Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 13

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

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


 * I checked these Google matches. In "Turbulent Years" it matches the words Albanian and ali riza on different pages :-). It does not even use these words in a single sentence. That is also true for the Philip W. Goetz. Your search match rulers in Egypt. There was an albanian ruler in Egypt that matches the name between 1805-1952. "Von Cyril Glassé" uses these words in the same sentence, but he does not give a credible reference to his claim. Von Cyril Glassé is not an Ataturk historian, such as Mango or Lord Kinross. A claim such in this order needs a reference to a document or historical proof. --Rateslines (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


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

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


 * You are absolutely correct about that. But that's not the point in here. The Ottomans refused to be called "Turks" and the word "Turk" was considered pejorative up to the 20th century (see: ... in the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages ... -Bernard Lewis quoted in O. Mehmet, "Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery mentions", 1990, p. 115). Yet, that does not change the fact that the Ottomans were Turks. The same goes to the Seljuqs who were Persian-speakers and thoroughly Persianized in culture and habits (see: ... the Seljuqs who became Persians were not to succeed in defending Persia against the Turks who remained Turks ... -René Grousset, "The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia", p. 158 ). Yet, they are still known as "Seljuq Turks". So, compared to the Seljuqs and Ottomans, Ataturk's generation is quite contrary to the previous trends. While in past centuries, ethnic Turks (such as Seljuqs) became progressively alien to Turkic identity and traditions and were assimilated into other (Iranian, Arab, Chinese, etc) societies, Ataturk represents all the Non-Turkish Muslims in the Ottoman Empire who were progressively Turkicized. As such, it should be at least mentioned that Ataturk's father, Ali Reza, was probably of Muslim Albanian origin.


 * U are free to develop the history of Turkish people, in a separate article. Ottoman Empire was not a nation based empire. When I read Ur "Turkicized" definition (Is it a real word?) based on "blood links" I feel ur next point will be Nazi eugenics. That is why I'm personally discussed with this origin argument. It feels you are arguing something that does not belong to this article. Ottoman Empire was a religious empire based on Millet (Ottoman Empire). Rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire begins around 18th century. Your 21 century narrow look did not apply. Even today's version of "Albanian" article (U use it in your argument) in the wikipedia has issues creating a blood based national root for Albanians. Good luck linking one person to Albanian blood. That remind me so called ethnic Kurds who try to link their ancestors to Armenians. One of the radical Kurd female leader claimed Islam was the downfall of Kurds, Kurds should have stayed Christians (thus Armenian). If you work hard enough there would be a "blood" link between Albanian and Armenians, or Kurds and Albanians... Your "blood" position is so deep, everything is blurry, reminds Hitler's Germany. In the Ottoman Empire, if one said "I'm Armenian," that person was accepted as Armenian. Somehow this does not apply to Ataturk! "the point in here:" I have not seen any factual evidence presented in your citations. Did they asked his father? How could you claim that his father would not say "I'm Turkish, like my son." Look, none of your sources present a birth certificate, blood test (I would oppose blood test, too), etc. We are left with one concrete evidence. Ataturk himself claimed he is Turkish (cited). That puts his family into Turkish. Whatever Turkish in your response corresponds, which is not the problem of this article.--Rateslines (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need to insult others. If you do not agree, that's fine with me. I am just presenting the sources. It was no me who brought up the blood-line issue, you did. You claimed that Ataturk's mother was a Turkish Yoruk, and you based your argument on his looks. I simply tried to use your own (weak) argumentation against you. I know that (European) nationalism did not exist in the Islamic world preior to the 19th century. If you go through the last 1000 years of Islamic history, most of the important rulers were ethnic Turks (by blood line), but none of them identified themselves as Turks. The Mughals for example were Turko-Mongols and ruled over India. The Safavids of Persia were also partially Turkic, but they strongly identified themselves as Iranians. The Seljuqs were Persianized Turks and strongly identified themselves with Persian mythology and culture.
 * However, this is an encyclopedia and should only present FACTS. Everyone knows that the Seljuqs spoke Persian, celebrated Nowruz (the national celendar of Iran is named after the Seljuq sultan Malik Shah), gave their princess ancient Persian names, imitated the Sassanids, and carved passages from the Shahnameh in the walls of their palaces in Konya. Yet, the Seljuqs are STILL described as "Turks" (because of their well-known blood-line), although by cultrue, language and identity, the Seljuqs had become Persians and Iranians. The same methode goes to Ataturk. He may have identified himself as a Turk, with the Turkish language or the Turkish culture. But FACT is that his origin is NOT known, and it is HIGHLY PROBABLE that he was NOT an "ethnic Turk". Why can't we just sum up the sources and mention that some important sources (Encyclopaedia Britannica, New Encyclopaedia of Islam, Time Magazine, etc) describe him as an Ottoman Albanian?! What's wrong with that? I doubt that you can find a birth-certificate or a blood-test proving the claim that the Seljuqs or the Ottomans were Turks. Do you agree?

