Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk#Religion

This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AMustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk%2FArchive_14#Zsa_Zsa_Gabor_and_other_removal_of_sourced_content this archived discussion from 2009] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk&diff=prev&oldid=311551862 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:

• {{cite interview|series=Larry King Live|title=Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6sBdgrZjMw|date=November 26, 1991|publisher=CNN|time=4:37}}
• {{cite book|first=Kaylan|last=Muammar|title=The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey|year=2005|publisher=Prometheus Books|isbn=9781615928972|page=68}}
• {{cite book|first1=Marty|last1=Wall|first2=Isabella|last2=Wall|first3=Robert Bruce|last3=Woodcox|title=Chasing Rubi|year=2005|publisher=Editoria Corripio|isbn=9780976476528|page=3}}
• {{cite web|first=Leslie|last=Bennetts|url=https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/10/zsazsa200710|title=It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World|work=Vanity Fair|date=September 6, 2007}}
• {{cite web|first=Suzanne|last=Moore|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/zsa-zsa-gabor-death|title=Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly|work=The Guardian|date=December 19, 2016}}
• {{cite news|first=Louis|last=Bayard|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/were-zsa-zsa-and-eva-gabor-the-proto-kardashians/2019/08/19/bf9c48d0-c03e-11e9-a5c6-1e74f7ec4a93_story.html|title= Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians? |newspaper=The Washington Post|date=August 19, 2019}}

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored 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)

Came here from noticeboard The (now removed) text lacks context at least. {{TQ|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)

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

::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 {{tq|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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

:::::::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... {{cite book | last=Wall | first=Marty | last2=Wall | first2=Isabella | last3=Woodcox | first3=Robert Bruce | title=Chasing Rubi: The Truth about Porfirio Rubirosa, the Last Playboy: Based on His Memoirs and the FBI File: Spy? Assassin? Or Just a Gigolo? | publisher=Isabella Wall | year=2005 | 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)

::::::::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)

:::::::::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)

::::::::::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)

:::::::::::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)

:::::::::::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 {{tq|Gabor dated}} as if it's factual. Beshogur (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

:::::::::::::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)

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

::::::::::::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)

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

::::::::::::::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 [https://www.upi.com/Archives/1989/11/20/PeopleHOLDING-BACK-THE-YEARS/3015627541200/]. 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)

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

::::::::::::::::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, {{tq|these aren't "facts"}} is unhelpful. Something that is unsupported by any RS presented to date is the statement, {{tq|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)

:::::::::::::::::Thank you. Beshogur clearly is trolling. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Additional research shows the Gabor-Ataturk association has been in the public discourse since at least the early '50s:

• {{cite news|first=Alice|last=Pardee|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/599102511/|title=Behind the Scenes|newspaper=The Ogden Standard-Examiner|date=December 23, 1951}}
• {{cite news|author=Staff|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/996036020/|title=Zsa Zsa . . . . The Mink and Pearls Girl|newspaper=Truth|date=August 24, 1952}}
• {{cite news|first=Lon|last=Jones|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/991525306/|title=The Exotic Miss Gabor|newspaper=Star Weekly|date=April 18, 1953}}
• {{cite news|first=Zsa Zsa|last=Gabor|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/987527798/|title=Life With A Turk|newspaper=The Sun|date=August 25, 1954}}
• {{cite news|first=Parker|last=Kent|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=z2NkAAAAIBAJ&pg=1230%2C1718557|title=Not Just A Peek, Today You Can Gaze|magazine=Herald Magazine|date=October 8, 1960}}
• {{cite web|first=Hadley|last=Hall Meares|url=https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/zsa-zsa-gabor-old-hollywood-book-club?srsltid=AfmBOop_t28BjuAlJhL0hz0iRW1dL_pWPplyXjgeEe3scs1u9QAw1BJ1|title=High Camp: Zsa Zsa Gabor, the Fabulous Fabulist|work=Vanity Fair|date=December 23, 2024}} PromQueenCarrie (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:You begin with: {{tq|Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 autobiography Zsa Zsa Gabor}} and WP:AB says: {{tq|They are often unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is yourself, readers cannot verify it. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable. For example, unverifiable autobiographical claims are often made about one's internal thoughts, including one's feelings, hopes, dreams, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think—a verifiable claim may result from a secondary source reporting on you expressing your thoughts publicly.}} Beshogur (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

This section feels somewhat minor for the introduction: "Atatürk began his revolutionary career in the Ottoman Empire as a Young Turk when he joined the Committee of Union and Progress, playing an important part in the 31 March Incident."

