Talk:Ottoman Armenian population

Comments

Comment

This is a ridiculously biased article. It merely calls into question a few sources that give a lower Armenian population than the Armenians claim (while excluding the plethora of foreign counts which all accord wit the Ottoman count), while ignoring that the Ottoman census (and the author always uses quotation marks around the word census) was for internal use only, was not published, and was used to assess TAXATION, which would severely disincentivize the government to undercount. It also ignores that the head of the statistics bureau was in succession an Armenian, a Jew, and an American.

Thanks for your reply. Can you be more specific? I have tried to present this as much neutral as I could handle. I have presented the Western accounts too, and each accounts. I traced a little history of Ottoman population statistics and have presented its figures, as well as Justin McCarthy. I don't see how I can present a better balanced article. You can help me if you want by presenting those criticisms in the talk page so that we could discuss about them. Regards. Fad (ix) 22:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have wikified the article and am removing the wikify tag

KarenAnn 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Armenian massacres vs. Armenian genocide

It is POV to label the events of 1915-1923 as Armenian genocide. The Encyclopedia Britannica and other authoritative sources use NPOV terminology of Armenian massacres [1]. Moreover, in that difficult period many Muslims and other Christians were also killed, indeed, some 523,000 Turks were also massacred in the same period. The Encyclopedia Britannica, after taking into account all sources and conducting an exhaustive review, concludes that about 600,000 Armenians perished [2]. Additionally, any census and survey's can be unreliable, but to allege that it can be unreliable only towards Armenians is not correct. Some Ottoman citizens (both Turks, Armenians, Kurds, Greeks, etc) wanted to escape the military tax, and some Ottoman citizens also held foreign citizenships - this is no way reduces the credibility of Ottoman censuses. If we are to speak of the most undercounted group in Eastern Turkey, then it was definitely the Kurds, and not the Armenians. --AdilBaguirov 08:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I missed that one. Escape the military tax? Please, don't talk about things which you ignore. The military tax was only imposed to those who were forbidden to serve in the military. Which was basically the non-Muslims. The Muslims didn't have to escape the military tax because they had no military tax(also the so-called 'boy tax'). As for the 600,000 Britannica reference, on the Armenia entry, nit uses the same range as the one used here in Wikipedia (which is 600,000-1,5 million). The 523,000 Turks being massacred has been already covered in the Armenian genocide page, and I have shown how the records used have been manipulated by using the identification numbers of those said records. Fad (ix) 17:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV, because:

1. The most common phrase to describe the killings (regardless whether it's accurate or not) is the "Armenian Genocide".
2. The page is at Armenian Genocide, while Armenian massacres redirects there.
3. The Armenian Genocide article gives evidence (with sources) that the events can be called genocide.

—Khoikhoi 20:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are many other articles with extensive sources that tell it was not a genocide, but a massacre -- see for example series of articles and books by the most authoritative author on the subject, Prof. Guenther Lewy[3], himself a Holocaust survivor. Authoritative and non-biased sources, from Encyclopedia Britannica to US President's annual address on 24 April use "Armenian massacres" terminology -- and that's NPOV that should be used in Wikipedia as well. This is common for all NPOV sources, although of course Armenian websites use "Armenian genocide" phrase. The pages mentioned should be changed, and the Arm.Genocide should redirect to the Armenian Massacres. --AdilBaguirov 20:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear, if you really want to continue on this path do so, but you will only attempt at your own credibility. Lewy? And what have you read about Lewy? He also claims that what happened to the Gypsies in World War II doesn't qualify as genocide, he claimed that what happened to the American Indians does not qualify as genocide and according to him it wasn't even a crime, he wrote in the Cronicle that what happened in Rwanda was an ethnic cleansing short of using the term genocide. He also excused the American marine in the war crimes in Vietnam and even 'found' a supposed US report to defend his position which the existance was never confirmed. Lewy is one of those that still think that there was one genocide in the history of the human civilization and it was the Holocaust and has over the years given himself a mission to debunk the other researched genocides.

Britannica?

Let see the entry dating 1922.

With the Empire at war and the Committee (CUP) in Power, the Turkish Government resolved to execute their cherished scheme for the complete "Turkification" of Asia Minor…But "Turkification" was aimed chiefly against the Armenians, who were to be exterminated. During 1915-16 organized massacres and deportations were carried out systematically, to the extent of almost uprooting the Armenian race from Asia Minor. Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered; hundreds of thousands set marching for Syria and Mesopotamia perished on the way by hardship, disease, starvation; those who escaped became fugitives; from first to last at least three quarters of a million Armenians perished in Asia Minor in a population of less than two million.

What did happen later? In 1929, the entry was written by a Turkish historian, A.A, Adnan, and it was replaced by the followings.

During the Turco-Russian battles on the Caucasian Front, the Armenians created disturbances behind the Turkish lines and threatened to cut the lines of communications. The Turkish government began a general deportation in which atrocities were committed on a large scale. When General Antranik, the Russo-Armenian general, entered eastern Anatolia, the Armenian soldiers under his command, the so-called "Christian Army of Revenge," replied by similar atrocities.

