Talk:Criticism of Atatürk

Untitled

Page added to Request for Comment. --A.Garnet 21:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Were it that the subject were alive, I would categorise this as an "attack page". It is certainly POV, making no attempt to offer a balanced view. I lack the expertise or background myself to correct this, but in any event, I challenge the propriety of an encyclopaedia conating politico/religious polemic. --Simon Cursitor 12:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, i compressed the body of this text into more encylopedic terms in the Ataturk article. Accusing Ataturk of sanctioning a genocide is a personal attack which is unfounded. --A.Garnet 14:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I already addressed the issue, this is more than accusations. The co-founder of the Turkish human right organization, Ragib Zarakollu wrote an article in July about those introduced in Ataturks administration.

Ataturks lunching of war agaist the republic of Armenia, in the so-called war of independence ended up with the Alxendripole investigation, which reported such destructions a large village nearby the city, which population was 80% under age 12(orphans for the most part) populations entirly destroyed. The Kemalist attacks are reported in various books, including Melsons Holocaust and Armenian genocide comparative study published book. While I have clarified this to you, you still maintain on supressing it. It isen't because you consider Ataturk as a god, that you shall supress the critics or throw them as claims by "some Armenians."(in this cases, you even want the deletion of the "some Armenians.") Besides, don't wonder why a critic of Ataturk get an article, you are part responsable of this, when you have decided to supress them in Ataturks entry. Oh and, please read Wikipedia policies. Fadix 18:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, it was you that highlighted me to the fact that as much room should be given to minority views as is held by academics. What you are accusing Ataturk here is that he sacntioned a genocide like Hitler sanctioned a genocide. This is a totally fringe and extreme view, and i am not suprised that it is you backing it. As for suppresing criticism of Ataturk, that whole section was a big mess. Even the defense of it that Kurds dont exist was a mess which i was ashamed of including in the article, if you notice i have included a section on Ataturk entitled "criticism of reforms", this in my eyes is written in much more encylopedic terms. I was not against including criticism of Ataturk, i was against including this page which was as big as the article just to appease fringe views held by yourself and Greeks that Ataturk sactioned a genocide. I dont worship Ataturk as a God, so please refrain from insults. Also why do you refer to the war of independence as "so called"?

This article isn't criticisng Ataturk for the people he introduced into his administration, its directly accusing him of giving orders to slaughter people based on their race, this is derogatory propoganda used only by Armenians and Greeks. If villages were burnt and people died this was the result of the war of independence to reclaim land which was taken from Turkey through the Treaty of Sevres, not a campaign to exterminate a race. --A.Garnet 19:02, 2 September 2005

What academic do you mean? The recent official biographer of Ataturk is Mango, who is a Turk, and is acting as a nationalist. While there are various works regarding the Armenian genocide, there is yet to be published a book on Ataturk life with all impartiality. Did you really read Mangos book about Ataturk? It is quite boring it isen't even a biography proper. A biography is not only, which people Ataturk knew, etc... So your comparaison doesn't make much sense in this cases. The entry about Ataturk is about Ataturk and the critics, and even Mango record his problems with alchool and women, which were real problems and very relevant when treating his last years of life... this is missing in the article. Also, what is missing is the foundation of Ataturks History foundation that sent "researchers" around the world, more particularly in Sourth America, to "prove' that the first human beings were Turks, and that Europeans still ignore Sumerians being Turks. Those are really relevant informations, since I can cite names of Turkish scholars that adhere to such theories and beliefs as we speak. It is also the same Ataturk historical foundation that innitiated the theory of Kurds being Turks and which justified the supression of anything that could permit Kurds to "practice" their Kurdishness, on the pretext that Kurds should regain back their lost origine, which of course Ataturk claim to be Turkish. I am sure that you know the theory of Kurds remaining too long in montains isolated from the rest, to the point that their Turkish language has been modified. The theory of Mountain Turks was also initiated from those ideologies.

