Talk:Iğdır

message: Abbatai you're going to need better source to deny the Armenian Genocide. Or in this case to claim that there was a genocide against the turks. In any case, Turkish propaganda sites are not reliable. See WP:RS for more. VartanM (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When I denied Armenian genocide?Saying Armenians also killed Turks isnot denial of Armenian genocide.Actually you are denying mass killing of Turks by Armenians.I will change the word genocide to massascre and revert the section.This page isnot for your anti Turkism propaganda tool.Abbatai (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop acting childish.Does the truth hurts?Thousands of Turks were killed by Armenians in ww1.Abbatai (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. In defense.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: just read some books about history before your claims.Abbatai (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a primary source written by a third party. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All of my Armenian friends in here to spread their anti Turkism propaganda.I just ask a simple question do you deny the fact that Armenians also masaacred Turks?Many historians accept Armenians commited atrocities on Turks.Abbatai (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I'm not Armenian and I'm not "anti Tuk". Your generalizations don't represent a primary source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just answer my question.Dont focus on irrelevant topics.Abbatai (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to rewrite the offending section to be as neutral as possible. Trouble is, there are no neutral sources I know of, and the Turkish ones are completely propagandistic. BTW, there is no museum in the base - the chamber lies completely empty (and actually the whole monument is falling apart). There is also no way it is the highest monument in Turkey (even eastern Turkey - Malazgirt Aniti looks higher http://www.dunyadevletleri.com/fotograf/761736.html), either in its actual height or its altitude. Its symbolism is interesting, but to write about it in detail would be OR. The monument is obviously connected to Turkey's campaing to deny the Armenian Genocide, but I don't know of a source that says that, so I probably also can't add that (no matter how obvious it is). Meowy 21:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I went even furthered and removed the silly sources about Armenians "committing genocides [plural, mind you] against Turkish villages" as it is just a fantasy section that has no place for a serious article. It appears that Abbatai also violated the terms of 3RR and is otherwise aggresively edit-warring.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the ermenisorunu.gen.tr source, it does have a fairly detailed explanation about the symbolism, so I'll extract some of its info and include it in the article. Meowy 00:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL your neturality drives me crazy you deny massacre of Turks delete citations belong to historians and appear as netural.you can delete those events from Wikipedia even from your minds but the truth is there.Sooner (the better)or later the truth will prevail.Thanks for your one sided information to see how some people cannot overcome their prejudice(in this case against Turks).Malazgirt aniti is 42 meter and Igdir Soykırım Aniti is 43,5 meter you need a math 101 course lol.Abbatai (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I've been there on several occasions, latest being 2004, and the rooms under the monument were closed and completely empty, full of dust, debris, and leaking water. Meowy 18:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what you want to see, and it is the highest monument in Turkey if you saw a higher one that cannot be true.Also do you need calculus course I can teach some numbers if you want, as I said before 43,5>42 good luck my friend.Abbatai (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no evidence of a primary source. Just typical nationalistic ranting... --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The bas-reliefs on the "hilt" are not more than 1.5m tall, so the overall height of the hilt can't be more than 5m, and the monument can't be much taller than 30m, 35m tops. Adding an extra 10m for the distance between the floor of the "museum" and the base of the actual monument might make it to 43.5 - but that is not how the height of monuments are measured. Look at the steps leading up to the "hilt" section. There are 5 of them. Steps are never more than 200mm in height, in most cases they are less, so that section is only 1m at most. Extrapolate that up to get an estimate for the overall height of the monument and it is far less than 43.5m. Meowy 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Bear :) I have no time to waste on you.Meowy seems much more open minded than you but actually... anyway.When we regard all the building it is still the tallest.Abbatai (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

text: That's your problem. As is producing a primary source to back your fantasy. It takes a lot more than just some nationalistic-driven website to produce a historiography. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: According to many historians such as Taner Akcam and Guenter Lewy Muslim people were killed in scores in eastern Anatolia near Erzurum, Mus, Karz, Erzincan and Igdir. (I can give the exact citations if you want.) So why are we saying "alleged massacres"? Note that massacre does not mean genocide. I would be the first one to object if someone used genocide there. Also note that this does not mean the denial of Armenian genocide. If everybody agrees I can rewrite the whole first paragraph as follows:
In August 1997, construction started on the "Iğdır Soykırım Anıt-Müzesi" ("Igdir Genocide Monument and Museum"). Turkish authorities erected the monument to commemorate the massacres of Turks and Kurds by Armenians during the First World War. Its construction is seen as a part of Turkey's continuing denial of Armenian Genocide.[7]"
I excluded the quote since it does not provide any new information. Also I couldn't find quote [7], can someone point out where I can find it? 68.48.22.83 (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorial Section 

message: In here it says:
Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages.
Azerbaijanis make more than half of the population of Igdir according to this: Population policy in Turkey, Erhard Franz,page 293--Abbatai 20:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The name has to be significant to the people living in the respective location. Using your logic, we might as well add the Armenian spelling to the Glendale, CA article on account that over one third of its population is Armenian. The same illogical argument might as well be applied to other ethnic groups living in cities like New York City or Chicago, which once and still have significant minority populations. This topic resembles the discussion which took place on the Talk:Kars, Turkey page several years ago. The presence of a single group isn't an adequate justification. Can you please provide some sources which attest to a historical Azeri presence in Igdir? Even the name "Surmalu", which isn't any different than the Turkish pronounciation and transcription of the name, is a Turkic corruption of the Armenian name "Surb Mary" or "Holy Mary".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add Armanian name of Glendale, CA to its article if there is. Plus I am talking about name not spelling.--Abbatai 11:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that adding the Armenian name to Glendale is as pointless and unnecessary an activity as adding that of the Azerbaijani to this article. Without any solid reason to why that name is important or relevant here (and not simply the fact that some members of a given ethnicity reside in the city), it cannot be be added back.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is there no Turkish spelling? The city is populated by ethnic Azeris and Turks and its part of Turkey and yet no spelling of either of those elements. For this reason I added both Turkish and Azeri spelling. Neftchi (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azerbaijani name 

message: According to a map in Türk İstiklâl Harbi III ncü Cilt: Doğu Cephesi (1919 - 1921), Genelkurmay Askerî Tarih ve Stratejik Etüt Başkanlığı Yayınları, Genelkurmay Basım Evi, Ankara, 1995, , p .342., Iğdır was in the border of Ermenistan Cumhuriyeti. When had Turkey controlled Iğdır before then ? Takabeg (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was under Ottoman occupation from the spring of 1918 until the signing of armistice at Mudros in October of that year...--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that overrun means occupy, but I understand that this word is not down on NPOV. Therefore, I reverted my edit. Ottomans ruled there between 1514-1746 and Erevan Khanate ruled there until 1828. Khanate of Erevan rulers were Turkic origin and Armenians formed about less than 20% in this khanate. Similarly, when Iğdır was ruled by Russian Empire between 1828–1917, Muslims consisted of majority. In 1918-1920 because of Sevres Treaty, Armenians attacked to Iğdır and they forced to move Muslims in order to have the majority. K. Karabekir and his army take took Iğdır back. I accept that the notion of "recapture" is wrong to explain this historical facts. Armenians have never had the majority in Iğdır. They had to move after the Treaty of Kars but They have just fight with Muslims. Ottomans ruled there, it is wrong to regard as occupation. Karabekir captured this area that has the majortiy of Muslims. It is a fact that Armenians have never had the majority in Eastern Anatolia, whereas they are important for Anatolian culture due to their priceless contributes...--Sabri76'message   20:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  Hmm. My question on Iğdır is not related with :WP:NPOV. I'm interested in historically situations of Iğdır. Did the Ottoman Empire simply (militarily) occupied Iğdır or annexed it ? And if you don't want to use occupy, you can use other words. The term "Liberation" is oppose to neutral point of view. I think occupation, annexation etc. are normal and neutral terms, but I witnessed that these terms are considered as negative termes by considerable number of users. For example, in the article related with Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus this inclination of users is clear. The question is not "occupation or not", but "re-occupation or not", "re-capture or not". Anyway I think the sentence: "to eliminate the republic and overran Igdir" is incorrect. The Turkish offensive toward Iğdır was ordered on October 18, 1920 (Doğu Cephesi, p. 220.), but Turkish forces couldn't take Iğdır (Ermenilerin Iğdır kasabası etrafında kuvvetli direnmeleri yüzünden burası da elde edilmedi, Doğu Cephesi, p. 221.). Then the Turkish offensive toward Şahtahtı was oredered on November 2, 1920. One of the aims of the Şahtahtı offensive was the occupation of Iğdır (Doğu Cephesi, p. 221). Şahtahtı was taken by Turkish forces on November 8. But Iğdır was not taken. Armenian forces abandoned Iğdır, burned down Markara Bridge and retreated to the north bank of the Aras on November 13, 1920. After this retreat, the Turkish forces occupied Iğdır. (Doğu Cephesi, p. 230.) Takabeg (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Capture or Re-capture

message: Were the objectives of the war, to eliminate the republic and overran Igdir ? Which sources this author (Hovanissian) referred to ?  Takabeg (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the terms of the Alexandropol Treaty you will see that the Kemalists wanted to reduce Armenia to rump stated centered in Yerevan and, in effect, keep it on a short leash. They stirred insurrections in the Nakhichevan/Syunik regions, countenanced the Georgian move to annex Lori in the north and permitted the Soviet invasion from the east, and held final say over the most important decisions that are entitled to independent countries (foreign policy, army size). If the word eliminate is objectionable, then perhaps the more correct word might be neutralize...--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectives of the war

message: Do you know the precise date that the Armenian forces took Igdir after the Armistice of Mudros. ? Takabeg (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mudros

message: According to WP:NCGN regulation Turkish and Azerbaijani names must be added in the lead. WP:NCGN reads: "The lead: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages". Ethnic Azerbaijanis and Turks form the majority of the population in the city, therefore it is relevant to add both their names. I did so accordingly. Neftchi (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Marshall in his recent edit  failed to answer my arguments and changed without any consensus. For his failure to communicate I restored the Azerbaijani name. Neftchi (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think at least, Turkish name is not necessary. About half of the population of Iğdır is ethnic Azeri (other half is Kurd). But they don't use Azerbaijani language of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Anyway we don't have to add the Azerbaijani alternative name, because it is same as Turkish one. Even in Turkish Wikipedia, they don't add Azerbaijani alternative name. And I think Armenian alternative name should be moved down, because there is no significant Armenian population in Iğdır today. Takabeg (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not written entirely the same way. Im sure you noticed the difference in the I and İ. I think its more neutral to include Azerbaijani name especially in case Kurdish and Armenian names are included. This is only a small edit but prevent any kind of misguidance. Neftchi (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  We cannot makes article more neutral with adding irrelevant alternative names. Takabeg (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish and Azerbaijani names 

message: "Middle Ages" in the section lead presumably means the time from Arab conquest c. 650 to renewal of a Persian Empire by the Safavid dynasty (whose capital was Tabriz, in this region, from the start in 1501). 
Was there a treaty with Byzantium that placed or retained the site of Igdir in Persian territory at the time of the conquest? 565 591 600 611-624 624-628. If we lack a known 628 treaty boundary then these maps (linked above, below) suggest to me there may be no fact of the matter, or the fact may be unknown to history, because the site is very close to the boundaries we show on thematic maps Fall of the Sasanian Empire, Muslim conquest of Persia. And "traditional boundaries" in the last two dated maps do not match. Then we should place it generally, such as "at the Byzantine–Sasanian frontier at the time of the Arab conquest of Persia (c. 650)". 650
The Ottoman E gained territory from the Persian E in mid-16th century war, so we must change the wording "In 1555, the town became a part of Safavid Empire." We should convey that the renewed Persian Empire controlled the region early in the 16th century and *retained* Igdir and points to the East in the peace of 1555. --And Iran essentially retained this valley until the 1828 Treaty of Turkmenchay with Russia, despite several victories by Ottoman armies in the region.
--P64 (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources says that Tsolakert was the name this town went by during the medieval period. Whether Byzantium or the Sasanians were in control of it is not relevant. A date is not provided but I am assuming it was mentioned during the seventh century or later. The text states that Iranian control over the town was disrupted during the wars with the Ottoman Empire, and with the exception of the periods mentioned in (1578–1605, 1635–36 and 1722-46) it managed to retain it until the war with the Russians in the nineteenth century. Sounds relatively similar to what you're proposing, I think.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle Ages ... In 1555 ...  

message: Note to self (mostly). A number of mentions of Tsolakert / Zolocerta in an article in REA 1930 p143. Seems the place is mentioned in the Ravenna Cosmography and by Movses Khorenatsi. REA article, however, identifies Tsolakert as Karakale - which is strange given that, as Cholakert, it is mentioned in the Russian excavation report as being on the foothills of Ararat (at Tashburun) and its Soviet Armenian-period author (Hakob Manandian) should have known about that report. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the Tabula Peutingeriana it is Coloceia. There is a "Zotozeta" in the 1860 edition of the Ravenna Cosmography, between Artaxata and Ragauna.  Kiepert places Raugonia in present-day Parnaut, which lies south of the Araxes between Koghb (Kulp/Tuzluca) and Kalzwan (Kaghizman). Markwart places Ragauna more convincingly at Bagawan. See . Manandian, however, by 1946, places Tsolakert not at Tashburun or even Karakale, but near the Zor caravanserai, and instead thinks a place called Paracata in the Tabula Peutingeriana is at Tashburun. What all the sources have in common is that none of their authors ever set foot in these lands, and current politics makes it impossible to retrace the Roman routes in person. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsolakert

message: Armenian spelling is in the etymology section. Despite this, the editors are trying to bring it to the forefront. Armenian is not a language used in Turkey. There is no Armenian population living in Igdir. I did not remove the armenian spelling. Armenian spelling is be situated in etymology section. What is the purpose of the editors ? They do not show a reason.--88.251.63.172 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the reverts is because it appears you are repeatedly removing content for apparently nationalist POV-pushing. If you mean to approach this in good faith wait for discussion before continuing to revert.  18:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right, but Although I open the discussion, they sent a warning message and reverted it.--88.251.63.172 (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Bold, revert, discuss. You went ahead and made a bold edit by removing the name from the lead of the article. Good! This was a correct thing to do. Then another interested editor reverted your change. This is also good! But that's where we should have stopped and waited to finish the discussion. Please wait for that process to move forward before changing it back; to do otherwise is to edit war, and that is highly frowned upon. J♯m (talk | contribs) 20:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

text: It is a well established practice to have native names at the lead, too. El_C 22:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And alternative names too, and historical names. Wikipedia articles do not simply contain content related to the current condition of places, they are there to detail the history of those places too. The deleted lede material  removed the historical name Tsolakert, a name that is found in sources going back to Classical times. There is article content detailing that in the body of the article, so having the name mentioned in the lede is justified. NB, I find the "Iğdıroğlu belonging to a branch of the Oghuz Turks" claim very dubious - and it has a non-RS source.  Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian spelling 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Iğdır. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027073414/http://www.news.az/articles/38287 to http://www.news.az/articles/38287
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Iğdır. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430154754/http://dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=IGDIR to http://www.dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=IGDIR
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505063154/http://www.igdir.bel.tr/eng_index.asp to http://www.igdir.bel.tr/eng_index.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511132220/http://www.igdirhaber.net/ to http://www.igdirhaber.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Response to third opinion request:
I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion