Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 1

General Summary of Position
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is rightfully regarded as the founder of the Turkish Republic, and is seen as a hero in most Turkish speaking part of Turkey. in Turkey's Kurdistan (so called south east Turkey) however he is seen as an Evil by most, despite public hatred toward attaturk in Kurdistan. Turkish regime have erected his statue in every single Kurdish towns and vilages, because of frequesnt public attack on them the statues are always garded by turkish secret service. during attaturk's political area he has undertook many actions which CAN BE CONSIDERED as authoritarian in nature, and even dictatorial.

The Maintence of Order Law was clearly used against a major opposition political party. One might consider this as a necessary measue to protect the republic, but one might also consider this as a means used by Ataturk to maintain his control over the Turkish political process. The fact that it was passed by the National Assembly and not technically by Ataturk personaly does not matter, because Ataturk controlled the National Assembly.

One could also mention the Independence Tribunals, which prosecuted members of the political opposition and those who had opposed Ataturk during the foundin of the Turkish Republic. Again, one could say that these were necessary measures, or one could say that they were efforts at maintaining political power in his own hands. THE EVIDENCE CAN SUPPORT EITHER POINT OF VIEW.

Your continued efforts to delete my changes to the article indicate that you are not interested in having a NPOV in the article, but only wish to have your own view of Ataturk represented. This violates a basic premise of Wikipeda. If people have views of Ataturk that differ from your own, those views have every right to be expressed in the article.Bruce Cabot 18:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So by your logic, George W. Bush Jr. is also a dictator? What do you mean, Ataturk controlled the National Assembly? Are you suggesting that Tony Blair controls the British Parliament, and George W. Bush controls the Congress?


 * :: It is more like George Washington, he won the war became the president. Ataturk and Washington insisted that some else be the president but the public tends to want their saviors be their leader. In my opinion todays politicians neither in US Congress nor Turkish Parliment are worth a fraction of the founders of the contries. --Coolcat 22:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I've stated this several times but it seems to illude you. PRP was NOT a major opposition. They were a minor party. National Assembly, not Ataturk or Ataturk ruling National Assembly decided to dismantle them.


 * Once again, you go for plurals. I've already said this. It was used against a single minor party. Their aim is to destroy the Republic's core values. National Assembly decides that they're too dangerous for the republic, so dismantles them.


 * Independence Tribunals can be related to the treatment of loyalists in the newfound USA. Again, going by your logic, pretty much every single ruler is a dictator trying to crush everyone else.


 * I removed your changes to the article because they weren't facts but biased opinions. I could put "Ataturk was the best president in any country ever" on there. I didn't, because that's an OPINION. There is no reason for the "Regarded as a hero, but seen as a dictator by some" text. That's unnecessary jargon. You're attacking Ataturk, not presenting another viewpoint. This isn't a controversial subject, there really aren't "another POV" aside from simply attacking Ataturk.


 * All views can not be expressed. Simply attacking the article and filling it with opinions can not be tolerated. MonsterOfTheLake 18:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That Ataturk had the reins of power in Turkey fully in his hands by the time of the founding of the Republic is a well-established fact He was able to push through the laws and reforms he wanted, even ones which were highly unpopular in Turkey, because the National Assembly didn't dare oppose him.

In fact, the Progressive Republican Party was the first and the largest of the opposition political groups established in the Turkish Republic. It was founded by men such as Hussein Rauf and Refet, who had fought during the war with the Greeks and have become disturbed at Ataturk's overwhelming influence within Turkish political institutions. They were uncomfortable with many of his reforms and sought to work within the new political framework. It was not small and not minor, and no amount of declaring such on your part is going to make it so.

You compare Ataturk to George W. Bush. It can easily be argued that Bus has far too much influence over the American political process at the present time (that's an entirely other subject), but compared to the power Ataturk held in Turkey during the 1920s, a more apt comparison would be to Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, where there is technically a parliament and an opposition, but any opposing political figure is thrown in jail or otherwise silenced.Bruce Cabot 19:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess facts would speak more than opinions. Also facts covered by sources are much less prone to revert wars than opinions, IME on Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 18:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All of my edits have contained obvious truths (i.e. regarded by many as a hero and by others as a dictator) or facts that can be looked up in any number of biographies of Ataturk. Information on the Maintence of Order Law, the fate of the Progressive Republican Party, Ataturk's religious beliefs, ect. can be found in a number of excellent works on Ataturk's life or Turkish history since the founding of the Republic. How one interpretes those facts is up to them, but the facts deserve to be included in the article, even when some people wish the facts were different.Bruce Cabot 18:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Adding public opinion to a historic leader's biography is not exactly representing a NPOV when it is a minority opinion. Talking about your "...many as a hero and by others as a dictator" edit. See George Washington and Winston Churchill for example, which contain the opinion neutral lines of "regarded as most important figure in X history" where X is the respective country. The fact that there are historians who think Ataturk was a dictator does not merit the addition of that information to the first paragraph of his biography. For a comparison, one can find biased historians who has portrayed many influential figures in a bad light. By your logic, the presence of such historians (and their useless documents cited by you as sources) merit the addition of "regarded by many as the spreader of freedom, and some as a war criminal" to the first paragraph of George W. Bush and other such leaders involved in disputed actions. The notion that Ataturk can be considered a dictator should be left open to interpretation by inferring it from a neutral (and well documented) presentation of his achievements, not by taking a cheap shot including such a portrayal of him in the first paragraph. Ataturk being a dictator is no "obvious truth" to me, it is VERY disputable (even if he was one, he was then a hell of a benevolent dictator). As you maintain, only facts should be presented and the rest must be left to interpretation, which obligates the removal of apriori interpretations as added by this edit of yours.--67.171.71.40 21:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not consider Ataturk being a dictator as an "obvious truth"- but it is an obvious truth that many people consider him to be such. Whether this opinion is a minority view is both questionable and irrelevant- minority views have a right to be expressed, too. As for Ataturk being a benevolent dictator, I think that description sums him up perfectly well. Honestly, I consider Ataturk's impact on Turkey to have been generally beneficial to the country. But he was an extremely complicated man, who can be viewed in many different ways, and the Wikipedia entry should reflect this fact. The earlier edits reflected, in my opinion, a blind hero-worship and as such were inappropriate.

