Jump to content

Talk:Eastern Anatolia region/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Title

I moved this page because it's Wikipedia policy to use the most common term for something. This is applied throughout our encyclopedia for establishing the titles of the articles.

So, it's not hard to see that "Eastern Anatolia Region" is a much more common form:

Or, if you trust printed books more:

Khoikhoi 07:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


Serious error in this article?

Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi/East Anatolia Region is not a political or census-defined division, it is a geographical division and has four sub-divisions (Upper Murat Van region, Erzurum-Kars region, Upper Firat region, and Hakkari region). Its borders do not follow the borders of the political/administrative/census regions of eastern Turkey - so the Wikipedia entry for Eastern Anatolia Region is incorrect in that aspect. Meowy 23:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

"Eastern Turkey is Western Armenia" 06:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

EAstern Turkey is in TURKEY my friend. I am trying to remove as uch propaganda as possible that people such as yourselves are creatingThetruthonly (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

History section on region

Should there not also be a paragraph or two detailing the history of the region? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.174.119 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Average temperature

The region has the lowest average temperature of all Turkish regions, with -25°C.

Assuming "with" is meant to be "at", this makes no sense. The lowest temperature in the climate chart above this statement is -15°C; the average cannot possibly be lower than that. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Major changes/corrections

Maps

Right now, these maps are used in the article:

These maps are quite simply incorrect; the borders of the geographical regions of Turkey do not overlap with the borders of the administrative provinces.

This is the correct map of the geographical Eastern Anatolia Region:

Provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region

Since the borders do not overlap, there can be no clear-cut list of provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region.

Right now, this list is featured in the article:

Provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region

This list is also incorrect.

If we want to list the provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region, we will need at least two, but preferable three categorizies:

  1. Provinces that are entirely in the Eastern Anatolia Region.
  2. Provinces that are mostly in the Eastern Anatolia Region.
  3. Provinces that are partially in the Eastern Anatolia Region.

According to this map, which shows both geographical and provincial borders, the correct list should be as follows:

Provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region

Provinces that are entirely in the Eastern Anatolia Region:

Provinces that are mostly in the Eastern Anatolia Region:

Provinces that are partially in the Eastern Anatolia Region:

Population

Since the geographical borders are imprecise (they don't overlap with district borders either), there is no convenient way to calculate the population of the geographical Eastern Anatolia Region, or other geographical regions of Turkey for that matter. Any figure you see on the Internet in this regard is, at best, imprecise guesswork. I propose that we rank geographical regions among themselves and leave it at that. --Mttll (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Tautology

Anatolia is a relatively new term used in Turkey, stemming from Greek, meaning "East", which distorts the geographical location of Armenian Highlands or Armenian Plateau following the Republic of Turkey's attempts to change all ancient Armenian place names into Turkish. Eastern Anatolia, therefore, means "Eastern East" and is logically invalid. I suggest using the traditional toponym Armenian Highlands.71.191.1.192 (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian

Besides the fact that the English language doesn't operate that way - I used to live near El Play Boulevard, ie Boulevard Boulevard - it's an official designation. So it isn't going to happen. 18:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
Don't tell me how the English language operates, okay? "Eastern Anatolia" IS a tautology. Your own article List of tautological place names determines unequivocally that “a place name is tautological if two differently sounding parts of it are synonymous. This often occurs when a name from one language is imported into another and a standard descriptor is added on from the second language.”--71.191.1.192 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian
Of course it's a tautology, I didn't deny it. What I am denying is that your claim that the tautology is logically invalid is relevant in any way. English isn't logical and I've never meant anyone who said it was. In any case the deal breaker is that we aren't going to go against WP:COMMONNAME - the normal name for the region, which is an official governmental area, is Eastern Anatolia. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern Anatolia Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Information about cited reference

Can someone tell me more about Lusine Sahakyan, published by Arod Books? I wasn't able to find out more through Google - is Arod Books an academic publisher? It seems this source is cited 6 times. What other sources were consulted when writing this article? Seraphim System (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

So you try to persuade us the denialists are reliable while questioning the reliability of a authoritative scholar on the subject who has a Ph D. from Yerevan State University and whose work has been cited in academic works by Alan Whitehorn, Vicken Cheterian, and Esen Egemen Ozbek, among others. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Salt

