Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 15

Role (or lack thereof) in genocides
Given that Atatürk was a prominent leader during World War I and afterwards, when three parallel mass killings (Greek, Armenian, and Assyrian) were concurrently taking place, it should really be mentioned in this article whether Atatürk was involved in these at all (or what his response was, at the least.) I realize that this would presumably be a controversial subject for Turkish editors, but even so, Turkey at least acknowledges that the killings took place (which they excuse with the claim of military necessity), and it is a legitimate question that should be answered nevertheless. 02:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.243.198 (talk)

You confuse the self-defense with genocide. Atatürk had never hold Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians in camps and kill them defenceless. Their armies attack the Turks and they fought back. If you have any proof about this I would congratulate you. Atatürk wasn't a dictator like Mussolini; Hittler or Saddam why? Because people still can cry in him memorial day with love and thank him to save them in Turkey.--Kerenia (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is *bs*. This guy ordered the execution of Hellenic and Armenian civilians. Over half a million people died because of him. Sure we was a small pre-Hitler after all... 188.77.175.138 (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I draw your attention to what Wikipedia says about talk pages: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." If you have a proposal for improving the article, then give it (with appropriate evidence). Otherwise, choose a different place to argue.Solri (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

half a million people died because of him?? what did greeks do in izmir? after they went to greece, izmir was destroyed by greek army. he defended his land. he killed many people such as greek and armenians haha that's very funny. he had done 'turkish independince war' so he discarded turkish land from you.

As I said above, this page is for discussing and improving the article. If anyone has historical evidence warranting inclusion of mass killings in the article, cite it here; there is no point is an "Oh yes he did" "Oh no he didn't" argument. Solri (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sunni Islam ?
User:Chauahuasachca claimed "stop nonsense". Do you prove it with identifying reliable sources ? I think religion in infobox is not necessary for this person. Takabeg (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are a disruptive user and looking at your contributions show that. No other reliable sources are needed. --E4024 (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you feel so. But please cool off and read No personal attack again (This is the last warning for you). Takabeg (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was Sunni Muslim.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources ? Takabeg (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:E4024 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk&diff=534323261&oldid=534323063 ''Common knowledge. No need for a tag.''] is invalid argument. Please read Verifiability, Identifying reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try contributing positively to WP? If you believe your English is not sufficient, add pics to articles, for example. Help. --E4024 (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think my English is not sufficient, because I'm not a native. But I believe that we have to stop POV-pushing (especially nationalists' POVs) edits. I couldn't find any sources to prove Atatürk's religion was Sunni Islam. But I easily found follows:


 * Mustafa Kemal, that ungrateful atheist, despised all those sacrifices and ignored their entreaties
 * An atheist, he secularized the law, stripped Islam of its position as the state religion, and forbade religious instruction in schools.
 * Ataturk was not an outright atheist but a deist who believed in a rational theology denying the absolute truth of revealed religions

I think these are also nothing but claims. But at present Sunni Islam is nothing but one of the claims without sources. Takabeg (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No sources for Sunni Islam were provided. Stop POV-pushing. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the religion tag. Is it meant to indicate a person's official religious affiliation or their personal views? In the former case it is definitely Islam; in the latter, nobody knows for sure. I've read speculations that he was a deist; I've also read speculations that he was a member of the Melami Sufi order. His adopted daughter, Sabiha Gökçen, said "Contrary to what everyone thought, he was a very religious person" (Reminiscences of Atatürk, trans. Ömer Renkliyıldırım. İstanbul: Metro, 1985. p. 29.) Solri (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the secular Turkish Republic said: "I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea..." The Antipodean Philosopher: Interviews on Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand, Graham Oppy, Lexington Books, 2011, ISBN 0739167936, p. 146. Jingiby (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Turkey was saved, and for the rest of his life Kemal ruled Turkey unopposed. From his position of absolute authority Ataturk set about dragging Turkey into the twentieth century. An atheist, he secularized the law, stripped Islam of its position as state religion and forbade religious instructions in schools. History of World War II, Marshall Cavendish Corporation, Marshall Cavendish, 2004, ISBN 0761474838, p. 128. Jingiby (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Assotiated Press reported on January 23, 1989 that editor-in chief Dogu Perincek had been convicted on December 20, 1988, of insulting Kemal Ataturk in an article entitled, "Ataturk and God," that appeared in the November 22-28, 1987 issue. The article consisted of handwritten notes and letters of Ataturk that showed his atheist views. Perincek was sentenced to one and a half year in prison. Paying the Price: Freedom of Expression in Turkey, A Helsinki Watch Report, Lois Whitman, Thomas Froncek, Helsinki Watch, Human Rights Watch, 1989, ISBN 0929692152, p. 34. Jingiby (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And here's another quotation: "God is a great strength. We must all believe in Him" (again, the source is Sabiha Gökçen). And another: "Oh people, God is one and his glory is great. Our master and prophet [Mohammed] was chosen by the Lord God as his servant and messenger. The basic principle, which is known to all of us, is the clearly understandable verses of the Holy Quran. Our religion, which enlightens people's souls, is the last religion. It is the most perfect religion, because our religion is completely compatible and in harmony with intelligence, logic and reality." That's my off the cuff translation (so don't quote it!) of a sermon he gave in the Pasha mosque in Balıkesir in 1923 . Of course you can say that deep down he was an atheist or a deist or a member of the Illumiati or whatever you want, but that's strictly POV. The evidence is overwhelming that he presented himself as a Muslim and was regarded as such. Solri (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Any neutral reliable source was provided in support of Sunny Islam view. The citations above are from extremely biased  Turkish sources, the second one even religious. Jingiby (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way Radio Islam, has broadcast an emission: Kemal Ataturk - The Enemy of Islam. Jingiby (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This radio? Very reliable source really... Do you have friends in there? --E4024 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not a friends there, but you haven't provided any sources here. Jingiby (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Atatürk, The Rebirth of a Nation, Lord Kinross, 1965, p. 437: For Kemal, Islam and civilization were a contradiction in terms. "If only," he once said of the Turks, with a flash of cynical insight, "we could make them Christians!" His was not to be the reformed Islamic state for which the Faithful were waiting: it was to be a strictly lay state, with a centralized Government as strong as the Sultan's, backed by the army and run by his own intellectual bureaucracy. Jingiby (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Atatürk, The Rebirth of a Nation, Lord Kinross, 1965, p. 365: Some confusion as to his identity persisted, however, for some years to come. Inspecting some soldiers in Anatolia, Kemal once asked, "Who is God and where does He live?" The soldier, anxious to please, replied, "God is Mustafa Kemal Pasha. He lives in Angora." "And where is Angora?" Kemal asked. "Angora is in Istanbul," was the reply. Farther down the line he asked another soldier, "Who is Mustafa Kemal?" The reply was, "Our Sultan." Jingiby (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Grey Wolf, Mustafa Kemal: An Intimate Study of a Dictator, H.C. Armstrong, 1934, p. 241: "For five hundred years these rules and theories of an Arab sheik," he said, "and the interpretations of generations of lazy, good-for-nothing priests have decided the civil and the criminal law of Turkey." Jingiby (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not provided sources because the best one, the original of his Nüfus Cüzdani (ID) is in the museum within Anıt Kabir where you can see that it says "Religion: Islam". (I visit there at every opportunity and never had such a stupid question like this in my mind.) There are many photos of that ID in the internet, I add one for you here and will not speak to you again. --E4024 (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Emil Lengyel, (Turkey) 1941, pp. 140-141: During the early days of Kemal's career, many of his followers were under the impression that he was a champion of Islam and that they were fighting the Christians. "Ghazi, Destroyer of Christians" was the name they gave him. Had they been aware of his real intentions, they would have called him "Ghazi, Destroyer of Islam." Jingiby (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Kemal was virulently antireligious and he saw Islam as the primary source as his country's backwardness. He is reported to said once: "He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap." The Modern Middle East: A Political History Since the First World War, Mehran Kamrava, University of California Press, 2011, ISBN 0520267745, p. 56. Jingiby (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yurttaslik Bilgileri, Yenigun Haber Ajansi (1997 edition) p. 18.: " It is claimed that religious unity is also a factor in the formation of nations. Whereas, we see the contrary in the Turkish nation. Turks were a great nation even before they adopted Islam. This religion did not help the Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians and others to unite with Turks to form a nation. Conversely, it weakened the Turks’ national relations; it numbed Turkish national feelings and enthusiasm. This was natural, because Mohammedanism was based on Arab nationalism above all nationalities." Jingiby (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Kemal Atatürk, who saw Islam as a hindrance to the modernization of Turkey. Blaming the religion for his nation's defeat in World War I, he derided Islam as “the absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin.” Lone Wolf Terror and the Rise of Leaderless Resistance, George Michael, Vanderbilt University Press, 2012, ISBN 0826518559, p. 119.

