Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Cleanup, NPOV

This article needs desperately to be cleaned up. There's little criticism of Ataturk, despite the fact he is hated by Greeks, nor is there any criticism of his policies towards Jews (in fairness, not notably different than with Muslims but which caused many to leave Turkey). Furthermore, the order is wrong, and a lot of this doesn't make sense in the English language. I appriciate the fact that the writer is probably Turkish, and that there are no articles in Turkish. That said, the authors might not be willing or able to correct this work. I'm not willing to at this time as I'm busy. I'm going to watch this page, but if this doesn't correct itself very soon, I'm going to submit tags that the article be cleaned up and nominate the page for one of the worst on Wikipedia. Jmw0000 20:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Greeks hate Atatürk? Greek prezident Venizelos has suggested Atatürk for Nobel Peace Prize in 1934. You know that?

Yes, and that was 1934. Let me correct: Some Greeks, not all Greeks. But there is a contingent that strongly dislikes him and believe he is responsible for genocide and diaspora.Jmw0000 05:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. You started with a reasonable claim of article requiring some criticism of Ataturk. But claiming "Greeks hating him", makes it clear that you do not have enough information on the subject to help this article but has a lot of potential to make it worse.

Yes, *some* Greeks hate him (like the ones who tried to organize a European facist gathering against the Turkish-EU membership), but we also have some other Greeks who hate Churchill, Italians, Albanians etc. You miss the whole point. The best relations between Greece and Turkey were after the Greco-Turkish war and during the Eleftherios Venizelos and Ataturk administrations. That is; despite the fact that, these two leaders had fought each other's country, starting with Venizelos' heroic contributions to the Cretan independence. Yet they did not have your mindset. Samothrakis

Atatürk's irreligion

We know that Turkish National Assembly was declared after Cuma Namazı, in English Friday Prayer.This ritual of worship is one of the most important requirements of Islam religion.Also in one of his speeches he said that: Communism is the greatest enemy of Turkish people.It must be crushed whereever it's seen.Because we are nationalists and thankful to our religion.We are such nationalists that; we are allied with who are friendly, and we are hostile against who are enemy. These sayings can be found in the archives of 'Anıtkabir'(which is the tomb of Atatürk in Ankara. mausoleum.) This information proves that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was not an atheist.But it's still a fact that he absolutely believes in laicism.

What you are talking about is a misinterpretion of Atatürk's quote. You can find the original version in TGNA's secret session records.--Hattusili 14:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It must be made clear that the document mentioned is proven to be forged with a fake signature.then what?

85.103.188.153 21:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC) There is no document about that quote in Anıtkabir.It is only said by a women close to Atatürk.But Atilla Ilhan has proven that this quote is not for sure.Assembly declared after friday prayer because it belongs to Turkish Nation.But as you know Atatürk had no death ceremony. Still there is not any big evidence other then that quote from Grace Ellison

"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men."

So we can't say wheter Atatürk is Muslim or not.I think Wikipedia must be cleared from these unclear ideas.

Atatürk was Muslim. And it is not true that he didn't have a death ceremony. 3 imam had done the ceremony. And one was the director of religious affairs department of Turkey.

Restless renaming this individual

Based on how Turkish Gov referances (http://www.kulturturizm.gov.tr/portal/tarih_en.asp?belgeno=5244), the name of the individual is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

When he was born his given name was Mustafa. Later he was given Kemal second name for reasons I can't recall (nor care). He was then addressed as Mustafa Kemal. He joined the millitary and rose to the rank of Brigadeer General, aquiring the "Pasha" title. In older millitary tradition one must have been adressed by full name as a sign of respect whenever directly or formaly addressed. The individual was addressed as Mustafa Kemal Pasha. Pasha being a title much simmilar to british "Sir". Later he "retired" from the millitary loosing the "Pasha" title officialy although was still addressed with it. Later same year last names were introduced with his initiative and he was given the last name Atatürk. Hence his name became Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. He was frequently addressed as "Mustafa Kemal Pasha" at times but formally/officialy/acctualy he was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Not Kemal Atatürk and I'd love to see why the heck is he magicaly named as Kemal Atatürk loosing his given name. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there any soul disputing any part of this? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

In English he is either called "Mustafa Kemal" or "Kemal Atatürk." He is never called "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk," even if that was his full name. We already went through a move vote on this, and you lost. john k 16:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

See also İsmet İnönü. john k 16:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not see a "common" english usage if I restrict google search to "English" lang. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"Kemal Atatürk" -Mustafa: (36,500 hits) [1]

"Mustafa Kemal Atatürk": (36,400 hits) [2]

If I do not restrict it with "English" lang. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"Kemal Atatürk" -Mustafa: (89,500 hits) [3] --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"Mustafa Kemal Atatürk": (126,000 hits) [4] --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"Kemal Atatürk" -"Mustafa Kemal Atatürk": (129,000 hits) [5] Ok done the right way, still highly inconclusive, no overwhelming english usage. Hence no reason not to use full name --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see the common usage you talk about. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Your usage statistics are incorrect. You should search for "Kemal Atatürk" -"Mustafa Kemal Atatürk", not for "Kemal Atatürk" -Mustafa. -- Naive cynic 11:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Britannica article: Kemal Atatürk. Columbia Encyclopedia article: Kemal Atatürk. There are three English biographies of Ataturk titles "Kemal Ataturk." There are none called "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk." At any rate, I was completely justified in moving the article back, because it was moved without any discussion, in spite of a previous vote that went against moving it. john k 16:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I still dont see the overwhelming common english. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 04:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should trust those of us who actually speak English, then. john k 05:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

And why are we doing another requested move on this? There was already one, and it failed. We shouldn't be doing it again so soon just because Cool Cat really thinks it should be somewhere else. john k 05:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Last move was inconclusive, no concensus was established. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support article move to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. This is an encyclopedia and we should use the most accurate official name for him. BlankVerse ∅ 09:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose we have already voted about this question. -- Karl Meier 10:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And you choose to oppose me, how sweet. Still stalking around aren't you? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Please don't make any false accusations, that is considered incivil and is a violation of Wikipedias policies. The article is on my watchlist, like a lot of other articles regarding Turkey, Kurdistan and the Armenian Genocide. Anyway, I see that you are still removing valid and referenced information that doesn't suits your PoV. I'll make sure to mention that at your ArbCom case. -- Karl Meier 12:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Please indent posts properly so that I dont have to. Please also do not lecture me on civility either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support move to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. You will note MSN Encarta also uses his full name. --E.A 11:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. As far as I am aware, Atatürk himself used the name Kemal Atatürk since 1934, and Mustafa Kemal Paşa before. See also my comment about incorrect usage statistics above. -- Naive cynic 11:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • He did sign as K Ataturk. When asked he answered he was promoting last names (as last names were declared evil because they were an invention of the "foreigners" by "traditionalists" of the time). He wasn't however addressed as K Ataturk. In his official documents he was still addressed with his full name. After death biographies occasionaly droped the "Mustafa" such as the ones on Britanica, but I see this as a repeated error in the world of copy editing. I don't think we should repeat the error. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's quite common for people to use different (usually shortened) name than their official one. Eg. the official name of Winston Churchill was Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, but the article about him is still under Winston Churchill, as the naming conventions dictate. -- Naive cynic 12:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
      • True for Churchills case, but I do not see the common english usage for Atatürk as every one I met either adressed him by his full name or with just last name, Atatürk, since only he can carry that last name. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support Of course. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • People, regardless of the title of the article, its only convention to place the full official name of a person in the article, in this case, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. --E.A 12:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a clash of culture here as well. If one arrived to an airport (Example: James Tiberious Kirk) today in Europe or the US he will be likely adressed by first name and last (James Kirk). If he arrived to a Turkish airport he would be addressed by seccond name and then last (Tiberious Kirk) because of the tradition Atatürk started with the way he signed his name (which was also a new thing). People will try to address you by your second name in Turkey. This could be a frustrating wait if you are waiting your name to be called (and you dont recognise) as Kirk is used to been called Jim or James not Tiberious. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not our convention to "place the full official name of a person" as the title of an article. He is normally called just "Kemal Atatürk" in English. I also object to this vote as being invalid. john k 16:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support this is a no brainer. At least in his home country, Turkey.
  • Kenney, i dont agree that in English he is "normally just called Kemal Ataturk". Thats probably derived from the sources you have read, but there are plenty of English sources as demonstrated below which warrant renaming the article Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, it is not only official, but also more commonly used that Kemal Ataturk:

• • • BBC - "Turkey's revered founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk."
    • CNN - "A national hero emerged to pick up the pieces and create the modern Turkish state -- Mustafa Kemal Ataturk"
    • MSN Encarta - "Atatürk, Mustafa Kemal (1881-1938), Turkish soldier, nationalist leader, and statesman"
    • Brittanica Concise - "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" --E.A 19:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The main Britannica article, however, is at Kemal Atatürk. At any rate, four references does not prove that it is more commonly used. john k 21:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
      • BTW, google search results in English:
        • "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk": 35,500
        • "Kemal Atatürk" -"Mustafa Kemal Atatürk": 63,300. john k 21:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Your objection is noted and overuled. ;) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • John Kenney I really fail to see what you are trying to get at by the common english name that isn't even English. Your google referance is also inconclusive. I fail to see a common english either way. Granted there are more matches for the shorter version but that really does not say much. I just do NOT see a common english usage you talk about. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I already noted that there are three biographies titled "Kemal Ataturk" and none titled "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk." At any rate, what are you getting at? Why is this so important to you that you demand reopening it now after your original move attempt failed? "Kemal Atatürk" is in common usage; it is the title of various biographies of the man; it is the name used by the Columbia Encyclopedia and by Britannica. What reason is there to move it to a less used form? john k 00:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose (again); and object to this revote; WP:POINT.  — Davenbelle 03:53, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. – AxSkov (☏) 07:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Not English usage. See David Fromkin:Peace to End All Peace for claims that it was not Atatürk's usage either. Septentrionalis 19:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Err. Isn't "MKA" what he's known by, always? I'm surprised... James F. (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Confused I have also heard of the MKA version, Google seems to reflect it. I looked up on the Turkish Version of this article, it has him listed as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk... hm. obviously the Turks would know best I think. Gryffindor 11:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• I support another vote (because voting should never be a one-off thing), and other options. How about "Atatürk (Mustafa Kemal)"? Yodakii 11:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Dragons flight 21:55, August 26, 2005 (UTC) No one seems to have mentioned the fact that the polital philosophy of Atatürk is often refered to as 'kemalism' - the name, incidently, is derived from Arabic meaning 'perfect' - in English, and as 'Kemalizm' or 'Atatürkçülük' in Turkish. Birth names are often not the most important aspect of a Turk's character. Note, we do not come across 'Mustafaism' - which Mustafa? In his day, there also would not have been many people named 'Kemal', since this was a name given him by his teacher for outstanding prowess in the classroom, and would have made him stand out from the countless other Mustafas However, since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, is it not better to include all of the great man's given names?81.159.30.124 14:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Kelebek

• its better to say my opinion as a Turk living in Turkey. We call him as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk or shortly Atatürk. But its better to name the article Mustafa Kemal Atatürk--Ugur Basak 17:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I am agree, it must be Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. This was His full-name, you can not change it. Shiva

Ataturk, Religion, Wikiquote

It is a mistranslation. Ataturk valued religion, or why else would he visit mosques regularly? The quote you mention originaaly discusses seperation of state and goverment and why. It doesn't imply any other meaning and beyond that is POV. I mentioned this earlier on in a talk page IIRC. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The quote you talk about was said to a reporter. I see 17 google hits 2 which is wikiquote and 2 wikiquote mirrirs on first sight. No real establishment of a rejection of religion. Or him being an Atheist although his quote is listed under atheism. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I dont care about what your POV is establishing the man as an Atheist. That conflicts with the mans lifestyle though. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

17 sites mentioning the quote that Google tels me [6]:

• 1 "THE EXPERIMENT: Will Turkey be the model for Islamic democracy?" from the New Yorker article discussing the fuure of islam. Not Ataturk or how atheist he was or if he rejected religion or not.
  • 1 Mirror of this article [7]
  • 1 Page linking to a newyorker article [8]
• 1 "Islam and Freedom" from American Enterprise Institute [9]
• 1 "Ataturk II?: Pakistan's Musharraf has a chance to be a great man." from National Review. Article is discussing Musharraf being Ataturk II, article again is not discussing Ataturks atheism or his rejection of religion. [10]
• "Lord Have Mercy" from a froum of some sort. The forum discussion started with people regarding the bible and went on. Just a random comment mentioned this quote. NOt even here did anyone discuss Atatürk's rejection of religion. [11]
• 2 Wikiquote [12] [13]
  • 1 Wikiquote mirror [14]
• 1 404, Error page is in german I assume. [15]
• 4 other mirrors I did not check

It talks about seperation of state and goverment as I mentioned. Exact quote from the book is: "I have no religion and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government, it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will, every man can follow his own conscience provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him act against the libert of his fellow-men." [16] on Atatürk - 1926 / Andrew Mango - Atatürk / page.463 According to that site. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Never the less none of the pages talk about a rejection of religion ie atheism. Instead all talks about a seperation of state and goverment. [17] --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hence what you claim is your interpretation of the quote and your POV. I do not see the significance of a quote that was privately mentioed to a freind (a journalist from what I understand) to establish someone an atheist. As far as I am concerned he was commenting due to his frustration to the Menemen event. At which islamist extrimist beheaded a turkish officer at the time and started a mini revolt. Even then islamists, such as the guys that car bomb civilians in Iraq, existed back then. I frankly fail to see the POV I am pushing here, I do feel you are pushing some pov on insisting on THAT spesific wording. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that it is a mistranslation, or stop removing referenced information. I have provided a source already, for this important quote. Also, how can you claim that his statement "I have no religion and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea...", doesn't mean that he, for himself, rejected religion. It doesn't make any sense Coolcat. -- Karl Meier 13:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue you desperately need. You should be able to wait lets say an hour so as the user is done typing the comment. Now if I dare revert that page you will get me blocked due to 3rr because of your sockpuppet-like relationship between you and Davenbelle, as you have done so on all 3 blocks I recieved of which on one you were also violating 3rr yourself which actualy got you blocked. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do you use still make these personal attacks against me? It's against Wikipedias policies. If you suspect that I am Davenbelle's sock, then you should ask the ArbCom to investigate it. Making such false allegations here is incivil. -- Karl Meier 14:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Because you desperately need patience. I already asked for a sock check. It is a painfully slow process and is ongoing. I do not see the personal attack. Sorry. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Stalking users conflicsts with civility which is a wikipedia policy yet you are here aren't you? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense, you are pushing fundementalist pov that ataturk was an atheist deliberately or indeliberatly. I do not know what are you trying to achive, but the important info only has 17 mentions throughout the world wide web. You are POV pushing and are doing so just to annoy me the way I see it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

In Turkey for example Hesbollah militants target practice on Ataturks portrait. In 1996 (IIRC) fundementalists masterminded a suicide crash into the Ataturks memorial into the highest degree protocol due to a natinal comemoration (IIRC). --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Fundementalists see Ataturk as a threat as Ataturk suggests a seperation of state and goverment. It is pov pushing to declare Ataturk as an atheist by declaring him rejecting religion. He went to his regular prayers. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why am I discussing this with you as you are an individual not related to this article aside from my revert of Davenbelle, how many edits did you have prior to my revert of Davenbelle? How many with your old username? How is this NOT stalking. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

AHA! Now I am a fundamentalist POV pusher? -- Karl Meier 14:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I was still typing. I said you were pushing fundamentalist pov as they are the only people painting Ataturk as an "Atheist" or "Religionless". I did not ment to imply anything against you directly. Mind that I mentioned deliberately or indeliberatly. Try reading more carefully. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide or interpret Ataturks religion or ireligion based on that quote, that quote can be interpreted in more than one way. It could mean that as a President he has no religion as he is a component of the state, much in the same way the army was not meant to pray as they too were a part of the state. All we can do is explain Ataturks policy on religion. To say "Ataturk rejected religion" is a big assumption, he certainly did reject it in terms of the state, but whether he rejected it personally, well who knows? --E.A 15:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It's very obvious from that quote, that he for himself rejected religion. What he said was: "I have no religion..." and there is nothing in these words that indicate that he spoke about himself as a President or as a component of the state. If he said that "I, as a President, have no religion", it would have been different but fact is that he didn't. He said "I have no religion.." plain and simple, and based on that it is not a big assumption to make, that he for himself rejected religion. -- Karl Meier 15:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

What he did say was "I have no religion and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government", its that last bit which opens it up to interpretation whether he was talking about himself, or his role as President. I just think its too big an assumption to make that he had no religion. --E.A 16:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, "He still professed himself a believer, but a rational believer, for whom Islam was a 'natural religion', in harmony with reason, science, knowledge and logic" Ataturk: Rebirth of a Nation, Kinross, p384

As i said, one the basis of one quote to decide he was irreligous is too big a step for an encyclopedia. --E.A 17:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore that interpretation falls under your (karl's) personal pov and is an example of original research. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, Coolcat, I am not opposing E.A's most recent edit here. What I was opposing was your deletion of the quote (in order to advance your personal PoV), with the untrue explanation that the quote had no source. Learn from E.A's exampel here, and find a descent source for you edits, and avoid making untrue statements. That way people will start to trust you. -- Karl Meier 08:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course you aren't. The quote is in wikiquote and linked! It doesnt belong here, please read about other wikiprojects! I already listed the decent source have you actualy read my post above regarding google? It is a poor translation as E.A pointed out. People do trust me, you just cant stop stalking. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I have restored Andrew Mango's quote from Atatürk: The Biography of the founder of Modern Turkey. — Davenbelle 08:53, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat edits