I urge you to be rational
Look, one of the main virtues of Wikipedia is to allow for the expression of opinions from all sides. I never deleted anything you wrote about Ataturk- I merely added additional comments which express a point of view shared by a very large number of people. You can disagree with them all you want- in fact, I urge you to continue doing so- but to try and prevent their views from being expressed is wrong.

Our views have a right to be expressed, too, whether you agree with them or not.


 * I _am_ being rational. I already said that I'm all for NPOV. However, I also aim for factual accuracy. MonsterOfTheLake 18:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Calling me a moron is not particularly rational. It's rude.Bruce Cabot 18:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Simple Question
Question: Is this article is dispute? Answer: Yes. Therefore, STOP deleting the dispute marker.


 * I thought we already resolved this? You clearly can't dispute my arguments. You're still stuck with your original position and refuse to budge. I already proved you wrong. Thanks for protecting Mirv. MonsterOfTheLake 17:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So much for being reasonable
As a matter of fact, yes- the Greek soldiers did kill Turkish women and children in Izir. I stated very clearly that both sides committed atrocities in the war. The fact I was stressing is that, even after Greek independence, thousands of Greeks continued to live on the Aegean coast of Turkey, just as they had for a thousand years before Turks even arrived in the area.

As for the opposition parties you speak of, you seem to believe that having a vision of Turkey that was different from that of Ataturk made them "extremist" and therefore meant that they had to be shut down. As I have already said, such a course of action is one that takes place in a dictatorship, not a democracy.

It's quite clear that you cannot have a discussion on this subject in a rational manner. I shall continue to edit as I see fit.

Let's be reasonable here
In war, soldiers battle against soldiers. In Izmir, soldiers killed defenseless women and children. There's a BIG difference.

As a gesture of goodwill, I have not included the section on Izmir in my reedits. I would ask that you meet this gesture of goodwill be refraining from constantly deleting the dispute marker. Obviously, the article IS in dispute.

Yes, it is true that Ataturk created a party system, but he exploited the system for his own ends. After all, many dictatorships have had party systems as well- once they were in power, they shut down the opposing parties, claiming that they were "subversive." When the people are only given one real option for whom to vote, as happens when the government shuts down the main oppostion party, you only have the appearence of a democracy, not the real thing. And that was what Turkey had until Ataturk's death in 1938.


 * You clearly have no idea on what you're talking about. Greeks start civil war. They are liberated, and no longer part of the Ottoman Empire. They declare war on Ottoman Empire. They take over Izmir. They kill people. Then Ataturk comes and drives them away. And then, 90 years later, some ill-willed dolt says that he was killing "defenseless women and children." WHAT DEFENSELESS WOMEN AND CHILDREN? GREEK SOLDIERS OCCUPIED IZMIR! ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT HE KILLED TURKISH WOMEN AND CHILDREN? You are a moron.


 * Again with the plurality. How many times do I have to tell you this: It was used against a SINGLE party whose goal was to undermine the REPUBLIC BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Are you too much of a buffoon to get it? Here: The GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF TURKEY, decided that the PRP were too extreme. They voted to dismantle the party. It passed. Party dismantled. There are no "OPPOSING PARTIES BEING SHUT DOWN BY EVIL ARMENIAN KILLER ATATURK" that you claim. There was no appearance of democracy. There was the "real thing." It wasn't the main opposition party either -- there were many other parties, stronger ones too. Until Ataturk's death, he ruled the country as a democratic president elected 4 times against various parties which he caused to start up in the first place. WHY START UP OPPOSING PARTIES IF YOUR GOAL IS TO RULE WITH AN IRON FIST? MonsterOfTheLake 16:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You claim the slaughter at Izmir never happened?
I didn't mean to say that the Greek government controlled Izmir before the war- it didn't. But Greeks had lived on the Aegean coadt of what is now Turkey for more than a thousand years before the Turks arrived in the area. Both sides committed atrocities against one another during the conflict, and denying that it happened doesn't help- it just makes you look like you're trying to hide something.

Again, the use of the Maintence of Order Law to shut down the political opposition was not an act which should have taken place if the country was a true democracy. In a real democracy, political opposition is freely discussed and considered- not destroyed by the power of the state. You say that the political opposition needed to be shut down because they wanted to take Turkey back to the way it had been before Ataturk- then say that this required Ataturk to shut them down because he was defending the republic. If you honestly look at what you're saying, you'll see how absurd it is.

