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

Personal Artifacts[edit]

I was a little shocked to see a child's drawing on these pages. How is that allowed? With all due respect, it deos not belong to a general purpose article in a public space. How about a real map of the city, a real nice picture of the famed Kars Fort, and other real and useful information first?--Murat (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's so shocking. A hand drawn picture from almost a century ago is quite interesting actually. The caption of the image doesn't claim to be anything that the image is not. You can add other images without removing this one. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 02:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a newbie here I have already seen many bizzare stuff, but this is on top. Hard to believe this is even being discussed. Personal memorablia does not belong on these pages. How about the picture I drew when I was 5? My folks thought it was good. Can we get real?--Murat (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeating yourself again but you're not saying why it's bizzare or shocking. I told you why it's interesting and notable. It's drawn by someone from a community in Kars that doesn't exist anymore almost a hundred years ago.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting this child's drawing has some historical and artistic importance and significance? There is absolutely nothing notable about it. There is not even a real map of Kars here, not even a decent picture of the "Kale". Here is a compromise: Place the drawing in the talk pages where granpa can be immortalized.--Murat (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a compromise - Murat quits his trawling through Wikipedia entries related to Turkey to remove any content connected to Armenians. Meowy 19:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what does that make you? Do not worry, the wall of self-deception and fabrication is very thick, there is a whole industry behind it and an army of trolls behind it.--Murat (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion above. Maybe you can add a real map of the city if really interested in improving it. There is more to Kars than its Armenian history. These pages are not personal depository.--Murat (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names in other languages[edit]


  • Russian is relevant due to the city's being an important military venue during Russo-Turkish Wars. And let's not forget that it has not even been 100 years since Kars ceased to be part of Russia.
  • Azeri is relevant due to the large historical presence of Azeris in Kars, even to this day. I don't see how this is irrelevant while the Kurdish spelling is relevant. Parishan (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both languages have absolutely no value. With your rationale, every single city in the old world can have several lnaguages added in the lead. Karos was not the only city that was a venue of the war, hundreds of other cities were as well? Are you going to add a Russian name to all those articles as well? Or all the other cities that were briefly part of the Russian Empire? The Azeri community was not large or of any historical significance, are there even any non-migrant Azeris there today? For all intents and purposes it's a Kurdish city today inhabited mostly by Kurds within Turkey.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The period of Russian domination influenced the city politically and culturally (see Russian architecture in present-day Kars: [1] [2]), it was fairly recent, it was marked by heavy colonisation by the Russian settlers, and there are even several families of the Molokans who remain in Kars nowadays ([3], [4], [5]). As for Azeri, I think we've been over this, the Azeri community there largely consists of Turkish-born individuals tracing their roots to the Safavid or Russian Imperial period, and not of recent migrants, hence me referring to it as historical. Their history is very well covered in this source. I am not sure how well you know Turkish, but in case you do, here are some Turkish sources as well: [6], [7], [8]. Parishan (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but once again irrelevant. Russian influence is a billion times more apparent and strong on Baku for example, particularly when it comes to architecture. Why isn't there a Russian name? The English source doesn't really do much, Kars is mentioned once in the context that it was briefly under Safavid rule. So what? I'm afraid I can only count in Turkish.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baku's being part of a Russian-speaking realm is more obvious than that of Kars. Just like there is no German name in the introduction for Ljubljana, but there is one in Maribor, despite both of them being located in Slovenia and both of them at some point being part of the Austrian Empire.
