Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
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.
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:
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.

Contents

[edit] Transclusion Map - Do Not Archive

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

[edit] Notes

  • There are three books listed in the references section: Kinross, Mango and Lengyel; but the notes section also refers to several others: Erik J. Zurcher, Macfie, Shaw, Stanford J. Shaw - all these books need to be added to the references section. (1b)
  • Some other references refer to the same books, but are formatted differently; references 70, 74 for example. these should be changed to be consistent. (1b)
  • Some of the references need to be formatted properly. (1b)
  • There are a few {{citation needed}} tags. (2a)
  • There are some sections with no references. (2a)
  • Image:Trablusgarp2.jpg has no copyright status tag. (6a)
  • There is a redlinked speech.

--HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 06:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His origin

His mother was Roma and his father was half Albanian half Jew.Shouldn't this be mentioned?To prevent any bigotry i must say that i note this for historical accuracy purposes only, and no way to degrade him.(In case a Turkish might find his non Turkic and his non Turkish (also) roots as a sth negative) Eagle of Pontus (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is true. He wasnt a turk. The turkish forces swaped him away from his parents when he was a little child and trained him into a bloodthirsty slave-soldier like they did with many peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdalo (talk • contribs) 15:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Obvious troll is obvious. Atrata (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Provide a valid citation for your claims. There's no mention of what you assert in any official biography. And, PS, the population of the Republic of Turkey is documented to be comprised of over 50 ethnicities. "Turkish" is not an ethnicity. Turkish is a nationality and a language. There are probably no pure "ethnic Turks" in the Republic of Turkey today so that he was or may not have been Turkic in origin ethnically is really of no moment. Also, Ottoman officials did not track ethnicities, only religion. By the turn of the 20th Century, the vast majority of the population in Anatolia was not pure Turkic, but a mix of ethnicities from the Balkans, Crimea, Circassia and the Caucasus as well as descendants of those who had crossed the Asian plains 600 years before and mixed with people along the way. This is most likely the reason no official biography conclusively makes the statements you assert, because reliable information about his genetic ethnicity is unattainable.Pebblicious (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)



Mustafa Kemal was recorded as a Muslim child back in the day. This can only be possible if his father was a Muslim in the male-centric system of the Ottoman Empire. His religion is definitely not enough to determine his ethnic background as many of the Albanians are Muslims like many Turks. We can only say that this is just one of the numerous possibilities. Also, his father of being half Jew is questionable too. Marriage between the people from different millets was not easy as all millets were living within their own communities. It is still a possibility as love has no boundaries but when we gather all the odds, we can see that it is just blind-fighting to determine the ethnicity of Mustafa Kemal with the data we have about the past. Just to note, according to the citizenship definition of Turkey, which was adopted by the French version, there is only the brotherhood of soil, not the blood. Deliogul (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is pure nonsence to just claim that Ataturk´s father was half Albanian, half jewish. It is most likley that he had Turkish origin, according to the newest researches from "Ingemar Karlsson; Europe and the Turk". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.69.45 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal was a Muslim, but if any of his parents were not, and there was a verifiable source, then it probably can be included, but wouldn't really make any difference or be any use to the reader. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Baron Kinross' biography, "Ataturk: Rebirth of a Nation" notes that he was of at least parly European-Jewish ancestry. I don't have the book anymore, it was from the library, but I suppose I could look for it.

CP - April 7, 2008 14:45 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.23.2 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what is the intention behind the section "Nature_of_the_state"

Could someone help me to understand the meaning behind this section? Is it about democracy and Ataturk? State is a loaded word and the section does not cover all the aspects. --Rateslines (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to make a sense out of it. I did a Google search using the text. There was a match to article "Parliament Membership during the Single-Party System in Turkey (1925-1945)." Used that article to re-organize the text. Do whatever pleases you. My valentine and I will be enjoying the weekend after a long week. --Kemalist (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Checked the article. thank you for the link. --Rateslines (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is it not a featured article?

Could someone explain what prevents this article not becoming a featured article? --TarikAkin (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk/archive1 213.249.239.123 (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We can say that it is not good enough to be marked as a "qualified academic article". This citing business is really crucial for such studies. Deliogul (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
97 cited information from 31 different published books; 7 scholarly journals and only 1 magazine. The article is 115,000K and one sub article with 30,000K and 19 different cited sources. Beats many other featured articles. Isn't this an unjustified critique? --TarikAkin (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a hagiography...There needs to be a huge criticism section for such a controversial figure... 75.3.225.195 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Prose needs to be improved, some sections need balancing, for example the part on mosul is too large, there is little discussion on his secular reforms (perhaps his most important legacy) and some sections need complete rewriting i.e. legacy. If there was an organized effort by editors to get this to FA I will help. --A.Garnet (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If you pledge for the lead author, I will support your edits. I would like bring an important position. I can think of many major concepts that the article did not even mention. For example, his search for peace through treaties, assassination, or as simple as the departure with Inonu. I also believe this article should be brought back to an acceptable size. This means summarizing some of the sections. You stated some sections need to be summarized. However, I believe article needs to be extended to be fair. The size issues and specialized sub articles have already been discussed in a separate thread Personal_life. Before someone begins highly needed "balancing" act we need to create sub articles on "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's Military career" "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and independence war" and "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's presidency." This will give us a place to extend, also have a balanced main article. I will support your edits for a balanced main article. --Rateslines (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to present my view, i think what this article realy needs is not the opening of new sections, but to shorten certain long, detailed and often poorly written parts of it. There are already enough separate sections, about his early life and his reforms, any further sub articles would damage article's integrity..--88.241.20.98 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"shorten certain long, detailed parts"
"shorten certain long, detailed parts"
Mustafa Kemal was in center of many important issues. The latest revision of this article does not explain all. The article size is not going to decrease. The only way to remove information is to claim it is wrong (proven by a citation). Any attempted to remove information is a "Censure" to the article. Removing any information from this article is a reprimand issued by a specific person or a group. The group may be nationalist, islamists, or by ... who has enough people to gather. I want to ask this question, "What does it say about the group who wants to remove information? Let it may be the nationalist, Islamists, ..." I had opposed people removing information before, even if they removed the ideas that I do not believe. --Rateslines (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess issue here is not removing particular kind informations but to create a presentable, well written and "summary style" written article..I dont suggest to remove ideas, i suggest to make the article a coherent, readable whole..Sorry but there is off-putting content in it and further separation of new articles would only make it more unreadable in my view..--88.241.20.98 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are requirements for "summary style" which you can find under WP:LIMIT. I'm totally fine with summarizing Ataturk's military background as long as we keep the detail under the sub article "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's military career." Or summarizing his leadership during Independence and keeping the detail under "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and independence war." I will give my support to a lead author, as long as we agree on a structure whereby we can improve the content (sub articles) while keeping the main article short and relevant. That is the main problem. --Rateslines (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the anon, creating more sub-articles and dividing the article further is not the key. Rather, we have to turn what is already here into a coherent, concise and informative article. That means reducing content in some areas while increasing it in others, all the while improving prose, standardising citations and keeping in mind the general presentation of the article. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This article reached to a point that needs a "Sub-article navigation." There are many articles that has Wikipedia:Summary style. This does not mean there are right points in the presented arguments, such as A.Garnet's position. How can A.Garnet prove that he is not an ideologically motivated person and pushing his position (or a groups) on the mask of "coherent, concise and informative article?" There is no reason to involve to this type of discussion. Wikipedia developed methods to handle this case. Authors have to look into these policies which are summarized under Wikipedia:Summary style. The removal of information is not defensible. The removal of information is not Wikipedia policy under any form of pretense. Instead of opposing on Category:Wikipedia editing guidelines, we can use the policies to improve the content. Ataturk deserves better than a "concise" article. --Rateslines (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is about summarizing an article without using Wikipedia:Summary style. This is not about "well intentioned and capable" edits. It is not about GOAL. It is about MEANS. I 'm not opposing to you or any other editor who want to take this huge task. I do not have guts to take that role. I have respect to that person. I might be totally inline with your summary ("concise"). However, neither your nor my priorities (views) have to be shared by the rest. I will support you or other lead editor who will use the Wikipedia:Summary style. It is developed because of these issues. There is no need to get angry at me as my following statement was "There is no reason to involve to this type of discussion." and previous one was "This does not mean there are right points " Intend was not to generate "negative intentions (feelings may be)", but point to a problem before it becomes an issue. --Rateslines (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, apologies for the outburst (removed my comment), I misread what you wrote. Let me make some points. Firstly, I am not in the position to make major changes to this article since I have limited access to the internet and sources. So all I can really help with is prose and presentation. Second, when I say concise, I mean the reader be given information which is necessary, and spared of any superflous or unnecessary details. For example, consider in the legacy section some editor though it would be a good idea to list the names of 10 heads of state who visited Ataturk in his life time, this info has no bearing on his legacy. The rest of that section deals with monuments named after him. Now when I say concise I mean getting rid of all this superficial info and replacing it with content of relavance and depth e.g. how has his secular reforms affected Turkey, what impact have his ideas had on the rest of the Muslim world, or how did his independence struggle inspire other movements under colonialism. What are his implications for womens right etc etc. All this info can be summarised in less than what is currently written, but it would be of infinite more value. This is what I mean when I write the article should be "coherent, concise and informative" and should be applied to all sections of the article. --A.Garnet (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
We are all sensitive towards everything related to Ataturk.
Let me give my position.
FIRST; Article needs a "lead editor". The current form has edits from at least 10 different major editors. Tone and style changes through out the article.
SECOND; The total size is 145,000K (114K+30K). Excluding the concurrent articles; Ataturk's reforms and Kemalist idealogy. The main article (Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) is 114K. This is over WP:LIMIT. We need to bring the article acceptable range. This is >96K. How to do it? Is it possible to remove information? You pointed to "List the names of 10 heads of state." Yes We did not have to have that information under that heading. However, we are missing the Ataturk's positions on "Yunan Münasebetleri ve "établi" Anlaşmazlığı", "Sovyet Münasebetleri" "İslâm Ülkeleri ile Münasebetleri", "Balkan Antantı". We have some text under "İngiliz Münasebetleri ve Musul Meselesi" and "Hatay sorunu." The text in question has a place in these sections. There is a correct place for everything in this article. The article size is not going to decrease by removing unneeded text (if it exists) make it "Concise" could decrease the article size. But this brings its own problems (the 4th item). We have to deal appropriately.
THIRD; "How has his secular reforms affected Turkey" This article is a BIOGRAPHY. Ideological and Theoretical discussions have their own articles. As you said they need to be expend. Ataturk's reforms and Kemalist idealogy are the correct articles to explain them. They are sub to this article. We do not discuss "relativity" under Einstein. We tell where and how Einstein come up with the idea, but leave the discussion about effects of "relativity" to the article "general relativity". The lead editor has the responsibility to keep this as a "bio" and present correct links to these articles. This kind of editing is not an easy task.
FOURTH; "summarised in less than what is currently written." Yes this needs to be done for the main article. But when we remove the details from the main article, are we going to erase it from wikipedia, too? Devil is in the details. Details may be important for other people. The "lead editor" has the responsibility to preserve the information. What is your solution, if you do not want to have Wikipedia:Summary style? --Rateslines (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I am willing to "lead edit." I have access to several books (including Kinross and Mango bios). But, others would need to take the first shot at writing sections like "Yunan Münasebetleri ve "établi" Anlaşmazlığı", "Sovyet Münasebetleri" "İslâm Ülkeleri ile Münasebetleri", "Balkan Antantı". I can then edit for style, grammar and tone consistency and add citations to sources. Perhaps, with user Garnet's limited access, if Garnet could then come in for quick reviews to ensure the article is accurate, this article could become FA quality quickly. Mango's latest bio is considered the most authoritative and there are statements even in the initial section that are inconsistent with Mango's work. I plan to fix those sections and add citations within the next few days. If people agree to divide and conquer the work, we can produce a worthy bio for this genuine hero. Pebblicious (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about how to help. I designed a series template. I wanted to match the infobox that is already in place. Also Simple and easy to read. What do you think? --Rateslines (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (series)
Personal life Birth date · Name · Early life (Education) · Family · Character · Religious beliefs · Will · Publications
Military career Early period · Gallipoli · Caucasus · Sinai and Palestine
Independence War Establishment · Conflicts · Peace
Atatürk's Reforms & Kemalist ideology
Gallery: Picture, Sound, Video
I agree with everything you write, simple and easy to read is critical. Before we move on, "let's make a plan" (uf, babam bizi bu lafla deli ederdi :). Let's make sure the infobox has everything in it that belongs in this article, in effect, let's make sure we have an outline for this article that is complete and that people agree upon. Then people can start filling in the details, and I'll start at the top and fix grammar and add citations to sources. This is my suggestion, but I'm open to other ideas and "plans." Pebblicious (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The current form of article presents a very solid structure for the "military career" and "independence war." Also "Personal life" is on the way to have an established structure. The main question is "Presidency." The current structure of "presidency" is not well established. It is a general tradition to have separate sections into "domestic" and "foreign." For Ataturk every foreign issue has a reflection in domestic policy. I 'm proposing leaving "presidency" to the end.
I have been working on moving "military career" into its own sub article. Note: It is 38K. After this performed the text in the main article should be formed into Wikipedia:Summary style. I believe you can work on the main article. There are some considerations voiced when a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. Brief Summary style, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking (you need to be careful for that, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. --Rateslines (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. I will start working on it this weekend. Pebblicious (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Knock! Knock! Is there any life? Did we solve all the issues? --Rateslines (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] someone making minor edits

