Jump to content

Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

User:AW

Aw, let me make this clear, i will completely oppose you trying to create a section on genocide in this article. I suggest you go read a biography of Ataturk before you try and appease minority and extreme pov's into this article. --A.Garnet 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Minority according to whom? That section is balanced, and try Googling "Armenian genocide" + ataturk. There's a lot of refs. I don't think either argument is extreme, and even so, since when are minority or extreme views not allowed? The section in no ways he did it - it says some people argue he did, and some argue he didn't, which is exactly what happens now. --AW 19:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Look, do you understand the Armenian genocide occured in 1915, while Ataturk was a commander at Gallipoli? Do you understand there is no international recognition for the so called Pontian Greek genocide outside of Greece, yet you are trying to portray it here like it is some widely debated issue regarding Ataturk. You are misprepresenting the degree of debate concerning Ataturks invovlement in these events, since there is no debate! All you have said is "some people say this about ataturk, other say this" etc. Like i said, read a book about Ataturk before you introduce such ridicolous arguments here. --A.Garnet 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest this debate to be conducted about the article's content rather than its contributors. None of the main articles Armenian Genocide nor Pontic Greek Genocide claim that Atatürk have any responsible in either events. Thus it seems groundless to make the case here. Bertilvidet 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Bertilvidet on the first part. A.Garnet, I have no opinion on the Armenian genocide, I'm pointing out that some people attribute it to Ataturk, rightly or wrongly. As for recognition, the Pontic Greek Genocide pages say some US states have recognized it too, but whether countries recognize it is beside the point, as some people argue that he was the instigator. Whether or not you or I think these happened is not the point, the point is that he is cited as the person who led the genocide. The best we can do is provide arguments for and against and remain neutral and unemotional about it, which I am trying to do. --AW 19:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes AW some people do, but do academics? Is there a notable academic debate on his involvement? You will not even find a monograph on the Pontian Greek genocide, yet you are prepared to implicate Ataturk in such a thing. Do we appease every Greek and Armenian who comes here shouting genocide? --A.Garnet 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think only academics are allowed to have opinions on the matter, and I have not looked for academic reports on either side, pro or con. Also, I hadn't broken the 3RR, that was my 3rd revert and I have since gone to the arbitration committee. I think the debate is important and should be included. Numerous other people on the talk page have requested it. --AW 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You reverted Hatusilli once, you reverted me twice and you reverted Bertil once, thats 4. On such a historical issue, yes it is verifiable academic sources we rely on. --A.Garnet 20:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The Hatusilli one he only removed a couple links. I hope the arbitration committee can deal with this, I don't understand why a sourced, balanced statement is removed anyway. --AW 20:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to Awiseman's version. i can't understand why some users object in criticism... Come on people! since when is someone above criticism? even the article's about Christianity and Islam are criticised, redardless of the religious beliefs of the various users... And u expect an article about a political figure to say only "good things"?! this is not a hagiography, u know... It is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. it would be better for the turkish users to focus on the good things Kemal is supposed to have done, and not try to eliminate every single thing they do not like from the article. and remember: noone own's the articles. Hectorian 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to point out that, there is not a single mention of Atatürk in the Armenian Genocide article, which is very well maintained with about 60 references, and the Pontic Greek Genocide article, again well referenced. If there are accusations of Atatürk being the perpetrator of these events in any way, I would expect at least some to appear in these articles, which are referenced from the new section as the main articles. Atilim Gunes Baydin 10:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Pontic Greek Genocide article mentions him in the first sentence. And in any case, the content of one article doesn't mean that something can or can't be in another article. --AW 19:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No, let me be clear that I'm not saying that it can't be mentioned here just because it's not mentioned in the Armenian Genocide article. I'm just saying that if there is a direct reference from the Atatürk article to the Armenian Genocide article as the main article of the newly included section, which says there are some who think "he is involved", the natural thing to expect is to find at least this same, and normally a more broad, mention in the main article (Armenian Genocide). Atatürk's name is mentioned in the Pontic Greek Genocide article only for referring to the period, and the article again doesn't include any allegations for him. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense, I removed the see alsos, though I suspect the whole section will be deleted by A Garnet as usual. --AW 20:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The section was not 'balanced', there is no discussion if he instigated anything. Greeks have always had a beef with Ataturk for some reason, even though i respect their opinions, i would rather that this didn't turn into a battleground of some sorts to settle those scores. And no, armeniangenocide.org is not an impartial source either. Even then, I haven't heard any armenian blaming ataturk for anything, so i really fail to see the relevancy here. Additions have to be sourced, balanced and impartial but they also have to be relevant. Baristarim 21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Armeniangenocide.com isn't a impartial soruce, but neither is ataturk.org, the source I used for the defense of Ataturk. That's the point, the sides disagree about it. --AW 21:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Look.. Additions have to be relevant before anything else. See my post below. First it is relevant, than it is balanced, than it is sourced, than it is added. That's the logical order. Even the Armenians don't claim that Ataturk was responsible was AG, so I fail to see why it has made its way into his BIO. There are other relevant articles like AG etc. Besides, i don't understand this weird tit-for-tat either.. When did I say that ataturk.org is impartial??? They are both not impartial, i thought that was a bit obvious. So you are basically saying that that section was standing on a bunch of completely partial sources? That's my point. Baristarim 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Armenian National Institute says he was behind the genocide. They are Armenian. --AW 22:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, really now? Do you have any impartial academic sources to back up that allegation? Perhaps the fact that he was fighting in Gallipoli as a sub-commander in 1915-1916, which is 1000 KILOMETRES away from eastern turkey raise a few eyebrows??? And what are the sources for these allegations?? "They said so". Well that's good. I mean, we are not writing a brochure to be distributed in the main square of a university campus you know.. Baristarim 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You are completely twisting my words. I never said you said Ataturk.org was impartial, nor did I say the Armenian National Institute was impartial. You said "Even the Armenians don't claim that Ataturk was responsible was AG" and I responded that the Armenian National Institute said it, and they are clearly Armenian. Thus, I was saying your statement is incorrect, some Armenians said he was behind it. That's all I said there. --AW 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There could be much more true criticism of Ataturk, 'he was a strong man, he didn't like religion too much etc.'