Talk:Erzurum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unrelated template

Please dont put any irrelevant template.This is a nationalist approach and can bring some distruptive edits on Armenian cities(Which they were ruled by Ottoman Empire till to 1920's).No need like war-edits in wiki. Regards. Must^TC 10:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That is why smilar many Templates deleted from Greece, Erivan etc(some deleted by me). Please dont begin nationalist edit-rv war among users.Must^TC 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding it doesn't mean a claim to it, it just means that Armenian editors are contributing as well since it has a significant historic past to Armenia. Khoikhoi 20:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

External links

I deleted the link: * The City Overview (video) because the video is no longer available. Yahshammah 21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

blockquotes

I did not remove any information, I just removed those unnecessary, lenghty, POV blockquotes. I don't see why we should keep them. Deniz^T_C 14:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I don't like blockquotes either. What was the reason to remove the info about the deportation route? --VartanM 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What info? If it is removed, then it is a mistake, sorry if that is the case. Deniz^T_C 16:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If the "history" section of this entry actually lived up to its name, then those quotes would be considered overly-long and probably superfluous to the entry. However there is almost nothing of the substantial history of Erzurum in this entry, and until there is more content I think the quotes should remain because they neatly sum-up events in Erzurum at the end of the 19th century. PS - by mistake, I made the change (re-inserting the quotes) before logging in. Meowy 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, much of the history content that is currently contained in the entry for Erzurum region would appear to be more appropriate for this entry. Thoughts? Meowy 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We cannot include things for the sake of including them. The history section is not that short, what this article is lacking is other stuff (besides if it is short we should be more selective when adding things, and add them duly) . This city is a modern city, people live in this city, many things can be added. But our blockquotes don't seem to add anything useful. They are just unencyclopedic POV things imposing ideas on the reader (this might be the weasel thing you were mentioning on Ataturk). No reason for them to stay. Also some stuff in the history section should not be there (I moved them into new sections). Deniz^T_C 20:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will not re-insert the quotes. Following you reasoning, I have removed the sentence on Nene Hatum. As written, it was unenyclopaedic POV, and there already is a link about her in the notable natives section. Regarding the length of thehistoy section, Erzurum's history is at least 2000 years, we have a couple of lines covering a few incidents in recent centuries. Do you really think that is not too short?? Meowy 19:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is short, not too short, the article in general is short, that does not mean we should go ahead and add those blockquotes. Nene Hatun thing can be rephrased and readded, as it was actually giving additional info about a war, but it should be rephrased like I said. Women taking on arms against a strong foe, and defeating that foe, might be quite notable. Also, I checked Mama Hatun, and I think now that it might be useful to add that Erzurum was capital of Saltuklu's, also we might add other historical states, whose capital lies in today's Erzurum, the city. Deniz^T_C 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Nene Hatun thing wasn't giving additional information about that war, because there was no information at all about that war in the history section! That is why I removed it. The entry needs much more basic information about the history of Erzurum on the page before inserting tiny details that are already fully covered in another entry. Regarding your feeling that the history information pertaining to Erzurum city should remain on the Erzurum region page. Erzurum region once included all of present-day Kars, Ardahan, and Artvin regions. Presumably you are not arguing that all the pre-19th century history of those places should be moved to Erzurum region! Meowy 19:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of "according to" being weasel, it might in fact be the opposite. Anyway, Balakian should stay there, being a controversial figure. Deniz^T_C 01:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

They are clearly weasel words. Is every citation in Wikipedia also accompanied by the phrase "according to"? The source of the information is already properly cited, indicating that the source of the info is Balakian (who sourced it directly from newspaper reports of that period). Meowy 03:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversial ones, yes, or should be. Otherwise no problem with it. I don't see anything weasel there. Deniz^T_C 10:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I only see a map there, no newspaper refs. There is a reference to "investigative journalist" Fisk though. Let's not fisk him, but I am not sure he has an access to a map, need to see his book. If the real reference is him, then we should indicate so, no need for intermediaries. Also I don't understand why we find this book reliable, it is a literary piece by a poet, 'literary liberties' might be taken, and we don't have place for them, especially for these subjects. It is like making a witness out of an actor. Deniz^T_C 11:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Deniz, you wanted the newspaper quotes removed, so they were! There is nothing controversial in the reference, It may be "controversial" in Turkey (where you may get imprisoned, or worse, if you say anything against official "history") but it is not controversial in the real world.Meowy 05:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. No one is imprisoned for "saying anything against the official 'history'" in Turkey (there is no such law). maybe in your country it is, I don't know. The poet is controversial, in my opinion. It wouldn't necessarily be controversial, if he was talking about literary life in Erzurum. I don't see anything wrong with the addition of "according to Balakian", we even have "according to X" with historians. Deniz^T_C 05:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your addition is clearly weasel. As I explained earlier, the source of the information is already properly cited to Wikipedia standards, with that citation indicating that the source is a book by Balakian. If it will help you, maybe I will add more information to that section: the book "Armenian Karin/Erzurum" has a chapter on the 1915-1918 period. Meowy 01:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

misinformation

"Erzeroum (Armenian: Կարին (Karin), see also its former and other names) is a city in Western Armenia."

I think this is a very cool example of misinformation & pov. keep doing it ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciup (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, upload a pic of your favorite dream map. Do western armenia includes new york too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciup (talk • contribs) 01:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Erzurum was known as the capital of Turkish Armenia during the 19th century. If "Western Armenia" is considered to equate to "Turkish Armenia" then the epithet is correct, but it would be better to use "Turkish Armenia".

