Talk:Young Turks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)