When you are checking sources for relevance, you don't just press Ctrl+F and see how many times you come across your query. You read the excerpt and assess the relevance in the context:
"The history of the Azeri population in today's Turkey can be traced back to the earlier periods of the Safavid era in Iran (1501-1722), when their rule extended over the current Turkish regions of Kars and neighboring areas." Parishan (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English-language Wikipedia, so there is no place for the name "Kars" in any other language except were they have a direct and recent historical connection to the place and having the alternative name has some use within the article. And of course they are actually not "languages", it is all just "Kars" spelt using different alphabets. It is useful to have the Russian and Armenian versions just for their visual identification value, and also because of the historical Russian and Armenian connections to Kars. There is no useful purpose or validity in having it in the Kurdish (whatever that is), Greek, or Azeri alphabets and they should go. Meowy 22:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if I were to use the existing Arabic-based alphabets for both Kurdish and Azeri, the names would, in your opinion, have the "visual identification value"? And how apt is it for someone who has no knowledge of what Kurdish is to participate in such a discussion? Parishan (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent years in Kars, so I know how the name is pronounced, and how it has been pronounced, (and whether it is a "Kurdish city" or not (it most certainly is not)). The pronounciation is a definite reason for retaining the Armenian alphabet spelling - historically it was pronounced like "Ghars", and still is amongst the older members of the town's population. Meowy 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we're keeping them. Because neither the Kurdish pronunciation, nor the Azeri is "Kars". Parishan (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Kurdish and the Azeri are just "Kars", and have no relevance here anyway. If it will make things simpler, then maybe the Russian one should go as well. But the Armenian should stay because it reflects the "Ghars" pronounciation as well as the recent past history of Kars. Meowy 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, Parishan, Azeri? Do you want to perhaps add Russian to the San Fransisco and Alaska articles now? Just because the Iranian Safavids temporarily held the region doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to now add an irrelevant script that was invented only twenty years ago; the logic is so mindboggling that I'm surprised you're going to such extremes to justify this silly inclusion. The Russian spelling seems more relevant, the Greek is debatable, so we can discuss whether their inclusion is truly warranted.

On a different note, Murad's disruptive edit of removing the illustration of Kars, by justifying it as "memorabilia", is just another example of his vandalism so I duly re-added the image. A topic ban on all things related to Armenians seems to be in order here for him.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MarshallBagramyan. You wanna dispute it - you gotta do better than that. And it doesn't kill to read discussions before joining them. Parishan (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please go on and elaborate on the great contributions of the Azeri culture to Kars.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will do no such thing. I have already mentioned and sourced the fact that Azeris form a substantial historical community in Kars. If Kurdish deserves to be there for the same reason, so does Azeri. On the contrary, if you want to dispute that, go ahead. Otherwise it just seems to me like another case of Azeri-phobia on Wikipedia. For the time being, the Azeri spelling is going back. Parishan (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He, Murat, did give a legitimate reason for removing the image, and though I thought its presence added to the article I decided it wasn't worth arguing about. I think it would be better to leave Murat's less controversial edits alone (and not characterise them as vandalism) and concentrate instead on correcting his obviously POV ones. Meowy 20:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the caption for the drawing seems a bit wrong. North seems to be on the right of the page, the black hill is the citadel, so the Church of the Apostles will be the pointed building at the base of that hill, beside the stream. So the Kars river is actually at the top of the page, above and parallel to the street with writing on it. The "three red domed structures" are not "outdoor lavatories", they are bath houses. Of the three domed buildings within the rectagular section of the city, they are, going top to bottom, probably the Greek, Russian, and Armenian cathedrals. Would someone like to try and decipher and translate all the writing on the drawing. Meowy 21:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a translation of the material accompanied with the Armenian text and my notes. Beginning from the first line:

Panoramic view of Kars [written Ղարս], 1917, my sacred memories of the [the city]. [One line below, numbers corresponding to those on map] 1. Red bathhouses (կարմիր բաղնիքներ) 2. Our home 3. Angliski saud, Russian for English garden (Անգլիսկի սադ) 4. the Armenian church 5. Homes belonging to the wealthy (մեծահարուստների տուներ) 6. Pohyi Mahlen (մահլէն, Turkish for district), or Pohi District [the first word remains unclear for me] 7. Tezkharab [possibly Turkish? tez, quick; kharab, ruined] District 8. [unnamed] river 9. [unnamed] river 10. Aleksander Avenue [to the far right], etc. [On the map itself, orange colored road stretching from left to right below the main text] District of the Malakans. [To the far left] The road to Erzerum. [To the far right] Kars Fortress. [Bottom left] Railway station (կաեարան երկաթուղա) [Bottom left of page, with stretching arrow] Toward Alexandropol.