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


 * I am not sure what you have tried to say. I fully agree with you that modern concept of nations and nationality cannot be reflected on the peoples of the past. The Ottoman empire was a primarily Muslim kingdom and defined itself by religion. So were all other Islamic empires of the past. But this does not change the fact that the Muslim community consists of many different nations. The confusion is based on the phenomenon that in the late 19th century, Ottoman scholars and intellectuals adopted European concepts in politics and society. For example, the name "Turkey" was totally unknown in Anatolia. It is derived from the Latin word "Turchia" - the founders of the Turkish state tried to Europeanize Anatolia by not only adopting European culture, but also European vocabulary. And since Europeans used the words "Turk" and "Muslim" without any difference, the ethnic designation "Turk" was adopted in "Turkey" as a national identity for all Muslim nationals of whom the large majority was not Turkish in origin. The same concept was also adopted in Iran (confusion: "Iranian" vs. "Persian") and in Afghanistan ("Afghan" is historically synonymous with the word Pashtun, but today all nationals of Afghanistan, including Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pashai, Nuristani, Turkmen, Hazara, etc are known as "Afghans". The word "Afghanistan" was created by the British in India and was first mentioned as "Afghanland" and was later translated as "Afghanistan" into Persian). That's exactly the reason why the Turkish state for many years denied the existence of Kurds. Since Kurds were also Muslim, they were automatically designated "Turks".
 * So the "Turkishness" of the post-Ottoman era is based on this confusion: "Turk" vs. "Muslim". And Mustafa Kemal, as the son of Muslim Albanians who was born in Ottoman Greece, and as an Ottoman patriot, defined himself as a "Turk". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.165.25 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What a big mess is your statement "Muslim Albanians who was born in Ottoman Greece, and as an Ottoman patriot..." In your claim, this theoretical person was an Albanian (having Albanian genes, inheritance, origin), but he really was not "pure" as he had to be something like "Ottoman Albanian" which is Ottoman and Albanian. By the way, Ottoman was a person who was part of ottoman dynasty. He also did not even aware that he was an "Ottoman Albanian" as he was an "Ottoman" patriot. He was an Ottoman patriot as he fought under the flag of Ottoman Dynasty. There were Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire that did not, such as Armenian Revolutionary Federation. To explain this dilemma (Albanian-Armenian) you come up with a new terminology "Muslim Albanian." Is this mean your theoretical person can also be a non-Muslim Albanian? When the empire breaks down during the dissolution; instead of fighting for a new Albania, such as Armenians did. This soup of alphabet, becomes the Turk, but not a "blood" Turk. It is a new form of Turk ("Turkishness") which fought to establish the Republic of Turkey. In your system, you do not even try to use official terminology like "Turkish People" or "Turkic people." You create new forms of existence ("Turkishness"). Not my original idea (presented by others), but I have hard time in recognizing the difference between the Nazi eugenics and this soup of nationalism. The source of your problem is that you are trying to build links which did not exist in the first place. This theoretical person of yours (Ottoman Albanian who was a Muslim that form the Republic of Turkey and expressed it's "Turkishness"), in real life, did not had any claim based on any of the arguments you brought forward. Otherwise we would have a proof in the form of a document. He did not claim to be Ottoman. That is what makes whole pursue of fitting national tags is a form of "...." Why not simply claim "Ottoman Muslim Millet?" Ataturk was from a family of "Ottoman Muslim Millet". That was the terminology officially used in the period. That is what other authors are saying. But this is not factually correct for you! The Maya culture disappeared. Are we destroying the "Ottoman Muslim" to create Ottoman Albanian, Ottoman Laz, Ottoman .... --TarikAkin (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

- "War of Liberation" to re-enslave and genocide Greeks and Armenians
 * Yes, it wasn't the Greek Army which invaded Western Anatolia in 1919-1922. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

