Jump to content

Talk:Persian famine of 1917–1919

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

Rewriting the article

[edit]

I'm looking forward to expand this article complying with the WP:HISTRS and for now, I'm going to tag the shorcomings. I welcome other users intersted participating in the process. Pahlevun (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahlevun: I specifically agree with you declaring the second section as original research. It seriously needs a rewrite. I suggest we mention the views of Majd on the population (before and after the famine) and then include the critics. --Kazemita1 (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majd's POV is currently the only view mentioned. As far as I looked at sources, his view has not gained recognition and has already undue weight in comparision to mainstream view. (I'm not able to judge whether it is WP:FRNG or not). Pahlevun (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I covered some counter-arguments against Majd's account and I'm looking for more views for and against. We need to adjust the balance. Pahlevun (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the lead as phrases such as is an enormous famine, and 1/4 of the population are not supported by all the sources. Domdeparis (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-scholarly sources

[edit]

The PBS link's content is:

1918-1919: Famine devastates the Persian (Iranian) people.
As much as a quarter of the population living in the north of Iran dies in a famine. The devastating effect of a world war and a period of severe drought and widespread crop failure are the primary contributing factors to the famine.

Note that:

  1. A death rate of 25%~40% is referred to the source in the infobox.
  2. It is used to support This has caused some Iranian scholars to call the famine a genocide and To the level that some Iranian sources call it a British genocide against Persian people.
  3. The page footer is "© 2002 WGBH Educational Foundation".

Moreover, it is a jounalism source and according to WP:RSE#History and WP:HISTRS, not a proper references. I highly recommend removing it, as well as Mashregh News and Khamenei.ir. Pahlevun (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Foreign Affair review of Majd's book can be used to support the above mentioned arguments. --Kazemita1 (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The journal is published by an advocacy group [1] and seems to lack refereeing. Pahlevun (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I would probably not use it to verify a fact, but since it is only used to mention Majd's claim, (that this famine is a genocide) I think we could live with that. --Kazemita1 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the proportion of the population died in the famine, Pollack's book (Page 25) should be a good reference. It says 2 million died out of a population of little more than 10 million.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does Pollock use as sources for these figures? Domdeparis (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He uses the following references:
Bill, "The Eagle and the Lion," pp. 4, 58
Daniel, "The History of Iran," pp. 127-129
Keddie, "Modern Iran," pp. 23, 73-76
Paine and Shoenberger, p. 9
Savory, "Social Development in Iran During the Pahlavi Era," p. 88

--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The figure of 2 million deaths would mean a population of 8 million in 1919 which is not supported by the other sources. The only thing that can be said about this famine/cholera outbreak is that no reliable figures existe to quantify the number of victimes. The book that claims 10 million is clearly propaganda. Also the photo that is supposed to illustrate the famine is not from a RS. It could be from any time or any place. Domdeparis (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are not allowed to do original research as I am sure you agree. What is left to do is to look for the most reliable source out there on this matter. I will go ahead and ask the WP:RSN to see if they have a say on Pollack's book regarding the stats used in this article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be including all different claims about death rate/population along with their supporting source. Let me know what you think.Kazemita1 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that it would be useful to add all the different figures their sources and their explanations for the deaths. The 2003 book uses 1 source an estimate from an american diplomat. I have found no reference to this anywhere else apart from sources quoting the book. have you managed to find a source that confirms his estimation of 20 million? This article is linked to a film about this period that is being touted as being "A Historical Account of a Genuine Holocaust in Iran" and is based on the book. Holocaust or genocide is an intentional attempt to destroy a people and there is no proof of this. The British government, that was involved in a world war at the time, may have been guilty of not caring for the local population as they should have done but the accusation of genocide is unfounded or at least unsourced. Domdeparis (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis: I think this is WP:OR and should be removed: The population of Persia in 1911 was estimated to be 7.6 million.[13] This would mean that the population was multiplied by more than 2.5 between 1911 and 1914. Other sources do not back up this rapid rise in the population of Persia. Pahlevun (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not original research but simple mathematics. The figure of is sourced and the maths is correct. You can reword it if you like. Domdeparis (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the only famine that the UK government is accused of being responsible for (See Great Famine (Ireland)#Genocide question and Bengal famine of 1943#Debate over primary cause(s)) and this is undeniable that some Iranians support Majd's view (See Pordeli et al, already cited in the sources section and this piece [2] published by the Islamic Revolution Document Center). The real chalenge is how to give the views sufficient due weight. Pahlevun (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of accusations elsewhere is neither here nor there. What is important is unbiased sources that attest to a genocide. It is interesting to note that there are no contemporary sources that accuse the British government of genocide. The contemporary sources talk about pneumonia and cholera causing large scale deaths. Domdeparis (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pahlevun: I agree with you that the section you refer to has lots and lots of original research including the one you mentioned. You have my blessing in cleaning up that section
@Domdeparis: I have no opinion regarding the population figure. You or other folks may go ahead and include different views mentioned by different sources (without original research that is :) ). However, when it comes to allegations of genocide I think given the amount of Iranian sources declaring the event as genocide, we should somehow at least mention those claims. Of course we do not endorse those claims until we find a balanced scholarly work that does so.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The genocide accusation is not proven and should be mentioned as unproven. The sources that talk about genocide are using majds book as proof. Domdeparis (talk) 23
03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Domdeparis: We are not here to engage in the dispute or prove anything, we are here to explain it. And the sources are not required to be unbiased, they should be reliable. Pahlevun (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source may be biased but as per WP:BIASED it has to reputation for fact-checking. To say that because there have been other accusations of being involved in a famine is not an argument for including this accusation here. If reliable sources make that accusation then this can be included. Madj's book uses a contested method to calculate the number of victimes. A source that uses Madj's book as a source I do not believe can be considered reliable as there is no fact-checking. Domdeparis (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Academic publishers do engage in fact-checking. The book is published by the University Press of America and is subject to scholarly peer review. The work is also acknowledged by another book published by the University of Toronto Press. I believe it is a minority view given undue weight in the article but is certainly reliable per WP:RS, because of the publisher. Pahlevun (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly peer review is by no means a guarantee that research is valid. You might like to read Vanity_press#Business_model. UPA is specifically mentioned. Domdeparis (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add a little context to the quality of the work by Winegard in this book on page 86 he claims that the Jewish population in America was 2.2 Million [3]. 1917 was one of the years that the Bureau of Jewish statistics and research published the American Jewish yearbook that quotes the census figures as being just over 3 million. [4]. It is surprising that despite the scholarly review they let slip a figure that should have been 36% higher. Winegard is not really a stranger to controverse stemming from his publications. [5] Domdeparis (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have no proof that Majd has paid to publish the book. American Philosophical Association website describes UPA as a publisher that "has delivered high-quality research and textbooks into the hands of students and faculty in a timely manner since its founding in 1975."[6] Moreover, removing a source that initiated an academic debate would make the counter-arguments mentioned in the article meaningless. Pahlevun (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agreed--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of famine