A large number of people introduced in the Kemalist administration by Ataturk were the authors of the Armenian genocide, Sukru who was the head of the Armenian concentration camps and the commander of the restricted branch of the special organization who was charged to butcher Armenians, was made by Ataturk, the minister of the interior and secretary general of the party. Ismet Inonu who replaced him, was directly implicated in the Armenian genocide, those are documented and not only claims, Inonu when he took power signed later and agreement to transfer Talaat remains from NAZI Germany, and building a monument on the Hill of liberty(where Talaat is burried), in his memoirs.

Had the Russian revolution not arrived, Ataturks army would have had destroyed what is now the republic of Armenia, with at the leading had, Karabekir moving his army to Baku, and slaughtering Armenians to the last individual, like Halil the oncle of Enver write in his memoirs having attempted to do.

Having said all this, I hardly see how, you could think that even a line on the article about Ataturks role could be displaced, when in Smyrna entry you just added what Greeks have done OUTSIDE of the city, while you want to remove what Ataturks army did in Ataturks entry. A last thing, the article say "a genocide" not the genocide, since various scholars in the field believe that the second phases of the genocide happened under Ataturks army, this "claim" is relvant to be included regardless or not you find it a lie. And please, consider that statments like "derogatory propoganda used only by Armenians and Greeks" have no place here. Fadix 19:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, the only biography i have read of Ataturk is Kinross, and he certainly doesn't accuse him of genocide. I haven't read Mangos but if he did accuse him i'm sure it would have been all over the place by now. Also please dont try and discredit an author because he does not criticise Ataturk as much as you, Mango lived in Turkey till 18, that doesn't make him a "nationalist". Besides i have seen you use proof of the enclopedia of genocide as a credible source for Turkish denial and so forth, yet i only realised that those articles are written by Rouben Paul Adalian who is director of the Armenian Assembly of America. Hardly a neutral source.

With regards to Smyrna, its only fair to give a balanced view of the attrocities, Wetman removed the reference that the deaths were sporadic and re-introduced the graphic description of killings which in my eyes was an attempt to skew the paragraph. In the interests of fairness i introduced a quote which goes a long way to explain why the Turks may have carried out attrocities.

And no, i wont consider attempts by Armenians and Greeks to introduce fringe views to discredit Ataturk anything other than propoganda. --A.Garnet 19:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not criticizing Mango because I don't like him, but because his book was really flawed, at least I am not doing what Mango did when he wrote a critic of Balakians book by criticizing the genocide theses rather than the book itself(Should not be surprising since he is an "abassador" of the Turkish-Greek relation and is acting more as a politician than a researcher). It isen't a biography proper, it is Ataturk the symbols life rather than Ataturk as the person Mustafa Kemals life. Besides, Kinross had since the book dismissed many things he had written, starting with his description of Smyrna after adhering to Dobkins thesis. Comming to the articles, no, this isen't really true, Israel Charny provides Lemkins writtings, and studies of the special organization, German complicity, etc... are subjects out of Adalians study field(encyclopedia of Genocide), the same goes with Universalis, the same for Encarta, why don't you discredit the article, just because one of the co-authors happens to be half Armenians? If you're trying to discredit the work, by thinking that bringing a writer with a family names ending with a ian, I'm afraid that using your own standard, you will have to throw away a large body or research which treats the Holocaust, because they are writen by "Jews." You can not discredit someone by reffering to his ethnicity, this is not how it works. Adalian, limits himself by presenting research in the field, and the text he writes for encyclopedias are NOT personal research, much like my contribution in the Armenian Genocide entry is NOT personal research.

About Smyrna, you know your allegation against Wetman is unfounded, Kinross was not removed by him, and you know it, he reverted your supression, and the version he reverted to, was the one just after your change which did not include Kinross. As for the balancing, of course you do balance by throwing Greek crimes outside of the City of Smyrna, that the entry is supposed to cover, and on the same time try to dismiss, delet critics of Ataturk in Ataturks own entry. Holly cow, I still wonder what sort of NPOV policy on neutrality you are adhering to here, when in the same time as quoting Greek crimes outside of the City of Smyrna(and again, in the entry treating the city in question), you delet criticism of Ataturk. I'll give you something though, and it is that the critic was not written in accordance to NPOV policy, but still you had nothing to say when in the critic itself there was a counter answer of the critic, when this same "counter answer" method was not used elsewhere in the article.

