Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 2

message: *In the ARTICLE, for good orders sake, references to Atatürk ought to carry his respectively applicable name in the historical context and SEQUENCE. He should be referred to as "Mustafa", than Mustafa Kemal, than Mustafa Kemal Pasha (or better merely KEMAL PASHA!) and finally (Mustafa) Kemal Atatürk.--StuffedTurkey 00:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mustafa Kemal Pasha named Atatürk 

message: ----
*Support. Main article be: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk with Kemal Atatürk as a redirect. My impression from the literature is that people refer to him as Mustafa Kemal when they talk about him as the soldier, and as Ataturk when they refer to him as the statesman, such as after he built the sovereign state of Turkey.Olympos 16:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  An interesting input: on 25 Aug 2002 the article was created as a redirect to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk on 30 May 2003 was a redirect to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk until 6 Jul 2003 when a stub article was introduced. That user is not an admin so that means it was not a move. There was a duplicate basicaly. In the near history of article. I dont see when the merging actualy happened, constant vandalism has hit this article hard, thats clear. --Cool Cat| My Talk 08:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: YES

message: I think it should be moved to a page that doesn't have to two dots over the U.  The url for the page looks weird.  Thats just my $0.02 though. --Kross 21:32, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
How about Mustafa Atatürk?  Mustafa was his birthname and Atatürk was his legal last name.Actually 'Kemal' was a nickname given by his Mathematics teacher--Kross 20:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The most correct name is the one in its original language. When I need the info about Leh Valesa, the guy's name appears as in its original language. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_Wałęsa 
06:23 AM, Aug 18, 2005
M. S. Jelezorukov iloverussia@gala.net
Recent removal about Armenian issue==
I removed a recently made entry which you can find as following by an anonymous user. I think the first two sentences of this entry is biased and not based on established history. Ataturk's involvement in the events are not accepted by not only Turkish but also international historians. - Cansın 2.24 20 May 2005 (UTC)
:"Atatürk also oversaw the genocide of Armenians and other ethnic minorties within the new Turkish state. While Atatürk's involvement  is generally denied by most modern Turks (as is the entirety of the Armenian Genocide) it is widely accepted by historians outside Turkey. However recent evidence suggests that, in some Armenian dominated areas of the former Ottoman Empire Aremenians were also proponents of genocide, albeit against ethnic Turks."
::Atatürk was nothing remotely close to eastern front. I'd love to see the sources. If a global genocide was the case why are there ethnic minorities around? --Cool Cat My Talk 23:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot understand why the two people who have posted on this issue are so intent on denying that genocide is part of turkish history and that kemal ataturk wa11s a genocidal maniac, as hitler was. Facts prove that he was part of the genocide, most historians agree that the turks, lead by ataturk for part of the many genocides that they have committed, have committed genocide. It is a fact that the turks committed genocide against Greeks and Armenians. It is a fact that the genocidal maniac ataturk, not at all suprisingly regarded as a hero in turkey, played a huge role in those genocides.And by the way "Coolcat," as to your question as to why there would still be ethnic minorities in turkey after those genocides, then why would there still be many Jews in Germany after the Holocaust, as there still are? Make no mistake- ataturk is on the same evil level as hitler. It is an embarassment to Wikipedia that the truth about his evil actions is suppressed in the extremely biased article about ataturk in this "encyclopedia."
---------
Wow! Now that is a biased and one sided remark!! I reccomend that you really look into the validity and neutrality of your sources, before making such statements. Your remarks prove that you are one-sided and not too bright...
Let me start with a response to your ignorent comment:
'I cannot understand why the two people who have posted on this issue are so intent on denying that genocide is part of turkish history and that kemal ataturk wa11s a genocidal maniac, as hitler was. Facts prove that he was part of the genocide, most historians agree that the turks, lead by ataturk for part of the many genocides that they have committed, have committed genocide. It is a fact that the turks committed genocide against Greeks and Armenians. It is a fact that the genocidal maniac ataturk, not at all suprisingly regarded as a hero in turkey, played a huge role in those genocides.'
You tend yo use the word 'facts' a lot... but may I ask you where these 'facts' are... They sound more like allegations to me. Which fact exactly PROVES that Ataturk was a part of the GENOCIDE? Please tell me I am dying to know...
Secondly on the Issue of these historians you mention, many the Armenian'historians' consist of big names, not necessarily anof y proven authorities in the field. These people include fiction writers,congressmen concerned mostly with securing relection their.
Infact many of the most prominent historians in do not cosider the events in question as a Genocide. For example the esteemed middle east history proffesor Bernard Lewis (Princeton University) contends that these events should not be called a genocide. Other historians who attempt to look at both sides of the story are harrased by Armeinans!!! How does that help people find answers!?? 
Let me tell you more about other historians, bullied by extremists Armenain extremists bombed the house of Professor Stanford Shaw at the UCLA campus, a well-known history scholar, because he refused to go along with their revised version of history. 
In any it is absolutely ridiculous to make a connection between Ataturk and these events, he was a little bussy at the time with other matters... Unfortunately it is common for Armenians who tie their entire national identity to this so called genocide to try and link Turkish Republic to these events by slandering Ataturk. It is absolutely ridiculous to compare ataturk and Hitler... are you mad! You are probably using the quote by hitler alledgedly saying 'who remembers the Armenians' before orchestrating his plans of exterminating the jews. Prominant Neutral Historians have found no record of such a statement, and since its reliability is highly questionable it is not used by unbiased historians.
Now lets move you your ridiculous statement that Genocide is a part of Turkish History, and that Turks orchestrated genocide against Armenians and Greeks:
Lets start with a look at Ottoman history, since you sound like such an expert on the matter!! When looking at the armeian debate you need to look at Ottoman history during the pre and post world war I period. During this period we see a nationalist movement, where different nationalies in the vast empire struggle for independece (nation-state concept was a popular ideal at the time. First nationalist movements take palce in the Balkans where the Greek nationalists revolt in an area where they were a majority and were relatively strong. As a result more turks died during the greek independence than Greeks(hardly a genocide!) Consequently Greeks succesfuly won their independence. Other nations in the balkans revolted for independence where they were a clear majority signifinant numbers of turks were again killed and they gained independence. Following this trend the Armanians made an unwise move by pursuing armed sturggle for independence in an area where they were not a clear majority (as was the case in the balkans) and as a consequence both turks and armanians were killed.(in this case more Armanians than turks as a result of the balance of power situation in the region.)
Having said that it was not the intention of the Ottomans (and Ataturk is not even in the picture at this point) to eradicate the armanian race...as was the case for Hitler. Infact they were not ordered killed(and ther is no evidence of an order to kill armenians.) The officials were orderred to moved the civilan population to avoid ethnic conflict and along the way unfortunately many people died.(get familiar with malta tirals) It is undeniable that this was tragic but thats the conditions of the time in that part of the world. Turks themselves all over the ottoman empire were faced with the similar tragic events. In fact as a result of heavy civilian casualties when moving population, the Sultan had three officals in charge executed- hardly a move by someone intending to orchestrate genocide.
And I am really curious how any of this is relevant to Ataturk. What kind of twisted logic and skewed information do you guys use to bring these events to the 1920s, to make a link between the Turkish Republic and Ataturk. Ofcourse I am aware of the advantages of linking the Turkish Repulic to the alledged genocide, after all Ottomans are long gone.. and Ataturk's Turkey is whats left behind. So if you want some sort of compensation or hold irridentist stakes, the political advatages of pointing fingers at Ataturk's Turkey are obvious.(After all Armenian Constitution clearly states a desire on Turkish territory!!) 
The shame is that history is being reinterpreted and skewed to fit political agendas and people like you are practically brainwashed push these issues. All anyone knows or hears about Armenians is this self-created, self-promoted 'victim' identity, main pillar of which is deep hatred, resentment and enmity towards Turks and Ataturk. I would really like to know more about Armenia as a country and a people.
--Blwidey 18:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: This sentence sounds highly POV:
:"divided identity — Europeanised but not quite European, alienated from the Islamic world but still a Muslim country."
I say, it is a unique identity. "Alienated from the Islamic world" is subjective, in what way is Turkey alienated? Of course it is immensely different than most of the islamic countries, but calling it "alienated" is a bit stretched. "Europeanised" also sounds weird, of course Turks are not anglosaxons if that's what is meant to say, but instead of "europeanised" I'd prefer "westernized", a term that does not have ethnic connotations. 
I propose to remove this sentence, it is POV and it is not clear what it tries to convey.
I suppose that the sentence tries to convey that the forced upon Europeanisation has it's downsides. But I agree that it's POV and should be removed. DodgeK 04:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkish Identity

