Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mustafa Kemal Pasha named Atatürk

• In the ARTICLE, for good orders sake, references to Atatürk ought to carry his respectively applicable name in the historical context and SEQUENCE. He should be referred to as "Mustafa", than Mustafa Kemal, than Mustafa Kemal Pasha (or better merely KEMAL PASHA!) and finally (Mustafa) Kemal Atatürk.--StuffedTurkey 00:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• In Turkish, Pasha (turkish spelling Paşa) is a name of a military rank. It may be equal to 'General' in current military rank system. It is obsolute if you retire from military. So pasha cannot be used as his name. --DBL2010^talk 17:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Relationship: Hitler and Ataturk?

Do you agree with page move? (Kemal Atatürk → Mustafa Kemal Atatürk)

Preface

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved: Kemal Atatürk → Mustafa Kemal Atatürk==== This is an after-the-event request, really. Someone has done an extremely sloppy copy-and-paste job to move the content of the former article to the latter address. The history needs to be merged in. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've switched it back, for now at least. I think I'd oppose the move, since he's generally known as either Mustafa Kemal or Kemal Atatürk, not Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. john k 20:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense. Coolcat is a bit new so he doesn't always know the right way to do stuff, but he seems to be settling down and producing some good edits and settling down to the Wiki way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...he yelled at me for doing it, and immediately reverted back. john k 02:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm also not a big fan of this, from his user page:

I only watch topics I am knowlegeable in. You are welcome to challenge my edit in the topics discussion. Do NOT edit what I added/modified without discussing. At least tell why you made the change (grammer and spelling fixes are alwats...always welcome). I will be "policing" the folowing articles.

john k 02:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Show him some kindness. Please do not bite the newcomers --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chonology of his names

• 1881 - Mustafa - He borned and his parents gave him this name.
• 1893 - Mustafa Kemal - He entered a military high school where his mathematics teacher gave him the second name Kemal (meaning perfection) in recognition of young Mustafa's superior achievement. He was thereafter known as with these 2 names.
• 1934 - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk - When the surname law was adopted, the national parliament gave him the surname Atatürk (Father of the Turks).

(Reference: http://www.ataturk.org/life.htm)

NO

---

• Oppose — Kemal Atatürk is most widely known. — Davenbelle 12:33, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Having read the arguments I also oppose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jordi·✆ 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neutrality^talk 16:57, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kemal Atatürk is common name in English. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Guys, the guy has a full name. That has to be his full name. A redirect from Kemal Ataturk would work, I really dont understand what the fuss is about. It's not the way people refer to him. In a casual conversation he is reffered by last name. In any book he is refered by his full name.

• Oppose. Stick with the name used most often in English. Jonathunder 01:09, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

It is not though. Have you ever read a well-written book which he is in recently? People refer to him my his last name, Ataturk or his first two names Mustafa Kemal. Never seen/heard anyone refer to him in any other way... O_o --Cool Cat| My Talk 07:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An interesting input: on 25 Aug 2002 the article was created as a redirect to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk on 30 May 2003 was a redirect to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk until 6 Jul 2003 when a stub article was introduced. That user is not an admin so that means it was not a move. There was a duplicate basicaly. In the near history of article. I dont see when the merging actualy happened, constant vandalism has hit this article hard, thats clear. --Cool Cat| My Talk 08:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Coolcat seems to have stated both that the three-name version is never used (with which I agree) and that it should be kept as the article title; Wikipedia style, for better or worse, is that the common name should be used, the full correct name being given in the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Karl Meier 21:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