While the information is accurate, I believe it fits more appropriately under the "Military career – Early Years" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DzSolo (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

For some reason, this part was replaced by a shorter and quite ambiguous content, so I restored this version: "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."

I believe this paragraph aligns better with the overall tone and content of the article, whereas the other version feels inconsistent with the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DzSolo (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thirurang Cherusskutty, I believe if the military career plays a significant role in the overall career of the person, it needs to be emphasized in the intro, for instance, we can find the same for Eisenhower:

"... was the 34th President of the United States, serving from 1953 to 1961. During World War II, he was Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe and achieved the five-star rank as General of the Army."

Similarly, it should be ok to point out Mustafa Kemal's military titles in the intro section.

The other example you give, Ayub Khan, well, he is not famous as a battlefield commander regardless of the titles he may have bestowed upon himself, he is primarily a historically significant figure as a politician. Kemal, however, was a historically notable character before he turned politician.

:Well, Atatürk was indeed a notable military commander, although for most of his military career, he was a Brigadier General in the Ottoman Army and was only promoted to the rank of Mareşal in 1921 during the Government of the Grand National Assembly. Since he was known as Brigadier General Mustafa Kemal Pasha for most of his military career and then later as, Mareşal Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, it's better to just use "military officer" or "military commander" instead of precise titles in the first sentence. Thirurang Cherusskutty (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2025

Ok, we can just write ' a military commander and a politician`.DzSolo (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

User:PromQueenCarrie, User:Beshogur:

The issue about whether to mention the reports of an affair between Ataturk and Gabor has been going on for at least nine years, and I am making an effort to be neutral, because I have tried to mediate the dispute more than once. However, I will summarize that there are actually two parts to the dispute that are only loosely related. The first part is whether to include those reports in the biography of Gabor. The second part is whether to include those reports in the biography of Ataturk. The question is largely one of the reliability as a source of Gabor's autobiography. The last opinion from the Reliable Source Noticeboard is that what Gabor wrote can be discussed in her biography, but is not reliable for inclusion in Ataturk's biography.

I closed a post to DRN because it had not been entered via the template for the purpose of setting up DRN cases. Remember that any reports to noticeboards should be entered following the instructions at those noticeboards.

Any questions about any other sources that report on an affair between Ataturk and Gabor should consider whether those sources are in turn relying on Gabor, or on reliable third-party sources.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::By this reasoning, I've removed a similar claim on her ex-stepson's page. For your information, the Ataturk-Gabor story has been an issue on Wiki since the 2000s, and it appeared in print as far back as the early 1950s, well before the publication of Gabor's first memoir. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1748246468}}

Should this article include information about Zsa Zsa Gabor's possible relationship with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk?

1. Do not include any information.
2. Include as a claim attributed to Zsa Zsa Gabor.
3. Include in Wikivoice that the relationship occurred.

