Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Time for the Presidency section?

Should we shorten/summarize that section now? 128.211.202.45 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Presidency section is too long to have a single article. It is not possible to summarize "domestic policies" and "foreign policies" within 300-1000 words as a single Wikipedia:Lead section. This move will create problems which may be tagged with {{Sync}} without considering these issues. I would be the first to put tag POV "look at Avoidance of POV forks." If you create one page for "domestic policies" another for "foreign policies" you are breaking up many related issues. I will object that. Did you look at the section Wikipedia:Summary style. Your rush to "shorten/summarize" has its own problems. There was a Turkish editor who claimed will turn the article Istanbul into great article, He could not promote the article into "Good Article" status. There was another Turkish editor who wanted to integrate Ottoman military article into the Ottoman Empire article, instead of creating a summary section (you are trying to do the reverse). I wish you take a look at the Ottoman Empire and write a good summary for the military section (no sub headings - limited within the rules of the lead section). The Ottoman Empire article become over bloated and lost its Good Article status. It is filled with Military pictures, like ottomans had nothing else to present at the main page. When it comes to this article; Where is the assassination attempt? There are many issues not explained under foreign relations.

Why don't help us to write the missing sections, rather than cutting the article first. When all the topics are explained these issues can be handle with rearranging. It may be best to divide the article into "presidency first decade (1923-1933)" ("onuncu yil soylevine kadar") and later years "presidency late years (1934-1938)." This way related issues will be under the same page. I hope you are willing to take all these issues seriously, otherwise history will repeat itself. What happened to lead editor? --Rateslines (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not discourage ourselves with such stuff. We will do as much as we can, and any improvement is an improvement. That said, I do not think I have the resources to undertake the job of a lead editor, even if I sign in to be able to edit this semi protected article. I do not see any good outcome of dividing his presidency the way you suggest (first decade and afterwards), which seems to be rather arbitrary, and it might suggest a change in Ataturk's attitude. I still have some recommendations about the presidency section. It took a good amount of time, I hope it will be helpful.

First two paragraphs

Mustafa Kemal capitalized on his reputation as an efficient military leader and spent the following years, up until his death in 1938, instituting wide-ranging and progressive political, economic, and social reforms, transforming Turkish society from perceiving itself as Muslim subjects of a vast Empire into citizens of a modern, democratic, and secular nation-state that was 'completely independent'. In his words: "…by complete independence, we mean of course complete economic, financial, juridical, military, cultural independence and freedom in all matters. Being deprived of independence in any of these is equivalent to the nation and country being deprived of all its independence."

Nature of the state:

In forging the new republic, the Turkish revolutionaries turned their back on the perceived corruption and decadence of cosmopolitan Istanbul and its Ottoman heritage. For instance, Ankara, then some provincial town in deep Anatolia turned into the center of the independence movement became later the capital. The revolutionaries regularly faced challenges from the supporters of the old Ottoman regime, and also from the supporters of relatively new ideologies such as communism and fascism. Mustafa Kemal saw the consequences of fascist and communist doctrines in the 1920s and 1930s and rejected both, preventing the spread of totalitarian party rule which held sway in the Soviet Union, Germany and Italy. Some perceived Atatürk's silencing of opposition to this as a means of eliminating competition, others believed it a necessary means to protect the young Turkish state from succumbing to the instability of new ideologies and competing factions.

Especially this next sentence needs to be fixed or otherwise changed, preferably by a native speaker: Atatürk's ideology, based on his conception of realism and pragmatism, encompassing the principles of Six Arrows has been the defining ideology of the Republic of Turkey.

Single-party state: First paragraph needs to go elsewhere, if you want to keep it

Mustafa Kemal's private journals show that, even before the establishment of the republic in 1923, he believed in the importance of the sovereignty of people as opposed to the sovereignty of the absolute monarch, which was the case in the Ottoman Empire. He wanted a "direct government by the Assembly" and visualized a parliamentary sovereignty (a representative democracy), where the National Parliament would be the ultimate source of power. In the following years, Kemal took the position that the country needed an immense amount of reconstruction, and "direct government by the Assembly" could not survive in this environment.

On September 9, 1923, Kemal founded the "People's Party", which was later renamed to Republican People's Party (Turkish: Cumhuriyet Halk Fırkası). Atatürk has been criticized arguing that he did not promote democracy by dominating the country with his single party rule. Andrew Mango wrote that: "between the two wars, democracy could not be sustained in many relatively richer and better-educated societies. Atatürk's enlightened authoritarianism left a reasonable space for free private lives. More could not have been expected in his lifetime." Atatürk has always supported the idea of eventually building a democratic state. In one of his many speeches about the importance of the democracy, Mustafa Kemal said in the year 1933: "Republic means democratic administration of the state. We founded the Republic, reaching its tenth year it should enforce all the requirements of democracy as the time comes."

Parliamentary opposition (Kadınlar Halk Fırkası, led by Nezihe Muhiddin, is the first one)

In 1925, Kazım Karabekir established the Progressive Republican Party (PRP) and the first multi-party system began. PRP's economic program suggested liberalism, in contrast to state socialism, and its social program was based on conservatism in contrast to modernism. Leaders of the party strongly supported the Kemalist revolution in principle, but had different opinions on the cultural revolution and the principle of secularism. PRP was dissolved following the Sheikh Said Rebellion.

In 1930, with the support of by Mustafa Kemal, Ali Fethi Okyar established the Liberal Republican Party. The party was quickly embraced by the conservatives who saw it as an opportunity to reverse the reforms of Atatürk, particularly regarding secularism. Seeing the rising fundamentalist threat and being a staunch supporter of Atatürk's reforms himself, Ali Fethi Okyar abolished his own party the same year.

Foreign policies first paragraph can stay the way it is. Mosul and Kurds should be made/moved into a new article.

Hatay:

In 1936 Kemal raised the "Issue of Hatay" at the League of Nations. On behalf of the League of Nations, representatives of France, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey prepared a constitution for Hatay, which established it as an autonomous sanjak within Syria. Despite some inter-ethnic violence, in the midst of 1938 an election to the local legislative assembly was conducted and it was convoked. The cities of Antakya (Antioch) and İskenderun (Alexandretta) were regained by Turkey in 1939.

Let me stop here for now. My suggestions can be used as a starting point, up to you. Someone else may do the rest. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Some revisions to my recommendations and some more recom.

Nature of the state:

We should get rid of the subsection titles, they are not really necessary there and they just clutter the TOC

We should get rid of Ankara stuff; it's possibly misleading, not so necessary and it's breaking the flow

We might need to introduce the "balance of powers stuff"

"some perceived Ataturk's..." sentence needs sources. And who is 'some', do we know?

with the support of, not "of by".

General:

Words like "however" tend to be unnecessary and sentences with "however" tend to be original research. "Even though" is another one

We should decide which English we should use. It will be harder for me, but on this article, I believe we should use British English.

Economic policies section should be cropped a lot. I can't do much there

Literacy rates before the language reform in Turkey (1927). The literacy rates rose to 48.4% among males and 20.7% among females in 1950.

:we can remove the section title of section:modernization. And we can use he following image there:

When talking about the reforms, we should not forget that we have another article, Atatürk's Reforms.

128.211.202.45 (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial - Gallipoli

I think that ataturks words (that are featured on the memorial) belong in a subsection of the section "Legacy"

Ataturk felt stongly about the gallipoli battle, his words can be accessed here [1] 203.122.240.118 (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Article is a series because of its size. There is a huge section about this issue. If you have time, please consider Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's military career. You can find everything you are looking for regarding this topic. --Rateslines (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ratesline

Isn't it a problem that this user acts like the sole owner of the article by continously imposing his own preferences and by virtually fighting with any other editor who does not agree with him?--88.241.22.35 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If he did, please discuss here. The choice of images causes a lot of problems. That Time picture was one of the main reasons this article failed good article criteria, as far as I remember.Deniz^T_C 10:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster. What can be done about this?132.170.106.18 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Uch

Like every other personality, there should be a critics or a controversy section on this page. I tried to make one, with full citations, but someone deliberately deletes it. I think this is not how wikipeida should function. If turkey cannot provide freedom of speech in their own country, atleast let us do it online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uch (talk • contribs) 02:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome but 1) your addition is original research. 2) the sourced parts are to secondary things, not to your assertions 3) we should not use blogs and other unreliable sources 4) we cannot have a criticism section for the sake of it, they should be embedded (and they are) to the relevant parts.

I am moving your text here Deniz^T_C 10:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mustafa Kemal has had his share of critics. Many Allege that he was a 'traitor to Islam' because he abolished the Caliphate, which after the first World War was the head of the only surviving Muslim Empire, the Ottomans.

Mustafa Kemal has also been blamed for trying to preach Democracy, secularism and human rights like those in West, but did not act upon them. Examples include the Hat law of 1925 [2] where Turkish people were forced to wear western clothes and give up Traditional Turkish clothes. A move seen by many as a breach of Human rights, practiced as late as 2008, when woman were banned from covering their hair in a government building.

Another example was the changing of the Turkish language from the Arabic script to the Latin Script.

In His time , the Adhan i.e. Call to prayer was also changed from Arabic into Turkish.

All these moves have been seen by many as a deliberate attempt of forcing his own ideas, without any popular support. [3]

He has also been labeled by many as a dictator, [4] because during his life time, there was no proper functioning democracy, and only one political party, thus he was the Army General, and the first President without any elections ever held for this post."

