's birth, his memory was honoured by the United Nations and UNESCO, which declared it The Atatürk Year in the World and adopted the Resolution on the Atatürk Centennial, describing him as "the leader of the first struggle given against colonialism and imperialism" and a "remarkable promoter of the sense of understanding between peoples and durable peace between the nations of the world and that he worked all his life for the development of harmony and cooperation between peoples without distinction". "
4. A sentence like this is marked by an excessively long quote, and a large amount of praise. Nothing addresses what could only be a controversial legacy given his nation state building
5. My point is that he is clearly portrayed in a positive light in the article generally speaking, however tacit that may be.

Aubernas (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

1. As of right now, I believe the article does a good job of mentioning the genocides: no source has claimed that he was directly responsible for any of them, and for those that he may have been indirectly responsible for, the article mentions them while providing relevant sources in a neutral way. I don't see the need to make that section any bigger. Sorry if this wasn't the case when you wrote your comment.
2. "...despite him being exceedingly controversial." What do you mean by extremely controversial? Any political figure that had significant importance in a county's history also had controversy around them. Please provide specific examples so we can further discuss them.
3. The paragraph you're mentioning has quotes from organizations like United Nations and UNESCO, the article itself is not praising anyone. If you have any quotes from organizations that have similar relevancy to the UN claiming the opposite, you are free to add them to the article.
4. "Nothing addresses what could only be a controversial legacy given his nation state building." If you can provide some sources, we can discuss the nation-building part.

46.193.66.211 (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Since OP did not respond, can we remove the POV tag? Central Data Bank

(talk) 11:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk → Atatürk – The vast majority of English-language sources that I'm able written after Atatürk's death tend to refer to him almost exclusively as if his name were a mononym. As such, I think it might be better for the title of this article to reflect that mononym. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose see my reasonings above at previous requested move. Beshogur (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Atatürk is currently a primary redirect, and like, say, Pinochet, that works fine. 162 etc. (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • That's not equivalent, since Pinochet is a surname, and Ataturk is a title, specifically created for him by the national assembly. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    That's nonsense. It is a surname. Beshogur (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    It's a name created by the National Assembly of Turkey for this particular person, not not simply a surname. It is illegal for other men to use that surname [[1]] -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Do you speak Turkish? [2] It's definitely a surname. Being prohibted by others doesn't change the fact. Atatürk is not a title. Beshogur (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment as nom. My reasoning for the vast majority of sources saying this is based off of Google Scholar queries:
  • "Atatürk" yields 168,000 English-language results on Google Scholar.
  • "Atatürk"-"Kemal" 102,000 English-language results on Google Scholar.

As all of Atatürk's alternative names contain "Kemal", this shows that the vast majority of English-language sources don't actually refer to him by something other than "Atatürk". As such, the title of "Atatürk" meets the WP:CRITERIA of naturalness the best, since the title would most accurately reflect what the subject is typically called in English. With respect to each of the other criteria and it is more concise than the current article title (by two words), it is no less recognizable than the current title for someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area. The proposed title also unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subject; there is no other individual who is mononymously known as Atatürk. And, with respect to consistency, this is perfectly consistent with people who are known by one name, such as Cher, Madonna, and Colette. As such, it's superior to the current name when analyzed under the several criteria and it is the WP:COMMONNAME of this article subject. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The ones you linked are not even English sources, but Turkish. Beshogur (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have always seen him referred to as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk or Kemal Atatürk. JIP | Talk 21:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have any response to the search queries among scholarly works? — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Opposewe use scholarly works because they are RS, but we write for the people who mostly wouldn't know what Atatürk stands for; can be a location or a thing. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is well recognizable as a person.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support the moniker "Ataturk" (Father of the Turks) was specifically created for him by the National Assembly of Turkey, and can function mononymously for that reason -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose "Atatürk" is a surname, not a title. With this logic, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan should be changed to just "Erdoğan". Central Data Bank (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Erdoğan (name) is a name, Atatürk was created as a name specifically for this person in 1934 [3][4]; so it is a completely different case. Ataturk is illegal for use by other men -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Atatürk being illegal for other persons to obtain still does not change the fact that it was a surname. (--Central Data Bank (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC))
• I guess not, but the current title isn't so great either -- it should be "Kemal Attaturk" since that's what people in the Anglosphere mostly call him. But as long as the proper redirects are in place, it doesn't matter much. Herostratus (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  I support the proposed of Kemal Atatürk as well. Atatürk didn't use Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and I guess his official name was either Kemal/Kamal Atatürk. His previous name was Mustafa Kemal. Should be pointed out in the article. Beshogur (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV in lead