EtienneDolet Please post sources supporting your comments about Jeremy Salt. My understanding is that he is still alive so I am trying to decide whether I need to request that your edit summary be redacted for BLP violations. Seraphim System (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Salt calls the Armenian Genocide the Armenian “relocation” [1] and refers to the AG as merely an “Armenian claim” [2]. Need I say more? If that doesn’t cut it, here’s what Akçam has to say about Salt:
"Prof. Akcam further observed that the four academics — Hakan Yavuz of University of Utah, Guenter Lewy of University of Massachusetts, Jeremy Salt of Bilkent University, Ankara, and Edward J. Ericson of Marine Corps Command & Staff College, Virginia — who praised Gunter’s book, “are well known for their denialist position and works regarding the genocide of 1915.”"[3]
Here are two top Armenian Genocide denial websites citing Salt to claim not that many Armenians died.[4][5] These were among the top search results for Salt, and probably his greatest life's accomplishments. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
None of what you just posted, including armenian-1915.blogspot.com is enough under our BLP policy. Akcam's opinion is only enough to add with attribution to Jeremy Salt's article (but I don't think Jeremy Salt has an article). It's not enough to strip a Routledge published source based on it being "denialist" especially for basic facts about the Six Vilayets. We can assume a Routledge published source is reliable for this sort of thing.Seraphim System (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you claiming Jeremy Salt does not deny the genocide? And just because Routledge published his works, doesn't make him reliable. WP:RS doesn't base its reliability on publishers. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually it does. Please post your question at WP:RS/N but do not continue to remove sources from the article, especially if you are not familiar with the WP:RS policy. Seraphim System (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
What you need to do is please tell us how could it be that an Armenian Genocide denialist can be considered a reliable source for anything concerning the Armenian Genocide? Also, not EVERY source has to go to the RSN. Reliability can be negotiated here. And when it comes to this, it's a no-brainer. You are inserting denialists when it comes to material concerning the Armenian Genocide. What makes you think that's okay? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
First, this article is not only about the Armenian genocide. Second, you haven't presented enough evidence and what you have presented I find unpersuasive. I consider this to be mostly an appeal to sentiment. There is no quantitative threshold for genocide, so I don't think discussing estimates in any capacity can be genocide denial.[1] and I don't rely on random blogspot posts as references. If you want me to agree to ban a Routledge published source over this, you will need to present very strong sourcing, sufficient to convince me that the consensus at RS/N would support your claim.We have had "spirited" debates about similar estimates on many articles, including Iraq War articles, or ARBPIA articles, but I absolutely and unequivocally do not think it is ok to continually repeat accusations of "genocide denial" to pressure editors. If it continues I think administrators should really consider intervening. Seraphim System (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's also an issue of WP:SYNTH here. Where in the Schaller source does it talk about Eastern Anatolia? Also, why did you remove the Six Armenian provinces bit? It's sourced by Hovannisian, Cheterian, Galichian, Sahakyan, and others. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't remove it. There is no WP:SYNTH, that is only for the dates. Ermenistan includes Van, Diyarbakir, etc. It's in Dadrian also.Seraphim System (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you did. You removed the Six Armenian provinces bit. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
They are the same article...Seraphim System (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Look, it's really not that hard. Just stop using people who deny the Armenian Genocide when it relates to your edits concerning the Armenian Genocide on this project. Those who deny the AG do not present the historical facts in a neutral way and have it all wrong. Much like Holocaust denialists. I mean, why do I have to explain this to you? It's like explaining that the WP:SKYISBLUE. And to be clear: I did not say we should ban Routledge as a source. I merely said that just because it's Routledge doesn't make it reliable. WP:RS doesn't go by which publishing house is more prestigious or what not. Plus, my problem isn't with the Schaller source (I think it's total WP:SYNTH the way you put it). My problem is with Salt. And call me crazy, but for some reason I don't think admins would be happy to hear that you're using Armenian Genocide denialists as reliable sources when it comes to topics concerning the Armenian Genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to go around in circles with you. Some of the comments you've made on this talk page that I can't quote I consider BLP violations. You've continued doing this after I pointed it out to you. I am not going to continue a discussion where every comment creates further BLP violations. I really think you should start a discussion at WP:RS/N, instead of harassing me personally. That is the right way to do things. I don't really want to discuss this with you any further, please get a consensus, or leave me be.Seraphim System (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "leave me be" would only mean, in this case, that I'd have to be satisfied with an Armenian Genocide denialist remaining in this article on a topic concerning the Armenian Genocide. That's not going to happen. Look, as you have noticed, I don't mind your more constructive edits concerning Armenian-related topics (or any other topic for that matter). But when I see sources being used on this article by authors that are hailed as heroes by the Turkish government or some wack AG denialist websites, that's when I will make an effort to correct the course so that Wikipedia doesn't become a website that resembles anything close to a denialist website or an official Turkish government propaganda outlet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The source being pro-Turkish is not a justification to revert. If you really believe it is, then this needs to go to a noticeboard. Nothing published by Routledge can be called "official Turkish government propaganda". This is a third party source. I've read "official Turkish government propaganda" and it is nothing like this. The normal way of dealing with something like this is by using attribution, not by removing the sources and demanding that people stop using them. In this case for the basic stuff about the history and breakdown of administrative divisions, it doesn't even require attribution. This is a lot of drama over something very minor.Seraphim System (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't revert because it was "pro-Turkish". I merely pointed to the obvious fact that Salt has adopted the Turkish government's position on the Armenian Genocide as evident by the fact that his articles are published on official Turkish government websites, let alone the fact that his work is also published on denialist websites as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not obvious to me that Salt has adopted the Turkish government's position. Most of Salt's work (that I have access to) is about anti-Muslim Christian polemic. There may be other sections of the book I haven't seen and don't have access to, but the government position is much more hard line and one-sided then what is in this book. They use language like yaşanmış acılar, trajediler olabilir (tragedies) but I've never seen government sources use katliam (massacres) for killings of Armenians, only for killings of Muslims. The content in Salt's book that I've seen (I can't speak for anything else) is completely different from this. Seraphim System (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"This official Turkish thesis has been further complemented by the works of Justin MacCarthy, Jeremy Salt, Stanford Shaw, and, most recently, Günter Lewy." [6]. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not even going to say that's just Gingeras' opinion (though some editors might take that line of argument). I will repeat my position so there is no misunderstanding—there may be content about those things (deportations, Armenian rebellions, Ottoman restraint, etc.) in parts of the book that I don't have access to. I can't comment on anything I hven't read. I'm more interested in the first part of Salt's book which is about Imperialism and Christian polemic, which doesn't even discuss Armenians. It is also relevant, in my opinion, that genocide studies is a rapdily developing field of study and most pre-ICTY sources can be considered obsolete at this point. The intent argument most of these books were making, and that much of the discourse on our talk pages hones in on, is not where most modern arguments about genocide lie. the existence of a plan or policy to commit genocide is not a legal ingredient of the crime, although 'in the context of proving specific intent, the existence of a plan or policy may be important in some cases[2][3][4][5][6] I don't take these non-expert arguments about genocidal intent very seriously and I don't get worked up over them. Back to this article, I didn't see anything wrong with adding some basic information about the vilayets - they're just administrative divisions.Seraphim System (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I'm not going to agree to stop using any source because it is a source that Etienne does not approve of...this is not just one or two sources, but seems to be an effort to exclude a large number of important sources on Turkey or Ottoman studies. These scholars have written on a wide range of topics and much of their work is recognized. I would understand a request to not use them for their opinions on the genocide but I'm not going to agree to not citing them for other content. The sources are vital for work on articles about Turkey and Ottoman Empire. Thus, because I am definitely not going to agree to this outlandish and inappropriate demand, this absolutely must go to WP:RS/N. It is not ok to follow me from article to article and repeat the same thing over and over again. I don't want to go through the whole AE thing, but this really needs to stop.Seraphim System (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Look, if you want to cite them for other content, that might be okay? I don't know. But you'd have to be really careful and you'd need very strong consensus because these supposed scholars are really fishy. And I've repeated myself over and over again that denialists should not be used for any topic related to Armenians, the Armenian Genocide, or Armenian affairs. I've been clear about that. They're simply not reliable enough and are really problematic for obvious reasons. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
For topics related to Armenians, I think I am capable of exercising good judgment when using sources and I think my editing history supports this. If something I added was problematic, my hope would be that we could discuss it and reach a consensus. But removing sources without any objection to the content it was used for? I'm not going to get behind that. I also don't agree with your characterizations of these scholars. I don't use Stanford Shaw because Colin Imber demonstrated actual errors in his work and I personally no longer consider it reliable (other editors may disagree). But I don't see anything like that here to call its fundmental reliability into question. I think the current academic consensus is that it was genocide, so we don't give the sources undue weight with respect to that viewpoint.Seraphim System (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't use Stanford Shaw because Colin Imber demonstrated actual errors in his work - ...and is that the only reason? Do you find the fact he denies the Armenian Genocide a problem and do you think that will make him less reliable as a result of that? Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think he is a reliable source to begin with - what would less reliable than not reliable be? I'm not going to spend a lot of time on Shaw because I found the errors Imber pointed out to be significant, so whatever content it is that you have in mind, most likely I haven't read it. Going back to your comment about "Holocaust denialists", I don't know why you think everyone is in agreement about what Holocaust denial is, much less which sources should be banned for it. Everyone pretty agrees that genocide denial is bad, but good luck reaching agreement on what actually constitutes genocide denial. (And most editors, myself included, don't appreciate being accused of it during content disputes). Holocaust denial is such a controversial article, it needed about 18 citations for the statement that "Holocaust denial is antisemitic". Something that simple was a huge dispute, apparently. So, even on Holocaust articles, there is a lot of dispute. The disputes about Poland and sourcing have been ongoing for months; there is one open at WP:RS/N right now.Seraphim System (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I think my question was pretty clear. But I'll rephrase it. Do you think those who deny the Armenian Genocide are problematic in any way in terms of them being considered legitimate academics? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is very critical for us to note that there is no evidence that the sultan ordered a massacre in the 19th century. Of course there's no evidence, what kind of evidence would there be? It's not like there was some "massacre approval" bureacracy in the 19th century Ottoman Empire. But I'm pretty good at filtering this stuff when I use sources to edit, so I don't really get hung up on this kind of stuff. I would prefer using genocide-expert sources like Demirdjian and Bloxham, I think the recent works are top notch, but as it is sources with obvious bias like Hovannisian/Balakian and Salt have to be balanced off one another, but as far as they dispute one anothers findings, I don't think that's grounds to ban either one.Seraphim System (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schrodt, Nikolaus (2014-06-07). Modern Turkey and the Armenian Genocide: An Argument About the Meaning of the Past. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-04927-4.
  2. ^ Klip, André (2005). The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 2001-2002. Intersentia nv. ISBN 978-90-5095-397-9.
  3. ^ Kim, Sangkul (2016-05-24). A Collective Theory of Genocidal Intent. Springer. ISBN 978-94-6265-123-4.
  4. ^ Quigley, John (2016-03-09). The Genocide Convention: An International Law Analysis. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-03073-7.
  5. ^ Campbell, Jason J. (2012-10-04). On the Nature of Genocidal Intent. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-7847-8.
  6. ^ Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity. Human Rights Watch.