BTW, "Erzurum International Airport"?? What international flights depart from Erzurum? I know of none. Meowy 19:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Erzurum was known as the capital of Turkish Armenia during the 19th century."
..but we are in the 21.century. right?
I think "it's better" to use "Eastern Anatolia Region", which is current.Ciup 20:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It's official name is Erzurum Hava Limanı : Erzurum Airport Ciup 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a misinformation when saying Erzurum was the scene of massacres during 1890s? Where are the references? Who claimed the references to be the truth? If I go and state on Armenia that it was the scene of Azerbaijani massacres would you the Armenians keep that info in there as well, or delete it in a hurry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zumbalak (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The information is fully sourced, if you care to actually read the entry. Earlier versions of this entry actually included quotes from the newspaper articles but they were removed by another editor, a mistake given that genocide-denialists will try to creep through the smallest gap. Meowy 18:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted unexplained partial blanking by an IP as the info is sourced and significant. Andranikpasha (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just done the same thing. Meowy 22:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This article needs some clean up. It seems a little strange that almost half of the article about this important city in Eastern Turkey is dedicated to its Armenian history and their fate. These are topics discussed and distorted and inflated at length in many dedicated articles. Can we make this article more about Erzurum? The reference to Erzurum being an "extermination" center is unsubstantiated and not sure what that even means. There were gas chambers and ovens there? This needs more backup. One can not elaborate what happened in Erzurum during WWI without also elaborating what happened there to its Muslim citizens and what Armenians and Russians did to them. It may be best to indicate that the city changed hands a few times and was the site intense warfare and civil war. All this is open to constructive discussion.--Murat (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Murat, please consider my "sleeping dogs" comment I made to you in another article. You really do not want stir things up here because you will not like the properly referenced and sourced article that will result from it. Unlike Bitlis or Sasun, I know enough, and have the material, to confidently write about Erzurum. Meowy 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid the dogs are already awake and at work. Is it really possible to demonize Turks more? Though I do have a healthy respect for your capacity for self-deception and ethnic propaganda.--Murat (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of information you've labeled as "propaganda", is referenced and is also referenced here . Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this entry might need to be semi-protected so that unregistered editors can't edit it. Every week or so, over the past few months, an anonymous editor (or editors) keeps removing the same sourced material. Meowy 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The so-called picture in the article 1) is not a photograph but a signed painting 2) origin is obscure, no reference given. I request that it be removed as it only serves as an ethnic propaganda tool as much of the article. Secondly, the long and detailed description of the fate of Armenians in Erzurum should at least be accompanied by description of what happened to the local Muslim population when Armenians and Russians took it. All my attempts to bring some balance to the article have been thwarted. --Murat (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I said "semiprotected" not fully protected! There is no dispute of a scale that needs protecing the article in this way. The anonymous edits were vandalism, not a content dispute. The picture is a photo, references exist, I'll get them. Meowy 02:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Massacre of Armenians in Erzurum picture

I believe this picture to be out of place. I understand the emphasis that some want to place on the Armenian Genocide, but a simple link to the AG page would accomplish this task. Some current and past pictures of Erzurum would greatly improve this article. Thoughts, concerns?? Kansas Bear (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It only seems out of place because the article's history of Erzurum section is so inadequate and tiny. Once it is expanded to its righful size, the photo won't be out of place. BTW, the event is connected to the Hamidian massacres, not the Armenian genocide. Meowy 02:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It is out of place of course. Only picture in an article about Erzurum is NOT about or of Erzurum! Why not also include a picture of Turks killed by Armenians there too?. It was a site of major massacres by Armenians afterall. There is clearly no good intentions here. Besides, what kind of photographer "signs" a photo? It is sad and unfortunate that this is the state of the entry that is under "protection".--Murat (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It was very common for people to "sign" photographs (or rather have the name on the prints) in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. You can find many many such examples from Ottoman times. Ordtoy (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I can not recall a single such example, not to mention that I can clearly see the brush strokes. Regardless, the picture does not belong there, as there is not a single picture Erzurum in an Erzurum article. How does this copyrighted (right?) picture make it all the way here by the way?--Murat (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem interested in Ottoman history Hüdavendigâr, I suggest that you look at collections of old photographs or postcards of Ottoman cities. These will often have the photographer's or studio's name printed in one of the bottom corners. Secondly, if you are confused about copyrights then please note the following paragraph attached to the photo:

"This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923. See this page for further explanation."

Ordtoy (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as nowadays it is very common for web sites to put website addresses on their photos. In both cases it was to stop others stealing them and reusing them. I.e. as far as copyright recognition goes, 21st-century electronic media is as lawless as 19th-century print media! Meowy 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The photograph is by an American photographer named William Sachtleben who was in Erzurum at that time in order to investigate the disapearance of another American citizen who had been travelling from Persia to Turkey. The photo actually depicts the bodies of some of the victims being gathered prior to being buried in a mass grave. So the caption needs to be rewritten as the current wording suggests the dead are lying where they were killed. See "The W. L. Sachleben Papers on Erzurum in the 1890s" in "Armenian Karin/Erzurum", 2003. Meowy 19:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet the motivation is the same, whether it's the Armenian Genocide or Hamidian massacres. The picture does nothing to improve the article. Why isn't that picture on the Hamidian massacres article?? That is where it belongs. This article would improve, if it had pictures of Erzurum, not certain events in its past. Kansas Bear (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think if you go way way back into the history of this article we will find that the illustration was added because someone was disputing the fact of the massacres, and the illustration was accompanied with a quote from the actual newspaper report. As long as we can be sure that mention of the massacres in Erzurum isn't going to be removed, then you may be right that the image would be better placed in the Hamidian massacres article. Meowy 21:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hamidian massacres has 3 sources, so I don't see any reason for it to be removed. The picture, in question, would be better served on the Hamidian Massacre article, IMO. Kansas Bear (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Coming back to this picture. No, sorry, illustration. No, figure of speech. Well, whatever it is, certainly not a picture as the title misleads. Everything about this "illustration" is wrong here. There is no source. No reference. Picture text includes primitive ethnic propaganda but nothing about who took it where and when and any info on the usage and copyright and where it is published. Worst of all, as one can clearly see, it is NOT a photo! It is a painting. I can see the brush strokes and light and shadows are all wrong and then there is the artist's signature at the corner. Not to mention it adds nothing to an article on Erzurum. Let me hear one more time why it belongs here.--Murat (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't you first read what others have written? It IS a photograph. I had already given a full reference for it. Meowy 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Meowy, are you a resident of Erzurum? Have you ever been there? Is it right to give second or third hand information about a Turkish city? Did you ever ask any thoughts or opinions to the current residents of Erzurum? Would it be right if I try to stir an encyclopedia page about an American city? Prusan (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Name

