I guess issue here is not removing particular kind informations but to create a presentable, well written and "summary style" written article..I dont suggest to remove ideas, i suggest to make the article a coherent, readable whole..Sorry but there is off-putting content in it and further separation of new articles would only make it more unreadable in my view..--[[Special:Contributions/88.241.20.98|88.241.20.98]] ([[User talk:88.241.20.98|talk]]) 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess issue here is not removing particular kind informations but to create a presentable, well written and "summary style" written article..I dont suggest to remove ideas, i suggest to make the article a coherent, readable whole..Sorry but there is off-putting content in it and further separation of new articles would only make it more unreadable in my view..--[[Special:Contributions/88.241.20.98|88.241.20.98]] ([[User talk:88.241.20.98|talk]]) 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
::There are requirements for "summary style" which you can find under [[WP:LIMIT]]. I'm totally fine with summarizing Ataturk's military background as long as we keep the detail under the sub article "[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's military career]]." Or summarizing his leadership during Independence and keeping the detail under "[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and independence war]]." I will give my support to a lead author, as long as we agree on a structure whereby we can improve the content (sub articles) while keeping the main article short and relevant. That is the main problem. --[[User:Rateslines|Rateslines]] ([[User talk:Rateslines|talk]]) 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
==someone making minor edits==
Please note that someone is making minor edits to sections of this article '''and injecting errors in english grammar into it.''' Much of the early sections were meticulously and carefully edited to remove all such errors and now they're back. This cannot become a featured article if it contains multiple errors in grammar. Please, whoever is doing it, stop. You are undoing hours and hours of work that people have poured into this article to try to get it ready for featured status. [[User:Pebblicious|Pebblicious]] ([[User talk:Pebblicious|talk]]) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that someone is making minor edits to sections of this article '''and injecting errors in english grammar into it.''' Much of the early sections were meticulously and carefully edited to remove all such errors and now they're back. This cannot become a featured article if it contains multiple errors in grammar. Please, whoever is doing it, stop. You are undoing hours and hours of work that people have poured into this article to try to get it ready for featured status. [[User:Pebblicious|Pebblicious]] ([[User talk:Pebblicious|talk]]) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 00:09, 26 February 2008
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page.Baristarim 04:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
Notes
There are three books listed in the references section: Kinross, Mango and Lengyel; but the notes section also refers to several others: Erik J. Zurcher, Macfie, Shaw, Stanford J. Shaw - all these books need to be added to the references section. (1b)
Some other references refer to the same books, but are formatted differently; references 70, 74 for example. these should be changed to be consistent. (1b)
Some of the references need to be formatted properly. (1b)
His mother was Roma and his father was half Albanian half Jew.Shouldn't this be mentioned?To prevent any bigotry i must say that i note this for historical accuracy purposes only, and no way to degrade him.(In case a Turkish might find his non Turkic and his non Turkish (also) roots as a sth negative) Eagle of Pontus (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a valid citation for your claims. There's no mention of what you assert in any official biography. And, PS, the population of the Republic of Turkey is documented to be comprised of over 50 ethnicities. "Turkish" is not an ethnicity. Turkish is a nationality and a language. There are probably no pure "ethnic Turks" in the Republic of Turkey today so that he was or may not have been Turkic in origin ethnically is really of no moment. Also, Ottoman officials did not track ethnicities, only religion. By the turn of the 20th Century, the vast majority of the population in Anatolia was not pure Turkic, but a mix of ethnicities from the Balkans, Crimea, Circassia and the Caucasus as well as descendants of those who had crossed the Asian plains 600 years before and mixed with people along the way. This is most likely the reason no official biography conclusively makes the statements you assert, because reliable information about his genetic ethnicity is unattainable.Pebblicious (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mustafa Kemal was recorded as a Muslim child back in the day. This can only be possible if his father was a Muslim in the male-centric system of the Ottoman Empire. His religion is definitely not enough to determine his ethnic background as many of the Albanians are Muslims like many Turks. We can only say that this is just one of the numerous possibilities. Also, his father of being half Jew is questionable too. Marriage between the people from different millets was not easy as all millets were living within their own communities. It is still a possibility as love has no boundaries but when we gather all the odds, we can see that it is just blind-fighting to determine the ethnicity of Mustafa Kemal with the data we have about the past. Just to note, according to the citizenship definition of Turkey, which was adopted by the French version, there is only the brotherhood of soil, not the blood. Deliogul (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is pure nonsence to just claim that Ataturk´s father was half Albanian, half jewish. It is most likley that he had Turkish origin, according to the newest researches from "Ingemar Karlsson; Europe and the Turk". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.69.45 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mustafa Kemal was a Muslim, but if any of his parents were not, and there was a verifiable source, then it probably can be included, but wouldn't really make any difference or be any use to the reader. — talk §_Arsenic99_ 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone help me to understand the meaning behind this section? Is it about democracy and Ataturk? State is a loaded word and the section does not cover all the aspects. --Rateslines (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to make a sense out of it. I did a Google search using the text. There was a match to article "Parliament Membership during the Single-Party System in Turkey (1925-1945)." Used that article to re-organize the text. Do whatever pleases you. My valentine and I will be enjoying the weekend after a long week. --Kemalist (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the article. thank you for the link. --Rateslines (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not a featured article?