Also, I never said that Ataturk faked the assassination attempt. The assassination plot was quite real, but the members of the political oppositon who were arrested or it had nothing to do with it. Ataturk used it as an excuse to move against his political enemies.


 * .... what slaughter are you talking about? There was a war. Greeks killed Turks. Turks killed Greeks. I was just responding to you trying to work in the supposed Armenian Genocide in. You aren't making any sense.


 * Once again, you're blaming Ataturk. He didn't take it down -- it was the NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. Argue "but Ataturk wanted it!" all you want, it wasn't a single decision. If he was a dictator like you consider him, he wouldn't start the PARTY SYSTEM in the first place. He could've ruled as an Emperor/Dictator. After all, he liberated Turkey. He was the one to install a Party System, which a dictator would NOT do. Back to the "political opposition" -- note that only an EXTREMIST party was shut down, whom were trying to destroy the Republic's core value in the first place? There were still other parties, which Ataturk urged to start, so a party system could be set. It's not absurd really -- depends on how biased you are.


 * That's a void argument. It was proven that extremists were behind it. MonsterOfTheLake 16:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response to last message
Very well. From now on, I will make changes using an appropriate username, and we'll see whether you keep your word and refrain from deleting my additions.

Muslim/Islam Issue: Your arguement is completely semantical and therefore a non-issue. You know what I'm talking about.

Ataturk's authoritarian ways: On March 2, 1925, Ataturk forced through the Maintenance of Order Law, which enpowered his government to arrest any person or move against any organization it deemed "subversive". This was government Napoleon-style. The people who were targeted by this law were those who were politically opposed to Ataturk. t would be like President Bush pushing a law through Congress allowing the government to shut down the Democratic Party. You say that Ataturk won every election, and this is true, but were these elections fair? Obviously not.

This information can be found in any biography of Ataturk. I just looked it up in Andre Mango's "Ataturk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey" in chapter 21.

I also wish to point out that my attempted contributions (which you have kept deleting) do not make the claim that Ataturk WAS a dictator, but simply that many people BELIEVE that he was a dictator, which is an obvious truth.


 * Thank you for getting a username, it'll be easier to refer you. Use 4 tildes (~) after your comments, so we can see whose comment it is. Now, onto the matters..
 * I'm all for NPOV, that's the whole point of Wikipedia. But you're going from "other point of view" to "random ways to insult". First of all, the whole "Ataturk slaughtered many Greeks and Armenians living peacefully" is basically propoganda. The amount of Armenians living in Izmir was very miniscule, and they weren't even touched by Ataturk's army. Ataturk didn't go ahead and just kill people for fun, the Greek overtook the city. You're blaming someone killing soldiers who overtook a part of his nation. That's redundant. By your logic, all the countries that Germany took over in WWII fighting back were "slaughtering innocent Germans?"
 * Secondly, the "authoritatian" ways of Ataturk that you speak of. Yes, the National Assembly (Not Ataturk the vicious barbarian dictator that you claim) passed the Law on the Maintenance of Order. No, that's NOT like Bush passing a law to close the Democratic Party. That'd be more like Bush passing a law to shut down Bin Laden's party. That law was abolished in 1929, when the religious fanatics finally cooled down a bit. It was only used once, and against an extremely Islamic party (Progressive Republican Party). The country was found 2 years ago, the people have been under an Emperor for decades. If the Progressive Republican Party were elected, the country would basically go back to harsh Islamic law. This was the only time it was used, and like I said, it was removed 4 years later. The elections were fair, as Ataturk was seen as the person who could bring the country back up from the ground. There's a huge difference between passing "authoritarian" laws in peace time (and like I said, the NATIONAL ASSEMBLY and NOT ATATURK passed it) and when you're rebuilding a country that was based on Islamic hereditary Emperors into a Republic, and figure in the fact that you've recently won your country's freedom a few years back. You have to factor in the time period here. Your logic is flawed.
 * Thirdly, the first line that you keep adding back. Many people also believe UFOs. I've already proved that he wasn't a dictator, no? The first line is pointless and basically even more propoganda. MonsterOfTheLake 13:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--All of you have completely avoided the deep deep impact Kemal has on Islam in both Turkey and in the Muslim world. By abandoning the khilafah, he DESTROYED over a thousand years of benevolent Islamic rule. The harm that changing the Arabic alphabet to a Latin set is not mentioned; it left the Turkish people without knowledge about hundreds of years of their history. He FORCED women to remove hijab, he FORCED imams to say prayers and make the call to prayer in Turkish, he FORCED Turks to use the Turkish word for God instead of Allah(swt). He arrested Muslims for following their religion. This article reflects little of the negative impact on Islam Kemal had, not to mention the murderous campaigns he carried out against the Kurds and Armenians.--


