Talk:Personal life of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Turkish War of Independence#Initial organisation of the Turkish National Movement|Samsun]] The anchor (#Initial organisation of the Turkish National Movement) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Relevant? http://www.nerve.com/PersonalEssays/Cook/StarFirsts/index.asp?page=Gabor.asp

—168.103.218.84 (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the description of Atatürk's birth date from "adopted" to "approximate" as the former term is highly misleading, suggesting wrongly that Atatürk was adopted. 86.139.15.170 (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed some mentions of dates in the "Georgian" [sic] calendar to "Gregorian", as I am 99.9% sure this is an error. 86.139.15.170 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, it seems that the mention of his drinking only briefly, in the paragraph describing his funeral, is probably making too little of this important aspect of his personal life. It also seems curious that only his pre-marriage romances are mentioned. I wonder if there is a neutral point-of-view issue here? Clearly Atatürk was a remarkable man, but he was also very human, and glossing over these aspects of his life in the interests of painting a more glowing picture of this Turkish hero seems against the goals of Wikipedia. 86.139.15.170 (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you blalal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.167.142 (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Comments, based on primary source material not usable in Wikipedia[edit]

As to Ataturk's drinking, he was known to enjoy frequent and extravagant parties. Drinking was never mentioned to me.

Well, he died from cirrhosis. That indicates heavy drinking.

Atatürk had romantic associations with women. In at least one case, this resulted in the birth of a son, who I knew. His son looked very much like Atatürk and not his adoptive father. Saltysailor (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Neutral[edit]

The tone of this article is not neutral. In particular, in describing the fighting in the west, justification is made by accusing the Greeks of killing Turks, while nothing is said of the killings by Turks of Greeks to the war of independence. Both sides were guilty of what we now call war crimes. I have always found it interesting that I can not find any documentation about Atatürk's involvement in actions against Armenians. While Ataturk was a great man who helped Turkey survive as a state, there is nothing about the pain and suffering caused, mostly to minorities. Saltysailor (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He thought the genocide was horrendous and stupid, since, (as he said) it wiped out the middle class in the whole Northeastern part of Anatolia. He wrote in his diary about encountering wandering, starving Armenians on the road as he rode back to Anatolia from Syria after the Turkish defeat in the Levant. He offered some of them food from his own provisions but of course that could do little to help them.

Wanted/Asked for[edit]

"He authored the chapter in "Islamic History" himself when he wanted history books for high schools prepared"; I believe "wanted" in this sentence is a bad translation from turkish and should be instead "when he asked for books" Pauloya (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Candidate!!![edit]

Why didn't anyone asked for Good Article Review for this article? --TarikAkin (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think this article is pretty crappy. It needs a lot more copy editing for it to be considered good. Just because Ataturk is a great and interesting guy doesn't mean that articles taking about him is automatically great and interesting... Philosophy.dude (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - The article is pretty badly written and full of subjective depictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.184.67 (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the contributors are most likely Turkish, who would live in Turkey and are fed the glamorised version of Kemal's life. This article needs a lot of work!!!--220.245.52.9 (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason for this article to exist separately from the main article about Atatürk. The topic of the article may be interesting, (the man himself certainly was), but the grammar is appalling, with the wording of some passages being downright nonsensical. In addition, as the previous person points out, the article contains a complete lack of objectivity, discussing and glorifying Atatürk's life solely from the point of view of that which is popularly accepted in Turkey. Ge0nk (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadful English. As a native English-speaker I wish I knew more about the topic to correct this whole article, but I don't. I hope someone who knows what he or she's doing can do something to improve this.62.194.121.250 (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiography[edit]

With all due respect to the sensibilities of contemporary Turkey and Turks, this article reads like a hagiography, a worshipful biography. I've read elsewhere that Ataturk died from cirrhosis of the liver, indicating alcoholism barely touched on. It seems to this reader (and occasional minor editor) that this article falls far short of a Good Article Review.