YES

---

• Support. Main article be: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk with Kemal Atatürk as a redirect. My impression from the literature is that people refer to him as Mustafa Kemal when they talk about him as the soldier, and as Ataturk when they refer to him as the statesman, such as after he built the sovereign state of Turkey.Olympos 16:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Main article be: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk with Kemal Atatürk as a redirect. Most widely known argument isnt 100% acccurate. A lot of people refer to him by his last name as there is only one Atatürk. I am used to him being refered by his full name after the establisment of the last name law(or whatever you want to call it). Before the Law, he was reffered as Mustafa Kemal. Historians tend to refer him by his first two names as before the law he did not have a last name. By the way, I am trying to get used to the way wikipedia goes. Give me time to adjust to diplomacy :P. --Cool Cat| My Talk 13:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) | He is commonly known as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support.Zfr 12:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An interesting input: on 25 Aug 2002 the article was created as a redirect to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk on 30 May 2003 was a redirect to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk until 6 Jul 2003 when a stub article was introduced. That user is not an admin so that means it was not a move. There was a duplicate basicaly. In the near history of article. I dont see when the merging actualy happened, constant vandalism has hit this article hard, thats clear. --Cool Cat| My Talk 08:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support His latest/current real full name is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Should we use Kemal Atatürk because people know him with this name or should we show them his real name? This is an encyclopedia. We cannot name people with other than their current name. I redirect from all possible version to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is correct way in my opinion. --DBL2010^talk 22:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support The real full name of the founder of Turkish Republic is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Mustafa is the name given to the "father of Turks" by his parents.--Suleergun 17:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support The full name should be considered as an encyclopedia entry and the other versions must be redirects. Mustafa Kemal, Kemal Atatürk... — Jack in the box 01:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Either one is fine by me. BUT it should be noted that atatürk does not translate to "father turk". rather, "ata" is turkish for "ancestor". a relatively minor difference but perhaps worth noting.

• Support What are you talking about?Every single person in Turkey call him Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.And if he is Turkish people's leader, they should know his exact name.

Other

I think it should be moved to a page that doesn't have to two dots over the U. The url for the page looks weird. Thats just my $0.02 though. --Kross 21:32, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

How about Mustafa Atatürk? Mustafa was his birthname and Atatürk was his legal last name.Actually 'Kemal' was a nickname given by his Mathematics teacher--Kross 20:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The most correct name is the one in its original language. When I need the info about Leh Valesa, the guy's name appears as in its original language. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_Wałęsa

06:23 AM, Aug 18, 2005 M. S. Jelezorukov iloverussia@gala.net

Recent removal about Armenian issue== I removed a recently made entry which you can find as following by an anonymous user. I think the first two sentences of this entry is biased and not based on established history. Ataturk's involvement in the events are not accepted by not only Turkish but also international historians. - Cansın 2.24 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"Atatürk also oversaw the genocide of Armenians and other ethnic minorties within the new Turkish state. While Atatürk's involvement is generally denied by most modern Turks (as is the entirety of the Armenian Genocide) it is widely accepted by historians outside Turkey. However recent evidence suggests that, in some Armenian dominated areas of the former Ottoman Empire Aremenians were also proponents of genocide, albeit against ethnic Turks."

Atatürk was nothing remotely close to eastern front. I'd love to see the sources. If a global genocide was the case why are there ethnic minorities around? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I cannot understand why the two people who have posted on this issue are so intent on denying that genocide is part of turkish history and that kemal ataturk wa11s a genocidal maniac, as hitler was. Facts prove that he was part of the genocide, most historians agree that the turks, lead by ataturk for part of the many genocides that they have committed, have committed genocide. It is a fact that the turks committed genocide against Greeks and Armenians. It is a fact that the genocidal maniac ataturk, not at all suprisingly regarded as a hero in turkey, played a huge role in those genocides.And by the way "Coolcat," as to your question as to why there would still be ethnic minorities in turkey after those genocides, then why would there still be many Jews in Germany after the Holocaust, as there still are? Make no mistake- ataturk is on the same evil level as hitler. It is an embarassment to Wikipedia that the truth about his evil actions is suppressed in the extremely biased article about ataturk in this "encyclopedia."

---

Wow! Now that is a biased and one sided remark!! I reccomend that you really look into the validity and neutrality of your sources, before making such statements. Your remarks prove that you are one-sided and not too bright...

