Talk:Kemalism

message: This article is the result of a merger of two articles: Criticism of kemalism and Kemalist ideology per AFD JERRY talk contribs 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: merged

message: There is an article about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk , but it does not contain enough information about Ataturk's principles and ideology, so this article has been created.
I would like to contribute more, however, I am too busy with school. A good book I read on Ataturk which has an extensive amount of objective material on the ideas that Mustafa embraced: Ataturk: The Rebirth of a Nation by Patrick Kinross, 2001, Published by Remzi Kitabevi. This book give a peek of his life, cradle to grave and the dynamic good, as well as bad person he was. Motownwingnut (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation

message: In the secularism section it implies that attaturk's reforms were not anti-Islamic in nature, but I think this is an opinion.  Many people view banning the arabic manuscript and Islamic law as an anti-Islamic act.  Seems a little POV to me thats all.Roc
* First of all, not attatürk... You must write it as Atatürk. Turkish nation was the only important thing in Atatürks life. He didn't talk about religion issues. He believed that a state must work for the physical world not for the other world. Deliogul 21:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deliogul is right. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was the man of this world, he even couldn't have found time to sleep, so it is just the thougth of Islamists and the other people against Atatürk's revolutions. Ozzie 14:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ataturk was an absolute Anglophile. He loved the West, and tried to make his country part of it. And that meant erasing or limiting the influence of Islam. And he was pretty successful. 99.234.23.2 (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: According to some authorities in Turkey , Ataturk's revolutionism principle was reformism. But Ataturk was using the word that "inkılapçılık". "Inkılap" is a Ottoman Turkish word, there is also a word in Arabic Language , it means revolution in English, in modern Turkish this word is "Devrim", in Turkey these authorities prefer to use the old form of this word, not the modern form, because people don't use Arabic words or Ottoman Turkish in Turkey, these authorities want to make this principle misunderstood by people in Turkey, because they don't like a revolution idea. So when they are translating this word to English they use the word "reform". But the meaning of "inkılapçılık" in Ottoman Turkish as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk used in his speeches and in his book which was named Nutuk ,  means "revolutionism" not reformism. On the other hand the actions of Ataturk were revolutions, establishing the republic was a revolution also,like the French Revolution in 1789.
It may be used as "İnklapçılık" because of "Devrim" word seem closely related with Communism in Turkey. Like "Devrimcilik" mostly used by exterminist-Communists and mostly terror organisations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.176 (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Revolutionism 

message: Just replying to the suggestion that "Kemalist Ideology" should be merged with "Six Arrows". The former, which I was referred to after clicking on "Turkish nationalism" covers the Six Arrows extensively. I don't see the need for overlapping.
:At the very least, there should be a link to "Six Arrows".  I will add the link now.
XieChengnuo 02:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nvm.  I see that the merge has already been done.
XieChengnuo 02:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it necessary? 

message: It must be laicism not secularism.I think it is a big difference.
Yes indeed there is a very big difference, secularism in US and Germany is the goal of the state to be in the same distance to all religions, while Turkey and France , declares goverment cant edit religious life and protect itself from religious manipulations, which we call laicism, freedom o belief(as well as not having any belief) is underprotection of government and state, this is what secular nations does not understand, they dont see how they impose their main religion to others..(GW BUSH declared Iraqi war is a crusade, all of the presidents of US swears on bible, although a muslim could swear on koran , but anyhow it is imposing of the religion)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.42.184 (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secularism?? 