Armenian Massacres

Hello, the Armenian Massacres and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey are not consecutive events. They are unrelated. So they do not need to come one after the other in a sentence, as it could imply other things. Thank you, 176.33.53.10 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Chronologically, and in terms of destruction and Turkification of everything that belonged to the Armenians and their cultural heritage, they ARE consecutive events. From the first year of the Armenian genocide in 1915 up until the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 these events are related in that during the said period the millennia-long Armenian presence in Eastern Asia Minor was eradicated, including the changing of the historical toponym “Armenian Highlands” or “Armenian Plateau” to a newly-invented term “Eastern Anatolia”.98.231.157.169 (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Davidian
Your views and writing is partial and do not mean much in the large context. According to your skewed logic, the Turks (and all other minorities including Kurds, Arabs, Circassians, Greeks, Armenians and Jews) in Turkey should claim all the land from Crimea in the north, from Algeria in the south, from the Caucasus in the east, and from Hungary in the west for themselves. It was Ottoman land and heritage after all. It doesn't work that way. You lose a war, you pay the price. Same with the Armenians.
Those Armenians in the east who rebelled against the state while it was engaged in war on multiple fronts paid the price for their treachery. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation and other terrorist gangs can claim whatever they like. It is baseless under international law. Therefore, calling eastern lands in Turkey "Western Armenian" and some eastern mountains "Armenian Highlands" is comical, to say the least. Get over it. Your ancestors rebelled, they massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent Kurdish and Turkish villagers in the eastern provinces, and they paid the price by being forced to move out of the area. Keep it official and do not bring your propaganda here please. 176.33.55.202 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced article and one-sided sources

The article makes exclusive use of Armenian-sided sources and needs more information and reliable sources for neutrality. 176.33.55.202 (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no such thing a an "Armenian-sided" source. We have either have reliable sources or we don't. From what I gather, you haven't made any attempt to discredit these sources so those tags need to be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Would you like me to discredit some of those sources? I don't need to. The fact remains the article overly relies on one-sided views (Armenian arguments) which makes it unbalanced. Can we get some non-Armenian (perhaps Turkish and Kurdish) information and reliable sources in the article since it is related to land in Turkey? 176.33.55.202 (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
You don’t seem to understand. This isn’t a battle of “pro-Armenian” vs. “pro-Turkish”, it’s a matter of reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources that refute any such claim, by all means place it in the article yourself. No one’s stopping you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
That's a great idea Étienne Dolet! Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Insufficient info in article

There is so much that can be added to the Eastern Anatolia Region article. However, Armenian diaspora propagandists and their friends chose to ignore all the info out on the internet and in books, and chose to focus on the recent dark history of the region. This article can definitely use some encyclopedic content. It is wholly lacking as it stands. 157.167.128.180 (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added a neutrality tag on the page. Please do not remove it until further info is added and the article is actually somewhat balanced. 157.167.128.180 (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

None of the above is a proper justification for tagging the article. "I don't like it" and "I don't like its focus on things I don't like being mentioned" are not valid reasons. Saying that there is more content that could be added is not a valid tagging reason - all articles can always have more content added to them. And mentioning unspecified "info out on the internet" does not help in the editing of this article. If you want to add content, go ahead and add it. I am removing the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.77.10 (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Category

@Torshavn1337: In your edit summary here you say Undue weight given to Armenian history when this sub is about an administrative region of Turkey -- not about history. Did you actually read the article? It has a large section called "Substitution for the name Armenia", mainly about the naming of the region in a historic context. The section is well-sourced, which is more than can be said about the rest of the article. As this section describes the historic use of terms like "Armenia", "Western Armenia", "Armenian Highlands", it is rather obviously correct to include the Category:Geographic history of Armenia.

On another note, since you are fairly new to Wikipedia, some words about how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is a community project, where editors are supposed to cooperate in order to improve the articles. Disagreements between editors are supposed to be solved through discussions in the talk pages. One useful tool is the WP:BRD cycle. It is fine (and even encouraged) to make a Bold edit, like your first removal of the category here (although it should have been explained with an edit summary). If someone disagrees with the edit, it is fine to Revert it, like I did here. Your next step then should be to Discuss, by opening a thread in this talk page. The consensus resulting from that discussion, where preferably more editors would chime in, would decide whether the category should stay or not. What you did instead, was to reinstate your preferred version, something that could be seen as the start of an edit war, see WP:EDITWAR.

Since I do not do edit wars, I will not revert you. I will, however, advice you to self revert and start a discussion in the talk page in order to gain consensus for your version. Regards! --T*U (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you so much for your thoughtful response! It's the first time I'm learning about the community aspect of Wikipedia -- as you have pointed out, I am a new editor. I came to the article looking for information on an administrative region of Turkey and what I ended up seeing is simply the region's Armenian history. I am sure Armenian history is an important part of the region, but you won't ever see an article on another country that is so blatantly one-sided and extremely focused on historical grievances. It's disheartening.Torshavn1337 (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC) I don't even know how to leave a proper comment yet but I hope this response is visible.
(I have indented your answer for better structure of the talk page. --T*U (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC))
@Torshavn1337: You are, of course, entitled to have your thoughts about the relative weight of the history part of the article as compared to the administrative part. As far as I can see, the administrative information is just as detailed here as in similar articles about other administrative regions of Turkey. By your own admittance, Armenian history is an important part of the region, so it would seem natural to cover that aspect, not least because of how the name of the region has been changed. If you think that part of the article could be improved, feel free to do so, provided your changes are based on reliable sources, see WP:RS. What you should not do, is to just remove things that you just don't like, see WP:JDLI. Since, as you say, Armenian history is an important part of the region, the Category:Geographic history of Armenia has to stay. --T*U (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Western Armenia

Eastern Anatolia region has been originally known as Western Armenia in numerous sources, including Britannica Encyclopedia. I have undid deletion of this data from the article several times, each time giving sources and footnotes, but every time found the article changed in a couple of days without any basing facts, if not taking into consideration the fact of calling me a nationalist (!). If the fact I provided the data proved by uncountable number of sources, starting from middle-age historians and international maps up to current historians and encyclopedias is nationalism, then I doubt objectivity of Wikipedia. If considering the fact not worth to mention in the article, then I should say it is as worth to mention, as the fact that e.g. the city name ]]Kaliningrad's]] original title was Königsberg, Nagorno-Karabakh's was meant under Artsakh, huge part of modern Romania was meant under Transylvania, etc. Now I'm undoing the latest deletion. Thanks to everybody, who read and understood! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 517design (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your information is basically an ideology of a greater Armenia. Another form of propaganda that is why I am removing it. Justinz84 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with you being a racist propagandist yourself eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.174.119 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is these numerous sources write something for the First Geography Congress, Turkey? Filibeli (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no Artsakh now its under the managment of Azerbaijan and no one see Nagorno-Karabakh as Artsakh. Stop using wikipedia for your propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanlisbilgi (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not done. The editor was a sockpuppet.

I propose merging Turkish Kurdistan into Eastern Anatolia Region. Nothing significant in Turkish Kurdistan and same region as Eastern Anatolia Region. Futebul (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: What do you mean by "Nothing significant in Turkish Kurdistan"? Be more concrete, otherwise this is simply nonsensical. The two regions are not "the same region". --Semsûrî (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, on two counts:
1) These are articles for administrative, not historical regions.
2) The administrative region that largely corresponds to Turkish Kurdistan is Southeastern Anatolia, while for this article that honor would go to the Armenian Highlands, and partially Transcaucasia. Uness232 (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Imperator Storm (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
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.

Armenian irredentist claims should be subjected to speedy deletions

Armenian irredentist claims have nothing to do with Türkiye’s administrative regions, the so-called Western Armenia written in the Armenian alphabet belongs to its rightful place ‘Armenian nationalism’. The population consists for the most part of ethnic Turks and Kurds NO Armenians. Building two churches in the middle of nowhere doesn’t make whole of Eastern Anatolia ‘Western Armenia’.

We might rename Central Mongolia to Eastern Türkiye (Orkhon valley) just because Turks left some stone inscriptions in Mongolia. 2A02:A466:AEAD:1:E404:D14:4DEA:E7EE (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Title

I moved this page because it's Wikipedia policy to use the most common term for something. This is applied throughout our encyclopedia for establishing the titles of the articles.

So, it's not hard to see that "Eastern Anatolia Region" is a much more common form:

Or, if you trust printed books more:

Khoikhoi 07:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


Serious error in this article?

Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi/East Anatolia Region is not a political or census-defined division, it is a geographical division and has four sub-divisions (Upper Murat Van region, Erzurum-Kars region, Upper Firat region, and Hakkari region). Its borders do not follow the borders of the political/administrative/census regions of eastern Turkey - so the Wikipedia entry for Eastern Anatolia Region is incorrect in that aspect. Meowy 23:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

"Eastern Turkey is Western Armenia" 06:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

EAstern Turkey is in TURKEY my friend. I am trying to remove as uch propaganda as possible that people such as yourselves are creatingThetruthonly (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

History section on region

Should there not also be a paragraph or two detailing the history of the region? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.174.119 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Average temperature

The region has the lowest average temperature of all Turkish regions, with -25°C.

Assuming "with" is meant to be "at", this makes no sense. The lowest temperature in the climate chart above this statement is -15°C; the average cannot possibly be lower than that. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Major changes/corrections

Maps

Right now, these maps are used in the article:

These maps are quite simply incorrect; the borders of the geographical regions of Turkey do not overlap with the borders of the administrative provinces.

This is the correct map of the geographical Eastern Anatolia Region:

Provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region

Since the borders do not overlap, there can be no clear-cut list of provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region.