. That would be relevant. But to add criticism, and to even to highlight his opinions and acts about events that he is no way responsible for, is only an effort to give increased coverage to certain ideas. That's political activism. Hectorian, I have no problem with criticism, but they have to be much more relevant instead of saying that "he would be behind bars today for somethings he said back than". that's not relevant bio info, it only aims to criticise turkey as it is today, and as such belongs to relevant articles about turkey, not ataturk's bio. That's all.. Baristarim 21:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You obviously missed the point of that quote, that wasn't a criticism of him at all. They were saying it was a good thing, basically. --AW 22:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Evidently, you have never read Der Spiegel. But that's beside the point. You still haven't explained how that quote is RELEVANT to his BIO. It is a criticism of Turkey as it is today, and a misplaced one at that. If you can find someone who was actually sentenced in Turkey for saying that AG was a genocide, please bring it to me. I would love to know, coz there haven't been any. Trials that have been opened coz of private complaints and that have been declared not valid are not the same thing. Again, pls explain to me how all this is relevant to someone who died SEVENTY years ago. It wasn't a criticism of him, i am not stupid, i can see that. It was a criticism of Turkey, i don't have an IQ of 20 u know. :))) Therefore, it is not relevant to the bio of someone who died 70 years ago. Baristarim 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I read that quote as them defending him for saying it, but I guess how you could take it as a criticism of Turkish politics today or something. If you want to take that quote out and leave the rest, fine. But the 70 years ago thing makes no sense to me - only things written 70 years ago about him can be included? --AW 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Because that quote was written primarily to criticize today's Turkey. Second of all, of course we can include things written about him even if they were written today, but only if they are relevant to his biography, not to current Turkish politics. Don't want to get into a nitpicking debate on that, I am sure that we can all agree that that quote had nothing to do with Ataturks' life. By the way, Ataturk never said anything that would get him behind bars, he never said that there was a genocide. I read that speech to the parliament in question, nowhere in it he refers to the events as a genocide, democide or whatever. But that's beside the point anyways. Lastly, and no, it doesn't make sense to include a section only supported by armeniangenocide.org and ataturk.org, are you kidding me???? Since when is that encyclopedic?? Please get some serious academic work that supports the claims made, and it can be put forward. Just because there are some people out there who think that way doesn't mean that they can be given undue weight. And no, extreme viewpoints can only be included if it is made clear that they are so. Please have some common sense. Baristarim 01:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
AW, the problem is your misrepresenting the degree of academic support for each of your arguments. Few non-partisan sources accuse Ataturk of genocide, while many accuse the Young Turks, but you present both sides as equal and "balanced" like both are just as credible. That is a misrepresentation of academic opinion, and its academic opinion we base articles on. Not websites with agendas. --A.Garnet 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
A.Garnet, is u said, and i guess noone will seriously disagree, the Young Turks are considered by most as responsible for the the Armenian Genocide. however, there were links between the Young Turks and Kemal, right? The Young Turks who lived long enough to witness the coming into being of the Republic of Turkey saw many of their ideals realized - it was a regime based on a popular materialistic-positivist ideology and nationalism (more in the respective article). Apropos, prior to 1919, Ataturk was unknown, holding no power at all? The Young Turks seized power from the Sultan ‘Abdu’l-Hamid II in 1908, and Mustafa Kemal became a senior military figure (from this article). also, in 1916, he was in the Caucasus, the "theatre" of the Armenian Genocide). Perhaps this is were the allegations concerning him are based... But this is not much of a point, nor it is our "job" to say whether they are right or wrong... The encyclopedic view is to present them, and let the readers decide... (I am not saying anything about his connection with the Pontian Genocide, cause I know that i will be accused as "partizan", for i am Greek...). To Baris: Greeks have always had a beef with Ataturk for some reason: do not pretent not to know the "reason". since u say later on that you respect their opinions, don't try to wipe them away. Personally, i found Awiseman's version quite balanced, and i reverted to his without modifying it (had i written the section myself, i would had been rather vitriolic...). Lastly, i consider the proposal: There could be much more true criticism of Ataturk, 'he was a strong man, he didn't like religion too much etc'., as really laughable:)... Since when we criticise someone cause he is/was strong and cause of his religious beliefs? we criticise acts, i guess... BTW, seriously speaking, shouldn't there be a mention allegely accusing him for the Great Fire of Smyrna? there is info in that article and the historic fact was of major importance... Will i be reverted if i add it? (as for the someone who died SEVENTY years ago, i know that, others want to believe that he is still alive). Regards Hectorian 00:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If there is to be a proper criticism of Ataturks policies, then it will be those concerning Islam and Kurds. They are the most verifiable criticisms. The rest are allegations --A.Garnet 02:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
When talking about 'criticism', we also include allegations. What u said about Islam and Kurds (maybe i am wrong, but i think u are refering to the abolition of the Caliphate and the Turkification attempts on the Kurds) are not allegations, but facts, and thus, i find little place to be disputed or to stand a reasonable criticism. These should go to a section about reforms and confirmed political acts. as for what i have said above, since allegations (whether we like it or not) exist concerning him and the Armenian and Pontian Genocides, as well as the Fire of Smyrna, they have a place in an encyclopedia like this. btw, i posted a comment on AW's talk page, about other acts of him [1], concerning the Treaty of Lausanne. but before, i would like to know (cause i may be wrong), if the President of Turkey is the one directly responsible for educational affairs. i think that he is according to the turkish constitution. Hectorian 02:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
We include verifiable facts Hectorian. "Greeks say this, Armenians say this, Turks say this" - this is not what an encylopedia is based on. And for the record, "Turkish pride" has nothing to do with this, I have myself created a whole section in this article for criticisms relating to Kurds and Islam, only for it to be deleted, so dont try and dismiss my revert of AW's edit as simply "Turkish pride", if we want to look at "Greek pride" on the other hand, people should look no further than your userpage (I didnt know Hitlers admiration was something to be proud of ;)). I will get back to this tommorow. --A.Garnet 02:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict - Well who is responsible doesn't neccessarily matter since he was in effective power when he was in office. The president has a largely ceremonial role, but that's only today. Back when Ataturk was in power I think that Constitution gave him more powers, but even that doesn't matter since he was, as i said, in effective power. So, yes, you can attribute it to him.. And I will definitely agree with you on that, closure of Greek schools in the two islands is a very legitate criticism to make (with regards to a violation of the Lausanne). You see, that's what I am trying to say. The criticism has to be concrete with a graspable scope. "he has been accused by the Armenian National Institute for involvement in the AG" is not academic nor valid enough to warrant an inclusion. But yours is a very legitimate one.. Look, all I am saying is that we are nearly seven billion on this planet, and I am sure that we can even find people or groups out there who will claim that Ataturk was a prophet, or a possessed by the devil. Therefore we cannot just include allegations, bring in facts pls like the one about the Greek schools. that's all.. Baristarim 02:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Baris;-). but i have to point out that this law of 1927 is not something that the Greeks claim it happened, but something that indeed happened... (btw, i think that still the President of Turkey is in charge of Education and one more field, but can't remember which one...). as for the Armenian Genocide, and what the Armenian National Institute states, it can be mentioned under the words "according to..." (this way it would not harm anyone, since a reader will understand who and why claims that. To A.Garnet: it was u who mentioned "some sort of Turkish pride" in AW's talkpage, not me. on the contrary, i said that i do not want to think that it is cause of that. and, yes, i am proud that i am Greek, and my userpage, as u say, illustrates this perfectly;-). however, i am open to criticism... As for what Hitler had said, oh yes... when even your enemies and murderers praise u, it is a big deal! (btw, i also have a quote from Stalin, and i do not like him either...). Cheers! Hectorian 02:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Ataturk