The article states that the name derives from the Persian "Arz-u Rum" but it should be from the Arabic "Arḍ-ar-Rūm" (ارض الروم). "Arḍ" literally means "land, region or country" while "Rūm" derives from "Roman" but means "Greek". Ordtoy (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Rum" means Roman, here more specifically "Eastern Roman", or "Bizans". Word for "Greek: is different: Yunan. People of the time knew which was which.--Murat (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The inhabitants of the Byzantine empire, though ethnically mostly Greek, called themselves "Romans" because they considered their empire to be a direct continuation of the Roman empire. Meowy 19:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hüdavendigâr, you are confusing modern Turkish and Arabic from the 10th century or so. Rūm comes from Roman but it had taken on a different meaning for the Arabs (and then the Turks etc). As you know, Rûm was also used in Ottoman times to refer to the Ottoman Empire's Greek inhabitants. Only after the establishment of the Greek state did need for the term Yunan emerge. Ordtoy (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You simply repeated what I said. I do not think I am the one who is cofused. You said: "...region or country" while "Rūm" derives from "Roman" but means "Greek"..." It clearly does NOT mean Greek. Your claim that Romans or Eastern Romans were "ethnic" Greek is rather baseless. "Greeks" of today are as much related to original "ethnic" (whatever that means) Greeks, as Egyptians of today are related to Pharoes. Many groups, tribes and nations were attracted around major Roman cities for economic and security reasons which also ended up adopting the superior culture of the ruling elite. That does not make them ethnic relatives. Balkans are (or were) full of muslim Slavs, who have no ethnic relationship to Turks (whatever that means also!). Eastern Romans carried and adopted Greek language and alphabet of course, but there are also many non-Arab nations which have adopted Arabic alphabet and even language who are not ethnic Arabs. It is all a moot discussion of course, whoever calls himself a Greek is a Greek in my book. Identity is a different issue than ethnicity or biology. Two are often confused, especially by nationalist minded.--Murat (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfair representation of Erzurum

Erzurum is a very beautiful city with lots of historic monuments and wonderful natural scenery. Yet, the only image of the city is a photo of dead Armenians. Massacres have taken place elsewhere in the world. How "fair" would be a Paris article represented by a single picture of the dead Parisians in 1789?

Armenians want their plight to be known, but they are going to extreme ways in using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Luckily, the "real world" out there is not run by the "imaginary world" of Wikipedia. Pantepoptes (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

See above[1]. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Pantepoptes has chosen not the "see above" - he has made two more attempts at removing the massacre photo. He is also attempting to stuff the article full of off-topic images (perhaps thinking that they will hide the absence of on-topic ones like the massacre photo). For example, an image of a world map made by someone who happened to come from Erzurum - a map that doesn't show Erzurum and which wasn't even drawn in Erzurum - is not suitable for this article. Nor do images like the entrance to Erzurum airport (which, apart from the sign on it, is exactly the same as the entrance to every provincial airport in Turkey) add anything to the quality of the article! Meowy 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Meowy here. The world map image is off-topic and irrelevant. Erzurum was furthermore the site of a major massacre, not just any massacre, so the picture is justified. Lastly, the accusations of Armenians "going to extreme ways in using wikipedia as a propaganda tool" is subjective and empty, and moreover not surprising from someone who edits like a Turkish government publicist. --Athenean (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken out the off-topic images and reinserted the on-topic one. Meowy 15:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can include dozens of pictures more of dead and mutilated Muslims all around Eastern Turkey and in Erzurum, official archives are full of them... but that is not the point is it? I am all for keeping this article about Erzurum though.--Murat (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that an admittance that you cannot provide any of the requested references for the "Photograph showing Turkish women and children (citation needed) killed by Armenians (citation needed) in Erzurum (citation needed) in 1918. (citation needed)" caption? Meowy 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, I did not think from the start that a "painting" of dead people did not really belong in a one page article about this ancient city. You and a few other edit warriors have resisted this simple and I think reasonable request and we failed to find a mutually acceptable solution. TSK archives, Erzurum sites in Turkish and TTK sites are full of official documents and pictures of massacred Turks in Bitlis, Van, Erzincan, Erzurum etc.. I am sure you are fully aware as a dedicated "researcher" of this topic. I have not made it my bussiness to go and sprinkle these all over Wikipedia as many Armenian editors have done. So I fail to understand why you think it is not proper to include this picture while there is one exactly like it already. It is a simple matter of balance after all. Is that too much to expect - rhetorical?--Murat (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a citation for the Sachtleben photograph. The photographer is known, the actual day it was taken is known, the location is known and the event being depicted is known (from the photographer's own words as well as the original newspaper caption). If you are unable to give a similar citation for your propaganda image, I will remove it. Meowy 17:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The photo with the "massacred Turks" seems quite dubious to me. By 1918, the Armenians population of Erzurum had been exterminated. How could they have "massacred" Turkish women and children? It's like showing a picture of dead German civilians from WWII and saying they were "massacred" by Jews. To me, this seems like yet another typical Turkish attempt at equivocating, in line with the "there were victims on both sides" meme pushed by the Turkish government. It's quite sickening, and the motivation behind it is fairly transparent. --Athenean (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why it would be dubious? Are you of the opinion that Turks were not massacred in Erzurum? Can I get a yes or no answer? By the way, many such references and information has been methodically removed from these pages, just look at the history and the threats of more vandalism yet from the editor abaove.--Murat (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is dubious because you have not been able to give any references for that photogaph. You have been unable to give any source for your claim that it depicts "Turkish women and children" that they were "killed by Armenians" and that the photograph was taken "in Erzurum in 1918". You have had plenty of time to add the requested references if they exist - so I have removed the image. Meowy 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Lets use neutral sources shall we? Lida Vorig (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Really?

You guys talk about NPOV and then list an Erzurum born convicted Armenian terrorist who killed two turkish government officials for no reason other than being turks as an "activist". How is that not an insult for all the activists out there? Don't you guys have anything better to than twist everything that is about Turkey? Go get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.128.150 (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a 'terrorist' in the descriptive voice is rarely acceptable on wikipedia per WP:NPOV, WP:WTA and other policies. However a neutral description of what he is notable for is required and you're right that failing to mention he was convicted of murdering two people was a shortcoming (which you could have addressed yourself in a more constructive manner and we could have avoided an edit war) Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Rarely acceptable? Here is an excerpt from Timothy McVeigh's entry "...The bombing killed 168 people and was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks." Here is OBL:"Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (with numerous variations; Arabic: أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن‎, Usāmah bin Muḥammad bin ‘Awaḍ bin Lādin; born March 10, 1957) is a member of the prominent Saudi bin Laden family and the founding leader of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda,..." So? As for your own edit, the word activist is still there. Al Gore is an activist, Dalai Lama is an activist, tea baggers are activists... What did that american engineer and author do besides killing turks to deserve that credit. How does that go with NPOV. As for edit wars, I put my remark up there before I made my first edit on this page. All you had to do to avoid an edit war was to read the discussion page, see the rationale and act accordingly. It was more convenient just to erase I suppose and then come here and preach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.128.150 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we find a 3rd party published source for his killing of those two Turkish consular officials? Might stop future edit-warring over that issue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no controversy there. Net is full of sites praising and condemning his act but not one place express doubt about guilt. His name is obviously added because someone wanted to praise him for killing two turks. They were too coward to spell it out and instead used the word activist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.128.150 (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I used the reference from the main article. 98.14.128.150 needs to read this[2]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Muslim massacres

The verification of Muslim massacres in Erzurum can be found in many books. I am going to provide only two of them here in order not to mass quote. The first one is by Taner Akcam who recognizes the Armenian genocide and is respected by the Armenian community. The second one is by Guenter Lewy who does not accept or reject the genocide.

1. "A Shameful Act: the Armenian genocide and the question of Turkish responsibility" by Taner Akcam page 328 (he states that at least 3000 Muslims were killed in Erzurum)
2. "The Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey: a disputed genocide" by Guenter Lewy pages 115-122 (he states that some buildings were set on fire after being filled with Turkish page 119. However, he does not mention the city town. He does not give a total toll of Muslim death in Erzurum but says that in one particular day 2127 Turkish were buried).

In light of these, I suggest to include these citations and rewrite the sentence as follows:

Under the Russian rule the paramilitary Armenian forces massacred local Muslim population of at least 3000.{I don't how to add these citations probably but they go here.} 68.48.22.83 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Guenther Lewy is a professional and prominent denialist and is hence an unreliable source. Regarding the claims cited by Taner Akcam: he says these Muslims were killed in the region, not the city, of Erzerum in 1919 by retreating Armenian troops in revenge for the genocide, which took place in 1915. Two of the sources he cites were published during or after the Turkish Republic was established and are thus almost immediately suspect. Any inclusion of such information must be placed in full context. Other editors should be aware that the above is a suspected sock and that an investigation regarding his alleged sockpuppet is ongoing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because the articles were published around the establishment of Turkish republic does not mean they are biased. If you look at the chronology of events any article discussing the events have to be around that time anyways. Massacres happened in 1919 (according to you) and Turkey was established in 1923. When do you expect them to be published? Besides, Taner Akcam is one of the historians who spearhead Armenian Genocide arguments. I especially found a reference from him so that you would accept it. I still do not see anything wrong with the citations. Robert Willie (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The period Akcam is describing is the Russian withdrawal from the Caucasus after the October Revolution, i.e., 1918 and after. He explicitly states this and even then, he is citing information published by Turkish sources, not third-party groups. Turkish sources published during and after the Turkish War of Independence are largely propagandisitc and unreliable, and this is a unanimous opinion among all modern scholars. The way you write it, it makes it sound as if the massacres preceded the Armenian Genocide. I will continue this discussion after I see the results of the sockpuppet case filed against you. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There are dozens of different sources. If you don't like those, I can provide others by westerners. Look, I am not claiming there was a genocide against Turkish people, I am just claiming that Turkish people were massacred. Can we at least agree on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Willie (talk • contribs) 01:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated it in the text. Satisfied? Ionidasz (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. I am changing the wording slightly and I am also adding the other reference. 06:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Willie (talk • contribs)

Witness

My father in law told me some interesting facts he had listened from his father, whom he also had been told by his father. As he quotes: "Russians had started to advance in our soil, before Armenians left the village as they were aware of the news. After sometime one of the officers in the Russian army came and warned us before the looting, he was of Turkic origin may be he felt he had to help. The worst part is that Armenians helped Russian to find our village, they burned our mosque, and later we heard that they burned many mosques with full of people inside. I could not believe that until I have seen burned villages. Armenians were our neighbors, we married each other's men and women and we had never harmed them, I could not imagine they hated us so much and there was not any particular reason". So this information is first hand and genuine, not some reference to a book. Prusan (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Undos by MarshallBagramyan

Let us discuss the issues here before undoing the edits please. It is very easy and tempting to do "undo", but hard and time consuming to add contributions. In order to respect fellow editors let us talk about the new editions first.

In your last undo MarshallBagramyan, you have accused me of:

1. Original Research: No this is not original research. The number comes from Taner Akcam's book who accepts Armenian genocide and a respected researcher. If you look at the citation I gave the page number where you can find the information (that 3000 were killed).
2. You are claiming that Lewy's book is unreliable because he does not accept the armenian genocide. How can you reach that conclusion (if someone does not accept the Armenian genocide all his writings are in question)? His claims are well resourced, mostly using Western sources. Do you want me to include his source for the Muslim massacres in Erzurum instead of his book? If you prefer this let me know.

Please do not undo all my edits without thinking about them for a minute or two. I have citations for everything that I claim, I am spending some time on this. At least let us have a discussion so that we can come to a conclusion. Robert Willie (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The background information here is important. By selectively choosing what to delete, you are trying to conceal the fact that the attacks, if any, by the Armenians were a reaction to the genocide, not their cause. And yes, Lewy's denial of the Armenian Genocide disqualifies him as a reliable source, as no respected scholar on the subject would ever make so brash an argument as to say that the systematic massacres did not amount to genocide. Most Armenian genocide denialists have close connections to the modern Turkish government, have been shown to selective choose and wantonly distort material and evidence to conform to their argument and have demonstrated an astonishing lack of ability to adhere to modern academic guidelines and principles. He, along with Bernard Lewis, Stanford Shaw, Justin McCarthy, Heath Lowry, etc., cannot be included in these articles under any circumstances. You're not the first person to come here to besmirch the truth regarding the Armenian genocide, so please quit this ridiculous of trying to present the victims as the true perpetrators. -Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the background information, that's why everything was there when I edited except one sentence in the first sentence of the last paragraph in the modern history section. The reason for the removal was the repetition from the other paragraphs as I mentioned in my edit summary. Regarding ignoring Lewy's book, using your logic, I can state that "every book which recognizes the Armenian Genocide should be ignored as no respected scholar on the subject would ever make so brash an argument as to say that the unsystematic massacres amounted to genocide. Most Armenian genocide accepters have close connections to the modern Armenian government and the Zoryan Institute, have been shown to selective choose and wantonly distort material and evidence to conform to their argument and have demonstrated an astonishing lack of ability to adhere to modern academic guidelines and principles." But I am not doing this. Moreover, people who argue for the Armenian genocide in wikipedia cite newspapers, French and English sources who were in war during that time with the Ottoman empire, etc. But I am not going around deleting every such citation. I did not say anything when Balakian or NY Times were cited, although they should not have been. Just because a source does not agree with you, it does not mean the source is uncredible. Robert Willie (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous: you deliberately removed the line "after having witnessed the destruction that had been wrought against the Armenian population", thereby depriving the reader of the important context behind these alleged killings, if they even took place, were in response to the Armenian Genocide. You also removed the preceding line "It is reported by some that...", since this is information which is reported in propaganda Turkish sources at the time.

You don't use your hypothetical analogy because its very premise is absolute nonsense. Most scholars of the Armenian Genocide today are based in the United States and Western Europe and have been carrying out research for decades, long before the Armenian government even achieved independence in 1991 (the Armenian government today, for that matter, is very inactive in regards to genocide affairs anyways). The Zoryan Institute is a respectable academic institution and to compare its efforts to shed more light on the genocide to the efforts of the entire Turkish government to deny it is even more ridiculous. Regarding Lewy: no, he is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. His denial of the Armenian Genocide, an event which no respectable scholar denies, is not done out of any special appreciation for seeking out the truth but for political motives. The critiques against him, nicely summed up on his article on Wikipedia, give the reasons why he cannot be considered a reliable source and I will promptly remove him and restore the more correct version of the text. Now enough of this ludicrous game that you are playing with the Armenian Genocide articles; you are hardly first person to advance these ideas and if you continue with this disruptive behavior and continue to vandalize them to advance your agenda, you will find that your editing activity on Wikipedia will be quickly curtailed.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, I am not playing any games. I am not here to spread some conspiracy theory. I have only edited a few articles. All my edits are well referenced. Every time I edit, I try to talk about it first on the talk page. On the other hand, you have undone most of my edits without talking about it, although I have told you multiple number of times to talk about it first. You are indeed trying to curtail my activity and you have said this openly in this talk page. This is a threat and I am sure this is against some policy in Wikipedia. I am going to continue my editing as I desire and you can do whatever you want. Your threats are not going to change my editing behavior. Robert Willie (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I wrote it in a way easy to understand. The reason I have deleted the 3000 figure was because it was presented as a fact. Akçam book, as recognized by himself, was to describe the genocide from the eyes of the Ottoman authorities. You can not use such a figure and present it as a fact, the only thing which you can support was that there was killings. I also fail to see why you are adding back Lewy, the thing is already there, the line about the killing was not removed, one of the two references was what was removed. Also, you claimed elsewhere you are not claiming in the articles the genocide did not happen. Well then, explain me why you are removing the known context of the killings by Armenians, it is plainly explained in Akçam book which you use.Ionidasz (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK there is no need to give a figure. However, "completely devoid of its Armenian population, which lived there for over two milleninia" is a very bold claim and cannot be proved by any reference. Even if there is one Armenian left hidden in a house, the claim would be false. I don't understand why you reject adding Lewy but as long as the claim is there I don't care. Then how about this compromise solution: don't add Lewy, don't add the figure, however remove the claim "completely devoid of its Armenian population, which lived there for over two milleninia"? BTW, the only reason I am using Akcam's book is that you would agree with it. Ionidasz let me know if you agree on this so that I can proceed with the edit. Robert Willie (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, if we agree that Muslim people were killed there is no need to say "some people claim that." If you want more sources on this I can provide more from western european sources. Robert Willie (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Imagine an editor try to weasel in the claim that the Holocaust did not take place on its Wikipedia article here; the lifetime of such an editor here would be very short and if that editor is not automatically blocked, he himself would largely be ignored. Similarly, many editors who visit and try to edit articles relating to the Armenian Genocide do so with the intention to 1) try to show that the genocide did not take place and 2) prevaricate and try to equate the deaths of Muslims as the reasons as to why the Armenians were removed from their homeland in the first place. If someone were to state simply that they came here to include the deaths of other peoples during the war without denying that a genocide took place, no one would have a problem here. Unfortunately, your edits show that they are completely in line with the denialists who come here with the above-specified goals. Your objections to providing the context to the killings of Muslims are proof of that. Constructive edits are more than welcome here; but when an editor comes here to distort reality, a line has to be drawn.

The "completely devoid" phrase is absolutely necessary and picking at semantics won't work here; if Erzerum had a pop. of 20,000 Armenians before the war, and by the time the Russians entered that city that figure had dropped to a measly 100, how can anyone try to claim otherwise? Lewy, and the rest of the "historians" the denialists like to cite, is not permitted to be used on virtually any article on Wikipedia because everyone acknowledges his book as a work of disingenuous propaganda, a cleverly and carefully crafted one at that. There are dozens of respectable historians (Robert Melson, Vahakn Dadrian, Peter Balakian, Richard Hovannisian, Donald Bloxham, Robert Jay Lifton etc.) who have studied the Armenian Genocide, many from different angles; if you wish to improve these articles, seek out their work and start from there.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

devoid means "empty; having none of; completely without". That means every single one left or died. Unless you can cite a reliable source for this, it should not be included. Wikipedia is not a good place to publish your original research. Getting rid of the word completely does not change the meaning. Since you have not said anything about my other suggestions, I am going to go ahead and implement them unless you discuss it here. I am assuming that you concur with me unless you state it otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Willie (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's pratically what the 1927 census in Turkey shows. Ionidasz (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the census state that there are zero Armenians in Erzurum? If so you are welcome to cite that. Unless you can show a reliable source showing that no Armenians were left in Erzurum, that sentence is unsourced and should not stay there. I am removing the sentence untill it is cited. Robert Willie (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the census in relative figures bring the Armenian population to 0,1%..., consistent to the figures brought by Bryce which was between 80 and 100. Talat Black book claims all Armenians from there were removed. I won't play the game of words with you, but I have added practically, hope it satisifies you. Ionidasz (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That there were a few Armenians were left in Erzurum is already mentioned in the previous paragraph. Why do you want to include that twice? It does not provide new information at all. Also, do you agree to remove "it is reported by some"? The reference is already given, people do understand that it is based on someone's report. Just like the statemtent that "barely a hundred Armenians were alive". This claim too is reported by someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Willie (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not the same information, when refers to the killing itself, the other in the higher context not necessarly about the killing. For Erzerum, it is really reported by some. And your comparaison does not make sense, comparing majority position vs minority. Ionidasz (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 August 2012

There are some misleading and biased information in History section. Msimsak (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. RudolfRed (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 November 2012

Please change FROM |latd = 39.9 |longd = 41.27 TO |latd = 39 |latm = 54 |lats = 31 |latNS = N |longd = 41 |longm = 16 |longs = 37 |longEW = E|coordinates_display=y as the latter is the more standard method for describing geographic coordinates. Coordinates taken from http://www.tageo.com/index-e-tu-v-25-d-m1068468.htm. Brandonschendel (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Done Vacation^nine 03:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Photograph by W. L. Sachtleben =fakery

Come on guys! How cheap should this article be? Antoher trash behavior Armenian genocide followers in a Turkish related article. That "photo" is a gravure, not photo. At that time often used technique. Look good at it. Delete that cheap trash please.Chonanh (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2013

At the beginning of the article it states (kurdish: Erzirom). This is simply the Kurdified version of its Turkish name. The city itself is Turkish (historically/demographically) and has not been associated with Kurds. The mentioned line should be removed as it is not true and contrived and is most likely the work of a Kurdish ethnic nationalist irredentist.

Ozan192 (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Done I admit I am not well-versed in the history of this region, but in skimming this article and Erzurum Province I see no mention of Kurds anywhere. In looking through the history of this article I see that past versions of this article contained Greek and Armenian names, and at one point there was a link to the lower "Name and etymology" section. I think I can assume good faith here and comfortably remove the Kurdish name, but will have to leave it to users in good standing who are more knowledgeable about this region than I am to decide if the Armenian and/or Greek names should be reinstated. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of name Erzurum

The Britannica encyclopedia has the following in the article on the city:

The name "Erzurum" derives from the Arabic "Arzan ar-Rūm", or "Arz ar-Rūm" (lit. “Land of the Romans”).

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/192184/Erzurum

This is the most reliable source I have been able to find on the etymology of the name Erzurum and I will change it to conform to that.