There are no criticisms, no controversies of Atatürk mentioned in the lead, aside from a brief sentence about Turkification (but even that has language that may be construed as apologia, with the rationale given in Wikivoice that it was for unification and secularisation). I think the lead should be rewritten to give a more balanced account, such as mentioning the population exchanges, the authoritarianism, more emphasis on what Turkification was, and so on. I am not saying that only negative things should be mentioned, but as it currently stands the lead is just more or less full with praise. Rousillon (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead seems to describe Turkification just fine, after all it is just a lead and further info on the subject can be found down in the article. Atatürk was not present at Lausanne, as İsmet İnönü lead the Turkish delegation, therefore there is no reason to mention that in the lead, especially since the Treaty of Lausanne is not mentioned there. Putting the population exchange on İnönü's page would be more consistent. The authoritarianism should perhaps be included, but it should be also stated that he is overwhelmingly considered as a Benevolent dictator, to not confuse him with the stigmatized classic dictators of his time such as Stalin or Hitler. Cheers. (Central Data Bank (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC))

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• AtaturkAndVenizelos.jpg (discussion)
• Atatürk, Stojadinović, Metaxas, Comnen. Ankara, March 1938 (Koncern Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny).png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Better picture

Atatürk1930syk

From 30s and free from copyright Shadow4dark (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

missing titles

his titles "Head teacher", "head commander" and "eternal chief" are missing. All official titles given by the state. 5.27.30.103 (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Names

1. His name being "Mustafa Kemal Pasha" until 1934 is wrong. It is actually until 1921 that he uses that name. From 1921 when he got his ghazi title, he always uses the name "Ghazi Mustafa Kemal".

2. I can not decide how to include the name Kamâl to the lead. It takes some space. Maybe add a footnote to "Kemal Atatürk" instead of adding the name twice?

I can not deicde how to do it right now, so writing here to hear opinions. Beshogur (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Legacy Section lacks Criticism and Consequences of Ataturk, Reads like a Hagiography

There is only three sentences of criticism, devoted to one point about his involvement with the national movement. There was most certainly controversy to his language or secularization policy during his life, continuing even now. Regardless how benevolent Ataturk was (as the reader would infer by reading this article), his absolute rule could be criticized for its own sake. Even Churchill has a whole Legacy section dedicated to his racism. Are we to believe that Ataturk was a saint?

Ataturk had immense influence as founder of Turkey, which still affects present-day Turkey. Why then are the only effects mentioned memorials, statues, and his likeness on paper bills? A large section is dedicated to contemporaneous admiration by other famous world leaders, as well as a UN "Year of Ataturk". Ataturk's Legacy deserves proper description of his truly incredible triumphs, mistakes, and other lasting effects rather than just statues. PhalanxDown (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It really has become a one-dimensional picture of him. If not opening paragraph, certainly high in the page should be reference to the many atrocities committed by Turkey under his leadership. A quick browse of Wikipedia turns these up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportations_of_Kurds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_Turkish_Resettlement_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey Fxer (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Names

1. His name being "Mustafa Kemal Pasha" until 1934 is wrong. It is actually until 1921 that he uses that name. From 1921 when he got his ghazi title, he always uses the name "Ghazi Mustafa Kemal".

2. I can not decide how to include the name Kamâl to the lead. It takes some space. Maybe add a footnote to "Kemal Atatürk" instead of adding the name twice?

I can not deicde how to do it right now, so writing here to hear opinions. Beshogur (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Legacy Section lacks Criticism and Consequences of Ataturk, Reads like a Hagiography

There is only three sentences of criticism, devoted to one point about his involvement with the national movement. There was most certainly controversy to his language or secularization policy during his life, continuing even now. Regardless how benevolent Ataturk was (as the reader would infer by reading this article), his absolute rule could be criticized for its own sake. Even Churchill has a whole Legacy section dedicated to his racism. Are we to believe that Ataturk was a saint?

