Talk:United Armenia

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

References and NY Times article[edit]

Aivazovsky, I have the exact article from NY Times on May 25, 1920 in PDF format. Nowhere does it use the word "genocide", it says Armenian people have suffered "reported massacres and other atrocities", and that's the claim of Woodrow Wilson. So that's what should be in the article when you reference it. Also, added another reference to "Greater Armenia" objective from 1999 article by Graham Usher. And in future, you should leave comments for edits you make, per ArbCom decision. Atabek 06:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see that article, just out of curiosity. I'll google it. Also Aivazovsky doesn't have to leave comments for his edits. Only when he reverts. VartanM 07:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to mention to Atabek that the word genocide was not invented yet by Lemkin so that Mr. Wilson could start using it but this doesn't mean the concept did not exist. It is, without a shadow of a doubt, what he is referring to. - Fedayee 12:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. When a people suffer from "from massacres and other atrocities" then that usually means it was a case of genocide. -- Aivazovsky 18:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's personal interpretation. If you refer to a source, you should quote it accurately. Grandmaster 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map shows Ganja and other regions as part of this absurd ideology and yet there is no mention of Ganja in the describtion. Why not, because there is nothing to claim their? This should be added in the article or I will add it.

Historically Ganja was called Gantsak in Armenian. There used to be an Armenian population there until the Azeris massacred and ousted them before the NK war. Search for "Kirovabad progrom". -- Davo88 02:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baku87, I'm not sure why you added a fact tag for the word used by the Dashnaks... it's the Dashnak used term of the word "Greater Armenia". - Fedayee 22:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOT a forum

Irrelevant "fact"[edit]

The fact that some of these territories "suffered under the 'genocide'" is not particularly relevant, particularly because it's only some, not all. However central Armenians have taken to making the deaths of Armenian civilians following the violent terrorist acts and outright rebellion of the Armenians prior to and during WW1 in their psyche, the fact that the Armenian deaths (as well as the deaths of those Turks and other Muslims who died at Armenian hands) occurred on lands that some would have called Greater Armenia is not relevant to this article.

Unless Greater Armenia is in some way defined by the terrorism, rebellion, and massacre of Muslims on the part of the Armenians, and the subsequent starvation and massacre of Armenians that followed that poorly thought out rebellion, there is no reason for this mention. (And, to be clear, it is in *no* way defined by these actions, and therefore there is no reason for this allusion.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.174.68.114 (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the Armenian Genocide take it that articles talkpage. Otherwise don't remove sourced material. VartanM (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOT a forum

"Greater Armenia" is a legend[edit]

if we considerated according to logic of armenians describing the organization created 2000 years before,by occupations of others lands of short duration as "Greater Armenia",at that time Azerbaijan turks would have much morerights to have big territory claims against Iran,Afghanistan,Pakistan,Iraq,Armenia,Georgia, and Russia like "Greater Azerbaijan"(3.3 mln.sks.)occupated during 1Shah Ismail sway.Also if we considerated according to logic of armenians Turkey turks would have territory claims to the 19 mln. sks. territory they had during Osmanli Empire,also modern Mongolia would have territory claims to all Chine,even to Vietnam,Mexico to USA's south states,France to African countries,and England to all India and to other countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink pantera (talk • contribs) 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of Armenia[edit]

why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.42.44 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Geography of Armenia ?--85.100.42.44 (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

Ethnic groups[edit]

Azeri and other Turkic peoples in Republic of Armenia

Main article: Azeri and other Turkic peoples in Armenia

Why deleted?--85.100.42.44 (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Armenia In Traditionally Greek Speaking Lands?[edit]