- Destruction of Turkish culture by outlawing Turkish alphabet and dress
 * You mean Arabic alphabet? Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Turkey is not a European style democracy, but a country where the government needs the approval of the military to rule, where freedom of speech is restricted, where you will be jailed for talking about Turkey's history outside of the official party fantasies, ect ... Therakemen (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If that was the case, there wouldn't be an Islamist government in charge since 2002. The military would have already sent them to İmralı Island, next to Öcalan. Also, the fact that the judiciary is free in Turkey (it can even judge the ruling government) shows the level of separation between the judiciary and government, which is a plus, not a minus. It can never happen in dictatorships or less developed democracies. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

These are simply after the fact rationalizations for fascism. Therakemen (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you yourself have some seriously biased POV regarding Turkey and Atatürk. Are you Greek, Armenian or Arab, might I ask? This might explain many things. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Atatürk was actually a "leftist" (closer to socialism) and not a "rightist" (fascist) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it any more relevant for me to ask if your support of Ataturk is due to you being a Turk? The dictatorship that he established and continues to this day makes him a fascist. Therakemen (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't know the difference between socialism (more specifically social democrat) and fascism. Atatürk was the former, not the latter. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Take the slogan of "Turkey for the Turks," change it to "Germany for the Germans," you will see what I mean. Therakemen (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Any citizen who carries the Turkish passport or ID card" is a "Turk", i.e. "Turkish citizen." Atatürk's definition of Turkish citizenship was based on the social democrat values of "equality", not the fascist values of "racism" or "racial supremacy". A "Turk" (Turkish citizen) of Armenian origin is as "Turk" as me. Just like a "Frenchman" of Algerian origin is as "Frenchman" as the white upper class Frenchman who goes to have a cup of coffee at L'Avenue in Paris. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And the Kurds who were for the longest time denied their identity for the sake of a homogeneous Turkey dictatorship? Therakemen (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They are as "Turk" as me too. If they don't like it, they are free to leave İstanbul, İzmir, Ankara, Antalya, Mersin, etc. in the millions and go live in Southeastern Anatolia or Northern Iraq. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not free to go to Kurdistan after the despicable betrayal of the Treaty of Sevres. Therakemen (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As a Stambouliote, I am not eager to concede them the luxury to live in Istanbul either. Forgive my "honesty" which often reaches the level of arrogance, but being a "Turkish citizen living in Istanbul" for a Kurd is like being a Lada with a Bentley badge on the hood. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Res Gestæ Divi Augusti, I did not like your last comment, and Therakemen (plural?), what do you mean by despicable betrayal of Treaty of Sevres? Welcome to Wikipedia.

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

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

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

Worldwide Legacy?
Perhaps we should balance the truth in this section and mention how Greek youtube videos that were critical of Ataturk forced Turkey to censor its internet to protect its citizens from the view that Ataturk was not a saint. Obviously, Ataturk is not viewed positively in all countries, as this article would lead unsuspecting Wikipedia readers to believe. It's another example of the sheer hagiography in this article. - The Rake Men Therakemen (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Worldwide is bigger than Greece as well. Those videos were just not 'critical' of Ataturk, as you already know. It's still absurd to block access, though. Just because some Greeks would like to call the man who stopped their ambition gay, should we add such a sentence like "some Greeks say that he is gay"? Then we would need to add that "many male Greeks are gay (and greasy?), and their language is all gibberish/Greek". I heard that that was a rather common perception in West. People against him just because he was a Turk/leader of Turks need not to be mentioned. We can talk about the responses of non-extremists to the abolition of caliphate, and that has its section and article. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me to advise anyone anything, but it seems to me that most of the points you have brought so far were immediately refuted. The attempts of associating Ataturk with Armenian Genocide or whatever shows also something, it might be an indicator how other things came into being. I believe he started being called a Jew, after the establishment of Israel, and after 6 day war, when the word 'Jew' started to become sort of a 'swearword' of some Muslims, etc.
 * The text is mostly about the things that he did in his life, and that is how it should be. One criticism might be that it might be too detailed, so some material might need to be either removed or moved to new/other articles. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions about Ataturk's sexuality (possibly bisexual/homosexual) and religion (possibly Jewish, as evidenced by saying that his secret prayers were Jewish) are of genuine interest to the world, but saying that Greeks are greasy people who speak gibberish just reveals a depth of ignorance and hatred. Besides, I do not think this is the popular perception in the West if the culture of the West portrays the Greeks as the heroic defenders of Western culture and democracy, such as in the movie 300. Compare the depiction of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans to movies like Midnight Express, and I think you'll see the perceptions that the West has.  The Rake Men -- Therakemen (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 300 is just a recent movie, and it's anti-Iran rather than pro-Greek, in the wake of an US-Iran war (similar to Lawrance in Arabia), also one of the most popular phrases of American high ranking politicians about Turkey is "Turkey is one of our important allies". You may be right associating that movie with Midnight Express, though, as that was in the wake of a (possible) US intervention in Turkey. Armenian diaspora has a good presence in California, and one of the richest men in the world is an Armenian that was the former owner of MGM. It might be not that easy to produce a movie that reflects Turks in good light.
 * It seems to me that what you say of genuine interest might really not much more of genuine interest than what is said about Greeks. And that was an example, an example for badmouthing a person/people possibly with other deep reasons. I do not think people making such remarks are reliable, and that is what's important for us. We need reliable sources, preferably published. Like I mentioned, him 'being Jewish' is likely related to 6 day war, which happened three decades after his death, in the sense that afterwards the word "Jew" became a popular word of choice of some people when they try to badmouth someone. I do not think that it is a coincidence that Greeks call him gay, and Islamists call him SOB, and he is neither. People have different popular smearwords. Like I said above, there would be no problem with him being Jewish, he was just not. To understand what "him having secret Jewish prayers" is, one just needs to drop the horse glasses. L I E. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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