Let me start with a response to your ignorent comment:

'I cannot understand why the two people who have posted on this issue are so intent on denying that genocide is part of turkish history and that kemal ataturk wa11s a genocidal maniac, as hitler was. Facts prove that he was part of the genocide, most historians agree that the turks, lead by ataturk for part of the many genocides that they have committed, have committed genocide. It is a fact that the turks committed genocide against Greeks and Armenians. It is a fact that the genocidal maniac ataturk, not at all suprisingly regarded as a hero in turkey, played a huge role in those genocides.'

You tend yo use the word 'facts' a lot... but may I ask you where these 'facts' are... They sound more like allegations to me. Which fact exactly PROVES that Ataturk was a part of the GENOCIDE? Please tell me I am dying to know...

Secondly on the Issue of these historians you mention, many the Armenian'historians' consist of big names, not necessarily anof y proven authorities in the field. These people include fiction writers,congressmen concerned mostly with securing relection their.

Infact many of the most prominent historians in do not cosider the events in question as a Genocide. For example the esteemed middle east history proffesor Bernard Lewis (Princeton University) contends that these events should not be called a genocide. Other historians who attempt to look at both sides of the story are harrased by Armeinans!!! How does that help people find answers!??

Let me tell you more about other historians, bullied by extremists Armenain extremists bombed the house of Professor Stanford Shaw at the UCLA campus, a well-known history scholar, because he refused to go along with their revised version of history.

In any it is absolutely ridiculous to make a connection between Ataturk and these events, he was a little bussy at the time with other matters... Unfortunately it is common for Armenians who tie their entire national identity to this so called genocide to try and link Turkish Republic to these events by slandering Ataturk. It is absolutely ridiculous to compare ataturk and Hitler... are you mad! You are probably using the quote by hitler alledgedly saying 'who remembers the Armenians' before orchestrating his plans of exterminating the jews. Prominant Neutral Historians have found no record of such a statement, and since its reliability is highly questionable it is not used by unbiased historians.

Now lets move you your ridiculous statement that Genocide is a part of Turkish History, and that Turks orchestrated genocide against Armenians and Greeks:

Lets start with a look at Ottoman history, since you sound like such an expert on the matter!! When looking at the armeian debate you need to look at Ottoman history during the pre and post world war I period. During this period we see a nationalist movement, where different nationalies in the vast empire struggle for independece (nation-state concept was a popular ideal at the time. First nationalist movements take palce in the Balkans where the Greek nationalists revolt in an area where they were a majority and were relatively strong. As a result more turks died during the greek independence than Greeks(hardly a genocide!) Consequently Greeks succesfuly won their independence. Other nations in the balkans revolted for independence where they were a clear majority signifinant numbers of turks were again killed and they gained independence. Following this trend the Armanians made an unwise move by pursuing armed sturggle for independence in an area where they were not a clear majority (as was the case in the balkans) and as a consequence both turks and armanians were killed.(in this case more Armanians than turks as a result of the balance of power situation in the region.)

Having said that it was not the intention of the Ottomans (and Ataturk is not even in the picture at this point) to eradicate the armanian race...as was the case for Hitler. Infact they were not ordered killed(and ther is no evidence of an order to kill armenians.) The officials were orderred to moved the civilan population to avoid ethnic conflict and along the way unfortunately many people died.(get familiar with malta tirals) It is undeniable that this was tragic but thats the conditions of the time in that part of the world. Turks themselves all over the ottoman empire were faced with the similar tragic events. In fact as a result of heavy civilian casualties when moving population, the Sultan had three officals in charge executed- hardly a move by someone intending to orchestrate genocide.

