First Republic of Armenia was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.
Short description: 1918–1920 former country in Western Asia
First Republic of Armenia is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
The Armenian Genocide, according to the strictest timeline, immediately preceded the First Republic of Armenia. Arguably, the events overlapped. While this is clearly not the place to have that debate between academic POVs, the relevance of the Armenian Genocide -- at the very least as background information for this article in the See Also section -- is certain.
If it is relevant, please demonstrate the relevance the article, just like it is done with American Revolution. Are you saying that Armenian republic was created because of genocide? mikka(t)18:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, the First Armenian Republic was not brought about solely because of the Armenian Genocide. But, the preceding Genocide did offer great impetus to the Western Powers to secure Armenian self-determination. The Genocide also severely weakened the population of Armenia, setting up the fledgling state, which immediately followed the Genocide, for collapse and partition.
The article is obviously incomplete, a work in progress. Certainly, the crucial relevance of the Armenian Genocide should go in the article as well, in good time. But, you will kindly note, the American Revolution article also links to the Boston Massacre. -- James
Will you kindly note that Boston Massacre is explained in the text as a cricial event sparkling revolution. I don't see how the massacre, however important it in the history, is of immediate cause of First Republic. (I admit I am pretty ignorant in the issue; but then, write a proof) And to write 1-2 justifying sentence is not a big deal to wait some "good time", especially if you see disagreement. So far you did not update a singe article in this respect, so it looks like pushing a political agenda. And anticipating your rebuttal, please keep in mind that when first coming to an article, it your job to justify your changes when questioned. I don't doubt that the Armenian Genocide has a great impact even today thru lots of connections, but surely you cannot link the birthday of Jesus Christ into every article however great (enormous!) impact this event had on Western civilization. Reasonably immediate relevance, please. mikka(t)09:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While in the context of what is written in this article, adding a link to the Armenian genocide is not the best solution, the Armenian genocide is a central point in the creation of the first republic. The Paris Peace conference, the King Crane reports, and dispatchs during or after the war of the necessities of creating an Armenian state were nearly all justified by how Armenians after what happened to them should have their state. Also, the first republic recieved about 175 thousands Ottoman Armenian survivers. This article should be clearly expended, but I doubt the individual that is adding back the Armenian link is able to do so, had he been, he would have added materials before adding the Armenian genocide link, which he hasn't done so. Fad(ix)20:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In German and Russian the first republic is known as “Armenian Republic” and the current as “Republic of Armenia”. Is this correct in English as well? Does anybody know the official name of the first one? Were the flag and the coat of arms exactly the same? Ulf-S.13:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No surprise that the maps don’t match. The source is Armenian and not neutral. I think both maps present wishful thinking. In fact, Armenia never had a control over predominantly Muslim Nakhichevan region, the Azeri population of which proclaimed Araks republic and refused to subordinate to Armenia. Eventually after long fights between Azeri and Armenian forces Turkish army established control over the region and left it to Bolsheviks. But the map does not reflect that. As for the map of Azerbaijan DR, it is an official map of 1920, presented to Paris peace conference by the Azeri government. It might be accurate or inaccurate, but it is a historical document. I think I will just explain what it is in the writing under the map and leave it at that. Grandmaster05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, in fact, all those unofficial maps are in complete contradiction with the "Wilson's map", referring to the President Wilson and Treaty of Sevres, which didn't envisage any Azerbaijani lands as part of new Armenian Republic except Naxcivan. That is most of Zangezur, Geycha, and certanly all of Karabakh were recognized by US as legitimate parts of Azerbaijan. Thus, there is not a single consistent map of the first Armenian Republic. In fact there is an interesting telegram of the PM of ADR where he instructs his minister that ADR ceeded Irevan (Yerevan) to Armenia, on May 29, 1918. --AdilBaguirov08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if you looked at the sources, you would see that some of these maps are attributed to "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" by Robert H. Hewsen (a non-Armenian). Of course, I would have to see the book myself to verify if the map I used was directly referenced here (it's at my local library in the reference department and I'd be willing to make xeroxes). Then we can rekindle our discussion. -- Clevelander20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Hewsen is actually Armenian despite an Anglo-Saxon name - and his atlas was published with the financial help and participation from various Armenian organizations, whom he all lists and thanks in his Atlas. But anyway, those maps are not official - whereas the map we have for ADR is the official map from archives, that was actually presented at the Paris Peace Conference. --AdilBaguirov22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is always mentioned by prof. F.Mamedova, who is a prominent scholar on Caucasian Albania and knows him well, cites his books, etc. I have online references to Russian-language articles, such as this one[3]. --AdilBaguirov00:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...but, this comes from an Azerbaijan source. Can it be verified by any western sources? If you can show me proof from a western source of Hewsen's background, then I'll reconsider the map.