Talk:Armenian highlands

message: also if anyone can help me understand if Armenian Plateau is fertile PLEASE tell me and you will be greatly appreciated, email me at looneytoons@prairiestyles.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.168.181 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 October 2006.
This article needs minor editorial clean up to reduce advocacy and bring it in conformance with the Neutral Point of View policy. Gregkar 18:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (moved from article) 

message: No references, blanket statements of political character, mentions of "official thefts", statements like "Armenia has helped build many popular cities even today", funny that Republic of Armenia was founded recently. What city has "Armenia" built? Armenians I could understand, but Armenia? Whether some people like it or not, those lands belonged to the Seljuqs and Ottomans since 1071, both legally and practically; so let's cut down on the political overtones. The present day borders were established by the Treaty of Kars, and some people better accept that and stop irredentist notions, like pan-Armenianism. It doesn't matter if Armenia doesn't accept the Treaty of Kars since Armenia doesn't have such a right: UN maps do not show a "Greater Armenia". Those lands belong to Turkey, and if you don't like it, fine; that's your opinion, but keep them out of Wikipedia please.Baristarim 05:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't there anything else in the history section? The geographical formation has been inhabited by Turks, Kurds, Persians etc for more than a millenia! Pfff.. Good faith, really.. Baristarim 06:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: I have noticed a massive deletion here. I dont know the history of this article, so an unsuspecting person like me may conjecture vandalism. Please double-cleck. Mukadderat 02:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning

message: as the page is protected please add the an iwiki link to the Ukrainian wikipedia: :uk:Вірменське нагір'я  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.33.74 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  uk iwiki 

message: Preferable to discuss before the deletion of significant topics at SeeAlso, all are related to the region. Andranikpasha (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "See also" deletions

message: this map is obviously POV, there are only 3 states in the caucasus, but here 4 states are illustrated (seperatist NKR). So if your going to show seperatist states in the Caucasus, then why just 1 and not all of them? Perhaps becayse this map comes directly from a armenica.org a Armenian Diaspora site. Any person with common sense will agree this is simply POV, this was the reason for the removal of the map, perhaps a standard map of the Caucasus will be a better choice. Baku87 (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the maps altogether, political maps are not suppose to be in geographic articles. Replaced them with satellite image of the Armenian highland. VartanM (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Who are these "some" who believe this to have been the (physical) location of the Biblical "Garden of Eden"? One reference to a Christian Creationist publication is not significant enough to be included in a geographic article. Religious traditions about geography are important, but this particular statement has no basis in any historically established religious tradition before the Biblicallly-inspired geographic speculations of the 19th century. The Bible, which is the source text for the story of the Garden of Eden, does not associate it with any particular geographic area at all and certainly not this region.
References to Young Earth Biblical Creationism have no place in scientific articles about geography and geology.
 • Archæogenetics  TALK  20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the spurious "Garden of Eden" reference 

