Talk:List of Freemasons (A - D)/Archive - Past discussions on disputed entries

Sept. - Oct. 2007
Ataturk was not a freemason. You can check from the official site of Freemasonry of Turkey [2]. As you can see from the History of Freemasonry in Turkey, Ataturk ordered the closure of the lodges in 1935 [3]. All the lodges were closed upto 10/October/1935. You can check the site yourself, there is nothing about Ataturk's masonry. Regards E104421 12:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the source does not say that Ataturk was not a Mason... it hardly mentions him at all. Nor does it say he ordered the closure of the lodges. It says freemasonry: "decided to hibernate" ... more exactly it states:

"In 1935 the English, Germans and Russians transformed Turkey into a vast stage for propaganda and espionage. The Nazi propaganda machine was also stressing the Judeo-Masonic danger. The Ministry of the Interior, Sukru Kaya, a 33° Scottish Rite Mason, in order to curb these activities passed a law from parliament closing all clubs and societies. Freemasonry was not mentioned in the text, but the minister warned his brothers that it would be wiser to stop the activity of Freemasonry by its own free will."

OK, I suppose you could argue that Sukru Kaya was acting on Ataturk's orders... but that does not prove that Ataturk was or was not a Mason. Ataturk could have been a Mason and order the lodges closed. After all, if Sukru Kaya could be both a Mason and responsible for closing lodges, so could Ataturk. It is true that Ataturk is not specifically mentioned in the text as being a Mason, and I agree with you that this could lead one to believe that he wasn't one. (It is logical to assume that they would mention Ataturk being a Mason if he was one). However, that is supposition. Countering that supposition, we have multiple sources that say he was a Mason (some even giving his lodge) - and that is what is important here. There are two Wikipedia policies that govern in this situation... WP:V and WP:NOR. WP:V says that things need to be cited to reliable sources. We have sources that specifically say he was a Mason (we cite two, but there are others). Do you have a source that specifically says he wasn't? WP:NOR says that we should not include our own conclusions and suppositions about things in our articles... we have to cite reliable sources and state what those sources say (in context, of course). So, without a source that specifically says that Ataturk wasn't a Mason, we have to go with those sources that say he was. it may or may not be "true"... but Wikipedia relies on "verifiablility not truth". Blueboar 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I know the Wikipedia policies. I recommend you to re-read the no original research. Sources should be reliable. The web sites you provided are presenting their original research in their sites. They do not cite any other source about where they got this information. Furthermore, the sources you provided do not mention anything about the name of the lodges. Secondly, you're misinterpreting the "reliability policy". This does not state that any available web site can be considered reliable. You can google the internet and find websites supporting anything. Internet is full of controversial things. The official site does not include Ataturk in their list. There are statements written by Ilhami Soysal and Mahmut Esat Bozkurt about Ataturk's "anti-masonry". On the other hand, Ataturk's Freemasonry is a just speculative and also provocative statement used mostly by radical islamists in Turkey. For this reason, i'm in favor of removing Ataturk from the list. Regards. E104421 14:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would indeed call these sites reliable sources in the context of this article. The sites are "official" web sites of Masonic bodies (one in California, the other in England). They are not just some "available web site" off the internet. I am not sure where the lodge info comes from (and if we do not have a source for that, we should indeed remove it), but the fact that Masonic bodies list him as a Mason has to carry some weight on a page about Masons. If you need a more "academic" mention... Andrew Prescott of the University of Sheffield mentions his membership in this paper... the reference is in passing, so it would not do as a citation in the list, but to me it does carry weight. I would be willing to take Ataturk off the list (or, perhaps, to create a "debated" section and list him there) if I could see some reliable sources (such as the ones you name) that counter the sources given. But until they are provided I think we have to keep him on the list. Blueboar 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A. Presscott states that "...the history of freemasonry is such a rich and diverse field that it is very difficult to develop a research programme that does justice to all the aspects of the subject. Just consider the extraordinary range of people who have been freemasons, from authors like Alexander Pope, Edmund Burke, Walter Scott, Robert Burns and Arthur Conan Doyle, and a varied array of statesmen including Washington, Garibaldi, Ataturk and Churchill, to musicians as diverse as Haydn, Sibelius and Duke Ellington, and actors from David Garrick to Peter Sellers." but does not states that it's confirmed that Ataturk was a Freemason. The official site of Turkish Freemasonry would add Ataturk's name in their list if he really was, but they did not. I would prefer to place tag for the article, in addition to your proposed "debated/disputed" section. In any case, all the sources you provided are secondary sources, in my opinion, reflecting their original research. On the other hand, Ataturk's anti-masonry is confirmed, not only by scholars, but also Ataturk's own actions towards Freemasonry. I'm still in favor of removing him from the list. Regards. E104421 15:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... the WP:NOR policy explicitly states that we are supposed to use secondary sources. A secondary source's research may be original, but the whole point is that it is someone else's research and not our research. As for the Turkish GL site... it does not have a list of Turkish Masons - it has a narative history. I have already agreed with your argument that, since that narative history does not mention Ataturk being a Mason, it is logical to assume that Ataturk was not a brother. But it does not confirm this one way or the other. It all comes down to Sources!... we need sources. We do have sources that say he was a Mason. We don't have sources to say he wasn't. Provide some sources that say "nope... not a Mason" and the issue can be re-examined. It's that simple. Blueboar 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources should not be original reseach. See WP:Fringe. I already stated Ilhami Soysal's book "Freemasonry". Ataturk was not a Brother, but an anti-mason. He appointed Sukru Kaya, a Freemason, as the Ministry of the Interior,and then ordered him to close the masonic lodges, after that he kicked him off. Your sources does not provide any official information and does not cite any primary sources. I'm still in favor of removing him from the list. Regards. E104421 00:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, now you are "policy hopping" to try to prove your point... and mis-stating the policy to boot... WP:FRINGE does not say sources should not be original research. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing if the two sources listed are original research. More to the point... Between the two sources cited and Prescott's passing reference, it is obvious that several mainstream Masonic scholars believes that Ataturk was a Freemason. They may or may not be correct in this belief, but it does mean that WP:FRINGE does not apply. All that being said... If the Ilhami Soysel book does say that Ataturk was not a Freemason, that carries some weight. We would have to know more about Soysel and his book (is it in English?) to see what how much weight to give it. We would need to know exactly what he contends, and the context of his contention. Perhaps one soulution to all of this might be to place a "(disputed)" next to Ataturk's entry... we would cite the two sources we have next to the claim that he was a Mason, and the Soysel book as a citaion next to the "(disputed)" comment. Would that ease your concerns? Blueboar 12:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I should have wrote as "see also WP:Fringe in addition to WP:No original research". Sorry for that. Ataturk's being Freemason is just a conspricy theory. The web sites you provided are not reliable. A.Prescott is just stating the diffuculty in the task and gives examples to this. He does not say that Ataturk is a Brother. The official Turkish Freemasonry site would obviously mention if he were. This is for sure. Unfortunately, Ilhami Soysal's book is in Turkish. I agree with you that the case is "totally disputed". It's very clear from Ataturk's own actions towards masonry that he's just an anti-mason, not a brother at all. Regards. E104421 15:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the sources are not reliable... they may or may not be accurate, but that is not the same thing as being unreliable under WP:V and WP:RS. As for Prescott... he certainly does say that he thinks Ataturk was a Mason... read the sentence: Just consider the extraordinary range of people who have been freemasons, from authors like Alexander