![]() | Kemalist historiography was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 22, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Nanahuatl: There are lots of reliable sources about the article. It is definitely notable. This template needs to be removed.-- Visnelma ( talk) 11:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Why not Turkish historiography? There are various "schools of thought", Kemalist being only one of them, and it's not the dominant one any more, so why is it alone under the microscope? It has to compete with Ottomanism on one hand, more class-focused frameworks on another, post-modern deconstructionist views... etc. Furthermore, the link between political views and historical views isn't quite so perfect; there are people who do not subscribe to what the page describes as "Kemalist historiography" but would proudly identify with Kemalism politically (for example "the break with the Ottoman period was not sharp enough"), and vice versa ("the modern Turkish state unjustly usurped the Empire/Caliphate against the will of the people"). Applying a political label to a historiographical framework can confuse people. -- Calthinus ( talk) 01:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I will start with an obvious - it is nothing of the sort, but you know what is a proper venue for that kind of expression, although now that you revealed to me that you both perceive yourself as being victims, as you said, of targeted harassment, no wonder you see accusations on ethnic basis lurking. Now if we are done with a distractions based on accusation upon accusations happening or not at some other page, can we talk about article issues. I will later ask for the clarification on why would I (or anyone else, for that matter, because I don't see myself uniquely incapable to understand what is going on here with John's participation) think that John is SPA, and the matter of editing via multiple accounts or under multiple usernames. Are you willing to respond on my inquiries about article - this article. -- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 15:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I will start, and since neither of you seem to feel tagging of the article, while discussion is underway, would be appropriate, I will tag the article and maybe later ask editors to take part in this discussion via Projects. Let's start with a simplest issue: why we have images of "general" and "party leader / activist" in the article?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 16:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Lead - first statement Kemalist historiography is a narrative of history promoted by the political ideology of Kemalism and influenced by Atatürk's cult of personality.
- who said this, where and when? (I do not expect refing in the Lede, but I can't find specific definition nowhere else in the body, with sources, of course. If I omitted it, please refer to the specific line.)--
౪ Santa ౪
99°
16:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
While on the Lede, one particular statement - Today, Kemalist historiography is embraced by Turkish neo-nationalism (Ulusalcılık), and sometimes by anti-Kemalist conservatism and Islamism, (...)
takes significant place in the article narrative. However, it has no significance for the topic of "historiography" beyond the short elaboration, that can serve to explain utilization - it can't be subject of, or main purpose for the article on historiography.--
౪ Santa ౪
99°
17:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Still Lede - It asserts that the Republic of Turkey represented a clean break with the Ottoman Empire, and that the Republican People's Party did not succeed the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP). These claims have been widely rejected by scholars, notably by Taner Akçam, Erik-Jan Zürcher, Uğur Ümit Üngör and Hans-Lukas Kieser.
Who made such an assessment. where - why the distinction, aren't these opposing scholars part of the historiography with their own research of history?--
౪ Santa ౪
99°
18:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
In relation to previous post - is the KH only historiography in its milieu, if yes, is it appropriate name "Official", if not what other exist and how two relate.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 18:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The article as I first found it clearly had a very WP:COATRACK-esque feeling to it. Some more of my feedback can be found here. Since then, I've removed some bits and added some material, but I must say that there has been some considerable pushback against this feedback, and I don't consider this sort of editing to be compatible with a clean start - I've raised this issue on the user's talk page. The article's problems still remain, however. It has a tendency towards overgeneralisation to the extent that it is actually misleading; this is without a doubt exacerbated by the approach towards sourcing the article, which completely eschews any Turkish-language research and often resorts to literature that only tangentially touches upon historiography (e.g. this one). The post-1980 historiography, under the heavy influence of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis, was a completely different beast from the early republican historiography (see Hakkı Göker Önen's chapter in the recent volume about Darbeler: Tarihi, Siyaseti, İdeolojisi). Historiography in the early republican period was not monolithic; with notable Kemalist sceptics of the official line such as Mehmet Fuat Köprülü. It is simply impossible to give an account of early republican historiography without giving an overview of the First and the Second Turkish Historical Congresses (see Büşra Ersanlı's excellent work from İletişim Yayınları, İktidar ve Tarih: Türkiye'de Resmî Tarih Tezinin Oluşumu (1929-1937)) and yet this article fails to even mention them. It also completely omits the fact that the Turkish Historical Thesis essentially lost all currency following Atatürk's death. On the other hand, any opportunities to turn this article into a list of the misdeeds of the Kemalists are not missed - Uluğ's 1932 book on Dersim is of course part of the discourse in the early republican period but the source does not present this as an instance of Kemalist historiography because well, it is not a historical work but rather a pseudo-sociological observation about Dersim. This material may belong somewhere on Wikipedia but not here, and yet there has been insistence to keep it here - which is why the COATRACK criticism is partly justified. I could go on and on or try to fix things, but there are too many such problems throughout this article and there is quite a bit of resistance against most suggestions. The article is fundamentally flawed and certainly should not be considered for GA status. -- GGT ( talk) 11:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@
GGT:, @
John the Janitor (public):, @
Buidhe:, I see that John is making some changes, but since my familiarity of Turkish history does not extend beyond what any avid reader would know about it, and while my familiarity with its historiography is even less profound (nor do I speak Turkish), I will ask GGT to assess eventual developments in terms of content, also sources in Turkish, in accordance with his available time and an extent of his interest to participate. Having said this, the fact that I am not familiar with Turkish historiography does not mean that I do not know what historiography as a discipline is, and how should article on topic look like, sound like.
