Talk:Iranian Armenians

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

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point[edit]

Cleanup Co-ordination
This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:

  • the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
  • the article has multiple overlapping problems.
  • the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.

Discussion[edit]

Move[edit]

I moved the page to "Iranian Armenians" because the previous title suggested that Armenians are foreigners who just live in Iran rather than actual Iranians.Hajji Piruz 19:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the passage. Armenians of Iran are not an "Iranian people" of Armenian descent." There is no evidence that they have an identity formulated this way. Capasitor (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page to "Iranian Armenians" because there is nor Armenian having Iranian sDescendants. Yu hardly find Armenians who are married to Iranians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.95.121 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image nominated for deletion[edit]

No notice was placed here that this image has been nominated for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other images used on this page may also have been nominated -- please check them all by clicking on them to see if there is a deletion notification on the image page. If there is, use the link that takes you to "this image's entry" to comment on the nomination for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agassi[edit]

If people like Cher and the System of a Down Guy make the notable Iranian Armenian list then surely Andre Agassi should be there aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.117.233 (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. Agassi is An Armenian. But when was the last time he helped Armenia , donate anything to Armenia or claimed he is an Armenian ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.95.121 (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 11:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Armenian Iranians → Iranian Armenians — Per WP:NC(CN) and the convention of Category:Ethnic groups in Iran. Proposed title has 3x the GBook hits and is preferred by both Iran's and Armenia's media; see below for detailed analysis. There is no "precedent" or "grammatical rule" that ethnicity always comes first and citizenship second in these titles; this is just a convention of the high-immigration countries of the New World, which only a minority of scholars or journalists use for ethnic groups in Iran or any other country in the Old World. ---cab (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note --- I based the above numbers on comparison in the plural form since virtually all of these are referring to the group of people (and note that these are all clearly referring to Armenians of Iran, not Iranians in Armenia). Searching in the singular form will give you roughly equal hits for either ordering; however, most aren't on the topic we're discussing, but instead refer to interstate relations (e.g. "Iranian-Armenian border") or contain random colocations of the two separate words (like "Armenian, Iranian" or "Indo-Iranian, Armenian").
"Iranian Armenians" has 3x the GScholar hits, 5x the GBooks hits, and 7x the GNews hits as compared to "Armenian Iranians". Drilling into detail on some major sources:
"Iranian-XYZian" is also preferred for the other ethnic groups in Iran who also have their own nation-states, by margins of as much as ten-to-one:
In other countries of the "Old World" there are numerous further counterexamples to the "ethnicity first, citizenship second" pattern:
But more commonly, they do not follow any convention at all: Indians in Zambia, Bulgarians in France, Chinese people in Kazakhstan, etc. Thanks, cab (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A user moved the article while this discussion was ongoing. I've moved it back and protected the page from being moved again. It's my intent that the protection be removed once the discussion is concluded and the page is moved (or not). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It should be Iranian Armenians because it refers to Iranians of Armenian descent, not Armenians of Iranian descent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hovhannesk (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 January 2010
  • Rename per above--Work permit (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't really see what the big deal is, but the evidence above and the succinct reason offered by Hovhannesk seem compelling.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The move is astonishingly absurd. It is amazing that people went with Hovhannesk's obstinate application of an obscure system, which he has single-handedly been pushing into articles with countless page moves going against consensus, without realizing what this implies. People: it does not matter indeed if it is "Iranian Armenians" or "Armenian Iranians", as long as we follow just one of the two alternatives. For a simple logical reason, we cannot follow both terminologies at once, but they are indeed synonymous as long as consistently applied. Meaning that "Iranian Armenians" and "Armenian Iranians" are synonymous, but both terms mean either Armenians living in Iran or Iranians living in Armenia, the latter category of which I suppose is probably non-existent.
Before jumping in to determine which is one is supposedly more used for one of the terms here, let's note that the basic service we provide for our readers is a minimum of consistency. Let's see: based on this "Iranian Armenians" rationale, we should have American Italian instead of Italian American; Canadian French (nb - the link is for the dialect) instead of French Canadian etc. It is by no means consistent, but note than in most such instances, one we look outside the box, the article title is "ethnic origin in country of residence", not the other way around. Or else change the standard everywhere, or move the articles to something more intelligent and explicit than either alternative ("Iranians of Armenian descent" will do, I suppose.)
This initiative of Hovhannesk ignores the global situation and limits itself to Armenians worldwide, for which it has created a special system that is inconsistent with all precedents. It is on par with his moves to include articles on people from the Armenian diaspora into categories relating to the Armenian citizenship, in defiance of categorization guidelines and standards. It may be a patriotic initiative of some sort, but it is terribly counterproductive as such, particularly when it includes one article on all levels of the same category. This is something that needs to be corrected, not encouraged. Dahn (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is "astonishingly absurd" here is the desire of some Wikipedians to invent a world-wide standard of naming in a topic area where real-world writers follow no such standard. In Wikipedia we have a widely-accepted process of determining article and category titles on an individual or country-by-country basis, and accepting "inconsistency" between them, by looking at the actual English usage of the topic/country in question. This holds whether we're talking soccer/football, transport/transportation, sport in/sports in, surname first/given name first (e.g. Hungary --- always English order; Japan --- English order after 1867; Korea --- always native order), or any other topic area where names and may differ. It does not matter what you call Italians in America or Ethiopians in Kazakhstan or whatever. I did a quite thorough search of scholarly and journalistic searches in this topic area and came to the conclusions already listed above.