-- Clevelander00:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I've identified is as an Azerbaijani source. I don't think I have Western or other sources on Hewsen's ethnicity. But this was never my main contention -- it is that Armenian map is still unofficial, whilst ADR's if both official and published in a Western publication. Yet some users constantly vandalize the ADR page, by both attempting to remove the map or adding first one, now two boxes about dispute! Hewsen's maps are not official and not authoritative, he clearly thanks dozens of Armenian organizations for all their support of the atlas' publication. --AdilBaguirov00:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he thanks Armenian sources doesn't necessarily mean that he's an uncredible source. I see him as a credible source not only because I see him as a non-Armenian (for lack of credible proof pointing to the contrary), but he is also very intelligent and has given several lectures and written several books. He is a hardcore researcher and historian, so if anything, I think he'd know what he's talking about. -- Clevelander01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the map on the Azerbaijan page also contradicts that of the one on the Democratic Republic of Georgia. The map in that article shows Armenia's Lori (shown on the Armenian map as a disputed territory between Georgia and Armenia) and the Balakan-Zaqatala-Qakh region as part of the DRG. On the ADR map, Lori is shown as a disputed territory with Georgia and Azerbaijan is shown to have completely control over Balakan-Zaqatala-Qakh. I'll tag the Georgia article too, as this is not consistent with the borders of the ADR as shown on its article. -- Clevelander21:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Armenian map also does not match that of Georgia. Everybody has their own vision of the situation, of course in their own favor. Grandmaster04:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia was the only country of Caucasus that achieved de jure recognition in addition to de facto from the League of Nations, as Georgia existed the longest, until 1921. Hence, if the Georgia map is official, i.e., based on the one used at the Paris Peace Conference and later in its de jure recognition application (filed probably in November 1920), then it was recognized legitimate and correct, and any maps produced by Hewsen -- who is an expert on Armenia, Georgia and Caucasian Albania of the same period early medival period -- do not hold much water. Of course he is a rather prominent and knowledgeable source, but once again, his maps are one step below the maps presented at the League of Nations. Meanwhile, both Georgia and ADR had a military and partnership agreement signed in 1919, yet both had to work out differences on their claims to certain territories. But those differences are normal -- to this day all countries have to clearly demarkate their borders (e.g., Georgia-Russia, Azerbaijan-Russia) and the overlapping territories were not as extensive and large as in case with Armenia's claims on both republics. also, all territories in ADR map had predominant or substantial Azerbaijani population. At that time ethno-national composition of territories was enough for self-determination. --AdilBaguirov08:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is an important fact noted on the Georgia map: it says that Zakatala and some other lands were under "stable Georgian control by Oct 1920". Well, by April 1920, Azerbaijan was invaded by Bolsheviks, and ADR officially ceased to exist on April 27-28, 1920. It created a vaccuum, where territory, in strict legal sense, didn't belong to anyone. Whoever was the srongest, won. Thus, it's possible that in the ensuing chaos Georgia had control of those territories -- indeed, many Azerbaijanis, who were either majority or otherwise substantial in those territories, preferred capitalist and Europe-oriented Georgia, than bolshevik Russia, and thus preferred to be part of Georgia. --AdilBaguirov08:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hewsen is not an Armenian source and his "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" has been published by a very reputable academic press, the University of Chicago Press. I've verified the 3rd Armenica map listed above with Map #229 in Hewsen's book on page 236. Hewsen notes on page 237: "the Arasdayan Republic (another brief Muslim venture in the Nakhichevan region, 26 January 1919 - 16 May 1919). I will be adding this Armenica map to this article. Serouj (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Neftchi
"This was already discussed?"
What kind of discussion is this? I practically see no referenced arguments here. In any case, let the discussion begin, for real:
Here are some other maps (old and contemporary) that show the Democratic Republic of Armenia:
Old maps:
Western Source, 1918:
http://grossmanproject.net/images/Europe%20pre%201918.jpg
Check the boundaries. This is a map from 1918. Western Armenia isn't abolished yet. Notice Nakhichevan, Karabakh, Syunuk, all part of Armenia?
Unknown date, but definitely before 1922:
http://prints-4-u.com/store/images/A1991920/A1991920010.jpg
Considering the fact that there were continuous territorial changes between Armenia-Azerbaijan from 1918 to 1921, this map shows a period when Karabakh and Zangezur was part of Azerbaijan. Still, most of Nakhichevan is part of Armenia.
What Azerbaijanis often use as evidence is false
Azerbaijanis often use this map. Read what it says:
http://karty.narod.ru/great/g-az/1ST_AZ_REP.GIF
"Official map issued by the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, 1919"
This doesn't mean that that's how Azerbaijan was recognized, nor the territories it controlled. That's what Azerbaijan claimed to be its republic, and what it tried to establish through war with Armenia, but that's not the territory that it controlled. No one's denying this is what Azerbaijan claimed.
