Jump to content

Talk:Six Vilayets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

names for these vilayets

[edit]

There is some disagreement on whether to use Armenian? Western? or Turkish names for these vilayets, see this diff[1].  Andreas  (T) 17:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dialects

[edit]

The two standards of the Armenian language are discussed ther and are out of place here.  Andreas  (T) 17:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sivas vs Sebastia

[edit]

Vilayet of Sebastia redirects to Vilayet of Sivas, therefore I changed the link accordingly, but an anonymous user reverted me. There should be some consistency here. See also Talk:Vilayet of Sivas#Sivas or Sebastia?.  Andreas  (T) 21:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vilâyat-ı Sitte

[edit]

Ottoman vilayet.Not armenian vilayet.Ottoman name Vilâyat-ı Sitte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.42.44 (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Only %38.93 Armenian :))%62 :))--85.100.42.44 (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proportion of nationalities in the vilayets of Ottoman Asia Minor according to the Ottoman census of 1914.

Muslim population and armenian population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.42.44 (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Pleace rename Vilâyat-ı Sitte.--85.100.42.44 (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire name Vilâyat-ı Sitte.--85.100.42.44 (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian name with transliteration

[edit]

The Armenian name "Վեց հայկական նահանգները' does not appear in Google and thus is probably wrong.  Andreas  (T) 19:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The introductions of these articles

[edit]

Meowy, on the Vilayet of Mamûretü'l-Azîz, talk page made a good point on how these articles should begin. While it is true that these six vilayets formed the core of Western Armenia, they were, for the Ottomans, simply the easternmost provinces of the Empire. Rather than simply opening up each article that these vilayets were one of the six Armenian vilayets, we should give a more simple, if mundane, opening line such as, "was a province of the Ottoman Empire in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries." After that, we can state its relevance and importance to Armenian history.

I'll try to supply additional sources and material for the expansion of these articles.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian name

[edit]

Վեց հայկական նահանգները in Armenian means

Վեց - six
հայկական - Armenian
նահանգները - provinces

and the only thing that can be changed is the "provinces" to "vilayets", but in this way much less results. --Hovik95 (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a literal translation of the English term is meaningless if the term is not used in Armenian texts.  Andreas  (T) 16:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Վեց հայկական նահանգները spelled differenly in traditional spelling? Then it should be looked up again.  Andreas  (T) 16:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if having this Armenian name is justified? I've a feeling the "Six Armenain vilayets" is actually a late 19thC European concept, coined as a way of defining the vilayets of the Ottoman empire whose Armenian populations were most at risk of massacres and oppression. Meowy 20:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, the article itself should just be moved to the Turkish Armenia (or Western Armenia) article. Most of this content can be incorporated onto that page. I'm rather more hesitant on the vilayet pages since they have their own respective histories.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to the "Turkish Armenia" article - I have changed its title back to "Armenians in the Ottoman Empire" to reflect that article's actual content. Meowy 16:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population Figures

[edit]

It would be good to have comparative numbers here. The ones presented are well-known for manipulating the numbers to show the Christians being more numerous than Muslims by excluding the Zaza and Qizilbash from the Islam category. Wikipedia shouldn't be repeating it. The Ottoman censuses and especially the Cuinet reports are more neutral. On the other side, there was also the Armenian patriarchate's own census. In any case, the Ottoman Armenian population page is probably the most suitable venue for the discussion. Ordtoy (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the population figures are wrong. 507,000 total is given for Sivas vilayet - yet all the censuses give over 1,000,000 as an actual number. The Ottoman censuses are also known for manipulating the numbers to minimise Christians and maximise Muslims. I think the issue is too complex and too uncertain for population statistics to be presented in a tabular form as if they were known for certain. Meowy 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Ottoman Armenian population page does a good job or going over all the different sources. Just a link to that would be enough, no? Ordtoy (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common name

[edit]

Common use = Six vilayets Takabeg (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Most of the "six vilayets" hits are not going to be about these six vilayets. Try searching for "six Armenian provinces". Ordtoy (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic

[edit]

I don't agree with the name of the article . Vilayet means province and Armenian vilayet gives the impression of a province in Armenian state. Well these six vilayets were Ottoman vilayets. Whether they were misgoverned or not and whether they had considerable Armenian population or not they were a part of Ottoman Empire. So the name should either be Six Ottoman vilayets, or simply Six Vilayets. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article should probably just be called "The Six Armenian Provinces", using the English instead of the Turkish word for "province". It was very common in Ottoman times to refer to the heavily Armenian Ottoman east as "The Six Armenian Provinces" and any confusion about which political entity they belonged to is solved by reading the article -- which is what an encyclopedia is for. Ordtoy (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is suggested that any confusion about political entity is to be solved after reading the article with a title chosen imprecisely. Surely this suggestion is a joke. Suppose we take it seriously, then are we going to call San Francisco a Chinese city ? (After reading the article we'll understand it is not.) Well, the title of the article should reflect the contend and title Six Armenian vilayets is definitely a misnomer. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the title is not imprecise because these provinces were known as the "Six Armenian Provinces" in English. Similarly, the parts of the Ottoman Empire with majority Arab populations were referred to as the "Arab Provinces". There's little need to make a big deal about this. PS In English we call parts of San Francisco "Chinatown" and no one thinks that it belongs to the People's Republic. Ordtoy (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six Vilayets is the best. Both Six Ottoman Vilayets and Six Armenian Vilayets are biased naming. Six Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire is also possible. Takabeg (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 07:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Six Armenian vilayets → Six vilayets – per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:POVTITLE

Six Armenian provinces (vilayets) are not wrong. We can find it in the text of the Armistice of Mudros, even in Ottoman Turkish text and its modern Turkish translation. But Six Provinces (vilayets) is more common name. At first I've thought of Six provinces (Ottoman Empire) because of Wikipedia:USEENGLISH. But since I came to know that in English Wikipedia, it were distinguished and used terms eyalet and viyalet, I offer Six vilayets. Takabeg (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New name

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Six vilayets → Six Armenian provinces – this name is the most commonly used one. Yerevanci (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:POVTITLE Takabeg (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Google Books, please search "Six Armenian provinces". There are 226 results and all of them are exactly used for this. But if you search "six vilayets", most of the result say
  • "six provinces of Armenia"
  • "six vilayets of Turkish Armenia"
  • "six vilayets of eastern Asia Minor"
  • "six vilayets of historic Armenia"
  • "Armenia, consisting of six vilayets"
  • "so-called "greater Armenia" consisting of six vilayets"--Yerevanci (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think we should merge this page with Western Armenia. What you think???--Yerevanci (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What ? Why ? Takabeg (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think this is just a part of Western Armenia's history. That's all. Also, most of it's content is copied from there. --Yerevanci (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should not merge Western Armenia to Turkey with the reason that it's just a part of the history of Turkey, Administration for Western Armenia is just a part of the history of Turkey. Takabeg (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I didn't get what you said. I'm saying we should merge this page with the page called "Western Armenia". --Yerevanci (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to your argument, Western Armenia and Greater Armenia can be merged. But, even contents of both articles are similar, they are different. Takabeg (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a moment and look at both articles. They are not just similar, but exactly the same. The only difference is the title. --Yerevanci (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not same. If your argument will be accepted, Democratic Republic of Armenia and Armenian SSR should be merged to Armenia :) Takabeg (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you indicate one difference???--Yerevanci (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know "12 lost provinces of western Armenia". Which provinces ? Takabeg (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Historical regions of Armenia. By the way, that's a wrong opinion that 12 slabs repersent the 12 lost provinces of western Armenia, because during his interview one of the authors of Tsitsernakaberd said that it's just an architectural design, and it doesn't have anything to do with those "12 lost provinces". --Yerevanci (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that article. But original research :)) You'd better provide reliable sources. Anyway I understood "Western Armenia" is different from "Six vilayets". Takabeg (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it different??? It is just the name of Western Armenia during the end of 19th century and the beginning of 20th century. It's like if you make an article for Eastern Armenia and another one for the term "Russian provinces of Armenia". --Yerevanci (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis that Takabeg has clearly shown that the current name is the common name.Tugrulirmak (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge discussion for Western Armenia