 * If you look at modern Turkey, and compare it with Iran and almost all of the Arab world, you see that Ataturk had an incredibly
 * positive effect by doing things that he did (except for the Kurd and Armenian stuff which you guys bring up at every possible
 * opportunity, which I am tired of answering - riots against revolutions have always been met with force in the world). Benevolent
 * Islamic rule? That is news. As far as I know from history Arabs fought amongst their OWN for rule of the Islam state for centuries,
 * then the Ottomans took upon their own to bring Jihad to Europe. Hardly benevolent. It is true that Ataturk was overzealous on
 * Turkish nationalism, perhaps a bit too much so to harm his concept of nation-state, but I find the modern Turkish language ::beautiful,and am glad it got rid of a lot of Arab influence. What Ataturk did was separating religion from state, which is a norm
 * of modern civilizations. If the state has an official religion than the minorities are automatically second-class and inevitably
 * opressed. It is crucial for states not to establish a religion, and not obstruct its free exercise (so long as it does not
 * intervene with other people's freedoms).--Mrpdaemon 21:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--Modern Turkey is what these days? Constantly being teased by the EU for membership and consistently declined? What an honorable position. I don't believe this talk page is the venue for this discussion, but several things need to be made clear. Firstly, the early Ottoman Empire and those preceding it were MUSLIM empires, the khilafah. They weren't Arab, Turkish, Sunni or Shi'a. Muslim. You seem to confuse this concept: it was only post 19th century that the concept of nationalism/pan-Arabism took root in the Muslim world. Moving on, Mustafa Kemal (I would hardly consider him 'Father of the Turks') did terrible damage to the religion of Islam within Turkey itself, which you seem to brush off as a fair trade for a dictatorship. As I mentioned, severe restrictions on religion, banning the Arabic language, a ban of Islamic holidays and calenders and many more. Few more things: -jihad, with a lower case j, means struggle as I'm SURE you know. Struggle was never in Europe? -It is not for you or I to judge how 'beautiful' languages are. Irrelevant and distasteful to put one above another. Perhaps you'd fit in well with Kemal's nationalist state. -Separation of church and state is a norm of WESTERN civilization. It has little historical context outside of America. Even the 'original' democracies in Greece were religious. -Let us look at the pride of secularism: France. What a beacon of freedom and religious expression. -Lastly, are you a Muslim? If not, I don't think you have much clout to speak about Islam and the khilafah. --

Completely Biased Pro-Ataturk article
The tone of this article is absurd, and any criticism of Ataturk is quickly deleted. I have repeatedly added the following sentence: "Many people believe Ataturk to be a hero, while others see him as a dictator." And every time I add it, it is deleted almost immediately. I also have occasionally added mention of Ataturk's personal religious belief, only to have it deleted.


 * NEWSFLASH: Ataturk is NOT a dictator. He's the person that created the REPUBLIC of Turkey. He started the VOTING SYSTEM instead of the Ottoman Empire's EMPEROR system. There were elections, Ataturk won all of them until his death. Calling Ataturk a dictator is like calling Washington a dictator. A dictator rules without challenge. If Ataturk had challenger parties, let alone STARTED the party system in the first place, it's inane to call him a DICTATOR.


 * He didn't believe in the Muslim religion? Well let's ignore the fact that Muslim isn't a religion, so we'll assume that you meant ISLAM, correct? I hope so, because otherwise you're seriously undereducated. There's a huge difference between being an atheist and secularizing a country. He removed religion from politics.


 * This article is unbiased, and you're a vandal trying to stir up trouble. I will revert your edits until you stop doing vandalism and actually contribute something. MonsterOfTheLake 20:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

=Pre-protection commentary=

kemal worship
Frankly, I think the whole article just reeks of hero-worship. Sure, Mustafa was a pretty amazing guy, but I really think the article ought to be edited to give it a more neutral tone. Just look at this excerpt:

"The liberator ranks among the world's greatest strategists and holds the rare distinction of having maintained a perfect military record consisting of only victories and no defeats.

As the national struggle ended, the heroic leader proclaimed:"

Compare it to the article on George Washington, and the sycophantic language becomes evident. Sure, there's no problem with saying that the Turks call him "The Liberator" if indeed they do, but stuff like "the heroic leader proclaimed" totally destroys any vestige of neutrality in the article and turns it from an informative essay into useless idol-worship and throws the accuracy of everything into doubt.

The reason for the tone of this article, I discovered, was because most of the text was lifted from here: http://www.ataturk.com/ Even if ataturk.com gave permission for the text to be used, this is probably not supposed to be a verbatim copy, no?

Suppression of name
Why is the name "Mustafa" suppressed?

How comes the birth date? It seems to be known just that he was born in spring. He took May 19 to be the day to celebrate his birthday. Andres 17:38, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree. I will remove the birth date. If someone shows a reference, he/she can revert this change. Ato 00:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

armenian genocide
(MaGioZal):

Yes, I think Mustafa should be added. Also, if there is a relationship between Ataturk himself and the Armenian deaths, maybe it should be included with npov language. I honestly do not know... cihan 21:43, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no mention of Ataturk on the Armenian Genocide page, so it does not make sense to mention it here. cihan 21:52, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If the second Armenian massacre happened in 1915 then I doubt Mustafa Kemal had much to do with it because he was busy at Gallipoli. He was only the commander of the Turkish 19th Division at the time. Geoff/Gsl 22:02, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But as far as I know Turkey was under (absolute) control of Ataturk when the Armenian Genocide occurred.


 * in 1915 Turkey (or rather Ottoman Empire, because Turkey also is commonly used as the short form of Republic of Turkey) was not under control of Ataturk. How did you get this impression? Ato 06:34, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * This impression is related with the Armenians to make a request for money and/or soil from the current Turkish government. If they can somehow relate Ataturk to what they call as genocide, they can make demands from the current Turkish government related to it. Part of this is to relate Ataturk to those events, but Ataturk and Turkish republic has nothing to do with those events.

