Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 11

GA review

 * reviewed version
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


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

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

This is true. He wasnt a turk. The turkish forces swaped him away from his parents when he was a little child and trained him into a bloodthirsty slave-soldier like they did with many peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdalo (talk • contribs) 15:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Obvious troll is obvious. Atrata (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


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


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

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


 * Mustafa Kemal was a Muslim, but if any of his parents were not, and there was a verifiable source, then it probably can be included, but wouldn't really make any difference or be any use to the reader. &mdash; talk § _Arsenic99_  05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Baron Kinross' biography, "Ataturk: Rebirth of a Nation" notes that he was of at least parly European-Jewish ancestry. I don't have the book anymore, it was from the library, but I suppose I could look for it.

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

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


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


 * Checked the article. thank you for the link. --Rateslines (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * We can say that it is not good enough to be marked as a "qualified academic article". This citing business is really crucial for such studies. Deliogul (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 97 cited information from 31 different published books; 7 scholarly journals and only 1 magazine. The article is 115,000K and one sub article with 30,000K and 19 different cited sources. Beats many other featured articles. Isn't this an unjustified critique? --TarikAkin (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Prose needs to be improved, some sections need balancing, for example the part on mosul is too large, there is little discussion on his secular reforms (perhaps his most important legacy) and some sections need complete rewriting i.e. legacy. If there was an organized effort by editors to get this to FA I will help. --A.Garnet (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you pledge for the lead author, I will support your edits. I would like bring an important position. I can think of many major concepts that the article did not even mention. For example, his search for peace through treaties, assassination, or as simple as the departure with Inonu. I also believe this article should be brought back to an acceptable size. This means summarizing some of the sections. You stated some sections need to be summarized. However, I believe article needs to be extended to be fair. The size issues and specialized sub articles have already been discussed in a separate thread Personal_life. Before someone begins highly needed "balancing" act we need to create sub articles on "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's Military career" "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and independence war" and "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's presidency." This will give us a place to extend, also have a balanced main article. I will support your edits for a balanced main article. --Rateslines (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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


 * [[Image:Censorship.png|thumb|40px|"shorten certain long, detailed parts"]]Mustafa Kemal was in center of many important issues. The latest revision of this article does not explain all. The article size is not going to decrease. The only way to remove information is to claim it is wrong (proven by a citation). Any attempted to remove information is a "Censure" to the article. Removing any information from this article is a reprimand issued by a specific person or a group. The group may be nationalist, islamists, or by ... who has enough people to gather. I want to ask this question, "What does it say about the group who wants to remove information? Let it may be the nationalist, Islamists, ..." I had opposed people removing information before, even if they removed the ideas that I do not believe. --Rateslines (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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


