Talk:Ani/Archive 1

Archive 1

Category: Ancient Armenian cities

Doktor Gonzo, I fail to see why this category is not good for Ani. It is an ancient Armenian city where Armenians once thrived with 200 000 living there. The name itself Ani is Armenian. What is your point in saying that category is not suitable?Fedayee 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Former capitals of Armenia is not suitable category imho. It can be misguiding. Ani has to do with ancient Armenia so its categorization should be such. Istanbul is categorized as an ancient Greek city, not former capitals of Greece. Nobody is denying any fact, don't worry.--Doktor Gonzo 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Claim

From Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words that can advance a point of view:

Dubious use:

• Paranoid schizophrenics typically claim that some people are tracking their movements in an attempt to harm them.

Acceptable use:

• According to Microsoft's claim, Apple inflicted $2 million worth of damages on it by infringing its patents.

I used the second one. Khoikhoi 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't see what was wrong with "pledge." All a pledge means is that someone says they will do something. It doesn't imply that it has been fulfilled or even will be fulfilled. A pledge is exactly what the Kars governor's quote sounds like to me. I agree with HOS that we need the most neutral language possible. And "claim," to me, is always a value judgement.--Optimussven 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Microsoft example refers to a legal claim. It's a technical term. As is a land claim. The Wikipedia:Words to avoid explains that. This text comes directly above the Microsoft example:

Of course, there are other definitions of claim as well. These generally don't have the same connotation, and the word can be used freely in those senses. For instance, making a claim in court or claiming a piece of land are valid.

"Pledge" wasn't bad (I initially wrote it), but in the most technical sense that is almost like taking an oath or at least making a very formal promise. In the interest of favouring people on neither side of the border, I changed it to the most neutral language available (say/said) rather than simply reverting Khoi.

I want to make the point here that it seems Khoi is trying to find the most POV word allowable rather than following the spirit of NPOV. Case in point: what objection can be made for using "says" rather than "claims"? House of Scandal 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mkhargrdzeli

The problem with using the term "Zakarid-Mxargrzeli" rather than "Mkhargrdzeli" is that we have a reference for the later term, for the former we do not. House of Scandal 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

The ruined Armenian Church of Saint Gregory and the Citadel.

Is this image of The church of St Gregory of Tigran Honents, The church of St Gregory of the Abughamrents, or King Gagik's church of St Gregory? Khoikhoi 00:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's the church of St. Gregory of the Abughamrents Meowy 23:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hovhanness-Smbat

Or John-Smbat? As I said on the rv, Hovhannes-Smbat was his name. English Wikipedia doesn't generally change the proper names of people or places to their English equivalent unless they are household names. If there is a rule that says it must, then let me know (because someone once told me the exact opposite). Mark Whittows use of foreign names is not consistant. He converts Hovhannes to John, yet leaves Grigor as it is and does not change it to Gregory. He also seems to leave all Arabic names completely in their native form. What about all the other "foreign" names in this article. Do we change Nikolai to Nicolas? Meowy 21:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess Eupator is technically right. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), we're supposed to use the most common name that English-speakers will recognize. Problem is, this isn't exaclty Cristobal Colón that we're talking about here. We have somewhat of a borderline case. I personally perfer the Armenian name because this is an Armenian person, and "Hovhanness" was his name. Anyways, I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this. Khoikhoi 02:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's not consistent. We don't have Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian for Armenian. Until we do, Google is our friend. Google returns plenty results for John-Smbat to consider as the main English usage.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at talk pages like Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland/Archive 1, you can see how divided the community is on issues such as these. Is it really necessary to Anglicize the name of an Armenian person? I suppose the best solution is just to provide both names. Khoikhoi 03:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

At least "Hovhanness" is pronounced like it is spelt, unlike most Gaelic names! I don't understand the "Google is our friend" point, Eupator. Can you explain it to me? Why should the number of websites using one form of spelling over another be a basis of which decision to make? Meowy 23:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a quick and simple test. Unique Google hits show which usage of the name is more common in English language sources.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I am taking this article off my watch list. I am even taking it out of the catalog of DYK’s I created so that what appears here is never mistaken for the standards of scholarship I maintain. Now people can do whatever they want with this article so that it becomes another example of the terrible scholarship that characterizes Project Armenia. Congratulations, Meowy (talk · contribs). Congratulations, Khoikhoi (talk · contribs). As long as Armenians throw out good scholarship in place of bad, people who unjustly deny the realities of Armenian history will have as loud voice, and that is not a good thing. House of Scandal 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Meowy is Scottish, Khoikhoi is Jewish :)-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I love you too. Khoikhoi 20:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And congratulations, HouseOfScandal, for misidentfying the ethnicity of one, and probably two, Wikipedia editors. Meowy 21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I apologize for that part of the statement. The ethnicities of editors involved are, of course, irrelevant and it wasn’t my place to speculate. What I should have said is “as long as anyone throws out good scholarship in place of bad, people who unjustly deny the realities of Armenian history will have as loud voice, and that is a terrible thing.” I’ll share some of my own background, since you’ve shared yours. I am of a race (Irish) who spent most of the last 1,000 years under the heel of another. I live in a country (United States) with a short history red with the blood of those who didn’t belong to the dominant social group and where evil men with dreams of conquest still murder millions for their own greed. I see too many articles about Black people, Native Americans, Ireland, India, Armenia (etc.) that have veered from the path of scholarship because of emotion. It upsets me because I feel like the true and verifiable stories of history’s underdogs get buried when a article starts to smell like propaganda or isn’t held to the highest stylistic standards . While working to keep POV out of articles, I hope to bring dignity to subjects of importance to under-represented people by choosing those subjects to cover appropriately. The glorious achievements and tragic horrors of history don’t need “spin”. The direction this article is going is a good one. I wish it could have gone in this direction without a new user attacking me for requiring references...and that’s all I did. It was unwise of me, however, to let that under my skin. Khoikhoi, you and I debated over a specific word here (“claims” vs. “says”) and I see that the non-POV word I suggested has remained in the article. I respect you for that. I will honor my earlier statement that I am done working with this article. There’s a 1,000,000 other things I want to work on (999,995 of them so absurdly trivial that no one else will even bother to add significant edits) and there are plenty of capable people involved here. But I’ll offer my perspective one very specific point germane to Ani. To me, the material about the Turkish preservation efforts (however meager) doesn’t paint the Turks as heroes, it merely says that the Armenian legacy preserved in places like Ani is so precious that even (well-educated) Turks recognize its value. I think that is profound and might make people who may be disinclined to think that Ani is a big deal rethink that dismissive notion. If you feel an urge to edge that material out of this article, please reconsider. Peace. スキャンダルの家 (House of Scandal) 15:50, 23 January 2007