 * If you search enough there is a document for everything. But history is requires substantial proof and interconnectedness. I found drawings for Image:Plans for Abdulhamit Bridge in Istanbul-Turkey Publications.jpg. That does not verify that there was a Abdulhamit Bridge. Turks can not include their position into Armenian Genocide article. Every time one use tries the information is deleted and claim that they are WP:OR (may be rightfully within the rules of Wikipedia). The Wikipedia is not the place to verify other peoples claims. Including the claims you presented in this discussion. None of these arguments are included in mainstream historical publications. There are web pages for everything, but that does not make it the truth. The claims are unverifiable. Besides wikipedia is not the place to verify these claims. Every attention, including Therakemen, is a good thing. But Therakemen is a new user (look at his history) and you may not know it yet but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a discussion form. These claims can be distributed in the web, but surely do not belong to this article. Hope you do not stop being interested in the Ataturk. You should try to read other aspects of him. --Rateslines (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First, his mother (his main parental influence; his father died early) was as Muslim as anyone. If, as you say, Dönme's only intermarried each other, then his father must be not a Dönme either. Are you claiming that Mustafa Kemal was a double convert: Islam->another religion->Islam? I guess you mean that he was a follower of Sabbatai Zevi, in that case are you claiming that he saw Sabbatai Zevi as the messiah? And what does that Jewish prayer Shema Yisra'el mean? I see Adonai, Eloh and Ehad there. Does it mean about the same as Arabic: "La ilahe illallah" (might not be correct transliteration), English: "There is no god but the God", Turkish: "Allah'tan başka tanrı yoktur", Greek: "...", French: "...", Bahasa Indonesian: "...", ... (love the dots). 128.211.202.45 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this, but it is in Turkish. There the author talks about the possibility of Ataturk's being a descendant of Sabbatai Zevi followers, but not being a Jew himself. The author also talks about Ataturk's "Ne mutlu Türk'üm diyene" ideology (something like "blessed is the one who calls himself a Turk", I guess that is what you wrongly refer by "Turkey for Turks" above), so he was a Moslem Turk, as he called himself as such. He certainly was a citizen of Turkey. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also this for Turkish speakers. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Time for the Presidency section?
Should we shorten/summarize that section now? 128.211.202.45 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Presidency section is too long to have a single article. It is not possible to summarize "domestic policies" and "foreign policies" within 300-1000 words as a single Lead section. This move will create problems which may be tagged with without considering these issues. I would be the first to put tag POV "look at Avoidance of POV forks." If you create one page for "domestic policies" another for "foreign policies" you are breaking up many related issues. I will object that. Did you look at the section Summary style. Your rush to "shorten/summarize" has its own problems. There was a Turkish editor who claimed will turn the article Istanbul into great article, He could not promote the article into "Good Article" status. There was another Turkish editor who wanted to integrate Ottoman military article into the Ottoman Empire article, instead of creating a summary section (you are trying to do the reverse). I wish you take a look at the Ottoman Empire and write a good summary for the military section (no sub headings - limited within the rules of the lead section). The Ottoman Empire article become over bloated and lost its Good Article status. It is filled with Military pictures, like ottomans had nothing else to present at the main page. When it comes to this article; Where is the assassination attempt? There are many issues not explained under foreign relations. Why don't help us to write the missing sections, rather than cutting the article first. When all the topics are explained these issues can be handle with rearranging. It may be best to divide the article into "presidency first decade (1923-1933)" ("onuncu yil soylevine kadar") and later years "presidency late years (1934-1938)." This way related issues will be under the same page. I hope you are willing to take all these issues seriously, otherwise history will repeat itself. What happened to lead editor? --Rateslines (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not discourage ourselves with such stuff. We will do as much as we can, and any improvement is an improvement. That said, I do not think I have the resources to undertake the job of a lead editor, even if I sign in to be able to edit this semi protected article. I do not see any good outcome of dividing his presidency the way you suggest (first decade and afterwards), which seems to be rather arbitrary, and it might suggest a change in Ataturk's attitude. I still have some recommendations about the presidency section. It took a good amount of time, I hope it will be helpful.
 * First two paragraphs