message: An anonymous user added this to the "criticism" section of the article. I added the  template to the top, and moved this text here. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
[The so called criticisms listed on this article are severely biased and lacking historical accuracy. For the sake of civilized discussion this editor is not erasing the aforementioned work but, is hereby protesting its author. This editor is also calling on proper historical channels to revise the statements here .]
:Turkish nation is very proud of Atatürk, but it is clear that devout Muslims and many Kurds hate him. Remember that he was a nationalist and he enforced the Turkey for Turks idea. Many Muslims think that he demolished khilafah (islamic state) and that Atatürk hated Islam. It is clear that these unregistered users trying to delete "criticisms" section are one-sided Turkish nationalists. This article must be NPOV and with "criticism" section. Just imagine stalinist-POV article about Stalin or nazi-POV article about Hitler in the spirit of "our great leader, critics are revisionists". Just try to criticize Atatürk in contemporary Turkey. -- Darwinek 11:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: I added the Treaty of Kars to the article, sorry if I forgot to log-in while I did this operation, it was me anyway ;) Regards. 
Virgilio 22:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty of Kars 

message: The page move today was wholly inappropriate.  Atatürk is known either as "Mustafa Kemal" or "Kemal Atatürk," but he is never known in English as "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk."  If you had bothered to read the talk page, you would see that this was already proposed, and there was no consensus to move. (Most of the yes votes were added several months after the vote, BTW).  john k 00:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Would someone like to explain how Ataturk in 1915, fighting in Gallipoli as a commander about a 1,000 miles away from the deportations in Anatolia, is personally held responsible? Also removing the Armenian genocide link which has nothing to do with Ataturk, removing POV statements placed by person who believes neutral is accusing Ataturk of involvement in a genocide. --E.A 19:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ataturk held personally responsible for Armenian genocide"