Talk:Young Turks

Deletion of Relevant Info on Three Pashas from 3rd paragraph of introduction

Hello, Arsenic99. Let's talk about the information you are attempting to delete.

Information in Question
These "Three Pashas", as they came to be known, exercised absolute control over the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1918, bringing the country closer to Germany, signing the Ottoman–German Alliance to enter the Empire into World War I on the side of the Central Powers, and carrying out the Armenian Genocide.

Urartu TH

Please give us an explanation. Thanks.Urartu TH (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's pretty simple. It's already in the "sections" of the page, it is already mentioned within the context of World War I. I don't know why you feel the need to "protect" this, other than the fact that your name is Urartu and you feel that as an Armenian utlranationalist (Urartu's are ancient Armenians), you must include this on any Turk-related articles. It isn't necessary to consistently repeat it throughout the page of any Turk-related article. There is ALREADY a whole section of it on the Young Turks page. So why insist on deleting my information which is much more informative and inserting your information which already has it's own section below? Finally, Taner Akcam is not a very valid citation, as he has a conflict of interest with the Turkish government and has even denied the fact that Armenians ever rebelled or fought the Ottomans. Cite someone less biased, an Armenian historian perhaps. Be nice and don't revert what I write, modify it if you must, but reverting it is insulting and childish. You don't need to cause an edit war when you can simply modify the information to discuss the Armenian genocide. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 17:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's get one thing out of the way, I am not attempting to delete any information. You may ADD information if you wish and if it's relevant to the article, but deleting the information that was already in the article is problematic. I'm not even going to touch your ethnic attacks against me. I'm a contributor to various topics and in no way an "ultra-nationalist." You are the one attempting to delete any mention of the Armenian Genocide from the introduction. Taner Ackam is a respected scholar worldwide. The Turkish government, which is in denial over the Armenian Genocide doesn't appreciate his cander, along with the openness to Armenian Genocide recognition by members of the German Bundestag of Turkish descent. Genocide denial by the Turkish government cannot be an adequate reason for whitewashing articles about the perpetrators of the Genocide.

As to an "edit war", you are deleting information about the Armenian Genocide which has been a part of the article for a long time and is well cited, without first discussing those changes in the talk page. You must refrain from such behavior until a proper discussion has been had in the community here. The Armenian Genocide was one of the most note-worthy (if not the most noteworthy) action taken by the Young Turks and is what they are largely remembered for by many people. The CUP took control of the Young Turks and committed the Genocide thereafter. This is integral historical information. If you are questioning the source of this information, I think you'll need to give the community better reasoning than the fact that the Turkish government takes issue with his work. Your actions here are blatant vandalism in violation of WP:VD. Urartu TH (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop deleting relevant information as that is a violation of WP:VD and blatant vandalism, to insert a repetition of the same information on a topic that already has the information you stated in the body of the page. It is very clear from your username, that you care a lot about your ethnicity, but that does not give you the authority to constantly delete information in favor of information that is ALREADY in the article's body. Here's what the user Urartu TH has deleted:

Information in Question
which led to a full-scale invasion of mainland Turkey by the Russian, French, and British forces leading to the Ottoman Empire's surrender in 1918.

Again I respectfully ask that you stop deleting relevant information and including information in a redundant manner at the top because of your belief system. What I deleted is already in the article, it isn't vandalism. What you deleted is not in the article and is actual vandalism. Please stop "undoing" and "edit warring" something that isn't in the article in favor of repeating over and over again what you want people to read. "Taner Ackam" (his name is actually Taner Akcam), is not a very well-respected scholar, in fact, he is the least credible source having been in Turkish prison to be using for this topic. There are other Armenian historians who are more credible that you can cite. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 20:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you actually think anyone is going to take you seriously here? You are the one who deleted the information in question that I mentioned above only to add other information. You may add other information if you wish but the information in question about the Armenian Genocide is a summary as a significant part of the article. This is what the introduction is for. If you continue to delete mentions of the Armenian Genocide from the introduction I will have to move towards having this page locked. Furthermore, if you are attempting to "add something that isn't a part of the article", then it should first be added to the body. The introduction is a summary of the article. Taner Ackam is a respected Turkish scholar. As I said earlier, what you are doing is blatant vandalism and must stop now. Urartu TH (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No need to be so childish. Stop vandalizing the page or else this page will be locked. You are DELETING INFORMATION. That is a violation of WP:VD. You are the one deleting the information and linking to something already within the article. Why do you need to repeat links over and over again? It's just bad writing. Again: stop vandalizing and deleting information from the article that better summarize the article. You are reducing the quality of the article, as we can see from the previous edits you've done on the page, your only relation to this article is to talk about Armenians. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 16:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. The introduction is meant to summarize the body. You started on your deletion crusade with this edit and I've asked you to explain why you wish to remove any mention of the Armenian Genocide from the introduction which summarizes part of the body with irrelevant information and the only answer you've given is that "it's repetition" and "it's biased." Neither of these is true. Urartu TH (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Page should be locked. Anti-Genocide revisionists continue to whitewash

Lock it down. Authors are continuing to whitewash the Young Turks' responsibility for the Armenian Genocide. It is proven, there are many witnesses (Wikipedia even has a page full of witness testimony). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:443:1:2A00:0:0:0:E706 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide infobox

The Young Turks party orchestrated the Armenian Genocide. The infobox in regards to the Armenian Genocide must be included in this article. That act is the most important/significant historical event, along from the Adana Masscares and the overthrow of Hamid, that the Young Turks were involved in. Please stop the vandalism. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.138.205 (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

AMAZINGLY NPOV ARTICLE

So, why does this article fail to mention what actually happened to the Young Turks and the Three Pashas in the end? Did they ride off into the sunset once the Republic of Turkey was established? Were their "progressive, modernist and opposed to the status quo" ideology embraced by the rest of the world? If it was such an enlightened time, why would anyone raise a finger against an organization (and I'm just quoting the article's own words here) that "is widely believed among the Turkish community that their actions can be classified as of a progressive movement even by today's standards"? Not one word to explain how such "a regime based on a popular materialistic-positivist ideology" (what does that even mean?) fell from grace?

My issue with revisionists isn't that they have a different idea of history from what I believe, it's that they are so embarrassingly sloppy about explaining what they believe in. Because things actually happened that put their subject they are idolizing in a problematic light they simply skip over huge swaths of dates and facts that don't mesh with their story. No mention of Germany's influence? No mention of Turkification? No mention of Battle of Gallipoli? or Enver Pasha marching 100,000 of his own troops to their deaths in the winter mountains during Sarikamish? The article uses the word liberalism over and over, but what, exactly, was liberal about their policies? What does "under the influence of the theories of, Le Bon, they devalued parliaments as hazardous bodies" mean? Like toxic hazardous bodies? How does this article explain away the Dhimmi status that kept Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and some Kurds second-class citizens? There are dozens of articles on Wiki that mention all these things in-depth, but somehow it gets ignored here. Curious. It's like Japan saying, "for some reason we've never figured out, in 1945 America decided to be mean to us and drop a bomb on our cities, don't know how that happened." I'll say it again, the language presented in this article is NPOV and, more importantly, embarrassing in its hero-worship.