message: Treaty of Sevres is from 1920, not 1923, and it does not grant Turkey sovereignty over Eastern Anatolia/Armenian Plateau. Therefore it would have been impossible for the Turkish government to change anything in the region had the issue had anything with the Treaty of Sevres. So the intention probably was to refer to the treaty of Lausanne.
In addition, although it is quite true that the place names originating in Armenian and other languages have been and still being changed by the Turkish government, the name "Armenian Plateau" itself being used by the Turkish government before 1923 is highly doubtful. But I am having trouble understanding why there is even the mention of this issue in this article, because:
1) It appears to be region containing at least parts of modern day Armenia, so what turks call the part in their country does not apply to the whole region. 
2) Therefore, nobody bothered to give the Turkish expression for the region at the start of the article to start with. So why something you did not care about at the beginning became relevant at the end?
3) It is a universal name expressed in English. Who cares if the turkish government desperately avoids it?
It may be important to mention how political cimates affect the geographical thinking but this one really looks like a very out of place shot at the turkish government.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.42.76 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The treaty is unimportant except in the sense that it confirmed Turkish control of the region and thus gave Turkey the right to call the region whatever it wanted. It would be more appropriate to explain why the phrase "Armenian plateau" became unacceptable for use within Turkey, resulting in the coining of the "Eastern Anatolian Region" phrase - a phrase that then gradually became adopted by non-Turkish sources resulting in the abandonment of the older "Armenian plateau/Armenian Highlands" terminology. I don't know what terminology the Ottoman empire used for its easternmost regions. But the Ottoman empire was not particularly interested in the study of geology or geography in itsremote provinces, so most sources and most researchers from that period and will have been foreign and they called the region the Armenian plateau.  Meowy 16:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS? (Incidentally, I only put in the treaty in an attempt to provide some sort of time context, not because I thought the treaty itself was important.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So Hovannisian, the cited source, does not mention the treaty? I think it would be best to call a spade a spade and just say something like "in the aftermath of the Armenian genocide". There have been a fairly large number of articles on the Turkish policy of eliminating names or concepts seen (by Turkey) to have had an Armenian connection, but I don't know if any have specifically mentioned the coining of the "Eastern Anatolia" term as a way of removing the previously accepted "Armenian plateau" term (though that obviously was the reason why it was done). Meowy 15:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated above, he mentions both treaties. The cited page makes no mention of the genocide. From memory it goes something like 'treaties' … 'renaming' … 'something else happening between the two world wars'. If you can't find a WP:RS, there's nothing really we can do about it. In any case, the renaming issue is peripheral, wandering into WP:COATRACK, for this topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is peripheral to mention why the phrases "Armenian Highland" and "Armenian Plateau" have become non-standard and somewhat old-fashioned terms, and why they have been replaced by "Eastern Anatolia". If the source says "Attempts to eliminate the memory of Armenia included change of the geographic expression 'Armenian plateau' to 'Eastern Anatolia" then there is a source making an explicit link between the expression and Turkey's policy to eliminate things seen by Turkey to have some sort of Armenia connection. Those other articles that I mentioned which deal with that policy also mention the Armenian Genocide. Meowy 17:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: This map is a political map while the article is about geography also note how the map highlights Nagorno-Karabakh as the same colour as Armenia and other seperatist regions are exluded (South Ossetia and Abkhazia), it seemed obvious to replace that map with a geographical map of the area. Neftchi (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a geographical map in the article. I agree that there must be a geographical map, but maps are there to illustrate the text - so I don't see why there should not be a political map as well as a geographical map in the article. It doesn't have to be that particular map, and perhaps it should be cropped to show exactly the same area as the geographical map. And the geographical map should come first, at the top of the page. Meowy 20:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The political map definitely helps place the region. Geography and political boundaries are related and useful to juxtapose one with the other... Adding it back. Serouj (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You ignored my comment above as I stated that the political map highlights Nagorno-Karabakh the same colour as Armenia and other seperatist regions are exluded (South Ossetia and Abkhazia), so as this is not a neutral political map, I removed this map, if you can find a neutral map of the Armenian Highland you can use it. Neftchi (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That minor point is a rather insufficient ground to delete the map, don't you think?  Besides, neither South Ossetia nor Abkhazia are in the Armenian Highland. Serouj (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not a minor point at all, the map is wrong and a wrong map cannot be used in a encyclopedia, then again what can one expect off a map from armenica.org, a nationalist site. Again I removed it and I ask you to stop your revertings. Neftchi (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the political map does not belong here. Grandmaster 09:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

