Talk:Kemalist ideology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kemalist ideology article.
Article policies
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Kemalist ideology:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

This article is the result of a merger of two articles: Criticism of kemalism and Kemalist ideology per AFD JERRY talk contribs 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Creation

There is an article about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk , but it does not contain enough information about Ataturk's principles and ideology, so this article has been created.

[edit] POV

In the secularism section it implies that attaturk's reforms were not anti-Islamic in nature, but I think this is an opinion. Many people view banning the arabic manuscript and Islamic law as an anti-Islamic act. Seems a little POV to me thats all.Roc

  • First of all, not attatürk... You must write it as Atatürk. Turkish nation was the only important thing in Atatürks life. He didn't talk about religion issues. He believed that a state must work for the physical world not for the other world. Deliogul 21:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

(Its not that easy Deliogul, Ataturk knew the importance of religion to for the nation, if you consider about Bursa speech, and visiting the Selimiye Camii in Edirne, deportation of missionaries(who in fact were more than a threat than any armies could be) you would understand his vision more easily, but this doesnt mean he was not an enlighted person, he was believing in science more than fıkıh, so showed another middle way to his nation what we call today is laicism.

Deliogul is right. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was the man of this world, he even couldn't have found time to sleep, so it is just the thougth of Islamists and the other people against Atatürk's revolutions. Ozzie 14:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly an expert of Turkish history, but the part about secularism has a Distinctly pro-secular pro-Atatürk view. Ydirbut 23:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nizroc; I am not aware of your knowledge about Religion before republic and Ataturk's effords on returning to turkish islam of Anatolia pre-16th century, because of this he demanded the most advanced Turkish Tefsir, banned catholic missions after 4 highschool girls in Bursa was converted, had numerous speaches about how beautiful is the Turkish religion(not arabic islam), tried to demolish clergy (this is the main reason why clerics blame him for being enemy of reigion cos their way of making a living is destroyed) which islam does not approve( even prophet of Islam isn't a cleric unlike other Mid-Estern religions) , Call to prayer is translated in to Turkish as it was before Ebusuud, etc etc. About his believes , he was not a good practiser as his prime minister and successor İsmet İnönü, was drinking alcohol, fond of dancing, intoduced first ever laic (not secular) state to Turkish nation.

So it is not true that his reforms were anti-islamic, Arabic script is the most catastrophic even ever happened to turkish language which had a phonetical script before islam, (Read hoca Ahmed Yesevi), Islamic laws were also abolished by Calipths of Ottoman (Ottoman empire was never a real theocracy). If you dont care about this tell me the only muslim nation which was never been ruled by christian imperialists, and who managed that, is the Arabic Emirs who even let british troops in to Makkah and Madina, or the Mullahs of Shiites welcomed Britain to Persia... I am sure you will find who is more muslim Ataturk or All of the arabs.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.72.194 (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ataturk was an absolute Anglophile. He loved the West, and tried to make his country part of it. And that meant erasing or limiting the influence of Islam. And he was pretty successful. 99.234.23.2 (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Revolutionism

According to some authorities in Turkey , Ataturk's revolutionism principle was reformism. But Ataturk was using the word that "inkılapçılık". "Inkılap" is a Ottoman Turkish word, there is also a word in Arabic Language , it means revolution in English, in modern Turkish this word is "Devrim", in Turkey these authorities prefer to use the old form of this word, not the modern form, because people don't use Arabic words or Ottoman Turkish in Turkey, these authorities want to make this principle misunderstood by people in Turkey, because they don't like a revolution idea. So when they are translating this word to English they use the word "reform". But the meaning of "inkılapçılık" in Ottoman Turkish as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk used in his speeches and in his book which was named Nutuk , means "revolutionism" not reformism. On the other hand the actions of Ataturk were revolutions, establishing the republic was a revolution also,like the French Revolution in 1789.

[edit] Is it necessary?

Just replying to the suggestion that "Kemalist Ideology" should be merged with "Six Arrows". The former, which I was referred to after clicking on "Turkish nationalism" covers the Six Arrows extensively. I don't see the need for overlapping.

At the very least, there should be a link to "Six Arrows". I will add the link now.

XieChengnuo 02:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

nvm. I see that the merge has already been done.

XieChengnuo 02:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secularism??

It must be laicism not secularism.I think it is a big difference.