GGT, after reading all your posts related to this article (your links including), you strike me as a person who knows what (s)he's talking about when (s)he talks about Turkish historiography. If you are interested in giving us at least a basic outline of what you think this article should look like, specific historians and other intellectuals names, their significance, some turning points and dates (you mentioned some in your first post - by the way, your first post could be very first step in explaining how should article on historiography be written), what changes would be meaningful, and of course what sources, including from Turkish authors. I have noticed that the sources, at least those available to me, cover for very specific statements in paragraphs, but they do not speak in the context of the subject of historiography, and as such serve only as a cover, supporting only specific claim. That could be wider problem - I checked Perry Anderson and Alexandre Toumarkine.--
౪ Santa ౪
99°
18:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
1 Origins and development 1.1 Young Turks era 1.2 First Turkish History Congress 1.3 Second Turkish History Congress 1.4 Adoption by Western historians 2 Axioms 2.1 Turkish History Thesis 2.2 Sun Language Theory 2.3 Ottoman Decline Thesis 3 Political motivations 3.1 Nationalism 3.2 Secularism 3.3 Modernism 3.4 Atatürk's cult of personality 4 Refutation 4.1 Turkish-Islamic synthesis 4.2 Revisionist historiography 5 Contemporary impact 5.1 Ideologies 5.2 Education 6 Notes 7 References
I planning to create an article structure something like this.--
John the Janitor (public) (
talk)
18:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
my familiarity of Turkish history does not extend beyond what any avid reader would know about it, and while my familiarity with its historiography is even less profoundWell, perhaps you should try to familiarize yourself with it before trying to contribute in a topic area you profess not to understand. I'm not sure why you expect theoretical background or etymology. Any claimed omissions should be backed up by providing the source(s) that cover such issues. Do not ask or provide any links to copyright violations. It's strictly against Wikipedia policy, see WP:COPYVIO. And lastly, stop pinging me to this discussion. ( t · c) buidhe 18:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Santasa99, you speak too highly of me - I'm just a Turkish speaker with an interest in Turkish intellectual history. :)
John the Janitor (public), I think the most important thing to do is to define the scope of the article first, and then we can talk about how to structure it. I would strongly suggest that this article's focus is limited to early republican historiography (i.e. at most until the end of the single-party rule). This is how many scholars use the term Kemalist historiography, e.g. Büşra Ersanlı [5], Ahmet Serdar Aktürk [6], Şefik Taylan Akman [7]. Cangül Örnek makes this distinction between Kemalist historiography and later official historiography very clear in her chapter n the recent book Türk Tarihçiliğinde Tezler/Teoriler (2020, Yeni İnsan Yayınevi; it's an excellent overview of Turkish historiography if you speak Turkish). There is simply no other way to avoid getting bogged down in the conceptual complexity. I would not really consider Kemalist historiography synonymous with official historiography - although governments until the 2000s used Kemalist iconography, there is literature that considers the post-1980s infusion of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis into official histories anathema to Kemalist values. Note that Turkish-language scholarship often uses the terms "Kemalist tarih yazımı" (Kemalist historiography) and "erken cumhuriyet dönemi tarih yazımı" ("early republican period historiography" or variations) interchangeably - although the use of the former usually indicates some intellectual distance from Kemalism - but "resmî tarih" ("official history") is something else. We could have a more general article at historiography of Turkey to give an account of the different schools of thought and how they have interacted over time to give rise to various official and alternative accounts.