message: I'm not sure about this translation. Nationalism is translated to Turkish as either "Milliyetçilik" or "Ulusçuluk" (Millet = Ulus = Nation).
Turkish speakers should check this out.
:No, millet and ulus do mean 'nation' but they are not the same. If you say 'Türk milleti', you said 'Turkish people' so the ethnic Turks. If you say 'Türk ulusu', you said 'Turkish nation' and that includes anyone who lives in Turkey, race culture and belief is not important, you are a Turk in Turkey. It's a bit tricky to translate 'Milliyetcilik' and 'Ulusalcilik'. Both are 'Nationalism' but with different accents.
:You are right. Nationalism = Ulusçuluk. Pls anyone change it. Ulusalcılık is different. 
Ulus is nation(as American nation=Amerikan Ulusu not Amerikan milleti), millet is followers of a religion, or a distinctive group in a religion( like Bulgar milleti which includes macedonians following bulgarian orthodox church, rum milleti, following patriach of constantinpol, yunan milleti, chuch of athens after independance of greece, there was never a "Turk milleti" term before nationalist movement in ottoman empire started using it ),( See millet system of Ottoman) 
:No that is wrong. Nation = Ulus, National = Ulusal so Nationism = Ulusculuk and Nationalism = Ulusalcılık. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.215.193.142 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They showed it to us as "milliyetçilik" back in the school :) If we consider that every student in the Turkish educational system reads the same history book, there mustn't be a doubt :) Deliogul 19:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalism - Ulusalcılık? 

message: Kemalism is very similar to Peronism. Do you think it should be mentioned?
I think this is not completely true. In Latin American World, Kemalism moch more similar to Bolivarism. Both ideology is anti-imperialist, and has direct effect from Enlightenment coming from French Revolution. As a result, both can be thought as Third World Enlightment revolution ideology.CeyhunC 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peronism 

message: The following are comments from the talk page of the article Criticism of kemalism, which was merged with the article Kemalist ideology on January 12, 2008.
=== About the photograph with the explanation: "Muslim university student girl is being hindered by kemalists" ===
It's not a photograph of a girl being hindered by kemalists, it's woman at her forties that's been having a seizure or heart-attack or something like that. And the two guys that's been present there doesn't look like they are hurting her, instead they look like they are helping her. And there is no sign of them being kemalists. I warn you, check closely before you believe any picture that's been put here.
:It's unbeliavable. I have never seen or heard such thing in my life. Someone must have posted this intentionally. How on earth can you proove that those guys are Kemalists and they are attacking her? I'd like it to be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.33.190 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from old [[Talk:Criticism of kemalism]]

message: It's not a photograph of a girl being hindered by kemalists, it's woman at her forties that's been having a seizure or heart-attack or something like that. And the two guys that's been present there doesn't look like they are hurting her, instead they look like they are helping her. And there is no sign of them being kemalists. I warn you, check closely before you believe any picture that's been put here.
:It's unbeliavable. I have never seen or heard such thing in my life. Someone must have posted this intentionally. How on earth can you proove that those guys are Kemalists and they are attacking her? I'd like it to be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.33.190 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the photograph with the explanation: '''"Muslim university student girl is being hindered by kemalists"''' 

message: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of kemalism, several editors questioned about neutrality of this article. Rebuttal of views should also be prensented. Here I tagged the article until this issue is resolved. Happy editing! Dekisugi (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV template 

message: I added a POV warning to the criticism section because it's an EXACT copy of an article that was merged into this.  Words "obviously" and the like are appearing.  I question the neutrality. DodgerOfZion (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Please argue your point before deleting it again.  Thank you.  DodgerOfZion (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not at all clear to what extent the points of view offered by the cited sources are criticism of specifically Kemalism, and to what extent the interpretation as criticism of Kemalism is a case of original research, attaching a novel interpretation to these points of view. I can't find the Jung & Piccoli reference. The Google search [</tt>"Modern-Day Turkey in the Greater Middle East: Kemalism Faced with Its Ottoman Legacy"</tt>] has as its only hit this Wikipedia article. There is a book by the authors named, with the same publisher, but its title is Turkey At the Crossroads: Ottoman Legacies and a Greater Middle East (). I don't have this book and can't check its use as a source (if it is the intended source). For the sources I can check, such as the CEPS Working Document by Tocci, I do not see at all that the quoted statement is meant to be criticism. It is a non-judgemental statement about historical events. Other sources do offer criticism, but do not refer in any way to a Kemalist ideology. And who is criticizing Kemalist ideology in the statement that Islamist officers were dismissed? Perhaps this is praise of Kemalism. If we remove all uncited and unverifiable statements, plus those for which it is not clear that the cited sources mean to criticize Kemalism, nothing remains. Perhaps a good section on criticism is possible, but what we have here is not encyclopedic.  --Lambiam 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the comments in the criticism section don't sound that critical, really. 99.234.23.2 (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is largely the effect of removing the unsourced and unverifiable POV statements. For most remaining statements in this section it is not clear what point they are attempting to make, whether that point (if any) is meant to be criticism, and in fact why these statements are mentioned at all. This section consists largely of the remnants of the unfortunate outcome of the AfD debate not to delete the largely unsourced and badly written POV fork and attack article Criticism of kemalism, which was implemented by plunking it as a new section into this article.  --Lambiam 14:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those deleting the "criticism" section, directed here... 