Lastly, I repeat, this sort of statments have no place in a serious discussion... I have shown, it isen't a fringe, the next time you say this, I'm gonna load a series of works treating what I am reporting and which you still repeat being a fringe. Fadix 20:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What matters here is that your accusing Ataturk of genocide, something neither of his biographies mention, something neither Britannica or Encarta mention (or Universalis?), something no court has ever accused or found him guilty of. If your information is not fringe please explain why none of these sources mention Ataturk sanctioned a genocide. I'm placing this page on request for comment because i can't be arsed to waste my time reverting.

Also, do not accuse me of suppresing information because i disagree to one sided graphic accounts of attrocities being included, and no i was not aware Wetman reverted, i asked him to clarify why he removed the Kinross reference and he did not reply, therefore i assumed he was skewing the paragraph, my mistake. --A.Garnet 21:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Like if a court decision or any sources decision would make a difference for you.(considering that the court cases in the cases of the Armenian genocide did not)

Those were his words: "...we need to destroy the ... Armenian state, which still festers the body of our country like a cankerous growth." Put Novoj Turcii, Mustafa Kemal, Vol, III, Moscow, 1934, p. 314

To do this, he has reinserted butchers and mass murderers in the administration, Yves Ternons book cover this, Melsons book even provide an estimate of the number of Armenians having died under Ataturks attacks, Dubkin work covers it, the same work that Kinross later adhered to the view of. You claim that it isen't in the biography, obvious, most people writting about Ataturk deny the Armenian genocide in the first place. Even the article in Universalis about Ataturk is writen by Mantran, do you even know who he is? He is an Ottomanist and a known revisionist. You are requesting by using authors, that don't even recognize the Armenian genocide, and you expect them to criticize Ataturks crime against the Armenians. Dr. Panzac is an authority of Ottoman history, a rare one in the field that don't recieve grants from Turkey financing systems "granting" researchers in the field. Why don't you contact him and raise the question to him? But don't even expect getting the answer you would have from Mango. Agar calls in his book, Ataturks regime as fascism, which obviously is when checking the definition of the word. Ernst Jackh, who was a know Turkophile also in his work discribed such a regime. Comming to the Armenian cases, the book I also quoted previously in Wikipedia, from Christopher Simpson, mention Kemals embraced the Ittihadists which contributed to renewed massacres. Peterson in his book raises the issue too. And here, I am even not covering the burning of Armenian quarters in Cilicia, needer the burning of Smyrna that still is denied to these days. I can start reffering to others who wrote books about the issue, but you'll still repeat it to be a fringe, when IT IS NOT.

Now about Wetman, assume good fate, did you had any experiences with him before, to judge him of supressing the information? Before I started doubting about your conduct, it took me witnissing you supressing in three articles. I isen't much asking for you to do the same thing. As for the "one sided" account, again, I repeat, the entry was about Smyrna, you tried to "balance" what was reported in Smyrna by adding about what Greeks did outside of the city. Fadix 01:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Ataturk was trying to rid Turkey of all countries which tried to partition it until the border lines agreed at Sivas were reached. Therefore it does not surprise me if he said the Armenian state (not Armenians) must be destroyed. Ataturk was trying to rid Turkey of the political entity that was The Republic of Armenia, not the Armenian people

