Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It has never been resolved.

Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 autobiography Zsa Zsa Gabor: My Story. This liaison been in the public discourse ever since. Some additional references:

• "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
• Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
• Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
• Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
• Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
• Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.

A couple of editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. Removing this information violates WP:NOTCENSORED. I have restored it for the time being, but it's bound to get deleted again unless more editors enforce having the content retained. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Came here from noticeboard The (now removed) text lacks context at least. This liaison (has) been in the public discourse ever since should read "This alleged liaison (has)been in the public discourse ever since". Seemingly nothing and nobody confirms the 'deflowering' except Gabor herself. A few sources accept the story, but they were never in a position to verify or disprove anyway. This thin evidence would be problematic with any 'stale' claim, but with somone whose public image in part rested on the sheer number and breadth of wealthy and powerful men who had seduced her/ had tried to seduced her/ wished they could have seduced her, it's especially 'iffy'. The previous text didn't 'take a position' as to whether the Gabor claim was true, but neither did it give any context to establish how likely/supported/widely accepted the claim was. Not very seems to be the answer to all three. Probably shouldn't be on this page but only on 'her' page IMO.Pincrete (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Indeed. This issue is only brought by Islamists to denigrate Atatürk. There is zero proof. Beshogur (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This (like all arguments in the encyclopaedia) should come down to sourcing. We have a single, primary source which is an autobio and thus inherently suspicious. Prom provided four secondary cites above (Larry King is a throwaway; an interview with an autobiographer completely fails the WP:SECONDARY criteria). The strongest is probably the article from The Guardian. That would usually be seen as enough to support a brief mention, at most, but deleting the info without a counter-source seems to be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. I agree with Pincrete that context was missing, but no source is offered to establish how [un]likely/[un]supported/widely [un]accepted the claim is amongst scholars. Without that, entirely removing the (weakly) sourced statement is WP:OR. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Placing her name here is out of context compared to other women. I agree this can be mentioned in her article, but not here because as I told, it is out of context. Beshogur (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

It's not out of context though. You can hear it straight from the horse's mouth, and I've provided five additional sources that accept the claim. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Three of those sources are fluff pieces written by non-historians, and another is a Larry King interview that's functionally a primary source (as was explained to you above). Why would you even bother citing them to verify claims in the biography of a historical figure? Remsense  .. 论 02:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think there is room for an editorial judgement on how relevant it is. It is kind of salacious, so a newspaper would put mention it. However, a serious encyclopedia might not. I think you are also wrong about WP:OR and WP:ONUS applies here. The onus is on those arguing for inclusion. Not everything can go into an article. It might be trivial. WP:CONSENSUS should decide this. If sources are weak, find better sources. I suggest google books. A biography on Atatürk would be a better source than a newspaper article, because the biographer would have done more research. Maybe the local library has one. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This was on the NPOV noticeboard for three months and nobody was interested in tackling the issue. Since it is exhaustively sourced I am restoring the information to both Gabor's and Ataturk's pages. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

No, you do not have consensus for this and were given reasons for why your formulation is unacceptable POV. That you frame the NPOVN thread as "no one arguing against it" is telling, since absolutely no one I've seen agrees with your position in any venue. You do not get to move unilaterally regarding your interpretation of whether disputed content adheres to site policy, see WP:ONUS. Remsense  .. 论 01:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it makes sense to at least a mention their liaison, alleged or otherwise, when there are so many sources saying there was something going on. Count me as a supporter for the edit Benlittlewiki (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

There's not, though. There is one plausible source that has been cited (i.e. non-tertiary works of history that can be assumed not to just be citing each other, and therefore represent broader analysis among those who might know), which is extremely marginal for a claim such as this in an article as broad as it is. In addition to the articles above, one of the two books is, let's see here... Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi: The Truth about Porfirio Rubirosa, the Last Playboy: Based on His Memoirs and the FBI File: Spy? Assassin? Or Just a Gigolo?. Isabella Wall. ISBN 978-0-9764765-2-8. Note that this book appears to be a self-published book-length gossip rag, in addition to not even being about Atatürk. Remsense  .. 论 04:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

At the very least, could we support a compromise something like this: "according to Zsa Zsa Gabor, herself and Atatürk had a liaison, though the veracity of this relationship is disputed."? Benlittlewiki (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

No, there's no reason to do that! When we quote sources giving their opinion, we assume it's a particularly well-established (if disputed) position in the literature. We're still holding the position that the source is reliable, and the bar for including attributed positions is higher, not lower! Remsense  .. 论 04:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Imho, the edit by @PromQueenCarrie was a reasonable action, but it was also wrong based on policy and the purpose of this encyclopaedia.

The conversation had withered with no clear consensus that the removal was justified (the reason for this Talk section). WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments seemed to pervade the reasoning more than policy. Lacking a strong defence for that removal (and based solely on that), I don't think that PQC's replacement of the original info (with added sources) was unreasonable.

However, what seems to have been lost in the noise is the fact that this is an article about Atatürk. The fact that a famous (and famously promiscuous) woman might have had sex with him does nothing whatsoever to illuminate Atatürk. If the same claim had been made at the same time by, say, Rock Hudson or Shirley Temple or Rin Tin Tin, it would be important and would be discussed across many Atatürk sources. The fact that he copulated with a sexy, adult female of his own species is less than mere trivia, especially since no one (not even Gabor) claimed that it was a long-lived or life-changing affair. The discussion here (imho) should never have been about WP:RS but about WP:N.