Please note that someone is making minor edits to sections of this article and injecting errors in english grammar into it. Much of the early sections were meticulously and carefully edited to remove all such errors and now they're back. This cannot become a featured article if it contains multiple errors in grammar. Please, whoever is doing it, stop. You are undoing hours and hours of work that people have poured into this article to try to get it ready for featured status. Pebblicious (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] His formal birth name was "Ali Rıza oğlu Mustafa"

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names see Bill Clinton, the persons formal birth name, if it is different should stated initially with birth date.
His formal birth name was "Ali Rıza oğlu Mustafa".
Byzerodivide (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The situation for Bill Clinton and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is hardy comparable. Bill Clinton (or Bill or Mr President) has a birth certificate and has a legal name. The name in question is Bill's legal name given by his family. Kemal is the name given by his family. My grandfather's name was "Ahmet Mustafa". Ahmet was a middle name given by his trusted friend. He was born from Kemal, my grand grand father. He was called as "Kemal ogullarindan Mustafa". Can you prove that Ataturk was "Ali Rıza oğlu" but Ali was not a middle name and originally he should be called as "Rıza ogullarindan Kemal." If you bring Ataturk's birth certificate, or any legal document that shows his official name was "Ali Rıza oğlu," but not "Rıza ogullarindan Kemal." Than we can compare these two cases. Otherwise, it is another version of referring to the person in question. The naming during Ottoman Empire is a fubar. That was the reason Ataturk initiated name reform. Because of the explained uncertainty, I'm not supporting it at the WP:LEAD.

We have have a section under his personal life. Gives all the different forms of referring to him. If you can find a respected citation (not a web side) I propose you can work on that section. Do you want to do that? --Rateslines (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atatürk's religion? - big question

Hi there I would like to discuss Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's religion, because as we all know all Turks are Muslims, but there have been aqusations of Ataturk being a Jew as from the articles espicailly the recitation of the Jewish prayer - Shema Yisrael he said - 'It's my secret prayer too'. I have also heard he comes from a Jewish background (doenmeh), all of these aqusations seem to mean very well when he turned Turkey into a completely secular state, please read more. Thanks.[1] Moshino31 (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moshino31. I recall discussing this rumor with you a month or so ago. The source you are citing, Radio Islam, is not considered scholarly or reliable - please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which explains the guidelines in detail. Certainly a site identified as an anti-semitic hate site by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights does not qualify as a reliable source.
On another point, the term "accusation" generally has negative connotations and is used in reference to crime or wrong-doing. It is not appropriate in a discussion regarding a person's religion. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal, son of Ali Rıza and Zübeyde, was as Muslim as I am (perhaps even more than me):

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/_newsimages/2298638.jpg

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/_newsimages/2298659.jpg

http://www.bleublancturc.com/Ataturk/images%20Ata/Hasan_fe.jpg

He even briefly went to an Islamic elementary school upon the wishes of his conservative mother, Zübeyde Hanım (his father died when he was very young), but he later decided to go to the military school.

You don't necessarily have to be an ultraconservative to be qualified as Muslim.

Atatürk belonged to a generation of Turkish thinkers who sought to find the answer to the question of "why did the Ottoman Empire become so backward?" and later "why did the Ottoman Empire collapse?" One of the most commonly accepted culprits was the "backwardness of Islamic ultraconservatism and the related skepticism regarding the new inventions and developments in the West, such as the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution." Atatürk dedicated most of his reforms to make sure that such an ultraconservatism would never be able to block the future development of the new Turkish state (unfortunately, it seems that Islamic ultraconservatism is on the rise again in Turkey.) This doesn't mean that he was not a Muslim; if that was the case, I wouldn't be a Muslim either, because I wholeheartedly agree with his point of view. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK so now I understand, he didnt think religion was very important so he seperated the mosque and state, with all the Ataturk reforms and the Kemalist ideology, and the army all packed in in Turkey for the secular system, which doesnt make him a non-Muslim still but so so strict secularism than any other western man espicially for a Muslim, plus I believe that his wife wears the headscarf throughout her life with him, I thought Ataturk was a very secular guy, but he lets his wife wear the scarf which shows he is a Muslim. If Ataturk's wife wore the scarf through public life and everything, why is the scarf banned then in Turkey - it was not part of Ataturk's reforms. OK then, so please view these videos of Ataturk being called very harsh words with so much proof of writings throughout the videos please view them, thanks. *http://youtube.com/watch?v=9lOZMvzq4_k


Part of a series on
Islam & Iman
Individuals
Groups
Terms
This box: view • talk • edit
There are some concepts, which may help to these exchanges. 1) Are all the Muslims also Islamists (a set of political ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system)? Can I belıve the greatness but not live with the set of social rules established ın 7 century. 2) Do all Muslims have to extend their social life along the forms of Islamic society. 3) Is the Sharia only law for a Muslim. I guess if your answer to these questions are YES than Moshino31's position is correct and Res Gestæ Divi Augusti is not a Muslim but at best a Mu'min or most probably Fasiq. Can we deny the title beliver to Mu'min and Fasiq. If we deny the title believer to Res Gestæ Divi Augusti than what will be the position of a Kafir?

