|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kemalism article.|
|WikiProject Turkey||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
- 1 merged
- 2 Creation
- 3 POV
- 4 About Revolutionism
- 5 Is it necessary?
- 6 Secularism??
- 7 Merging ?
- 8 Claiming ownership does not automatically grant the right
- 9 Nationalism - Ulusalcılık?
- 10 Kemalism is a left-wing ideology
- 11 Peronism
- 12 Comments from old Talk:Criticism of kemalism
- 13 POV
- 14 For those deleting the "criticism" section, directed here...
- 15 Importance
- 16 Criteria for nationality
- 17 Criticism of kemalism
- 18 Criticism?
- 19 Ideologies similar to Kemalism in the West
- 20 Vandalism.....
- 21 File:TBMM pic.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 22 Revolutionism?
There is an article about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk , but it does not contain enough information about Ataturk's principles and ideology, so this article has been created.
I would like to contribute more, however, I am too busy with school. A good book I read on Ataturk which has an extensive amount of objective material on the ideas that Mustafa embraced: Ataturk: The Rebirth of a Nation by Patrick Kinross, 2001, Published by Remzi Kitabevi. This book give a peek of his life, cradle to grave and the dynamic good, as well as bad person he was. Motownwingnut (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)motownwingnut, Oct. 21, 2008
In the secularism section it implies that attaturk's reforms were not anti-Islamic in nature, but I think this is an opinion. Many people view banning the arabic manuscript and Islamic law as an anti-Islamic act. Seems a little POV to me thats all.Roc
- First of all, not attatürk... You must write it as Atatürk. Turkish nation was the only important thing in Atatürks life. He didn't talk about religion issues. He believed that a state must work for the physical world not for the other world. Deliogul 21:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
(Its not that easy Deliogul, Ataturk knew the importance of religion to for the nation, if you consider about Bursa speech, and visiting the Selimiye Camii in Edirne, deportation of missionaries(who in fact were more than a threat than any armies could be) you would understand his vision more easily, but this doesnt mean he was not an enlighted person, he was believing in science more than fıkıh, so showed another middle way to his nation what we call today is laicism.
- Deliogul is right. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was the man of this world, he even couldn't have found time to sleep, so it is just the thougth of Islamists and the other people against Atatürk's revolutions. Ozzie 14:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not exactly an expert of Turkish history, but the part about secularism has a Distinctly pro-secular pro-Atatürk view. Ydirbut 23:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Nizroc; I am not aware of your knowledge about Religion before republic and Ataturk's effords on returning to turkish islam of Anatolia pre-16th century, because of this he demanded the most advanced Turkish Tefsir, banned catholic missions after 4 highschool girls in Bursa was converted, had numerous speaches about how beautiful is the Turkish religion(not arabic islam), tried to demolish clergy (this is the main reason why clerics blame him for being enemy of reigion cos their way of making a living is destroyed) which islam does not approve( even prophet of Islam isn't a cleric unlike other Mid-Estern religions) , Call to prayer is translated in to Turkish as it was before Ebusuud, etc etc. About his believes , he was not a good practiser as his prime minister and successor İsmet İnönü, was drinking alcohol, fond of dancing, intoduced first ever laic (not secular) state to Turkish nation.
So it is not true that his reforms were anti-islamic, Arabic script is the most catastrophic even ever happened to turkish language which had a phonetical script before islam, (Read hoca Ahmed Yesevi), Islamic laws were also abolished by Calipths of Ottoman (Ottoman empire was never a real theocracy). If you dont care about this tell me the only muslim nation which was never been ruled by christian imperialists, and who managed that, is the Arabic Emirs who even let british troops in to Makkah and Madina, or the Mullahs of Shiites welcomed Britain to Persia... I am sure you will find who is more muslim Ataturk or All of the arabs.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
According to some authorities in Turkey , Ataturk's revolutionism principle was reformism. But Ataturk was using the word that "inkılapçılık". "Inkılap" is a Ottoman Turkish word, there is also a word in Arabic Language , it means revolution in English, in modern Turkish this word is "Devrim", in Turkey these authorities prefer to use the old form of this word, not the modern form, because people don't use Arabic words or Ottoman Turkish in Turkey, these authorities want to make this principle misunderstood by people in Turkey, because they don't like a revolution idea. So when they are translating this word to English they use the word "reform". But the meaning of "inkılapçılık" in Ottoman Turkish as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk used in his speeches and in his book which was named Nutuk , means "revolutionism" not reformism. On the other hand the actions of Ataturk were revolutions, establishing the republic was a revolution also,like the French Revolution in 1789.