message: Taking into consideration that Kemalism shaped Turkish government and politics the importance of this article should be high.  Evren Güldoğan (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance

message: since kemalism is an ideology, it has followers. and some wikipedians obviously are kemalist. those kemalist wikipedians continuosly blanking the  section. at first they removed its own page and redirected "here". then they slowly removed the entire section of criticism. that's called sneaky vandalism. i was not around for a while. but i am back. so don't think i will let kemalists to sneak the content. please be respectful. and those other wikipedians who are aware of the issue should watch out the vandals. regards.--Polysynaptic (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC
::I advise you to read WP:OR. You are pushing non-established arguments. Newspaper opinion sections are not credible sources. Everybody has right to have their own opinion but Wikipedia:Credibility is the bases of wikipedia. --Kemalist (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The content is well referenced. referenced mostly via peer reviewed articles. please do not remove well referenced content. --Polysynaptic (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You tried to create an article with the same content. The article was voted for deletion. The wide conclusion was that your content is the collection of minority views. They did not get acceptance with the mainstream history. The Wikipedia is not WP:OR. Your text is linking events that do not factually related to the ideology itself. --Kemalist (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: You are always welcomed to edit. This is about the content you are adding. The words like "fanatic" does not solve your issue. Be WP:CIVIL, do not WP:PERSONAL ATTACKs these are violations of normal conduct at Wikipedia. This and your talk page is filled with reactions to you. Most of them are objective arguments. You can improve your text based on these objections. There are wide ranging issues in your text. Most of the text is recent events. They belong to different articles, such as Secularism in Turkey, Human rights in Turkey. The link with these events and/or people with these events to this ideology is not established. Your text claims as these are established facts. Your text has inherent problems. You have to work with other editors. --Kemalist (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "fanatic" is quite proper. remember your user name. that's not a violation at all. i'm adding content which criticizes the Kemalist ideology. The articles you mention Secularism in Turkey, and Human rights in Turkey are related with the issue. but the references i have given were for specifically the ideology. Criticizing Kemalist ideology doesn't mean criticizing secularist implications in Turkey or secularism itself. you are trying to -obviously- trying to twist and misrepresent the issue. but you can not succeed. please do not vandalize the WELL-REFERENCED CONTENT BY BLANKING. writing down once again for you to understand easily: i am contributing with well-referenced content which discusses Kemalist ideology which is different then secularism in Turkey and secularism itself. i have to DECLINE YOUR SUGGESTION OF TOLARATING YOUR KEMALIST ROOTED VANDALISM. --Polysynaptic (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm questioning your citations. This is not the first time you are questioned. I'm stating that during the citation you are modifying or distorting the information. Will you cooperate to resolve this issue? --Kemalist (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The section fails all reasonable tests for neutrality. It is presented from an outspoken anti-Kemalist point of view. The claims as given are largely not supported by the sources. See also Persecution of Muslims#Persecution of Muslims in Republic of Turkey, added by the same editor.  --Lambiam 20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of kemalism 