text: First explain what part of it is "wrong" and then we can take it out if you have any grounds.  The fact that NKR is singled out as a different color and is not shown as part of AZ is not sufficient grounds as this isn't a factual error.  Not showing Abkhazia and Ossetia in their own color is irrelevant to this article, as those regions are not part of the Armenian Highland. Reverting for lack of grounds. Serouj (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says the Armenian highland is a geographical, and not a political concept, therefore political maps are not appropriate here, especially the ones that are not accurate and neutral. Grandmaster 11:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all NK is given the same colour as Armenia giving the illusion that NK is part of Armenia, second this colouring of NK doesnt even reflect the real situation as the 7 regions around NK are occupied aswell by Armenia and yet they are not reflected in this map. Also other seperatist regions as South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not reflected in this map at all. This map is highly incorrect and cannot be used in this map. If you wish you can find a better political map which reflects a neutral position. Neftchi (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said before, the fact that SO and ABZ are not shown as separatist is a TANGENTIAL point to the article!  NKR is CLEARLY labeled as such, and if it were the same as Armenia, then there would be an ARROW that connects them.  It is not "HIGHLY" innacurate as you say, and there is really no grounds to remove it.  The map gives the user an idea of where the Armenian Highland is in the context of current political borders. Serouj (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a political map that shows all the borders correctly you are welcome to use it but the map you are presenting is wrong. You say this map has a small mistake and I say its a big mistake but it doesnt matter, a mistake is a mistake and such a map cannot be used in a encyclopedia. Neftchi (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We also have to consider the plight of the population of Azerbaijan. They have a medical condition that's rather like a severe nut allergy. At the sight of a map showing the borders of Nagorno Karabakh their necks start to swell up, then they begin to involuntarily jump up and down as if possessed, arms swinging about wildly. If the situation is not quickly relieved by removing the map, their heads will quite literally explode! Many medical papers have been written about this unfortunate condition, but a yet no definitive cure has been found. The ingestion of a very large dose of democracy is known to alleviate the symptoms, but this is something the afflicted are reluctant to undergo because of cultural reasons. But seriously - illustrations in Wikipedia articles are there in order to illustrate or explain points made in the text. In this article, there already exists text explaining where the Armenian Highland is located in relation to modern political units. A political map would illustrate that text, so it is justified to have a map showing the borders of those political units. Trivial phobias about showing the borders of Nagorno Karabagh have no place in this discussion. Meowy 21:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to read what I said to Serouj, the political map is wrong, if you can find a correct one and add it to this article. I also want to point out to your use of language, which is very offensive to say the least. Neftchi (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote is that the geographic map should be the one in the infobox, but the arguments for the removal of the political one are very weak. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is in the business of providing information. The political map provides information on which countries occupy the said geographic region. So it is very informative to provide that information. Lida Vorig (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Neftchi, sorry but you've got no basis to remove the map. The map isn't "wrong".  It's just inconsitent with the NKR separatist state being shown and not the other separatist states in Abkhazia and Adjaria.   There is a difference between "wrong" and "inconsistent."  If you can't see the difference, then what can I say?  See the difference!  Furthermore, it's inconsistent in a region that isn't even the subject of this article. Serouj (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First please lets talk civil and reach a consensus beforing adding the map back on, this kind of add-and-remove doesnt help our discussions and Im pointing out to Sardur for re-adding the map without talking. Now the occupation over NK isnt even portrayed correctly, note that the regions surrounding NK are also under occupation but not shown in the given map, thus meaning the map does not show the real situation as you would suggest, it only shows fictional political borders that do not excist. If this is supposed to be a political map of the Armenian Highland then would it not be obvious to show at least the correct borders. This map doesnt show the official borders of Azerbaijan and Armenia nor does it show the realistical borders (occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and regions surrounding it). By saying the map is inconsistent you would be challenging the official maps of both Azerbaijan and Armenia. I suggest we stick to the official maps of both the countries, tell me is it really such a difficulty to find a correct political map of the Armenian Highland. Neftchi (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Neftchi, the current map of the NKR need to be shown, instead of the non-existent NKAO. Lida Vorig (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lida Vorig you are under , it would be best if you actually readed this entire section about the political map before making random comments, which are damaging to the discussions. Neftchi (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing restrictions apply to discussion pages as well? Thanks Neftchi, but my understanding is that so are you and most of the editors here... I did get my feet wet by reading the arbitration files when I was first notified about their existence. Lida Vorig (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political map 

message: I am currently using WP:CITESHORT as the citation format for the referencing. I would however be willing to accept any other recognised WP:CITE#Citation styles. I am unwilling to accept the style that Serouj is proposing as I've yet to see any standard style that generates results like this: "Hewsen, pp. 1-2 Hewsen 1997". The  template was meant to be used for a number or letter (see the template documentation for examples), as a precursor to the  &  markup. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: Yes, this region is clearly called "Armenia" by not only Robert Hewsen in the cited text, but also by countless ENGLISH sources pre-dating the Armenian Genocide WHILE the territory was under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Empire. For example, even H.F.B. Lynch (a Brit who travelled the area extensively in 1893-1895) refers to the area as "Armenia" -- indeed, the title of his book is "Armenia, travels and studies." Serouj (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On top, if I remember correctly, that was the name of the Ottoman province before the division in vilayets. Sardur (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenia 

