Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 9

message: Can somebody please include this picture of Atatürks Memorial in Australia? --> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:AS_Kemal_Ataturk_1.jpg Thank you! --134.155.99.41 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atatürks Memorial in Canberra, Australia 

message: Had he a religion? Muslim? Sunni or Shia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.226.234 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was a Sunni Muslim because of his family but this doesn't mean that he was a religious man or an exercising believer. He was far above the dogmas of Islam, that's for sure ;) Deliogul 13:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was named Mustafa referring to Prophet Muhammad. In all her pictures I know, Makbule Atadan, Ataturk's sister, had worn burqa. I think he was what a great number of Turks are today, Cultural Muslim. He just wanted to get the religion rid off Arabism. I don't think he was Shia, if for nothing else, because then the Islamists would know it and make use of it instead of the fact that his father had died early (calling his mother a prostitute, maybe forgetting that Mohammad and many other prophets were orphans as well, and Jesus was 'ever orphan'). Of course Shia is not any worse than Sunni Islam, and vice versa, but Turkish shia is Alevism, which is not Islam according to Islamists. denizTC 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: and my answer is he was probably what we refer today as Cultural Muslim, probably with no Alevi background. denizTC 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deniz is right. I couldn't remember the term "Cultural Muslim" while I was editing. Deliogul 13:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly as Filanca said, he was most probably a theist or agnostic; and certain modern bios consider him so. I really doubt that he was Shia/Alevi (even for background), Alevism is practically non-existant in Rumeli (as far as I know). But the Cultural Muslim thing is also kind of correct. Anyways, as Deniz said, he was primarily interested in getting rid off Arabism, if anything. Baristarim 13:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess you are crazy, the unsigned user. Mustafa Kemal's origin has nothing to do with Jewish or Spanish origins. He was a member of the considerably large Turkish population of Macedonia at the time of his birth. Actually his mother was a strong believer of the Sunni branch of Islam. As I said before, he was above the dogmas of religion. Deliogul 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion? 

message: I think this might be worth mentioning, though the way it was in the article before relied on blogs. Apparently a Belgian book said Ataturk was gay, and Greeks started putting videos on Youtube saying the same thing. Turks responded, and then the Turkish government banned the site altogether, because insulting Ataturk or Turkishness is illegal. Here's a London Times article --AW 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I added the section about the ban with other reliable sources, the BBC and the Guardian --AW 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AW, see Wikipedia:Recentism: "Recentism is the tendency by Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective...Established articles become skewed towards documenting controversy as it happens...and the relative emphasis on (more or less) timeless facets of a topic which Wikipedia consensus had previously established is often muddled". Now tell me, in ten years time, will this controversy initiated by a bunch of degenerate teens sit alongside Ataturks legacy of establishing the first secular and democratic Muslim state? For that reason, i'm removing it. --A.Garnet 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we shouldn't have anything current about him? To me, this is something about him that's happening in the modern day, and that's interesting. He still inspires strong reactions. --AW 16:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube controversy 

message: WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.190.75 (talk • contribs) 
:Done DenizTC 00:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His memory will always live in our minds but we have to accept his physical death. This "125" thing is totally rubbish. Thanks for the correction. Deliogul 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Age 125"? 

message: User Ottoman Reference has inspired me to consider introducing a number of edits to this article. I have come to admire his style and perseverence and as he has been so succesful in his approach I intend to imitate it in regards to this article and elsewhere. I am aware of a great deal of information concerning Ataturk that is not covered in this article do IMO to the extreme fawning and worshipful nature of most Turks (who have crafted it) concerning this man and what I percieve as the deliberate censoring of certain vital information that is out there that is not contained in the article or anywhere else within Wikipedia. Subjects (either within this article itself or as seperate articles linked to this article) that I am considering introducing include but are not limited to - "Ataturk's bloody legacy" - that will detail the great numbers of individuals whos deaths are directly attributable to Ataturk; "Ataturk the dictator" - an analysis of Ataturk's undemocratic political program and how it ultimatly jeaopordizes Turkey's entry into the EU; An Islamic perspective on Kemal Ataturk and his legacy; The supression (and genocide) of the Kurdish people as a result of political philosophy and policies initiated by Ataturk - with pictures of leveled Kurdish towns from the mid 1920's onward; "The beuatiful Fez and Ataturk's role in its destruction as a cultural icon" (speaks for itself); "Ataturk's initiative to destroy the first Republic of Armenia and complete the Armenian Genocide" detailed through correspondences and writting of Karim Karrabakir as well as from other observations - including an accounting of destroyed Armenian towns and villages and of course "Ataturk's afirmation of the Armenian Genocide" and eventual punishment of some of its initial purpetrators. In fact it is this latter subject that I shall no doubt work on first as part of a larger article concerning the punishment and eventual fate of perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide - a story that (Ottoman Reference has convinced me) absolutly must be told. Ataturk's pivotal role in bringing these scoundrels to justice is completely missing in the vast annals of Wikipedia and I cannot understand how decent folks who care about the spread of all knowledge can stand such a lapse. It may take me several weeks or months to assemble and source all of the relevent information - but most I already have what I need in my library - so its just a matter of me getting to it. I must say however, that you all should expect me to begin to take a special interest in this article which is clearly lacking in relevant details about such an important personage of our time on his expansive legacy. Oh and another area that should be brought out - since there is so much speculation concerning such (as Ottoman Refernce has clearly demonstrated the legitimacy in crafting article covering speculative history) is Ataturk's somewhat controversial sexual history. Good day. --THOTH 02:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "controversial sexual history" ?? "Nazi" ?? .. I have checked your so called contributions to wikipedia and I can clearly see why you are writing these. Totally nonsense. As you are a Greek nationalist, it is best that you stay away from this article.. --88.106.2.18 11:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have decided to take an interest in this article 