message: Why is there no article about the criticism of this political movement - or at least a section within the main article about it's criticism. I just read this article, and it seems very biased for this movement.
How about the claims of religious persicution, and limitations of practice of both majority (Islam) and minority (Christian, Jewish) religions, or the denial of the Armenian Genocide which seems to have stemmed from that, or past Ottoman thinking, whish is still - horrendously to this day - very present in Turkey.
Also the Turkish Nationalism whish stemmed from this movement seems to deny the existance of many racial groups - ie Assyrians, labeling them as Arabs despite very clear linguistic, cultural and genetic variation.
I've got quite a lot of peer-reviewed articles from the US mainly concerning these, but since I'm currently very bussy with uni, I wont be able to put them up right now. Really appreciate it if anyone else who knows these can put them up.
Pink Princess (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: The article should maybe try to further demonstrate that certain Western ideologies are very similar to Kemalism. There are various kinds of radical liberal nationalism in Europe and the Americas that integrate many of the Kemalist doctrines, such as Catalan nationalism, Belgian nationalism, the Kulturkampf regime, Spanish republicanism, Mexican republicanism, French republicanism and Quebec nationalism. ADM (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideologies similar to Kemalism in the West

message: The term "Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene" was promoted against.....
That term is Turkish for 'The Turkish Hacker'. I tried it out on Google translate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.172.129 (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism..... 

message: Translated as "revolutionism" is a wrong translation for "Inkılapçılık". "Inkılapçılık" is actually an Arabic word. Revolutionism mean in Turkish "Devrimcilik" or in Arabic-Turkish "İhtilalcilik". Wikipedia for all the wrong translations must be corrected. Because their meanings are very different. This is a big mistake politically. Calaygut (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Progressivism" would be a better term. Inkılap in Turkish has more than one meanings in English other than "Revolution", such as Reform and Transformation. Therefore I suggest that it should be changed to the latter two. Policies can't be called as "Revolutionism." Aegesar (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolutionism? 

message: Some people try to associate Kemalism with the Nazis. With insufficient resources. Look what it says at the beginning of one of the sources. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/abs/ataturk-in-the-nazi-imagination-by-stefan-ihrig-cambridge-ma-harvard-university-press-2014-pp-311-cloth-2995-isbn-9780674368378/FA72EC0F1B47B3F1DF47867F788B8692 book is often chaotic, lacks clear devlopment, is repetitous, ank makes irrelevant jumps through time--all of which, in the end, needlesly blur his narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by İnsanayıdomuz (talk • contribs) 16:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So he doesn't like the writing style, so what? You do understand the difference between style and substance? I see you also neglect to mention the review underneath Leo van Bergen's for some reason? FDW777 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

text: If you don't who he is and don't care, why are you hanging your hat on a brief excerpt from a book review he wrote? An excerpt that don't criticise anything except the style of writing, not the substance of what's been written. FDW777 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, your excerpt is completely meaningless. I have checked the journal article on Jstor. As even the index shows, the book review by Leo van Bergen begins on page 136 and continues on to page 138. However, it is not for the book cited in the article. It is a review of Durchhalten und Überleben an der Westfront: Raum und Körper im Ersten Weltkrieg by by Christoph Nübel. FDW777 (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

text: It seems the actual sentence in the article is not backed up by the source provided. I don't see any content claiming, very strongly, that "The Nazis viewed Kemalist Turkey as a "postgenocidal paradise" worthy of emulation." within the pages mentioned. That aside, if the article is to claim something so extraordinary, it should cite stronger sources or provide contemporary sources of Nazi admiration, not just one author with a history of Armenian nationalism as is the case in The War of Independence.DriedGrape (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Vandalism. 