The factoid is covered appropriately in the Zsa Zsa article -- Atatürk listed with other lovers under the names of her eight husbands. It is arguably relevant there. It has absolutely no claim to notability here other than WP:BUTITSTRUE. In my opinion, this should stay out of the article until mainstream sources specifically and explicitly about Atatürk say that this was a pivotal datum about the man, or at least useful in understanding the subject of this article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

There is an equally persistent effort to have this information deleted from Gabor's page as well. I've just restored it for the third time this week. I also started a discussion at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard five days ago and the topic is stagnate. There seems to be little interest in tackling the issue. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Extra note that this is only used by Islamists to denigrate Atatürk. It has no proof except for the autobiography of that person. Also it's ridiculous to use Gabor dated as if it's factual. Beshogur (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

How does this topic denigrate Ataturk? PromQueenCarrie (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, we could certainly use Gabor's affair claims from her autobiography in a related article/section. Nothing wrong with that. But that should be it. We should not state it as an absolute truth. So for example, "Gabor claimed to have had an affair with Atatürk in her autobiography", not "Gabor dated". ภץאคгöร 11:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Those 4 women are commonly known, Gabor's autobiography is propaganda. That's it. Beshogur (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

You've stated this repeatedly and I still do not understand. How does the idea of an incredibly powerful man having an affair with a famously beautiful (and promiscuous) young woman denigrate him? Considering the era, a recently-divorced international leader turning down such a flagrant proposition would have been fodder for attacks on him manhood and vitality. Regardless, I don't oppose it because it's propaganda (I don't think it is), but because it's so utterly insignificant to his life. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Because Gabor was underage, which implies he was pedo? Beshogur (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

You clearly haven't done adequate research, Beshogur. I'll break it down for you:

• Gabor states in the video—and in her autobios—that the affair with Ataturk occurred while she was married to Burhan Belge.
• Gabor (born February 6, 1917) married Belge on May 17, 1935 at age 18.
• She claimed the marriage was never consummated, hence the notion it was Ataturk who actually took her virginity.

These facts place the timeline of their liaison sometime between May 1935 (when Gabor wed Belge) at the earliest, and November 1938 (when Ataturk passed away) at the latest. Gabor would've been between 18 and 22 years old at the time.

Now, Gabor does state in the video and elsewhere that she was "15", but need I remind you that Gabor's caginess about her age is Legendary [1]. It's for granted. It's a given. She was already shaving a year off her birthdate by the time she moved to the states in 1941; by the mid-1980s she'd shaved a whopping 11 years off. To someone like this, it is psychological; the individual is incapable of conceding that they not young. And since there really was no way to fact-check until the 2010s, a lot of people got away with it. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Stop doing original research, and these aren't "facts". Beshogur (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

So very many problems in just eight words. First, OR is about what gets put into an article, not a Talk. There is no Wikipolicy preventing editors from thinking or doing math or making reasonable correlations between established facts in a Talk page. Speaking of math, if a source says that the Battle of Dunkirk ran from 26 May to 04 June, it is not OR (even in an article, much less a Talk) to say that it lasted nine days. We do not need an independent RS that specifically says "nine days". All three of the bullets in PQC's response are supported in the appropriate articles by RS, and her conclusion is completely valid based on nothing more than a calendar and the basic rules of additiona and subtraction. Lastly, the statement, these aren't "facts" is unhelpful. Something that is unsupported by any RS presented to date is the statement, this is only used by Islamists to denigrate Atatürk. I have found that it is usually unwise to go after another editor for something I do myself. Something to think about. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't believe this employs the neutral tone of Wikipedia.The placement of this statement here has the effect of a positive outlook on Ataturk from the neutral, unlearned reader. Also, the statement doesn't really say anything specific, it's too vague. 21fafs (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Didn't he? Beshogur (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Really, each word in that sentence save for the functors is unencyclopedically incomprehensive, and always has a positive, nationalistic connotation, leading to my suspicion of leader-reverent bias. It frame's Ataturk's reforms as universally positive ("sweeping progressive reforms") and implies that secularism and industrialization were unquestionably beneficial without acknowledging the significant controversy and opposition these changes caused. There's no neutrality; it presents a one-sided view that overlooks the cultural and religious upheaval experienced by segments of the population. As a matter of fact, the entire lead section of the article reads like a dedication plaque straight out of Ankara.

A more neutral phrasing:

"He implemented extensive reforms that established secular governance and promoted industrialization in Turkey, leading to substantial advancements in various sectors as well as significant societal tensions." 21fafs (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Kemal Atatürk's reforms did not cause societal tension. The ones who instigated turmoil were reactionary zealots and monarchists resenting they lost their wealth and rights as a result of abolition of the archaic institutions of Sultanate, Sufi lodges and Zawiyas. They were against the transformation of Turkey into a democratic state. They were misogynistic and did not want women to have the right to access education, obtain property and vote. Furthermore, they collaborated with the British to undermine the government and destabilize the country. They provided weapons and political support to rebels to advance their agenda. They had ties to anarchist Sheikh Said, who falsely claimed to be of Muhammad's lineage. Not only that, but they were prosecuted for their crimes and found guilty. Let's stick to the facts and avoid entertaining ideas aimed at tarnishing Atatürk's legacy. Wallis sabiti (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

"... avoid entertaining ideas aimed at tarnishing Atatürk's legacy."

Why should we avoid entertaining ideas aimed at tarnishing Atatürk's legacy, or anyone's, for that matter? Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. Perhaps I missed it; when did Atatürk become a prophet? 21fafs (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think that sweeping is neutral, but extensive is more encyclopedic. If a source can back up the social change claim, then I support your proposed change. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Agreed with user:21fafs. This kind of lead is blantant WP:Advertising--Sylvester Millner (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Instead of "During this time, the Ottoman Empire perpetrated genocides against its Greek, Armenian and Assyrian subjects; while never involved, Atatürk's role in their aftermath was the subject of discussion.", is "Atatürk wasn't involved in the genocides committed by the Ottomans during this time, but his role in their aftermath was the subject of discussion." better? Youprayteas ^{talk /contribs} 19:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

FOUNDER of the Turkish Republic 88.207.24.255 (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

As I said in my edit summary, the article sounds promotional. To me it is like the deification of early American presidents. Some of his actions seem similar to the purges of those who supported the existing administration at the time of the American War of independence.

He is regarded by some as a dictator. I don't see this word used or that opinion really discussed.

Start with the second sentence "He undertook sweeping progressive reforms, which modernized Turkey into a secular, industrializing nation." A neutral version might be "He led the reform of Turkey into a secular, industrialized nation"

Second para, second sentence: his role in the genocides should be summarized head-on. In this and the section about the genocides the writing seems to take pains to distance him. So it was "the Ottoman Empire", "the CUP", "a small committee", "Muslim mobs". Ataturk was eclaring an amnesty, refusing to deal with war criminals, and inviting them into the government. He had a role, from 1922 at least.

War of independence, para 3: "sweeping" seems to be a favorite word. I suggest deleting all such superlatives and sticking to facts. Para 6: "ignoring the extent of Atatürk's successes" unnecessary; such wording makes the article too long. "not responsible for...massacres" another avoidance.