Enver, Talat and Djemal Pasha were terrible, terrible leaders; every single article in Wiki I've linked to about them is, at some level, critical. Shouldn't that be mentioned here? Ataturk is quoted in August 1, 1926 in The Los Angeles Examiner as saying, "These left-overs from the former Young Turk Party, who should have been made to account for the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse, from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule ... They have hitherto lived on plunder, robbery and bribery and become inimical to any idea, or suggestion to enlist in useful labor and earn their living by the honest sweat of their brow ... Under the cloak of the opposition party, this element, who forced our country into the Great War against the will of the people, who caused the shedding of rivers of blood of the Turkish youth to satisfy the criminal ambition of Enver Pasha, has, in a cowardly fashion, intrigued against my life, as well as the lives of the members of my cabinet. " That's the founder of Turkey talking here about Enver as a criminal, which you'd think would raise a couple of questions as to the neutrality of claiming the Young Turks were liberal. Why isn't any of this mentioned? Young Turk-apologists seem to think that all they need to do is avoid mentioning the Calamity and somehow that's enough. I do believe that the Committee of Union and Progress started out liberal, in 1889, but by 1908 the only one using the word "liberal" in regards to the Three Pashas were their spin-doctors. Chalchiuhtlatonal (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned because no one has added anything about it, if its backed up by reliable sources/references your welcome to add it to the page. In a manner that is not point of view, but helps give us a idea about how they were viewed by other leaders in the future. Its wikipedia your welcome to add information that is helpful. Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. There is still a whole lot that needs to get done with this article. But at least the fate of the Three Pashas is now mentioned, it is a start, as well as what Ataturk actually felt about Enver; versus the original conclusion that seemed to imply there was some smooth transformation from CUP leadership into modern Turkey. I also removed a couple of sentences that seemed repetitive and attempted to tighten up the grammar in places. I would like to see mentioned (and will work on) Enver's push toward a Pan-Turkic empire, his embarrassing military defeats that ruined the Third Army, the Three Pashas being given death sentences after they had fled the country. If whoever wrote the Ideology section can actually cite where this information came from, that would be nice. Chalchiuhtlatonal (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Er. Why is there a picture that reads "Long Live the Country, Long Live the Nation, Long Live Freedom" IN GREEK, in this article? Stassa (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

2003

The info on the Young Turks is pretty much included in the Ottoman Empire#Internal Collapse section, but enough pages link to Young Turks including the afforementioned section that I decided to make a separate article. Perhaps someone will add more info. Also the section mentioned also has a link to Committee of Union and Progress which is the official name of the Young Turks. I don't know which article will have to redirect to which one. Dori 06:02, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I read that some of the Salonika Young Turks were Donmeh (some Daud Pasha?). How does this match with the accusations of mistreatment of minorities? How did the YT treat the Donmeh? --Error 02:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Be cautious reading old British Foreign Office stuff. They were convinced at the beginning that the Young Turks were being manipulated by Jews, etc etc. See A Peace to End All Peace .Wetman 02:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I read it in Farewell España, a divulgation of Sephardic history by a Jewish historian, but I may have misremembered the details.

--Error 01:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To Coolcat: First, factual accuracy disputes must be substantiated on the talk page. Specific points, more precise than "Its full of opinions than facts", are necessary. Second, the allegation (placed at the top of the article, alas) that this is "a sub article of Armenian Genocide article" clearly demonstrates the truth of your statement that you are not knowledgeable enough to fix it. Since you admit to lacking knowledge of the subject, I ask that you refrain from editing the article until you gain that knowledge. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:02, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully

Do not ask me to leave.

Appears to be a sub article of Armenian Genocide article, either should be merged with it as the alligations are an international dispute. Its full of opinions than facts.

Asks someone else to fix it. -- Cat ^chi? 19:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Cool Cat has replaced his tag, without any specific reference to any wording he objects to.)

Respectfully, do not add ludicrously wrongheaded assertions like the one that this is a "sub article of Armenian Genocide" that "should be merged with it", and do not add accuracy disputes without substantiating them. You only reveal that you have not the least idea what you are talking about and have, apparently, not read the article that you are attacking. If you knew anything about the Young Turks, had you even read this article, you would realize that there was far more to them than the Armenian Genocide—and look, this article discusses the Armenian Genocide in one half of one sentence, a sentence on the Young Turks' treatment of minorities within the empire. As it should.

Now, if you still have something to dispute about this article, please explain what it is. What are these assertions that you believe to be opinions rather than facts? Why do you believe that they are opinions, not facts? What are your sources for your assertions? Nobody can fix this article if you won't even say what the problem is. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There no relationship between Young Turks and armenian killings. How can you think liberal Young Turks has involved in Armenian genocide? It's not fair you think all Turks are involved in genocide thus armenian genocide is not true at all.--94.54.247.147 (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

reformist->constitutionalist, nationalist->patriotic change

Reformists had been in the power since Tanzimat even Mahmud II. 50 years till first constitution (1876), 80 years till the second (1908). What made Young Turks different was they wanted limitation of government(Turkish: Mesrutiyet) by Basic Law (Turkish: Kanun-i Esasi).

Also, as indicated later in the article, Young Turks were a broad based coalition and first generation Young Turks, such as Mithat Pasha etc. certainly was not nationalist. There were members of minorities, liberals, anti-centralists and many others. --Calm 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

the armenian genocide was not a genocide it was a civil war or a war of countries trying to gain indepedance. Just look at Azeri genocide and turkish genocide they were not genocide but in south east turkey there was a fight for land.These death march never existed and ottoman governemnt never exterminate armenians. My answer is no because the young Turks were fighting against armenian rebels and in the process they may have killed innocent people but during that it was common thing for innocent people to get killed. I ask wikipedia to put up the two sides because if look armenian side of so called armenian genocide they do not recognize that were four ethnic peoples of this region they are Kurds, Azerbaijanis, Turks and armenians. Both Azerbaijanis and Turks do not recognize the genocide.

So called "armenian genocide" is totally lie.

What about Bosnia? What was the Srebrenica Massacre? Is that genocide or not? It was also during a war and were much less victims. They also were killing rebels and their ethnic groups. 1940s Germany was also at war. These things normally happen during wars. That the majority of Anatolian Armenians (wiki: Armenian Genocide) were wiped out should be enough to prove the gravity of the crimes. And let's not forget the Pontus Greeks and Assyrians. Todays Turks are not responsible for these crimes and shouldn't try to deny them.ArticunoWebon (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

POV check template added

"Their principles were admirable", "A detailed analysis of their ideas reveals", "A thorough examination of the Weltanschauung ... leaves no doubt" -- this is not the language of Wikipedia. Joriki 00:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am adding the POV template back. Some contibutors' sole presence and contiributions are to promote their view on the alleged Armenian genocide. It does not serve justice to this interesting subject of Young Turks. Nostradamus1 08:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are trying to argue that Genocide did not take place, you must do that somewhere else, specifically the Armenian Genocide article. Unless you are trying to tell me that the Young Turks were completely unconnected to the events of 1915, that it did not happen under their rule, then you have no reason to remove the template. Also, you should not add a POV template when you have removed the material you find biased. The Myotis (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in the subject of Armenian genocide and I have to prove nothing. The burden of proof is not on my shoulders. Even if there was such a proof one needs to do a better job than just trying to stick in sentences such as "The Young Turks were responsible for orchestrating the Armenian Genocide, as well as the Assyrian Genocide". Though I doubt anyone questions the tragedy of that time this still is very much a disputed subject that should be discussed elsewhere. You are implying that this is an established fact. The Young Turk movement started more than half a century before 1915 and by sticking to your little ethnic agenda you are not doing and justice to the subject. Nostradamus1 12:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You do not have to prove anything as far as this discussion goes, no, but you do have to give us a valid reason for removing a connected group. And yes, I would say that the role of the Young Turks, or at least the Three Pasha triumvirate that ruled the movement during the Calamity, is extremely well-established. As you have made it clear you do not want to discuss the actual history of the matter, I instead want an explanation as to why, exactly, you don't want the template their. Do you simply think that the event was just not significant enough to be connected to the responsible party, or that the template was just to distracting? And the Young Turk movement was only officially established 6 years before the events took place, and even the furthest inkling of its existence only go back 26 years, so don't go off on how it was just an eyeblink in the party's history.The Myotis (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As you will recall a number of times I placed the word "alleged" before the word "Armenian Genocide". You kept removing it. I gave up on that an placed a few sentences describing the Young Turk movement from a source describing it as a liberal movement. You took that out too. What do you know about the Young Turks and if you know that much why are you not adding more? Why are you preventing others from improving the article? In its current state it just makes no sense. The list of Prominent Young Turks is completely misleading. I added Javid Bey since it is well written that he was number four after the Three Pashas that you are obsessed with. The movement had an internal and an external element to it. That is missing. All you can do is do your job of being the watchdog for the Armenian cause which is essentially placing the alleged Armenian genocide template wherever you see fit, isn't that the case?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm only interested in couple arguments in this discussion. I'm not in discussion of Armenian Genocide. Do not bring arguments that involves events or ideologies originated after 1914.

