Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


Contents

Islamic Fundamentalism

I hear that the fundamentalists strongly criticize Mustafa Kemal. I recall a rap by Soldiers of Allah proclaiming him to be a "so called hero". Any info? Extremists doesn't like him because Atatürk removed Islamic State System and make a law based system that muslims and non muslims are 100% equal.

It is true some Turkish citizens don't like him. They dream of a Turkey ruled by clerics, and that is unlikely to happen.

--Ataturk was far worse to the Christians and Jews than the Ottomans, who were actually generally tolerant. It is well known that Beyazit II, for instance, rescued Jews from spain when the inquisition was persecuting them. In contrast, Mustafa Kemal did not allow those Christians and Jews who left to return to Turkey after the war. The Christian population dropped from something like 20% to 2% when he came to power. A true Islamic state is supposed to protect the clerics and houses of worship of all faiths, although many certainly don't. I've researched this guy and I'd much rather have lived under the Islamic law (which people mistakenly assume is intolerant because of people like the Taliban who misapply it) than Ataturk's. In fact, almost all practicing Muslims hate Ataturk because of his attmepts to kill off their religion (banning hijabs, daily prayers for soldiers, etc.) Personally, I think the main reason he still has anybody who likes him is because if you voice any other opinion in Turkey, you can go to jail.


Yes, actually, as in every culture there are extremely religious people in Turkey who would rather undo his advancements... Actually the current government(the Prime Minister) belongs to a party that is widely known to be one of those extremely religious groups, which is why the armed forces and the President are keeping an eye on him so the things that happened in 60s and 80s wouldn't happen again.
Calengurth 00:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


The comments about attitude of Atatürk over other religions are not true, instead offending. -Firstly, Mustafa Kemal, invited Jewish scientists including Einstein within the problems in Germany with Nazi's and some came to Turkey and helped Turkey with the educational reform. -Secondly the population of Christians is a very nonclear issue because after the Indepence war of Turks, Turks in Greece were exchanged with the Greeks in Istanbul. So, this is a political desicion made both by Turkish and Greek governments. And, also in Ottoman Empire, there were never 20 percent christians. -Third, the Republic that Mustafa Kemal achieved to found was never an Islamic state and never let religions to take decisions of Islamic understanding in Politics. If this understanding was right and true, the Ottoman Empire would not collapse. After himself, democracy is accepted by the Republic. -It is very unsuitable for some people to talk about Turkish people if they loved Mustafa Kemal. Firstly, the main reason of rising of Mustafa Kemal is the invasion of the Greek, Italian, French and English forces in Anatolia. The tortures and invasion by these countries led to the Turkish Independence war which was commanded by Mustafa Kemal. Every Turk including women were involved in this war and it can easily be concluded that Turkish Muslims owed their liberty and freedom to pray to this founder. Before him, there were nearly no land place and freedom to Turks in Anatolia. When he died, there was the Republic of Turkey with equal rights to women, developing economy and education. -Lastly, the comment of "Personally, I think the main reason he still has anybody who likes him is because if you voice any other opinion in Turkey, you can go to jail." is very unsuitable and not true. In Turkey, at least we know and live truths about Middle East, we do not learn from the censored western media. Ertaban 05:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

His family?

I think we should mention Atatürk's family somewhere in this article. Perhaps we could title the section "personal life" or something along those lines. Then we can mention his wife (was he married twice?) and his children, including Sabiha Gökçen—who isn't mentioned in this article at all. I'll try to do some research on his family, and add the section if there are no objections (unless someone beats me too it). —Khoikhoi 05:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with your suggestion and I was planning to add something in that line when I have the time. With a quick check, Atatürk had at least eight adopted children (Afet İnan, Sabiha Gökçen, Fikriye, Ülkü, Nebile, Rukiye, Zehra, and Mustafa). So please go on and I will try to help you in the process. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've added the section. —Khoikhoi 19:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention his menagerie called Abdul.

great article

one of the better articles i've seen on wikipedia. surprisingly unbiased. i was expecting the usual wiki-marx drivel

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.5.249 (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2006.

Problematic image caption

I am removing the mention of "32 kings and 62 presidents" from the image caption of USSR reception near section "international relations", as this seems to be a folk legend circulating around Turkish forums and I could not find any reliable source confirming this. Please keep the caption that way until these numbers can be proved. And the names of every single one of these monarchs and leaders should be listable, for such a great occasion. Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. To quote from Wikipedia:V#Burden of evidence:
“ Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." ”
So, if reliable sources are brought forth, the information can be added. If not, then it can't. —Khoikhoi 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hagiographic

Overtly hagiographic, this needs to change and change soon.