WHO has the right to assign these titles? People who try to assign titles (Moshino31: "Ataturk" is not a Muslim, or he is ...) are they using the powers of the creater? What will happen to the meaning of judgment day, if we assign these labels before the judgment day?

There are people who claim that they are Muslims. They obey the five rules of Islam. They do not believe in 1 (instead civic rule) 2 (instead civic organizations) and 3 (instead civic law). Does the people obey 1 2 3 have the right to deny the title Muslim to Res Gestæ Divi Augusti? Who is ultra conservative in Islam? Is there a point more than being a Muslim? A Muslim is an ultra conservative for a Mu'min? What about the argument that Islam is a "Deen" which means it is not only a "religion" as the English word signifies, but it is a complete way of life. Can we claim that there is only one Deen which was practice by profit. Why Ataturk's way can not be another Deen? Res Gestæ Divi Augusti may be living in another Deen than the Moshino31. Can we compare the Deens as we compare the cultures? Can we claim one culture (western - Moshino31) better tan the other (eastern - Res Gestæ Divi Augusti )? --Rateslines (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your argument sounds like an Orthodox Jew who says "if you don't wear the kippah, then you can't be Jewish." Islam is an ultraconservative religion in nature, which can easily be exploited by a "clergy class" and transformed into a social cancer of backwardness, as in the case of present-day Iran under the rule of the Mullahs, or the pre-2001 Afghanistan under Taleban rule. Atatürk wanted to make sure that he eliminated or neutralised these mechanisms so that Turkey will never again be pulled back to the medieval mentality of the Islamic fundamentalists, who seem to have a world vision and lifestyle that's essentially stuck in the 7th century AD. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
From your response, I assume, you claim to be a Muslim, and you assign Erdogan as a ultraconservative. How does your "Deen" (drive to live as a true believer) make peace with the removal of "social" rules stated in Quran? Remember, you are not living under the guidance of Sharia because of Ataturk. He removed the social conditions of Islam (removal of mechanisms of achieving the "Deen"). That is the root of the argument against the Ataturk. When Erdogan says "He happaned," he refers to removal of Islamic society. By the way Erdogan does not think he is an ultraconservative. He may not label Ataturk as a Muslim either. --Rateslines (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I consider myself a "Protestant Muslim" :) In my opinion, Atatürk brought the Reformation to Islam by removing the Caliphate (i.e. Islamic Papacy) and the clergy class, and translating the Koran and Ezan into Turkish. However, since the DP government of the 1950s, Turkey started to restore "Catholic Islam" again. I won't be surprised if we re-instate the Caliphate (Islamic Papacy) in the end. God's first order to Mohammed was "Read!" Everyone must read the Koran and reach his/her own conclusions. I don't care about how you interpreted it, as long as you don't meddle into how "I" interpret it. This "liberty" is also safeguarded by the secular system, and I'm happy that Turkey is not a Sunni version of Iran, thanks to Atatürk. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Testament's are inspired from God's words so... We can have "Protestants" in Christianity. The problem is that Islam's book is God's book, without inspiration by people (including you). If God say's "Eye to Eye," it is "Eye to Eye." People interpret thinhgs which are not in the book. Abu Ala Maududi (Four Basic Qur'anic Terms Translated by Abu Asad, Islamic Publications, Lahore, 1979) quotes from the Qur'an 64:65, 39:2,3,11,14,17, 16:52, 3:83, 98:5 to assert that "the true beliver Deen has been employed to signify the vesting of the Supreme authority in Allah alone,... that there should not be even the slightest element of association and treatment of anyone else have(ing) sovereignty or authority and being entitled to obedience and submission of independent right." Here I want to point to "anyone else have(ing) sovereignty or authority." You can not be a "Muslim", if you assign "anyone else have(ing) sovereignty or authority." It is more probable that you are a Munafiq, as you claim to be a "Protestant Muslim." Erdogan could also claim the same to Ataturk. Rateslines (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Mr. Expert of Islam, as I said before: I don't care about how you interpreted it (the Koran) as long as you don't meddle into how "I" interpret it. This "liberty" is safeguarded by the secular system, thanks to Atatürk. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You do not have to insult me with "Mr. Expert of Islam." I'm far far away from it. But may be should stop claiming to be a Muslim, if not obeying the minimum (ayets in Quran, such as "eye to eye") related to Islamic social life. There is nothing wrong to claim less than %99 of Turkey is Muslim. --Rateslines (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It was actually a compliment, not an insult. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I just like to say are all Turks aware of the Five Pillars of Islam, I mean you cannot just say 'I'm a Muslim' but then not following the right path of Islam by praying, or thinking of Allah. I bet most Turkish people have not said the Shahadah in their lifetime - the proclamation of faith of a Muslim. As we see in Turkey today, they want to even drink alcohol in public cafes (which is banned under the AK party), they now demonstrate to not to have headscarves in thier public life - basic religious rights are not wanted in a predominantly Muslim country - insane. Here in the UK and US, headscarfes are allowed to be worn in schools, libraries, universities, shops, government buildings - even though they are a secular society, these rights are given in a Christian country, but not in a Muslim country - I ask why???. Separating religion from society is a big question for a Muslim? The Qur'an strongly says the whole true meaning of this lifetime - rather than asking 'do you believe in God' they should've asked 'Do you believe God will raise you up and judge you at judgement day (the resurrection?)'

All of these problems and controversies are all done by one man named Ataturk. Who has left Turkey in a strong secular society than any other in the world, who has left his reforms and the Kemalist ideology to stop anyone from breaking this secular system - that is the main problem of Turkey: the people do not want to move on from the history of Ataturk. The secular system is not entirely fair amongst the majority of Turkish people - nearly 70% of people believe religion is important and wear the headscarves (women) - it is a illegal barrier for the people of Turkey (excluding the secularists). All of this in a Muslim society? That is why I question Ataturk's religion - is he really a Muslim? Moshino31 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear User:Moshino31, are U a real Muslim? There is no question that only the creator have the power (right) to judge the level of belief Ataturk had. If so, you are a Munafiq by even tinkering on a subject that you do not have the right. In this respect, User:Moshino31's politics and Res Gestæ Divi Augusti's politics are same. It is like a footboll field. one side using a religious rethoric, and other side takes the civic rethoric. The ball is the resources. It is like 50 years ago; the kommunism-kapitalism arguments. 50 years later it is replaced by civic-religious arguments. We learned 50 years ago that neither side did know what they were talking. Erdogan's wife would be the first woman to resist to obey the full conditions of Islam. (we have the news about her USA trip) Turkey was neither a communist nor a capitalistic country. 50 years later we see the field have people whose words are also questionable. --Rateslines (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Well obviously I am, but I do not show myself as a devout type of Muslim, espicially living in the western world. I just believe that Islam is a way of life which Muslims should adapt it with in the government and society around us. Secularism is not the right choice - espicially for Muslims. The Sharia law has been given in the Qur'an and the Hadith, which Muslims must live upon. I think the only reason why Turkey opposes the fall of the secular system is because, they are scared for the Sharia system to come to Turkey. But I can assure that I think, Sharia law will never come to Turkey, because it has a strong European-Asian culture within the people.

I believe we shouldn't have Sharia law in Turkey, but make Islam the state religion. One thing I would like to point out is that, what is the whole point of allowing 'freedom of religion' in a country where 99% of the people are Muslims, what is the whole damn point of that, and when someone converts to Christianity - they get arrested or even killed - in that case make Islam as the state religion. Moshino31 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear User:Moshino31, according to your view "shouldn't have Sharia law in Turkey, but make Islam the state religion." The word "Islam the state religion" means state decisions on day-to-day life (politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues) based on "what takes us (state)" to the "water source(God)". I guess it is important to remember that the word Sharia in Arabic is "path (sharia) to the water source (the God)." Your statement is circular in nature. You use two words that has the same (or very close) meaning in a sentence which implies they are different.

So... Let's see you are not a a devout type of Muslim. You do try to create a new form of living ("Deen"). At this moment your ideology is in conflict to itself (No to sharia but Islam being the state religion!). You do not want to live with sharia as you recognize that you have a "European-Asian culture." It means that you have evolved from whatever your initial state (European or Asian) to an hybrid state (European-Asian). You can't go to your source (drop Europe or Asian). You do not want to break away from the "glass ceiling." Glass ceiling meaning becoming something less in Political Islam (European socially but Muslim in your personal life). YOU ARE NOT ALONE in the eye of the history. 100 years ago elites of the Ottoman Empire had the same dilemma.