Censorship

I wonder If it should be mentioned that Youtube is banned in Turkey for haveing insulting videos of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk on their site posted. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.208.139.203 (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are so many things banned in Turkey, even people got in jail because they insult Ataturk, so Youtube is 'nothing' in this case. There should be another topic about how Turks idolized Ataturk like the Muslims did for Mohimid. Turks are so tough when it comes a situation like 'insulting' their religion and nation. But they usually do it in their daily life. (onur) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.123.109 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaargh, still banned. I went on a trip to turkey and couldn't access youtube.119.149.135.102 (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

Why is there no talk about the Armenian Genocide when allegedly he played such a key role in it? http://www.armenian-genocide.org/kemal.html Cozret (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Like a previous poster, I find this article strangely lacking in criticism - it reads as a hagiography. However great a leader Ataturk was, he surely must have had his critics, both during and after his life. So why is there almost nothing about this in the article?

Now, I know that criticism of Ataturk in Turkey is likely to get you jailed or worse, but Wikipedia is not subject to such constraints on freedom of speech. 79.78.126.201 (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The unregistered user 79.78.126.201 states that "I know that criticism of Ataturk in Turkey is likely to get you jailed or worse". That's simply incorrect. Atatürk is criticized heavily in Turkey by, for instance, Islamists, radical liberals and certain communists. Moreover there is freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. There is a law stating that libel against Atatürk is punishable by jail sentences; however, libel and criticism are two different concepts. And the law in question was enacted in early 1950s when fundamentalists attacked Atatürk statutes in different location of the country. Writing down such comments is just irresponsible if not derogatory. Evren Güldoğan (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• In 1981, the Turkish Parliament issued a law (5816) outlawing insults to his legacy or attacks to objects representing him.Uni (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

According to my source it was in 1951[6] --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should have a look at this.  --Lambiam 03:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

All content on Wikipedia must satisfy the criterion of verifiability. If you know of criticism reported on in a reliable source, it can (within reason) be mentioned in the article.  --Lambiam 03:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You can easily criticize him by saying that he didn't transfer the country into a democracy and, regardless of what people say, it is a fact. Yes, he tried to form some parties for opposition and future democracy but these parties were closed down so easily. For my side, I don't care the existence of other parties because I know that if you try to form democracy that fast in a war-torned country, it would create "something else" than peace and liberty. The best example to this is NSDAP and their success in 1933. As I said, I support Mustafa Kemal for such a political decision but others don't have to do so. If you think you don't like this single-party thing because it had bad, negative etc. effects on Turkey, go on and add it to the article. Deliogul (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not a scholar of 1920s-30s Turkey, but someone who knows the era and Turkey needs to add a Criticisms section to this article. An article with this positive a viewpoint and no criticisms is silly. No historical figure gets off this lightly in an article of this nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.72.175.174 (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

i'm not Turkish so i dont know too much about Turkish laws but my understanding is that Turkish laws only forbid personal attacks on current government officials... (that's what they tried that writer for a few years ago)...

But i do agree that this article is substantially lacking in any kind of criticism. my guess is that someone is systematically removing anything that will harm ataturk's reputation. Philosophy.dude (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your understanding of Turkish law is incomplete. You might peruse the external link I give above, as well as our articles Article 301 (Turkish penal code) and List of prosecuted Turkish writers. If "that writer" is Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk, he did not issue any personal attack on current or past government officials, or on anybody else.

As to your guess, rather than ventilating such an undirected suspicion, you should take some time to examine the article history; if the suspicion is founded, it should not be hard to substantiate it.  --Lambiam 01:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Be careful while criticize Ataturk since In 1981, the Turkish Parliament issued a law (5816) outlawing insults to his legacy or attacks to objects representing him.Uni (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a Criticisms heading in which criticisms can be added. I've moved the sole bit of criticism currently in the article into this section. Ben Finn (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles are not supposed to segregate criticism of the subject into one section. It always leads to less balanced prose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia rule that states this - the one you linked to previously (Content forking) is about creating separate criticism articles, not sections. Moreover, I've just looked up two heavily-edited articles for other famous people, Tony Blair and John Paul II, and both have a Criticism section, so I assume having such a section is not unusual. So I've reinstated the section in this article. Incidentally, I note that in recent days one of the 'criticisms' earlier in the article (and that I had temporarily moved there) was reworded by someone to become an 'argument' - again it seems Ataturk is not to be associated with the word 'criticism'. Ben Finn (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading directly from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure:

"Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, can result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents" ... A more neutral approach may result by folding debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them into separate sections that ignore each other.

I've reverted these changes. See also WP:CSECTION. If other articles suffer from this, other articles should be corrected. Tony Blair was demoted from FA over a year ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What you linked to is a mere essay, not a policy or even a guideline. And on top of that, it quotes Jimbo Wales himself saying that sometimes criticism sections are necessary. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea of creating a criticism section in the name of "to be able to criticize" is generally ends with the defamation of character. I'm sure we can agree that we do not promote the "defamation of characters." I have been following this discussion. Instead of telling a different perception of the issue or event within a continuum (part of the life story) of this person and removing the "time, context, and relationships" to create a single section titled "I want to criticize.." falls into possible false or damaging allegation to the person. This is a biography article at the end. This is not really what we want to do, right? We do not hate this person that much! Or we?TarikAkin (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Bulk of text regarding the Misak-ı Millî and Mandates

Hi, regarding the bulk of text added by user user:90.192.126.127. The text needs to be discussed at the talk space before inclusion into the article. It looks like a copy-vio from another source. The incorporation of large text, without the cited references. The text includes very controversial arguments (I plainly claim they are wrong) regarding the issues already established in the wikipedia with sources, such as the claims voiced that Ataturk oppose the policies defined by Misak-ı Millî which was signed by the Ataturk himself. You should also look at the Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk's_leadership_of_the_independence_war#The_mandates_and_National_Pact regarding mandates --Rateslines (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article makes it look as though the Armenians, Greeks, Syrians were invaders of historic, and rightful, Turkish sovereign territory, and that Kemal was a liberator(even using the phrase "liberated" and likewise) from foreign invaders. Where is the mention of the Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Pontic Greek Genocide and Ataturk's role in it? More should be added about how the Ottoman leaders gladly handed over historic territories to the subject peoples, only for Ataturk to murder the rightful owners of the land, en route to "liberating the partitioned Turkish republic". What about his role in the Burning of Smyrna, which he reduced to a punchline about drinking coffee? I have attempted to instill a more NPOV take, but was warned by someone for "disruptive edits". So apparently having a page read like an Ataturk fansite is NPOV, and something more evenhanded is "disruptive". 198.54.202.218 (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and would therefore understand that major changes or additions in content need to be accompanied by verifiable sources, otherwise such edits as those recently reverted read very much as violations of WP:NPOV. As well, the use of several accounts to make edits is against policies, per WP:SOCK. JNW (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the current article is entirely POV. Likewise, I do not have "Several accounts". I am on a shared IP address/hub. Sometimes when I post/edit, it uses one IP< sometimes, another. I have no control over the matter. Other users also share these IPs with me. I made it clear however that I am one person. You have had to resort to making unfounded "Sock" accusations as you know the article is POV. 196.25.255.218 (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No such accusation was made--this was a well-founded observation, which you have helped to clarify. The interpretation of sockness was, and is, quite understandable. As for the article's content: Actually, I do not know that the article is POV. What I have observed are edits which choose antonyms for the current adjectives [7], thereby changing the article's meaning without providing sources. That is a breach of NPOV, and would appear to be vandalism. JNW (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"The article's meaning" as it stands now is clearly POV. Contentious words include "liberated" "partition" etc. 198.54.202.218 (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, do you have verifiable sources for the statements and claims that I attempted to remove? 198.54.202.218 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is indeed one-sided, then the door is always open for scholarly reappraisal. I found this: [8], which is a meager start, but most of the websites commenting on Ataturk's culpability appear to be strongly biased for or against. Is there published material that passes the NPOV test? Please note that my involvement is, as much as possible, without political leanings; revisions in the quest for accuracy are a must, but deletions of content and addition of new material must be credibly sourced. JNW (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in preserving a POV article. If there is legitimate scholarship that changes the tone and information, let's present it. But it's got to be done properly, solidly, not only to suit encyclopedic standards, but to answer inevitable challenges from those with contrasting POV. JNW (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is of interest, as well [9]. JNW (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes claims about Ataturk saving Armenians, but gives no further information. My major concern was that the article reads like a glorification of Ataturk. I admit that my editing was likely POV in the opposite direction, and that something neutral would be far better suited. The most obvious example (as stated above) is the article's claim that Ataturk "liberated" the lands of modern Turkey from Armenians and Greeks. There are lots of other minor pints too. 198.54.202.218 (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to understand the merit in this debate! People who fight for a land, take the risk of dying for a land, has the right to claim the land. During the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire; Greek had claims which ended with Greece, Armenians had claim over the land ended with Democratic Republic of Armenia. How much blood of others was shed to establish DRA? Did anyone's claim (life) less valuable than the other? When Greek displaced millions of Mulims to create the Greece, it was acceptable to shed Muslim's blood for their christian nationhood? Is there a higher price than one's life? I do not see the righteous in ones claim over a land because "their father owned the land". Like Turks did not lived at these lands for centuries at the time of these events. The person who has historical claims should ask "who did my father kill (centuries ago) to acquire the claim over this land?" At the end neither Turks nor Armenians, or Greeks, were the proto-culture. There were others which they replaced. I do not see Turkish editors going and trolling over other nations stories (you should look at the Armenia or Greece page), what is unique about these people who feel this need? --TarikAkin (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A. Turkish Nationalist vs. Greek or Armenian Nationalist edit wars are common in the Greek and Armenian (and occasionally Iranian) articles as well. But more importantly, if neither the Turks, nor the Greeks, nor the Armenians are the proto-culture, what claim have they to exclusively national stories. History belongs to the truth, not to any group of mortal beings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.114.183 (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the most heavily censored, biased article on Wikipedia and cannot be said to represent historical facts accurately by any means. It is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.112.61 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article is a joke and is so biased toward a false notion of ataturk instead of telling the truth. The problem is not with ataturk and his legacy, the problem is with the people that treat him like a godlike mythic figure to the point of leaving out historical facts and lying on wikipedia.