Just to remember Hollywood intended some years ago to make a movie about Mustafa Kemal Ataturk with Antonio Banderas in the main role. Due to the angry protests of U.S. armenian community the project was cancelled. MaGioZal


 * After the first world war, American president of that time brought a rule for the division of defeated countries, such as Ottoman Empire. For same reason, Iraq, Syria and Arabia were seperated from Ottoman Empire because there were (of course) more arabs than Turks. Eastern Anatolia were inhabited by a mixture of Armenians, Kurds and Turks. Ottoman government ordered evacuation of Armenians from that region for not to lose it because almost 50% of the region were Armenians. During this evacuation, most of the citizens died due to illness, cold, hunger etc. It was no ethnic cleansing or mass murdering because Ottoman Empire was too poor and was defeated in First World War; too poor to spend bullets for even killing thousands for any reason, too weak for even feeding an army.
 * This event has nothing to do with the new Turkish republic, Mustafa Kemal or anybody else. It's a problem of the banished sovereign and fallen Ottoman Empire which is only history now. It is also a point that Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Arabia are seperated from the empire but eastern Anatolia and the region called Kurdistan are not. They were counted as Turk regions that time.

You can cheat a man all the time, You can cheat all men only one time, But, you can not cheat all men all the the time.

I promise to host "anyone" who would like to come to Turkey and see wrecks of villages standing as "proofs" of the genocide applied on Turkish villages by Armenians and Pontic Greeks during 1st World War. Those Pontic Greeks and Armenians slaughtered their Turkish neighbours whom they lived side by side for hundreds of years without being forced to change their religion and culture. Then, "Ottoman" goverment had to make a decision to march those Armenians to Syria in order to control east side of country while fighting with all the men in Gallipoli.

Also, when Ottoman Armenians attacked on their Turkish neighbours without any doubt, never remembering the past hospitality and mercy of Turks, they also had the Russian Armenians' Army on their side. But, Turkish villagers had no weapon in their hands.

There were still mass graves of Turkish villagers found incidentally until late 1980's. I promise to anyone to show those mass graves who would like to come to Turkey.

Hopelesly, we do not have the power of Hollywood and rich "diaspora" on our back. Noone wants to tell those truths.

For people, who would like to come and see the truth, please message me through suildur@mynet.com


 * After the Turkish independence war was won, Most greek left their villages and towns, they just refused to live under new Turkish Republic and burned down their own villages,towns,cities before leaving. That's the reason most of aegean cities were rebuilt; for example Turkey's third largest city Izmir. --JohnEmerald 09:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

name origin
He did not took the name "Kemal Ataturk". Kemal was given to him, by his Math teacher when he was young and it is just a nickname. Ataturk was given to him as a "surname" by the parliment.

Kemalism did not leave Turkey in a half-Europe and half-Asian position. Long before Kemalism, Ottoman Empire started to modernize its society, economy and any other related activities. Ottoman Empire was always part of Europe and was active in Europe in many centuries. What many view as not-complete European is mostly because of the different culture of Turkey in Europe and has nothing to do with Kemalism. There is also no such thing as Kemalism and his views were flexible enough to move the country forward.

Turkish military's role in politics has nothing to do with Ataturk. That's pure speculation.


 * Atatürk's legacy also survives in the Turkish military, which sees itself as the guardian of Turkish nationalism and secularism. Kemalist officers staged coups in 1960 and 1980 in defence what they saw as the principles of Atatürk against corrupt politicians, and even today the moderately Islamist government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan has to tread carefully on issues such as Cyprus and Kurdistan for fear of offending Kemalist sentiment in the military. The power of the army and the authoriarian Kemalist strain in Turkish politics remain obstacles to Turkey's acceptance into the European Union.

This is kind of upside down. The current power of the army in Turkey has little to do with Kemalist tradition. On the contrary, this is a result of the policies installed by Demokrat Parti (Democratic Party) which replaced Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (Republican People's Party). They opened the country to US influence which made the army grow stronger by military aid. This is a story repeated in many places in the world, and Turkey was no exception. Especially the 1980 coup was done by the influence of the US and in the years following the coup many Kemalists were imprisoned, killed and tortured by the coup government. It is true that currently the army is more Kemalist than 1980's and they do defend the secularism in a way not compatible with their role in parliamentary democracy, but this certainly was not happening continuously since Atatürk's time, and I don't see how it belongs to this article.

ato 08:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not at home this week and am away from my references, so I can't reply in detail to Ato's comments at the moment. If he wants to remove the paragraphs in question I have no objection. However I am quite condident in disagreeing with him that Turkey under Ataturk was a democracy. It was an authoritarian regime, though a failure mild one as the article says. Turkey did not have a democratic multi-party election until Inonu's liberalisation after World War II. Adam 09:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think this is a matter of definition than facts. We agree on what happened, but disagree on what to call it. Names are important but IMHO facts are more important, so I propose the following. Would anyone object if we drop the word democracy altogether, describe that 1) It was a single party regime; 2) there was opposition and elections within that party; 3) However, the party was largely under control of Atatürk and his supporters and when opposition got strong it was supressed unilaterally; 4) The opposition by Celal Bayar and his supporters was allowed and indeed encouraged by Republican People's Party, and later this opposition became a party on its own and won the first democratic elections (?1946?)? The assasination attempt at Atatürk's life has some relevance to this picture as well and can be mentioned here. We should also mention the reason for such a strong handed government. Lack of education in Anatolia, years of monarchy, demands by imperialist west and their previous success in finding collaborators within Ottoman government comes to mind.
 * I am going on a trip soon as well and actually do not want to get into a discussion. I decided I get too emotional on issues regarding Turkey and am not the best person to edit the articles about Turkish history. ato 15:45, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Ato for his reasonable comments. We can discuss this further when we are both back with our books :). Perhaps there ought to be a rule against editing articles about our own countries. Also I hope Ato likes my Ataturk statue photos. Adam 23:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

firstly, i think it will be right to declare that i'm a turk.