[edit]

@Pahlevun and Kazemita1: The infobox photo was removed by Domdeparis, claiming that it did not have a RS supporting it. However, there are some sources ([7], [8] and [9]) for this photo. Your feedback please! --Mhhossein talk 15:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you could mention them in RS noticeboard it would be nice. However, I have a feeling the photo was first published by Majd and therefore we should try to contact him in that regards. I am yet to find his contact info.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [10]. --Mhhossein talk 13:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazemita1: The apparently is related to another incident and not related to this subject. See this comment. --Mhhossein talk 18:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you said that the photo was first used in Majd's book? Was that just a speculation?--Mhhossein talk 13:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Just a speculation. Based on the fact that all the 3 sources you brought above referenced to him.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no photos in either the 2003 edition nor in the 2nd edition (2013) of the book, the photo was NOT published by Majd. Like Kazemita1, Professor Abrahamian had also indulged in speculation when he claimed that Majd had accused the British of destroying documents. The accusation was posted on Ayatollah Khamenei's website but the good professor simply assumed that it originated from Majd. Nowhere in Majd's book is there a claim that the Brits had destroyed documents--only delayed declassification. Abrahamian could have spared himself a great deal of chagrin if he had simply read the book before pontificating. Moretonian (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

[edit]

Trying to remove the NPOV tag in the article, for the first step I suggest replacing the current lead with this:

The Great Persian famine of 1917–1919 was a period of widespread mass starvation and disease in Persia (Iran) under rule of Qajar dynasty during World War I. So far, few historians have worked on the famine that took place in the occupied territory of the country that declared neutrality, making it an understudied subject.
According to the estimates acknowledged by the mainstream view, about 2 million people died between 1917 and 1919 because of hunger and from diseases, which included cholera, plague and typhus, as well as influenza infected by 1918 flu pandemic. A variety of factors are commented to have caused and contributed to the famine, including successive seasonal droughts, requisitioning and confiscation of foodstuffs by occupying armies, speculation, hoarding, war profiteering, and bad harvests.

I tried to summarize it neutrally per WP:LEAD, and I welcome any comment/proposed edit on the text above for discussion. For the next step, I think we should try to adjust the weight given to the views (and in particular, write Majd's view in pithy). Pahlevun (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort. However, IMHO the lead should elaborate a bit more on the situation. For example, it should mention the country was under occupation (and by who). As can be seen in the body of the article, the occupation did have an impact on aggravating the situation.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does mention it, "that took place in the occupied territory of the country that declared neutrality". What change on the text above would make it suitable to you? Pahlevun (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
alright then.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind if I change the lead to the proposed version? Pahlevun (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compilation of views on death toll

[edit]

In the table below, all of the sources that discuss death toll are listed. In order to quickly assess the quality of each source, information about the "piece of work itself", "creator of the work" and "publisher of the work" are mentioned per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Sources sorted by date of publication:

Source Publisher of Source Author's main expertise Author's academic affiliation Estimated number? Supports Majd's view?
Majd 2003 (book) University Press of America History of Iran None 8–10 million N/A
Pollack 2004 (book) Random House Middle East Intelligence None 2 million No, numbers dramatically differ
Messkoub 2006 (article) Routledge History of Iran International Institute of Social Studies — No, rejects it
Mafinezam & Mehrabi 2008 (book) Greenwood Publishing Iran Affairs None —[a] No, rejects it
Abrahamian (2008, 2013) (book) Cambridge University Press History of Iran City University of New York 2 million No, rejects it
The New Press
Ó Gráda 2009 (book) Princeton University Press Famine University College Dublin —[b] No (implicitly), rejects it
Milani 2011 (book) Palgrave Macmillan History of Iran Stanford University — No, rejects it
Ebrahimnejad 2013 (book) Springer History of Iran University of Southampton 'Several millions' No, rejects it
Katouzian 2013 (book) Oneworld Publications History of Iran University of Oxford 2 million No, numbers dramatically differ
Ward 2014 (book) Georgetown University Press Middle East Intelligence None 2 million No, numbers dramatically differ
Rubin 2015 (book) Routledge Middle East Affairs Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya 2 million No, numbers dramatically differ
Winegard 2016 (book) University of Toronto Press Military History Colorado Mesa University 8–10 million Yes (implicitly), used as a source
Pordeli 2017 (article) Canadian Center of Science and Education History of Iran Zabol University 8–10 million Yes, used as a source
  1. ^ States that it is difficult to corroborate figures.
  2. ^ Suggests that it is impossible to determine.