Some of the claims of this discussion needs proof. Was Young Turks a "party" to be claimed as the "responsible party?" It is that reason this template includes Young Turks? The template claims "Young Turks are the responsible part of killing 1.5 million Armenian" If not, why is it in the template? We agree, as a minimum point, that Young Turks were a a coalition of various groups (loosely organized) favoring reforming the administration of the Ottoman Empire. But does that mean this was as tight as Nazis? Can anyone designate Young Turks as "anti-Armenian", with a tool and ideology to "orchestrate a genocide" before the deportations of 1915-1916?. We can do it for Nazis, can't we? In the lack of corresponding structures of Nazism
-->> "Nazi organizations (Nazi Party, Sturmabteilung, Schutzstaffel, Hitler Youth"), Nazi ideology (Nazism and race, Gleichschaltung, Hitler's political beliefs, National Socialist Program, Occult aspects within Nazism, Nazi propaganda, Nazi architecture, Mein Kampf), Nazism and race (Nazism and race, Racial policy of Nazi Germany, Nazi eugenics Doctors' Trial, Nazi physicians, Nazi human experimentation, Nazism and Religion, Nuremberg Trials) <<--
Also, Nazism was anti-parliamentarism, ethnic nationalism, racism, collectivism, eugenics, antisemitism, opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism. If we look Young Turks:

Young Turks	Nazis
parliamentarism - they established the constitution.	anti-parliamentarism
Nationalism: love of the country but not based on ethnicity; Enver=Carcasian from Tajikistan, Ziya Gökalp a Kurd from Diyarbakir, Talat Pasha a Gypsy, Mehmed Cavid Bey a Jew, Yusuf Akçura (1876-1935) a Crimean Tatar...	ethnic nationalism
There ware Arabs, Asians, Anglos among them ...	racism
Except the revolution, was there anything else they were agreed on?	collectivism
??	eugenics
There were Armenians among them. There are high ranking Armenian officials during WWI ! The central bank of Ottoman Empire was manged by an Armenian.	antisemitism

I guess User:The Myotis needs to express himself a little more. His defense of including the Young Turks in the template needs more substance. Regarding the Young Turks as a homogeneous entity with the aim of extermination before 1915-1916. It is a weak assumption that the criminal intent of Young Turks originated in 1914 and executed 1.5 milion Armenians, beginning 1915. Antisemitism had centuries old history. --Born1913 14:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of unsubstantiated claims, you just made a boatload of them. First, there may have been a handful of Armenians on the Ottoman Government, but perhaps you were not aware that the same could be said about Jews in the Nazi bureaucracy. And I am not saying that the Young Turk revolution was inherently Antiarmenic, not until the Three Pasha Triumvirate took over, at least, but that certainly does not mean that the events did not happen under Young Turk rule. There is not evidence that Tallat was Roma, or that Enver was a ciricassian, or Cavid was a Jew, or for that matter that any of the above cited are the the ethnicities you claim them to be. But, really, that hardly matters, as none the Turanist/nationalist elements became apparent until much later, and was bent mainly on unifying Anatolia as a Turkish-speaking Muslim entity. No, I never claimed that the Young Turks were born into the world with a hate towards the Armenians, and it is foolish to believe that is what I meant. We must remember, however, that these things were done under Young Turk rule, even if not ideologically identical to the one of 10 or 20 years before. For example, the Young Turks were not pro-war, but it would also be completely appropriate to list them as a participating power in

Also, why did you insist on comparing the Young Turks to Nazi Germany? Does the connection have to be that direct to justify adding a template. If the Nazi party had not adopted an Antisemitic policy until immediately before WWII, would it no longer be appropriate to put a Holocaust template on the Nazi Party page? Please, 1913, the young Turks do not have to completely parallel the Nazi party in order to be designated a responsible party (even though in many cases they do). The Myotis 00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to decipher the argument here. To claim Young Turks as a genocidal group, the motivation has to be established. The motivation ("antisemitism") for "Nazi party" and its organizations ("Racial policy of Nazi Germany") are established policies even before the WWII beyond any doubt. It is just normal to use this party as a good comparative point. If you can prove that the equivalent structures had established in this group, I would lean toward accepting the idea that the same results could be generated. Why not use them as a model? What I'm saying is this; You can not designate a group of people as a "responsible party", if there is not a "Cohesive behavior" among them, or can not establish a "motivation" beyond any doubt. Besides (a) "handful of Armenians": These Armenians occupied key positions. It is not just a list of names. It proves that the fight was not between two ethnic groups. It was based on two conflicting goals (defending one's country against a separatist movement). (b) "Turanist/nationalist": It is not a crime to love your nation. You have to establish that the nationalism is based on "hate" towards the other ethnicities (Armenians). (3) completely parallel: If you are claiming a "state based genocide" you need to come up with a functional model which the ideology in question can establish itself and find a way to channel its motivation as a behavior against other nation. These arguments are not established. My point is this; Someone can come and create an Armenian Terrorist template with a list of assassin Armenians and locate it under the page of "Armenia". I would disagree with that template, as much as I disagree with this template. It is not enough to brought one highly questionable statement "that is not even established in the article" from Armenian authors to "justify adding a template." That is defamation. That is what is happening right at this moment. Born1913 01:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes, the 'backstabbing Armenians' were rebelling against their 'benevolent Turkish masters' and so deserved extermination. I have heard such dogma before, but I was hoping that the discussion would not pulled down to the level of throwing around pseudohistory. Humor me and pretend that there is no real dispute that the Armenian Genocide was a state-sponsored eradication campaign (which it was, and if you believe otherwise, I suggest you instead go the the Armenian Genocide article). My argument is based on three relatively accepted facts, if you have reason to challenge them do so.

1. The Armenian Genocide was planned and conducted by the Three Pasha Triumvirate, Talat in particular. B. The Three Pashas were Turanists, who believed that Armenians could not coexist with Turks in Anatolia. C. The Three Pashas were leaders of the Young Turk party in what was known as the Young Turk government. As such, they represent the responsible party and their behavior was certainly cohesive. Thus, the Young Turks were responsible for the Armenian Genocide.