Ataturk presented a solution to the people like you. He pushed the glass ceiling for everyone. He said "Stop trying to solve this paradox". Your religion will belong to your personal life. Do Erdogan or you have the right to hate Ataturk? I do not think so. Why? Neither you nor Erdogan is really a devote Muslim. Erdogan did not send his kids to the source of belief to be educated. Universities in the Mekke and Medine are open to all devoted people. They teach the source of religion. Erdogan claims his kids are devoted (like him). What are doing in USA which has the highest teenage pregnancy? He has the responsibility to protect them as a Muslim! These positions are not about Islam anymore. If it is not about living a devoted life, what it is about? It is about how much you and your team get access to the resources. It is about having your team colors dominate the field. The political party (AKP) is not different than any other party, (if it is not promoting sharia). The headscarf becomes a color of your uniform, if your goal is not sharia. AKP is using the resources created by the state which ATATURK have established. To keep the people behind (religious arguments) AKP deforms the rules set by Ataturk. It is a delicate balance which AKP is playing. If the balance trips over sharia, the headscarf becomes a kara carsaf. --Rateslines (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Turkey can be defined as the Germany of the Middle East, thanks to Atatürk. I wish we could be a bit more "Germany" but unfortunately the "Arabia/Iran" wannabes are in power :) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The Arabs and Iranians can pray 5, 10, 50, 100, 500 or 2500 times a day, since they have loads of petroleum and natural gas to feed themselves. Turkey has neither petroleum nor natural gas, therefore we don't have the "luxury" for such an overdose of afterworldly concerns. Either we'll invest in high quality education and become scientifically developed and industrious like Germany, or we'll fail. Simple as that. Atatürk knew this very well. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Among all those recent vandalisms, one edit has stayed. Ataturk did not die in "Salonika, Greece", and when he was born, there was a Greece, but Thessaloniki wasn't part of it. Please remove it. The claims that he was Jewish/donmeh just base on the fact he was from Thesseloniki, half of which was Jewish (rest was Muslims and some Christians), where he would not need to hide his religious identity. All the claims that he is SOB base on the fact that his father died when he was young, and he abolished Caliphate (Islamists call him SOB, deccal, etc, most 'important' prophets did not have a living father when they were about 10 years old, but let's forget about that). All the claims that he was homosexual base on the fact that he was rather handsome, and more importantly Greeks were beaten unexpectedly by Turkish forces under his command (hardly any non-Greek calls him homosexual). About his parents, they were certainly Muslim, and his mother was certainly a very devout Muslim till her death, and she was Ataturk's main influence. Both of his parents have separate wiki articles, Zübeyde Hanım and Ali Rıza Efendi. I see why his mother should have a wiki article, but I don't see the same for his father. His first given name is "Mustafa", referring to Prophet Mohammad. Just because you are Greek, you would not need to call him Kmahl, the gay. Just because you are Muslim, you do not need to shun all Christian or Jewish practices. He was certainly aware of Jewish practices and probably had an opinion on them. Muslims have more than 120,000 propheths (Mohammad being the seal of them), 4 of them are "rasuls", Mohammad, Jesus, Moses, and David, and for instance Moslems need to follow Injil, as well, which may or may not be the same with the current Bible. The main discrepancies seem to be trinity (which is also the main discrepancy between Orthodox and Catholic Christianity afaik), and baptism (transfering sins and good deeds to/from your descendants/ancestors), imo. Christians had to pick four among many for the Bible, about three centuries after Jesus' death. Maybe similarly, Moslems picked a few Hadith collections from many, about three centuries after Mohammad's death. Mohammad had asked his contemporaries not to record what he said, similar thing might have happened with Jesus. In practice, the differences between Islam and Christianity in our day are less, but we are not aware of it, for instance there is baptism in Islam as well, in practice. Let me end my addition to this forum. Mushrooms are nice. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pebblicious and others, should we get a peer review for ths article? Is it improved enough now? The references seem fine. The format seems fine. I haven't checked all the pictures. One video has this comment: "Kemal teaching the new Turkish alphabet to Ülkü", we need to mention who Ulku is. What ulku means as a word might be too trivial to put here. That Sabiha Gokcen was the first female combat pilot seems to be another trivial info here. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One problem seems to be having punctuation after the reference. It should be before the reference, afaik. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as he engaged in numerous homosexual activities as a youth, I would probably think that he wasn't a strict follower of the Quar'an. I don't mean that negatively! I love the guy; big fan of Ataturk. But he was a bisexual apostate. And I think that's awesome! And I'm not Greek, by the way. I am just a Westerner who thinks that any man who wants to civilise their country and Westernise it is awesome, regardless of whether he was a Muslim or Jew, or had sex with men on occasion.

CP - April 7, 2008 15: 18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.23.2 (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you were a witness there, I didn't know. By the way, I am not Greek, and I am currently living in the "West" (11 months a year), so at least 91% of my assertions must be correct. Ataturk was most likely heterosexual, even when he was in Macedonia, I don't mean that negatively. I love the guy; big fan of Ataturk. The only thing about homosexuality in Quran is the Lut story, one of the stories also in the Bible, where (the people were punished either for being homosexual or bisexual, or "sodom"s/child rapers, or people who refused to listen to what a prophet had to say, or just the God/el-ilah/Elah/El/Jehovah wanted to punish them). Since it is in the Bible, any leader of a mostly Christian nation must be homo/bi sexual or not Christian him/herself, as Pi is three. We should stop turning this talk page into a forum. I should listen to that myself. That was the 12th assertion.
One strange thing is people sometimes claim that he was not a Muslim, since he supposedly did not follow Islamic rituals (like not avoiding alcoholic drinks), but they at the same time call him a Jew, forgetting that he most likely did not follow uniquely Jewish rituals, either.

On the subject:

"Bizim dinimiz akla en uygun ve en tabii bir dindir. Ve ancak bundan dolayıdır ki son din olmuştur. Bir dinin tabii olması için akla, fenne, ilime ve mantığa uygun olması lazımdır. Bizim dinimiz bunlara tamamen uygundur. Müslümanların toplumsal hayatında, hiç kimsenin özel bir sınıf olarak varlığını korumaya hakkı yoktur. Kendilerinde böyle bir hak görenler dini hükümlere uygun hareket etmiş olmazlar. Bizde ruhbanlık yoktur, hepimiz eşitiz ve dinimizin hükümlerini eşit olarak öğrenmeye mecburuz. Her kişi dinini, din işlerini, imanını öğrenmek için bir yere muhtaçtır. Orası da okuldur."
"Herşeyden önce şunu en basit bir dini gerçek olarak bilelim ki, bizim dinimizde özel bir sınıf yoktur. Ruhbanlığı reddeden bu din, dinde tekelciliği kabul etmez. Mesela din bilginleri, mutlaka aydınlatma vazifesi din bilginlerine ait olmadıktan başka, dinimiz de bunu kesinlikle yasaklar. O halde biz diyemeyiz ki, bizde özel bir sınıf vardır. Diğerleri dinî yönden aydınlatma hakkından yoksundur. Böyle düşünecek olursak kabahat bizde, bizim cahilliğimizdedir. Hoca olmak için yani dinî gerçekleri halka telkin etmek için, mutlaka hoca elbisesi şart değildir. Bizim yüce dinimiz her erkek ve kadın müslümana genel olarak araştırmayı farz kılar ve her erkek ve kadın müslüman, toplumu aydınlatmakla yükümlüdür.
Efendiler, bir fikri daha düzeltmek isterim. Milletimizin içinde gerçek din adamları, din adamlarımız içinde de milletimizin hakkıyla iftihar edebileceği bilginlerimiz vardır. Fakat bunlara karşı hoca elbisesi altında gerçek ilimden uzak, gereği kadar öğrenmemiş, ilim yolunda gereği kadar ilerleyememiş hoca görünüşlü cahiller de vardır. Bunların ikisini birbirine karıştırmamalıyız.
Efendiler! Gerçek bilginler ile dine zararlı olan bilginlerin birbirine karıştırılması Emeviler zamanında başlamıştır. Hazreti Peygamberin yaşadığı mutlu zamanlarında..."[1]

do you need translations, or do you want to trust the man when he says his religion is Islam? 128.211.202.45 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the fact that Ataturk was a Muslim, with cites to Kinross's biography. Unless there is some source with some degree of reliability that he wasn't, I fail to see any basis for removing this fact. I don't understand Moshino31's comment at all, so I am reverting. Here is what I wrote on Supertask's page when he asked me for an explanation:

On page 4: "He was born an Ottoman Moslem, of lower middle class family and ostensibly Turkish stock." On p. 216-7: After noting how the Sheikh of Islam had pronounced a fatwa on the Nationalists, Kinross says "In creating it [an elected national assembly] Kemal must reply in kind to the Islamic manifestoes of Constantinople. Thus he still acted outwardly in the name of the Caliphate, whose abolition was his ultimate objective. With every appearance of deference he mobilized the ulema, the religious authority of Angora, which now issued a counterblast to Constantinople with a fetva of its own." "... to encourage such deputies as might be reluctant to come to the newly elected Assembly, he thus circulated throughout the country his own proclamation which outdid the Sultan-Caliph himself in its Islamic invocations." Later, p.386 Kinross mentions how "an emissary, claiming to represent Indian and Egyptian Moslems" "suggested to Kemal that he himself should become the Caliph."John Z (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole section regarding his religious beliefs under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. There is a picture showing him preying in that section. The question of ones religious beliefs is somewhat funny! Do we ask how much "Christian" one should be to be a Christian man. If one does not accept the Pope's authority, (like Caliphate) do he become non Christian? I guess in the eyes of Pope that person will be deemed for the Hell. Besides if these people who question is religious beliefs were Muslims, they would know that if one accepts God's existance, become Muslim for life. If one deny the God later, that person do not become Non-Muslim, but Fajir. --Rateslines (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, the Wikipedia article on Fajir descibes it as meaning "wicked evil doer" in an Islamic context. What you have described as Fajir fits the Wikipedia definition of Kafir much better, which it descibes as meaning "sinner by disbelif in Allah". This comes back to my last point. This comes back to my last point - if this is in relation to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk then there is no evidence that he ever accepted Islam or that he never accepted Islam. Wikipedia's religion section on individuals is about the individuals belief, not about how a particular religion sees that individual because the article is on the individual.--Supertask 02:21, 11 April 2008 (GMT)
I did not said he denied God (Kafir). I just opposed the idea which claims "not-Muslim." My position is that there is a picture showing him in a religious ceremony. That evidance places him in the sects of Islam. The rest is "fictitious argument" to point that he can not be claimed indeterminiate ("belief=Indeterminite"), like some claims. "About the individuals belief" He was a Muslim. There is a phtographic evidance. That is the end of "belief=Islam" tag at the infobox. --Rateslines (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not stating he wasn't a Muslim, just that it is not known with certainty what his religious beliefs were. --Supertask 02:21, 11 April 2008 (GMT)
Why the information of his religious belief is important? Was he a Muslim? Yes he was. It is important because he abolished the Caliphate. (removed the Political Islam from political arena) Did he liked green apples? That question is irrelevant. Hovever if he had an allergy to green apples, in that case this question would be significant. We ask questions, because they give us important clues about historically significant events. He never claimed he was a "Hoja" or compete for the position of Calip. He did not develop a theological theory. His position regarding angles or devil is irrelevant. His "political theories" are relevant. His ideas of moving underdeveloped nations to developed nations are important. But you are not interested in them. It is not clear what your are trying to say or what is the significance on "Ataturk's detailed beliefs in Islam". Do not take it too personal, when people question your motives. Because they are not clear. Do you also question the Einstein's position on trinity. --Rateslines (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) The objections are getting a bit strained. At Wikipedia, we are not looking for truth beyond all doubt, we are looking for truth according to good sources. Jimbo does not claim to be a prophet of Allah, Jesus or Buddha, and Wikipedia is not a holy book. All good sources agree that Ataturk was a muslim. No dispute at all. So that's what we say. Maybe in reality he was a time traveling robot from Mars. But we don't have evidence of that. Maybe, although everybody including him said he was a muslim, in his mind he had converted to Hinduism. But we don't have evidence for that, so we don't say it, we don't contradict our sources.

Here's some more from Kinross's book: Below are Ataturk's own words - a later recollection quoted on p.6 describing the occasion of his introduction "with the usual religious ceremony into the school of Fatima Mollah Kadin" clearly it goes along with the image discussed (which I can't find - I guess I am blind) :

"Then the teacher - a hoja - arrived before the green bedecked door of our house, accompanied by all his scholars. After a prayer had been offered, I made an obeisance to my mother, my father and the teacher, lifting my fingertips to my breast and forehead and kissing their hands. Then, amid the cheering of my new companions, I went in joyous procession through the streets of the city to the school, which adjoined the mosque. On our arrival there another prayer was repeated in chorus; then the teacher, taking me by the hand, led me into a bare, vaulted chamber, where the sacred word of the Koran was unfolded to me."

I don't know Turkish, so I don't understand what the quotes above in Turkish say, but apparently they are also statements from Ataturk that he is a Muslim. Is further doubt very reasonable? John Z (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Bizim dinimiz akla en uygun ve en tabii bir dindir. Ve ancak bundan dolayıdır ki son din olmuştur. Bir dinin tabii olması için akla, fenne, ilime ve mantığa uygun olması lazımdır. Bizim dinimiz bunlara tamamen uygundur. Müslümanların toplumsal hayatında, hiç kimsenin özel bir sınıf olarak varlığını korumaya hakkı yoktur. Kendilerinde böyle bir hak görenler dini hükümlere uygun hareket etmiş olmazlar. Bizde ruhbanlık yoktur, hepimiz eşitiz ve dinimizin hükümlerini eşit olarak öğrenmeye mecburuz. Her kişi dinini, din işlerini, imanını öğrenmek için bir yere muhtaçtır. Orası da okuldur." "Herşeyden önce şunu en basit bir dini gerçek olarak bilelim ki, bizim dinimizde özel bir sınıf yoktur. Ruhbanlığı reddeden bu din, dinde tekelciliği kabul etmez. Mesela din bilginleri, mutlaka aydınlatma vazifesi din bilginlerine ait olmadıktan başka, dinimiz de bunu kesinlikle yasaklar. O halde biz diyemeyiz ki, bizde özel bir sınıf vardır. Diğerleri dinî yönden aydınlatma hakkından yoksundur. Böyle düşünecek olursak kabahat bizde, bizim cahilliğimizdedir. Hoca olmak için yani dinî gerçekleri halka telkin etmek için, mutlaka hoca elbisesi şart değildir. Bizim yüce dinimiz her erkek ve kadın müslümana genel olarak araştırmayı farz kılar ve her erkek ve kadın müslüman, toplumu aydınlatmakla yükümlüdür. Efendiler, bir fikri daha düzeltmek isterim. Milletimizin içinde gerçek din adamları, din adamlarımız içinde de milletimizin hakkıyla iftihar edebileceği bilginlerimiz vardır. Fakat bunlara karşı hoca elbisesi altında gerçek ilimden uzak, gereği kadar öğrenmemiş, ilim yolunda gereği kadar ilerleyememiş hoca görünüşlü cahiller de vardır. Bunların ikisini birbirine karıştırmamalıyız. Efendiler! Gerçek bilginler ile dine zararlı olan bilginlerin birbirine karıştırılması Emeviler zamanında başlamıştır. Hazreti Peygamberin yaşadığı mutlu zamanlarında..."

I don't know what this says but I do know it is not in the citation given to support it. I put it and chunks of it into the find tool (ctrl + f) and it didn't find them. Try it yourself if you want.

"All good sources agree that Ataturk was a muslim"

This certainly isn't true - most don't mention it. Even the section Religious beliefs on the article Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life didn't state it until recently and even now states it without a cite (you may think cite 21 is directed to it but the two sentences that makes the statement "Ataturk's believed in a form of reformed Islam when compared to Ottoman practice. Islam was personal between an individual and God for him." are not cited) though the infobox did state it. Though looking into it I do now think there is good evidence that he was a Muslim, this information isn't mainstream and it amazed me how much inconclusive information people thought showed he was a Muslim. --Supertask 02:35, 17 April 2008 (GMT)

You're right, that isn't the right url. If you google on the first sentence in quotes, you get some other turkish government sites with that passage, though, like [2] and [3]. Somebody should mention what it says. Maybe not too important now that TarikAkin has provided that url to Fığlalı's paper. Maybe the fact is a little hard to find because he is famous as a secularizer. Well, I'm glad we've agreed and that you prodded people to do their homework. That's the way wikipedia is supposed to work. My apologies if I was at all snarky. Cheers,John Z (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you need it now, but let me make an attempt of translation. My translation really needs work.

"Bizim dinimiz akla en uygun ve en tabii bir dindir. Ve ancak bundan dolayıdır ki son din olmuştur. Bir dinin tabii olması için akla, fenne, ilime ve mantığa uygun olması lazımdır. Bizim dinimiz bunlara tamamen uygundur. Müslümanların toplumsal hayatında, hiç kimsenin özel bir sınıf olarak varlığını korumaya hakkı yoktur. Kendilerinde böyle bir hak görenler dini hükümlere uygun hareket etmiş olmazlar. Bizde ruhbanlık yoktur, hepimiz eşitiz ve dinimizin hükümlerini eşit olarak öğrenmeye mecburuz. Her kişi dinini, din işlerini, imanını öğrenmek için bir yere muhtaçtır. Orası da okuldur."
Our religion is the most natural and the one most in accordance with wisdom. Hence it became the last religion. For a religion to be natural, it needs to be in accordance with wisdom, natural sciences, sciences, and logic. Our religion is completely in accordance with them. In the daily lifes of Moslems, no one has the right to be of special class. The one's who think they have such a right do not behave in accordance with our religion's principles. We don't have priesthood, we are all equal, and we all need to learn our religions principles equally. Everyone needs a place to learn about his/her religion and belief. And that is school
"Herşeyden önce şunu en basit bir dini gerçek olarak bilelim ki, bizim dinimizde özel bir sınıf yoktur. Ruhbanlığı reddeden bu din, dinde tekelciliği kabul etmez. Mesela din bilginleri, mutlaka aydınlatma vazifesi din bilginlerine ait olmadıktan başka, dinimiz de bunu kesinlikle yasaklar. O halde biz diyemeyiz ki, bizde özel bir sınıf vardır. Diğerleri dinî yönden aydınlatma hakkından yoksundur. Böyle düşünecek olursak kabahat bizde, bizim cahilliğimizdedir. Hoca olmak için yani dinî gerçekleri halka telkin etmek için, mutlaka hoca elbisesi şart değildir. Bizim yüce dinimiz her erkek ve kadın müslümana genel olarak araştırmayı farz kılar ve her erkek ve kadın müslüman, toplumu aydınlatmakla yükümlüdür.
We all need to know the fact that there is no special class in our religion as a basic religious fact. Our religion which rejects priesthood, won't accept religious monopolies. ----I don't know how to translate next sentence-----. Hence we cannot say that we have a special class, the ones not in this class are not capable of enlightening us about our religion. If we thought like that, it would be our fault, our ignorance. To be a hodja, ie. to educate the public abour religious issues, one does need to wear a hodga's robe. Our great religion orders every male and female Moslem to research; and every male and female is responsible in enlightening the public.
Efendiler, bir fikri daha düzeltmek isterim. Milletimizin içinde gerçek din adamları, din adamlarımız içinde de milletimizin hakkıyla iftihar edebileceği bilginlerimiz vardır. Fakat bunlara karşı hoca elbisesi altında gerçek ilimden uzak, gereği kadar öğrenmemiş, ilim yolunda gereği kadar ilerleyememiş hoca görünüşlü cahiller de vardır. Bunların ikisini birbirine karıştırmamalıyız.
Gentlemen, I want to straighten out one thing. In our nation, there are real people of religion, and among them, there are scholars which we can be really be proud of. But there are also ignorant people wearing the robe of a hodja, who are but far away from the truth, who have not advanced enough in the religious sciences. We should not mix both.
Efendiler! Gerçek bilginler ile dine zararlı olan bilginlerin birbirine karıştırılması Emeviler zamanında başlamıştır. Hazreti Peygamberin yaşadığı mutlu zamanlarında..."
Gentlemen. The jumbling of of real scientists and the ones damaging the religion started during the reign of Umayyads. In the merry times of our "Hazreti" Prophet...