Right now, this list is featured in the article:

Provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region

This list is also incorrect.

If we want to list the provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region, we will need at least two, but preferable three categorizies:

  1. Provinces that are entirely in the Eastern Anatolia Region.
  2. Provinces that are mostly in the Eastern Anatolia Region.
  3. Provinces that are partially in the Eastern Anatolia Region.

According to this map, which shows both geographical and provincial borders, the correct list should be as follows:

Provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region

Provinces that are entirely in the Eastern Anatolia Region:

Provinces that are mostly in the Eastern Anatolia Region:

Provinces that are partially in the Eastern Anatolia Region:

Population

Since the geographical borders are imprecise (they don't overlap with district borders either), there is no convenient way to calculate the population of the geographical Eastern Anatolia Region, or other geographical regions of Turkey for that matter. Any figure you see on the Internet in this regard is, at best, imprecise guesswork. I propose that we rank geographical regions among themselves and leave it at that. --Mttll (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Tautology

Anatolia is a relatively new term used in Turkey, stemming from Greek, meaning "East", which distorts the geographical location of Armenian Highlands or Armenian Plateau following the Republic of Turkey's attempts to change all ancient Armenian place names into Turkish. Eastern Anatolia, therefore, means "Eastern East" and is logically invalid. I suggest using the traditional toponym Armenian Highlands.71.191.1.192 (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian

Besides the fact that the English language doesn't operate that way - I used to live near El Play Boulevard, ie Boulevard Boulevard - it's an official designation. So it isn't going to happen. 18:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
Don't tell me how the English language operates, okay? "Eastern Anatolia" IS a tautology. Your own article List of tautological place names determines unequivocally that “a place name is tautological if two differently sounding parts of it are synonymous. This often occurs when a name from one language is imported into another and a standard descriptor is added on from the second language.”--71.191.1.192 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian
Of course it's a tautology, I didn't deny it. What I am denying is that your claim that the tautology is logically invalid is relevant in any way. English isn't logical and I've never meant anyone who said it was. In any case the deal breaker is that we aren't going to go against WP:COMMONNAME - the normal name for the region, which is an official governmental area, is Eastern Anatolia. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern Anatolia Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Information about cited reference

Can someone tell me more about Lusine Sahakyan, published by Arod Books? I wasn't able to find out more through Google - is Arod Books an academic publisher? It seems this source is cited 6 times. What other sources were consulted when writing this article? Seraphim System (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

So you try to persuade us the denialists are reliable while questioning the reliability of a authoritative scholar on the subject who has a Ph D. from Yerevan State University and whose work has been cited in academic works by Alan Whitehorn, Vicken Cheterian, and Esen Egemen Ozbek, among others. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Salt

EtienneDolet Please post sources supporting your comments about Jeremy Salt. My understanding is that he is still alive so I am trying to decide whether I need to request that your edit summary be redacted for BLP violations. Seraphim System (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Salt calls the Armenian Genocide the Armenian “relocation” [7] and refers to the AG as merely an “Armenian claim” [8]. Need I say more? If that doesn’t cut it, here’s what Akçam has to say about Salt:
"Prof. Akcam further observed that the four academics — Hakan Yavuz of University of Utah, Guenter Lewy of University of Massachusetts, Jeremy Salt of Bilkent University, Ankara, and Edward J. Ericson of Marine Corps Command & Staff College, Virginia — who praised Gunter’s book, “are well known for their denialist position and works regarding the genocide of 1915.”"[9]
Here are two top Armenian Genocide denial websites citing Salt to claim not that many Armenians died.[10][11] These were among the top search results for Salt, and probably his greatest life's accomplishments. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
None of what you just posted, including armenian-1915.blogspot.com is enough under our BLP policy. Akcam's opinion is only enough to add with attribution to Jeremy Salt's article (but I don't think Jeremy Salt has an article). It's not enough to strip a Routledge published source based on it being "denialist" especially for basic facts about the Six Vilayets. We can assume a Routledge published source is reliable for this sort of thing.Seraphim System (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you claiming Jeremy Salt does not deny the genocide? And just because Routledge published his works, doesn't make him reliable. WP:RS doesn't base its reliability on publishers. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually it does. Please post your question at WP:RS/N but do not continue to remove sources from the article, especially if you are not familiar with the WP:RS policy. Seraphim System (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
What you need to do is please tell us how could it be that an Armenian Genocide denialist can be considered a reliable source for anything concerning the Armenian Genocide? Also, not EVERY source has to go to the RSN. Reliability can be negotiated here. And when it comes to this, it's a no-brainer. You are inserting denialists when it comes to material concerning the Armenian Genocide. What makes you think that's okay? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
First, this article is not only about the Armenian genocide. Second, you haven't presented enough evidence and what you have presented I find unpersuasive. I consider this to be mostly an appeal to sentiment. There is no quantitative threshold for genocide, so I don't think discussing estimates in any capacity can be genocide denial.[1] and I don't rely on random blogspot posts as references. If you want me to agree to ban a Routledge published source over this, you will need to present very strong sourcing, sufficient to convince me that the consensus at RS/N would support your claim.We have had "spirited" debates about similar estimates on many articles, including Iraq War articles, or ARBPIA articles, but I absolutely and unequivocally do not think it is ok to continually repeat accusations of "genocide denial" to pressure editors. If it continues I think administrators should really consider intervening. Seraphim System (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's also an issue of WP:SYNTH here. Where in the Schaller source does it talk about Eastern Anatolia? Also, why did you remove the Six Armenian provinces bit? It's sourced by Hovannisian, Cheterian, Galichian, Sahakyan, and others. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't remove it. There is no WP:SYNTH, that is only for the dates. Ermenistan includes Van, Diyarbakir, etc. It's in Dadrian also.Seraphim System (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you did. You removed the Six Armenian provinces bit. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
They are the same article...Seraphim System (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Look, it's really not that hard. Just stop using people who deny the Armenian Genocide when it relates to your edits concerning the Armenian Genocide on this project. Those who deny the AG do not present the historical facts in a neutral way and have it all wrong. Much like Holocaust denialists. I mean, why do I have to explain this to you? It's like explaining that the WP:SKYISBLUE. And to be clear: I did not say we should ban Routledge as a source. I merely said that just because it's Routledge doesn't make it reliable. WP:RS doesn't go by which publishing house is more prestigious or what not. Plus, my problem isn't with the Schaller source (I think it's total WP:SYNTH the way you put it). My problem is with Salt. And call me crazy, but for some reason I don't think admins would be happy to hear that you're using Armenian Genocide denialists as reliable sources when it comes to topics concerning the Armenian Genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to go around in circles with you. Some of the comments you've made on this talk page that I can't quote I consider BLP violations. You've continued doing this after I pointed it out to you. I am not going to continue a discussion where every comment creates further BLP violations. I really think you should start a discussion at WP:RS/N, instead of harassing me personally. That is the right way to do things. I don't really want to discuss this with you any further, please get a consensus, or leave me be.Seraphim System (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "leave me be" would only mean, in this case, that I'd have to be satisfied with an Armenian Genocide denialist remaining in this article on a topic concerning the Armenian Genocide. That's not going to happen. Look, as you have noticed, I don't mind your more constructive edits concerning Armenian-related topics (or any other topic for that matter). But when I see sources being used on this article by authors that are hailed as heroes by the Turkish government or some wack AG denialist websites, that's when I will make an effort to correct the course so that Wikipedia doesn't become a website that resembles anything close to a denialist website or an official Turkish government propaganda outlet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The source being pro-Turkish is not a justification to revert. If you really believe it is, then this needs to go to a noticeboard. Nothing published by Routledge can be called "official Turkish government propaganda". This is a third party source. I've read "official Turkish government propaganda" and it is nothing like this. The normal way of dealing with something like this is by using attribution, not by removing the sources and demanding that people stop using them. In this case for the basic stuff about the history and breakdown of administrative divisions, it doesn't even require attribution. This is a lot of drama over something very minor.Seraphim System (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't revert because it was "pro-Turkish". I merely pointed to the obvious fact that Salt has adopted the Turkish government's position on the Armenian Genocide as evident by the fact that his articles are published on official Turkish government websites, let alone the fact that his work is also published on denialist websites as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not obvious to me that Salt has adopted the Turkish government's position. Most of Salt's work (that I have access to) is about anti-Muslim Christian polemic. There may be other sections of the book I haven't seen and don't have access to, but the government position is much more hard line and one-sided then what is in this book. They use language like yaşanmış acılar, trajediler olabilir (tragedies) but I've never seen government sources use katliam (massacres) for killings of Armenians, only for killings of Muslims. The content in Salt's book that I've seen (I can't speak for anything else) is completely different from this. Seraphim System (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"This official Turkish thesis has been further complemented by the works of Justin MacCarthy, Jeremy Salt, Stanford Shaw, and, most recently, Günter Lewy." [12]. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not even going to say that's just Gingeras' opinion (though some editors might take that line of argument). I will repeat my position so there is no misunderstanding—there may be content about those things (deportations, Armenian rebellions, Ottoman restraint, etc.) in parts of the book that I don't have access to. I can't comment on anything I hven't read. I'm more interested in the first part of Salt's book which is about Imperialism and Christian polemic, which doesn't even discuss Armenians. It is also relevant, in my opinion, that genocide studies is a rapdily developing field of study and most pre-ICTY sources can be considered obsolete at this point. The intent argument most of these books were making, and that much of the discourse on our talk pages hones in on, is not where most modern arguments about genocide lie. the existence of a plan or policy to commit genocide is not a legal ingredient of the crime, although 'in the context of proving specific intent, the existence of a plan or policy may be important in some cases[2][3][4][5][6] I don't take these non-expert arguments about genocidal intent very seriously and I don't get worked up over them. Back to this article, I didn't see anything wrong with adding some basic information about the vilayets - they're just administrative divisions.Seraphim System (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I'm not going to agree to stop using any source because it is a source that Etienne does not approve of...this is not just one or two sources, but seems to be an effort to exclude a large number of important sources on Turkey or Ottoman studies. These scholars have written on a wide range of topics and much of their work is recognized. I would understand a request to not use them for their opinions on the genocide but I'm not going to agree to not citing them for other content. The sources are vital for work on articles about Turkey and Ottoman Empire. Thus, because I am definitely not going to agree to this outlandish and inappropriate demand, this absolutely must go to WP:RS/N. It is not ok to follow me from article to article and repeat the same thing over and over again. I don't want to go through the whole AE thing, but this really needs to stop.Seraphim System (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Look, if you want to cite them for other content, that might be okay? I don't know. But you'd have to be really careful and you'd need very strong consensus because these supposed scholars are really fishy. And I've repeated myself over and over again that denialists should not be used for any topic related to Armenians, the Armenian Genocide, or Armenian affairs. I've been clear about that. They're simply not reliable enough and are really problematic for obvious reasons. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
For topics related to Armenians, I think I am capable of exercising good judgment when using sources and I think my editing history supports this. If something I added was problematic, my hope would be that we could discuss it and reach a consensus. But removing sources without any objection to the content it was used for? I'm not going to get behind that. I also don't agree with your characterizations of these scholars. I don't use Stanford Shaw because Colin Imber demonstrated actual errors in his work and I personally no longer consider it reliable (other editors may disagree). But I don't see anything like that here to call its fundmental reliability into question. I think the current academic consensus is that it was genocide, so we don't give the sources undue weight with respect to that viewpoint.Seraphim System (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't use Stanford Shaw because Colin Imber demonstrated actual errors in his work - ...and is that the only reason? Do you find the fact he denies the Armenian Genocide a problem and do you think that will make him less reliable as a result of that? Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think he is a reliable source to begin with - what would less reliable than not reliable be? I'm not going to spend a lot of time on Shaw because I found the errors Imber pointed out to be significant, so whatever content it is that you have in mind, most likely I haven't read it. Going back to your comment about "Holocaust denialists", I don't know why you think everyone is in agreement about what Holocaust denial is, much less which sources should be banned for it. Everyone pretty agrees that genocide denial is bad, but good luck reaching agreement on what actually constitutes genocide denial. (And most editors, myself included, don't appreciate being accused of it during content disputes). Holocaust denial is such a controversial article, it needed about 18 citations for the statement that "Holocaust denial is antisemitic". Something that simple was a huge dispute, apparently. So, even on Holocaust articles, there is a lot of dispute. The disputes about Poland and sourcing have been ongoing for months; there is one open at WP:RS/N right now.Seraphim System (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I think my question was pretty clear. But I'll rephrase it. Do you think those who deny the Armenian Genocide are problematic in any way in terms of them being considered legitimate academics? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is very critical for us to note that there is no evidence that the sultan ordered a massacre in the 19th century. Of course there's no evidence, what kind of evidence would there be? It's not like there was some "massacre approval" bureacracy in the 19th century Ottoman Empire. But I'm pretty good at filtering this stuff when I use sources to edit, so I don't really get hung up on this kind of stuff. I would prefer using genocide-expert sources like Demirdjian and Bloxham, I think the recent works are top notch, but as it is sources with obvious bias like Hovannisian/Balakian and Salt have to be balanced off one another, but as far as they dispute one anothers findings, I don't think that's grounds to ban either one.Seraphim System (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schrodt, Nikolaus (2014-06-07). Modern Turkey and the Armenian Genocide: An Argument About the Meaning of the Past. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-04927-4.
  2. ^ Klip, André (2005). The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 2001-2002. Intersentia nv. ISBN 978-90-5095-397-9.
  3. ^ Kim, Sangkul (2016-05-24). A Collective Theory of Genocidal Intent. Springer. ISBN 978-94-6265-123-4.
  4. ^ Quigley, John (2016-03-09). The Genocide Convention: An International Law Analysis. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-03073-7.
  5. ^ Campbell, Jason J. (2012-10-04). On the Nature of Genocidal Intent. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-7847-8.
  6. ^ Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity. Human Rights Watch.