Hope this clarified things.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Meowy 00:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and removed all the so-called alternative names except for the two written in Armenian. As I had pointed out way back in May of last year, all of them, except the "Gh" Armenian version, are pronounced the same. They are not alternative names for Kars used by different languages or races - they are exactly the same name written using different alphabets! If someone wants to start an edit war over this removal, I will not oblige. I will take the issue to arbitration. Anyone who does think all those "alternative" names should return would do well to look at how such issues are covered in other entries. Meowy 00:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not pronounced the same. I do not know how many times I have to make this clear. If you are familiar with IPA, compare the Turkish /kars/ to the Kurdish /qærs/ and to the Azeri /ɡɑrs/ - the pronunciation differs in at least two segments. Your linguistic incompetence has been a disturbing factor in the alternative name-related discussions on Wiki (or rather, those that involved references to Azeri), and I really suggest that you look into the phonetics of each language, over which you get yourself involved into a discussion. You have not even been able to keep up with your argumentation. You have flipped your position from keeping only the 'fancy-script' names to keeping the ones that 'differ in pronunciation', when both of those arguments are false and based (at least superficially) on the limited amount of research you have done with regard to them. Parishan (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Londres" is not pronounced the same as "London" but that doesn't mean that the entry for London should have "Londres" as an alternative name. I had felt that the Russian version had a place for historical reasons, but since then it was pointed out that entries like Baku don't have it, so Kars also shouldn't have it (and of course the name is the same, but just spelt in Cyrillic"). Meowy 15:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if the script doesn't matter, and the population factor doesn't matter, what does? Explain how in light of this, the Armenian spelling is superior to others. Parishan (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is history and diference in pronounciation that matters. Most of the history of Kars is fundamentally Armenian. Armenian "Ghars" is pronounced differently from "Kars". There is no place for the name spelt in Greek - the last Greek left Kars almost 90 years ago, there is no substantial Greek historical or cultural connection to Kars, and the community was only some 800 strong. What Kars is spelt like in modern Azeri is of no importance to this article - Kars is not and never has been part of Azerbaijan. And the "Kurdish" one is probably made up - quote me a single publication that uses it, a single map on which it appears. Meowy 21:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So now it is 'history' and 'difference in pronunciation'? I wonder what you will think of next. You do realise that by resorting to statements like "is probably made up" you just discredit yourself more and more? You are making it obvious that you are trying to narrow it down to the Armenian version only by whatever means possible. Well, you are on the wrong track. It does not take a wise man to use a search engine and come across that name: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I can go on. And once again, if the Kurdish name deserves to be their due to ethnic Kurdish presence in Kars, so does the Azeri name. And I really suggest that you stop looking for loop holes. There are none. Parishan (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, because there is a big French ethnic presence in London, and the name "Londres" appears in lots of French-language newspapers, the London Wikipedia article should have "Londres" as an alternative name? Would that happen? Of course not! I suggest you stop looking to make Kars into an exception amongst Wikipedia articles, because the exception won't happen. Meowy 02:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The French presence in London has never been significant in those terms. Historical records indicate that even the Norman French noblemen were assimilated into English culture, identity and language beyond second or third generation. The strong and consistent Azeri presence in Kars has been a phenomenon of several centures. The many Azeris living there today are aware of their roots and speak the Azeri language, and use the historically-relevant and different-in-pronunciation name Qars when they speak it. And I am yet to see you comment on the Kurdish name. Parishan (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above statements can only be taken with a grain of salt. The Azerbaijani identity was only formed during the mid-late 20th century (the article you cited above mentions the confusion in choosing between Turkic or Iranic cultures) and it is highly unlikely that remnants of the Iranian Safavids, who only held the area very tenuously during the 17th century, would have been able to have maintained some sort of distinguishable identity for centuries on in. If they did, please point to some concrete examples instead of shamelessly skirting the issue. Once again, the evidence to support your statements have not been forthcoming because the entire notion is nonsense. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What can be taken with a grain of salt is a statement like "Azerbaijani identity was only formed during the mid-late 20th century." To be honest, I am truly surprised you didn't say "the 21st century." Luckily, it is 2008 now, so you have got more than enough room for such claims.
On a serious note, we are talking about a language here, not political concepts. Parishan (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parishan, had you read the article, it would have become obvious to you, as to why the Armenian spelling belongs there. Your behavior over the years on adding modern Azeri letters to articles which subject covers a period prior to when the Azeri identity was formed has become gradually a stereotype of yours. Azeri have as much connection to Kars than the Turkmen, Karapapakhs etc., in fact even less as the formation of the Azeri identity is more modern than those later groups. VartanM (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I never contested or disagreed with the inclusion of the Armenian name into the article. Your years-long study of my 'tit-for-tat' mentality has failed you in that I do not go around removing references to languages that are associated with nations and states I do not appreciate. Unlike... well, you know. Parishan (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations and continuous incivilities are on the verge of being reported. In fact in this worthless discussion you have continuously engaged in incivility and baseless accusations. Your allegation to Marshal are simply not backed. The fact of the matter is that what you claim as justifying inclusion can hardly convince anyone beside you. There must be a reason beyond that, which is quite different than your assumption of bad faith. Your claim that you have not contested the inclusion of the Armenian name is laughable, a short read of the article justify by itself its inclusion. There was an Armenian presence in Baku much before the Azeri identity was formed, in fact much before there was Turko-Mongol migration there. Why should we not add the Armenian word for the place, after all it is much more justifiable than the modern Azeri term for Kars. Kars is a historically Armenian land, which fell to the Ottomans, then taken back as part of Russian Armenia, then incorporated into Turkey. Your repetitive, circular discussions, accusations and incivilities won't make me move an inch for something which is obviously an inappropriate edit of yours and can in no way be seen as anything else than POV pushing. We have asked you to stop this unacceptable behavior several time and we have documented this in AA2, and it seem you haven't changed at all. That's a shame, because you are the oldest member who is involved in this articles and should have learned this by now. VartanM (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laugh it off if it makes you feel any better Parishan. Politics notwithstanding, the truth of the matter is that you can't substantiate its inclusion. By providing no concrete examples, you have just proved to us that this is a non-issue and it's about time we start concentrating on far more important things.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already proven to you that the historical ethnic Kurdish and Azeri presence in Kars is substantial enough for the inclusion of the respective names. I have not heard any counter-arguments from you. Tying the Azeri linguistic factor in Kars to nation-building in Azerbaijan is not an argument, and is not even worth commenting on. Meowy is another story; he has been ridiculously generating new criteria for language inclusion all thoroughout the discussion. (And removing Kurdish for the sake of getting rid of Azeri says a lot.) The point is, regardless of the names the academia used to refer to those languages, their historical verbal presence in Kars is non-debatable. Those names are as frequently used to refer to Kars by their speakers, as is the Armenian name. Parishan (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk all you want, but you can't hide the fact that "Azeri" and "Kurdish" names for Kars do not exist, and no inhabitant of Kars would write the name of their city using Azeri or Kurdish alphabets. There is only one name for Kars, and it is pronounced in two distinct ways: "Ghars" (probably the original Armenian way of pronouncing it) and the current official pronounciation "Kars". The "Kars" pronounciation in written form dates back at least two centuries - maybe it arose because of difficulty in rendering the "Gh" into either Turkish or Russian, I don't know for sure. Both "Kars" and "Ghars" appears in 19th century Armenian sources written in Armenian script. In Russian it seems to be only "Kars", and it is only "Kars" in modern Turkish script. However, until relatively recently a large part of the local population still pronounced it "Ghars". In the last decade or so that old way of pronouncing it has rapidly diminished thanks to education and mass media influences and it is now not often heard. Meowy 21:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan adding Azeri names to articles where it doesn't belong? This seems oddly familiar. How many times I have seen this before? VartanM (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not as often as VartanM removing references to Azerbaijan, where no others belong. Parishan (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your tit-for-tat mentality is highlighted in the above answer. It's really sad you look at it that way. I won't bother exposing why the removal of the Azeri term on the several articles, which you have added without justifiable reason, was more than justifiable. VartanM (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name[edit]

Meowy, before removing the reference to Georgian origin of the Kars name, please, find another non-Armenian source citing Armenian spelling (or Armenian meaning) of the word "Kars", to justify what appears to be original research without sources. Atabəy (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever inserted the claim that Kars is Armenian name, please, provide a verifiable source with meaning in translation. Otherwise, please, remove the false claim, as the name originated from Georgian kari (gate) per reference. Atabəy (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the following source: Placenames of the world By Adrian Room The name is subject to etymological speculation and "kari" is but one of them, the other being the Armenian word for bride.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The source was verifiable. Or should it be "verifiable" by Atabəy? Sardur (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atabəy, I did NOT "remove the reference to Georgian origin of the Kars name"! Someone needs to hammer out once and for all what the "alternative names" section of Wikipedia articles should be. I do not think they are there to give supposed or speculative explanations of the origin of the place-name - they are there to list place-names that are alternatives or historical names of the current or official place-name. If I am right, the text currently within the article is not valid. The current solution also leaves the article wide open to propaganda "explanations" of the name origin, such as the laughable Turkish propaganda that the name is derived from a Turkish tribe. Meowy 16:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no original meaning is provided in Armenian, I kept the Armenian spelling and Georgian spelling with addition that the word originates from Georgian "Kari" (the Gate) per reference. Atabəy (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the source that was provided. In it you will find the Armenian meaning of the word. Thanks.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why don't you provide the Armenian meaning here, in discussion. Moreover, the reference which Marshall moved down says that the name originates from Georgian and provides the meaning. So why move it down? What's the basis for claiming that reference to Armenian transliteration without meaning is more important than reference to Georgian name with meaning? Perhaps, we could move the debate to Wikipedia fringe theories to investigate why Armenian transliteration, which indeed means nothing and is not original, is pushed so much against the original? Atabəy (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) The source clearly states that the name Kars originates form the Armenian word for bride. 2) We can leave the other source that suggests an alternative etymology elsewhere but not in the lead since the city was Armenian, not Georgian. Any other questions?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're claiming that one unverified source says the word originated from Armenian "bride", while removing the other, verifiable and linked source, which claims that it comes from Georgian "kari" - "gate". Now are we to believe you OR the source? Atabəy (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, and why are you removing the source altogether? Atabəy (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting sick and tired of this. What do you mean "unverified source", the Google Books link is right above! Here: Placenames of the world By Adrian Room. Do you see it now? Would you like it served with some caviar perhaps?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, please, follow WP:NPA and WP:AGF and be polite in your discussions. Also, the fact that you're getting sick and tired of WP:POV pushing is not the issue of other editors, in this regards, please, follow WP:OWN as well. Furthermore, the fact that you presented an Armenian name for the origin (lacking support) is not a sufficient justification for inserting an Armenian spelling of the city that is not in Armenia, and is located on the border of Turkey with both Georgia and Armenia. I do not understand your deliberate attempt to disassociate the city with Georgia and why did you remove the reference? Atabəy (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's settle one aspect of this discussion. Based on the guidelines contained in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), theories about the etymological origin of a placename should not be placed in the listing of alternative names in an article's lead section. Meowy 15:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the POV tag. Partly because it is wrongly inserted - an entire article cannot be POV-tagged when all that is being argued about is a single point. Also, given that my opinion in the above post has not been countered, it seems there is no justification for having the POV tag in the article. The article already contains details about both theories on the origin of the name "Kars", and the arguments were about where in the article those theories should be stated. However, those arguments are settled if the advice in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is accepted (i.e. they they cannot be inserted in the listing of alternative names). Meowy 20:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, since references say the name originates from Georgian "kari", there is no reason to keep only Armenian spelling in front - Georgian must be there also. If you want to remove it, fine remove Armenian as well. Atabəy (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is disruption no matter how you slice it Atabek. The Georgian name is mentioned in the Etymology section of the article and constantly adding it in the lead reeks of POV pushing. Continue with these disruptive edits and I will report you to the Incidents/AA2 page and they will know how best to deal with it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, there is no need to threaten people but rather to discuss and come to consensus. There is no logical reason for listing Georgian in etymology section while showing Armenian in transliteration. Why is one upheld over the other, when references to both origins are provided. Atabəy (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already have been overruled by three other editors and this is now becoming another familiar case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. We have all come to agree with Meowy's compromise version; the rules he cites above are ones you apparently enjoy to ignor or prefer not to read. It preserves the Georgian text in the etymology section, since it's impossible to verify whether it comes from Armenian or Georgian. Even still, Kars has prominence for being a historically Armenian, not Georgian, city. This is the last warning.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Kars. 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) 08:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kars. 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) 18:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the Border with Armenia[edit]

Today someone wanted to remove a phrase about the closing of the border. While it is "only" a capital of a border province, the info is significant as the railways to Armenia from Kars were closed after the shut down of the border. But the info was present twice, once in the very lead and once under transport. So I moved the phrase down from the lead to transport and adapted the phrase a bit. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Mosque of Kars[edit]

Do we have sources on the burning other than Turkish source. The current sources are only Turkish news media articles. Maidyouneed (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do us a favor and translate those Turkish articles into English using Google Translate? Dominator1071 (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that we can not use google translate, its the source is Turkish. It is forbidden for the Turkish media, to report about the Armenian Genocide as we have multiple articles on Wikipedia which treat people being sentenced by Turkey for reporting or just speaking about it. The Turkish media are suspicious and not seen as reliable regarding the Armenians. A source from a Western (Europe/USA) University accepted by the majority of the academic world would be better to source this.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is not about the language. It is about the sources themselves. They are all only very recent Turkish news media articles newly describing a very old event. 3 out 5 are the same article, 1 out of 5 looks down (memurlar). All of the sources are republishing news from elsewhere, acting as news portal/aggregators; They are not the actual news sources themselves. The articles are describing a recent exhibition put on by the then Mosque Association president which isn't a reliable source in itself. That these are all only Turkish sources in regards to the Armenians around the time of the Armenian genocide also challenges their reliability. Maidyouneed (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian name[edit]

Why is the Armenian name of the town included? These have been Turkish and Kurdish lands for a thousand years. Articles on Greek islands that were Turkish territory a hundred years ago are not allowing Turkish names to be included! Double standards seem to be at play. Someone explain it logically please. Dominator1071 (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't duplicate comments like this on multiple pages. But since you are doing this, I will copy my answer from Talk:Van, Turkey#Armenian name:
As a general rule, Ottoman names should be given for former parts of the Ottoman Empire now part of Greece, as for example in Chania, Crete, Lesbos, Giannitsa, etc.
If you could point out Greek places where the Ottoman place name is "not allowed to be included", please let me know.
Similarly, areas which have had important Armenian populations in the past should include the Armenian name. --Macrakis (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]