—Pahlevun (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Majd had published American diplomatic primary documents, so their weren't "Majd's view". How many of these academics had worked specially on 1914–18 Invasion of Iran and had published books or articles? Benyamin-ln (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Majd may be the only author who has dedicated a whole book to the famine, but is not the only one working on that particular period. Other scholars have seen those American documents as well, but most of them have not concluded the same as Majd. They unanimously agree that the famine was a major catastrophe, but Majd's hypothesis –that the famine was an intentional "genocide" by the British– has not been so well-received in the academia. For example, Willem Floor has written a relatively negative review on Majd's book (omitted in the table above). He is an expert on agriculture and health of Qajar in particular. Pahlevun (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You said that Other scholars have seen those American documents as well. Have you any sources confirm that? Benyamin-ln (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those American documents are kept by National Archives and Records Administration and have been available for all scholars for decades. Has anyone ever claimed that Majd is the only one who worked on them? Pahlevun (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except Majd, anyone hadn't claimed that worked on those documents. If other scholars and academics had worked on those documents and reached some results that rejecting Majd's results, they should be found in a Book or Academic journal. Have you found anything? Benyamin-ln (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The book extensively uses telegrams sent by Jefferson Caffery, Francis White and John Lawrence Caldwell from Tehran to Washington DC, which were more or less used by other scholars. Cyrus Ghani is known to have used the same dispatches in his books. But the thing about this book is not actually using sources that no one had ever seen before, rather it is about Majd's methodology. Majd states that about 1⁄3 of Iranians died during the famine, and based on his estimation of Iran's population at the time (20 million, which is not the estimation accepted by the mainstream view) he concludes that the death toll would be some 8 million. This is the exact point that many scholars have so far criticized and it is mentioned in the table above. His work has definitely initiated an academic discussion on a matter that was neglected before (and still is not covered enough), but Majd has not discovered a secret. This is a fact that this famine was a sever one. And it is undeniable that the forces invading Iran (including the British, the Russians and the Ottomans) were responsible for preparing the conditions and increasing dimensions this calamity. Frankly speaking, I think too much concentration on the number of people died during the famine or fringe theories (e.g. "genocide") would act like a red herring, just like guessing at the unseen about the dog of the People of the Cave. Pahlevun (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the book quotes in Pat Walsh's atrociously badly written review, Majd's book contains some breathtaking propaganda and ludicrous lies. For example, he asserts that Britain "maneuvered" the Ottoman Empire into WW1; that the Ottoman Empire's invasion of Persia in 1914 was to save Persia and was as a result of an "appeal for help" by Persia; that in 1918 "Britain conquered all of Persia" - and he actually claims that the 350 man Dunsterforce was the invasion force that did it! He of course doesn't mention the actual size of that force. He also claims it was the Dunsterforce that took all the food in Gilan district during their "invasion" - those 350 men must have been very big eaters! 88.108.79.53 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis and Pahlevun, the new single-purpose account Moretonian is aggressively edit warring a new version of this article that replaces all of the research above with an exclusive reliance on Majd's extreme minority view. Moretonian has offered no edit summaries or participation here. In addition, I have since done some digging and confirmed Domdeparis's previous concerns that Majd's work is essentially self-published; Majd's publisher (formerly the now-defunct University Press of America, which used the same model, guaranteeing publication/marketing within five months of submission, and now Hamilton Books, both nominally imprints of Rowman & Littlefield) states that it uses "an innovative model that combines the best features of self-publishing (quick decision making, a higher level of author control over the content, swift publication process) with the benefit of publishing with an established publishing house that will typeset, print, and market your book." Note that there is no mention of fact-checking! Bottom line: Even though it has not been peer reviewed and is essentially self-published, Wikipedia can mention Majd's error-filled, exaggerated account, but we should make clear that it has been widely panned by academic historians. Moretonian's POV-pushing edits are unacceptable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a message on Moretonian's page reminding them about what may be considered edit warring on their part and also warned them about WP:COI as they are only editing in a rather promotional way about Majd. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Majd's figures are based on some very inaccurate estimates of the population of Persia at the time. This source [11] makes a caveat on the estimates I don't have access to rest of the article but the figures estimated by Statistica [12] put the 1917 figure at around 11M which is about half of that used by Majd to estimate the death toll. The Encyclopedia Iranica [sidebar/0/] that in 1900 the population was 9.86M with a growth rate of 1.1% and 14.55M in 1940 with a growth rate of 1.5%. Presuming a 1.1% growth rate this would have given a figure of 11.88M in 1917 and at 1.5% a figure of 12.7M. To arrive at Majd's figure it would have required a growth rate of about 4.5%. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The basis of the figures found in both "Iranica" and "Statistica" pieces cited by Domdeparis is the 1968 article by Julian Bharier, the first page of which is reproduced by Domdeparis and a statement that he could not access the rest of the article. If Domdeparis had read Majd's book, he would have known that Bharier's article is discussed in the 2003 version and at greater length in chapter 4 of the 2nd (2013) edition of Majd's book, and why he rejected Bharier's results. Bharier claimed that his figures were "the nearest to the truth." Yet he was totally unaware of the fact that there were historical famines in both World War I and World War II. Bharier does not even mention the two famines and associated epidemics that took millions of Iranian lives! This omission alone is sufficient reason to reject his "scientific" appearing population figures calculated to two decimal points. The article also contains factual inaccuracies that I will not mention here, but will be happy to do so if requested. Rejection of Bharier leads to rejection of the "Iranica" and "Statistica" figures proposed by Domdeparis. We know the figures have no basis in facts. Furthermore, Domdeparis refers to Moretonian as "they" and "them". This disrespectful language is regrettable. Moretonian (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to indicate your preferred pronouns on your user page, Moretonian. In the absence of such a declaration, it is not uncommon for editors to use they/them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheTimesAreAChanging and Domdeparis have again claimed that Majd's books are self-published, and have not been peer reviewed or fact-checked, an allegation apparently first made in 2017. And they have used the allegation to block any revision of the Wikipedia pages on the 1869-1873, 1917-1919, and 1942-1944 famines that had cited Majd's works. The University Press of America (UPA) was an imprint of Rowman and Littlefield Publishing group, the sixth largest US publisher founded in 1949. According to the American Philosophical Association, "UPA has delivered high-quality research and textbooks into the hands of students and faculty in a timely manner since its founding in 1975." I also noted that in the UPA webpage cited by TheTimesAreAChanging, the acquisitions department had solicited scholars interested in reviewing submitted manuscripts to UPA to send in their credentials. UPA was renamed Hamilton Books in 2017. Since Majd's UPA books have all been reviewed in refereed scholarly journals, they have been scrutinized before and after publication. As to the absence fact-checking, the books largely consist of verbatum reproduction of US State Department records, available to all. Anyone can fact-check the material and the Office of the Historian at the State Department has increasingly put the documents online, especially those pertaining to the World War II famine. The 1917-1919 famine book was published nearly twenty years ago. Since Domedeparis and TheTimesAreAChanging are so strongly opposed to or perhaps suspect its contents, they should have fact-checked the book during all these years and they still can and should. Finally, an appeal to the two respected editors. Please stop blocking revisions to the 1869-1873 Wikipedia famine page. It is the most tragic of the three famines. Hamilton Books, The book follows in the footsteps of Mike Davis's 2002 book, "Mid-Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Makings of the Third World. London and New York: Verso," and it is the only monograph on the subject in the English language. The current Wikipedia sections on contemporary statements and the death toll need serious rewriting. My apologies for the lengthy post. Moretonian (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheTimesAreAChanging. As stated by Moretonian and previously by Pahlevun, there is no proof that Majd paid to have his books published. Yet you keep on pushing the same allegation for lack of anything better.