Armenian Massacres

Hello, the Armenian Massacres and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey are not consecutive events. They are unrelated. So they do not need to come one after the other in a sentence, as it could imply other things. Thank you, 176.33.53.10 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Chronologically, and in terms of destruction and Turkification of everything that belonged to the Armenians and their cultural heritage, they ARE consecutive events. From the first year of the Armenian genocide in 1915 up until the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 these events are related in that during the said period the millennia-long Armenian presence in Eastern Asia Minor was eradicated, including the changing of the historical toponym “Armenian Highlands” or “Armenian Plateau” to a newly-invented term “Eastern Anatolia”.98.231.157.169 (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Davidian
Your views and writing is partial and do not mean much in the large context. According to your skewed logic, the Turks (and all other minorities including Kurds, Arabs, Circassians, Greeks, Armenians and Jews) in Turkey should claim all the land from Crimea in the north, from Algeria in the south, from the Caucasus in the east, and from Hungary in the west for themselves. It was Ottoman land and heritage after all. It doesn't work that way. You lose a war, you pay the price. Same with the Armenians.
Those Armenians in the east who rebelled against the state while it was engaged in war on multiple fronts paid the price for their treachery. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation and other terrorist gangs can claim whatever they like. It is baseless under international law. Therefore, calling eastern lands in Turkey "Western Armenian" and some eastern mountains "Armenian Highlands" is comical, to say the least. Get over it. Your ancestors rebelled, they massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent Kurdish and Turkish villagers in the eastern provinces, and they paid the price by being forced to move out of the area. Keep it official and do not bring your propaganda here please. 176.33.55.202 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced article and one-sided sources

The article makes exclusive use of Armenian-sided sources and needs more information and reliable sources for neutrality. 176.33.55.202 (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no such thing a an "Armenian-sided" source. We have either have reliable sources or we don't. From what I gather, you haven't made any attempt to discredit these sources so those tags need to be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Would you like me to discredit some of those sources? I don't need to. The fact remains the article overly relies on one-sided views (Armenian arguments) which makes it unbalanced. Can we get some non-Armenian (perhaps Turkish and Kurdish) information and reliable sources in the article since it is related to land in Turkey? 176.33.55.202 (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
You don’t seem to understand. This isn’t a battle of “pro-Armenian” vs. “pro-Turkish”, it’s a matter of reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources that refute any such claim, by all means place it in the article yourself. No one’s stopping you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
That's a great idea Étienne Dolet! Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Insufficient info in article

There is so much that can be added to the Eastern Anatolia Region article. However, Armenian diaspora propagandists and their friends chose to ignore all the info out on the internet and in books, and chose to focus on the recent dark history of the region. This article can definitely use some encyclopedic content. It is wholly lacking as it stands. 157.167.128.180 (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added a neutrality tag on the page. Please do not remove it until further info is added and the article is actually somewhat balanced. 157.167.128.180 (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

None of the above is a proper justification for tagging the article. "I don't like it" and "I don't like its focus on things I don't like being mentioned" are not valid reasons. Saying that there is more content that could be added is not a valid tagging reason - all articles can always have more content added to them. And mentioning unspecified "info out on the internet" does not help in the editing of this article. If you want to add content, go ahead and add it. I am removing the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.77.10 (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Category

@Torshavn1337: In your edit summary here you say Undue weight given to Armenian history when this sub is about an administrative region of Turkey -- not about history. Did you actually read the article? It has a large section called "Substitution for the name Armenia", mainly about the naming of the region in a historic context. The section is well-sourced, which is more than can be said about the rest of the article. As this section describes the historic use of terms like "Armenia", "Western Armenia", "Armenian Highlands", it is rather obviously correct to include the Category:Geographic history of Armenia.