--Anothroskon (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a non-starter of a statement to post on a talk page. What makes you think Nina Garsoian, a former professor at Columbia University, and the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium are any less reliable? Surely a specialist source is far better than some anonymous article by a generic encyclopedia. Karin/Theodosiopolis was technically a part of Armenia; Byzantine Armenia to be sure, but it doesn't make sense that they would call the city "land" of the Romans (especially when its population wasn't even Greek to begin with).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by this statement:"What makes you think Nina Garsoian, a former professor at Columbia University, and the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium are any less reliable? "-Anothroskon (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean exactly what I say. By what sentiment or belief are you impelled to remove Nina Garsoian/the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and Halil Inalcik/Encyclopedia of Islam and replace them with a non-specialist source, and that written by an anonymous author? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to get this clear, you are saying that we should keep the ODB reference and previous text because it supports the etymology of Erzurum from the nearby commercial city of Arcen and is more reliable than Britannica?--Anothroskon (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why I have to repeat myself in half a dozen different sentences. But yes, I am saying that due preference should be given to scholarly sources that specialize in the subject matter instead of an article written by an unknown author of unknown competence and published in a rather generic encyclopedia. If you feel that Garsoian and Inalcik lack the credentials to pronounce statements on the subjects relating to the medieval Near East, please state that position right now.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The core of the discussion is the etymology of the current name Erzurum. You claim that it comes from the nearby commercial city and not from "Land of the Romans" yet provide no sources to that effect. I don't see how we can proceed on this basis.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have already provided two sources. If you would like me to quote them for you, very well. Inalcik:

The name Erzurum comes from Arzan al-Rum, Arzan-i Rum or Arz-i Rum (see the Saldjukid coins in I. Ghalib, Takwim-i meskukat-i Seldjukiyye, Istanbul 1309H., nos. 10, 147, 152). Arzan (Erzen) was a nearby commercial centre, the population of which took refuge in Kalikala upon its destruction by the Saldjukids in 440/1048 or 441/1049 (see Arzan).-H. Inalcik, "Erzurum," Encyclopedia of Islam, Leiden, 1991, vol. 2, p. 712.

I'll quote Garsoian a little bit later.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll do it instead.

THEODOSIOUPOLIS (Θεοδοσιούπολις, Arm. Karin, Ar. Qaliqala, Turk. Erzurum), major strategic and commercial center on the main east-west highway between Anatolia and the East. Its original name of Karin (or more correctly Karnoy k’alak’) was derived from that of the district known to classical authors as Karenitis. It was renamed Theodosioupolis in honor of Theodosios II and returned to a variant of its original name under the Arabs. ... The Seljuk sack of the neighboring commercial city of Artze in 1048/9 forced its population to retreat to the fortress of Theodosioupolis, which began to be called Arcn Rum (Arzan ar-Rum). Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Vol. III, article Theodosioupolis

So far all sources, including the one you supplied, concur that the name derives from Arzan ar-Rum. I will accept that the name is related to the neighboring commercial city of Artze but this does not preclude that it also derives from Land of the Romans since this is the literal meaning of the phrase Arzan ar-Rum.

See here:

According to him it took its rise in the mountains called Jabal Akradkhis (the name is apparently written Afradkhis by Mas‘udi, and other variants occur) which are of the Kalikala country to the north of Erzerum. This important town, which the Arabs called Arzan-ar-Rum or Arz-ar-Rum (the Land of the Romans), the Armenians knew as Karin, and the Greeks as Theodosiopolis. It is the Moslern city of Kalikala, and the chief place in this district.G. Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, Cambridge University Press, 2011, p.118

--Anothroskon (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The town has only borne its modern name since the xith century. In 1049 the Sald̲j̲ūḳs destroyed the town of Arzan, not far east of Karen, and its population moved to Theodosiopolis = ¶ Ḳālīḳalā and gave this town the name of Arzān al-Rūm “Arzan of the Romans” which became corrupted to Arz al-Rūm and Arḍ al-Rūm “land of the Romans”. Encyclopedia of Islam First Edition, Erzerum, Hartmann, R.

This source provides an explanation of how the city got its current name. It is through the neighboring city but this is only half the story because (1) it does not explain the ar-Rum adjective and how it also came to be called land of the Romans. So a compromise could be along the lines of the above passage from the EoI.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

These are dated sources. Guy le Strange wrote nearly a hundred years ago and why would you source the first, older edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam when there's a second and more authoritative edition available? The sources make no mention of Greek inhabitants, but Syrian and Armenian. It almost seems as if you're choosing to include sources and information that adhere to your point of view. We can say that Muslims later came to understand Erzurum to mean "Land of the Romans" (provided a relatively recent scholarly source is provided) but the passage you've written under the etymology is willfully misleading.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You are poisoning the well, both in the case of Britannica and in the case of the Cambridge book and the Encyclopedia of Islam. This is peculiar since the source you supplied is 50 years old (EoI Second edition as mentioned in the sources, 1963). Also the sources make no mention for the ethnic composition of the relocated population of Artzen, let alone that they were only Syrian and Armenian. Finally there is nowhere in the sources the etymology you supplied, i.e. Arzen of the Romans. By contrast the etymology I provided is supported in three sources.--Anothroskon (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Now who's being unreasonable? You've consistently reverted me at every turn and then dubiously asked that we should discuss our edits while you maintain a version which no one has agreed upon. The ethnic composition of Artsn is mentioned in the Erzurum entry in Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia (Yerevan, 1978), vol. 4 (which I can cite, as well). The reference to "Arzan of the Romans" is mentioned by Robert Hewsen in his article ("Summit," p. 42), who is in turn citing Joseph Laurent. The list goes on. The sheer preponderance of sources make this point abundantly clear and yet you're still making blind reverts, undoing edits made even unrelated to the Etymology section. Either you accept this reality and cease being such unconstructive an editing partner or I go up the chain and report these edits. This sounds like another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You are veering into synthesis of various sources in addition to tendentiousness. The sources I supplied support the compromise I proposed (and which you flatly and unreasonably rejected). The ODB does not mention the etymology Arzen of the Romans nor does the EoI, in fact only now have you provided one source that does and following that I would consent to it being included as well as the Land of Romans etymology (supported by the Cambridge book, Britannica and EoI). I already made an attempt to compromise so I would welcome the participation of a third neutral party. --Anothroskon (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Third party intervention is unnecessary if the discussion itself revolves around a farce. I've been introducing one source after another to buttress my statements, each written by the experts of their field while you haven't been able to muster so much as one recent scholarly work to bolster your claims. The Britannica article is written by anonymous individual of unknown background. If anything, your version consists of just synthesis and appears to be nothing more than a groping of straws that support your personal point of view. I've rewritten my latest version and broken it down into several sentences so that each and every statement in that section is supported by at least two specialist sources. If after all this you claim that they are insufficient then I know this discussion has run its course.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The points regarding Britannica, the EoI article and the Cambridge book are examples of poisoning the well. As I mentioned in my last post since you have now supplied a source that backs up the Artzen of the Romans etymology I would consent to including that as well and explain that it is one of two etymologies supported by the literature. I will also raise a 3O and tag the etymology section as NPOV rather than engaging in pointless edit warring with you.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I stand by what I said about Britannica and the rest of the sources. They're not the most reliable material to support the inclusion of a fringe point of view. And believe me, I went out of my way to find better sources than an authorless Britannica article and a book written by a scholar from a bygone era. The scholarly consensus supports what is now in that article section and I can go on adding more sources. But I would venture to say that that the NPOV tag was added for a groundless reason. If there was a genuine debate that existed on the etymology I would concede the point and make sure to note its inclusion. As there doesn't seem to be, and as Le Strange etc.'s opinion seems to have be an extreme minority viewpoint, I don't understand how one can insist on its absolute mention.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what "absolute mention" is but I would hazard a guess that it pertains to the inclusion of both etymologies in the main body of the article, after I already indicated that following the presentation of a reliable source on the Artzen of the Romans etymology I would consent to including it as well.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a fringe opinion. If the best sources you are able to muster is an article by an anonymous author from Britannica, whose competence in the field is all the same unknown, and a scholar who lived a hundred years ago, that does not mean it warrants mention in the section.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Erzurum and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

