Talk:Armenian highlands

Latest comment: 9 months ago by UserXpetVarpet in topic Relation to Zagros Mountains

(moved from article)Edit

also if anyone can help me understand if Armenian Plateau is fertile PLEASE tell me and you will be greatly appreciated, email me at —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 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)Reply[reply]

Armenian HighlandEdit

Add please if approved. Armenian highland is a mountainous country, a natural fortress that stretches from the eastern West Asia to Anatolia and from the Black Sea to Mesopotamia. The mountain is made up of several coast ranges, buying the Taurus and Pontos which are the two most important. Between these jungle chains there are several high altitude plains, the minority of them situated between 1,000- 2,000 meters over the sea level. In the lakes run some of the major reservoirs in the area, e.g. Araxes, Euphrates and Tigris.


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


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) It seems to have just been some bizarre religious Christian fundamentalist stuff that was removed.Meowy 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uk iwikiEdit

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

"See also" deletionsEdit

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)Reply[reply]


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 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Removed the spurious "Garden of Eden" referenceEdit

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)Reply[reply]


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 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Sorry, I misread the source, although it mentions Sevres, it is actually Lausanne that it dates as 1923.
  2. What the source states is "Attempts to eliminate the memory of Armenia included change of the geographic expression 'Armenian plateau' to 'Eastern Anatolia.'"
  3. I am not saying that this passage makes sense, and would be happy to eliminate it altogether from the article as irrelevant. However, if it is in the article it needs to reflect the source -- which does not say anything like:[1]

In the 1980s, the ministry of education in Turkey ordered that names that could be conceived as reminiscent of pre-Turkic peoples of Anatolia like "Armenian highland" (Armenians) and "Pontic range" (Pontic Greeks) be effaced in atlases in Turkish schools. The official term of the plateau in Turkish usage is "Eastern Anatolian Highland."

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Political mapEdit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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, a nationalist site. Again I removed it and I ask you to stop your revertings. Neftchi (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, the political map does not belong here. Grandmaster 09:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Yes Armenian Highland is geographical article but it can also show the geopolitical situation of geographic region and that's the reason why NKR has the same color as Armenia. En-9mm (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Citation styleEdit

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 {{note}} template was meant to be used for a number or letter (see the template documentation for examples), as a precursor to the <ref></ref> & {{Reflist}} markup. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Anatolia is an older nameEdit

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 (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maps produced during the Ottoman period called it "Ermenistan" - "Armenia". Eastern Anatolia is a relatively new designation.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has to have had at least two connotations: one signifying the lands where Armenians resided, and the other to designate the geographical entity known as Armenia. These maps were produced well after the Armenian Plateau had been absorbed within the borders of the Ottoman Empire (sixteenth century and after).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name changeEdit

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)Reply[reply]

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 (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi protectionEdit

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

The so-called "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic"Edit

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 (talkcontribs) 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
Totally agree, so called NRK can not be listed as an independent country. Best, Konullu (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubtful naming of pictureEdit

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))Reply[reply]

On google books, we can find 1,250 results ("Armenian Highland" -Llc) Takabeg (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, your reply does not relate to my note (Asif Qasımov (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Hmm. I understand. You added "of picture" later. Takabeg (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inconsistency on description of bordersEdit

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)Reply[reply]

Turkish NamesEdit

I have added the Turkish name of the area, "Şark Yaylası" (Eastern Plateau) to the entry of the article, as follows:

Turkish: Şark Yaylası[1];

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Page 229. --Khutuck (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Line ? -- Takabeg (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turkish name of Armenistan Highland are:

"Elburz dağlarının güneyden gelen dağlarla birleştiği yere Ermenistan yaylası denir" (Hürriyet Ansiklopedik Yıllığı, Hürriyet,Istanbul, 1974, p. 323.)

"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." (Aynur Özfırat, Doğu Anadolu Yayla Kültürleri: M.Ö. II. binyıl, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2001, p. 13.)

