Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 8

message: Didn't Kemal Ataturk deny the Armenian massacre and suppress the Kurdish people and their culture?!
Hekar 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Mustafa Kemal had full respect to the believers of Islam but he was beyond the dogmas of the religion. Kurds rebelled against the unitary government of Turkey right in the beginning (maybe they wanted their own kingdom?!) so the relations between Mustafa Kemal and Kurds weren't "perfect". You know he once said "Turkey belongs to Turks". Of course, Mustafa Kemal's description of "Turk" can be discussed more deeply but the problem was a political one at the time of Atatürk. I don't understand where this "best Muslim" stuff came from?! Deliogul 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greatest Muslim ever? 

message: The debate as to whether K. Ataturk was homosexual has been triggered by heuristic evidence and not hard facts. This includes:
::1. The fact that his ex-wife's correspondence, regarding the circumstances of their divorce,  remains undisclosed. 
::2. The Turkish authorities' excessive defensiveness on this touchy subject. For example ,  a Turkish author (Ipek Calislar) went on trial (but was aquitted) for the "crime" of having "accused" Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of having dressed as a woman to escape an assassination attempt, in a biography of Ataturk's ex-wife. More recently, a satirical video uploaded on YouTube by an Englishman (impersonating a Greek) purporting that Ataturk was gay caused a  political crisis, and the Turkish authorities even moved to block access to YouTube in Turkey ! 
:The issue of Ataturk's purported homosexuality should be conclusively resolved if and when the correspondence of Kemal's ex-wife is released. Rastapopoulos 12:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate, if triggered, would be triggered because of homosexuality being one of the first things that come to mind when a  person in the region (including Greeks) tries to badmouth someone else. 
There is a law in Turkey against insulting anyone and also Atatürk, who represents all the founding fathers, mothers, who represents the Independence War of Turkish people. That law does not make Atatürk gay, he might have been but most likely not. As you said, she was acquitted so having dressed as a woman is not seen as an insult. Besides, why would some lawyer in Turkey opening a trial against someone (for an unrelated thing) trigger the rumours that Atatürk is homosexual, does not make sense. Dressing as a woman is wearing a burqa on top of your own clothing there. denizTC 17:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several authors have also speculated on Ataturk's sexual orientation. Here is an example, from the classing biography of Patrick Balfour, Atatürk: A Biography of Mustafa Kemal, Father of Modern Turkey (1965): "Women, for Mustafa [Ataturk], 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 siecle Ottoman age, came upon him." Rastapopoulos 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then mention that first. Apparently, Balfour is just SPECULATING what would have happened if this were that, that were this. It is imo parallel to saying that "Venizelos, or X might have been gay if s/he had lived in Ancient Greece, or earlier periods of Ottoman Empire". I would rather not include speculations, but it is up to you, you can mention such speculations, but you should indicate that they are just speculations. denizTC 20:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  More references to Ataturk's sexuality by biographers, Irfan and Margaret Orga: "He has never 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 ..."  I agree, these are speculations, hence not posted in the article. However, even if (for the sake of argument) his ex-wife's memoirs were published and stated that he was a homosexual, one would still argue that this were pure speculation ... Rastapopoulos 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you sure about the names, I checked Amazon, he(?) seems to be a cooking book writer (he also has some biography). Which book is it(phoenix?), what page, please cite properly. I wonder how this Irfan person came to know Ataturk. denizTC 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is: Orga, İrfan and Margarete Orga, Atatürk (London: Michael Joseph, 1962). I am afraid I cannot cite the page as I do not have the book. I have taken the quote from various sites in the internet in good faith, and can certainly not vouch for its authenticity. I have just ordered the book from a used book store on the internet, and will provide a accurate citation once I get it. If you are interested, check out here: http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=F.2TCODDoo4c7TYiZ8yH8KRYi1U_6239905939_2:1:1 By the way, Wikipedia also mentions that Irfan Orga (a Turkish author) wrote a controversial biography of Atatürk Rastapopoulos 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks denizTC 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I found a detail today. Many of us (at least Turkish people) know Mustafa Kemal's love affair with Fikriye Hanım. Fikriye and Mustafa Kemal were living together during the independence era and according to Atatürk, a documentary film about his life, when Fikriye asked him about marriage, Mustafa Kemal replied her by saying "I'm married with my country". We know, he didn't see any problem to marry with Latife but, clearly, he was a politic man rather than a romantic one. His love affairs during his youth were also short lived which let us to think about the value he gave to love in his social life. In my humble opinion, this gay business comes from his approach to love. Take care, Deliogul 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay?

