Talk:Committee of Union and Progress

Armenian Genocide infobox

The CUP 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.

Establishment

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)

"Jihadist"?

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

And apparently can be best explained as "clerical fascism". What? The? Heck? --192.75.48.150 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Effects on Republic of Turkey: POV and conjecture.

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)

I think that it is actually a minimum-rewrite counterfactual argument. There is little there that cannot have been foreseen. The entry of the Ottoman Empire into the war was a pure, total, and unmitigated disaster for the Ottoman Empire, its minorities, and its majority groups, regardless of how and to what extent should blame for the subsequent events -- including the Pontic, Armenian and Assyrian Genocides -- be apportioned.--193.194.63.129 21:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)--Jackkalpakian 21:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

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)

I updated the article and removed the NPOV tag, please use {{POV-section}} or {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. - RoyBoy 23:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Armenian genocide template

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)

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)

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)

I was also invited to comment here, and agree with Debresser. 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)

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)

Agreed with Debresser, Mogism, and Nedim. Ithinkicahn (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So should we remove the template and start discussing what kind of representation is needed for Coup and aftermath: 1913–1918 section? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

Hello all. I agree with Debresser, Mogism and Kansas Bear. The CUP was a pan-Turkist movement that sought to wipe out the Christian populations of what is now Turkey, especially the Armenians. This must be noted here. And the template works well. Perhaps we can add it to the Coup and aftermath: 1913–1918 section? --68.119.138.205 (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

There is indeed a holocaust template on Nazi Party - it forms part of {{Nazism sidebar}} 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)

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)

This is the Holocaust template. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

what to do with the background section

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)

Turkish nationalism?

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)

Republican People's Party as a successor of the CUP

In İzmir plot, there was an assassination attempt against the Mustafa Kemal Paşa, founder of the Turkey Republic and Republican People's Party. In the article İzmir plot, you can find that this assassination attempt was organized by former members of the CUP. So, how can you say that the Republican People's Party is a successor of the CUP? Why do you just put the Armenian lobby views shaped by its political aims? These are not the facts but controversial arguments.--188.119.39.228 (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ataturk did not yet command absolute power in 1926, some in his government were concerned over his authoritarianism (some wished to return to the pluralism of the Second Constitutional Era), and his secular agenda. I must also mention that there are some scholars who believe the plot was fabricated by Ataturk, but whether the threat is real or not, the resultant purge allowed Ataturk to consolidate his power and implement his secularist programme.

All of these claims are well sourced, you are welcome to read the *Legacy* section of the article which explains the connection of both personnel and ideology. Other well sourced articles exist which explain this relationship, which you are welcome to read. If you can find a article or journal or book which argues these two organizations are not as related as it might seem, you are welcome to add a sentence or paragraph in this article which can start "however *author name*, believes the connection CUP and CHP is not as strong as it seems..." Benlittlewiki (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I am talking about the facts not the beliefs or claims. The scholars you are following or their claims are not worthy. There are other scholars, you mentioned about, as well and this website is not an academic journal or a defender of some political views. This is just an encyclopedia and if some topics are controversial and not a fact, nobody can include them. This should be the principle, but unfortunately it is not. You say that Ataturk organized the plot against him by himself but there is no proof about it. Just someone's claim. Sit on the chair, fabricate anything you want based on your academic title and get your self-interests. Too easy right? But this is the true situation of some branches in the academia.

Anyway, it is irrelevant to our discussion. In any case, whoever organized the plot, the former members of the CUP were put on the trials and purged. Now, how can we say that the CHP is a direct successor of the CUP? --188.119.39.228 (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question I suggest you read this entire article as well as the entire Izmir Plot article. This talk page is only for discussion relating to the article itself. If you have any reservations over this article, feel free to propose an amendment here, or add sourced information. If you are interested, I just added a new paragraph about historiography of the CUP-CHP continuity in the */ Legacy /* section. If you are able to find authors who disagree that there is a continuity between CUP-CHP, feel free to elaborate on it with your sources. Benlittlewiki (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This is madness!

Years following years, the pages about the CUP are still madness.

1- First, The CUP can not be expressed with a dominant political character. It can be seen as a big umbrella including Ottoman Elites, Military and Civil Bureaucracy and middle classes across the empire. It was not based on a particular class or ethnicity. It can be said that the only dominant character of the party is being a muslim with some exceptions.

2- Thinking that they were social darwinists or racists is really madness. The initiators of early Turkish nationalism are Ziya Gökalp and Yusuf Akçura, members of the CUP. Their approach to nationalism is clear, there is no racial concepts. Besides, Turkish nationalism became popular and widespread among the members after the Arab revolt and defeat in the Ww1. Before that, only a small fraction of the party were Turkish nationalists. The CUP has members of different ethnic origins just like the empire were. Albanians, Circassians, Georgians, Arabs, Kurds, Turks, and even Jews (for example: Emanuel Karasu).

3- The CUP has no political program about Turkifying or genociding some lands. Armenians revolted, sided with Russians, raided muslim villages and towns, established an independent state around the city of Van. Everything you called "genocide" happened after these events. Before that, the CUP and the Armenian political parties were good allies against the sultan.

Now you get the facts, believe whatever you want.

188.119.60.2 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

1- Correct; although the nationalist element did turn out to be dominant after the Balkan Wars. All of this is talked about in the article.

2- It is not; although the CUP was not ideologically homogeneous or even consistent, there definitely were those who promoted social Darwinist theories within the party. Maybe some improvement can be done on a diachronic basis (how these theories became commonplace, as Ottomanism would clash with social Darwinism).

3- The trope of the "opportunist Armenian", siding with Russians and raiding Muslim villages, was most definitely an exaggeration created by the CUP as a justification; there is evidence that only a small minority did the things described. That ultimately does not matter, however; as the CUP/Ottoman government did not make any distinction between Armenians, putting all of them through death marches in inhospitable conditions, with some governors opting to kill them on the spot. That is genocide, and one of the most textbook cases of it, and it does not matter what it is preceded by.

"Surely a few Armenians aided and abetted our enemy, and a few Armenian Deputies committed crimes against the Turkish nation ... it is incumbent upon a government to pursue the guilty ones. Unfortunately, our wartime leaders, imbued with a spirit of brigandage, carried out the law of deportation in a manner that could surpass the proclivities of the most bloodthirsty bandits. They decided to exterminate the Armenians, and they did exterminate them." As Mustafa Arif Deymer put it quite succinctly, from a rather conservative and nationalist perspective.

If that is not particularly convincing, it is pretty well-verified that Talat Paşa admitted to genocidal intent, defending it:

"It is no use for you to argue . . . we have already disposed of three quarters of the Armenians; there are none at all left in Bitlis, Van, and Erzeroum. The hatred between the Turks and the Armenians is now so intense that we have got to finish with them. If we don't, they will plan their revenge." Uness232 (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)