-- Takabeg (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • altı farklı (1. kitap)bölge - number five ps: TR: bölge EN:region and 2.kitap another book. I will continue with Turkish. Sorry for this. Konya ovası'nın yeri tarif edilmiş 2. kitapta. Gördüğünüz üzere şimdiki doğu anadolu bölgesine şark bölgesi denmiştir. eğer denmemişse Türkiye'nin bilim konseyi ile sonradan tekrar değiştirdiği şark yaylası ismini ve doğu anadolu bölgesini inkar etmiş olursunuz. bu tamamen ve tamamen açıktır. böyle başıboş tabirleri hiç ama hiç hoş karşılamıyorum. ve yukarıda takabeg adlı kullanıcının verdiği linklerden 1 bu kitabın yayın tarihi benim verdiğim 2. kitapta bulunan kitaptan oldukça eski bir tarihte yayınlanmıştır. geçerliliği ne kadar etkileyeceğini bilemeyeceğim.
this article is also considerably old. Whay you added again ? -- Takabeg (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

son olarak bozuk bir kaynak linki

bu bağlantıda aldığım sonuç: Your search - "Güneye doğru Küçük Kafkas dağları ve yüksek Ermenistan Platosu başlar. Bu plato to- pografik açıdan Doğu Anadolu yüksek yaylası ve İran Azerbaycanı ile birlikte bir bütün meydana getirir. " - did not match any documents.

böyle bir şey yoktur. --Goktr001 (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Şark Yaylası is equal to present-day Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi + Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi of Turkey, and not include Iranian Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia etc. Şark Yaylası is not alternative name of Armenian Highland. This article explains neither Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi nor Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi. -- Takabeg (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Karıştırmışım galiba. Üzgünüm. --Goktr001 (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O zaman kendi değişikliğinizi geri alırsanız iyi olur. -- Takabeg (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ 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)


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)Reply[reply]

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

As long as I understand (by sources),

also referred to as "Eastern Plateau", "Eastern Anatolia" or "Eastern Asia Minor" is wrong, because Eastern Plateau (Şark Yaylası) is only a part of the Armenian Highland and the Eastern Anatolia (Doğu Anadolu) is only a part of the Eastern Plateau.


erroneously referred to as "Eastern Plateau", "Eastern Anatolia" or "Eastern Asia Minor" is close to reality. But I couldn't find sources. Takabeg (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, let's remove "Eastern Plateau" from this sentence. Takabeg (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original research ?Edit

Where is Armenian Highland ? Where is Iraq ? Where is Syria ?

I don't find any sources that prove the Armenian Highland involves Iraq and Syria. Takabeg (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Note: Mayyafargin (Silvan), Mokk' (south of Lake Van), Zarehavan (near Urmia). Takabeg (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cyprus article does not contain TRNC or its flag in the infobox. According to some heavily interested users, the reason for that is it is not a recognized state. Filanca (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done. But I didn't touch the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. My ideal is to change Cyprus to Republic of Cyprus, to create the article Cyprus (island) and to rename it into Cyprus like in more neutral Wikipedias. Takabeg (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

South Caucasian highland ?Edit

Takabeg (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The South Caucasus Highland is called Transcaucasia. What is your point and suggestion? Neftchi (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


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" [2] [3] started to use for land of ancient Armenia Major

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

"Political aspect"Edit

"The term "Eastern Anatolia" is designated for the region and is mainly used for statistical and administrative purposes, while geographic expression Armenian plateau is continued to be used in contemporary Turkish sources."

This is plain wrong. "Eastern Anatolia" has zero administrative relevance in Turkey. It's an essentially geographical term that ignore the borders of actual administrative divisions (provinces) in Turkey. Here's a map showing geographical regions of Turkey: External Link. For comparison, this is the map of provinces: External Link. --Mttll (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for Eastern Anatolia being an "erroneous" way to refer to this region, there's a method to compare the prominence of some names:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL

It's not some Wikipedia editors' bussiness to correct the "errors" of the world. --Mttll (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is such a thing as the Eastern Anatolia Region, which is an official geographic subdivision used by the Turkish government. In that respect, that sentence is not inaccurate.
And the mere fact that the word is used nowadays, by scholars and laymen alike, does not negate the notion that it is a misnomer. The words "Eastern Anatolia" were introduced by Turkey in the early 20th century as a substitute for the long-standing and commonly applied "Turkish Armenia." The word Anatolia itself denotes the area west of the Euphrates area, since the east embankment is where historical Armenia's western borders were typically delineated from. Regardless of which, we have a scholar, Dickran Kouymjian, a respected author and former Professor at Cal State Fresno University who is making such an assertion. If you have anything that challenges his statement by a third-party author, please introduce it, but please do not repeat the above, as it is nothing but your personal interpretation. And please do not import ongoing debates from other pages, at least not until some sort of consensus is established.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as the term is in common usage, especially by the scientific community, I don't see how Wikipedia can afford undue endorsement for one man who asserts it's a misnomer. As a side note, when modern Eastern Anatolia was referred as Turkish Armenia, a big chunk of Southeastern Europe was referred to as "European Turkey" or "Turkey in Europe". Today, those would be merely synonyms for Eastern Thrace. So, the meaning of terms change over time. Wikipedia may serve as a chronicle of these changes, but not a platform for, let' say, "nostalgic" individuals who like to undo history by themselves. --Mttll (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia does not (i.e., should not) endorse any viewpoint on any article. A word can be misleading or erroneous and still be used by scholars, journalists, writers, etc. (a result of Turkey's own policies to conceal mention of Armenians). However, just because a certain word is in popular usage does not mean that the opinions of scholars are to be excluded. The opinion of a scholar, in this case that of Professor Kouymjian's, can be included so long as relevance and his reliability as a source can be demonstrated (for more information about him, see here). Again, do you have any sources that directly and clearly challenge Kouymjian's assertion?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would I need to have a source that directly challenges that assertion again? That assertion challenges the popular usage of a term by what's considered "reliable sources" by Wikipedia in the first place.
Quote from Wikipedia policies concerning neutral point of view and balance:
"Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
In short, minority views certainly have a place in Wikipedia, but they should be presented as such. They can't be used in an introduction of an article, attempting to casually "correct" the majority view as if it's a mere misconception. --Mttll (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're challenging its place in the article, but the burden remains on you to explain and demonstrate why Kouymjian's opinion is invalid or should be removed. Sorry, but constantly repeating "others use it, too!" is irritating and does nothing to convince me that you may have a point or if Kouymjian's viewpoint is even considered minority. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have to prove the assertion is invalid, as my objection is to the way it was presented:
The Armenian Highland (for names in other languages see below; also known as the Armenian Upland, Armenian plateau, Armenian tableland, simply Armenia; erroneously referred to as "Eastern Anatolia" or "Eastern Asia Minor")
On the other hand, I had already proved it's a minority viewpoint before I said it's a minority viewpoint. "Eastern Anatolia" is found in 117,000 books and 12,200 articles whereas "Armenian Highland", in 4,570 books and 244 articles. --Mttll (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, Mttll, a Google Books search doesn't prove anything and in any case is not really appropriate for this kind of argument. Given this impasse, you can, if you like, ask for a third opinion.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Google Books & Articles searches prove "Eastern Anatolia" is by a large margin the primary name the scientific community use to refer to the region in question. --Mttll (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stand by what I wrote above.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lesser Caucasus in Armenian Highlands?Edit

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. (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested moveEdit

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: Page moved - uncontested (with no votes) after a full listing and a full relist, and the Google books result seems to tally, so looks uncontroversial enough. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Armenian HighlandArmenian HighlandsWP:COMMONNAME Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Երևանցի talk 22:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Google BooksReply[reply]

Comment Per google results, Armenians highlands yields 8,000+ results. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

notable peaksEdit

Soviet Encyclopedia also lists Sabalan and Sahand there. Is it accepted classification? - Altenmann >t 06:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 12 August 2018Edit

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Armenian HighlandsArmenian highlandsMOS:CAPS, use in high-quality modern sources by academic publishers[1][2] as well as notable historical works like Karajian[3] Seraphim System (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Üngör, Ugur Ümit (March 2012). The Making of Modern Turkey: Nation and State in Eastern Anatolia, 1913-1950. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-965522-9.
  2. ^ Diakonoff, I. M. (1991-08-27). Early Antiquity. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-14465-8.
  3. ^ Karajian, Hagop A. (1915). Regional Geology and Mining of Armenia. Nerso Press.
  • Oppose - When searching in google, I can see no sites that use the lowercase version. These sites include: Encyclopaedia Britannica ([4]) and Armenian Geographic ([5]). Thus, I would say the current name is it's WP:COMMONNAME. Dreamy Jazz talk | contribs 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

South CaucasusEdit

is now referred to as "Lesser Caucasus" or "Caucasus Minor." ... 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)Reply[reply]

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. (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Requested move 27 October 2021Edit

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 "For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence."
  • MOS:CAPS says "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia".
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Names of classes) instructs to" look to sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized".

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)Reply[reply]

Armenian HighlandsArmenian 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)— Relisting. –MJLTalk 03:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support per nom. Probably an uncontroversial move. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment -- three years ago @Dreamy Jazz: provided some good reasons to oppose this move, and they still seem like valid reasons today. TiggerJay(talk) 15:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I would agree that capitalisation is best for a geographical entity unless it is most commonly seen in lowercase. That is clearly not the case here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It most certainly is the case here, as nom's linked evidence shows, that lowercase dominates. Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think much has changed since my last !vote, so I'm sticking to oppose unless someone convinces me otherwise. When using my own search engine (duck duck go) "Armenian Highlands" is more common than "Armenian highlands" in the results list, as when I search for the lowercase version in quotes it still really only brings up results for the uppercase version. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my comment below and see if it convinces you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. as per above. TiggerJay(talk) 20:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose the article seems to indicate its about a particular place rather than a generic term and it probably appears in lower case in sources sometimes perhaps because the term is used generically rather than for a specific place but this article seems to be about a specific place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you suggesting that "Armenian highlands" without the cap refers to something different from this particular place (region)? Did you find an example to illustrate what you mean by "used generically" that's different from how the capped version is used? Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It might be used in an unofficial way to refer to other places in a descriptive manor, although this article is a bit vague about the place it does appear to refer to a specific place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you scan some sources, I think you'll have to agree that "Armenian Highlands" and "Armenian highlands" refer to the same place, and it's not a place with an officially defined boundary, like a political entity, so a bit fuzzy. The caps difference is not signalling a difference in intent about what to refer to, just a different styling choice. We have our own guidelines about that choice. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom's rationale, which would bring it into comformance with our guidelines. The previous "good reasons" that Tiggerjay refers to are irrelevant; we don't follow Britannica, and COMMONNAME is not relevant to the capitalization question. Also since search engines tend to sort by prominence, they tend to show more of the capped versions. The n-gram stats are not biased that way, as they count all, without ranking. And the Armenian Geographic article that Dreamy Jazz linked does not cap highland or highlands in sentences. Check it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Dicklyon: could you help point me in the right direction to the specific guidelines you are referring to. A cursory look at: MOS:CAPS, MOS:PLACE, WP:PLACE does not reveal what you're referring to. Or perhaps there is some other established precedent I am unaware of? I did find WP:WIAN but that seems to affirm following Britannica, although that really seems to deal more with "naming conventions" and not necessarily the question of casing. TiggerJay(talk) 22:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    MOS:CAPS has the most relevant guidance: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." I'd say that MOS:PLACE is less relevant, since it's not a proper-named place (i.e. not like a city or county or country, a specific named entity); rather, it's a descriptive common name. Again, we make that determination by consulting sources, not by just asserting, as some do above, that it's a proper name. There's no question what's the common name here, just how to style it; if the great majority of sources would cap it, so would we, but if it's mixed, we don't. Ref 1, the book, via Amazon's "Look Inside", clearly uses "Armenian highlands". Ref 2, 1911 Britannica, uses "Armenian highlands", at least in its article cited there. Ref 4, the Political Dictionary of Armenia, uses "Armenian highland" and "highlands" – no sign of proper name status. The modern Britannica seems to think the proper name is "Armenian Highland", which doesn't support "Armenian Highlands". And so forth. Why the resisance to fixing this per WP style? Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Randy Kryn and Dicklyon. Tony (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Toponyms should be capitalized. Dimadick (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not a toponym, it's a descriptive term.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, and platitudes should be avoided. We all agree already that proper names should be capitalized, and that toponyms are proper names of places. But if you look at sources, you have to conclude that "Armenian highlands" is not the proper name of a place, not a proper noun. So you've said nothing here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Agreed that capitalization is best for a geographical entity unless it is most commonly seen in lowercase.Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is mostly seen in lowercase. Clear proof: [6]. So, Lesliechin1 please change your !vote to agree with your own rationale.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I wonder why several "opposes" haven't yet addressed the evidence put forward here. Tony (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per MOS:CAPS and per source usage, in which lower-case dominates. [7].  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS and the evidence presented. There is clearly mixed usage and it is not consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. If it were truly a toponym, capitalisation in sources would reflect this. It does not. The area is also "described" as the "Armenian plateau" with similar frequency as the "Armenian highlands" [8] and in recent usage, there is also mixed capitalisation.[9] It is a term that generally describes an area. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support this is not even close. Even if the ngram showed a slight preference for using title case, we'd still use sentence case because that's what MOS:CAPS says, but the evidence actually says the sentence case version is quite heavily favoured in books, and increasingly so over the years. The above opposes cite Britannica as an example, but it we look at it, Britannica uses "Armenian Highland" in the singular, which adds even further to the suggestion that this is not a well-defined proper name, but rather a descriotive title, which we always lowercase even if other organs' style says they should uppercase it.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per various comments above: Sources are mixed and mostly lowercase. In borderline situations, Wikipedia prefers lowercase. This doesn't even seem to be on the borderline. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 00:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Most of the sources use "Armenian Highland(s)". [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] etc. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom. Corroborated by Google Books Ngram Viewer. Khestwol (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relation to Zagros MountainsEdit

