Talk:Armenian highlands

Comments

(moved from article)

also if anyone can help me understand if Armenian Plateau is fertile PLEASE tell me and you will be greatly appreciated, email me at looneytoons@prairiestyles.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.168.181 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 October 2006.

This article needs minor editorial clean up to reduce advocacy and bring it in conformance with the Neutral Point of View policy. Gregkar 18:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Highland

Add please if approved. Armenian highland is a mountainous country, a natural fortress that stretches from the eastern West Asia to Anatolia and from the Black Sea to Mesopotamia. The mountain is made up of several coast ranges, buying the Taurus and Pontos which are the two most important. Between these jungle chains there are several high altitude plains, the minority of them situated between 1,000- 2,000 meters over the sea level. In the lakes run some of the major reservoirs in the area, e.g. Araxes, Euphrates and Tigris.

Tags

No references, blanket statements of political character, mentions of "official thefts", statements like "Armenia has helped build many popular cities even today", funny that Republic of Armenia was founded recently. What city has "Armenia" built? Armenians I could understand, but Armenia? Whether some people like it or not, those lands belonged to the Seljuqs and Ottomans since 1071, both legally and practically; so let's cut down on the political overtones. The present day borders were established by the Treaty of Kars, and some people better accept that and stop irredentist notions, like pan-Armenianism. It doesn't matter if Armenia doesn't accept the Treaty of Kars since Armenia doesn't have such a right: UN maps do not show a "Greater Armenia". Those lands belong to Turkey, and if you don't like it, fine; that's your opinion, but keep them out of Wikipedia please.Baristarim 05:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't there anything else in the history section? The geographical formation has been inhabited by Turks, Kurds, Persians etc for more than a millenia! Pfff.. Good faith, really.. Baristarim 06:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning

I have noticed a massive deletion here. I dont know the history of this article, so an unsuspecting person like me may conjecture vandalism. Please double-cleck. Mukadderat 02:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC) It seems to have just been some bizarre religious Christian fundamentalist stuff that was removed.Meowy 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

uk iwiki

as the page is protected please add the an iwiki link to the Ukrainian wikipedia: uk:Вірменське нагір'я —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.33.74 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"See also" deletions

Preferable to discuss before the deletion of significant topics at SeeAlso, all are related to the region. Andranikpasha (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Map

this map is obviously POV, there are only 3 states in the caucasus, but here 4 states are illustrated (seperatist NKR). So if your going to show seperatist states in the Caucasus, then why just 1 and not all of them? Perhaps becayse this map comes directly from a armenica.org a Armenian Diaspora site. Any person with common sense will agree this is simply POV, this was the reason for the removal of the map, perhaps a standard map of the Caucasus will be a better choice. Baku87 (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the maps altogether, political maps are not suppose to be in geographic articles. Replaced them with satellite image of the Armenian highland. VartanM (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the spurious "Garden of Eden" reference

Who are these "some" who believe this to have been the (physical) location of the Biblical "Garden of Eden"? One reference to a Christian Creationist publication is not significant enough to be included in a geographic article. Religious traditions about geography are important, but this particular statement has no basis in any historically established religious tradition before the Biblicallly-inspired geographic speculations of the 19th century. The Bible, which is the source text for the story of the Garden of Eden, does not associate it with any particular geographic area at all and certainly not this region.

References to Young Earth Biblical Creationism have no place in scientific articles about geography and geology.

• Archæogenetics  ^TALK  20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference

Treaty of Sevres is from 1920, not 1923, and it does not grant Turkey sovereignty over Eastern Anatolia/Armenian Plateau. Therefore it would have been impossible for the Turkish government to change anything in the region had the issue had anything with the Treaty of Sevres. So the intention probably was to refer to the treaty of Lausanne.

In addition, although it is quite true that the place names originating in Armenian and other languages have been and still being changed by the Turkish government, the name "Armenian Plateau" itself being used by the Turkish government before 1923 is highly doubtful. But I am having trouble understanding why there is even the mention of this issue in this article, because:

1) It appears to be region containing at least parts of modern day Armenia, so what turks call the part in their country does not apply to the whole region. 2) Therefore, nobody bothered to give the Turkish expression for the region at the start of the article to start with. So why something you did not care about at the beginning became relevant at the end? 3) It is a universal name expressed in English. Who cares if the turkish government desperately avoids it?

