Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This talk page is currently semi-protected to prevent sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users from editing it. Please discuss changes on the talk page, or request unprotection.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mustafa Kemal Atatürk article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by the Military work group.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 World War I task force
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Esperanto,  French,  Spanish,  Portuguese or Greek language Wikipedias.
WikiProject Turkey This article is part of WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Discussions here have repeatedly stalled as a result of the same cases, arguments and views being espoused.

It is recommended that you review the latest such discussions and the arguments made within. New views or ideas on the subject are welcome, however if you find that your beliefs on the subject parallel those already made, you might consider the potential value of such an edit. Perhaps you'd like to edit something else?
Archive
Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 04:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives:

Contents

Comments

Time to bring to a closure

I dont know why admins have allowed this discussion to fester, everyone has agreed the "opinions on genocide" section should be removed, we seem to have a consensus on this. So can we unlock and add the following instead:

Ataturk's reforms were regarded as being too rapid by some. In his quest to modernize Turkey, he effectively abolished centuries-old traditions by means of reforms to which much of the population was unaccustomed but nevertheless willing to adopt. In some cases, these reforms were seen as benefiting the urban elites rather than the generally illiterate inhabitants of the rural countryside[1], where religious sentiments and customary norms tended to be stronger. In particular, Ataturk's strict religious reforms met with some opposition; and to this day, they continue to generate a considerable degree of social and political tension. In the future, political leaders would draw upon dormant forces of religion in order to secure positions of power, only to be blocked by the interventions of the powerful military (as in 1960 when Prime Minister Adnan Menderes was overthrown by the military)[2], which has always regarded itself as the principal and most faithful guardian of secularism.

Kurds also criticise Ataturk of disregarding their cultural distinctions in pursuing a Turkish national identity. In 1925, an uprising for an independent Kurdistan led by Seyh Sait was put down quickly, and Sait and 36 of his followers were executed soon thereafter. Kurds accuse succesive Turkish governments of suppressing their identity through such means as the banning of Kurdish language in print and media. Ataturk believed the unity and stability of a country lay in a unitary political identity, relegating cultural and ethnic distinctions to the private sphere. Many Kurds did not relinquish their identities however, eventually giving rise to large-scale armed conflict between the Turkish armed forces and the PKK (a guerilla group fighting for an independent Kurdistan) throughout the 1980's and 1990's, leaving over 35,000 dead. Recent moves by Ankara have provided Kurds with greater rights and freedoms, particularly in such sensitive areas as the Kurdish language, education, and media given.

--A.Garnet 18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is good but I think is lacking suficient detail/explanation in some areas and I also think that the role of Ataturk directing nationalist forces (and subsequent actions) to eliminate (specifically) the remaining Armenian (and other Christian) presence in Anatolia during the War of Turkish Independence needs to be at least mentioned (and these things are even recounted by Kinross & Mango in their very pro-Ataturk biographies...not to mention the accounts from Karabakir's autobiography). Likewise, the supression of the Kurds/Kurdish rebellions did not only take the form of executions of principles involved but included the deliberate heavy handed destruction of hundreds of villages (and the killings of thousands - with a great many innocents among them) that were thought to harbor (ethnic) seperatist sentiment or which were thought to have been in support of (Kurdish) seperatist rebellion (again what is reality versus what is perception is/was perhaps an issue here - and the issue really is that Ataturk was deliberatly brutal in order to ensure complete sucess without compromise). Ataturk's advocacy and pursuit of these scortched earth policies are a significant aspect of his legacy that are noteworthy in and of themselves as well as a clear inspiration for the policies of sucessive Turkish governments (or more accuratly MIT secret governments who directed/pursued policy in this regard). These draconian policies led to the disenfranchisement and moving underground of a variety of ethnic and political movements and individuals (and political parties and journalists connected to such etc) who have been at various times outlawed and rigorously pursued - via leagal and quasi-legal (e death squads and such) means - and these abuses became the impetus of the rather poor human rights record by the Republic of Turkey in this regard. Also Ataturk's inclusion of substansial numbers of ex-CUP memebers within the early nationalist movement (and in subsequent early government offices in the Republic) and his eventual turn on them and on his former allies who began to oppose his assumption of personal (cult-like) dictatorial powers in the years following the formaton of the Republic and up to the time of Ataturk's death need to also be better explained and highlighted. I don't mean to undeservedly tarnish the image of someone whom I rightly see is viewed as a great man and a great (military and political) leader for Turkey - however I see these as very significant events and policies that have had lasting ramifications for the nation and are worthy of historical note. There is no doubt that Ataturk accomplished great things and was revolutionary in a number of remarkable and very progressive ways and had an incredible vision for his nation and his people and he had the understanding of how to get it done - but like nearly all poweful leaders - particualrly in dangerous and uncertain times - he made decisions regarding policies and approaches that had negative ramifications as well - and at times his actions were down right nasty and led to many subsequent problems for the nation (some he even foresaw - however many he perhaps did not) - if even he is largely adored by the great majority of Turks today (and rightly so). I hope you all take these comments as I have intended. I am not an "Ataturk basher" - far from it - I greatly admire the man and appreciate the import or his accomplishments, all the same I think that this is meant to be an unbiased historicaly accurate presentation and what I am proposing to be included in the article IMO gives proper balance and realism to the man and his legacy.--THOTH 20:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making your points in a very clear and calm way. Even though I never heard of some of these accusations, like "the deliberate heavy handed destruction of hundreds of villages and the killings of thousands" during the time of Atatürk, and I do not intend to believe these until I personally see sources of indisputable credibility, I am very glad to see these discussed in a civil way. But then again, as user Baristarim is constantly trying to make us remember, this is perhaps not the place for having these discussions. Our personal views about Atatürk mean almost nothing within the scope of this talk page. The only thing that matters is whether a certain edit on the article meets the criteria on Wikipedia:Verifiability and other related guidelines, and we should go on with building this wannabe encyclopedia. Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of my sources are in print and not on the internet - but I would recommend reading these two articles to at least give you some better understanding of the things I am talking about here - http://shr.aaas.org/scws/context.htm and http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/said.html The latter has some particualrly good analysis and the first one touches on how Ataturk's early outlawing of anything resembling Kurdsih cultural and/or political expression has carried through to policies and actions taken by the Republic of Yurkey towards the Kurds (and others expressing ethnic affiliation) within Turkey since that time.--THOTH 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Actual content of the section proposed by A. Garnet can be discussed, modified and expanded if need be. If serious sources can be found indicating that he did this or that, they can be included. However, I definitely agree with A. Garnet that the current section in the article should be removed meanwhile. I am re-posting a comment by the mediator of an earlier case that involved similar issues. It was already posted above, but I thought that maybe it might have gotten lost somewhere:

I think the mediator on the case, Shawn Fitzgibbons, summed it up well above:

"As the mediator of Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-15 Ataturk and genocide, I think the paragraph on genocide should be removed unless more credible sources can be used for reference. While Wikipedia is against censorship, it also desires the highest quality of articles possible. Serious charges (e.g. genocide) need to rest on solid ground. Trusted sources in print should be used to reference such claims. Shawn Fitzgibbons 15:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)" Baristarim 00:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article review

This article has been submitted for Good Article review. Baristarim 21:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

An anon has been changing "Many Kurds did not relinquish their identities however, eventually giving rise to large-scale armed conflict between the Turkish armed forces and the PKK (a guerilla group fighting for an independent Kurdistan) throughout the 1980's and 1990's", which is what User:A.Garnet had in his version, to "Many Kurds did not relinquish their separatist ideology, however, eventually giving rise to terrorism against the civilians as well as targeting the Turkish armed forces by the PKK (a far-left group with changing names all of which recognised as terrorist by the U.S. and the E.U.)" with the edit summary of "(talk page does not address or justivy white-washing terrorist organization and their murders, also does not belong a biography)". To me, the new edit is not NPOV, and "terrorist" is not supposed to be used in Wikipedia - see the PKK article for example. I don't want to appear to be edit warring, so I'm adding this here. The rest of the section says the PKK has killed 35,000 and so on. --AW 17:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What that has got to do with Atatürk? PKK had its beginnings in 1970's right? That part should be removed too. Filanca 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

agreed. What is more important is to discuss the origin of the Kurdish issue (of competing nationalism) and how Ataturk chose to deal with it (no comprimise - scortched earth ethnic cleansing and resettlement [destroying their rural power bases and driving them into urban areas which were under much tighter Turkish control] - and certainly no recognition of the legitimacy of any kind of Kurdish cultural self-expresion [or even acknowledgement of identity]and de-facto societal incorporation of Kurds as "Turks" whether they truly were or not) etc...leading to future unresolved conflict/issues..--THOTH 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I mean, talk about recent edits. The article has been undergoing constant sneak and overt vandalism attacks by anons since it has been unprotected. As for the edit in question, I will agree with THOTH on the idea of talking about the origin of the Kurdish issue rather than the PKK, however, I might have to disagree with some of the words he used :) Kidding aside, I think the appropriate approach would be to talk about its origins citing some good and impartial sources. How Kurds feel today might not seem too relevant to his biography, and might be more appropriate in other articles about Turkey. The paragraph should be strictly about what he did or didn't during his political life. Again, I think, we should be extremely careful about striking the right contextual balance. In the mean time, if these attacks by anons continue, it might be a good idea to semi-protect it for a while. Baristarim 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fair. I think it's funny when vandals leave edit summaries with what vandalism they committed though :) --AW 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone familiar at all with this article (by Mango) - Ataturk and the Kurds From - Middle Eastern Studies - Date- October 1, 1999 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-57943444.html --THOTH 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Genocide on armenians/assyrians