Is it necessary?
Just replying to the suggestion that "Kemalist Ideology" should be merged with "Six Arrows". The former, which I was referred to after clicking on "Turkish nationalism" covers the Six Arrows extensively. I don't see the need for overlapping.
- At the very least, there should be a link to "Six Arrows". I will add the link now.
XieChengnuo 02:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- nvm. I see that the merge has already been done.
XieChengnuo 02:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It must be laicism not secularism.I think it is a big difference.
Yes indeed there is a very big difference, secularism in US and Germany is the goal of the state to be in the same distance to all religions, while Turkey and France , declares goverment cant edit religious life and protect itself from religious manipulations, which we call laicism, freedom o belief(as well as not having any belief) is underprotection of government and state, this is what secular nations does not understand, they dont see how they impose their main religion to others..(GW BUSH declared Iraqi war is a crusade, all of the presidents of US swears on bible, although a muslim could swear on koran , but anyhow it is imposing of the religion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The one is an ideology the other a political party. This would be like merging the U.S. Democrats with Democracy.
Claiming ownership does not automatically grant the right
Merging a political party and a state ideology would be unsound in an encyclopedia. Though CHP is the flag bearer for said ideology (mostly due to its age and certain rigidity), every political platform (party or otherwise) at least pays lip service to this ideology. In Turkey state nationalism is enforced with a heavy hand and it would be a political suicide. Each and every one of them could and would lay claim to the title, even for the sake of a pissing match.
Nationalism - Ulusalcılık?
I'm not sure about this translation. Nationalism is translated to Turkish as either "Milliyetçilik" or "Ulusçuluk" (Millet = Ulus = Nation).
Turkish speakers should check this out.
No, millet and ulus do mean 'nation' but they are not the same. If you say 'Türk milleti', you said 'Turkish people' so the ethnic Turks. If you say 'Türk ulusu', you said 'Turkish nation' and that includes anyone who lives in Turkey, race culture and belief is not important, you are a Turk in Turkey. It's a bit tricky to translate 'Milliyetcilik' and 'Ulusalcilik'. Both are 'Nationalism' but with different accents.
- You are right. Nationalism = Ulusçuluk. Pls anyone change it. Ulusalcılık is different.
Ulus is nation(as American nation=Amerikan Ulusu not Amerikan milleti), millet is followers of a religion, or a distinctive group in a religion( like Bulgar milleti which includes macedonians following bulgarian orthodox church, rum milleti, following patriach of constantinpol, yunan milleti, chuch of athens after independance of greece, there was never a "Turk milleti" term before nationalist movement in ottoman empire started using it ),( See millet system of Ottoman)
- No that is wrong. Nation = Ulus, National = Ulusal so Nationism = Ulusculuk and Nationalism = Ulusalcılık. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Nationalism means both milliyetçilik and ulusalcılık, they are synonymous - but their usage may differ slightly at times because of who is doing the rhetoric. The definition of "Türk" on Turkish Constitution clearly states as "a person bound to the Turkish Republic as a citizen", and as such it is not an ethnical definition. There ıs a lot of political polemic on the issue both by extreme right wing parties of turkish and kurdish ethnical background, trying to capitalize on ethnicity to gain political power and justify violence this causes. - Justin Case 13:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- They showed it to us as "milliyetçilik" back in the school :) If we consider that every student in the Turkish educational system reads the same history book, there mustn't be a doubt :) Deliogul 19:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is interesting to see how this discussion is misplaced. We shouldn't be trying to translate the word "nationalism" into Turkish (it might be done elsewhere) but Milliyetçilik into English. "Milliyet" means "having the character of a nation", "millet" means a nation. One must not forget that as M. Kemal forged these terms, the only historical reference thereof was the French Revolution; not Hitler, nor Mussolini. --Ekindedeoglu (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Kemalism is a left-wing ideology
This is a reality. No matter what military junta says, Kemalism is not a "third way" or a sum of apolitical ideas.