However, I see any real discussion, only blind reverts and deletion of sources made on the article by User:Chauahuasachca and partially here, on discussion, but made by User:E4024. Please, stop this and provide Academic sources or held a correct discussion. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Cambridge University Press publication, he was agnostic or at least non doctrinaire deist. The Cambridge History of Turkey, Reşat Kasaba, Cambridge University Press, 2008, ISBN 0521620961, p. 163. I suggest to remove from the article's infobox the personal category religion, because most sources describe Ataturk as atheist or agnostic. Are there other suggestions, please. Jingiby (talk)

No objections were registered. I am going to delete the personal category religion from the infobox. Jingiby (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mustafa Kemal has never been a muslim, there is no sources, he did never go in a mosquee, he is a free-masson, that's all folk! We can say and admit he was a deist --Alsace38 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Atatürk Square
There isn't any square dedicated to ataturk in rome or for that matter in italy; it should be edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.183.10.6 (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Assassination Attempt
Hello,correct me if I'm wrong, but does this part about the assassination attempt: "Investigation shifted from an inquiry into the planners to an investigation ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but in truth used to undermine those disagreeing with Mustafa Kemal's cultural revolution." imply that the investigation was used as an excuse to oppress opposing views? If so, it doesn't seem to represent any source for this claim at all, so it seems to me that we have no proof of the results of the investigation being false. Should we not add a Citation Needed for this?--85.105.92.160 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 April 2013
In some places instead of Istanbul, Constantinople was used. Constantinople was conquered by Ottoman Empire and it is called Istanbul since 1453.

This sentence needs to be changed: "On 20 May 1928, Anglo-Afghan politics gained a positive perspective, when Amanullah Khan and the Queen were received by Mustafa Kemal in Constantinople."

24.181.93.15 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. There have been a number of discussions on the talk page of the Istanbul article over the years discussing this very issue, and based on my quick scan of these discussions the only consensus on when to use which name is that no consensus has been reached, and that the two names are often used interchangeably throughout Wikipedia. (For example, see Occupation of Constantinople.) As long as that's true, the current wording of the article is acceptable. -- El Hef  ( Meep  ? ) 03:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

killing communists
article states "nevertheless, the entire Turkish communist leadership were assassinated on 28 January 1921 at Kemal's behest.", source is a russian book in cyrillic from 1995. I can't find any info on Google about this, not a thing, can whoever wrote it please verify it with another source - preferably clickable.Oxr033 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Genocide
Why is there no mention against the various atrocities committed against Greeks and Armenians under his rule ect. And the Dersim massacre. Surely his in relation to these atrocities should be clearly mentioned. Otherwise it just seems like a complete whitewash.88.104.220.55 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is a sham, that it isn't flagged for being so blatantly biased and without neutrality is one of Wikipedia's greatest failures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.28.19 (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am generally a big fan of Ataturk, but it is ridiculous to not even mention the genocide of Greek peoples. Even if you believe it is not his fault at all, it still needs to be mentioned.  I'll do some research and try to find decent sources in order to add a section, or at least a paragraph.  This page right now reads like almost like a religious text, it's ridiculous (and I am a big fan of Ataturk).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221bbaker (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I to am deeply concerned that I see no mention of or links to the Armenian Genocide on this page, nor any of the Genocide against Greeks conducted by this horrible man. I'm not a supporter or detractor of Turkey, but as a Jew I know I'd be upset if Hitler's page left out the Holocaust.Terabiel (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am more concerned about people writing about a genocide but not mentioning its date or location. There were lots of loss of human life during Mustafa Kemal's life and rule (All the Ottoman citizens whether they are Arabic, Turkish, Greek, Armenian origin) but that was due to that age circumstances (World War I, Liberation War, Balkan Wars, outside influence to weaken newly found rule after Liberty War)Please do not spew nonsensical and not methodically texts where you wouldn't be held accountable for it just to smirch something. There is no dispute whether there was any movement against lives of Greek origined citizens after Balkan wars and during Balkan Wars such conflicts between Turkish and Greek civilians happened in Balkans, not present Turkey lands. For the Armenian genocide you'll see that was a civil conflict between Armenian and "all-other origins" Ottoman Citizens(I say Ottoman citizens because they was before founding of Turkey) Many lost their lives in this ugly conflict on both sides. This happened behind warlines, where civil order was disrupted. After Ottoman government could spare manpower to quell the conflict only thing they could manage to do was sending one of the involved parties to a location where order was more solid. The party chosen for this was Armenians whom composed the %25-35 of the general population of that location instead of the majority. You can check the facts, you will find many inconsistencies but if you dig deep enough and see if the source is neutral or not you will see what i have written to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.196.244.87 (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Smyrna? Certainly present-day "Turkey lands". Other than that I'm not certain what your point is, but maybe it's just a language barrier.  I think Ataturk is one of the great leaders of the 20th century, but large-scale mass killings based on religion and race happened often in his early rule.  Most of it probably is not his fault but major events that happened in his country, during his rule, should be mentioned.221bbaker (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relating Atatürk with the policies Ottoman Empire has exercised towards Armenians is as ridiculous as accusing Albert Einstein of the Holocaust. Please put your national or religious affiliations aside and explain why should Mustafa Kemal be related with such events he has not been a part of especially bearing the controversiality of the concept of a Greek Genocide in mind. Thank you. Batuhan Erdoğan (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, because Albert Einstein was a political head of state? Hyperbole aside, I am neither Greek nor Armenian, and have no particular loyalty to either group any more than I do for Turkish people, for whom I have great affection.  These concepts really are not controversial anywhere in the world except in Turkey.  I was solely speaking about the Greek issues (Armenian genocide admittedly happened well before Kemal's takeover, and was never mentioned by me).  How does mentioning the events that happened during Ataturk's rule somehow become this huge issue?  I even go out of my way to state that I don't think it was really his fault, and that I am big fan of his, but leaving this giant black hole in the article because it upsets you is something I don't understand.  I am not placing blame anywhere, but major events that happened while he was in charge should be covered regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you or anyone else.  I find it interesting that you assume my position on this comes down to "national or religious affiliations" that I must put aside to see the truth that apparently you have a monopoly on, when in fact have absolutely no national or religious stake in this.  I got into this discussion because I am a FAN of Ataturk, not the other way around.  Even as a fan of his, I can still take issue with a large omission from the article of a significant series of historical events (all blame and characterizations aside).221bbaker (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ataturk formed the Grand National Assembly in the Spring of 1920. He did in-fact force the "Roman Community" out of Turkish contolled land, But How?
Leading up to the Spring of 1920 the non-muslim community in Turkish controlled regions were moderately pursecuted and treated like sub-citizens. With the formation of the GNA, Ataturk ordered his army to forceably remove all non-muslims from Turkish controlled regions, which began in the Spring of 1920. Villagers were ordered to " Take with you only what you can carry....you have five minutes!!" Those who started argueing were shot on the spot.. dead. They marched for months were many died of exposure or starvation or at the hand of the Turkish Army. This was widespread and not localized. The policy was adopted by ataturk and matches accounts that he did not want "outside interference" from other cultures.... Please correct your article as there are still people living who have lived through the above cirmcumstances and that is why we see claims of 350,000 greeks, 300,000 armenians, ect.... It is not made up for fun. I am sure Ataturk did many great things for his country but compassion for others belief's was never his strong point.. In todays world he would be thought of as far worse than Sadam Hussan or any other region where Ethnic Cleansing is carried out. I believe the Hitler statement to Mousilini was "if the Turks could do it to the Greeks(Armenians), we can do it to the Jews..." and thus started the Holocost in Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcat752000 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Atatürk is freemason or not?
we invite you Talk:List of Freemasons page to talk about documentation of Atatürk is a freemason or not. --