Somebody should tag the page for its lack of neutrality. The wording is ridiculous, painting Ataturk as a God-like figure. Thefilmmaking (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly the lack of neutrality in this article makes a mockery of Wikipedia and its inner workings. I believe this must be flagged as such.77.100.218.93 (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Youtube, geocities, blogger, etc. ban in Turkey

Since there is a law (numbered: 5816 & dated: 25.7.1951) most of the liberal and democrat websites are banned such as Youtube, Geocities, Blogger, etc. (total 1112 as of October 2008[10]) in Turkey. This law says any person is subject to jail and any print(media) is subject to ban if criticize Ataturk in a way that state doesn't approve. There is also a government site [11] to inform the state the websites those criticize Ataturk. I think This law/ban should be mentioned in the article definetely. --Rates (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7141.217.43.147 (talk) Most important is youtube, because; youtube isn't deleting bad videos about Mustafa Kemal Paşa. We flagged these videos but,youtube didn't delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.173.114 (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Was Atatürk a Muslim?

In the article, Atatürk is mentioned as a Muslim. Also, the article is in the Turkish Muslim politicians category. Does that have a source? As much as I know, there is no evidence that he is a muslim.--Cfsenel (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean, except some speechs that he made at the first years of the republic to gain support and not to draw a rebuff.--Cfsenel (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You and all the other big politics couldn't understand that, because you think, that Muslim is a politic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.56.112 (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ataturk was Jewish, everyone knows it, Turks want to deny this truth. However he was not a 'religious' person. I don't know why it is bad for Turkey to admit he was Jewish. When they deny it, some people will infer it as Turkey is anti Jewish. There were and are a lot of good Jewish people.

read these: http://www.talkturkey.us/2006/07/ataturk_controv.html http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/turkey/ataturkjew-2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7hameed7 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is well documented that Ataturks parents were devout muslims. In fact, Ataturk was initially enrolled in a Islamic school. Through out Ataturks reign he made speeches supporting Islam. Albeit, some claim that Ataturk was Jewish, this is not factually supported. For him to have been a Jew he must have at some time converted to Judaism. There is no documentation of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.209.236 (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Patrick Kinross (Ataturk: The Rebirth of a Nation) Kemal was born a Muslim and throughout the book there is absolutely no mention of him converting to Judaism or any other religion. He never seemed to see religion politically (a "Western" outlook inherited from his father) and considering his mother was devoutly Muslim, I find it strange that he surreptitiously converted without any mention of it whatsoever. It is not common knowledge, and I honestly don't believe it's true. SinfulDust (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

He had some Muslim views, and knew Islam very well but still he was not religious. Also he was close to (very close) vulgar-materialist idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.207.157 (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

of course, he wasnt muslim. but he behaved and talked like muslim for not losing people's support behind him and he was right to do so. transition from an islamic state to a non-religous state is not an easy process. you can't do everything very fast. change takes some time. so he didnt want to take religious people against him

he can be jewish, i don't know. there were ethnic turkic tribes who converted judaism so it's not impossible for a turk to be a jewish. although it doesnt mean ethnic (semitic) "jewness". in all his speeches, he praises ancient turkic religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.86.83 (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

He is Muslim, but he is not religious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.58.54 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have also read in numerous articles that he was a Donmeh (Sabbatean Crypto-Jew). The Donmeh played a big role in the forming of the Young Turks. Since Ataturk was from Salonika (one of the centers of the donmeh) and his views on religion/Islam were not exactly what you could call Islamic, this theory could be true. The fact that donmeh were Crypto-Jews (Secret Jews) explains why there could be some sources for ataturk (or his parents) behaving as Muslim. It also would explain why there is no documentation for him being a Jew. Some Crypto-Jews and Sabbateans especially were not considered Jews by the Jewish religious authorities. He could off course also be (raised as) a Muslim who gradually moved towards secularism and distanced himself from Islam. In light of his decisions regarding (Islamic) religious matters there would be enough support to at least question his religious position. He shouldn't be represented as a Muslim in the article because there are indications that he wasn't a Muslim. The best thing would be to avoid giving conclusive information about his religious background and just make a section representing the controversy about his religious beliefs. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

At least nobody said that he is a part of an alien conspiracy that is aiming to invade the solar system. Gentlemen, please be reasonable. Atatürk came from the lines of the French Revolution and its middle class modernist nationalism. This is why he was not an adherent supporter of a certain religion. He even tried to "nationalize" the religion by using Turkish language rather than Arabic language in call-to-prayers. In the end, there is nothing like a pure Turk, if you are not coming from a remote village in Central Asia. Also, Turkey uses the French citizenship system that looks at the shared territory, not at a shared blood line. I mean, relax folks. Deliogul (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree and want to know where in the world did the user extract the information that Atatürk was jewish? His parents were devout Muslims, sent him to İslamic schools, and his mother from which being jewish would come from was a woman from Konya who argued with Atatürk's father because he wanted him to go to a military school, for those were the best schools of the time, and she wanted him to go to an İslamic school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.19.161 (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Style Problems

I don't want to delve into all the issues of neutrality and so forth. But upon reading this article for the first time, it strikes me that it is in need of a stylistic cleanup. The problem is not grave, but it is noticeable. To wit, there are numerous nouns in various parts of the entry that would normally be preceded by a definite or indefinite article, that lack any article; e.g., "Curzon insisted during Lozan conference (1923) that Mosul belonged to Iraq" (one expects to read about what happened during "THE Lozan conference," and the missing 'the' is jarring). And, conversely, we have definite articles springing up before nouns that should abhor them, e.g., "He was well aware that independence could not be maintained solely by the military force."

None of this is to impugn the quality of the article (which I don't dispute), nor its accuracy (which I lack the knowledge to comment on). But surely some attention to the article's language would enhance its readability.

75.36.205.213 (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

English cleanup

There are some bits of the article which are very poorly written; I'm assuming they were translated from Turkish or something, or at least from a language that has a structure extremely different from English. I found incoherent sentences, some with no verbs, and the odd repetition of small phrases in sequence. The text, however, is not so bad that it needs {{Cleanup-translation}} or any other template (at least not among the ones I could found). Can someone help me fix it? I am reviewing the article, but since I'm not a native English-speaker I certainly must be letting some of these mistakes slip by. RafaAzevedo ^msg 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been on my todo list for a while. You're right that there are elementary errors all over the place which compromise the integrity of the article. For now I've tagged it as needing basic copyediting, to keep it on my radar. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I took care of the majority of errors. However, certain sentences were so confusing that I just left them and tagged them for clarification since they seem important and I am not an expert on this subject. Copana2002 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pic: Mustafa Kemal golden scoop political caricature of single party system

I read earlier comments and i am wondering why this picture is still being insistently re-put into the article..Is there anybody else who wants this pic in the article other than user ratesline? It seems he was the one who introduced the picture and solely defended its inclusion for a very long time. This is no place to pursue contemporary political goals through the selective inclusion of particular sources, what really matters in the end is the presentable qualities of the article..--85.107.34.156 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works with credible information. The caricature is historically correct and reflecting the nature of the politics in its time. You have personal right to keep an ideologically sanitized image of Ataturk, to yourself. But you have to show respect to other views. As long as this caricature is supported with facts.... I will support your view (change my position), If you prove otherwise (Ataturk did not control the "Carsaf"). If you bring forward credible information that proves "the period is not single party period," and "there was not only one party list" and "the leader of the party did not approve the list "Carsaf in turkish." For the importance of the caricature (controlling who can be "MPs"), it humorously points out the most important fact of the "single party period." Some people called him "dictator" because of his control over the lists. After 80 years of his time, same tradition continues in modern Turkey. You should make peace with this caricature, as it is part of living Turkey. Rateslines (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not about "making peace" about anything, as your line of arguments demonstrate you`re clearly acting like you`re the rightful copyright owner of this article and nobody else could make any change in it unless it is approved by you..

You say that "this caricature is supported by facts". I have to ask that it is supported by whose facts? You`re again imposing on the article your own political views..This is no place, as i said, to pursue contemporary political agendas..

What i am saying is that this has to be a concise, presentable article, this is not about solely this picture alone, there are many other unrelated, not necessary bits if informationts that serves to no other purpose other than reducing the quality of the article..

