Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 23, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
December 27, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
August 7, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2014[edit]

[musˈtäfä ceˈmäl ätäˈtyɾc] ---> [musˈtafa keˈmal ataˈtyɾc]

Nevermind past request, i get it, K is written as C, but it might as well be written as K

ɑ is the right letter for a in Mustafa Kemal, there is no ä in turkish ipa,_Azerbaijani_and_Turkmen and K is better than C, turkish learners may be confused, because C is pronounced DJ

Ataturk's mixed race ethnicity[edit]

Ataturks father was not Turkish origin. Rizi is not a Turkish name.--2605:6000:3D11:3200:7DBA:781D:C7DA:B215 (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"Rıza" name is a Turkish male name. It's quite common to have Arabic or Persian based names in Turkish and it was more common in Ottoman era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Atatürk's Sexuality;[edit]

Contents which claim Atatürk had affairs with men, are very few, and considered biased. Such allegations have been made to other prominent figures, and leaders but none of them were placed on the top of the Personal Life section with a certain tongue. As a Turkish, i can clearly say this particular claim is not, and will not be welcomed by Turkish people. By not trying to lower any sexual orientation, and considering the love and care Ataturk is given, i suggest removing this part from the Personal Life section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiugn (talkcontribs) 07:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopedia shouldn't confine itself to only reporting within socially acceptable expressions. Wikipedia is not censored.

Atatürk (1962) Irfan and Margaret Orga: “He had never really loved a woman. He was used to the camaraderie of the mess, the craze for handsome young men, [and] fleeting contacts with prostitutes, … His body burned for a woman or a boy...”

Mustafa Kemal, An Intimate Study (1933) by H.C. Armstrong Pages 253-254: “After divorcing Latife, ...he went back to the long nights in smoke-filled rooms with his drinking friends...after that he became shameless. He drank deeper than ever. He started a number of open affairs with women, and with men. Male youth attracted him...”

Kinross, Lord (1992). Ataturk: a biography of Mustafa Kemal, father of modern Turkey (1st Quill. ed.). New York: Quill/Morrow. p. 21. ISBN 9780688112837.

“Women, for Mustafa, were a means of satisfying masculine appetites, little more; nor, in his zest for experience, would he be inhibited from passing adventures with young boys, if the opportunity offered and the mood, in this bisexual fin-de-siècle Ottoman age, came upon him.”

Sheitan (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The same things have been said about Gandhi being a racist and sexual abuser. These things are not mentioned on his article either, no need for these kind of things because I do believe most of the claims are false. Redman19 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


Atatürk's religion is not objectively known. So I believe we should remove the religion part in infobox.

--Ail Subway (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

His religion is known, he was a Muslim but believed in the principles of secularism, therefore he never was intended to use his religious beliefs as a guidance. I do agree that a mentioning of his religion has no value at all. Redman19 (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Atatürk name does not mean that "father of the Turks".[edit]

In Turkish, Atatürk name means that "he who ancestor is Turkish" (Atatürk= Atası Türk). If the name was Türkata (Türk'ün atası) then the meaning would be "Father of the Turks". Please, somebody correct the mistake. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Atatürk doesn't mean Atası Türk, it means just Atatürk. Which literally is "Father Turk". You could take that to mean "[His] Father [is] Turkish" if you like, or "[Has] Turkish forebears" if you prefer. But it wasn't conferred on him to mean any such thing: it was conferred on him by parliament to be taken in the sense of "Father [of the] Turk[s]". Herostratus (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Bro, you didn't comprehend my statements. If you have no knowledge of agglutinative language which Turkish is, it will not be easy for you to understand correctly the meaning of Atatürk surname. Translation of Atatürk is not "Father Turk". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Whatever. But I'll tell you a couple of things.
  1. The intent of Atatürk in requesting, and Parliament in granting, this surname to Atatürk (and only to Atatürk -- no one else was allowed it) was to give him the title "Father of the Turks". Because this makes sense, and furthered his and his followers political program. To have requested a surname with the intent of it being interpreted "This person's father [or: ancestors] was Turkish" would have been silly. Atatürk and the Turkish Parliament are not silly.
  2. Every single reliable historian over the past many decades has confirmed this, or at any rate the great majority.
So who are we going to believe -- your personal linguistic interpretations, or all the historians? I know what my answer is. Herostratus (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
If you know what your answer is, then why are you asking? Bro, your last sentence was very weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I am Turkish as well and guy complaining about it is wrong. he understands Turkish well but not so when it comes to English. In English Father of the Turks means very close to what Ata-Turk means in Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Can someone place an actual photo of Ataturk instead of a portrait?[edit]

its not like we don't have his real pictures. why use a painted one when we have real photos of him?

here, pick one; — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am putting one now see if you like it. Karamanli86 (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No need, the current one is good enough if you ask me. (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The current image was chosen as the most suitable topbox image and was voted for by multiple users, I suggest that any possible change should be adressed here first. The current image portrays Ataturk during the Republic era in the 30's, like most notable statesmen images this one fits well in that tradition, we should keep it that way. Redman19 (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)