Ataturk had immense influence as founder of Turkey, which still affects present-day Turkey. Why then are the only effects mentioned memorials, statues, and his likeness on paper bills? A large section is dedicated to contemporaneous admiration by other famous world leaders, as well as a UN "Year of Ataturk". Ataturk's Legacy deserves proper description of his truly incredible triumphs, mistakes, and other lasting effects rather than just statues. PhalanxDown (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It really has become a one-dimensional picture of him. If not opening paragraph, certainly high in the page should be reference to the many atrocities committed by Turkey under his leadership. A quick browse of Wikipedia turns these up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportations_of_Kurds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_Turkish_Resettlement_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey Fxer (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Kamâl Atatürk

@Aybeg: I see you changed it to 1937, the reason I didn't do this, Atatürk might've still had the name Kamâl when he died. So he probably started to use Kemal unofficially, rather than getting a new id card. It's rather vague. Beshogur (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I made sense. If you want, you can also make corrections. - Aybeg (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022

I noticed a small spelling mistakes, when it comes to the second section; Early life. It is in the second sentence, “His parents were Ali Rıza Efendi, a militia officer originally from Kodžadžik….” The correct written form I believe is: His parents were Ali Rıza Efendi, a military officer originally from Kodžadžik… So the word “military” is the word spelt wrong. Lachiquilladelosandes (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Beshogur (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Jewish origin

Evidence suggests he was half Jewish, from the lineage of the Sepharadi who were invited by the Ottoman Sultan and came by ship to Thessaloniki, which makes him a Crypto Jew. Other evidence suggests his blondeness and blue eyes are due to his lineage being from a specific branch of the Oghuz Turks. Which one is it? No, this is not a forum. However, serious writers suggest the above. Why is it not mentioned in the article? Shouldn’t it be mentioned? What if we added references with these claims? Then what? Will you still censor the info? :) Aka-Gailik (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aka-Gailik What does it do with "censoring?" Or not letting "mention?" The evidence that you are saying is based on, most likely, rumors. Wikipedia can't accept "evidence" based on rumors and random memories alone if there is stronger evidence, a document.

There is evidence that clearly shows he was a part of a branch of Oghuz Turks. And it is a document, not a rumor as well. And you suggest to instead of believing in a document that -almost- every "professor" does accept as truth, we should believe in random evidence that was claimed by you and your serious writers?

Here are the documents, search them up:

1-) TTD 397/ 943 (1536) page. 816

2-) TTD 1040 (943/1536) defter, page. 6. 18. 24. vd . . .

3-) TTD 155-936-1520-162.

4-) BOA.C.Arşivi; 030-0-010-000-000- 1 -7-6-Atatürkün Babası Ali Rıza

Efendi Hakkında.

5-) BOA. ŞD, 927/73.

6-) İ.ŞD. 6/334 ve İŞD 00006 1285 Ra 16

7-) BOA.ŞD 927-73- 131 1 Ş 28-Tekaüd 4/574

8-) Evd.34066 /1288 Ra 24; Evd. 24270/1295.

9-) MLVRDTMT NO:l 1634/1260

10-) NFSd 4962/1250/1834

If you are still thinking that your evidence is stronger and more stable than the documents we know, sir, then you should add your evidence to your text before starting propaganda-like writing, and treating the administration of Wikipedia as a censorship owner. TheKayra (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

And leaving all these aside, there is a clearly writing that says "Some people does accept him as a Jewish", did you read the article, by any chance? TheKayra (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2022

Mustafa Kemal was responsible for the Greek genocide in Smyrna in September 1922 where hundreds of thousands of Greeks including Armenians were slaughtered and killed. He caused the burning and destruction of a once cosmopolitan city. The objective to cleanse the city of any non-Turks 142.113.44.194 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This is already discussed in NPOV terms in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

If you go to the page for "Greek Genocide," it says that Ataturk is the perpetrator. So why has this not been updated on his page? The "Late Ottoman Genocides" section has no mention of the Greek Genocide. It seems to be very important and relevant information. I would go as far to say it seems to have been intentionally omitted. 173.80.46.122 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Link?

Would it be possible to add a link to the mention of İsmet İnönü as it appears in the infobox? MauriceFrancisEgan (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Is mentioned several times in the article. First time (beside the Infobox) in the fourth paragraph of the lead.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

• 
  Similar photo on Commons (Option A)
• 
  Current Infobox photo (Option B)

I was looking at photos on Commons and I noticed that there is a similar photograph to the current infobox photo (Option A) that appears to not be as washed out as the current infobox photo (Option B), but also appears to be the same pose and outfit. I think the similar photo on Commons is a better quality photo than the current infobox photo; it's less washed out and it seems more real-looking than the current infobox photo. I think Option A (or some crop of it) is going to be better than Option B, but I wanted to check with other editors here before I go and change the infobox photo. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur. Please go ahead and change it. PhalanxDown (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I changed it now. I would also choose Option A. Ayıntaplı (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd say option B is better because it is less blurry and brighter. -Vipz (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I think B is better than other one. Cause B looks more brighter and clear, Option A looks so dark. Werg57 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ayıntaplı: you may want to include more editors in this discussion because, as you can see with newer comments, there is no clear consensus in favor of the option A. -Vipz (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the talk page just before you commented and reverted myself. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Illnesses and Death

The section “Illness and Death” has the following line

“ He was the first president of Turkey to die in office.”