About this picture, i think you obvioulsy merely added it because it is in line with your political views. If you want to make politics, there would soon be elections in Turkey, make politics by voting or by joining in the elections as a candidate, not by using any site as a political tool..--85.107.34.156 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretation is not my intention. Make peace is used toward "sanitized image of Ataturk" by me. I nicely remind you that it is your personal problem if you feel anything beyond what the facts depicted in this caricature. The caricature is not an insult or degradation of the person. The historical facts of the period is reflected very eloquently in this historical caricature. I'm totally o.k. with these issues. This caricature, after 80 years of its inception, is not a political tool anymore. It is a reflection of history for me. I do not have any desire to change anything in recent politics of Turkey, not through this page. My desire is to reflect the period correctly and factually. The reality (a) "single party period" (b) "one party list" (a) "Ataturk approved the list (golden scoop) for MPs." Unless you prove this was not the reality, thank you for your input and cooperation. By the way, I'm happy that you have a strong feelings toward Ataturk. You feel highly protectionist toward everything related toward him. This feeling is common between us. --Rateslines (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

I have removed the comments Mr. Barack Obama put on visitor's log in Anitkabir. Many a people did the same thing; this is not related to legacy nor is it Wikipedia-worthy.Barcod (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the same comments undid by the user, without any reason shown. Please clarify how comments from a current president compare to roads, airports or monuments devoted to M. K. Ataturk. If you would like to add that piece of information, please choose another location as this causes incontinuity in the paragraph.Barcod (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it relevant and it needs to be placed under the Turkey section of Legacy, not the Worldwide. To me it appears that President Obama is speaking of Turkey, not so much the world. Nice job Ratelines! --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you put it under worldwide then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcod (talk • contribs) 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama is the President of USA. His official speeches are the reflection of his state. The quote in question is not his personal response. It is not given under duress to be ignored or de-valuated. Obama is "no drama Obama." He is famous because his statements are calculated and not instant responses presented under emotional ups-and-downs (such as the famous "one minute" quote in recent history, which is ridiculed as "(don't) be Erdogan"). Any document signed or typed by Obama is the official document of his state. This includes the text he typed and signed in the "visitor's log." These are not random scribles, they are carefully written and approved. You can not devalue the "visitor's log in Anitkabir." This log is a rich historical artifact which collected the ideas of the important world figures for many years. The quote included in the article was from his speech presented at the Turkish Assembly. The quote became a major news item. It was signaled as part of a political message. International Press listed among "Top News." This makes this quote a significant quote. The quote in question clearly reflect what Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's legacy is to the World history in general and Muslim World in particular as perceived by USA government (direct quote from the source not my interpretation). At the end, legacy is nothing but the perception left behind after the event or person. Thank you for your cooperation. --Rateslines (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rateslines, are you drunk? 132.170.106.18 (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to level with the audience! Didn't you get it? I'm surprised! What would you respond to the question "the quote is not a legacy nor is it Wikipedia-worthy" if not telling who the quoted person is, in which situation he was quoted, what kind of reaction generated in the news system. A Simple Who Where When Why. The importance of the quote, what is the legacy left behind, is clearly stated (self explanatory) in the AP article, for the people who read it. --Rateslines (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Freemason

A Freemason website is probably not a sufficient source for the contentious assertion that Ataturk was a Freemason. I suggest that we find a 3rd-party source for this.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sabbatean Jewish descent and membership in the Veritas Lodge of Salonika in Freemasonry

Why are my sources deleted. Freemasonry Today is a newspaper like the New York Times, which is also a valid source for wikipedia. Maybe in explosive Turkish environment, the facts of the ethnic Sabbatean Jewish descent of Atatürk would be censored out, like his evident (and well-known) membership in Freemasonry in Thessaloniki (during Ottoman-era). Atatürk's secularism, anticlerical nationalism, national awakening, ethnic homogeneity tendency and views seem influenced by all these elements and show even Carbonari signs. Why delete my sources? They are not POV. Even Atatürk serious biographers add these facts.Smith2006 (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A Freemasonry magazine is obviously going to be a biased source when it comes to memberhip in the Freemasons. Considering how contentious the topic is, I suggest that we need to find better sources for extraordinary assertions like this.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rumors

I'm glad that the Turkish hackers that have sprung due to liberal website blocks in Turkey by the Islamist leaning regime have not discovered this page yet. If that were the case, this talk section would be under attack the way genocide.com was back in the day. To get to the point though, assuming that none of the attacks against Ataturk are backed with any sort of documentation other than some historical rumors, I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for angry Armenian and Greek youths to attack a leader they have only read propaganda about. For instance, there is a section regarding Zsa Zsa Gabor claiming that Ataturk took her virginity. I believe that you are all familiar with Misaki Milli (considering how much you all are talking about it). It is the documentation of Ataturk's allegiance to Turkey which went as far as him never having left Turkish soil. As Zsa Zsa Gabor is a Hungarian actress, I'd love to know how the declaration that Ataturk took her virginity is valid in any form. Thank you. Deniz Gecim (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I will take a published autobiography over what you presume to be common knowledge and the conclusions you draw from that. You might be interested to know that Gabor was living in Ankara at the time. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Zsa Zsa Gabor was a married woman when she was living in Ankara. 88.228.157.224 (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And?
    • I don't know how to word my answer without asking you what your idea of marriage is let alone how not to ask you how long you think the duration of the virginity of a woman who is notorious for the number of times shes been married lasted. I will not reply to anything else on this subject, and you are demeaning the integrity of the other people who criticize the content of this page by lingering on topics such as this.Deniz Gecim (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Zsa Zsa Gabor and other removal of sourced content

I am sorry but all that crude talk about Gabor's sexual life attributes to Ataturk is misplaced, inaccurate and unnecessary. It is known that Gabor lost her virginity in Istanbul at the age of 15 to a Turkish man of 51 by Gabor's account (http://www.tv.com/zsa-zsa-gabor/person/5147/trivia.html) in 1932. She became Miss Hungary in 1937, 5 years later and married a Turkish Diplomat who was working in Budapest where she lived. All claims made about her marriage, sex life, romance and Mustafa Kemal (in Istanbul while her Turkish husband is also present!) upon their travel to Turkey via the Orient Express where they had their honeymoon, visiting the King of Albania on the way to Turkey, are strictly Gabor's personal allegations that were neither confirmed nor endorsed by anyone else ever. Gabor claimed she had romantic involvement by Sinatra and Kennedy later as well; seemingly an attraction to her to claim all popular superstar fell for her, a person regarded as the most expensive courtesan of Holywood. 217.44.56.28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC).

A couple of editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's possible romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. The same goes for the remark made by Lloyd George. Without proper arguments and discussion, these removals will be treated as vandalism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a memorial. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Jim Morrison once said "I am the Lizard King, I can do anything." Does this make Jim Morrison the Lizard King? I refuse to respect the notion that the documentation of a matter equates to truthfulness. Zsa Zsa Gabor was a woman who was fairly promiscuous, and she has lied on several accounts in order to gain publicity. Check out her own Wikipedia page if you want to look at her legacy.Deniz Gecim (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a really bad comparison. It is a fact that Morrison said "I am the Lizard King," and that's what we can maintain in Wikipedia--with the addendum that he said so in a song, which is by definition fictional. But more importantly, Wikipedia does not deal with truth as much as with verifiability--look it up at WP:V. The matter of her trustworthiness, sure, that's relevant, but you cannot discredit her on the basis of her WP article. I do notice that you've taken a different tack from "Ataturk would never go abroad" and I commend you for that. By the same token, you are still treating the subject as if he were a saint. Why don't YOU find some reliable sources to prove the opposite, if you so fervently believe the opposite is true? Drmies (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • This is so unprofessional. Not only have you never wrote the thing as "Zsa Zsa Gabor claims to have lost her virginity to Ataturk", you wrote that Ataturk had a hungry sex life. If Wikipedia deals with that which is verifiable then that means Wikipedia deals with sources that are compatible with human logic. If a source says Stalin was a lovely man who liked to wear tutus, then that doesn't make it valid once you write it down and provide a source. Planet earth is well acquainted with Zsa Zsa Gabor and most of the time it's common knowledge that she has had 8 husbands. I never said Ataturk would never go abroad, I said Ataturk never has gone abroad. He was born in Macedonia, and he died in Istanbul and he never left Turkey to invade a place that was none of Turkey's business. He has never left the borders as indicated by Misaki Milli and there's no dirty magazine you can read to change that fact. I will always respect the man who is the reason for the Turkish identity to be in existence. My current concern is that there aren't any lies that will reduce his image, I'll make my additions when I feel like it.Deniz Gecim (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • You don't get it. You claimed he never went abroad so he couldn't have had sex with a Hungarian--until you realized that it is documented that Gabor lived in Turkey with her husband with whom, she claims, she never consecrated her marriage. (BTW, you don't have to invade a country to have sex in it.) You can come up with all the ridiculous comparisons you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that we have at least a printed source for the claim, and you have nothing, except for some smears on Gabor's reputation. You can make whatever addition you like but they better be in line with Wikipedia policy; the rest you can add to your personal website. Your word choice makes it plenty clear that you are not here to write encyclopedic material using reliable sources; you are here to keep polishing a memorial. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • You should stop hypothesizing about what I do get and try to make a proper criticism of this man in an area where you don't have to have a witness in the bedroom to prove the validity your sources. It's a shame they didn't have people magazine back then.Burhan Belge: Zsa Zsa and Burhan were married in 1937 and honeymooned aboard the Venice-Simplon Express. Burhan and Zsa Zsa divorced in 1941. Burhan died in 1967. http://marriage.about.com/od/entertainmen1/a/zsazsagabor_2.htm Is there no sex involved in honeymooning then? Before criticizing me about my comprehension of Wikipedia policies you should remember that your additions to the talk page on Wikipedia should not include personal attacks.Deniz Gecim (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
          • "You don't get it" is a factual statement, because you don't seem to get it. Your logic seems to be that a. Burhan and Gabor were married; b. they had a honeymoon; c. they must therefore have had sex; d. she must therefore have lost her virginity to him; e. she cannot therefore have had an affair with Ataturk. That chain is disrupted in three places--between b and c, between c and d, and most importantly between d and e. We still have a printed source for her version of the facts, and nothing whatsoever for yours, except for the implication that people who honeymoon have sex and therefore cannot have had sex with others later on. A very twisted kind of logic, and decidedly at odds with Wikipedia policies. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
            • What was written on the page was : Ataturk took her virginity. I told you that I was against treating the situation as a fact. I never said saying "Zsa Zsa Gabor claims to have fooled around with Ataturk" was a problem. This however doesn't belong on this page, it belongs on Zsa Zsa Gabor's page. Quit evaluating my judgment on the situation because you don't seem to understand that my only desire is to prevent you from tarnishing Ataturk's integrity based on lies which, you say is factual evidence because it is written in a book. I don't need to provide evidence for Ataturk never have leaving the country because it has already been provided. If you don't know what Misaki Milli is, why didn't you ask? Even in international conferences such as Lausanne Inonu, his right hand man was the one to leave Turkey. A historian on this topic, the type of person who should actually be writing on the Wikipedia page of Ataturk knows this very well. Secondly, why are you still going on about a situation which cannot be proven via third party sources? A diary or an autobiography can be used as evidence only when it has been cross-referenced and the situation of the time makes whatever is in the source historically acceptable. For instance, is Hitler's autobiography the same thing as Ian Kershaw's version of his life? If you want some facts about Ataturk from a non-Turkish source you should check out the works of George Gawrych.Deniz Gecim (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Misaki Milli? Huh? The "never went abroad" thing only came up because you claimed he couldn't have done it with Gabor because she was Hungarian--when you know now that she lived in Turkey for a while. You say "my only desire is to prevent you from tarnishing Ataturk's integrity based on lies"--indeed. That proves how far you are removed from core principles: there is documented evidence that Gabor makes this claim about her and Ataturk. Basta. Whether or not it is notable is another question, but whitewashing should never be anyone's goal here. Your continued and seemingly deliberate misunderstanding of the issues make this an impossible conversation, so good day to you. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Deniz, after reading Ataturk: A biography of Mustafa Kemal, father of modern Turkey by Patrick Balfour, 3rd Baron Kinross (New York: Morrow, 1965), a very positive 600+ page biography, it has become abundantly clear to me that there is plenty of room for a verified and accurate inclusion of Kemal's relations with women--leaving Zsa Zsa aside--of which there were plenty, and many of which were very pragmatic and short-lived (e.g., p. 297, 543). I could cite at length but I will refrain. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Implications of homosexuality