message: How come no one is talking about his homosexuality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.141.128 (talk • contribs) 
:Care to enlighten us? --AW 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no way of definitively categorizing one as gay unless he/she came out of the closet during his/her lifetime. Hence, it is not possible to conclusively state that Ataturk, or Alexander the Great for that matter, were gay. One's gaydar is, alas,  not enough to document historical personalities! Therefore any conclusive argument on such matters remains academic. However, is a fact that several biographers of Ataturk, including the Turkish author Irfan Orga (Orga, İrfan and Margarete Orga, Atatürk (London: Michael Joseph, 1962)) have written about Ataturk's alleged bisexuality. Needles to say, any discussion of Kemal's sexuality is not only taboo, but also punishable by law, in modern Turkey, where the cult of Ataturk remains a pillar of the state. Rastapopoulos 08:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe his wife diaries would prove that he was a homosexual, I mean think about it the guy was only married once and the marriage lasted for only 2 years and 7 months. And on top of this his former wife’s diaries and personal letters are a closely guarded secret in Turkey, 69 years after his death. What does his former wife’s diaries and personal letters contain to be national secrets? Could it be that the reason for his one and only short lived marriage be because of his homosexuality, maybe that’s the reason the circumstances of his divorce remain a closely guarded secret in Turkey. 71.222.68.128 07:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s a stupid question you pose. Apparently he was Muslim, and Muslims are not supposed to have premarital sex. And let’s hope he was not having homosexual or any other sort of relationships during his marriage. But I suspect that might be the case, and might be the result of his short lived marriage. You know there have been and are many men who are married and some even with children and families that were homosexuals and had relationships with men besides their wives. I think this information is important and should be included in this article. Take a look at Abraham Lincoln for example, there is a whole article dedicated to his Sexuality. Take a look at the article Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. 71.222.68.128 07:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality

message: Someone removed sourced content I added of the romours surrounding his Jewish background.There are so many sources and I specified that it was just a romour and has yet to be proven.Why was my edit removed?Vmrgrsergr 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A data can't be a "source" just because it exists. This is why your edit was removed. Mustafa Kemal was a member of the Turkish population of Macedonia. Deliogul 20:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is a romour? Rastapopoulos 08:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, it shouldn't go to anywhere in this article brother. We don't have place for rumors in Wikipedia. Deliogul 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You can find supportive claims for the Genocide even if those claims are subjective or constructed by sided people. So you can find something, academically, to say about Armenians but Mustafa Kemal's sexuality is totally irrelevant to the academic circles because it is the business of popular culture instead of scholars. I guess you need more than poor word tricks to convince us. Deliogul 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there are reliable sources talking about him being Jewish, gay, or anything, we should add it. The pop culture vs. scholars argument is a bogus one, this website has plenty of both. --AW 16:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can stand up and say that Bush and all his cabinet are homosexuals and they are ruling the world according to their nasty games but this would be just a useless comedy. The same thing goes for the so called "rumors" about Mustafa Kemal. Deliogul 23:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but you're not a reliable source, so we wouldn't put it in. That's my point. Anybody can say anything, but if a reliable source says something, it should be included. --AW 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Atatürk was as Jewish as I am Japanese. His mother, Zübeyde Hanım, was a Yörük Turk (i.e. Turkmen), which had a clearly visible impact on the shape of Atatürk's face, head, and considerably pronounced cheekbones. My maternal family comes from Izmir and Mytilene, both of which had large Greek populations in the late Ottoman period. But they were Muslim Turks. Istanbul's Kumkapı and Bomonti neighbourhoods have traditionally large Armenian populations, but this doesn't mean that everyone who lives there is an Armenian; actually the number of Muslim Turks living there is relatively larger, just like the number of Muslim Turks living in Thessaloniki was relatively larger than the total number of Jews in that city during the late Ottoman period (the fact that Thessaloniki had a large Jewish community is something, the notion that they were the "largest" community (which is untrue) in that city during the late Ottoman period is something else. The Turkish and Greek communities were far larger than the Jewish community in Thessaloniki, which ranked as the 3rd largest ethnic group behind these two.) The non-existent "Jewishness" of Atatürk is a favourite theme (creation) of the Islamists, who are keen on turning him into an "Otherly" figure in order to de-popularise his reforms, especially regarding secularism. They believe that branding him as "Atajew" will help them to remove his pro-secular, pro-Enlightenment, pro-Western positivist reforms, and transform Turkey into a constitutionally Islamic, theocratic state; i.e. into a Sunnite version of Iran. Flavius Belisarius 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rumors of his Jewish background 