Many people have said this article does not include criticism of Ataturk, including User:Baristarim, User:Hectorian, myself, and this person, [2]. I would appreciate some mention of the criticisms about Ataturk and I think we can all work together to do it. I won't be starting it, seeing the furor I raised with what I thought were reasonable and balanced edits. --AW 22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Whow, whow.. Don't be twisting my words to make it look like you are at the helm of some rigthous majority against the evil warriors of Central Asia. I said there could be much more academic criticism. What I never said was there should be criticism just for the sake of it. This attitude of trying to make Wikipedia a tabloid is really not beneficial to anyone. There are thousands of books written about ataturk, including many impartial and serious bios. Get some sources from them, not armeniangenocide.org or ataturk.org. That's all I am saying. Since I have no problem with particular aspects of his character that could be 'criticized' (i am talking about his character, so that doesn't mean that i would approve if he had done something 'unjust', just to clarify). Right off the bat, I am an atheist, so I have no problem with him not liking religion. But I could see how that could be a sticking point for some. Don't twist my words. Baristarim 02:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
And as for what you said Hectorian. There was nothing laughable about what I was trying to say, I was just trying to say that his use of heavy-handed tactics can be open to criticism, and same for religion that I just mentioned above. As for what you have mentioned about him being in the Caucasus and all, fine, if you have any proof that he ordered the killing of Armenians then include it. I would like to remind you that for all his involvement in the Armenian Genocide, he made an Armenian, the president of the Turkish Language Association after the foundation of the Republic. So there goes that demagogic argument about him wanting to kill all Armenians or something. I am sorry to have to call it demagogic, but it is true since the way some people talk about him, they make him sound like an SS officer, and I am sure that anyone with an IQ of 20 would agree that an SS officer would not have made a Jew the president of the German Language Association. I am sorry for my harsh words, but in the face of such frivilous allegations, there is no other diplomatic words I could use. Baristarim 02:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to get into this kind of comparisons, but since u brought that up, would Hitler ever use a Jew as the perfect German soldier? it seems that he did... Hectorian 02:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, one of the things I like in my involvement in Wiki is trying to match wits with you :)) You are a very knowledgable person and have a good command of the subject matter even though I might not agree with your interpretations :)) I don't know what you do in life, but you could consider being a lawyer or a politician u know (well, i don't know if being a politician is a commandable thing for a big number of cases :)). Just so that you know, there is nothing personal in what I am writing, just the usual Mediterranean banter. :)) Baristarim 03:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks:). Reading comments like these from u can only be received as a compliment:). in real life i am in the literature field... i found it more interesting. politicians are liars, and i hate lies (especiallyt mine!). as for the laws, i find them far less interesting than literature (u may disagree with me, since u are an international lawyer-we can't agree in everything). never is something personal with me either. it would be stupid to comment personally on people we have never met, seen or talked in person. only comments on ideas and edits, is what i do. Southern Europeans... oh, we are impulsive and loud and hot-tempered, so, i can understand:). Hectorian 04:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fully Protected