i'll make some comments on the issues discussed.

about democracy:

Ataturk founded the republic, but the republic was not democratic in his time. besides, Ataturk used his power to dictate some revolutions. (we can give abolition of the caliphate, or abolition of sultanate as examples) but, this behaviour should not be considered without remarking the cultural & educational level of the turkish people at that time. %70 of the people even did not know how to read/write. this is why mustafa kemal was given "father of the turks" as his lastname, as a father sometimes dictates sth. to his not-knowing son, but it is for his good. in addition: in the ~20 years of Ataturk's rule, the last years can be considered more democratic, as he himself wanted his friends to organize other parties for opposition. but these parties were both closed, because fundamentalists took up power in those parties and threatened the republic. i think it's apparent that the not-educated turkish people were not ready for a regime like democracy.

consequence: it is not right to call him as the bringer of democracy. but, it is also wrong to call him as a full dictator. he dictatorship did not exceed the dictatorship done by father to a son. and: it is clear that he had intentions about democracy, as he started the "war against ignorance". talking about it would be right.

about genocide:

discussion about the existence (or magnitude) of the genocide is another topic. but, it is clear that ataturk had nothing to do with armenian genocide. he was in gallipoli when the genocide occured. but, i think it is right to say that he didn't had much positive attitude towards non-turks, especially kurdish people. but, it should be stated that ataturk never ordered any massacre, even the time of kurdish rebellions. (although the casulities of the rebellions were really many, they were not massacred.)

i'll try to answer any questions you might want to ask, trying to be as objective as possible. i am open for criticism. please do not forget that here our purpose is to right truth, not to make any kind of propoganda.

have a nice time.


 * Every source I've seen for Kemal seems to indicate that the title Ataturk was given to him by the Parliament, and not self-bestowed as the article appears to indicate. If this is correct, I think the wiki should reflect this.


 * Also, I don't think the "dual origin" and "divided" phrases are necessarily mutually exclusive - more like two sides to the same coin.


 * As for what to call him - a "transitional reformist", perhaps, or something to that effect? I think the authoritirian description should be left in, as more of a definition rather than a connonitive term. Bob McDob 13:49, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(19.08.2004)

" Atatürk is not exceptional in this regard." ato said.

"Knowing that he was exceptional reformer in all fields relevant to the competence of UNESCO" 1981-Ataturk Year by UNESCO.

He was exceptional because waged war against the Imperialist and civilized countries with so little at hand, succeeded but didn't stop. He had the chance to be the Emperor because most people and the people thought he would be one but rather he brought republic to the country whose people didn't know one. He knew that there could be no effective democracy without secularity or the conscious of Republic of the populace. Therefore his aim was to make the basis for democracy and then build upon it. So time to time he built opposition parties and tried to establish the democracy, but after several western-backed riots he realized that it was not the time. He brought reforms concerning nearly all areas, education, language, social alphabet, history, science, economy, regime, agriculture, technology, industry etc. And accomplished those by maintaining total independence. And his war has been seen as an eastern upheaval against the west by the long oppressed east. And many independence wars were carried out as the Turkish Independence War's inspiration. Looking from this perspective he was exceptional.

"I think it is right to say that he didn't had much positive attitude towards non-turks, especially kurdish people" said someone."

I would remind you that Ataturk was a man of peace, he worked for the cooperation and harmony of the nations, and people. He has never dishonored any nation or tried. If his actions and remarks are carefully observed, it can easily be seen that the statement put forward above is false (The Greek flag incident could be a fine example). Kurds are not a discrete nationality. They are Turks. Therefore Ataturk never looked down on any people. He gave the same concern and help to all regions of Turkey.

Sinan

Dispute War
Could whoever protected this article kindly unprotect it? There is no active dispute going on here. Adam 10:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok. Unprotected. &rarr;Raul654 10:34, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

War against Imperialism
One of the main accomplishments of Ataturk was the war he had waged against colonialist and imperialist countries, the Entente Powers. This struggle was an inspiration to other oppressed nations all around the world which was also as his foresight. IMHO, the lack of this point in the article prevents putting his struggle thoroughly.

About this I'd like to give a link about the UNESCO Resolution on the Ataturk Centennial: http://www.ataturk.com/unesco.htm

"Recognizing in particular that he was the leader of the first struggle given against colonialism and imperialism"

"Authoritarian Kemalist strain"?
"The power of the army and the authoritarian Kemalist strain in Turkish politics remain obstacles to Turkey's acceptance into the European Union."