Pope, Edmund Burke, Walter Scott, Robert Burns and Arthur Conan Doyle, and a varied array of statesmen including Washington, Garibaldi, Ataturk and Churchill. He is listing people he believes to be freemasons, and includes Ataturk in that list. He may be wrong, but it is what he states. Now, I am not saying that we should cite Prescott... you are correct that his comments are really discussing something other than the issue of whether Ataturk was a Mason or not. To cite him does take his passing comment out of context somewhat. BUT... when placed in conjunction with two other sources, it goes a long way towards demonstrating that the idea of Ataturk being a Freemason is not just a Fringe "conspiracy theory". We have a notable scholar who lists him as being one. I have a feeling that we are just going to go in circles on this. The problem here is that your argument is based on an interpretation of Ataturk's actions and not on a source. This interpretation may even be correct... BUT... to include this interpretation without a source for that interpretation would be OR. You can argue that OR here on the talk page, but you can not argue it in the list itself. Hell, since OR interpretations are alowed on talk pages, I'll point out that his Anti-masonic actions do not negate his being a Mason... Things could have changed between his joining the fraternity and his later actions as the leader of Turkey. People grow an change - at one point in his life he could have joined the Masons, and at another point he could have decided that this was a mistake and turned Anti-masonic. Or, he could have privately supported the fraternity, but publicly acted against them due to the political situation at the time. To put it quite simply, without a source we don't know why he acted as he did. We can assume and make conjectures, but we can not add such assumptions or conjectures to an article without a source. Give me a source that essentially says that Ataturk was not a Freemason and we can re-open the discussion. Without that source, we have to go with the sources we do have. And those sources say he was one. Blueboar 17:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I already stated above a published book by Ilhami Soysal. You're still ignoring in favor of your inofficial web sites. Ataturk was an important figure in history, for this reason, it's impossible for the Turkish Freemasonry official site to skip his name. He's not a Brother, but just an anti-mason. Regards. E104421 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that I am somewhat discounting Soysal... since I have not (and can not) read him. I have no idea if he is a reliable source for a claim that Ataturk was not a Mason, or even that he makes that claim. I am assuming good faith that you are presenting what Soysal says accurately, but without more information I can not agree that his book counter-balances the sources we do have. Question, does Soysal actually say something along the lines of "Ataturk was not a Mason"? Or are you just inferring that fact from what he does say? To counter-balance two (and 1/2, counting Prescott) reliable sources that specifically say that Ataturk was a Mason, we need a source that specifically says he wasn't one. If Soysal does not specifically say something like "Ataturk was not a Mason", then anything he does say is fairly irrelevant (as one can be initated into Masonry and also pass anti-masonic laws). Give me one good source (hell, even a bad source) that actually states the fact/conclusion that Ataturk was not a Mason, and I am very willing to discuss this further... but without such a source, we have to go with the sources we do have. Blueboar 15:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ilhami Soysal books explains in detail the relations with Freemasons and Ataturk. How and how many times they offered him Brotherhood and how Ataturk refuses them. There is also another book by Mahmut Esat Bozkurt, which depends on his memoirs with Ataturk. I'll try to get the books soon and come back to the issue. Sincere Regards. E104421 16:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Now, i have the book. The explicit name of the book is "Freemasonry and Freemasons in Turkey and in the World" by Ilhami Soysal, Derin Yayinlari (Derin Press), Fifth edition, 2004. In the page 308, it's written that Mustafa Kemal never intended to be a mason even before he became Ataturk. The book also cites the writers Ibrahim Arvas, M.Raif Ogan, Yilanlioglu Ismail Hakki, Cevat Rifat Atilhan, Ahmet Gurkan, Gazi Yigitbas for the Ataturk related cases. The book confirms/proves that Ataturk was not a Brother at all. Is it ok to remove Ataturk from the list now? E104421 10:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't say much, but:

1. Mahmut Esat Bozkurt: He wanted to be a freemason, and applied to the Necat Lodge in Izmir. Signed his pledge (the original is still kept in the Turkish Masonic Museum in Istanbul, Nuruziya Str.), but his application was refused. It is not difficult to understand the reason of his hatred and anger against freemasonry. 2. Ilhami Soysal: An imprisoned communist of his time, and a famous anti-mason. I know and own the guy's book, and can comfortably say that, like most other anti-masonic books, the book is totally unreliable and simply nothing, but full of mistakes. From its first page to the very last, no accuracy is to be seen there. We all know how anti-masonic books are, and this is no exception, with no citations and reliable sources at all. The book is a local book, that was not translated to any other language; neither scientific, nor a research book. I firmly say that it is one of the worst anti-masonic books of all-time, with no basis in any of its chapters. Besides, the author also wanted to join freemasonry in his earlier years, and the result was no different either, then because of his political activities. 3. The given sources are more than enough to indicate Ataturk's masonic affiliation, not even mentioning that his famous and widely-supported words by the Turkish community are mostly (almost thoroughly) taken from masonic ideas and even rituals. There are more than over 10 "regular" citations to be given here, but two is enough I guess. You can also see Ataturk's picture on the walls of various Grand Lodges around the world, as a "Famous Freemason". 4. It is a known and proven fact that Ataturk was one of the earliest members of the Committee of Union and Progress, a secret society which the rituals and labour was based totally on the principles of freemasonry and carbonari. He was then stationed in Aleppo, was traveling to Thassoliniki, his hometown, frequently to attend the meetings of the Union and Progress (a consensus among all historians, as well as the memoires of the Union and Progress members, including Enver Pasha). The society was founded mostly by the modernist Young Turks, consisting mostly of freemasons. Union and Progress was founded in the Masonic temple of Thassoliniki, the building which was then belong to Emanuel Karuso, an Italian freemason. Union and Progress was "only" gathering in the Masonic temple, in two lodges; Veritas and Macedonia Risorta. As we all know that only regular freemasons are allowed to attend the masonic lodge meetings that are held in the masonic temples. And we also do know that Ataturk was participated in these meetings (although he drew a seperate way some time later, after the degeneration and the wrong politization of Union and Progress). 5. After the foundation of Turkish Republic, Ataturk hosted the foreign envoys, in the Masonic Temple of Ankara, many times. The pictures are still on the walls of the Ankara temple today. Ataturk also maintained financial support to this temple, which the records are also still kept. 6. The official magazine of the GL of Italy, Rivista Massonica, showed the greatest proof of Ataturk in its 1973 issue, Vol.LXIV. Ataturk's picture and the record of his matriculé in the Macedonia Risorta Lodge (which was then working under the GL of Italy) was included in this issue of the official magazine of the GL. 7. 1935 "sleeping" event is somewhat different in reality. The circumstances of the period should be taken into consideration. Not only freemasonry, but a lot of societies and associations were under intense pressure at the time, and the officers of all these societies were being imprisoned. However, after Ataturk's discussion with the officers of Turkish GL, no freemasons were arrested, not a single investigation was held, no temple or lodge was destructed at all. It was not a "closing" process, however the freemasons only "slept" for a couple of years, until the heavy ultra-nationalist and anti-masonic wind passes away. After everything was alright again, Turkish freemasonry "officially" started its activities again by the decree of Turkish Grand National Assembly and President Celal Bayar, in 1948. So, freemasonry was never "closed" in Turkey. - Depayens 11:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. The discussion was on whether Ataturk was a Brother or not. You said much but did not provided any published work. I'm just looking for neutral and trustable sources (neither masonic or anti-masonic). Regards. E104421 14:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, an issue of an official journal of the Italian Grand Lodge was given as an example, which is high more reliable than a local, non-translated, non-scientific, anti-masonic, and purely a personal, pov work, published by a small, minor publisher in Turkey. Besides, there are undeniable facts, just a few was mentioned here. Since you are eager to learn about Ataturk's affiliation with the society, try to find a Turkish freemason friend, and ask him to buy you a copy of Tamer Ayan's "Ataturk ve Masonluk" (Ataturk and Freemasonry), which was published in 1999 (second edition in 2003), and is only available in the Masonic valleys of Turkey. You'll find all the answers to your existing questions in this 392 page book, full of sources. Please do some "reliable" research before jumping into any kind of discussions. GL of Turkey just does not wish to use Ataturk's name as if like a needed-support behind them (something that "every single society" is trying to do in Turkey), as they also do not mention the names of other Presidents of Turkey who are known Freemasons (you also do not see Suleyman Demirel's name in their own internet list either, do you?), that is just not their style. I also have added some more sources from regular lodges around the world to the article (there are dozens of others). I believe we have seen the end of this discussion now. Thanks for your curiosity. Depayens 11:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Depayens, I agree that the two sources we have (as well as the brief mention by Presscott) are good enough to have him on the list... but if you have better sources, please add them. Blueboar 23:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I added another source from the published world Freemasonry: A Celebration of the craft. It confirms Ataturk was a mason. It states, however, that the Macedonia Resorta e Veritas was an Italian lodge which perhaps explains why the Turkish site doesn't list him--TheGreatArchitectOfTheUniverse (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