Yes indeed there is a very big difference, secularism in US and Germany is the goal of the state to be in the same distance to all religions, while Turkey and France , declares goverment cant edit religious life and protect itself from religious manipulations, which we call laicism, freedom o belief(as well as not having any belief) is underprotection of government and state, this is what secular nations does not understand, they dont see how they impose their main religion to others..(GW BUSH declared Iraqi war is a crusade, all of the presidents of US swears on bible, although a muslim could swear on koran , but anyhow it is imposing of the religion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.42.184 (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging ?

The one is an ideology the other a political party. This would be like merging the U.S. Democrats with Democracy.

[edit] Claiming ownership does not automatically grant the right

Merging a political party and a state ideology would be unsound in an encyclopedia. Though CHP is the flag bearer for said ideology (mostly due to its age and certain rigidity), every political platform (party or otherwise) at least pays lip service to this ideology. In Turkey state nationalism is enforced with a heavy hand and it would be a political suicide. Each and every one of them could and would lay claim to the title, even for the sake of a pissing match.

[edit] Nationalism - Ulusalcılık?

I'm not sure about this translation. Nationalism is translated to Turkish as either "Milliyetçilik" or "Ulusçuluk" (Millet = Ulus = Nation).

Turkish speakers should check this out.

No, millet and ulus do mean 'nation' but they are not the same. If you say 'Türk milleti', you said 'Turkish people' so the ethnic Turks. If you say 'Türk ulusu', you said 'Turkish nation' and that includes anyone who lives in Turkey, race culture and belief is not important, you are a Turk in Turkey. It's a bit tricky to translate 'Milliyetcilik' and 'Ulusalcilik'. Both are 'Nationalism' but with different accents.
You are right. Nationalism = Ulusçuluk. Pls anyone change it. Ulusalcılık is different.

Ulus is nation(as American nation=Amerikan Ulusu not Amerikan milleti), millet is followers of a religion, or a distinctive group in a religion( like Bulgar milleti which includes macedonians following bulgarian orthodox church, rum milleti, following patriach of constantinpol, yunan milleti, chuch of athens after independance of greece, there was never a "Turk milleti" term before nationalist movement in ottoman empire started using it ),( See millet system of Ottoman)

No that is wrong. Nation = Ulus, National = Ulusal so Nationism = Ulusculuk and Nationalism = Ulusalcılık. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.215.193.142 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Nationalism means both milliyetçilik and ulusalcılık, they are synonymous - but their usage may differ slightly at times because of who is doing the rhetoric. The definition of "Türk" on Turkish Constitution clearly states as "a person bound to the Turkish Republic as a citizen", and as such it is not an ethnical definition. There ıs a lot of political polemic on the issue both by extreme right wing parties of turkish and kurdish ethnical background, trying to capitalize on ethnicity to gain political power and justify violence this causes. - Justin Case 13:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

They showed it to us as "milliyetçilik" back in the school :) If we consider that every student in the Turkish educational system reads the same history book, there mustn't be a doubt :) Deliogul 19:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It is interesting to see how this discussion is misplaced. We shouldn't be trying to translate the word "nationalism" into Turkish (it might be done elsewhere) but Milliyetçilik into English. "Milliyet" means "having the character of a nation", "millet" means a nation. One must not forget that as M. Kemal forged these terms, the only historical reference thereof was the French Revolution; not Hitler, nor Mussolini. --Ekindedeoglu (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kemalism is a left-wing ideology

This is a reality. No matter what military junta says, Kemalism is not a "third way" or a sum of apolitical ideas.

Shouldn't this be cited? On what basis is Ataturk's ideology defined as left-wing? Hashshashin 02:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I also think that it doesn't reflect the reality. Right-wing is also accepting Kemalism as their ideology. Even extreme right parties like MHP (nationalist party) accepts Kemalism as teir ideology. Please note that this party would take that fact of being called as left, as an insult.
Kemalism as it stands today is not a left-wing ideology. Its interpretation by its defenders is almost a verbatim definition of state nationalism. Ataturk was a progressive and reformist leader, but today the Kemalist ideal promotes insularism, hiding behind secularism and laicism. Anybody conversant in Turkish politics should first take a brief look at the article on left wing here on Wikipedia, then see how it does not apply to political parties' agendas defining themselves as Kemalists. - Justin Case 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that it is enough for a party to define itself as Kemalist to become Kemalist. We can clearly understand that MHP's ideology is something like Ottomanism (Turkish imperial background, power of Islam etc.). There is a term about it in Turkish, "Türk-İslam sentezi" (Turk-Islam synthesis). Kemalism is still a left-wing ideology but nobody uses it in practice. Deliogul 17:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kemalism is a third way because during it was imposed, there were only 2 ways in struggle(as materialsim pronounces) none of the schoolars nor politicians were believing there would be a middle. But as Lord Kinross states Kemalism brought the middle way that today we call State controlled economy or mixed economy as the middleway Europe couldnt manage to find out... by the help of that system turjey achieved highest development ratios during global economic crysis, even almost without inflation.

About left wing, .. nationalism is strictly an ideology against left as well as populism is same to right.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.72.194 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We have to understand that there are degrees in the leftist politics. You can be a social democrat, socialist or communist. There are also different schools for different degrees of the left like, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism etc. Therefore, there is not a single thing called "left wing party". Of course, everybody has some stereotypes concerning what do "left" and "right" mean. Clearly, there are ways that you can be, to some extent, nationalist and populist at the same time. For example you can favor your own culture, music and history against the values of other countries but you can still be a socialist republic where education and healthcare are totally free (see; Cuba). Also, as I stated before, claiming that you are a Kemalist is not enough to become one. George Bush argues that he spreads democracy around the world but he is a neoliberal politician in reality. Therefore his main goal is to spread FDIs and IMF assistance around the world to destroy welfare states and to form the rule of the "free market". Deliogul 20:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peronism

Kemalism is very similar to Peronism. Do you think it should be mentioned?

I think this is not completely true. In Latin American World, Kemalism moch more similar to Bolivarism. Both ideology is anti-imperialist, and has direct effect from Enlightenment coming from French Revolution. As a result, both can be thought as Third World Enlightment revolution ideology.CeyhunC 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Kemailsm is not an ideology and does not bring ANY anti-imperialistic feature just declares to give up all imperialistic desires of turkish nation has ended with the motto "Peace at home peace in the world", and that home is boredered by Misak-ı Milli.If you want to call Kemalism as an ideology then you would only use superiority of science over any other though. this makes ( in theory) the state more flexible to changes in the world but, more robust to social changes inside(esp changes backwards, like racism, communism, pan-islamism, the first two were only handled in 50 years but the last still threatens the very excistance of the state and the nation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.42.184 (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from old Talk:Criticism of kemalism

The following are comments from the talk page of the article Criticism of kemalism, which was merged with the article Kemalist ideology on January 12, 2008.

[edit] About the photograph with the explanation: "Muslim university student girl is being hindered by kemalists"

It's not a photograph of a girl being hindered by kemalists, it's woman at her forties that's been having a seizure or heart-attack or something like that. And the two guys that's been present there doesn't look like they are hurting her, instead they look like they are helping her. And there is no sign of them being kemalists. I warn you, check closely before you believe any picture that's been put here.

It's unbeliavable. I have never seen or heard such thing in my life. Someone must have posted this intentionally. How on earth can you proove that those guys are Kemalists and they are attacking her? I'd like it to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.33.190 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


  • they are not helping her. they are trying to stop her. how can you help someone trying to stop him o her?

--Polysynaptic (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV template

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of kemalism, several editors questioned about neutrality of this article. Rebuttal of views should also be prensented. Here I tagged the article until this issue is resolved. Happy editing! Dekisugi (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • This article is neutral. Every argument is referenced with a peer reviewed publication. Court reports, journal articles, etc. also added. Therefore it is not fair to judge this article to be not neutral. This article is the a rebuttal of Kemalism. Therefore the rebuttal of the rebuttal is regressive. Ther is no such a thing. There can not be the criticism of criticism. Because criticism of criticism is the criticised one at first place. The opposing views are given in the Kemalism article. Criticism of kemalism is the rebuttal of Kemalism and it is initiated there with a link given as "main article". Therfore I suggest the removal of neutrality tag and deletion tag.
  • --Polysynaptic (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course there's criticism of criticism. Not all critics are valid or reliable. To be able to stand as a page in Wikipedia, all pages without exception should endorse neutral point of view. Even for highly controversial criticism articles. Please read the policies and guidelines. Please also remember that you're not owning this article. Other editors have rights to say about neutrality of this article. Dekisugi (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Of course I do not own this article. but i do blieve in the neccessity of this article. For the neutralilty of the article, as argued before, the arguments in this article are referenced with peer reviewed scienific publications. Someone who thinks that the neutrality condition is violated should point the reason. You can't just put the tag and go. An article can not be blamed by being not neutral without reason. Othwerways every article should be unneutral.
      • Critics of articles should not forget that knowlede is something that human constructs sociculturally. therefore there is no 100% objective perfectly neutral knowledge.that is nothing more than a logical positivist utopia.
      • Consequently, who puts the tag should state the reason. if there is no reason the tag should be removed. "Some editors have questions" is not a valid reason.
      • --Polysynaptic (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(unident). The reason is given here. And I have stated above per AfD discussion. Dekisugi (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • where did you get the information that Atatürk was the follower of fascism? jeez. There are quotes of him in several books saying that Hitler is a big threat and the europe should be aware of it. provide RELIABLE SOURCES! --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 10:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I did not get the information from somwhere else. I experienced and have been experiencing it as a person. Additionally, "talking against fascism" does not mean that the talker is not fascist. There are many "democratic" republics in Africa. You should consider the facts. I will extend this article. You haven't seen anything yet...
    • --Polysynaptic (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      • This way of speaking (i.e. "You haven't seen anything yet") is inappropriate for any encyclopedia entry writing purposes. This is not a place where you prove the superiority of your judgment. The neutrality of your point of view has been challenged because of expressions such as "it is obvious that..", the part that follows being all but obvious. One last thing: the ideology of the military junta is also controversial. Many Kemalists after the junta have denounced it, some have published works bearing striking titles such as "Ben Atatürkçü Değilim" (I am not a Kemalist), where one should understand, "if they are Kemalists, I am not one". A distinction should be made inside the ideology, distinguishing the form it held before the 1980 military coup, but in the meantime, the elements that could later on foster the political discourse of the junta should also be discussed. One must not forget in so doing that Kemalism was and still partially is one of the strongest tenets of Turkish socialists. The influential communist poet Nazim Hikmet wrote elegies for Mustafa Kemal; the revolutionary martyr Deniz Gezmiş spoke of himself as fervently adhering to the principles of Kemalism (he was hanged on decree of the generals who later established the "Kemalist" junta). Moreover, any comparison with African countries is inadequate, out of place and derisory. --Ekindedeoglu (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I added a POV warning to the criticism section because it's an EXACT copy of an article that was merged into this. Words "obviously" and the like are appearing. I question the neutrality. DodgerOfZion (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For those deleting the "criticism" section, directed here...

Please argue your point before deleting it again. Thank you. DodgerOfZion (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all clear to what extent the points of view offered by the cited sources are criticism of specifically Kemalism, and to what extent the interpretation as criticism of Kemalism is a case of original research, attaching a novel interpretation to these points of view. I can't find the Jung & Piccoli reference. The Google search ["Modern-Day Turkey in the Greater Middle East: Kemalism Faced with Its Ottoman Legacy"] has as its only hit this Wikipedia article.[1] There is a book by the authors named, with the same publisher, but its title is Turkey At the Crossroads: Ottoman Legacies and a Greater Middle East (ISBN 978-1856498678). I don't have this book and can't check its use as a source (if it is the intended source). For the sources I can check, such as the CEPS Working Document by Tocci, I do not see at all that the quoted statement is meant to be criticism. It is a non-judgemental statement about historical events. Other sources do offer criticism, but do not refer in any way to a Kemalist ideology. And who is criticizing Kemalist ideology in the statement that Islamist officers were dismissed? Perhaps this is praise of Kemalism. If we remove all uncited and unverifiable statements, plus those for which it is not clear that the cited sources mean to criticize Kemalism, nothing remains. Perhaps a good section on criticism is possible, but what we have here is not encyclopedic.  --Lambiam 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of the comments in the criticism section don't sound that critical, really. 99.234.23.2 (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That is largely the effect of removing the unsourced and unverifiable POV statements. For most remaining statements in this section it is not clear what point they are attempting to make, whether that point (if any) is meant to be criticism, and in fact why these statements are mentioned at all. This section consists largely of the remnants of the unfortunate outcome of the AfD debate not to delete the largely unsourced and badly written POV fork and attack article Criticism of kemalism, which was implemented by plunking it as a new section into this article.  --Lambiam 14:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)