Talk:Iğdır

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

Abbatai you're going to need better source to deny the Armenian Genocide. Or in this case to claim that there was a genocide against the turks. In any case, Turkish propaganda sites are not reliable. See WP:RS for more. VartanM (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I denied Armenian genocide?Saying Armenians also killed Turks isnot denial of Armenian genocide.Actually you are denying mass killing of Turks by Armenians.I will change the word genocide to massascre and revert the section.This page isnot for your anti Turkism propaganda tool.Abbatai (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop acting childish.Does the truth hurts?Thousands of Turks were killed by Armenians in ww1.Abbatai (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. In defense.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just read some books about history before your claims.Abbatai (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about a primary source written by a third party. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of my Armenian friends in here to spread their anti Turkism propaganda.I just ask a simple question do you deny the fact that Armenians also masaacred Turks?Many historians accept Armenians commited atrocities on Turks.Abbatai (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


FYI, I'm not Armenian and I'm not "anti Tuk". Your generalizations don't represent a primary source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just answer my question.Dont focus on irrelevant topics.Abbatai (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to rewrite the offending section to be as neutral as possible. Trouble is, there are no neutral sources I know of, and the Turkish ones are completely propagandistic. BTW, there is no museum in the base - the chamber lies completely empty (and actually the whole monument is falling apart). There is also no way it is the highest monument in Turkey (even eastern Turkey - Malazgirt Aniti looks higher http://www.dunyadevletleri.com/fotograf/761736.html), either in its actual height or its altitude. Its symbolism is interesting, but to write about it in detail would be OR. The monument is obviously connected to Turkey's campaing to deny the Armenian Genocide, but I don't know of a source that says that, so I probably also can't add that (no matter how obvious it is). Meowy 21:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went even furthered and removed the silly sources about Armenians "committing genocides [plural, mind you] against Turkish villages" as it is just a fantasy section that has no place for a serious article. It appears that Abbatai also violated the terms of 3RR and is otherwise aggresively edit-warring.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the ermenisorunu.gen.tr source, it does have a fairly detailed explanation about the symbolism, so I'll extract some of its info and include it in the article. Meowy 00:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL your neturality drives me crazy you deny massacre of Turks delete citations belong to historians and appear as netural.you can delete those events from Wikipedia even from your minds but the truth is there.Sooner (the better)or later the truth will prevail.Thanks for your one sided information to see how some people cannot overcome their prejudice(in this case against Turks).Malazgirt aniti is 42 meter and Igdir Soykırım Aniti is 43,5 meter you need a math 101 course lol.Abbatai (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a library for genocide research and many documents(pictures, archives,etc) that proves massacre of Turks by Armenians in the monument.4.000 people visit the monument every year.Abbatai (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there on several occasions, latest being 2004, and the rooms under the monument were closed and completely empty, full of dust, debris, and leaking water. Meowy 18:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you want to see, and it is the highest monument in Turkey if you saw a higher one that cannot be true.Also do you need calculus course I can teach some numbers if you want, as I said before 43,5>42 good luck my friend.Abbatai (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still no evidence of a primary source. Just typical nationalistic ranting... --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bas-reliefs on the "hilt" are not more than 1.5m tall, so the overall height of the hilt can't be more than 5m, and the monument can't be much taller than 30m, 35m tops. Adding an extra 10m for the distance between the floor of the "museum" and the base of the actual monument might make it to 43.5 - but that is not how the height of monuments are measured. Look at the steps leading up to the "hilt" section. There are 5 of them. Steps are never more than 200mm in height, in most cases they are less, so that section is only 1m at most. Extrapolate that up to get an estimate for the overall height of the monument and it is far less than 43.5m. Meowy 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bear :) I have no time to waste on you.Meowy seems much more open minded than you but actually... anyway.When we regard all the building it is still the tallest.Abbatai (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's your problem. As is producing a primary source to back your fantasy. It takes a lot more than just some nationalistic-driven website to produce a historiography. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Armenian name in the lead[edit]

WP:NCGN : "The lead: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages". Stop editwarring. Sardur (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The keyword is "Relevant". Why Igdir is relevant for Armenian spelling? The names origin explained in Etymology and History section. According to Armenian SSR encyclopaedia the town was named tsolokert until middle ages. Is this the reason you include Armenian spelling? If this is the case, then pretty please, Include persian/turkish/russian spelling to all armenian cities which were part of those empires for several hundreds of years. Otherwise give a good reason why you target Turkish cities. Unible 06:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs)

