Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 3

message: We know that Turkish National Assembly was declared after Cuma Namazı, in English Friday Prayer.This ritual of worship is one of the most important requirements of Islam religion.Also in one of his speeches he said that: Communism is the greatest enemy of Turkish people.It must be crushed whereever it's seen.Because we are nationalists and thankful to our religion.We are such nationalists that; we are allied with who are friendly, and we are hostile against who are enemy.
These sayings can be found in the archives of 'Anıtkabir'(which is the tomb of Atatürk in Ankara. mausoleum.)
This information proves that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was not an atheist.But it's still a fact that he absolutely believes in laicism.
What you are talking about is a misinterpretion of Atatürk's quote. You can find the original version in TGNA's secret session records.--Hattusili 14:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atatürk's irreligion 

message: Coolcat, i have to say i preferred the old version of the 'Criticism' section. I find most of the second paragraph of the Kurdish section to be mostly out of place in this article which is why i removed it earlier. Also, "Some Armenians accuse Atatürk responsible of sanctioning an Genocide against Armenians (Armenian Genocide)." I have never come across this allegation before, as i asked earlier on this discussion page, how could Ataturk sanction a genocide, when he was a thousand miles away fighting as a commander in Gallipoli? --E.A 18:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look I do not believe in neither what the Armenians or Kurds claim. I did not add anything new. All I did was restructure existing text. I admire Atatürk personaly. --Cool Cat My Talk 18:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, I cannot see any sane way Atatürk was responsible. I do not know how to aproach it. Armenian claim or Armenian propoganda? --Cool Cat My Talk 18:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You dont have to approach it anyway, the only people who accuse Ataturk of such things do so out of spite. I'll edit the page. --E.A 19:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Kemalists army have run to Alxandripole, destroying the entire place, the Soviet Records contain the Alxandripole investigation, which report a preliminary 50 thousand killed, from conditions which left later 150 thousand death in that particular region. Karabakir moved to Karabakh with the ultimate plan to destroy any possible construction of a republic of Armenia. He wrote in his memoirs, "Armenia... destroy for eternity." Also, the Armenians that were remaining in Cilicia, have been evacuated. Also the Kemalist regime has retransfered the hundreds of millions of German gold mark worth money which were secured, and which were looted from the Armenian deportees, to secure the construction of the Turkish republic as well as paying the war debts to the allies. It was also because of Ataturk that the Court Martial was dissolved, and also he reintroduced criminals duirectly implicated in the Armenian genocide in his administration. It was also on his regime, that Talaat got a monument on the Hill of liberty, and murderers and butchers had schools, streets on their names, and their families recieved large somme of money. Those are few examples of what the Kemalists were accused of, and which are also recorded in history. Again, I am glad to see Coolcat again showing how dishonest he is, and how he is so good at the art of double talking. "Look I do not believe in neither what the Armenians or Kurds claim." and "I agree with you, I cannot see any sane way Atatürk was responsible. I do not know how to aproach it. Armenian claim or Armenian propoganda?" From the same person that claimed: "I did not have any real pov on Armenian Genocide either. Just what I heard from a few people in short convos. My edits on any of these articles do not show any pov." For the arbitrators. I guess Coolcat lying on the arbitrators faces. Fadix 15:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, Coolcat is comparing an organizations website, with a racist website, which is known to entirly fabricate quotations. One more recent one, was discovered by a German member here in Wikipedia. Mr. Coolcat, can ignore my rants, but what he can not ignore, is that this position do exist. Fadix 21:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the ANI website doesn't accuse Ataturk of sanctioning a genocide, it just dresses up the fact that he re-hired some of the people accused. --E.A 20:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Halil, from prison declared having killed 300 thousand Armenians with his army in the East, he was freed thanks to the Kemalists, the next thing you get, is him embarked with Karabakir for a new mission in the East, the same, as is writen in his memoirs that has planned to kill Armenians to the last individual. The German General Paraquin coudn't even believe Halils intend so horrible it was. And it isen't only a question of re-hiring, Ataturk did it by purpouses, when he forced Malta prisonners releases by threat of ill threatment and attempt for the life of British prisoners, and when they were freed, and some escaped, he re-introduced them in the Kemalist administration, and