- Shouldn't this be cited? On what basis is Ataturk's ideology defined as left-wing? Hashshashin 02:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I also think that it doesn't reflect the reality. Right-wing is also accepting Kemalism as their ideology. Even extreme right parties like MHP (nationalist party) accepts Kemalism as teir ideology. Please note that this party would take that fact of being called as left, as an insult.
- Kemalism as it stands today is not a left-wing ideology. Its interpretation by its defenders is almost a verbatim definition of state nationalism. Ataturk was a progressive and reformist leader, but today the Kemalist ideal promotes insularism, hiding behind secularism and laicism. Anybody conversant in Turkish politics should first take a brief look at the article on left wing here on Wikipedia, then see how it does not apply to political parties' agendas defining themselves as Kemalists. - Justin Case 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that it is enough for a party to define itself as Kemalist to become Kemalist. We can clearly understand that MHP's ideology is something like Ottomanism (Turkish imperial background, power of Islam etc.). There is a term about it in Turkish, "Türk-İslam sentezi" (Turk-Islam synthesis). Kemalism is still a left-wing ideology but nobody uses it in practice. Deliogul 17:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Kemalism is a third way because during it was imposed, there were only 2 ways in struggle(as materialsim pronounces) none of the schoolars nor politicians were believing there would be a middle. But as Lord Kinross states Kemalism brought the middle way that today we call State controlled economy or mixed economy as the middleway Europe couldnt manage to find out... by the help of that system turjey achieved highest development ratios during global economic crysis, even almost without inflation.
- We have to understand that there are degrees in the leftist politics. You can be a social democrat, socialist or communist. There are also different schools for different degrees of the left like, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism etc. Therefore, there is not a single thing called "left wing party". Of course, everybody has some stereotypes concerning what do "left" and "right" mean. Clearly, there are ways that you can be, to some extent, nationalist and populist at the same time. For example you can favor your own culture, music and history against the values of other countries but you can still be a socialist republic where education and healthcare are totally free (see; Cuba). Also, as I stated before, claiming that you are a Kemalist is not enough to become one. George Bush argues that he spreads democracy around the world but he is a neoliberal politician in reality. Therefore his main goal is to spread FDIs and IMF assistance around the world to destroy welfare states and to form the rule of the "free market". Deliogul 20:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Kemalism is a clear example of left wing nationalism. If a political ideology supports laicite, populism and state intervention to economy, that party surely can't be a right wing or a liberal party. They all are left wing ideologies.
Kemalism is very similar to Peronism. Do you think it should be mentioned?
I think this is not completely true. In Latin American World, Kemalism moch more similar to Bolivarism. Both ideology is anti-imperialist, and has direct effect from Enlightenment coming from French Revolution. As a result, both can be thought as Third World Enlightment revolution ideology.CeyhunC 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Kemailsm is not an ideology and does not bring ANY anti-imperialistic feature just declares to give up all imperialistic desires of turkish nation has ended with the motto "Peace at home peace in the world", and that home is boredered by Misak-ı Milli.If you want to call Kemalism as an ideology then you would only use superiority of science over any other though. this makes ( in theory) the state more flexible to changes in the world but, more robust to social changes inside(esp changes backwards, like racism, communism, pan-islamism, the first two were only handled in 50 years but the last still threatens the very excistance of the state and the nation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments from old Talk:Criticism of kemalism
About the photograph with the explanation: "Muslim university student girl is being hindered by kemalists"
It's not a photograph of a girl being hindered by kemalists, it's woman at her forties that's been having a seizure or heart-attack or something like that. And the two guys that's been present there doesn't look like they are hurting her, instead they look like they are helping her. And there is no sign of them being kemalists. I warn you, check closely before you believe any picture that's been put here.
- It's unbeliavable. I have never seen or heard such thing in my life. Someone must have posted this intentionally. How on earth can you proove that those guys are Kemalists and they are attacking her? I'd like it to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- they are not helping her. they are trying to stop her. how can you help someone trying to stop him o her?