It may be important to mention how political cimates affect the geographical thinking but this one really looks like a very out of place shot at the turkish government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.42.76 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I misread the source, although it mentions Sevres, it is actually Lausanne that it dates as 1923.
2. What the source states is "Attempts to eliminate the memory of Armenia included change of the geographic expression 'Armenian plateau' to 'Eastern Anatolia.'"
3. I am not saying that this passage makes sense, and would be happy to eliminate it altogether from the article as irrelevant. However, if it is in the article it needs to reflect the source -- which does not say anything like:[1]

In the 1980s, the ministry of education in Turkey ordered that names that could be conceived as reminiscent of pre-Turkic peoples of Anatolia like "Armenian highland" (Armenians) and "Pontic range" (Pontic Greeks) be effaced in atlases in Turkish schools. The official term of the plateau in Turkish usage is "Eastern Anatolian Highland."

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The treaty is unimportant except in the sense that it confirmed Turkish control of the region and thus gave Turkey the right to call the region whatever it wanted. It would be more appropriate to explain why the phrase "Armenian plateau" became unacceptable for use within Turkey, resulting in the coining of the "Eastern Anatolian Region" phrase - a phrase that then gradually became adopted by non-Turkish sources resulting in the abandonment of the older "Armenian plateau/Armenian Highlands" terminology. I don't know what terminology the Ottoman empire used for its easternmost regions. But the Ottoman empire was not particularly interested in the study of geology or geography in itsremote provinces, so most sources and most researchers from that period and will have been foreign and they called the region the Armenian plateau. Meowy 16:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS? (Incidentally, I only put in the treaty in an attempt to provide some sort of time context, not because I thought the treaty itself was important.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So Hovannisian, the cited source, does not mention the treaty? I think it would be best to call a spade a spade and just say something like "in the aftermath of the Armenian genocide". There have been a fairly large number of articles on the Turkish policy of eliminating names or concepts seen (by Turkey) to have had an Armenian connection, but I don't know if any have specifically mentioned the coining of the "Eastern Anatolia" term as a way of removing the previously accepted "Armenian plateau" term (though that obviously was the reason why it was done). Meowy 15:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, he mentions both treaties. The cited page makes no mention of the genocide. From memory it goes something like 'treaties' … 'renaming' … 'something else happening between the two world wars'. If you can't find a WP:RS, there's nothing really we can do about it. In any case, the renaming issue is peripheral, wandering into WP:COATRACK, for this topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is peripheral to mention why the phrases "Armenian Highland" and "Armenian Plateau" have become non-standard and somewhat old-fashioned terms, and why they have been replaced by "Eastern Anatolia". If the source says "Attempts to eliminate the memory of Armenia included change of the geographic expression 'Armenian plateau' to 'Eastern Anatolia" then there is a source making an explicit link between the expression and Turkey's policy to eliminate things seen by Turkey to have some sort of Armenia connection. Those other articles that I mentioned which deal with that policy also mention the Armenian Genocide. Meowy 17:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Political map

This map is a political map while the article is about geography also note how the map highlights Nagorno-Karabakh as the same colour as Armenia and other seperatist regions are exluded (South Ossetia and Abkhazia), it seemed obvious to replace that map with a geographical map of the area. Neftchi (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a geographical map in the article. I agree that there must be a geographical map, but maps are there to illustrate the text - so I don't see why there should not be a political map as well as a geographical map in the article. It doesn't have to be that particular map, and perhaps it should be cropped to show exactly the same area as the geographical map. And the geographical map should come first, at the top of the page. Meowy 20:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The political map definitely helps place the region. Geography and political boundaries are related and useful to juxtapose one with the other... Adding it back. Serouj (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You ignored my comment above as I stated that the political map highlights Nagorno-Karabakh the same colour as Armenia and other seperatist regions are exluded (South Ossetia and Abkhazia), so as this is not a neutral political map, I removed this map, if you can find a neutral map of the Armenian Highland you can use it. Neftchi (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That minor point is a rather insufficient ground to delete the map, don't you think? Besides, neither South Ossetia nor Abkhazia are in the Armenian Highland. Serouj (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not a minor point at all, the map is wrong and a wrong map cannot be used in a encyclopedia, then again what can one expect off a map from armenica.org, a nationalist site. Again I removed it and I ask you to stop your revertings. Neftchi (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the political map does not belong here. Grandmaster 09:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