Who is the authoritarian Kemalist strain? Does the phrase refer to the army? Then why is it seen as an obstacle against EU? But if the sentence is about the renunciation of the total freedom rights while "being accepted" to EU, then it should be put clearly. Because Ataturk did not favor an army that interferes politics. After the War of Independence, he told his military friends to either choose military or politics, and he himself quit his military task to become the president. From this perspective the coups of 1960 and 1980 were not Kemalist. Especially the actions taken after the 1980 coup by the army was against the will of Ataturk (TDK (Turkish Language Institute) and TTE (Turkish History Institute)The ideology of Kemalism and the "nominal" Kemalism should be distinguished.

It is not the power of the army but is the effect of the army in political decisions. The word of "power" suggests that the army is too strong compared to other armies around the world. In contrary EU wants Turkish army inside the European Army because of the power.

One more thing, Ataturk did not favor westernization. Here is a quote but I do not have enough English to translate it but I'd be pleased if anyone did and put it here: There is a saying dated March,6th 1922 in the Assembly under his picture

"Kemal admired some aspects of the Soviet Union and of Fascist Italy"

The sentence is too vague as what it represents. What are those aspects? Was Italy Fascist in his times? etc. It should be better to make the article more encyclopedic and either state those aspects or remove the sentence. Also I have not seen any quotes regarding what the sentence suggests. Can someone show any references? -Sinan

User:Kunefge's example

 * The international version: Although the outward forms of democracy were established, Kemal was in practice a dictator, although a relatively moderate one.
 * The Turkish version: Other than brief periods, there was only one party to rule the country. Although Kemal attempted the transition to democracy by organizing an opposition, he was unable due to reactionary movements which were suspected to be instigated by "imperialist countries".

No clearer picture of the Turkish approach could be asked for! Wetman 20:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

what's the trouble with turkish version? it's completely right except the last "imperialist countries" part. the islamic fundementalists seized those parties, and threatened the new republic. the imperial countries thing is about the first kurdish rebellion, "&#351;eyh sait isyani" in turkish, or with 1-1 translation, "sheikh sait rebellion". although never proved, it is widely believed (in turkey) that britain bribed the populer kurdish figure sheikh sait (and promised an independent kurdish state) in order to prevent turkey re-claiming the northern iraq region.

My assertion about "imperialist countries" can be supported by the documents of Komintern and the French intelligence in the era. In those documents mainly Britain is shown responsible for the riots but I chose to implicate. Also, it seems irrational to treat someone who organized opposition parties twice to build up democracy, as a dictator. It should not be forgotten that, historical facts should be evaluated in their time intervals. For example, what was the understanding of democracy in 1920's and 30's? And what was the social and political situation in Turkey? What chances did Atatürk have and which of them he chose to use? In my opinion (and many other historians), considering all those facts it is not probable to call him as a dictator.kunefge 00:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No mention of the Armenian Genocide!
Clean your dirty mouth first, Try reading some books then???. Ottoman empire was still alive at those years, there was a sultan, for god's sake? Those things happened during the first world war. Atatürk was fighting in gallipoli as a single "ottoman general" against bloody imperialist forces (Turkey's (so called) NEW FRIEND europe) who tried and failed to invade thousand year old Turkish homelands. I am sure that he didn't see any DEAD armenians or even he didn't go to the east during his life-span --JohnEmerald 14:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV
This article was ripped from The Noble Kemalist Worship Guide or something. :D

Way too much Hero Worship
I admire the man for what he managed to achieve after the Ottoman Empire disintegrated in 1918/19. This entire article however, is nothing more than hero worship and should be vetted by someone not only versed in the history and life of Ataturk, but still objective.

Ron T
 * All events, reforms that are made by Ataturk are admirable and unbelievable real. What could we do if the man is truly a great hero. These articles are not a worship for him, sorry, they're all real history .) --JohnEmerald 07:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm not that well versed in Ataturk's life so I can't validate JohnEmerald's statement, but are the quotations at the beginning of some sections really necessary? Could you rephrase it to something like, "Ataturk on his views on women were summed up in this quote, dated/said on (date and/or occasion): ..."? -anon (and please debate, to whoever said that they don't debate anonymous users, anonymity doesn't change opinion. Argue against the opinion, not the person.)

You cannot say that Ataturk was a dictator and you cannot compare him to dictators of the world. First of all, everyone is forgetting about the Ottoman Empire and how people were ruled during that time. Everything that Ataturk did was necessary in order to create a much more modern and westernized state. It would be wrong to judge his actions with a today's state of mind. You have got to imagine everything that was occuring at that point in history.

Headline text
=From a Turkish persons point of view= Currently Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is person who lives in every Turkish peoples heart, who believes his country like him. He believed his country, his people. He lead the way to replace an empire with an country based on republic, democracy, secularism etc... While this transition (which is a war) some people might be hurt some didnt like the final. But at 1921 first constutituon of new Republic of Turkey's article number 1 was : "Nation is the only dominate. And the rule will be with nations/peoples own will", which replaced in 1924 with "Turkey is Republic of Turkey".