No mention of genocide

There is no mention in the entire article of Armenian Genocide or the lesser-known Hellenic Genocide [1] which are contemporary with Mustafa Kemal's rule and political development. Admittedly these issues are sensitive (see Orhan Pamuk's career), but to omit them altogether is to take a non-neutral stance. User:erxnmedia.

So, do you think we need to mention the so called Armenian Genocide or the Hellenic Genocide in all articles about all Turks who lived in the first quarter of the 20th century?--Hattusili 08:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to post the same thing, this article seems overly positive. Wasn't Ataturk the president or PM when the genocides occured? The Pontic Greek Genocide for example. --AW 20:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

wtf? u have concerns discussions about the the armenian genoicide go do that on the appropriate page not on ataturk's page. i dont c any turks discussing how many turks had died by armenians in the, say, "Armenia" page. nor i c any turks trying to put information about how greek army, not greeks but an actual army, murdered turks after they invaded izmir on the mythology page. go get a life! Of course there wont be anything related to the so called "genocide". This is not the page dummies ProudTurk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.69.86.39 (talk • contribs).

There should be sth regarding the "mini-genocide" during the campaign of Kâzim Karabekir (general who fought a dirty 'war' in the east) under Atatürk. - Though Atatürk acknowledged as much as 800'000 casualties of the Armenian Genocide of the Young Turks of 1915/17 this "mini-genocide" of Kâzim Karabekir in 1920 has a lot to do with Atatürk himself! User:Apocolocynthosis
User:Apocolocynthosis, if you have sources, please use them. User:72.69.86.39, if the genocides happened during his time in power, they deserve a mention. --AW 11:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Go and read history. Mustafa Kemal Pasha's military and political career has nothing to do with the so called "genocide". Then what is this "mini-genocide" thing? Is this your new weapon to attack to valuable Turkish commanders? Karabekir Pasha is a Turkish hero, not a murderer. Deliogul 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I made a section about the genocides, which I think is balanced - it has arguments from all sides. --AW 18:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Look, the so called Armenian Genocide happened during the World War I. This means Armenians argue that we killed them between 1914-18 and this is the direct evidence to say that Atatürk has nothing to do with this genocide thing at all. He started the Indipendence War on May 19, 1919 with couple of his revolutionist friends so he was far away from ordering massacres during this time. Mustafa Kemal Pasha became a powerful man during 1920 and smashed our enemies in 1922. So you see, the time interval doesn't match. With respect, Deliogul 18:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Deliogul, for the umpteenth time, I'm not debating facts here, I'm saying that some people claim he had something to do with the Armenian genocide, whether or not you think that is true. The fact that some say he did and some say he didn't should be in the article. Our job as Wikipedia editors isn't to say what we think is correct, it's to give the different viewpoints that are out there. --AW 19:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just bored to see a genocide link in every article about a Turkish who lived during the first half of the 20th century. Also it is sad to hear that they show Mustafa Kemal Pasha and some of his comrades as murderers. I mean, they defeated the imperialism, they made my country secular and democratic... But forget it, Deliogul 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In your opinion did nothing of interest (regarding Armenians) occur durng these times that would warrant mentioning? Might not the fact that the geatest example of ethnic cleaninsing in the 20th century that occured during this very time with participation (to some degrree) by nearly every Ottoman Turkish personage of note) and the fact this very ethnic cleansing played such a central role in the shaping of the entirely Turkish nation that followed (OK Kurdish and a bunch of other Muslim minorities who came to think of themselves as Turks...where before they just mostly thought of themselves as Muslims) - might not these rather outstanding historical events warrent at least a foot note or a mention? I mean its Ok if you Turks wish to believe your version of history which leaves all of this stuff out....but this is an English language encyclopedia that must adhere to higher standards of accuracy and presentation of facts (and not just selective facts...)...--THOTH 02:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying that Mustafa Kemal was beating the English while this genocide thing was going on so there is an inaccuracy. A person can't be in two places at the same time but forget it. Just tell me how can you say that this genocide thing was "the greatest example"(this means we are more successful than Hitler) of its kind and all men who had power during this period were guilty(even not all Nazis found guilty)? Now, this is what I call "accuracy and presentation of the facts" Deliogul 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
well you have to understand that according to THOTH et al the Ottomans were incredibly well organized, methodic in their ways, highly efficient, coordinated and ruthless. In fact light years ahead of anything that the Nazis ever did. Its bizarre that modern day Turkey lacks all of the above characteristics. I wonder where the fallacy went! lutherian 17:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I have never seen any documentation (nor have I ever claimed) that Ataturk had anything directly to do with (what is commonly referreed to as) the Armenian Genocide (1915-1918) - however he (and others - particularly Karabakir) certainly was/were involved in completing the cleansing in the period after the war (and this is certainly relevant to any article concerning Ataturk and Karabakir and other Turkish leaders of this period (and certainly CUP leaders during WWI). As for the Armenain Genocide being the "greatest example of ethnic cleansing in the 20th century" well the numbers more then back up this claim. Compare the percentages of Armenians killed and cleansed from Anatolai by the Turks during this period to those of the Jews of Europe during WWII and consider the numbers who remained afterword (far more Jews survived...even if a great many emigrated to Israel and such after the war). Of course there were certain areas (such as Poland) where a much higher percentage of Jews perished - but overall, in fact, the Ottoman Turkish Genocide of the Armenians was more complete and effective then the German genocide of the Jews. The Ottoman's were able to do their killing in far less time as well and the Nazis were still in the process of rounding up Jews (greater numbers and over a wider area) so they were interuppted by the war's end where the Ottoman Turks were able to do a more complete job (and the fact that the cleansing continued after the war by Kemal and the Nationalists made it even more complete. Outside of Istanbul there were and are basically no Armenians in Anatolia/Turkey then or now.--THOTH 00:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow thats a new thing. So we didn't just killed them during the war but after the formation of the republic! People always want more. You just couldn't get enough and now you want to blame the republic too. I mean thats a lot man. Deliogul 20:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Is this display of your ignorance suposed to impress us? --THOTH 06:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who you are talking about while saying "we" but you must understand that I don't need to impress anyone. Yes, I can say that I was nearly shocked when I read your comments but why would I try to impress "you? Deliogul 22:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What was his position??

What did he do between 1921 (when he was pres) and 1923 (when he was PM). Commander of the military? That should be more explicit, it's sort of hard to follow. His positions in earlier years should be mentioned as well, they are sort of spotty --AW 21:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out. I can try to improve the coverage of those periods when I hopefully have the time in the near future. It would be great to see these points getting improved by other users too. Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I just don't know enough to do it. I think saying what official positions he held would be good. --AW 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the reference that he was a freemason?

This article was tagged with a Turkish Freemasons category. What is the reference to this information? Aknxy 21:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That claim is definitely unsourced. I removed it now but I'm pretty sure that some other loser (see: personal attack) will add that again in the future. Because people are interested in such stuff here: unsourced labelings and accusations to the biography articles, warring about former names of cities on place articles and so on. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Saying someone is a Mason is hardly a personal attack. --AW 22:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No, you got me wrong! I'm the one making the attack by using the word "loser" for an editor. That was meant to be a joke. Cheers, Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh ok, my apologies. It's hard to tell sometimes! --AW 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Self treatment with alcohol for anxiety and being an alcoholic are different things as well as its relation to liver disease attributed to him. I edited the pertinent sentence for your review if found agreeable. Thanks.

This is very strange. Despite good faith efforst of discussion, asking open review and permission for changes someone comes and disrespectfully vandalises the edits by users in a wholesale arrogance. Is this the open contribution philosophy of Wikipedia. Please see below. I am reposting my changes and please discuss what is not right or good about them before doing anything. Thanks.

Request of assistance for vandal user behaviour by Khoikhoi

Could the administation and users take an independent look for the following reversal of useful and pertinent contributions at the Mustafa Kemal Ataturk site please? It is very difficult for me not to interpret the revision by Khoikhoi as disrespectful vandalism and disruptive behaviour. More I studied his log history at various article related to the Turkish subjects and prior bans for the same disruptive behaviour, more concerned I became. Could someone help revert the edits he damaged and request him to be more respectful to others' work? Thank you.

(cur) (last) 16:06, 10 November 2006 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) (rv to last version by me) (what last revision? this is a whole sale deletion and vandalism, is it not?) (cur) (last) 14:59, 10 November 2006 Incir (Talk | contribs) (→External links) (cur) (last) 14:26, 10 November 2006 88.242.84.98 (Talk) (→See also) (cur) (last) 06:19, 10 November 2006 71.162.66.250 (Talk) (→An Overview in A Nutshell) (cur) (last) 05:59, 10 November 2006 71.162.66.250 (Talk) (→International relations)

Hi. I added a {{fact}} tag to sentence about MacArthur calling him his best friend, because it needs a source. I also removed "filled with never ending selfless hard work and genuine concern over his nation and country" because it was uncessary and sounded too POV-ish. As for the "Overview in A Nutshell", I don't get what the point of it is. We already have a biography section that discussed his life in detail. Lastly, I removed a link to the Armenian Genocide in the "see also" section. Cheers, Khoikhoi 04:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Who is to say what necessary and unnecessary are and what is too (what is the right dose etc) POV. When you asserted repeatedly that he was an alcoholic did not mean a pov? I dont think you counted his glasses or smelt his breath to assert these right? (get my point?).This is all subjective and cultural prejudice based, if not enmity driven. This should not be a form of domain control and gate keeping by you or anyone at all. Five may agree five may disagree but should not be the first one who got irritated push the reverse button . Similarly, 'I dont get the point' does not mean universal represantation and should not lead to revert by the self appointed regulator. Needless to say, what is put there is not anywhere else in the article and complements it very well, therefore saying 'we have such and such and I find and allow that much only' is worrisome. I re-enter these contributions and want them to stay. Finally, the citation is McArthur's handwritten note entered and on display at his moseleoum in Ankara. Even the citation request coming from personal curiosity should and could have been requested here rather than show offs on the article. Perhaps you would take the time to consider these for the next conflict.

I didn't even understand half of the things you just said. There is no cultural prejudice here... When did I say he was an alcoholic? What's wrong with saying he consumed vast quanities of it? Does it tarnish his image or something? And who is "five"? If there are things not already in the article, add them to the biography section, but don't create a second biography section—it looks sloppy. If you have a reliable source about MacArthur, cite it in the article. How is it a "show off"? I would like to remind out to remain civil here. Khoikhoi 04:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

hmm, does not only civility bring civility? the vandalism log trail that user had posted did not get explained at all. By the way, I think he was trying to ask how you knew about the vast quantities of alcohol (did you count his bottles?), and the whereabouts of your reference and why your reversals are not endorsements of personal attacks. That is my take. I am sure you can get a few of your kind doing 'administrative work' of your sort would continue to sustain your belligerence.

and peace be upon him

Indeed. Khoikhoi 04:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange edit wars

restored sustained vandalism by ManiF helping disruption that Khoikhoi was instigating on a few rather nice changes the user 71.162.xx was trying to protect. 05:23, 11 November 2006 ManiF (Talk | contribs) 05:19, 11 November 2006 ManiF (Talk | contribs) 05:00, 11 November 2006 71.162.66.250 (Talk)

Bubblebuster 06:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

CENSORSHIP regarding Atatürk's view on ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

why did you delete my contribution on such an incredible foundation? The contribution is of poor quality and doesn't fit the flow of the article. No, I'm not removing it in an automatical manner. You could perhaps try to make new section for it, with clear references.

!!!!!!!The References were given for those who are willing to read!!!!!!

"Vakit" ve "Alemdar" 15.03.1919 (800'000); General Harbord; TBMM Gizli Celse Zabitlari Vol. 4 Ankara 1985 p. 439-440; Rauf Orbay'in Hatiralari Yakin Tarihimiz, Vol 3 p. 179

Therefore I had to introduce a new section not to disturb your flux!!!!! "Attitude towards Armenian Genocide" Mustafa Kemal accepted the Armenian massacre. The figure was set at 800'000. According to Atatürk the massacre and deportation of Armenians was the act of a small committee that had seized power.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apocolocynthosis (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2006

Hey, calm down man. Who am I to censor anything? I was honestly considering your contribution to stay in the article but you did not provide them in the proper way. Could you check how the existing references in the article are cited? You only mentioned the references in your edit summary and that is not the correct way to do it. The references should be a part of the article's body. There is definitely no "given for those who are willing to read" business also. And I thought, honestly again, the place you've selected for your contribution (the top of the post war section, even before the mention of the Treaty of Lausanne) was definitely disturbing the flow of the article. I think you didn't care much about the flow and focused on putting the paragraph in somewhere. I do not want to delete anything stated with solid references and proper English. Please accept my honesty and regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I am calm. I ask for neutral judges! This article is not your private censorship area! Is it? - Otherwise we will have to show heterodox teachings about Atatürk's life in the article under a special heading like ....disagreeding opinions.... . We will have to find a solution as there are respected references. Or, does this article not have to comply with Wiki-Standards?