This is ridiculous: I'm not targeting Turkish cities, I'm targeting cities wich are relevant concerning Armenian history, which is the case here. Sardur (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer any of my questions. Will do the same with the cities in Armenia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs) 10:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT?
I didn't answer them because they're not related with the issue of Igdir. Thus, pointless. Sardur (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I knew that you can't answer it. Anyway, I for a while, will wait answer for an explanation from other constant editors. (Gazifikator, MashallBagramyan?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can, but I don't see the point (excepting this one). Sardur (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to be clear as I much as I can. However, since you still don't see the point, I shall explain it again. You included Armenian spelling to the name because sometime in the history It was part of armenia or somehow related to armenia. If this is the logic behind your argument, go ahead, and add all relevant spellings to all armenian cities which was part of russian/persian/turkic empires for several hundreds of years. If it isn't go ahead and explain your argument. Now, If can't explain, or refuse to explain just claiming that you still don't see the point, stop POV pushing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs) 01:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're exteremely wrong, wikipedia doesn't work like that. Here we talk about the article "Igdir". Period. You want to talk about the article of another city? Go to the talk page of that article.
As for Igdir, it was in Armenia till 1920, and a lot of sources can support the Armenian part of its history. The Armenian name in the lead is thus clearly justified.
You should stop denying this with your PoV-pushing. Sardur (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a feeling that you're deliberately dodging the question. We are talking about Igdir and reasons you put armenian spelling in here. Are seriously claiming that Igdir was part of armenia till 1920? I guess you mean armenian region. Which were part of Ottomans for 300 years, Russians for more than 60 years and persians for more than 500 years. I rephrase my question so that you can finally see the point: Should we add all of these spellings (persian, russian, turkic) as well in this article or not? And why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs) 14:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we are really talking about Igdir and the reasons why you deleted the Armenian name in the lead, may I ask you why you are insisting with your question about other cities, and how an answer to it could help us assessing the relevance of the Armenian name in the lead?
Btw, I'm pleased to inform you that Armenia was independent from 1918 till 1920, and that Igdir was included in it for some time (without a single effort, I can think at least about three reliable sources supporting that). Does Treaty of Kars ring a bell? I suggest you to get your history right before modifying this article again. Sardur (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sardur, now you're being silly. Everyone knows armenia was independent from 1918-1920. But you claimed that Igdir was in Armenia till 1920, which leads any uninformed reader to wrongly imply that it was in armenia for centuries. And treaty of Kars was made between Soviets and Turkey. They just returned the lands they captured from Ottomans in Tsarist era.
If you correctly read my previous question, which apparently you didn't, it says should we add the other spellings(persian, ottoman turkic, russian) to this article's (Igdir) lead? After all, Igdir was part of them for more time than any other country. I deliberately rephrased my question hoping that you won't use your 'i-dont-see-the-point' card. So should we or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs) 02:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mind WP:CIVIL
On your question (sorry indeed), why not if it is relevant? See how it was treated on Kayseri for instance. Sardur (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're getting somewhere. Although in Igdir's case I can't see what do you mean by relevant, I'm happy that you clarified something by answering the question. You stated that Igdir carried an armenian name and was part of armenia in some fraction of history and that makes it relevant to add armenian spelling, right? Is that the reason? If it is I'm very happy to leave that spelling there. Not because I find it logical, but to test out if this logic really works in wikipedia environment. From that point on, I'm going to apply the same "relevancy" logic to any other city I contribute, including armenian cities.
PS: What do I think is more logical way? Well, see Istanbul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs) 12:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear: long Armenian history + Armenian population for a long part of its history. Sardur (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Long Armenian history? How long? Firstly, from XI century till now majority of Armenian territory was ruled by turco-mongols/persians/ottomans/russians (excluding 1918-1920). This is almost 10 centuries and I'm not even counting arabs and romans. But none of Armenian cities has spelling of countries it's been ruled by for a long time. So 'long history' argument fails. Also, you don't have any source of population figures for long part of history. Honestly, I'm not sure of the history of Igdir before X1 except that the name was tsolokert. This is mentioned in Etymology section and I think the spelling should be added there. See the articles, Istanbul, Yerevan: spellings provided in the history and/or etymology section. In history sections spellings are added by relevancy: i.e. in the section when it was ruled by persians, persian spelling of the name is provided. Otherwise the vast majority of regional entries should be changed if you argument is legitimate. Think about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, long Armenian history (kingdom of Armenia, Bagratid Armenia,...). Also, the fact that the area was later ruled by Ottomans, Persians or others does not mean that Armenian history stopped during that period.
You may think what you want (and I may as well), but nobody cares: WP:NCGN is enough. If you disagree, fine, try modifying WP:NCGN. Sardur (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and you should definitely read WP:POINT. Sardur (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. That means some regional cities really needs revision on their lead from now on.
PS: I think I'll start with... lets say, Erevan.:) Unible 15:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Memorial Section[edit]