 * There are requirements for "summary style" which you can find under WP:LIMIT. I'm totally fine with summarizing Ataturk's military background as long as we keep the detail under the sub article "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's military career." Or summarizing his leadership during Independence and keeping the detail under "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and independence war." I will give my support to a lead author, as long as we agree on a structure whereby we can improve the content (sub articles) while keeping the main article short and relevant. That is the main problem. --Rateslines (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the anon, creating more sub-articles and dividing the article further is not the key. Rather, we have to turn what is already here into a coherent, concise and informative article. That means reducing content in some areas while increasing it in others, all the while improving prose, standardising citations and keeping in mind the general presentation of the article. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This article reached to a point that needs a "Sub-article navigation." There are many articles that has Summary style. This does not mean there are right points in the presented arguments, such as A.Garnet's position. How can A.Garnet prove that he is not an ideologically motivated person and pushing his position (or a groups) on the mask of "coherent, concise and informative article?" There is no reason to involve to this type of discussion. Wikipedia developed methods to handle this case. Authors have to look into these policies which are summarized under Summary style. The removal of information is not defensible. The removal of information is not Wikipedia policy under any form of pretense. Instead of opposing on Category:Wikipedia editing guidelines, we can use the policies to improve the content. Ataturk deserves better than a "concise" article. --Rateslines (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is about summarizing an article without using Summary style. This is not about "well intentioned and capable" edits. It is not about GOAL. It is about MEANS. I 'm not opposing to you or any other editor who want to take this huge task. I do not have guts to take that role. I have respect to that person. I might be totally inline with your summary ("concise"). However, neither your nor my priorities (views) have to be shared by the rest. I will support you or other lead editor who will use the Summary style. It is developed because of these issues. There is no need to get angry at me as my following statement was "There is no reason to involve to this type of discussion." and previous one was "This does not mean there are right points " Intend was not to generate "negative intentions (feelings may be)", but point to a problem before it becomes an issue. --Rateslines (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, apologies for the outburst (removed my comment), I misread what you wrote. Let me make some points. Firstly, I am not in the position to make major changes to this article since I have limited access to the internet and sources. So all I can really help with is prose and presentation. Second, when I say concise, I mean the reader be given information which is necessary, and spared of any superflous or unnecessary details. For example, consider in the legacy section some editor though it would be a good idea to list the names of 10 heads of state who visited Ataturk in his life time, this info has no bearing on his legacy. The rest of that section deals with monuments named after him. Now when I say concise I mean getting rid of all this superficial info and replacing it with content of relavance and depth e.g. how has his secular reforms affected Turkey, what impact have his ideas had on the rest of the Muslim world, or how did his independence struggle inspire other movements under colonialism. What are his implications for womens right etc etc. All this info can be summarised in less than what is currently written, but it would be of infinite more value. This is what I mean when I write the article should be "coherent, concise and informative" and should be applied to all sections of the article. --A.Garnet (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We are all sensitive towards everything related to Ataturk. Let me give my position. FIRST; Article needs a "lead editor". The current form has edits from at least 10 different major editors. Tone and style changes through out the article. SECOND; The total size is 145,000K (114K+30K). Excluding the concurrent articles; Ataturk's reforms and Kemalist idealogy. The main article (Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) is 114K. This is over WP:LIMIT. We need to bring the article acceptable range. This is >96K. How to do it? Is it possible to remove information? You pointed to "List the names of 10 heads of state." Yes We did not have to have that information under that heading. However, we are missing the Ataturk's positions on "Yunan Münasebetleri ve "établi" Anlaşmazlığı", "Sovyet Münasebetleri" "İslâm Ülkeleri ile Münasebetleri", "Balkan Antantı". We have some text under "İngiliz Münasebetleri ve Musul Meselesi" and "Hatay sorunu." The text in question has a place in these sections. There is a correct place for everything in this article. The article size is not going to decrease by removing unneeded text (if it exists) make it "Concise" could decrease the article size. But this brings its own problems (the 4th item). We have to deal appropriately. THIRD; "How has his secular reforms affected Turkey" This article is a BIOGRAPHY. Ideological and Theoretical discussions have their own articles. As you said they need to be expend. Ataturk's reforms and Kemalist idealogy are the correct articles to explain them. They are sub to this article. We do not discuss "relativity" under Einstein. We tell where and how Einstein come up with the idea, but leave the discussion about effects of "relativity" to the article "general relativity". The lead editor has the responsibility to keep this as a "bio" and present correct links to these articles. This kind of editing is not an easy task. FOURTH; "summarised in less than what is currently written." Yes this needs to be done for the main article. But when we remove the details from the main article, are we going to erase it from wikipedia, too? Devil is in the details. Details may be important for other people. The "lead editor" has the responsibility to preserve the information. What is your solution, if you do not want to have Summary style? --Rateslines (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am willing to "lead edit." I have access to several books (including Kinross and Mango bios).  But, others would need to take the first shot at writing sections like "Yunan Münasebetleri ve "établi" Anlaşmazlığı", "Sovyet Münasebetleri" "İslâm Ülkeleri ile Münasebetleri", "Balkan Antantı". I can then edit for style, grammar and tone consistency and add citations to sources.  Perhaps, with user Garnet's limited access, if Garnet could then come in for quick reviews to ensure the article is accurate, this article could become FA quality quickly.  Mango's latest bio is considered the most authoritative and there are statements even in the initial section that are inconsistent with Mango's work. I plan to fix those sections and add citations within the next few days.  If people agree to divide and conquer the work, we can produce a worthy bio for this genuine hero. Pebblicious (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about how to help. I designed a series template. I wanted to match the infobox that is already in place. Also Simple and easy to read. What do you think? --Rateslines (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you write, simple and easy to read is critical. Before we move on, "let's make a plan" (uf, babam bizi bu lafla deli ederdi :). Let's make sure the infobox has everything in it that belongs in this article, in effect, let's make sure we have an outline for this article that is complete and that people agree upon.  Then people can start filling in the details, and I'll start at the top and fix grammar and add citations to sources. This is my suggestion, but I'm open to other ideas and "plans." Pebblicious (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The current form of article presents a very solid structure for the "military career" and "independence war." Also "Personal life" is on the way to have an established structure. The main question is "Presidency." The current structure of "presidency" is not well established. It is a general tradition to have separate sections into "domestic" and "foreign." For Ataturk every foreign issue has a reflection in domestic policy. I 'm proposing leaving "presidency" to the end. I have been working on moving "military career" into its own sub article. Note: It is 38K. After this performed the text in the main article should be formed into Summary style. I believe you can work on the main article. There are some considerations voiced when a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. Brief Summary style, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking (you need to be careful for that, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. --Rateslines (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, sounds good. I will start working on it this weekend. Pebblicious (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * The situation for Bill Clinton and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is hardy comparable. Bill Clinton (or Bill or Mr President) has a birth certificate and has a legal name. The name in question is Bill's legal name given by his family. Kemal is the name given by his family. My grandfather's name was "Ahmet Mustafa". Ahmet was a middle name given by his trusted friend. He was born from Kemal, my grand grand father. He was called as "Kemal ogullarindan Mustafa". Can you prove that Ataturk was "Ali Rıza oğlu" but Ali was not a middle name and originally he should be called as "Rıza ogullarindan Kemal." If you bring Ataturk's birth certificate, or any legal document that shows his official name was "Ali Rıza oğlu," but not "Rıza ogullarindan Kemal." Than we can compare these two cases. Otherwise, it is another version of referring to the person in question. The naming during Ottoman Empire is a fubar. That was the reason Ataturk initiated name reform. Because of the explained uncertainty, I'm not supporting it at the WP:LEAD. We have have a section under his personal life. Gives all the different forms of referring to him. If you can find a respected citation (not a web side) I propose you can work on that section. Do you want to do that?  --Rateslines (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)