Jump to content

Talk:Armenia

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 5.61.122.218 (talk) at 15:00, 5 June 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Transcontinental nature of the country

The country is transcontinental and spans both Europe and Asia. It is incorrect to state that the country is solely in West Asia. This needs to be amended or some clarity needs to be added. It is simply not enough to state it has been discussed already, or cite sources. There are reliable sources that state Armenia is a European country, as well as an Asian country. The Armenian people have cultural ties to both continents. This needs to be referred to a competent administrator. — Preceding signed comment added by Mir 5.61.122.218 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Referring disputes to "a competent administrator" for a ruling is not how Wikipedia works. (If someone referred it to an administrator, and that administrator disagreed with you, you'd argue that the administrator was incompetent, right?) See WP:Dispute resolution. Largoplazo (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's better discuss about the topic directly. I pointed above that the sources that provides information that Armenia is located in Western Asia says that Georgia and Azerbaijan are located there as well, but in Wikipedia Azerbaijan and Georgia are transcontinental countries. I also provided loads of sources saying that Armenia is in either intersection of Eastern Europe and Asia or just in Eastern Europe. And I also want to point that in the article "Armenia" in other languages in Wikipedia says that Armenia is transcontinental. So, I think there are more than enough sources and proofs of Armenia being transcontinental country. What do you think?
P.S we are not talking about cultural or political situation of the country, but the geography only.
Thanks. Albert11000 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About Georgia and Azerbaijan, please read WP:OTHERCONTENT, thanks. Alex2006 (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alessandro57 Ok, what about the other facts I told? Albert11000 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Armenia is not transcontinental. There are no continental borders that divide the Armenian territory into two separate continents, there isn’t a single source that says that part of Armenia is in one continent and part of it is in another. Geographically Armenia is entirely in Western Asia, the geopolitical alignment of Armenia with Europe is already stated in the lead, it’s time to drop the stick with this issue. TagaworShah (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided bunch of proofs.
https://www.worldatlas.com/maps/armenia
Boundaries between the continents (check the map of caucasus, J and I includes Armenia)
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eastern-europe_en
I don't understand what is the problem? Even article Armenia in other languages in Wikipedia says that Armenia is a transcontinental country. Why don't we do so on English Wikipedia? Albert11000 (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bold edit

I marked the article In Use hoping for some time to rework the foreign relations section and trim the lede. The lede was entirely too long and needed trimmed. The info on all the foriegn bodies it belongs to can be incorporated into the appropriate section and this can be ce'd. If after I'm done (I'll removed the tag) it can be rv if necessary, hopefully though it will be seen as a positive change and any issues can be worked out from that point.  // Timothy :: talk  17:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done, rm Western Asia from lede (see edit), ce'd, mv'd some content, fmting, rm duplicate info, rv if you must, consider improving on my changes.  // Timothy :: talk  17:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that was totally necessary- and why remove content support by consensus without discussing here first? Archives908 (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can do an RFC.  // Timothy :: talk  18:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't want to explain the rationale of your edits? Archives908 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did above. An RfC will help involve more editors and open up more improvement in the article.  // Timothy :: talk  18:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



I have copy edited the lede and the section on foriegn relations. It was wholesale rv'd. (See section above). See copy edited version  Question: IIs this the right version?here, status quo version here

  • Question: Should the revision be reintroduced and the article copy edited from that point?
Support to use the copy edited version and continue article improvement from that point. Oppose if you believe the status quo should be restored.
 // Timothy :: talk  18:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

  • Support using the copy edited version and making any changes and improvements from that point.  // Timothy :: talk  18:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. A significant portion of the lead was removed without much justification and directly contradicts with an established consensus- Talk:Armenia/Archive 8#Geopolitical orientation. Besides that, moving a few links and images around doesn't seem like a drastic improvement or even necessary. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A small portion of the lead was moved (a list of political affiliations), not removed; most of it was alredy there. If you only object to removing Western Asia, this could have been reinserted without a complete revert (which I suggested). After making the claim that I removed "significant" content, you contradict yourself "Besides that, moving a few links and images around doesn't seem like a drastic improvement". What is it, a significant change or a just moving a few links?  // Timothy :: talk  20:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You still haven't explained why you blanket deleted very specific text regarding Armenia's geopolitical orientation which was established via consensus? Also adding cn tags to literally every organization Armenia is a member of is a little much. The respective articles' clearly showcase Armenia's membership in those organizations. Since when is there even the slightest doubt that Armenia isn't a member of the Council of Europe or United Nations? Archives908 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two words could have been easily added back in. The other information was already in the foriegn relations section.  // Timothy :: talk  20:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Per Archives908. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the RFC location is partially off topic, as the change in the geographical location of Armenia should be discussed by History and Geography, not by Politics, government, and law. Once again, when writing "Western Asia", one is only giving a location on the globe according to the standard definition of continents, not a geopolitical position of the country. Regards, Alex2006 (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Western Asia was a small part of the edit. It could easily be added back in. Read the entire edit please. You can add this RFC to any cat you wish. 99% of the edit was moving political affiliations out of the lede, into a section most of them already existed in, and formatting the foreign relations section.  // Timothy :: talk  19:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually very common to include a few organizations in the lead of country articles- see United Kingdom, France, Spain, etc...all of which either have similar sized leads as Armenia or even larger leads. Archives908 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A few, there are far more than a few.  // Timothy :: talk  20:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the norm for country profiles. Spain has 10 organizations listed. Armenia has 9. Archives908 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how a big list of examples that leads to minimal information on the country is helpful. Should fallow FA examples.. To quote Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Opening paragraphs Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the body of the article. See Canada with no random examples, stats or names other than in the infobox - or Japan with no random examples or names and mininual stats in lead that are not covered in infobox. Moxy- 11:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your response is subjective. I've provided several well written articles which include 5-10 of the most prominent organizations that the respective country is a member of. Considering some countries can be part of 100+ organizations, how is listing 5-10 considered "big"? It's completely in line with WP:NPOV guidelines. Archives908 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How does listing and linking help learn about this country? Council of Europe, the Eastern Partnership, Eurocontrol, the Assembly of European Regions, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Asian Development Bank, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the Eurasian Development Bank. Lead links should be reserved for articles about the country when posible. Moxy- 12:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a discussion for just this article. If a B class level 3 vital article like the United Kingdom can have a whopping twelve organizations listed, then why can't Armenia have less than that? Italy has six, Portugal has eight, Russia has nine, China has ten listed, and so on. It is hypocritical to target this specific article, while the vast majority of others get a pass. It is the norm to include between 5-10 organizations in country articles'. If you have specific WP that forbids it, please share so we can begin removing organizations from ALL 200+ country profile leads. Archives908 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your free to ignore our FA examples and project recommendations...but the article should try and be part of the top level articles.....not just like other C level articles, Again what infomation do these spamed links provide about this country...will they help explain anything about this country? Should do what is best for readers of this article. MOS:LEADLINK Most Featured Articles contain about 12 to 25 links in the lead, with an average of about 1.5 links per sentence, or one link for every 16 words....so drop the sea of blue and add real infomation over random links to articles unrelated to this topic. Article has some serious problems (whole section with no sources - text sandwiching etc,,,..at least the lead could link to more infomation.Moxy- 19:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You continually ignore the fact that practically every single country article includes a list of select organizations they are members of. Armenia is not an outlier. Including this information serves purpose as it highlights the countries' integration into certain blocs, institutions, unions, etc... which directly impact the countries' international commitments/obligations, politics, trade, finances, and laws and regulations. It also acts as a prelude, to typically, more in depth "foreign relations" sections which discusses this topic/these memberships in greater detail. For the second time, there is no wikipolicy that categorically and outright forbids the inclusion of membership of international organizations in the lead. The lead of this article, by and large, complies with MOS:LEADLINK, which itself is a recommendation applied mostly to limit overly technical terms. A brief list of organizations is not profoundly "technical". Archives908 (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Mostly unnecessary removal, and contradicting the aforementioned consensus. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 20:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You think every political affiliation of Armenia should be in both the lede and the foreign relations section? You don't think maybe there is more important material for the already far too long lede? Maybe more than a single sentence about the Armenian genocide or the Armenian struggle for independence. Perhaps a note about the cultural genocide that took place during the Soviet era?  // Timothy :: talk  20:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a fan of some of the changes, but I don't think bundling them together and giving an RfC without much explanation will do much to move them forward. CMD (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I join @Chipmunkdavis:, I am not against some of the changes and I think too that RfC is too vaguely formulated and tries to answer too many questions at once. Also, and I quote WP:RFC: "RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." Now I don't think this happened here so far. No serious attempt has been made to open the discussion on the talk page, so I think it would be better to do so and possibly reopen the RfC if a consensus is not reached. However, I note with satisfaction that Armenia's geographical affiliation to Western Asia is no longer being questioned. Alex2006 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment: This is a poorly conceived RFC. I suggest you please withdraw it and prepare better for it, Tim, and then perhaps start afresh once that is done. See Alex2006's quotation from WP:RFC: Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. Please make such a reasonable attempt before jumping straight to an RFC, and try to resolve one issue at a time rather than presenting your own changes as a package. Whether Armenia is in Europe or Asia is one thing, and whether the lead is too long is another, totally different thing. The way the RfC is currently phrased makes it prohibitively difficult to respond to. Bishonen | tålk 10:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armenia is transcontinental

I am confused about the lead suggesting Armenia is in Western Asia, rather than in Eastern Europe and Western Asia. I don’t know when this update to this article happened. 130.88.226.20 (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia and Azerbaijan are both arguably transcontinental, Armenia is not. Depending on your definition it is either entirely in Eastern Europe or entirely in Western Asia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale for a reason, and someone ought to work out why that is. 130.88.226.20 (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your source for that information? What reason is there to ignore reputable sources, offered by user Albert11000 in another discussion, which oppose that view? 130.88.226.20 (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should not be confused, since you are edit warring right now on another article, where there is a map that shows the situation. Anyway, it happened long time ago, after a long discussion. Please see the Archive about that. Alex2006 (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the archive and there was no proves of Armenia being NOT transcontinental. But I provided reliable sources, but you still ignore them without explaining what is the problem? I am getting a feeling that you are being biased for some reason. Albert11000 (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such article which I am edit-warring where a map “shows the situation”.

130.88.226.20 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenia&oldid=1158674689"