128.211.202.45 (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph (at least first sentences) are known well enough, I believe there are many good sources. The other paragraphs are from an article of Ataturk in "Hakimiyet'i Milliye", a newspaper of the Turkish revolutionists around 1920. We might just erase the religion part from the infobox, especially if most other political leaders don't have their religion listed. So, I don't mind erasing it, but i don't like the attitude of some people that while declaring he cannot be Muslim. I wouldn't mind him being a Jew (I don't how reliable the sources are who use 'Jew' as a swearword), but normal way of being a Jew is through a Jewish mother, as far as I know. His mother is certainly Moslem. I am not aware of any signs of him being a convert. I wonder why nobody calls him Christian or Buddhist. He was certainly not Wahhabi, well even Wahhabi's are not Wahhabi, they are Salafi. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atatürk's origin

According to various sources, Mustafa Kemal was not Turk by origin, but probably Albanian. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (Philip W. Goetz, Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc, Robert P. Gwinn - 1991; p. 421 [4]) writes: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, was also of Albanian descent. The New Encyclopaedia of Islam (Cyril Glasse - 2001; p. 38 [5]) also writes: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was of Albanian origin. A contemporary source, written in 1937 by Marcel William Fodor (Plot and Counterplot in Central Europe: Conditions South of Hitler; p. 97) states: many believe that Kamal Ataturk has Albanian blood in his veins. In his book "Turbulent Years", Isaac Frederick Marcosson writes in the chapter about Atatürk (p. 144 [6]): His father, Ali Riza, an Albanian, was an obscure customs official. The person who probably influenced Kemal's career more than any other was his mother. Emil Lengyel writes in his book "Turkey" (1941; p. 116 [7]): His father, Ali Riza, was an Albanian.

I think that these sources should at least be mentioned. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.165.25 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked these Google matches. In "Turbulent Years" it matches the words Albanian and ali riza on different pages :-). It does not even use these words in a single sentence. That is also true for the Philip W. Goetz. Your search match rulers in Egypt. There was an albanian ruler in Egypt that matches the name between 1805-1952. "Von Cyril Glassé" uses these words in the same sentence, but he does not give a credible reference to his claim. Von Cyril Glassé is not an Ataturk historian, such as Mango or Lord Kinross. A claim such in this order needs a reference to a document or historical proof. --Rateslines (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That is not true. On page 144 in "Turbulent Years", it is written His father, Ali Riza, an Albanian, was an obscure customs official. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says the same. That's why I provided the links. Another good source for this is "Ataturk: the Rebirth of a Nation" by Patrick Kinross (Orion Publishing Co.; 1993, p. 5) who also analyses an Albanian origin. The Time Magazine also says that he was born to an Albanian father and a Macedonian mother: The Father of All the Turks (who left no legitimate heirs) was born in 1881 in Salonika, then part of the Ottoman Empire, of a mild Albanian father and a forceful Macedonian mother. [8]
The term "Macedonian" is actually false in itself, there's no such nation as the "Macedonians" in the modern sense (except for the Macedonian Greeks of ancient Greece). The people of FYROM who call themselves "Macedonian" are actually the Slavs of Vardar (a mixture of Slavs, Albanians, Bulgarians and Roma people). Most Turkish sources mention that his mother, Zübeyde Hanım, was a Yörük (who are widespread in those areas of the Balkans), which is also evident from the round shape of her head and pronounced cheekbones, which can also be observed in Atatürk who has inherited these characteristics from his mother. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course "Macedonian" has many meanings. So has the word "Turk". Original Turks were Mongoloid nomads from Eastern Central Asia (modern Mongolia). Today's "Turks" are Caucasian/Mediterranean and related to their Greek/Arabic/Iranian neighbors. They were linguistically Turkicized in the past 500 years and are not "genetically" related to the original Turks of Central Asia. But that's not the point in here. I know that many Turkish (!) sources call Ataturk a "real Turk" and "ethnic Turk", but this also has a nationalist motivation. Of course, the Turkish government and the Turkish nationalist front cannot accept the theory that Ataturk, the father of the Turkish nation, was not a Turk by origin. Going by physical appearance does not solve the problem. Ataturk had a very Caucasian look, blue eyes and blond hair. That's very un-Turkic and further supports the theory that he was of Turkicized/Islamized native European (Albanian?!) origin. Perhaps his mother was an ethnic Turk, we do not know. But please note that many important people in history were of different origins. Many Ottoman Sultans were half-European, usually having European mothers. The Turkish and Mongol rulers of Iran and India had Iranian or Indian mothers, respectively (for example Sultan Mahmoud of Ghazni or Shah Abbas of Persia).

Didn't Ataturk declared; He speaks Turkish language, He shares the culture of Turkish People, He is willing to die for Turkish nation. What else is needed to be Turkish or on the same perspective being an American? Turkishness is not blood dependent. Looking for where one's blood comes from is not relevant in being a Turkish. --Rateslines (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct about that. But that's not the point in here. The Ottomans refused to be called "Turks" and the word "Turk" was considered pejorative up to the 20th century (see: ... in the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages ... -Bernard Lewis quoted in O. Mehmet, "Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery mentions", 1990, p. 115). Yet, that does not change the fact that the Ottomans were Turks. The same goes to the Seljuqs who were Persian-speakers and thoroughly Persianized in culture and habits (see: ... the Seljuqs who became Persians were not to succeed in defending Persia against the Turks who remained Turks ... -René Grousset, "The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia", p. 158 [9]). Yet, they are still known as "Seljuq Turks". So, compared to the Seljuqs and Ottomans, Ataturk's generation is quite contrary to the previous trends. While in past centuries, ethnic Turks (such as Seljuqs) became progressively alien to Turkic identity and traditions and were assimilated into other (Iranian, Arab, Chinese, etc) societies, Ataturk represents all the Non-Turkish Muslims in the Ottoman Empire who were progressively Turkicized. As such, it should be at least mentioned that Ataturk's father, Ali Reza, was probably of Muslim Albanian origin.
U are free to develop the history of Turkish people, in a separate article. Ottoman Empire was not a nation based empire. When I read Ur "Turkicized" definition (Is it a real word?) based on "blood links" I feel ur next point will be Nazi eugenics. That is why I'm personally discussed with this origin argument. It feels you are arguing something that does not belong to this article. Ottoman Empire was a religious empire based on Millet (Ottoman Empire). Rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire begins around 18th century. Your 21 century narrow look did not apply. Even today's version of "Albanian" article (U use it in your argument) in the wikipedia has issues creating a blood based national root for Albanians. Good luck linking one person to Albanian blood. That remind me so called ethnic Kurds who try to link their ancestors to Armenians. One of the radical Kurd female leader claimed Islam was the downfall of Kurds, Kurds should have stayed Christians (thus Armenian). If you work hard enough there would be a "blood" link between Albanian and Armenians, or Kurds and Albanians... Your "blood" position is so deep, everything is blurry, reminds Hitler's Germany. In the Ottoman Empire, if one said "I'm Armenian," that person was accepted as Armenian. Somehow this does not apply to Ataturk! "the point in here:" I have not seen any factual evidence presented in your citations. Did they asked his father? How could you claim that his father would not say "I'm Turkish, like my son." Look, none of your sources present a birth certificate, blood test (I would oppose blood test, too), etc. We are left with one concrete evidence. Ataturk himself claimed he is Turkish (cited). That puts his family into Turkish. Whatever Turkish in your response corresponds, which is not the problem of this article.--Rateslines (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to insult others. If you do not agree, that's fine with me. I am just presenting the sources. It was no me who brought up the blood-line issue, you did. You claimed that Ataturk's mother was a Turkish Yoruk, and you based your argument on his looks. I simply tried to use your own (weak) argumentation against you. I know that (European) nationalism did not exist in the Islamic world preior to the 19th century. If you go through the last 1000 years of Islamic history, most of the important rulers were ethnic Turks (by blood line), but none of them identified themselves as Turks. The Mughals for example were Turko-Mongols and ruled over India. The Safavids of Persia were also partially Turkic, but they strongly identified themselves as Iranians. The Seljuqs were Persianized Turks and strongly identified themselves with Persian mythology and culture.
However, this is an encyclopedia and should only present FACTS. Everyone knows that the Seljuqs spoke Persian, celebrated Nowruz (the national celendar of Iran is named after the Seljuq sultan Malik Shah), gave their princess ancient Persian names, imitated the Sassanids, and carved passages from the Shahnameh in the walls of their palaces in Konya. Yet, the Seljuqs are STILL described as "Turks" (because of their well-known blood-line), although by cultrue, language and identity, the Seljuqs had become Persians and Iranians. The same methode goes to Ataturk. He may have identified himself as a Turk, with the Turkish language or the Turkish culture. But FACT is that his origin is NOT known, and it is HIGHLY PROBABLE that he was NOT an "ethnic Turk". Why can't we just sum up the sources and mention that some important sources (Encyclopaedia Britannica, New Encyclopaedia of Islam, Time Magazine, etc) describe him as an Ottoman Albanian?! What's wrong with that? I doubt that you can find a birth-certificate or a blood-test proving the claim that the Seljuqs or the Ottomans were Turks. Do you agree?