 * Mustafa Kemal capitalized on his reputation as an efficient military leader and spent the following years, up until his death in 1938, instituting wide-ranging and progressive political, economic, and social reforms, transforming Turkish society from perceiving itself as Muslim subjects of a vast Empire into citizens of a modern, democratic, and secular nation-state that was 'completely independent'. In his words: "…by complete independence, we mean of course complete economic, financial, juridical, military, cultural independence and freedom in all matters. Being deprived of independence in any of these is equivalent to the nation and country being deprived of all its independence."''
 * Nature of the state:
 * In forging the new republic, the Turkish revolutionaries turned their back on the perceived corruption and decadence of cosmopolitan Istanbul and its Ottoman heritage. For instance, Ankara, then some provincial town in deep Anatolia turned into the center of the independence movement became later the capital. The revolutionaries regularly faced challenges from the supporters of the old Ottoman regime, and also from the supporters of relatively new ideologies such as communism and fascism. Mustafa Kemal saw the consequences of fascist and communist doctrines in the 1920s and 1930s and rejected both, preventing the spread of totalitarian party rule which held sway in the Soviet Union, Germany and Italy. Some perceived Atatürk's silencing of opposition to this as a means of eliminating competition, others believed it a necessary means to protect the young Turkish state from succumbing to the instability of new ideologies and competing factions.
 * Especially this next sentence needs to be fixed or otherwise changed, preferably by a native speaker: Atatürk's ideology, based on his conception of realism and pragmatism, encompassing the principles of Six Arrows has been the defining ideology of the Republic of Turkey.
 * Single-party state: First paragraph needs to go elsewhere, if you want to keep it
 * Mustafa Kemal's private journals show that, even before the establishment of the republic in 1923, he believed in the importance of the sovereignty of people as opposed to the sovereignty of the absolute monarch, which was the case in the Ottoman Empire. He wanted a "direct government by the Assembly" and visualized a parliamentary sovereignty (a representative democracy), where the National Parliament would be the ultimate source of power. In the following years, Kemal took the position that the country needed an immense amount of reconstruction, and "direct government by the Assembly" could not survive in this environment.
 * On September 9, 1923, Kemal founded the "People's Party", which was later renamed to Republican People's Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Fırkası). Atatürk has been criticized arguing that he did not promote democracy by dominating the country with his single party rule. Andrew Mango wrote that: "between the two wars, democracy could not be sustained in many relatively richer and better-educated societies. Atatürk's enlightened authoritarianism left a reasonable space for free private lives. More could not have been expected in his lifetime." Atatürk has always supported the idea of eventually building a democratic state. In one of his many speeches about the importance of the democracy,  Mustafa Kemal said in the year 1933: "Republic means democratic administration of the state. We founded the Republic, reaching its tenth year it should enforce all the requirements of democracy as the time comes."
 * Parliamentary opposition (Kadınlar Halk Fırkası, led by Nezihe Muhiddin, is the first one)
 * In 1925, Kazım Karabekir established the Progressive Republican Party (PRP) and the first multi-party system began. PRP's economic program suggested liberalism, in contrast to state socialism, and its social program was based on conservatism in contrast to modernism. Leaders of the party strongly supported the Kemalist revolution in principle, but had different opinions on the cultural revolution and the principle of secularism. PRP was dissolved following the Sheikh Said Rebellion.
 * In 1930, with the support of by Mustafa Kemal, Ali Fethi Okyar established the Liberal Republican Party. The party was quickly embraced by the conservatives who saw it as an opportunity to reverse the reforms of Atatürk, particularly regarding secularism. Seeing the rising fundamentalist threat and being a staunch supporter of Atatürk's reforms himself, Ali Fethi Okyar abolished his own party the same year.
 * Foreign policies first paragraph can stay the way it is. Mosul and Kurds should be made/moved into a new article.
 * Hatay:
 * In 1936 Kemal raised the "Issue of Hatay" at the League of Nations. On behalf of the League of Nations, representatives of France, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey prepared a constitution for Hatay, which established it as an autonomous sanjak within Syria. Despite some inter-ethnic violence, in the midst of 1938 an election to the local legislative assembly was conducted and it was convoked. The cities of Antakya (Antioch) and İskenderun (Alexandretta) were regained by Turkey in 1939.
 * Let me stop here for now. My suggestions can be used as a starting point, up to you. Someone else may do the rest. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Some revisions to my recommendations and some more recom.