Until all article content disputes are resolved, this page will be fully protected, which means only admins can edit it. Nishkid64 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring/disputes

Can anyone answer the following questions for me??

  • 1. What is the cause of the edit war/dispute?
  • 2. Would mediation be a solution to this dispute? If not, how else can the dispute be resolved?
  • 3. How can we avoid these problems in the future??


If you can answer these questions, I will get some insight into why there is a revert war, and as an uninvolved user, may be able to help. Thanks, --SunStar Net 01:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I can, the cause is that there is no incluion of Ataturk critics. I followed this page long ago, at first there was a critic section about him, and this caused much debates, it was then sliced to creat FORK, and deleted, obviously because it was a FORK.
Much if not all the critic involve his decisions regarding the Kurds and Kurdish issues and all the thing surounding Islam, since those are not included, it would be unfair to bring the Armenian genocide issue here, which inclusion is secondary compared to what is clearly missing on here. Any neutral article about Ataturk can not skip the Kurdish issue like this. Fad (ix) 05:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that Ataturk had absolutely no role in the massacres (and there is more than ample proof for this) there is a clear attempt by a band of armenian/greek wikipedians to discredit him now that they have succeeded in completely whitewashing the armenian "genocide" page with their hard core propaganda rubbish. If you go visit that page you will notice that it is exempt of any criticism. So no pun intended but I find it rather funny that this organized bunch of revert warers are now focusing their attention on Ataturk for the sole purpose of provoking. lutherian 07:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The Armenian genocide article contain a large section including the anti-thesis, while this article had not any criticism section before Garnet worked on one, which was sliced and then deleted under FORK. Most of the the official critics have more to do with the Kurdish issue, Islam, his problems with women, his drinking problem etc., it is convinient for you to limit the critics to the Greek/Armenian issue. Fad (ix) 18:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, we all know that the armenian "genocide" article is a monumental joke shaped entirely by hardcore sympathizers, you yourself criticized it several times. The point of the matter is that those who are pushing for a more balanced article here are not doing it in good faith and the proof of that is in the armenian "genocide" page. lutherian 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know much about the subject but it would be fair to include critics of the subject involved, as to not include them would be a POV-based article. In my userspace I have made a copy at User:SunStar Net/Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and you can edit it to make the required changes, when you can agree on them. --SunStar Net 10:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well then you should know that the critics of this topic are the same ones that are preventing all criticism/counter argument from the armenian "genocide" topic page. I dont see why they should be allowed to add their venom given that they are certainly not here in good faith and there is ample proof to that. I also find it highly unfair that an admin decides to block the page right after complete rubbish and irrelevant material has been added. lutherian 11:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Stop pretending the critics limit to the Greek/Armenian issue, and I repeat, there are sections on criticis on the Armenian genocide article, there is none here. Fad (ix) 23:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I will say that the basis of the dispute is the fact that some one is trying to insert a section supported by two of the most impartial web-sites on the net, armeniangenocide.org and ataturk.org, while calling this choice of extremes a "balancing act". I am sorry, but that is neither academic nor serious, and just won't cut it. As for the lack of criticism part: I cannot say this loudly enough to non-Turkish Eastern Mediterranean editors: A big majority of Turkish editors, particularly ones that are a regular part of the Wiki have absolutely no problem with the criticism of Ataturk, of ANY KIND, whatever the subject matter. If he has ordered the killing of Armenians or he ordered the bombing of a mosque or whatever, talk about it. If he has said that he thinks that Islam is an evil religion, say it. But what we do have a problem is the fact that certain criticisms that are sneaking in are not academic in the sense that a) they don't come from impartial academic works, philosophers or biographies, but instead coming from certain political organizations of today with today's political considerations that have nothing to do with Ataturk or b) they are the usual repeat of old schoolbook banter that has been taught throughout Eastern mediterranean about how Ataturk was an evil guy blah blah. Look, the whole thing comes down to the issue of proof. We cannot just include criticism for the sake of it. For example we can talk about how Ataturk's secular reforms led to curbing of religious influence and still leads to conflicts, or how his Turkification policies alieanated many Kurds and etc. But please don't just come in here with the usual coffee-shop rhetoric "yeah, he hanged them all like a bunch of animals, didn't he?" or "he was a barbarian, he was..". I am exaggerating obviously :)).. But what I am trying to say that many Turkish editors are willing to help with the development of such a section, but let's just keep it academic and back it up from quotations and infos from impartial bios etc (i say bios, so that we don't take things out of context and misinterpret like that weirdo Der Spiegel quote). That's all.. Baristarim 22:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, we meet again fadix. --Cat out 23:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a very good comentary (that all here should heed). BTW I think Taner Akcam has documented the Ataturk quote concerning the Armenian Genocide and included a greater portion of his speech then one ussually see presented elsewhere (if this is the same Der Spiegel quote you are refeering to - not sure).--THOTH 00:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I notice that you frequently quote losers, Taner Akcam is a terrorist thug who doesnt even have a proper degree and you obviously give him enormous credit because he is a turk who sides with the "genocide" thesis. lutherian 06:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No I give him credit because the quality of his analysis and the foundation of fact which it is based upon. The references in his latest book - A Shameful Act - The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility is really quite impressive. It is a book that every educated Turk should read. You obviously discount him for reasons of no legitimacy and can only counter him using ad hominem attacks. --THOTH 07:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)--THOTH 07:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As the mediator of Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-15 Ataturk and genocide, I think the paragraph on genocide should be removed unless more credible sources can be used for reference. While Wikipedia is against censorship, it also desires the highest quality of articles possible. Serious charges (e.g. genocide) need to rest on solid ground. Trusted sources in print should be used to reference such claims.Shawn Fitzgibbons 15:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

