Talk:Eastern Anatolia Region

Comments

"Eastern Turkey is Western Armenia" 06:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

EAstern Turkey is in TURKEY my friend. I am trying to remove as uch propaganda as possible that people such as yourselves are creatingThetruthonly (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Title

I moved this page because it's Wikipedia policy to use the most common term for something. This is applied throughout our encyclopedia for establishing the titles of the articles.

So, it's not hard to see that "Eastern Anatolia Region" is a much more common form:

• Results 1 - 10 of about 17,900 for "Eastern Anatolia Region"
• Results 1 - 10 of about 932 for "East Anatolia Region"

Or, if you trust printed books more:

• Books 1 - 6 with 7 pages on "Eastern Anatolia Region"
• Books 1 - 4 with 4 pages on "East Anatolia Region".

Khoikhoi 07:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Serious error in this article?

Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi/East Anatolia Region is not a political or census-defined division, it is a geographical division and has four sub-divisions (Upper Murat Van region, Erzurum-Kars region, Upper Firat region, and Hakkari region). Its borders do not follow the borders of the political/administrative/census regions of eastern Turkey - so the Wikipedia entry for Eastern Anatolia Region is incorrect in that aspect. Meowy 23:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Western Armenia

Eastern Anatolia region has been originally known as Western Armenia in numerous sources, including Britannica Encyclopedia. I have undid deletion of this data from the article several times, each time giving sources and footnotes, but every time found the article changed in a couple of days without any basing facts, if not taking into consideration the fact of calling me a nationalist (!). If the fact I provided the data proved by uncountable number of sources, starting from middle-age historians and international maps up to current historians and encyclopedias is nationalism, then I doubt objectivity of Wikipedia. If considering the fact not worth to mention in the article, then I should say it is as worth to mention, as the fact that e.g. the city name ]]Kaliningrad's]] original title was Königsberg, Nagorno-Karabakh's was meant under Artsakh, huge part of modern Romania was meant under Transylvania, etc. Now I'm undoing the latest deletion. Thanks to everybody, who read and understood! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 517design (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your information is basically an ideology of a greater Armenia. Another form of propaganda that is why I am removing it. Justinz84 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with you being a racist propagandist yourself eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.174.119 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is these numerous sources write something for the First Geography Congress, Turkey? Filibeli (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

History section on region

Should there not also be a paragraph or two detailing the history of the region? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.174.119 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's vandalism

It's not possible, official name of the region is Eastern Anatolia region of Turkey, if someone dreams for a highland Armenia with a population less than 5000 it's so funny. And the pictures have to change because there are no only Armenian churches in this region. There must be more information about the region, not about for Armenia!Zaparojdik 12,25 (UTC) 13th January 2010

Average temperature

The region has the lowest average temperature of all Turkish regions, with -25°C.

Assuming "with" is meant to be "at", this makes no sense. The lowest temperature in the climate chart above this statement is -15°C; the average cannot possibly be lower than that. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Major changes/corrections

Maps

Right now, these maps are used in the article:

• 
• 

These maps are quite simply incorrect; the borders of the geographical regions of Turkey do not overlap with the borders of the administrative provinces.

This is the correct map of the geographical Eastern Anatolia Region:

• 

Provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region

Since the borders do not overlap, there can be no clear-cut list of provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region.

Right now, this list is featured in the article:

Provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region

• Ağrı Province
• Ardahan Province
• Bingöl Province
• Bitlis Province
• Elazığ Province
• Erzincan Province
• Erzurum Province
• Hakkari Province
• Iğdır Province
• Kars Province
• Malatya Province
• Muş Province
• Tunceli Province
• Van Province

This list is also incorrect.

If we want to list the provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region, we will need at least two, but preferable three categorizies:

1. Provinces that are entirely in the Eastern Anatolia Region.
2. Provinces that are mostly in the Eastern Anatolia Region.
3. Provinces that are partially in the Eastern Anatolia Region.