UserXpetVarpet, hi. You have added the Armenian highland to the Zagros Mountains intro, as part of the definition:

"It spans the southern parts of the Armenian highland, the whole length of the western and southwestern Iranian plateau, ending at the Strait of Hormuz.

Now, on this page here "Zagros" is not even mentioned. One of the two can't be right.

Brill's New Pauly has in its entry on Zagros:

"Alpine mountain range ... which runs from the northwest to the southeast in southwestern Iran, stretching from the Armenian highlands to the Kūh-e Fūrġūn on the Gulf of Oman..."

I'm not sure what that means: that the Zagros range includes the Armenian highlands, or that it is bordered on one side by them (and they don't belong), as it is on the other by the Gulf of Oman, which obviously also doesn't belong.

Once this is figured out, it should find its place in both articles, Armenian highland as well as Zagros Mountains. Maybe there is no consensus, and that should also be included, as it would inform the user. Yerevantsi, hi, you might be also interested in the topic - and maybe you and XpetVarpet know who else to consult. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Arminden. I agree that the Brill's New Pauly's definition is unclear whether it includes parts of or only borthers the Armenian Highlands. A more precisely written definition would be better for this case.

The Armenian Highland's article states that it borthers the Iranian plateau and we all can agree that the Zagros mountains are part of the Iranian plateau. By looking at images of the Zagros range, it seems that it goes well outside the boundaries of the Iranian plateau, reaching the Van region of the Armenian Highlands.

In the article for Zagros, the definition means that the mountain range starts in the southernmost areas of the Armenian Highland and continues in the western edge of the Iranian Plateau and so on. (It became more clear by comparing the [area] of the Zagros mountain range, with the [map] of the Armenian plateau)

A similar case to what you adressed above is with the Taurus mountains. While no mention of the Iranian plateau inside the article for Taurus mountains, the article for Iranian plateau#Geography states that it includes the Taurus mountains in the north west. (When actually there is the Armenian plateau located directly between the two and the Armenian plateau certainly is not part of the Iranian plateau).
Cheers, UserXpetVarpet (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]