As you point out, Willem Floor was highly critical of Majd, going as far as sarcasm when he wrote: "So good were the British in concealing that there even had been a famine that the document tabled by the official Persian delegation to the Versailles peace treaty trivialized the famine and obscured its causes ... The scheme worked so well that scholars dealing with Iran, even if they did know about it, did not write about it, until now." [13]. And Professor Rudi Matthee, in a review of Floor's book, had seconded Floor's sarcasm and misrepresentation of Majd's book, though it is doubtful he had read it. But you neglect to add that other writers like Alidad Mafinezam and Aria Mehrabi had cautiously praised the book: "One of the little known calamities of World War I and its aftermath in Iran is the widespread famine that the war engendered in the country. The most significant treatment of this subject is the book by the agricultural economist Mohammad-Gholi Majd ... A more extensive scholarly treatment of this subject would have to utilize 'triangulation' and provide evidence from others... to show the extent of the famine and the ways it was affected by the war and its aftermath." [14] Nor do you inform the reader that the Irish historian, Pat Walsh, was highly favorable to Majd's book. Walsh's review is entitled, "Who Remembers the Persians..."[15] These deliberate omissions indicate that you are not a fair and unbiased editor.

Finally, you vehemently attack Majd's "A Victorian Holocaust: Iran in the Great Famine of 1869-1873." [16] Others beg to disagree. In a 2018 review of Recent Publications in the Middle East Journal, Clara Hecht praised the book: "Historian Mohammad Gholi Majd draws attention to one of the most significant, yet often overlooked events in Iranian history in his third and most recent addition to his series on historical famines in Iran. Majd provides a detailed history of the largely forgotten catastrophe and challenges some of the previously held notions regarding its causes and extent ... 'A Victorian Holocaust' is an ideal selection for those looking to examine one of the deadliest disasters of the 19th century through an original, historical, and perhaps controversial lens, in addition to readers who enjoyed Majd's first two books in the series."[Recent Publications. The Middle East Journal, Volume 72, Number 2, Spring 2018, pp. 350-354(5) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3751/72.2.4] Moretonian (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an analysis that uses the population figures given in the State Department archives and the decline in the population of Tehran to calculate the most likely death toll at 5-7 million and with a certainty that the death toll was between 3 to 10 million. The author appears to have a background in demography. Here is a quote from the piece: [17]