purpously gave some charges on Armenian matters. The Turkish delegation, having amongs them such members, have threatned of cannonating Ani entirly to the ground if what they asked was not done, and they even declared that that would be just a start. Fadix 21:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I see so we can write to this extent, meanwhile can you revert back to my version commenting out the criticisms you feel need to be discussed? Is it possible for us tho discuss this on irc? --Cool Cat My Talk 20:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It is also said that, when he was buried, the earth did not accept his dead body, which people believed because he was such a sinful person and was pushed off on to the surface at least two times after burial. Later it is reported that, this man was buried in a concrete like coffin. Axif 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coolcat edits

message: I don't have much time checking all his edits, but I suspect possible vandalism, and possible reverts of his edits might be required. The contributors of the article could perhaps take a look at his edits? Fadix 15:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a discussion about this in the latest archive which was quickly overrun by the argument about the name of the article.  70.151.110.126 and related IPs have inserted the "Some Facts" section, which is, as far as I can tell, a nationalist tract aimed at discrediting Kurds and Armenians in general to marginalize the criticisms section.  I'm not an expert, but statements like "are Zaza and Kirmanci primitive languages consisting of hardly 150 words each with no common words; Zaza is divided into three and Kirmanci is divided into six separate dialects within themselves" are quite obviously ridiculous.  IMHO, this whole section is one the article can most definitely do without. siafu 17:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that this article will never conform to the Wiki standards. Turks consider the man like their gods, and they'd protect him before they do for Muhamad, the founder of Islam. Fadix 18:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well Mohammed didn't found our country.And mind you,Islam isn't strong here as it is strong in Middle East.We are a people a lot away from their culture.And personally,I am a secular humanist,and Kemalist.My salvation doesn't lie in "holy" texts,revelations,chants and prayers.It lies in secular prosperity,joy of life,opposite gender,social peace and security,and science.--CAN T 09:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why this article should be held to a lower standard than any other. siafu 19:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think only the choices of pictures alone, show how the Turks consider him. The article has two pictures of his statue, and the principal picture is the well known Ataturk picture watching to the sky. They have his picture in probably every street in Turkey, and  probably there are as much, or even more of his statues than there are Mosques there. Even Taner Akçam, the Turkish intellectual who recognizes the Armenian genocide and wrote books about it, consider Ataturk as such a symbol(others like Bertkay, another Turkish historian that has the same views as Akçam has such views too). You can poll entire populations around the world, and you'll find no people that have such a national figure beside the Turks. If you think that this article will be neutralized like the typical Wikipedian article, you are, I'm afraid, naive. They won't even see what is wrong, when POV, such as "the savior of the Turkish nation" are introduced. There was a Turkish law, which talking bad about Ataturk, would make someone land in a prison, it is called : Crimes against Ataturk. You can talk bad about Islam in Turkey, you won't be bothered by the authorities, but if you criticize Ataturk, good luck with you. Fadix 19:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the man is revered and protected does not mean we as wikipedians should abandon WP:5P.  There are laws against criticizing the government in many nations (there have even been such laws in the United States), but that doesn't stop the wikipedia from producing articles that are NPOV. siafu 21:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck then. :) Fadix 21:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well einstein, it is natural that no nation consider their own leader as big as Turks consider Atatürk because there is noone like him. This may take you awhile to understand :)
See: WP:Vandalism --Cool Cat My Talk 20:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible vandalism by anonymous 70.151.110.126 user

message: The tone of the article, especially the National Liberator, and Legacy sections sounds too biased. Yodakii 17:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, rewritten. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, your modifified version is not encyclopdic. Fadix 21:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Pre-Islamic culture of the Turks became the subject of extensive research which proved that, long before their Seljuk and Ottoman Empires, the Turks had already created a civilization of their own. Atatürk also stressed the folk arts of the countryside as the wellspring of Turkish creativity.