message: For his secular reforms and modernity: 
He (Kemal Ataturk) was the greatest Musalman in the modern Islamic world and I am sure that the entire Musalman world will deeply mourn his passing away. It is impossible to express adequately in a press interview one,s appreciation of his remarkable and varied services, as the builder and the maker of Modern Turkey and an example to the rest of the world, especially to the Musalmans States in the Middle East. The remarkable way in which he rescused and built up his people against all odds has no parallel in the history of the world.  He must have derived the greatest sense of satisfaction that he fully accomplished his mission during his lifetime and left his people and his country consolidated, united and a powerful nation. In him, not only the Musalmans but the whole world has lost one the greatest men that ever lived. (Jinnah - November 1938- press interview-  "Quaid-e-Azam and the Islamic World" 1981) 
One can argue that this proves that Pakistan's founders, being Modernists themselves, wanted Pakistan to be a modern secular republic like Turkey.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.163.67.241 (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hailed as the Greatest Muslim of the Modern Age

message: Please correct it! 2nd president is İnönü. He was selected 4 times, but he is only the 1st president.Paparokan 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this is a comedy. I'm going to fix it immediately. Deliogul 17:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2,3,4th president?

message: I dont know why admins have allowed this discussion to fester, everyone has agreed the "opinions on genocide" section should be removed, we seem to have a consensus on this. So can we unlock and add the following instead:
Ataturk's reforms were regarded as being too rapid by some. In his quest to modernize Turkey, he effectively abolished centuries-old traditions by means of reforms to which much of the population was unaccustomed but nevertheless willing to adopt. In some cases, these reforms were seen as benefiting the urban elites rather than the generally illiterate inhabitants of the rural countrysideKinross p.503, where religious sentiments and customary norms tended to be stronger. In particular, Ataturk's strict religious reforms met with some opposition; and to this day, they continue to generate a considerable degree of social and political tension. In the future, political leaders would draw upon dormant forces of religion in order to secure positions of power, only to be blocked by the interventions of the powerful military (as in 1960 when Prime Minister Adnan Menderes was overthrown by the military)Kinros p.504, which has always regarded itself as the principal and most faithful guardian of secularism. 
''
Kurds also criticise Ataturk of disregarding their cultural distinctions in pursuing a Turkish national identity. In 1925, an uprising for an independent Kurdistan led by Seyh Sait was put down quickly, and Sait and 36 of his followers were executed soon thereafter. Kurds accuse succesive Turkish governments of suppressing their identity through such means as the banning of Kurdish language in print and media. Ataturk believed the unity and stability of a country lay in a unitary political identity, relegating cultural and ethnic distinctions to the private sphere. Many Kurds did not relinquish their identities however, eventually giving rise to large-scale armed conflict between the Turkish armed forces and the PKK (a guerilla group fighting for an independent Kurdistan) throughout the 1980's and 1990's, leaving over 35,000 dead. Recent moves by Ankara have provided Kurds with greater rights and freedoms, particularly in such sensitive areas as the Kurdish language, education, and media given.
''
--A.Garnet 18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good but I think is lacking suficient detail/explanation in some areas and I also think that the role of Ataturk directing nationalist forces (and subsequent actions) to eliminate (specifically) the remaining Armenian (and other Christian) presence in Anatolia during the War of Turkish Independence needs to be at least mentioned (and these things are even recounted by Kinross & Mango in their very pro-Ataturk biographies...not to mention the accounts from Karabakir's autobiography). Likewise, the supression of the Kurds/Kurdish rebellions did not only take the form of executions of principles involved but included the deliberate heavy handed destruction of hundreds of villages (and the killings of thousands - with a great many innocents among them) that were thought to harbor (ethnic) seperatist sentiment or which were thought to have been in support of (Kurdish) seperatist rebellion (again what is reality versus what is perception is/was perhaps an issue here - and the issue really is that Ataturk was deliberatly brutal in order to ensure complete sucess without compromise). Ataturk's advocacy and pursuit of these scortched earth policies are a significant aspect of his legacy that are noteworthy in and of