HelenOnline 12:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that I don't have any knowledge of Arabic and I don't have personal access to any of the sources, so I am assuming good faith. I see two main issues here: a) identifying the most reliable sources, and b) the relevance of published citations of the literal meaning of a possible earlier form of the name to Wikipedia content on the derivation of the name (a literal translation on its own is just that, we shouldn't read more into it than that). I believe the sources currently used are the most reliable. I would be cautious about using an unattributed entry in a general encyclopedia such as the Encyclopedia Britannica (see WP:RSEX), but in this case I don't believe it necessarily contradicts what is currently written in the article (it is pretty vague with two alternative origins, including the one currently provided in the article, and a literal translation of one of them). It makes sense to me to use the most up-to-date version of the Encyclopedia of Islam. Le Strange, who may well be quoting Encyclopedia Britannica or vice versa, only cites the literal meaning of a possible earlier form of the name and does not discuss the derivation of the name explicitly, so I would not give that source much weight. Incidentally, as a Wikipedia user I would appreciate seeing the relevant text from references books I cannot access online (the quote can be included within the ref by adding a "quote=" parameter to the citation template). I hope that my opinion is helpful to both of you and ultimately benefits the quality of Wikipedia. HelenOnline 12:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that Helen has given her 3O, and for what it is worth: I took a quick look at the 1911 Britannica, which is as reliable on some things as it is unreliable on others. It does not give the putative derivation from Arabic, but does mention that the suffix "-ar-Rum" came about because it was a fortress on the border of the Byzantine ("Roman") empire (or words to that effect, it's not in front of me now). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that neatly resolves all matters, including the appropriateness of the current POV tag. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

City name

The altenative etymology that the city name means Land of the Romans has been completely removed despite the fact that there are many sources claiming this is how the city was named. Two sources (one written by an Armenian) are accepted as fact and that has somehow legitemized removing the entire explanation of its alternative etymology which would make more sence considering the city was originally a Byzantine Fortress.88.242.206.116 (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The claim is supported by two non-Armenian sources. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Citing a literal meaning is not the same thing as etymology (history). The literal meaning of something is not necessarily the original meaning of it or how the word or words came about. For a section or article on the etymology of something, we should not be relying on sources that only mention a literal meaning of something without explicitly discussing its etymology. That is not a reliable source for such a purpose, it is original research (we are making the leap from a literal meaning to etymology) which does not belong on Wikipedia. HelenOnline 14:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NEO and WP:WORDISSUBJECT for some related policies on Wikipedia. HelenOnline 15:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Helen. In general, if there are two possible explanations for something both supported by reliable sources, Wikipedia reports both without prejudice, and without attempting to draw a conclusion. That is probably what should happen here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion they are not both supported by reliable sources (see above). HelenOnline 16:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Then include both etymologies. İ've never heard of the etymology included in the article before. People around here say Arabs named it after Justinians Fortress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.208.71 (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The user HouseOfArtaxiad

This user has been making additions to several articles without any explanation, discussions or sources.80.43.13.144 (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced edits and edit warring by Yozer1

On 18 November User:Yozer1 added content to this article which was reverted as unsourced, added again by the same user, reverted again by me and added yet again by the same user. Yozer1 has chosen to ignore my edit warring warning on their talk page. If the sources are "easy to provide", then why not provide them? HelenOnline 16:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting user warnings and good faith attempts at dispute resolution not only demonstrates bad faith, it is futile. HelenOnline 16:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternative names should be included in the etymology section

A simple request. There is no point of including alternative names in the lead. It gives the wrong impression about the article. Also, if an alternative name has to be included, it should be Theodosiopolis since this city was founded as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.113.90 (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Information cannot be sourced from the page its on.

The first source is from the etymology section. Looking at the page history its been that way for a long time. This is quite pathetic and in violation of wiki.

A wikipedia page itself cannot be its own source

The name Karin is sourced from the etymology section. This is against wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.95.11 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)