Your metaphor with Armenia and the Assassins is highly incongruous, The Young Turks were a party and a movement, not a country. A closer parallel would be putting the AG template on the 'Turkey' page, which certainly would be inappropriate. The Myotis 11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There are arguments which you need to consider (1) You said "Young Turks were a party"; this is not historically correct. List of parties in the Ottoman Empire gives the list of parties. The Young Turks as the name implies, are "young", lively, bold, wished to modernize the Ottoman Empire, which was also called as "TURKEY." They were members of many parties. (2) You said "backstabbing Armenians' were rebelling against" This is correct; There were around 600,000 not-backstabbing (your term) Armenians were living in the Anatolia after the war. The deportations target a specific group, which the leaders of this group before the WWI at "Armenian National Congress at Erzurum" declared that they would side with Russian Army, because they believed the (which Turned out that it was a false) promise given to the Armenians in the Russian Empire that they will have their free state in the region after the war. It think the Armenian leaders who pushed their population into this situation should perform a self critique (reflection) about their own responsibility. Building a nation, through a civil war, is a bloody process. It is double faced to be proud of Democratic Republic of Armenia (there were two other non recognized Armenian states) and blame the others for the sacrifices given for this goal. (1) You said "The Three Pashas"" If you read your response (also all the Armenian Genocide books) the famous "Three Pashas" are blamed. I'm not defending the argument that you can not locate a genocide on the "The Three Pashas" page. I'm defending Three Pashas is among Young Turks BUT Young Turks is not "The Three Pashas." These two words do not have the same meaning or can be inter-replaceable. If you can not prove the link between the rest of the "young turks" and genocide, as you build with the "Three Pashas"; The argument that "young turks are responsible party" is ***defamation****. That is what I'm arguing with you. I'm not Arguing "Three Pashas" or "Armenian Genocide." --Born1913 15:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether the Young Turks were a party or a party coalition, is not the point, they were a distinct group and they made up the young Turk Government. That is simply what the administration that carried out these acts was called. And the 'specific group' you speak of included not just 'rebels' but all Armenians. Unless you think that scholars, priests, teachers, the elderly, women, children under the age of 13, and newborn babies all are capable (and so deserve the death penalty for) 'rebelling'. While I have seen no evidence that 'The Armenians' declared they would side with Russia, and even assuming that was true, it would not justify a fraction of what was done. To say that the Young Turks were directly responsible is hardly defamation, any more than to say that the Nanking Massacre was executed under Hirohito's Imperial Japan, that the Republika Srpska was responsible for the Srebrenica massacre. These were the Governments that such war crimes occurred under, and so they were responsible. Unless you can convince me that the Three Pashas were not Young Turks, and that their administration was not a Young Turk administration, then you cannot expect me to believe the association is 'defamation'. The Myotis 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Things that are not point for you, "party or movement", generates huge difference on organizational behavior. You need an organization, to assign responsibility. The problem with Armenian historical reconstruction of the period is trying to fit a specific ideology of genocide (state organized), is its over simplification through elimination of the complexity of revolution and its by products. It seems there are things you need to learn about the period in question, but I'm not your teacher. However, it is disturbing that after 100 years of the event in question. Also the recent Karabag issue. The difference between the 'rebels' and all Armenians (civilians) is not differentiated in Armenian rhetoric. It was the basic fact behind the doom of the Armenian society between 1915-1917. A group of so called national Armenian leaders (ARF, Armenak, ...) (generally rich Armenians, who had the luxury to be educated in Europe instead of working at the farm) effected with the epic stories of Revolution, Freedom, and Nation (Armenian nationalism). Pushed the region into a chaos. The civilians had to pay for their utopia. All the sides had the story of "elderly, women, children under the age of 13, and newborn babies" during that time. (Generally, Armenians prefer to ignore) It is like IRAQ after 2003. As I told you, it is you that has to prove that a group is a genocidal group. ***The proof is the burden of the claim maker.*** Also the difference between a civilian and a Ֆէտայի is something you have to make peace with your own position. Born1913 (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For your comparison of Nanking Massacre and Srebrenica massacre to the current form of "state based genocide" (the "deportation of Armenians (tehcir law) with the aim of letting Armenians die in the desert conditions" are hardly comparable. The only matching part can be assigned to "bandits." Bandits attacked to the civilians during the migrations. But the irregular bands were existed on either side. You might find some of the names as Armenian heroes. Besides, Armenians had to look for Kurdish bandits to blame, not the Turks. They (bandits at both side) had begun the work which famine and epidemics had not completed. The remnants of the Armenian population had fled into Russian territory or deported by the Talat Pasha (had the higher chance to survival than fled by themselves). the Moslems had suffered equally from Armenian Atrocities: famine, epidemics and irregular slaughter. Muslim survivors had dispersed with what remained of their livestock (interior of Anatolia). BUT these arguments are not related to the discussion. These are arguments of 1915-1917 events. The question is "genocide as an organized activity" which Young Turks developed its mechanisms and ideology before the events (motivation and organization behind the events of 1915-1917). Born1913 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The more you say, Nostradamus/1913, the more it becomes obvious your opinions are nothing different then the same lines regurgitated by the Turkish government and repeated verbatim by denialists the world over. And to think I though you had come up with something original...

A. No, a specific organization does not need to be blamed for genocidal acts, only specific people. Though it is not at all hard to identify what composed the 'Young Turk' government. B. Blaming the Armenians (or their leaders) for the elimination of their own civilian population both lacks any credible evidence and serves only as an attempt to distract from the fact civilians were being slaughtered en mass and without distinction. C. Ah, yes, the evil 'Armenians gangs/bandits' line. Well, I challenge you to find a single significant case from a reviewed unbiased source that Armenians killed large numbers of Turks that was not part of an obvious resistance movement and/or directed at Ottoman troops. To even suggest that a minority in such a position, one that had most of its weapons already confiscated and was in the process of being driven into a lifeless desert somehow managed to enact enormous atrocities against their Muslim neighbors is fairly unrealistic. D. You are making a claim, and so, the burden of proof is yours. I do not need to prove something that is already accepted almost universally. E. The distinction between 'all Armenians' and 'rebels' was not made by the Turkish officials in charge during the Calamity, so there can no reason for differentiating it in "Armenian rhetoric", whatever you meant by that. The rest of what you wrote made no real sense, so if I missed something important, you are going to have to re-phrase it.The Myotis (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally with you for NOT "blaming the Armenians (or their leaders) for the elimination." Denying people the idea of establishing their ruling class of their own culture is inherently faulty. I do not claim the activities of Armenian elite as an Genocide against the people of the region (Muslims). I'm also with your idea of Armenian "gangs/bandits." That was a perception of the Ottoman Empire. One side of the conflict takes the role of a liberator. Other side names them as criminal. Current terminology replaced the word "bandits" with "terrorist or Freedom Fighters." However, there are casualties in both side, what ever you named them. For the argument "I do not believe Armenians killed large numbers of Turks" is basically as ideological as Turkish hard-line claims that no Armenians were killed by Ottoman fire. The nation building is a bloody process. Armenians were building a nation. They did achieve this goal before the end of WWI. The Ottoman Empire lost 5,000,000 people. 2 - 2.5 million from the Anatolian Muslim population. I guess the Russian Caucus Army to be blamed for these people. Besides there is enough intelligence documents stored in Ottoman Archives for this period for finding out who killed who. If you are interested, the link is here. For the last argument "making a claim, and so, the burden of proof is yours;" I'm not making any claims regarding these positions. I'm not trying to make you believe any of these positions that cover the period 1915-1917. AS I told you: "I'm only interested in couple arguments in this discussion." I'm not in discussion of Armenian Genocide. There were many Young Turks, who wanted to modernize the empire. They were represented in many parties during the period. They had many different (sometimes conflicting) perceptions on how to achieve this. Bernard Lewis believes that what he names the "tremendous massacres" [23] were not "a deliberate preconceived decision of the Ottoman government."[24] The Dutch historian 'Erik Zürcher' believes that the reported killings during the application of Tehcir law were ordered not by the Ottoman government itself, but claims that a small circle.[25] He supported his claims, in particular, the holding of trials by court martial involving several hundred soldiers guilty of massacres, as early as 1916.[26] The argument that "young turks are responsible party" is ***defamation****. That is what I'm arguing with you. I'm not Arguing "Three Pashas" or "Armenian Genocide. Born1913 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

1913, you insist on running this conversation in circles. As we have already discussed, it was the Young Turk Government that ruled the Ottoman Empire during WWI, and it was the leaders of the Young Turk government who ordered the Massacres. It was not the Sultan's Government. It was not Kemal's republic. It was not the modern Turkish Goverment. It was the Young Turk government. You can chant "defamation" all you want, you are not going to separate the Administration from its actions. Zurcher's opinions, while interesting, do not account for anything but another minority view. Bernard's opinions are even less credible, as someone who has dedicated a significant amount of time advocating Israeli-Turkish relations. But then again, you are not interested in discussing the genocide, so I guess that's not really important.The Myotis (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The creation of the Young Turk movement

Dear All,

I would like to bring your attention to some points missed in the article, points that are crucial in understanding the logics of the events. Below are the points clearly lacking:

1) Who and when and why created the Young Turk movement? Whose initiative was to start and run it?