I removed the following statement from the section on Ataturk's personal life:

Political and wartime foe British Prime Minister David Lloyd George wrote in 1919 of a meeting with "Mustapha Kemal, a man who I understand has grown tired of affairs with women and has lately taken up unnatural intercourse".

I see no reason for inclusion in this article. If I am reading the text correctly, then its inclusion seems to imply that Ataturk had some homosexual tendencies. This statement alone does not prove that to be true. Further to the point, it was a quote from someone who appeared to be at odds with Ataturk, and that may undermine George's legitimacy as a credible source. Last, but not least, I see no reference to Ataturks sexuality in the article on his personal life. If this statement is to be included, it should be done so with further substantiation and some context. 24.99.178.246 (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Finally, someone who presents an argument and an explanation. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • np 24.99.178.246 (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr Riza Nur, a detractor Atatürk´s, reports details of Atatürk´s gayness in his memoirs, not that he is a credible source. In 1981, when I asked, Cemal Kutay, prolific author of fiction and real between the lines history, childrens books, poetry, wouldn´t deny, he said gayness was an illness with no bearing on his achievements, well he was right excepting the illness clause, if he meant it. From what I know of Cemal Kutay´s ruses, I deduce Atatürk was not gay. By the way, We do remember don´t we, even in the Germany of the 1980ies a gay politician wouldn´t have been much of an asset for his political niche. Dmermerci (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

From the historical perspective, unless his sexual orientation drastically effected history in some way that has escaped the notice of historians for 70 yrs, I don't see the relevance of mentioning it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Atatürk´s sexual orientation did have some effect on the history in the sense that he was a great womanizer, the attractive, mesmerizing man that he was. This question of his sexual orientation came up through a cheap ploy by Dr Riza Nur to discredit him, which renders Dr Riza Nur utterly useless as a resource person. I think this question should find mention en passant in terms of Dr. Riza Nur´s detraction.Dmermerci (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not we have concrete proof of his sexuality, the fact remains that there is much evidence out there suggesting Atatürk may have been bisexual. This alone is enough to warrant mention. It is ridiculous that this is being omitted due simply to a bit of skepticism (and I can only assume, partly to homophobia). While his sexuality may have been uncertain, the fact that is is worth questioning is not. Please excuse whatever mistakes I've made in formatting/use of this page - I'm unfamiliar with the way these talk pages work. AllesJetzt (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• It is not omitted due to skepticism--it is omitted due to a couple of hagiographers who regularly patrol the page, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Such problems are to be expected when anyone and everyone is given the power to edit. I've read of Atatürk's alleged bisexuality in multiple sources, many of which treat it as fact. In comparison, the current Wikipedia article, which makes not even a single mention of Atatürk's sexuality (even in the page dedicated to his personal life), seems extremely lacking, or even censored. Seriously, what is this? Catholic school? North Korea? You can't just hide or change the parts of history you find distasteful. Now I'm really not in the mood to go through the trouble of fluently incorporating Atatürk's sexuality into the article. Please tell me this will take care of itself without substantial effort on my part. AllesJetzt (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, it won't. Look in the article history for what the POV pushers keep out of the article, sourced or not. And I'm sorry to be the cynic here, but you can hide or change what you find distasteful; we do it all the time, not just on Wikipedia. Alles gute. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Atatürk was killed

by his doctors. Most of the Turkish people know that... The names of his doctors were: Mim Kemal Öke, Samuel Abravaya Marmaralı, Fiessinger, Nihad Reşad Belger, Neşet Ömer İrdelp, Akil Muhtar Özden, Mehmet Kamil Berk, Süreyya Hidayet Sertel, Mustafa Hayrullah Diker, Sami Günzberg(dentist). Mim Kemal Öke was the head of the Turkish Freemasonry. Böri (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And can you tell me please? Why did freemasons kill him when he was very succesful in abolishing of sharia and building a secular regime (which was the very goal of freemasons in every country they took control over, establishing a secular regime)? I'm Turkish and I don't think he was killed. I also don't think you can find many people who think the same as you, and let's assume that was right what you said, then what is your reference for this claim? Nothing. By the way, when you drink so much alcoholic beverages, you don't need anybody to kill you. Doctors had told him not to go on his journeys anymore, however he didn't took their advices, he went to Mersin, Adana, etc. That was exactly why he died. He was cirrhosis, he didn't have to go on his journeys. And you say, those doctors killed him.--Tuleytula (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Turk. You said: "what is your reference for this claim? Nothing." / & I'll say the same things: You are saying that he was not killed... & what is your reference for this claim? Nothing! He was killed beacuse he defeated Great Britain and Greece. Atatürk's target was an independent Turkey! Böri (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You should really learn what burden of proof is. You are the one arguing in favor of an idea, so the burden of proof lies on your side; YOU must justify your assertion. And Tuleytula is right, you can't find many people to support your unorthodox claim. --Kurulananfok (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tuleytula is NOT right! You are a Jew or a Freemason. The Freemasons killed Atatürk. Prove that they didn't kill him! What about Uğur Mumcu and Ahmet Taner Kışlalı? The Freemasons also killed them because they were supporting Atatürk. Böri (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced?

I wrote the names...Böri (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Atatürk Albanian?

I am writing an article on Atatürk and, while browsing, I noticed a number of sources such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Albanians

note that he was, in fact, not Turkish but Albanian by nationality. Could someone better informed let me know if there is any truth in these claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.78.215 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Lou Giaffo: Albania: Eye of the Balkan Vortex.
• Jackh, Ernest, The Rising Crescent, (Goemaere Press, 2007), 31.
• Richmond, Yale, From Da to Yes: understanding the East Europeans, (Intercultural Press Inc., 1995), 212.
• Ataturk: the Rebirth of a Nation by Patrick Kinross, Orion Publishing Co. (August 26, 1993), p.4; Whether, like most Macedonians, he had about him a touch of the hybrid - perhaps of the Slav or Albanian - can only be a matter for surmise. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, by Cyril Glasse, p38 --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

His grandfather&mother migrated from central Anatolia to Balkans, and it's stated that he was a Turkmen by many historians including Nihal Atsiz.

This is all a bunch of bs. Just another case of albanians trying to claim a famous and/or successful person as their own. There are similarly silly claims of Hitler being Jewish. Means nothing at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantug00 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, his parents were neither Turkmens, nor did they migrate from Anatolia to the Balkans, but he was indeed an Albanian, born in Greece, as his parents migrated to Greece from Albania. And please stop comparing him to Hitler or to Jews, he was neither some kind of Hitler, nor was he a Jew. --92.74.24.151 (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Atatürk wasnt Albanian but Turkmen&Yoruk,today his relatives are living in Turkish Republic Konya/Karaman in Turkish Republic,his family settled to Balkans for Turkification of Balkans after Ottoman Empire conquer there,i wonder about a man calling himself Turkish his all family&ancestors are speaking Turkish all of his life but he beein Albanian can i ask what kind of logic is it?Born in Greece?Lol when he born Selanik was Ottoman Empire land too not Greece.Today especially Albanians start to make a propaganda every famous people are Albanian or something like that,soon they can say Einstein,Mao,Ghenkis Khan etc. too Albanian.I wonder what kind of ignorance is it,1-2 months ago Turkish history magazine NTV Tarih show his family tree and speak with his relatives too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulytau666 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

the truth is he was born in Selanik (now Thesaloniki) which at that time Albanians constituted the majority of the city just like in other cities like Janina, Arta and Preveza. If you knew history, you would've known that. The truth is, his mother was definitely of Albanian origin and it does not matter how much you try to deny it. I find it a big issue turks not owning up to anything which does not constitute purely of their "super race" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.198.166 (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC) No sense, there is no proof that he was an Albanian. Maybe he was. Maybe not. I could stem he was a Greek! Why not? Or a Slav, or a Yoruk Turk. Even a Jewish. Just speculations. His family tree is not so deep and long enough to prove anything. The fact is that his father and mother were speaking Turkish and they were (officially) Sunni Muslims. There were no borders in the Ottoman Empire to separate peoples. Macedonia of that time was a mixture of peoples, languages and religions. Neither it is sure that he was born in Salonica. Some say he was born in a small village near the town of Langada not far away from Salonica. Most likely they are right. P.S. It is not true that the majority in the above mentioned towns was Albanian in that time. The majority was Greek and they spoke Greek, even the Turks and Jews did. Just a usual Albanian propaganda! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.25.56 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering

Isnt he the Father and Invisionist of the Republic of Turkey? Mickman1234 (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ata means father&ancestor in Turkish,yes founder of Turkish Republic and his totaly surname meanin is Father of the Turks..

As i remember from a memory a foreign officel Must be English or French asking to a villager,why you people like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk this much and he answer back to him;

Because he thinking us more than us. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulytau666 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Parents

An editor is concerned that the article is mistaken about the nationality or heritage of the subject's parents. Please discuss it here rather than edit-warring. What sources do we have for the various assertions?   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's what the editor wrote on my talk page:

Hey i believe we can contact you with this page,i am new at Wikipedia and became member cause became angry when see this

Mustafa's father was Albanian, and his mother was Macedonian,[3]

Both of his parents were Turkmen today his relatives are living in Konya/Karaman and they are Yoruks,a Turkish history magazine give info about Ataturks background too,in Turkish http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/12833636.asp

I hope someone gonna change this mistake,i believe this page edited from a Turkish hater or something again. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulytau666 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Btw in Turkish Republic many Turks are based Yoruk&Turkmen which called Oghuz,his grandgrand fathers tittle was KIZIL which means Red in Turkish,this tittle comes from his ancestors because his ancestors which called Kizil Oghuzs they were wearin kind of Turkic red hat A very feathery hat kind of at this picture http://halohalo.ph/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/war1.jpg before they going to wars,this is why they were called Kizil Oghuz,also i seen about Ataturk was Muslim? Yes he was but he was hating from people who usig religion for their own agenda because remember he fight at Arabian Penunsula,even faced with so called sheiks etc. who were supporting enemy forces.Even you guys can check how Muhammad Iqbal Pakistan National Poet was supporting Ataturk,even he paid from his own wallet for translating Qu'ran totally in Turkish to Hodja Hamdi Yazir of Elmali Elmalılı Hamzi Yazır because this so called sheiks etc. were showin their words like Qu'ran words and fooling people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulytau666 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Also MakbuleHis sister Atadan from one of his speech;

I mostly listen from my mother our real background is Yoruk Turkmen We come here To Balkans from Konya/Karaman also some of our relatives turn back Konya Today his relatives are living in this cities!!!!! also my grandfather Feyzullahs uncle turn back to Konya join to Dervish Lodge and stay there.

From Aydin Deputy Hasan Tahsin San (1865-1951) who known father of Ataturks mother&father and born in Selanik 'same city with Ataturk his mothers family settled to this cities after Ottoman Empire conquer Tesally 'Today modern Greece' and Macedonia from Konya Turkmen tribes in 500 years their living style,tradition and clothes didnt change (Today you guys similar clothes with Macedonian Turks They mostly have blue eyes and yellow hairs with Yoruks at Taurus Mountains they lookin similar too yellow hair and colorful eyes mostly.

for more information in Turkish website of Turks are who living in Macedonia;

http://www.makturk.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=169

why i keep writing to you?

I am Yoruk&Turkmen myself too and my own sister have blue eyes and similar hair colour with Ataturk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulytau666 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The reference you continue to delete from Time magazine[12] is quite clear. Apparently this has escaped your notice. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

whats about www.ataturk.com a website which is about Ataturk,Andrew Mango and his words,his family words and words from people who know him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulytau666 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I wrote an e-mail too Atatürk Research Center about this issue too,this thing start to be serious issue i just wanna say millions are people are using Wikipedia as reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulytau666 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lou Giaffo: Albania: Eye of the Balkan Vortex[page needed]
• Jackh, Ernest, The Rising Crescent, (Goemaere Press, 2007), 31.
• Richmond, Yale, From Da to Yes: understanding the East Europeans, (Intercultural Press Inc., 1995), 212.
• Cemil Bozok also notes that his(Ataturk's) paternal grandfather, Safer Efendi, was of Albanian origin. Ataturk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey, p27.

But comments of his own family not important about their background interview with his relatives who living in Konya and his own words?

Happy is he who says, "I am a Turk".

We Turks are a people who, throughout our history, have been the very embodiment of freedom and independence.

Also when Ottoman Empire exists at current Macedonia,Macedonia wasnt called as Macedonia so there was no term as Macedonian.Still i want this Albanian and Macedonian issue must change when his relatives are living in Turkish Republic as YORUK!TURKMEN!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulytau666 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Or adding both sources will be good idea than showin one source as true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulytau666 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It is much more likely that Ataturk inherited his looks from his Balkan ancestors...[...]...Albanians and Slavs are likely to have figured among his ancestors.., Ataturk, p28. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society, Volume 26‎ - Page 117.

Survey of International Affairs, Volume 1‎ - Page 217.

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 1‎, 1981, - Page 421.

Albania, a patrimony of European values: a short encyclopedia of Albanian, - Page 248.

RFE/RL research report: weekly analyses from the RFE/RL Research, Volume 2‎ - Page 31.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may, let me introduce you to "Anna Anderson". One has to wait until the 11th line of her Wikipedia entry to see her true name, Franziska Schanzkowska, appear. Long wait! "Anna" was not her nom de plume or even a name widely accepted as hers during her lifetime (notable exception: Franziska!). There is now near-total agreement on her name and identity. I believe mitochondrial evidence supporting her true identity comes, finally, at the end of the third paragraph. Debate over. Point being, in this particular Wikipedia entry-- and every Wikipedia entry-- the name of the person or item must be clear in the lede. It must, but here it is not! Why not, editors? This man's name is not even clearly stated in his "Early life" section. At a bare minumum, it must be clear there. People are born and a birth certificate is signed and filed. As with current US President Barack Obama, this is a notable document and not a mere detail. As an encyclopedia, we should recognise our ethnic Turkic users in Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, China and everywhere do not see this individual as their "father". "Ataturk" means "Father of Turks". If Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi moved to Hollywood, would people there call him "African American"? Would we here? "Ataturk" was indeed widely used as his name during much of his life, but that does not mean we can overlook a birth certificate. We here at Wikipedia can pick a simple standardised lede that includes a person's real name at birth. Whaddyasay? We cannot afford to be so naive as to overlook editors picking a side or having a personal stake in this matter. Everyone knows names get politicised. That is why we should include both a subject's real name and the commonly used name(s)? We do a good service to readers by writing "fool's gold" on the iron pyrite page, don't we? Who wants to argue that the "iron pyrite" should not be there? A standardised approach is needed here, even if it amounts to a phrase or clause before introducing the subject's commonly used name. COYW (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Pasha???

Ok he was pasha for a long time of his life but then he was granted the title of Gazi, which is higher. I propose to change "Mustafa Kemal Pasha Atatürk" to "Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In Turkey, he is never mentioned as Mustafa Kemal Pasha Ataturk. Therefore, you should use either the name Mustafa Kemal Pasha or you mention him as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The alternetives are Ataturk, Mustafa Kemal, Gazi, etc. During Ottoman Era, Turks didn't use to have surnames. Instead, there were titles. In official documents, a person was called as Sb. son of Sb. So, there are two traditions you got confused. Honorific titles have no official use in modern Turkey, it was during Ottoman Era. Do not confuse when you hear a military officer is called "Sb. Pasha" (e.g., Ishik Koshaner Pasha) It has only traditional meaning.--Tuleytula (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To Kansas Bear

You should notice that I did not remove any of those allegations from the article since they were not presented as facts. Categories, on the other hand, give the impression that they're facts.

"It is much more likely that Ataturk inherited his looks from his Balkan ancestors...[...]...Albanians and Slavs are likely to have figured among his ancestors.., Ataturk, p28. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)"

What a speculation! Just because he doesn't fit into the orientalist Western perception of a caricature Turk, he must be something else!

Then there are romanticized words like these "of a mild Albanian father and a forceful Macedonian mother" written more than 70 years after he was born when first-hand sources mention no such thing. Not to mention the attempts to discredit him as the father of Turks by association with different ethnic groups.

My point is, Wikipedia interface (categories, not the articles) must be based on objective facts. And those facts are he spoke Turkish, identified as Turkish and was/is regarded as the father of Turks. --Mttll (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You should realize that as this is an encyclopedia(not a place for your personal agenda) and that the information does state his father was Albanian, thus there is no reason for the category (Albanian people) to be removed. I prefer third party published sources, not some priority driven nationalistic website. If you continue to have a problem, you should contact an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources you provided are either blatantly speculating (one of them is based on stereotypes, the other openly says it's a matter of surmise), or nationalistic (which you accuse me) of Albanian kind, or mention it very briefly. On the other hand, there are Falih Rıfkı Atay and Şevket Sürreya, the biographers of Atatürk who personally knew him and of course, Ataturk himself.

I am not trying to control the article. I am just saying you can't give a verdict like that. --Mttll (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Time magazine is blantantly speculating?? Lou Giaffo, Albania: Eye of the Balkan Vortex, Jackh, The Rising Crescent, and Richmond, From Da to Yes: understanding the East Europeans are all speculating?? Cyprus: a modern history by William Mallinson, The New Encyclopedia of Islam, by Cyril Glassé, are speculating?? Amazing. I don't need to be told what the official Turkish biography says his ethnic ancestry was, the opinions of the Turkish government are quite well known.

So of course everyone else is ?racist?, since according to you, " Not to mention the attempts to discredit him as the father of Turks by association with different ethnic groups." Which apparently is some attempt to assign racism to anyone that disagrees with Ataturk's official Turkish biography. However, I don't have any hatred towards any ethnic group. I have seen no evidence that tells me Time Magazine is "blantantly speculating". If Ataturk was part Albanian, oh well, but as long as there is a WP:RS to back up this claim then it should stay. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Time magazine isn't speculating. It only mentions the thing very briefly. For example, "Macedonian" there is most likely a geographical demonym. The blatant speculations are the following:

"Whether, like most Macedonians, he had about him a touch of the hybrid - perhaps of the Slav or Albanian - can only be a matter for surmise."
"It is much more likely that Ataturk inherited his looks from his Balkan ancestors...[...]...Albanians and Slavs are likely to have figured among his ancestors..,"

"but as long as there is a WP:RS to back up this claim then it should stay."

I am not saying it shouldn't stay. Why can't you understand? It can stay in the article.

I am just saying Wikipedia should not adopt it as an objective fact (which it isn't) and put it into that category. Whatever you think of "official Turkish biography", you can't ignore it. --Mttll (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What kind of bullshit encylopedia is this, saying that Ataturk is albanian. He is and always was known as a Turk, thats why he's called AtaTURK. I see some turkophobes are pulling out all the stops to belittle Ataturk even stooping as low to claim he he wasn't even Turkish. Other spurious claims are presented as some kind of solid fact. There are also idiots who still believe that the earth is flat and even much more who think its only 6000 years old. Do you see any of this in a science textbook? No, because they are nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rencifti (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, you have violated WP:NPA. I would suggest you tread carefully. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, do you intend to adress my statements? --Mttll (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So you believe the category should be removed because;

• 1) "you don't like it"
• 2) since it doesn't support the ideology that Ataturk's ethnicity was Turkish, then it isn't objective
• 3) anyone that writes differently than what the Turkish government says is a racist

As for objective, I yet to see any objective reason for the removal for the category. If certain individuals are so insecure about themselves(and their nationality/ethnicity/or whatever) that they have to remove categories that hurt their feelings, they should just take their concerns to an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Strawman.
2) The fact that Ataturk's ethnicity was Turkish is not under question.
3) Saying that Ataturk wasn't Turkish based solely on his physical appearance is a racist/racialist stereotype, yes and it's wrong. What does Turkish government has to do with anything?

Do you mind explaning your reason to completely ignore biographers like Falih Rıfkı Atay and Şevket Süreyya Aydemir who were close associates of Ataturk or Ataturk himself and adopt sources which adress the issue very briefly, or the ones based on fallacy as indisputable facts?

I don't understand why I should take this to an admin? Do you own this article? (I will ignore your personal attacks) --Mttll (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

i agree with mttll. Just contributing to a consensus.

Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. We can brandish claims of racialism and Euro-centrism, etc, etc but look at him. He is fair, tall and stalwart. These are not classical Anatolian nor Turkic traits. Hxseek (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No criticism?

Why does any sort of information about the criticism of Ataturk get deleted straight away? I thought wikipedia was supposed to be a fair and balanced source? I want information about Ataturk, not this hagiographic shit.

Common place with national myths as wikipedia articles. The same happens with the article "Skanderbeg", the national hero of Albania. Try to ask for proofs that Skanderbeg was Albanian and you get deleted. It seems that any of this kind of articles has a group of guardians who are online 24 hours a day guarding the political correctness of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 10:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

attaturk deist?

Could it be argued rthat ataturk was a deist? Im not very familiar with him but i heard such sources. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In 1937, November 1st, Ataturk made his last speech at the Assembly of Turkey (then he fell sick heavily and died after a year his sickness began). His last speech included these words (my translation):

"...Our main plan in administration of state is CHP (Republican People's Party) plan. The principles which this plan implicates are primary lines concerning administration and policy. But these principles must not be identified with dogmas of supposed revealed books. We draw our inspiration from life, not from heavens and unseen..."

As a deist person rejects the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations, so did Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He attributed Qur'an as a 'supposed' revealed book in that last speech. Who knows whether he believed in another revelation (e.g. Torah), until then I assume he was a deist certainly.

You can watch the part of his last speech here on this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJbOW1VY9dM --Tuleytula (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Istanbul

I changed yesterday the name of the war college of Constantinople to war college of Istanbul. As you may know the name Constantinople is not being used since fall of Byzantium. The name of the city in the Ottoman empire and republic of Turkey is Istanbul. I think the words Constantinople here which do not cite the city before the Turkish and Ottoman occupation should change if not referencing another web page in Wikipedia with the name Constantinople.

I should also state that calling İstanbul as Constantinople is common in Greek right extremists to imply that this city is a Greek and should be eventually taken from Turkish settlement.

No problem, if the article is hijacked by turkish nationalists. However, historical and other literature referes to tbe city as Constantinople till about 1930,s. A search in the Google produces millions of hits. By the way, turks were able only to change names of cities, never establishing one. And even at names-changing were not very inovative, as Istanbul is a corruption of the Greek "Eis tin Polin" (To the City). Are there any neutral moderators for this wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.152.76.39 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the city's name was قسطنطينيه Kostantiniyye (Arabic version of Constantinople) from Turkish-Islamic conquest of Constantinople until Ataturk's era. Republic of Turkey which was established in 1923 changed the name قسطنطينيه Kostantiniyye into Istanbul. --88.232.83.2 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The city's name was not officially İstanbul until Kemalist regime changed the name into İstanbul in March 28, 1930 (Stanford and Ezel Shaw (1977): History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vol II, p. 386; Robinson (1965), The First Turkish Republic, p. 298). Until 1930, the city's name was officially Kostantiniyye (Since 1930, the city is called İstanbul both officially and colloquially). Correct me if I'm wrong. How ironic that today's neonationalist Turks protects the name İstanbul which is also of Greek origin. The prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) called the city قسطنطينيه, thus the Ottoman Empire which was an Islamic state adopted that Arabic name for that city. Because the city had been called as قسطنطينيه in Islamic tradition of Turks since Turks had converted to Islam in around 10th century AD. Only Mustafa Kemal Pasha and his friends dared to abolish all Turkish official traditions which suggests the question of Mustafa Kemal Pasha's ethnic origin and his religion. --Tuleytula (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Place of birth

The birth of Kemal in Thessaloniki (Salonic) and the supposed to be his house is probably part of a national myth. Kemal was born in the village of Chrysavgi (then Sariyer), in the area of Lagadas, about 25 Km far from Thessaloniki. His family moved to Thessaloniki when Kemal was about 8 years. Ruins of his house were visible till the '80s and the place was visited by groups from Turkey and other places till 2007. In 1981, on the 100th anniversary of Kemal's birth, the Consul of Turkey in Thessaloniki visited the village, accompanied by officials and reporters. The event was published in the Greek newspaper "Ellinikos Vorras" (May 10, 1981). The so called "House of Kemal" in Thessaloniki, next to the Turkish Consulate, was donated in 1938 by the Greek dictator I. Metaxas to the Consulate as a friendly gesture in the context of the Greece-Turkey warm relations of 1930's. The furniture and other exhibits of the house are mostly imported from Turkey. Recently there was an amusing report by a turkish woman journalist who checked a neck-tie, supposedly belonging to Kemal and exhibited in the museum, and found that was made by a modern brand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 10:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

There seems to be a low-grade edit war concerning the heritage of this subject. In similar cases we avoid fighting between different assertions by including them both. "Some sources say he was born in London, while others say he was born in Brighton." WP:NPOV call on us to include all significant points of view, rather than choosing only one to present. Going forward, I will revert any edits that delete a sourced description of the subject's ethnicity.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

---

I don't think that Ataturk had any Albanian or Macedonian relative. There are lots of Turks who are blond or blue-eyed (for example my father is blue eyed.). Another example are Cuman Turks. Even Slavs called them blond people=Polovtsi (Some people need to learn history.). So, thinking that he wasn't ethnically Turkish is just nonsense. Also, thinking that there is a sole Turkic (or Turkish, or Turkmen) face-type is ridiculous and not scientific. He also stated that he was ethnically Turkish.

But is it important? he was a devoted statesman, and he was not racist. F.Mehmet (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am not against the fact that no nation is ethnically pure.-F.Mehmet (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In which book or speech did he say that he was "ethnically" Turk? No offense, just tell me a source. I've never read or heard such a speech or such words said by Mustafa Kemal pointed to his ethnicity of being Turkish stock. Instead, I know that he told some of his friends: "They call me Jew as I'm of Thessaloniki...One must serve the society he grew up in." In these words, he apparently meant that his ethnicity (being of Hebrew stock) didn't matter, he was at the service of his society (he possibly meant 'Turks')--Tuleytula (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Here they are. He stated that he was a Yörük whose ancestors came from Konya/Karaman region.

[13]

[14]

[15]

Check out 8th, 9th and 10th (Especially the tenth) articles on the first link. (Turkish)

By the way, The quote is "...they want to call me Jew...", not "they call me Jew". Saygılar.F.Mehmet (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thanks. I still can't believe he was a Turk. Because, he just didn't tell them that he was not of Hebrew origin, instead of that, according to the writer who was his servant, he told them that "one must serve the society he grew up in" which still makes me question his ethnic origin. However, I will research the sources you linked above.--Tuleytula (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Take these articles into account:

• When Mustafa Kemal Ataturk Recited Shema Yisrael
• Ataturk's Turkey Overturned --Tuleytula (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Everybody may have distant or close relatives whose ethnic origin is different. Atatürk may have relatives who were not of Turkish descent but his father and mother were Turkish (not Albanian or Macedonian as Time magazine states.) according to Atatürk himself and these books.

-Also, every Ottoman city was divided into three "mahalle"s; Muslim, Rum (Orthodox Christian) and Jewish respectively. He was born in a Muslim "mahalle".F.Mehmet (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Çankaya

Falih Rıfkı Atay's Çankaya, p. 17. doesn't mention Ali Rıza's ethnic origin. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Falih Rıfkı Atay's Çankaya doesn't mention Ali Rıza's ethnic origin but mentions Zubeyde's ethnic origin. It says

"Zubeyde was from a Yörük village which was called Sariyer". His ancestors were from Anatolia and migrated to Selanik after the ::conquest of Thessalia.

"Thank you" for your contribution.F.Mehmet (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Tek Adam

Şevket Süreyya Aydemir's Tek Adam: Mustafa Kemal (Birinci Cilt: 1881 - 1919) doesn't mention Ali Rıza's ethnic origin. Takabeg (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is quite far from neutral

This article resembles some preverted sort of hagiography. Mustafa Kemal was an effective, revolutionary statesman, that did accomplish a great deal for the Turkish people. But what about other nations, that have always lived in Asia Minor? What about armenians, greeks, assyrians, jews? What about kurds, whose rights are still denied by the Turkish government? Should not this be at least mentioned in an article? Or was not Mustafa Kemal responsible for these actions?

The article is an insult to the memories of all non-turkish nations, that have been wiped out from Asia Minor. And Kemal's national policies should be adressed not only from an exclusively positive point of view. Fenix - 357 (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you must understand that Mustafa Kemal was trying to establish a free, laicist country. People were under Islamic control for nearly 1000 years. You ask about Jews? During II World War hundreds of Jews were transported through Turkey to Palestine. Greeks and Armenians? Whatever they say now, for hundreds of years Turks, Kurds, Greeks, Armenians, all lived in harmony. Don't forget the fact that first ones to take up arms against Ottoman Empire were the Armenians and Greeks who were actually controlled by Western-Russian governments. Yes, Turks killed Armenians and Greeks, but they did the same to Turks. More importantly, this article is about a person, not Ottoman-Turkish Republic policy about non-Turkic people in Anatolia. 88.228.157.19 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is not only about a person, but about a government leader, who is responsible for his government's policies. If you write an article describing Adolpf Hitler exclusively as a good spokesman or a good artist, claiming that the article is "more importantly, about a person" and not Nazi policies concerning non-germanic people in Eastern Europe, it would turn out to be a pretty shalow lie, wouldn't it? And it may not matter t someone, what Jews, Russians, Belarussians, Serbs and Gypsies say about the Holacaust: they DON'T HAVE to say anything at all because IT DID HAPPEN and they DID SUFFER. It is a suffering, that no amount of talk or political theories can mend. And the same is absolutely true about the sufferning of armenians, pontic and cappadocian greeks, assyrians, jews, and exiled arab-speaking christians. What great purpose overpowers their suffering? The creation of a strong mono-ethnic Turkish state? The fact that thanks to Kemal's genius the Turkish people live in a strong Turkish state does not overpower the fact that other nations, (that lived in Asia Minor long before the turks), were wiped out or deported, because they were not turkish enough or faithful to Kemal's government.

                                                                                 Fenix-137 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Mustafa Kemal, the name Turkish does not represent only the Turkish ethnicity but also Kurds, Greeks ,Armenians, Jews etc. Any Kurd who holds Turkish citizenship is Turkish and any Armenian who holds Turkish citizenship is Turkish. Ethnic groups in Turkey is free to practice their religion or speak their own language. I live in Turkey and I observed this. This is Kemalism not racism. Case closed.F.Mehmet (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is imperialism. Kurds, Greeks, Armenians and Jews are not Turkish, or even Turkic. If Russia conquered Turkey, and told you that you were now Russian, but you were not being oppressed in any way, would you agree? Luwilt (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This does read like a hagiography. It reads like it has been written by the Turkish minster for propaganda. At the very least, please avoid language such as: "Mustafa Kemal never succeeded in establishing a long lasting multi-party parliamentary system. " - that implies he was trying, which is certainly not supported by a citation. Also please avoid words like "liberated"; they are inherently not neutral. I have removed the examples above, someone should go through and remove the rest. --131.111.184.4 (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Help us fix it. I don't know enough about this subject to help really, but I do see obviously biased edits like you are noting, and try to revert them sometimes. Gigs (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Most of the world leaders' infobox doesnt mention about religion. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hu Jintao... Mussolini's infobox says: Roman Catholic and atheist... If Ataturk was really agnostic, then it's better not to mention here.--CenkX (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

We must ask opinions of other users to delete information with sources. Takabeg (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessary to put it in his infobox. However, his religion must be mentioned somewhere in the article. There are opposite arguments and claims about what religion he was. His being Muslim or not is still a matter of debate. There are different claims about his religion by different religious leaders of Turkish people. Adnan Oktar and Ahmet Mahmut Ünlü regard Ataturk as Muslim while Said Nursi regarded him as unbeliever in his writings by implication and so do his followers from different Islamic sects, both apologists of each claims has their own arguments. There are also Kemalist figures like Can Dündar who regard Ataturk as non-Muslim. The debate about his religion is continual. Therefore, it's needful to be factual information regarding his religion in the article (or in his infobox) to end these long and controversial debates.--Tuleytula (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't write his religion before finding more reliable sources.Or 1+ sources with same and good information.Because as you know his family was Muslim. KazekageTR (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to put this in the infobox, it can be added to the article text but not to this template. You should also notice that "non-Muslim" is a not a religion, but "Muslim" is a religion. Kavas (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the claim his being non-Muslim to give some details from different opinions of intellectuals about his religion, of course, it is not a religion. Can Dündar never called him non-Muslim verbally, in fact he implied his being as so in his documentary--Tuleytula (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There is this quote from Mango:

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)

--Kurulananfok (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Kemal Atatürk

After 1934; his name was "Kemal" and his surname was "Atatürk" = "Father of The Turks" Böri (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

His surname was 'Kamâl' on his identity document (Atatürk'ün nüfus cüzdanındaki adı Mustafa Kemal değil!, Kemal mi, Kamâl Atatürk mü?, Kamâl Atatürk). According to Cemal Granda, he himself once told his friends that his name was Kamâl, not Kemal anymore. In addition, the name 'Mustafa' was omitted on his last ID . The correct title of this article should be Kamâl Atatürk.--Tuleytula (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

He used Kamâl in his last years. (According to Cemal Granda) Atatürk said: "However many Kemals live on Earth, all of them are donky" (Dünyada ne kadar Kemal varsa hepsi eşektir...). Anyway in identifying reliable sources Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is used. We can give information about Kamâl, but we cannot change his common name. Takabeg (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Doctors of Atatürk

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/No%C3%ABl_Fiessinger / http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eppinger_junior / http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Gustav_von_Bergmann Please translate them Böri (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Tukish

Somewhere in this article it says "Tukish" instead of "Turkish". As the article is closed, I cannot change it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.173.171 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done —innotata 03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Typo in the article

Under Legacy-Turkey

Atatürk statues have been erected in many Turkish cities, and MSOT towns have their own memorial to him.

Source

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,726976,00.html#ixzz18pnedDGl is not academic and reliable. And the term Pure Turk (Saf Türk) is POV of the Turkish nationalists (especially Idealist Youth). Takabeg (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit suggestion =

In "Military career in Albania", it states that "In 2010 he was called to Albania". I think the year was probably 1910. Sincerely, nich0085 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nich0085 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Not neutral

I have added a POV tag. As noted by others, this article leans heavily towards the official hagiographical version to his biography. Luwilt (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)