Coolcat, i have to say i preferred the old version of the 'Criticism' section. I find most of the second paragraph of the Kurdish section to be mostly out of place in this article which is why i removed it earlier. Also, "Some Armenians accuse Atatürk responsible of sanctioning an Genocide against Armenians (Armenian Genocide)." I have never come across this allegation before, as i asked earlier on this discussion page, how could Ataturk sanction a genocide, when he was a thousand miles away fighting as a commander in Gallipoli? --E.A 18:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Look I do not believe in neither what the Armenians or Kurds claim. I did not add anything new. All I did was restructure existing text. I admire Atatürk personaly. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, I cannot see any sane way Atatürk was responsible. I do not know how to aproach it. Armenian claim or Armenian propoganda? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You dont have to approach it anyway, the only people who accuse Ataturk of such things do so out of spite. I'll edit the page. --E.A 19:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Kemalists army have run to Alxandripole, destroying the entire place, the Soviet Records contain the Alxandripole investigation, which report a preliminary 50 thousand killed, from conditions which left later 150 thousand death in that particular region. Karabakir moved to Karabakh with the ultimate plan to destroy any possible construction of a republic of Armenia. He wrote in his memoirs, "Armenia... destroy for eternity." Also, the Armenians that were remaining in Cilicia, have been evacuated. Also the Kemalist regime has retransfered the hundreds of millions of German gold mark worth money which were secured, and which were looted from the Armenian deportees, to secure the construction of the Turkish republic as well as paying the war debts to the allies. It was also because of Ataturk that the Court Martial was dissolved, and also he reintroduced criminals duirectly implicated in the Armenian genocide in his administration. It was also on his regime, that Talaat got a monument on the Hill of liberty, and murderers and butchers had schools, streets on their names, and their families recieved large somme of money. Those are few examples of what the Kemalists were accused of, and which are also recorded in history. Again, I am glad to see Coolcat again showing how dishonest he is, and how he is so good at the art of double talking. "Look I do not believe in neither what the Armenians or Kurds claim." and "I agree with you, I cannot see any sane way Atatürk was responsible. I do not know how to aproach it. Armenian claim or Armenian propoganda?" From the same person that claimed: "I did not have any real pov on Armenian Genocide either. Just what I heard from a few people in short convos. My edits on any of these articles do not show any pov." For the arbitrators. I guess Coolcat lying on the arbitrators faces. Fadix 15:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

According to this armenians make the ridiclous claim: [18]. I have chosen to ignore Fadix's rant, I recoment the same. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC) According to this armenian claim is disputed: [19] --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, Coolcat is comparing an organizations website, with a racist website, which is known to entirly fabricate quotations. One more recent one, was discovered by a German member here in Wikipedia. Mr. Coolcat, can ignore my rants, but what he can not ignore, is that this position do exist. Fadix 21:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Even the ANI website doesn't accuse Ataturk of sanctioning a genocide, it just dresses up the fact that he re-hired some of the people accused. --E.A 20:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Halil, from prison declared having killed 300 thousand Armenians with his army in the East, he was freed thanks to the Kemalists, the next thing you get, is him embarked with Karabakir for a new mission in the East, the same, as is writen in his memoirs that has planned to kill Armenians to the last individual. The German General Paraquin coudn't even believe Halils intend so horrible it was. And it isen't only a question of re-hiring, Ataturk did it by purpouses, when he forced Malta prisonners releases by threat of ill threatment and attempt for the life of British prisoners, and when they were freed, and some escaped, he re-introduced them in the Kemalist administration, and purpously gave some charges on Armenian matters. The Turkish delegation, having amongs them such members, have threatned of cannonating Ani entirly to the ground if what they asked was not done, and they even declared that that would be just a start. Fadix 21:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I see so we can write to this extent, meanwhile can you revert back to my version commenting out the criticisms you feel need to be discussed? Is it possible for us tho discuss this on irc? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It is also said that, when he was buried, the earth did not accept his dead body, which people believed because he was such a sinful person and was pushed off on to the surface at least two times after burial. Later it is reported that, this man was buried in a concrete like coffin. Axif 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandalism by anonymous 70.151.110.126 user

I don't have much time checking all his edits, but I suspect possible vandalism, and possible reverts of his edits might be required. The contributors of the article could perhaps take a look at his edits? Fadix 15:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this in the latest archive which was quickly overrun by the argument about the name of the article. 70.151.110.126 and related IPs have inserted the "Some Facts" section, which is, as far as I can tell, a nationalist tract aimed at discrediting Kurds and Armenians in general to marginalize the criticisms section. I'm not an expert, but statements like "are Zaza and Kirmanci primitive languages consisting of hardly 150 words each with no common words; Zaza is divided into three and Kirmanci is divided into six separate dialects within themselves" are quite obviously ridiculous. IMHO, this whole section is one the article can most definitely do without. siafu 17:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that this article will never conform to the Wiki standards. Turks consider the man like their gods, and they'd protect him before they do for Muhamad, the founder of Islam. Fadix 18:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well Mohammed didn't found our country.And mind you,Islam isn't strong here as it is strong in Middle East.We are a people a lot away from their culture.And personally,I am a secular humanist,and Kemalist.My salvation doesn't lie in "holy" texts,revelations,chants and prayers.It lies in secular prosperity,joy of life,opposite gender,social peace and security,and science.--CAN T 09:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why this article should be held to a lower standard than any other. siafu 19:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think only the choices of pictures alone, show how the Turks consider him. The article has two pictures of his statue, and the principal picture is the well known Ataturk picture watching to the sky. They have his picture in probably every street in Turkey, and probably there are as much, or even more of his statues than there are Mosques there. Even Taner Akçam, the Turkish intellectual who recognizes the Armenian genocide and wrote books about it, consider Ataturk as such a symbol(others like Bertkay, another Turkish historian that has the same views as Akçam has such views too). You can poll entire populations around the world, and you'll find no people that have such a national figure beside the Turks. If you think that this article will be neutralized like the typical Wikipedian article, you are, I'm afraid, naive. They won't even see what is wrong, when POV, such as "the savior of the Turkish nation" are introduced. There was a Turkish law, which talking bad about Ataturk, would make someone land in a prison, it is called : Crimes against Ataturk. You can talk bad about Islam in Turkey, you won't be bothered by the authorities, but if you criticize Ataturk, good luck with you. Fadix 19:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Just because the man is revered and protected does not mean we as wikipedians should abandon WP:5P. There are laws against criticizing the government in many nations (there have even been such laws in the United States), but that doesn't stop the wikipedia from producing articles that are NPOV. siafu 21:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Good luck then. :) Fadix 21:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well einstein, it is natural that no nation consider their own leader as big as Turks consider Atatürk because there is noone like him. This may take you awhile to understand :)

See: WP:Vandalism --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of the article, especially the National Liberator, and Legacy sections sounds too biased. Yodakii 17:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, rewritten. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Still, your modifified version is not encyclopdic. Fadix 21:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

I am realy sorry but I see that wikipedia is being made a stronghold for slanders of some racist Armenians'.Here we should be talking about encyclopedic material not political nonsense.It's claimed that an Armenian genocide exists and they can even say that Kemal is personally involved in it.I wish there were some Turkish writers here to show us some counterview.

Coolcat, as i (and others here) see it, that whole section was one big mess. The only section worth mentioning is how Kurds and devout Muslims disagreed with his reforms, for that we dont need a section nearly as big as the article. We can mention the problems with Islam and Kurds Cultural reforms section and mention briefly how this created problems in his legacy --E.A 20:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well. We could create an article explainin criticism to ataturk. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No you can't do this. You can not dump the criticism in another article, because by doing such, you will creat two articles, with only one position, excluding the other. Neither of the articles will be neutral. Fadix 21:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that would be a perfectly justifiable move if the article started getting overly long. There would need to be a gloss of the issues in the main article with a link (i.e., Main article: Criticism of Ataturk or whatever) at the top of the section. This has been done in several other situations. However, in order to do that we would need to have enough actually encyclopedic material to justify a seperate article, and that we do not have. siafu 21:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't disagree Fadix 22:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest any discussion of the consequences of his reforms on Muslims and Kurds be elaborated in Atatürk's reforms or Kemalism. --E.A 23:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Stop justifying deletion of information, by claiming you never heard about it. You did the same in the Armenian genocide entry, I assumed good Faith, and left your changes. You did this in Smyrna's entry, I closed my eyes, but now, it's the third article, that I have seen you doing this. You claim not having heard of it? Perhaps, you could take a look at the Armenian casulties entry, and you will see that casulties figures goes as far as 1923, up until the Turkish republic foundation. Melson attribute in his work, the Armenian victims of the Kemalistic regime, to be 500,000, in his Holocaust and Armenian genocide comparative study. While I think the figure was probably an exageration, what is termed as the second phases of the Armenian genocide, is a position maintained by various historians. While Martin Gilbert, in his voluminous book covering World War I, cover the Armenian genocide, the reason why the Kemalistic regime abuses is excluded, is simply because the dates are out range(after the World War I). Besides, the evacuation of 700,000 Kurds by the Kemalists in winter, to the West, was a clear attempt to let those people die of cold and starvation. The banning of Kurdish language and publications, is not only a position, and I hardly see how even Turkish nationalist authors could deny it. The Ataturk so-called Historical foundations one task, was to claim Kurds to be Turks, and forcing its reinsertion into their primary "real" ethnicity, which in this cases was Turkish. Ataturks iron hands, and how he killed by hanging Kurds in public, to threaten any other Kurds who might ask in any way authonomy, or expressing their Kurdishness, was a pretty known recorded phenomenon. And if you have grandparents who live in areas with a considerable Kurdish population, ask them about those mass hangings, I'm sure they remember. Fadix 21:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, i am trying to keep an air of neutrality akin to published encylopedias, which are not created by people like yourself who keep pushing one POV. Go and find me a published encylopedia which accuses Ataturk of sanctioning a genocide, find me a published encylopedia which says Turks raped, pillaged, massacred and set fire to Smyrna, find me a published encylopedia which has a section entitled "Turkish government denial" of an Armenian genocide. Every bit of information you place on Wikipedia is geared towards one thing - Armenian genocide. You are constantly skewing these articles with unencylopedic terms and explanations which as i have said before, no reputable encylopedia would ever include. That is the end of it, i wont involve myself in your crusade on Wikipedia again. --E.A 22:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of something, be ready to bring the evidences, or either apologize. POV = Point of View. Had it been my intention to do that, I would have gone deleting one point of view against the other. But in all the three articles, in which we discussed... you have been the one deleting in each three, informations, and those informations were all point of views on the same direction, all against yours...

Now, let repeat, there are serious works treating the Kemalistic attacks on the Armenian survivors, and I can cite them here. Wikipedia present positions which exist, and this position DO EXIST, and is more than a fringe, since it is covered in various works treating the genocide, which also is not a fringe(considering the Armenian genocide is the second most studied genocide). Secondly, the “Turks raped, pillaged, massacred and set fire to Smyrna,” was a quote, and the author of the quote was presented, there is nothing in Wikipedia rules, restricting a quotation regarding an event treated in an article. And you have deleted it, after I and another member have explained why you could not delete it. I stopped because I was really not interested to start a revert war over a little quote. "Turkish government denial," I already cited you at least one. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0874369282/103-6980983-9714267?v=glance and various encyclopedia, term it as Turkish government denial, including the voluminous French Encyclopedia Universalis.

Lastly, while every bit of informations I place on Wikipedia are not “geared” on the Armenian genocide, I agree by most are. But nothing prevent me on using my knowledge in Wikipedia. What would be wrong though, is if I was POV pushing, if you think that I am POV pushing, bring evidences, or start an Arbcom again me, either this or stop making such accusations. As for what you call “unencylopedic terms,” up to now, you haven't been able to give any valid example. Why don't you present those “unencylopedic terms” to an administrator to see if they will share your view here. Regards Fadix 22:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Fadix. Have you ever actually been to modern Turkey? Please take the chip off your shoulder. How far back should we all go to re-address crimes against our forefathers? Have you heard about the POV that states that the Armenian massacres were actually carried out by Kurds who wanted the land for themselves - the Treaty of Sevres promised them this - and decided to get in there first? Should we put this in the article? Or how about certain Droshakist Armenian atrocities against citizens of the Ottoman Empire(not just Turks)? Or the treatment of Kurdish minorities in Armenia Minor? There was a time when Armenians controlled the majority of Anatolia, but then there was also a time when the sun never set on the British Empire. Get over it. Times change. Let's not blame the modern Turks, just as we should not blame the modern Germans for the holocaust, or the modern Scandinavians for the deeds of their Viking ancestors. Kelebek.81.159.30.124 15:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no clue of what your answer has to do with my posts. Please clarify. Thanks. Fadix 04:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ataturks history foundation

Pre-Islamic culture of the Turks became the subject of extensive research which proved that, long before their Seljuk and Ottoman Empires, the Turks had already created a civilization of their own. Atatürk also stressed the folk arts of the countryside as the wellspring of Turkish creativity.

I don't see when the Sun theory has ever been proven. http://www.azargoshnasp.net/~iran/recent_history/pan_turkist_philosophy/turksteachnewtheories.htm Fadix 21:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ataturk and the veil

The article currently notes that he strongly discouraged, but did not formally ban, the veil. I have always heard that this was done by requiring the veil to be worn by prostitutes, causing 'respectable' women to avoid it. Does anyone have any solid information to confirm or refute this? Rhialto

Ataturk administration banned every item of clothing that obscured the face and identifying features (veils included) in government offices, schools and similar places (which is a practical decision rather than an ideological one). If you look at the War of Independence era pictures of Ataturk and people (women) around him, you will see, while headgear covering the hair was used, no one used veils or similar articles of clotihing that obscured the face. The use of veil in the early years of Islam fits what you said, but it was respectable woman who wore the veil, not prostitutes, and it was again a practical decision, not something dictated by the religion itself. --Deniz Hoyman 13:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Atatürk was muslim

This has been proved. Atatürk was muslim. I'll give you some examples in Turkish and translate them than into English: "Oysa Atatürk'ün dinle ilgili görüşleri açıktı: 'Din lüzumlu bir muessesidir. Dinsiz milletlerin devamına imkân yoktur. Yalnız şurası var ki, din Allah ile kul arasındaki bağlılıktır. Softa sınıfın din simsarlığına müsaade edilmemelidir. Dinden maddi menfaat temin edenler iğrenç kimselerdir. işte biz bu vaziyete karşıyız ve buna izin vermiyoruz. Bu gibi din ticareti yapan insanlar masum halkımızı aldatmışlardır; Bizim ve sizlerin asıl mücaddele edeceğimiz ve ettiğimiz bu kimselerdir. Hangi şey ki, akla, mantığa, halkın menfaatine uygundur; biliniz ki, o bizim dinimize de uygundur. Eğer bizim dinimiz aklın mantığın uyduğu bir din olmasaydı, mükemmel olmazdı, son din olmazdı'" Translation: "But Atatürks thoughts about religion were known: "Religion is something important. A nation without religion can't exist. But it is very important that religion is a band only between Allah and the believer. The brokerage of the Softa class (translation from www.seslisozluk.com: 1.)Any one attached to a Mohammedan mosque, esp. a student of the higher classes of Theology in a mosque school|2.)Fanatic adherent. Blind follower of a cause) can't be allowed. People who use religion for their causes are disgusting. As you can see, we are against this and we won't allow this. People who used religion like this fooled our folk; this people are against whom we fought and will fight. You have to know, everything that is suitabel to reason, logic and the advantages and needs of our folk is suitable to our religion aswell. If our religion (Islam) wouldn't be suitable to reason and logic, than it wouldn't be the most perfect, the last religion.'" From "Kemalizm, Laiklik ve Demokrasi" (Kemalism, Laizism and Demokracy) by Ahmet Taner Kışlalı, Page 31. Again, there is written in page 31: "Atatürk başka bir kanuşmasında da şöyle demektedir: 'Temeli çok sağlam bir dinimiz var. Malzemesi iyi, fakat bina yüzyıllardır ihmal edilmişdir. Harçlar döküldükçe yeni harç yapıp binayı takviye lüzumu hissedilmemiştir. Aksine olarak birçok yabancı unsur ve yorumlar, boş inançlar binayı daha fazla hırpalamıştır.'" Translation: "Atatürk said in another speech: 'The base of our religion (Islam) is very very good. The material is very very good ,too, but the building wasn't carred for for hundreds of years. As the plaster dropped down no one thought of rebuilding it and no one saw the importance of strengthening. On the contrary, a lot of foreign elements and comments, empty believes got into it and damaged it even more.'"

I'll delete the sentence which says he was atheist and will add this.

Hey, what is going on here?

I've proved that he is muslim and I have given you a picture that proves that, and you change it again? What are you doing? Who changed it? Aquilion 18:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Neither of those statements seems to me to be an unambiguous declaration of his religion. john k 18:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, neither of the statements (or the picture for that matter) is, as you say, "an unambiguous declaration of [Atatürk's] religion". Nonetheless, as the quotes are relevant, I have left them there, but have—in addition to revising the poor translation—added provisos to their worth in the form of various "this would seem to indicate"-style phrases, etc. Hopefully, this will not only clean up a terribly messy section of a perennially messy article, but also will at least nudge the section/article just a bit closer to being NPOV. Saposcat Talk 10:36, 18 October 2005 (GMT +02:00)

Yeah, first of, please excuse my bad English. This is just my school English, I never went to the USA or the UK etc. and I'm not a native speaker. Second: Atatürk said these things in speeches. You can go to Istanbul and Ankara and search the archives. You'll find the documents. Then, you can see him PREYING. Why should he prey if he wasn't muslim? 84.190.110.222 17:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, don't worry about the English; at least you supported your argument with actual quotes, which is to be commended. Secondly, I'm in Istanbul and have seen bits of these speeches before (though not necessarily in the archives), as well as the picture of him praying. My own personal belief is that he was not a strong believer in Islam, though he does seem to have been to a certain extent. As personal belief has nothing to do with an encyclopedia article, however, I didn't just summarily delete your contribution, as I believe others have done. On the other hand, there are many reasons a political figure such as Atatürk might pray (or better, be seen to pray) if he was not Muslim, or at least was not a strong believer thereof. That is why I added those "this would seem to indicate"-style provisos. Saposcat Talk 07:22, 20 October 2005 (GMT +02:00)

Thank you for the help. 84.190.118.130 14:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Aquilion

Way too Biased and Atatϋrk loving....

This article should be deleted now. This is way too POV, and biased too much towards Ataturk and his "wonderful" reforms. There is little mention of the many who were opposed to him or criticised his views, and faults of his reforms and such. Kurds, Armenians, Fundamentalist Groups in Turkey, Arabs and so on, disagreed with him. Also, this article seems to glorify too much his successes and downplay his faults and wrongdoings. I think there needs to be a better balance here. Also, I'm no historian but is there any reasons behind Ataturk's reasoning, I mean sure Democracy can work, and it is better to change and modernize as the Ottoman's had lost alot of power. But why is he so damn bent on removing Islamic influence from every aspect of life, becoming so Western and ruining a great Empire's famous way of life and traditions? What good is alcohol bans been lifted, or telling people to dress "European" going to do to improve your crumbling empire. I searched alot on the net but I can't find any reasons behind his motives to totally seperate Religion and Government and embrace everything Western. His actions betrayed everything the Ottomans stood for and worked and fought all those years for. Some of his reforms make no sense, by changing your language and alphabet, so your nation has to learn how to read and write all over again, and culture, your making Turkey loose it's identity. I get the feel he's out to 'attack' everything Muslim that influenced Turkey. Granted, the Sultanate was weak and corrupt and so was the government, which was a good thing he did, but his bans on Traditional clothing, allowing Alcohol, banning Religious Learning, and so on, what's his deal?!?!? He was Muslim, but not a very good one, I'd say he was "Observant" that's about it. He drank like a maniac, thought women shouldn't wear Hijabs, closed Koranic Schools, didn't pray regularly and tried to pass himself off as a good Muslim by making big publicity stunts when he visits the Mosque. He was sham.

Basically, I want to know:

What were the reasons behind his reforms, especially those that allowed almost no Islamic Influences in Turkish Government and way of life, and introducing Western ways of life into a nation with no history of such things (Latin Alphabets, Alcohol,etc.). Why was he so opposed to everything Islamic?

What you say disgusts me. Back in Ottoman Empire there was Seyh-ul Islam, or "Padisah's Islam advisor", who checked if Padishah's decisions were according to the Islam. And they were one of the many reasons that brought downfall of the empire; their corrupted and wrong knowledge of Islam made the army obsolete, made the public scared and always under the sword, and many times they just decided what is in their own interest.

When Republic was formed, one of the goals was to seperate religion from any aspect of the nation, because eventually at one point they would clash and make administration difficult. Language was hard to learn, only few selected could learn how to read and write in Arabic and also the literary languate (Ottoman language) was much harder. He brought an alphabet that is easier to write with, and promoted education, for both sexes. He changed the way people dressed because of the entire religious implications; this country, believe or not, features Christians and Jews too. And there is no reason for one to wear Hijabs, except for those who have a maniacal devotion to Islam, to a point where almost brainwashed, the type that hijack planes and crash into towers.. That was what Ataturk tried to evade bring equality, make religion a way of life in subconcious level. But yes, they are still strong, many wear hijabs today but not because they choose to, but because they are afraid of their family. They are afraid that their fathers, or brohers, might murder them if they take their turbans off. He banished religious education because it was biased, and again, corrupted. And yes, today there are still illegal Quran schools and they fill kids' mind with nonsense.

The problem is not the religion, Islam is quite possibly the best religion in the world, actually from a stand point they all are. But when people who always think of personal interest started making decisions about merging Islam and daily life, it didn't just destroy the empire, it also now made eeryone hate the religion as it is. Many Muslims in Turkey do not practice, because it became a showcase for fanatics. If Ataturk could really finish his work up on Turkey we would still have people who go to Namaaz five times a day and still considered 'modern'. The changes are not "Western", they are just "modern".. Basic: don't let religion take over the government to make all things fair. He also tried to bring religion to more people by making all things Turkish, like making the Azan and prayers Turkish, because one of the most fantastic aspects of Islam in Turkey is; everything is in Arabic. Oh how very effective, I go to Mosque five times a day and speak in a language that is not my native language, and eventually get a free-pass ticket to heaven?

Ataturk loving is maybe exaggarated but eventually every country needs its martyr.

I do agree that some kind of NPOV needs to be attempted, but the Original Posters ideas quickly turned into an Koran filled rant about how everything Western is 'decadent' and everything Islamic is 'the straight and narrow'. Mentions of his alledged role in genocide of the Greeks I agree with, but no one can argue with his domestic reforms, they were harsh, but they were damn necessary as well.