I don't see when the Sun theory has ever been proven. http://www.azargoshnasp.net/~iran/recent_history/pan_turkist_philosophy/turksteachnewtheories.htm Fadix 21:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ataturks history foundation 

message: The article currently notes that he strongly discouraged, but did not formally ban, the veil. I have always heard that this was done by requiring the veil to be worn by prostitutes, causing 'respectable' women to avoid it. Does anyone have any solid information to confirm or refute this? Rhialto
Ataturk administration banned every item of clothing that obscured the face and identifying features (veils included) in government offices, schools and similar places (which is a practical decision rather than an ideological one). If you look at the War of Independence era pictures of Ataturk and people (women) around him, you will see, while headgear covering the hair was used, no one used veils or similar articles of clotihing that obscured the face. The use of veil in the early years of Islam fits what you said, but it was respectable woman who wore the veil, not prostitutes, and it was again a practical decision, not something dictated by the religion itself. --Deniz Hoyman 13:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ataturk and the veil 

message: This has been proved. Atatürk was muslim.
I'll give you some examples in Turkish and translate them than into English:
"Oysa Atatürk'ün dinle ilgili görüşleri açıktı: 'Din lüzumlu bir muessesidir. Dinsiz milletlerin devamına imkân yoktur. Yalnız şurası var ki, din Allah ile kul arasındaki bağlılıktır. Softa sınıfın din simsarlığına müsaade edilmemelidir. Dinden maddi menfaat temin edenler iğrenç kimselerdir. işte biz bu vaziyete karşıyız ve buna izin vermiyoruz. Bu gibi din ticareti yapan insanlar masum halkımızı aldatmışlardır; Bizim ve sizlerin asıl mücaddele edeceğimiz ve ettiğimiz bu kimselerdir. Hangi şey ki, akla, mantığa, halkın menfaatine uygundur; biliniz ki, o bizim dinimize de uygundur. Eğer bizim dinimiz aklın mantığın uyduğu bir din olmasaydı, mükemmel olmazdı, son din olmazdı'"
Translation:
"But Atatürks thoughts about religion were known: "Religion is something important. A nation without religion can't exist. But it is very important that religion is a band only between Allah and the believer. The brokerage of the Softa class (translation from www.seslisozluk.com: 1.)Any one attached to a Mohammedan mosque, esp. a student of the higher classes of Theology in a mosque school|2.)Fanatic adherent. Blind follower of a cause) can't be allowed. People who use religion for their causes are disgusting. As you can see, we are against this and we won't allow this. People who used religion like this fooled our folk; this people are against whom we fought and will fight. You have to know, everything that is suitabel to reason, logic and the advantages and needs of our folk is suitable to our religion aswell. If our religion (Islam) wouldn't be suitable to reason and logic, than it wouldn't be the most perfect, the last religion.'"
From "Kemalizm, Laiklik ve Demokrasi" (Kemalism, Laizism and Demokracy) by Ahmet Taner Kışlalı, Page 31.
Again, there is written in page 31:
"Atatürk başka bir kanuşmasında da şöyle demektedir: 'Temeli çok sağlam bir dinimiz var. Malzemesi iyi, fakat bina yüzyıllardır ihmal edilmişdir. Harçlar döküldükçe yeni harç yapıp binayı takviye lüzumu hissedilmemiştir. Aksine olarak birçok yabancı unsur ve yorumlar, boş inançlar binayı daha fazla hırpalamıştır.'"
Translation:
"Atatürk said in another speech: 'The base of our religion (Islam) is very very good. The material is very very good ,too, but the building wasn't carred for for hundreds of years. As the plaster dropped down no one thought of rebuilding it and no one saw the importance of strengthening. On the contrary, a lot of foreign elements and comments, empty believes got into it and damaged it even more.'"
I'll delete the sentence which says he was atheist and will add this.
:Hey, what is going on here?
I've proved that he is muslim and I have given you a picture that proves that, and you change it again?
What are you doing? Who changed it?
