Talk:Lake Urmia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Recent radical changes
Adil, please provide reliable sources for the timeframe that you provided.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep your (not singling anyone out, I'm talking to both the Azeri and Armenian users) Amrenia-Azerbaijan disputes out of this and other Iran related articles please. If you want to revert war or edit war, please do so on articles other than such minor Iran related ones. Thanks.Azerbaijani 23:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Why were references to Iranian Azerbaijan removed?! They were in previous edits and should not be removed under the guise of a "revert"! Moreover, user Eupator, what is so "controversial" about this statement that you have removed: "In ancient times, Lake Urmiya was part of the Manna state, later Urartu, Medes (Media) and Atropatena. Along with lake Van and lake Sevan (Lake Goycha), from 95 B.C. to 65 B.C. it was one of the three great lakes of the Armenian Kingdom, ruled by dynasties of Persian origin at the time, referred to as the seas of Armenia"?
-
- If anything, the controversy is caused by the imprecise and not very relevant: "Along with lake Van and lake Sevan, it was one of the three great lakes of the Armenian Kingdom, referred to as the seas of Armenia." For one, it makes no sense to single-out Armenia, which under its Persian king, Tigranes, held Atropatena for about 20 years only. No mention of Urartu, Manna, Media Atropatena, not to mention later empires, which I didn't even list out. Then, Armenia's borders barely touched lake Urmiya, whilst the wording above makes it sound like it was fully within Armenia, which is of course incorrect. Also, Lake Goycha (Gokcha) is an equally applicable name for Lake Sevan, and in fact has been in usage longer than Sevan (which as "Black Van" is meaningless), so should be mentioned too. --AdilBaguirov 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The term Iranian Azerbaijan in that part was unnecessary. The previous statement was: Lake Urmia (Persian: دریاچه ارومیه) is a salt lake in northwestern Iran, in Iranian Azarbaijan (between the provinces of East Azarbaijan and West Azarbaijan), west of the southern portion of the similarly shaped Caspian Sea.
-
-
-
- This makes no sense. Saying between the provinces of East Azerbaijan and West Azerbaijan is more accurate and makes more sense. Also, you should also notice that I took out Iranian also where it was unnecessary. You need to calm down and stop putting your nationalist feelings before edits that actually make sense. Again, keep your Armenia Azerbaijan dispute out of this article. You guys are already in an Arbcom, and your just going to spread the disputes to Iranian articles now?Azerbaijani 06:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You are in Arbcom too, user Azerbaijani, and are the one who engages in reverts. Saying "between" two provinces is not making clear that it is inside Iranian Azerbaijan. Also, the provinces East and West Azerbaijan are not a historical reference, but a modern territorial-administrative division of IRI, and can change at any time (like it did in 1993 when Ardabil province was created by splitting that territory from Eastern Azerbaijan province). Thus, Iranian Azerbaijan was a reasonable choice put by previous editors. Meanwhile, the rest of edits about Manna, Medes Atropatena, Urartu, should not have been removed either. --AdilBaguirov 06:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Iranian Azerbaijan doesnt even exist has one specific entity right now, it cannot be used as a geographic term. Saying in between those provinces is correct. The fact is that this is how Iran's provinces are split up now and you cant change that. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Putting Iranian Azerbaijan is a needless factoid at that point in the article. And no, I am not involved in that Arbcom at all. I was added in by Grandmaster days after it was started simply because I made and edit to two Iran related articles that he did not like.Azerbaijani 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Adil stop revert warring you are always in a rush, when someone reverts you do not revert back, and keep discussing or else someone else will revert you discuss so next time you add it no one will revert it. Artaxiad 01:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Narek (Artaxiad), stop throwing accusations left and right, you have your chance in ArbCom. I have not revert warred -- instead, your friends have. Indeed, I've never reverted this article -- but you have, as did Eupator. The POV you have there will be removed, and the article about a lake will become NPOV. --AdilBaguirov 01:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Armenian POV
This line is not correct: "Along with lake Van and lake Sevan, it was one of the three great lakes of the Armenian Kingdom, referred to as the seas of Armenia". Firstly, because it is imprecise and gives a wrong impression that the Lake was fully within Armenia, as opposed to bordering its north-western shore. Secondly, because it gives a link to Armenian kingdom, where it positions itself as some unitary "kingdom" for centuries ("was an independent[citation needed] kingdom from (approximately 355 years) 190 BC to AD 165[citation needed], and a client state of the Roman Empire from 165 to 428.") The reality is that Armenia, under the Persian king Tigranes the Great, had Urmia and other Atropatenian lands for only about 20 years during its first and only independent existence from 95 BC to 66 BC. Before that, and after that, lake Urmia was firmly part of various empires that existed on the territory of Iran -- whether Achameneid and Sassanid Persian Empires, or the Parthian Empire, or the Medes/Media. Thus, the wording used by POV pushers is incorrect and will have to be changed.
Also, the Redgrave book, however unscholarly and pro-Armenian, contains the following quotes as well: "From their base south of Lake Urmia (now in Iran), the Scyths troubled Urartu as well as her rival Assyria. Azerbaijan is an arrow pointed at Armenia's..." (p. 10)
"More ancient still than these sites is that of Hasanlu, to the south of Lake Urmia. Here there was a settlement as early as the sixth millennium BC. Hasanlu was a major metal-working centre and prosperous in the very late second millennium. In the late ninth century BC it was part of the newly formed kingdom of Mana, which both Assyria and Urartu were to try to control, for strategic, commercial and economic reasons." (p. 29)
"But the Scyths attacked Urartu as well as Assyria from their base in Mana and the Zagros mountains to the south of Lake Urmia." (p. 32)
This is why I've previously inserted the following line, which for some unexplained reason was removed by POV pushers: "In ancient times, Lake Urmiya was part of the Manna state, later Urartu, Medes (Media) and Atropatena." Anyways, this line is going to be added back. --AdilBaguirov 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)