message: Why are Armenians uncomfortable with it? Nobody is disputing name of Armenia. And why doesnt anybody try to change name of Ağrı(Eri, leading tribe of Urartu, Yerevan also has the same root), which is older than both nations by centuries. Stop fooling yourselves and trying to increase your importance superficially, nobody cares Armenia in Turkey, safe for some ultra nationalists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.101.159 (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Anatolia is an older name

message: Firstly, can anyone add the transliterations for the Armenian and Russian names of the Armenian Highland?  Secondly, if we are giving the names in those two languages, we should also be stating the names in Azerbaijani, Georgian, Farsi and Turkish, with transliterations where appropriate, as the Infobox shows the area extending into those countries.  Probably, Kurdish as well.  Can anyone add these?  Skinsmoke (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The subsection "Name" really needs retitling.  This section refers purely to the modern Turkish practice of referring to the area as "Eastern Anatolia".  It is not written in a neutral point of view, as is required by Wikipedia, although it is cited.  What name did the Turks use prior to the founding of the modern Turkish Republic?  Do they really use the English term Eastern Anatolia, or is this a translation of a Turkish name?  If George J. Andreopoulos claims that the use of Eastern Anatolia was purely to "shroud the Armenian heritage of its eastern lands following the Armenian Genocide", this should be attributed as his personal opinion, not as fact.  Are there any contrary views?  If so, they should be stated.  Until these issues are addressed, the section will always appear as blatent propaganda and point of view pushing, and would be better removed from the article.  Skinsmoke (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds pretty good to me.  It is what it is. There is no need to apologize on behalf of the Turkish government.  We can speak the way it is. Serouj (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is talking about apologising on behalf of the Turkish government.  What I am demanding is that the article should be neutral, and not push a particular point of view.  That is, it should comply with the basic tenets of Wikipedia.  If it fails to abide by those tenets, then it has no place in Wikipedia.  Skinsmoke (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Turkish "Ermenistan Yaylası" or "Ermeni Yaylası" or "Ermenistan Platosu" or "Ermeni Platosu". Today we can scarcely see these name. Takabeg (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doğu Anadolu Yaylası and Doğu Anadolu Platosu are also used. But Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi isn't equal to Doğu Anadolu Yaylası (Platosu). Takabeg (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What was it called on Ottoman-produced maps, I wonder? However, we need to remember that this article is about a phrase that was used to define a geographical and geological region, so the name would not have been coined by either Turks or Armenians (or any of the other nationalities that skinsmoke seems to want included), but by European, probably British, geologists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: But was "Ermenistan" being used in the same way as "Armenia Highland" is - as a geographical term? After all, "Armenian Highland" does not mean ""Land of the Armenians".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Yes, the name is changed and the source states that. But, the Eastern Anatolian region have places which are not part of Armenian highlands (like Hakkari), and Armenian highlands have places which are not part of the Eastern Anatolian region (like Republic of Armenia). Can you change the sentence a little to reflect this? Kavas (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a separate article about Turkey's "Eastern Anatolian Region". It is of course country specific and has hard borders, unlike the Armenian highlands. For the same reason, te vague and loosely-used phrase "Eastern Anatolia" isn't really the same as "Eastern Anatolian Region" either (as tatabeg pointed out earlier "Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi isn't equal to Doğu Anadolu Yaylası"). I'd assume Hakkari, or at the very least the northern parts of it, would be geographically part of the Armenian Highlands.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change

message: I've requested for semi-protection of this page, due to continuing vandalizing. Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi protection

message: Historically and by all international laws the territory of Karabakh is sovereign part of Azerbaijan Republic, so the link to so-called "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" must be removed from this article, as it is not a subject of international law, rather a separatist puppet entity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inafreeworld (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree NKR is not compatible with the other countries in the list. It is not an independent country and therefore its very misleading. Neftchi (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Totally agree, so called NRK can not be listed as an independent country. Best, Konullu (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The so-called "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" 

message: The first photo apparently shows that it was taken from nearby north-west of Ararat mount (High one is located at north of low), instead of from Turkey-Iran border indicated at the name (The Armenian Mountain Range near the Turkey-Iran border). (Asif Qasımov (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On google books, we can find 1,250 results ("Armenian Highland" -Llc) Takabeg (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, your reply does not relate to my note (Asif Qasımov (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. I understand. You added "of picture" later. Takabeg (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubtful naming of picture