Correct me if I’m wrong but… isn’t the the first President of Turkey too? Anything he does is as “the first president of turkey to…” right? Maybe we should delete this as it is… redundant 142.115.26.36 (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree that the statement is a bit superfluous given that we say that he died in office, so I've removed that content from the article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2023

In his 2002 book King of the Mountain, political scientist Arnold Ludwig states that Atatürk sought to alleviate ethnic and religious sectarianism by imposing a unified theory of nationality (p. 303). Ludwig concluded his study by finding that Atatürk was the most successful statesman of the 20th century with a Political Greatness Scale (PGS) of 31 (p. 379).

In his post World War I memoirs The World Crisis, former British prime minister Winston Churchill called Atatürk "The Man of Destiny" and "Warrior Prince". Churchill detailed how Atatürk's decisive action against the British landing at Arı Burnu during the Gallipoli campaign delivered the Turks victory (Vol. II, p. 335; Vol. V, p. 389).

Please add this text to legacy section. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I don't think this King of the Mountain book or its author are notable enough for inclusion in the section. Winston Churchill is already mentioned in that section. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2023

State birth date as 19 May 1881 (traditionally) 81.151.127.234 (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Already mentioned in a note. Lightoil (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Involvement in the Greek Genocide

Atatürk is listed among the "Responsible parties" in {{Greek Genocide}} and according to Greek genocide: It was perpetrated by the government of the Ottoman Empire led by the Three Pashas and by the Government of the Grand National Assembly led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, against the indigenous Greek population of the Empire.

The article currently mentions the Armenian genocide but says nothing about the Greek genocide, besides the fire of Smyrna. So should we mention it? And if so, what was Atatürk's position and involvement?

Some sources I found (but I don't know whether they are reliable or not):

• "The new Kemalist extremes surpassed all previous atrocities, both in the violence inflicted, the number of victims, and the methods implemented. [...] For Mustafa Kemal, the Independence Courts ‘had a double target: firstly, to give a totally legal character to the annihilation of Asia Minor Greeks; secondly, to strike a lethal blow to Greek communities of the most flourishing towns by exterminating their outstanding members, a method much safer than deportation, as it allowed them no chances of survival. This last result was largely achieved, as hundreds of eminent civilians were hanged or shot mostly in Amasya, where the prison was crowded with renowned personalities of science and commerce from all areas of Pontos." (Fotiadis, Konstantinos Emm. : The Genocide of the Pontian Greeks. Lexington, KY, 2019, pp. 381-384, cited here)
• "After the World War, in 1921 the Kemalists continued the extermination of the Greek Orthodox population in sancak Inebolu. “According to a comment by a columnist of the Trieste newspaper Nea Imera, the displacement and murder of Greeks aged 16 to 50 started after May 26, 1921, as reprisals for the bombardment of Inepolis by the Greek fleet. Actually, the order to exterminate all Greeks had been given in February 1921. Kemal’s supporters were simply waiting for the appropriate opportunity to justify their crimes.”" (Fotiadis, p. 393 cited here)
• "The object of Kemal, as we have seen, was one of simple extermination. The reason alleged was one of those shrewd subterfuges used by the Turks to fool Europeans. But not all the unfortunates carried away by the Turks were Greek men. Many thousands of Christian women and girls still remain in their hands to satisfy their lusts or to work as slaves. A report submitted to the League of Nations gives the number as ‘upward of fifty thou­sand,’ but this seems a very conservative estimate. The United States should sign no treaty with Turkey until these people are given up." (US Consul George Horton)
• Sources cited in Gregory (Orologas)
• "In March 1921, Kemalist forces committed a “terrible” 3 days massacre of Christians in Kayseri." („Terrible Massacres: Turks Wiping Out Christians; Greeks prepare for Battle”. The Bathurst Times (NSW : 1909 - 1925), p. 2. Retrieved 21 October 2021, from https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/111536870; Greek Genocide Resource Center: List of Massacres (1920-1923))

