Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life
|WikiProject Turkey||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Changed the description of Ataturk's birth date from "adopted" to "approximate" as the former term is highly misleading, suggesting wrongly that Ataturk was adopted. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
With respect, it seems that the mention of his drinking only briefly, in the paragraph describing his funeral, is probably making too little of this important aspect of his personal life. It also seems curious that only his pre-marriage romances are mentioned. I wonder if there is a neutral point-of-view issue here? Clearly Ataturk was a remarkable man, but he was also very human, and glossing over these aspects of his life in the interests of painting a more glowing picture of this Turkish hero seems against the goals of Wikipedia. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Some Comments, based on primary source material not usable in Wikipedia
As to Ataturk's drinking, he was known to enjoy frequent and extravagant parties. Drinking was never mentioned to me.
Ataturk had romantic associations with women. In at least one case, this resulted in the birth of a son, who I knew. His son looked very much like Ataturk and not his adoptive father. Saltysailor (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The tone of this article is not neutral. In particular, in describing the fighting in the west, justification is made by accusing the Greeks of killing Turks, while nothing is said of the killings by Turks of Greeks to the war of independence. Both sides were guilty of what we now call war crimes. I have always found it interesting that I can not find any documentation about Ataturk's involvement in actions against Armenians. While Ataturk was a great man who helped Turkey survive as a state, there is nothing about the pain and suffering caused, mostly to minorities. Saltysailor (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
"He authored the chapter in "Islamic History" himself when he wanted history books for high schools prepared"; I believe "wanted" in this sentence is a bad translation from turkish and should be instead "when he asked for books" Pauloya (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Good Article Candidate!!!
Personally I think this article is pretty crappy. It needs a lot more copy editing for it to be considered good. Just because Ataturk is a great and interesting guy doesn't mean that articles taking about him is automatically great and interesting... Philosophy.dude (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The majority of the contributors are most likely Turkish, who would live in Turkey and are fed the glamorised version of Kermals life. This article needs a lot of work!!!--220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no reason for this article to exist separately from the main article about Atatürk. The topic of the article may be interesting, (the man himself certainly was), but the grammar is appalling, with the wording of some passages being downright nonsensical. In addition, as the previous person points out, the article contains a complete lack of objectivity, discussing and glorifying Atatürk's life solely from the point of view of that which is popularly accepted in Turkey. Ge0nk (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Dreadful English. As a native English-speaker I wish I knew more about the topic to correct this whole article, but I don't. I hope someone who knows what he or she's doing can do something to improve this.18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect to the sensibilities of contemporary Turkey and Turks, this article reads like a hagiography, a worshipful biography. I've read elsewhere that Ataturk died from cirrhosis of the liver, indicating alcoholism barely touched on. It seems to this reader (and occasional minor editor) that this article falls far short of a Good Article Review.
- The article does mention that "he was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver", listing it as the cause of death, as well as that "Alcohol consumption ... had been his way of life". --Lambiam 22:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
What I want to know, is what he actually did with the majority of his life! This article tells us about his life up to his graduation from military school, yet it says nothing about his career! Can anybody help me with this point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm more interested to know why the article lies about his religious beliefs. It asserts that "In his speeches and publications there is no trace connoting hostility or even indifference toward religious ideology". What about this quote; "I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that he himself was not fond of religion but he understood that people wanted/needed it, so he treated religion as a tool. A bit like U.S. presidents of today. --Adoniscik(t, c) 03:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
There are also a few claims that his Father may have been Jewish in particular a Dönmeh Jew. Claims have been made that he said he was a decendent of Sabbatai Zevi.  --188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Dönmeh tend to put on Muslim fronts to avoid persecution and futher themselves within Turkish society, similar to what Adoniscik has said above, using religion as a tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 09:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The "religious beliefs" section is full of Islamist propaganda bulshit. Ataturk was not religious. He famously said that "I have no religion, and sometimes I wish all religions to the bottom of the sea." Look what he has to say on this subject:
"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."
Quoted in Atatürk: The Biography of the founder of Modern Turkey, by Andrew Mango; "In a book published in 1928, Grace Ellison quotes [Atatürk], presumably in 1926-27", Grace Ellison Turkey Today (London: Hutchinson, 1928)
Which part of "I have no religion" you people don't understand? Can someone please delete the Islamofascist propaganda? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, this is a very corrupted paragraph in the article. There is in fact video footage that proves Atatürk's unambiguously sceptic stance against religion. He says: "We do not consider our [Party's] principles as dogmas contained in books that are said to come from heaven. We derive our inspiration, not from heaven, or from an unseen world, but directly from life." Siyah Kalem (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Where was he born?
This article alleges that the house in Salonica commonly thought to be his birth place was in fact his father-in-law Ragıp bey's house. If anybody has done some research into this, please incorporate your findings into the article. --Adoniscik(t, c) 23:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"On November 24, 1934, Gazi Mustafa Kemal requested the "Öz" as his last name, but the GNAT with a special law bestowed on "Mustafa Kemal Öz" the surname "Atatürk". " This is the most funniest translation I've heard in my entire life. The law clearly says he took the surname Atatürk with his Kemal first name. The öz means that his real and first name is Kemal. I am correcting the translation mistake. --Pusat (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Why does it say Kamâl rather than Kemal on his ID? More Kamâl examples—and possibly even an explanation (in Turkish though which I don't understand)—here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 17 October 2010
- The article linked above basically says Kamâl was consciously introduced (and not as a result of a typo) as a Turkic alternative (I'd interpret it as a faux Turkic word though, as that â sound is totally absent from Turkic languages) to Kemal (a loan from Arabic) during the days of language reform. - Vidimian (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
"Atatürk's precise birth date is not known. This confusion is more a reflection of dating differences between calendars of the period rather than any uncertainty on the part of Atatürk, his family or other factors."
His family has to have been confused. If they were not confused, there would be no confusion. How can they know and we not? What is this, some agreement among biographers to be confused without talking to the family? Fixing the English here.Dave (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I for one would like to know exactly where that number comes from. Who recorded that? No one seems to know or if they do they are not saying. About the best I can get is "entered". Who entered, where, why? Some articles on WP and on the Internet are saying that in 1881 those primitive Ottomans, well, they didn't know enough to keep records. This is before the great scientific advancement of keeping birth and death records in the good old days when people less sophisticated and wise than we are (especially adolescents) hadn't faced all the problems we face or come up with any of our modern solutions. This is what comes of guessing off the top of your heads. Now I find the Sultan knew very exactly who was in his empire from as early as the 1830's, when his census was instituted. There was one in fact in 1881. It recorded the populations of Thessalonika by religion and nationality. So, I have to presume that the "entry" 1296 was a bona fide public record kept as a matter of course either in some bureau of births and deaths or in the census, which happened every few years. I am going to say that. If you have knowledge of exactly who "entered" that record and what sort of record it was, perhaps you can give us the details.Dave (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
After 1936, this topic was discussed repeatedly. Even today, nobady knows his real birth date. If it were "by convention", if it were accepted by people, why discussions and despute are continuing ? I think that the term "convention" is not suitable for explaining this situation. Takabeg (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)