On another note, since you are fairly new to Wikipedia, some words about how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is a community project, where editors are supposed to cooperate in order to improve the articles. Disagreements between editors are supposed to be solved through discussions in the talk pages. One useful tool is the WP:BRD cycle. It is fine (and even encouraged) to make a Bold edit, like your first removal of the category here (although it should have been explained with an edit summary). If someone disagrees with the edit, it is fine to Revert it, like I did here. Your next step then should be to Discuss, by opening a thread in this talk page. The consensus resulting from that discussion, where preferably more editors would chime in, would decide whether the category should stay or not. What you did instead, was to reinstate your preferred version, something that could be seen as the start of an edit war, see WP:EDITWAR.

Since I do not do edit wars, I will not revert you. I will, however, advice you to self revert and start a discussion in the talk page in order to gain consensus for your version. Regards! --T*U (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you so much for your thoughtful response! It's the first time I'm learning about the community aspect of Wikipedia -- as you have pointed out, I am a new editor. I came to the article looking for information on an administrative region of Turkey and what I ended up seeing is simply the region's Armenian history. I am sure Armenian history is an important part of the region, but you won't ever see an article on another country that is so blatantly one-sided and extremely focused on historical grievances. It's disheartening.Torshavn1337 (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC) I don't even know how to leave a proper comment yet but I hope this response is visible.
(I have indented your answer for better structure of the talk page. --T*U (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC))
@Torshavn1337: You are, of course, entitled to have your thoughts about the relative weight of the history part of the article as compared to the administrative part. As far as I can see, the administrative information is just as detailed here as in similar articles about other administrative regions of Turkey. By your own admittance, Armenian history is an important part of the region, so it would seem natural to cover that aspect, not least because of how the name of the region has been changed. If you think that part of the article could be improved, feel free to do so, provided your changes are based on reliable sources, see WP:RS. What you should not do, is to just remove things that you just don't like, see WP:JDLI. Since, as you say, Armenian history is an important part of the region, the Category:Geographic history of Armenia has to stay. --T*U (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Western Armenia

Eastern Anatolia region has been originally known as Western Armenia in numerous sources, including Britannica Encyclopedia. I have undid deletion of this data from the article several times, each time giving sources and footnotes, but every time found the article changed in a couple of days without any basing facts, if not taking into consideration the fact of calling me a nationalist (!). If the fact I provided the data proved by uncountable number of sources, starting from middle-age historians and international maps up to current historians and encyclopedias is nationalism, then I doubt objectivity of Wikipedia. If considering the fact not worth to mention in the article, then I should say it is as worth to mention, as the fact that e.g. the city name ]]Kaliningrad's]] original title was Königsberg, Nagorno-Karabakh's was meant under Artsakh, huge part of modern Romania was meant under Transylvania, etc. Now I'm undoing the latest deletion. Thanks to everybody, who read and understood! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 517design (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your information is basically an ideology of a greater Armenia. Another form of propaganda that is why I am removing it. Justinz84 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with you being a racist propagandist yourself eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.174.119 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is these numerous sources write something for the First Geography Congress, Turkey? Filibeli (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no Artsakh now its under the managment of Azerbaijan and no one see Nagorno-Karabakh as Artsakh. Stop using wikipedia for your propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanlisbilgi (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not done. The editor was a sockpuppet.

I propose merging Turkish Kurdistan into Eastern Anatolia Region. Nothing significant in Turkish Kurdistan and same region as Eastern Anatolia Region. Futebul (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: What do you mean by "Nothing significant in Turkish Kurdistan"? Be more concrete, otherwise this is simply nonsensical. The two regions are not "the same region". --Semsûrî (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, on two counts:
1) These are articles for administrative, not historical regions.
2) The administrative region that largely corresponds to Turkish Kurdistan is Southeastern Anatolia, while for this article that honor would go to the Armenian Highlands, and partially Transcaucasia. Uness232 (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Imperator Storm (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
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.

Armenian irredentist claims should be subjected to speedy deletions

Armenian irredentist claims have nothing to do with Türkiye’s administrative regions, the so-called Western Armenia written in the Armenian alphabet belongs to its rightful place ‘Armenian nationalism’. The population consists for the most part of ethnic Turks and Kurds NO Armenians. Building two churches in the middle of nowhere doesn’t make whole of Eastern Anatolia ‘Western Armenia’.

We might rename Central Mongolia to Eastern Türkiye (Orkhon valley) just because Turks left some stone inscriptions in Mongolia. 2A02:A466:AEAD:1:E404:D14:4DEA:E7EE (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Formatted as an attack article + unneeded and irrelevant information included

Most of the conversations on this article's talk page are linked to this issue, so I had removed these parts. To avoid an edit war with ZanniGiovanni , I will post here, too.

This article is POV-pushing and is definitely not neutral, as evidenced by statements such as "The region encompasses most of Western Armenia" and the section titled "Substitution for the name Armenia" is further testament to this; the article is arguably formatted as an attack article (no) thanks to whoever had added this irrelevant, negative-toned, POV-pushing, and unneeded section contributing to the cluster of the article, which is why I had deleted it because of inherent violations of core policies, and mentioned that all 6 articles of the other Geographical regions of Turkey are not formatted this way, and are solely intended to provide current information, not historical, which is also why I had removed the part that the population of the region was mostly Armenian until the genocide. It must also be stressed that this article is not about Armenia, but about Turkey. It is also to be emphasized that this is not a historical article, just like the other articles relating to the geographical regions of Turkey, but about the current situation of the region.

Also, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages is an essay, an advice. It is not Wikipedia's policy. Do not refer to it as if it is, ZanniGiovanni, as you have done in my talk page (where you have also laughably falsely accused me of disruptively editing, among other things; how civil of you).

By the way, I am considering nominating the article for speedy deletion due to the nature of it being an attack article, unless we can agree on removing these parts.

So, let's discuss. zenzyyx (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any understanding of things you cite? WP:ATTACK is irrelevant here, we're discussing sourced content removal by you. How is it an "attack" to state what the sources say? Are you denying that the name Eastern Anatolia was a substitution for the name Armenia, and that this region had many Armenians prior to the Armenian genocide? And your next "arguments", I just can't with this relentless original thoughts backed by zero policy:

...which is why I had deleted it because of inherent violations of core policies, and mentioned that all 6 articles of the other Geographical regions of Turkey are not formatted this way, and are solely intended to provide current information, not historical, which is also why I had removed the part that the population of the region was mostly Armenian until the genocide. It must also be stressed that this article is not about Armenia, but about Turkey. It is also to be emphasized that this is not a historical article, just like the other articles relating to the geographical regions of Turkey, but about the current situation of the region.