Tapered (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does mention that "he was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver", listing it as the cause of death, as well as that "Alcohol consumption ... had been his way of life". --Lambiam 22:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know, is what he actually did with the majority of his life! This article tells us about his life up to his graduation from military school, yet it says nothing about his career! Can anybody help me with this point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.53.238 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious beliefs[edit]

I'm more interested to know why the article lies about his religious beliefs. It asserts that "In his speeches and publications there is no trace connoting hostility or even indifference toward religious ideology". What about this quote; "I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.101.226 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that he himself was not fond of religion but he understood that people wanted/needed it, so he treated religion as a tool. A bit like U.S. presidents of today. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 03:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a few claims that his Father may have been Jewish in particular a Dönmeh Jew. Claims have been made that he said he was a decendent of Sabbatai Zevi.^[1] ^[2] --220.245.52.9 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Dönmeh tend to put on Muslim fronts to avoid persecution and futher themselves within Turkish society, similar to what Adoniscik has said above, using religion as a tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.52.9 09:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "religious beliefs" section is full of Islamist propaganda bulshit. Ataturk was not religious. He famously said that "I have no religion, and sometimes I wish all religions to the bottom of the sea." Look what he has to say on this subject:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk

"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men."

Quoted in Atatürk: The Biography of the founder of Modern Turkey, by Andrew Mango; "In a book published in 1928, Grace Ellison quotes [Atatürk], presumably in 1926-27", Grace Ellison Turkey Today (London: Hutchinson, 1928)

Which part of "I have no religion" you people don't understand? Can someone please delete the Islamofascist propaganda? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.157.115 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is a very corrupted paragraph in the article. There is in fact video footage that proves Atatürk's unambiguously sceptic stance against religion. He says: "We do not consider our [Party's] principles as dogmas contained in books that are said to come from heaven. We derive our inspiration, not from heaven, or from an unseen world, but directly from life." Siyah Kalem (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He wanted to mean that Turkish Republic is not Muslim. People can be Muslim. Finally, he was also Muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.229.39 (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think he was Muslim. He has been quoted as saying, more harshly than anything noted above, "Islam is a rotting corpse in the center of our politics." He was an agnostic or atheist during the time of the Revolution and the Reforms. If anyone has evidence that he later reconciled with Islam or any other religion, it could be added with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8A00:2860:D99E:3E99:C376:34A3 (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Where was he born?[edit]

This article alleges that the house in Salonica commonly thought to be his birth place was in fact his father-in-law Ragıp bey's house. If anybody has done some research into this, please incorporate your findings into the article. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 23:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny translation[edit]

"On November 24, 1934, Gazi Mustafa Kemal requested the "Öz" as his last name, but the GNAT with a special law bestowed on "Mustafa Kemal Öz" the surname "Atatürk".[4] " This is the most funniest translation I've heard in my entire life. The law clearly says he took the surname Atatürk with his Kemal first name. The öz means that his real and first name is Kemal. I am correcting the translation mistake. --Pusat (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kamâl[edit]

Why does it say Kamâl rather than Kemal on his ID? More Kamâl examples—and possibly even an explanation (in Turkish though which I don't understand)—here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.34.154 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 17 October 2010

The article linked above basically says Kamâl was consciously introduced (and not as a result of a typo) as a Turkic alternative (I'd interpret it as a faux Turkic word though, as that â sound is totally absent from Turkic languages) to Kemal (a loan from Arabic) during the days of language reform. - Vidimian (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i aggree with, why Kamâl? it's Kemal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.229.39 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion[edit]

"Atatürk's precise birth date is not known. This confusion is more a reflection of dating differences between calendars of the period rather than any uncertainty on the part of Atatürk, his family or other factors."

His family has to have been confused. If they were not confused, there would be no confusion. How can they know and we not? What is this, some agreement among biographers to be confused without talking to the family? Fixing the English here.Dave (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1296[edit]

I for one would like to know exactly where that number comes from. Who recorded that? No one seems to know or if they do they are not saying. About the best I can get is "entered". Who entered, where, why? Some articles on WP and on the Internet are saying that in 1881 those primitive Ottomans, well, they didn't know enough to keep records. This is before the great scientific advancement of keeping birth and death records in the good old days when people less sophisticated and wise than we are (especially adolescents) hadn't faced all the problems we face or come up with any of our modern solutions. This is what comes of guessing off the top of your heads. Now I find the Sultan knew very exactly who was in his empire from as early as the 1830's, when his census was instituted. There was one in fact in 1881. It recorded the populations of Thessalonika by religion and nationality. So, I have to presume that the "entry" 1296 was a bona fide public record kept as a matter of course either in some bureau of births and deaths or in the census, which happened every few years. I am going to say that. If you have knowledge of exactly who "entered" that record and what sort of record it was, perhaps you can give us the details.Dave (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date[edit]