message: DAB edit Kemalism#Fundamentals: Change Laicism (disambiguation) to laicism  49.177.73.238 (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  DAB to do 

message: Deleted the pro Amenian propaganda with Armenian ultra nationalist sources. EnverTheHero (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! Good day to you. Please do not remove content that are well sourced without consensus. You opined that the source is ultra nationalist sources, could you provide sources that defines that the source used are unreliable and to be removed? SunDawn (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would argue that the fact that one of the sources is of an Armenian historian with a history of ultranationalist works and obvious bias, coupled with the fact that the cited source does not even claim the same point in the article is reason enough to discuss further before adding it in, otherwise removing it. Also, WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The current sources are nowhere near enough to justify such bold claims.DriedGrape (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed propaganda 

message: The latest edit has some problems. Just the added sentences in the External interpretations of Kemalism part itself firstly: "In fact, National Socialism and Kemalism were depicted as 'twin movements'." by whom? The source does not specify either. In fact, the entire source article -which is the sole source of these sentences- is written with a lack of such important attributes and cites no sources for these claims. There is many sentences attributed to Hitler yet no mention of *where* they were written or spoken -if at all-. "In 1933, Nazis openly admired Kemalist Turkey." How? And what exactly is the use of this here? In 1933, France admired Kemalist Turkey as well. "Hitler described Mustafa Kemal as "the star shining in the darkness"." The source says "Nazis described..." and again, with no source to back it up. All that aside, I think this source is both unreliable and lacking. The author is neither established or knowledgable in this area it seems. So long as there is no evident and tangible sources to back up these claims, they shouldn't have a place in the article.
It also seems the editor that added these tried to write the same content in Turkish War of Independence but it was removed, then he wrote them here instead. I believe the objections in the talk page for that article speak for themselves and I mostly agree with them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_War_of_Independence#Impact_on_Nazi_Germany
DriedGrape (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent external interpretations 

message: *Aydınlık is an unreliable source according toReliable sources noticeboard. (The user deleted this source which was a right action. So, I have re-deleted that after the reversion.)
*Tbmm source is a record of the parlament speech, so it is a primary source.
*The book by Afet İnan was published in 1930s which makes it an obselete source.
--V. E. (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Add, so I am rollbacking edits according to "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page".--V. E. (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reason for the reversion of edits 

message: Thanks for checking my editings, but don't worry, I read Atatürk's and Mahmut Esat Bozkurt's books. My only edit was adding Atatürk's words about Statism. Thank you, if you don't undo. If you want, you can check my sources by downloading Medeni Bilgiler's PDF and by purchasing Altı Ok 1919-1938 book. They are obselete sources, and also November 1 Assembly speech is primary source. RussoTurkish (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia, we don't use primary sources to make original research. Also we don't use obselete sources because in Wikipedia WP:AGE MATTERS.--V. E. (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statism 

message: It's clear some people have not even looked at the references cited. And as also stated, page 114 of Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination covers plenty of Nazi fawning over Kemal, so it's unclear why we need to swap to an isolated instance of fawning from the previous page of the book. FDW777 (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the incorrect attribution 

message: I have reverted to the version by FDW777 of August 18. The reason is there were unexplained changes to the sourced content such as this one. Also, a source that was used in the article dates to 1930 which makes its reliability dubious. Furthermore, this edit does not cite any sources. Lastly, a disputed content was added without having a concensus. Best regards.--V. E. (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revertion to the stable version 

message: Hi all,
I Deleted the Nazi section. Noticed there was no consensus when it was added and all the articles there are self citing. Also this book was rightfully denied in couple other wiki articles, and all those resons still apply here. There is also editorial biases which can be discussed here. Both side can now have proper discussion. Feel free to mention your approval or rejection of its removal. Oyond (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not a valid reason to remove the section, it is properly sourced and made clear that this is not the opinion of one person but has reached considerable level of support among reliable sources discussing the topic. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats your opinion for now. In previous articles we established selective editorial biases. Dont revert unless you can explain yourself more. Also give proper explanation going forward. I want discussion to happen Buidhe. Wikipedia is for everyone. Once again this section was added without any concensus, and the source book was rejected couple of times in other topics. Oyond (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No policy based objections have been made, nor has any evidence been provided to support the claims in the initial post. FDW777 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  This was rather expected response from same group of people.  Allright the book was rejected here for being a fringe theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beer_Hall_Putsch and similarly it was also rejected for being niche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ATurkish_War_of_Independence Both cases applies to this article, and once again in the TWOI we established selective policy and editorial bias by some of the users. It is a single book that is not widely accepted as of yet. Once again lets have proper discussion with your explanations of why it should be here and how it differs from the two cases I provided Oyond (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting his details of documented Nazi fawning over Kemal (genocidal birds of a feather, flock together) is in some way made up? FDW777 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Reverting it back, respond with constructive post. This is not a case of IDONTLIKEIT. I have been involved in few discussions when the opposing side was consistent and well articulated. In the end we agreed to keep the article as it is, said thank you and part our ways. Again niche and fringe applies to this topic. Since you and Buidhe was involved in both those discussions one way or another I am not going to recap it for you. However I do expect a decent explanation before adding it back Oyond (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Beer Hall Putsch article is of no relevance as to whether the content is relevant in this article, the same applies to virtually any other article you care to name. FDW777 (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