2009
To whom it may concern... Please stop deleting the Ataturk entry. I realize that his membership is controversial, but the list entry cites multiple reliable sources (far more than for any other entry) that all state he was a Mason, he so qualifies for inclusion in this list. Please see the previous discussions in the Archives on this topic. Removal without discussion will be treated as vandalism and reverted. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

5 references were given for the freemasonary of Ataturk, however 3 of them are either not working or obsolete and removed webpages. What remains for the proof of freemasonary of Ataturk are two webpage links and they also just give a list of notable freemasonary. That is to say these references are not reliable and they also need references for their own claim of Ataturk's freemasonary. Until a reliable source is found for this issue, removing Ataturk from the list would be a more objective move. Aadagger --Aadagger (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Valid point on the broken refs. I have replaced them with some others... I think this is more than enough to re-add him to the list. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read your discussions about the masonary of Ataturk on the archives and also other discussions under the topic of Ataturk. I find it benefitial to quote following sentences in discussing this which I encountered under Ataturk.

A Freemason website is probably not a sufficient source for the contentious assertion that Ataturk was a Freemason. I suggest that we find a 3rd-party source for this.

Will Beback talk 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A Freemasonry magazine is obviously going to be a biased source when it comes to memberhip in the Freemasons. Considering how contentious the topic is, I suggest that we need to find better sources for extraordinary assertions like this.

Will Beback talk 00:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Again freemasonary resources to prove Ataturk's freemasonary are not reliable. Also here I give a reference from the personal website of columnist and renowned Ataturk documentarist Can Dundar. The reference ([2]) is from a newspaper (Haber Express) columnist, Birol Keskin. He writes that he attended a conference about "Republic and Ataturk" organized by the Izmir Lodge and there Can Dundar stated Ataturk had never been a mason and when the discussions about banning masonary were going on, some mason PMs asked Ataturk to join and lead the lodge, then Ataturk asked "To which lodge your lodge is bounded?" and they replied "Italian Lodge" and Ataturk responded " My people honored me titling me national hero . How can I be bounded to another nation? How can you ask this?", given the nationalist nature of Ataturk the story sounds plausible, also Can Dundar compiled his findings on a book "Yükselen Bir Deniz"([3]) where this story is also included with the documental facts. Since it may be hard to find this book outside Turkey or in other languages than Turkish, I had to refere to Can Dundar's website. Long story short, due to freemasons Ataturk was a mason on the other hand due to documental facts found by journalist Can Dundar, Ataturk was not a mason. Which sounds more reliable?

As far as I know wikipedia does not host non-verifiable and controversial information. There is no point in insisting such a biased information. That is why I remove Ataturk from the list. --Aadagger (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry is a very ancient social movement, on an enormous international scale. Masonic research is carried on at a high academic level in many European Universities, some of which have whole departments devoted to masonic study. I do not understand your assertion that a masonic magazine is likely to be biased. What benefit could there possibly be to Freemasonry in claiming as a member, someone who was not in fact a member? There are thousands of leading statesmen, and political, religious, military, and social leaders (as well as explorers, inventors, scientists, social reformers and others) whose membership of Freemasonry is well documented. What possible reason could sensible academics, writing in masonic periodicals, have for 'inventing' masonic membership for Ataturk. With respect, whilst he is a significant figure, especially in Turkey, on the world scene he is just "one more player". Freemasons have nothing to gain from falsely claiming that he was a member. Questioning masonic academic research is not a good basis for dismissing masonic sources. Independent sources have been quoted, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and Ataturk should therefore be included in the list. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 18:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the motivation behind this biased information relates to how an important figure Ataturk is for both the Turkish people and specially the Turkish army. Given that the influence and power of the Turkish army in both Turkish politics and some international issues, this can be understandble;of course this might be my own idea. On the other hand as you said he is a significant figure in Turkey and actually there is not even a single figure comparable to Ataturk's significance. I understand your point in totally dismissing masonic researchers, but, since Ataturk's status as a mason is not clear and there are 3rd party resources,as I noted before, which claim that Ataturk was not a mason he should be excluded from this list.

Another thing that bugs me in these kind of lists is that the information relating to lists are not supported by individual wikipedia entries. For instance, there is no information about masonary of Ataturk under Ataturk entry, since being a mason is an important property of an individual and should have been mentioned there, there appears to be a confliction within wikipedia. Two entries do not seem to be supporting each other, also there is a similar issue for Winston Churchill. In my opinion if there is no objective, 3rd party resource the person should be excluded.--Aadagger (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Aadagger, even if I were to agree with you on the Masonic websites (which I don't... who better to know if someone had joined a Masonic lodge than the Masons themselves), the entry does not rely purely on Masonic websites... You may have missed that I have added: Hamill, John and, Gilbert, R. A., Freemasonry: A Celebration of the Craft‎, published by Paul & Company, 1992, ISBN:0951635522. This is exactly the sort of third party source you have asked for. That said, I think part of the problem with Ataturk is that he did close down the Masonic Lodges when he became President of Turkey... and I can understand why people as the question: Why would someone attack an organization that he belonged to? My answer (and this is purely my own speculation) is that he joined Freemasonry as a young man, and quickly became disillusioned (it happens when men join for the wrong reasons). When he moved away from Thesilonika he probably let his membership fade and never joined another lodge. Effectively he stoped being a Mason. That doesn't change the fact of his initiation, however. Perhaps the way to settle this is to add a comment, stating that he subsequently supressed Freemasonry in Turkey while President. This would at least let readers know that he was not an active supporter. Would that solve your POV issue? Blueboar (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, unfortuanetly I do not have a copy of Hamill, it looks like there is no even a copy of Hamill in nearby libraries, so I do not know which resources or references that he used to cite Ataturk as a freemason, and I suspect those references are masonic too. On the other hand, as I previously noted, Can Dundar a famous Ataturk documentarist claims that Ataturk had never been a mason. So according to him your theory about Ataturk is false and there is no effectively stopping being a mason, he was not one at all. Moreover existence of Ataturk's name on this list creates a confliction within Wikipedia. In the light of these facts, not only the confliction but also the absence of reliable resources, it would be best to remove Ataturk from the list due to Wikipedia policies. --Aadagger (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So go to a library further away... or ask someone else to go to a library further away... or (easist of all) purchase the book on Amazon. Please read WP:V... The fact that you personally can not verify a source, right this miniute, does not matter... what matters is that it can be verified. We have a reliable third party source that says he was a Mason... and multiple first party sources that back this fact up. I am sorry that you don't like it, but in accordance with Wikipedia's rules, you have no grounds to remove the entry. I am willing to continue to discuss wording options, but will no longer accept your simply deleting the entry. If you continue to remove cited information, I will treat it as disruptive POV vandalism. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I see John Hamill is a famous freemason. So he cannot be an independent, 3rd party or objective resource, that we need on this issue. --Aadagger (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So what if he is a Freemason... he is also a respected historian. He is quite objective. What possible motive does he have for inventing facts? Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There's really no reason for a Mason to be biased when it comes to who else is a Mason; it's an item of pure interest, and it really doesn't work to anyone's advantage. Furthermore, no one is famous because they are or were a Mason; it's an informational footnote for a person who has many other accomplishments that never have anything to do with their membership. Most importantly, just about the only people who can correctly interpret Masonic records are other Masons, because they have an interest in doing so. So, I'm not sure where bias fits in here, because I would rather we had a source from a qualified researcher than from some random other person. If that's bias, anyone researching their own country's, state's, city's, etc, history would be biased, and that makes no sense. So at some point the bias argument has to be mooted. MSJapan (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

MSJapan, the origin of the claims of Ataturk's masonary is also from Turkey or from Turkish masons, so I think your point that anyone researching his own country's history would be biased backs my point. What other masons doing is to refere to resources from Turkey. By the way if it is Can Dundar you think a random person, I have to say that you are wrong, he has a renowned Turkish journalist, an important media figure and the most known Ataturk documentarist.

I am not in a position to question his credibility or objectivity. I did not say he invented facts. But previously you said that he is an independent resource, but this is not true.--Aadagger (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I simply do not accept the argument that anything written by a Freemason is not independent of Freemasonry... by your logic, Can Dunbar is not independent either, because he is a Turk... and the claim that Ataturk wasn't a Mason must therefore be just as biased and unreliable as the claim that he was. The reality is that we have different equally reliable sources that say opposing things. Now, WP:NPOV says that when this occurs, we should present both viewpoints neutrally. So, (once again) I am more than willing to discuss options as to how to re-word the entry to account for the view point that Ataturk was not a mason... but deleting the entry completely is not an option. 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I say that Can Dundar is more reliable than any mason historian on this issue because he is a journalist and Ataturk documentarist, it has nothing to do with his nationality. Please do not misinterpret my words. I would understand that giving two different opinions if this was not wikipedia but a discussion forum. My point is that masonic resources are not sufficient to put Ataturk's name on the list while there are documental facts that Ataturk had never been a mason, and all I hear that the masonic resources such as John Hamill are reliable, again and again but no claim of documented fact on if Ataturk was a mason. I agree that John Hamill would be a reliable source if we were discussing masonary in general, its history, organization etc. but not on this issue. --Aadagger (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, first... We must give two different opinions precisely because this is Wikipedia and not some discussion forum... WP:NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia, and it clearly states:

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly.

So... one last time... If you wish to discuss how to best present both viewpoints fairly, I will listen and work with you... but if you insist on disrupting this article by removing cited material, then our discussion is over and your disruptive behaviour will be reported to WP:ANI. Second... you do not have "documental facts". What you have is Dumbar's opinion, based on his interpretation of something Ataturk said (At least I assume he said it... does Dumbar say where the quote came from?). there are other ways to interpret what Ataturk said (One obvious one: Since there were multiple Masonic Jurisdictions with lodges in Turkey at the time, Ataturk's question as to who the lodge in question was bound to was important to him politically... his objection wasn't that he disliked Masonry... it was that the lodge in question was under Italian control. Who knows, he might have accepted if the lodge was under the jurisdiction of an independent Turkish Grand Lodge.) Blueboar (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Third and final... Blueboar (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Good morning - we're just waking up here in England, and I see I've missed a lot of discussion overnight! Aadagger, I just want to pick up on your earlier comment about Winston Churchill. I do totally agree with you that it is a similar situation, in that Churchill joined Freemasonry as a young man, was initially very active, but having risen to political power had little or no time for Freemasonry. Interestingly, he was even involved with discussions about closing English masonic lodges - though this was not a political move, but a security consideration in the face of a possible German invasion. However, just because Churchill was inactive as a Mason in his later life (his politically famous life) it does not alter the fact that he was a mason as a young man - his membership records (and even his regalia) are held at the Masonic Library and Museum in London. Ataturk's attitude towards Freemasonry in later life is a matter of debate; but it does not alter the fact that sources demonstrate he was a mason as a young man. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 08:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Timothy, thank you for your kind reply. The sitiuation is a little different for Ataturk and Churchill. According to resources, as you have noted, Churchill joined the freemasonary but later stopped being an active one, and I do not know if there is anyone claiming Churchill never joined the freemasonary, which I see there is not, however in Ataturk's sitiuation there are other researchers than masonic historians who find that Ataturk had never been a freemason. Those resources such as John Hamill are just citing other masonic resources. In the wikipedia page there are three references given to Ataturk's masonary. One from Abbey Lodge,UK, one from John Hamill, and the only Turkish one is Kaya Pasakay.