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The website of your first two sources cites wikipedia. Did you read yourself those books? Considering both authors are Greek, where is the WP:NPOV? For example Arnold J. Toynbee's reports on Turkish massacres is not even single time mentioned on Turkish War of Independence, since fellow editors claimed it is WP:AGEMATTERS. It would be double standarts. Beshogur (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I should have been clearer in my initial message: I don't have an opinion on whether Atatürk was involved or not in the alleged persecutions of ethnic Greeks at the time. I wanted to point out the current problem: different Wikipedia articles present opposite points of view, on an important and sensitive topic. I'd like to fix this, which first requires to know the "truth", so finding reliable sources.

Also, the Pontian Greek Genocide Remembrance Day is officially commemorated on May 19 in Greece and Cyprus (and maybe Sweden, Austria, the Netherlands, and Armenia as well? see Greek_genocide#Political_recognition), which is Atatürk's official birthday and the day he landed in Samsun in 1919. That fact alone is worth mentioning so *if* we find corroborating reliable sources I could imagine a sentence in this article such as: Most historians do not consider that Atatürk was involved in the Greek genocide, however, the Greek and Cyprus governments commemorate the Pontian Greek Genocide Remembrance Day on May 19, the day he landed in Samsun in 1919 and his official birthday. (I just give this as an example, I don't know if the content is true/correct/supported by RS).

Then coming back to your answer:

• "The website of your first two sources cites wikipedia": Indeed, but it's unrelated to our point.
• "Did you read yourself those books?": No
• "Considering both authors are Greek, where is the WP:NPOV": 1/ George Horton isn't Greek. 2/ The Bathurst Times isn't Greek either. 3/ Regarding Fotiadis: I don't think that the author's nationality alone can disqualify a source. We need to look at the source as a whole. Fotiadis seems to be "professor of the History of New Hellenism at the University of Athens" (source). But I cannot find much more information about him. So we probably need better sources.

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I am talking about modern sources. If WP:AGEMATTERS apply for Toynbee, I don't see why it shouldn't apply here. And the question is did 19 May landing on Samsun came first or "Pontian Greek Genocide Remembrance Day", sure there is a reason to connect these two. Beshogur (talk) 07:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur I don't understand your point with Toynbee. Please stick to the current discussion which is: what was Atatürk involvement during the Greek genocide? We just need sources saying that he wasn't involved. Or that he was. I don't know.

Regarding May 19: I don't understand your question. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for clarification. Beshogur (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I don't know how we could make progress here. In July I asked here but it didn't help... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: as you worked on many similar topics, do you know which reliable sources we could use by any chance? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the term "Greek genocide" is appropriate to use in wiki voice given that it is significantly disputed in reliable sources whether the term "genocide" applies. However, that said this is a source to consider although it is not specifically about Mustafa Kemal. I believe I have a pdf copy. (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know the term was significantly disputed. If "Greek genocide" isn't appropriate in wiki voice, then should we rename Greek genocide or at the very least improve its content?

The link doesn't point to a specific resource, did you have in mind "Chapter 5: The Final Phase The Cleansing of Armenian and Greek Survivors" of Collective and State Violence in Turkey: The Construction of a National Identity from Empire to Nation-State? (first link)? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If it were up to me, the "Greek genocide" article would discuss the controversy over whether it is called a genocide or not (entire books have been written about this).

There would be another article similar to de:Griechenverfolgungen im Osmanischen Reich 1914–1923 with a broader focus on historical events.

My own opinion is that what happened in 1921-1922 could be considered a genocide, but proponents of the term tend to apply it to everything that happened between 1913 and 1923 or so, which is harder to match with the historical record. (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I would support this. The Greek genocide article is indeed in a terrible state... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Information to be Added to the Section on the Armenian Genocide

The Wikipedia article on the Armenian genocide states, "The victorious nationalists subsequently declared the Republic of Turkey in 1923.[287] CUP war criminals were granted immunity and later that year, the Treaty of Lausanne established Turkey's current borders and provided for the Greek population's expulsion. Its minority protection provisions had no enforcement mechanism and were disregarded in practice." In regards to the immunity granted for the Committee of Union and Progress war criminals, it gives this source: Dadrian, Vahakn N.; Akçam, Taner (2011). Judgment at Istanbul: The Armenian Genocide Trials. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-0-85745-286-3. p. 104.