themselves as well as a clear inspiration for the policies of sucessive Turkish governments (or more accuratly MIT secret governments who directed/pursued policy in this regard). These draconian policies led to the disenfranchisement and moving underground of a variety of ethnic and political movements and individuals (and political parties and journalists connected to such etc) who have been at various times outlawed and rigorously pursued - via leagal and quasi-legal (e death squads and such) means - and these abuses became the impetus of the rather poor human rights record by the Republic of Turkey in this regard. Also Ataturk's inclusion of substansial numbers of ex-CUP memebers within the early nationalist movement (and in subsequent early government offices in the Republic) and his eventual turn on them and on his former allies who began to oppose his assumption of personal (cult-like) dictatorial powers in the years following the formaton of the Republic and up to the time of Ataturk's death need to also be better explained and highlighted. I don't mean to undeservedly tarnish the image of someone whom I rightly see is viewed as a great man and a great (military and political) leader for Turkey - however I see these as very significant events and policies that have had lasting ramifications for the nation and are worthy of historical note. There is no doubt that Ataturk accomplished great things and was revolutionary in a number of remarkable and very progressive ways and had an incredible vision for his nation and his people and he had the understanding of how to get it done - but like nearly all poweful leaders - particualrly in dangerous and uncertain times - he made decisions regarding policies and approaches that had negative ramifications as well - and at times his actions were down right nasty and led to many subsequent problems for the nation (some he even foresaw - however many he perhaps did not) - if even he is largely adored by the great majority of Turks today (and rightly so). I hope you all take these comments as I have intended. I am not an "Ataturk basher" - far from it - I greatly admire the man and appreciate the import or his accomplishments, all the same I think that this is meant to be an unbiased historicaly accurate presentation and what I am proposing to be included in the article IMO gives proper balance and realism to the man and his legacy.--THOTH 20:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making your points in a very clear and calm way. Even though I never heard of some of these accusations, like "the deliberate heavy handed destruction of hundreds of villages and the killings of thousands" during the time of Atatürk, and I do not intend to believe these until I personally see sources of indisputable credibility, I am very glad to see these discussed in a civil way. But then again, as user Baristarim is constantly trying to make us remember, this is perhaps not the place for having these discussions. Our personal views about Atatürk mean almost nothing within the scope of this talk page. The only thing that matters is whether a certain edit on the article meets the criteria on Wikipedia:Verifiability and other related guidelines, and we should go on with building this wannabe encyclopedia. Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of my sources are in print and not on the internet - but I would recommend reading these two articles to at least give you some better understanding of the things I am talking about here - http://shr.aaas.org/scws/context.htm and http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/said.html The latter has some particualrly good analysis and the first one touches on how Ataturk's early outlawing of anything resembling Kurdsih cultural and/or political expression has carried through to policies and actions taken by the Republic of Yurkey towards the Kurds (and others expressing ethnic affiliation) within Turkey since that time.--THOTH 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actual content of the section proposed by A. Garnet can be discussed, modified and expanded if need be. If serious sources can be found indicating that he did this or that, they can be included. However, I definitely agree with A. Garnet that the current section in the article should be removed meanwhile. I am re-posting a comment by the mediator of an earlier case that involved similar issues. It was already posted above, but I thought that maybe it might have gotten lost somewhere:
I think the mediator on the case, Shawn Fitzgibbons, summed it up well above:
"As the mediator of Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-15 Ataturk and genocide, I think the paragraph on genocide should be removed unless more credible sources can be used for reference. While Wikipedia is against censorship, it also desires the highest quality of articles possible. Serious charges (e.g. genocide) need to rest on solid ground. Trusted sources in print should be used to reference such claims. Shawn Fitzgibbons 15:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to bring to a closure 