Have you even read any of the authors I have named? What I am telling you is that Ataturk got Halil released from prison during the martial court and sent him in the East with Karabakir. The same Halil that from his prison cell was saying that he killed with his men, 300,000 Armenians and that he will be trying to get every Armenians to be destroyed. The same Ataturk that took British prisoners and made death threats if the restrictive circle of Malta prisoners that the British refused to release(because of their direct implications in the extermination of the Armenians) were to not be freed... and that he planned an escape of some of them... because he needed those butchers on his side against what he called a "war" against Armenians. You have no clue of what you are talking about, I name authors after authors to show you that this is not a fringe, and you still claim it is untrue, like this could justify the deleting of information. Let me again clarify this up for you... the Kemalist army excurtion in Armenia, was NOT in Ottoman land... Alexandripole was in "Russian Armenia" they were to move in Yervan and pulvirising the entire Armenian population. This ended when the Bolshevic red army took over that pieces of land. Kemalist army excurtions in that land made more Russian Armenian victims than the entire World War I. Fadix 16:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Now you are also discrediting every author who writes about Ataturk without accusing him of genocide; Mango is a nationalist Turk, Kinross denies the Armenian genocide, Mantran is an Ottoman revisionist. Well whatabout Brittanica and Encarta, are their authors revisionist also? And like you said, is it uncommon to get a Turk to write about Turkish history like it is for an Armenian to write about an Armenian genocide? --A.Garnet 11:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Discrediting? Well, since most Western scholars in the field who are not related in any Turkey founded institute of so-called Ottoman studies, it is the other way around. You are dismissing those that implicate Ataturk in the destruction of Armenia, the destruction of the Armenian quarters in Cilicia BY BURNING them... the Alexandripole investigation can be found in Soviet archives, for the Eastern front. While you admit not having read Mango, you still accuse me of doing something you are in no position of doing... neither Mantran. It is hypocrasy at best, to try to accuse me of something you've been doing with your silence when I cite authors, one after the other. As for Kinross, I don't see how I am discrediting him, I just said what he has done, when he read Dubkins book, he changed his position. Comming again with Mantran, do you even know why I call him a revisionist? Do you even know what happened in Collège de France(the issue was published in Le Monde and Libération). Gilles Veinstein founded a chair of Turkish history at "Le Collège de France" to then, hold that chair himself with a premedited support of Bazin and Mantran and get direct grants and fundings in French universities, similair to the ARIT and ITS, but proper to France. Veinstein holded the chair with just one vote differences, he was majority with one vote. Do you know why? You can not dismiss one position and get it deleted from Wikipedia, only because you use authors who write about Ataturk and who deny the Armenian genocide in the same time. Since those Authors who deny the genocide are a minority, and by doing so, you are dismissing the majority view. Fadix 16:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Please dont say "you do not have a clue what your talking about", see Wikipedia:Civility. You are right i am not an expert on Armenian history as i have said on Armenian Genocide talk page before. But i will rely on Kinross, Mango, Britannica, Unversalis, Encarta, The Economist, FT, Reuters, BBC and TIME, all who have never mentioned Ataturk as sanctioning a genocide. --A.Garnet 16:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

And I rely on history books while you rely on newspapers and articles written by Mango, Mantran etc. As for my comment about you not having a clue of what you are talking about. Since you admit not knowing Armenian history, I don't see how me saying you don't know the subject at hand is not a civil thing to do. Fadix 17:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Islam worst traitor - Mustafa Kemal

In 1920's Mustafa Kemal with the help of the British became the hero. Hmm, well, this so-called hero canceled the authority of the most powerful system suitable for human beings. The Khilafah !!! He abandoned all the rulings of Allah. He did not stop there. He abandoned the Adan in Arabic, he denied Muslim sisters from obeying Allah (SWT) by abandoning the Hijab. All Islamic calendars and holidays were canceled. Yes brothers and sisters. He changed the Arabic alphabet to Latin. By doing so, he made sure the next generation will be lost and have no connection to their Islamic roots as they can not read and write all the Islamic culture that was recorded. This Islamic system sent by the Creator of Alameen went from the application in life to be in museums for people to go and see in Turkey. - Darwinek 20:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't be offended, but all that you have written here is pure nonsense. They have little to do with what has transpired in reality and seem to be the result of an extensive brainwashing process. The way you bring them forward resembles a parrot's feeble attempts to imitate speech. While I am still not sure whether this crap is worth taking seriously, I still advise you to abandon your pitiful fanaticism and learn some facts before vomitting out your insults here. --Pipifax 12:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I am from Turkey, and I lived there for 22 years. I visited most of its regions and there are mosques at every city of Turkey without any exception. People pray Allah without any restrictions. 99% of the population are muslims. The thing you lack is the understanding of 'the real world'. Religion is something that must strictly be kept away from governmental and judicial institutions. If you Arabs -I think you are probably a stupid Arab- liked Caliphate that much, why did you cooperate with the British and betrayed The Ottoman Empire/Turkey??