Nowhere in this article mentions Atatürks participating in the Armenian and Assyrian Genocides. /Slarre 16:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't even start.. There are tons of archives on the top right corner, if you want more background info on the concensus reached, please check them.. And check the templates on top of the talk page as well. On the other hand, if you find any impartial information or source proving his participation in anything, please bring them in. Maybe he did not participate in them and that's why it is not mentioned, has that thought occurred to you my fellow?? We have been going over this for months now with many passers-by dropping in and asking the same questions and over and over and over again.. Funny thing is, nobody can bring in any sources. It is like Groundhog Day, it seems to start all over again :)) Baristarim 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I was attempting some humor, so don't take it the wrong way :) We had a very looong debate about this after the page got protected for edit-warring on this precise issue, and it just got unprotected yesterday, we put in the concensus version that was agreed on the talk page after a looong debate, and it had to be semi-protected again couple of hours ago because of random anon vandalism and edit-warring. So, we r a bit touchy :) But you are more than welcome to drop in and participate in the debate: many users would like that article to succeed in a GA review and an eventual FA review, so we need to cover all grounds with good references.. But just keep in mind that there is a live debate. Don't say I didn't warn you :)Baristarim 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Europe is plenty of fellows like this guy who are totally ignorant and prejudiced against Turks and their history, I mean who talks about Turkey's heroic deeds during WW2 whilst the "civilized" Europeans were busy slaughtering their fellow citizens for the sake of their religion? As Goldhagen documents in his book, ordinary people were all too willing executioners and now they have the audacity to claim authority on human rights issues? Give me a break! Thugs will always be thugs and its still the same stench under the hood. lutherian 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't post messages on pages that are completely irrelevant to the topic of the page. It can be seen as spam and Wikipedia regards adding spam to articles or talk pages as a form of vandalism. Thank you. --AW 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Lutherian tries to explain the European ideologies on Turks and he is, in a sense, right. People come here and without looking at the archive for a second, they directly start to talk about the genocide issue! People have to be rational. With respect, Deliogul 22:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
To Lutherian: i did not know that the WW2 was a religious war... And since i live in a country that suffered a lot fighting against nazism, racism and fascism (unlike others who declared war when the Soviet troops were in Berlin... LOL!), trust me, i know better... Regards Hectorian 23:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I think that user was just pulling our legs since I had left the end of the recent discussion on this issue when I had archived (for the precise reason that we don't have to go over this over and over and over again :))).. Baristarim 07:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. On the other hand, Hectorian could be more polite. He doesn't have to write perky answers just because others write their claims in perky ways. Actually, please don't make it Greeks vs Turks in this page because both sides have respectful military backgrounds and your comment on Turkey's WW2 politics really hurts because everybody knows how brave and talented warriors Turks are. With respect, Deliogul 13:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
U know, I think that so many looping discussions (whatever the subject) have stopped this article from getting to even GA-status. I mean, this article is a Featured Article in five other languages, including Esperanto (?!), along with Spanish, Portugese, French etc. It is a real pity in a way. Let's wait for the result of the GA review, than we can have an idea on how to improve it.. I hope that it makes GA at least.. Baristarim 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is irrelevant, as Baris has correctly said, but i will write one more comment:)... as a reply to above. When others make unhistorical claims (e.g. that the WWII was a religious war) in order to "strengthen" a claim that doesn't even has to do anything with it, i am trying to be as much polite as i can. This is neither a matter Greeks vs Turks, nor a matter Europeans vs Turks (as was originally implied). I cannot see why my comment hurts... Turkey did not take part in the WWII, so any further discussion is baseless (without judging whether the turkish soldiers were brave and talented or not-they did not take part, so i cannot say...). it is not my will to push this discussion further, though i could if i wished to (the internal link is for those who may figure out the connection). Hectorian 18:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Simply because he did not. Read the archieves on this discussion Korrybean 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Title

Why Ismet Inonu rather than Mustafa Ismet Inonu, but here we have to have the awkward Mustafa Kemal Ataturk form? Ataturk is called either "Mustafa Kemal" or "Kemal Ataturk". He is almost never called "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" in English, and calling him this goes against the way we deal with other similar Turkish names - Ismet Inonu, Celal Bayar, Şükrü Saracoğlu... john k 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that Britannica and the Columbia Encyclopedia both have their articles at "Kemal Atatürk". john k 18:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to check the discussion people had about this exact same subject around June, on Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 4. Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know the discussion has already been had, and skimmed over the move discussion, which seems to have largely involved Turks. I stand by my statement. john k 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Brittanica's article about him is titled "Atatürk, Mustafa Kemal" [1].. We can change the title to that if you want :)) (kidding) Baristarim 18:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant, but i created the redirect 'Mustafa Ismet Inonu' to 'Ismet Inonu'; guess it is ok. Hectorian 21:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/u/s/Talk%7EMustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk_5f0d.html"