-- GGT ( talk) 19:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Kemalist historiography was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 22, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Nanahuatl: There are lots of reliable sources about the article. It is definitely notable. This template needs to be removed.-- Visnelma ( talk) 11:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Why not Turkish historiography? There are various "schools of thought", Kemalist being only one of them, and it's not the dominant one any more, so why is it alone under the microscope? It has to compete with Ottomanism on one hand, more class-focused frameworks on another, post-modern deconstructionist views... etc. Furthermore, the link between political views and historical views isn't quite so perfect; there are people who do not subscribe to what the page describes as "Kemalist historiography" but would proudly identify with Kemalism politically (for example "the break with the Ottoman period was not sharp enough"), and vice versa ("the modern Turkish state unjustly usurped the Empire/Caliphate against the will of the people"). Applying a political label to a historiographical framework can confuse people. -- Calthinus ( talk) 01:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I will start with an obvious - it is nothing of the sort, but you know what is a proper venue for that kind of expression, although now that you revealed to me that you both perceive yourself as being victims, as you said, of targeted harassment, no wonder you see accusations on ethnic basis lurking. Now if we are done with a distractions based on accusation upon accusations happening or not at some other page, can we talk about article issues. I will later ask for the clarification on why would I (or anyone else, for that matter, because I don't see myself uniquely incapable to understand what is going on here with John's participation) think that John is SPA, and the matter of editing via multiple accounts or under multiple usernames. Are you willing to respond on my inquiries about article - this article. -- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 15:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I will start, and since neither of you seem to feel tagging of the article, while discussion is underway, would be appropriate, I will tag the article and maybe later ask editors to take part in this discussion via Projects. Let's start with a simplest issue: why we have images of "general" and "party leader / activist" in the article?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 16:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Lead - first statement Kemalist historiography is a narrative of history promoted by the political ideology of Kemalism and influenced by Atatürk's cult of personality.
- who said this, where and when? (I do not expect refing in the Lede, but I can't find specific definition nowhere else in the body, with sources, of course. If I omitted it, please refer to the specific line.)--
౪ Santa ౪
99°
16:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
While on the Lede, one particular statement - Today, Kemalist historiography is embraced by Turkish neo-nationalism (Ulusalcılık), and sometimes by anti-Kemalist conservatism and Islamism, (...)
takes significant place in the article narrative. However, it has no significance for the topic of "historiography" beyond the short elaboration, that can serve to explain utilization - it can't be subject of, or main purpose for the article on historiography.--
౪ Santa ౪
99°
17:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Still Lede - It asserts that the Republic of Turkey represented a clean break with the Ottoman Empire, and that the Republican People's Party did not succeed the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP). These claims have been widely rejected by scholars, notably by Taner Akçam, Erik-Jan Zürcher, Uğur Ümit Üngör and Hans-Lukas Kieser.
Who made such an assessment. where - why the distinction, aren't these opposing scholars part of the historiography with their own research of history?--
౪ Santa ౪
99°
18:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
In relation to previous post - is the KH only historiography in its milieu, if yes, is it appropriate name "Official", if not what other exist and how two relate.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 18:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The article as I first found it clearly had a very WP:COATRACK-esque feeling to it. Some more of my feedback can be found here. Since then, I've removed some bits and added some material, but I must say that there has been some considerable pushback against this feedback, and I don't consider this sort of editing to be compatible with a clean start - I've raised this issue on the user's talk page. The article's problems still remain, however. It has a tendency towards overgeneralisation to the extent that it is actually misleading; this is without a doubt exacerbated by the approach towards sourcing the article, which completely eschews any Turkish-language research and often resorts to literature that only tangentially touches upon historiography (e.g. this one). The post-1980 historiography, under the heavy influence of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis, was a completely different beast from the early republican historiography (see Hakkı Göker Önen's chapter in the recent volume about Darbeler: Tarihi, Siyaseti, İdeolojisi). Historiography in the early republican period was not monolithic; with notable Kemalist sceptics of the official line such as Mehmet Fuat Köprülü. It is simply impossible to give an account of early republican historiography without giving an overview of the First and the Second Turkish Historical Congresses (see Büşra Ersanlı's excellent work from İletişim Yayınları, İktidar ve Tarih: Türkiye'de Resmî Tarih Tezinin Oluşumu (1929-1937)) and yet this article fails to even mention them. It also completely omits the fact that the Turkish Historical Thesis essentially lost all currency following Atatürk's death. On the other hand, any opportunities to turn this article into a list of the misdeeds of the Kemalists are not missed - Uluğ's 1932 book on Dersim is of course part of the discourse in the early republican period but the source does not present this as an instance of Kemalist historiography because well, it is not a historical work but rather a pseudo-sociological observation about Dersim. This material may belong somewhere on Wikipedia but not here, and yet there has been insistence to keep it here - which is why the COATRACK criticism is partly justified. I could go on and on or try to fix things, but there are too many such problems throughout this article and there is quite a bit of resistance against most suggestions. The article is fundamentally flawed and certainly should not be considered for GA status. -- GGT ( talk) 11:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@
GGT:, @
John the Janitor (public):, @
Buidhe:, I see that John is making some changes, but since my familiarity of Turkish history does not extend beyond what any avid reader would know about it, and while my familiarity with its historiography is even less profound (nor do I speak Turkish), I will ask GGT to assess eventual developments in terms of content, also sources in Turkish, in accordance with his available time and an extent of his interest to participate. Having said this, the fact that I am not familiar with Turkish historiography does not mean that I do not know what historiography as a discipline is, and how should article on topic look like, sound like.
