Talk:1909 Ottoman countercoup
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the 1909 Ottoman countercoup page were merged into 31 March Incident on 25 October 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Too opinionated
[edit]At times reads like an opinion peace. This is an encyclopedic entry. People forget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.229.112.98 (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Naming/disagreement in sources
[edit]Some notes for future reference. The distinction between this article (subject = the military mutiny & "countercoup") and the 31 March Incident (subject = just the putting down of the "countercoup", review this diff) seems artificial and may be OR. There also seems to be some disagreement among sources as to whether this was a true counter-coup/revolution or a political crisis.
- Bedross Der Matossian (Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Journal, 2011), writing on the context of the Adana massacres describes the narrative currently given by this article "The counterrevolution was not a spontaneous outburst by dissatisfied elements in Istanbul; rather, it was organized by oppositional elements mainly represented by conservative religious circles within the empire" (p.153). A large number of cites are provided to support this statement on pgs. 164–5 (endnote 7).
- Britannica describes the original mutiny itself as the 31st March Incident and describes its cause as "the discontent of ordinary soldiers over their conditions and their neglect by college-trained and politically ambitious officers and from what they regarded as infidel innovations ... encouraged by a religious organization known as the Mohammedan Union", as well as "the weakness of the government [which] allowed the mutiny to spread".
- Victor Swenson (Journal of Contemporary History, 1970) attacks "the conspiracy hypothesis" and emphasises the military and political failure of the CUP in Istanbul (p. 184). He describes the incident as a "military insurrection ... permitted to expand into a major political crisis by the collapse of Huseyin Hilmi Pasha's government, which took no steps to suppress of control the uprising". He writes "The conspiracy theory of the uprising was deliberately advanced by the Committee of Union and Progress in order to justify the march of the army and to preserve the CUP's prestige and reputation" (p. 172).
Extra sources: [1] [2]. Lots more on JSTOR. Jr8825 • Talk 03:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Please do not do this
[edit]You seem to be unnecessarily reverting my edits, A cypriot-islamist is a type of islamist, I'm trying to make it clear. People usually don't notice that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.162.223 (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