Or we continue here about this talk about allegation. Qwl (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes of course he is free-masso, but turkey's officials are afraid this suggestion! But everwhere you can go in turkish loges, their emblem is "mustafa kemal", every turkish loges got his foto. --Alsace38 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * turkey's offical freemasso web site says "ataturk friens were also freem..." http://www.mason.org.tr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=43
 * according to liberal massons ataturk was freema.. http://www.mason-mahfili.org.tr/?page_id=102 --Alsace38 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

While there is no definitive evidence he was ever a freemason at any point of his life, it is a widely known historical fact that he outlawed freemasonry during his presidency. --Mttll (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of sources, including reliable, which claim he was a freemason. Jingiby (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that there are some lists of freemasons, consisting of thousands of names that happen to include Ataturk, but I have never seen a source focusing on Ataturk with definitive evidence on his alleged freemasonry. Also, Alsace38 above is either mistaken or lying; those two freemasonry websites from Turkey (might be the highest authority, not sure) aren't saying that Ataturk was a freemason. In fact, they are listing some late Ottoman as well as early republican Turkish statemen as freemasons, but not Ataturk. --Mttll (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a multi-sourced claim. It has been discussed several times.  For that reason, you cannot simply unilaterally delete sourced material from an article. MSJapan (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I never deleted anything from the article. I am not against a sentence formulated along the lines of "numerous sources claim Ataturk was a freemason" in the article, but I don't think he should be listed among Wikipedia's own list of freemasons. That should be reserved for those who are not disputed. With Ataturk, it is little more than a conspiracy theory. --Mttll (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

First off, that's your original research if you want to make that claim, which means it doesn't belong here. Secondly, you did indeed delete material from an article, just not this one. MSJapan (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, what is my original research? Secondly, I already said I believed Wikipedia's own list of freemasons should be reserved for people whose status is not disputed (which isn't the case with Ataturk). --Mttll (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is all but universal acceptance by Masonic historians that Ataturk did in fact join a Masonic lodge as a young man. There are lodge records to support this. The question that no one seems to be asking is this: What does this really mean?... It certainly does not mean he remained a Mason through his entire life.  In fact, there is no evidence to indicate that (after his initiation) he ever set foot in a lodge room again.  It also does not mean that he held certain religious or political views.  Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

ottoman and turkish
this is quite ridiculous. :))) it is like saying "Robespierre was a Bourbon and French lawyer and politician." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.102.183 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I changed the first sentence. --Mttll (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Religion !
Ataturk a Sunni Muslim ?! He was a declared Atheist ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.129.58 (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue with Ataturk's religious beliefs was discussed on Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. His religiousity is described in the article Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life clear: he was either atheist or agnostic. There is any neutral and reliable academic source which claims he was a Muslim believer. Wikipedia is not a plase for religious propaganda. Check also the sources please. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue was discussed also on this article's talk page here: in archives. A lot of NPOV sources, including academic were provided that he was atheist or agnostic and even anti-Islamist as for example in Societies, Networks, and Transitions, Vol 2, Craig A. Lockard, Cengage Learning, 2010, ISBN 1439085366, p. 709.: A religious agnostic, he violated Muslim customs by pursuing sexual promiscuity and drinking heavily in public. As a Turkish nationalist who glorified the pre-Islamic Turkish past, Ataturk dismissed Islamic culture as outdated. No one academic or neutral reference was provided confirming he was a Muslim believer. Please stop pushing your religious POV here. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He was a Muslim by background and he never really renounced it (except in one dubious quote). I say remove religion tab from the infobox, neither "atheism" nor "agnosticism" are religions anyhow. --Mttll (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

House of his father in Kodžadžik
MIA published information that Kemal Ataturk Memorial House to be constructed in native village of his father - Kodžadžik. (link) Information about his father's origin should probably be updated? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk 1881 yılında Selanik’te doğdu. İlk öğrenimini ve askerî öğrenci olarak orta öğreniminin bir kısmını Selanik’te yaptı. Manastır Askerî Lisesi’ni bitirdi.1902 yılında Kara Harp Okulu’ndan, 1905 yılında Harp Akademisi’nden mezun oldu.Orduda çeşitli vazifeler aldı. 1913 yılında Sofya’da Ataşe Militer olarak bulundu.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk Birinci Dünya Harbi sırasında, Çanakkale Muharebelerinde, Tümen Komutanı olarak görev yapıı. 1916 yılından itibaren, Doğu ve Güney cephelerinde Kolordu ve Ordu Komutanlığı yaptı. Bitlis ve Muş’u düşman işgalinden kurtaran kuvvetlerin başındaydı. Filistin ve Suriye cephelerinde görev aldı.

1921 tarihli Sakarya Meydan Muharebesi'nden sonra "Gazi" unvanını almış ve mareşalliğe yükselmiştir.1938 yılındaki vefatına kadar arka arkaya 4 kez cumhurbaşkanı seçilen Atatürk, bu görevi en uzun süre yürüten cumhurbaşkanı olmuştur.

Mondros Mütarekesi’nden sonra Sevr Anlaşması hükümlerine dayanılarak ülkenin yabancılar tarafından işgali üzerine, son Osmanlı padişahı Vahdettin Han tarafından Anadolu’ya gönderildi.19 Mayıs 1919′da Samsun’a çıkarak Türk millî mücadelesini başlattı.Amasya Genelgesi, Sivas ve Erzurum Kongrelerini topladı. Askerî görevlerinden istifa ederek 23 Nisan 1920′de Ankara’da Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi’ni topladı. Meclis Başkanı seçildi.5 Ağustos 1921′de Başkomutanlık görevini üstlenerek Anadolu’nun Yunan işgalinden kurtarılması için mücadeleye devam etti. Sakarya Meydan Savaşı’nı kazandı. 19 Eylül 1921′de Meclis tarafından kendisine Mareşal ve geleneksel Gazi ünvanı verildi.