Conclusion
Basically, my map is objective. It doesn't claim that all of Nakhichevan, Karabakh, Syunik were part of the republic. It claims that Syunik and part of Karabakh and a small region north of Nakhichevan was mostly under Armenian control, while 80% of Nakhichevan and other regions mostly under Azerbaijani. Plus, I have provided numerous non-Armenian sources to prove my point, I have more (text based) but I think this should be enough for now. You can't refute maps that date from 1918 or 1919 anyway, unless, of course, they are map proposals or claims. These maps don't show claims, they show the political situation of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KentronHayastan (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who wrote this? Where are the sources for these horrific claims that Georgians were supported by Ottomans and they wanted Armenian to be slaughtered? I studied that period and nowhere did I see such claims (neither from Armenians or any other historical sources). This is terrible POV. Plus written in bad English. Somebody intentionally makes provocations. This section is provocative POV and it should be modified in respects with NPOV and truthfulness of Wiki. What a shame :( Ldingley21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I moved some text from the Army of Islam couple of months ago. Wikified the paragraph and removed couple of statements that I pesonally find hard to belive. I was reading about Army of Islam, but there is not much factual info about that period. The life span of that army was less then 8 months, and the idea that it reached as deep as Georgia is questionable. That was my main interest in that paragraf. The basic premise of that statement is based on it, which also makes it POV if the facts are not there. If there is no Army of Islam, there is no question regarding that issue. I can not give you sentence by sentence verification. From my bookmarks there is a link you can use. [4]
Hope you can add some factual data about that conflict. I would like to read about that. That period was very interesting.--OttomanReference23:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section about Ottoman-Georgian co-operation against Armenians is wrong and somebody's provocative POV. Also nobody in Georgia desired for Armenians to be slaughtered by Turks. Its ridiculous claim and should be modified and re-edited. In fact, Georgians sheltered fleeing Armenians from Turkish controlled territories. Ldingley23:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A section-NPOV would not be out of place here. It was a war between two nations and there was no "brave militia war." Furthermore, the section is based exclusively on what "Armenian historians claim." Should not we mention a Georgian point-of-view at least in a few words? While Georgia allegedly received aid from Turks (which is not true as Georgia's relations with Turkey was far from peaceful), Armenia was supported by Denikin and symphatized by the UK mission. Text should be objective. Tell me what you think about it. Thanks, --Kober05:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct Kober. UK actually halted the Georgian (Kutaisi battalion) advance on Northern Armenia and warned Zordania to withdraw. Actually, Georgians defeated Armenian troops and moved south of Lori. English saw it as a threat for Armenia and warned Georgians with possible reprisals from His Majesties Government. There was no collaboration or aid from the Turkish side to the Georgians. On contrary, Georgians had an open conflict with Turks. Not to mention the fact that Georgia was attacked by Denikis Ultra-nationalist “Whites”, Azeris in Borchalo, Armenians in south, Turks (and their Muslim allies in Ajaria) and infamous Bolsheviks (of all nationalities). Denikin was an open hardcore anti-Georgian and he was directly involved in Georgian-Armenian conflict. OttomanReference, you should use reliable sources and differentiate between primary and secondary historical sources. Nice job Kober! Ldingley14:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, our Georgian counterparts on Wikipedia have turned me on to a website called Atlas of Conflicts (the source for the map as seen on the DRG article). The page presents a fairly accurate history of the territorial disputes in the Caucasus during World War I. I replaced the Armenian map I made (based on Hewsen's work) with the one used on their website. This map accurately depicts all of Armenia's territorial disputes during this period. -- Clevelander19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be something wrong with the format of the reference to Hewsen in the infobox (the population item). I an unable to fix it. Can someone please try to deal with it? --Zlerman (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The efforts of establishment of ADR includes the promises given by Nicholas II of Russia to Armenians. Especially, the 2nd Prime Minister of the ADR was involved. This historical fact is documented by very important sources "Hovannisian" and "Stanford." The promise was publicly declared to Armenians. --Անդրանիկ (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ADR? Was that freudian? You are adding undue weight to matters which are only indirectly associated with DRA or its establishment. --ΕυπάτωρTalk!!15:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The DRA was established in Russian Armenia. You can personally hold the idea that "promises given by Nicholas II of Russia" is indirectly linked but these events are cited by Hovannisian in the book "Armenia's Road to Independence." Don't you have to respect cited source or proven otherwise, bring another source that falsifies Hovannisian. --Անդրանիկ (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are removing an information, which is included in a credible source (non-disputed source by you), based on credible facts (non-disputed facts by you), which is written to tell the story of this period. This removal is based on your personal action, WP:POV. You are "personally removing a significant view that have been published by reliable sources". This is WP:NPOV violation. I'm stating that in the establishment of DRA: as it was part of Russian Armenia, as it has the involvement of Russian Armenians; as the recognizer of these events were Nicholas II of Russia; as also cited by an Armenian historian "Hovannisian" and an independent historian "Stanford" being part of events in the establishment... You are wrong in your reversal. I also remind that beyond the conclusion of these respected historians, the involvement of 2nd Prime Minister of the DRA to these events creates an indisputable objective link. If you have hard time, we are done with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and we should continue with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Անդրանիկ (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone would agree with your edits here. You are trying to push into this article statements that are not directly related to the ADR while you bring them artifically in connection to the establishement of the ADR. What you are trying to do is Original synthesis per WP rules. Information about Russian-Turkish relations, Western Armenia, Van resistence etc. must go to the relevant article when not directly related to the ADR. --Vacio (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "anyone would agree with your edits here" is a personalization of the argumentation and a violation of a wikipedia rule, which for the moment let's ignore. The establishment of Armenian forces during World War One and the link of these forces to promises given by Russia is established by many historians, among them are the Armenian "Hovannisian" (look at road to independence) and Taner Akcam (look at the shameful act) even third party historians "Stanford" end even military experts (from military perspective) mention the Tsar's quote as in the "First World War" by Martin Gilbert. The people who were related to these events were also highly decorated people of DRA. Prime ministers, Interior ministers, Military commanders ... Which you have not denied. On the other side; you have not presented any citation or argumentation to disprove. I will happy to drop my position, if you bring any fact or argument that I can check from a published source. Likewise, the second Prime Minister of DRA, just short of three years before the establishment of DRA, engaged with the negotiations with Tsar. The first Interior minister of DRA was assigned and celebrated by Tsar's forces as the governor of Western Armenia. If these people do not link DRA to the events happened just three years before international recognition... I can extent the list of people. But really I do not need to. Because I'm backed by sources in this case. They are all cited by very credible sources. Obviously these facts and sources are not my Original synthesis, as all included in books regarding the period. Isn't denying these facts by you a revisionist perceptive? If you want, I have Armenian Hovannisian's "Road to independence." I'm totally fine using his book to tell the story of the DRA. Will an Armenian Historian and his book about DRA enough to resolve your objection? --Անդրանիկ (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is edited in photoshop and does not reflect the truth.
Artvin, Ardagan, Samtskhe and Lori provinces are erroneously included into the borders of the Democratic Republic of Armenia, as the above lands were controlled by the Democratic Republic of Georgia, which was recognized by the League of Nations as an independent state within these borders.