And I am really curious how any of this is relevant to Ataturk. What kind of twisted logic and skewed information do you guys use to bring these events to the 1920s, to make a link between the Turkish Republic and Ataturk. Ofcourse I am aware of the advantages of linking the Turkish Repulic to the alledged genocide, after all Ottomans are long gone.. and Ataturk's Turkey is whats left behind. So if you want some sort of compensation or hold irridentist stakes, the political advatages of pointing fingers at Ataturk's Turkey are obvious.(After all Armenian Constitution clearly states a desire on Turkish territory!!)

The shame is that history is being reinterpreted and skewed to fit political agendas and people like you are practically brainwashed push these issues. All anyone knows or hears about Armenians is this self-created, self-promoted 'victim' identity, main pillar of which is deep hatred, resentment and enmity towards Turks and Ataturk. I would really like to know more about Armenia as a country and a people.

--Blwidey 18:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Identity

This sentence sounds highly POV:

"divided identity — Europeanised but not quite European, alienated from the Islamic world but still a Muslim country."

I say, it is a unique identity. "Alienated from the Islamic world" is subjective, in what way is Turkey alienated? Of course it is immensely different than most of the islamic countries, but calling it "alienated" is a bit stretched. "Europeanised" also sounds weird, of course Turks are not anglosaxons if that's what is meant to say, but instead of "europeanised" I'd prefer "westernized", a term that does not have ethnic connotations.

I propose to remove this sentence, it is POV and it is not clear what it tries to convey.

I suppose that the sentence tries to convey that the forced upon Europeanisation has it's downsides. But I agree that it's POV and should be removed. DodgeK 04:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

A quotation from Aziz Nesin: "Not any country on this world have a religion. Religion is not a public fact; it belongs to the human soul and its very self. Turkey is not a Muslim country."

Kemalism

I think there must be an another article about "Kemalism", because Kemalism is an ideology, it has own principles and own mentality. Kemalism is not the same thing about Social-Democracy or Nationalism. Because it's Social-Democracy mentality is different from the known Social-Democracy, for example in Kemalism , the solidarity of the classes is better than the class struggle, for example Kemalism is not supporting only the state controlled economy, there must be private enterprise too, and Para-Statal economy is better than Socialist economy style.Also the Nationalism mentality of Kemalism does not look like racism or ethnic nationalism , etc. These are written also in the main article , I know, but a private article about "Kemalism" could be better. Here some references. What do you think about this opinion? Have a nice day --aozan [1] [2] [3] And I think the Article should be protected against vandalism.

Very nice. Go ahead, get your feet wet, start the article. Keep in mind the underlying principle of Wikipedia: "Be bold". I am sure we will chip in. About the vandalism issue, don't worry about it. The more the pages are protected, the less "open" Wikipedia will be. Pages have tens, if not hundreds or thousands of "watchers", so let vandals do their poo and mental masturbations, in their little worlds. They'll get bored and find other destructive things to do, and Wikipedia will prevail :) mu5ti/talk 07:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I can not create an article about Kemalism because when I write Kemalism in the search button, I find the article about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's life, I am trying to say that when I write Kemalism I should not find his life, the page must be an another page ,this is what I am trying to say. I could create an article if this situation was solved. What am I suppose to do? If I have a chance I will create the article about Kemalist Ideology -- aozan

The problem about Kemalism article was solved,thanks to Mu5ti -- aozan

Early Career Additions

When in the military academy, together with Ali Fuat Cebesoy, he was detained and interrogated, because of criticizing the Padisah When he graduated from the military academy he had obtained the rank of captain, and been appointed to the 5. Army in Damascus, in February 1905. With Mustafa Cantekin and Mufit Ozdes, whom he got to know while in Damascus, he had founded Vatan ve Hurriyet Cemiyeti in 1906. When Vatan ve Hurriyet Cemiyeti had merged with Ittihat ve Terraki Party, he started having disagreements with the leaders of the new merged party. After the 2. Mesrutiyet is announced he further criticized Ittihat ve Terraki Party for not following up with further reforms, and for not keeping army out of the politics. This opposition to ruling party had further alienated the party leaders and he had formed an opposition group with some soldier friends, Rauf Orbay, Kazim Karabekir, Ismet Inonu, Refet Bele, and Ali Fuat Cebesoy. During the 1910, he continued criticizing the Ittihat ve Terraki Party for involving army into politics, and for this he was deemed as dangerous and faced two assassination attempts, and after this he had paused his political activities for a while. He was appointed as military attaché in Sofia in 1913. During the first world war, he further criticized the party for aligning the country with Germany.-Turkcyp