Here, in my opinion, the reason for such an organization would be to shake and bring the Empire to the end. It is noted in the article that YT was a secret organization... That alone does not explain anything. Facts, please, about the creation of the organization.

2) The puspose of the Young Turks.

As I mentioned, a reason would be to bring the Empire to the end. For any activities, such as propaganda, revolution, etc an organization needs an enormous material resource, and intelligence. In this respect, who was the support of the Young Turks? This point is particularly important, since for making an entire empire collapse one needs resources comparable to that of the Empire itself. Did Young Turks have a STATE support? If yes, of which state?

3) Who were the leaders of the Young Turks, meaning not just their names but the activities they were involved in before the start of the YT movement, and more general background about them. For instance, their ethnic background.

In conclusion, what is a SECRET DIPLOMACY mentioned in the article? Are there any facts and documents perhaps about Young Turks' secret diplomacy or this is just author's vision?

Thanks, Vahan Senekerimyan

128.200.19.228 19:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Here, in my opinion, the reason for such an organization would be to shake and bring the Empire to the end"

that is quite wrong. The Young Turks were created by the reforms of Abdul Hamid and they took over because they felt that they could do a better job of maintaining the Empire than the Sultan could. The Empire was destroyed only when the Young Turks joined WW1. But if their plan was to abolish the empire then why wait that long? And did Nicholas the II, because he also joined WW1, secretly plan to destroy the Russian Empire ?

Well, in which way the Young Turks tried to preserve the Empire better than the Sultan did? By definition Empire is a multinational entity whereas the Young Turks were centered on Pan-Turanism and nationalism. As a result of their policies ethnic conflicts started in the Empire and as such massacres and deportations of the national minorities (see the Armenian case for instance). If you mean they wanted to keep the territories of the Ottomans I might agree, however it seems silly trying to keep the multinational country introducing the ideas of national dominance of a single nation within the Empire.

Vahan Senekerimyan 08:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Young Turk"

The statement "The term's association with the Armenian genocide, as details of the massacres eventually surfaced, has caused it to fall out of favor." was suppressed by an anonymous contributor with the edit summary "there is no evidence of this statement being true, or of the term young turks having been dropped of [sic] favour. This is merely a loaded sentence, and is slanderously false." --Wetman 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand

New Zealand had a group of parliamentarians known as "Young Turks". One became Prime Minister. Robin Patterson 06:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And Menzies_Campbell the geriatric-looking ex-leader of the British Liberal Democrats recently said much of liking being surrounded by "Young Turks" and of once being a "Young Turk" himself. Within a month, those "Young Turks" got rid of him. Served him right - clearly his understanding of history was as feeble as his understanding of leadership. Meowy 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Flagged for cleanup

First, to the various authors of this page, there's a lot of great information in this article. However, the clarity of the article is being affected by some awkward grammar and phrasing. I attemped to address some of these issues, but the article really needs someone familiar with the topic, who is English proficient, to properly perform a cleanup. With respect --Sir E. D. W. Lynch 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Rod Stewart

I looked at the lyrics to the Rod Stewart song mentioned in the trivia section, and in no way does it even implicitly mention terrorism, never mind support a specific terrorist group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.40.124.16 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 October 2006.

Thanks, I've removed the section. —Khoikhoi 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Young Turk???

I always thought Young Turks where the people who initiated the movement, not the movement itself. Moreover what is this Young Turk without the "s"? Cosika 02:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the "S". The movement itself also is an evolution of Tanzimat. --Oguz1 22:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I addressed the concern of Cosika after 6 years. Frankly one should not expect much from an article on Turkish history based on writings of "Akcam, Balakian and Demonian". --E4024 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

The role of the Young Turks in orchestrating the Armenian Genocide is notable but not mentioned other than in the introduction which states:

Young Turks were responsible for orchestrating the Armenian Genocide. This is disputed by most Turkish historians, along with a minority of Western historians.

Firstly, this is probably worthy of a section in the article. I would be willing to write that (complete with more references than you can poke a stick at). Secondly, it is probably relevant to the above quote regarding Turkish historians that it is infact illegal to affirm the Armenian genocide in Turkey (see Article 301 (Turkish penal code)). Just in the interest of "balance".

Shh, don't want Serdar Argic to show up. 198.49.81.49 (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

..and now even that mention has been removed. I came here specifically to look for more information about the Young Turk's actions in the Armenian genocide and I'm floored to find that all trace has been removed. Especially seemingly on "POV" grounds. There absolutely has to be some mention of it, at the very least there should be references to the vast amount of scholarly opinion on the Young Turk's responsibility in the genocide. Mentioning that literature does not violate a neutral point of view, but instead contributes to it. Brando130 (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now added a referenced opinion of the International Association of Genocide Scholars that specifically mentions the "Young Turk government"'s responsibility for the genocide. This is absolutely notable for an article on the Young Turks, it should not simply be confined to the Armenian genocide article alone. If it is removed we can immediately open a RFC for this issue and let the consensus of editors decide. I can't imagine how we can claim to have a policy of including all notable opinions, and then proceed to censor the notable opinions of genocide scholars the world over.Brando130 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also really disapointed, I don't see any reference about it. In all the world the young turk seems to be well known for this fact. Actually I don't really know what is true and what is not, I' mnot an hitorian.. but the fact there is a discussion troughout the world about it is undenyable, it has to be mentionned somewhere! (sorry for my english..)

I think it is amazing that The Young Turks role in the Armenian Genocide is not explained in depth on this page. Just shows what extent Turkey would go to, to try to cover up the truth. Tiko310 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC).

Evidently, this page violates Wikipedia's own policies for neutrality it articles. The historic fact of the Armenian Genocide is not mentioned in the slightest. Eyewitness and official Turkish documents (signed by Talat Pasha) confirm that the Young Turks Party was responsible for orchestrating this event in Turkish history.Sumguy333 (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

of course the problem is that the final step of any genocide is denial. its hard to be neutral when the party responsible tries to cover it up 69.140.35.147 (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

CUP

Committee of Union and Progress is repeatedly called "jihadist" in its article. --HanzoHattori 08:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction and name in other languages

Can somebody please provide the transliteration or pronunciation guide of some kind for the Arabic. I for one cannot read Arabic and many others cannot. It would be appreciated if any Arabic speaker could do this, thanks. Evlekis 13:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actual origin of the phrase "Young Turks"

Has it any origin in Turkey at all? It may be used there today, but was it used there a century ago? Is it actually from western Europe, late 19th century hack-journalism shorthand or something similar? Like for example the word Jugendstil, "Youth style", the German equivalent of Art Nouveau. Meowy 01:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

page quality

This page is really badly written and quite hard to read. I personally don't have time to fix it now but I hope someone else reading this will read my post and be able to clean it up. 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Young Turks?