Kaya Pasakay states that, without giving any references, Ataturk was initiated in 1907 into Lodge Veritas - warranted by the French Grand Orient - in Salonica. In addition, Kaya Pasakay cannot be taken as a trusted resource since he is the only Grand Master expelled from the "Hur ve Kabul Edilmiş Masonlar Locası", the most known Lodge in Turkey. The reason to his expellsion from the lodge was that he lied to the lodge about his background. He told to the lodge that he was an ex-ambassador and an ex-diplomat, but it is later found out by other masons that in fact, he only worked for the ministry of foreign affairs of Turkey for 3 years and was never promoted and left the ministry as a low ranking member of the staff. After all these facts I find it hard to believe that taking masonic resources citing Kaya Pasakay as an other perspective on the issue. Clearly there is no evidence or record of Ataturk in masonic lodges, but rumors raised by freemasons and other masonic historians citing these rumors. Moreover Can Dundar's work is not his opinion but his findings depend on the memoirs of the mason PMs of the time and masonic records.

Given that there is no record of Ataturk, and the only original resource is Kaya Pasakay and consedering his credibility and lack of evidence, Ataturk's name should be excluded from the list untill a trustworthy resource is found. I believe this is what WP:NPOV expects us to do, obviously Blueboar is misinterpreting the wikipedia policies. At this point I suggest to request a WP:Third opinion. Is this OK? --Aadagger (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, following on my comments, I have started the ball rolling and have added a statement accounting for Dundar's claim that Ataturk was not a Mason, per NPOV (and no, I am not misinterpreting the policy... feel free to ask about it at the policy talk page). Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Aadagger... given your last edit... I assume you are now satified? Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually am not. I will look into Andrew Mango's Ataturk biography if there are any supporting material in it and let you know.--Aadagger (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I found another source on Ataturk and masonary. Murat Ozgen Ayfer, Grande Lodge Liberale De Turquie,([4])(2000-2004) in response to a question "Was Ataturk a mason?" on this video,unfortuanetly it is in Turkish, ([5]) says "Masons expect and believe that he was a mason, even western sources cite Ataturk as mason.However, there is no record and it has not proven whether Ataturk was iniated up to present." So even though some Turkish masons believe Ataturk was a mason; there is no explicit evidence, record or whatever to give proof to his masonary. So since Ataturk's masonary is not verifiable and due to WP:Verifiability, I again suggest to remove his name from the list. Please give your responses.--Aadagger (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the very first sentence of WP:Verifiability... "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." In other words, it does not really matter whether Ataturk was, or was not, actually a Mason. What matters is that multiple reliable sources are of the opinion that Ataturk was a Mason, and that other reliable sources are of the opinion that he was not a Mason. As long as we account for this discrepancy of opinion, and mention both view points, it is appropriate to keep him on the list. I would have no objection to changing the caveat to read: "Disputed - According to several Turkish sources, Ataturk was never a Mason" (which would allow for multiple refs to reliable sources that say this). But, since there are reliable sources that say he was a Mason, I would definitely object to removing his name from the list. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If citations to websites are a problem - and I sub it that they are, given that websites are ephemeral by nature, all one needs to do is go to the library and crack a book. Also, if it hasn't been said before, the fact that a well regarded historian is a mason should not be a problem with citing his works. Particularly those who like Hamill follow the authentic school know what they are doing, and have absolutely zero to gain, and much lose, by claiming masonic membership for those whose membership is not reliably known or provable. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 19:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

2012
There was 3 references to proove Atatürk was Mason. One of them were already a dead link so i replaced. The [reference 46] does not even claim Atatürk as a Mason, there is just mentioned Masonary became strong during the Atatürk era, there was some Mason officials on the side of Atatürk and Atatürk banned the lodges himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemyildiz (talk • contribs) 11:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Re the Abby Lodge ref - the link was not "dead". The problem was that we linked to the main page of the website (which does not say much), and not to the specific sub-page with the information. I have fixed that and returned the reference. Re the Palestine Lodge web site you say does not even claim Ataturk as a Mason... read it again... it clearly does... it states that Ataturk was "initiated in 1907 into Lodge Veritas - warranted by the French Grand Orient - in Salonica." If you look through the archives of this talk page, you will find that we have discussed Ataturk's inclusion on the list repeatedly. I remember that at one point we had as many as six references attached to his name. There are plenty of sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)