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Western Armenia, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Yerevanci (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons
  1. "Six Armenian vilayets/provinces" is a term just like "Armenian provinces of Russia" that was used by Western politicians and scholars during the late 19th century and early 20th century to describe two parts (Western Armenia and Eastern Armenia) of historical Armenia with significant Armenian population at that time.
  2. The whole content of this article is taken from Western Armenia article. Which also proves my statement. --Yerevanci (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. Six vilayets, Administration for Western Armenia etc. are historical administrative units and/or terms. The term Western Armenia is also used for older eras (sample). The article Western Armenia must be more comprehensive than specific articles. Takabeg (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Please read carefully. Administration for Western Armenia was a temporary government during the Russian occupation of Western Armenia, while "Six Armenian provinces" were just a term referring to Western Armenia during late 19th century and early 20th century. It's like if you make another article for "Armenian provinces of Russia". It's the same thing. --Yerevanci (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to merge this article to others. But it's easy to merge Northern Artsakh to others. If you want to make Wikipedia slim down, I recommend you start with merging Talk:Northern Artsakh#Merge. "Takabeg (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about Northern Artsakh here??? Its title is "Six vilayets", which is just nonsense, so I'll make another article called "Armenian provinces of Russia". Agree??? --Yerevanci (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New name

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Six vilayets → Six Armenian provinces – Reasons why this article should be moved:

  • User:Takabeg claims that "Six vilayets" is more common, but it's the same if you search "US invasion" for the 2003 events in Iraq. Of course the number of results of "US invasion" will be more than of "US invasion of Iraq". Don't confuse this with POV, because the name really doesn't have any neutrality problem.
  • The name "Six vilayets" is just nonsense, because this term was used to inidcate the 6 Armenian-populated provinces/vilayets of the Ottoman Empire by the Western politicians. And the word Armenian was key word.

Also, I don't mind if it will be moved to "Six Armenian vilayets", the problem is the word "Armenian".--Yerevanci (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE

"Six vilayets" -Llc minimum 301

Ottoman + "Six Provinces" -Llc minimum 248

"Six Armenian Provinces" -Llc minimum 100

Takabeg (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE and per Takabeg. Using "Six Armenian vilayets" name will be POV naming. "Six vilayets" name is not wrong and it is more common on literature. --Khutuck (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If search results cannot be used as an indicator, something else must be used and I haven't seen anything that would warrant moving from this title. Rennell435 (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggestion

[edit]

How about "Armenian vilayets of the Ottoman Empire"? And the lede can be as follows:

"The six Armenian vilayets of the Ottoman Empire, often referred to as simply the "Six Vilayets" (Turkish name, Armenian name) although the Ottoman Empire had over 30 vilayets, were..."

Any objections to that phrasing? DS (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reasonable idea, but I must object. There is no need to change current name. These six provinces were called "Vilayat-ı Sitte" (Six provinces) by Ottomans, current article name is correct. Also "Six vilayets" name does not have any neutrality issues, I'd oppose both "Six Turkish Vilayets" and "Six Armenian Vilayets" names, as each one would be a POV-naming. There is no need to use "Armenian" in the title of this article.--Khutuck (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by saying "Six vilayets"???
It's just a random name. If you want I can give you at least 10 Western sources from early 20th century saying "Six Armenian provinces/vilayets" and none of them saying just "Six vilayets". And again, searching "Six vilayets" doesn't prove that it's a common name, as just saying "US invasion" for the 2003 events in Iraq, doesn't specify the fact.
Western politicians called it "Six Armenian vilayets/provinces" for a reason to emphasize the Armenian population of the area.--Yerevanci (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is historical term. Six vilayets means these six vilayets. Three vilayets (Vilayat-i Selase) means Salonica, Monastir, and Kosovo. Three livas or Three sanjaks (Elviye-i Selase) means Kars, Ardahan, Batum. Takabeg (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hmm. So how about, as a lead sentence, "The Six Vilayets were the six ethnically-Armenian (majority Armenian, Armenian-speaking, whatever) vilayets of the Ottoman Empire" ? DS (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- What is wrong with current name? It is historically correct, bears no point of view and totally neutral. Why is everyone trying to put "Armenian" into the title? Khutuck (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"French estimation"