You have lived in Turkey for 22 years? You seem completely ignorant of the rise of political Islamism in Turkey, and to top it all, you accuse the above poster of being an Arab, when in reality, the dominant political party in Turkey is Islamist and many of its party-members hold similar beliefs. Let me guess, next you will tell us that Erdogahn was only elected and re-elected because "stupid Arabs" crossed the border and rigged the elections? Let me remind you, the Europeans referred to the Ottoman Empire as the "Sick man of Europe"--yet before you Turks swarmed into power, the Muslims--including the stupid Arabs, were at the apex of art, reason, and thought. Let me also remind you, that you Turks will never be admitted to the EU and are seen as second-class citizens throughout Europe, especially in Germany.

References and attention sought

Much of this article is not tenable in its current state. It needs references, and I noted this with the respective tag (it also needs attention, so I noted that as well). I will give the author/s some time to reference the various sections, and urge them to review closely and adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. I'll revisit the progress (hopefuly) soon. Thanks. El_C 02:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If no references are provided within the next few days, much material will be removed until such time as it becomes soruced to something. Thoughts? El_C 21:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

As you can see the article is becoming a free for all against Ataturk. My thoughts are that this page be redirected to Atatürk's reforms where pro's and cons of his modernisation be discussed there. As it is this page is turning into a personal attack, especially claims of sanctioning genocides. --A.Garnet 23:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly wish for the pertinent contributors to review closely and adhere to the policies I outline above, especially referencially. Yes, that sounds like a sensible redirect if my aforementioned querry isn't followed by an(y) appreciable response soon. El_C 23:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Garnet, this criticism section slander more Kurds than being a free for all against Ataturk. Maybe we are not reading the same article. As for sanctioning genocide, I have cited works about this, so please stop with that. Fadix 04:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

No Fadix, i wont stop with that. What you have given me is references which show Turkish soldiers killed many people from which you are drawing your own conclusions. You have not given me one respectable impartial source which directly accuses Ataturk of sanctioning a genocide to exterminate the Armenian race. As for insults to Kurds, i tried to remove that section countless times from the Ataturk article only for it be constantly replaced. --A.Garnet 11:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Not true, I already cited Melson, who consider the Kemalist attacks, as the second stage and final completion of the genocide. Rummel in his work: "Statistics of Democide" on chapter 5, covers the Kemalistic killings, as "genocidal killing" and present it as a continuity to the Young Turks regime. Various works present the Kemalists, as the ones that consumed the Armenian genocide. While I cite, you repeat the same old broken record that I have presented no references. Fadix 18:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not about the Kemalists, this is about Kemal, the man himself. You are accusing Ataturk of personally sanctioning a genocide and your references give no indication that he personally ordered the massacre of the Armenian people. Ataturks only motivation in taking Armenia was to stop Russia from annexing it and thereby losing it forever. Kinross covers this in the prelude to the Turco-Russian treaty. And before you say Kinross changed his views, i have also read Ottoman Centuries by Kinross which was published a full 13 years after Ataturk (a year after his death) in which he covers the Hamidian massacres in depth, but again makes no mention of your view that Ataturk was responsible for Armenian massacres. You also know that Mango did not accuse Ataturk in sanctioning any attrocities otherwise you would have said so by now. It is well known that Ataturk openly condemned the Armenian massacres of 1915 and lambasted the Young Turk government. --A.Garnet 20:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

That's it. You want me to be more explicit? Is the Holocaust Unique?: Perspectives on Comparative Genocide by Alan S. Rosenbaum, Westview Press, 1996. p. 128