Don't misunderstand me. Ataturk accomplished a lot. It isn't necessary to embellish his story. I've noted a few items as you asked; I can't deal with the entire article of more than 200,000 words. (But I'd bet it could be cut by 25%.)

I also looked briefly at some related articles. Sabiha Gökçen: sentences about her recognition appear in both the introduction and the body. They could be condensed into a single sentence for the intro. Could the wordy approach be a symptom in all the articles?

I hope the time I've spent on this helps improve the article. I think "peacock" covers it, so I suggest restoring the tag to alert editors. Humpster (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you see the article in the Pontic Greek Genocide? Kemal Ataturk has been named the main perpetrator of a genocide by the International Association of Genocide Scholars and this has been voted by Sweden, Netherlands etc. There are extended sources there for his responsibility, why is this ignored? How could in one article be named a genocider with so many sources and we cannot see even a mention in the article? AlickyH (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Countries like the Netherlands or Sweden do not have the authority to decide whether an event is "genocide" or not. Ironically, you call these events "genocide" for which there is no source or evidence except Greek historians and Greek sources. On the other hand, you cannot say that the Gaza massacres in which Israel killed tens of thousands of babies and children by blowing them to pieces with bombs are genocide, even though there are countless photos and videos of babies, women and children who died horribly. Now show me the photos of the Greeks who died during this "genocide" in question. If hundreds of thousands of people died, there must be visual evidence, right? The world has lost its mind. While ignoring a genocide that is still ongoing (Gaza genocide), it brings up events that the Greeks claim happened a century ago and that have no third party evidence. It is alarming that the world has degenerated this much. During the Pontus events, the Greeks armed themselves and rebelled, killed Turks and many Muslims, and the armed Greeks who rebelled were punished. FAFO. 188.119.21.57 (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The countries voted official in their parliament the resolution from the International Association of Genocide which names Kemal as the perpetrator. As you see these are not greek sources. As for palestine this is irrelevant to the talk page. The IAGS resolution decided this is a genocide. AlickyH (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, there was no rebellion in the pontic region and certainly, children and women dead are not rebels for sure. AlickyH (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The Turkish children and women who died in Tripolitsa were not Ottoman soldiers either, but they were killed by your ancestors. Do you feel sad about this at all? No. Every September, you celebrate the Tripolitsa genocide. Also, there was a rebellion in Pontus, stop distorting history, the Greeks started a rebellion to establish the so-called Pontus Republic and started killing the Muslim population to show themselves as the "majority". Maybe it wasn't a good idea to massacre the Muslims and Turks, right? You wiped out the Turks in Tripolitsa, but you are so angry because you couldn't do the same to the Turks in the Black Sea region. You consider this a "Greek genocide" because the Muslims in the Black Sea fought against the massacres done to them. And I say again, I hope you understand, I don't care about the Dutch and Swedish parliaments. They can't decide what happened in history. Does the United Nations consider this a genocide? No. The subject is closed. Now go ahead and continue to commemorate the genocidal Theodoros Kolokotronis, no one except you Greeks commemorates him anyway, but on the other hand, famous names like John F. Kennedy, Elon Musk and Volodymyr Zelenskyy commemorated Atatürk and there are statues of Atatürk in Japan, Europe and Latin America. Is there a statue of Kolokotronis anywhere except Greece? 188.119.21.57 (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

They commemorated Ataturk because they were given no choice, have you ever seen in a democratic country to take someone to a political person?! The resolution came out in 2012 so the time will come. As for the greek sources, i hope now you understand that there are international.scholars and states who agree. Go to tripolitsa page, how tripolitsa is relevant with the genocide tgat Kemal committed? You have no arguments but the "others did bad things too". This is not the right page. AlickyH (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Are you kidding me? No one forced JFK, Musk and Zelenskyy to commemorate Atatürk. If he was a genocidal person as you claim, these people would not have commemorated Atatürk. I understand that you are very angry that no one except you commemorates Kolokotronis, and your "heroism" stories during the Greek War of Independence are only about killing innocent Turkish women and children. Despite all your black propaganda for years, just a few days ago Zelenskyy praised Atatürk during his visit to Turkey. So your propaganda is not working. If you had spent millions of dollars on improving the education, health and welfare of the Greek people instead of spending it on anti-Ataturk and anti-Turkish racist and fascist propaganda, Greece would be a very different country now. 188.119.21.57 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The human developments index is far better in greece than turkey so thank you for the advices but you are still out of topic. Jfk didnt even live when the resolution acknowledging kemal as a genocider in 2012 came out.they are forced, noone in any sane country has to go in a dead political person and pay them respect, it is not their choice. They are not in a priate visit. Also stay in the subject, but obviously you have not sources, you don't even know what a source is. Go read the IAGS resolution and all the spurces they provide for the genocide, the international association of genocide scholars do know something more than you. AlickyH (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are truly crazy. I am saying that no one forced JFK, Zelensky and Musk to commemorate Atatürk, and you still claim that they were forced to. I don't know what kind of education the Mitsotakis regime gives you, but it must be similar to the education system and curriculum of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany or North Korea. I wonder why it was "declared" in 2012 that Atatürk was supposedly a "genocidal person"? For example, why not the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s but 2012? Because the Greek far-right, neo-nazi and fascist lobbies started to claim that Atatürk was a genocidal person and committed the Greek genocide as of the 1990s and 2000s, as relations between Turkey and Greece became more tense. Even the Greek parliament 'recognized' the "Greek genocide" in the 90s. If there really was a genocide, why didn't you bring it up until the 90s? Of course you can't answer that. But here's some advice for you: stop playing with fire. Stop messing with Türkiye with empty imperialist and expansionist dreams and slander campaigns. I don't know if I need to remind you that your population is getting older and decreasing year by year. Good luck with that. 176.220.247.54 (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The evidence and the research came out much earlier, but the international recognition came in 2012. What the age of greeks has to do? You sound pathetic not having arguments and sources, this is why you are fed with propaganda. Why don't you read the testimonies of the USA missionaries of the time? But Ok, find something else against Greece,because as we all see you have no other evidence to debunk this other than insults. What is your evidence and why your opinion is more important than the historians and the International Association of Genocide Scholars? AlickyH (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

