Talk:Irreligion in Turkey

Recent changes and reverts

While I understand that @Aybeg should have provided an edit summary with their edit, @GenoV84; could you elaborate how the current photo and caption relates to "Irreligion in Turkey"? While there is some debate over whether Atatürk was religious or not, the caption does not cover that, and instead talks about his Westernizing reforms; a subject not directly related to the article. Uness232 (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232: Atatürk, leader of the Turkish National Movement during the Turkish War of Independence, was the founder and first President of the Republic of Turkey. His reforms transformed the Republic of Turkey into a secular, industrializing nation. He favoured the abolition of the Caliphate as well as the abolition of the Ottoman sultanate after the defeat and collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and supported the secularization of Turkey. I think that this is more than relevant and appropriate for the topic of this article.

Moreover, I would like to point out that this is not the first time that the user Aybeg attempts to delete several informations and reliable references from this article without explaining the reason for it, or by claiming that those informations and sources were irrelevant, according to their own personal opinion (see [1]). This persistent, unjustified behavior qualifies as disruptive editing and doesn't improve the article in any way. GenoV84 (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@GenoV84 You stated in your edit summary that this was "deliberate vandalism by [a] newcomer". Not a word of this is true; Aybeg is not a newcomer (and even if they were, this would not devalue their edits), and not providing an edit summary for a reasonable change is not vandalism (though admittedly an issue nonetheless). I also do not see any disruptive editing in the diff you provided.

I am well aware of what the text states, but you have not made an argument in favor its relevancy and simply asserted that it is relevant. Secularism is not necessarily irreligion, and indeed the majority of the Turkish population is made up of theists who support secularism. Keeping that in mind, how is this relevant? If you want to include something on Atatürk, why not something on the debate over his religious beliefs in the text? He was only debatably religious, and that is undeniably more relevant to the article. Of course, I would prefer Aybeg's suggestion of a contemporary organization, but I am willing to accept something as long as it is related to irreligion. Uness232 (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232: Are you kidding me? They have deleted the exact same content three times without a reasonable justification regarding their own edits, and you are completely fine with that? Stop begging the question and try to explain why would any of these edits have even remotely improved this article in the first place.

Atatürk became irreligious towards the later years of his lifetime and didn't believe in Islam anymore, everyone who has read a biography of Atatürk knows that, and I also agree that a section about his formerly religious beliefs should be included here; that picture and the sourced content along with it should be moved to the new section about his irreligious beliefs, I think that it would be appropriate for it. As I already said, he promoted the reforms that transitioned Turkey into a secular nation, therefore irreligion in Turkey is allowed and exists because of him. GenoV84 (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232: Your mate keeps deleting sourced content while there is an ongoing discussion on the Talk page and no consensus has been established yet, but you don't see anything wrong with that, don't you? GenoV84 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@GenoV84 I am not necessarily excusing all of Aybeg's behavior, however, you are misrepresenting their actions to further changes that I find unreasonable. Removing the Atatürk photo improved the article as in that current state the photo was irrelevant to the subject at hand (secularism is not irreligion, as I have already stated). The photo Aybeg used in its place was much more directly related. An Atatürk photo with a few sentences related to the debate on his religiosity is also acceptable, but that is not what you proposed, or what you keep reverting to.

I also oppose an entire section on Atatürk on an article that is not directly about him. We could indeed insert a few sentences -- a paragraph even -- to the article about Atatürk's debatable religiosity, but you have essentially copied much of the section of that article to an article only distantly related to Atatürk. That is undue weight.

You have also stated that Atatürk became irreligious towards the later years of his lifetime and didn't believe in Islam anymore, everyone who has read a biography of Atatürk knows that. This is untrue, as we don't know Atatürk's religious beliefs; and while the debate on his religiosity is due in this article in some way, it is definitely not so in the terms you propose. Uness232 (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232: Totally wrong. I copied that section here and moved the picture because it was directly related to him and that same section was the most appropriate place for it. The article Personal life of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is not distantly related to Atatürk, quite the opposite, because it is about his personal life, and most notably both of his irreligious and religious beliefs as well. You keep misrepresenting my edits as being WP:UNDUE while there is another user who has attempted to delete sourced content with reliable references several times because they personally dislike that particular picture (for weird reasons that we don't know...) and you seem to be totally fine with that, even without this discussion taking place now.

You are also contradicting yourself with your previous proposal: If you want to include something on Atatürk, why not something on the debate over his religious beliefs in the text? He was only debatably religious, and that is undeniably more relevant to the article. I did exactly what you proposed, and despite my efforts you just want to disagree and say that nothing works for you, even the new section about Atatürk.

I'm sorry Uness232 but you seem eager to deny all possibilities of middleground regarding this topic, even despite my latest proposal, which followed your suggestion. At this point, I don't see any viable solution in order to establish a fair consensus for all parties involved in this discussion. GenoV84 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@GenoV84 You say The article Personal life of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is not distantly related to Atatürk, quite the opposite, because it is about his personal life, and most notably both of his irreligious and religious beliefs as well:

The article 'Personal life of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk' is only distantly related to irreligion in Turkey, which is what I was talking about. I was not suggesting that Atatürk's personal life was unrelated to Atatürk. I was saying that this much text was undue in an article not on Atatürk. And yes, I was fine with a few sentences of text about how the first president of Turkey could have been irreligious, but I never imagined that you would copy essentially an entire section. That is too much material about Atatürk on this page.

Either way, the text under the Atatürk photo, as it exists now, is completely unrelated, and should be replaced. Atatürk's secular reforms do not pertain to his (ir)religiosity. Uness232 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232: Yes, Atatürk's secular reforms may not pertain to his personal beliefs per se, but they do pertain to the secularization of Turkey, and therefore to the existence of irreligious people in Turkey, and that is also a fact. That's why that photograph and the text along with it are relevant to the topic of this article. That is what I have been trying to explain since the beginning of the current discussion. GenoV84 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@GenoV84 That is not a fact, and is a strange and problematic oversimplification of "irreligiosity" as having an existence tied to state secularism. Uness232 (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232: Do you have any further suggestion or are you going to disagree endlessly for the sake of boredom? GenoV84 (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@GenoV84 I have already told you what I am okay with. The Atatürk photo staying with the text below it being changed, and a few sentences on Atatürk being added to the body is fine by me. I only have two things I am not readily willing to accept: 1) the photo staying there without a change in caption 2) an entire section of material being added on Atatürk. Uness232 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232: That's fine by me. Do you have any suggestion for the new text?

GenoV84 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@GenoV84 For the photo caption, I would suggest something along these lines:

The religious views of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founding father of the Republic of Turkey, have been a source of controversy; some sources assert that he was irreligious.

For the body; I will say, on second thought, that any more additions to the text would require more general 'history' content being added. That would require more work. Uness232 (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232: I agree with the first point, but for the second one there doesn't seem to be much more to add from the corresponding article in Turkish. Perhaps, the most advisable thing would be to add more content from English WP articles such as Religion in Turkey and Secularism in Turkey, and/or a few paragraphs from Personal life of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as I did before. Let me know. GenoV84 (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@GenoV84 I am open to that idea, but I am unable to find a place for that information to be presented in the article, without opening new, undue sections. If you have a different setup that does not do this, I am willing to accept more text on history and therefore Atatürk. Uness232 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

First, I'm not a newcomer. Second, for example, the article "Irreligion in the United States" has no name or picture of Thomas Jefferson, the article "Irreligion in Mexico" has no picture of Plutarco Elías Calles, the article "Irreligion in China" has no name or picture of Mao, the article "Irreligion in Russia" has no name or picture of Lenin or Stalin, and the article "Irreligion in Italy" has no picture of Mussolini. By placing Atatürk's picture and name at the very beginning of this article, however, it is made to appear as if irreligion in Turkey is synonymous with him and his cult of personality is reinforced. By undoing my changes you are kidding us. Did irreligion start in Turkey with Atatürk or the republic? Were there no irreligious people during the absolute monarchy and the constitutional monarchy? Things like the abolition of the sultanate and the caliphate, Turkification and Atatürk's nationalism have nothing to do with irreligion. In none of these articles is there any information that the Republican reforms were carried out because of irreligion. Kemalism was defined as an economic religion by a propagandist in the 1930s. What's wrong with removing a man's picture and replacing it with a template for a survey on the distribution of religions in the country? Aybeg (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You keep talking like the sourced content and reliable references that you have deliberately attempted to remove several times has no relevance to the topic of this article or to Atatürk himself! Read the replies above; I proposed to Uness232 that it would be more appropriate to write a new section about Atatürk's irreligious beliefs and to move the aforementioned content right there. It would be the solution. GenoV84 (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)