message: This article has been submitted for Good Article review. Baristarim 21:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article review

message: An anon has been changing "Many Kurds did not relinquish their identities however, eventually giving rise to large-scale armed conflict between the Turkish armed forces and the PKK (a guerilla group fighting for an independent Kurdistan) throughout the 1980's and 1990's", which is what User:A.Garnet had in his version, to "Many Kurds did not relinquish their separatist ideology, however, eventually giving rise to terrorism against the civilians as well as targeting the Turkish armed forces by the PKK (a far-left group with changing names all of which recognised as terrorist by the U.S. and the E.U.)" with the edit summary of "(talk page does not address or justivy white-washing terrorist organization and their murders, also does not belong a biography)".  To me, the new edit is not NPOV, and "terrorist" is not supposed to be used in Wikipedia - see the PKK article for example. I don't want to appear to be edit warring, so I'm adding this here. The rest of the section says the PKK has killed 35,000 and so on. --AW 17:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed. What is more important is to discuss the origin of the Kurdish issue (of competing nationalism) and how Ataturk chose to deal with it (no comprimise - scortched earth ethnic cleansing and resettlement [destroying their rural power bases and driving them into urban areas which were under much tighter Turkish control] - and certainly no recognition of the legitimacy of any kind of Kurdish cultural self-expresion [or even acknowledgement of identity]and de-facto societal incorporation of Kurds as "Turks" whether they truly were or not) etc...leading to future unresolved conflict/issues..--THOTH 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, talk about recent edits. The article has been undergoing constant sneak and overt vandalism attacks by anons since it has been unprotected. As for the edit in question, I will agree with THOTH on the idea of talking about the origin of the Kurdish issue rather than the PKK, however, I might have to disagree with some of the words he used :) Kidding aside, I think the appropriate approach would be to talk about its origins citing some good and impartial sources. How Kurds feel today might not seem too relevant to his biography, and might be more appropriate in other articles about Turkey. The paragraph should be strictly about what he did or didn't during his political life. Again, I think, we should be extremely careful about striking the right contextual balance. In the mean time, if these attacks by anons continue, it might be a good idea to semi-protect it for a while. Baristarim 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fair. I think it's funny when vandals leave edit summaries with what vandalism they committed though :) --AW 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Why Ismet Inonu rather than Mustafa Ismet Inonu, but here we have to have the awkward Mustafa Kemal Ataturk form?  Ataturk is called either "Mustafa Kemal" or "Kemal Ataturk".  He is almost never called "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" in English, and calling him this goes against the way we deal with other similar Turkish names - Ismet Inonu, Celal Bayar, Şükrü Saracoğlu... john k 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, you might want to check the discussion people had about this exact same subject around June, on Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 4. Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know the discussion has already been had, and skimmed over the move discussion, which seems to have largely involved Turks. I stand by my statement. john k 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brittanica's article about him is titled "Atatürk, Mustafa Kemal" .. We can change the title to that if you want :)) (kidding) Baristarim 18:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant, but i created the redirect 'Mustafa Ismet Inonu' to 'Ismet Inonu'; guess it is ok. Hectorian 21:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you must be happy because we didn't named the article as Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk :) Actually I haven't seen a single person who says Mustafa İsmet İnönü rather than İsmet İnönü in my entire life ;) Deliogul 10:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I made a couple little changes that were reverted, let me explain. The sentence was
"Recent moves by Ankara have provided Kurds with greater rights and freedoms, particularly in such sensitive areas as the Kurdish language, education, and media given."
which I changed to "Recent moves by the Turkish government have provided Kurds with greater rights and freedoms, particularly in such areas as the Kurdish language, education, and media." 
The Ankara->Turkish government is just simplifying, "sensitive" removed because who says they're sensitive, and "given" removed because "media given" doesn't really make any sense to me. Thoughts? --AW 22:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit makes sense to me. Perhaps the one who reverted the changes should respond in detail. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. One of the reasons I had reverted earlier was simply because I was afraid of more edit-wars if the concensus version was too much played upon without prior discussion in the talk page. Baristarim 06:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me too. I must've accidentally reverted AW's edit (I was trying to revert 172GAL). Khoikhoi 06:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why this information is in this article. It is like mentioning USA's current policy towards its indian minority in the article on George Washington. Filanca 16:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small question in Kurdish section 

message: This article is well-written and meticulously wikilinked. The coverage of the topic is certainly broad. I also noticed more than a few mentions of criticism of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk by various groups, which allays my fears about WP:NPOV. In many respects, this appears to be an outstanding article. Excellent work!
My only qualm — and it is a significant one — is that it does not go to any great lengths to satisfy attributes (2) and (2b) of Wikipedia:What is a good article?.
I didn't pepper the article with  tags. Experience has taught me that some editors appreciate their use as a suggestion regarding where citations should be placed. On the other hand, it is not uncommon for editors to become quite irate at the extensive use of  tags, because the tags make the appearance of the article unaesthetic. In general, though, assertions that would need inline citations would be similar to these examples:
*Direct quotes: "Culture is the foundation of the Turkish Republic".
*Acts of government: "Recent moves by the Turkish government have provided Kurds with greater rights and freedoms, particularly in areas such as the Kurdish language, education, and media."
*Numbers, figures, dates, etc.: "...succeeded in achieving a substantial increase of the public literacy rate from 20% to over 90%."
*Broad, strong generalizations: "...reforms to which much of the population was unaccustomed but nevertheless willing to adopt."
*Specific Historical events:"...he was appointed the commander of Derne on March 6, 1912."
This article needs many such citations. Bearing in mind that WP:GA is not WP:FA, I wouldn't expect anything near perfection... but 75% of perfection is a reasonable goal for GA. That still leaves you needing a fairly large number of inline cites.
Feel free to drop me a line if you have questions, comments, or arguments. :-) --Ling.Nut 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You heard him! Everyone get to work with citations! :)) It is completely true that there needs to be a lot more references, that was also my primary concern when I had nominated it for GA. As soon as I am done with Turkey, I will try help out with this one.Baristarim 02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New rights for minorities can be considered "not enough" when we compare them to the rights in some other countries but they are promising steps for Turkish democracy. [], you can look at the minority rights section of this page to see the new rights. Saygılarımla, Deliogul 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: On closer reading, perhaps what is needed is a spreading of the criticism more evenly throughout the section on his rule; it can be missed, as I may have demonstrated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you by any chance miss the last few paragraphs of the reforms section? If you did, and given that part is about the current criticisms of Atatürk, I guess you mean a missing mention of how he was criticised by his contemporaries. If that's the case, could you please try to add a few of those missing mentions and improve the article? Atilim Gunes Baydin 04:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the first time; other readers also may.  This is why I make the second suggestion, that they be spread out, perhaps in the form "Ataturk did X, which had results Y and Z", where Y is the benefit and Z is the criticism. But I do applaud the article; this is more a question of overall tone and local balance than anything else, and a FA nitpick rather than a GA objection.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, and I did not notice your second comment (starting with "on closer reading") before posting mine. You're right and these should be made more homogenous. Me and another user have plans to do a clean-up and referencing work on this article sometime soon and I'll do my best to address this issue. Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA|Good article]] nomination On Hold 