Some documents show that the population of Iran was 12 million in 1900, 15 million in 1910, and projections put it at 18-20 million in 1920. But, census records in 1920 put the population at 10 million, suggesting that "8-10 million" people died, per Mohammad Gholi Majd.
I have not verified whether the census methodologies were consistent, nor have I attempted to vet the records noted by Gholi Majd in his book for internal consistency. The urban statistics suggest a somewhat more modest reduction in net population. In wartime, and during famine, there is usually a disproportionate reduction in urban population density relative to rural areas (Bradley Thayer, 2009; Alex de Sherbinin, 1995), and Tehran's population fell from 500,000 to 200,000 in this period (again, per Gholi Majd). This isn't conclusive, but I would estimate gross casualties at ~5-7 million based on this figure. Also important to note: the famine occurred some years prior to 1920, so using a 1920 population estimate to back-calculate a death toll from 1917-1918 or 1919 is going to give an inflated number. In short, the author's "8-10 million" figure is almost certainly too high.
Regardless, it looks as though we can be certain (original emphasis) that somewhere between 3 and 10 million people died, and the figure is likely towards the middle to upper end of that spectrum.

While Majd's 8-10 million is within the confidence interval, the 2 million given in the "mainstream" and adopted in the article's infobox falls outside the confidence interval. Also since the famine ended in 1919, the use of 1920 population figure is unlikely to greatly inflate the estimated number of casualties. What is the underpinning and basis for the 2 million figure? It appears it was first given in Pollack's 2003 book and then it has simply been reproduced by some other writers and then in the WP article. The true death toll appears to be three to four times the number given in the current version of the article. Moretonian (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Reddit is not a reliable source, and, when another Reddit user pointed out that the projected 1920 population figure cited by Majd was far too high, the Redditor cited above clarified: "I fully admitted to not attempting to sift through new primary sources. My point re. those figures was that, even if you believe the raw numbers provided by Gholi Majd, his accounting is still generous to the point of inaccuracy." In other words, the anonymous Redditor cited by Moretonian identified remedial math errors in Majd's analysis; correcting those errors yields the range of 5-7 million excess deaths, significantly fewer than Madj's claimed 8-10 million, but that is only "if you believe the raw numbers provided by Gholi Majd"—whose demonstrable incompetence, needless to say, does not inspire confidence! Again, we shouldn't be citing Reddit in the first place, but Moretonian's comment is a remarkable self-own: The top-voted comment in the Reddit thread agrees that Majd's population stats are nearly twice those found in other sources and cites an academic reviewer noting that "Majd does not explain why he has confidence in Bharier's 1919 population figure (p. 52) but not in his 1914 figure." Hmmm... Why could that be? (Note that Bharier, using standard demographic tools, estimated Iran's 1914 population to be 10.89 million and Iran's 1919 population to be 11.29 million. For reasons that he declined to explain in detail, Majd decided that Bharier's 1914 estimate missed nearly half of Iran's population, but that Bharier's estimate of ~11 million Iranians in 1919, calculated using the same methodology, is unimpeachable.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no clarity on the 2 million figure adopted in the WP article. The claim that Bharier's estimates are "unimpeachable" is false. As repeatedly stated, Bharier's 1968 article contains nothing on the WWI and WWII famines, not even a mention. It is like writing a history of the 20th century without mentioning the two world wars, regardless of "methodology". Secondly, while for 1920, 1925, 1930 and 1940 Bharier's estimates are close to the State Department (hereafter archival) figures, at the crucial points that are relevant to estimating the famine death tolls in WWI and WWII, Bharier's estimates vastly diverge from the archival numbers.

The archival numbers available for calculating the WWI death toll are those 1900, 1910, 1914, and 1920, and a comparison with Bharier's estimates for these years is given. For 1900, archival figure is 12 million and Bharier's 9.86 million; for 1910, the archival figure is 15-17 million, while Bharier's is 10.58 million; for 1914, archival figure is 20 million, while Bharier's is 10.89 million; and finally, for 1920, the archival figure is 10 million, and Bharier's is 11.37 million. Thus, while the archival numbers reflect the advent of a cataclysmic event, in the happy make-believe world of Bharier, nothing has happened. The same is observed for WWII. Archival for 1940 is 15 million and Bharier is 14.55 million; but then for 1944, archival is 10-12 million, while Bharier is 15.43 million.

Compare the 1900 (12 million) and 1920 (10 million) archival numbers. The famine had wiped out 20 years of population growth plus 2 million. Thus the 2 million given in the WP article leaves out 20 years of population growth lost to famine.

Finally, let's be ultra conservative and compare the 1910 (15-17 million) and 1920 (10 million) populations while disregarding the 20 million given for 1914. At a minimum 5-7 million had perished. But then we have to add the population growth (natural progression) for the 1910-1920 decade. Again, let's be very conservative and put the growth at 3 million, the same as that of 1900-1910. We know this is under count because the starting base in 1910 is 15-17 million compared to 12 million in 1900. The result is a death toll of at least 8-10 million. Moretonian (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Bharier's 1968 article, "A Note on the Population of Iran, 1900-1966," was published in Population Studies, a publication of the "Population Investigation Committee" which was founded in London in 1936. The article is 7 pages of which only the equivalent of 2.25 pages consist of text and the rest tables and graphs. He estimates the 1900-1966 population by the method backward projection, with the 1956 and 1966 censuses as the starting point. He divides the 1900-1966 period into sub-periods, and assigns a growth rate to each. Going backward, he estimates the population for each year. As shown below, the article contains factual errors, apparent deliberate omissions, unjustified assumptions, and the actual "adjustments" of the census numbers have biased the entire backward projection. In short, Bharier should not be used to determine the death tolls during the WWI and WWII famines.