I want to bring one point to your arguments. Historical analysis require thinking within the rules and customs of the period. This type of thinking is difficult. Sometimes very famous historians fall into trap of using daily understanding of concepts to historical events. Common Christian's (part of their mission or assimilation process) are doing this all the time. They want to fit the world into their own thinking style. They eliminated the Mayan culture, because it did not fit into their teaching (savage people they said). They say; "Today we have nations. What would be the position in 100-200 years ago if we look with this glass." If a concept does not belong to their style, it has to be false. So goes the millets of Ottoman Empire. Instead of classifying people using Millets, they want to see it through their definition of nations. They say; "Lets dissect Ottoman Muslim nation into it's pieces." Albanians, Kurds, ... All Muslim population has to fit into "fictional" (for that period) sections that did not existed. When people reject these sects, they say be FACTual. The facts are only facts if it fits their ideology. Otherwise they are aberrations. Ataturk and his family can not be Muslim Millet of Ottoman Empire, but either it has to be Albanian or Turkic in origin. Turkish people can not be come to existence with the dissolution of Ottoman Empire. It has to be linked to some blood line, like Turkic. Mayans become extinct. So the Turkish, beginning with Ataturk. That is my perception. --TarikAkin (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you have tried to say. I fully agree with you that modern concept of nations and nationality cannot be reflected on the peoples of the past. The Ottoman empire was a primarily Muslim kingdom and defined itself by religion. So were all other Islamic empires of the past. But this does not change the fact that the Muslim community consists of many different nations. The confusion is based on the phenomenon that in the late 19th century, Ottoman scholars and intellectuals adopted European concepts in politics and society. For example, the name "Turkey" was totally unknown in Anatolia. It is derived from the Latin word "Turchia" - the founders of the Turkish state tried to Europeanize Anatolia by not only adopting European culture, but also European vocabulary. And since Europeans used the words "Turk" and "Muslim" without any difference, the ethnic designation "Turk" was adopted in "Turkey" as a national identity for all Muslim nationals of whom the large majority was not Turkish in origin. The same concept was also adopted in Iran (confusion: "Iranian" vs. "Persian") and in Afghanistan ("Afghan" is historically synonymous with the word Pashtun, but today all nationals of Afghanistan, including Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pashai, Nuristani, Turkmen, Hazara, etc are known as "Afghans". The word "Afghanistan" was created by the British in India and was first mentioned as "Afghanland" and was later translated as "Afghanistan" into Persian). That's exactly the reason why the Turkish state for many years denied the existence of Kurds. Since Kurds were also Muslim, they were automatically designated "Turks".
So the "Turkishness" of the post-Ottoman era is based on this confusion: "Turk" vs. "Muslim". And Mustafa Kemal, as the son of Muslim Albanians who was born in Ottoman Greece, and as an Ottoman patriot, defined himself as a "Turk". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.165.25 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What a big mess is your statement "Muslim Albanians who was born in Ottoman Greece, and as an Ottoman patriot..." In your claim, this theoretical person was an Albanian (having Albanian genes, inheritance, origin), but he really was not "pure" as he had to be something like "Ottoman Albanian" which is Ottoman and Albanian. By the way, Ottoman was a person who was part of ottoman dynasty. He also did not even aware that he was an "Ottoman Albanian" as he was an "Ottoman" patriot. He was an Ottoman patriot as he fought under the flag of Ottoman Dynasty. There were Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire that did not, such as Armenian Revolutionary Federation. To explain this dilemma (Albanian-Armenian) you come up with a new terminology "Muslim Albanian." Is this mean your theoretical person can also be a non-Muslim Albanian? When the empire breaks down during the dissolution; instead of fighting for a new Albania, such as Armenians did. This soup of alphabet, becomes the Turk, but not a "blood" Turk. It is a new form of Turk ("Turkishness") which fought to establish the Republic of Turkey. In your system, you do not even try to use official terminology like "Turkish People" or "Turkic people." You create new forms of existence ("Turkishness"). Not my original idea (presented by others), but I have hard time in recognizing the difference between the Nazi eugenics and this soup of nationalism. The source of your problem is that you are trying to build links which did not exist in the first place. This theoretical person of yours (Ottoman Albanian who was a Muslim that form the Republic of Turkey and expressed it's "Turkishness"), in real life, did not had any claim based on any of the arguments you brought forward. Otherwise we would have a proof in the form of a document. He did not claim to be Ottoman. That is what makes whole pursue of fitting national tags is a form of "...." Why not simply claim "Ottoman Muslim Millet?" Ataturk was from a family of "Ottoman Muslim Millet". That was the terminology officially used in the period. That is what other authors are saying. But this is not factually correct for you! The Maya culture disappeared. Are we destroying the "Ottoman Muslim" to create Ottoman Albanian, Ottoman Laz, Ottoman .... --TarikAkin (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] need changes to article

Is currently too POV, needs following changes to make it none POV.

- Mention his complicity in Armenian Genocide

In 1915 he was at the Battle of Gallipoli, far away from Eastern Anatolia. He was also at odds with the Three Pashas, especially Enver Pasha whom he detested. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

- There should definitely be a mention of the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Pontic genocides, all commited by the Young Turks in order to create a "Turkey for Turks". This article shouldn't be featured unless it presents both sides of the story on Kemal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diefortacos (talk • contribs) 09:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

- His alcoholism, he drank himself to death

That's why I think he and Winston Churchill are cool. They would make a great boozing company. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

- "War of Liberation" to re-enslave and genocide Greeks and Armenians

Yes, it wasn't the Greek Army which invaded Western Anatolia in 1919-1922. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

- Destruction of Turkish culture by outlawing Turkish alphabet and dress

You mean Arabic alphabet? Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

- Established cult of personality, is illegal to criticize him in Turkey

It was actually İsmet İnönü who established it after Atatürk's death, because he lacked Atatürk's charisma. Criticizing him became illegal with the constitution of 1982. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

- Was a dictator

Thanks to which it took 15 years to implement the renaissance and reforms which took Europe 500 years to implement. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Therakemen (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is not a European style democracy, but a country where the government needs the approval of the military to rule, where freedom of speech is restricted, where you will be jailed for talking about Turkey's history outside of the official party fantasies, ect ... Therakemen (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If that was the case, there wouldn't be an Islamist government in charge since 2002. The military would have already sent them to İmralı Island, next to Öcalan. Also, the fact that the judiciary is free in Turkey (it can even judge the ruling government) shows the level of separation between the judiciary and government, which is a plus, not a minus. It can never happen in dictatorships or less developed democracies. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

These are simply after the fact rationalizations for fascism. Therakemen (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you yourself have some seriously biased POV regarding Turkey and Atatürk. Are you Greek, Armenian or Arab, might I ask? This might explain many things. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Atatürk was actually a "leftist" (closer to socialism) and not a "rightist" (fascist) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it any more relevant for me to ask if your support of Ataturk is due to you being a Turk? The dictatorship that he established and continues to this day makes him a fascist. Therakemen (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't know the difference between socialism (more specifically social democrat) and fascism. Atatürk was the former, not the latter. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Take the slogan of "Turkey for the Turks," change it to "Germany for the Germans," you will see what I mean. Therakemen (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Any citizen who carries the Turkish passport or ID card" is a "Turk", i.e. "Turkish citizen." Atatürk's definition of Turkish citizenship was based on the social democrat values of "equality", not the fascist values of "racism" or "racial supremacy". A "Turk" (Turkish citizen) of Armenian origin is as "Turk" as me. Just like a "Frenchman" of Algerian origin is as "Frenchman" as the white upper class Frenchman who goes to have a cup of coffee at L'Avenue in Paris. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And the Kurds who were for the longest time denied their identity for the sake of a homogeneous Turkey dictatorship? Therakemen (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They are as "Turk" as me too. If they don't like it, they are free to leave İstanbul, İzmir, Ankara, Antalya, Mersin, etc. in the millions and go live in Southeastern Anatolia or Northern Iraq. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not free to go to Kurdistan after the despicable betrayal of the Treaty of Sevres. Therakemen (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As a Stambouliote, I am not eager to concede them the luxury to live in Istanbul either. Forgive my "honesty" which often reaches the level of arrogance, but being a "Turkish citizen living in Istanbul" for a Kurd is like being a Lada with a Bentley badge on the hood. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Res Gestæ Divi Augusti, I did not like your last comment, and Therakemen (plural?), what do you mean by despicable betrayal of Treaty of Sevres? Welcome to Wikipedia.