As if these exterminatory operations were not enough,65 the new Kemalist regime, which on every occasion publicly had distanced itself from the previous Ittihadist regime on account of its criminal activities, after a lapse of sixteen months resumed the genocidal onslaught against the Armenians. Without declaring war, Turkish General Kâzım Karabekir in September 1920 attacked the fledgling Republic of Armenia in the Transcaucasus after having secured the formal authorization from Mustafa Kemal and his government in Ankara. Illequipped, ill-trained, and ill-prepared, and additionally fractured by the infusion of bolshevik propaganda that described the invading Turks as comrades and liberators, the untested army of the Republic folded rather quickly. Two factors considerably influenced the new Turkish élan to resume the genocidal drive. The victorious Allies were set to punish vanquished Turkey for wartime crimes, especially for the massacres against the Armenians, and concomitantly compensate the Armenians. They proceeded to redraw Turkey's boundaries for the benefit of a new Armenian state entity to be created in such a way that it was to bestride eastern Turkey and Russian Armenia in the Transcaucasus. More important, many of the leaders of the invading Kemalist army were those Special Organization leaders who during the war had played a key role in organizing and executing the genocide in Turkey proper. They were now reengaged as "freedom fighters" but actually resumed their genocidal task performance in the new occupied territories.66 By all accounts that performance yielded what might be called a mini-genocide against the Armenians in the region of Gümrü (Leninakan). According to Soviet and Armenian sources, in five months of Turkish conquest and occupation about 200,000 Armenians of the region perished.67

And before you start complaining that the book is biased, know that it uses McCarthys figure of Armenian population, and also present nearly the same survivor tables.

Oh and please stop putting words in my mouth again, and I don't like that. Kinross changing of view, was something general and not specific to what we are talking about here. Kinross reporting of Ottoman crimes and dissolution of Kemalist crimes was apologistic in nature, starting with the end of 30s, 40 and 50s such books were published quite often, when the Armenian question resurfaced, and the exposure as to why the allies left the Armenians down, and why the Kemalist regime was allowed to "live." And I can cite such works too if you'd want to. But this is irrelevant here. Halil was released from prison under the nationalist order, which was headed by Ataturk, Halil was sent in excurtion in the East, and this after he testified having killed 300 thousand Armenians. You are telling me that this is about Ataturk and not Kemalists, but again, I don't see how what his movement did(under his orders) is more irrelevant in an entry that has to do with him, than Greek crimes outside of the city of Smyrna, in an entry about Smyrna. As for preventing Russia to annex those lands. How many times have I to say that Alexendriopole was not part of the Ottoman Empire, neither Kars, they invaded Russian Armenia, they've left the entire place in destruction and starvation, the Kemalist excurtion made more Russian Armenian victims than the entire World War I. The Alexandriopole report alone recorded 150,000. Fadix 01:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, if your going to accuse a man of sanctioning a genocide, then you better be prepared to find at least one reference where he has given orders for the elimination of the Armenian race. This you cannot do, because you know Ataturk never gave such orders. You are putting two and two together to get five. You think that Ataturks authorisation for the recapture of provinces taken from Turkey (Kars, Ardaham, Batum lost to Russian in 1877, regained by Enver 1918 and lost again to Allies of WW1) is somehow proof that he should be accusesd of such things. Of course Ataturk authorised the invasion, he authorised every military movement until Indepence was fully reached. You think that sending Halil Pasha on what you call excursions (he was actually an unnoficial emmisary sent to secure financial assitance from the Soviets) is again somehow indicative of intentions to carry out genocide.