What "core policies"? Who said that this article can't have a historical section? What? Are you just saying how you think Wikipedia articles work, or are you finally going to back up your claims with something? Preferably a policy which you clearly are aware of, and the difference between an essay and a policy. Btw, that essay would've been really helpful for you because you still make the whataboutism arguments: there isn't a policy saying just because one article doesn't have a section/information, another one shouldn't either, hence these are logical fallacy whataboutism arguments at core of your disruptive content blanking. And yes, those edits are disruptive as you didn't give a single policy based valid reason for chunks of sourced content removal, just mini essay edit-summaries with invalid fallacies. It's just your own personal unfounded and irrelevant to this discussion preference of how certain articles should or should not be "historical" lol, whatever that means.
Bottom line is, if there is sourced content pertaining to the Eastern Anatolia region and its history (which there is), you haven't demonstrated a valid policy based reason for its removal. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@ZaniGiovanni, Western Armenia has its own article. Eastern Anatolia is an administrative region of Turkey and irrelevant to the old inhabitants of the region, since the administrative region was formed way after the forced migrations.
Again it's formation is completely irrelevant to the Armenians therefore there are not any reasons to hold its Armenian name. BerkBerk68 11:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
It's called a genocide, not a "forced migration". And sources disagree regarding your "irrelevant" assertion. Again, not single policy shown how sourced content that talks about this region's history is "irrelevant" to its history, what? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh please, if "Western Armenia" is being renamed as "Eastern Anatolia", therefore "Eastern Anatolia" is a Turkish and/or pro-Turkish term, then why do we have the Armenian name of it at the article? BerkBerk68 11:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not even sure what is your goal by the above comment? That relevant sourced content about the history of this region, why it was renamed, people living prior in this region, etc, shouldn't be in the article for some unknown to me reason? Or that the original, not just Armenian name of this region shouldn't be in the article for another unknown reason? These arguments are increasingly becoming WP:JDLI. If there is anything you have to say other than repeating the same subpar at best talking points, then go ahead. Otherwise, this discussion starts to WP:SEALION. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@ZaniGiovanni Again, this is an article about an administrative region of Turkey formed decades after the genocide, and has nothing to do with the history of it, but is intended to provide current, modern information about the region (as evidenced by all the other articles of the 7 administrate regions of Turkey). The information YOU want to have here are already provided in their relevant articles. Do not cluster pages with irrelevant information. zenzyyx (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
You don't seem to comprehend that the information is not irrelevant to the article, plus you're repeating yourself with subpar WP:JDLI comments. Sources directly mention Eastern Anatolia and name changes/history relating to it, that is the relevancy. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@ZaniGiovanni This is an *ADMINISTRATIVE REGION* not a *HISTORICAL REGION*. This region DID NOT exist before it was formed in 1941. The information included has NOTHING to do with this article. This is NOT a WP:JDLI argument, but facts. Many users have expressed this concern here, and it will be dealt with. zenzyyx (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Adhere to WP:CIVIL and don't talk to me with CAPS on, this is a warning. What is the policy saying that a region can't have historical section about which is stated in sources? If you can't understand this simple concept, then don't waste my time. Every article, granted if sourced information is available, has said information covered in its respective section, which is the case here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@ZaniGiovanni I did not "talk" with you with caps on, I stressed a message. Also, nothing prevents me from doing that, WP:CIVIL says nothing about caps being forbidden and that it is uncivil to use them when stressing a message. If anything, you were uncivil in my talk page, which is why I didn't respond to you there, but here. As a result, your warning means nothing.
I have, alongside BerkBerk68, and many others in the talk page, stressed that this is an administrative region, and not a historical one. The region was formed in 1941. There's no information preceding this date as the administrative region didn't exist then. If you want to create an article on "Eastern Anatolia" and it's history, feel free to do so. zenzyyx (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, there isn't a policy distinguishing what articles are "historical" or otherwise. If historical information is available about this article in sources, then it absolutely can be included, and you haven't demonstrated a valid reason as to why it should be omitted. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni I assume that you did not understand me, because I am not talking about the naming policy of the region. I am expressing that usage of "Արևմտյան Հայաստան" is irrelevant and unnecessary, because the formation of the administrative region itself is irrelevant to the Armenians. BerkBerk68 12:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The area itself was very relevant to Armenians, as stated by sources, that's why the original name is there. We don't base arguments on "formations" and whatnot, but the region itself and the relevancy to it, per sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@ZaniGiovanni This administrative region formed in 1941 is irrelevant to Armenians. The article "Eastern Anatolia" would be relevant to Armenians. zenzyyx (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
You are ignoring 2 different editors telling you that this article is related to an Administrative geographical region of Turkey which was formed in First Turkish Geography Congress. This article is not related to the area of the geographical region, but the geographical region itself that is formed in 1941. BerkBerk68 12:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
For exemplifying the nonsense going on here, writing Armenian name to this Administrative region that is formed in 1941 is equally absurd to writing Hittite name of Central Anatolian Region to its article. This practice is not being used at the other 6 different regions of Turkey. BerkBerk68 12:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
For your information, and this goes to both of you, this is WP:NOTAVOTE, consensus is determined by strength of the arguments. Secondly, and I'm not going to repeat myself, there is not a single policy saying that we should omit historical information depending on the article "type", this is literally not a thing. If sources make the connection to this region, which they do, then sourced content can absolutely stay in the article, especially when there are no valid arguments for its omission.
Regarding the name in the lead, you make reasonable points BerkBerk68, I'll think about it and let you know when I have free time (likely this evening or tomorrow). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@ZaniGiovanni There hasn't been a vote, your argument is one rooted in WP:JDL as your logic and reasoning has been defeated; information preceding 1941 is IRRELEVANT to this article, which is about an administrative region of Turkey formed in the aforementioned year, not about Eastern Anatolia; this article has nothing do with Armenia. Most discussions on the talk page are related to this, and have been stressed most recently by myself and BerkBerk68. The only and sole person who objects to this is yourself. Please stop stonewalling these arguments.
Although it would've been nice to negotiate with you on this matter, you've not do so; and as such you are to be reminded that consensus does not require unanimity. You are refusing to get the point, please be informed that no one is obligated to satisfy you. Thus, I will be restoring the edit, and if you attempt to edit war, an ANI report is to be made about your disruptive editing.
Remember, this is not a battle. Thanks. zenzyyx (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm on my brake, so I'll just say a couple of things before commenting more extensively later: First Zenzyyx, if you still don't comprehend what consensus is (not 2v1, this is not even close to consensus) and if you make another false accusation towards me, you'll be reported for WP:ASPERSIONS,WP:EDITWAR, WP:DIS. My comment regarding lead name wasn't even related to you, and I'll make my suggestion about it later. This is a relatively minor issue.
When it comes to the most important issue here, which is the blatant and repetitive sourced content braking with subpar reasons by you, I already made my position clear, backed by sources. Yet you're edit-warring over your own removals with nonsense arguments on talk. My question to you again: who says what year determines relevancy or what "type" of article, when this is just a history section of the East Anatolia region stated by the sources? Go figure out a legitimate reply to this until we continue this discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ZaniGiovanni, seems like you got enough time to give a little attention on the language topic instead of delaying it, it would be better if you make your proposal soon as possible so we could decide what's the best for the encyclopedia. BerkBerk68 14:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I could've given you a more comprehensive reply in the evening and there isn't a "delay" here, people tend to have IRL responsibilities. But if you insist, I'll give my short fix/suggestion; we can add "formerly" or "also known" to avoid confusion that it's not a translation but a separate name. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@ZaniGiovanni Glad to see that you are open with negotiating about the Armenian translation topic, but it would be better if you expressed your thoughts without delaying. You might be busy right now, so we should continue negotiations as soon as you come. BerkBerk68 13:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Zenzyyx would you like to explain (briefly) yourself on why you are disruptively and unilaterally removing parts of the article? - Kevo327 (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Kevo327, it would be better to understand the whole conversation for taking appropriate decisions. BerkBerk68 14:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, accusing editors with misbehaviours on the first comment of a long ongoing talk page section might increase tensions between users and prevent us from focusing on developing encyclopedia. BerkBerk68 14:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Current state of article

The article in its current state is utterly pathetic. Dear Armenian friends, as long as you support your thoughts with sources, of course you can add information, but the wording of the article went beyond this and reached a completely insulting style; Such as:

  • "The Sublime Porte believed there would be no Armenian question if there was no Armenia."
  • "literally 'Eastern East'" (Anatolia is a geographical term. Regardless of its etymological origin, it can be separated like "Western Anatolia", "Eastern Anatolia" etc. "Eastern Anatolia" may be a geographically incorrect term, not linguistically.)
  • "the region also had a large population of indigenous Armenians, when it was also known as Western Armenia"

In addition, the article clearly contains Irredentism as its current state. (As with many other pages linked to Armenians, I'm sorry but that's the case.) The article needs to be made suitable for the encyclopedia immediately.