message: The description of the borders (or whatever you call it) should, I think, be consistent with the introductory paragraph of History_of_Anatolia. Two should be synchronized in any way to reflect the same description. --Stultiwikiatext me 19:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency on description of borders 

message: I have added the Turkish name of the area, "Şark Yaylası" (Eastern Plateau) to the entry of the article, as follows:
Gürsoy, Cevad R. "Türkiye'nin Coğrafi Taksimatında yapılması İcabeden Bazı Tashihler (Mit deutscher Zusammenfassung)" Ankara University Language, History and Geography Faculty Magazine; Ankara. Issue: 1/1961, pp.219-239);
This is a correct citation. Armenian Highland is called "Şark Yaylası" in Turkish. Most of this geographical area and population of the area lies in modern day Turkey, so Turkish name should be mentioned in the entry text. "Eastern Plateau, Eastern Anatolia or Eastern Asia Minor" names are hence not errorneous, they are currently used in many resources to denote the area. Anatolia's eastern boundary is not perfectly defined, but Turke-Armenia-Georgia-Iran border is used most of the time. Eastern Anatolia should not be confused with Eastern Anatolia Region, which is one of the seven geographical regions of Turkey and composes most of the Armenian highland except modern day Armenia's lands. I am reverting back to my text, please do not revert unless you have sources telling us otherwise. Khutuck (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Şark Yaylası is not equal to Armenian Highland. Şark Yaylası was one of the regions of Turkey and didn't include the outside of Turkey. Şark Yaylası = present-day Eastern Anatolia Region + Southeastern Anatolia Region + α (Ali Yiğit, "Geçmişten Günümüze Türkiye'yi Bölgelere Ayıran Çalışmalar ve Yapılması Gerekenler", Ankara Üniversitesi Türkiye Coğrafyası Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi, IV. Ulural Coğrafya Sempozyumu, "Avrupa Birliği Sürecindeki Türkiye'de Bölgesel Farklılıklar", pp. 34-35., Hande Özkan, "Türkiye' de tek parti dönemi coğrafya ve mekân anlayışları: Yatay bir dönemlendirme denemesi", Toplum ve Bilim, Sayı 94, Autumn, 2002,  p. 168.) . -- Takabeg (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I cannot find the term Şark Yaylası in Gürsoy, Cevad R, "Türkiye'nin Coğrafi Taksimatında yapılması İcabeden Bazı Tashihler (Mit deutscher Zusammenfassung)" that you added persistently. Please show us in which page we can find Şark Yaylası ? -- Takabeg (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 229. --Khutuck (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Line ? -- Takabeg (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

text: this article is also considerably old. Whay you added again ? -- Takabeg (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Maybe link is not working. You can read here "Güneye doğru Küçük Kafkas dağları ve yüksek Ermenistan Platosu başlar. Bu plato topografik açıdan Doğu Anadolu yüksek yaylası ve İran Azerbaycanı ile birlikte bir bütün meydana getirir." 
-- Takabeg (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you read my previous comment? Turkey has seven regions right now. Please look Kitap 2. At kitap 2, Turkey has seven regions. OK? pic Look this picture from Kitap 2. I will continue with Turkish. Sorry. Resimde görüldüğü üzere,zaten kitaptan alınma bir resim, 1941'den önce herkes bir görüş bildirmiş ve en sonunda 1941 yılında Coğrafya Konseyi bu önerileri dikkate alarak öneri olan Şark Yaylası isimli bölümü değiştirmiş. Yeni ismi ve halen ismi Doğu Anadolu Bölgesidir. --Goktr001 (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Karıştırmışım galiba. Üzgünüm. --Goktr001 (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  O zaman kendi değişikliğinizi geri alırsanız iyi olur. -- Takabeg (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish Names 