According to this map, which shows both geographical and provincial borders, the correct list should be as follows:

Provinces in the Eastern Anatolia Region

Provinces that are entirely in the Eastern Anatolia Region:

• Ağrı
• Bingöl
• Bitlis
• Elazığ
• Hakkari
• Iğdır
• Kars
• Malatya
• Muş
• Tunceli
• Van

Provinces that are mostly in the Eastern Anatolia Region:

• Ardahan
• Erzurum
• Şırnak

Provinces that are partially in the Eastern Anatolia Region:

• Adıyaman
• Artvin
• Batman
• Bayburt
• Gümüşhane
• Kahramanmaraş
• Kayseri
• Siirt
• Sivas
• Şanlıurfa

Population

Since the geographical borders are imprecise (they don't overlap with district borders either), there is no convenient way to calculate the population of the geographical Eastern Anatolia Region, or other geographical regions of Turkey for that matter. Any figure you see on the Internet in this regard is, at best, imprecise guesswork. I propose that we rank geographical regions among themselves and leave it at that. --Mttll (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Tautology

Anatolia is a relatively new term used in Turkey, stemming from Greek, meaning "East", which distorts the geographical location of Armenian Highlands or Armenian Plateau following the Republic of Turkey's attempts to change all ancient Armenian place names into Turkish. Eastern Anatolia, therefore, means "Eastern East" and is logically invalid. I suggest using the traditional toponym Armenian Highlands.71.191.1.192 (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian

Besides the fact that the English language doesn't operate that way - I used to live near El Play Boulevard, ie Boulevard Boulevard - it's an official designation. So it isn't going to happen. 18:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Don't tell me how the English language operates, okay? "Eastern Anatolia" IS a tautology. Your own article List of tautological place names determines unequivocally that “a place name is tautological if two differently sounding parts of it are synonymous. This often occurs when a name from one language is imported into another and a standard descriptor is added on from the second language.”--71.191.1.192 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian

Of course it's a tautology, I didn't deny it. What I am denying is that your claim that the tautology is logically invalid is relevant in any way. English isn't logical and I've never meant anyone who said it was. In any case the deal breaker is that we aren't going to go against WP:COMMONNAME - the normal name for the region, which is an official governmental area, is Eastern Anatolia. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern Anatolia Region. 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/20110620032903/http://dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=ERZURUM to http://www.dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=ERZURUM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Information about cited reference

Can someone tell me more about Lusine Sahakyan, published by Arod Books? I wasn't able to find out more through Google - is Arod Books an academic publisher? It seems this source is cited 6 times. What other sources were consulted when writing this article? Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

So you try to persuade us the denialists are reliable while questioning the reliability of a authoritative scholar on the subject who has a Ph D. from Yerevan State University and whose work has been cited in academic works by Alan Whitehorn, Vicken Cheterian, and Esen Egemen Ozbek, among others. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Salt

EtienneDolet Please post sources supporting your comments about Jeremy Salt. My understanding is that he is still alive so I am trying to decide whether I need to request that your edit summary be redacted for BLP violations. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Salt calls the Armenian Genocide the Armenian “relocation” [1] and refers to the AG as merely an “Armenian claim” [2]. Need I say more? If that doesn’t cut it, here’s what Akçam has to say about Salt:

"Prof. Akcam further observed that the four academics — Hakan Yavuz of University of Utah, Guenter Lewy of University of Massachusetts, Jeremy Salt of Bilkent University, Ankara, and Edward J. Ericson of Marine Corps Command & Staff College, Virginia — who praised Gunter’s book, “are well known for their denialist position and works regarding the genocide of 1915.”"[3]

Here are two top Armenian Genocide denial websites citing Salt to claim not that many Armenians died.[4][5] These were among the top search results for Salt, and probably his greatest life's accomplishments. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

None of what you just posted, including armenian-1915.blogspot.com is enough under our BLP policy. Akcam's opinion is only enough to add with attribution to Jeremy Salt's article (but I don't think Jeremy Salt has an article). It's not enough to strip a Routledge published source based on it being "denialist" especially for basic facts about the Six Vilayets. We can assume a Routledge published source is reliable for this sort of thing.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you claiming Jeremy Salt does not deny the genocide? And just because Routledge published his works, doesn't make him reliable. WP:RS doesn't base its reliability on publishers. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually it does. Please post your question at WP:RS/N but do not continue to remove sources from the article, especially if you are not familiar with the WP:RS policy. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

What you need to do is please tell us how could it be that an Armenian Genocide denialist can be considered a reliable source for anything concerning the Armenian Genocide? Also, not EVERY source has to go to the RSN. Reliability can be negotiated here. And when it comes to this, it's a no-brainer. You are inserting denialists when it comes to material concerning the Armenian Genocide. What makes you think that's okay? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

First, this article is not only about the Armenian genocide. Second, you haven't presented enough evidence and what you have presented I find unpersuasive. I consider this to be mostly an appeal to sentiment. There is no quantitative threshold for genocide, so I don't think discussing estimates in any capacity can be genocide denial. and I don't rely on random blogspot posts as references. If you want me to agree to ban a Routledge published source over this, you will need to present very strong sourcing, sufficient to convince me that the consensus at RS/N would support your claim.We have had "spirited" debates about similar estimates on many articles, including Iraq War articles, or ARBPIA articles, but I absolutely and unequivocally do not think it is ok to continually repeat accusations of "genocide denial" to pressure editors. If it continues I think administrators should really consider intervening. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's also an issue of WP:SYNTH here. Where in the Schaller source does it talk about Eastern Anatolia? Also, why did you remove the Six Armenian provinces bit? It's sourced by Hovannisian, Cheterian, Galichian, Sahakyan, and others. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't remove it. There is no WP:SYNTH, that is only for the dates. Ermenistan includes Van, Diyarbakir, etc. It's in Dadrian also.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you did. You removed the Six Armenian provinces bit. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

They are the same article...Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Look, it's really not that hard. Just stop using people who deny the Armenian Genocide when it relates to your edits concerning the Armenian Genocide on this project. Those who deny the AG do not present the historical facts in a neutral way and have it all wrong. Much like Holocaust denialists. I mean, why do I have to explain this to you? It's like explaining that the WP:SKYISBLUE. And to be clear: I did not say we should ban Routledge as a source. I merely said that just because it's Routledge doesn't make it reliable. WP:RS doesn't go by which publishing house is more prestigious or what not. Plus, my problem isn't with the Schaller source (I think it's total WP:SYNTH the way you put it). My problem is with Salt. And call me crazy, but for some reason I don't think admins would be happy to hear that you're using Armenian Genocide denialists as reliable sources when it comes to topics concerning the Armenian Genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to go around in circles with you. Some of the comments you've made on this talk page that I can't quote I consider BLP violations. You've continued doing this after I pointed it out to you. I am not going to continue a discussion where every comment creates further BLP violations. I really think you should start a discussion at WP:RS/N, instead of harassing me personally. That is the right way to do things. I don't really want to discuss this with you any further, please get a consensus, or leave me be.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "leave me be" would only mean, in this case, that I'd have to be satisfied with an Armenian Genocide denialist remaining in this article on a topic concerning the Armenian Genocide. That's not going to happen. Look, as you have noticed, I don't mind your more constructive edits concerning Armenian-related topics (or any other topic for that matter). But when I see sources being used on this article by authors that are hailed as heroes by the Turkish government or some wack AG denialist websites, that's when I will make an effort to correct the course so that Wikipedia doesn't become a website that resembles anything close to a denialist website or an official Turkish government propaganda outlet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The source being pro-Turkish is not a justification to revert. If you really believe it is, then this needs to go to a noticeboard. Nothing published by Routledge can be called "official Turkish government propaganda". This is a third party source. I've read "official Turkish government propaganda" and it is nothing like this. The normal way of dealing with something like this is by using attribution, not by removing the sources and demanding that people stop using them. In this case for the basic stuff about the history and breakdown of administrative divisions, it doesn't even require attribution. This is a lot of drama over something very minor.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't revert because it was "pro-Turkish". I merely pointed to the obvious fact that Salt has adopted the Turkish government's position on the Armenian Genocide as evident by the fact that his articles are published on official Turkish government websites, let alone the fact that his work is also published on denialist websites as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not obvious to me that Salt has adopted the Turkish government's position. Most of Salt's work (that I have access to) is about anti-Muslim Christian polemic. There may be other sections of the book I haven't seen and don't have access to, but the government position is much more hard line and one-sided then what is in this book. They use language like yaşanmış acılar, trajediler olabilir (tragedies) but I've never seen government sources use katliam (massacres) for killings of Armenians, only for killings of Muslims. The content in Salt's book that I've seen (I can't speak for anything else) is completely different from this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"This official Turkish thesis has been further complemented by the works of Justin MacCarthy, Jeremy Salt, Stanford Shaw, and, most recently, Günter Lewy." [6]. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even going to say that's just Gingeras' opinion (though some editors might take that line of argument). I will repeat my position so there is no misunderstanding—there may be content about those things (deportations, Armenian rebellions, Ottoman restraint, etc.) in parts of the book that I don't have access to. I can't comment on anything I hven't read. I'm more interested in the first part of Salt's book which is about Imperialism and Christian polemic, which doesn't even discuss Armenians. It is also relevant, in my opinion, that genocide studies is a rapdily developing field of study and most pre-ICTY sources can be considered obsolete at this point. The intent argument most of these books were making, and that much of the discourse on our talk pages hones in on, is not where most modern arguments about genocide lie. the existence of a plan or policy to commit genocide is not a legal ingredient of the crime, although 'in the context of proving specific intent, the existence of a plan or policy may be important in some cases I don't take these non-expert arguments about genocidal intent very seriously and I don't get worked up over them. Back to this article, I didn't see anything wrong with adding some basic information about the vilayets - they're just administrative divisions.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• To be clear, I'm not going to agree to stop using any source because it is a source that Etienne does not approve of...this is not just one or two sources, but seems to be an effort to exclude a large number of important sources on Turkey or Ottoman studies. These scholars have written on a wide range of topics and much of their work is recognized. I would understand a request to not use them for their opinions on the genocide but I'm not going to agree to not citing them for other content. The sources are vital for work on articles about Turkey and Ottoman Empire. Thus, because I am definitely not going to agree to this outlandish and inappropriate demand, this absolutely must go to WP:RS/N. It is not ok to follow me from article to article and repeat the same thing over and over again. I don't want to go through the whole AE thing, but this really needs to stop.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Look, if you want to cite them for other content, that might be okay? I don't know. But you'd have to be really careful and you'd need very strong consensus because these supposed scholars are really fishy. And I've repeated myself over and over again that denialists should not be used for any topic related to Armenians, the Armenian Genocide, or Armenian affairs. I've been clear about that. They're simply not reliable enough and are really problematic for obvious reasons. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

For topics related to Armenians, I think I am capable of exercising good judgment when using sources and I think my editing history supports this. If something I added was problematic, my hope would be that we could discuss it and reach a consensus. But removing sources without any objection to the content it was used for? I'm not going to get behind that. I also don't agree with your characterizations of these scholars. I don't use Stanford Shaw because Colin Imber demonstrated actual errors in his work and I personally no longer consider it reliable (other editors may disagree). But I don't see anything like that here to call its fundmental reliability into question. I think the current academic consensus is that it was genocide, so we don't give the sources undue weight with respect to that viewpoint.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't use Stanford Shaw because Colin Imber demonstrated actual errors in his work - ...and is that the only reason? Do you find the fact he denies the Armenian Genocide a problem and do you think that will make him less reliable as a result of that? Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he is a reliable source to begin with - what would less reliable than not reliable be? I'm not going to spend a lot of time on Shaw because I found the errors Imber pointed out to be significant, so whatever content it is that you have in mind, most likely I haven't read it. Going back to your comment about "Holocaust denialists", I don't know why you think everyone is in agreement about what Holocaust denial is, much less which sources should be banned for it. Everyone pretty agrees that genocide denial is bad, but good luck reaching agreement on what actually constitutes genocide denial. (And most editors, myself included, don't appreciate being accused of it during content disputes). Holocaust denial is such a controversial article, it needed about 18 citations for the statement that "Holocaust denial is antisemitic". Something that simple was a huge dispute, apparently. So, even on Holocaust articles, there is a lot of dispute. The disputes about Poland and sourcing have been ongoing for months; there is one open at WP:RS/N right now.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I think my question was pretty clear. But I'll rephrase it. Do you think those who deny the Armenian Genocide are problematic in any way in terms of them being considered legitimate academics? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is very critical for us to note that there is no evidence that the sultan ordered a massacre in the 19th century. Of course there's no evidence, what kind of evidence would there be? It's not like there was some "massacre approval" bureacracy in the 19th century Ottoman Empire. But I'm pretty good at filtering this stuff when I use sources to edit, so I don't really get hung up on this kind of stuff. I would prefer using genocide-expert sources like Demirdjian and Bloxham, I think the recent works are top notch, but as it is sources with obvious bias like Hovannisian/Balakian and Salt have to be balanced off one another, but as far as they dispute one anothers findings, I don't think that's grounds to ban either one.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Armenian Massacres