According to many historians such as Taner Akcam and Guenter Lewy Muslim people were killed in scores in eastern Anatolia near Erzurum, Mus, Karz, Erzincan and Igdir. (I can give the exact citations if you want.) So why are we saying "alleged massacres"? Note that massacre does not mean genocide. I would be the first one to object if someone used genocide there. Also note that this does not mean the denial of Armenian genocide. If everybody agrees I can rewrite the whole first paragraph as follows:

In August 1997, construction started on the "Iğdır Soykırım Anıt-Müzesi" ("Igdir Genocide Monument and Museum"). Turkish authorities erected the monument to commemorate the massacres of Turks and Kurds by Armenians during the First World War. Its construction is seen as a part of Turkey's continuing denial of Armenian Genocide.[7]"

I excluded the quote since it does not provide any new information. Also I couldn't find quote [7], can someone point out where I can find it? 68.48.22.83 (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani name[edit]

In here[1] it says: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. Azerbaijanis make more than half of the population of Igdir according to this: Population policy in Turkey, Erhard Franz,page 293--Abbatai 20:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs)

The name has to be significant to the people living in the respective location. Using your logic, we might as well add the Armenian spelling to the Glendale, CA article on account that over one third of its population is Armenian. The same illogical argument might as well be applied to other ethnic groups living in cities like New York City or Chicago, which once and still have significant minority populations. This topic resembles the discussion which took place on the Talk:Kars, Turkey page several years ago. The presence of a single group isn't an adequate justification. Can you please provide some sources which attest to a historical Azeri presence in Igdir? Even the name "Surmalu", which isn't any different than the Turkish pronounciation and transcription of the name, is a Turkic corruption of the Armenian name "Surb Mary" or "Holy Mary".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add Armanian name of Glendale, CA to its article if there is. Plus I am talking about name not spelling.--Abbatai 11:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs)
My point is that adding the Armenian name to Glendale is as pointless and unnecessary an activity as adding that of the Azerbaijani to this article. Without any solid reason to why that name is important or relevant here (and not simply the fact that some members of a given ethnicity reside in the city), it cannot be be added back.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no Turkish spelling? The city is populated by ethnic Azeris and Turks and its part of Turkey and yet no spelling of either of those elements. For this reason I added both Turkish and Azeri spelling. Neftchi (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capture or Re-capture[edit]