Things got out of hand after the Armenian genocide was reinserted, and later relativised by Yapp, the famous British revisionist who happen to be the one that reviewed Dadrian Work, Balakian's work, and any possible work he came accross claiming that there was no sufficient evidence of genocide. But yet in 1974, he still somehow recognized the genocide, this was his entry.

During the war the Young Turks also took the opportunity to attack certain internal problems…and the Armenian community in eastern Asia Minor and Cilicia was massacred or deported as part of a deliberate policy of eliminating one cause of European interference. Possibly a million Armenians either fled or were killed (principally by Kurdish irregulars) or deported.

In 1985, Yapp modifify further the text, which becomes the following.

During the war the Young Turks also took the opportunity to attack certain internal problems…and the Armenian community in eastern Asia Minor and Cilicia was massacred or deported as part of a deliberate policy of eliminating one cause of European interference. Possibly a million Armenians either fled or were killed (principally by Kurdish irregulars) or deported.

Let compare the versions of 1992 and 1995.

During the late 19th century the millet system for the governance of minorities began to deteriorate and systematic persecution of Armenians began, culminating in the genocidal massacre of the Armenians during World War I.

Became

During the late 19th century the millet system, under which religious and ethnic minorities had been granted local autonomy (50), began to deteriorate, leading to growing unrest and culminating in the genocidal massacre of the Armenians during World War I.

Also, Britannica uses Justin McCarthy nearly as sole sources to draw the numbers of victims and back this with Toynbee estimates which represented the losses of 1915 (see: the research note provided with the figures).

In Short, the versions of Britannica have changed over the years, and will be changing, claiming that Britannica does not support the genocide thesis is simply wrong because it has more published versions using terms such as extermination than else. And thanks to the way some fringe in the accademia like Yapp were reponsable of the articles, this ought to be referrenced. I doubt that Vickery's appologistic text in an encyclopedia about the genocide in Cambodia could be rendered as equal to the majority position just because it is published in Britannica.

Right now, Britannica entry about Armenia does contain the word genocide, lastly, this article maintains the same language as Britannica there as it says: during what is called the Armenian Genocide rather than simply the Armenian genocide. Fad (ix) 15:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. Please, go ahead and nominate the article for a move. --Eupator 20:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of scholars accept that it was a Genocide. "Genocide" is the accepted term in scholarship. Britain and US are virtually the only two contries in the West that have not recognized the Genocide--they are, for political reasons, pro-Turkish. Therefore, Britannica does not represent the state of scholarship on the issue.--TigranTheGreat 05:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Adil's source on Turkish figures comes not directly from Hakakoglu's book, but from a propagandistic website (armenianreality.com) which is far from being reputable (Adil gave himself away when he provided the URL for his figures--i.e. armenianreality.com). Each editor is responsible to provide his sources when trying to make an edit. Adil's source here the website, which is not a valid source, since it's unreliable, and could have very well distorted Hababoglu's statements. If Adil shows that the figures are published on a reputable website, or scans a page from Hababoglu's book, then we can talk about including it as Turkish POV, and not as a fact.

Since Britannica is one Western source, and since even they say that it's Britannica's position, we can't take their position as fact. Stating what "most western sources" say is much more representative of the state of scholarship than saying what Britannica says.--TigranTheGreat 11:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The article contains a large section regarding Ottoman statistics and census, Halacoglu compared to those mentioned and the official Ottoman records is not enought notable. 15:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't really see how this article is anything other than implicitly biased. I mean, the paragraph:

"In 1844 the Ottoman recorded 2.4 million Armenians within the Ottoman Empire. In 1867 this number remained the same. It is not known whether this lack of change was due to a political decision not to record any Armenian growth for a period of 23 years." 

Could just as well be written: "In 1844 the Ottoman recorded 2.4 million Armenians within the Ottoman Empire. In 1867 this number remained the same. It is not known whether this lack of change was due to alien abductions."

And would be just as accurate and less biased. Mcdruid (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

bullshit

its totally bullshit, armenian peoples 1 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.223.212 (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Frédéric Paulin and Cuinet

I ran across a link to Frédéric Paulin's article here: http://www.imprescriptible.fr/pedagogie/pedagogie/paulin.html But I am not expert enough to add it to this article. Further, I believe that the entire reference to Paulin should be removed. He seems to have no expertise in this field and his polemic is deeply flawed. All told, the criticisms of McCarthy go overboard: I believe I have even seen Dadrian use his numbers.

On the other hand, Cuinet requires less weight. In another context it has been said of him: “even a superficial glance at Cuinet’s figures should make any serious historian recoil from using them." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1986/mar/27/mrs-peterss-palestine-an-exchange/?pagination=false.

I'm not going to bother correcting this either. As near as I can tell, this whole article is shot through with NPOV. Mcdruid (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)