Anyone who is literate can see from the first sentence of this article that it discusses Armenians in Iran, not Iranians in Armenia or people with both citizenships or people of mixed descent or whatever other fanciful interpretation you can come up with for these double-barrelled ethnonyms. We have redirects, disambiguation pages, and header notes to take care of all the people who think that the entire world should be following their home country's standard of how to name these articles. cab (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a perfect illustration of the uphill struggle one has to face to get a simple point across after a group of wikipedians spontaneously decides to create a problem where there was none. If "all the people who think that the entire world should be following their home country's standard of how to name these articles" addresses me and what I've said, it so misses the point it's not even funny. The name used here is one of several equally valid notions, regardless of which is most used (the "most used" in this case would have to refer to a random preference in random sources) - we can all agree we have to pick just one as the name of the article. It would be no big deal were this not interfering with the usual order - an order I for one did not decide, do not necessarily prefer, and which has nothing to do with the standard my country of origin (though I don't suppose we are here do discuss the Romanian standard).
The article (which I for one did not create nor name) was "Armenian Iranian" until Hovhannesk decided to move it to "Iranian Armenian". In doing so, Hovhannesk did not even make a statement about the naming convention in general, but merely suggested that we should not be applying it here - apparently based on a bogus claim that the name is incorrect (which, if followed consistently, would imply changing the names of tens or hundreds of articles he does not care about). This was his personal preference, and this makes it even more paradoxical that you would be speculating about the personal preferences of someone other than Hovhannesk. It is for this reason, for this irrational non-argument only, that it became "relevant" which name takes precedence and why this false lead entered the debate here. Were it not for that type of rationale, nobody but nobody would find fault with the article title as it was, whereas there are valid concerns surrounding the article title as it now is.
None of the two variants is unorthodox or insulting (so there is no inherent or moral reason for preserving the inconsistency), but one is, in this context, inconsistent without being "more correct".
As for the "whatever other fanciful interpretation you can come up with for these double-barrelled ethnonyms" part: I think you missed my point entirely. I have not ever suggested that any distinction should be made between descent and double citizenship within the article etc. May I suggest you reread the section of my earlier post where I refer to the issue of "descent" and see what I actually said? Dahn (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, incidentally, the prime reason why "real-world writers" don't follow a standard is that, unlike us, they do not aim to create a single, consistent, document. It is likely that a real-world writer will apply one single and consistent format to any such ethnonyms within one work (be it in the "x-y" or "y-x" form). This makes the entire argument about usage a false analogy - or, in any case, invites the question: Would it not be equally legitimate to perform a search what form is most preferred in the outside world for all sorts of ethnonyms together, not just for one, and then retroactively apply the same standard to each and all? I'll repeat the above: None of the two variants is unorthodox or insulting (so there is no inherent or moral reason for preserving the inconsistency), but one is, in this context, inconsistent without being "more correct". Dahn (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, even academic editors seeking to create "single, consistent documents" (e.g. Ember & Ember Encyclopedia of Diasporas) don't try imposing one standard on every single author. (The articles therein are typically headed "Fooians in Barland", but in the actual article texts you can see Barian Fooians, Fooian Barians, Foobarians, etc.) I don't see why Wikipedia should impose a worldwide convention either, especially when it would result in names which are never used in reliable sources, like "Chinese British" for British Chinese one way, or "American Italian" for Italian American like you pointed out the other way --- effectively meaning Wikipedians would be inventing new terminology.
With all due respect, who cares about "the actual article texts", whether in the wikipedia article or the source up for scrutiny? Nobody is talking about suggesting, let alone imposing, a single-ever reference to the same concept within all contexts, just a single title. This, per your own admission, is what the Ember encyclopedia itself does, so your point about "imposing conventions" eludes me. If you struggle with the (questionable) notion that we would be "inventing" terminology, I can only urge you, again, to read again my earlier post: it does not have to be either "Iranian Armenians" or "Armenian Iranians" - the same concept can be defined with the notion "Iranians of Armenian descent", "Armenians in Iran" or some other non-ambiguous notion. This goes for your "British Chinese" analogy. Dahn (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement "It is for this reason, for this irrational non-argument only, that it became "relevant" which name takes precedence" is a gross oversimplification of the situation. In the past five years you can all sorts of undiscussed back-and-forth-and-sideways moves of this article [13][14][15][16]. Now we finally have a title which is aligned with the category title and with the other articles in the category, and for the most part matches scholarly usage for the country in question. So we got a reasonable result for a bad reason. So what? If you're having a conflict with Hovhannesk, take it up on his talk page and leave the rest of us out of it. cab (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the categories too are subject to these whims, especially because people with stubborn preferences form tiny camps that battle with each other on very small areas - precisely what happened here. The moves you mention echo that lack of communication, and it is entirely irrelevant whether or not the categories match at the moment. But this raises an interesting point: in a category like "Iranian Armenians" (probably not in this case exactly, but mutatis mutandis), there is no real way of managing entries to avoid confusion - an Iranian (ethnic Persian?) living in Armenia and an ethnic Armenian living in Iran would end up in the same category. This has happened in the past, regardless of how many headers ambitious users will place at the top of categories - one has to read them to comply with them!
The way to avoid that debacle, and the way forward, is again to avoid this ambiguity by using a clear category title, the "x of y descent" kind. This seems to have been enforced, at least in the case of categories, with some consistency - though, nb, I have played no part in that decision, I just tried to follow the norm. Interestingly, users like Hovhannesk do not like this system, they only like their system (which they will only apply within the limits of their narrow interest); I have seen Hovhannesk emptying categories of the "x of y descent" type and moving them to an "Iranian Armenian" model, without even bothering to replicate the place it had in the category tree, leaving the new category isolated. This is what I'm trying to avoid, this type of inconsistency, that is harmful to the entire project and very hard to remedy, is what we should all consider avoiding.
And no, I have no particular conflict with Hovhannesk personally. I do have a problem with all form of sectarian editing that facilitates confusion, and have a particular problem with it when it is given enforcement by third-parties based on superficial arguments.
Lastly: I am a decent editor with a good standing in the community, whose interest is in improving the quality and structure of information on wikipedia. In this case, I am the one who noted incompatibilities of vision between users who will not communicate with each other, but who are working against each other at different ends - I do not particularly care which system is eventually enforced, but all signs are pointing that one or the other will have to be applied at some point, for practical reasons. I am only here because the ramifications of this conflict directly touched and messed with pages that I have contributed to, articles that fall in the middle of this divide. I suppose that is an approach you can understand and respect, so I will respectfully ask not to be portrayed as some nut with an irrational grudge against Hovhannesk. Dahn (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number[edit]

The article mentioned 300,000 Iranian Armenians exist but then someone edited it to 3,000,000. I checked the sources and they all say 300,000. Pouyakhani (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm this. The other incorrect estimates on other pages related to it should be adjusted as well, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_diaspora — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.203.230 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iranian Armenians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iranian Armenians. 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) 05:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iranian Armenians. 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) 15:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iranian Armenians. 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) 01:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution[edit]

What's the source for the distribution or demographic data in the Distribution section? Hovsepig (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

500,000 deported? The referenced source doesn't say that![edit]

I am reading the number 500,000 for the first time in my life. The highest number in scholarship is usually 250-300,000.

The sentence in the Wiki article reads:

"Shah Abbas relocated an estimated 500,000 Armenians from his Armenian lands during the Ottoman-Safavid War of 1603–1618[10] to an area of Isfahan called New Julfa, which was created to become an Armenian quarter, and to the villages surrounding Isfahan."

The given source is H. Nahavandi, Y. Bomati, Shah Abbas, empereur de Perse (1587–1629) (Perrin, Paris, 1998). However, looking up the source, there is no mention of this or any other number for the total deportations, the source simply says

"His first expedition resulted in the deportation of thousands of Armenians from the town of Julfa, situated on the Aras River, in Nakhichevan, to Isfahan. Resettled in a newly built suburb called New Julfa, these were allowed to conduct their own affairs under the control of the state while retaining their religion. Under the patronage of the shah, New Julfa grew into a town of some 30,000[...]

The usual estimate for the total number of ALL DEPORTATIONS of Armenians from the CAUCASUS (not just Julfa) is 250-300,000 (e.g. Herzig, referenced in this WIKI article!).

I strongly suggest changing that line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iranian_Armenians&oldid=1207736228"