Nature of the state:
 * We should get rid of the subsection titles, they are not really necessary there and they just clutter the TOC
 * We should get rid of Ankara stuff; it's possibly misleading, not so necessary and it's breaking the flow
 * We might need to introduce the "balance of powers stuff"
 * "some perceived Ataturk's..." sentence needs sources. And who is 'some', do we know?
 * with the support of, not "of by".

General:
 * Words like "however" tend to be unnecessary and sentences with "however" tend to be original research. "Even though" is another one
 * We should decide which English we should use. It will be harder for me, but on this article, I believe we should use British English.
 * Economic policies section should be cropped a lot. I can't do much there

And we can use he following image there:
 * When talking about the reforms, we should not forget that we have another article, Atatürk's Reforms.

128.211.202.45 (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial - Gallipoli
I think that ataturks words (that are featured on the memorial) belong in a subsection of the section "Legacy"

Ataturk felt stongly about the gallipoli battle, his words can be accessed here 203.122.240.118 (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Article is a series because of its size. There is a huge section about this issue. If you have time, please consider Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's military career. You can find everything you are looking for regarding this topic. --Rateslines (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Uch
Like every other personality, there should be a critics or a controversy section on this page. I tried to make one, with full citations, but someone deliberately deletes it. I think this is not how wikipeida should function. If turkey cannot provide freedom of speech in their own country, atleast let us do it online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uch (talk • contribs) 02:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome but 1) your addition is original research. 2) the sourced parts are to secondary things, not to your assertions 3) we should not use blogs and other unreliable sources 4) we cannot have a criticism section for the sake of it, they should be embedded (and they are) to the relevant parts.
 * I am moving your text here DenizTC 10:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Mustafa Kemal has had his share of critics. Many Allege that he was a 'traitor to Islam' because he abolished the Caliphate, which after the first World War was the head of the only surviving Muslim Empire, the Ottomans.
 * Mustafa Kemal has also been blamed for trying to preach Democracy, secularism and human rights like those in West, but did not act upon them. Examples include the Hat law of 1925 where Turkish people were forced to wear western clothes and give up Traditional Turkish clothes. A move seen by many as a breach of Human rights, practiced as late as 2008, when woman were banned from covering their hair in a government building.
 * Another example was the changing of the Turkish language from the Arabic script to the Latin Script.
 * In His time, the Adhan i.e. Call to prayer was also changed from Arabic into Turkish.
 * All these moves have been seen by many as a deliberate attempt of forcing his own ideas, without any popular support.

He has also been labeled by many as a dictator, because during his life time, there was no proper functioning democracy, and only one political party, thus he was the Army General, and the first President without any elections ever held for this post."

Unsourced Bulk of text regarding the Misak-ı Millî and Mandates
Hi, regarding the bulk of text added by user user:90.192.126.127. The text needs to be discussed at the talk space before inclusion into the article. It looks like a copy-vio from another source. The incorporation of large text, without the cited references. The text includes very controversial arguments (I plainly claim they are wrong) regarding the issues already established in the wikipedia with sources, such as the claims voiced that Ataturk oppose the policies defined by Misak-ı Millî which was signed by the Ataturk himself. You should also look at the Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk's_leadership_of_the_independence_war regarding mandates --Rateslines (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Style Problems
I don't want to delve into all the issues of neutrality and so forth. But upon reading this article for the first time, it strikes me that it is in need of a stylistic cleanup. The problem is not grave, but it is noticeable. To wit, there are numerous nouns in various parts of the entry that would normally be preceded by a definite or indefinite article, that lack any article; e.g., "Curzon insisted during Lozan conference (1923) that Mosul belonged to Iraq" (one expects to read about what happened during "THE Lozan conference," and the missing 'the' is jarring). And, conversely, we have definite articles springing up before nouns that should abhor them, e.g., "He was well aware that independence could not be maintained solely by the military force."

