Talk:Committee of Union and Progress

message: I'm doing a research paper right now and read on this page that the CUP was etablished in 1889 (while the Arabic page says 1894, they should all at least be consistent) without any citations but I have some resources that talk about its activity before 1876, so once i'm done with my class in three weeks, i'mma come back and correct the dates. cullen (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Establishment

message: Wasn't it rather extreme nationalism? --HanzoHattori 08:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jihadist"? 

message: The statements in the final paragraph of this section argue how history may have been, although possibly true they are unsupported here.
Gbaddorf 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects on Republic of Turkey: POV and conjecture. 

message: These assumptions like the CUP especially disliked Armenians and 
the CUP is said to have been involved in the massacres and killings of Armenians, can not be used to verify an accusation who were killed in the hundreds of thousands during 1915.which can't be also verified and under heavy dispution.
Original text:
While in theory any Christian other than a citizen of Germany or its allies could legally be killed in what the government defined as a jihad, the CUP especially disliked Armenians, and began plotting their extermination almost immediately. Indeed, the first major offensive the Turks undertook in World War I was an unsuccessful attempt to drive the Russians from the portion of classic Armenia which they had taken over in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877, with an eye to the slaughter of the general population. After the predictable failure of this expedition, the CUP is said to have been involved in the massacres and killings of Armenians, who were killed in the hundreds of thousands during 1915.
--Mavromatis (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I have removed said template considering the history of the Committee of Union and Progress, the Armenian genocide was simply a small part. As such, the template represents undue weight given to this event in the CUP's history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This same user (68.119.138.205) is vandalizing this page as well as the Young Turks page by removing sourced content and copying and pasting the infobox on the Armenian Genocide page as-is. That infobox goes on that article, it's not meant for this one or the Young Turks article; if the user wants, he should make an infobox for these articles, not willy nilly copy and paste an infobox that does not match the article. The user also shows clear POV in these edits. Ithinkicahn (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was invited by Kansas Bear to comment here. After reviewing the recent edits to this article and the short discussion here I am not willing to say that this template has no place at all in this article, nor will I say that it definitely should be here. If there would be consensus that this template should be on this article, then it should be in the section dealing with that period of time nl. Coup and aftermath: 1913–1918. In that case a template page should be created rather than pasting a hardcoded copy. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also invited to comment here, and agree with . It's not unreasonable to think that someone reading this would be interested in CUP primarily in relation to the Armenian genocide. That being the case, a set of relevant links in the appropriate section could be useful. If it's included, it definitely belongs in the Coup and aftermath: 1913–1918 section, not at either the top or the foot of the article, as it only relates to that one section rather than the article as a whole. Mogism (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

text: CUP was an important milestone in the history of the Ottoman Empire. Although they were raw and inexperienced, their efforts to save the dying empire is notable. As Kansas Bear had already pointed out, Armenian issue was only a small part of their history. Not realizing how to compete with the problems of a large scale deportation during a war they created agony and hostilities. But using a template for 1915 doings in this article is meaningless ; it is like using a template for Japanese American internment in an article about  Democratic Party (United States). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Debresser, Mogism, and Nedim. Ithinkicahn (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Despite the relation between the Committee of Union and Progress and the Armenian genocide these are two separate articles. Jingiby (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

text: It is noted in the lede. Despite the responsibility of the Committee of Union and Progress to the Armenian genocide there are two separate articles on Wikipedia. It is not necessary to emphasize one event. It will be  biased act  to push on every cost the infobox on the Armenian genocide here. Jingiby (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I think most here disagree. The template should be added to the section mentioned. The CUP were the group who carried out the killings. Not including the template would be akin to not including a template about the Holocaust on the page of the Nazi party. Yes, the Holocaust was only a part of what the Nazis did, but a significant one. The same goes for the CUP and the Young Turks for that matter.--68.119.138.205 (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Most here believe there should be some type of mention in the appropriate section. None of the editors have said the template should stay where it is. FYI, there is NO Holocaust template in the Nazi Party article! Since IP agrees with me, then the template will be removed and a discussion should be held to determine exactly what representation for the Armenian genocide should be included in the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is indeed a holocaust template on Nazi Party - it forms part of  which groups all the themes into a single box, rather than a number of separate boxes. A similar solution might be useful here. Mogism (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think calling "Part of a series on Nazism" a "Holocaust template" a bit of a stretch and clearly it is not as intrusive nor overly weighted within the article, compared to the Armenian genocide template. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

text: This is the Holocaust template. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for now I'd like to at least be able to add "Armenian Genocide" as a subsection in the Coup and aftermath: 1913–1918 section. The main problem I have both the CUP and Young Turk party articles is that they attempt to portray the group as "progressive", "revolutionary" (i.e. 'forward thinking'). This paints them in a falsely positive light. That type of focus/perspective would never fly in the Nazi party article. Readers need to know about the pan-Turkist ideals of the CUP and Young Turks which were the driving force behind the Genocide.--68.119.138.205 (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The CUP was an Ottomanist, not a pan-Turkist movement. Initially it didn't sought to wipe out any Christian population. After the extreme rise of nationalism among the Christians on the Balkans during the Balkan wars and the subsequent failure of the Ottomanism and the Ottoman Millet system, the CUP ideology really became pro-Turkish and natioinalist, which became evident during the WWI, when the Empire itself collapsed. Jingiby (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They were absolutely pan-Turkist, as in mentioned in the article and the infobox. We also know that they killed 1.5 million Armenians Christians, 500,000 Greek Christians, and 200,000 Assyrian Christians. We can deal with the Genocide infobox later, but I'm going to go ahead and make a subsection for the Armenian Genocide/Holocaust under the Coup and aftermath: 1913–1918 section.--68.119.138.205 (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the edit. If you could go ahead and stop vandalising the Young Turks article by trying to editorialize a modern term ("Young Turks" to describe radically progressive movements) by adding "in stark contrast to this" after it. It's an established, well-sourced modern term (see Young Turks (disambiguation)). Ithinkicahn (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You have some gall my friend. The sentence has nothing to do with the party and obfuscates their pan-Turkist/racist nature. I am simply adding context that is well sourced. If you wish to note how the term is used by some people today, I will note how it was viewed then. If you are not pleased with this, then maybe we can delete all of it. Again, what I've put up is well sourced.--68.119.138.205 (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian genocide template 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Committee of Union and Progress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717210331/http://www.iletisim.com.tr/iletisim/book.aspx?bid=267 to http://www.iletisim.com.tr/iletisim/book.aspx?bid=267
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100415140932/http://www.turkeyswar.com/prelude/cup.htm to http://www.turkeyswar.com/prelude/cup.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would the article be better with or without the background section? I think it is valuable for orientation but it makes the article longer and there is already an entire article on the topic we can redirect readers to (though it is a wall of text and not written well). Benlittlewiki (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  what to do with the background section 

message: Four founders of the CUP are Kurdish, Circassian and Albanian origin and Mahmud Şevket Paşa (grand vizier) one of the leaders of the CUP is Georgian origin. Said Halim Paşa (grand vizier) another leading person in the CUP is a significant ideologist for islamist movement in Turkey. Nobody can say that the CUP was purely a Turkish nationalist or a racist movement. The CUP did not have a dominant political character. Inside the CUP, lots of different political views, contests and controversions existed. --188.119.39.228 (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish nationalism?