User talk:Supertask

ataturk

Hi. pp means "pages" as opposed to p. for "page". Maybe a bit old fashioned. Kinross's book is/was one of the main biographies of Ataturk. (It's a bit old and I think it has a reputation of being rather sympathetic to the subject.)

On page 4: "He was born an Ottoman Moslem, of lower middle class family and ostensibly Turkish stock." On p. 216-7: After noting how the Sheikh of Islam had pronounced a fatwa on the Nationalists, Kinross says "In creating it [ an elected national assembly] Kemal must reply in kind to the Islamic manifestoes of Constantinople. Thus he still acted outwardly in the name of the Caliphate, whose abolition was his ultimate objective. With every appearance of defernce he mobilized the ulema, the religious authority of Angora, which now issued a counterblast to Constantinople with a fetva of its own." "... to encourage such deputies as might be reluctant to come to the newly elected Assembly, he thus circulated throughout the country his own proclamation which outdid the Sultan-Caliph himself in its Islamic invocations." Later, p.386 Kinross mentions how "an emissary, claiming to represent Indian and Egyptian Moslems" "suggested to Kemal that he himself should become the Caliph." Cheers, John Z (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

I see you reverted my edit to the Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's leadership of the independence war articles when I said there was no evidence that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a Muslim. I thought there wasn't but I'll take your word for it there is in Atatürk: The Rebirth of a Nation. However, I would like to know what you meant by pp.4,217, I thought pp. meant a page but obviously not. Could you tell me what you meant by that, what part of the book provides the evidence should I acquire the book and the exact words in that book that you think are proof Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a Muslim. Also, please do not assume I don't know that there are Muslims that don't pursue political Islam. --Supertask 04:41, 10 April 2008 (GMT)

There is a whole section regarding his religious beliefs under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. Did you read it? --Rateslines (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I did read it and it shows what I think - that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's religious beliefs are not known with certainty. --Supertask 01:20, 11 April 2008 (GMT)

There is a whole section regarding his religious beliefs under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. There is a picture showing him preying in that section. The question of ones religious beliefs is somewhat funny! Do we ask how much "Christian" one should be to be a Christian man. If one does not accept the Pope's authority, (like Caliphate) do he become non Christian? I guess in the eyes of Pope that person will be deemed for the Hell. Besides if these people who question is religious beliefs were Muslims, they would know that if one accepts God's existance, become Muslim for life. If one deny the God later, that person do not become Non-Muslim, but Fajir. --Rateslines (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the information of his religious belief is important? It is important because he abolished the Caliphate. (removed the Political Islam from political arena) Was he a Muslim? Yes he was. Did he liked green apples? He was not an apple farmer or a genetic scientist who works on apples. That question is irrelevant. Hovever if he had an allergy to green apples, in that case this question would be significant. We ask questions, because they give us important clues of historically significant events. He never claimed he was a "Hoja" or compete for the position of Calip. He did not develop a theological theory. His position regarding angles or devil is irrelevant. His political theories are relevant, but you are not interested in them. It is not clear what your are trying to say or what is the significance of your position. Do not take it too personal, when people question your motives. Because they are not clear. --Rateslines (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss. Wikipedia works with citations. There is a picture of him preying according to "Islam" rules. It is included in the article. If you brought a better proof (a picture) disproves that stop reverting the information. --Rateslines (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

new quote

Here it is. The talk page is getting big and confusing, can see why you had trouble.:

Here's some more from Kinross's book: Below are Ataturk's own words - a later recollection quoted on p.6 describing the occasion of his introduction "with the usual religious ceremony into the school of Fatima Mollah Kadin" clearly it goes along with the image discussed (which I can't find - I guess I am blind) :

"Then the teacher - a hoja - arrived before the green bedecked door of our house, accompanied by all his scholars. After a prayer had been offered, I made an obeisance to my mother, my father and the teacher, lifting my fingertips to my breast and forehead and kissing their hands. Then, amid the cheering of my new companions, I went in joyous procession through the streets of the city to the school, which adjoined the mosque. On our arrival there another prayer was repeated in chorus; then the teacher, taking me by the hand, led me into a bare, vaulted chamber, where the sacred word of the Koran was unfolded to me."

ciao, John Z (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Media

Media

dear super task your I cannot open the link http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371723 but the other one states "petty Median chieftain subject to the kingdom of Mannai in modern Iranian Azerbaijan; later tradition made him the founder of the Median empire. " It says that he was first a subject of Mannai but then managed to establish (his own) Median empire. Also in the Irnian books is he recognized as the establisher of the Median empire. The confusion comes [put simply] because it is assumed that after a period Median throne got conquered( by the Scythians probably), but the Median royal clan again defeated them. See Diakonov on the History of Media.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran"--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Media

Media

dear super task your I cannot open the link http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371723 but the other one states "petty Median chieftain subject to the kingdom of Mannai in modern Iranian Azerbaijan; later tradition made him the founder of the Median empire. " It says that he was first a subject of Mannai but then managed to establish (his own) Median empire. Also in the Irnian books is he recognized as the establisher of the Median empire. The confusion comes [put simply] because it is assumed that after a period Median throne got conquered( by the Scythians probably), but the Median royal clan again defeated them. See Diakonov on the History of Media.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran"--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Median kingdom/empire

dear super task see my talk page about Media. I think I have a clue and have a solution which is workable. sinply there was first a kingdom but later it became an empire.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Diakonov

How on the earth can you call Diakonov's work as an obscure book??????? He is an authority on the ancient near Eastern history.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As I announced I have left Wikipedia because of much irritation. Do not take it personal. But I am tired of some peoples'behaviour especially with regards to the Iranian articles. As your answer: I may hurt your British feelings but allow me to diagree with you, Diakonov is an authority in the near Eastern history and in general Soviet/Russian sources have a higher quality than the British ones. In addition even encycl;opedia Britanica says that 728 BC Deioces united the Median tribes and became their king. It is the establishment of the Median Kingdom. Nevertheless for some reason you want to diagree. But again as I said I have left wikipedia and will not do much efforts here. You can go on with your pinion. It is now up to other Iranian editors to discuss with you. Good Luck--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Australia

Supertask and Aussielegend, please use the talk page to come to an agreement on what to use. Don't edit war back and forth. You never know - a third party might chip in with a great way forward that niether of you had thought about. Edit warring doesn't help anyone. kind regards. --Merbabu (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster

I'm addressing this here, rather than at Talk:Australia because this is a more appropriate place for this discussion.

I directed you to WP:DEADHORSE and quoted a specific section[1] to which you responded "Yes, I read that, it hasn't happened." It's an interesting statement to make because, like your arguments at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster, it ignores reality. Other than you and me, the only person to join in on the discussion was Gazzter and he made only one post, over 3 weeks ago. My only responses to you in those three weeks[2][3][4] have been as a result of your demands on my talk page. More than just the community losing interested, it was never interested to start with. So yes, it has happened. Accept it, drop the stick and back slowly away. This is my final word on the matter. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)