how convenient for the haters

Right after the "genocide" insert, the topic is blocked! Coincidence? I dont think so! Very similar pattern to the way the armenian "genocide" propaganda page was shaped! You armenian/greek haters have no right to demand a more balanced approach to this topic, especially considering the concerted effort you put in keeping the armenian "genocide" topic extremely biased and one sided. 62.203.140.107 09:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I kinda agree.. I am always trying to assume good faith, but that seemed to me way too suspicious. Baristarim 21:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Not just Ataturk, even cuisine(Turkish coffee) related articles are under some kind of sick attack, which are by the way all somehow refers to Greeks or Armenians as source, the same users are editing as you can guess of course. This is an effort to discredit Turkish people and Turkish culture. It is just another proof of anti-turkism and hos sympatically it is being taken, I am expecting the same kind of response from wikipedians which would be given to any kind of political agenda here, if not taken as racist behaviour.--Utku a 16:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment

About the "opinions on genocide" section. The Der Spiegel link is interesting. Although the "opinions on genocide" section should be merged into the section where it discusses his time in command of the military. - Francis Tyers · 11:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How is that even relevant? That quote was said to criticize Turkey's current state, it was not a comment about Ataturk primo. I am not even going to get into the fact that that quote was completely false, nobody in Turkey has gone to prison for desribing the events of 1915 as genocide, in fact there are many books published in Turkey, in Turkish, that call it a genocide. Seriously, some people need to get their head out of the sand, and stop acting like ostriches. And no, he would not have gone behind bars for saying those things, even today, so that itself is not a valid statement. If you claim the contrary, please show me one person who was actually sentenced to prison for that. But that issue notwithstanding, that quote is completely irrelevant since it is about Turkey today, it has nothing to do with Ataturk's life. In any case, a section supported by two very impartial sources, armeniangenocide.org and ataturk.org has no place in wikipedia. That's all I am saying. Baristarim 21:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Didn't Ragib Zarakolu's wife gone to prison for translating Yves Ternon's work? Fad (ix) 23:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
How is your comment in any way relevant to this article? --Cat out 11:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It was at least more relevant than this. [3]. Fad (ix) 18:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I am really uninterested in discussing this at all since I do not think a constructive discussion is possible.
I also question the objectivity of sites such as armenian-genocide.org nor do I see the relevance of armenian geoncide to this persons biography. He may or may not have been involved... This is probably interesting trivia at the relevant article (an article talking about peoples involvement to the Armenian genocide), it is content forking here.
--Cat out 23:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to know...

is Antonio Banderas going to play Ataturk in an upcoming film? I've only heard rumours about it. 61.68.138.164 13:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Mert Akgul61.68.138.164 13:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, he chickened out after being threatened by armenian/greek racist thugs in the U.S. lutherian 16:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL... there is a Greco-Armenian conspiracy... we threaten world leaders and actors and singers... haha! laughable! How about that: Banderas read some history and decided not to play that role? Hectorian 16:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
yeah, and elephants can fly lutherian 06:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess banderas has a fair point in not wanting to play the role, thanks for clearing that up. 61.68.141.13 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Mert Akgul61.68.141.13 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi everyone. I think most of us can agree with User:SunStar_Net, who says "I don't know much about the subject but it would be fair to include critics of the subject involved, as to not include them would be a POV-based article." After some discussion with User:Khoikhoi and others, what do you all think of this? I think the title of the section should be called simply "Criticism." Thanks to Khoikhoi's advice, I put it up front what sources say what, I removed the quote some people complained about, and I added a link to the Denial of the Armenian Genocide.


What do you think?

These are the links in the footnotes:

--AW 02:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Pontic Greek "genocide" is a term without academic backing. It is not recognised outside of Greece, and the only reason for its inclusion in Wikipedia is the hard earned effort of a few stubborn Greek editors. So i will not support the inclusion of such a view.
  • The whole section is completely and factually wrong. The ANI does not claim the Youn Turks planned and Ataturk carried out a genocide.
  • Overall, the section is a mess, no academic basis to it, just a bunch of confused allegations, of which - without meaning to be personal - you seem to have no understanding of.

Let me address those:

  • 1- How about "so-called Pontic Greek Genocide". It is recognized elsewhere, see the article. And whether or not you think it happened or that it's a genocide, other people say he did it.
  • 2- Yes they do: "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) was the founder of the Republic of Turkey and the consummator of the Armenian Genocide."[4], and "The decision to carry out a genocide against the Armenian people was made by the political party in power in the Ottoman Empire. This was the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) (or Ittihad ve Terakki Jemiyeti), popularly known as the Young Turks." [5]

--AW 17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
* Evidence of an allegation, allegator itself. There is a Turkish saying "Şıracının şahidi Bozacı" which define this case.(Sorry I couldn't translate to Eng. I hope some user can do). Your last effort give an overall idea that all of your allegations is totally fail,sorry. MustTC 17:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

According to dictionary, "Şıracının şahidi Bozacı" means "The witness of unfermented grape juice seller is the thick fermented grain drink seller. LoL. Metb82 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with A.Garnet here that this proposed section is factually worng and should not be included as it is presented. I also don't see why a section called criticism is necassary - where appropriate within the context of the other sections there should be criticism (if thats the word) as long as it is either academically or historically supported. In this regard there is no way to directly link Ataturk with the Armenian Genocide per se (as it is known 1915-1918 as commited by the CUP/Young Turk government during WWI). What I think does deserve note is Ataturk's role in supporting the campaign of Karabakir against the Armenians in the Caucuses (including Ataturk's desire they they be utterly defeated and driven out of Eastern Anatolia) and the associated ethnic cleansing (of Christians) commited by the Nationalists during this time (throughout Anatolia). This was a fundemental part of the process of "Turkification" of Anatolia that enabled the formation of the Turkish Nationalist state (as envisioned by Ataturk). Likewise I am not sure that Ataturk's comments concerning the Armenian Genocde (guilt of the Unionists in commiting "the terrible massacres" and such against the Christian population...etc) - really warrents inclusion in this article at all. It seems to me to be in the noise - not direct to the point of the noteworthy things done/accomplished by Ataturk - nor even one of his more noteworthy or memorable quotes. I do second however - the issue brought up concerning the Kurds. It is important that this issue be treated as the (defeat/repression of the) Kurdish led Islamic counterevolution was a significant event in the formation of the Republic and (Turkish public opinion against the Kurds) was a key factor in allowing Ataturk the leyway to do away with the Caliphate once and for all as well as impose restictions on Islamic expression (in language, dress, customs etc) within the Republic (and the subsequant flare ups and supression of the Kurds in the 1930s should also possibly be mentioned). I also think that the presence of ex-CUP among Ataturk's advisors and as key early officials of the Republic (and his rational for accepting them at this time even over his personal animosity towards many of them) and his eventual moves agianst them (including moves against some of his former close allies and friends at the same time - such as Karabakir) and why - and his seizing of the full reigns of power during this period are all crucial to his life and legacy and of his role in the formation and evolution of the Turkish Republic. --THOTH 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Many other articles about world leaders have criticism sections, like Elie Wiesel and George W. Bush. And what's factually wrong about it? The things that A.Garnet pointed out as wrong I quoted exactly where they say it. In any case, the section is for criticisms, not necessarily proven facts. People criticize Bush's handling of the Iraq war, but those criticisms aren't necessarily "facts", they're opinions or perceptions. "If Bush had done this...". The Armenian National Institute claims he was involved, and arguments are provided that say he wasn't involved. --AW 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Effects of reforms"

In light of a recent effort to include some criticisms, I suggest the following:

Ataturk's reforms were regarded as being too rapid by some. In his quest to modernize Turkey, he effectively abolished centuries-old traditions by means of reforms to which much of the population was unaccustomed but nevertheless willing to adopt. In some cases, these reforms were seen as benefiting the urban elites rather than the generally illiterate inhabitants of the rural countryside, where religious sentiments and customary norms tended to be stronger. In particular, Ataturk's strict religious reforms met with some opposition; and to this day, they continue to generate a considerable degree of social and political tension. In the future, political leaders would draw upon dormant forces of religion in order to secure positions of power, only to be blocked by the interventions of the powerful military, which has always regarded itself as the principal and most faithful guardian of secularism.