And let me tell you one last thing that will bother you Greeks a lot: Ataturk will always be remembered and praised all over the world, but your "national hero", the baby killer, child rapist, genocidal Kolokotronis, will never be remembered or glorified outside of Greece. The propaganda you make and the millions of dollars you spend to denigrate Ataturk are not working, as was recently seen in the Zelenskyy example, and it will continue to not work. You can convince yourself in your own fantasy world that Ataturk was a "genocidal" person, but the rest of the world thinks the opposite. This will always hurt you. Have a nice day. 37.155.73.63 (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Zelensky is desperate, but even if you make all the leaders pay him respect, the truth comes put in the end. As for statues etc most leaders have,capodistrias in Greece has internationally, this isn't something special. It shows your lack of knowledge the fact that Kolokotronis is famous for writing a letter where he was sick with the massacre against Muslims civilians in Tripolitsa and disillusioned with his troops. But this was a massacre not a genocide and the dead were 10 k (unfortunately) and less than a few thousands during the rest of greek revolution, on the contrary the Chios massacre against greek civilians had 100k dead greeks! Trying to change the topic and not talking about the fact in in thus article that Kemal according to the sourced resolution of the IAGS that Kemal Ataturk committed a genocide shows how much desperate you are because you cannot say that he didn't do it, because he did. Are there any studies that debunk all the studies that have been made and found the kemalist regime culpable? No, that's why you try to derail from the subject. It is you not against me but against many scholars and historians with sources, international, accepted by many governments. You? You only have insults for unrelated things. AlickyH (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

you also have no sources for any pontic rebellion that happened because nothing happened,all usa missionaries and direct sources of the time agree. AlickyH (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

In the Pontic Greek Genocide Kemal Ataturk has been named the main perpetrator of a genocide with many sources, especially by the International Association of Genocide Scholars and this has been voted by Sweden, Netherlands etc. There are extended sources there for his responsibility, why is this ignored? How could in one article be named a genocider with so many details for his actions and sources and we cannot see even a mention in the article? AlickyH (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The claim that **Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was the "main perpetrator" of the Pontic Greek Genocide** is **histortwisted** because:

- The events affecting the **Pontic Greeks were initiated under the Ottoman CUP (İttihadist) government (1914–1918)** by **Talat, Enver, and Cemal Pasha**, before Atatürk's rise.

- By the time Atatürk became leader (**1920–1923**), **most large-scale actions had already taken place**.

- The **International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS)** recognizes the events but does **not designate Atatürk as the chief architect**.

- Countries like **Sweden and the Netherlands** recognize the events but do **not specifically hold Atatürk responsible**.

- The **Greek Genocide is not officially recognized as occurring during the Turkish War of Independence (1919–1923) or after the proclamation of the Republic of Türkiye (1923)**.

- **At the same time, Turkish civilians also suffered massacres and ethnic cleansing by Greek and Armenian forces, especially in Western Anatolia and the Eastern regions during the conflicts between 1919–1922**.

- Historically, the **main figures behind these events were the CUP leaders, not Atatürk**. Ludusian (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Have you read the article about the pontic genocide and the sources? I don't say, but many historians and the International Association of Genocide Scholars (see dates) akwnoledge. From the article:

"The genocide began in 1914 by the Young Turk regime, which was led by the Three Pashas, and, after a short interwar pause in 1918–1919, continued until 1923 by the Kemalist regime which was led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Both nationalist movements massacred the Pontians and deported them to the interior regions of Anatolia."

And "A few days after the war started, on May 19, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was ordered to go to Samsun, which is a city in the Pontus region, to create order there. Instead, he brought more Turkish nationalists together and strengthened his tactics against the Pontic Greeks: even more Greeks would be kidnapped, killed, and tortured.[29]"

---Was he coincidentally in Sampson as an ottoman official responsible for order during the second and most bloody phase of the pontic genocide? Do you think that all these sources and historians who name kemal as the perpetrator of the second phase of the genocide should be ignored and not even mentioned? There are many sources and many details about his main responsibility in the genocide. For example from the article of the pontic genocide with sources:

"For example, when it turned out that Greek women and children were going to be deported from Samsun, seventy Turkish notables telegraphed Kemal, saying that it was against their religion to massacre women and children. The dissenters recommended deporting them to Greece instead. Kemal responded by emphasizing atrocities committed by Greeks against Turks and described expulsion of Samsun's Greeks as a "merciful act". The authorities then threatened to charge the dissenters with "disloyality". They backed down and promised not to take further steps to oppose deportations.[78]"

in this big article about the second kemalik phase of the genocide, isn't there any evident worth mentioning? Or maybe there is a purpose here to hide facts? AlickyH (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Historical narratives are often shaped by political interests, and the claims regarding Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's alleged role in the Pontic Greek genocide exemplify this dynamic. While some groups assert his direct involvement in ethnic massacres, these accusations lack verified historical evidence and are frequently promoted by political entities with an interest in undermining Turkey's national founder. This article critically examines the evidence, or lack thereof, behind these claims and the broader geopolitical motives influencing such narratives.

The Absence of Legal Recognition

Unlike the alleged Armenian genocide, which has been recognized by multiple international bodies, the Pontic Greek genocide has not been recognized by any major international legal institution such as the United Nations (UN), International Criminal Court (ICC), or the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) has acknowledged the suffering of Pontic Greeks, but its position does not carry legal weight, nor does it reflect a historical consensus.

Atatürk’s Role in the Turkish War of Independence

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk arrived in Samsun on May 19, 1919, with the official duty of restoring order in the region following the Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I. Claims that he used this position to orchestrate massacres against Pontic Greeks are based on politically motivated interpretations rather than concrete evidence.

Key points to consider:

Atatürk’s primary focus was organizing Turkish resistance against the Allied occupation and Greek invasion of Anatolia, rather than targeting ethnic groups.

The population exchanges that followed the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) were mutually agreed upon by Greece and Turkey to end interethnic violence, not a unilateral extermination campaign.

No Ottoman or Turkish or British official document exists that provides direct evidence of Atatürk ordering mass killings of Pontic Greeks.

The Political Context Behind These Claims

Greek Nationalist Justifications: The narrative of a Pontic Greek genocide has been heavily promoted by Greek nationalist groups to justify Greece’s own military actions in Anatolia during 1919–1922, which resulted in atrocities against Turkish civilians.

Western Perceptions of Turkey: Atatürk’s success in establishing a secular, independent Turkish republic made him an adversary to colonial powers that sought to carve up the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. Western historiography often reflects these tensions.