BS, provide me any orders writen by Outi leaders to exterminate the Toutis... provide me any orders signed by Hitler, ordering the extermination of the Jews. What you are doing is empty talks, you try to justify the exclusion of a claim, with your personal research. You can not delet scholarly conclusions with personal research and requests. I have provided references, and cited works, and what you find better to do, is to take that materal, and think what you have to answer to discredit the theses they advance. Using this sort of logic, I could dismiss any historical event on the same basis. p. 129 On the very same day that Ankara, through a cipher telegram, secretly ordered General Karabekir to wipe out Armenia through appropriate means ( November 8, 1920), it sent to the Armenian government in Yerevan a parallel telegram. In it the Kemalist government expressed its "profound and genuine friendship" ( amik ve samimi ) toward the Armenian people, invoked the ideals of "humanity" ( insaniyet ), and promised assistance to help Armenia recover economically and achieve "complete independence and security." 69 Consistent with this proclivity for cunning and trickiness, Ankara, in its order to obliterate Armenia, had advised the Turkish general to "deceive the Armenians" ( Ermenileri iǧfal ) and "fool the Europeans through an appearance of peacelovingness. In reality, however, [ fakat hakikatde ] the purpose of all this is to achieve the objective [stated above]." And your stupid answer: You think that Ataturks authorisation for the recapture of provinces taken from Turkey (Kars, Ardaham, Batum lost to Russian in 1877, regained by Enver 1918 and lost again to Allies of WW1) is somehow proof that he should be accusesd of such things. It defy reason, unbelievable, comming from someone that consume apologistic materials calling Armenians traitors, when the accusations were about Armenians wanting back their historic homeland. As for authorization..., it also shows what kind of screwed up logic you use. Kemal used the worst butchers of the special organization, he even made Sukru, the head of the special organization and the director of the concentration camps, the minister of the interior and secretary general.

What you are doing is defamation of character to the absoloute highest degree. You cannot show any intention on Ataturks behalf of sanctioning a genocide, yet you persist with such accusations on a page created to personally attack him. On the same note why dont we create a page entitled Criticism of Winston Churchill and accuse him of genocide for the Dresden bombings which killed 100 thousand and which were carried out under his orders. Why dont we create Criticism of Harry Truman and accuse him of genocide for dropping the atomic bombs. I will not engage in this argument again. --A.Garnet 20:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

What argument? You mean monologue? Again, you fail to understand, I'll write this in capital letters. I HAVE NOT TO SHOW ANY EVIDENCES OF INTENTIONS, BUT TO REPORT POSITIONS ABOUT A TOPIC, THIS POSITION EXIST, AND IS INCLUDED IN WORKS. THAT IS HOW WIKIPEDIA WORKS. IF THERE WERE CONSIDERABLE MATERIALS(MORE THAN A FRINGE), ACCUSING HIM OF SUCH, IT HAS TO BE INCLUDED, TO MAKE THE READER UNDERSTAND THAT SUCH A POSITION DO EXIST. I THINK THAT I HAVE WASTED ENOUGH TIME TO TEACH SOME USERS WHAT NEUTRALITY IS, AND I HAVE ENOUGH OF THIS. IT IS TIME CONSUMING, AND SHOULD BE THE TASK OF ADMINISTRATORS TO DO SO. Fadix 01:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and: Some Armenians and Assyrians claim that Atatürk was responsible of sanctioning a Genocide against Armenians (Armenian Genocide) and the Assyrian Genocide.

DONT refer to what i say as Bullshit and DONT raise your voice to me again. I will continue to oppose the introduction of extreme minority views into Wikipedia. --A.Garnet 16:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

BSII..., you are in no position, as a person to oppose from original research. I have cited various works, and you are in no position to call this a minority view. Fadix 22:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Why wait? Remove unsourced material now. --Carnildo 00:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It need to be entirly rewritten, I would like to do this, but I really have other projects. I'll see what I can do. I still believe that critics of Ataturks should go in Ataturks entry. Fadix 04:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Since there is no opposition, I'll reiterate my intention to turn the entire thing into a redirect unless there is significant effort (or willingness to undertake the aofrementioned tasks, at least) in the very near future. El_C 04:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it is a good idea, at least, if the term should be redirected to Ataturks reform, and the material being deleted. For the reason that Ataturk reform is not inclusive of everything that "criticism" is meant to cover. What I think is to send this at Ataturks entry talk page, for further discussion and sourcing so it could later be added at Ataturks main page. Fadix 05:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with it, for now. Feel free to add links to this article and any info contained therein on pertinent talk page(s). El_C 05:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)