Hello, the Armenian Massacres and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey are not consecutive events. They are unrelated. So they do not need to come one after the other in a sentence, as it could imply other things. Thank you, 176.33.53.10 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Chronologically, and in terms of destruction and Turkification of everything that belonged to the Armenians and their cultural heritage, they ARE consecutive events. From the first year of the Armenian genocide in 1915 up until the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 these events are related in that during the said period the millennia-long Armenian presence in Eastern Asia Minor was eradicated, including the changing of the historical toponym “Armenian Highlands” or “Armenian Plateau” to a newly-invented term “Eastern Anatolia”.98.231.157.169 (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Davidian

Your views and writing is partial and do not mean much in the large context. According to your skewed logic, the Turks (and all other minorities including Kurds, Arabs, Circassians, Greeks, Armenians and Jews) in Turkey should claim all the land from Crimea in the north, from Algeria in the south, from the Caucasus in the east, and from Hungary in the west for themselves. It was Ottoman land and heritage after all. It doesn't work that way. You lose a war, you pay the price. Same with the Armenians.

Those Armenians in the east who rebelled against the state while it was engaged in war on multiple fronts paid the price for their treachery. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation and other terrorist gangs can claim whatever they like. It is baseless under international law. Therefore, calling eastern lands in Turkey "Western Armenian" and some eastern mountains "Armenian Highlands" is comical, to say the least. Get over it. Your ancestors rebelled, they massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent Kurdish and Turkish villagers in the eastern provinces, and they paid the price by being forced to move out of the area. Keep it official and do not bring your propaganda here please. 176.33.55.202 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced article and one-sided sources

The article makes exclusive use of Armenian-sided sources and needs more information and reliable sources for neutrality. 176.33.55.202 (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no such thing a an "Armenian-sided" source. We have either have reliable sources or we don't. From what I gather, you haven't made any attempt to discredit these sources so those tags need to be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you like me to discredit some of those sources? I don't need to. The fact remains the article overly relies on one-sided views (Armenian arguments) which makes it unbalanced. Can we get some non-Armenian (perhaps Turkish and Kurdish) information and reliable sources in the article since it is related to land in Turkey? 176.33.55.202 (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You don’t seem to understand. This isn’t a battle of “pro-Armenian” vs. “pro-Turkish”, it’s a matter of reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources that refute any such claim, by all means place it in the article yourself. No one’s stopping you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a great idea Étienne Dolet! Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There is consistent socket puppetry and some biased users put an edit stop. They cannot stand to hear about the atrocities Armenian gangs committed and want to keep writing history according to their own POV with their so-called genocide. Let's try and keep this place balanced: hearing from more than one side. Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe it was Joseph Goebbles who said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” The same goes for genocide propagandists and their defenders on Wikipedia. Dominator1071 (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Armenian propaganda

This article is full of Armenian propaganda and biased anti-Turkish sources. Eastern Anatolia was never Western Armenia. Some fanatic Armenians want to take over these lands, but they can keep dreaming and make things up from their own fantasy world.

Whatever happened to impartial Wikipedia anyway? There is so much anti-Turkish and anti-Muslim content. Keep it out please. 94.120.114.41 (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)