message: Kouymjian's article is provided as the source for "erroneously referred to as "Eastern Plateau", "Eastern Anatolia" or "Eastern Asia Minor". But I couldn't find in p. 1.. Takabeg (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Merhaba Takabeg. Kouymjian uses the word "misleadingly" in the second paragraph from that page. The word "erroneously" may have been substituted as a synonym for misleadingly since it conveys nearly the same meaning. For the record, I have never heard the word "Eastern Plateau" be used as a proper noun to refer to the Armenian Highlands, so its removal might be necessary.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Merci. "misleadingly referred to as eastern Anatolia or eastern Asia Minor". Takabeg (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: First of all, let's remove "Eastern Plateau" from this sentence. Takabeg (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Kouymjian

message: I don't find any sources that prove the Armenian Highland involves Iraq and Syria. Takabeg (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point, unless there are new sources which can proof that the Armenian highland includes territories from modern Iraq and Syria, these countries should be removed from the list. I also want to point out that NKR doesnt belong in the list of countries. We all know its only de-facto independent, while all the countries in the list are full independent states and members of the UN. By including NKR it creates the illusion that this is just as independent as the other mentioned countries, while its obviously not. Therefore I suggest to remove NKR as this could be considered a provocation. Neftchi (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He might be referring to the territory of Greater Armenia during the medieval period, although Mesopotamia was a separate geographical entity. The most well-known cities which girdled the southern and south eastern extremities of the Armenian Highland were Amid/Diyarbekir, Bitlis, Mayyafariqin (Np'rkert), Mokk' and Zarehavan. I don't think that statement is supportable. For the NKR, we can just use a slash - for example, "Azerbaijan/NKR". I don't think that suggests anything untoward for the reader. There's no rule that the infobox should only list the names of countries which have full or partial recognition.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research ?

message: *"South Caucasian highland" -Llc 0
Takabeg (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The South Caucasus Highland is called Transcaucasia. What is your point and suggestion? Neftchi (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldn't find this name in reliable sources. Anyway I asked you and Mareşal about Iraq and Syria. Takabeg (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: South Caucasian highland ?

message: where is the objectivity and neutrality? All article is looking like was written by an armenian officer. It is just trying to show armenian heritage with the biggest possible land and the other alternatives eliminate with humiliation(sample:"erroneously referred" ) How can be true referred calling a land with same nation unless they are not majority in there (were not in Ottoman period, many sources says just %30-35) and Where is the Turkic and Kurdi history and perspective in the article? South part of Armenia even Van have been called as Kurdistan or after the Turkish conquest name "Turcomania"   started to use for land of ancient Armenia Major
 
image:Anville, Jean Baptiste Bourguignon. Turkey in Asia. 1794 (H).jpg|kurdistan
image:1730 Seutter Map of Turkey (Ottoman Empire), Persia and Arabia - Geographicus - MagniTurcarum-seutter-1740.jpg|Turcomania
If the term East Anatolia is political name, still using term Armenia which is roman name of area, is that much political. That's why this article should rewrite, according to all sides--Ollios (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Armenian Highland is a term used to describe ancient Armenian settlement in those lands shown, its been mentioned by ancient historians and such, not as much Anatolia since that term came in later. Kurdistan and Anatolia have their own pages to describe what they mean as Armenian Highland is here... its significance is important. Nocturnal781 (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: objectivity?

message: How could it possible? Armenian Highland is a single mountain range with a uniqe mineral resources and chemical composition. It is impossible that the Armenian Highland included a chain of other mountain range, because it is in itself one and indivisible. 91.77.80.111 (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lesser Caucasus in Armenian Highlands? 