If something looks like censorship and smells like censorship it probably is TURKISH CENSORSHIP! [[Apocolocynthosis 10:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)]]

  • Instead of bringing references to this section , you choose to vandalize/revert article without any concensus. This is not acceptible in wiki. As a reply to your uncivil question "WHO ARE YOU"; you can read my real name in my sign. Please be calm,contribute to wiki in a positive manner.

Regards Mustafa AkalpTC 15:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

To all involved: Please mind WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL. --Fang Aili talk 19:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
These are definitely references!
"Vakit" ve "Alemdar" 15.03.1919 (800'000); General Harbord; TBMM Gizli Celse Zabitlari Vol. 4 Ankara 1985 p. 439-440; Rauf Orbay'in Hatiralari Yakin Tarihimiz, Vol 3 p. 179
You continue to ignore them and continue to delete text without discussing in a non-constructive manner.
And 'who are you' is not anything bad or uncivilized but your blocking of my person without discussion of given references is aggressive!
[[Apocolocynthosis 11:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)]]

An overview in the nutshell

The following suggestion for entry by the "Bubbleblaster" that kept deleted may read better when dispersed in the pertinent sections in the main article, rather than a recap at the end. 172GAL 08:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC) ("Everytime I hear the word "culture", I reach my revolver" Herman Goering)

He lost his father at age 7 and was taken out of school to live at a village at age 8. He was beaten sensless by his tutor at age 10 and was taken out of his new school again. He failed to achieve cumulative average score for his favorite school he always dreamt of, at age 17. He was arrested when 24, interrogated for days and put in solitary cell confinement for two months. He was 25 when sent to exile. When his colleague associate and close friend that is one year older than him was declared a hero by the association that he was serving, nobody noted him. When he was fighting to save cities from foreign occupations at age 30, his hometown fell to the enemy. His superior lobbied for him to be sent away to get rid of him when he was 30. He was left idle at his new location and could not get paid for months. He was in a hospital in Vienna for renal treatment confined to a bed for months lonely when he was 37. When returned to work, the army he would command was disbanded. He was fired by the Minister of Defense at age 38. He owned no civilian clothes to wear, no money saved and had to borrow a coat from a friend. An arrest warrant was issued for him the same year. A death order was issued for him when 39. He became the President of the Turkish republic when he was 42. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk read 18 thousand volumes of books in which over 200 000 lines are highlighted. Tens of thousands of sidenotes were entered. When found with red weepy eyes, he said his only worry was burning eyes which he took care of yards of soft fabric he'd ordered by his side to dry his eyes. He put his signature under the biggest changes and revolutions of his time. His farewell was equally impressive and touching with the last words of ‘.. and peace be upon you..’ in the morning of November 10, 1938 when Turkey was just waking up.

Revert of comprehensive edit

I recently reverted some quite comprehesive edits [2]. Most of the edits where either whitewashing (omitting his alcohol consumption) or demonizing of his opponents. I do regret if I at the same time reverted relevant edits - if this is the case, please raise suggestion one by one here on the talk page. Bertilvidet 11:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC )

What was his job between 1921-1923?

And along those lines, why did he stop being prime minister? Term limits? --AW 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? --AW 15:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
He was trying to smash the Hellenic Army. Parliament gave him special rights during this important period to defeat the enemy. After the victory, Mustafa Kemal gave all those special rights back to the parliament. Then with the proclaimation of the republic, he became the first president of the country. With respect, Deliogul 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rakı consumption

The man died from cirrhosis of the liver, and is known for drinkining large amounts of rakı. What is the argument for claiming that he only enjoyed it at official dinners? Bertilvidet 16:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I sort of neutralized the statement, but I also found this about him from a scientific journal, that says his death was due to alcoholism - [3] --AW 17:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I concurr with your edit. I am not aware of anyone contesting that cirrhosis of the liver cuased by heavy drinking being his cause of death. Bertilvidet 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
His job was hard. To form a new country(a republic, a democracy, a secular state) from the ruins of a religiously oriented empire. So, drinking and smoking were all acceptable for his situation. Even I was smoking a lot while I was preparing to the university entrance exams. With respect, Deliogul 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I happen to agree. But it is not the aim of this article to judge if Atatürk did the right thing or not. Bertilvidet 17:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried to say that we can mention his high use of alcohol and cigarettes in the article. At least in my opinion, it is just a fact. With respect, Deliogul 18:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/u/s/Talk%7EMustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk_Archive_5_bf22.html"