None of this is to impugn the quality of the article (which I don't dispute), nor its accuracy (which I lack the knowledge to comment on). But surely some attention to the article's language would enhance its readability.

75.36.205.213 (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

English cleanup
There are some bits of the article which are very poorly written; I'm assuming they were translated from Turkish or something, or at least from a language that has a structure extremely different from English. I found incoherent sentences, some with no verbs, and the odd repetition of small phrases in sequence. The text, however, is not so bad that it needs Cleanup-translation or any other template (at least not among the ones I could found). Can someone help me fix it? I am reviewing the article, but since I'm not a native English-speaker I certainly must be letting some of these mistakes slip by. RafaAzevedo msg 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been on my todo list for a while. You're right that there are elementary errors all over the place which compromise the integrity of the article. For now I've tagged it as needing basic copyediting, to keep it on my radar. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I took care of the majority of errors. However, certain sentences were so confusing that I just left them and tagged them for clarification since they seem important and I am not an expert on this subject. Copana2002 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ratesline
Isn't it a problem that this user acts like the sole owner of the article by continously imposing his own preferences and by virtually fighting with any other editor who does not agree with him?--88.241.22.35 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If he did, please discuss here. The choice of images causes a lot of problems. That Time picture was one of the main reasons this article failed good article criteria, as far as I remember.DenizTC 10:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster. What can be done about this?132.170.106.18 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Censorship
I wonder If it should be mentioned that Youtube is banned in Turkey for haveing insulting videos of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk on their site posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.208.139.203 (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there are so many things banned in Turkey, even people got in jail because they insult Ataturk, so Youtube is 'nothing' in this case. There should be another topic about how Turks idolized Ataturk like the Muslims did for Muhammad. Turks are so tough when it comes a situation like 'insulting' their religion and nation. But they usually do it in their daily life. (onur) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.123.109 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Aaargh, still banned. I went on a trip to turkey and couldn't access youtube.119.149.135.102 (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Pic: Mustafa Kemal golden scoop political caricature of single party system
I read earlier comments and i am wondering why this picture is still being insistently re-put into the article..Is there anybody else who wants this pic in the article other than user ratesline? It seems he was the one who introduced the picture and solely defended its inclusion for a very long time. This is no place to pursue contemporary political goals through the selective inclusion of particular sources, what really matters in the end is the presentable qualities of the article..--85.107.34.156 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia works with credible information. The caricature is historically correct and reflecting the nature of the politics in its time. You have personal right to keep an ideologically sanitized image of Ataturk, to yourself. But you have to show respect to other views. As long as this caricature is supported with facts.... I will support your view (change my position), If you prove otherwise (Ataturk did not control the "Carsaf"). If you bring forward credible information that proves "the period is not single party period," and "there was not only one party list" and "the leader of the party did not approve the list "Carsaf in turkish." For the importance of the caricature (controlling who can be "MPs"), it humorously points out the most important fact of the "single party period." Some people called him "dictator" because of his control over the lists. After 80 years of his time, same tradition continues in modern Turkey. You should make peace with this caricature, as it is part of living Turkey. Rateslines (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not about "making peace" about anything, as your line of arguments demonstrate you`re clearly acting like you`re the rightful copyright owner of this article and nobody else could make any change in it unless it is approved by you..

You say that "this caricature is supported by facts". I have to ask that it is supported by whose facts? You`re again imposing on the article your own political views..This is no place, as i said, to pursue contemporary political agendas..

What i am saying is that this has to be a concise, presentable article, this is not about solely this picture alone, there are many other unrelated, not necessary bits if informationts that serves to no other purpose other than reducing the quality of the article..