Don't you think its odd that almost half of the Young Turks were jewish? And they are the ones who created turkish nationalism. i find it very odd because Jewish people are very "national" and they find something called "kemalism" which creates turkish nationalism. Which is the very source of discrimantion between kurds and turks, and even jews??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.118.74 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read strange stories about this too. It is an interesting theory, but it certainly needs more reliable sources to be backed up. Another interesting element is that some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the Jewish factor is an important aspect in the overall Young Turk plan to carry out the Armenian Genocide. ADM (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The postcard at the top of the page

This postcard is fascinating! At a time of wars and high animosity between Greeks and Turks, and almost a century after the Greek Revolution, the Turkish state (presumably) felt it could still encourage Greeks within its borders to think of Turkey as their "Fatherland", "Nation" and a land of "Freedom". Wow. Do we have more information on this card? There has always been a complicated relationship between Greeks and Turks, and I wonder if we should be writing more about that (not in this article, but perhaps the one on Greco-Turkish relations).Nojamus (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding right? This is someone's practical joke. I'll remove it if there is no objection, by the end of the week.Stassa (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled on this old comment of mine - and I'm sad to see Stassa's response. I don't know who originally put up the postcard, but I am positive it was legitimate. I have seen other things like that elsewhere. You should not have removed it. It wasn't a practical joke. The Ottoman Empire was a very tangled, complex entity.Nojamus (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

More disambiguation needed

I reached this discussion because was pursuing a thread about languages spoken in the Caucasus, discovered the (neo)Assyrians who had fled there, which led to a remark about Assyrian and Greek massacres having taken place alongside the Armenian massacre, which in turn led directly here (not to the Armenian article!). I think maybe something is needed on the disambiguation page pointing to the currency in English of the phrase "Young Turks" as a usage applied in a (usually praiseworthy) fashion to groups of (young) people actively seeking reform, only being in the vaguest way an allusion to the actual Young Turks movement.. As to the historical Young Turks and their culpability or innocence in the various massacres/genocides they are accused of, if the Armenian massacre is covered here, then the Assyrian and Greek massacres must be here too. It would be much better if the primary articles were the articles on the massacres/genocides themselves, and this article should try to maintain a narrower historical perspective with the other issues linked by cross-reference only. That isn't being pro-Turkish, that's a plea for legibility and focus.

Anthonypeterscott (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

pirater

recuperer facilement un facebook ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.243.223.109 (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Count Max Erwin von Scheubner

There's some dispute over whether the following passage should be included after "The term 'Young Turks' has come to signify any groups or individuals inside an organization who aggressively pursue liberal or progressive policies, or advocate for reform.":

This is in stark contrast to how the Young Turks party of the 20th century was viewed at the time. The German Vice Consul at Erzerum, Count Max Erwin von Scheubner, recounted that the party "maintains the viewpoint that the Turkish empire should be based only on the principle of Islam and Pan-Turkism. Its non-Muslim and non-Turkish inhabitants should either be forcibly islamized, or otherwise they ought to be destroyed".

and it's ref'd to this statement by Count Max Erwin von Scheubner. Couple problems with this. It's a primary source. It's just one mid-level guy, not sufficient to demonstrate how the Y. T. were viewed generally, let alone a "stark contrast". I don't know much about the Y. T. but I do know that they were reformers in the sense of wanting stuff to work efficiently. They were also pan-Turkish I gather, but remember many liberal or even socialist reformers at the time, in Czechia or Poland or whatever, were nationalists also. Dunno about the Islam thing, but Kemal did end up making a secular republic and I don't think the Y. T. were basically personally pious. They may have promoted Islam as a nationalist-identiy thing. Granted they weren't big-L Liberal all about Bill of Rights type stuff except maybe as a corollary to having a more Western-style efficient society. So let's see some secondary sources indicating that the Y. T. were viewed at the time as reactionary and Islamist (the Turkish-nationalist thing I think is a given and has little to do with their also "pursu[ing] liberal or progressive policies, or advocat[ing] for reform" or in fact maybe a slight positive correlation cf. Jan Masaryk etc. So anyway I removed the material pending further discussion. Herostratus (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid your portrayal of the Young Turks is flat out wrong. The core of the group, aka the "triumvirate", consisted of the "Three Pashas" (Enver Pasha, Talaat Pasha, Djemal Pasha). Enver Pasha led the "Army of Islam". The group carried out the Armenian Genocide. They were pan-Turkish (fascists) and Islamists. If we are going to leave the sentence, "The term "Young Turks" has come to signify any groups or individuals inside an organization who aggressively pursue liberal or progressive policies, or advocate for reform.[8]", then I'm going to have to revert back to the original form that included the statement by the German official to give context. Count Max Erwin von Scheuber was on the ground at the time. His testimony is the best possible evidence of how the West viewed the group. Also, anyone whose studied the Armenian Genocide knows of countless figures on the ground that describe the race/religious driven killings; for example American ambassador Henry Morgenthau. The current sentence attempts to define the term "Young Turks" as "liberal" etc and has ZERO to do with the party itself. It's a claim used by genocide-deniers that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Furthermore, Kemal Ataturk condemned the YT and his administration was not an extension of theirs. Refer to the page Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide for more accounts that confirm what Count Max Erwin von Scheubner said--from Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to Swedish Ambassador Per Gustaf.--Urartu TH (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That passage was very recently added by the account 68.119.138.205, repeatedly despite removal, in order to battle what he perceives as bias in the article. Which is great, but he did it in an editorializing way, as if setting out to "disprove" the well-established modern term "Young Turks" (see Young Turks (disambiguation)) deriving from the name of this specific group, meaning a group that pushes for radical and progressive reforms. He was trying to "disprove" this definition of the term in the lede by adding a foil to it using "This is in stark contrast..." and his own source. However, he was warned multiple times of vandalism and edit warring, in this article as well as others. What is also very peculiar is that this new account Urartu TH seems to be concurrently editing the same articles as that IP address 68.119.138.205. Hopefully no sockpuppeting going on. Ithinkicahn (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No sockpuppeting; simply trying to ensure that Wikipedia viewers don't get the false impression that a genocidal political faction, The Young Turks, were democracy loving liberals.--Urartu TH (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

With the caveat that I'm not expert on the subject: sure they weren't democrats, sure they were (proto) fascists. So? Fascism was progressive back then. Mussolini's movement was called "Young Italy" or something IIRC. And Mussolini was popular. Churchill called him the "Italian law-giver". Just like the Young Turks, Mussolini was seen as bringing order, modernity, technocracy, to a backward people. And the Ottoman Empire was backward. It was also tolerant. But that didn't count for much in the eyes of the West.

I don't think that Enver and the other Y. T. were mostly personally pious. They didn't spend a lot of time studying the Koran and so forth. In this they were unlike most current people that we consider to be Islamists. They might have used Islam as a lever for political ends, I don't know. They probably didn't like the old millet system, where each religio-ethnic group went by its own laws and had its own courts IIRC, not because it affronted Allah but because it was medieval: France and England and Germany didn't run like that. England had a state religion. And if Turkey was going to have one religion Islam would be the logical choice.

Yes they massacred the Armenians but that took a long time to be established in Western consciousness. And it's not like the French and Brits and Germans didn't mistreat colonials or internal minorities. It wasn't such a huge issue. Rather the West saw people who were going to make the trains run and make a modern state out of what was seen as a medieval hodgepodge.