Aquilion 18:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, neither of the statements (or the picture for that matter) is, as you say, "an unambiguous declaration of [Atatürk's] religion". Nonetheless, as the quotes are relevant, I have left them there, but have—in addition to revising the poor translation—added provisos to their worth in the form of various "this would seem to indicate"-style phrases, etc. Hopefully, this will not only clean up a terribly messy section of a perennially messy article, but also will at least nudge the section/article just a bit closer to being NPOV. Saposcat Talk 10:36, 18 October 2005 (GMT +02:00)
Yeah, first of, please excuse my bad English. This is just my school English, I never went to the USA or the UK etc. and I'm not a native speaker.
Second: Atatürk said these things in speeches. You can go to Istanbul and Ankara and search the archives. You'll find the documents.
Then, you can see him PREYING. Why should he prey if he wasn't muslim?
84.190.110.222 17:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Firstly, don't worry about the English; at least you supported your argument with actual quotes, which is to be commended. Secondly, I'm in Istanbul and have seen bits of these speeches before (though not necessarily in the archives), as well as the picture of him praying. My own personal belief is that he was not a strong believer in Islam, though he does seem to have been to a certain extent. As personal belief has nothing to do with an encyclopedia article, however, I didn't just summarily delete your contribution, as I believe others have done. On the other hand, there are many reasons a political figure such as Atatürk might pray (or better, be seen to pray) if he was not Muslim, or at least was not a strong believer thereof. That is why I added those "this would seem to indicate"-style provisos. Saposcat Talk 07:22, 20 October 2005 (GMT +02:00)
Thank you for the help.
84.190.118.130 14:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Atatürk was muslim

message: This article should be deleted now. This is way too POV, and biased too much towards Ataturk and his "wonderful" reforms. There is little mention of the many who were opposed to him or criticised his views, and faults of his reforms and such. Kurds, Armenians, Fundamentalist Groups in Turkey, Arabs and so on, disagreed with him. Also, this article seems to glorify too much his successes and downplay his faults and wrongdoings. I think there needs to be a better balance here. Also, I'm no historian but is there any reasons behind Ataturk's reasoning, I mean sure Democracy can work, and it is better to change and modernize as the Ottoman's had lost alot of power. But why is he so damn bent on removing Islamic influence from every aspect of life, becoming so Western and ruining a great Empire's famous way of life and traditions? What good is alcohol bans been lifted, or telling people to dress "European" going to do to improve your crumbling empire. I searched alot on the net but I can't find any reasons behind his motives to totally seperate Religion and Government and embrace everything Western. His actions betrayed everything the Ottomans stood for and worked and fought all those years for. Some of his reforms make no sense, by changing your language and alphabet, so your nation has to learn how to read and write all over again, and culture, your making Turkey loose it's identity. I get the feel he's out to 'attack' everything Muslim that influenced Turkey. Granted, the Sultanate was weak and corrupt and so was the government, which was a good thing he did, but his bans on Traditional clothing, allowing Alcohol, banning Religious Learning, and so on, what's his deal?!?!? He was Muslim, but not a very good one, I'd say he was "Observant" that's about it. He drank like a maniac, thought women shouldn't wear Hijabs, closed Koranic Schools, didn't pray regularly and tried to pass himself off as a good Muslim by making big publicity stunts when he visits the Mosque. He was sham.
Basically, I want to know:
What were the reasons behind his reforms, especially those that allowed almost no Islamic Influences in Turkish Government and way of life, and introducing Western ways of life into a nation with no history of such things (Latin Alphabets, Alcohol,etc.). Why was he so opposed to everything Islamic?
:What you say disgusts me. Back in Ottoman Empire there was Seyh-ul Islam, or "Padisah's Islam advisor", who checked if Padishah's decisions were according to the Islam. And they were one of the many reasons that brought downfall of the empire; their corrupted and wrong knowledge of Islam made the army obsolete, made the public scared and always under the sword, and many times they just decided what is in their own interest. 