Criticisms

An anonymous user added this to the "criticism" section of the article. I added the {{NPOV}} template to the top, and moved this text here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 17:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[The so called criticisms listed on this article are severely biased and lacking historical accuracy. For the sake of civilized discussion this editor is not erasing the aforementioned work but, is hereby protesting its author. This editor is also calling on proper historical channels to revise the statements here .]

Turkish nation is very proud of Atatürk, but it is clear that devout Muslims and many Kurds hate him. Remember that he was a nationalist and he enforced the Turkey for Turks idea. Many Muslims think that he demolished khilafah (islamic state) and that Atatürk hated Islam. It is clear that these unregistered users trying to delete "criticisms" section are one-sided Turkish nationalists. This article must be NPOV and with "criticism" section. Just imagine stalinist-POV article about Stalin or nazi-POV article about Hitler in the spirit of "our great leader, critics are revisionists". Just try to criticize Atatürk in contemporary Turkey. -- Darwinek 11:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of Kars

I added the Treaty of Kars to the article, sorry if I forgot to log-in while I did this operation, it was me anyway ;) Regards.

Virgilio 22:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Page move

The page move today was wholly inappropriate. Atatürk is known either as "Mustafa Kemal" or "Kemal Atatürk," but he is never known in English as "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk." If you had bothered to read the talk page, you would see that this was already proposed, and there was no consensus to move. (Most of the yes votes were added several months after the vote, BTW). john k 00:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Armenian POV

Article is blatantly POV, especially the "criticism" section. Words like "evil" are used to describe Armenians. Section ends with "Long live Ataturk!" This has no business being here.

NPOV

I removed the following text from the article:

There were lots of civilizations that lived in Mesopotamia, and the people living there have roots from many nations. There is no common language there and there are many dialects and languages. Specifically, there is no Kurdish nation and/or language: The people who call themselves Kurds started to do so after 1920s (Currently, for example, there are Zaza and Kirmanci primitive languages consisting of hardly 150 words each with NO common words; Zaza is divided into three and Kirmanci is divided into six separate dialects within themselves). The region has many oil resources and during the faundation of The Republic of Turkey (after the harsh Indepence War of Turks against tens of nations) there was a great political (and partly physical) war between (the succesor of The Ottoman Empire, newly founded) Turkey, and Great Britain. GB -as their deep intelligence and observation suggested- realized that they could 'use' these tribes currently living in the south-east of Turkey and northern Iraq against Turkey, by provoking them and trying to convince them that they are one nation with a common language under the rule of the 'barbarian' Turks, so that GB will be able to control the oil resources in Mesopotamia easily. This is the usual 'Divide & Conquer' policy of GB which was applied in almost all of the colonies, like India, Nigeria etc. Atatürk, founder of the contemporary modern Republic of Turkey which is the only democratic muslim country in the world and the only muslim member of NATO, neither tried to destroy any local identity nor prevented any Islamic values from imposing into the society. He had foreseen the indispensible need for a secular foundation for the country, and introduced many many breath-taking contemporary reforms. This is the very reason why Turkey is not like Iran or Saudi Arabia now. Unfortunately, the terrorist organization PKK (KADEK/KONGRA-GEL, so-called Kurdish Workers Party) -which is considered as a terrorist organization by US, EU and Turkey- killed 37000 Turkish citizens and caused 300 B$ harm to the Turkish economy since 1984; and they are still very comfortable finding support from/in many European countries like Greece, Belgium, France, Germany. Atatürk is the symbol for modern Turkey; and naturally people like extremist Islamic radicals and, so-called Kurds and people with their racist ideas, Greeks (for their 'glorious' history under the rule of The Ottoman Empire for 400 years) and Armenians (who betrayed The Ottoman Empire and cooperated with Russians, but failed to achieve their traitorous and evil desires to conquer Anatolia) do not like -even hate- Atatürk. Long live Kemalism!