[edit]

The following was added by User:DragonTiger23.

French estimation, 1897[1]
Ethnic groups Bitlis Diyarbekir Erzurum Mamuretülaziz Sivas Van TOTAL %
Armenians 131,390 79,129 134,967 69,718 170,433 80,798 666,435 15,6
Muslims 398,625 471,462 645,702 575,814 1,086,015 430,000 3,607,618 84,4
TOTAL 530,015 550,591 780,669 645,532 1,256,448 510,798 4,274,053 100

This seems not reliable to me for the following reasons:

  1. Even the official Ottoman census of 1914 puts the percent of Armenians higher than this so-called "French" estimation from a book written by a Turk author.
  2. Even if it is neutral French estimation, which is hard to believe, it's so close to the Ottoman census data, so where is no need to put this suspicious table.

The data of the Armenian patriarchate and the official Ottoman ones are the most trustful sources, although none is reliable. --Yerevanci (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a bit too much prejudice, "That Turk author" is in reality in favor of the Armenian genocide. But the French estimation has nothing to do with the author or his ethnicity and it is not his fabrication. There are several 19th century French and British estimates for the six vilayet, it would be interesting to show them in the article. DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I do have a bit too much prejudice, but it's not my fault that MOST (not all!!!) Turk authors deny the fact of Armenian Genocide.

OK, if it's so neutral, why is the percentage of Armenians lower than the official Ottoman data??? It's a little unbelievable that neutral source puts the number of Armenian lower than the most biased source. I don't have anything against any neutral (French, British, American, German, Russian, etc.), but this doesn't seem to be neutral for the reason I gave above. I'd love to see any source that give trustful information about ethnic groups in the following provinces. --Yerevanci (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Yerevanci, French numbers are actually more or less consistent with the Ottoman data; which suggests that the "Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, 1912" numbers may be biased, which should not be a great surprise considering the political and spiritual leadership of the Patriarch. French numbers for Armenians in each region are consistently +/- 5% of the Ottoman data, which suggests that the Armenian Patriarch's data might be incorrect. Consistent numbers should not be suspicious, they should be considered better. Two sources stating the same numbers is in fact a very good thing, making our data more reliable. I am adding French numbers back.--Khutuck (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, most modern neutral authors agree that the Ottoman official data greatly decreased the number of Armenians and other minorities to show the European powers that those ethnic groups formed only a small minority in disputed territories. I'm not saying that the Armenian data is more reliable, but it's a fact that the Ottoman official data can't be seen as a reiable source. Therefore, any data based on it is also biased.
The point of leaving that two (official Ottoman and Armenian patriarchate datas) tables is to show 2 most common sources, although none of them is reliable and trustful. So, please if you don't have any real neutral source about the ethnic groups in the Six Armenian provinces, then don't put this "French" estimate, which is just a copy of the official Ottoman census. And also, the final agreement over this issue wasn't reached, so please, don't revert anything antil it is. --Yerevanci (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give links to those neutral sources please? I want to check their accounts before making a decision. Also, can you add a part stating "Ottoman census data was skewed <re f>" with a solid reference since it is not mentioned in the article.--Khutuck (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I did. --Yerevanci (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not editwar. If you continue editwarring the page will be protected or you will both be blocked. In this case DragonTiger23 should have followed WP:BRD and moved to the discussion page as soon as his edit was reverted. However Yerevanci should not have kept reverting, but should instead have pursued the relevant dispute resolution procedures. If you cannot make a compromise decision on your own I suggest you seek outside input for example via the third opinion notice board.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Crime of numbers: the role of statistics in the Armenian question (1878-1918), Fuat Dündar, page 184, 2010