This statement was added after the RfC began to satisfy WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCBRIEF. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Since [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AMustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk%2FArchive_14#Zsa_Zsa_Gabor_and_other_removal_of_sourced_content practically the inception of Wikipedia], there have been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk&diff=prev&oldid=311551862 persistent efforts] to remove any information about the reported romantic relationship between Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Zsa Zsa Gabor. I've gathered a dozen-plus references published over a period spanning 73 years:
• {{cite news|first=Alice|last=Pardee|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/599102511/|title=Behind the Scenes|newspaper=The Ogden Standard-Examiner|date=December 23, 1951}}
• {{cite news|author=Staff|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/996036020/|title=Zsa Zsa . . . . The Mink and Pearls Girl|newspaper=Truth|date=August 24, 1952}}
• {{cite news|first=Lon|last=Jones|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/991525306/|title=The Exotic Miss Gabor|newspaper=Star Weekly|date=April 18, 1953}}
• {{cite news|first=Zsa Zsa|last=Gabor|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/987527798/|title=Life With A Turk|newspaper=The Sun|date=August 25, 1954}}
• {{cite news|first=Parker|last=Kent|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=z2NkAAAAIBAJ&pg=1230%2C1718557|title=Not Just A Peek, Today You Can Gaze|magazine=Herald Magazine|date=October 8, 1960}}
• {{cite interview|series=Larry King Live|title=Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6sBdgrZjMw|date=November 26, 1991|publisher=CNN|time=4:37}}
• {{cite book|first=Andrew|last=Mango|title=Atatürk|year=2002|publisher=Abrams Books|isbn=9781590209240|page=490}}
• {{cite book|first=Kaylan|last=Muammar|title=The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey|year=2005|publisher=Prometheus Books|isbn=9781615928972|page=68}}
• {{cite book|first1=Marty|last1=Wall|first2=Isabella|last2=Wall|first3=Robert Bruce|last3=Woodcox|title=Chasing Rubi|year=2005|publisher=Editoria Corripio|isbn=9780976476528|page=3}}
• {{cite web|first=Leslie|last=Bennetts|url=https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/10/zsazsa200710|title=It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World|work=Vanity Fair|date=September 6, 2007}}
• {{cite web|first=Suzanne|last=Moore|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/zsa-zsa-gabor-death|title=Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly|work=The Guardian|date=December 19, 2016}}
• {{cite news|first=Louis|last=Bayard|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/were-zsa-zsa-and-eva-gabor-the-proto-kardashians/2019/08/19/bf9c48d0-c03e-11e9-a5c6-1e74f7ec4a93_story.html|title=Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=August 19, 2019}}
• {{cite web|first=Hadley|last=Hall Meares|url=https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/zsa-zsa-gabor-old-hollywood-book-club?srsltid=AfmBOop_t28BjuAlJhL0hz0iRW1dL_pWPplyXjgeEe3scs1u9QAw1BJ1|title=High Camp: Zsa Zsa Gabor, the Fabulous Fabulist|work=Vanity Fair|date=December 23, 2024}}
• A final decision needs to be made about this so editors like Beshogur will no longer be allowed to remove an extensively sourced, widely accepted piece of information that is relevant to the subjects' biographies. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Extra note to other users: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth / Wikipedia:Autobiography. This hasn't been verified by anyone, which was based on Gabor's autobiography who claimed to have a relation with Atatürk. Oldest source that PromQueenCarrie puts here is from 1951, which is 13 years after Atatürk's death. Beshogur (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Don't include here The sources which I have read above endorse that Gabor claimed such a relationship, so that much isn't seriously disputed. All of them seem to be about Gabor and/or her character and public persona. Many of them also record that Gabor was a renowned 'embellisher' of her own history and some record that there are discrepancies in her account (eg that she was not 15, but either 18 or 20 at the time this affair is alleged to have occurred, which isn't the sort of error one can make mistakenly). The description of her 'de-flowering' reads like a particularly lurid and badly-written bodice ripper (apparently Atatürk knew exactly how to satisfy a young woman). The sceptic in me notes that Gabor couldn't possibly have been seduced by a more prominent Turk, so the tale serves a purpose for her. All in all, Gabor can't be taken as a WP:RS as to the actuality of this affair. What appear to be missing are refs about Atatürk that give any credence to this story. Whilst the lack may partly be due to reluctance to tarnish the reputation of the 'father of the nation', it may also be due to there being absolutely no reason to give credence to this claim. {{TQ|The last opinion from the Reliable Source Noticeboard is that what Gabor wrote can be discussed in her biography, but is not reliable for inclusion in Ataturk's biography}} pretty much sums it up AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• This RFC fails the test for booth WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Please reformat or this is likely a procedural close. Do not include - I agree that this doesn't seem sourced well enough to deserve inclusion. Nemov (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• : I tend to agree, in principle, but the issue is actually quite clear-cut, and the first response to the RfC opening makes the opposite case in about as much detail, so this isn't really "broken", at least not in a way that the community can't handle. That said, revising it to better comply with WP:RFC would be good, even if procedural closure isn't necessary and would probably be a poor idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{re|Nemov|SMcCandlish}} I just revised it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Do include, as a claim by Gabor, not WP making a claim of fact that the relationship happened. This is far too prominent to suppress it, but WP isn't in a position to declare Gabor's claims factual when the sources are divided on the question, and there's scant evidence either way outside of Gabor's own autobiographical material. It might be reasonable to compress the material, since it's not central to the subject, though it obviously remains encyclopedically pertinent. Any number of readers are apt to come here looking for information about this (probably especially after encountering claims on YouTube, etc., that treat the story as if proven fact). It would make no sense at all to include the gist in Gabor's article by hide it here. It should just be given a much more WP:SUMMARY treatment here than in Gabor's article. Look at it from a cross-referencing point of view: If it is stripped entirely from this article, then there is no longer any reasonable means for a reader not already deeply knowledgeable about Gabor to even know that Gabor made the claim. It is our job to help readers find relevant and related information, not thwart them from doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• :It would make sense to have it on Gabor's page and not here if the claim held weight in the context of Gabor but not Ataturk. There are probably a million-and-one dubious "I had a romantic encounter with X celebrity/politician" stories. Do we mention them all in the target's articles? NickCT (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::That's what I suggest to OP, but OP even states as a fact on Gabor's page. It should stay as Gabor's claim on Gabor's page. Beshogur (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Oh yeah. That's wrong. {{ping|PromQueenCarrie}} - We shouldn't state as fact that Gabor dated Ataturk on any article. Unless you have a source that says explicitly that she did, and not just that she claimed she did. Saying on her page that she claimed to have dated him or claimed to have an encounter with him is fine. NickCT (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::"A million and one" such claims do not rise to this level of prominence nor this amount of coverage in sources. Yes, do fix the phrasing of the material at the Gabor article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Agree that few claims of this nature rise to this level of prominence, but conversely few people of this prominence make claims of this nature. Imagine if Kim K claimed she'd been abuducted by aliens and imprisoned on Saturn for a few hours. The claim would be like any number of silly alien abduction stories, but it would get a lot of "prominence". And there's no way in heck we'd put the claim into Saturn. NickCT (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Do not include - Per Pincrete; the Reliable Source Noticeboard finding seems right. I'm happy to change to my vote here if anyone can provide a single reliable source suggesting the factoid is true, which isn't primarily based on Gabor's claim. NickCT (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. I came here from the WP:RSN thread and I've refactored this RfC statement to satisfy WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:*Include as a claim - If it seems to have enough prominence to warrant a mention, I don't see what is wrong when we highlight the fact that it was a claim made by Gabor.