Ok, I think you're missing the point here. Nobody is denying the fact that the Turks are doing restoration work. It's what that restoration does that needs to be scrutinized. For all intents and purposes Turkish restoration is essentially destruction for the most part, as Steven has detailed in his site. Btw do you know that the tourist plaque that welcomes people Ani has a timeline of Ani that doesn't even mention Armenia or Armenians?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • And it is not the place of this article to scrutinize the work without proper references. You seem far to invested to be capable of independent thinking on this article.--Optimussven 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is finding citable sources that criticise the restoration work. There are some. Bu there are none at all that criticise the dreadful standard of the Turkish archaeological work (criticism has actually been surpressed - see this letter for an example). GHF will probably continue with the tradition. In a way, I wish wikipedia's Ani entry had stayed small.Meowy 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• It would be of great benefit to include criticism of the restoration and the unjust signage in the article properly. I am not understanding how that translates into you being angry with me, whch it sounds like you are. Is the point that relevant material from The Economist should be excluded because you think the quote is insincere? Is the point that I was out of line for insisting on WP:V? What do you believe I have done wrong here so that I am, somehow, your adversary? Or are you just getting a little carried away, like we all have here because we're human? スキャンダルの家 (House of Scandal) 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not angry at all. You're the one using words like "adversary", I find it quite absurd frankly. Nevertheless, I really don't like your self-righteous tone, particularly in some of your earlier posts. Who said anything about the Economist quote? I added the template for the Economist citation mind you. I rather not continue discussing editors and concentrate on the article from now on.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're not hostile or self-righteous. And I'm not sarcastic. House of Scandal 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm was never an Irishman's strong suit.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Houseofscandal, good intentions can still have bad end results. I was not trying to be dismissive of you or to personalise things. I was dismissive of your sources. I wrote everything you placed in the entry you found only on the internet and ... you do not have the background knowledge abut Ani to distinguish truth from fiction, accepted facts from contentious statements, essential information from padding. A lot of sources are either spin and propaganda, full of deliberate falsehoods, or are written by those who have been duped by said falsehoods. The section that was, and still is, the most faulty is the "modern times" one. Meowy 22:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes and references

I'm starting to standardize the refs and citations using the citation templates. Please use these templates located here Wikipedia:Citation templates for any future reliable sources that you may add for the sake of consistency. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For the books by Peter Cowe and Raymond Kevorkian, they are actually the editors, not the authors. I did not know how that should be indicated. Meowy 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

See Template:Cite book.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, but did not understand it! Should I miss out the last= first= sections if I use editor= ? Meowy 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the fields are optional, I think. Khoikhoi 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also can you provide more info for the Ani Anitsal ref or change it to something else.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add that ref, it was houseofscandal. They are a firm of architects in Ankara that in the 90s put together a restoration project for some buildings at Ani. The site seems to be all in Turkish, and the Ani restoration drawings they once had online are no longer there (I wish I had saved them). So I don't know why houseofscandal had it as a reference. Meowy 01:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So they're not active anymore? Do you know of another reliable source for the Turkish "promise" or do you think we should remove that sentence altogether?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

HoS did not add that reference in Turkish as the history of the page shows. It was a non-useful reference and I removed it. That part of the article is cited from the The Economist, a major international publication from the UK that has been in continuous publication since September 1843. Shaundakulbara 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

On checking back more carefully, I see that it was Optimussven who added it. BTW, I have feelings stronger than anger reading that crap in that Economist article. Whoever wrote it either has lamentable investigative skills or knows how not to upset his superiors. "And making a master plan for a site straddling two countries is impossible unless they co-operate" - a reporter could write a whole article exploring the sinister reasons why GHF holds that policy.Meowy 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I did add the reference. The group is still active and still recieves grants from the Turkish gov't. I didn't think it would be a problem since I see numerous articles all over English wikipedia with references in languages other than English. If you don't think it suffices, then remove it. I'm giving up on Wikipedia.--Optimussven 04:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As a reference, how did the content of the website relate to anything that was in the entry? There wasn't any mention of Anitsal in the text. Why not place it in the external links? Did they get paid by the Turkish government to produce its restoraton plans for Ani? Meowy 20:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was supposed to relate to the "pledge" by the Turkish gov't as Ani Anitsal mentions that it receives assisstance from gov't authorities, but on second thought the External Links section is a better place.--Optimussven 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I am not sure what "feelings stronger than anger" means exactly, but I doubt it's is a rational and logical state appropriate to encyclopedia editing. Shaundakulbara 05:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Discussion pages about content on wikipedia are not the same as the actual content, and are not subject to the same rules. Meowy 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Economist

The information The Economist provides to this article is basically "Turks said A, Armenians said B, Turks said C, Turks said D". What exactly in this secion is being disputed? Is an editor claiming someone didn't say something The Economist says they said? Shaundakulbara 01:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

One could point out the article's erronious in 1319 it was devastated by an earthquake comment, and its equally erronious suggestion that only Armenians have said that Turkey has neglected the place (and actually Turkey has doen much worse than just neglect). Does the article express any enquiry about what a "restoration" means in the context of Ani and Turkey in general? No it doesn't, though presumably its author actually saw the state of the structures at Ani which have been almost destroyed by "restorations". Who told the author that "the site stradddles two countries"? GHF, obviously. And again its author does nothing to enquire about the possible reasons why GHF wishes to pursue that line, or indeed what GHF is planning for Ani. The whole article is an example of bad journalism Meowy 19:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The information regarding the quarry is also outdated and somewhat inaccurate. It was shut down a while ago.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The quarry is not shut down. It has been operating continuously since 2000 and expands its area of operation each year. Meowy 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading an article where they said they agreed to shut it down a few years back, what happened?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone somewhere lied, I suppose (there's no kinder way of saying it)! Or maybe what it just said was that the explosions in the quarry had been stopped. Do you remember where the article appeared? Meowy 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you from experience that as of a year ago the quarry was still pounding away.--Optimussven 05:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't say the quarry was shut down. The article doesn't say it is still in operation. It says that The Economist reports that "Turks retort that Ani's remains have been shaken by blasts from a quarry on the Armenian side of the border." Does anyone refute the fact that the The Economist SAID that the Turks SAID this? An encyclopedia is not a court, nor an area, nor a battlefield. It is the systematic organization of source material. Do you have the opinion that the article is wrong? That opinion is irrelevant. Did you go to Ani and see something you didn't like? That is irrelevant. Is there anyone still involved with this article with a clue of what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia isn't? Shaundakulbara 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. An encyclopaedia is not a "systematic organization of source material". It is a summarisation of research that is believed by the editors of the encyclopaedia to be truthful and relevant. To quote the Wikipedia entry for encyclopedia "an encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge", and "historically, both encyclopedias and dictionaries have been researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts". I am well-informed about Ani. You are not. Thus my opinion about the content of this entry on Ani is relevant and yours is irrelevant. Meowy 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Over large paragraphs