According to a map in Türk İstiklâl Harbi III ncü Cilt: Doğu Cephesi (1919 - 1921), Genelkurmay Askerî Tarih ve Stratejik Etüt Başkanlığı Yayınları, Genelkurmay Basım Evi, Ankara, 1995, ISBN 975-409-050-5, p .342., Iğdır was in the border of Ermenistan Cumhuriyeti. When had Turkey controlled Iğdır before then ? Takabeg (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was under Ottoman occupation from the spring of 1918 until the signing of armistice at Mudros in October of that year...--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that overrun means occupy, but I understand that this word is not down on NPOV. Therefore, I reverted my edit. Ottomans ruled there between 1514-1746 and Erevan Khanate ruled there until 1828. Khanate of Erevan rulers were Turkic origin and Armenians formed about less than 20% in this khanate. Similarly, when Iğdır was ruled by Russian Empire between 1828–1917, Muslims consisted of majority. In 1918-1920 because of Sevres Treaty, Armenians attacked to Iğdır and they forced to move Muslims in order to have the majority. K. Karabekir and his army take took Iğdır back. I accept that the notion of "recapture" is wrong to explain this historical facts. Armenians have never had the majority in Iğdır. They had to move after the Treaty of Kars but They have just fight with Muslims. Ottomans ruled there, it is wrong to regard as occupation. Karabekir captured this area that has the majortiy of Muslims. It is a fact that Armenians have never had the majority in Eastern Anatolia, whereas they are important for Anatolian culture due to their priceless contributes...--Sabri76'message 20:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. My question on Iğdır is not related with WP:NPOV. I'm interested in historically situations of Iğdır. Did the Ottoman Empire simply (militarily) occupied Iğdır or annexed it ? And if you don't want to use occupy, you can use other words. The term "Liberation" is oppose to neutral point of view. I think occupation, annexation etc. are normal and neutral terms, but I witnessed that these terms are considered as negative termes by considerable number of users. For example, in the article related with Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus this inclination of users is clear. The question is not "occupation or not", but "re-occupation or not", "re-capture or not". Anyway I think the sentence: "to eliminate the republic and overran Igdir" is incorrect. The Turkish offensive toward Iğdır was ordered on October 18, 1920 (Doğu Cephesi, p. 220.), but Turkish forces couldn't take Iğdır (Ermenilerin Iğdır kasabası etrafında kuvvetli direnmeleri yüzünden burası da elde edilmedi, Doğu Cephesi, p. 221.). Then the Turkish offensive toward Şahtahtı was oredered on November 2, 1920. One of the aims of the Şahtahtı offensive was the occupation of Iğdır (Doğu Cephesi, p. 221). Şahtahtı was taken by Turkish forces on November 8. But Iğdır was not taken. Armenian forces abandoned Iğdır, burned down Markara Bridge and retreated to the north bank of the Aras on November 13, 1920. After this retreat, the Turkish forces occupied Iğdır. (Doğu Cephesi, p. 230.) Takabeg (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objectives of the war[edit]

Were the objectives of the war, to eliminate the republic and overran Igdir ? Which sources this author (Hovanissian) referred to ? Takabeg (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the terms of the Alexandropol Treaty you will see that the Kemalists wanted to reduce Armenia to rump stated centered in Yerevan and, in effect, keep it on a short leash. They stirred insurrections in the Nakhichevan/Syunik regions, countenanced the Georgian move to annex Lori in the north and permitted the Soviet invasion from the east, and held final say over the most important decisions that are entitled to independent countries (foreign policy, army size). If the word eliminate is objectionable, then perhaps the more correct word might be neutralize...--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brest Litovsk[edit]

Do you know Igdir's situation in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk ? According to Turkish books, Iğdır was one of Brest-Litovsk Antlaşmasının dışında kalan bölgelerden (the regions outside of Treaty of Brest Litovsk). Takabeg (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading many articles this week I suppose that "all" of our coverage agrees; that Russia (after two revolutions) agreed in Brest-Litovsk to restore the Ottoman-Russian imperial boundary prior to 1877-1878 war (File:The Russo-Turkish War in Caucasia, 1877.gif).
By this time the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic had declared independence of Russia. Another big piece of our coverage is Trabzon Peace Conference. --P64 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Our Treaty of Brest-Litovsk#Terms map needs to be replaced by one that shows Asia Minor terms or hides that eastern front from view.
If the 1918 "Buffer zone" is real, defined by some treaty or fact on the ground, then it certainly must be covered here. --P64 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mudros[edit]

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

Turkish and Azerbaijani names[edit]

According to WP:NCGN regulation Turkish and Azerbaijani names must be added in the lead. WP:NCGN reads: "The lead: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages". Ethnic Azerbaijanis and Turks form the majority of the population in the city, therefore it is relevant to add both their names. I did so accordingly. Neftchi (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall in his recent edit failed to answer my arguments and changed without any consensus. For his failure to communicate I restored the Azerbaijani name. Neftchi (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think at least, Turkish name is not necessary. About half of the population of Iğdır is ethnic Azeri (other half is Kurd). But they don't use Azerbaijani language of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Anyway we don't have to add the Azerbaijani alternative name, because it is same as Turkish one. Even in Turkish Wikipedia, they don't add Azerbaijani alternative name. And I think Armenian alternative name should be moved down, because there is no significant Armenian population in Iğdır today. Takabeg (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not written entirely the same way. Im sure you noticed the difference in the I and İ. I think its more neutral to include Azerbaijani name especially in case Kurdish and Armenian names are included. This is only a small edit but prevent any kind of misguidance. Neftchi (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot makes article more neutral with adding irrelevant alternative names. Takabeg (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nakhchivan, Aras River, useful maps[edit]

... "the opening of a border gate with Nakhchivan in 1992"

Our Soviet-era map suggests to me that this is the border of Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (not Nakhchivan (city)) with a sliver of Turkey at its extreme northwest. In this article we suggest that this border transformed Igdir. Is there much traffic?

