Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 1

message: Look, one of the main virtues of Wikipedia is to allow for the expression of opinions from all sides. I never deleted anything you wrote about Ataturk- I merely added additional comments which express a point of view shared by a very large number of people. You can disagree with them all you want- in fact, I urge you to continue doing so- but to try and prevent their views from being expressed is wrong.
Our views have a right to be expressed, too, whether you agree with them or not.
:: I _am_ being rational. I already said that I'm all for NPOV. However, I also aim for factual accuracy. MonsterOfTheLake 18:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I urge you to be rational

message: Question: Is this article is dispute?
Answer: Yes.
Therefore, STOP deleting the dispute marker.
:: I thought we already resolved this? You clearly can't dispute my arguments. You're still stuck with your original position and refuse to budge. I already proved you wrong. Thanks for protecting Mirv. MonsterOfTheLake 17:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple Question

message: In war, soldiers battle against soldiers. In Izmir, soldiers killed defenseless women and children. There's a BIG difference.
As a gesture of goodwill, I have not included the section on Izmir in my reedits. I would ask that you meet this gesture of goodwill be refraining from constantly deleting the dispute marker. Obviously, the article IS in dispute.
Yes, it is true that Ataturk created a party system, but he exploited the system for his own ends. After all, many dictatorships have had party systems as well- once they were in power, they shut down the opposing parties, claiming that they were "subversive." When the people are only given one real option for whom to vote, as happens when the government shuts down the main oppostion party, you only have the appearence of a democracy, not the real thing. And that was what Turkey had until Ataturk's death in 1938.
:: You clearly have no idea on what you're talking about. Greeks start civil war. They are liberated, and no longer part of the Ottoman Empire. They declare war on Ottoman Empire. They take over Izmir. They kill people. Then Ataturk comes and drives them away. And then, 90 years later, some ill-willed dolt says that he was killing "defenseless women and children." WHAT DEFENSELESS WOMEN AND CHILDREN? GREEK SOLDIERS OCCUPIED IZMIR! ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT HE KILLED TURKISH WOMEN AND CHILDREN? You are a moron.
:: Again with the plurality. How many times do I have to tell you this: It was used against a SINGLE party whose goal was to undermine the REPUBLIC BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Are you too much of a buffoon to get it? Here: The GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF TURKEY, decided that the PRP were too extreme. They voted to dismantle the party. It passed. Party dismantled. There are no "OPPOSING PARTIES BEING SHUT DOWN BY EVIL ARMENIAN KILLER ATATURK" that you claim. There was no appearance of democracy. There was the "real thing." It wasn't the main opposition party either -- there were many other parties, stronger ones too. Until Ataturk's death, he ruled the country as a democratic president elected 4 times against various parties which he caused to start up in the first place. WHY START UP OPPOSING PARTIES IF YOUR GOAL IS TO RULE WITH AN IRON FIST? MonsterOfTheLake 16:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's be reasonable here

message: I didn't mean to say that the Greek government controlled Izmir before the war- it didn't. But Greeks had lived on the Aegean coadt of what is now Turkey for more than a thousand years before the Turks arrived in the area. Both sides committed atrocities against one another during the conflict, and denying that it happened doesn't help- it just makes you look like you're trying to hide something.
Again, the use of the Maintence of Order Law to shut down the political opposition was not an act which should have taken place if the country was a true democracy. In a real democracy, political opposition is freely discussed and considered- not destroyed by the power of the state. You say that the political opposition needed to be shut down because they wanted to take Turkey back to the way it had been before Ataturk- then say that this required Ataturk to shut them down because he was defending the republic. If you honestly look at what you're saying, you'll see how absurd it is.
Also, I never said that Ataturk faked the assassination attempt. The assassination plot was quite real, but the members of the political oppositon who were arrested or it had nothing to do with it. Ataturk used it as an excuse to move against his political enemies.
:: .... what slaughter are you talking about? There was a war. Greeks killed Turks. Turks killed Greeks. I was just responding to you trying to work in the supposed Armenian Genocide in. You aren't making any sense.
:: Once again, you're blaming Ataturk. He didn't take it down -- it was the NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. Argue "but Ataturk wanted it!" all you want, it wasn't a single decision. If he was a dictator like you consider him, he wouldn't start the PARTY SYSTEM in the first place. He could've ruled as an Emperor/Dictator. After all, he liberated Turkey. He was the one to install a Party System, which a dictator would NOT do. Back to the "political opposition" -- note that only an EXTREMIST party was shut down, whom were trying to destroy the Republic's core value in the first place? There were still other parties, which Ataturk urged to start, so a party system could be set. It's not absurd really -- depends on how biased you are.
:: That's a void argument. It was proven that extremists were behind it. MonsterOfTheLake 16:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: You claim the slaughter at Izmir never happened?

