Talk:Western Armenia

Turkish irredentism

@Konli17:, do you figure out what irredentism means? Western Armenia is not a Turkish political concept but Armenian. Perhaps you confuse it with Armenian Highlands. This is not a geographical area, but a political concept, and it is an Armenian concept. Learn the difference. Beshogur (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not just a concept, but also a part of Armenia. The Turks are there because of Turkish irredentism. Konli17 (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing conquests with irredentism. Beshogur (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You're confusing cause with effect. Konli17 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Konli17:, The turks are there because of irredentism? It's been 100 years that you gone from area, and armenians still complaining about their old lands, then we must write all balkans to our old lands for claim? Slavs there for their irrenditsm bla bla. Its wikipedia not your countrys history book and history doesnt't work like this.

Adding sig for future archiving. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you want wikipedia to document the situation of the armenians? Also, are you saying that if a foreigner conquers your land and drives you off, you would be ok with that? Vmelkon (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The assumption that Turks have even remotely as much rights to the Balkans as Armenians do to this region is so god-awfully wrong that it should be actively censored. The simplest explanation is this: Armenians are the original inhabitants, who, against all odds, lived and created in this territory, regardless whether it was part of independent Armenian states or not. The Turks came to the area through exceptionally violent conquest - talking about both Western Armenia and the Balkans. The natives of either of these regions were not Turks. The claims made by Armenians do not carry the notion of a past empire's ambitions, they are the direct result of severe injustice and are completely valid. Land belongs to people via right of national heritage, political sovereignty is something that has been challenged and changed dramatically ever since the concept started existing. Finally, Armenians are not gone through the region: many "Turks" and "Kurds" have full or partial Armenian ancestry. The reason behind this reality is the systematic effort of the Turkish post-Ottoman government to create a homogenous, monoethnic state where there wasn't one - the process forcefully assimilated and Turkified the area's native inhabitants. Please take your historical negationism elsewhere. Աշոտ (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Even though it has been a little more than a year, I still felt the need to respond. "Land belongs to people via right of national heritage, political sovereignty is something that has been challenged and changed dramatically ever since the concept started existing." what a nonsense! So we must give Britain to the Welsh because they are Brittonic, and France to the Britons. Should we give back the steppes of Russia to the Iranians as an Iranic people? So I guess we'll have to abolish the United States altogether. They've only been around for 500 years anyway. As for the Balkans, after the withdrawal of the Ottoman Empire, close to 3 million Turks were destroyed along with the Turkish heritage. You can't make it seem like it's unimportant. Ofc, this doesnt mean that the Republic of Turkey can have a claim in the region for this reason, neither has Armenia. Kyzagan (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

the fact still stands that Armenians have much more claim to that land because of a genocide that happened to them than Turks have to much of the Balkans that they didn't even inhabit or any of your examples. Trying to claim the opposite is nonsensical to say the least. 2A02:586:C432:4148:F1F7:C34F:4182:EAE3 (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

About United Armenia

Apparently, there is a "community imposed extended-confirmed restriction" on the pages about Armenians, so my change is reverted by Kevo327. Then I'll try to express the problem here, maybe someone "extended-confirmed" will see it. In the change I reverted, there was a phrase that used "Western Armenia" and "Armenian Highlands" as synonymously. As I stated in the summary of my change, one is a political term, other is a geographical. Whether the name of the region is Armenian Highlands or not, it can already be called as Western Armenia for historical reasons. Apart from this, in the continuation of the article, there is an adding to legitimize the concept of "United Armenia". Is Wikipedia really the place to do this? The user who added this phrase removed this information at first per npov. After I undo that change, I couldn't understand if he thought "well, at least let me make it look right" .Then he added the phrase in question. First, the expression of "reunification with armenia" is not correct. The entity called as Armenia is existed for 30 years. Apart from that, the idea of an Armenian state in Western Armenia goes back much before the Armenian genocide. So this statement is also wrong. Finally, can you add sources for "Armenians in Turkey have sought reunification with the Republic of Armenia."? After deleting the change per npov this error became somewhat interesting. Kyzagan (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"National Council of Western Armenia"

The organization calling itself "National Council of Western Armenia" is not notable and neither is a flag drafted by it. There is no reliable, third party source establishing its notability. The flag has no place in an encyclopedia. It's a proposal by a fringe group at best. --Երևանցի ^talk 08:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. There is a whole article on this topic with a plethora of WP:RS. See Western Armenia Government in Exile (also mentioned at government-in-exile), surpassing WP:N guidelines. Archives908 (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That article contains not a single third party source establishing the supposed entity's notability, neither there is one for the fictitious flag. ----Երևանցի ^talk 21:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using primary sources, especially for illustrations. You may want to read Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia. In any case, I have added a tag to the respective article with the hopes that it can be improved with more variety of sources. I will dedicate time to improving that article over the coming days. Also, please stop engaging in a useless edit war until a WP:CON has been established. Archives908 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The use of primary source does not prove that the flag is of any relevance, especially by encyclopedic standards. How designed it? How was it designed? Where has the flag appeared besides the website of a fringe entity? Why should anyone take it seriously? ----Երևանցի ^talk 18:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you are trying hard to make a mountain out of a molehill. Primary sources are sufficient enough for illustrations, like flags. The question here is not whether the flag itself is WP:N, as most average people can not recognize the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of flags which exist around the world, but who or what the flag represents. The Western Armenian government in exile is a noteworthy subject especially on an article about Western Armenia. Therefore, by logical deduction, its visual identifier is, by extension, worthy of inclusion here. I think you should read WP:BALANCE. The policy reaffirms that the weight given on this article to this topic (including the use of the flag) is more than appropriate and does not violate WP:UNDUE. Whether people "take it seriously" or not is utterly irrelevant and highly WP:CRYSTAL. We do not delete articles or images on Wikipedia based on superfluous speculations that some people may not take "it seriously". Many Americans may not take the Republican Party "seriously", but that does not mean it should be deleted. That's why instead of personal assumptions, we defer to policy here. Archives908 (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, as a friendly reminder of WP:BRD, your Bold edit was Reverted, and now we must Discuss. Please stop engaging in an WP:EW until there is a clear WP:CON. Archives908 (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)