Following Mehdi Amani of Tehran University, Bharier's first sub-period consists of 1900-1925. He rejects Amani's proposed growth rate of 0.2% and adopts Hottum-Schindler's (HS) suggested growth rate of 0.75% because of HS's "long residence in Persia." But there was a problem: HS's estimate of 0.75% was only for 1900-1910. Bharier "extends it" 1o 1910-1919 on the basis of a confidential 1919 Foreign Office Handbook on Persia. (Bharier, 275) He next extends HS's growth rate to cover 1920-1925 as well "Because these years were years of civil war, famine, and little evidence of industrial, transportation or agricultural progress." (Bharier, 277) There was no civil war or famine during 1920-1925. While ignoring the 1917-1919 famine, he attempts to create a fictitious one for 1920-1925. He acknowledges that some publications such as the League of Nations 1924 report on opium production in Persia, and the economist M.K. Fateh's 1926 book, "The Economic Position of Persia," had reported a large decline in the population of Iran in the early decades of the 20th century, but he dismisses them because they "give the usual Malthusian reasons for sudden declines in population". (Bharier, 279) We know the "Malthusian reasons" are famine and war. Evidently, Bharier was aware of the 1917-1919 famine, but had failed to mention it. Nevertheless, he claims that his estimates are "the nearest one can get to the truth." (Bharier, 275)

For 1926-1945, he appears to select a growth rate of 2% (compared to Amani's 1.5%) and specifically states that the Civil Registration Office (C.R.O.) figures indicate the population grew at 2% per year during 1942-1945. (Bharier, 277) However, the graph of the C.R.O. yearly data given in Bharier (p. 278) shows a decline in population during 1942-1945, and the C.R.O. population figure for 1941 exceeds Bharier's by about 2 million. No attempt at explaining the contradiction is given by the author. Moreover, according to the C.R.O., the population had grown much faster than 2% during 1934-1941. Bharier's explanation: "the bulge from 1934-41 can be put down to underreporting of deaths because food rations at that time were geared to the presentation of identity cards." (Bharier, 278-279). Bharier's source: "Information gleaned from officials and friends in Iran." There was no food rationing in Iran during 1934-1941. Rationing was instituted after August 1941 Allied occupation. There is no mention of the WWII famine though it is hard to believe that both Julian Bharier and Mehdi Amani were unaware of it.

Finally, and briefly, Bharier adopts Amani's growth rate of 2.5% for 1946-1956 and his own 2.9% for 1956-1966. The actual population growth rate for 1956-1966, the second decade of the baby boom, according to the census numbers was 3.12%. The difference is apparently caused by the upward "adjustments" of 7.5% and 5% to the 1956 and 1966 censuses, respectively. The two cited sources are both "unpublished." (Bharier, 276) Combining a low growth rate for 1946-1956 and arbitrarily increasing the census counts, artificially inflates the 1945 population estimate and biases the remaining numbers down the years. Moretonian (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moretonian (talk · contribs) in a recent edit you added the following "The implied post-famine population of 5 million in 1919 was even below that of 1810 (6 million) cited by Balfour" this is in direct contradiction with what you wrote above But, census records in 1920 put the population at 10 million. Using this to discredit the accepted toll that you have stated without any source whatsoever as having first been put forward by Balfour who has not been mentioned in the article up until now is not what is expected from an encyclopedia. Seeing as his figure of 5 million in 1919 is half of that of the 1920 census I do not think that it can be considered as a RS. Who is Balfour and is he considered as an expert in this matter? Where is your source that shows the other authors were using his figures as you seem to be implying? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Domdeparis (talk · contribs) thank you for your post. The Hon. James M. Balfour was the Chief Assistant to the British Financial Advisor to the Persian Government, A. Armitage-Smith. His 1922 book, Recent Happenings in Persia, has been used by historians of modern Iran as well as others. These include Nikki Keddie, Ervand Abrahamian and Homa Katouzian. Balfour (p. 23) briefly discusses the 1917-1919 famine and states that a European resident of northwest Iran had estimated the death toll at 2 million. He also adds that government data at his disposal indicated that a quarter of the agricultural population around Tehran had perished. Keddie (1979) and Abrahamian (2008) cite Balfour as their source for the famine estimates given in their books, while Pollack (2004), and Ward (2014) cite Keddie. Rubin (2015), I believe, cites either Keddie, Abrahamian or Katouzian. Thus the 2 million figure can be directly or indirectly traced to Balfour's 1922 book.

However, Balfour makes very clear and cautions the reader that the 2 million death toll is based on an estimated pre-famine population of of 7 million, of which 2 million, about 30%, had perished. The implied post-famine population indicated by the European resident is only 5 million, half the usual estimate of 10 million given in other sources (please note there was no census in 1920, and the figures are all estimates). He also points out that the implied 5 million is below the figure for 1810. Those who have cited Balfour directly or indirectly, have neglected to mention his caveat concerning the assumed pre-famine population of 7 million, and the implied post-famine population of 5 million. For instance, Rubin states that 2 million out of 10 million had died.

The above is based on published sources and cannot be construed as original research. Besides, I have not insisted on the inclusion of the Balfour book in the article and the latest version contains no mention.Moretonian (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article's quality

[edit]

This article can be a WP:GOOD one easily. Benyamin-ln (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under whose propaganda fantasy? 88.108.79.53 (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To IP 88.108.79.53: remain calm and avoid attacking others, users are free to express their opinions. Pahlevun (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several scholars have disputed Majd's account?

[edit]

Who are these scholars? How did they dispute it? What are their credentials? Sickofthisbs (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sickofthisbs. [U|Domedeparis] claims that Alireza Mafinezam and Aria Mehrabi, the authors of a book entitled, Iran and its Place Among Nations, [18] are among several scholars who have severely criticized Majd's methodology and vigorously disputed his findings. I haven't seen the work, but according to the source I found, this is what they actually wrote in their book:[19]

One of the little known calamities of World War I and its aftermath in Iran is the widespread famine that the war engendered across the country. The most significant treatment of this subject is the book by the agricultural economist Mohammed-Gholi Majd, The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, 1917-1919. [...] Majd quotes the American charge d'affaires in Persia at the time, Wallace Smith Murray, as having claimed that in 1917-1918, up to one-third of Iran's population was wiped out by famine and disease.
To be sure, the exact causes of the devastating famine are difficult to grasp. Majd blames the British who, after the Russian revolution of 1917, had become the main foreign power in Iran. Having isolated farmers from their customers inside Iran the British, Majd claims, made it impossible for the country's fertile regions in its north and northwest to remain connected to the rest of the country. At the same time, according to Majd, a significant amount of the grains produced in Iran were forcibly acquired for British troops in the country and shipped abroad to other British troops in the region.
Majd concludes that, unbeknownst to most, one of the main genocides of the twentieth century occurred in Iran during and immediately after World War I.

The authors also add:

It is difficult for rigorous academic research to corroborate these figures. The word "genocide" implies the willful killing of large numbers of noncombatants. The historical record in this area is murky. A more extensive scholarly treatment of this subject would have to utilize "triangulation" and provide evidence from others, including British, Russian, and Ottoman sources, to show the extent of the famine and the ways in which it was affected by the war and its aftermath.

There is no implied "criticism" of Majd or "dispute" with his conclusions. As to the inability to "corroborate" the figures, including the one given by Murray, a diplomat of long residence in Persia, all the figures are corroborated by data found in State Department archives. The British army did not deliberately separate farmers from consumers. but by commandeering all the available horses, camels, mules and donkeys, it established a de facto separation of farmers and consumers, and forced the farmers to sell to the British army, the only purchaser with transport as well as money. Deprived of food, the Iranians starved. The authors could have also included other British trade and financial policies, including failure to pay Iran's share of oil revenues during 1914-1921. I would also add that since the book uses many sources, including American diplomatic archives and missionary reports, memoirs of several British military officers who served in Iran during WWI as well as the official history of the British campaign in Mesopotamia [20], Iranian newspapers, as well as memoirs of notable Iranians, it has already used "triangulation" as all the cited sources corroborate each other. Moretonian (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


In his 2008 book (p. 196),[21] Abrahamian has called Majd's estimate of WWI famine losses an "exaggerated discussion," and in his 2013 book [22], he accuses Majd of making a "wild accusation" by stating that British policies in WWI amounted to genocide. Abrahamian (2013, pp. 26-27) writes: "A contemporary Iranian historian recently made the wild accusation that British food exactions to feed its army of occupation during World War I resulted in 10 million dead--half the population. He accuses the British government of 'covering up' this 'genocide' by systematically destroying annual reports. In fact, no annual reports on Iran were written from 1913 to 1922".

The statement immediately reveals that Professor Abrahamian had either not read Majd's book and was ignorant of its contents, or he was deliberately misrepresenting its contents.[23] I believe he had not read the book. For if he had read it, he would have known that no such accusation (destroying documents) is made in either the 2003 or 2013 version. What Majd had actually said in both versions was that the British government had refused to declassify War Office and military records pertaining to Iran for 1914-1921. The accusation that the British government had destroyed documents, according to Professor Amir A. Afkhami, had first surfaced on Ayatollah Khamenei's website in 2015.[24] Abrahamian had mistakenly assumed that it came from Majd. Abrahamian's false statements provided fodder for Rudi Matthee (2019, p. 183) who wrote that Willem Floor "appropriately relegates Mohammad Gholi Majd's overblown, conspiracy filled book, on the epidemic and the number of 8-10 million (or almost the country's entire population) given by him, to a footnote."[25] Note Rudi Matthee's attempt to whitewash the famine by calling it "the epidemic."

Such false statements and claims by the likes of Abrahamian and Matthee have been seized by Domdeparis and TheTimesAreAChanging in their unceasing attempt to denigrate and discredit Majd and to whitewash the three historical famines of 1869-1873, 1917-1919, and 1942-1944. Moretonian (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list of critics also includes Professor Abbas Milani (2011, p. 468) who has accused Majd of selective use of documents: "His tendency to pick and choose the sources that confirm what he, a priori, wants to prove, makes many of his assertions doubtful."[26] He implies other documents disprove Majd's conclusions and that Majd has been dishonest in his use of sources. It has been nearly 20 years since The Great Famine & Genocide in Persia, 1917-1919, was published, ample time for Professor Milani and other scholars to find and publish these supposedly hidden documents. Not a shred of reliable evidence has been produced during this time to undermine the book's findings. Only misinformation and false statements. Moretonian (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent disputes

[edit]

I understand that User:Moretonian seeks changes in the article that were disagreed by User:TheTimesAreAChanging and User:Domdeparis, so I ask Moretonian to propose changes he wants to be made in the article so that we can reach a consensus. Pahlevun (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balfour's Statement on the Famine

[edit]

James M. Balfour (1878‐1960), presumably the son of Lord Arthur James Balfour (1847‐1930), was the Chief Assistant to the British Financial Adviser in Persia during 1919‐20. Upon publication in 1922, Balfour’s book was seized by the British government and an expurgated version published (Majd, 2008: 63‐65). Since the expurgated version has been cited as the source for the claim that 2 million out of a population of 10 million perished in the famine, its relevant part is quoted. Commenting on the estimates of Iran’s population, Balfour writes (added emphasis):

“In 1810 Sir John Malcolm placed the population at approximately six millions and since that date published estimates have ranged from six to ten millions. In 1884 General Schindler considered that something over seven millions was the correct figure, while five years later Lord Curzon put it at nine millions. To‐day reference books usually give ten millions, but this cannot be regarded as more than a conjectural figure somewhere between the two extremes. These vary as widely to‐day as in former times. For example, a high official put the population at something under fifteen millions, probably about thirteen, while at the other extreme a European of long residence, who in addition had had opportunities of gaining an insight into the question in the north during the famine of 1918, considered that prior to that disaster the total population was seven millions, and that two millions had died at that time. This estimate was admittedly based on experiences in the north‐west, but the extent of the mortality at least was borne out by my own experiences when inquiring into the affairs of the Province of Teheran, when I found that approximately a quarter of the agricultural population had died during the famine” (Balfour, 1922: 22‐23).

Balfour’s claim that published estimates since 1810 “have ranged from six to ten millions” is untrue. His estimate of the rural death toll is significantly lower than that given by Packard (1920) and Millspaugh (1925). Moreover, the 7 million for 1914 was even below the 7.65 million given by Schindler in 1884. In addition, the implied 1920 population of 5 million is less than the population (6 million) given by Malcolm for 1810. Balfour makes clear that he does not subscribe to a 1914 population of 7 million and a 1920 population of 5 million. Nor had he “estimated” a famine death toll of 2 million. In short, Balfour has been inappropriately cited as the source for the claim that 2 million out of 10 million perished, or the claim that a quarter of the population of northern Iran perished. There is no valid source for these claims.

Source: MAJD, M. G. Historiography and Death Toll of World War I and World War II Famines in Iran. Preprints 2024, 2024031562. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202403.1562.v2. 207.245.160.20 (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, the source cited by the above IP, Mohammad Gholi Majd, is an Iranian author with a PhD in agricultural economics who has published several books through a print on demand model, including The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran: 1917-1919 (2013), Iran Under Allied Occupation in World War II: The Bridge to Victory & A Land of Famine (2016), and A Victorian Holocaust: Iran in the Great Famine of 1869–1873 (2017). Majd's books, which have not been fact-checked or peer-reviewed, make WP:REDFLAG claims that Iran suffered more casualties than any other country during World War I and World War II and suffered consecutive British-led genocides far surpassing the Holocaust, among other dubious assertions not found in mainstream scholarship. Academic experts who have paid any attention to Majd's writings have been almost uniformly critical. To give just one example, in reference to Majd's book on the World War I famine, Willem Floor "appropriately relegates Mohammad Gholi Majd's overblown, conspiracy-filled book on the epidemic and the number of 8-10 million (or almost the country's entire population) given by him, to a footnote."
Majd 2024, the source cited by IP 207.245.160.20 for the statement that "Balfour has been inappropriately cited," is a preprint, and there is a disclaimer at the top of the article stating: "This version is not peer-reviewed". Majd's abstract cites remarks by Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, as providing the impetus to reevaluate the "famine's historiography and toll," which creates an appearance of partisanship on the part of the author. Unless (or until) Majd 2024 is reliably published, it cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


By equating print on demand with self-publishing, user TheTimesAreAChanging displays a lack of familiarity with scholarly publishing. In the old days of offset printing, publishers were compelled to print a large initial batch and then carry it for an extended period, and then repeat the process when the stock ran out. They incurred heavy printing and storage costs. In the last 10-15 years, academic books with limited markets by and large have been printed on demand. Digital printing technology enables publishers to set their printing to demand for a book and thereby save on printing and storage costs. Academic books with limited readership have greatly benefited, but that does not equate print on demand to self-publishing.

Academic works are not money making products, so authors have been required to share in the risk and cost of producing and publishing their work. But that does not make the work self-published. Even peer reviewed refereed journals require their authors to pay a hefty publication fee, usually $1000 to $3000, to publish a 10-15 page article. Does that make a journal article self-published?

Spurred by user TheTimesAreAChanging negative comments on the quality and reliability of Majd's works, I visited Mohammad Gholi Majd wikipage. Twelve books are listed and published by University Press of America, University Press of Florida, and Hamilton Books. I was surprised by the fact that while the list contained the first edition (2003), the second edition of the work,

Majd, Mohammad Gholi. The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran, 1917-1919, Second Edition. University Press of America, 2013,

was absent.

This led me to check the edit history of the page and I noted that the book had been removed by user TheTimesAreAChanging. The user had also excised 8-9 peer reviewed articles, leaving just 5-6 works. In addition, about two dozen reviews of Majd's works in scholarly journals had been removed or tampered with. More than anything, such actions provide a context to assess the user's claims about Majd's works.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persian_famine_of_1917–1919&oldid=1255577969"