message: Flavius, citations are taken from BBC and Australian War Memorial i guess they credible enough sources for their usage of the English language. The thing that i dont understand why you keep changing these things when many parts of the article lack cohesion and written with grammatical mistakes..
I think article needs rewriting some parts of it but some of your changes dont make things better than they originally are--laertes d 17:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement about Hitler and Mussolini is not necessary and I'm removing it. --A.Garnet 08:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-writing

message: In the infobox of the Atatürk article, the flag of the Ottoman Empire is shown as the Ottoman Navy flag of 1793-1844, with a crescent and "eight-pointed" star. This flag was never used as the Ottoman "national flag", but only as the "Navy flag". 
The first official "Ottoman national flag" was adopted in 1844, with the Tanzimat reforms, and is practically equal to the present-day flag of Turkey.
Therefore, the current Turkish flag with a five-pointed star should also be used as the Ottoman Empire flag of Atatürk's lifetime in the infobox, regarding his birth place (Selanik) and his service for the Ottoman Army.
The Republic of Turkey didn't change the last Ottoman flag of 1844, but only introduced a law to standardize its geometric proportions in 1936.
Image:Ottoman-Empire-Public-Demo.png|Present-day Turkish flags at the Young Turk Revolution in 1908
Image:Jihad 1914.jpg|Present-day Turkish flag during the declaration of Jihad in 1914, marking the Ottoman Empire's entry to WWI
Image:SultanahmetMitingi.jpg|Present-day Turkish flag during protests against Istanbul's occupation, 1919
Flavius Belisarius 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Flavius Belisarius, he is another Taner Akcam, who is not afraid of telling the Truth. It is the same flag used while Armenians were murdered during Armenian Genocide. It was a stupid argument that Turkish flag was redigned and even if they had the same "moon" and "star" they are different flags because of the placement and color. Who cares for the exact color of the red or placement of star!!! This flag is not different than Young Turks' flag that were nothing but murderers. They all have the same blood on them. Seemsclose 19:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No!! Flavius Belisarius, does not really understand these issues. "Moon" and "star" is a common theme in every established Turkish state. With this logic, there are no Turkish states but only one state through out the history of Turkish nation. That is not true. There are many Turkish states. Every flag has its own differences which makes them unique. You can not use current Turkish flag for the Ottoman Flag, simply because of these differences. Republic of Turkey after its establishment developed its current flag and on purpose used different shapes and color (Yes there is a moon and star). They are not replaceable. Hoverer Flavius Belisarius has shown many times that s/he is very quick to jump on these issues without good background. Thanks. OttomanReference 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You are wrong to claim that Turkish flag and Young Turk's flag (or more correctly Ottoman government flag) is same. By the way Ottoman Dynasty who was the monarch or ruler did not claimed that flag. Also, you do not show the basic skill to recognize and accept your mistakes. Also, you do not have the right to open warfare to everything that does not fit to your ideology. If you are claiming that you had a military training, that is not the Turkish military training, which does not include the ideology of attacking everything. That behaviour was performed by Enver Pasha did during the WWI. Attacking people does not make your claims correct. OttomanReference 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget about me!! Just look at the images you posted. The "moon" and "star" is different. If these were colored images, you would recognize that the color was a different tone. Even today, there are other national flags with moon and star, you know. These are very important points. There is a law that punishes the person who changes the standard flag. As you do not recognize the differences, do not go to Turkey. They will arrest you for deformation of the flag. I can not say anything more on this issue. If you can not recognize these things by yourself.... Have a nice day. Thanks --OttomanReference 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not joking. If you use the Young Turks' flag in Turkey, **such that you put it on a flag post**, You will be performing a punishable crime. You do not have to believe to me, try it. I guess, we will see you in 30 years after you fulfill your time. OttomanReference 19:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The flag that was used during WWI, which by the way it was not the "deportation" as you claim but "temporary relocation" of Ottoman Armenians, is not the flag of Republic of Turkey. Just stop attacking me, and hang that flag on top of your house. That will solve the problem. --OttomanReference 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That is not the flag of "Republic of Turkey" as you want to claim. Besides it is a drawing of a flag not a flag. The color is the choose of the print master not even the artist. Just hang that "thing"  on top of your house and claim it is the flag of Republic of Turkey. You will be in jail in no time. I'm so having fun. :-) --OttomanReference 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Encyclopedia informs people based on facts, not based on number of websites. The root of the argument is that flags are symbols of sovereignty. Republic of Turkey's flag and the flag in question are two different flags which represent two different states. When the law was passed and defined the exact size and shape, it was to "punish" (criminalize) who claim to reverse the republic ("gerici":brought back the old ways using the symbols of past) , not because the parliament had a lot of time in its hand and they liked standardization. At that time that flag in question was used to symbolize the politics of the caliphate and sultan (Ottoman Empire). I bet many were hanged after the law. Today they are using the "turban" as a symbol. These are two different states. They represent different things. Ataturk was a clever man. He did things in slow steps. 1936 was the right time for him I guess. You can burn the Turkish flag, they will punish you because of your political statement. But if you hang that flag on top of your house, you will be punished along the people who hang the PKK flag. A Turanci and PKK militant in the same jail!!! Many times you claimed you are a turkish nationalist, but you ignore the Republic of Turkey as a product of Turkish independence war. The flag  is related with the "sovereignty". You can not hang other states flags in Turkish soil. Exceptions do exist, such as EU, or special occasions, or anything that does not include threat to the sovereignty. In your case, you will be claiming your house belongs to another entity besides the Republic of Turkey. I guess you also deny the citizenship of Turkey. That makes sense, as you can not recognize its flag and put it higher than any other flag. Ability to accept an information is a virtue. A bigger virtue is to change. None you have shown yet. --OttomanReference 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong flag in the infobox 