I have photograph Ani and will upload soon. New paragraphs added to article are over large and not easy to read like rest of article. English is not my prime language so I ask that someone else fix. Fotografico 13:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Arpaçay

The article is not located at Arpaçay, but it is located at Akhurian River. If you would like to rename the page, make a proposal at Talk:Akhurian River. However, Arpaçay is a redirect and we shouldn't link there, and per WP:UE, it doesn't matter what the official name is, it matters which name is most common in English. Khoikhoi 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Article? Ani is located beside the Arpaçay. The use of "Akhurian" is restricted mostly to Soviet-period or later Armenian books. Most articles in English call it by the name "Arpaçay", the name the river has been known by in the modern period, starting at least as far back as the 18th century. Meowy 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look here: www.virtualani,org/accounts/index.htm - all of the writers, except Basmadjian, who mention the river call it the Arpa Chai. Meowy 21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to be discussing the title of that article. You should be making these comments at Talk:Akhurian River. I believe the argument for originally moving the page was that "Akhurian" got more Google hits. Until that page is renamed, we have to reflect the current title of that article. Again, try making a proposal on that talk page or use WP:RM. <samp :::::e about locations within Turkey. He's an example: the intro of the Bačka Palanka article says, "Bačka Palanka (Бачка Паланка) is a city located in Serbia, on left bank of the Danube, at 45.15° North, 19.24° East." However, since the sity is in Serbia, shouldn't it say "left bank of the Dunav"? Khoikhoi 10:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Danube is an internationally-known river name. Neither Arpaçay or Akhurian have that notability. Moreover, Dunav is just a variant on the name Danube. I'd guess there will be pronouncation variants through all the countries the Danube flows. The names Arpaçay and Akhurian are completely unrelated - Arpaçay is the name used for it in the territory in which Ani is located. Meowy 17:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

But here's the thing. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Borderline cases:

Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, US newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in Torino even though most English texts still call the city Turin. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.

At the same time, when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage (in a typical example of testing the usage by counting Google hits, if one version gets 92 hits, while another one gets 194 hits, it can hardly be decisive).

Since according to the policy, the "English term" overrules the official name (such as in the case of Turin/Torino), you should probably make a comment at Talk:Akhurian River (see the bottom of the page). Khoikhoi 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither Arpaçay or Akhurian are commonly-used English names, so that part of the naming conventions article hasn't any relevence here. Arpaçay is the name used for the river in the country in which Ani is located, so it should take precedence over the name Akhurian in the entry for Ani. It is not as if the existence of the alternative name Ahkurian is being denied in the Ani article. Meowy 16:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Akhurian seems to be more commonly used. Here's what I got from a Google test:

"Akhurian River" gets 299 hits, [1]

"Akhuryan River" gets 223 hits, [2]

"Arpaçay River" gets 195 hits, [3] -- Aivazovsky 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

None of this changes the fact that Ani is in Turkey, the river is known as the Arpaçay in Turkey, and the section of the article in question deals with the location of Ani - so the name that is used in that location should be given precedence over the name Akhurian. Meowy 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the Wikipedia policy that supports your opinion? Khoikhoi 17:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that it is you who appears to want to rename the river to something different than what the native population calls it and change it to what a neighbouring country calls it, I think that you should point to Wikipedia policy that says such an attitude is acceptable. Until this issue came up, the Ani entry had been mercifully free from both Turkish chauvinism and Armenian irredentism (a rare thing for Wikipedia articles connected to both Armenia and Turkey). By placing Akhurian before Arpaçay the entry is straying into irredentism. Meowy 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - let's examine Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and see how it supports my position.

"When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it".

No widely accepted English name exists for the river. Both Arpaçay and Akhurian are foreign language names However, Arpaçay appears to be the most common name used in English-language travel books.

Need I remind you of the Google test above? -- Aivazovsky 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used."

The place (the river) does exist. The section of the entry that mentions the river deals with the current location of Ani, and not Ani in a time-period when the river was called something different.

"If neither of these apply, the modern official name or the modern local historical name should be used, respectively."

The modern official name of the river is the Arpaçay.

"Relevant foreign language names ... are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names..."

The section in bold (my emphasis) makes my case. Based on the above, Arpaçay should be used before Akhurian, or any other alternative names.

"If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name."

The local offical name of the river is the Arpaçay. Meowy 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In Turkey, yes, in Armenia, no. -- Aivazovsky 00:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And what's your point? Ani is in Turkey, so the official local name for the river is the Arpaçay. Meowy 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's rephrase the following sentence :

"The Akhurian is a branch of the Aras River and forms part of the current border between Turkey and Armenia.[1][2]"

We don't need to mention the name there, lets just say "the river", "this river" or "it". This will solve the problem for now. Also, I think we should change the second reference --deniz 06:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It gets rid of duplication. And the Anatolia Travel Information reference is certainly not needed. It is unnecessary to giving references for geographical facts that a casual glance at any map would reveal to be true. The adjoining Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition reference should also be deleted - the only information derived from its little entry on Ani is the historically dubious "Abnicum" name. Meowy 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins, you can edit the article right? If nobody disagrees, lets get rid of the duplication, it is not necessary, and removing might end these discussions. Also, why is the article still protected? --deniz 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You can add, {{Editprotected}} on the talk page if theres a comprise. Artaxiad 04:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been one week since my comment, only one other person responded, s/he agreed. Is one week enough, how long should we wait? Also, are you against/for this change, any comments? Thanks --deniz 04:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure either one is fine. Artaxiad 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The question should be "why was the article made protected?" rather than "why is the article still protected?". Protecting any page just because of the change in position of one word is a complete over-reaction, and I suspect that it would never have occured if it did not involve an administrator. But - to return to the subject - Aivazovsky and Khoikhoi's appear to be in the wrong because Wikipedia policy quite clearly states that local names must take precedence. To date, neither of them have responded to that point. And Khoikhoi has said nothing at all since the page was protected. That shouls be reason enough for the entry for Ani to be made unprotected. Meowy 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make this change

removed Editprotected Please change the following two sentences at the end of the first paragraph:

The city is located on triangular site, visually dramatic and naturally defensive, protected on its eastern side by the ravine of the Akhurian River (Turkish: Arpaçay) and on its western side by the Bostanlar or Tzaghkotzadzor valley. The Akhurian is a branch of the Aras River and forms part of the current border between Turkey and Armenia.

to

The city is located on triangular site, visually dramatic and naturally defensive, protected on its western side by the Bostanlar or Tzaghkotzadzor valley and on its eastern side by the ravine of the Akhurian River (Turkish: Arpaçay) which is a branch of the Aras River and forms part of the current border between Turkey and Armenia.

Thanks deniz 19:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, why are you identifying Arpaçay as being Turkish and not identifying Akhurian as being Armenian. Either do both or do neither. It would be preferable to do neither, given the nationalistic fanaticism that both countries display towards names they perceive as "belonging" to the neighbouring country. The name Arpaçay should be used first, according to Wikipedia policy. It would then also match the Bostanlar / Tzaghkotzadzor name order (the former being the current local name, the latter being the original Armenian name). Meowy 21:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The city is located on triangular site, visually dramatic and naturally defensive, protected on its western side by the Bostanlar or Tzaghkotzadzor valley and on its eastern side by the ravine of the Akhurian River (Turkish: Arpaçay), (Armenian: Ախուրյան) which is a branch of the Aras River and forms part of the current border between Turkey and Armenia.

How about now? Vartanm 22:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Or better yet:

The city is located on triangular site, visually dramatic and naturally defensive, protected on its western side by the Bostanlar or Tzaghkotzadzor valley and on its eastern side by the ravine of the Akhurian/Arpaçay River which is a branch of the Aras River and forms part of the current border between Turkey and Armenia.

This should solve everything (hopefully). -- Aivazovsky 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The city is located on triangular site - visually dramatic and naturally defensive - protected on its western side by the Bostanlar/Tzaghkotzadzor valley and on its eastern side by the ravine of the Arpaçay/Akhurian River which is a branch of the Aras and follows part of the current border between Turkey and Armenia. Meowy 12:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Khoikhoi 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your only contribution since the page was protected has been this - to say "I don't think so"! Perhaps you should address my points that indicated that your edits went against Wikipedia's policy on geographical names. Meowy 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

Ani (Armenian: Անի, Latin: Abnicum) is a ruined and uninhabited medieval city-site situated in the Kars district of Arpaçay, in Turkey, beside the border with Armenia. It was once the capital of a medieval Armenian kingdom that covered much of present day Armenia and eastern Turkey. The city is located on triangular site, visually dramatic and naturally defensive, protected on its western side by the Bostanlar or Tzaghkotzadzor valley and on its eastern side by the ravine of the river that is called Arpaçay by the Turkish residents of the region, and Ախուրյան (Akhurian river) by the Armenian people on the other side of the border. This river is a branch of the Aras river and forms part of the current border between Turkey and Armenia.

deniz^T_C 06:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's full of errors! Ani is not in the Kars district of Arpaçay (or even in the Arpaçay district of Kars). Your first reference to the 1911 encyclopedia is wrong. The words cited were actually copied from virtualani.org by a previous contributor. Arpaçay was the name that everyone - Turk, Armenian, Tartar, Kurd, Russian and whatever - called the river until the 1920s, when the historical name "Akhurian" was resurrected by Soviet Armenia. And you are, along with Khoikhoi, going against Wikipedia policy on geographical names by using Akhurian before Arpaçay (the correct local name for the river). Meowy 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think like that too, but I have seen several usages like province district of district name, and I am not a native speaker. Anyway, I found a website on Arpaçay, and they were mentioning as if Ani was in that district, but I might be wrong, please put the correct district name there. My changes were adding the Arpaçay district thing and saying that it is called Arpaçay by Turkish residents and Akhurian by the Armenians on the other side of the border. I don't see what is wrong with that. Also, looking at what I wrote above, I don't understand what you mean by "...by using Akhurian before Arpaçay ...". deniz^T_C 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In Turkey, regions are subdivided into districts, Ani is in the Kars Merkez district of Kars region. Ani is in Turkey, and the local residents there call the river the "Arpaçay". In Armenia, on the other side of the border, it is called the "Akhurian". Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)) states that "the local official name should be listed before other alternate names", which means that in this case Arpaçay should be used before Akhurian. Meowy 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at it again. The first occurrence of Arpacay as a river is the in the third line, the first occurence of Akhurian (other than wikilink) is in the fourth line, 3 < 4, right? deniz^T_C 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking again, yes you are right (I had noted the wikilink to Akhurian came first, but I hadn't noted that you had changed the name in front of the link to Arpaçay). However, since there is another Arpaçay in nearby Naxcivan, maybe the wikilink should stay on the word Akhurian. How about this? "....and on its eastern side by the ravine of the river that is called Arpaçay in Turkey, Akhurian in Armenia, and is a branch of the Aras that follows part of the current border between Turkey and Armenia." Meowy 16:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind moving the wikilink, but I think it would be better to keep it there. In any case I want us to keep the parts 'by Turkish residents' and 'Armenian people on the other side of border'. So, we can change it to "... its eastern side by the ravine of the river that is called Arpaçay by the Turkish residents of the region, and Ախուրյան (Akhurian River) by the Armenian people on the other side of the border", or keep it like I wrote above. I prefer keeping as above. deniz^T_C 21:28, 24 March 2007" (UTC)