Nuts

[edit]

that there have been 3 move discussions and no one ever had or even proposed the proper capitalization. WP:USEENGLISH, y'all. — LlywelynII 05:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article title inconsistent with contemporary official name given to these vilayets

[edit]

The title of this article needs to be changed to Six Armenian Vilayets as it was (and still is) widely used by the signatories of the Treaty of Berlin where it originally appeared, as well as by contemporary politicians and current historians. In Article LXI of The Treaty of Berlin these provinces are officially named as "provinces [vilayets] inhabited by the Armenians" and not just "provinces" [vilayets]. Please see the original text bellow and correct the wrong article title. 73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian:[reply]

"Article LXI.

The Sublime Porte undertakes to carry out, without further delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security against the Circassians and Kurds.

It will periodically make known the steps-taken to this effect to the Powers, who will superintend their application.

[...]

Done at Berlin, the thirteenth day of the month of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight."

Source: Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 2, 1878. Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State, [2]https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1878/d523 73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portion of text in the Name section incorrect

[edit]

The text is this section states, wrongly, that "The term Six Vilayets was a diplomatic usage referring to the Ottoman vilayets with substantial Armenian populations." In truth, the term Six Armenian Vilayets was a diplomatic usage referring to the Ottoman vilayets with substantial Armenian populations. In his chapter titled "Diyarbekir and the Armenian Crisis of 1895" in the edited book Social Relations in Ottoman Diyarbekir, 1870–1915, Jelle Verheij specifically explains on p. 88, fn 7 that "Western and Armenian authors often use the term ‘Six Armenian Vilayets’, while the Ottomans just speak of ‘the Six Vilayets’ (vilâyet-i sitte)." The truth is, as pointed out several times in this Talk, that Article LXI of the 1878 Treaty of Berlin officially referred to these vilayets as "the provinces inhabited by the Armenians" and not just "vilayets". Besides, author(s) of this article, why is the name that the Turks narrowly use among themselves preferred over the name given to these vilayets by the signatories of the Treaty of Berlin, contemporary politicians, diplomats, military men, as well as Western and Armenian authors? Don't you think you're violating neutral point of view? Is this your neutrality? 73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Misquote of RS text in ref. 2 (Verheij, Jelle (2012)

[edit]

The clause “European diplomats often referred to the Six Armenian Vilayets during the Congress of Berlin in 1878” is a distortion of what Verheij actually says in “Diyarbekir and the Armenian Crisis of 1895” on p. 88, fn 7. This author doesn’t say that only European diplomats referred to the Six Armenian Vilayets and only during the Congress of Berlin. Here’s his exact words: “Known as the “Six Armenian Vilayets” in the diplomatic language of the time, this was the area for which a number of Great Powers wished reforms for the benefit of the Armenians […]”. This clearly means that it was not only European diplomats who used the term Six Armenian Vilayets and not only during the Congress of Berlin, but the term was “the diplomatic language of the time”.73.173.64.115 (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

"Today part of Turkey" in Infobox – totally unrelated to the topic

[edit]

What is this phrase “Today part of Turkey” in an infobox next to the Name doing in this article? Six Armenian Vilayets was a term coined in 1878, during the times of the Ottoman Empire, referring to an area that was the focus of the Great Powers up until the Armenian Genocide in 1915. Why is it so important that today these vilayets are part of Turkey? If it is so important to be mentioned, than be so kind to also mention that these provinces—today—are devoid of their indigenous Armenian inhabitants as a result of genocidal extermination by the Turks. Don’t you think this would better serve neutral point of view?73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six_Vilayets&oldid=1236596108"