:MaximusEditor (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|PromQueenCarrie}} can you show me the quote of Andrew Mango? Beshogur (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::As if you can't look it up yourself? Mango mentions it [https://archive.org/details/andrew-mango-ataturk-eng/page/618/mode/2up here]. I've had enough of your smart-aleck remarks, Beshogur. You've been playing games from the get-go and this is the last time I'm going to indulge. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|The lady may well have been Zsa Zsa Gabor, at that time wife of the journalist Burhan Belge, who was employed in the government’s press department.}}

:::And? Is this your proof? Beshogur (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It is also getting quite disruptive. Except your first addition, you added this 5 times (also reverted {{user|Remsense}} thrice. Beshogur (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|PromQueenCarrie}} funny how you think 13 citations makes it correct. Even 100 wouldn't. Wikipedia:VNOT. You pointed out Mango, however if that quote above is the quote you mean, it's another speculation. Even he saw it with his own eyes, I just checked that Andrew Mango was born in 1926 and Gabor claims to have los her virginity in 1932. So doesn't makes sense either. The oldest source of yours is from 1951, 13 years after Atatürk's death. Beshogur (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::First you call me "smart-aleck", "playing games", while you added the same thing 8 times (except your first addition) and you reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PromQueenCarrie&diff=prev&oldid=1287559156 my comment] on your page you call me "troll"? Seriously? Beshogur (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Do not include - it seems just a gossipy rumor with no substantiation nor significant impact on his life and not the WP:WEIGHT to force mentioning it. Stick to known facts and important items, not maybe-false but sexy rumors. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Do not include per Pincrete and Markbassett. If Mustafa Kemal Atatürk never acknowledged it, then it is just rumors and gossip that all leads back to one source – Ms. Gabor, which makes it UNDUE for inclusion. 2¢ by Isaidnoway (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:NAMES, Wikipedia articles avoid anachronism by using the current name of the person at the time events occurred. So, the article subject should be referred to as "Kemal" before he adopted the surname. (t · c) buidhe 01:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::no change needed-- the reliable sources are practically unanimous in using Ataturk. Rjensen (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The MOS does not suggest following the usage in reliable sources for this case. (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree but it's Mustafa Kemal, not Kemal (pre surname). After surname it's Kemal Atatürk or Kamâl Atatürk. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is common usage today though his name never was like that. Beshogur (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk/Archive_16#Requested_move_11_December_2021 Shadow4dark (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Why are the the Ottoman Empire perpetrating genocides included in the second paragraph about a page on Ataturk? It is supposed to be a page on Ataturk not on Ottoman crimes, the sentence "During this time, the Ottoman Empire perpetrated genocides against its Greek, Armenian and Assyrian subjects." Does not characterize him or explain anything about him. There is already a mention of him and relation at the bottom of the page. I feel the quoted sentence above should be removed because it is not the most crucial information about Ataturk's biography which is the main purpose of the intro paragraphs. More info about Ottoman crimes and their relation to Ataturk can be found at the bottom of the page anyway. VeryEpikk (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)