message: *Were the editors of this article aware of its Good Article nomination?
I do not see a GA nomination template on this talk page.
Ling.Nut 21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm a regular contributor to this article, but I was not aware of the GA nomination. Atilim Gunes Baydin 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh oh.. I am sorry.. I nominated it for GA to get an outside review of the article about three weeks ago and I forgot to add the template. Sorry Atilim! Baristarim 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: [[WP:GA|Good article]] nomination On Hold &mdash; No GA Nomination template on page 

message: The article suggests that Bitola and Salonika (Selanik) were "centers of Greek discontent towards the Ottoman administration."  This is incorrect.  At the time of Ataturk, Bitola had a population of  Turks,  Albanians and Macedonians, and Salonika's population  was about 50 percent Jewish, thirty percent Muslim  Turkish, with the rest (15 percent) being Macedonian, Albanian, Vlach,  Bulgarian, European (Levantine), Armenian, and Greek.  Hence,  with nearly no Greeks in Bitola, and a small Greek minority in Salonika, neither of the two cities could have been "centers of Greek discontent towards the Ottoman administration" if they were centers of ethnic discontent at all.Cagaptay 03:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should read "Bulgarian and Greek discontent", but both nationalities had networks throughout Macedonia. The question of which is larger or more important is infinitely disputeable - but this article doesn't need to go there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bitola and Salonika (Selanik) as "centers of Greek discontent towards the Ottoman administration."  

message: Hi,
There is an awful lot to like about this article, but controversial political figures need to have somewhat better inline cites. Certainly any direct quotes, plus any information that is like to be challenged because of its controversial nature, needs to be cited, Thanks! --Ling.Nut 14:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed [[WP:FA|Good Article]] 

message: io:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk ; oc:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk . I've redirected the page in Ido, so your link must be modified. Thank you :io:User:Joao Xavier, 09:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add oc and modify io 

message: Please see the relevant section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey! --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 21:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start to develop the article 

message: I want to say that I don't like what OttomanReference has been doing with the article recently. The article structure is almost completely changed, which doesn't conform very much with similar good biographies on Wikipedia, material has been moved to newly created sub-articles, and all these fundamental changes happened without first asking for opinions and seeking consensus on the talk page. The English used by the editor is far from being fluent and contains grammatical mistakes. Please don't say "then why don't you do it yourself" or something on that line, because I currently don't have the time the importance of this article requires, but still, I think I can raise my concerns. Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your concerns; I just wanted to say about "newly created sub-articles" The Atatürk's Reforms and Kemalism neither created by me nor they are new. These articles are developed for detailed analysis of these special concepts. Arguments regarding extend of reforms, or state related issues that pass beyond Atatürk's life, (he died in 1938), obviously should be developed in these articles. That does not decrease the importance of the content as we have links from the main article to these pages. Also we have a Wikiqote that extensively collects "Ataturks quotations. It is possible to give links within the article to these pages. Regarding the Image gallery section, wikicommans have developed a very beautiful catalog of Ataturk's pictures. I advise you to check that page. Pictures are collected on a time line and there exists the explanation of each picture. I believe these are all positive improvements. However I thank you for your consideration. --OttomanReference 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate you have an immense knowledge on these subjects Ottoman, but the articles need to be formatted and written better. For example the infobox at the beginning has now become too cluttered, too many sections have been created, sometimes it is better to write a detailed description of something than reduce it to one or two sentences with links to another article. The way a small gallery has been added to the bottom of some sections makes the format ugly with big gaps around the picture. It is not your content that bothers me, but your presentation, format, grammar and style. --A.Garnet 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Regarding pictures, I wanted to distribute the pictures such that they would be related to the topic. I'm having trouble finding these pictures. I want to have a picture showing him voting, for the democracy section. Could not find one. I moved some of the pictures to Atatürk's Reforms page. I do not want to remove them, as I'm afraid I may not find them once more; but if you help finding pictures related to sections and format them that would be soooo great. Also regarding "than reduce it to one or two sentences with links to another article" I'm trying. It is a funny thing. You have to give people basic understanding of what to expect from the link. That makes the sentences really complex. I guess balance could only be reached if there are more than one editor. Because it takes more than one mind. --OttomanReference 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ottomanreference, thanks for the quick reply! I agree with you on almost everything, but could you please use the expected "proposal / discussion / consensus" cycle on this talk page before proceeding with very fundamental changes with the article (like the section hierarchy and moving of content between articles)? With the "newly created article" I was thinking more about Atatürk Centennial, I fear if we don't supply that with additional content on the history of that resolution etc., it could be nominated for deletion from Wikipedia because in it's current state it clearly belongs to Wikisource. And I think it was much better to have that text directly within the article, because I believe it will be less known if it stays separate from this biography (I don't expect many people to click on the "main article" link for that from this biography). I know Atatürk's Reforms is not new (I did put some effort to make that article better sometime around last year). My concerns regarding language fluency and mistakes remain but please know that I truly appreciate your effort. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:OttomanReference]]'s edits

message: ArmenianReference has mentioned the Van Resistance, but what about the Van Massacres in which the Russo-Armenian forces practically "mass murdered" the local Kurdish and Turkish civilians? DragutBarbarossa 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, these are realities of the time. Command of XVI Corps was on Ataturk which was responsible from Bitlis and Mush. He fought against the enemy. If you do not believe citations, check the valilik web pages of these districts. They tell in detail how Mustafa Kemal captures these cities back. Guys, this is not Armenian propaganda. This is about war. If you censure the facts, how you gonna explain the realities? Think this way; if Ataturk did not fight with the Armenian Millitia; then who was he fighting against? The Van Resistance proves that there was an Armenian military activity. Ataturk was defending the front against an organized army. You are putting Attaturk in a position without any real force against him. That is the worst thing someone can do. +++If you want to talk "mass murdered" the local Kurdish and Turkish civilians no one is stopping you to develop that article. Why you are not doing it? Please be sensible. --OttomanReference 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please show some civility. I dont care if Ottoman is an eskimo, his contribution of Turkish related articles has been immense. Likewise your work on the Turkish navy and the pictures you've uploaded have been a great addition, if you could both work together Turkish articles would benefit greatly. --A.Garnet 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "cleansed from the local Kurds and Turks by the Russo-Armenian forces" this concept is not related with Ataturk. There is no bigger "vatan hainligi" if someone wants to develop these concepts under the Ataturk page. DragutBarbarossa if you have patience and sources; go and try to develop this under Armenian Genocide page. Please, it is factually not relevant to this article, especially if you do not have the citation. --OttomanReference 01:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Van Resistance

message: I have never seen a "worser" article on Wikipedia. The grammar errors are enormous, some paragraphs are absolutely incomprehensible (such as Atatürk's telegram to the Sultan from Syria, quoted from Andrew Mango's book). 
Elementary school Tarzan English. 
Once again, ArmenianReference is acting as if he is the "owner" of an article, despite being protested by many others for the bad quality of his editing work (not just me) and "completely changing" everything without asking for other people's opinions, especially those who gave their time and effort to edit the page in the past. DragutBarbarossa 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarzan Grammar 

message: I believe the article should be reverted to the version prior to Ottomans substantial edits, and sections from his edits integrated into that version. As it is, correcting the writing style, grammatical errors, format and presentation will simply be too time consuming. It is better to take what is good, such as the description of the military campaigns, and integrate it into the old version. As it is I simply dont see it as an improvement. Sorry, but thats just my view. --A.Garnet 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can read it and develop a position; that means, English of the article is good enough. The statements I added have citations. The correctness of every statement is verified.--OttomanReference 02:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the English Wikipedia; it should be written in (literate) English. "Good enough" is not good enough. That being said, I would deplore any effort (not that I expect one) to use such a rewrite to drop sourced information. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am in favor of a revert as proposed and I felt so much better when I saw the previous layout during the short-lived revert of E104421. It would be better to keep the article structure as it was before OttomanReference's major changes, and integrate his contributions into that version (his effort with citations and campaign maps should not be wasted). I, like A. Garnet, am more concerned with the structure and language issues than the content he's been adding. And for the English issue again, "readable English" is not good enough for the biography of Atatürk on an encyclopedia and on a web page coming first on the list with every search engine. Atilim Gunes Baydin 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys fix the format of the article. Improve the language.... However; If you look the sections, I developed them in a time line. The previous content did not obey the time line. The article (biography) looked like a conceptual article. There were statements regarding effectiveness of reforms, etc.. The results of the reforms should be discussed in Atatürk's Reforms. It is very very sad that I when I give my citations, even the most negative people accepts it. And they try to improve it. But you guys try to revert it. No wonder people fed-up and leave it as a mess. Especially E104421 and User talk:DragutBarbarossa exchanged e-mails (to communicated to personally and come up with a plan) to attach my edits. Check the discussions in my talk page and this group of messages this is their communication and declared attack to article. This is very very disappointing, especially when it comes from so called Turks. OttomanReference 03:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's simply not correct. I can translate that conversation for the ones being interested. OttomanReference is misrepresenting this in a totally different way. By doing so, he's defocusing the discussion from its main point. Regards. E104421 04:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am in favour of a revert 