Could someone explain what prevents this article not becoming a featured article? --TarikAkin (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can say that it is not good enough to be marked as a "qualified academic article". This citing business is really crucial for such studies. Deliogul (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
97 cited information from 31 different published books; 7 scholarly journals and only 1 magazine. The article is 115,000K and one sub article with 30,000K and 19 different cited sources. Beats many other featured articles. Isn't this an unjustified critique? --TarikAkin (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hagiography...There needs to be a huge criticism section for such a controversial figure... 75.3.225.195 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prose needs to be improved, some sections need balancing, for example the part on mosul is too large, there is little discussion on his secular reforms (perhaps his most important legacy) and some sections need complete rewriting i.e. legacy. If there was an organized effort by editors to get this to FA I will help. --A.Garnet (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you pledge for the lead author, I will support your edits. I would like bring an important position. I can think of many major concepts that the article did not even mention. For example, his search for peace through treaties, assassination, or as simple as the departure with Inonu. I also believe this article should be brought back to an acceptable size. This means summarizing some of the sections. You stated some sections need to be summarized. However, I believe article needs to be extended to be fair. The size issues and specialized sub articles have already been discussed in a separate thread Personal_life. Before someone begins highly needed "balancing" act we need to create sub articles on "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's Military career" "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and independence war" and "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's presidency." This will give us a place to extend, also have a balanced main article. I will support your edits for a balanced main article. --Rateslines (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to present my view, i think what this article realy needs is not the opening of new sections, but to shorten certain long, detailed and often poorly written parts of it. There are already enough separate sections, about his early life and his reforms, any further sub articles would damage article's integrity..--88.241.20.98 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"shorten certain long, detailed parts"Mustafa Kemal was in center of many important issues. The latest revision of this article does not explain all. The article size is not going to decrease. The only way to remove information is to claim it is wrong (proven by a citation). Any attempted to remove information is a "Censure" to the article. Removing any information from this article is a reprimand issued by a specific person or a group. The group may be nationalist, islamists, or by ... who has enough people to gather. I want to ask this question, "What does it say about the group who wants to remove information? Let it may be the nationalist, Islamists, ..." I had opposed people removing information before, even if they removed the ideas that I do not believe. --Rateslines (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess issue here is not removing particular kind informations but to create a presentable, well written and "summary style" written article..I dont suggest to remove ideas, i suggest to make the article a coherent, readable whole..Sorry but there is off-putting content in it and further separation of new articles would only make it more unreadable in my view..--88.241.20.98 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are requirements for "summary style" which you can find under WP:LIMIT. I'm totally fine with summarizing Ataturk's military background as long as we keep the detail under the sub article "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's military career." Or summarizing his leadership during Independence and keeping the detail under "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and independence war." I will give my support to a lead author, as long as we agree on a structure whereby we can improve the content (sub articles) while keeping the main article short and relevant. That is the main problem. --Rateslines (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
someone making minor edits
Please note that someone is making minor edits to sections of this article and injecting errors in english grammar into it. Much of the early sections were meticulously and carefully edited to remove all such errors and now they're back. This cannot become a featured article if it contains multiple errors in grammar. Please, whoever is doing it, stop. You are undoing hours and hours of work that people have poured into this article to try to get it ready for featured status. Pebblicious (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS): 