Neither of us are in a position to make generalised statements about what all "Turkish residents" or "Armenian people" call the river. Armenians also called it Arpaçay in the past, and the region's Kurdish population calls it Arpaçay to this day. I think all we can be is be specific, and say that in Turkey the river's official name is Arpaçay and in Armenia its official name is Akhurian. Meowy 00:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Meowy, I don't want to spend anymore time about this, really. I am taking this off my watchlist. Good night. What you said wasn't wrong, go for it if you can. I am out. If there will be another discussion on this article not related to the river, I can contribute, if you inform me about that, but not the river anymore. deniz^T_C 01:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Status of Visiting Ani

I can and will find more references on the status of visitors to Ani to satisfy you, but I can tell you for a fact that permission is no longer needed and photography is legal. How? Because I have been to Ani several times in the last 2 years. So, if you want to keep an out-and-out falsity on the page, especially when the only source is Anatolia Travel Information, then go ahead. It's just not the truth. Just because the site says it was last updated in 2007, doesn't mean every single part of the site was.--Optimussven 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article doesn't purport to be a travel guide. Any quote or source is, by its nature, a "snapshot" of what someone said at one time rather than a streaming up-to-date news report. Any information you find is welcome to be included with appropriate citations. Original research, however, will be excluded. House of Scandal 01:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Honestly, the whole entry is soooh full of inacuracies and nonsense. But you should know that if you have been to Ani, Optimussven ("several times in the last 2 years" - I hope you are not one of those GHF *!**!).

• • • GHF?--Optimussven 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Global Heritage Fund. My comment should have had a smilie next to it, since a real GHF person would know whether they were part of the b**!!** category or not!
        • Ah. Nope, just a guy whose job has required living in both Turkey and Armenia, thus providing opportunity for plenty of visits.--Optimussven 19:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Lucky you - I'm envious (unless your job also required you to travel between the two countries via Georgian roads!)Meowy 02:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Georgian roads aren't the best! Best Georgia itself is lovely.--Optimussven 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I did say I would rewrite it all - and I will, eventually. And to be honest, I don't give a damn about "original research" dogma in this case. 90% of what has been written about Ani falls under these categories: mistakes, misinformation, propaganda, or lies. I will not allow anything like that to continue to circulate about Ani where it is possible to stop it. Meowy 03:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your attitude highlights one of the most important points of Wikipedia "dogma". To keep people with an axe to grind from using this encyclopedia as their whetstone. House of Scandal 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not have an axe to grind, but I do have a problem with what I know to be out-of-date information. If Wikipedia is really about creating the most acurate articles possible, then that is what we should aim to do. The fact is that the reliability of "Anatolia Travel Guide" is not irreproachable. If I were a traveler, I would take the word of multiple guide books published published in the last 3 years over a website, even if it has supposedly been updated in 2007. I understand that this article is not supposed to be a travel guide, however, someone deemed it fit to put up information about the status of Ani today as a visitor destination. I know that the information is innacurate, so I have chosen to try and update. I have only been met with hostility. Perhaps the real question is, does information about Ani's status as a travel destination warrant inclusion in the article? If the answer is yes, then it should be the right information.--Optimussven 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• No source is beyond reproach, not the New York Times, not the Encyclopedia Britannica -- they are just sources and their inclusion in an article is not a endorsement of them. Why are you focusing your energy on this arguement? That is a waste of time. There is no politics here, and I am not your foe. I will even include an endnote that the text may be out-of-date. If you want to improve the article, I welcome your input via the process. Find some up-to-date info and include it. House of Scandal 15:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not about politics. I am neither Turkish nor Armenian. I have nothing invested in the argument over Ani. I'd just like to see acurate information. I tried to improve the article through the editing process with references but was rebuked by others (not you) who seemed unwilling to consider my input and the references. That is why I brought the topic to the discussion page. I don't consider anyone here an enemy, I'm jsut trying to take part in the Wikipedia process so that we can create the most acurate article possible.--Optimussven 16:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, I have no personal connection to Ani or the people who have held it. I have, however, encountered hostility on Wikipedia from peoples on both sides of a idealogical border who have mistaken me for a foe since I was neither friend nor foe. I changed some wording in the article to suggest that the travel info may be past its expiration date. But the onus still lays in finding citable references to contradict it, not in convincing anyone one way or another. House of Scandal 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I found citable references from Turkey travel websites (nor more or less credible than the one currently cited) as well as ones in Lonely Planet, but those were all shot down (again not by you but rather by someone who seems to have an agenda). I'll admit that I am new to Wikipedia-editing, and thus wasn't sure how things went down at first. I'd like to become a contributing member, but this first experience has soured me a bit.--Optimussven 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I empathize. If you want to post the links here I'll be glad to incorporate the info into the article in a way that gives troublemakers little footing to object. House of Scandal 01:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Optimussven, here is what the permit for Ani looked like in the better times when it was required. http://www.virtualani.org/ephemera/permit.htm. And I really do mean better times, btw. Meowy 02:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And here is a [http://www.network54.com/Forum/146256/message/1074291346/ news report] on the ending of the photography ban - Meowy 02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks Meowy. That link coupled with Lonely Planet reports from 2005 should be enough (I think) to safely say that photography is now allowed.--Optimussven 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So to settle thıs once and for all I decıded to go straıght to the source. I emailed the Kars Province office to ask if permission was still needed and if Photography was still OK. Here is what they had to say. It's in Turkish, sorry.

Emniyeten izin almanıza gerek yok..

2005 yılında çıkan bir yönetmelikle artık tarihi ve turistik alanlarda gezi amacı güdülen ziyaretlerde Emniyet Müdürlüğünden izin alınması ve bazı koşullara uyulduğu takdirde fotograf çekilmesinde herhangi bir sakınca yoktur...

İyi çalışmalar dileklerimizlee..

Anı harabeleri ve diğer tarihi ve turistik yerler hakkında gerekli broşür ve tanıtım kitapları İlimizi ziyaretlerinizde Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğümüzden temin edebilirsiniz...