For 3,000 years Greeks have occupied ALL the lands along the Black Sea. Whether they were Ionian colonies, Hellenic cities under Alexander, Roman provinces, Byzantine, or under Ottomon rule, they spoke Greek. Names like Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, etc. are GREEK. Unfortunately, Armenia's misguided political and guerilla efforts for a land grab brought about, not only their destruction, but that of many innocent Greeks living in Pontus as well. Others, like my Greek ancestors (great-grandparents and grandparents) suffered unspeakable hardships, losing everything they had, and treading along the earth from place to place to find a better life for themselves and their children. How many Greeks from Pontus were displaced? Look at Greece, America, Germany, Ukraine, Russia, Australia, and many other countries for their offspring. It's a sad story and it pisses me off that Armenians drew lines on a map and made claims like that. That would be like Mexico redrawing its borders and taking what belongs to California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas and saying that its rightfully theirs just because these state have Mexican populations. Its ridiculous. And its an act of war. Call it what you will, but the Ottomans were protecting their jurisdiction from armed guerillas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.55.97 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally not only in Northeast damn they even claimed the Eastern Provinces were kurds made the majority as historic armenia! Even Hakkari, Sirnak former known as Corduene. This was also the Reason why no one signed this radical and total nationalistic Map made by Armenians. It is true Armenians were present in high numbers but they only made in 3 small Regions the majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.181.111 (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

68.239.55.97, don't blame the Armenians for what the Ottoman Turks did to the Greeks of Anatolia... You can complain here all you want but this won't change anything about the fact that there exist Armenian organizations demanding historically Armenian land from Turkey (with the backing of Sevres Treaty). Your rants are irrelevant to this article's content.--Davo88 (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments[edit]

Some users tries to remove insistently the term Armenian nationalism from this article. Is the concept of "Greater Armenia" belong to Armenia or Armenian nationalists ? If this concept were of the government of Armenia or all Armenian people, users must provide sources. As long as I understand, this concept was not one of the diplomatic policies of the government of Armenia. I think that some users tries to show "Greater Armenia" as the concept of the government and all Armenian people. Unfortunately we must add {{systemic bias}} and {{Disputed}}. And there is edit war between some anonim users. All of them didn't user sources and edits only by their own POVs. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I know, the concept of "Greater Armenia" is not an agenda of the Armenian Government, hence Armenia, but yes it definitely belongs to the Armenian nationalism. And I highly doubt that any user would be able to find any such source that would support the claim that it's a concept of Armenian people or government. As there is no availability of any reliable source to support the claim, so in this case we don't need any {{dispute}} tag, as there is no dispute at all. Takabeg, I'm unable to understand what output you're expecting from this RfC, as it's a simple case of some anonymous users fighting over their POV. RfC is a dispute resolution process, you should've tried to discuss the matter with these users first, to achieve any consensus. — Bill william comptonTalk 21:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bill's assessment. Please discuss this on the talk page first, and only take matters to RFC if you are unable to reach consensus. – Quadell (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanations. I'm inexperienced in using RfC. Now I have a question about RfC. Which kind of RfC is suitable for Zaza people ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

I think that the name of this article should be replaced by "United Armenia", because Greater Armenia is the name for historical Armenia and not this movement.--Yerevanci (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New name[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Armenia (political concept) → United Armenia – I think that the name of this article should be replaced by "United Armenia", because Greater Armenia is the name for historical Armenia and not this political idea. Throughout history historical Armenia was known as Greater Armenia (Armenia Major in Latin) and just writing political goal in parenthesis isn’t right. Also, in Western political literature this was also called United, not Greater Armenia. In 1919, the Republic of Armenia proclaimed the Act of United Armenia. Yerevanci (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to google books:

Takabeg (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takabeg, please read more carefully. “Greater Armenia” is used for the ancient Armenian history, while most of “United Armenia” is used exactly for this concept. --Yerevanci (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While both names are used in the literature, the current one is prevalent. - Darwinek (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose But I think "(political concept)" is not necessary. Takabeg (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Darwinek, please read more carefully. “Greater Armenia” is used for the ancient Armenian history, while most of “United Armenia” is used exactly for this concept. --Yerevanci (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great Armenia is usually used for historical one, ("Great Armenia comprehended Major and Minor Armenia together") and Greater Armenia is used for this irredentist claim. Takabeg (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, but look.

Here are the first 10 results of Greater Armenia:

  1. THE LESSER AND THE GREATER ARMENIA.
  2. Greater Armenia comprised most of historic Armenia
  3. territorial boundaries of Greater Armenia is to be found in Ananias of Sirak's Geography
  4. Kingdom of the Greater Armenia.
  5. Lying west of Greater Armenia and separated from it by the Euphrates was Lesser Armenia ( Pokr Hayk),
  6. The civilisation of Greater Armenia Ashot's son Smbat II (977-990) was a
  7. Qipchaq, Georgia, Greater Armenia, Persia, Mesopotamia, and even China
  8. The country, afterwards divided into Lesser and Greater Armenia,
  9. So after his victorious show of strength, Trdat, king of Greater Armenia, returned from Greek territory
  10. both the Lesser and Greater Armenia had their own kings

I don't think you need more evidence. And here are the first 10 results of "United Armenia"

  1. .There Is No United Armenia Without a United Armenian Nation (From Davros weekly, Feb. 15, 1919, Vol. 2, No. 7.)
  2. It must be realized that an independent, united Armenia will be the only bulwark against the drang nach osten policy of Pan-Germanism
  3. the Republic as the nucleus of united Armenia
  4. There Acting Prime Minister Alexandre Khatisian proclaimed the Act of United Armenia, which read in part
  5. territorial boundaries of Armenia the United States will help to create a united Armenia
  6. As the first part of the Nationalist program — to keep Anatolia — spelled death for the hopes for a United Armenia
  7. have kept the issue of the final liberation of United Armenia
  8. But supposing that the vilayets of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum, and part of Trebizond are included in the Peace Treaty as constituting the United Armenia
  9. The other two diasporan parties, the Ramkavars and the Hnchaks, had long accepted Soviet rule in Armenia as legitimate and even beneficial — although they too maintained an abstract and long term vision of a united Armenia
  10. No mandate for the Turkish part of United Armenia having been undertaken by the League ot Nations or the Allies

As you see top 10 results of "Greater Armenia" are about Armenia Major, and top 10 results of "United Armenia" are either about the union of Eastern (Russian) and Western (Ottoman) Armenias in the beginning of the 20th century, or about this political nationalistic goal. --Yerevanci (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose in the english language if we were to say United Armenia we would imply that the regions concerned are a part of Armenia or have significant armenian population which, today is not the case. Tugrulirmak (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me an example. I have an evidence that you're wrong. Ethnic Slovenians or ethnic Slvic Macedonians don't live in every part of the claimed territories of United Slovenia and United Macedonia as Armenians currently don't live in every part of United/Greater Armenia. You're wrong. --Yerevanci (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sovietization[edit]

I think section "Sovietization" is not necessary. It's related with only a part of Greater Armenia (Eastern Armenia), and Western Armenia was not sovietized. But Stalin's claim can be mentioned in this article. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your claims, but by sovietization Eastern Armenia (the Republic of Armenia in 1918-1920), Western Armenia de-facto became part of Turkey, while de-jure being part of the Republic of Armenia as of the arbitral award of Wilson (see Wilsonian Armenia). So it is directly connected to Western Armenia. --Yerevanci (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New name (again)[edit]

Greater Armenia (political concept) → United Armenia - This article should be moved to "United Armenia", because Greater Armenia is the name for historical Armenia and not this nationalist idea. Throughout history historical Armenia was known as Greater Armenia (Armenia Major in Latin) and just writing political concept in parenthesis isn’t quite appropriate. Also, in Western political literature this was also called United, not Greater Armenia. By the way, in 1919, the Republic of Armenia proclaimed the Act of United Armenia.--Yerevanci (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tsalka as part of Javakhk[edit]

Well, the actual Javakheti (by Georgians) includes only Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda districts. map

But when Armenians refer to the Javakhk region, it's commonly meant Akhalkalaki, Ninotsminda, Adigeni, Akhaltskhe and Tsalka, because those districts are where the Armenian population is concentrated, not only Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda as Georgians say. --Yerevanci (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source to back up your claim? Parishan (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Armenia (political concept) → United Armenia – There are numerous reasons of this request:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Javakhk[edit]

Here are the two official ARF sources

  • (in Armenian) "Ծրագիր Հայ Յեղափոխական Դաշնակցության (1998) [Armenian Revolutionary Federation Program (1998)]". Armenian Revolutionary Federation Website. 14 February 1998. Archived from the original on 30 July 2013. Retrieved 30 July 2013. ՀՅ Դաշնակցությունը նպատակադրում է. Ա. Ազատ, Անկախ եւ Միացյալ Հայաստանի կերտում: Միացյալ Հայաստանի սահմանների մեջ պիտի մտնեն Սեւրի դաշնագրով նախատեսված հայկական հողերը, ինչպես նաեւ` Արցախի, Ջավախքի եւ Նախիջեւանի երկրամասերը:
    The goals of the AR Federation are: A. The creation of a Free, Independent and United Armenia. The United Armenia should include inside its borders the Armenian lands by the Sevres Treaty, as well as Artsakh, Javakhk and Nakhichevan provinces.
  • "The Supreme Goals of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation". ARF Shant Student Association. Archived from the original on 21 January 2013. Retrieved 21 January 2013. The boundaries of united Armenia must incorporate the territories awarded to Armenia by the Treaty of Sevres, as well as the regions of Nakhijevan, Javakhk, and Artsakh. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 11 August 2006 suggested (help)

Harutyunyan's source is NOT an ARF source, he could be wrong on this particular issue. Both ARF sources say "Javakhk" not "Samtskhe-Javakheti". Here are two non-Armenian sources that say that Javakhk is composed of Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda districts:

Because this article is mostly about the ARF claim, we should go with the official sources, not Harutyunyan's. As you can see above it is, indeed, widely accepted that Javakhk/Javakheti is made up of Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda districts. --Երևանցի talk 17:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. Thank you. Parishan (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. --Երևանցի talk 22:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA1[edit]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:United Armenia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 20:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this nomination. Initial comments will be posted soon. --1ST7 (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review:

  1. Well-written
    • "Some experts claim that as a result of the activities of the Armenian militant groups in the Western European countries, the Armenian Genocide became internationalized." Please specify which experts.
    • done
    • This phrase is a little confusing: "For Western Armenia, Javakhk and Nakhichevan, Hovannisian has hinted at with 'vague formulations'."
    • I know it is. The problem is that I don't know how to put it in a sentence that would make more sense. Hovannisian often talks about those areas and makes statements that are not always clear, unlike the ARF which openly and clearly states which territories it claims as Armenian. The phrase "vague formulations" is from Aravot newspaper.
    • How about this: "Hovannisian has implied that he also favors the annexation of Western Armenia, Javakhk and Nakhichevan." --1ST7 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is that he doesn't really favor their annexation. I think we should somehow include the phrase "vague formulations", because it is so accurate. If you look at his article on Foreing Policy Journal [12], you can see that he doesn't really state that he favors the forcible annexation of those territories. For Javakhk he says that its Armenian population should be treated better, while for Western Armenia he says "Modern-day Turkey must face history and itself, recognize the great genocide, and cease its unlawful and inhuman occupation of Western Armenia." That's not really a call for annexation.
    • Okay, maybe the phrase should just be altered to "Additionally, Hovannisian has hinted at Western Armenia, Javakhk and Nakhichevan with 'vague formulations'." It sounds a little more clear that way. --1ST7 (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    • Several paragraphs under the sections "Origins", "World War I and aftermath", and "Republic of Armenia: 1918–1920" need citations. The general rule is at least one reference per paragraph.
    • Ref number 10 is to Encyclopedia Britannica, which I don't believe is accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    • Article is focused and appears to cover all of the main aspects of the topic.
  4. Neutral:
  5. Stable:
    • No edit wars, etc.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    • All images look good.

I'll put this on hold for a week to give you time to address these issues.

I want to add that you seem to do a really great job with the Armenia-related articles, especially considering the lengthiness of some of them. This article has been particularly interesting to read. --1ST7 (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your kind words. Yes, the mentioned sections are not quite appropriate for a Good Article. I'll try to do my best in rewriting them and adding more reliable sources. --Երևանցի talk 02:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just rewrote these sections. Hopefully, they meet the GA standards now. --Երևանցի talk 02:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. There's just one thing left: the first paragraph of "First Republic of Armenia: 1918–1920" still needs a citation, but aside from that, the article looks ready for promotion. --1ST7 (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sources added --Երևանցի talk 03:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, everything looks good now, so I'm passing the article. Congratulations, and thanks for your work. --1ST7 (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review and also for the copyediting. --Երևանցի talk 03:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome! --1ST7 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1ST7 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Greater Armenia"[edit]

The usage of Greater Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) -- 70.24.244.51 (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan?[edit]

Doesn't this territory overlap significantly with Kurdistan in Turkey, especially in the Lake Van region? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A most stupid article[edit]

This article is in a ridiculously bad state - it mixes real political and social events entirely unconnected to the subject of the article with an unrealizable fantasy concept by a political party that secretly knows how unrealisable it is and would rather forget it ever had the phantasy. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the entire "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: 1988–94" subsection of the article. Content that contains nothing more than a dateline summary of events during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is off-topic for this article and just duplicates content found on articles dealing with the conflict. The conflict occurred within the scenario of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and was one of many territorial disputes arising out of that collapse - the scenario was not initiated by the inhabitants of NK or as a result of any "United Armenia" politiking. Similarly, I have deleted the entire Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) subsection. It is almost identical in its off-topic nature, merely a dateline detailing of events in the latter stages of the conflict, post-conflict mediation, and the official international status of NK. This content is covered in more appropriate articles and none of it has anything to do with the concept of "United Armenia". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it "stupid" doesn't make it one. It doesn't matter if it's realistic or not. It is a widely held concept among Armenians and it has a long history, which is more or less documented in the article. Karabakh IS part of this concept. The victory in Karabakh is seen by Armenians as a unification of historic lands. --Երևանցի talk 09:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The NK war had nothing at all to do with the concept of United Armenia: it (like Armenia's independence) occurred as a result of pre-existing entities dealing with the collapse of the Soviet Union and was to do with self-determination and the protection of human rights. It was not irredentist, and there is certainly no justification in inserting into this article a catalogue of military events during that war. Your "widely held" is nothing more than another example of some Armenian deceivers and Azeri deceivers reading from the same notepaper. However, the former are clearly the more stupid, having nothing more concrete to gain from supporting the Azeri lie than merely maintaining a fantasy nobody in their right mind believes in or indeed has believed in since the 1930s. That position is what I am calling "stupid". Calling it "stupid" is putting it mildly actually. Insane? Suicidal? Would those words be better? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with that. Many things can be considered stupid, that doesn't mean they are factually false. --92slim (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your blind revert. I have given a lucid explanation as to why content that is nothing more than a catalogue of conflict events that took place during the NK war is off-topic for this article. You have provide no counter argument to support its retention, so stop edit warring and either start discussing or leave this article alone. Some content dealing with the pre-war civil discourse in Soviet Armenia and NK about unification may be appropriate, but only in the context of sources defining that discourse as part of the concept of United Armenia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
92Slim also deleted a validly inserted fact tag and a clarify tag. We have content that talks about a "2014 survey" of public opinion - yet the cited source [13] has no mention of any 2014 survey. Does the data perhaps come from the 2013 survey, or the 2012 one? I didn't put this content in the article, so I don't know. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tip, you almost never provide any valid explanations so cut the crap. I have ample proof of that. On another note, if you think it's a stupid article (which I agree, it is) you can nominate it for deletion. I don't think anyone will miss it much. 92slim (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google Books search reveals that the Karabakh War is seen as an attempt to unite what Armenians see as their historic lands. Try to keep the conversation civil. What you may consider insane and suicidal has nothing to do with the article. The Asbarez article cited in the lead [14] explicitly states "Artsakh, the guiding light of Armenian victories and the first stage of a United Armenia". Another source states [15] "Since 1988, Nagorno-Karabakh (called 'Artsakh' by the Armenians), became the symbolic centre of the imagined, lost and regained Erkir. The old romantic idea of both an independent and united Armenia revived with Nagorno-Karabakh." See the sources I added (and will add) support this claim. --Երևանցի talk 11:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seen by who exactly? Seen by Azeri propaganda sources, sources that are not usable on Wikipedia (For example, this propaganda book [16] claims that the Azeri population were "inadvertent obstacles to the abstract dream of a 'Greater Armenia'"). Seen by extremist ultra-nationalist Armenian diaspora organisations like ARS that are fringe and thus not suitable. Seen by pseudo-historians, seen by liars who consider history to be a matter of national interest and thus obliging a rewrite to suit that national interest, they too are by their nature not suitable as sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that Yerevantsi, like 92slim earlier, is edit warring using blind reverting [17] and is refusing to discuss the actual issues I raised on this talk page. I have twice said that content that consists of nothing more than a diary of conflict events that took place during the NK war is off-topic for this article. Neither Yerevantsi or 92slim have presented any argument to oppose that opinion, they have simply been edit warring by restoring all the removed content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United Armenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specific reasons as for why Maku, Khoy, Salmas etc are not claimed?[edit]

Hello,

I was curious about this, and therefore thought I should ask it here. Is there any specific reason as for why Northwestern Iran isn't claimed in this concept? Even though notably a part of the region is part of historical Armenia, Armenians being native to the region, and some areas having had an Armenian majority prior to the Genocide? Iranica f.e. confirms that the ARF (the most dominant Armenian party regarding these matters) has never put any claims on it; Throughout this century it has led the struggle for an independent Armenian state comprised of Armenian territory from the former Soviet Union and Turkey, but it has never asserted claims to the small portion of historical Armenia that is under Persian rule.. If anyone could shed some light on this, that would be really appreciated. Bests and thanks in advance - LouisAragon (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of any reason other than the fact that Iran has been very friendly to Armenians from late Qajar rule until the present.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because the "United Armenia" concept is a fraud, it does not exist in a meaningful form or goal and never has. Much of this article is just regurgitated Turkish or Azeri propaganda that has taken up the fantasies of a few self-delusional Armenians, run with it, and inflated it into an alleged national goal of Armenia and all Armenians everywhere and a territorial threat to all of Armenia's "peaceful" neighbours. Iran has had no part in producing such propaganda, and has no stake in making the aims of the propaganda successful, so that is why none of it has a mention of Iran. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution about "United and Free Armenia" was approved on the first anniversary of the independence of the first Republic of Armenia (May 28, 1919) in a joint session of the government and the Parliament. It spoke of the union of Eastern and Western Armenia. The Treaty of Sevres (1920) became the legal basis for that union. Neither the resolution of 1919 nor the Treaty of Sevres make any mention of the territories of Iran. The "United Armenia" issue after 1920 is essentially based on the territory established by the Treaty of Sevres. Armen Ohanian (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for all your valuable comments. I appreciate it. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the Treaty of Sevres mentions nothing about a "United and Free Armenia", nor anything about the territories supposedly claimed by the United Armenia concept ( Nagorno-Karabakh, Javakhk and Nakhichevan). The treaty required Turkey (i.e., the Ottoman Empire) to recognize Armenia as an independent country whose western border corresponded to the pre WW1 border, and to accept whatever a future commission would decide the western border of that country should be. Turkish propaganda, as part of the "War of Independence" mythology, claims that the Sevres Treaty actually established an Armenian state on Turkish territory as part of a dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, but it did no such thing (I only recently deleted that lie from another article). The 1920 Turkish invasion of Armenia was designed to preempt any decision on that western border from becoming practical or enforceable, which is why many historians consider that invasion to be a continuation of the Armenian Genocide. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Armenia. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica Armenia Genocide estimate[edit]

From this source "Conservative estimates have calculated that some 600,000 to more than 1,000,000 Armenians were slaughtered or died on the marches." This is used to justify a low range estimate of 600,000 for the Armenian Genocide. However the source is talking of just the marches, and the Genocide had deaths other than the marches. Hence it is not appropriate to use 600,00 as a low range estimate for the Genocide, when it is only a low range estimate of the marches of the Genocide, excluding other sources of deaths such as the burning and drownings of Armenians Maidyouneed (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extend of United Armenia[edit]

Do Armenian nationalists also claim the lands that belonged to or were supposed to belong to the Georgian Democratic Republic that are now Turkish? I'm saying this due to the map used in the lead. Super Ψ Dro 22:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Armenia&oldid=1212205975"