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of kemalism, several editors questioned about neutrality of this article. Rebuttal of views should also be prensented. Here I tagged the article until this issue is resolved. Happy editing! Dekisugi (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- This article is neutral. Every argument is referenced with a peer reviewed publication. Court reports, journal articles, etc. also added. Therefore it is not fair to judge this article to be not neutral. This article is the a rebuttal of Kemalism. Therefore the rebuttal of the rebuttal is regressive. Ther is no such a thing. There can not be the criticism of criticism. Because criticism of criticism is the criticised one at first place. The opposing views are given in the Kemalism article. Criticism of kemalism is the rebuttal of Kemalism and it is initiated there with a link given as "main article". Therfore I suggest the removal of neutrality tag and deletion tag.
- --Polysynaptic (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Of course there's criticism of criticism. Not all critics are valid or reliable. To be able to stand as a page in Wikipedia, all pages without exception should endorse neutral point of view. Even for highly controversial criticism articles. Please read the policies and guidelines. Please also remember that you're not owning this article. Other editors have rights to say about neutrality of this article. Dekisugi (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Of course I do not own this article. but i do blieve in the neccessity of this article. For the neutralilty of the article, as argued before, the arguments in this article are referenced with peer reviewed scienific publications. Someone who thinks that the neutrality condition is violated should point the reason. You can't just put the tag and go. An article can not be blamed by being not neutral without reason. Othwerways every article should be unneutral.
- Critics of articles should not forget that knowlede is something that human constructs sociculturally. therefore there is no 100% objective perfectly neutral knowledge.that is nothing more than a logical positivist utopia.
- Consequently, who puts the tag should state the reason. if there is no reason the tag should be removed. "Some editors have questions" is not a valid reason.
- --Polysynaptic (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- where did you get the information that Atatürk was the follower of fascism? jeez. There are quotes of him in several books saying that Hitler is a big threat and the europe should be aware of it. provide RELIABLE SOURCES! --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 10:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did not get the information from somwhere else. I experienced and have been experiencing it as a person. Additionally, "talking against fascism" does not mean that the talker is not fascist. There are many "democratic" republics in Africa. You should consider the facts. I will extend this article. You haven't seen anything yet...
- --Polysynaptic (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- This way of speaking (i.e. "You haven't seen anything yet") is inappropriate for any encyclopedia entry writing purposes. This is not a place where you prove the superiority of your judgment. The neutrality of your point of view has been challenged because of expressions such as "it is obvious that..", the part that follows being all but obvious. One last thing: the ideology of the military junta is also controversial. Many Kemalists after the junta have denounced it, some have published works bearing striking titles such as "Ben Atatürkçü Değilim" (I am not a Kemalist), where one should understand, "if they are Kemalists, I am not one". A distinction should be made inside the ideology, distinguishing the form it held before the 1980 military coup, but in the meantime, the elements that could later on foster the political discourse of the junta should also be discussed. One must not forget in so doing that Kemalism was and still partially is one of the strongest tenets of Turkish socialists. The influential communist poet Nazim Hikmet wrote elegies for Mustafa Kemal; the revolutionary martyr Deniz Gezmiş spoke of himself as fervently adhering to the principles of Kemalism (he was hanged on decree of the generals who later established the "Kemalist" junta). Moreover, any comparison with African countries is inadequate, out of place and derisory. --Ekindedeoglu (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a POV warning to the criticism section because it's an EXACT copy of an article that was merged into this. Words "obviously" and the like are appearing. I question the neutrality. DodgerOfZion (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
For those deleting the "criticism" section, directed here...