message: While reading, I realized that there are too many brackets through out the article. Here are a few:
Selânik (Thessaloniki in present-day Greece)
Manastır (Bitola in present day Republic of Macedonia)
There are also many brackets like this:
Gallipoli (Turkish: Gelibolu)
Chunuk Bair (Turkish: Conkbayırı)
In my opinion, we should remove these brackets. I also believe that Turkish equivalents are not necessary here since they are already given on their own pages. --Ugur Olgun 09:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many brackets? 

message: We should roll up our sleeves and dig in to sort this article out. AppleJuggler 04:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is more than enough good material in this article to turn it into a Featured Article 

message: he ended the caliphate and drank alcohol
what kind of muslim is he —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dstfan (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He sacrificed himself for his nation and for the republic. I think ending the caliphate is one of the best political moves he made in his career. If you think then you may understand that you can't include such an old fashion title in a modern democracy. Deliogul 13:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  worst muslim ever 

message: I have corrected "economical" (which means cheap) to "economic" throughout the text, but cannot figure out how to edit the caption of the picture that says "economical"--can someone fix that?
Itahist 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is okay now. See you, Deliogul 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economical 

message: The article is as concise as possible or else certain aspects would only remain esoteric to those editors who are familiar about that part of history. I'm amenable to suggestions but the grammar and prose seem to flow well and the section is brief in regards to the entire article. 
Also, you guys don't have to write Andrew Mango Ataturk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey ISBN: 158567334X page. 161 after every citation. You can just write Mango. Ataturk. p. 161 instead of listing miscellaneous information over and over again.--MarshallBagramyan 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marshall, I am unhappy with the inclusion of this. I believe you are giving undue weight to this source, there may be some historians who consider Ataturk as extending the Armenian genocide, but the vast majority certainly do not associate him with those events. This is certainly something that is not elaborated on the Armenian genocide article, nor has it ever been included there to my mind. To come here therefore and insert this sentence which disregards Ataturk's prime motives in reclaiming land lost to the Treaty of Sevres, and to portray it (even if this was not your intention) as merely the extension of the Armenian genocide seems inherently pov. --A.Garnet 11:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We will come back to this later more, however, the inclusion as is makes it sound like he wanted to or participated in a genocide. Something that is undue weight, and doesn't reflect any sort of academic concensus. "He extended the suffering of the Armenians" is not the same thing as "extended the genocide". Soviet invasion also "extended the suffering of the Armenians", but I see no such reference in scholarly opinion as to how "Soviet Union extended the Armenian genocide". As such, that interpretation is not correct and doesn't reflect scholarly concensus, and as such is undue weight. You can add something like "his actions during the TR war of independence had an adverse effect on Armenian ambitions to establish a bigger state in eastern anatolia and caucasus", which would most probably correct. This issue has been discussed to death already in the archives.Baristarim 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ? Am I missing something? Between 1920-22, he was busy in the battlefield fighting the Greeks, how did he lead campaigns to the Caucasus? By 1922, war was over already.. This is what I mean, there is no indication of in which way he intended, or did participate in "extending the AG" - listen, I know that the war wasn't good on the Armenians, but you cannot simply lump every single war and conflict in the beginning of the 20s with AG. Armenia was also state that fielded armies. That's why I am saying that it doesn't reflect concensus on this issue, in fact it is far away from being so. However, as I pointed out earlier this: "his actions during the TR war of independence had an adverse effect on Armenian ambitions to establish a bigger state in eastern anatolia and caucasus" is more than valid. I hope you see my point.. Baristarim 19:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean the territory to be awarded to DROA under Sevres? As for Ataturk, otherwise you are saying more like "taking advantage of/using the weakness"? I can see where that interpretation can come from. Hmm.. Well as for the territory issue, Greece could say the same thing, right? However, most academics do refer to him saying "fought to have the Sevres revoked", not "steal other people's lands". No historical analysis considers Sevres to be legitimate vis-à-vis the Turkish people, considering that a republican revolution came right afterwards to overthrow the monarchy. It would be like saying the French revolution was "illegal" - it definitely was at the time, however historians have reached the conclusion that it is the opposite. Similar for Sevres and the revolution in Turkey. And legally, Lausanne confirmed it back in the day. Therefore there were no "territories to be awarded". I definitely understand and hear what you are trying to say, but portraying as if Ataturk had a particular beef with the Armenians is also not correct. That's why I think that