1934 yılında Gazi Mustafa Kemal’e meclis tarafından “Atatürk” soyadı verildi. Atatürk, gerçekleştirmiş olduğu inkılâplar ile Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin medeni ülkeler seviyesine çıkmasını sağladı. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin kurucusu Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, 10 Kasım 1938’de Dolmabahçe Sarayı’nda hayata gözlerini yumdu.--78.189.24.79 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Juma prayers performed by Mustafa Kemal
There are records of many Juma prayers performed by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk during the Turkish War of Independence at many locations in Turkey as an Imam, you can just search and find them. This will give you good idea about his religious beliefs, i.e., he was a perfect imam as well. 128.164.157.184 (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 July 2013
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk wasnt a sunni muslim, he died as an atheist.

Ben manevi miras olarak hiçbir ayet, hiçbir dogma, hiçbir donmuş ve kalıplaşmış kural bırakmıyorum. Benim manevi mirasım ilim ve akıldır." Mustafa Kemal Atatürk"

Medeni Bilgiler sayfa: 364,365,366,367,368,369,370,402,403 – Kemal Atatürk

“Türkler Arapların dinini kabul etmeden evvel de büyük bir millet idi. Araplar’ın dinini kabul ettikten sonra, bu din, ne Araplar’ın, ne aynı dinde bulunan Acemlerin ve ne de Mısırlıların vesairenin Türklerle birleşip bir millet teşkil etmelerine hiçbir tesir etmedi. Bilâkis, Türk milletinin milli rabıtalarını gevşetti; milli hislerini, milli heyecanını uyuşturdu. Bu pek tabii idi. Çünkü, Muhammed’in kurduğu dinin gayesi, bütün milliyetlerin fevkinde, şamil bir Arap milliyeti siyasetine müncer oluyordu.

Bu Arap fikri, ümmet kelimesi ile ifade olundu. Muhammedin dinini kabul edenler, kendilerini unutmaya, hayatlarını Allah kelimesinin, her yerde yükseltilmesine hasretmeye mecburdurlar. Bununla beraber, Allah’a kendi milli lisanlarında değil, Allah’ın Arap kavmine gönderdiği Arapça kitapla ibadet ve münacatta bulunacaktı. Arapça öğrenmedikçe, Allah’a ne dediğini bilmeyecekti. Bu vaziyet karşısında Türk milleti birçok asırlar, ne yaptığını bilmeksizin, adeta bir kelimesinin manasını bilmediği halde Kuranı ezberlemekten beyni sulanmış, hafızlara döndüler. Başlarına geçebilmiş olan haris serdarlar, Türk milletince karışık, cahil hocalar ağzıyla, ateş ve azap ile müdhiş bir muamma halinde kalan, dini, hırs ve siyasetlerine alet ittihaz ettiler.

Bir taraftan Araplar’ı zorla emirleri altına aldılar, bir taraftan Avrupa’da Allah kelimesinin ilâhî parolası altında Hıristiyan milliyetleriylerine ilişmeyi düşünmediler. Ne onları ümmet yaptılar ne de onlarla birleşerek bir kuvvetli millet yaptılar. Mısır’da, belirsiz bir adamı halifedir diye yok ettiler, hırkasıdır diye bir palaspareyi, hilafet alameti ve imtiyazı olarak altın sandıklara koydular, halife oldular. Gâh şarka, cenuba, gâh garb veya her tarafa birden saldıra saldıra, Türk milletinin Allah için, Peygamber için topraklarını, menfaatlarını, benliğini unutturacak Allah’la mutevekkil kılacak derin bir gaflet ve yorgunluk beşiğinde uyuttular. Milli duyguyu boğan, fani dünyaya kıymet vermeyen, sefaletler, zaruretler, felaketler his olunmaya başlayınca, asıl hakiki saadete öldükten sonra ahirette kavuşacağını vat ve temin eden dini akide ve dini his, millet uyandığı zaman onun şu acı hakikati görmesine mani olamadı.

Bu feci manzara karşısında kalanlara, kendilerinden evvel ölenlerin ahiretteki saadetlerini düşünerek veya bir an evvel ölüm niyaz ederek ahiret hayatına kavuşmak telkin eden dini hissi; dünyanın acısı duyulan tokatıyla derhal, Türk milletinin vicdanındaki çadırını yıktı, davetlileri, Türk düşmanları olan Arap çöllerine gitti. Türk vicdanı umumisi, derhal, yüzlerce asırlık kudret ve küşayişiyle, büyük heyecanlarla çarpıyordu. Ne oldu? Türk’ün milli hissi, artık ocağında ateşlenmişti. Artık Türk, cenneti değil, eski, hakiki büyük Türk cedlerinin mukaddes miraslarının son Türk ellerinin müdafaa ve muhafazasını düşünüyordu. İşte dinin, din hissinin Türk milliyetinde bıraktığı hatıra…“

Kendi el yazıları (His own hand writings) http://merih.net/ata/atayaz/Page.html

Ruhsuz (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now:
 * I'm sorry, but you will need to make your request in English on the English wikipedia. See WP:SPEAKENGLISH.
 * If you cannot translate the comments, third parties or Embassy can help.
 * We can source content to foreign language publications, see WP:NONENG, but because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, where English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. Translation of quoted sources would also be required, and the source would need to be assessed for reliability - see WP:RS.
 * It's also possible that another editor may see this request and offer to help translate, but I don't know how likely that is and if you'd like to progress it quicker than waiting for that possibility, you might wish to be proactive about organising a translation. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk 07:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"As my immaterial heritage I leave no religious verse, no dogma, no frozen and unchangable rule. My immaterial heritage is science and reason"

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Turks were a great people even before accepting the religion of the Arabs. After accepting the religion of the Arabs, this religion had no effect on uniting the Arabs, the Persians, the Egyptians etc. ,who also believed in the same religion, into one single nation. On the contrary, it relaxed the national order of the Turkish people; numbed their national emotions, their national enthusiasm. This was very natural as the purpose of the religion Mohammed founded was to have the Arabic people lead over all others.

This Arabic ideal was expressed by the word "ummah". Those who accepted Mohammed's religion were forced to forget themselves and devote themselves to the praisal of the word "Allah" all over the world. In addition, they were to pray and worship Allah not in their own national tongues but with the Arabic book that Allah had sent to the Arabic tribe. Without learning Arabic, one would not know what one was saying to Allah. Facing this the Turkish people were turned into hafiz who were brain washed from memorizing the Quran for many centuries without knowing the meaning of any word within. Greedy leaders who managed to lead over them used religion, which was a great mystery to the Turkish people due to ignorant hodjas' preachings, as a tool for their ambitions and politics. Nothing is wrong here, he criticizes the methodology of teaching though!128.164.157.184 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

On one side they conquered the Arabs by force but on the other they did not think about converting Christian nations of Europe with the divine word of God. They did not make them into one ummah nor did they join forces with them to create a powerful nation. They destroyed a random man in Egypt because he was the Caliph, put some rag into a golden chest because it was his(Translators note: refers to Mohammed) coat and was to be considered as a symbol of the Caliphate and they became the Caliph. To the east, to the south, to the west and all around they kept attacking for Allah, for the Prophet. They were fooled into serve Allah who would deny them of their national entity, national gains and goals. When it was realized that this religion was strangling national emotions, not caring about the mortal world and causing poorness, distress and disasters, the religion which promised them true happiness and calm could not stop this people from seeing the sad truth once it had awoken.

Those who found them facing this horrible situation used the painful strike of the material world and burned the religious tents, which urged them to think about the happiness of those in afterlife and urged them to die quickly so they may join those who were calm and serene, from the Turkish people's hearts. Those that dwelled within them, enemies of the Turks, went back to the deserts of Arabia. Turkish hearts were beating once more with excitement from hundreds of years of might and a clear state of mind. What happened? The national emotion of the Turk was aflame once more. Now the Turk yearned not for heaven but for the defence and safe keeping of the heritages of real and great Turkish ancestors. That is the memory left by religious emotions on the Turkish people.

I have translated the entire text. I am satisfied with the quality, meaning should be there exactly but if you want to form more coherent sentences that I can understand. I am currently studying Translation and Interpreting studies so this should be considered as a valid translation in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.31.13 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you very much indeed for doing that. I've marked the request as unanswered again. There's a lot to read and digest there, and I'm not entirely clear what edit is being requested - I think perhaps, just this: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk wasnt a sunni muslim, he died as an atheist. Hopefully we can get some input on that now. Begoon &thinsp; talk 02:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would consider removing the religion from the profile as a starter, as is the case with the Turkish Wiki. Then editing the article to include his opinions stated here would be the best way to go.

As for the credibility of the source, it is as credible as it gets. It is from "Medeni bilgiler ve M. Kemal Atatürk'ün el yazıları, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1969" by Prof. Dr. Afet İnan, one of the first historians of the Republic. She was the adopted daughter of Atatürk and a credible historian. The "he died an atheist" remark is just dramatization. He always felt this way about Islam. I am not really what you would consider a veteran Wiki editor by any means, this being my first contribution, so I can't do it myself but if you could process this information and add it to the article it would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.31.13 (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Mdann52 (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"Statesman" piped link
The lede describes Atatürk as a "statesman". This was originally piped to politician, which I changed last July to statesman, unaware that we aren't supposed to link to disambigation pages. Shortly after (but I've only just noticed) that was changed to point to public figure, which is about a specific concept in US law. What should this term point to? The original ("politican") is too broad, and the current is not relevent, but apart from the dab page we don't actually have a proper article about the concept of a "statesman". The only alternative I can think of is a link to the Wiktionary definition. Iapetus (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2014
army officer in the Ottoman military, reformist statesman Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (19 May 1881 (conventional) – 10 November 1938) was a Turkish army officer in the Ottoman military, reformist statesman, and the first President of Turkey.

128.164.157.184 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I think that would be a bit of WP:OVERLINKING, your changes would leave essentially just articles unlinked. Also, changing revolutionary to reformist may not be the best, reformism seems to mean making small changes over time whereas Ataturk seems to have made major sweeping changes Cannolis (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

CORRECTION to the article NOT a REVOLUTIONIST
CORRECTION to the article should include a statement like: .....army officer in the Ottoman military, reformist statesman Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (19 May 1881 (conventional) – 10 November 1938) was a Turkish army officer in the Ottoman military, reformist statesman, and the first President of Turkey.

68.100.172.139 (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Pronounciation The correct Pronounciation should be Mūsˈtāphā Kaˈmāl ātāˈtyɾc

68.100.172.139 (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. Just because he is referred to as İNKILÂPÇI in Turkey does not mean the term "reformist" should be used in English. Reformist means something quite particular. The way the term "revolutionary" in the article is being used is not as a title as you seem to be using İNKILÂPÇI, it is a description. Reading the definition of 'revolutionary' in English may be helpful to your understanding.
 * 2. I am no expert on pronunciations but the pronunciation you advocated in your original edit request is the exact same as that in the article. If the pronunciation you are claiming is correct here is different when you format it properly, I would be more than happy to find someone and figure out if it is correct Cannolis (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If he ıs Revolutionary i.e. DEVRİMCİ, he is becoming same type with Fidel Castro who did a Revolution i.e. DEVRİM which is İNCORRECT!!

68.100.172.139 (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Try to disregard what revolutionary means in Turkish. In English, it does not necessarily refer to bringing about a revolution. See dictionary definition. There are multiple definitions. Cannolis (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Atatürk & Castro

Are they the same in their acheivements? Revolutionist- Fidel Castro O.K. Revolutionist- Atatürk is NOT O.K. You have to find another WORD!! 68.100.172.139 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Revolution is a consequence of Revolt, Rebellion, Insurrection, Uprising. These terms are NOT identical to Turkish War of Independence which is NEITHER a Revolution NOR anyone of Revolt, Rebellion, Insurrection, Uprising. 68.100.172.139 (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Therefore you should make the corrections, i.e., Atatürk was NOT a revolutionist as Castro was. 68.100.172.139 (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

He is totally right Atatürk was a reformist not revolutionary leader. So reformist is the correct term for him (devrimci değil inkılapçı) elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 11:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very much disagree. If he were a reformist, then he would have made changes gradually over time. From reading this article it seems like he made very major changes in a rather short duration. Linking Turkish terms does not sway me in the least, this is the English Wikipedia, grammatically correct English terms will be used here. 68.100.172.139 seems to believe that Castro is the only possible example of a revolutionary. This is also very incorrect. It is also the case that the Turkish War of Independence is a revolution. Cannolis (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about your statement above. THEN YOU SHOULD SAY THAT IT WAS A REVOLUTION AGAINST FRANCE, GRECE, GREAT BRITAIN, and RUSSIA 68.100.172.139 (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Revolutionaries I think you have never seen a revolution.
 * Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro, and Ayatollah Khomeini

The Turkish War of Independence is a revolution against the occupying allied-armies of FRANCE, GRECE, GREAT BRITAIN, and RUSSIA 68.100.172.139 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC) This statement shold then be written somewhere in your article.
 * "he led the Turkish National Movement in the Turkish War of Independence. Having established a provisional government in Ankara, he defeated the forces sent by the Allies". These are the 4th and 5th sentences in this article. Also, this is exactly what wikilinks are for. see something blue you don't know about, click on it, learn a bit more. I think you have no understanding of the definition of English word "revolutionary" and its wide range of use, as opposed to the Turkish term, which seems to be much more specific. Cannolis (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I don't believe Russia was involved in the Turkish Revolution, no mention of them is made on the page Cannolis (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

68.100.172.139 (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right. In Turkish, revolutionary (DEVRİMCİ) is being used for people like Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro, and Ayatollah Khomeini who did a revolution (DEVRİM) as a consequence of a series of Revolts, Rebellions, Insurrections, and Uprisings. And they might affect negatively as well.
 * For the case here, renovations and reforms (İNKILÂB) are being used since there were no violance against the exsisting goverment was involved.
 * Though our Turkish guys incorrectly translates your "revolutionary" as (DEVRİMCİ) into Turkish wikipedia.

It was a RESISTANCE not a REVOLUTION please refer to a dictionary first. Secondly inkılapçı means REFORMIST not REVOLUTIONARY. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 06:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The two are not mutually exclusive terms. Secondly, it does not matter what inkılapçı means, this article is not a translation of the Turkish one. Cannolis (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So it is a wrong word to use, cause he simply isnt elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 08:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Unless you consider overthrowing a government and the Ottoman Sultanate as gradual reforms over a long period of time, he is not a reformist. I cannot help your misunderstanding if you are refusing to read the page. Cannolis (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Cannolis: Some Turkish wikipedia peple are translating to Turkish incorrectly as REVOLUTIONIST because of you!! 68.100.172.139 (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cute. I do not care. They should not be using Wikipedia articles as sources. Cannolis (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

He/she does not violates WP:CIRCULAR(he doesnt cites any wiki pages on article please read rules carefully) he just states that you have providing wrong word to define him in Turkish Wikipedia.elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 12:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What? I don't care what term is used in the Turkish Wikipedia. I only care what is going on here in the English Wikipedia. If "Some Turkish wikipedia peple are translating to Turkish incorrectly", that is not my problem, that is their violation of WP:CIRCULAR. Look at the reformism page. The very first sentence defines it as "the belief that gradual changes through and within existing institutions can ultimately change a society's fundamental economic system and political structures." This is the opposite of what Ataturk did. He fought a revolution, an independence war, and drastically changed the Turkish government. Revolutionary is a perfect adequate term to describe him. Cannolis (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is EXACTLY what he did. He politically, socially, economically changed Turkey/instutions in Turkey/instruments of government/society. He even reformed social issues like how to wear and how to write etc..He didint participated in a revolution because there was no revolution but an independence war. Which was not a revolution at all. Reformist is the perfect adequate term to describe him indeed.

I would like to paste the second paragraph in this article:

''Atatürk then embarked upon a program of political, economic, and cultural reforms, seeking to transform the former Ottoman Empire into a modern, secular, and democratic nation-state. Under his leadership, thousands of new schools were built, primary education was made free and compulsory, and women were given equal civil and political rights, while the burden of taxation on peasants was reduced''

Nearly what reformism says....elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 13:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "gradual changes through and within existing institutions". I am completely in agreement that he made changes. I do not believe they were slow, gradual changes. Nor is it the case that he made them with/through existing institutions - he overthrew a government and installed a new one.
 * An independence war is indistinguishable from a revolution. See revolution - "a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time". See American Revolutionary War which is interchangeable with American War of Independence. Cannolis (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

mustafa Kemal atatürk
not Cemal, djemal,

Kemal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.186.25.174 (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2014
--->

78.186.25.174 (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  11:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic origins of Mustafa Kemal
There have been several discussions about his ethnic origins. These positions are described in the article. Please take in mind that all these positions have no primary official ottoman documents to rely on. Previously official documents only proved that Ali Riza was his father and Zübeyde his mother. That was it. The rest was speculation. So even when Mustafa kemals was president, he personally set up a private commission to check the archives for a family tree (especially about his father which he lost at young age). It ended without result. The reasons: His hometown Thessaloniki was under greek administration, and generally the ottoman archives were an uncategorized mess (that changed in the 1980ies).

Now, a breakthrough. A hobby-historian and retired imam called Mehmet Ali Öz went into the ottoman state archives and worked there around 12 years (2002-2014). He managed to trace his family tree back to the 16th century. The book that will come out in a few weeks is called: “Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’ün Soy Kütüğü (Osmanlı Arşivi Belgelerine Göre)”. It consists of official ottoman documents. Here you can read the details ((in turkish)) and here the tv-program. To sum up, Mustafa Kemals ancestors are all classical turco-muslim backgrounded people residing in Thessaloniki for several centuries. The family of his mother is called "NAKİBZÂDE" and quite influencial in the area. Also, new documents show at which border positions his father worked as a guard (some interesting places). The book is the only primary source, so "X says he was albanian, Y says he was jewish, Z says he was Yörük" is history. I am saying this because i will change that part soon. And by the way: The picture of the museum in Koczadzik that was put in: That new museum was build in vain. His grandfather is not coming from that village. But its still a nice house. --Zoylab (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remove unproven,undecided Informations.
According to Zubeyde hanım wikipedia page: Atatürk's mother Zubeyde Hanım is the respectful form of Mrs. and was always added after her name. '''Hacı, in Turkish, refers to those Muslims who have made the pilgrimage to Mecca. Sofular is the plural of Sofu, which means a religious devotee.''' It is assumed that some important person or persons in Zübeyde Hanım's ancestry had made the pilgrimage to Mecca and that her family had deep religious roots.

And there are lots of information about his mother and father

We know Atatürk's mother,father and grandfather,grandmother very clear.

i dont know why wikipedia put that such weak claims. like this

'According to Encyclopaedia Judaica, one assertion that was commonly made by many Jews of Salonika was that Atatürk was of Doenmeh'

this weak claim must be removed. or edited.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkishpat (talk • contribs) 05:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Diarchy
On 19 Feb., 2011, Axxxion has described the situation in War of Independence years as diarchy According to the relevant  article, diarchy is a form of government in which two individuals are joint heads of state. Unless there is an alternative definition, this was not the case in Turkey. I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014
It should be added to this article that Ataturk was a mass murderer (proved and apologized by the current government in turkey) who murdered thousands of people in Dersim

Corasli (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  15:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The massacre is described under Dersim massacre. In particular, the Turkish government really did apologize for it in 2011. In that article, it says that the Turkish President described the massacre as "one of the most tragic events of our near history" saying that, whilst some sought to justify it as a legitimate response to events on the ground, it was in reality "an operation which was planned step by step". Sources are given for many aspects of the genocide. Of particular interest are some citations that appear to implicate Ataturk, but I'll leave that to readers of Turkish. 89.217.14.177 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Armenian-genocide.org
This is not a valid source. none of the information on this website is sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.168.18 (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2015
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is author of Genocide - over 2 million Armenians and Greeks were killed

Harvart (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as that is a PoV, not a Semi-protected edit request.

Atatürk elected as first President of Turkey
This article never explicitly states that Atatürk was elected as the first President of the Republic of Turkey. I would recommend that, under the section "Establishment of the Republic of Turkey," the text in quotes below be added to the first sentence in the last paragraph:

On 29 October 1923, the Republic of Turkey was proclaimed" by the Grand National Assembly, and Mustafa Kemal was elected President of the Republic".

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.166.217 (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

edit request
"On 10 November 1924 it was renamed Cumhuriyet Halk Fırkası or Republican People's Party (In 1935 the word fırka was replaced by the word party.)" In this sentence, I'd suggest that the word "party" is changed to "parti" as that is the actual Turkish word that replaced "fırka." Xoox (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong number of adopted children
Both Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk's_personal_life and Sabiha Gökçen states that Atatürk adopted eight children; seven girls and one boy. Therefore, the last paragraph of Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk should be edited so that the sentence "During his lifetime, Atatürk adopted thirteen children: a boy and twelve girls." is corrected.

78.160.50.53 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080505055349/http://www.tsk.mil.tr:80/eng/Anitkabir/p24.html to http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/Anitkabir/p24.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327060825/http://www.bilkent.edu.tr:80/~jast/Number3/Gazo.html to http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~jast/Number3/Gazo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Honoric prefix
I would replace the honoric prefix "His Excellency" with "Father of the Turks" as he was a declared opponent of monarchy. I ask you to change this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.150.222 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

National Heroes of Turkey
Please add "Category:National Heroes of Turkey". If you don't have Atatürk in that category, why do you need it? Have you ever witnessed a 10 November ceremony in Turkey? (If not, do it and write an article about it.) Atatürk is the number 1 national hero of Turkey. --176.239.106.241 (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I agree with him. Atatürk is the most important "National Hero of Turkey". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.150.222 (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Internal link out of date
The 'Turkification' link in the main section is now wrong, the Republic_of_Turkey bit needs to be changed to Modern_Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.129.255 (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

His Origin
I really suprised in this sentences: "There are also some suggestions about the possibility of his Slavic origin, based on his light skin complexion, blond hair and blue eyes.[22][23][24]." Many historian and antropologist says that his light skin, blue eyes and blond hair comes from Kuman Turks. They lands Karaman providence in Turkey. Atatürk's anchestors come from Karaman providence and they are from Kızıl Oğuzlar (Red Oghuzs) tribe of Kuman Turks. Most of people in this tribe and in Kuman Turks have blond hair and colored eyes. You can watch a documentary as a reference that is named "Atatürk'ün Soyu" (Origin of Atatürk). It is made by TRT (National Boardcasting Inst.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkmaned (talk • contribs) 19:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess. It sounds like no one knows. There are three refs for that statement, all being actual books.
 * The first says "Mustapha, like many Ottomans, was of mixed genetic heritage, a product of the Balkan melting pot. His mother, Zübeyde, was fair and blue-eyed, perhaps partly of Slavic or Albanian ancestry".
 * The second is off-line and I can't access it.
 * The third is off-line, but a the ref gives a quote, which is "Whether, like most Macedonians, he had about him a touch of the hybrid — perhaps of the Slav or Albanian — can only be a matter for surmise"
 * Sounds like no one knows and its all speculation. He was born in Salonika. The article does say "His mother Zübeyde is thought to have been of Turkish origin..." (emphasis added) and there's a great deal about where his ancestors may have come from -- essentially all speculation, as far as I can tell -- before the paragraph ends with the Slavic but.


 * It's OK to include speculation if its notable enough. The documentary you cite is OK, although videos make poor refs as they are not available to all readers and are hard to search and translate (and I sure as heck don't know where to find this documentary).


 * However, if as you say "Many historians and anthropologist say that his light skin, blue eyes, and blond hair come from the Kuman Turks" and so forth, there ought to be other references. I don't care enough myself to dig them up, but if you can then as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to add the Kuman Turks bit to the hodge-podge of speculation that is that paragraph. Herostratus (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Slavic Origin
The fact that individuals claim he perhaps carried Slavic ancestry because of his light complexion is an absurd, baseless assumption - and should perhaps be deleted.

My grandfather was born in Iran, and was a white skinned, blondie with blue eyes. Does that make him of Slavic origin, even after you consider the fact that the Slavic people never settled in Iran and never mingled with the population there?

Absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.11.37 (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I mean if there is going to be citation for a possible Slavic-Muslim ancestry, there has to be actual sources than his appearance. It is known today that every race(not saying nationality, saying race) carries characteristics from many different nations, and no race, this even includes Icelandic people, is isolated to its "own, one and only" characteristics. Berkaysnklf (talk) 10 November 2016, 13:12 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2016
Please change spelling: "Mustafa Kemal was instrumental in suprressing the revolt." to "Mustafa Kemal was instrumental in suppressing the revolt."

77.179.32.73 (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Complete re-write might be a better option
This article is terribly written. Let's re-write ... E104421 (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2016
87.202.167.115 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017
Ataturk doesn't mean "Father of the Turks", it means "Turk like his Ancestors" 159.146.1.33 (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * . Please provide reliable sources to support the change. Thanks, GABgab 16:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Religion
Atatürk's religion is not objectively known. So I believe we should remove the religion part in infobox.

--Ail Subway (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

His religion is known, he was a Muslim but believed in the principles of secularism, therefore he never was intended to use his religious beliefs as a guidance. I do agree that a mentioning of his religion has no value at all. Redman19 (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Atatürk's Sexuality;
Contents which claim Atatürk had affairs with men, are very few, and considered biased. Such allegations have been made to other prominent figures, and leaders but none of them were placed on the top of the Personal Life section with a certain tongue. As a Turkish, i can clearly say this particular claim is not, and will not be welcomed by Turkish people. By not trying to lower any sexual orientation, and considering the love and care Ataturk is given, i suggest removing this part from the Personal Life section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiugn (talk • contribs) 07:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopedia shouldn't confine itself to only reporting within socially acceptable expressions. Wikipedia is not censored.

Atatürk (1962) Irfan and Margaret Orga: “He had never really loved a woman. He was used to the camaraderie of the mess, the craze for handsome young men, [and] fleeting contacts with prostitutes, … His body burned for a woman or a boy...”

Mustafa Kemal, An Intimate Study (1933) by H.C. Armstrong Pages 253-254: “After divorcing Latife, ...he went back to the long nights in smoke-filled rooms with his drinking friends...after that he became shameless. He drank deeper than ever. He started a number of open affairs with women, and with men. Male youth attracted him...”

Kinross, Lord (1992). Ataturk: a biography of Mustafa Kemal, father of modern Turkey (1st Quill. ed.). New York: Quill/Morrow. p. 21. ISBN 9780688112837.

“Women, for Mustafa, were a means of satisfying masculine appetites, little more; nor, in his zest for experience, would he be inhibited from passing adventures with young boys, if the opportunity offered and the mood, in this bisexual fin-de-siècle Ottoman age, came upon him.”

Sheitan (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The same things have been said about Gandhi being a racist and sexual abuser. These things are not mentioned on his article either, no need for these kind of things because I do believe most of the claims are false. Redman19 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Can someone place an actual photo of Ataturk instead of a portrait?
its not like we don't have his real pictures. why use a painted one when we have real photos of him?

here, pick one;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Mustafakemal16.jpg https://store.donanimhaber.com/99/e7/4b/99e74bfdc2838055edabfad494467a54.jpg http://galeri2.uludagsozluk.com/396/mustafa-kemal-ataturk_478831.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Atat%C3%BCrk.jpg http://www.bizbilelim.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/fft99_mf3047568.jpeg http://kitab.hicabli.az/sekiller/eeb03d2e51ad61774e0e9b6ed8f3c1e2.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.129.133 (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am putting one now see if you like it. Karamanli86 (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No need, the current one is good enough if you ask me. 77.166.30.3 (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The current image was chosen as the most suitable topbox image and was voted for by multiple users, I suggest that any possible change should be adressed here first. The current image portrays Ataturk during the Republic era in the 30's, like most notable statesmen images this one fits well in that tradition, we should keep it that way. Redman19 (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Atatürk name does not mean that "father of the Turks".
In Turkish, Atatürk name means that "he who ancestor is Turkish" (Atatürk= Atası Türk). If the name was Türkata (Türk'ün atası) then the meaning would be "Father of the Turks". Please, somebody correct the mistake. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.30.89.34 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Atatürk doesn't mean Atası Türk, it means just Atatürk. Which literally is "Father Turk". You could take that to mean "[His] Father [is] Turkish" if you like, or "[Has] Turkish forebears" if you prefer. But it wasn't conferred on him to mean any such thing: it was conferred on him by parliament to be taken in the sense of "Father [of the] Turk[s]". Herostratus (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bro, you didn't comprehend my statements. If you have no knowledge of agglutinative language which Turkish is, it will not be easy for you to understand correctly the meaning of Atatürk surname. Translation of Atatürk is not "Father Turk". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.30.89.219 (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever. But I'll tell you a couple of things.
 * The intent of Atatürk in requesting, and Parliament in granting, this surname to Atatürk (and only to Atatürk -- no one else was allowed it) was to give him the title "Father of the Turks". Because this makes sense, and furthered his and his followers political program. To have requested a surname with the intent of it being interpreted "This person's father [or: ancestors] was Turkish" would have been silly. Atatürk and the Turkish Parliament are not silly.
 * Every single reliable historian over the past many decades has confirmed this, or at any rate the great majority.
 * So who are we going to believe -- your personal linguistic interpretations, or all the historians? I know what my answer is. Herostratus (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you know what your answer is, then why are you asking? Bro, your last sentence was very weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.30.88.72 (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I am Turkish as well and guy complaining about it is wrong. he understands Turkish well but not so when it comes to English. In English Father of the Turks means very close to what Ata-Turk means in Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.129.133 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Atasi = AT + Ashi (albanian) = Father Is (English)... You need to understand that many Turkish world comes from Albanian! AT = Faller in the GEG Albanian dialect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.74.229.226 (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

KANUN comes from Albanian in Turkish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanun_(Albania) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.74.229.226 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Ataturk's mixed race ethnicity
Ataturks father was not Turkish origin. Rizi is not a Turkish name.--2605:6000:3D11:3200:7DBA:781D:C7DA:B215 (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"Rıza" name is a Turkish male name. It's quite common to have Arabic or Persian based names in Turkish and it was more common in Ottoman era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.119.5.209 (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Consider that Albanian Muslim were called Turkish, while Albanian Orthodox were called Greeks! So the names of Albanian in Turkey have been modified to reflect the new modern civilization in that country! For instance: Hasan Tahsini (7 April 1811 – 3 July 1881) also known as Hoxha Tahsin was an Albanian astronomer, mathematician and philosopher. The name sound Turkish based on Ottoman system, but the family was Albanian.

Even the KANUN was the set of laws in Turkey but it comes from Albanian Kanun which is very encient laws! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanun_(Albania) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.74.229.226 (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Spelling correction
Under "Military career" then "Early years": Paragraph 2 starts with: "He was proposing depolitization in the army..." This should read "He was proposing depoliticization in the army..."

Simple spelling mistake. Please fix it. 99.4.120.135 (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017
Yüzen1saat (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Turkification process` prior goal was spreading the turkish language, the part where it says that the state employees had to be ethnic Turks, is simply wrong. The first head specialist(Agop Dilacar) of Turkish Language Association is of Armenian ethnicity for example(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Language_Association). I suggest the "tate employees were required to be ethnic Turks" to be deleted.
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done – Nihlus (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2017
Category:People of World War I Category:National Heroes Category:National Heroes of Turkey ClintEastwood Blondie (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC) category tags fixed. DexDor(talk) 08:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The following categories would apply to this page, they may be added.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  19:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022231544/http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts20_1/AH1912_3.html to http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts20_1/AH1912_3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080109132901/http://www.aa.com.tr/tarihce_en/ to http://www.aa.com.tr/tarihce_en/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326213807/http://webstorage1.mcpa.virginia.edu/library/mc/forums/published/americanvalues13.pdf to http://webstorage1.mcpa.virginia.edu/library/mc/forums/published/americanvalues13.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015212242/http://bianet.org/2003/01/30/16340.htm to http://www.bianet.org/2003/01/30/16340.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614091504/http://www.bitolatourist.info/things/museum/ataturk.html to http://bitolatourist.info/things/museum/ataturk.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121231222800/http://atam.webnode.com/anasayfa/biografi/ataturk%E2%80%99un%20ozel%20hayat%C4%B1%20/ to http://atam.webnode.com/anasayfa/biografi/ataturk%E2%80%99un%20ozel%20hayat%C4%B1%20/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.zeriyt.com/mustafa-ataturku-krijuesi-i-turqise-moderne-t37510.0.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120110906/http://www.candundar.com.tr/index.php?Did=766 to http://www.candundar.com.tr/index.php?Did=766
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219112235/http://www.thk.org.tr/yeni/tarihce/tarihceeng.htm to http://www.thk.org.tr/yeni/tarihce/tarihceeng.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120721214917/http://www.nuridemirag.com/fotograf.asp to http://www.nuridemirag.com/fotograf.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Kieser source
The source specifically refers to Ataturk (or Kemalism, also relevant), therefore it is relevant. If you can't access the source, then let me know. But to say that Ataturk had nothing to do with the prohibition of minority languages spoken in Turkey is to diminish to mislead our readers. Here is page 50 of the Kieser source: "Following the creation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, Kemalist policy turn to turkification of the population of the newly formed nation state. A considerable number of studies have been published recently on many aspects of this Turkification, including language policy (vatandas Türkçe konus), the formation of nationalist organizations (Türk ocakları), the creation of a national historiography (Türk Tarih Tezi) and forcible resettlement (iskan politikaları)."

This aforementioned is on page 50. As for what's on page 45, it's even more linked to Ataturk: "However Mustafa Kemal and his entourage, who were implementing the Reform Laws (such as adopting the Latin alphabet, fixing Saturday and Sunday as the weekend instead of Friday, accepting the Gregorian calendar) day by day, did not have the patience to wait ten to fifteen years. Consequently the "Citizen speak Turkish!" campaign of the first years of the republic which aimed at public pressure on minorities to convince them to speak Turkish in public, [...]"

Citizen speak Turkish campaign didn't end with just pressure. We have a plethora of sources that state that this program was not just to "pressure" minorities into speaking Turkish, but it was also to prohibit them from speaking any other language (i.e. Armenian, Greek, etc.). So to leave it as "pressured" would be highly misleading as it not only goes against a plethora of sources, but leaves an ambiguous description of the policy: what do you mean by pressured? How can one pressure someone from speaking a language? Well, the answer to that is much more explicit, as we all know. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130503043711/http://hemshin.org/books/TheHemshin-Full.pdf to http://hemshin.org/books/TheHemshin-Full.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I used to edit articles but haven't been doing so in a long time. A lot has changed ever since, so I am not sure how to add new content. I would like to add that there is a small monument in honor of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk located in Caracas, Venezuela. I have a brief description of the statue and its place, and a picture of it.

Douglas V:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasvillarreal (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2018
In the text, it is written as " his biographer Andrew Mango". Wording suggest that Ataturk has asked / assigned Mango to write his biography. Although Andrew Mango has written his biography, Mango is not assigned by him to write his biography. Hence I suggest to remove the word "his" from the sentence. Tanerdan (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Origin
He is thought to be of Albanian origin by some scholars,
 * Read the source, please: ...since local Muslims of Albanian and Slav origin who had no ethnic connection with Turkey spoke Albanian, Serbo-Croat or Bulgarian, at least so long as they remained in their native land. But in looks Ataturk resembled local Albanians and Slavs... Do not delete sourced content. Thank you.Jingiby (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mustafa Kemal golden scoop political caricature of single party system.png

Requested move 8 February 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: (closed by non-admin page mover)   SITH   (talk)   00:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk → Mustafa Kemal – "Atatürk" is an honorific title that is frequently used as if it were his surname, but it is not part of his actual name. It's the same reason our article on the founder of Christianity is called Jesus and not "Jesus Christ". Lovesaver (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Atatürk" is his surname. It's not a honorific title. His honorific titles was Gazi and Paşa. - Ullierlich (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and probably speedy close - really this is a very major article and shouldn't have a move template on it for 7 days for something so badly researched. Assuming good faith from new editor, but honestly, a RM on a major article requires references to titling guidelines and copious evidence from WP:RS. Sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * + The law passed on 24 November 1934 about his surname on Turkish Wikisource. ("The law about the surname given to our president whose first name Kemal") - Ullierlich (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

oppose Atatürk was his surname. Every Turkish citizen had to take on a surname according the Surname Law (Turkey). With him it was special that his surname was given by the National assembly with the law 2587 of 24 November 1934. Maybe you refer to this. But even though the surname was given by the assembly, it is a surname. Lean Anael (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and I favor a speedy close per User:In ictu oculi. 94.21.238.64 (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ataturk is by far how he is known, and this change would only annoy and surprise readers. Also I think Ataturk is his actual legal name, he changed it. If you're going to move this article then renaming it just "Ataturk" would be the mostly likely name. Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose but would support move to Atatürk Psalms79&#59;6-7 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * and are WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs per WP:SINGLENAME (like, , ). 188.143.76.152 (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Atatuerk listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Atatuerk. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Nobel Peace nomination citation broken
https://old.nobelprize.org/nomination/archive/show.php?id=7872

This is a link that works. Stathisdjs (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Name confusion
Who is Mustafa Kemal Bey, picture in some photos? I thought it might be an alternative name for Attaturk, but I can't see it anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.37.9 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2020
His name isn't Kamal, it is Kemal Ahmet Mehmet2134 (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: ,the only use of Kamâl in the article is specifically sourced as a previous spelling. The article already generally uses Kemal. Please clarify what needs to be changed more specifically ~ mazca  talk 15:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)