This section is, aside from being a grammatical and stylistic disaster, completely unsourced and exceptionally POV. If there are any notable facts included in here, they should probably be discussed here before being put back into the article. siafu 05:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

---

The current version (as of 18 August 2005, 5:03 pm, Mountain time) should be of encyclopedic nature, and is in fact true. (unsigned comment by 70.151.110.126)

---

Please read what I have written carefully and see the references (about the 2. part in the criticism part, 18 August 2005, 09:35, mountain time). Thanks.

The only difference I can see between this version and the last one you presented is the use of wikilinks. Please see WP:CS and WP:NPOV. siafu 15:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The early versions may mislead you. I am very well aware of WP:CS and WP:NPOV, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The last version, if not removed by blind-minded people, is highly objective and is supported by evidence. I do recommend you to do a search about, say, PKK and see it for yourself. There are two points you need to realize: First is that I am adding to the criticism part which is already marked as 'may not be objective' even tough the last version -I think, to my knowledge- is objective; Second is that I am NOT deleting anybody's comments/texts, but some people continuosly insist on deleting what I write.

The current version contains ridiculous sentences like: "there is no Kurdish language and/or nation", where following the wikilink to "Kurdish language" clearly displays that there is such a language. Moreover, there are not sources cited, and the fact that the disclaimer says it is not objective is by no means granting permission to not be objective. The disclaimer is indicating a section that needs to be improved, not worsened. The reason what you've written is being repeatedly removed is because it does not conform to NPOV, has no cited sources on very controversial claims, is poorly written, is misplaced, and reads like a nationalist tract, not an encyclopedia. None of the original issues brought up have been addressed. Please also use edit summaries, and sign your comments with ~~~~ which will automatically fill in your username or IP and the timestamp. siafu 16:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've already reverted this three times in the last 24 hours, so I'm leaving it with RfC. siafu 16:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not questioning whether some people and/or some dialects exist, they were/are not one particular entity, and please read the entry that you refer to. You'll see the deep variation. Also, whatever I write is independent of the type of the criticism section; I am not trying to exploit this, and I am not trying to ruin its first section (worsen??). Clearly you do not have insight on the subject. About conforming to NPOV, what part of it(last version) doesn't conform to NPOV? I honestly don't see it. About the first part, there are sentences like "many consider that..", "it is generally believed that.." and you consider these encyclopedic information? Do the first section have clear references? I dont know what kind of reference I can give you to prove that, for example, PKK is recognized as a terrorist organization by US, EU and Turkey. Maybe you can check US' list of terrorist organization prepared by US itself every year which I have no idea how you can find. If you want more information about, say, Turkish Independence War or Turkey's history I recommend you to take a course about it, make a google search, or See http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~turkish/. Other than that I cant see what kind of references I can give to you. I didnt understand what you meant with "None of the original issues brought up have been addressed". 70.151.110.126 17:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"Ataturk held personally responsible for Armenian genocide"

Would someone like to explain how Ataturk in 1915, fighting in Gallipoli as a commander about a 1,000 miles away from the deportations in Anatolia, is personally held responsible? Also removing the Armenian genocide link which has nothing to do with Ataturk, removing POV statements placed by person who believes neutral is accusing Ataturk of involvement in a genocide. --E.A 19:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

being prime minister?

Everybody knows that Atatürk was never the prime minister of Turkey. You can reach the prime ministry web site and see the first prime minister of Turkey. It was İsmet İnönü. Between 1920 - 1922, he was the leader of representation council. So he was responsible of administration but that doesn't mean he was the prime minister.