message: In the article, it is stated that:
His successor, İsmet İnönü, fostered a posthumous Atatürk personality cult which has survived to this day, even after Atatürk's own Republican People's Party lost power following democratic elections in 1950. Atatürk's face and name are seen and heard everywhere in Turkey: his portrait can be seen in all public buildings, in schools, in all kinds of school books, on all Turkish banknotes, and in the homes of many Turkish families. Even after so many years, on November 10, at 09:05 a.m. (the exact time of his death), almost all vehicles and people in the country's streets will pause for one minute in remembrance of Atatürk's memory.
This is incorrect.
İnönü actually removed Atatürk's portraits from the state institutions and currency, and inserted his own portraits (the Lira banknotes of the 1940s had İnönü's portraits)
Here are a few banknotes from the İnönü era:
http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/2emisyon1T_INONU.htm
http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/2emisyon2T_INONU_kul.htm
http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/3emisyonP01.htm
http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/3emisyonP02.htm
http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/4emisyon.htm
One of the first things that the DP of Menderes did was to put back Atatürk's portraits in state institutions and the currency.
Banknotes of the DP era:
http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/5emisyonP01.htm
http://www.turkishbanknotes.info/5emisyonP02.htm
İnönü concentrated more on creating his own personality cult, defining Atatürk as "Ebedi Şef" and himself as "Milli Şef", almost on par with the former.
But he lacked Atatürk's good looks, charm, charisma and genius, therefore he had to keep his memory alive. 
Clearly not as much as the article claims, though. 
Only "as much as necessary".
Flavius Belisarius 09:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Imho, it is so clear that İnönü used Atatürk's legacy to maintain his power. He proclaimed himself as the heir of the revolution and finally he was buried next to Atatürk. Just like some Ottoman Sultans and their sons who were buried next to each other. Therefore, I think that the part in the article must be kept as it is. Deliogul 10:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim regarding İnönü's "posthumous Atatürk cult" is of doubtful accuracy 

message: There is a big translation mistake in this article.The part that saying his surname was Öz first,is a very bad translation.In the law that gives him his surname that part that is saying Kemal öz adlı means that his first and real name is Kemal.İt doesnt mean his surname is.I suggest you to change this funny translation mistake. --195.174.198.248 02:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right, I have no idea how this made its way into the article. Removed. --Kudret abi 05:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big mistake 

message: He ignored and offenced lots of islamic traditions such as abolishing of sharia,and he drinks too much alcoholic drink while islam forbids muslims to drink any alcoholic drink.Why don't muslim fundamentalists and conservatives regard him as a kafir?222.225.109.161 06:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, fundamentalists don't like him at all. Some of them say it openly and some of them believe it secretly.Deliogul 09:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why isn't Ataturk regarded to be a kafir by fundamental muslims?