I would have to agree with the first post. This guy destroyed Islamic culture in Turkey and made them read the Adhan in Turkish of all things. Sure he tried to modernize his culture, however in my point of view the West has never been a prime example of "culture." Also, Arabic is Islam's and the Quran's main language. If you have a problem talk to other hundreds of thousands who read it in Arabic and hear their prayers in Arabic, but also read the translations. I could keep going on, but basically form my POV Atta Turk destroyed the Islamic culture and religion in Turkey. Problems always come to religion when ppl try to innovate.--DoomsElf 01:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good thing we don't have to go by your POV, then. siafu 02:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

His Ethnic Backround

What is Ataturks ethnic backround? I bring this up because he looks alot fairer than most of his Turkish counterparts. Would it be safe to say that he has a sizeable amount of Bulgarian or Greek backround?

Atatürk came from a muslim Turkish family, possibly one of the many who had settled in the lands conquered by the empire. Like most Turks today, he obviously had some buşgarian, Greek, Macedonian, Arab etc. blood in him. Personally I don't think it's that important. Note that "Atatürk Nationalism" identified the Turks of Turkey as anyone who embraced that national identity and heritage. his idea of nationality had connections with ethnic heritage, but it wasn't the only thing that mattered. In the last 700+ plus years, many took on the identity of being Turkish, even though they weren't necessarily 100% descendants of Central Asian Turks. I might be a little off topic, but questions that inquire the ethnic background of nationalistic figures often have these kind of ideas behind them (was he a Turk?, or so on). (Not that I'm saying whoever posted this had a malintent or anything, just pointing that out.)

I do not aggree that he looks different. Unfortunately most of the westerns think Turks seem like the migrants live in their countries while most of the migrants are from the eastern side of the country with Arab, Kurdish ethnicity.

Atatürk was verifiably a Yörük Turkmen (Oghuz Branch Turk). Proof of his lineage was published in a 1950s major newspaper as follows: Ataturk's Turkic Lineage

Photographs

User:Cool Cat has told me that all photographs of Ataturk have been declared "national heritage" by the government of Turkey, and are thus presumed to be in the public domain.

Is this accurate? Can we create a template stating that explicitly, so as to label all the Ataturk photos on WP? DS 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Women's Rights

"...Atatürk launched many reforms to give Turkish women equal rights and opportunities." I

Nothing about his love life? The girls? The boys?

He seems to have been a passionate man who lived life to the full. I see that there is some mention here of his drinking, which seems to be what killed him. But why nothing on his loves? He is claimed to have slept with Zsa Zsa Gabor and to have also openly had male lovers. At Dolmabahce he is reputed to have set up his lovers in the apartments of the consorts, close by his own. Why no mention of all that??? Haiduc 15:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No mention because I don't see a reason for it.Does Wikipedia host intimate records of the private lives of Abraham Lincoln,Franklin Roosevelt etc?Try again Haiduc.--CAN T 21:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

His private life has nothing to do with his contributions to the creation of the Turkish state. Furthermore the allegations that you make are pure and complete trash, spewed by vile Turk haters and thier knucklehead goons like yourself!

The article is not "Kemal Ataturk's contributions to the creation of the Turkish State" though is it? It's actualy "Kemal Ataturk", and so any *factually correct* information about him, including his love life, is relevent. Obviously though the Zsa Zsa Gabor thing etc. should not be included if its false. Poobarb 11:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As you rightly point out factually correct is the key word here. The allegations that he liked boys and/or men are a complete fabrication of the most vile form. There is no proof of this, it cleary comes from those disgusting Turk hater creeps who cant get over their inferiority compexes! Get a life!

hey, slow down a second! My point was that anything about him, including his personal life, is relevent in an article about him. I personaly have no knowledge on this matter, hence my statement "Obviously though the Zsa Zsa Gabor thing etc. should not be included if its false". If its not true, so be it - we won't include it - but it should not be ruled out just because it has nothing to do with the creation of the Turkish state. I don't think it's very helpfull though that you accuse people of being "Turk haters", "knucklehead goons", "creeps" or of having "inferiority complexes". Poobarb 00:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well for your information, the words in your last sentance expresses very accurately what that douche bag Haiduc is!

For Haiduc: Suppose you do not know that Zsa Zsa Gabor was born in 1917 and Kemal Ataturk was nearly about to die when Zsa Zsa Gabor was an adult. There is no any possibility that both even met!So your claims are totally baseless!

Religious Clothing

One important criticism of Atatürk is his ban of headscarves from public institutions and schools. When you consider a significant number of Turkish women wears headscarves (more than half I'd say, based on my own observaiton) such a ban is a violation of human rights. This ban is indeed criticised by international human rights organisations. According to Human Rights Watch, "This restriction of women’s choice of dress is discriminatory and violates their right to education, their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and their right to privacy." (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/turkey/2004/3.htm)

However, the article does not speak of these critisicms clearly. When it speaks about any critisim, it tries to downgrade them by saying they are articulated by "some people, especially fundamentalist Muslims". Surely, most critics of headscarf ban, neither the human rights organisations, nor the majority party in the Turkish parliament are "fundamentalist muslims". The author fails to mention such important organizations and parties criticising Atatürk, but he underlines "fundamentalist muslims".

In order to defend Atatürk's often criticised ban on headscarves, the author says "Also, today, even the European Union Human Rights Court and the United Nations have found it legal to ban religious clothing in Turkish universities." This remark lacks references. It is one of the biased parts of the article, not good fit for an encyclopedia, maybe good for a secularist newspaper article.

The main question here is, why should Turks wear foreign clothing, why can't they chose to wear their traditional clothes? It is asked by many Turks and many foreigners, and it worth a fair place in an article about Atatürk. Filanca 20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Totally agreed upon. Of course I would need to research more in depth into him to write such a section... --DoomsElf 02:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)