text: On the talk page of the article Beer Hall Putsch, other users found it fringe only on the spesific part that BHP was influenced by TWoI; they didn't object that Kemalism influenced Nazis in general. However, I still disagree with them even on that spesific context; they thought it was fringe because almost all of the sources the users cited, which did not mention Kemalist influence, were published before 2014, the date when Ihrig's book was published; however, if you look at the more recent sources regarding Nazism, there is a general trend towards mentioning Kemalist influence and cite Ihrig's work. Besides, on the talk page of TWoI, the user GGT said that he found it niche (but not fringe); his objection was based on the text regarding the influence was undue, which was lated redacted accordingly, and he did not object. Best regards.--V. E. (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

text: You say that Ihrig's work is only supported by a "handful of Armenian authors". Well, in fact the book was reviewed positively by several major academic journals and in most cases by non Armenians. Ihrig is not Armenian. Paul Kubicek is not Armenian. Brian JK Miller is not Armenian. Margaret Lavinia Anderson is not Armenian. Marc David Baer is not Armenian. Erik Jan Zürcher is not Armenian either. (t · c) buidhe 00:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Buidhe and V.E.  I am going to put on my good will hat on, and assume you misunderstood my comment. I will also keep it short and sweet. I did not talk about book reviews, what I meant work is not accepted outside few circles and not many other sources reference same line of thinking. As for book reviews, I can find unfavorable in equal number. The point was: besides one Armenian author Ataturk's extreme influence to Nazis is not widely accepted view and it is Niece(and in my opinion one dimensional analysis). Besides that V.E. has history of picking most sensational part of the book(suits a certain POV) and avoid rest of the context. The whole argument in Beer Haall was based on the work being too Fringe. Example: "Reviews of the book do not count as reliable sources unless they are written by subject experts, and the subject here is Hitler, not Ataturk or Turkish history. The book in question is Ataturk in the Nazi Imagination by Stefan Ihrig. Ihrig is a historian, but not a specialist on Hitler or Nazi Germany, his special interest is German-Turkish relations, which may have predisposed him to overstate Ataturk's influence on Hitler.If Hitler was inspired by Ataturk in deciding to stage the Beer Hall Putsch, then other actual subject experts should mention this. Let's see: Burleigh - The Third Reich - no mention of Ataturk Bullock - Hitler: A Study in Tyranny - no mention of Ataturk Bullock - Hitler and Stalin - no mention of Ataturk Evans - The Third Reich trilogy - no mention of Ataturk Fest - Hitler - 2 mentions of Ataturk (pp.157 & 168), but not in relation to the Putsch Kershaw - Hitler (2 vols) - no mention of Ataturk Shirer - The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - no mention of Ataturk Toland - Hitler - no mention of Ataturk Ullrich - Hitler (2 vols) - no mention of Ataturk Weber - Becoming Hitler - 3 mentions of Ataturk (pp.214,275,310), one about how German right-wingers admired him, one about an article written by Hans Tröbst about Kemalist activity (Hitler wanted to meet Tröbst but never did), and one about Hitler's speeches in his trial; none are about Ataturk being an inspiration for the Beer Hall Putsch." Oyond (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop talking about the Beer Hall Putsch, it's of zero relevance to this article. FDW777 (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