I have not been able to verify the information by accessing the text online, but, given the likelihood of it otherwise being disputed, of which it is not in the Talk page, I am operating under the assumption that it is correct.

To my understanding, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Enver Pasha were rivals, and disliked each other. I do, also, believe that Atatürk had made explicit comments which were critical of the genocide and understand that a small faction of the CUP attempted to assassinate him, or, at least, was accused of doing so. However, I suspect that he tended to greatly avoid and ignore the genocide after assuming office, perhaps, due to the role of the CUP in the foundational myth of modern Turkey, which plays into contemporary denial of the genocide today. If Atatürk did grant immunity to war criminals, which I do think that he did, then it would seem that he was considerably more complicit within the denial of the genocide than this article suggests. It would be my guess that, while he may not have explicitly or officially denied the genocide, he did tacitly, preferring to avoid it whenever possible, or, in short, just pretend like it never happened, more or less motivated by an effort to create the semblance of continuity within Turkish history from the Young Turks to his military dictatorship that was designed to later become a liberal democracy, at least, ostensibly, the Republic of Turkey.

It's certainly completely relevant to a discussion on the role that Atatürk played within the Armenian genocide, though I do agree that his position in Gallipoli at the time would have made it unlikely for him to have been deeply involved, that he granted perpetrators of the genocide, assumedly convicted during the Istanbul trials of 1919 and 1920, political immunity almost immediately after the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so I've found the text, which states:

"While still in its evolving stages, Kemalism, as shaped by its founder Mustafa Kemal, assumed a posture of reasonable judiciousness. That posture found its expression in a most restrained way on 24 April 1920...when Kemal made a very furtive allusion to the wartime massacres, which he gently denounced as a "shameful act"...He went so far as to tell the latter (Maurice Prax) that the perpetrators of these massacres, whom he denounced as rascals, should be hanged forthwith.

But his acknowledgement of these massacres to General James G. Harbord..acquired a special significance when Kemal explicitly cited the figure of 800,000 as the number of Armenian victims...In the period from March to September of 1921, the Kemalists made three distinct pledges, directly and indirectly, that they would prosecute those guilty of the crimes of massacres against the Armenians.

However, that very same year, when Mustafa Kemal was was conveying his annual report to the Grand National Assembly on 1 March 1921, he indicated that out of 350 deputies, 68 were actually ex-deputies and 12 were former Malta detainees. The fact would prove to be the forerunner of a host of subsequent developments whereby Kemalism became more and more entwined with the residual anti-Armenian CUP leaders, many of whom had played leading roles in the organization and implementation of the wartime Armenian Genocide. To crown a series of governmental measures glorifying the memory of past CUP leaders, with Law No. 318 on 31 March 1923 Ankara declared a general amnesty for all who had been convicted by courts-martial as well as by municipal courts.

Allied efforts to have the Ottoman authorities deliver deliver the suspects involved to their jurisdiction proved fruitless...Instead, Kemalists offered to launch internal criminal proceedings against the war criminals...

All these developments acquired, however, a particular irony, bordering on sarcasm, through the exceptionally boastful way in which many of the court-martialed and convicted perpetrators in question, from the highest to the lowest in rank and position, were celebrated and memorialized by Kemalists in subsequent years."

It, then, backtracks in a discussion about the Istanbul trials, and, so on, and, so forth. To me, it seems like, while some people were actually punished in Kemalist Turkey, a considerable number of people were granted amnesty and rehabilitated, if not even rewarded for their crimes, as per what I said earlier about the historical continuity between the Young Turks and the Republic of Turkey. Anyways, I'm going to go ahead and see if I can't figure out how to edit the article, now that I have verified this source. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so, I did go ahead and edit it, but have no real idea as to how to edit Wikipedia, and, so, while I do think that the content of my edit is highly relevant, if anyone knows how to better put and format all of that, I would be much obliged. The statement also comes kind of out nowhere as per the flow of the article, and, so, if you have any better ideas as to how to get it in there, then, I'd just go ahead and go for it. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Consummator of the Armenian Genocide

British publishing house Bloomsbury published a textbook titled The Armenian Genocide: The Essential Reference Guide (ISBN 9781610696883). On page 83 Kemal Ataturk is described as "the founder of the Republic of Turkey, and the consummator of the Armenian Genocide." We should say something about his genocide role in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Not that simple. There is disagreement in terms of what exactly his role was, and his stance; see the section above. Uness232 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)