So he took the power of ruling from an empire and gave to people. This is a fact, not a comment. And this tpye of conversion cannot be done with democratic ways. But final picture is a country: republic, democratic, secular, with lots of modern reforms from education to health, from art to science. Sorry for your comments guys, but I cannot call such a person as a dictator. --Dbl2010 16:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

=Read Some History for God's Sake= Ataturk was a national hero and a savior, and if you know even minimal amount of history, there is no way you can oppose that. The so called Armenian Genocide did not happen under his leadership but due to the orders of Enver Pasha, Turks and Armenians slaughtered each other.(It was not a one way genocide)

Ataturk formed a REPUBLIC from a MONARCY and abolised the Sultan's authority. He did not want to become the next Sultan though he certanly could become as so. Edited by:Deniz

InterLink addition req
it:Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk --M7it 22:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Unprotected and added. --Michael Snow 19:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dictator?
How you can claim that Atatürk wasn´t a dictator in the sense of being the head of autocrative kind governing of the state? I think that Atatürk was a great man who made very much for his nation. But he didn´t do it by democratic methods. I think he couldn´t do it this way. So I think it´s nothing against him write that he was a autocrative leader. He assured that in Turkey will never be dictature again after his death. But why lie? During his life, in Turkey was ONE party with only ONE leader. But in connection with the other important facts about situation in Turkey at his times it´s nothing what can reduce his importance and his great work. [jilm]


 * I agree that, the way was not democracy. But if u say to someone dictator, it means he is a dictator person. It doesnt mean that he was dictator for a certain reason or for a certain time. Yes there was only 1 party and 1 leader at that time, but this doesnt mean again that he was dictator. It was a step for full democracy. How can you teach to people democracy, who lived under monarchy under 1 mans rule for almost 1000 years.--Dbl2010 22:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree with you at all. But I don´t agree with opinion, that every dictators are (and ware) bad so whom I will call dictator is a bad man. I think that we could openly say, that Atatürk was a dictator, but he couldn´t be anything else, if he wanted change the mind and the destiny of his people. I´m sure, that he was a great man. I don´t want to say that he was "a dictator person" for himself. But his autocrative kind of governing is not stressed enough in this text at this moment.

Give references
If you want to make sure that your point is taken, give references. We're talking about history. There's no single hsitorical point of view. For us (turks), he was the founding father and the great leader that fought for freedom and anti-imperialism/colonialism. Terrible things happened during that period, you can't blame one person for these things. WWI didn't start because of him, he was a soldier and did what he could to save his people. If you are looking for somebody to blame, check out those greedy imperialists.


 * Officialy Europe was expecting a war, they weren't expecting a world war though.
 * Chronology:
 * * 28 June     1914: Francis Ferdinand assassinated at Sarajevo
 * * 5 July      1914: Kaiser William II promised German support for Austria against Serbia
 * * 28 July     1914: Austria declared war on Serbia
 * * 1 August    1914: Germany declared war on Russia
 * * 3 August    1914: Germany declared war on France and invaded Belgium. Germany had to implement the Schlieffen Plan.
 * * 4 August    1914: Britain declared war on Germany
 * * 23 August   1914: The BEF started its retreat from Mons. Germany invaded France.
 * * 26 August   1914: Russian army defeated at Tannenburg and Masurian Lakes.
 * * 6 September 1914: Battle of the Marne started
 * * 18 October  1914: First Battle of Ypres
 * * 29 October  1914: Ottoman Empier (Why refered as Turkey on countless web pages I don't know as the country did not exist untill 1923) entered the war on Germany’s side. Trench warfare started to dominate the Western Front.
 * Unless you are a historian or are knowlegable in history, refrain from making historical comments based on what someone told you or what you saw on TV. --Coolcat 23:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless you are a historian or are knowlegable in history, refrain from making historical comments based on what someone told you or what you saw on TV. --Coolcat 23:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep the article clean.
The man is only a man if he is a man and not idol.


 * If you love him and don't want to offend people, keep it to yourself.
 * If you don't like him and don't want to offend people, keep it to yourself.
 * If you want to spit your love use the "TALK" rather than the actual article.
 * If you want to spit your hate use the "TALK" rather than the actual article.
 * Accusations that are not related to him in any way definately does not belong here, nor at the article.


 * Do edit the article in a non-neutral or offensive way, see how many minutes of fame you got.

I personaly think he was a briliant leader. He advanced a war torn nation into a modern state. The transformation of power in Turkey was relatively peacefull. Nothing remotely close to Iraq if you think about it. Only two riots which were adequately dealth with.

He made a country pretty much an unofficial succesor of the Ottoman Empier, a country that had lots of problems to say the very least. He fixed most difficult issues in a decade. The only reason Turkey is in comparable to other middle easten countries (aside from Israel) when it comes to political diversity and democratic structure. Turkey is the living, breathing example of a democracy in a mostly Muslim Country. What Americans hope to achive in Iraq if you think about it. He achived what Americans are yet to achive without the US dollars, nor the US army. Like it or not thats quite impressive.

He was not a dictator. He refused the presidency post but the overwheling request by the people pretty much forced him. No one wanted another leader basicaly. Thats like calling George Washington a dictator. People tend to keep the person liberating them as their leader. He had several attempts to create a minority party but attempts failed because of Islamic Fundementalist interference, a major issue in domestic politics in Turkey. --Coolcat 23:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kemal Atatürk? Shouldnt the main title be Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
After all his full name was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk


 * Well it got moved by someone sloppy, because just I fixed all the double redirects they created. Pcb21| Pete 12:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've put a request on Requested moves for a sysop to merge the history of the old article with the new one. I wish the user who did this would learn the proper procedure first. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)