Kars Valiliği

Bilgi İşlem Merkezi

The quick translation is that after a change of policy in 2005, there is no need anymore to obtain permission and photography is no problem. Now I realize that the problem is that this is not really citable, since it is an email exchange, and theoretically I could be making this all up, but I assure you that is a real response from the Kars Valiliği. While this can not be cited, I think it should dispell any weariness about citing VirtualAni, Lonley Planet (2005) and TurkeyTravelPlanner.--Optimussven 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The above mentioned "[http://www.network54.com/Forum/146256/message/1074291346/ news report]" is actually a posting on a message board. The ArmiInfo cite it links to no longer has the article. I searched for certain keywords in the article and it doesn't seem to be online. I would have included the first part of it as a blockquote, but unfortunately message bord postings are not citable (I discovered this the hard way). The letter from Kars Valiliği likewise isn't citable. All I was able to use was the info at VirtualAni which, although it doesn't explicitedly state the current conditions under which Ani may be visited, I don't expect any objections to the inference I made based on what is said there and changed the article accordingly. Optimussven, as you're new to Wikipedia, I'll mention that frustratingly nothing here is ever settled permanently -- it's always a process, and the process is often a pain in the neck. Also, for what it worth, I'll say again it was never a matter of convining. I, for one, never disbelieved you. It's a matter of showing. House of Scandal 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • For those who are interested, the actual background to the lifting of the permit restrictions and the photography ban is said to be that the Turkish prime minister (or it may have been the Turkish president) was visiting Kars, and was asked by a Turkish journalist if he was going to visit Ani because, if so, the journalist would need to know in advance in order to get permission to go there with him. The PM expressed surprise at this, that even Turkish citizens had to get permission to go there. This (according to my informant in Kars, anyway) was the event that initiated the legislation mentioned in the news report. It might be true.Meowy 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ani still is in a military zone, but the army has exchanged the duty of guarding that part of the border with a set of employees of the Turkish Ministry of Tourism, who, in theory anyway, are meant to patrol the site. However, Turkish soldiers also still patrol there. Meowy 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks good. One last thing. You think I should throw in the 2005 Lonely Planet citation? I guess the whole problem with this certain part of the article is that getting any definite citeable source is extremely difficult. Begs the question whether or not it even warrants inclusion in the article, in a way I'm not sure it does. Kind of sad considering how much effort I just put into it.--Optimussven 00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Tom Brosnahan material? The reference to that should have never been removed from the article. It is now included as a block quote which makes Ani's status as open to visitors crystal clear. I hope all are pleased. House of Scandal 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• From what I gather from studying the history of the page, two editors (one of whom is an administrator) wrongly removed Optimussven's edits which were cited just fine. While this does very much appear that they were taking advantage of Optimussven's inexperience here (as indicated by his red link and having not created a user page yet) in order to suppress the info that the Turks are being more permissive in this regard, things here are sometimes more complex/confusing than they seem. For example, during the past days' conversation I didn't know that good refs were provided and removed. Had I known I would have restored them and saved us much time. Being tempted to speak some very harsh observations about the POV practices of Wikipedia editors concentrating on this part of the globe, I'll end this message here. House of Scandal 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The past and present references are really poor though. Some of them are not even reliable. They're also not consistent and lack citation templates. You make it seem as if a perfectly referenced article was lost... I rather have an article that covers the whole subject maticulously and lacks proper references like the overwhelming majaority of Wikipedia articles than one that is inaccurate with half assed references. Considering the abundance of scholarly sources regarding Ani i'm sure that proper references can be added and sustained without omitting any major facets. We also have {{fact}} tags for controversial passages, imaginary or not.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to let you know, I visited Ani two days ago (17 April 2007) and took pictures. No problem. They are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jezand_rani/sets/72157600094539462/ 81.213.140.26 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Lemongoat

Bagrat and Seljuks

It's currently written in the article that

“ In 1064 a large Seljuk Turkish army, headed by Sultan Alp Arslan, with the help of the Caucasian Georgians headed by King Bagrat, attacked Ani and after a siege of 25 days they captured the city and slaughtered its population. ”

In the article about Bagrat IV who reigned in Georgia at this time there is some (referenced) information about his conflicts with Seljuks but almost nothing about his cooperation with them. So either that article misses some crucial information or there are unverified claims in this article. Alæxis_¿question? 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to Ani (Turkey)

Suggest move to Ani (Turkey). It's in Turkey, not much more to say. --A.Garnet 13:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Support. Obviously it is within Turkey, nomatter its history. The current name is simply misleading. Bertilvidet 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Bertilvidet 14:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a city named Ani in Turkey though? The article is about historical Ani. I would agree if there was such a city there now, like in the case of Kars or Akhtamar.--Eupator 18:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, have a look at the map and you will realize that Ani is in Turkey. It is not the task of Wikipedia to redesign borders. Bertilvidet 06:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should write about how the Turks are trying to wipe out all traces of Armenian history in the region. For example, Armenians are not mentioned once on the displays at the site. Hakob 06:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

True, this article is in desperate need of an expansion.--Eupator 00:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just go to VirtualAni.org, it is more comprehensive and more accurate than any article here will ever be! :) Meowy 15:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

@ Hakob Do you know that Wikipedia and Greeks are trying to wipe out every trace of Ottoman history in Greece(also other Balkan states, mostly Christian ones)? Both Wikipedia and tourist guide books in Greece mention Ottoman existence in Greece for a few lines, but they mention Ancient Greece for pages. I went to Kos island and I saw an historical mosque.( Closed of course) There was no sign or no information about it, and even the Ottoman scripts on the mosque was removed. Who is changing the history? Stop your and Wikipedia's anti-Turkish propagandas, you and your fascist president can never gain anything from my land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerli (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(comment)

I just reverted the removal of the text "the dynamite blasts at a nearby stone quarry in Armenia, as well as" from the sentence about the ruins being threatened. This might have been an error correction, if the quarry is no longer operating or if that was never true in the first place. It looks more like whitewashing to me so I reverted. If I'm wrong, eventually someone will correct it. Isomorphic 06:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The quarry was shut down in 2001. It never actually damaged any of Ani's ruins, just made the general landscape look like an industrial site.

Reference: http://www.virtualani.freeserve.co.uk/quarry/--Eupator 16:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know the background, I was just suspicious of unexplained removals. Isomorphic 01:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Since this currently at the top of the page, and contains wrong information, I suppose I should correct it. The quarry is still operating and has never stopped operating, and the operation has got bigger in area and in number as each year passes - there are now about a dozen separate stone extraction sites (quarries) in Armenian territory along the Armenian border at Ani and the whole landscape has been ruined. Meowy 19:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Turkey and Armenia

Ok this is a history stub and not political stub, Ani's history is armenian so it should be refered to as that and is only a tourist and Archaelogical attraction that had very little significance in modern Turkey, but a lot of significants for Armenia. Also Turkey and Armenia must come to terms with History and modern reallity, wich they are trying but are finding it hard too. Enlil Ninlil 23:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ani is quite significant for Turkey. The first ever mosque in Anatolia was built in Ani in 1064. There is a huge Seljuklu palace in Ani. There are several historic Turkish baths in Ani. There is a Seljuklu fortress in Ani. A part of Ani is still used as a military station. Ani was an important passage on a very important trade route for both Seljuklu and Ottoman empires. Ani is absolutely very important for Turkey. Get your facts right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.88.202 (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:20110419 Ani North Walls Turkey Panorama.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:20110419 Ani North Walls Turkey Panorama.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 30, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-12-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A panoramic view of the north walls of Ani, a ruined and uninhabited medieval Armenian city-site in the Turkish province of Kars, near the border with Armenia. It was once the capital of a medieval Armenian kingdom that covered much of present day Armenia and eastern Turkey. At its height, Ani had a population of 100,000–200,000 people and its many religious buildings, palaces, and fortifications were amongst the most technically and artistically advanced structures in the world.Photo: Ggia

References

This section separates the footnoted references cited by users in the talk page from the rest of the talk page text. Ketone16 (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Population of Ani

The article's lede currently states that "At its height, Ani had a population of 100,000–200,000 people and was the rival of Constantinople, Baghdad and Damascus." I believe that the cited sources are insufficient to support this claim, so unless someone else can find more definitive sources for these claims, I propose replacing this sentence with "At its height, Ani had a population of as many as 100,000 people." My rationale is as follows.
The currently-cited sources are an archived website by the Landmarks Foundation, which has the "100,000 to 200,000 people" figure, but without references, and I am not sure that I accept this website as a reliable source. The website also does not say anything about the comparison to Constantinople, Baghdad, or Damascus. The second source is a 1974 article by K. Ghafadaryan (in Armenian) in the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia. That source simply says that the city had a population of 100,000. It also does not include a comparison to Constantinople, Baghdad, or Damascus.
Also, Chapter 5 of H.A. Manandian's 1946 book The Trade and Cities of Armenia in Relation to Ancient World Trade (1965 English translation by N.G. Garsoian) discusses the population of Ani. Manandian cites a population figure of 100,000 from I. Orbeli's 1911 book Развалины Ани (in Russian), who in turn cites unnamed historians as saying that the city had "more than 100,000 inhabitants, 10,000 homes . . . and 1001 churches." Manandian himself finds some of the historical figures to be "highly disputable and unreliable" (potentially including the 100,000 population figure for Ani), but presumes that such large cities had populations of "considerably more than ten or twenty thousand" and later cites archaeological evidence to support his opinion that "a figure of fifty or one hundred thousand for the population of Ani is possible and entirely acceptable." Additionally, Chapter 3 of Simon Payaslian's 2007 book The History of Armenia from the Origins to the Present states that in Ani (and also in Kars and Dvin) "the population exceeded 100,000". His sources are a 1956 book article by B. Arakelyan (in Armenian) and a 1963 journal article by V.M. Harutyunyan (in Armenian). Arakelyan says something like "up to 100,000" for the population of Ani and Harutyunyan puts Ani in the class of shahastan (large/principal) cities, in the range of 20,000 to 125,000 people.
According to these sources, it seems that Ani had a population of about 100,000 at its peak: maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less, but probably not 200,000. I am also skeptical of the claim in the article that follows the population estimate of 100,000 to 200,000 people: namely that Ani "was the rival" of Constantinople, Baghdad and Damascus. I have seen this claim elsewhere on the internet (never accompanied by a citation to a reliable source), variously phrased as Ani as "a rival of", having a "beauty rivaling the slendor of", having a "population rivaling that of", or being a "cultural center once on par with" those cities. I cannot say whether Ani was a rival of those cities in terms of its culture or beauty (if it was, the article still needs to cite a reliable source like a historian for that), but it seems unlikely population-wise, which is what the current sentence in the article seems to imply. For example, the English-language Wikipedia's List_of_largest_cities_throughout_history has a source that estimates Baghdad's population in 1000 A.D. (around Ani's peak) as 1.2 or 1.5 million people.
It seems safer simply to say that "At its height, Ani had a population of as many as 100,000 people" and leave out the comparison to other cities, unless some good sources can be found to back up the claims that are currently in the article. Ketone16 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the figure 200,000 is too high. The best treatment of the subject is in Tadevos Hakobyan's Anii Patmut'yun (vol. 1), pp. 168-74. Taking all the evidence together, he concludes that the population could not have surpassed 100,000 (p. 173). He says that earlier authors came up with figures of more than 1,000,000 or even more. With regards to comparisons with Constantinople or Baghdad - they're perhaps useful for illustration but not absolutely necessary.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reference. Unfortunately, I don't have access to it. With respect to the comparison of Ani to Constantinople, Baghdad, and Damascus, I think that the article lede would be a very appropriate place for such a bold comparison if a suitable citation to a reliable source (perhaps a historian or other notable figure) could be found, given that those three cities are among the oldest and most renowned in the Middle East. Ketone16 (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No objection from me as far as the removal of comparisons is concerned. Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ani. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.landmarksfoundation.org/projects_ani.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ani is in Turkey so what the hell that means Ani(Armenia)????

Hello ,
First of all,someone please correct the headline of this article....Ani is enough..no need for Armenia...

(Personal attack removed)

thanks for reading

Reply: Ani was a major Armenian city. It may be within the borders of the Republic of Turkey, but its history is Armenian. This isn't propaganda, it is fact. Turkey has a vastly multi-ethnic history and it is time to start acknowledging that.

Actually, many Turks are of Armenian descent, unknowingly. Politics needs enemies. Rbakels (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite, January 2007

I have just added a new section listing most of the monuments at Ani individually, plus a completely rewritten text for the History section. I have used most of the previous material as a basis for what it should contain, but have excluded some of that material because it was inaccurate. For example; Ani was not on a crossroads of trade routes, Ashot III was not alive when Trdat was practicing as an architect, Armenian was not devastated by the Seljuks in 922, the cathedral is not a cruciform church, Ani was not captured by the Byzantines to serve as a buffer state agaisnt the Muslim world, there is actually no record of an earthquake in 1319 (it is a later myth). I haven't yet added any references for the new stuff, will get on it asap. Meowy 03:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Changes for the sake of accuracy are welcome, but references must accompany changes -- they may not be added later. Please work on these revisions in your sandbox and post them when they are properly sited. House of Scandal 03:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry, that was a 3.00am typo on my part. I had actually meant to say I that I have not yet added a bibliography, but will be doing that asap. That should be sufficient, since none of text I have added is contentious. Contentious points should normally have references, but facts that are widely known and generally accepted do not have to have them. If there is any of the new content that you disagree with or find contentious then I will add references, but I'll add them here, in the talk page, first. I'll add the bibliography later today. Meowy 14:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • HouseOfScandal, regarding your revert of my additions. Wikipedia policy suggests that you do not revert good faith edits and that you should try to improve the edit, rather than just reverting it. Also, regarding references - Wikipedia policy says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. None of my additions fell under those categories. Meowy 16:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

While I respect the policy regarding improvement versus reverting, you did a complete rewrite of a meticulously referenced article and left an unreferenced article in its place. I can't provide references for material with origin unknown to me. Therefore, I was justified in reverting. House of Scandal 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Given your above comment, I'll give it to you straight, Mr HouseOfScandal. Your "meticulously referenced article" was actually an amateurish piece of work, cobbled together from anything you could trawl from the internet. As you yourself admitted, you know nothing at all about Ani, and had never heard of the place until a month ago. Because of that, you do not have the background knowledge to distinguise truth from fiction, accepted facts from contentuous statements, essential information from worthless padding, etc. That is just in relation to the Ani material you found online. There is much more about Ani contained in the many books, articles, monographs, etc that have been written over the past 150 years - none of which you have ever set your eyes upon. I will rewrite the remaining parts of your "meticulously referenced article" in the comming days. Meowy 23:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I even touched the article was to bring order to what was chaos. Take a look at what was there before my involvement. If there was misinformation in the article, it was misinformation that a reader could see where it came from. Major revisions to an article should be done in your sandbox and presented with references when complete. What you did, instead, is throw down hundreds of words and left a message on the talk page that you would provide references "a.s.a.p.". That is about as amateurish as it gets. Please note the following:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. (source: WP:V)

Verifiability is not the opposite of truth, but the opposite of opinion. Citing of someone elses opinion is OK since that is verifiable, but ones own opinion is not, even if it is supported by arguments. Rbakels (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You didn't even manage to put a comment at the right place on my talk page. You are a novice here and your ignorance of how Wikipedia works is obvious. House of Scandal 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why does a person think he can write a competent entry about a subject when he knows nothing about that subject? In your reply to an earlier question from me, you said that you had heard about Ani for only two weeks before writing your contributions to the Wikipedia entry on Ani.
  I was aware of the lamentable state of the entry for Ani before you decided to add your material. Its earlier form certainly did not do Ani justice, but at the same time the entry was too small for it to contain any objectionable content. You massively increased the size of the entry, but also massively increased the level of its inaccuracy. That is why I decided to rewrite it.
  Everything you placed in the entry you found only on the internet and, as I had explained earlier, you do not have the background knowledge abut Ani to distinguish truth from fiction, accepted facts from contentious statements, essential information from padding. Writing about Ani from a position of ignorance is rather like blundering into the middle of a mist-covered minefield without having a map.
  Your ignorance of Ani is proven by your continuing insistence on citations being provided for content that requires no citations. Citations are only needed for content that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Nothing I posted falls into those categories. Your contribution was full of unnecessary citations.
  I’m still at a loss to understand why you decided to contribute to an entry about Ani. It must have taken you a considerable time to do it (so I do understand you annoyance at someone coming and removing most of it). However, the basic problem with your contribution is that you don’t know the subject and because of that, you don’t know how amateurish and inaccurate your contribution was. There must plenty of entries on Wikipedia that need to be brought from "chaos into order" and that will be on subjects you do know about. Meowy 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Meowy, you state above "to be honest, I don't give a damn about "original research" dogma in this case. 90% of what has been written about Ani falls under these categories: mistakes, misinformation, propaganda, or lies. I will not allow anything like that to continue to circulate about Ani where it is possible to stop it." Translation: you don't follow Wikipedia guidelines, you don't verify articles, and you seek out the 10% of sources that agree with your POV. Shaundakulbara 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• My words "In this case" refers to HouseOfScandal's refusal to change a clearly incorrect fact (photography ban at Ani), a fact that he knows to be wrong, for no other reason than his dogmatic following of "original research" rules. And I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth using your absurd "translating". Meowy 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I see he changed that fact when a source was given. And then you replaced most of a good article with your own original research. It is you who feel entitled to throw away Wikipedia rules and for that reason you are no asset to this encyclopedia. Obviously sensible people can talk to you until we are blue in the face. It doesn't make a difference. Shaundakulbara 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Look at the order of the posts. He changed it after I had commented on it, so I don't see your point. Meowy 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is he changed it after you commented on it as soon as references are provided. He follows the rules and I have seen him admit he's wrong in the past. Looking at what you are doing to the article, I'll ammend what I said about earlier and change it to "you could easily be an asset to this encyclopedia". Your writing is good. Also, from what I see, you are using most of the same sources as HoS was using (VirtualANI etc.). Your mistake was in not providing citations with your changes and also in making statements like I quoted above. I am very familiar with HoS's work from DYK and calling him "amateurish" is simply false...he is one of five editors I can think of whose work is amazing. It looks like this whole arguement started when he told you to cite your sources and work in your sandbox until your work was ready. I don't know why that escalated into such a mess. I can't say for certain, but I am pretty sure you have less experience on Wikipedia than some of the people you are arguing with. It probably would help you reach your potential if you'd make an effort to learn lessons that people are trying to teach about proceedure rather than take everything as a challenge. I made the same mistake when I was new. Anyways, have a good night, bye. Shaundakulbara 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104024951/http://www.wmf.org:80/project/church-holy-savior to http://www.wmf.org/project/church-holy-savior

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110422203730/http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/what_we_do/sites_on_the_verge/ to http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/what_we_do/sites_on_the_verge
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wmf.org/project/church-holy-savior

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Binbirkilise - another 1001 churches.

There is another site in Turkey with '1001 churches', near modern day Karaman, an old late-antique Byzantine cultural centre, see Binbirkilise. I added a note to prevent possible confusion.--Gerard1453 (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029195359/http://www.ktak.am/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?216.20 to http://www.ktak.am/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?216.20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)