Another Ataturk quote that might need to be translated:

Ben, manevi miras olarak hiçbir ayet, hiçbir dogma, hiçbir donmuş ve kalıplaşmış kural bırakmıyorum. Benim manevi mirasım ilim ve akıldır. Benden sonrakiler, bizim aşmak zorunda olduğumuz çetin ve köklü zorluklar karşısında, belki gayelere tamamen eremediğimizi, fakat asla ödün vermediğimizi, akıl ve ilmi rehber edindiğimizi tasdik edeceklerdir. Zaman süratle ilerliyor, milletlerin, toplumların, kişilerin mutluluk ve mutsuzluk anlayışları bile değişiyor. Böyle bir dünyada, asla değişmeyecek hükümler getirdiğini iddia etmek, aklın ve ilmin gelişimini inkâr etmek olur. Benim Türk milleti için yapmak istediklerim ve başarmaya çalıştıklarım ortadadır. Benden sonra beni benimsemek isteyenler, bu temel eksen üzerinde akıl ve ilmin rehberliğini kabul ederlerse, manevi mirasçılarım olurlar.[10]

Also, I believe it was Celal Bayar, not Ismet Inonu, who started the personality cult. 1980 coup'ers, "our boys" abused it while at the other hand doing their best undoing the reforms.

In Ottoman Empire times, except during Empire's last few decades, Turk was just someone who is a Muslim in Anatolia as far as I know. At the end of 19th century, it became first the "Muslim peasant" (hence negative denominations by elitists followed), then the "ethnic Turk". With the Turkish Republic, "Turk" officially started to mean "citizen of Turkey". Ataturk was a person with much charisma with much reason. Any word he uttered would make a lot of influence, even if he did not want that. I remember reading in a book that during Ismet Inonu and Fethi Okyar's harsh discussions in the parliament, he did not intervene, and behaved like a mother overseeing her children. Ataturk was like George Washington in a sense, except that he did not have the luxury of being a Cincinnatus. He had to do the reforms including getting rid of stuff that caused the undoing of an empire. In his short life, he managed to do most of the reforms; the "soil reform" against traditional feudalism was one that he wished to do but could not. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Worldwide Legacy?

Perhaps we should balance the truth in this section and mention how Greek youtube videos that were critical of Ataturk forced Turkey to censor its internet to protect its citizens from the view that Ataturk was not a saint. Obviously, Ataturk is not viewed positively in all countries, as this article would lead unsuspecting Wikipedia readers to believe. It's another example of the sheer hagiography in this article. - The Rake Men Therakemen (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide is bigger than Greece as well. Those videos were just not 'critical' of Ataturk, as you already know. It's still absurd to block access, though. Just because some Greeks would like to call the man who stopped their ambition gay, should we add such a sentence like "some Greeks say that he is gay"? Then we would need to add that "many male Greeks are gay (and greasy?), and their language is all gibberish/Greek". I heard that that was a rather common perception in West. People against him just because he was a Turk/leader of Turks need not to be mentioned. We can talk about the responses of non-extremists to the abolition of caliphate, and that has its section and article. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not up to me to advise anyone anything, but it seems to me that most of the points you have brought so far were immediately refuted. The attempts of associating Ataturk with Armenian Genocide or whatever shows also something, it might be an indicator how other things came into being. I believe he started being called a Jew, after the establishment of Israel, and after 6 day war, when the word 'Jew' started to become sort of a 'swearword' of some Muslims, etc.
The text is mostly about the things that he did in his life, and that is how it should be. One criticism might be that it might be too detailed, so some material might need to be either removed or moved to new/other articles. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions about Ataturk's sexuality (possibly bisexual/homosexual) and religion (possibly Jewish, as evidenced by saying that his secret prayers were Jewish) are of genuine interest to the world, but saying that Greeks are greasy people who speak gibberish just reveals a depth of ignorance and hatred. Besides, I do not think this is the popular perception in the West if the culture of the West portrays the Greeks as the heroic defenders of Western culture and democracy, such as in the movie 300. Compare the depiction of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans to movies like Midnight Express, and I think you'll see the perceptions that the West has. The Rake Men -- Therakemen (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

300 is just a recent movie, and it's anti-Iran rather than pro-Greek, in the wake of an US-Iran war (similar to Lawrance in Arabia), also one of the most popular phrases of American high ranking politicians about Turkey is "Turkey is one of our important allies". You may be right associating that movie with Midnight Express, though, as that was in the wake of a (possible) US intervention in Turkey. Armenian diaspora has a good presence in California, and one of the richest men in the world is an Armenian that was the former owner of MGM. It might be not that easy to produce a movie that reflects Turks in good light.
It seems to me that what you say of genuine interest might really not much more of genuine interest than what is said about Greeks. And that was an example, an example for badmouthing a person/people possibly with other deep reasons. I do not think people making such remarks are reliable, and that is what's important for us. We need reliable sources, preferably published. Like I mentioned, him 'being Jewish' is likely related to 6 day war, which happened three decades after his death, in the sense that afterwards the word "Jew" became a popular word of choice of some people when they try to badmouth someone. I do not think that it is a coincidence that Greeks call him gay, and Islamists call him SOB, and he is neither. People have different popular smearwords. Like I said above, there would be no problem with him being Jewish, he was just not. To understand what "him having secret Jewish prayers" is, one just needs to drop the horse glasses. L I E. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From the publication Forward [[11]] "He paused for a moment, his eyes searching for something in space. Then he recalled: " 'Shema Yisra'el, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Ehad!' " 'That's our most important prayer, Captain.' " 'And my secret prayer too, cher monsieur,' he replied, refilling our glasses." Ataturk would have had good reasons for concealing his Doenme origins. Not only were the Doenmes (who married only among themselves and numbered close to 15,000, largely concentrated in Salonika, on the eve of World War I) looked down on as heretics by both Muslims and Jews, they had a reputation for sexual profligacy that could hardly have been flattering to their offspring. The Rake Men. Therakemen (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you search enough there is a document for everything. But history is requires substantial proof and interconnectedness. I found drawings for Image:Plans for Abdulhamit Bridge in Istanbul-Turkey Publications.jpg. That does not verify that there was a Abdulhamit Bridge. Turks can not include their position into Armenian Genocide article. Every time one use tries the information is deleted and claim that they are WP:OR (may be rightfully within the rules of Wikipedia). The Wikipedia is not the place to verify other peoples claims. Including the claims you presented in this discussion. None of these arguments are included in mainstream historical publications. There are web pages for everything, but that does not make it the truth. The claims are unverifiable. Besides wikipedia is not the place to verify these claims. Every attention, including Therakemen, is a good thing. But Therakemen is a new user (look at his history) and you may not know it yet but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a discussion form. These claims can be distributed in the web, but surely do not belong to this article. Hope you do not stop being interested in the Ataturk. You should try to read other aspects of him. --Rateslines (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
First, his mother (his main parental influence; his father died early) was as Muslim as anyone. If, as you say, Dönme's only intermarried each other, then his father must be not a Dönme either. Are you claiming that Mustafa Kemal was a double convert: Islam->another religion->Islam? I guess you mean that he was a follower of Sabbatai Zevi, in that case are you claiming that he saw Sabbatai Zevi as the messiah? And what does that Jewish prayer Shema Yisra'el mean? I see Adonai, Eloh and Ehad there. Does it mean about the same as Arabic: "La ilahe illallah" (might not be correct transliteration), English: "There is no god but the God", Turkish: "Allah'tan başka tanrı yoktur", Greek: "...", French: "...", Bahasa Indonesian: "...", ... (love the dots). 128.211.202.45 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this, but it is in Turkish. There the author talks about the possibility of Ataturk's being a descendant of Sabbatai Zevi followers, but not being a Jew himself. The author also talks about Ataturk's "Ne mutlu Türk'üm diyene" ideology (something like "blessed is the one who calls himself a Turk", I guess that is what you wrongly refer by "Turkey for Turks" above), so he was a Moslem Turk, as he called himself as such. He certainly was a citizen of Turkey. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also this for Turkish speakers. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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."[2]
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.[3] 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,[4] preventing the spread of totalitarian party rule which held sway in the Soviet Union, Germany and Italy.[5] 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,[6] 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.[7] 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."[8] 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."[9]
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.[10] 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.
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.[11]

: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)

[edit] 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 [12] 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)

[edit] 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.DenizTC 10:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 DenizTC 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 [13] 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. [14]

He has also been labeled by many as a dictator, [15] 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."