Geopolitical Strategies: Some Western nations use historical accusations against Turkey as a political tool in modern diplomatic disputes, particularly concerning Turkey’s role in NATO, its position in the Middle East, and its stance on international conflicts.

Selective Memory and Historical Bias

Many of the sources accusing Atatürk of genocide rely on hearsay, biased interpretations, and unreliable testimonies rather than verifiable historical documentation. The double standards in historical recognition are evident:

The mass killings of Turkish and Muslim civilians by Greek forces during their occupation of Anatolia (1919–1922) are largely ignored in mainstream Western narratives.

The postwar Allied war tribunals did not charge Atatürk with any crimes, despite the British occupation of Istanbul and their extensive investigations into Ottoman officials.

Conclusion

The allegations against Mustafa Kemal Atatürk concerning the Pontic Greek genocide are not supported by credible historical evidence but are instead shaped by geopolitical interests and revisionist agendas. International politics continues to play a significant role in shaping how history is remembered and weaponized. Recognizing this manipulation is crucial for maintaining an objective perspective on historical events which is Wikipedia vision. Its pretty obvious

that you are putting your Ultra Nationalist ideals before historical credibility and facts I personally recommend to you make a neutral approach and read this book:

The Making of the Greek Genocide: Contested Memories of the Ottoman Greek Catastrophe by Erik Sjöberg

(as you can see book says Ottoman and its contents also says Ottoman not Turkish, Turkish National Goverment and Ottoman Goverment are different and were enemies in Turkish war of indepence)

Official Sources

United Nations Treaty Collection - Treaty of Lausanne (1923) (https://treaties.un.org/)

International Criminal Court (ICC) - Definition and Recognition of Genocide (https://www.icc-cpi.int/)

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - Case Law on Historical Events (https://www.echr.coe.int/)

British Archives - Reports on Allied Investigations in Ottoman War Crimes (https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/)

Treaty of Lausanne and Greek-Turkish Population Exchange Agreements - Official Documentation (https://www.mfa.gr/en/) Ludusian (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't get it. He was the highest official appointed by Ottomans in Pontus and when he went to Pontus the second phase of the atrocities against the greek civilians (killings, deportations, rapes begun) after an intermediate period and this is a coincidence and not worth mentioning? And many historians and sources as you see name him and the second phase of the genocide as the kemalik phase (International scholars credible) and it is not even a line in the article? Just happened to be there?

As for being a genocide or massacres against Greeks, when 350.000 civilians died, with n9 foreign army or a rebellion (read the article), this is secondary. Either way the number is not disputed of the dead.

About your arguments, which are not history, i don't even want yo bother to answer. It is like saying that Hitler was too busy with war so he couldn't genocide (!). If you had read the article about the pontic genocide, mind you that they quote:

Probably for this reason Riza Nur, one of Turkish delegates at Lausanne, wrote that "disposing of people of different races, languages and religions in our country is the most ... vital issue".[38]"

But, the start of the second phase of the greek pontik genocide in May 1919 and the arrival of Kemal in May 1919 in Pontus as the highest militant official is just a coincidence not worth mentioning, as for the sources that the Iags was based upon? The telegrams of kemal, o e of which i sourced you? AlickyH (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There is an article of the Samsun deportations of autumn 1921, note this is two years after Mustafa Kemal landed in the city in May 1919. They were organized by Topal Osman, a warlord loyal to Kemal and the nationalists, who committed other atrocities in Northern Anatolia in the early 1920s. We can at least confidently assert that this is a larger pattern of Kemal employing and facilitating the pardoning war criminals from justice during the war crimes trials, and abetting their actions during the independence war. Benlittlewiki (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The argument that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was directly responsible for the Samsun deportations of 1921 and broader atrocities in Northern Anatolia relies on guilt by association, misrepresentation of historical events, and a lack of direct evidence linking Atatürk to genocidal policies. Here’s why this claim falls apart upon closer examination.

----

=== 1. Topal Osman: A Warlord, Not a Direct Agent of Atatürk ===

Topal Osman was a paramilitary leader who operated with a degree of autonomy, and while he was later aligned with Turkish nationalist forces, his actions were not dictated by a centralized Atatürk-led strategy.

• Uncontrolled Militias: In the chaotic post-WWI period, numerous irregular militia groups operated throughout Anatolia, and Topal Osman was one of many warlords engaging in violent acts against multiple ethnic groups, including Greeks and Armenians.
• Self-Serving Actions: His atrocities were not exclusively against Greeks—he also killed Ottoman officials, Turkish political rivals, and anyone he saw as a threat. If Atatürk had been fully supporting him, why would he eventually execute Osman in 1923 after he assassinated a political opponent?
• Not Part of a Systematic Plan: There is no evidence of a structured genocidal plan coming from Atatürk regarding the Pontic Greeks—the events in Samsun were part of a broader, decentralized ethnic conflict that occurred in a collapsing empire.

----

=== 2. Pardoning War Criminals? The Flawed Argument ===

The claim that Atatürk systematically pardoned war criminals to protect them from Ottoman military tribunals after WWI is a distortion of historical reality.

• Ottoman War Tribunals Were Politically Motivated: The war crime trials conducted by the Allied-occupied Ottoman government in 1919–1920 were highly selective and designed to appease Western powers—they were not neutral judicial processes. Many Turks viewed these trials as illegitimate and politically driven.
• Atatürk Was Not in Power at the Time: The Ottoman government (still under Sultan Mehmed VI) controlled the trials. Atatürk had no legal authority over them, as he was fighting a war against the occupation.
• No Evidence of Pardons from Atatürk: There is no documented order from Atatürk intervening to protect individuals like Topal Osman. In fact, once the Turkish Republic was formally established, he ordered the elimination of Osman, indicating that Atatürk saw him as a liability rather than an ally.

----

=== 3. Samsun Deportations and Broader Ethnic Violence: Context Matters ===

The Samsun deportations in 1921 occurred in the context of a broader ethnic conflict during the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). Key points often ignored in biased narratives include:

• Greek and Armenian Militias Were Also Active: Violence in Samsun and Northern Anatolia was not one-sided. Armed Greek groups operated in the region, and many deportations occurred as retaliation against earlier attacks on Turkish villages.
• Not Ordered by Atatürk: No historical document directly links Atatürk to ordering the deportations or the violent acts in Samsun. The decision was taken at a local level, often in response to perceived security threats.
• Ethnic Cleansing vs. Genocide: Many deportations during this period were aimed at expelling populations rather than a centrally coordinated genocide. This was happening across multiple ethnic groups in multiple nations during the post-war period, not just in Turkey.

