Talk:Ardahan

Comments

Comment

Stop the Armenian vandalism. Ardahan is a Turkish province. Someone keeps adding the Armenian spelling whenever I edit the article. Armenia has been an Ottoman province for many centuries and I could add the Turkish/Ottoman spellings for every Armenian province/city related article but that is considered vandalism and I won't do that. --Denix

See my comment to you here, Denix. —Khoikhoi 09:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you stop.

So is it ok with you if I start a rampage on all the Armenian articles and add a Turkish/Ottoman spelling for each of them? I will if you keep editing this article and you won't be able to remove them if you believe in what you said earlier. --Denix

I suggest you stop. Khoikhoi is right. Please discuss this further with him before continuing. --Moby 09:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And who are you? Another American-Armenian? I don't have to discuss this with him, I know what I'm doing, thanks. --Denix

See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Who I am is not relevant to the issue of your edits (and the answer is no). You do have to discuss edits on wikis. --Moby 10:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From the article Wikipedia:Three-revert rule:

For the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded:

       * self-reverts
       * correction of simple vandalism
       * removing posts made by a banned or blocked user

As you can see, "correction of simple vandalism" is excluded, and this is exactly what I am doing. --Denix

Wrong. Simple vandalism is adding "fuck you" into an article, not adding the Armenian name for something. —Khoikhoi 00:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - I'm not Armenian. —Khoikhoi 01:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Once again, I removed an irrelevant link from this article and multiple users keep adding it back. There is NO Armenian presence in Ardahan. The link redirects to "armeniapedia", a 100% biased Armenian wikipedia clone filled with Armenians. The article is written in Armenian, therefore not understandable by foreigners. It could contain false information, insults etc. I suggest you remove this link: http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Ardahan—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denix (talk • contribs).

No one ever said there are Armenians living in Ardahan today, but it historically had a large Armenian population. The link is about the history of the city, not it's current status. I believe the page is taken from Soviet documents, actually. I fail to see any reason to remove the link other than personal prejudice. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi is right, it is from Soviet documents, and as you can read from the parts already translated to English (which the entire page will be in eventually), there is nothing sinister or false in the article, even though it is on a website "filled with Armenians" (gasp!). In fact, if you find anything 100% biased on the site like you claim, go ahead and click on... "edit this page". It is a wiki, as you say, and that is what wikis are all about. I should warn you that I do (as the administrator of that site) expect quality and (yes) unbiased edits however. --RaffiKojian 18:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe in Wikipedia history / political articles.

Yes, I do use Wikipedia a lot, but I wouldn't recommend it as a reliable source for history or political articles. There will always be biased retards editing / vandalizing articles until their own view is reflected in it and they are satisfied because they have admins as friends and they can easily get other users banned. That sucks so I'm out of here. Sayonara. --Denix

It couldn't possibly be right if the Turkish Government says otherwise, could it? After all, there are no such things as Kurds, just "mountain Turks". --RaffiKojian 16:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The above remark, especially the last part of it, should be taken as a good-intentioned sarcasm or joke, right? Mu5ti 16:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if I'm not mistaken, it was the strict official policy of Turkey until the 1980s. --RaffiKojian 03:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's, for the sake of argument, say that "unfortunately, you are not mistaken". Given that, you and I and the whole world know that policies change. Or do we really? Let me ask it in another way, what year are we in? (notice the bolded text, and notice your previous remarks in the present tense. Please do not sidestep.)

Let's try another thing...again, let's say "unfortunately, you are not mistaken". The Kurdish guerrillas did not start their "activities" until mid 80's. Now, what "strict policy" are we talking about?

You can choose to extend this debate, as an Armenian. But let me tell you something...as a Turk with Kurdish blood in him, as someone who lost his uncle to Armenian terrorists and brethren-in-arms to Kurdish guerrillas, as someone who has been shot on by the same guerrillas...please spare me the armchair "holier-than-thou", smart attitude. If you want to contribute to knowledge and to Wikipedia, be my friend and my mentor, go right ahead, I'll follow. But if you want to spend endless hours in front of your computer extending decades-old single-sided hatred towards Turks, I am not your man. Mu5ti 04:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I fully understand your point in the beginning. Someone said they did not believe the stuff written here about history, politics. I am simply pointing out that (assuming this person grew up in Turkey - which seems quite likely) this person was raised in a country where free speech on these issues was not allowed, and they were not exposed to the truth as the rest of the world knows it. A very VERY important realization that tens of millions of Turks need to understand. If you are hinting this was all in the past - it is only because of EU entry that certain things have begun to change... but if you want present tense, Turkey's most famous writer (internationally) was just on trial and let off on a bit of a technicality for saying there was an Armenian Genocide and that Kurds were mistreated. Armenians still haven't gotten any of the property stolen from them back during, or after the Armenian Genocide (when all Armenian community property purchased since some date in the 1930s began being confiscated under a treaty provision meant to protect them, not screw them), and I, personally, am forbidden to climb Mt. Ararat simply because my last name ends in -ian. I was informed this, and others have been. My intent is not to debate, simply to point out simple truths. Truths that are blatantly obvious to everyone in the planet except Turks. I can be your best friend, but I cannot shut up about these truths. And fyi, if you consider yourself a Turk, you are a Turk, but don't think your "other bloods" stop with the recent Kurdish blood. --RaffiKojian 04:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nuray Hafiftaş

The Nuray Hafiftaş article says she was born in Kars (close, but not Ardahan). Please remove the contradiction. `'mikka (t) 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It says she was born in Kars region. Ardahan was part of Kars region until the 1990s, so it is possible that she was born in what was a part of Kars region and now is part of Ardahan region.Meowy 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The link

Please see WP:EL and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. People shouldn't be adding the links to websites that they own or operate. The links should be included if the inclusion of content is not possible from the other site. Unstable web-sites shouldn't be linked either (stable defined as not prone to changes all the time, wikis by nature are not in that category). These are part of the guidelines. Simple vandalism is adding "fuck you" into an article, as Khoikhoi pointed out above. Content disputes are not in that category. Feel free to expand the article, however, with appropriate sources. That's not the problem. Cheers Baristarim 06:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I encourage Raffi to add to this article, with information based on reliable sources. I'm sure the Ardahan article on Armeniapedia is referenced, so we can use those sources to expand this page. However, "links to open wikis" is listed on the "Links normally to be avoided" section of WP:EL. This does not stop us from adding Armenian history to this article. I hope we can edit constructively from now on rather than edit warring over external links. Khoikhoi 06:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. In fact, I will create a history sub-section myself and add a couple of paragraphs in it so that such edit-wars can be avoided in the future, after the article gets unprotected. After I have created the section, I will remove the link and I will leave the further expansion of the section on users who might be more knowledgable about the subject. I personally have no idea about Ardahan or its history, so I am not qualified. If this is ok, there is no need for further protection. Let's wait for a couple of days to see if there are any further comments. Baristarim 07:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The policy states: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I would certainly argue that Armeniapedia falls under the category of substantial history of stability, and though I am not sure what "substantial number of editors" amounts to, every single edit since the site went up has been carefully monitored. In other words, though the script is a wiki and anyone can edit, the entire thing is under my careful supervision and I think avoids the usual issues that open wikis represent, and therefore again, I consider Armeniapedia to be an exception. I feel like an link to an article on the Armenian history and presence in the town is a positive addition to the Wikipedia article, until such time that the article incorporates that information substantially itself. And although I am a frequent contributor to this site, I'm sure you'll understand if I do not copy and paste every bit of work I do from my site to this one. So. Where does that leave us? Do I need to change the format of my site or lock it from external editors in order for it to become reliable or is my dictatorial level of supervision enough?? --RaffiKojian 16:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In fact, you should avoid making any additions of links to your website yourself. By the way, hence my comment about reliability: If the website is under the strict monitoring of only one person, that site cannot be considered reliable, no matter if its turcopedia, chinesepedia, brazilopedia or etc. Nothing stops anyone from adding to this article, as long as it is in sync with Wiki guidelines, such as WP:RS. In any case, WP:EL and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest are clear. Reverting the addition of links of websites added by their webmasters is not "vandalism". However, I will create a section and try to expand it in this article a little bit, then remove the link as a compromise. Nevertheless, please do not add the links to your website yourself in the future. I have also deleted many external links to websites created and run by Turkish editors, political or simply commercial, for similar reasons as cited above in many articles. Open wikis cannot be considered as stable all the time. In any case, by your own words, you admitted that it is pretty much a site practically run by one single person with occasionnal "dictatorially" monitored contributions. That fails the spirit of "significant number of contributors" criteria. On a side note, please also see WP:AGF; saying "I suspect racist in motivation", then putting msgs to the talk pages by saying "thank you for confirming my suspicions!" is a violation of WP:NPA as well. Cheers Baristarim 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read the conflict of interest clause as well which says you should *try* to avoid it. I can see why, since on my own wiki as well people try to promote low to no quality sites of theirs, in irrelevant places. So again, I feel that I am not violating the letter, nor the spirit of this rule. If it is under strict supervision of one person OF COURSE it can still be quite reliable. There are other contributors, but imagine it is not a wiki at all for all practical purposes. How does a non-wiki automatically become unreliable??? A site is unreliable due to its content being unreliable/poor, and I think if you actually took the time to look, you'd be surprised at how neutral and plentiful the information is. I am sorry if you follow my edits and don't like my stated suspicion, but having read the NPA, I don't believe my statement quite is an "attack". So that just leaves my lack of belief in your good faith, which I must say this exchange and my long history of fighting to maintain a mention of Armenians in articles related to Anatolia and modern Azerbaijan kind of has trained me to doubt. Your lack of faith in my ability to create a reliable site is simply wrong, a lack of good faith, and I feel a sort of a personal attack... So what can I say? It doesn't look like the two of us are coming closer to agreement. I hope Kholkhoi agrees with some of my explanations, but in any case I will wait for his word on this matter... --RaffiKojian 14:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

lol. I know that it is to be "avoided". But "terrorist" is also a word to "avoid". If there is no rule set in stone, maybe I should go to ASALA article and add "terrorist"? Even Bin Laden article tries to avoid the mention of the word terrorist as much as it can, so "avoid" is not such a flexible word. Anyways...

Listen, I know my way around many things and Net is definitely one of them. I have read Armeniapedia from back to front and I also know some of the arguments that have taken place about it in many pages. I also read the Ardahan article. First of all, a majority of the text is in Armenian. That's not a problem per se however. It wouldn't be too fair to demand that it be translated perfectly since I imagine that it is not easy to run a site with such a large scope. And I am sure that you are trying to do something that you believe is good, I respect that. I also understand your AGF problems, I know what goes around, believe me.

But I also have one problem: the inclusion of that link is also used as the promotion of that site in the sense that, it takes the reader of this article to a site whose content is used to highlight info that some consider that others "need to know", like you said in your post way above in response to another Turkish user. When I click on that link, I am not simply going to an article about Ardahan: it is going to take me to a website whose primary focus is to highlight one nation. I don't know what made you create that wiki, but I suspect similar reasons that lead to the creation of creationwiki et al: inability to shape Wikipedia as you would like to (you here is not personal). This is not relevant, but I can't help but note for the record that this is a way to circumvent the "wikiprocess" and include info in Wikipedia through the backdoor. Basically: better stick to Wikipedia and contribute like the rest of us. Anyways, this is not relevant, but I feel that this is really the case. Evolution doesn't include the evolution article of CreationWiki as an external link, if you catch my drift... Now, don't get me wrong, as an atheist I consider CreationWiki to be, well, you know what I mean, and I am not saying it is the same thing for armeniapedia, I am sure that there is a lot of good content in there (even though they do seem to point a bit too much to Turkey :)). If you felt that I was doubting your good faith to be able create a reliable site, then I apologize, since that wasn't the case. I can generally seperate content disputes from faith issues. People can disagree greatly, but they might truly feel that they are right. Similar...

Nevertheless, I hear your points, and to be fair I will admit that, unless the Wikipedia articles such as Ardahan are expanded, the inclusion of the armeniapedia link can make sense, even though I still stand behind what I said earlier about EL and Conflict of interest. I gave this some thought actually, and I will AGF since we never ran into each other, and what you said about how your AGF got worn out because of the past is valid enough; so I can understand your reaction. I am a blunt person, I will let know of what I think of something quite clearly... What I am saying is, for me the link is ok, but only for those articles in Wikipedia whose content is lacking. If there is a section in a Wikipedia article with the same scope, then it becomes duplication of POV and/or emphasis. I generally do a lot of general cleanup tasks around many articles, and have been trying to clean up Turkish city articles, so if I come across any such situations, I will act consistent with what I just wrote in the spirit of good faith. As for this article, I no longer have problems with it staying until the history section is expanded (which I will actually try to do when it is unprotected). Cheers Baristarim 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your sentiments. Let me say that if the content on the Armeniapedia page is represented on WP, I have no problem with the link being removed from WP, since I agree a link should lead users to additional info, but in this case for example it would be hard for an article called Ardahan to match what I would hope my site could offer. Instead, it would probably need to be an article called Armenian history and presence in Ardahan. That has to do with the philosophy of my site and its reason for being - which has nothing to do with POV or circumventing the way this wiki works. So since the subject has come up, let me just give some background on the philosophy of Armeniapedia vs. Wikipedia. The philosophy of Armeniapedia is simply to contain every bit of information in the planet that relates to Armenia(ns)! So, like "About the articles" on the main page explains, "Articles about things not Armenian are here only to give the Armenian angle, or connection. The Bob Dole page will therefore only contain letters, references, information on his activities related to Armenian(ns)." (hardly worth mentioning on Wikipedia). And in addition to this it contains much that is not "encyclopedic", another very important distinction. I cannot put an Armenian cookbook, lessons, books, etc on this site. It is not permitted. Armeniapedia is perfect for all these things. If I could find a way to synchronize certain articles which are about Armenia or an Armenian between the sites, I'd love to. That would save me a lot of headache and I wouldn't mind at all if all the editing/traffic went to Wikipedia. I also have a lot of links to Wikipedia on the site and wouldn't care if every single page was linked to a relevant article. I like for Armenians to be exposed to both. I also enjoy contributions on Armeniapedia and if they reach a level where there is a decent, trustworthy community established, at that time I could worry about distributing editorial powers - which by coincidence I just granted to a fellow I know from wikipedia here just a few days ago. So in any case, I hope that better explains the site and its intentions to you, which I felt I owed you since you have given me the benefit of the doubt. Also, I would love to finish a proper translation of the Armeniapedia article, but my written Eastern Armenian is not up to par - I am doing what I can. Also, I really strive to be as neutral as anybody, and would genuinely welcome constructive edits from anyone on any article on Armeniapedia. Best --RaffiKojian 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough :) happy new year btw and good luck! Baristarim 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and likewise! --RaffiKojian 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140417121253/http://www.belediyelerkonusuyor.com/Ardahan-ARDAHAN-belediyesi-25 to http://www.belediyelerkonusuyor.com/Ardahan-ARDAHAN-belediyesi-25

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Armenian name

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) 23:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)