GGT, after reading all your posts related to this article (your links including), you strike me as a person who knows what (s)he's talking about when (s)he talks about Turkish historiography. If you are interested in giving us at least a basic outline of what you think this article should look like, specific historians and other intellectuals names, their significance, some turning points and dates (you mentioned some in your first post - by the way, your first post could be very first step in explaining how should article on historiography be written), what changes would be meaningful, and of course what sources, including from Turkish authors. I have noticed that the sources, at least those available to me, cover for very specific statements in paragraphs, but they do not speak in the context of the subject of historiography, and as such serve only as a cover, supporting only specific claim. That could be wider problem - I checked Perry Anderson and Alexandre Toumarkine.--
౪ Santa ౪
99°
18:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
1 Origins and development 1.1 Young Turks era 1.2 First Turkish History Congress 1.3 Second Turkish History Congress 1.4 Adoption by Western historians 2 Axioms 2.1 Turkish History Thesis 2.2 Sun Language Theory 2.3 Ottoman Decline Thesis 3 Political motivations 3.1 Nationalism 3.2 Secularism 3.3 Modernism 3.4 Atatürk's cult of personality 4 Refutation 4.1 Turkish-Islamic synthesis 4.2 Revisionist historiography 5 Contemporary impact 5.1 Ideologies 5.2 Education 6 Notes 7 References
I planning to create an article structure something like this.--
John the Janitor (public) (
talk)
18:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
my familiarity of Turkish history does not extend beyond what any avid reader would know about it, and while my familiarity with its historiography is even less profoundWell, perhaps you should try to familiarize yourself with it before trying to contribute in a topic area you profess not to understand. I'm not sure why you expect theoretical background or etymology. Any claimed omissions should be backed up by providing the source(s) that cover such issues. Do not ask or provide any links to copyright violations. It's strictly against Wikipedia policy, see WP:COPYVIO. And lastly, stop pinging me to this discussion. ( t · c) buidhe 18:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Santasa99, you speak too highly of me - I'm just a Turkish speaker with an interest in Turkish intellectual history. :)
John the Janitor (public), I think the most important thing to do is to define the scope of the article first, and then we can talk about how to structure it. I would strongly suggest that this article's focus is limited to early republican historiography (i.e. at most until the end of the single-party rule). This is how many scholars use the term Kemalist historiography, e.g. Büşra Ersanlı [5], Ahmet Serdar Aktürk [6], Şefik Taylan Akman [7]. Cangül Örnek makes this distinction between Kemalist historiography and later official historiography very clear in her chapter n the recent book Türk Tarihçiliğinde Tezler/Teoriler (2020, Yeni İnsan Yayınevi; it's an excellent overview of Turkish historiography if you speak Turkish). There is simply no other way to avoid getting bogged down in the conceptual complexity. I would not really consider Kemalist historiography synonymous with official historiography - although governments until the 2000s used Kemalist iconography, there is literature that considers the post-1980s infusion of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis into official histories anathema to Kemalist values. Note that Turkish-language scholarship often uses the terms "Kemalist tarih yazımı" (Kemalist historiography) and "erken cumhuriyet dönemi tarih yazımı" ("early republican period historiography" or variations) interchangeably - although the use of the former usually indicates some intellectual distance from Kemalism - but "resmî tarih" ("official history") is something else. We could have a more general article at historiography of Turkey to give an account of the different schools of thought and how they have interacted over time to give rise to various official and alternative accounts.
-- GGT ( talk) 19:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)