(quote) "Armenian forces abandoned Igdir. They burned down the Markara Bridge and retreated to the northern bank of the Aras River on November 13, 1920."

This article says Igdir is in a plain below Mt Ararat, not whether it is also on the river. I suppose it is somewhere northwest of the sliver, and the latter may have been acquired to create a border. --P64 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kura River and Aras River includes a faux-relief map of their watershed. The former, or the base map from which they are derived, will be more useful here because highlighting the river Aras obscures some features. This map clearly shows Igdir, Yerevan, and Nakhchivan city in near but not on the river.
Ararat, Armenia includes another map that is informative here regarding the sliver or peninsula of Turkey, and that Nakhchivan border gate, i infer.
I suppose the border of the Ottoman Empire with its Persian or Russian neighbor followed the Kura River watershed south of Igdir. Most of the time from 1555 Treaty of Amasya. Until finally the Armenian Republic buffer zone border 1918-1920. If this is true it makes the watershed map much more useful, of course. --P64 (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages ... In 1555 ...[edit]

"Middle Ages" in the section lead presumably means the time from Arab conquest c. 650 to renewal of a Persian Empire by the Safavid dynasty (whose capital was Tabriz, in this region, from the start in 1501).

Was there a treaty with Byzantium that placed or retained the site of Igdir in Persian territory at the time of the conquest? 565 591 600 611-624 624-628. If we lack a known 628 treaty boundary then these maps (linked above, below) suggest to me there may be no fact of the matter, or the fact may be unknown to history, because the site is very close to the boundaries we show on thematic maps Fall of the Sasanian Empire, Muslim conquest of Persia. And "traditional boundaries" in the last two dated maps do not match. Then we should place it generally, such as "at the Byzantine–Sasanian frontier at the time of the Arab conquest of Persia (c. 650)". 650

The Ottoman E gained territory from the Persian E in mid-16th century war, so we must change the wording "In 1555, the town became a part of Safavid Empire." We should convey that the renewed Persian Empire controlled the region early in the 16th century and *retained* Igdir and points to the East in the peace of 1555. --And Iran essentially retained this valley until the 1828 Treaty of Turkmenchay with Russia, despite several victories by Ottoman armies in the region.

--P64 (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources says that Tsolakert was the name this town went by during the medieval period. Whether Byzantium or the Sasanians were in control of it is not relevant. A date is not provided but I am assuming it was mentioned during the seventh century or later. The text states that Iranian control over the town was disrupted during the wars with the Ottoman Empire, and with the exception of the periods mentioned in (1578–1605, 1635–36 and 1722-46) it managed to retain it until the war with the Russians in the nineteenth century. Sounds relatively similar to what you're proposing, I think.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New section[edit]

Cognizant of the possibility of me being dragged into an edit war, I will refrain from making further edits to this article, despite Maurice07's insistence to add material that is strictly against the letter and essence of some of Wikipedia's core policies. The accretion of the sentence "Turks massacred by the Armenians" is recognized by all commentators to be nothing but an attempt by the official Turkish government to whitewash its own predecessor's genocide against the Armenians. A town with an almost wholly Armenian population is said to have been the location of a genocide perpetrated by Armenians against Turks (where none in fact were resident, according to the statistical information on hand). The deletion of the Armenian name by Maurice07, so much more serious than the deletion of a name that is not related to the town historically or linguistically (such as the Azerbaijani), is also grounds for concern.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are not impartial per WP:NPOV. Can you explain to me your last edit in one word? [2]. Names of Azerbaijani and Kurdish removed but Armenian name intact. Unfortunately, it's not objective. About the subtitle of memorial picture, to that extent, there are separate articles in Turkish [3], Azerbaijani [4], Russian [5] and German [6] wikipedia. I understand your purpose. Keeping it away from a full detail; actually, to provide this memorial was built for the victims of Armenian Genocide. Am I wrong? Maurice07 (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Azeri and Kurdish spelling because they are not historically nor linguistically relevant to the city. Azerbaijanis did not start moving there until after 1991 and to the best of my knowledge the Kurdish population in Igdir has always been negligible if not entirely non-existent. It is almost as if one would like to given the Armenian spelling to the city of Hollywood, California due to its significant, if recent, Armenian population or the Mandarin or Cantonese to San Francisco for its sizable Chinese community. Names must be relevant and in this case neither Kurdish or Azeri is. In a similar vein, would you care to explain why you removed the Armenian spelling of the city?
What exists in other languages on Wikipedia is irrelevant. Oversight might be lacking in one case. The intentions of editors might factor in another. Other stuff exists. According to the sources, this monument was built to drive home the thesis that the Armenians committed a massacre in Igdir, where in point of fact scores of Armenians died during that period and there is no reliable contemporary source that says otherwise.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I didn't remove the Armenian name [7], just moved to the appropriate section. According to the last census, The city's population is constituted from Kurds, Turks and Azerbaijanis. Current mayor of Iğdır, Kurdish origin and from the BDP and also, Kurdish lang is exixsting official website of municipality [8] About the monument, your views unsatisfactory. Many official and unofficial sources available Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Turkey.. Maurice07 (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tsolakert[edit]