----

=== 4. Why This Narrative Is Politically Motivated ===

The insistence on blaming Atatürk directly for these events is largely driven by modern nationalist and revisionist agendas:

• Western and Greek Narratives: Many Greek nationalist historians intentionally overstate Atatürk’s role to justify Greece’s past and present political grievances against Turkey.
• Ignoring Allied Colonial Interests: The same nations that criticize Atatürk’s actions supported brutal colonial policies that led to massacres in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. These double standards must be acknowledged.
• Selective Memory: Those who push these accusations rarely acknowledge Greek war crimes against Turkish civilians, including the burning of Turkish villages during the Greek invasion of Anatolia (1919–1922).

----

=== Conclusion: Atatürk Was Not the Architect of a Genocide ===

The claim that Atatürk was directly responsible for the Samsun deportations and broader atrocities in Northern Anatolia lacks verifiable evidence and ignores key historical realities.

• Topal Osman was a rogue militia leader, not Atatürk’s direct enforcer.
• There was no centralized plan from Atatürk to exterminate Pontic Greeks.
• Ethnic violence in the region was mutual, not one-sided.
• Atatürk did not control Ottoman war tribunals, nor did he pardon war criminals systematically.

Ultimately, these accusations are politically charged and not supported by primary sources. They serve more as tools of nationalist propaganda than as serious historical arguments. Ludusian (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you even read the article I sourced you? The violence was all throughout 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922. I quote: AlickyH (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

AlickyH (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, the violence occurred throughout 1919–1922, but the key issue is proving that Atatürk directly orchestrated it, which lacks primary source evidence. Armed conflicts, paramilitary actions, and deportations happened across multiple regions, often led by independent warlords like Topal Osman, not under a centralized state policy dictated by Atatürk. Correlation does not equal causation—being present in a conflict zone does not automatically mean ordering atrocities. If there were clear orders from Atatürk, why have no Allied tribunals, Ottoman records, or official state documents confirmed this? Ludusian (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If you try to persuade me that the highest and only militant authority in Pontus, Kemal, sent by the Ottomans to fight any chance of a greek autonomy, and the killing/massacres/deportations of almost 200.000 greek civilians, women and children, which started as he arrived there are two irrelevant things? There was no war or greek army for hundreds of thousands of miles in Pontus, only Kemal as the authority. He was not a passerby.not he was there for tourism. He had a mission, so everything else that you tell me are against the common sense. AlickyH (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Your argument is highly selective and ignores key historical realities. You present unverified claims as absolute facts while dismissing counter-evidence that challenges your narrative. Let’s address the core issues here:

Lack of Historical Grounding – To claim that Atatürk was directly responsible for violence in Trabzon is unhistorical. There is no documented order from him directing massacres or deportations. If such orders existed, why did Allied war tribunals never prosecute him when Istanbul was under British occupation?

Not a One-Sided Conflict – The violence in Trabzon and other regions was not a systematic extermination campaign but rather a result of intercommunal warfare, where both Turkish and Greek civilians suffered. Pro-Pontic Greek militias attacked Turkish villages, leading to reprisals. Ignoring these atrocities is a distortion of history.

Inflated Numbers and Biased Sources – The 300,000 figure is exaggerated and comes exclusively from Greek nationalist sources, which lack verification from neutral or international historians. War-torn regions frequently experience high casualties, but casualties in a war do not equate to genocide.

Not Even a Classified Massacre – What occurred in Trabzon during this period does not even meet the threshold for an officially recognized massacre, let alone a genocide. Irregular warfare, civilian displacement, and retaliatory attacks are common in war. Presenting them only as Turkish aggression while ignoring Greek militias is misleading.

Your approach lacks historical neutrality and dismisses counter-evidence in favor of a politicized narrative. A truly objective analysis would consider all casualties, context, and sources, not just those that align with nationalist rhetoric. Ludusian (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There is no direct evidence about Hitler and the final solution as well,so this is weak like all of your opinions and arguments. You don't have a single fact, I have.

Kemal ataturk was the militant authority sent by ottomans to put an order in Pontus and when he arrived hundreds of thousands of greeks were killed and massacred and historians and the IAGS (NOT only ME see the article and dates) consider Kemal Ataturk responsible. Who would have thought that the authority is responsible huh?! Yoy doubting the killings after all those sources from Americans etc in the article about the pontic genocide is funny and a denial laughable. There are even telegrams of Kemal ordering Muslims not to deport but to kill Greeks. I sourced you before.

Historical neutrality and all these words you use won't hide the facts, that while Kemal Ataturk was in Pontus as the only authority sent by Ottomans, a genocide of hundreds of thousands of greek civilians occured and historians consider Kemal as the perpetrator. Not mentioning this in the article is clearly hiding facts (and sources and historians). The truth and facts will come out though, they have already started. AlickyH (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also. If you had read the article you would have seen that by 1919 all the Allied were weak (it explains in the article that this is why Kemal found the opportunity, because no one from Entente was in a position to defend Greeks - READ THE ARTICLE you keep asking what is already answered).

There was no greek army there and no rebellion by Greeks, only innocent civilians. This is also in the article. AlickyH (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Atatürk's role is still debatable and should be approached with caution (with a neutral tone), just like that of the Armenians.

However, when it comes to Topal Osman, there’s no doubt.