:When Republic was formed, one of the goals was to seperate religion from any aspect of the nation, because eventually at one point they would clash and make administration difficult. Language was hard to learn, only few selected could learn how to read and write in Arabic and also the literary languate (Ottoman language) was much harder. He brought an alphabet that is easier to write with, and promoted education, for both sexes. He changed the way people dressed because of the entire religious implications; this country, believe or not, features Christians and Jews too. And there is no reason for one to wear Hijabs, except for those who have a maniacal devotion to Islam, to a point where almost brainwashed, the type that hijack planes and crash into towers.. That was what Ataturk tried to evade bring equality, make religion a way of life in subconcious level. But yes, they are still strong, many wear hijabs today but not because they choose to, but because they are afraid of their family. They are afraid that their fathers, or brohers, might murder them if they take their turbans off. He banished religious education because it was biased, and again, corrupted. And yes, today there are still illegal Quran schools and they fill kids' mind with nonsense. 
:The problem is not the religion, Islam is quite possibly the best religion in the world, actually from a stand point they all are. But when people who always think of personal interest started making decisions about merging Islam and daily life, it didn't just destroy the empire, it also now made eeryone hate the religion as it is. Many Muslims in Turkey do not practice, because it became a showcase for fanatics. If Ataturk could really finish his work up on Turkey we would still have people who go to Namaaz five times a day and still considered 'modern'. The changes are not "Western", they are just "modern".. Basic: don't let religion take over the government to make all things fair. He also tried to bring religion to more people by making all things Turkish, like making the Azan and prayers Turkish, because one of the most fantastic aspects of Islam in Turkey is; everything is in Arabic. Oh how very effective, I go to Mosque five times a day and speak in a language that is not my native language, and eventually get a free-pass ticket to heaven? 
:Ataturk loving is maybe exaggarated but eventually every country needs its martyr.
::I do agree that some kind of NPOV needs to be attempted, but the Original Posters ideas quickly turned into an Koran filled rant about how everything Western is 'decadent' and everything Islamic is 'the straight and narrow'. Mentions of his alledged role in genocide of the Greeks I agree with, but no one can argue with his domestic reforms, they were harsh, but they were damn necessary as well.
I would have to agree with the first post. This guy destroyed Islamic culture in Turkey and made them read the Adhan in Turkish of all things. Sure he tried to modernize his culture, however in my point of view the West has never been a prime example of "culture." Also, Arabic is Islam's and the Quran's main language. If you have a problem talk to other hundreds of thousands who read it in Arabic and hear their prayers in Arabic, but also read the translations. I could keep going on, but basically form my POV Atta Turk destroyed the Islamic culture and religion in Turkey. Problems always come to religion when ppl try to innovate.--DoomsElf 01:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing we don't have to go by your POV, then. siafu 02:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too Biased and Atatϋrk loving.... 

message: User:Cool Cat has told me that all photographs of Ataturk have been declared "national heritage" by the government of Turkey, and are thus presumed to be in the public domain.
Is this accurate? Can we create a template stating that explicitly, so as to label all the Ataturk photos on WP? DS 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: One important criticism of Atatürk is his ban of headscarves from public institutions and schools. When you consider a significant number of Turkish women wears headscarves (more than half I'd say, based on my own observaiton) such a ban is a violation of human rights. This ban is indeed criticised by international human rights organisations. According to Human Rights Watch, "This restriction of women’s choice of dress is discriminatory and violates their right to education, their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and their right to privacy." (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/turkey/2004/3.htm)
However, the article does not speak of these critisicms clearly. When it speaks about any critisim, it tries to downgrade them by saying they are articulated by "some people, especially fundamentalist Muslims". Surely, most critics of headscarf ban, neither the human rights organisations, nor the majority party in the Turkish parliament are "fundamentalist muslims". The author fails to mention such important organizations and parties criticising Atatürk, but he underlines "fundamentalist muslims".
In order to defend Atatürk's often criticised ban on headscarves, the author says "Also, today, even the European Union Human Rights Court and the United Nations have found it legal to ban religious clothing in Turkish universities." This remark lacks references. It is one of the biased parts of the article, not good fit for an encyclopedia, maybe good for a secularist newspaper article. 
The main question here is, why should Turks wear foreign clothing, why can't they chose to wear their traditional clothes? It is asked by many Turks and many foreigners, and it worth a fair place in an article about Atatürk. Filanca 20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Clothing