I'll tag Kevo327 and ZaniGiovanni here as I saw them active in the previous discussion. Please don't take it personally. However, I ask you to pay attention to what I wrote above. Of course, you can improve any articles you want by adding information (as long as they are correct), but the way to do this is not to try to humiliate the other group. Have a nice day. Kyzagan (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Translation: "Dear Armenian friends, as long as you do nothing that we extremely tolerant and absolutely never ever genocided anyone Turks can in any way object to, you (those few of you that are left anyway) can continue to live". But don't take it personally! The article could mention Turks arrested for sedition for possessing antique maps showing "Armenia" in areas now known "Dogu Anadolu", and academic maps of the Roman Empire being confiscated from colleges in Turkey for the same reason. William Dalrymple has written about this (in his "From the Holy Mountain", I think). Also, it is my understanding that Eastern Anatolia Region was made official in 1941, at the "First Congress of Geography", when Turkey was divided into 7 new regions (earlier versions of this article had this info), and not in 1923 (as the article currently claims). I would like to know if those 4 cited sources actually do use 1923. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.111.225 (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
For the "1923" claim, the cited page 3 of the Richard Hovannisian source does not say 1923. 88.110.111.225 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Looking past the unnecessary and borderline uncivil 'translation' sentence, I will have to agree with IP and disagree with @Kyzagan, except for one thing. Doğu Anadolu, as Kyzagan said, is a geographical term. Geographical terms do not have to be, and often aren't, etymologically sound. While noting its significance in the post-genocide environment and its role in hiding the term Armenia should be included, the name's etymological quirks should not be included in the form of a snarky comment. Uness232 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Uness232, actually you said exactly what I wanted to express. It seems that there is a prejudice against the complaints at talk pages related to the genocide. In the text I wrote, I did not say that the Armenian Genocide is not related to this article. The article is definitely related to this subject, so it should also contain information about it. What I wanted to point out was the problem with the way it was expressed. Although Eastern Anatolia is related to Western Armenia, it is a geographical region and content of the article should have focus on this. While the subject of Western Armenia should have been given as a sub-heading (at the entry part of the article, information about this subject should be given in a way that directs it to this sub-heading.), the article is almost completely written about this subject. In addition, the writing language of the article contains a insulting style beyond providing information. My complaint about the pages linked to Armenians was also related to this problem. At the and of the day, what is written with an irredentist motivation harms the encyclopedic value of the articles. It was a long answer, I hope its better understood this time. Also, thanks for replying. Kyzagan (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what's wrong with the first and the third examples you gave, though. Uness232 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I think I gave an unnecessary reaction about the third example, ignore it. Regarding the first example, do you really think this text is not really sarcastic? Maybe I was wrong, if you think its not, it can stay.Kyzagan (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The section previously headed "Substitution for the name Armenia" doesn't have an encyclopedic tone: it labours the point that the Turkish government renamed it to remove its Armenian heritage. I've trimmed it and renamed the section "Etymology". I think it now keeps the same essential point that the renaming was to diminish its Armenian history without it sounding like a 'case for the prosecution' about the injustice done to the Armenians (which it previously did). DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
What I was trying to say was insulting and irredentist content damage the encyclopedia. There is a line between telling a historical background and grounding a ideology. If what was written in the article could be looked at objectively, it would not be difficult to see. No one is arguing with you about what is what. I wish you'd try to calm down and listen to the other person instead of trying to be sarcastic and debasing yourself. Anyway, I'm not continuing the discussion because I know that if I continue, I will somehow get WP:CIV (like it should be done to the message above). I won't argue further if it is believed that the necessary changes have been made. Kyzagan (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? "I wish you'd try to calm down and listen to the other person instead of trying to be sarcastic and debasing yourself. I'm not continuing the discussion because I know that if I continue, I will somehow get WP:CIV (like it should be done to the message above)." What utter nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Biased sources

You must check the sources, this article is ridiculously biased. Blaxoul (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You are right, more non-Armenian authors that are not WP:FRINGE would be nice, say Uğur Ümit Üngör, although I'm pretty sure that that's not exactly what you want. Uness232 (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I've upgraded the sources in the text referred to in the previous thread, including a change of citation to Richard G. Hovannisian. Sorry his parents were Armenian! The bottom line is that the fundamental point that the name change was part of a Turkification policy to remove references to its Armenian history isn't really in doubt (except with sources advocating a Turkish nationalist POV). To not reflect this would be a WP:DUE failure. DeCausa (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
You are right, I was intentionally engaging with that comment in an ever-so-slightly vague and tongue-in-cheek way, as you might have already gathered from the example scholar I've cited. I was not arguing for the inclusion of a Turkish nationalist POV, just trying to point out that even if non-Armenian mainstream scholars were included in sourcing, it would not change much in terms of what they likely want changed (which I assumed to be the inclusion of their nationalist POV).
That being said, there are differences between Armenian and non-Genocide-denying Turkish historiographies; and more diversity on that front might be good, if more content is to be added here in the future. Uness232 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarity of language

'The Anatolia peninsula never encompassed what is now called "Eastern Anatolia", which has been seen as an attempt by Turkey to erase the Armenian history of the region.' I have read this sentence multiple times and still have no idea what it is saying. Rewrite? Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear to me. I not sure exactly what's unclear to you so it's hard to know what should be re-written. I'll have a go at explaining it so that you could suggest a re-write. What it it says to me is that historically, this region was considered part of Armenia and not part of the Anatolian peninsula. Despite this, the Turkish government in the 20th century renamed it Eastern Anatolia. The reason for this has been seen as the Turkish government attempting to disassociate the area from the Armenians. Do you understand that and if you do how would you re-write the text? DeCausa (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Sources are from Armenian authors. No wonder why. Blaxoul (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Anatolia never extended into the regions described by the term Eastern Anatolia. The term Eastern Anatolia did not exist officially before 1923 ,and was referred to as the Armenian Highlands. If you would like a explanation to the name, Anatolia derives from the Greek Ἀνατολή , meaning "The East". This would imply Eastern Anatolia to be named "Eastern The East". The statement may be confusing but the information is correct, a rewrite with the same information elaborated may be more useful to a reader. Protoj (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Armenian plateau

I see reasons to keep two articles for the same region but find it has downsides as well, like the articles repeatedly linking back to each other in a manner that does not improve the experience of reading the articles. Should some of the overlapping information simply be duplicated in each other article, and follow the usual linking policy? Cornsimpel (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2024

The following paragraphs include excessive amounts of political propaganda that has virtually no connection the modern region called "Eastern Anatolia".

The region encompasses most of Western Armenia and had a large population of indigenous Armenians until the Armenian genocide. The Anatolia peninsula historically never encompassed what is now called "Eastern Anatolia" which was, instead, referred to as the Armenian highlands. It was renamed by the newly founded Turkish Republic in the 1920s.[2] This has been seen as an attempt by Turkey to erase the Armenian history of the region.

These statements have been repeated almost three times in the article, surpassing the initial purpose of the article itself. Included both in ethymology tab and the description. The term "Western Armenia" is an unacceptable term, and should be changed to "Armenian Highlands" referring to the historical name of the region. Armenia as a sovereign national state has never gained control over the eastern parts of Turkey. The beforementioned paragraph belongs to a different article, such as "Western Armenia" or Armenia in general.

Please remove either one of these;

Historically, the region was referred to as the Armenian highlands or Western Armenia. In 1923, the newly founded Republic of Turkey renamed the territory "Eastern Anatolia" as part of a wider policy of removing all non-Turkish names of places following the Armenian genocide.[5][6][4][12] Beginning in 1880, the name Armenia was forbidden to be used in official documents of the Ottoman Empire, in an attempt to play down the role of Armenians in the region.[4][13][12] The government of Sultan Abdul Hamid II replaced the name Armenia with such terms as "Kurdistan" or "Anatolia". The Sublime Porte believed there would be no Armenian question if there was no Armenia. The process of "nationalization" of toponyms was continued and gained momentum under the Kemalists after the foundation of the Republic of Turkey.[5][6][4][12]

The region encompasses most of Western Armenia (Armenian: Արեւմտյան Հայաստան) and had a large population of indigenous Armenians until the Armenian genocide. The Anatolia peninsula never encompassed what is now called "Eastern Anatolia", which has been seen as an attempt by Turkey to erase the Armenian history of the region.[4][12]

These share the same meanings and the first and the last paragraphs are practically the same. Again, Wikipedia is not a place where certain groups edit another nations articles with the purpose of vengeance. PeevesX (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the topic to give an answer, but I'm inclined to agree that there is undue focus on this one specific aspect of the region's history and it has a nationalist bent to it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. DeCausa (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eastern_Anatolia_region/Archive_1&oldid=1258421735"