Von Scheuber may have been right, but did anyone listen to him? That's the important question. If they did, it'd show up in secondary sources, and that's what we'd need to establish that the Y. T. were widely deprecated in their own time. Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You're making a ton of assupmtions here. The fact is Enver Pasha led a group named the Army of Islam. Furthermore, just because the Armenian Genocide has taken a long time to be recognized doesn't change the facts. Take a look at Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide. Even Kemal Ataturk describes the Young Turks in similar terms. They were genocidal facists hell-bent on creating a pure Turkish populace/state. I've done enough to validate the statement. Unless you can counter the facts I've outlined along with the testimonies in the Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide page, I'm going to revert back. For secondary sources, please refer to Press coverage during the Armenian Genocide. Also, you failed to address the point that the current sentence at the end of the lede has nothing to do with the Young Turks party and is sentiment used by genocide-deniers. Imagine this nonsense going on in the Nazi party article.--Urartu TH (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The source is a primary source and is thus not suitable, so this isn't an argument of whether it should be re-added or not. Furthermore, the addition by the multiple-warned and notorious user is an attempt to editorialize the article. The page has plenty of information regarding the Armenian Genocide, including immediately before the the last sentence of the paragraph (which has nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide, but the modern usage of the term "Young Turks"). The user attempted to editorialize the article by saying "in stark contrast... etc. etc." So reverting to re-add that portion is out of the question. Whatever additions are added can be added to the relevant sections or paragraphs, but the last sentence of this article's lede is STRICTLY limited to the modern usage of the term. Do you deny the widespread use of the "Young Turks" term as a progressive faction within an organization, and that the term originated from this specific group? Certainly not, so that addition is completely inappropriate in the last paragraph of this introduction. It is referencing the DICTIONARY, for goodness's sake, the most basic of all references. Thus your charge that "the current sentence at the end of the lede has nothing to do with the Young Turks party and is sentiment used by genocide-deniers" is completely false. See the many articles listed in the Young Turks (disambiguation) page for the many organizations that have been called or nicknamed the "Young Turks" after the reputation set by this particular group. The term is certainly not limited to being used by "genocide-deniers". This article as a whole does not even hint at any genocide-denial; once again, the phrase "Armenian Genocide" immediately comes before the last sentence. That argument completely lacks substance.

If that doesn't satisfy you, check wikt:young Turk. The second entry reads: "(idiomatic, by extension) A young person who agitates for political or other reform; a young person with a rebellious disposition." Ithinkicahn (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to educate potential Wikipedia readers about how some people currently use the term "Young Turks" maybe that could be done elsewhere. But putting it in the lede will clearly confuse readers into thinking that the particular group in questions was in fact progressive and a positive movement in Turkey when in fact they were a genocidal faction. This threat of confusion CANNOT be understatee. Moreover, the citation Dictionary.com, gives a slightly different defintion, "a progressive, revolutionary, or rebellious member of an organization, political party, etc, esp one agitating for radical reform." As you can see the current sentence in the lede has neutered the definition. This is clear POV.--Urartu TH (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not POV. That's reporting on HOW THE TERM IS USED TODAY. If you think that that is inaccurate and attempt to "educate" Wikipedia readers on your POV by adding "in stark contrast" etc. to the end of it, then that would be POV. The sentence as it stands is not POV, since it directly cites and references a widely-accepted, modern dictionary definition, as well as thousands of other dictionary definitions in every dictionary you will ever find. And the sentences doesn't seem to neuter the Dictionary.com definition at all. It has replaced "radical" with "aggressive". Does this justify POV modifications to the end? Certainly not. Ithinkicahn (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The fact that you neglect to understand that the group in question did not in fact espouse the ideals of progessivism, democracy and other western ideals is the MAIN thrust of my point. You are deliberately confusing readers. No one that is going to read an article about the Young Turk party--most probably in regards to the Armenian Genocide, is going to care about how the term is currently used. Therefore IT IS POV.

What Ithinkicahn said. The article is "Young Turks" and a main everyday use of "Young Turk" nowadays is the dictionary definition, and it's worthwhile putting in a brief note about that at the end of fairly long lede. See Young Turks (U.S. politics) for a good example of idiomatic use.

This is annoying to you because you don't seem to like the Young Turks very much and it's an essentially positive take on Young Turkitude. Sorry, but we can't help that.

I understand. To you, it's kind of like if, for some unknown reason, "Young Nazis" had come to mean "the up-and-comers in an organization" or something, so that people commonly said stuff like "Boy, the Young Nazis on this team are really going to help our pennant drive this year". That would be extremely annoying to a lot of people. But if it was true, we would probably mention it in the Nazi article, and in the lede if appropriate. We'd have to, because our job is to describe what people say and what idioms mean and not what we wish they would say and meant.

I feel your pain, but we can't defer to it, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot just sit here and allow a genocide-deniers line remain on this page. Something needs to be done. If Ithinkicahn wants this sentence to remain, then it should at least not be in the lede. I have answered all of your questions in regards to substantiating the German officials sentiments. I have provided the necessary secondary sources along with primary sources that concur with the German official. This is certainly enough to at least revert back. If we cannot revert back then we need to either the supposed definition of the term Young Turk or move it to another part of the article.--Urartu TH (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding "Counterintuitively" is worse than before. The definition doesn't need to be moved. It would be worse if it was the FIRST thing in the introduction. It is the last thing, which is the convention for placing a separate but related meaning of the same term. I don't have a dog in the fight, but the sentence has been there for years, with little disagreement, because it is the definition of the phrase "Young Turks" derived from the name of the party. If you want to take that up with Dictionary.com or other dictionaries, be my guest, but Wikipedia will report on the widely-accepted definitions of terms, not editorializations.

The actions of the leadership of the organization, per what Herostratus has said above, have no bearing on the definition of the term. If a hypothetical phrase "Young Nazis" meant something some may perceive as positive and ran afoul of the reputation of the party, then that term would still be included. As it is, the phrase "Young Turks" is actually more popular than this originating organization itself. The definition has been updated to match the dictionary's; leave the established, sourced dictionary definition alone.

There was a recent and lengthy discussion on a similar subject in Talk:Committee of Union and Progress. Let's not reinvent the wheel. Ithinkicahn (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that discussion resulted in a consensus that an Armenian Genocide infobox should be added to that article in the appropriate subsection. I'll be working on that soon.--Urartu TH (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. "I cannot just sit here and allow a genocide-deniers line remain on this page" is not a good sign. This is the Wikipedia, not the Urartu THipedia. Urartu TH does not decide, by his own self, what does or does not remain on a page. So this is starting to get annoying. I'm getting the feeling that you're not actually listening to us. Please do. Herostratus (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I will make a compromise edit. The current line DOES NOT represent what is on Dictionary.com. Did you realize that? Also, I still don't understand what the definition of the term "Young Turks" has to do with the article. Do not start with the insults Herostratus. I don't need to be dictated to. The fact of the matter is you've been running away from various sub-arguments in this talk page that you've clearly not understood. You asked for secondary sources, I provided them. I even provided more primary sources, yet without replying to any of that you conclude that the German officials statement cannot be included for context? What arbitrary nonsense is this? --Urartu TH (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Repeated purges of armenian genocide section

I actually visited because of confusion as to why an online news show would choose to name themselves "Young Turks". Like others, I was surprised that this article barely mentioned a "small detail"...

So [silly] of me.

The entire armenian genocide section has been removed at least 3 times by non-accounts, with no reason stated. It's been restored (again). Prior to my [restore], Ithinkicahn reverted another edit which had removed all traces of the genocide from this article.

Perhaps this article should be semi-protected, since whitewashing important details is a repeated issue.

As for the section; IMHO it could be cleaned up; more citations, and a precise clarification on how the young turk movement brought the genocide about. IMHO the infobox is overkill; *coughgodwincough* the nazi articles don't have a holocaust infobox...and like the nazis, the young turks did a great deal of non-geocidal things. Though a well worded paragraph of what the young turks did should be added before the index. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicdryad (talk • contribs) 09:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Genocides and discrimination in Turkey under Young Turks

Several users keep removing half a sentence from the introduction that goes "Despite this period of Turkish history being associated with systematic oppression of non-Muslim minorities in Turkey, such as the Armenian and Greek genocides". This is somehow believed to be irrelevant.