- It is not at all clear to what extent the points of view offered by the cited sources are criticism of specifically Kemalism, and to what extent the interpretation as criticism of Kemalism is a case of original research, attaching a novel interpretation to these points of view. I can't find the Jung & Piccoli reference. The Google search ["Modern-Day Turkey in the Greater Middle East: Kemalism Faced with Its Ottoman Legacy"] has as its only hit this Wikipedia article. There is a book by the authors named, with the same publisher, but its title is Turkey At the Crossroads: Ottoman Legacies and a Greater Middle East (ISBN 978-1856498678). I don't have this book and can't check its use as a source (if it is the intended source). For the sources I can check, such as the CEPS Working Document by Tocci, I do not see at all that the quoted statement is meant to be criticism. It is a non-judgemental statement about historical events. Other sources do offer criticism, but do not refer in any way to a Kemalist ideology. And who is criticizing Kemalist ideology in the statement that Islamist officers were dismissed? Perhaps this is praise of Kemalism. If we remove all uncited and unverifiable statements, plus those for which it is not clear that the cited sources mean to criticize Kemalism, nothing remains. Perhaps a good section on criticism is possible, but what we have here is not encyclopedic. --Lambiam 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the comments in the criticism section don't sound that critical, really. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is largely the effect of removing the unsourced and unverifiable POV statements. For most remaining statements in this section it is not clear what point they are attempting to make, whether that point (if any) is meant to be criticism, and in fact why these statements are mentioned at all. This section consists largely of the remnants of the unfortunate outcome of the AfD debate not to delete the largely unsourced and badly written POV fork and attack article Criticism of kemalism, which was implemented by plunking it as a new section into this article. --Lambiam 14:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the comments in the criticism section don't sound that critical, really. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Criteria for nationality
This definition is useless because it does not clarify who is or how one becomes a citizen, so I added an introductory sentence. Yet, I am baffled by the last part, as it seems to imply that expatriates are not Turks. --Adoniscik(t, c) 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- When that phrase was introduced, it was clearly intended as describing a new vision on national identity introduced by Atatürk's Reforms – although opinions can differ on the issue how accurate this description is; a citation would have been welcome.
- As the text is now, it seems to be a further exposition of the constitutionally determined criteria for citizenship, or something like that. I have no strong opinion on whether the sentence should remain (in this or a modified form), but now it is out of place. --Lambiam 00:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Criticism of kemalism
since kemalism is an ideology, it has followers. and some wikipedians obviously are kemalist. those kemalist wikipedians continuosly blanking the section. at first they removed its own page and redirected "here". then they slowly removed the entire section of criticism. that's called sneaky vandalism. i was not around for a while. but i am back. so don't think i will let kemalists to sneak the content. please be respectful. and those other wikipedians who are aware of the issue should watch out the vandals. regards.--Polysynaptic (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC
- You tried to create an article with the same content. The article was voted for deletion. The wide conclusion was that your content is the collection of minority views. They did not get acceptance with the mainstream history. The Wikipedia is not WP:OR. Your text is linking events that do not factually related to the ideology itself. --Kemalist (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The article i created wes deleted for adding the content in the article -i created- to the Kemalist ideology article. and it never was deleted because of being a collection of minority views, Mr. Kemalist.
you should actually be away from this article because you are a fanatic Kemalist so that it's impossible for you to be objective in that issue. please let others construct the knowledge.
- You are always welcomed to edit. This is about the content you are adding. The words like "fanatic" does not solve your issue. Be WP:CIVIL, do not WP:PERSONAL ATTACKs these are violations of normal conduct at Wikipedia. This and your talk page is filled with reactions to you. Most of them are objective arguments. You can improve your text based on these objections. There are wide ranging issues in your text. Most of the text is recent events. They belong to different articles, such as Secularism in Turkey, Human rights in Turkey. The link with these events and/or people with these events to this ideology is not established. Your text claims as these are established facts. Your text has inherent problems. You have to work with other editors. --Kemalist (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- The word "fanatic" is quite proper. remember your user name. that's not a violation at all. i'm adding content which criticizes the Kemalist ideology. The articles you mention Secularism in Turkey, and Human rights in Turkey are related with the issue. but the references i have given were for specifically the ideology. Criticizing Kemalist ideology doesn't mean criticizing secularist implications in Turkey or secularism itself. you are trying to -obviously- trying to twist and misrepresent the issue. but you can not succeed. please do not vandalize the WELL-REFERENCED CONTENT BY BLANKING. writing down once again for you to understand easily: i am contributing with well-referenced content which discusses Kemalist ideology which is different then secularism in Turkey and secularism itself. i have to DECLINE YOUR SUGGESTION OF TOLARATING YOUR KEMALIST ROOTED VANDALISM. --Polysynaptic (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- The section fails all reasonable tests for neutrality. It is presented from an outspoken anti-Kemalist point of view. The claims as given are largely not supported by the sources. See also Persecution of Muslims#Persecution of Muslims in Republic of Turkey, added by the same editor. --Lambiam 20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
An example of citing political critisim for those who don't know : According to .... Kemalism is an ideology that is bla bla or X feature of Kemalism might lead bla bla. Like there might be tons of critiques for state intervention to economics. Btw cases are not used to critisize an ideology. Theory is critisized theoretically. And Kemalism is a theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is there no article about the criticism of this political movement - or at least a section within the main article about it's criticism. I just read this article, and it seems very biased for this movement.
