Talk:Western Armenia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Western Armenia article.
Article policies
Armenia Portal
Western Armenia is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Western Armenia:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents

[edit] Comments

[edit] Naming

This region is named as Ottoman Armenia, even under Treaty of Sèvres. The content should be developed under Ottoman Armenia, not Western Armenia.--OttomanReference 16:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The cultural history has Armenians in the Ottoman Empire page

The page is explains the subregion in Eurasia, To prevent FORKing, let us add cultural information under History of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. This way we can find this information easily. Thanks for your cooperation.--OttomanReference 14:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

This article should be moved to "Ottoman Armenia" per Ottoman Greece et al.. There is no such thing as "Western Armenia". Armenia's borders are defined in UN maps quite clearly, and any Western Armenia should refer to the Western provinces of the Republic of Armenia as shown on UN maps.. Baristarim 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As a Western Armenian I object. Western Armenians have their own dialect, traditions and culture and these are not Ottoman. There might be some validity in saying that "Western Armenia" is currently under occupation as its former inhabitants were deported/escorted/slaughtered/lying-about-being-slaughtered and have been living as a diaspora since. It's similar to the occupation of Palestine in that way, except that there are hardly any Armenians living on those lands now. If there is an Eastern Armenia, there is a Western Armenia. Today's Republic of Armenia covers most of historic Eastern Armenia. Hakob 01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
So we can have East Turkestan but not Western Armenia? Nice try. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about East Turkistan, I remember it redirecting to Xinjang. It must have been recreated as a disambig. Forget about my comments. I was thinking of Xinjang. However, it is a disambig all the same. This article is about a historic province of the Ottoman Empire. This article is just a reflection of an irredentist concept. The correct title should be "Ottoman Armenia" per "Ottoman Greece" et al. "History of Ottoman Bulgaria" et al. Well, Turks have also been living in those lands since 1071, so I am not quite following the other argument. Nobody is saying the word "Armenia" should be deleted, so don't jump the gun. However, Western Armenia is a political concept that is used even today. There is room for confusion. All the provinces articles for former empires follow a similar format. Like "British India. That's all. Baristarim 19:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are tons and tons of sources for you. [1].--Eupator 20:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Western Armenia is a political concept: If Baristarim explains what he/she wanted to say by "political", that would help us. There was no Armenian vilayet under Ottoman Empire. If "Armenian vilayet" was what he wanted to say. Armenians lived all over the Ottoman Empire, the highest amount (not ratio) was in Constantinople, surely it is not claimed by Armenians. Even today you can find Armenians under Bulgaria, Greece, etc. The political coverage of the concept was claimed in this article as; (the vilayets of Erzurum, Van, Bitlis, Diyarbekir, Kharput, and Sivas). The extend to six vilayets can be argued, however I'm fine with a note that, with a citation, these vilayets were claimed by the Armenian sources. Summary: I thought this article was a "historical subregion in Eurasia". Key terms: Historical (Ottoman Empire does not exist anymore). subregion (a geological concept) Eurasia (located between Europe and Asia). (PS:"tons and tons of sources" If Eupator looks at them, she/he can certainly recognize that there is not a definite construct among them. Some use for region, some use for political, some use for a nation. It is like a Joker in Poker). --OttomanReference 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
East Turkestan is as much a political concept as this is. If that stays, this does. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 06:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] redirect

Ottoman Armenia redirects to Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, and Ottoman Armenia is the same with Western Armenia according to the article. Probably this one should redirect there then as well, or Ottoman Armenia should redirect here. denizTC 02:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the content of this article is wrong. Whatever we have here should be merged with Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Western Armenia is the notion used by contemporary Armenians for the eastern part of Turkey. It has some politicality. If we have some sources dealing with this 'phenomenon', then the article should stay and rewritten according to those sources. DenizTC 23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Western Armenia is a popular term and should stay, with sources it would be more accurate. --Vonones 23:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
How is it used? DenizTC 00:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It is used linguistically and used to refer Turkish Armenia. As in Western & Armenian language, also see East Turkestan --Vonones 00:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The article does not reflect that. Now, either we should rewrite it along the lines of the current usage (of course if it noteworthy, we don't have an extra article on how Turks refer to Yerevan or Mousul) or it should be redirected. DenizTC 04:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No it is used by Armenians and scholars to describe the East and West territories. The language is even different and it is stated in the article, "The distinct Western Armenian dialect of the Armenian language is spoken primarily in Turkey, the Levant and in the Armenian diaspora." --Vonones 22:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should remain Western Armenia. It is a widely used term that has over 20 000 google hits if we exclude Wikipedia related pages and also has interwiki articles on it that deal with the term. The article might just need a rewrite as it is still a stub and obviously needs more work on it. - Fedayee 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Western Armenian language/dialect exists, but this is not the article about that, I think. A google search [2] suggests that it is a notion used by Armenian diaspora/Armenian websites for Eastern Anatolia. If we have sources dealing with this 'phenomenon', like I said above, we can have a separate article, otherwise it should be redirected to the historical one or to the current one. DenizTC 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Western Armenia is a perfectly legitimate article location, along the lines of Aegean Macedonia, Chameria, East Turkestan, etc. Such articles are fine as long as they are descriptive of actual use by various groups in the real world. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Kekrops on this one. Seems to be a legitimate article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a miracle. He finally agrees with me on something. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering how best to express that sentiment, and ended up lost for words. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

First Fedayee you just added OR. Eg. why would Armenian SSR need to sign it? Please don't resort to OR. Now back to the issue, which apparently I could not make clear. Western Armenia is not what we have on the main page. Western Armenia is Eastern Anatolia according to the Armenians, isn't it? When those Armenian sites refer to the region as Western Armenia, do they think about treaties, territories captured by the Russians in 19th century and lost, etc. etc.? Do they think that it is just Armenian territory under occupation? What is the usage today? The article should focus heavily on that, if it should exist as a separate article.

If the title of an article is Gay, then then the main focus should be homosexuality, not happiness (though happiness could be mentioned). If the article title is tyrant, it should be about 'evil rulers', one can make a passage of its usage in ancient Greece. If the title is Western Armenia, we have to choose one out of several options (but need to fix one depending one which one is the correct one, a passing mention to the others is welcome), or make a disambig page for each one (I am not asserting that the following is an exhaustive list, they are just the ones I could come up with):

1) It might be the historical one. The info appears in its would-be redirected to page, so it would be unnecessary to have a separate article, just a redirect.
2) It might the the current one used by diaspora that I tried to mention above after making some google searches.
3) it might be western Armenia (note the small w), just a geographic placement, which wouldn't be notable enough, even if the only source we have is possibly about it.
4) it might be places where Western Armenian language/dialect is used, which would be too vague, and it is enough to list such info in the language article (no question about the notability of Western Armenian language). So what is it, will it be anything goes anytime we want it?

When writing this article, we should consider what a wiki reader would/should expect to see when s/he chooses to visit this article. We should think about the current usage of the term. Certainly wiki-rules should be met like WP:NPOV, V, NOR, etc.

Just in case I could still not make it clear, let me tell you that the dispute is about the content of the article, not about its existence, this is not an AFD. Thanks for reading DenizTC 21:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The first response to this was Dbachmann's merger request (which is a month old). So any other responses? This article currently does not have the correct title or correct content, as it cannot be this that the other and the other one, oh this one, as well, all at the same time, unless it is a disambiguation page. Is it a disambiguation page? DenizTC 18:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
An alternate suggestion might be moving this to Ottoman Armenia (#1 above), as the current usage of the term 'Western Armenia' is #2 above. But Ottoman Armenia is and should be redirected to Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, which basically contains all the information here (except language, which has its own article). DenizTC 19:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Western Armenia is not just "Ottoman Armenia", it can be (and is) used to describe historically Armenian regions in the present-day Turkish Republic. The problem redirect is the "Ottoman Armenia" one, since clearly not all Armenians in the Ottoman Empire lived in an (however vagely defined) region called "Ottoman Armenia". Merging the "Western Armenia" entry with "Armenians in the Ottoman Empire" would make the situation worse rather than better. Meowy 17:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Armenians in the Ottoman Empire is a demographical topic, while Western Armenia is a historical, political and geographical term. They are very different! And the Western Armenia exists since 387 when there werent an Ottoman Empire. Andranikpasha 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Owned XD--Alecxo (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britannica and more..

I would like to point that Encyclopaedia Britannica, that is mentioned here as a source, like the "systematic killings/deportation of Armenians" has its own sources, listed in the http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-129457/Armenia page.

As one can see, most of the sources itself are from Armenian origin, which could potentially lead to POV. (The article also mentions sacrileges like "Armenians were greatly disadvantaged after they passed from the Byantine rule to the Ottoman" which is as we all know false, at least since they were considered heretics and pariahs under Byzantium)

Now also, when talking about Western Armenians living under the Ottoman Empire, more than their "systematic killings" or "deportations" etc. that could have taken place, can we also talk about their daily life, their successes, their trade, their advancement etc. as this was more common of them. I am sure our fellow Armenian Colleagues will have a lot to say on these as we are not experts on the subject. --Eae1983 (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

its funny to hear that Britannica is pro-Armenian... In Byzantium Armenians have good positions, even a number of Imperators, noone massacred them, while the Genocide of Western Armenians is a recognized fact if even to not cite Britannica, and because of Ottoman Turkish policy Western Armenia commonly emptied from its aborigen Armenian population. Where is the "common successes"? Are you going to write also about the everyday life, "succeses" of Jews and Gypsies in Nazi Germany? And Western Armenia is rather a political, geographical and historical term, people's everyday lafe is better to include in an article dedicated to the Armenians in Ottoman Turkey, which is an article about the people, demographics and their life. Andranikpasha (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)