Kurds also criticise Ataturk of disregarding their cultural distinctions in pursuing a Turkish national identity. In 1925, an uprising for an independent Kurdistan led by Seyh Sait was put down quickly, and Sait and 36 of his followers were executed soon thereafter. Kurds accuse succesive Turkish governments of suppressing their identity through such means as the banning of Kurdish language in print and media. Kurdish nationalism eventually gave rise to large-scale armed conflict between the Turkish armed forces and the PKK (a recognised terrorist organization who sought the formation of an independent Kurdistan in south-east Turkey) throughout the 1980's and 1990's, leaving over 35,000 dead. Recent moves by Ankara have provided Kurds with greater rights and freedoms, particularly in such sensitive areas as the Kurdish language, education, and media given.

It is based on a section i included some time ago. I put that section under "criticism of reforms", but it is also true that his reforms have brought a number of benefits to Turkey i.e. democracy, womens rights, freedom of religion etc, so i believe "effects of reforms" should be expanded to include both the pro's and con's of his legacy. --A.Garnet 15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just like Elvis says "its now or never". This was Mustafa Kemal's motto and we still think he did the right thing. For example, Turkey was changing its alpabet from Arabic to Latin and Mustafa Kemal Pasha ordered publishers to only use the new Latin alpabet so people would have to learn this new one if they want to read newspaper. Really effective ;) With respect, Deliogul 16:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Very well written and fairly addressing current issues regarding religious fundamentalism and minority rights in Turkey. I suggest you add this to the "post-war life and reforms" section after the article gets unprotected. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you should provide some sources. --AW 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Drop that part that says "(a recognised terrorist organization who sought the formation of an independent Kurdistan in south-east Turkey)", people can find out the more complicated truth from PKK. - Francis Tyers · 17:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I second AW's request for sources for the above. Probably it would be reasonable to have two sentences that describe the controversy regarding his (part or non-part) in the Armenian Genocide. - Francis Tyers · 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
oops sorry didnt see the recognised terrorist organisation bit, that can be changed. I can provide sources for the rest yes since it was created from his biographies. But sorry Francis, i wont support the inclusion of fringe views. --A.Garnet 18:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
maybe we could add that the PKK is in fact a love and peace loving organization built on the same principals as Ghandi's movement, im sure Francis would be delighted! lutherian 20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Your sarcasm isn't helping. --AW 20:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Some people's love of terrorists also not helping but forget it. Seyh Sait wasn't only pro-Kurdish but also pro-Islamist and he was the enemy of the unitary state of Turkey so the İstiklal Mahkemesi(the Independence Court) eleminated that threat (at that time betraying to the country requires -if can be proved- the execution of the subject). Deliogul 21:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
lutherian's sarcasm helped me a lot to cheer up indeed. (Excluding the comment about Francis Tyers.) Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could combine A.Garnet's section along with some of the stuff from AW's paragraph? I know there were objections to certain parts in the paragraph (if it was the whole thing, please correct me), but we could possibly re-word it to make it better. Khoikhoi 05:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I am still opposed to the creation of a seperate "criticism" section, if there were any critiques, they should be slided into the appropriate sections in the bio in a timeline. That's why I can see a very good point behind A. Garnet's suggestion to create a section titled "effets of reforms", since there could be both "negative" and "positive" aspects mentioned in there. However, we should seriously avoid mentioning stuff just because they "blame" or "criticize".. It is a question of undue weight. I mean, the president of two sovereign countries to date, of Venezuela and Iran, compared George Bush to the devil (and I am sure that there are millions out there who sincerely believe that Bush is possessed by the devil), but I don't see anything in the Bush article about any similarities he might have with the Beast. I don't get this, some people claim that Ataturk accepted the AG, but they are the same people who say that he was the "consummator" of it.. Weird.. Baristarim 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