About this picture, i think you obvioulsy merely added it because it is in line with your political views. If you want to make politics, there would soon be elections in Turkey, make politics by voting or by joining in the elections as a candidate, not by using any site as a political tool..--85.107.34.156 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation is not my intention. Make peace is used toward "sanitized image of Ataturk" by me. I nicely remind you that it is your personal problem if you feel anything beyond what the facts depicted in this caricature. The caricature is not an insult or degradation of the person. The historical facts of the period is reflected very eloquently in this historical caricature. I'm totally o.k. with these issues. This caricature, after 80 years of its inception, is not a political tool anymore. It is a reflection of history for me. I do not have any desire to change anything in recent politics of Turkey, not through this page. My desire is to reflect the period correctly and factually. The reality (a) "single party period" (b) "one party list" (a) "Ataturk approved the list (golden scoop) for MPs." Unless you prove this was not the reality, thank you for your input and cooperation. By the way, I'm happy that you have a strong feelings toward Ataturk. You feel highly protectionist toward everything related toward him. This feeling is common between us. --Rateslines (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Legacy
I have removed the comments Mr. Barack Obama put on visitor's log in Anitkabir. Many a people did the same thing; this is not related to legacy nor is it Wikipedia-worthy.Barcod (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the same comments undid by the user, without any reason shown. Please clarify how comments from a current president compare to roads, airports or monuments devoted to M. K. Ataturk. If you would like to add that piece of information, please choose another location as this causes incontinuity in the paragraph.Barcod (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it relevant and it needs to be placed under the Turkey section of Legacy, not the Worldwide. To me it appears that President Obama is speaking of Turkey, not so much the world. Nice job Ratelines! --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you put it under worldwide then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcod (talk • contribs) 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Obama is the President of USA. His official speeches are the reflection of his state. The quote in question is not his personal response. It is not given under duress to be ignored or de-valuated. Obama is "no drama Obama." He is famous because his statements are calculated and not instant responses presented under emotional ups-and-downs (such as the famous "one minute" quote in recent history, which is ridiculed as "(don't) be Erdogan"). Any document signed or typed by Obama is the official document of his state. This includes the text he typed and signed in the "visitor's log." These are not random scribles, they are carefully written and approved. You can not devalue the "visitor's log in Anitkabir." This log is a rich historical artifact which collected the ideas of the important world figures for many years. The quote included in the article was from his speech presented at the Turkish Assembly. The quote became a major news item. It was signaled as part of a political message. International Press listed among "Top News." This makes this quote a significant quote. The quote in question clearly reflect what Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's legacy is to the World history in general and Muslim World in particular as perceived by USA government (direct quote from the source not my interpretation). At the end, legacy is nothing but the perception left behind after the event or person. Thank you for your cooperation. --Rateslines (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rateslines, are you drunk? 132.170.106.18 (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just trying to level with the audience! Didn't you get it? I'm surprised! What would you respond to the question "the quote is not a legacy nor is it Wikipedia-worthy" if not telling who the quoted person is, in which situation he was quoted, what kind of reaction generated in the news system. A Simple Who Where When Why. The importance of the quote, what is the legacy left behind, is clearly stated (self explanatory) in the AP article, for the people who read it. --Rateslines (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Freemason
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)

Sabbatean Jewish descent and membership in the Veritas Lodge of Salonika in Freemasonry
Why are my sources deleted. Freemasonry Today is a newspaper like the New York Times, which is also a valid source for wikipedia. Maybe in explosive Turkish environment, the facts of the ethnic Sabbatean Jewish descent of Atatürk would be censored out, like his evident (and well-known) membership in Freemasonry in Thessaloniki (during Ottoman-era). Atatürk's secularism, anticlerical nationalism, national awakening, ethnic homogeneity tendency and views seem influenced by all these elements and show even Carbonari signs. Why delete my sources? They are not POV. Even Atatürk serious biographers add these facts.Smith2006 (talk) 20:19, 5 June 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)

Rumors
I'm glad that the Turkish hackers that have sprung due to liberal website blocks in Turkey by the Islamist leaning regime have not discovered this page yet. If that were the case, this talk section would be under attack the way genocide.com was back in the day. To get to the point though, assuming that none of the attacks against Ataturk are backed with any sort of documentation other than some historical rumors, I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for angry Armenian and Greek youths to attack a leader they have only read propaganda about. For instance, there is a section regarding Zsa Zsa Gabor claiming that Ataturk took her virginity. I believe that you are all familiar with Misaki Milli (considering how much you all are talking about it). It is the documentation of Ataturk's allegiance to Turkey which went as far as him never having left Turkish soil. As Zsa Zsa Gabor is a Hungarian actress, I'd love to know how the declaration that Ataturk took her virginity is valid in any form. Thank you. Deniz Gecim (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will take a published autobiography over what you presume to be common knowledge and the conclusions you draw from that. You might be interested to know that Gabor was living in Ankara at the time. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Zsa Zsa Gabor was a married woman when she was living in Ankara. 88.228.157.224 (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And?
 * I don't know how to word my answer without asking you what your idea of marriage is let alone how not to ask you how long you think the duration of the virginity of a woman who is notorious for the number of times shes been married lasted. I will not reply to anything else on this subject, and you are demeaning the integrity of the other people who criticize the content of this page by lingering on topics such as this.Deniz Gecim (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced?
I wrote the names...Böri (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)