That's nonsense. It's extremely relevant to their reputation as liberals. If a police officer led a double life as a criminal, the Wikipedia article on the officer would mention that in the introduction. It's required to properly describe the subject of the article and leaving it out would be POV pusing. Similarly, Young Turks have a reputation for being extremely liberal and yet they enforced ethnic cleansing and murder of minorities. Not mentioning that is censoring objective facts from the article because you don't like them.

Additionally, the introduction is supposed to summarize the article. There's an entire section about the Armenian genocide, so it must be mentioned in the introduction.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning genocide in the introduction section

edited title - 79.97.222.210 (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We go round and round on this continuously, and probably always will, and I get it, because the Turks were beastly to the Armenians. This is a subset of "People are beastly to people, as the default rule" but if you're Armenian it sticks in craw, understandably.

Aside from the actual Young Turks themselves, the phrase "Young Turks" has entered the English language as an idiom, meaning roughly "Young insurgents, shaking things up". See [[ Young Turks (U.S. politics)]] and so and so forth. See Young Turks (disambiguation). Most of those uses are not pejorative.

What some editors would like is for "Young Turk" to mean "beastly murderer". So that if someone were to say "The Young Turks at the Utica office are really making an impression on the head office with their reforms" it would be taken to mean, more or less, "The horribly evil and bloody-minded people at the Utica office are really making a ghastly impression on the head office with their so-called reforms".

But it doesn't.

"Young Turks" isn't used that way as an English idiom. This is, I guess, on some level a sad thing if you are Armenian or Greek or whatever. But we can't help that. Our job here is to report, not make, definitions of idioms.

So let's not do this. It's not worth fighting over nor is fighting over it going to be successful or useful to anyone, so what I'd suggest is that editors who can't stand the fact that the Young Turks are seen with some positive light in the West should go edit articles on other subjects, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. The IP doesn't see to get the fact that "Young Turk" is an idiom in the English language for what the source states. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You're both correct of course. The phrase "Young Turk" is an idiom that means progressive or radical reformer. I haven't even edited that part of the article. My issue is with the two of you removing properly referenced information about the real Young Turk's policies from the article about them, which is mindless behaviour. There's an entire section of the article devoted to the genocide, and I am only trying to mention it in the introduction. Summarizing every part of the article except the genocide bit is simply bias.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in adding a summary of the genocide however I don't agree with where your sticking it. Why must it be "Despite..." and run directly into the sourced idiom part? Whilst a lede does not need to be entirely sourced if it properly summarises the article, sources should be used for things that are controversial. The source only backs up the latter part of the sentence. Notice there is no elaboration on WWI either in the lede just a passing reference to it and it is just as notable as the genocides (a term which i itself causes controversy for some). Mabuska ^(talk) 12:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah don't stick it in there,, OK? George Washington has "Washington has been widely hailed as the 'father of his country' even during his lifetime". "It doesn't say "Despite being a slaveowner, Washington has been widely hailed as the 'father of his country' even during his lifetime" and so forth. Does not say "At his death, Washington was eulogized as 'first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen' by Henry Lee, despite being a mediocre general, elitist, and not a great thinker". These are paths we do not want to be going down on in articles generally. If you don't understand by now why this must be, I can't really explain it to you I don't guess.

Also don't edit my words please. The title I gave to this section was something like "Again with this" and it is a matter of again with this. Looking at the talk page above, we have that as of 2006 someone had inserted in the article "The term's association with the Armenian genocide, as details of the massacres eventually surfaced, has caused it to fall out of favor" which was unsourced and very unlikely. And in particular see Talk:Young Turks#Count Max Erwin von Scheubner from a year ago, same topic, an editor wanting to add "This is in stark contrast to how the Young Turks party of the 20th century was viewed at the time..." (compare to your "Despite this period of Turkish history being associated with systematic oppression of non-Muslim minorities in Turkey, such as the Armenian and Greek genocides...").

I mean, look. You're not coming here at random and saying "Wow, the sentence about the idiom 'Young Turk' is wrong and misleading to the reader, I'll fix it to improve the encyclopedia". You don't like the Young Turks and want to get the knife in. I don't blame you, but take it outside, please. I have a huge moral advantage over you here: I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about the Young Turks, Enver Pasha, the Armenians, Kemal, or anyone else here. I just happen to be watching this page at random. This doesn't prove I'm right about this but it gives me the upper hand for assumed NPOV. The onus is on you to make your case and you haven't (again, I'm speaking just about the idiom "Young Turk" and not about the rest of the article). If you want to run an RfC or something to get more eyes on this that'd be your next step I guess, otherwise you're coming up short. Herostratus (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Wow, the sentence about the idiom 'Young Turk' is wrong and misleading to the reader, I'll fix it to improve the encyclopedia" is exactly why I am editing this article. I have never even been to Turkey. I'm not biased about this subject. I'm summarizing part of the article in the introduction, and you keep removing it for some reason. There is an entire section of the article devoted to genocide under the Young Turks, the introduction is supposed to summarize the entire article including that section. I'm not even editing the part about the idiom, that is still in the article.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I remain unconvinced that the idiom "Young Turk" (as opposed to the actual historical Young Turks) conveys, is meant to convey, or puts anyone in the mind of, "swarthy middle-eastener" or "genocidal murderer" or anything else besides "young reformer" or that's there any reason for us to speculate on or point out why that might not be appropriate. Idioms are idioms. They don't always turn out how you'd like. What I'd suggest is an RfC and if you can make your case to a larger audience then more power to ya. --Herostratus (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article isn't about an idiom. This article is about a political party. I want to summarize a section of the article (about genocide) in the introduction. You keep removing it, claiming I disagree with a completely different part of the article (about the idiom), which I have not even edited. To me your actions simply aren't making any sense. Are you sure you are feel ok?--79.97.222.210 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a political party. That part of the article is about the idiom in the English language that this political party gave rise to. You don't like what this idiom means. You can try to raise awareness about why people should not use this idiom in the given meaning. You are entitled to do that, but you cannot do it on Wikipedia, and this is precisely what you are trying to do, IP. Your insistence on editing that paragraph (this was the 5th attempt, if I counted correctly) shows that your aim is not the improve the article. Please, take your activism outside, and stop editing the article so that it gives the message you want it to give.--Cfsenel (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Right now there is no mentions of any of the genocides or oppression of minorities Turkey committed in the introduction to this article. There is supposed to be, as an entire section of the article is devoted to those things. The introduction is a summary. Why do you keep removing it? You claim I am editing the part of the article about the idiom, yet you are factually incorrect as I have never edited that part of the article. Also, tell me this Cfsenel, which is more likely: someone who has no connection to Turkey or the neighboring countries and is expanding the introduction so it covers the whole article is a POV-pusher, or a Turkish person removing information about genocides committed by Turkey is a POV pusher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.222.210 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your question to Cfsenel is invalid seeing as I am not a Turk and I oppose your edit. All your edits on Wikipedia are pushing a highly biased POV. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag at top of article

For some reason several editors have been acting together to keep any mentioned of the genocide section out of the introduction. I have added an NPOV tag to the top of the article and it should remain until the genocide section is described in the introduction, like it should be.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow you can actually use a talk page, pity you don't see able to elsewhere. Make mention of it in a proper way on its own in the lede, properly sourced and free from your activism and political bias and the edit might stand in some form or another. However I'd suggest proposing it HERE on the TALK page to prevent more disruptive editing on the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, a disruptive IP editor who ignores everyone else making frequent reverts and POV pushing, making a demand that sounds likes a threat ("I have added an NPOV tag to the top of the article and it should remain until the genocide section is described in the introduction, like it should be.") is not how we do things on Wikipedia. This site is a collaboration. If you can't accept the fact no-one agrees with your edit then that is your problem. But as I said already... propose an addition that addresses the problems raised and it might stand. Funny you added that tag anyways seeing as most of your edits would make that tag applicable to those articles. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)