But as I have said before, I am more than receptive to any criticism of Ataturk, as long as it is contextualized and academic. And we can only have serious dedicated bios for sources on this. A. Garnet's proposal sounds reasonable since it would not be neccessarily implying a POV simply by its title - It is flexible.. Baristarim 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Important note AW: Is everybody exactly up to date about the exact definition of "consummate" or being a "consummator" in the English language? Just because you saw the word AG in there that doesn't mean that he was responsible for anything. This reminds me of the tactic used by Dick Cheney before the Iraq War: he would go on TV and say something like "we have good evidence to believe that Iraq has contemptlated "reinstigating" its nuclear weapons program": obviously since most Americans are not extremely, how can I put it, "up-to-date" with even the English language, only thing that most people saw was "Iraq..nuclear weapons...". "contemplated reinstigating" just means "thought about re-opening" in this case. So, consummate means "bring to conclusion or conclude".. Funny choice of words since it is more elastic then a yo-yo.. What does it mean exactly, to "conclude"?? And if someone is really thinking of including that utter non-sense about Ataturk being responsible for AG, I will also include the fact that one of the main Turkish organizations in France (interesetingly and coincidentally named Ataturquie - Turquie meaning Turkey in French) is headed by an ethnic Armenian, Murat. V. Erpuyan (who was one of the founders of it back 1989 as well). Have a look: [6]. So much for that utter nationalistic propaganda.. There are many types of nationalism out there you know, not just "Pan-Turkism", other people might want to defame other nations for their own nationalistic agendas as well.. Baristarim 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, change "carried out" with "consummated," in quotes, that's fine with me --AW 19:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that in no way can anyone make any legitimate claim that Ataturk was responsible (in any way) for the Armenian Genocide - nor is there any evidence that he participated in the Armenian Genocide (as it is defined - meaning the period during WWI between 1915 and 1918). However as the (essentially) final elimination of Armenians (functioning Armenian community and cultural presence) from Anatolia did occur during (and as a significant part of) the Turkish war for Independence and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey (under Ataturk's direct tuteledge) this fact (and perhaps some context and explanations for it) should be included in the article concerning Ataturk (and in this section....I totaly agree with Baristarim in this regard - place the facts [and controversies if one can call it and other things such as this such) where appropriate and not in a seperate (out of place) section. I also think that it is important to include - in this regard and in regards to policies towards the Kurds and others who resited assimilation and Atatturk's very sweeping and (to the people of Anatolia) revolutionary change - to explain the severity of Ataturk's moves towards abandonment/supression of Islam/the Caliphate and how and why certain groups (such as the Kurds) reacted against it. Ataturk's stance of brutally and completely supressing such (and other) resistance to his deliberate policies (and its results...massacres and destruction of a great many villages/communities and executions of oppositions leaders) in addition to the philosophy of complete "Turkification" of Anatolia - a major part of his program - also need to be introduced and explained within this context (or vice versa). I also think that the position he adopted of "Turkification" and the uncompromising and severe approach he took to it has had significant ramifications from this point foreward to the stance/issues regarding Kurds and (lack of/supression of) ethnic expression in Turkey up to this day - though such as lessened tremendously in recent years...still Turkey and Turks have adopted and internalized this concept of "Happy is one to call oneself a Turk" and that any expression of ethnicity otherwise is and certainly has been tremendously frowned upon and often brutally supressed and these attitudes continue to hamper any issue in regards to Kurds - particularly when it comes to any type of overt Kurdish cultural and certainly political expression. This issue is not unique to the Kurds - but it is certainly more severe due to their numbers, non-Turkishness and past and current attempts at autonomy and self expression.--THOTH 15:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are trying to sully the image of Turks, I truly believe that you are biased and have a deep hatred towards anything thats even remotely Turkish. I would add that you have no business editing this topic because you are far from being neutral on the subject, your contributions to the AG article are a testament to this but I am confident that your attempts to whitewash this article will fail miserably. lutherian 06:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I am going to defer to Thoth on this one. That sounds reasonable to me --AW 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Another important note: This article has FA status in French, and the Armenian Genocide is not MENTIONED EVEN ONCE (go to the french article, do Ctrl+F and search for "genocide"). And considering the habit of the French giving it always "rough" to Turkey and Turks, you would think that that would be enough to convince some people out there that even the French consider these frivilous allegations about Ataturk being connected to the AG to be groundless. And don't even claim that there is a Turkish lobby in French Wiki: there are more Armenians in France then there are Turks, and, personally, I have only made four contributions to French Wiki so far.. Enough to stop this defamation campaign? Gees.. Baristarim 06:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yet another important note (and I said this before again somewhere on this page) is that there is not a single mention of Atatürk's name to be found on the Armenian Genocide article, the main article of the event, here on English Wikipedia. Atilim Gunes Baydin 13:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
And considering Ataturk's relative unimportance to these events he shouldn't be mentioned in that context as there are far more important facts/information to be presented in that article. However his comments essentially acknowledging the Armenian Genocide (and specifically the crimes and brutality of the CUP) do have a legitimate place in that article - but I do not see these comments as a major milestone in Ataturk's life etc to the degree that they warrent presentation in this article.--THOTH 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't log into Wikipedia for a day and look what a discussion took place here. We have to make a point clear. This Armenian thing is a really disputed issue and just like Baristarim mentioned you need real evidence because naming a newly formed republic and its leader as the carriers of a genocide(remember many people -including me- still don't accept the genocide theory at all) which was started during the rule of the Ottoman Empire(the empire symbolizes everything that Atatürk and his regime was against). With respect, Deliogul 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

For those that want the Armenian Genocide thing including, find good sources. You can start looking here. - Francis Tyers · 12:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to admins

Until this dispute is resolved, can we please tag the "opinions on genocide" section totallydisputed? In the meantime i will proceed to source the section i posted above and hopefully we will come to some agreement. --A.Garnet 16:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting

Genocide claimer also adds Ataturk would be wind up behind the bars becouse of supporting Genocide slander quote from a German tabloid, seems like enthusiastic search for a genocide accomplice continues for our European, "candles(or ovens) of the civilization" friends, anyway, it must be also asked who is behind bars in Turkey becouse of genocide claim today to the "friends" living in the countries which puts people behind bars for not supporting or accepting it, like France, by the way, also the roosters in Algeria can sing while their feet are completely in shit can't they...--Utku a 21:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ [7]
  2. ^ [8]
  3. ^ [9]
  4. ^ [10]
  5. ^ [11]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk/Archive_6&oldid=1064266575"