Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Legacy section
There appears to be some pronoun problems...there are references to "he" in events that happened after he died but I can't tell by reading who it refers to. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph, they referred to Atatürk. In the second, they referred to the prime minister in 1997. I have edited the section to try to make it clearer.
 * Having lived and worked in Turkey for a year in 1997/98, I can confirm that long after his death, Atatürk continues to be a very real and constant presence in Turkey.--Spud (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good enough, I just didn't think he was still issuing decrees and sending letters. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So, was he a dictator?
I have the feeling this man should be added to the dictator category, he's hardly worthy to be mentioned in the same breath with the likes of kaddafi and hussein, but he *was*, from as far as i know, unrestricted ruler of turkey from until the aftermath of WW1 until the day he died.

while definitely a supporter of democracy, he didn't seem overly open to pluralism when it meddled with his modernization effort, and was generally pretty authoritarian.
 * So was Washington, sort of. CorruptUser (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he seems to be more of a benevolent dictator than a democratic ruler. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Bad shit
Seems like this article doesnt go much in depth into the bad shit ataturk did, would need this to be corrected
 * Well, the article itself wasn't very good in any area, really. I've done my best to clean it up, expand, put in better sources etc, mainly relying on what I could remember from reading a couple of biogs on him. I'm sure an actual expert on him would do better, though. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Fascist?
The long running saga, if the constant addition and removal of the tag is anything to go by. I would argue that he wasn't one because 'Kemalism' lacked the following;


 * 1/ Political irredentism. [Well, apart from Hatay].
 * 2/ Heavy militarism.
 * 3/ The elevation of 'party' over 'state', shown in such things as party-based paramilitaries etc.
 * 4/ Xenophobic internal social policies.
 * 5/ A disregard for laws and norms.

I'm not saying Kemal was a democrat or a saint, but I do think it's too far to put him in the same grouping as the obvious folks. Personally, think he's the roughtly same crowd as Salazar in Portugal, Horthy in Hungary and Pilsudski in Poland. And point out the first has a RW page and he isn't called a fascist. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)