First explain what part of it is "wrong" and then we can take it out if you have any grounds. The fact that NKR is singled out as a different color and is not shown as part of AZ is not sufficient grounds as this isn't a factual error. Not showing Abkhazia and Ossetia in their own color is irrelevant to this article, as those regions are not part of the Armenian Highland. Reverting for lack of grounds. Serouj (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The article says the Armenian highland is a geographical, and not a political concept, therefore political maps are not appropriate here, especially the ones that are not accurate and neutral. Grandmaster 11:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Armenian Highland is geographical article but it can also show the geopolitical situation of geographic region and that's the reason why NKR has the same color as Armenia. En-9mm (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all NK is given the same colour as Armenia giving the illusion that NK is part of Armenia, second this colouring of NK doesnt even reflect the real situation as the 7 regions around NK are occupied aswell by Armenia and yet they are not reflected in this map. Also other seperatist regions as South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not reflected in this map at all. This map is highly incorrect and cannot be used in this map. If you wish you can find a better political map which reflects a neutral position. Neftchi (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, the fact that SO and ABZ are not shown as separatist is a TANGENTIAL point to the article! NKR is CLEARLY labeled as such, and if it were the same as Armenia, then there would be an ARROW that connects them. It is not "HIGHLY" innacurate as you say, and there is really no grounds to remove it. The map gives the user an idea of where the Armenian Highland is in the context of current political borders. Serouj (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a political map that shows all the borders correctly you are welcome to use it but the map you are presenting is wrong. You say this map has a small mistake and I say its a big mistake but it doesnt matter, a mistake is a mistake and such a map cannot be used in a encyclopedia. Neftchi (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We also have to consider the plight of the population of Azerbaijan. They have a medical condition that's rather like a severe nut allergy. At the sight of a map showing the borders of Nagorno Karabakh their necks start to swell up, then they begin to involuntarily jump up and down as if possessed, arms swinging about wildly. If the situation is not quickly relieved by removing the map, their heads will quite literally explode! Many medical papers have been written about this unfortunate condition, but a yet no definitive cure has been found. The ingestion of a very large dose of democracy is known to alleviate the symptoms, but this is something the afflicted are reluctant to undergo because of cultural reasons. But seriously - illustrations in Wikipedia articles are there in order to illustrate or explain points made in the text. In this article, there already exists text explaining where the Armenian Highland is located in relation to modern political units. A political map would illustrate that text, so it is justified to have a map showing the borders of those political units. Trivial phobias about showing the borders of Nagorno Karabagh have no place in this discussion. Meowy 21:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to read what I said to Serouj, the political map is wrong, if you can find a correct one and add it to this article. I also want to point out to your use of language, which is very offensive to say the least. Neftchi (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My vote is that the geographic map should be the one in the infobox, but the arguments for the removal of the political one are very weak. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is in the business of providing information. The political map provides information on which countries occupy the said geographic region. So it is very informative to provide that information. Lida Vorig (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Neftchi, sorry but you've got no basis to remove the map. The map isn't "wrong". It's just inconsitent with the NKR separatist state being shown and not the other separatist states in Abkhazia and Adjaria. There is a difference between "wrong" and "inconsistent." If you can't see the difference, then what can I say? See the difference! Furthermore, it's inconsistent in a region that isn't even the subject of this article. Serouj (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

First please lets talk civil and reach a consensus beforing adding the map back on, this kind of add-and-remove doesnt help our discussions and Im pointing out to Sardur for re-adding the map without talking. Now the occupation over NK isnt even portrayed correctly, note that the regions surrounding NK are also under occupation but not shown in the given map, thus meaning the map does not show the real situation as you would suggest, it only shows fictional political borders that do not excist. If this is supposed to be a political map of the Armenian Highland then would it not be obvious to show at least the correct borders. This map doesnt show the official borders of Azerbaijan and Armenia nor does it show the realistical borders (occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and regions surrounding it). By saying the map is inconsistent you would be challenging the official maps of both Azerbaijan and Armenia. I suggest we stick to the official maps of both the countries, tell me is it really such a difficulty to find a correct political map of the Armenian Highland. Neftchi (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Neftchi, the current map of the NKR need to be shown, instead of the non-existent NKAO. Lida Vorig (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Lida Vorig you are under , it would be best if you actually readed this entire section about the political map before making random comments, which are damaging to the discussions. Neftchi (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing restrictions apply to discussion pages as well? Thanks Neftchi, but my understanding is that so are you and most of the editors here... I did get my feet wet by reading the arbitration files when I was first notified about their existence. Lida Vorig (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation style

I am currently using WP:CITESHORT as the citation format for the referencing. I would however be willing to accept any other recognised WP:CITE#Citation styles. I am unwilling to accept the style that Serouj is proposing as I've yet to see any standard style that generates results like this: "Hewsen, pp. 1-2 ^{Hewsen 1997}". The {{note}} template was meant to be used for a number or letter (see the template documentation for examples), as a precursor to the <ref></ref> & {{Reflist}} markup. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Armenia

