Talk:Young Turks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

pirater

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