my earlier suggestion is more appropriate. Obviously Armenians didn't loose anything on their own will, however war is also war and Armenians did have an ambition to establish a bigger state in eastern Anatolia and Caucasus - I have yet to see more than two-three books dedicated in its entireity to either AG or Ataturk that point to such a connection during wars between 1920-22. That's all I am saying. Baristarim 20:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you please just tell us the books and some unusual text on the pages where the relation of Atatürk to genocide appear. I made only a Google book search, not an Amazon search. Kemal is not uncommon name in Turkey, I don't think it was uncommon back then. denizTC 23:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We can discuss the issues about the article in depth later on, however I don't like the fact that you feel somehow intimidated. It is not correct that you being here doesn't lead a hospitable climate because of ethnicity concerns (however, the analogy with the Dear leader doesn't, cough cough, help :)). We know about the tension, but as far as I am concerned I have been discussing with an editor about the article, not "repulsing an "attack" by the Armenian gang". I am sure that there are editors out there who are biased, but you know that at the end of the day it is the serious editors who get the final say as the articles improve.. I am not going to hide the fact that I am against the inclusion of what I had deleted in that form into this article (per my prior posts), but it is not because I or most Turkish editors are trying to edict a "Juche monument" or anything. It is true that Turks consider him in high esteem, but they don't worship him either you know :) Anyways.. Baristarim 00:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MarshallBagramyan says: Ataturk essentially helped extend the suffering of Armenians: ADR is a nationalistic state. It is an Armenian national state established under the leadership  of Armenian Revolutionary Federation. ARF waged a form of independence war (towards, Ottomans, Georgia, Ajeriz, and Soviets basically everybody). Their efforts to stabilize and extend their lands (prevent it becoming land locked state) continued during the Turkish-Armenian War. For the misery (to ARMENIANs) ARF caused during the achievement of their nationhood can only be attributed to ARF. It is like a child who do not accept the responsibility. ARF members are attacking everything they found honorable around, this time Ataturk. They are constantly deleting significant information that proves they made mistakes. Van Resistance is a good example. Van Resistance is Armenian revolt in Turkish history books. Instead of adding information, they delete information. They reject Turkish sources as biased. While doing the removal of information,  they also accept the information is correct but claim that it does not work for their ideology (check this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 24 circular The person who asks the deletion of the article also accepts that it is correct). This became a game of hiding facts, and it is beyond any SERIOUS activity. That is my perception, and I hold it as truth. --OttomanReference 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Armenia section

message: What is the logic behind putting photographs section into the middle of the article? I get used to see it as the last section from other wikipedia articles and at first glance thought that the article is over. --Ugur Olgun 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is as if A.Garnet removed the section. Now my problem is that wikiquote and wikicommons link is at a very bad place for readers. I suggest putting them somewhere between media and worldwide section.--Ugur Olgun 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograps section 

message: Hey guys, yesterday i changed the wrong information about his birth name, but somebody reverted it. As you can see at early life section, his birth name is Mustafa,not Kemal.  "Mustafa studied at the military secondary school in Selânik, where the additional name Kemal ("perfection" or "maturity", not an uncommon name) was given to him by his mathematics teacher in recognition of his academic excellence"  So, please don`t revert to wrong version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.240.146.255 (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ops, I am so sorry, i forgot to refresh the page :) . Then there is no mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.240.146.255 (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His birth name is Mustafa 

message: An anon user and User:Maestroka both took out the Category:Muslim politicians and Category:Muslim reformers, with Maestroka saying "he was against a religious badge next to the title politician."  Whether or not he was against being labeled as a Muslim politician, he was in fact a politician who was Muslim, right? And since this is a fact, I think it should stay. It's simply a descriptive category, just like if there were a category like "Politicians with dark hair" or "politicians born in Selânik" --AW 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted, please see my edit summary. There is a serious debate as to whether he espoused Islam, most sources consider him as Deist.. He could have been an atheist or Muslim, but I don't think he fits so easily into the same category as Ahmedinajad or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.. It is not just a "descriptive category" either, he must have put his Muslim identity into a prominent place in his life and policies for him to be put into that category in any case. Baristarim 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, well I guess we need a source then. --AW 14:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing muslim categories