After 1936, this topic was discussed repeatedly. Even today, nobady knows his real birth date. If it were "by convention", if it were accepted by people, why discussions and despute are continuing ? I think that the term "convention" is not suitable for explaining this situation. Takabeg (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim?[edit]

Please, provide neutral, reliable, verifiable, academic sourced he was Muslim. All added non-Turkish sources claim he was nonbeliever. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of Kemal[edit]

Majority of sources agree that he was a Muslim. 88.203.200.74 would you describe your rationale here? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some sections are too long and too detailed[edit]

I know Wikipedia is not on paper (and this page is probably split from the main article), but still I think especially the sections "Name" and "Birth Date" are unnecessarily detailed (more importantly, lacking references). It seems that they are there because every now and then, some (often anon) editor muddies the waters with often false allegations, and some people want to answer those allegations. Other sections seem to have been written with that mindset, as well. At least they have their merits.

I don't know how many Wikipedia readers make use of tables of contents, but in any case the first sections are not less important than the other sections. We can integrate the relevant information from the Name and Birth Date sections into other sections. Similar name changes appeared for many other people in that period. Also, not knowing the exact birth date was common for non-royals. Furthermore, as far as I know, he was known as Gazi Pasha before the independence war (probably because of his efforts in Galipoli defence, also he had lost his eye(sight) in Libya). On the Turkish National Assembly website, it is confirmed that he received the Gazi and Marshal titles in September 1921 Life of MKA (Turkish).

Furthermore, the latter half of the section "Children" describes his character, and the title of the section "Love of Nature" should be changed in my opinion. Should we list his hobbies? Regarding religion, if he declared he was Muslim in the "Nutuk", then he was a full-fledged Muslim, at least at that time (1927). He lived 11 more years after the Nutuk. In that period, Elmalili Hamdi finished the tafsir commissioned by Atatürk and the national assembly. Atatürk asked for a very through tasfir with all the historical context also carefully explaining where the western tafsirs have failed (according to the Turkish wikipedia article of the tafsir Hak Dini Kur'an Dili).

I hope we can have better "Personal life" articles, at least GA level.Bulgu (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution[edit]

Mr. Jingiby: It seems that we have a disagreement in the section about Ataturk's religious views. In order to resolve this disagreement, we would like to state our argument first and then listen to your argument.

As we have stated before; Ataturk's atheism and agnosticism is inconclusive and the sources for this argument mainly argue that he was irreligious rather than a non-believer i.e. Deist. Therefore, the modifications to this article seek to put the sources in their proper locations and to rectify incorrect arguments

As Andrew Mango points out in his book, Ataturk's choice of words, "I have no religion", Ataturk's choice of words shows that Ataturk had no religion rather than that he was a non-believer, so this and similar evidence proves that Ataturk was not an atheist or agnostic, but a religious deist. And the general opinion of historians who use it is that Ataturk was a Deist.

Another example is John Calvert John's "Islamism: A Documentary and Reference Guide," by John Calvert John, on page 19, rather than calling Ataturk an atheist, he calls his actions and reforms "atheistic". This makes this source invalid.

Finally, on page 106 of the book "Atheism," written by Julian Baggini in 2009, he presents Ataturk as an atheist without citing any source to support his argument and without elaborating on it, making it a simple and unsubstantiated example. Also since the author of this book, Julian Baggini, is a philosopher, it puts him in a position that does not reflect the general views of historians.

Could you please present your arguments to resolve this dispute?

Thank You Orhan Emre Gurler (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orhan Emre Gurler. I think it is good to leave the statements in the article as per sources you mentioned as they are. If you have other sources to refute them you can add them. Otherwise, your analysis expresses your personal attitude on the matter, which is irrelevant in this case. Please check: WP:POV and WP:NOOR. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Jingiby

You are under the misconception that we are making a subjective analysis, or that we are making an analysis based on the evidence we have. But this evidence does not convey or add a historian's point of view anyhow. Quotes from the historical figure or non-historian authors don't reflect the viewpoints of the Historians.

This section of the text should reflect only historians' perspectives on this issue and does not reflect any historian's view of Atatürk's personal religion. The evidence objectively shows historians' interpretations of the Reforms rather than personal beliefs. Using a philosopher as evidence to support a point of view of historians is misleading, and fallacious and must be fixed.

If you have any evidences that shows the historians opinions on Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's religion please add them otherwise it's best to fix the wording of the article.

Thank you Orhan Emre Gurler (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1561

[2] ttp://www.nysun.com/opinion/ataturks-turkey-overturned/58997/

[1]

[2]