As for Ludusian, it's obvious to me that he's using ChatGPT without even understanding what he's copying and pasting. HanKim20 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for the chatgpt explanation, because I didn't even understand what he was saying and all the nonsense large text was tiring. I am not here to talk as a historian, but having two articles, in which one dedicates a whole phase of a genocide to the military leader Kemal appointed by Ottomans to fight greeks in the region, calling it moreover the kemalist regime phase, and in the biography this is another Monday is certainly uneasy. One of those is lying and at least a discussion in the article ought to exist, as there are many historians who explicitly name him. There are also many who name it a genocide with the second phase under Kemal being the bloodier, with not only killings but organised death deportations like with the Armenians. Him insisting in telegrams to Ottomans that there was a greek rebellion and he acts (maybe winning time for organising at the same time his revolution?! This is my opinion), while there was no rebellion according to all the direct sources and documents from American and foreign missionaries, all under his tenure as the highest authority with no war or greek army nearby. Unless these two articles talk about a different person, this is suspicious at least. Kemal Ataturk is not a prophet, he is a culprit of a genocide according to dates and many scholars internationally, there are facts ignored in this article. Thank you for your opinion again. AlickyH (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

AlickyH Your argument contains multiple logical problems alongside biased readings of evidence together with absent historical research practices. As someone who does not practice history you assume broad judgments about historical sources before conducting an appropriate analysis. Your argument consists of guessing and emotional statements instead of conducting a thorough analysis.

A direct documentation of genocide orders and systematic planning from Atatürk needs to be shown to validate such allegations. The repetition of unverified statements does not convert them into factual information. This analysis neglects post-war historical complexities because clashes involved various warring factions during the disorderly conflict.

The fundamental principle of historiography contradicts your theory that one of the articles needs to be false. A historian should evaluate evidence by challenging it through diverse perspectives instead of molding sources to match prespecified accounts. The fact that you do not comprehend this principle allows your arguments to fall apart during analysis.

There is strong evidence that you should try using ChatGPT because it would help create clearer arguments and keep you from the problematic reasoning found in your analysis. Your writing becomes unreadable which could be rectified through any implementation of ChatGPT. ( this is not AI generated text you can put it in AI detector) Ludusian (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ludisian, are all those direct sources from missionaries then and the historians credible and not Greek, are sentimental and irrelevant too and you are right? What is your source other than babbling your personal opinions which are of lesser credibility than facts and direct sources? AlickyH (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

To sum up, this is not my opinion vs yours, this is direct sources, facts and studies by international scholars vs your opinion. You still haven't read the article and answer to the sources there, not my "opinions" as you try to portray this. AlickyH (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

HanKim20, using ChatGPT for grammar and clarity is not forbidden, and dismissing arguments based on their format rather than their content is not a valid counterpoint. Innovation in communication is a strength, not a weakness. I read and verify everything I post, and if I repeat facts, it's because concrete evidence is being ignored.

Atatürk’s role is primarily debated by pro-Greek nationalist historians and some anti-Turkish Western authors. While Wikipedia maintains neutrality, the truth of history should not be disregarded. A fair discussion requires evaluating all perspectives rather than selectively amplifying one narrative. Ludusian (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What are your facts? He was the one responsible by ottomans during the pontice genocide and it started as soon as he arrived. No army or rebellion around. He was replying to ottomans that he fought greek rebellions (there is no spurce for any rebellion during these times, greeks knew the fate of Armenians by then) and 200.000 were killed. No turks were killed. He was the authority during these years.

The sources and the recognition of the IAGS about the genocide during Kemal' regime (years when he was the only military authority there ans his own telegrams etc) are international scholars credible. You still haven't read the article and you have no facts, just your opinion that turkish military leader in Pontus should not held responsible for the atrocities during his tenure, despite the direct sources. You have no facts, just the reasoning that Kemal couldn't have done this and that this is nationalism, ignoring history and every logic. AlickyH (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The statement that Greeks lacked resistance through rebellion and armed forces stands inherently false. Several militia organizations of Pontic Greeks existed during that period while also teaming up with Russian military forces. Military groups that fought as guerrillas against the Ottoman forces directly refute your statement about Greek absence of armed resistance.

Multiple historical documents verify that the Greek people engaged in armed struggle inside the Black Sea region.

Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey – Covers Greek guerrilla activities.

-Justin McCarthy demonstrates in his book Death and Exile:

The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 the existence of Pontic Greek armed groups who participated in intercommunal violent conflicts.

-Edward Erickson, Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War I – Mentions Pontic Greek cooperation with Russian forces.

-The Ottoman military reports concerning Greek insurgencies can be found in the Bilkent University Archives.

You persist with the claim that Atatürk masterminded these events despite overlooking important historical details.

Samsun kept Atatürk as its guest for a brief period of four days in 1919.

A very brief period exists for undertaking massive killings which requires organization at every level.

His leadership of the Western Front occurred during the period from 1920 to 1922.

During his engagement in the Greco-Turkish War in Western Anatolia he was physically absent from Pontus. The absence of his presence makes it impossible to establish how he could have organized genocide activities. Also, your claim that his personal telegraphs ordered these mass killings is nothing but a misinterpretation of wartime communications, taken out of context to fit a predetermined narrative. There is no direct evidence in any credible historical record proving that Atatürk issued orders for genocide.

During that period Atatürk lacked exclusive decision-making power in the country.

The country operated with a National Assembly that functioned as a parliamentary democracy across Türkiye at that time. As president Atatürk operated with less power than current executive presidents do. The notion that he controlled the region by his sole authority is not accurate.

Such a claim has been proven to be completely false.

The attacks on Turkish communities by Pontic Greek militias resulted in civilian deaths of people from both ethnic groups so all deaths should be acknowledged.

Topal Osman was later executed too. Ludusian (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are using as a claim his absence but you dismiss his presence. He had the highest authority during the second phase of the genocide and there was no rebellion,the victims were CHILDREN AND WOMEN see the missionaries report from the times from USA and European missionaries about the death of civilians, death deportations etc. Do you want me to source them? Did the children committed guerilla wars?

as for Justin Mc Karthy and the other sources you use, they are laughable. He is in pay roll from Turkey and he is laughable among the scholars. He is a genocide denier, see his page in wikipedia.

How could his telegrams taken out of context, when he orders the Muslims not to deport the Greeks but kill them? When his telegrams where about the pontic region, for which he was responsible? Is your only fact the opinion that he didn't have time to organise it?

I repet again, where are your facts that dispute the international scholars? Do you know the difference between a fact and an opinion? How could a militant leader with absolute authority is not responsible for 200.000 civilians women and children, is a rebellion enough of a justification for his actions after he landed in Sampson? There was NO FOREIGN OR GREEK ARMY there, only greek locals, old and women and children, and the turkish army under Kemal. 200.000 civilians cannot be justified, thus the genocide acceptance internationally. AlickyH (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I truly cannot understand your constant insistence about this matter. You assert the same points numerous times while ignoring conflicting facts believing repeated shouting of numbers will produce fact-based results.