How about the claims of religious persicution, and limitations of practice of both majority (Islam) and minority (Christian, Jewish) religions, or the denial of the Armenian Genocide which seems to have stemmed from that, or past Ottoman thinking, whish is still - horrendously to this day - very present in Turkey. Also the Turkish Nationalism whish stemmed from this movement seems to deny the existance of many racial groups - ie Assyrians, labeling them as Arabs despite very clear linguistic, cultural and genetic variation.
I've got quite a lot of peer-reviewed articles from the US mainly concerning these, but since I'm currently very bussy with uni, I wont be able to put them up right now. Really appreciate it if anyone else who knows these can put them up. Pink Princess (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be driving a certain agenda, rather than motivated by a balanced review and critisism. What does Armenian genocide have anything to do with Kemalism? As the article explains, which you may not have absorbed being taken over by your Turkophobia, Kemalism is NOT nationalism. Past Ottoman thinking today? Kemalism was an anti-thesis of Ottoman thinking. Seems all that reading was a waste.
Ideologies similar to Kemalism in the West
The article should maybe try to further demonstrate that certain Western ideologies are very similar to Kemalism. There are various kinds of radical liberal nationalism in Europe and the Americas that integrate many of the Kemalist doctrines, such as Catalan nationalism, Belgian nationalism, the Kulturkampf regime, Spanish republicanism, Mexican republicanism, French republicanism and Quebec nationalism. ADM (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Very good point. Kemalism should be placed both in its historical and present context. It did not come out of the blue, Ataturk and his principles were very much part and product of his times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
um, Kemalism is a "western ideology". Atatürk was trying to create a secular nation state based on western templates, moving away from Islamic religious law etc. As such, Kemalism is simply a clone of basic western ethnic nationalism (the völkisch movement) as it developed during say 1910-1930. Of course, the west was cured of this trend for good during 1939-1945, but it's still a thoroughly western development. Now, ethnic nationalism does survive in the west, but it is today a fringe movement which tends to lurk below 10% of the popular vote. It only seems to survive as a mainstream ideology in places not directly affected by WWII, especially in the former Ottoman Empire. See Rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire for a list of flavours. The astounding thing is that all these nationalisms are being pushed by people born after 1990 on the internet today. Before I came to Wikipedia I had no idea these ideologies still hold sway over practically all of western Asia plus the Balkans. Perhaps today in North Africa we see the first signs of a generation moving beyond this. Former Yugoslavia also had to learn the hard way that this won't work as desired. Turkey has been forced to move on by the EU, but this was imposed from above, the population seems to stick with ethnic nationalism. In North Africa, perhaps we see the first signs now of a generation moving beyond the ethnic nationalism vs. religious fundamentalism dichotomy. This is the 2010s, it is about time the spectre of the 1910s started to dissolve. --dab (𒁳) 05:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The term "Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene" was promoted against.....
-and the notion, google translate might be tweaked to show such translation havent come to your mind. translation of words; "ne; how", "mutlu; happy or enjoys", "Türk-üm; I am turk" "diyene; those who say" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC) The term "Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene"
File:TBMM pic.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:TBMM pic.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
Translated as "revolutionism" is a wrong translation for "Inkılapçılık". "Inkılapçılık" is actually an Arabic word. Revolutionism mean in Turkish "Devrimcilik" or in Arabic-Turkish "İhtilalcilik". Wikipedia for all the wrong translations must be corrected. Because their meanings are very different. This is a big mistake politically. Calaygut (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)