text: It's not the same because the Beer Hall Putsch article addition was solely concerned with Turkish influence on Hitler in specific relation to the Beer Hall Putsch, whereas this article takes a far broader view of Turkish influence on Nazis in general. FDW777 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I'll have to agree with Oyond here. I have read through Talk:Beer Hall Putsch and Beyond My Ken makes a valid case for the sources being fringe to both the Beer Hall Putsch and the Nazis general view towards Kemalism. Considering the evident lack of reliability and current general acceptance in the field of the said sources, the section should be removed. As by your own admittance, Ihrig's minor influence is as recent as 2014 and quite niche. As such, needs more acceptance and credibility before being used as boldly as here.DriedGrape (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, whether something is undue weight in the Beer Hall Putsch article is of absolutely zero relevance as to whether it is undue weight in this article. Evident lack of reliability? Is that a paraphrase for "I don't like what it says"? FDW777 (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with User:FDW777 here. Removal of sourced content based on WP:RS just based on personal opinions it is not how things work here. If any editors are certain that there is really a problem with the RS, they are welcome to ask for a third opinion at the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Noticeboard which is the most appropriate place for resolving cases where a source's reliability is put into question. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Nazi Edit 

message: References 54-57 specify the same book in three different ways and reference a review of said book. Should be turned into a single reference to "Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination". The preceding paragraph is a good comparison - exhaustive, properly sourced. Puts the next one in a bad light through contrast with the sourcing salad.
:I partially agree. The book is duplicated twice is wrong; however, I think that we shouldn't delete the newspaper review because it helps someone who doesn't have access to the book to get an overview of the content.--V. E. (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad sourcing 

message: I will highlight why the following quote has an incorrect analysis:
Kemalists saw non-Muslims as only nominal citizens, and they have often been treated as second-class citizens in the Republic of Turkey.[34][35] The identity of Kurds in Turkey was denied for decades with Kurds described as "Mountain Turks".[36][37] Kemal stated in 1930:
Within the political and social unity of today's Turkish nation, there are citizens and co-nationals who have been incited to think of themselves as Kurds, Circassians, Laz or Bosnians. But these erroneous appellations - the product of past periods of tyranny - have brought nothing but sorrow to individual members of the nation, with the exception of a few brainless reactionaries, who became the enemy's instruments.[38]
In the first instance it is important to recognise when this quote was taken, which is the same year of which Kurdish Islamists beheaded an innocent man seen here in reaction to Atatürk's secularisation policies, the full story here in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menemen_Incident
Secondly it is important to realise that when Atatürk references the nation, he is talking about the political representation of the people of the state, the Republic. This is seen here in the same article before this analysis where the definition of the state is defined as the Sovereign people:
"Sovereignty
Kemalist social theory (populism) does not accept any adjectives placed before the definition of a nation [a nation of ...] Sovereignty must belong solely to people without any term, condition, etc.:
Sovereignty belongs to the people/nation unrestrictedly and unconditionally.
— Mustafa Kemal Atatürk"
In this context I would say it disproves the analysis but at the very least casts doubt on its validity and for this reason I argue it is removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 01:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect analysis on the meaning of Atatürk's quote on minority ethnicities of the Republic of Turkey. 

message: I find this portion under the 'Analysis' Section very politically biased and motivated. It seems to make a connection between Turkey's slide towards increased Islamism and 'cultural relativism' and specifically mentions Jacques Derrida. This seems like a blatantly politically motivated edit that the source does not back up. I can find absolutely no evidence of Derrida's philosophy's influence on Turkish politics or culture. Would suggest a revision of this section. 2A00:23C8:4D99:DF01:DDBA:2B15:FC56:788B (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  External interpretations of Kemalism 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The Dictionaries of the Turkish Language Association (which is official, ending with .gov.tr) does not have an entry for "Kemalcilik". No source for that translation was given either. The correct translation would be "Kemalizm", which does have an entry. Mathdotrandom (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish translation "Kemalcilik" is not correct