message: The tone of this article is absurd, and any criticism of Ataturk is quickly deleted. I have repeatedly added the following sentence: "Many people believe Ataturk to be a hero, while others see him as a dictator." And every time I add it, it is deleted almost immediately. I also have occasionally added mention of Ataturk's personal religious belief, only to have it deleted.
::: NEWSFLASH: Ataturk is NOT a dictator. He's the person that created the REPUBLIC of Turkey. He started the VOTING SYSTEM instead of the Ottoman Empire's EMPEROR system. There were elections, Ataturk won all of them until his death. Calling Ataturk a dictator is like calling Washington a dictator. A dictator rules without challenge. If Ataturk had challenger parties, let alone STARTED the party system in the first place, it's inane to call him a DICTATOR.
::: He didn't believe in the Muslim religion? Well let's ignore the fact that Muslim isn't a religion, so we'll assume that you meant ISLAM, correct? I hope so, because otherwise you're seriously undereducated. There's a huge difference between being an atheist and secularizing a country. He removed religion from politics.
::: This article is unbiased, and you're a vandal trying to stir up trouble. I will revert your edits until you stop doing vandalism and actually contribute something. MonsterOfTheLake 20:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Completely Biased Pro-Ataturk article

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

message: "The power of the army and the authoritarian Kemalist strain in Turkish politics remain obstacles to Turkey's acceptance into the European Union."
Who is the authoritarian Kemalist strain? Does the phrase refer to the army? Then why is it seen as an obstacle against EU? But if the sentence is about the renunciation of the total freedom rights while "being accepted" to EU, then it should be put clearly.
Because Ataturk did not favor an army that interferes politics. After the War of Independence, he told his military friends to either choose military or politics, and he himself quit his military task to become the president. From this perspective the coups of 1960 and 1980 were not Kemalist. Especially the actions taken after the 1980 coup by the army was against the will of Ataturk (TDK (Turkish Language Institute) and TTE (Turkish History Institute)The ideology of Kemalism and the "nominal" Kemalism should be distinguished.
It is not the power of the army but is the effect of the army in political decisions. The word of "power"  suggests that the army is too strong compared to other armies around the world. In contrary EU wants Turkish army inside the European Army because of the power.  
One more thing, Ataturk did not favor westernization. Here is a quote but I do not have enough English to translate it but I'd be pleased if anyone did and put it here: There is a saying dated March,6th 1922 in the Assembly under his picture
"Kemal admired some aspects of the Soviet Union and of Fascist Italy"
The sentence is too vague as what it represents. What are those aspects? Was Italy Fascist in his times? etc. It should be better to make the article more encyclopedic and either state those aspects or remove the sentence. Also I have not seen any quotes regarding what the sentence suggests. Can someone show any references? -Sinan
===User:Kunefge's example===
*The international version: Although the outward forms of democracy were established, Kemal was in practice a dictator, although a relatively moderate one.
*The Turkish version: Other than brief periods, there was only one party to rule the country. Although Kemal attempted the transition to democracy by organizing an opposition, he was unable due to reactionary movements which were suspected to be instigated by "imperialist countries".
No clearer picture of the Turkish approach could be asked for! Wetman 20:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Authoritarian Kemalist strain"? 

message: *The international version: Although the outward forms of democracy were established, Kemal was in practice a dictator, although a relatively moderate one.
*The Turkish version: Other than brief periods, there was only one party to rule the country. Although Kemal attempted the transition to democracy by organizing an opposition, he was unable due to reactionary movements which were suspected to be instigated by "imperialist countries".
No clearer picture of the Turkish approach could be asked for! Wetman 20:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Kunefge]]'s example

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

message: I admire the man for what he managed to achieve after the Ottoman Empire disintegrated in 1918/19. This entire article however, is nothing more than hero worship and should be vetted by someone not only versed in the history and life of Ataturk, but still objective. 
Ron T
::All events, reforms that are made by Ataturk are admirable and unbelievable real. What could we do if the man is truly a great hero. These articles are not a worship for him, sorry, they're all real history .) --JohnEmerald 07:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too much Hero Worship 

message: Currently Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is person who lives in every Turkish peoples heart, who believes his country like him. He believed his country , his people. He lead the way to replace an empire with an country based on republic, democracy, secularism etc... While this transition (which is a war) some people might be hurt some didnt like the final. But at 1921 first constutituon of new Republic of Turkey's article number 1 was : "Nation is the only dominate. And the rule will be with nations/peoples own will", which replaced in 1924 with "Turkey is Republic of Turkey". 
So he took the power of ruling from an empire and gave to people. This is a fact, not a comment. And this tpye of conversion cannot be done with democratic ways. But final picture is a country: republic, democratic, secular, with lots of modern reforms from education to health, from art to science. Sorry for your comments guys, but I cannot call such a person as a dictator. --Dbl2010 16:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From a Turkish persons point of view