This map contradicts all other maps marking the borders of the Democratic Republic of Armenia.
Please delete it.
The map shown on this page infobox, claiming what territories DRA controlled is false, and does not constitute the historical reality. Below is the quote from no one else but Professor Richard Hovanissian of UCLA, admitting to the fact that Azerbaijan did indeed control Mountainous Karabakh in 1919, and Armenian government did not object to it ahead of the 1919 Transcaucasian Conference:
Richard G. Hovanissian. The Republic of Armenia: The first year, 1918-1919, University of California Press, 1971, p. 356
"while the ultranationalist Georgian press warned against trusting the Armenian "wolves in sheep's clothing", at least until a final territorial settlement has been reached, Zhordania's government closed ranks with Armenia to resist the extension of an invitation to the local administration at Kars. In a devious tactic, the two Christian countries consented to an advisory voice of the South-West Caucasus Provisional Government only on condition that Azerbaijan assent to like representation for Mountainous Karabagh. Azerbaijan naturally could not jeopardize her tenuous hold over the Armenian-populated highland by acquiescing in such a proposition. The overthrow of the South-West Caucasus Republic in mid-April and the Armenian occupation of Kars seem to have obviated that aspect of the issue. Azerbaijan no longer pressed for inclusion of delegates from Kars, and Armenia tacitly accepted the impracticability of gaining a rostrum for Mountainous Karabagh.".
I also think the current map suffers from some POV, in 1918–1920 Shusha (not Shushi, as labeled on the map) was within the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and was not under "relative control of Armenia". Twilightchillt 20:24, 1 February 2011
(UTC)
For your information there was no Shusha in 1918 it was Shushi, then why on Azerbaijan Democratic Republic page the map shows Syunik or Zangezur, Artsakh are part of Azerbaijan, when at least Zangezur was under Andranik's control, and the other parts were under relative control of Azerbaijan or Armenia, and Treaty of Sevres recognized Zangezur, Artsakh and Javakhk as parts of Armenia.Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Coat of arms in the info box File:Coat of Arms of the DRA.svg different from the coat found at Coat of arms of Armenia? The change of Tinctures (both those in the shield and those in supporters) would indicate a different set of arms in heraldry. This may reflect a time change, however while I could find references to File:Coat of arms of Armenia.svg, I was less successful with File:Coat of Arms of the DRA.svg. Reference needed? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC). P.s. just found this which gives a new version to the 1918 arms: background Tinctures quartered Azure/Gules (rather than Gules/Azure) and argent/or supporters, with inescutcheon argent rater than Or or Azure.[reply]
Ref #3[6] leads just to a book listing. as the book is 125 pages long, we need page numbers for these cites. As it is a US Congress document presumably it is available online somewhere?
As I cannot access the other references, I shall assume good faith.
Administration section is completely uncited.
Ref #15 - Strategics textbook, 9th grade is not accepatble as a reliable source.
Military section is uncited
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Military section is over detailed. A prose summary is all that is neccessary. We don't need to know how many underpanst the army had!
The Geography section should be converted into prose with a description of the geography, rather than tables which add little to the understanding.
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Sorry, but in several places, this text seems NPOV to me:
armies of the Ottoman Empire, which were intent on eliminating the Armenian people living in the area Was it really the official objective of the army? This could have been the result of official policy, and also a well-founded fear of Armenians, but most likely not the "intent of armies".
The Russian offensive during the Caucasus Campaign of World War I and subsequent occupation and the creation of a provisional administrative government gave hope for the liberation of Western Armenia from Ottoman Turkish rule. This is hardly the only possible description of Russian forces taking Turkish territory, and definitely not the most NPOV.
Having massacred and deported the Armenians of Western Armenia during the Armenian Genocide, the Ottoman Empire now set its sights on eliminating the Armenian population of Eastern Armenia. The same. Also, dramatic presentation of history is not well-suited for an encyclopedia which should center on facts.
The Armenians were able to stave off total defeat and delivered crushing blows to the Turkish army in the battles of Sardarapat, Karakilisa and Abaran. About Sardarapat, it can be argued, and the article about Abaran lacks numbers, but was Karakilisa really a "crushing blow" for the Turks? After all, they took the settlement and as Battle of Karakilisa says, "After a violent battle of 4 days, both sides had serious losses." If both sides had losses but one gained territory, did it really lose?
After the Ottoman Empire took vast swaths of territory and imposed harsh conditions, the new republic was left with a mere 10,000 square kilometers. Well, Western Armenia had been under Ottomans for centuries. There can clearly be different POVs on if the fresh Armenian Republic established behind the Russian front really had a justified claim on the territory. Most likely, the same facts could be expressed more neutrally. After all, it is hard to deny that even some areas in former Russian Armenia were acceded to Turkey.
The Turkish Revolutionaries alleged that the Turks inside DRA were being mistreated and oppressed by the Armenians. If these claims were used as a reasoning for war, they clearly deserve a more thorough presentation.--Oop (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In some places, text just a mess, including even obvious contradictions due to bad English.
During the 1920s, which began under the premiership of Kachaznuni, Armenians from the former Russian Empire and United States developed the judicial system. During most of the 1920s, Armenia was under Soviet rule, so the meaning of this sentence remains somewhat foggy. Did American Armenians start developing judicial system in DRA and continue the same work under Soviet regime? It's just unbelievable.
In accordance with the harsh terms of the Treaty of Batum signed on June 14, 1918 the Ottoman Empire permitted the Armenians army to maintain just a single infantry division. Yet the following text and tables hint that "at first" DRA had 3 divisions, and then the Armenian army was enabled to grow. And manpower evidently grew from 16,000 in 1918 to 40,000 in 1920. Either Armenia did not follow the "harsh terms" of the treaty or there is some confusion in the text. (I really wonder where did a landlocked country hold its single battleship, but well, independent Hungary also had an admiral at its head.)
Out of these 2,000,000 in the Caucasus, 1,300,000 were to be found within the boundaries of the new Republic of Armenia, which included 300,000 to 350,000 refugees who had escaped from the Ottoman Empire. There were 1,650,000 Armenians in the new Republic. Most likely, "which included" should be "in addition to", as DRA could not have 1.3 and 1.65 million Armenians in the same time (and according to the same source), yet 1.3 and 0.35 add nicely up to 1.65.
The Ottoman governing structure and Russian army had already withdrawn from the region. Throughout the text, it is presented as DRA were situated in former Russian Armenia. What did Ottoman governing structure have to do with it?
Also, the question of Armenian territory remains unclear. It is said that the Ottoman left "mere 10,000 square kilometers" to ADR. It is also said in Turkish Invasion of Armenia that Armenia lost "over half its territory" which hints that less than 5,000 km2 remained. There seems to be almost nothing about Armenian territorial gains in the 20th century in current Armenian articles, yet the territory of modern Armenian Republic is told to be 29,743 km2. Now, this is quite confusing. --Oop (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would gladly help clearing it all up but unfortunately I'm not a real scholar of all things Armenian. I'm just trying to develop Armenian articles in Estonian Wikipedia and in that work, I heavily depend on the other language versions. So, while I can e.g. point out incoherence in the orthography of Armenian names (Khatisyan or Khatissian?), I really can't say which would be the right solution. --Oop (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All spot-on observations. If I have some time, I'll try to bring some of the information more to line with Wikipedia policies and the sources themselves. A good source to start with on this article is Richard Hovannisian's 4-5 volume study on the republic, The Republic of Armenia. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re names: "yan" at the end of a name are mostly a result of Soviet-period spelling reforms and dogma. I think that is not appropriate to use yan endings for names in a pre-Soviet Armenia context, or for people who became notable in pre-Soviet Armenia times. But Bagramyan is OK :) Meowy02:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The Armenian foreign affairs ministry [8], the parliament [9], the government [10][11][12] and the president's [13][14] websites use the term "First Republic of Armenia" rather than "Democratic Republic of Armenia".
"Democratic Republic of Armenia" first of all, the top results are from Wikipedia. Other uses are books not on the Armenian history, but some generic books. I can't find one prominent author who uses the term "Democratic Republic of Armenia" for the 1918-1920 republic.
At last, Richard Hovannisian (a respected historian from California) who is best known for his four-volume work on the republic's short history (published in 1971 and 1982 and later in 1996 when Armenia was still part of the Soviet Union, therefore the term "First Republic of Armenia" was not common, it was simply referred to as "Republic of Armenia") in this 2012 interview refers to it as the "First Republic of Armenia". --Երևանցիtalk04:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe it is good that you pointed this out. As of now I am still undecided whether it the First Republic should be the term to change to. When taking neutral readers/observers of this article into consideration, one is tempted to ask what the second of third republic is or will be. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Second republic is Soviet Armenia, while the current Republic of Armenia is the Third Republic. Maybe we need to specify that. --Երևանցիtalk19:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Democratic Republic of Armenia seems to be a neologism of some sort that some Wikipedian decided to use and apply to all the Caucasian republics of those years. I've never come across a contemporary that referred to it with that name, but the suggested name is far better than the current one.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article suffers from a range of issues. Not least is the fact that many of the most important sections relating to the republic - the circumstances leading up to its creation, its social and political structure, its foreign relations, etc. - are not yet fleshed out. Instead of adding information about elections, political parties, and the creation of a modern university, we have editors adding dozens of citations about some negligible and unimportant names the republic may have been called by journalists or politicians during the time and placing them in their own section in the beginning of the article. 4 or 5 citations (and the accompanying quotes) are not needed for that as the fact that it was called by such a title is undisputed and uncontroversial. The article is in need of a lot of improvement and edits like these are not only unnecessary but a waste of time for readers wanting to more about the republic, not the other obscure names it was attributed.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you care about your own time and energy? Why don't you start working on the article? This article had a wrong title for years and how come you didn't notice it? Is whining about oversourcing the only thing you enjoy doing? I have been working on this article for some time now. I've drawn a map which more accurately depicts the situation, while I don't recall any major edit from you in the past months or so. --Երևանցիtalk14:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can be as discourteous as you like but, for your information, I did spend a great amount of my time and energy reading, researching, reworking the introductory paragraphs and sections on foreign relations on this article (the history section is there for that purpose). But as I have other matters to attend to outside of Wikipedia, I am unable to devote more attention to articles that need re-working. You call it whining but please go ahead and ask another editor how important it is to include five references to an obscure and uncontroversial name used only in English and how much more preferable it is to neglect sections on economy, education, and politics in favor of "terminology" (which I don't believe enough deserve its own section, just a single footnote at the bottom). Poor edits are no substitute for no edits.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
don't expect a polite response to a comment and an edit summary that sound like personal attacks. If those few sources really irritate you that much, simply remove them, I don't care, it's not a big deal for me and have never been. I suggest you not make a big deal out of them either. --Երևանցիtalk22:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're hardly personal attacks. I did remove them because I found that disproportionate space was allotted to them but your comment about not making them a big deal is strange. This isn't the first time this discussion is being spoken of so it's only natural that one raises it once a general pattern emerges in the editing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the name should be changed, there is no such a concept regarding first second and third republic compared with the French first second third etc. The Armenian constitution clearly says that the current republic is the continuation of the first one. Hence, It would be much more appropriate to rename the article as follows: Republic of Armenia (1918-1920).--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The single cited "source" is dubious - an Armenian government website that claims "Since Armenia's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, the most accepted term in Armenia is the First Republic of Armenia". This is not sufficient. A title should be the most commonly used title, or the most common term used in academic sources. No academic sources are cited to support this title. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like an untreated cancer, on the basis of the title of this article this "First Republic of Armenia" term now has spread to many Wikipedia articles dealing with Armenia in the 1918-1920 period. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not be about dumbing things down, and Wikipedia does not coin names or terms - the names of things and the terms for things will exist because these names and these terms are required and are used, and so will have sources. The problem I see on Wikipedia is the often incorrect usage of names and terms, resulting in confusion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot cite 75 pages, tell exactly where you are getting this information. Even so, Andersen got his short lived Wikipedia article removed due to not meeting the critera of a notable academic, and I couldn't even find any information on Partskhaladze. Hovannisian is much more notable than both of them. The war ended as Armenian troops were approaching Tiflis, hence why the British demanded a ceasefire. See pages 114 to 119. --Oatitonimly (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rev. You kept rev that I accidently deleted this discussion. Btw you also have one started earlier on your own talk page. On this article:
Yes you definitly can, especialy when it's an article based citing different sources inc. research of academic figures such as Hovannian, Lang and others - which you keep deleting as well. You're proposel of notability is an invalid argument and doesn't meet any guidlines at all. Providing misleading or chopped information to twist certain events is also an invalid act and won't change anything or help your cause here either. Hovannian himself gives a more or less detailed description on the general conflict in his book "The Republic of Armenia: The first year, 1918-1919" Read pages 118 and 119. However Hovannian is an Armenian source which provides only a POV from one side ( especialy on page 119 ) despite describing particular events, which also do not match in some parts the description on the Georgian side. In any case, it does not matter if you like Andersen or not ( you also keep deleting Lang - who was a renown British history professor on the Caucasus ) because he basicaly provides the same result, only considering the Georgian POV as well - which makes his and Lang's source more neutral than Hovannians. I even avoided using a Georgian source. Either way each source, Andersen, Hovannian and Lang all agree that the war stopped on 1 January when both armies were still engaging at Sadakhlo on December 31, not because the Armenian army was 30km away from Tbilisi. The Armenian army was beaten out of Shulaveri ( which is 61 km away from Tbilisi ) back to Sadakhlo ( almost at the border to nowdays Armenia ) and they were also beaten out of there with exception of the train station that was still being defended by the Armenians. Hovannian directly states that and basicaly also acknowledges that the Georgian army which was still gathering numbers ( only 3.500 regulars and People's Guard for a major offensive at that point ) while probably still being outnumbered decicively, while the Armenians were fatigued towards the end as Hovannian credits the Armenian setbacks to illness and fatigue etc. The British "demanded" ceasefire days earlier, but the ceasefire began not earlier then 1 January, a day after the Georgians decicively beat back the Armenian advance. So yeah, I hope this settles the unnessecary edit skirmish here. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can create their own website. A non-self published book published by a university is the best possible kind of source. Cite a book that Lang wrote, not a website by Andersen. And stop copying the source word for word, that's copyright. You cannot call Hovannisian a bad source just because he is Armenian, in fact he's actually an anti-nationalist. A reliable source is determined by if they meet WP:ACADEMIC. Hovannisian fulfills all requirements, while Andersen has none. --Oatitonimly (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "copyright" issue here and nobody called Hovannian a "bad" source. I am merely pointing out the fact that it is one sided to offer only an Armenian POV while any other POV and research is being discarded or neglected. Hovannian even describes a POV on page 119, maybe you should read his book in the first place as it presents the events you are deleting the entire time. You also ignore the argument I present to why I have edited the misleading context of that section aka why and when the conflict ceased, despite the fact that Hovannian describes that event exactly like it's cited in Andersen's article. Lang fullfills the same requirements of an academician and also it is not limited by that. Andersen is another valid source as it also references and cites others, including Hovannian so your argument is invalid and you should really stop reverting sourced material.
Edit: btw the website text isn't some fantasy, it's a direct excert from Lang's book "A Modern History of Georgia" covering tons of references. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is not valid as it is a direct excert from the book. You can't simply delete a source because it's not the book itself, while citing it exactly. No valid argumentation, reverting edit, also because of deletion of sourced material, not just Lang. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on First Republic of Armenia. 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: 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.
First Republic Of Armenia was not the official name of the country during its existence, but a term introduced later during sovietization of Armenia. The official name was and still is Republic Of Armenia, as recognised by Leage Of Nations, the predecessor of UN. The provided source in the article intro section merely proofs the use of First Republic Of Armenia as a term, nothing else. In essence, this is a major falsification. A country's name cannot be changed post-existence. It should be corrected. --Addictedtohistory (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The picture shows armenian genocide victim, and it is not in Yerevan. It is a serious mistake. The "Refugees crisis" paragraph contains many mistakes and the numbers are definitely wrong. There are not sources.
The ongoing discussion on the RSN seems to have decided that Kazemzadeh is now an outdated source that is no longer very reliable. Kazemzadeh certainly shouldn't be used as a source on this article, given how hostile his book is to the ARF which he had a clear bias against. I will also be reviewing all the Hovannisian footnotes to make sure they accurately reflect the source. Dallavid (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As another editor on that RSN thread mentioned: historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. Therefore, the rationale used on the thread that Kazemzadeh's book is too old is redundant due to Wikipedia policy. Moreover, the information that references his book is also supported by a number of other sources, I just used his book as it has the most reliable consolidation of topics, and that the Featured Article Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (related to the background section of this article) cites him heavily. – Olympianloquere02:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Article was recently completely rewritten to over 100K bytes, thoroughly referenced and carefully written, and is accompanied by an accurate and also recently-created map.
Unfortunately, the expansion of this article did not happen within seven days. It is possible to nominate following a successful GAN, however for both the GAN and the future DYK the article would have to be compliant with some MOS and NPOV, which it is currently not. For example, a huge overemphasis on Sèvres, the odd disinclusion of the TSFSR, and a WP:Lead which does not appear to be serving as a summary of the body. CMD (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Armenia was confined to a territory of small territory around Lake Sevan". The statement a territory of small territory sounds like a typo to me. Maybe my understanding of English is wrong, what do other people think? 24.13.28.25 (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am editing back to the original publication until sources can prove the newer content added. Please tell me where it states the percentage for the Muslim population and numbers etc. Because I checked the source and could not find it. Please give exact sections. Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Two edits requests:
Remove the photo captioned "Folk dancers celebrating Armenian Independence Day in 1918, Yerevan". That photo was not taken immediately after the independence of Armenia, in the background of that photo is the foundation of the Garni Temple, which had not been restored until the 1970s. The source of the photo itself comes from a book printed in the 90s the book itself makes no indication that the photo was taken in 1918.[1]
Remove the photo captioned "Coin of First Republic of Armenia". The First Republic of Armenia did not issue any coinage, only banknotes. The photo itself is not a coin.
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
...the communist-influenced Armenian academic circles, namely... Delete.
...the academic circles, including... Does the cited source explicitly verify the statement? If not, delete it.
...from Persia and Turkey...Link Persia to Qajar Iran, cChange Turkey to Ottoman Empire with a link.
Owing to Russian colonial policy, more than 100,000 Armenians from Persia and Turkey repatriated to Russian Armenia—specifically, the Erivan Governorate "regained an Armenian majority for the first time in several hundred years", whilst "Armenians had already been a majority in some areas such as mountainous Karabagh"; these areas would later "form the nucleus" of an independent Armenia. Rephrase. (The long sentence should be splitted, and perhaps first Karabagh should be mentioned.)
When quoting text from a scholar, the scholar should specifically named in the text.
In the context, I would say "Bolshevik coup in Russia" or "Bolshevik revolution in Russia" instead of October Revolution to make it clearer for readers.
...(which was formed by the Russian Provisional Government to oversee the Caucasus)... Perhaps "(a commitee formed in February by the Russian Provisional Government to oversee the Caucasus)"?
...signed the Armistice of Erzincan... With whom?
...the Transcaucasian Seim was established... By whom?
...at least 8,000 young men were taken to Erzurum for slave labour, and 125,000 livestock, 30,000 "farm implement", 6,000 carts, and 18,000 tons of foodstuffs were confiscated. Are these numbers facts or estimations? If estimations, specify it, naming the scholar who made the estimation.
...the full significance of the saying, 'the Turk has passed here,' was bruisingly demonstrated"... Specify, this is an Armenian saying, and explain its meaning.
Quotation marks should be decimated in section Armistice of Mudros.
...200 villages were "plundered", half the vineyards in the Aras River valley were "ruined", 200,000 large-horned animals were "driven away" in addition to thousands of carts of "agricultural implements", and 80 percent of households were deprived of a horse and "nearly half" deprived of a cow or ox. Are these numbers facts or estimations? If estimations, specify it, naming the scholar who made the estimation. At least one number (200,000 large-horned animals) seems to contradict the other list (125,000 livestock).
Rephrase direct quotes in section Armeno-Georgian war.
British toleration of the state dissolved after the latter defied its directives and Muslim insurgents backed by the latter resisted Georgian forces in the counties of Akhalkalaki and Akhaltsikhe, leading the Georgian government to unite with Armenia in opposing the state's existence. Rephrase it for better understanding, avoiding the use of the term "latter" and splitting the sentence.
...2-week... Delete.
...local Muslims of up to "ten thousand well-armed men" Rephrase to avoid quotation marks.
British sympathy to the Aras Republic was reversed under the authority of Major-General William Montgomerie Thomson who suspected Pan-Turkic influence in Nakhchivan due to the presence of Azerbaijani and Ottoman envoys. Thomson believed that Azerbaijan and Turkey were scheming... Ottoman Empire/Ottoman and Turkey/Turkish are not obviously interchangeable. Please check the entire text from this perspective.
...(Dro)... ?
...which took place in mid-June... Why not past perfect?
The town of Böyük Vedi and the village cluster around it served as a symbol of defiance for Muslims in Armenia. I do not understand the sentence. Were they the centers of defiance?
As the insurgencies raged... Select a more neutral verb.
...—earlier, he had worked to forestall the Armenian annexation of Nakhchivan This info should be moved into a previous section where it is in context.
Introduce Anton Denikin.
Rephrase quotes in sections Armenian-Azerbaijani war, Diplomacy, Karabakh rebellion to avoid quotation marks.
Section Diplomacy implies that massacre of Muslims by Armenian forces began only in 1919. Can we be sure that Muslims were not massacred and Muslim villages were not sacked during previous Armenian manoeuvres?
Introduce the Six Vilayets.
Some words about the March Days massacres?
...due to their overlapping territorial claims over Lori, Akhalkalaki, Ardahan, and Olti Delete.
...on account of the defeat of the Volunteer Army... Rephrase to make it clear that the Bolsheviks defeated the Volunteer Army in Russia.
...the League of Nations and the Supreme Allied Council formally recognised Georgia and Azerbaijan as de facto governments over the region... Rephrase it. (Georgia and Azerbaijan are nations not governments, and the reference to "region" is unclear.)
...to accept permanent inclusion within Azerbaijan... Rephrase (to accept the decision, or something else)
Link and introduce the Red Army.
...was ordered by Yerevan... Yerevan?
The Armenian army was ordered by Yerevan to assist the rebels, but an ultimatum by the Red Army—which supplanted the Azerbaijani army following the latter's sovietisation—prompted an Armenian retreat from Nagorno-Karabakh. Introduce the sentence with a reference to the sovietisation of Azerbaijan for a clearer chronology.
...accusing Armenia of attacking Azerbaijani settlements Was this indeed only an accusation? Did indeed the Azerbaijani forces accuse the Armenians of attacking Azerbaijani settlements?
...11-point... Delete.
The parliament gave up its rights to the government since Armenia was under state of emergency. Rephrase (The parliament (?) declared a state of emergency, ...)
Introduce Nersesian.
...some months after the Red Army invasion of Azerbaijan in April,... Delete.
...Armenia issued an ultimatum to the rebels outside Yerevan some 15 kilometres (9.3 miles) southwest of Yerevan to submit to Armenian rule Rephrase. Who are these rebels? Armenians/Bolsheviks/Muslims?
...to form a link with Kemalist Turkey... Some context and explanation?
There are several POV pushing issues in this article that are so apparent, it is hard to believe some of them are unintentional. One of the most immediately apparent issues is the "38% Muslims" ethnic group; Muslims are not an ethnic group. This is the exact same tactic that Armenian genocide negationists use: merging all Islamic ethnic groups (including Islamic Armenians) into one to make the Armenian population seem smaller than it is. Another major issue is the removal of maps of the republic based on the Treaty of Sèvres. The Sèvres map file had been used in the infobox and the stable version from 2013 to 2023. It was changed relatively recently during an edit war between two users who are now both blocked. There was never any consensus to change the map however, and I believe either the long standing version should be restored or a new consensus should be found before a GA status is possible. There should also be some consistency in format; the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic map includes every territory the republic claimed, even territories it never controlled. The Sèvres map of the Armenian republic was recognised internationally by the League of Nations, while the Azerbaijani republic borders were not. Another concerning difference between the articles is that the Armenian republic has many unofficial languages in the infobox, while the Azerbaijani republic infobox only has Turkic (which 80% of Baku did not speak). To recapitulate, there are recent changes to the article that seem intended to make the republic appear as small and non-Armenian as possible, and there was never any consensus for these changes. Before the GA process goes forward, the stable version should be restored. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(b) Given that the source describes Armenians and Muslims in the same population breakdown, it is difficult to ascertain whether they should be represented as "ethnic groups" or "religious groups". This uncertainty has led to other editors changing the infobox, but I am open to amending it to either with more editors' input.
2. Map concern:
(a) Initially, the current map was added by me nearly two years ago in January 2023 and has formed the stable/consensus version since then;[b] the current map accurately represents the First Republic of Armenia's territory at its peak in mid-1919 according to reliable sources such as UCLA historian Richard Hovannisian, whose works are heavily depended upon in the content of this article.[c]
(b) The previous map sadly contained numerous historic consistencies with respect to its claimed territories, and this is demonstrated by 7 map-related complaints by editors in the article's Talk page: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7).
(c) The cited Azerbaijan Democratic Republic article is sadly in a pitiful state and has significant issues, including with its map and lack of spoken/unofficial languages. I have been in the process of rewriting it, but using it as a benchmark for this review is inappropriate and conflicts with WP:OTHERSTUFF.
I hope the explanation is satisfactory, in the meantime, I will continue to address your feedback/remarks above. Thank you for picking up this review. Best, – Olympianloquere06:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^“Districts forming the Armenian Republic of Erivan:—Armenians, 795,000; Moslems, 575,000; other elements, 140,000; total, 1,510,000” [1].
^Contrary to the erroneous claim by KhndzorUtogh that “It [the current map] was changed relatively recently during an edit war between two users who are now both blocked […] There was never any consensus to change the map”.
^Hovannisian is considered one of the foremost academics on the First Republic of Armenia in Western academia and scholarship [2].
the coat found at Coat of arms of Armenia? The change of Tinctures (both those in the shield and those in supporters) would indicate a different set of arms in heraldry. This may reflect a time change, however while I could find references to File:Coat of arms of Armenia.svg, I was less successful with File:Coat of Arms of the DRA.svg. Reference needed? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC). P.s. just found this which gives a new version to the 1918 arms: background Tinctures quartered Azure/Gules (rather than Gules/Azure) and argent/or supporters, with inescutcheon argent rater than Or or Azure.
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Unfortunately, the expansion of this article did not happen within seven days. It is possible to nominate following a successful GAN, however for both the GAN and the future DYK the article would have to be compliant with some MOS and NPOV, which it is currently not. For example, a huge overemphasis on Sèvres, the odd disinclusion of the TSFSR, and a WP:Lead which does not appear to be serving as a summary of the body. CMD (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Done Thank you for providing the svg file! Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
![[7]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Wilsonian_Armenia_(orthographic_projection).svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_the_First_Republic_of_Armenia.png){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_the_First_Republic_of_Armenia.svg){kind=link}