Note to self (mostly). A number of mentions of Tsolakert / Zolocerta in an article in REA 1930 p143. Seems the place is mentioned in the Ravenna Cosmography and by Movses Khorenatsi. REA article, however, identifies Tsolakert as Karakale - which is strange given that, as Cholakert, it is mentioned in the Russian excavation report as being on the foothills of Ararat (at Tashburun) and its Soviet Armenian-period author (Hakob Manandian) should have known about that report. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And in the Tabula Peutingeriana it is Coloceia. There is a "Zotozeta" in the 1860 edition of the Ravenna Cosmography, between Artaxata and Ragauna. Kiepert places Raugonia in present-day Parnaut, which lies south of the Araxes between Koghb (Kulp/Tuzluca) and Kalzwan (Kaghizman). Markwart places Ragauna more convincingly at Bagawan. See [9]. Manandian, however, by 1946, places Tsolakert not at Tashburun or even Karakale, but near the Zor caravanserai, and instead thinks a place called Paracata in the Tabula Peutingeriana is at Tashburun. What all the sources have in common is that none of their authors ever set foot in these lands, and current politics makes it impossible to retrace the Roman routes in person. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian spelling[edit]

Armenian spelling is in the etymology section. Despite this, the editors are trying to bring it to the forefront. Armenian is not a language used in Turkey. There is no Armenian population living in Igdir. I did not remove the armenian spelling. Armenian spelling is be situated in etymology section. What is the purpose of the editors ? They do not show a reason.--88.251.63.172 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the reverts is because it appears you are repeatedly removing content for apparently nationalist POV-pushing. If you mean to approach this in good faith wait for discussion before continuing to revert. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, but Although I open the discussion, they sent a warning message and reverted it.--88.251.63.172 (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bold, revert, discuss. You went ahead and made a bold edit by removing the name from the lead of the article. Good! This was a correct thing to do. Then another interested editor reverted your change. This is also good! But that's where we should have stopped and waited to finish the discussion. Please wait for that process to move forward before changing it back; to do otherwise is to edit war, and that is highly frowned upon. J♯m (talk | contribs) 20:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very meaningless edit war. Place of spellings is etymology or name section. Some editörs, insist on bringing it to the foreground. What is the purpose here. Please join the discussion and give your opinion.--ArslanYabgu (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well established practice to have native names at the lead, too. El_C 22:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And alternative names too, and historical names. Wikipedia articles do not simply contain content related to the current condition of places, they are there to detail the history of those places too. The deleted lede material [10] removed the historical name Tsolakert, a name that is found in sources going back to Classical times. There is article content detailing that in the body of the article, so having the name mentioned in the lede is justified. NB, I find the "Iğdıroğlu belonging to a branch of the Oghuz Turks" claim very dubious - and it has a non-RS source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iğdır. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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) 08:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iğdır. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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) 13:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani name #2[edit]

@MarshallBagramyan: The name doesn't have to be "historical" to appear as a translation in the article. The city is Azerbaijani-majority, not putting the name of the city that the majority of its population uses isn't right. It's as relevant, if not more relevant than the Kurdish name. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an actual naming convention to Wikipedia you can refer me to or are you arguing simply on the basis of the town's current demographics? There are many towns and cities with expatriate ethnic communities who refer to their adopted residence according to their local tongue, but that is not automatic grounds for inclusion in the lead. The Azeri/Azerbaijani community only started settling there recently so there's little to attest to some historical essence to the name. And it's rich for you to accuse me of edit warring when you're currently engaged in that very same practice. Perhaps you should seek consensus first before trying to railroad your edits into the article. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarshallBagramyan, WP:NCGN#General guidelines:

Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages – i.e., (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken).

— CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see a strong case for inclusion based on the criteria above. How is the Azerbaijani version of the name at all derivative or unique to the official name of the city? Presence does not necessitate inclusion. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a relevant foreign language name, as it is used by a group of people who inhabit this geographical place. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a convincing argument -- it's not even an argument. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a literal quote from the aforementioned Wikipedia policy. I'm not going to argue about whether a Wikipedia policy is good enough or not, I don't decide that. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking a very liberal reading of the policy. The Azeri name is, at best, a slight, slight variation of the Turkish; there's nothing unique to it to place it on the same level as (to take from the example above) Estonian "Soome laht" and Russian "Finski Zavil" (wildly different names for the same locale). First Kars, and now Igdir. This hamfisted way of foisting a name onto a certain place where a certain people happen to presently inhabit is in very bad form. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's the opposite. The policy doesn't say it has to be a completely different name (by that logic we wouldn't include Shushi in the Shusha article since it's just one letter difference like here). It clearly states that foreign language names used by people who inhabit the place are allowed. Rest is irrelevant. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 05:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy to Shushi/Shusha obviously doesn't apply considering that there are sources that state that the town was originally founded by Armenians under the name of the former. That's entirely different than guest workers coming to work or settle in a town just across the border (again, this is akin to insisting on the Italian spelling of New York City or the Japanese spelling of Los Angeles just because those two cities boast large communities of those peoples). This is getting wearisome, but I suggest that either you or I seek an RfC for outside comment. You can't strong arm your way into an article (especially one based on a now 14-year-old source). Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that these "workers" are the majority in this town? So your analogy with Italians and Japense people in America is as irrelevant as the Shusha one. I'll request a 3O. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarshallBagramyan, where exactly do you get the idea that Azeris in Igdir are "guest workers"? Do you seriously believe that the Azeri presence in Igdir is a phenomenon of the past 20 to 25 years? Parishan (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the impression created by the IWPR article. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what article you are talking about but if there has been Azeri immigration into Igdir in the past 25 years, it does not mean that Azeris did not live there historically. Here is, for instance, an Igdir-born "guest worker", who represented the province in the Turkish parliament for four years. Parishan (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

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

Asian or European?[edit]

There have been many edits and reverts on the optional depiction of the pushpin map. I have seen also that in Istanbul Europe and Asia are optional depictions together. Would this be an acceptable compromise for the two sides?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

İt is in Asia, further İstanbul they should be placed in Asia because it is a fact. Shadow4dark (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably also Yerevan is in Asia which is further east than Turkey, but also they also show the European and the Asian pushpin map. As to me it is a question of cultural heritage and it is really just an optional informative depiction, which I believe is helpful to show them both instead of just keeping one. Turkey has a cultural asian heritage but politically it is currently a member of the Council of Europe, NATO a Candidate for accession to the EU. I guess both have valid points and I'd say why not show both, if that is possible? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we even showing continent maps on an article about a city of below 100k population? Turkey's map alone is sufficient. — Golden call me maybe? 13:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Golden, this should not be as big of an issue as it is currently. However, to respond to @Shadow4dark, continents can not be "facts" in the way that you're describing; because continents do not exist outside of our discourse about it. And if our discourse about it contradicts itself on whether or not Turkey is European or Asian, you can not simply assert that one is a fact and the other isn't. Uness232 (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it is you opinion but the fact is that most of Turkey is in Asia. But i agree with Golden Shadow4dark (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is showing both (Europe and Asia) an acceptable compromise? I'd be glad if I receive an answer to that original question. The amount of the population doesn't matter, but the cultural heritage. Istanbul and a large part of Turkey was Byzantine for centuries. Millions of the Turkish population were originally Europeans from Albania, Croatia, Bosnia, Greece etc. Turkey and especially the Bosphorus are mentioned often as a bridge between Europe and Asia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To Paradise Chronicle; I think it's the best way to do this, actually.
To Shadow4dark; what is Asia and who defines it? Is it not human discourse that decided where the lines between continents should be? How do you claim to have a monopoly over the definition of social constructs? Uness232 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iğdır&oldid=1212185236"