message: :it:Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk --M7it 22:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected and added. --Michael Snow 19:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  InterLink addition req 

message: How you can claim that Atatürk wasn´t a dictator in the sense of being the head of autocrative kind governing of the state? I think that Atatürk was a great man who made very much for his nation. But he didn´t do it by democratic methods. I think he couldn´t do it this way. So I think it´s nothing against him write that he was a autocrative leader. He assured that in Turkey will never be dictature again after his death. But why lie? During his life, in Turkey was ONE party with only ONE leader. But in connection with the other important facts about situation in Turkey at his times it´s nothing what can reduce his importance and his great work. [jilm]
* I agree that, the way was not democracy. But if u say to someone dictator, it means he is a dictator person. It doesnt mean that he was dictator for a certain reason or for a certain time. Yes there was only 1 party and 1 leader at that time, but this doesnt mean again that he was dictator. It was a step for full democracy. How can you teach to people democracy, who lived under monarchy under 1 mans rule for almost 1000 years.--Dbl2010 22:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictator? 

message: If you want to make sure that your point is taken, give references. We're talking about history. There's no single hsitorical point of view. For us (turks), he was the founding father and the great leader that fought for freedom and anti-imperialism/colonialism. Terrible things happened  during that period, you can't blame one person for these things. WWI didn't start because of him, he was a soldier and did what he could to save his people. If you are looking for somebody to blame, check out those greedy imperialists.
:: Officialy Europe was expecting a war, they weren't expecting a world war though. 
:: Chronology:
:: * 28 June      1914: Francis Ferdinand assassinated at Sarajevo
:: *  5 July      1914: Kaiser William II promised German support for Austria against Serbia
:: * 28 July      1914: Austria declared war on Serbia
:: *  1 August    1914: Germany declared war on Russia
:: *  3 August    1914: Germany declared war on France and invaded Belgium. Germany had to implement the Schlieffen Plan.
:: *  4 August    1914: Britain declared war on Germany
:: * 23 August    1914: The BEF started its retreat from Mons. Germany invaded France.
:: * 26 August    1914: Russian army defeated at Tannenburg and Masurian Lakes.
:: *  6 September 1914: Battle of the Marne started
:: * 18 October   1914: First Battle of Ypres
:: * 29 October   1914: Ottoman Empier (Why refered as Turkey on countless web pages I don't know as the country did not exist untill 1923) entered the war on Germany’s side. Trench warfare started to dominate the Western Front.
:: 
:: Unless you are a historian or are knowlegable in history, refrain from making historical comments based on what someone told you or what you saw on TV. --Coolcat 23:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give references 

message: The man is only a man if he is a man and not idol.
* If you love him and don't want to offend people, keep it to yourself.
* If you don't like him and don't want to offend people, keep it to yourself.
* If you want to spit your love use the "TALK" rather than the actual article.
* If you want to spit your hate use the "TALK" rather than the actual article.
* Accusations that are not related to him in any way definately does not belong here, nor at the article.
* Do edit the article in a non-neutral or offensive way, see how many minutes of fame you got. 
I personaly think he was a briliant leader. He advanced a war torn nation into a modern state. The transformation of power in Turkey was relatively peacefull. Nothing remotely close to Iraq if you think about it. Only two riots which were adequately dealth with.
He made a country pretty much an unofficial succesor of the Ottoman Empier, a country that had lots of problems to say the very least. He fixed most difficult issues in a decade. The only reason Turkey is in comparable to other middle easten countries (aside from Israel) when it comes to political diversity and democratic structure. Turkey is the living, breathing example of a democracy in a mostly Muslim Country. What Americans hope to achive in Iraq if you think about it. He achived what Americans are yet to achive without the US dollars, nor the US army. Like it or not thats quite impressive.
He was not a dictator. He refused the presidency post but the overwheling request by the people pretty much forced him. No one wanted another leader basicaly. Thats like calling George Washington a dictator. People tend to keep the person liberating them as their leader. He had several attempts to create a minority party but attempts failed because of Islamic Fundementalist interference, a major issue in domestic politics in Turkey. --Coolcat 23:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep the article clean. 

message: After all his full name was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
:Well it got moved by someone sloppy, because just I fixed all the double redirects they created. Pcb21| Pete 12:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kemal Atatürk? Shouldnt the main title be Mustafa Kemal Atatürk