So I will repeat everything I said again to make you understand but I will be civilized and resonable compared to you.

Atatürk spent his entire time in Samsun amounting to a four-day stay. What is the possible means of organizing such mass killings during four consecutive days? That’s logistically impossible. His subsequent move inside the country discredits your statement about his personal involvement in a Pontian genocide.

Atatürk did not spend any time in Pontus between 1920 and 1922. He served as commander of the Western Front in his operations against Greece throughout Anatolia. Being in command elsewhere excluded physical presence which prohibited his participation in orchestrating mass killings in Pontus.

The authority to rule over the country belonged to others alongside him. In Turkey during that time the National Assembly held the real legislative power as the government was not controlled by a single person. Historical records prove your assessment that Atatürk maintained absolute command is incorrect because he did not act as an unchecked dictator.

Pontic Greek armed groups existed. The existence of Greek militias in the area cannot be denied despite what anyone may think about it.

Sources confirming this:

Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey

Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile

Edward Erickson, Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War I

Military records obtained from the Bilkent University Archives provide evidence on Ottoman army activities.

Evidence demonstrates that your statement which denies Turkish fatalities is completely incorrect. Pontic Greek militias engaged Turkish villages through combat which resulted in injuries and deaths to Turkish civilians. Every side in this conflict endured its own share of losses should the concept of factual evidence be true for you.

The actual originator of violent acts during that time was Topal Osman. After his execution proved that Atatürk opposed those responsible for going beyond their orders.

Your argument rests on the use of selected sources that reinforce your positions and you dismiss every piece of evidence that challenges these claims. Your characterization of McCarthy as laughable does not align with your usage of missionary reports since these sources reveal clear biases of their authors. Ludusian (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

He was the authority in Pontus and at least a month after his arrival he was still there, at least according to this article. I source direct evidence, reports by foreigners, you source a historian laughed at by his peers for being pro Turkish and a genocide denier .

This is your opinion, what I am saying is all the sources that exist in the Wikipedia article pontic greek genocide and in the studies, which International Association of Genocide Scholars. The sources were naming the period of Kemal's authority as the second phase of the ponrtic genocide. Are those fake sources and articles? Did you even read them and what of the sources there is fake? AlickyH (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

By all historians and sources upon which IAGS was based, who recognised the atrocities against civilians as a clear genocide, they unanimously blame Ottomans for the first phase of the genocide and Kemal Ataturk and the regime he organised there for the second phase of the genocide, the bloodier one. The two genocides are distinct, years apart, and the Kemal ultimately finished the job. This is not me, you are not answering to me, but to all these who recognise the pontic genocide and the effort to hide this will ultimately prove unsuccessful. There are too many sources to ignore it, this is why 13 years ago the IAGS recognised it as a genocide committed against the Pontic minority. AlickyH (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Alicky, your claim that Atatürk orchestrated a genocide against Pontic Greeks doesn't hold up. There’s no solid, authenticated evidence that he personally ordered mass killings or deportations. The telegrams you point to are ambiguous at best, and reputable historians—like those cited by Shaw and Erickson—show that the violence from 1919 to 1922 was a chaotic, decentralized affair, driven by local warlords and irregular militias rather than a central, top-down plan. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire created a situation where multiple factions were involved, making it impossible to single out one leader for the atrocities.

Moreover, your selective use of sources appears biased, leaning toward a pro-Greek nationalist perspective that contradicts Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality. Until you provide indisputable, contextually sound evidence linking Atatürk directly to these actions, your claim remains baseless. Next time, consider the full range of credible historical evidence before making such serious accusations. Ludusian (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You keep answering to me as if those are my own claims, without even want to see all the sources and historians and the IAGS who name the second phase of the pontic genocide as the Kemalist one and all that i have said to you and the sources i have taken them from historians internationally acknowledged. I am not the one claiming this I just point the effort for hiding this in this propaganda article. So Ludusian as you see the truth comes out, this is why you cannot do anything in the article about pontic genocide which explicitly name kemal ataturk as the perpetrator of the genocide and you won't be able to hide it for more, you will see. AlickyH (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

First, you’re coming off as overly fanatic rather than neutral. You seem to overlook the fact that while Atatürk’s name does appear in the Pontic Rebellion article—and yes, some IAGS sources may label the events as genocide—the same sources, along with many others (including organizations like the UN doesnt recognize the events as genocide), still both sides do not hold him as the main perpetrator or claim he gave direct orders to massacre civilians. Please read the sources carefully.

Second, your perspective appears anything but neutral. You seem unable or unwilling to consider the full scope of evidence, and it’s clear that both the Pontic Genocide(still debated) or Pontic Rebellion and Greek Genocide articles exhibit serious neutrality issues. Your narrow focus not only dismisses significant evidence but also ignores the broader historical context.

Third, while I acknowledge that civilian deaths occurred—this is indisputable—your argument unfairly singles out Greek and Christian casualties, while your facist view dismisses Muslim suffering. Death and violence, tragically, have affected all communities, and any analysis that minimizes one side is inherently biased.

Lastly, I want to be clear: I have never attempted to remove any articles, nor will I ever. I will, however, challenge any attempts to alter history or to present a fabricated narrative. The neutrality of historical representation must be maintained. In this regard, it’s telling that while IAGS does not recognizes well-documented massacres (such as My Lai, Sabra and Shatila, Katyn, Wounded Knee, Tlatelolco, Kent State, and many instances involving Native American and African communities) as massacres, its own status as an "internationally recognized" organization is questionable—many argue it serves more as a tool of political propaganda.

I stand by the evidence and urge you to review the full range of reliable sources to ensure that these articles reflect a truly neutral and balanced account of history. Ludusian (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Bye bye AlickyH (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I still thank you for representing your opinion. And contributing this discussion Ludusian (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes I am certain :) AlickyH (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The original page said: At the time of the late Ottoman genocides reportedly committed by the CUP and the declining Ottoman Empire, but now controversial...

Bsy950707 removed "reportedly" and "but now controversial" without any proper sources for this remove.

I reverted. Bsy950707 reverted back, saying that I don't have any sources either. And this is true, I don't have access to the cited source so I cannot prove what was written. I don't want to start an edit war, so please other editors, can you revert Bsy950707 if you agree with me, or keep the text if you agree with Bsy950707. Lova Falk (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]