message: Soviet Encyclopedia also lists Sabalan and Sahand there. Is it accepted classification? - Altenmann >t 06:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a little weird. I thought Lake Urmia is the south-eastern border of the plateau. --Երևանցի talk  06:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, It looks like Tabriz & Sahand are within the  latitude range of Urmia.  It is bad that in wikipedia maps have no clear delineation of mountain ranges, plateaus, lowlands, etc.- Altenmann >t 07:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  notable peaks 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Armenian Highlands. 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/20090528175656/http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/Regional/EcoNetworks/Documents/2008/TpvsEm11_2008_en.pdf to http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/Regional/EcoNetworks/Documents/2008/TpvsEm11_2008_en.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ... have the Caucasus moved since 1915? Since Armenian highland is also a modern and invented term (mostly used by Europeans) if it is now referring to the Lesser Caucasus that begs the question when was it called the Armenian highland? It would be nice if editors took the time to explain things like this a little more carefully when creating POV forks. This article really should be merged into Transcaucasia.Seraphim System (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that wording is wrong I think. Lesser Caucasus is just a mountain range! Altering it to "is now sometimes referred to as being part of the Southern Caucasus" would make it more accurate. But there is no content in the article that elaborates on this. 92.28.136.76 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Britannica has some discussion of this which can be added. Though the Caucasus have presumably remained in place, Britannica has altered the content since 1910, but I don't think we can expand on the "is now referred to" without it becoming WP:OR...probably better to tweak the wording and leave out the "is now", unless there is a source discussing the change in language in more detail.Seraphim System (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's clear Seraphim didn't even understand the line "Eastern Armenia" is now referred to as "Lesser Caucasus". Who said anything about South Caucasus? Does he not know what "Lesser Caucasus" is? Look on a false colour map. You see that highland region that includes Nakchivan, Armenia, and Artsakh? That's the part. The "Lesser Caucasus" is geographically and geologically part of the Armenian plateau (the eastern slope of the range formed by the East Anatolian Fault with a valley where the Kura River flows (through Tbilisi) from before we reach the actual Caucasus. The separation between the Caucasus Mountains and this so-called "Lesser Caucasus" is so big and natural that we have a huge valley with one of the biggest rivers in the region going through it (Kura River). When it was not called "Armenia," it was called "Anti-Caucasus," meaning "opposite the Caucasus" or "the region on facing against the Caucasus." The only "modern invention" here is the term "Lesser Caucasus," which I'm assuming (with zero evidence, but as a hunch) was a Russian policy to include those territories into a greater concept of "Caucasus." Learn a bit of the geography of the region and its history before commenting so boldly about it (oh wait, you're banned... that makes sense). Also, what's this nonsense about "Armenian Highlands" being a modern Western invention? I can take out a hundreds old maps ranging from the Middle Ages to 1828 that refer to the highlands as "Armenia," including Persian, Arabic and Ottoman sources. Heck, I'll even throw in some texts from antiquity. If it wasn't called Armenia, why in the world would the Ottomans ban the use of the word in 1880 to refer to the region? Get out of here with your agenda-reeking POV. — [ kentronhayastan ] 01:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Caucasus 

message: :The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. There are three guidelines on this:
*WP:NCCAPS says "" 
*MOS:CAPS says "". 
*Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Names of classes) instructs to" ". 
There is insufficient evidence to show that the "h" in highlands is conventionally capitalized; in fact, the ngrams results show that it is usually not capitalized. In the absence of such evidence, guidelines appear to favor not capitalization. In terms of headcount there are 10 supports (including nom) and 8 opposes. (non-admin closure) VR talk 06:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Armenian Highlands →  – Per MOS:CAPS, if there is no consistent capitalization in reliable sources, lowercase should be used. In this case, lowercase is more common according to NGRAMS, Google Scholar indicates mixed usage.  (t · c) buidhe 09:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment below and see if it convinces you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

text: * Apparently, you have found some sources that use uppercase but do you have any evidence for that being "Most of the sources" as you said? The ngrams shown above seem to indicate most using lowercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 October 2021 

message: The lede states: "The population of the region has been primarily Armenian for most of its known history.[5]". However, the given Library of Congress link doesn't support this as far as I can see. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and swapped the content and the Library of Congress link with material from the latest (i.e. third) edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, per WP:BOLD.- Feel free to let me know if you disagree. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed verification?

message: There is some confusion in the article on whether it is about the Armenian highlands as a concrete geographical region or a political-cultural one. For example, Sinclair's EI entry "Armenia (topography)" is used to support the claim "The highlands are primarily defined by the geographical dispersal of its native inhabitants, the Armenians." But here, Sinclair is clearly talking about the term Armenia and its historical usage, in contrast to the broader, geographical understanding indicated in the first sentence of the entry, corresponding to "Armenian highlands": "Armenia, grosso modo, is a high tableland which in general character consists of a series of plains separated by wide mountain or hill ridges. However, it is defined essentially by the geographical spread of its native population." If the article is about the geographical region, then it obviously can't be defined by the geographical spread of the Armenians, which has dramatically changed in the last century. Revolution Saga (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with definition