Yes, this region is clearly called "Armenia" by not only Robert Hewsen in the cited text, but also by countless ENGLISH sources pre-dating the Armenian Genocide WHILE the territory was under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Empire. For example, even H.F.B. Lynch (a Brit who travelled the area extensively in 1893-1895) refers to the area as "Armenia" -- indeed, the title of his book is "Armenia, travels and studies." Serouj (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

On top, if I remember correctly, that was the name of the Ottoman province before the division in vilayets. Sardur (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Anatolia is an older name

Why are Armenians uncomfortable with it? Nobody is disputing name of Armenia. And why doesnt anybody try to change name of Ağrı(Eri, leading tribe of Urartu, Yerevan also has the same root), which is older than both nations by centuries. Stop fooling yourselves and trying to increase your importance superficially, nobody cares Armenia in Turkey, safe for some ultra nationalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.101.159 (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Name

Firstly, can anyone add the transliterations for the Armenian and Russian names of the Armenian Highland? Secondly, if we are giving the names in those two languages, we should also be stating the names in Azerbaijani, Georgian, Farsi and Turkish, with transliterations where appropriate, as the Infobox shows the area extending into those countries. Probably, Kurdish as well. Can anyone add these? Skinsmoke (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The subsection "Name" really needs retitling. This section refers purely to the modern Turkish practice of referring to the area as "Eastern Anatolia". It is not written in a neutral point of view, as is required by Wikipedia, although it is cited. What name did the Turks use prior to the founding of the modern Turkish Republic? Do they really use the English term Eastern Anatolia, or is this a translation of a Turkish name? If George J. Andreopoulos claims that the use of Eastern Anatolia was purely to "shroud the Armenian heritage of its eastern lands following the Armenian Genocide", this should be attributed as his personal opinion, not as fact. Are there any contrary views? If so, they should be stated. Until these issues are addressed, the section will always appear as blatent propaganda and point of view pushing, and would be better removed from the article. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me. It is what it is. There is no need to apologize on behalf of the Turkish government. We can speak the way it is. Serouj (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about apologising on behalf of the Turkish government. What I am demanding is that the article should be neutral, and not push a particular point of view. That is, it should comply with the basic tenets of Wikipedia. If it fails to abide by those tenets, then it has no place in Wikipedia. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In Turkish "Ermenistan Yaylası" or "Ermeni Yaylası" or "Ermenistan Platosu" or "Ermeni Platosu". Today we can scarcely see these name. Takabeg (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Doğu Anadolu Yaylası and Doğu Anadolu Platosu are also used. But Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi isn't equal to Doğu Anadolu Yaylası (Platosu). Takabeg (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What was it called on Ottoman-produced maps, I wonder? However, we need to remember that this article is about a phrase that was used to define a geographical and geological region, so the name would not have been coined by either Turks or Armenians (or any of the other nationalities that skinsmoke seems to want included), but by European, probably British, geologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Maps produced during the Ottoman period called it "Ermenistan" - "Armenia". Eastern Anatolia is a relatively new designation.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

But was "Ermenistan" being used in the same way as "Armenia Highland" is - as a geographical term? After all, "Armenian Highland" does not mean ""Land of the Armenians". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It has to have had at least two connotations: one signifying the lands where Armenians resided, and the other to designate the geographical entity known as Armenia. These maps were produced well after the Armenian Plateau had been absorbed within the borders of the Ottoman Empire (sixteenth century and after).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Name change

Yes, the name is changed and the source states that. But, the Eastern Anatolian region have places which are not part of Armenian highlands (like Hakkari), and Armenian highlands have places which are not part of the Eastern Anatolian region (like Republic of Armenia). Can you change the sentence a little to reflect this? Kavas (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a separate article about Turkey's "Eastern Anatolian Region". It is of course country specific and has hard borders, unlike the Armenian highlands. For the same reason, te vague and loosely-used phrase "Eastern Anatolia" isn't really the same as "Eastern Anatolian Region" either (as tatabeg pointed out earlier "Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi isn't equal to Doğu Anadolu Yaylası"). I'd assume Hakkari, or at the very least the northern parts of it, would be geographically part of the Armenian Highlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection

I've requested for semi-protection of this page, due to continuing vandalizing. Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The so-called "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic"

Historically and by all international laws the territory of Karabakh is sovereign part of Azerbaijan Republic, so the link to so-called "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" must be removed from this article, as it is not a subject of international law, rather a separatist puppet entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inafreeworld (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree NKR is not compatible with the other countries in the list. It is not an independent country and therefore its very misleading. Neftchi (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful naming

The first photo apparently shows that it was taken from nearby north-west of Ararat mount (High one is located at north of low), instead of from Turkey-Iran border indicated at the name (The Armenian Mountain Range near the Turkey-Iran border). (Asif Qasımov (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC))