Talk:Yerevan/Archive 1

message: I tried expanding the article as much as I could, although, as you can see, I mostly just added pictures. Thus, the article has become very picture heavy. I plan to add a (mostly text) section on the Northern Avenue and reconstruction plans. The history section could be expanded and a list of mayors would be nice. Any volunteers? Milou ge 00:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Call for expansion

message: * Why were the panorama photos removed? They were used with permission. Milou ge 04:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: User:Derek.cashman wants to change, and thinks, that all “Sister cities” lists in articles should be converted/changed to “paragraph” form. I don’t want to. Can you imagine a lists of 24 sister cities, like for Yerevan, and trying to read it in paragraph form? Please read my opinion and vote. WikiDon 04:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister Cities: List or Paragraph...??? 

message: I will be changing the panoramic picture of Republic Square in the infobox to a more fitting image of the city. Let me know what you think. Hakob 08:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Infobox Picture 

message: The information on Lycos and the other Western companies mentioned appears dubious.  this does not return any hits for Armenia.
:--Eupator 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outsourcing? 

message: The source (Iranica) says the following:
What's wrong with adding that information? Khoikhoi 05:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, if we state something like: "As a result of Shah Abbas' mass deportation of the native Armenian population...".--Eupator 05:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw, this has come up in the past which of course always results in mentioning the fact that Baku had a 50% Armenian population in the Baku article.--Eupator 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sounds good. I don't see anything wrong with mentioning Baku's Armenian population as well, as long as it's sourced. Khoikhoi 06:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have a neutral and reliable source, stating that the ethnic composition of Erivan was a result of shah Abbas' deportations? As we know, it affected both Muslim and Christian population. Until you provide such a source, we cannot include that statement. As for Baku, it never had 50% Armenian population, and the article about Baku has a special table about demographics, I see no reason why the article on Yerevan should not have such info as well. Grandmaster 05:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics of the city during Persian rule 

message: Eupator. Here is the text for citation: "The success of the 1988 independence movement dealt the city a series of major shocks, first with the forced emigration of a centuries-old Muslim (mostly Azerbaijani Turkish) population".  Look at page 5 of the book (or page 15 of rich text format file). Please respect rules of Wikipedia.--Dacy69 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also continues with: "and its replacement by newly impoverished refugees from Baku. " So we need to say that the much larger Armenian population of Baku was expelled.--Eupator 21:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: While we're at it, I should create an article for Bakvahays, Armenians originally from what is now Baku, Azerbaijan. They also have different customs and traditions from their more western cousins. I hope it can be worked into the Azerbaijan and Baku demographics sections. Thank you. Hakob 03:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expell of Azerbaijani population 

message: Hello.  I just wrote an article on the Yerazi people, who are the Azeris who left Armenia pre-NK.  Is there a way for one of the regular editor/caretakers of this article to work it into the brief reference to the Azerbaijani people living in Yerevan during the Russian times?  Thanks.  --Bobak 23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're at it, I should create an article for Bakvahays, Armenians originally from what is now Baku, Azerbaijan. They also have different customs and traditions from their more western cousins. I hope it can be worked into the Azerbaijan and Baku demographics sections. Thank you. Hakob 03:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yerazis

message: We had such a dispute with regard to Karabakh conflict. It was kind of agreed that control was neutral, and liberation or occupation is POV. While some sources may see the capture of Erivan by the Russian army as liberation, Iranian sources definately don't see it that way. So I think the phrase about liberation of the city should be reworded and replaced with a neutral statement. Grandmaster 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: problems similar to this one have already been extensively discussed on wikipedia (eg.: Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper/Archive 1#Liberate vs. Take). However I think this case is quite simple, if replacing the German National Socialist by the Russian Communist occupation is called "liberation" in articles such as History of Kyiv or Vorša, then it's applicable here, especially as unlike Ukrainians and Belarusians, Armenians view the described event as such. --212.76.33.81 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely, the native population sees it as liberation. The opinion of the occupants is obvious. Also there is a neutral source that describes the event as liberation.--Eupator 22:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This seems like minor dispute.  Brev Eupator. I think many Iranians including Iranians of Armenian background would disagree that the Russians liberated the area.  There is a good amount of Georgian and Armenian refugees from the USSR era that fled to Iran as well. Also Armenians have always played an important role in Iran. Also for liberation to take place, there has to be an occupation.  As far as I know, the caucus historically has been attached to Persia (Media, Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassanid, Safavid, Afsharid, Qajar) era.  So if we are considering the last 2600 years, then about 15-18 centuries the caucus and Iran were attached whereas Russians only had control for about 1-2 centuries.  So the historical legitimacy is much more with Iran than Russia.  I think captured would be better word.  So I think the word liberation would actually be offensive to Armenians of Iran.  Also unlike Iran where Armenians have no problems, in Russia there seems to be a spike unfortunately in attacks against poor Armenians and Azerbaijanis from the caucus.  And of course Turkey the other major power has treated its Armenian population really bad.  But in Iran, Armenians have always been held in high esteem and even if there was some wars during the Sassanid era, it was because the Parthian(Iranian) dynasties adopted christianity and it was a religious difference much like protestanism and catholicism of Britian.  --alidoostzadeh 01:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Comparing Iran today with Safavid Iran. Or any of the other states on the territory of Iran is absurd. The period of Safavid occupation until the end of Qajar occupation was just was worse than the Ottoman occupation in the west. Anyway, this is empty rhetoric. It's sourced so there is nothing to discuss.--Eupator 17:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw Ali, those "Armenians" in Russia often have Azeri, Kurdish, Yezid blood in them or might not be Armenian at all and just have Armenian names...--Eupator 17:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We also have a source (Iranica) that states that Erivan fell to Russians. Why are we not using it? The sources establish facts, and not wordings, which should conform with NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Grandmaster 12:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not neutral. For the same reason we are not using a Russian source. We are using a native source and a totally neutral Western source with no axe to grind.--Eupator 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you guys are trying to say that Bournoutian has anti-Armenian bias? Are you serious? And NPOV should be everyone’s concern here. Grandmaster 11:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said anything about that? He says "Yerevan fell to the Russians". Which it did. The occupation forces defenses must fall for the city to be liberated right?--Eupator 15:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guys I sense a republic of armenia vs republic of azerbaijan overtone on this argument.  Note that is why I reculantly involve myself in this since we are all connected in many ways.  Let us get rid of that sort of rivarly mentality for a second and just think about the issue here.  You can check my wikipedia logs and I am not anti-Armenian and many times actually I have had arguments with people who claim Scythians/Alans/Ossetians..are Turkic and etc.  So with that in mind the caucus has been at the hands of three big powers in history Russia, Iran and Ottoman empire.  Going back to the older Sassanid days, it was a power play between Rome( think Ottoman geographically), Iran and Khazars (think Russia geographically).  Before that it was Parthia and Rome and before that it was Achaemenid and even perhaps Media.  History shows that out of the three geographic players (and forget about religion, ethnicity, language and etc.) Iran has been attached the longest politically to the caucus.  If we are talking about liberation, then that was the case when Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan liberated themselves from the USSR who took possesion of former czarist territory.  That is liberation.  But if one major power takes control of an area of another major power, then I am not sure how it is liberation of the people.  It is just changing power.  Note many Armenians died fighting against Russian/USSR power as well.  Infact from what I have read, Armenians resisted USSR control more than the other two caucus countries.  They were fighting an occupation here and liberated themselves.  But if Russia which is the heir to the USSR captures an area of the caucus from Persia, then the correct term is fell to.  As far as I know they did not give Armenia its freedom and just joined it to the Czarist empire.  So in my opinion the Armenian liberation withdraw from USSR is a true liberation whereas connecting Armenia to the Czarist empire is not a liberation even from the Armenian POV.  If I made any history errors here then please let me know.  --alidoostzadeh 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Most states that existed in Iran are very very different from one another. Apples and oranges, they're both fruits. Khazaria is NOT Russia just like Gaul is not France and the Sassanid Empire is not the Safavid Empire! We Armenians for example have more in common with Parthians that ruled Iran than modern Iranians. PS: You don't have to defend yourself like you did above, I know that you're an objective and neutral user regardless of your ethnic background.--Eupator 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, I meant it from geographical definition.  That is why the Ottoman empire is called Rome in Persian literature although culturally they were not Romans.  Geographics in my opinion plays a big role in projection of power.  That is why the caucus in it's history has never been a super-power.  I think it would be better to say why some christians (or perhaps more than some) saw the Russian grab of caucus as liberation by referring to some sources.  How about this compromise: fell to Russians where many Christians saw it as a liberation?   Also the word liberation does not seem to have as much of a positive meaning anymore after GWB.  --alidoostzadeh 12:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  These events should not be viewed from the point of view of Armenians only. Muslims at the time were 80% of population. NPOV rules require that we assume neutral position. Erivan was taken after the heavy battle, because the local ruler did not want to subject to Russia. Other khanates, such as Karabakh and Kuba, deliberately accepted Russian suzerainty and signed treaties with Russia, but Erivan was not one of them. So please mind NPOV. Grandmaster 12:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares? What the occupants felt is irrelevant. I'm sure many Nazis cried when Allies liberated Poland.--Eupator 13:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can’t call people who lived in the country more than a thousand years occupants. It’s pure racism and chauvinism. Same as your parallels with Nazis. Grandmaster 13:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gm one more degenerate outburst like that and I will report you for personal attacks. Those people did not live "for a thousand years" anywhere. They were brought there by Safavids when Armenians were deported and depopulated form the region where they were always a majority.--Eupator 13:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Muslim people lived in the area since the times of Arab conquest. And you failed to cite any reliable source to support your claims. Please refrain from calling names and keep it to the subject. And the words like "degenerate outburst" deserve a report, which may follow if you continue. Grandmaster 13:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muslim conquerors, temporary conquerors who were kicked out eventually! Two very reliable sources are cited, maybe you should check again before making false claims as usual. You initiated personal attacks, your personal attack was indeed a degenarate outburst.--Eupator 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I asked you to provide sources to support your claim that ethnic composition of Erivan khanate was the result of Shah Abbas resettlement, so far you have not done that. As for your incivil comments, I’ll let somebody else to deal with it. Grandmaster 19:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a source: Transcaucasia, sketches of the nations and races between the Black sea and the Caspian By Baron von Haxthausen, August Franz L.M. Haxthausen. It says that the present inhabitants of the Erivan Khanate succeeded Armenians who were carried away as prisoners. It also says that the tatars and kurds have been brought and settled. All on page 252.--Eupator 19:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Look, like it or not, Yerevan was liberated.  The Armenians living in the area welcomed the incoming Russians as liberators and we have two references supporting the term "liberation."  What more do you want?  In my view this debate is pointless and is only stifiling the development of this article. -- Clevelander 21:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberation or occupation?