Talk:Armenian diaspora/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

The German wikipedia has a fairly decent article about Armenians in Central Europe (de:Armenier in Europa), it would be a good idea to translate it into English (and per haps breaking into several articles about the diffrent countries, thus starting basic stubs). Unfortunatley my German is only passive and not fluent enough for the task, but if anyone feels up to it. --212.76.33.116 22:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Source for the statement

The BBC article linked for the 8 million figure does not specify its source either, so it does not really constitute a reference. If you simply add-up the number of Armenians outside Armenia based on the numbers on this page, it is nowhere near 8 million. Any ideas about what happened to the missing 4 million Armenians? I think they don't exist - the estimates are completely wrong. The real size of the Armenian Diaspora is around 3.5 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.14.155 (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Armenians in Argentina

Does anyone have/know any information about the Armenian Diaspora in Argentina? I've heard there are alot of Armenians there and they are quite a vibrant community, please add if you have any info. Fedayee 18:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure but this site states theres about 130,000 Armenians in Argentina. Nareklm 19:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

YES THERE IS A LARGE ARMENIAN COMMUNITY: THERE'RE MANY PROMINENT ARGENTINE-ARMENIANS LIKE NALBANDIAN, THE TENNIS PLAYER, ARSLANIAN, FROM THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE LENCHANTIN SISTERS THAT WERE BORN UNDER THE NAME MERDIROSSIAN, BUT LATER CHANGED THEIR LAST NAME TO THEIR MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME, LENCHANTIN: PAZ LENCHANTIN, ANA LENCHANTIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.0.133 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Language (Eastern Armenian & Western Armenian)

I was wondering should we also mention about the different Armenian dialects that Armenians speak (Eastern & Western Armenian)? because of the Armenian Genocide & immigration and all those reasons that certain parts of those regions use Eastern and others use Western. ROOB323 20:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm well in which country each dialect is spoken is mentioned in the Armenian language article ...there's a table on it, but i'm not sure if we should mention it or not. Maybe we could briefly mention and leave a main article link to each dialect or Armenian language. Fedayee 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the table from the language article and instead included information about it here. -- Clevelander 00:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool work. Fedayee 00:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice work Clevelander. ROOB323 00:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Armenians in east Asia

The Armenian population on the Armenian diaspora map is very low to measure in Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, but was able to record small Armenian communities in China, South Korea and Thailand.

Somebody needs to visit the Armenian Cemetery in Tokyo, Japan located near what was an Armenian Catholic church in the 1920's and 1930's, but it's believed the majority of Armenians left Japan to avoid other types of persecution ("enemy nationals") in World War II.

I'm unsure the current Armenian population is in Japan, but in Communist China, the governments might closed the once-thrived five centuries-old Armenian churches in the 1950's. The large number of Armenians in Vladivostok, Russia may be where they are now.

Note the Armenian diaspora is one of the world's most dispersed ethnic and religious groups, a similar testiment to the larger and older diasporas of Jews, Assyrians, Roma (Gypsies), Greeks, the Irish, Africans in the Americas, Indians (from India and Pakistan) and east Asians (the Nisei or Japanese who live overseas, and the ethnic Chinese live in globally scattered "Chinatowns").

The majority of present-day Armenians live in the former Soviet republic, however their homeland was five or six times the size of independent Armenia, and they await an official apology from Turkey over the 1910's genocides. + 63.3.14.1 06:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard there was an Armenian church in the Philppines. Somebody needs to look more into that. There definitely were Armenian missionaries coming to the Philippines. Here is a link to more info about the history of Armenians in the Philippines (it is actually forum topic that has another link to a document, but the document is in Armenian): http://forum.armkb.com/armenian-only/21103-history-armenians-philippines.html. --Azndragon126 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Armenians in Mexico

It's widely known the Armenian community in Mexico is thriving, but there's a lack of population reports, though I've heard the estimated number of Armenians in Mexico are 10,000 and mainly in major cities such as Mexico City, Puebla and Guadalajara. But, some Armenian immigrants entering California, the US are entering from Mexico (Tijuana for example) to join others in their established Armenian communities. Please help me out on the documentation and resources to put down a new article on the Armenians in Mexico. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lede needs attention

"The Armenian diaspora is a term used to describe the communities of Armenians living outside of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh..."

Do you mean Armenian citizens living abroad, or people of Armenian ethnicity? I believe it's the latter, but this needs to be specified. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Irish Armenian history on youtube

[ url= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nsiJU7-0T4&feature=related] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.10.169

I thought this youtube video clip described the Irish Armenian community also known as "Irlandahye" or in Irish English the "Hay" often concentrated in the county Connaught and the presence of Armenians in Dublin, the 6 minute video clip explains the history and culture goes back possibly a 1,000 years in Ireland and Great Britain.

The video clip has several photos, home videos and references to the small paramilitary batallions of the "Irlandahye Fedajiin" or the "Hay-Saint Patties" made entirely of "Hay" Irish soldiers, they were involved as part of the Irish Republican Army in the Irish rebellions of 1915 to 1921, and now the later generations of "Hay-Saint Patties" are in the Nagorno-Artasac wars in Azerbaijan to thwart Azerbajani troops out of historic Armenian land during the 1990s.

The wikipedia article had only listed a scant population of 50 Armenians in Ireland, but failed to mention the estimated 500 to 5,000 "Irlandahyes" around the world are included in the generalized homogeneous "Irish (Roman) Catholic" or "Celtic" community for being a small but Armenian Catholic (Apostolic) population.

In Ireland, elders still speak a rare form of Western Armenian language known as the "Hay Irish" dialect contains both Anglo-Celtic and Armenian words, part of the age-old legacy of Armenians and Celts were in contact with each other. + 71.102.10.169 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note for those curious people like me who can't avoid googling "Irlandahye" as to know if there is any truth in it: there is not. The video is an obvious hoax and doesn't intend to fool anybody. It's just funny. Go have a look - it is a good parody of how nationalists sometimes try to create an "ethnic history", but nothing more. So have your 6 minutes worth of laughter. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Its' me again, and I'm very embarrassed (and unamused) on what you discovered while you sought out information on the "Irlandhaye". Let's have a word with Hosank, the youtube member created the video on his Irish-Armenian family (I read many comments stated they don't appear ethnically Armenian) was an example of what's an "Irishman of Armenian parentage". He does live in Ireland and has relatives in former Soviet Armenia, his responses to comments include a strong dislike of Communism and a hatred of Turkish people by his grandparents' experiences in 1920's Turkey. His youtube video has exaggerated claims, puns and jokes, and supposedly had evidence of an "Irlandhaye" community, as well how much the Irish and Celtic peoples had been in contact with the Armenian people for 1,500 years. Other youtube users claimed there are other Armenian communities known as "Francahaye", "Germanahaye", "Hispanahaye", "Norvegehaye" and "Polonahaye", as if the European-Armenian communities are subdivided by country of origin. Hosank's other video documentaries on Armenians in Eastern Europe appearedly are factual and wikipedia articles do exist on Armenians living in the former Soviet bloc countries. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Population

The 2nd and 3rd sentences seem at odds with each other. Is it 8M or 9M? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.249.82 (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Armenian diaspora ? are you sure?

Countries such as Armenia and Turkey are not part of the diaspora!! it is there home land- they are not immigrants. This is just a pan-armenian article trying to make the diaspora population look high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.147.222 (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

table "Armenians per country" (former "Armenians in the world"): Population: censuses/estimates

First of all, I'm sorry that I started so much w/o finishing anything yet - I will finish everything.
I'm gonna seperate population numbers of official censuses and of estimates in order to make it all (hopefully) less confusing and easier to track. If someone dislikes that I'd be glad to discuss in order to find a better solution as the current state is hardly verifiable and trackable. (Nevertheless, I know many did a great job and had to work much and spend quite a lot of time for what allready exists and I really appreciate that!) Greets from Munich, 85.181.5.180 (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

armenians per country "todo"

Just in order my intentions are clear (and that I can get supported, if someone else also wants to do something on the section these days) I'm gonna tell you what I'm currently doing and what I'm going to do:

add countries/territories

• Azerbaijan (without Nakhchivan and Nagorno-Karabakh)
• Nakhchivan

sources

• find
  • censuses
  • armenian population in Middle East sources (Not just Tore Kjeileins articles in looklex (former Encyclopedia of the Orient))
  • sources for the dialects spoken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bavarjan (talk • contribs) 12:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• use
  • current ones (controlled and corrected) (begun)
  • the ones used in Armenians (the box) (controlled and corrected)
  • all the estimates of armeniadiaspora.com
  • all the Factbook data on armenian population
  • Nationmaster? Doesn't it just use Factbook data for overall population and ethnic groups percentages?

moving

• perhaps move the section to an own article (or even template) I strongly support that!

columns

perhaps add own columns for

• different population sources (actually rather not - just a thought)
  • censuses (done)
  • armeniadiaspora.com
  • Factbook (using several years' data)
  • Nationmaster? Doesn't it just (or at least mainly) use Factbook data?)
  • "other..."
• percentages (for every single "population source group" (column)?)
  • the armenians' percentage of overall population of the respective do you say that? country
  • the country's percentage of overall armenian diaspora
• political diaspora organization(s) in country
• link to the article about armenia's relation to the country
• regional dialect(s) spoken (as one might want to sort by major dialect group (eastern, western) the existing column should maybe be kept)

cleanup

• templating
• formatting
  • use my type of formatting for the wiki markup (done)
  • replace normal links among the references with cite web with all the information given (e.g. archived version of used page) (begun)
  • use the date template for all dates
• population columns
  • insert SortKeys (begun)
  • insert source and date of information in <small>-tags (begun)
• reduce needed space
  • remove capitals (format them bold italicized in the regions "list") (done)
  • change dialect entries ("armenian" needn't be mentioned) (done) hm, I think, it looked better before...
  • write last 2 columns in <small>-tags (you know, where the link leads)
• minor "cosmetic" changes
  • nonebreakingspace between flagicon and country-name? (begun)
  • additional info to dependency of territories "<small>ed" (done)

templating

Templates can show what needs to be done. (All the links are links to pages of templates that might be useful. Bold ones are of templates currently used.)
As too many may rather confuse than make things clear, the best fitting ones should be chosen.

• As there are some section issues the section requires cleanup and is in the middle of a major revamping.
• It needs additional citations for verification, because some figures might be original research or unverified claims or out of date so migh need an update
• Maybe an expert knows more figures.
• The section is very long and not essential to the article itself, but interesting anyway. Maybe it should be moved in an own article or template...

• the sources should be checked: some
  • dont proof what they're supposed to
  • are a bit dubious, not really credible and should be veryfied
  • or contain dead links
• for some notes or sources ref template might be better, arranging the content where it stands and not where its referred

So I finally came to a decision regarding the templates. In the list above I bolded the templates I chose. Are these allready too many? Should Template:article issues be used? I chose outofdate instead of update allthough the "Alternatives" section of its documentation mentions "If there is no dispute about the need for an update, an out-of-date article or section can be marked with Template:Update.". The reason was, that outofdate is more precise, because customizable via parametres. Feel free to discuss!
Greets from Munich, 88.64.19.235 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

single edits

"Tore Kjeilein" or "looklex Encyclopedia"

I decided to keep Tore Kjeilein as the author of the looklex articles, as one of my goals was to make clear where the numbers come from. AFAIK user-generated content is not yet implied in looklex so TK is the person estimating.Feel free to discuss!
Greets from Munich, 88.64.19.235 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Orient / Looklex

I removed the old sources, where they contained the same numbers, as the new ones (Syria and Lebanon) but kept it, where it contains another (Iran).Feel free to discuss!
Btw in EotO you have religions and peoples on one page (html-file) (being the same source sources) but no list of languages at all, in looklex you have own pages (html-files) for religions, peoples and languages (being 3 different sources)Feel free to discuss!
Greets from Munich, 88.64.19.235 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

web cite: Canadian 2006 Census

Thanks to Debresser for adding a title to the source, now that it's available again. The page (html-file) contains 3 different types of title with different content:

• <title> Title normally displayed in Window title bar and as favourites/bookmarks: Ethnocultural Portrait of Canada Highlight Tables, 2006 Census:
• "meta title" only read by web robots: 2006 Highlight Tables
• <h1> Headline: Ethnic origins, 2006 counts, for Canada, provinces and territories - 20% sample data

As the bolding might show, I chose the one Debresser proposed... Feel free to discuss!
Greets from Munich, 88.64.19.235 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably not intentionally Debresser also deleted the "work" atribute content. Just in case what I wrote didn't sound like an official name, but like original research:
It's part of - the site is multilingual the Homepage of Canada's national statistical agency's <title> (being the same as its "meta title") Feel free to discuss!
Greets from Munich, 88.64.19.235 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC) edited, Bavarjan (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

minor

Debresser fixed a "dead link" template date entry and the wikilink to the Armenian Embassy in Canada Feel free to discuss!
Greets from Munich, 88.64.19.235 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot capitalized "dead link" and "fact" templates and added dates to the latter Feel free to discuss!
Greets from Munich, 88.64.19.235 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"disclaimer" ;)

Of course, these are proposals, but as noone complained about my recent changes, I hope it's what erveryone wants, that I just continue, until someone wants to discuss about one of the points given here...
Greets from Munich, 88.65.46.35 (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My prinicipal misgiving about all this overhaul is that it is being performed by an "anonymous contributor" who doesn't even bother to register. Registering will take just a couple of minutes to do. Surely in these long hours of work you have put into this, you can spare a minute or two to register and continue on utilising a clear user name and always sign in before editing any further... I strongly suggest you do so. This is not to put you down or discourage you. It's just basic etiquette that we know with whom we are discussing things and that you take responsibility of the edits you've done. Another rule that really helps is establishing a track record with easier tasks, before engaging in what is a very thorny complicated task that even I shudder to do after all my edits.... We simply don't have a way of knowing till now just how much you were involved earlier to engage in such a difficult task. I am patiently waiting what all this will end up in, but as of now, the list looks a mess if anything, with wide variations.... It would be much better to copy the table to your "User page" and do the changes there, and provide links to us here so that we comment. But meanwhile, the original table would have stayed for the general public to see. Once we arrived at an acceptable form (a new revamped clearer table) that we can agree on, the new version could replace what we had... werldwayd (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Great to see, someone is telling something here. And great to see, that I'm not the only one editing my comments ;) I began to write my reply before you restructured, what you wrote....

My prinicipal misgiving about all this overhaul is that it is being performed by an "anonymous contributor" who doesn't even bother to register.

The reason not to login was the responsibillity for the edit ;). I did not want to have to argue with someone who just wants to keep the biggest numbers in there (what is just a possible case I could have imagined). As you see just asking me worked to clear up things ;)

as of now, the list looks a mess if anything, with wide variations...

It would be much better to copy the table to your "User page" and do the changes there, and provide links to us here so that we comment. But meanwhile, the original table would have stayed for the general public to see

Of course all this didn't happen like I originally wanted it to. I was too optimistic about how much time it would have taken and wanted to revamp the sources in just one single edit. Having to reboot, what takes quite a long time on my PC, I decided to save my edit with the inuse template so that noone would perhaps have to reinvent the wheel (do the same work I did while I reboot) but we all could act in concert. (and of course editing conflicts always are a bit of extra work and finally I don't trust my harddisk that much anymore).

However at the moment I am quite contented with what I did so far, as the Underconstruction template (that implies all this is done in a few days to weeks) hopefully makes other users patient and I told quite detailed, what I planned, making it easy for others to contribute too.

Once we arrived at an acceptable form (a new revamped clearer table) that we can agree on

So do you agree with me that what the table was before I edited it is not acceptable? At least not for something better then start class ;)

establishing a track record with easier tasks

What does that mean? Isn't a task record what I allready did? Do you mean I should tell that more clearly? I think my list shows that quite easy-to-see. Or do you want easier tasks? Or do you want me to list my tasks easier-to-understand?

Greets from Munich,

Bavarjan (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC), edited Bavarjan (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC), edited Bavarjan (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm guessing the "anonymous contributor" is Bavarjan? I think it's a great user name, better than a string of meaningless numbers werldwayd (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I guess it ain't to hard to figure out what the username is driving at? Good night from Munich, Bavarjan (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues

Now some particular issues: I have one thought about countries with less than say 100. It always bothered me, but I left it because it was from a published source. It is ridiculous to go more specific like 56 there and 9 somewhere else and 16 in a third country. For all these countries I suggest it is futile to arrive at a figure. We can save a lot of breath by saying below 100. That's enough to indicate that the country concerned has just a few Armenian families living in.

Principally that's the only sensible way to do it, but with extra columns for each source, we just show what others claim or count.

What I propose is, just to repeat, what the sources claim in the "Armenians per country" article and deciding for the most probable number and leaving away small numbers in the Box in the "Armenians" article.

Greets from Munich,

Bavarjan (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

An issue that i have is that in the history section I had added a few sentences stating that one of the main reasons for the Armenian diaspora was due to the Armenian Genocide committed by the Turks. And then someone had changed it to the words or "ethnic cleansing". I dont understand why this would be changed due to the fact that this is a related link to the Armenian Genocide also on this website. So i will change it back again in the hopes that people will recognize that it is indeed a Genocide.--Lizzzduhhh (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

dialects

For dialect spoken, I much prefer "Western Armenian" "Eastern Armenian" rather than Western Eastern. When its "both", it would be a great improvement to say, Predominently Western, with Eastern for some, or Predominantly Eastern, Western for some. In certain places like the US, Canada both are spoken. Eastern Armenian is getting more prominence as immigration from Armenia intensifies. It doesn't help to say for Russia both, when we know almost 90% would be speaking Eastern Armenian, or to say both for Frnace where it is Western Armenian. For US, I am not sure any more. I think it is predominantly Western Armenian, but now there is a lot of Armenians from Armenia and media uses Eastern Armenian more and more including LA-based Horizon Television channel meaning Eastern Armenian is gaining ground. US has also received a lot of Iranian Armenians who also speak Eastern Armenian. How about percentages in case of US??? werldwayd (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

For dialect spoken, I much prefer "Western Armenian" "Eastern Armenian" rather than Western Eastern.

hmm, what about the space? what columns would you use then? only the allready existing? I really like the percentages and the own columns for censuses and factbook estimates (but this is no decision yet though. It's still a momentary opinion, that I still have to think about). Of course I also think too much is too much.

But perhaps one could put the most important ones at the beginning (on the left), so you needn't scroll if the other data is not interesting for you.

I think as the table is sortable now there is no need anymore for a rank (the actual rank now depends on what data you choose to sort - for example which source for the armenian population). If there is a way to display the rank depending on the current order, that would be just fine.

So all in all we could perhaps undo this...

When its "both", it would be a great improvement to say, Predominently Western, with Eastern for some, or Predominantly Eastern, Western for some

How about percentages in case of US???

Of course that would be great, but there is still missing any source for the dialects. (and it seems natural that the current entries are just what one heard of (I did not look up who added what). and this might also be correct in most or even all cases, and it is great to have this information, but it just has to be prooved by source if it should be in an article on wikipedia)

I'd really appreciate if you could find sources for your claims (perhaps look at the censuses in US and Canada. They might also have asked about the language. But I rather think that - if they did - the people did not tell their dialect)

Greets from Munich,

Bavarjan (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Percentages are impossible to get. But predominantly is a safe bet. Russia predominantly Eastern, Canada Predominantly Western Both is not that informative werldwayd (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now amended dialects section so that "Both" reads "Both Mainly Western" or "Both mainly Eastern". For unclear undecisive cases, I have said "Both. Western and Eastern". Please check it and tell me if its factual enough not contradictory to accepted educated guesses of what we know of Armenian language habits. werldwayd (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd really prefer having sources for all this. They need not be scientific, but just an article in a magazine about armenians somewhere, that tells something about the dialect would be fine. I think you needn't say "both" if you say "mainly eastern" or "mainly western" and you needn't say "eastern and western" if you say "both". Bavarjan (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Armenia" as diaspora?

Regarding Armenia, I don't think it should be in the list at all as number 1 ranking. Armenia is not a diaspora. We can put Armenia as a stand alone box section, and then the main table starting with 1. Russia and the 2. United States. Armenia box could be couloured in a distinct colour and would not carry a rank number. A similar case can be made for Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh. These are not diaspora either. Again they should be a stand alone box just immediately below Armenia, also with a separate colouring and no ranking. For Armenians of Azerbaijan proper, they would be Diaspora for our purposes... werldwayd (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned and templated I want to split this part in an own article called Armenians per country Then it wouldn't be diaspora anymore. The main reason for that is not the problem you mentioned, but that the article is getting very big and long, that I don't think a majority of the readers want to read the figures as they are no main part of the article (rather their interpretations would be (be it just saying what regions have the most significant amount of Armenians)) and that lists and similar tables quite often are own articles in wikipedia (correct me, if this is a wrong impression)

Greets from Munich,

Bavarjan (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A third separate table (let's say 72. Japan onwards until Bahamas) they would all be in a separate "Under 100" category, where we woulon't bother to mention ranking anymore, but put the countries in an alphabetical order, without indicating population number either. It is ridiculous. If a new family comes or leaves, we jump from 50 to 56 or go down to 40 and suddenly the rank changes? I think this last proposal can be implemented right away as far as I am concerned. Better wait for a few comments on that, but for me, you can go right ahead. werldwayd (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

see above and below (sry - I will perhaps also restructure my answers ;)

Greets from Munich,

Bavarjan (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Armenians by country as a separate page means diluting the concept of an "Armenian Diaspora" as a historical fact, whereas what we are trying to do is to emphasize the importance of Diaspora. I don't even like the sound of "Armenian population per country". I much prefer "Armenian Diaspora by country", thus leaving Armenia and Karabakh separate. I understand this approach being taken by a country that has recent populations in all countries. Let's say "Swedes by country". There is a Swedish homeland and its Swedish populations that emigrated worldwide establishing Swedish populations related to the homeland. Thus a central country reference and its ramifications. The Armenian diaspora is nothing of the sort. It's not that we had a country called Armenia and this country Armenia has populations here and there.... The Armenian diaspora did not emigrate from Armenia to form Armenian "populations" worldwide. They don't identify with the Republic of Armenia either. Most Armenians of Western Europe, the Middle East, North and South America do not come from Armenia. They were Ottoman Armenians and created a Diaspora in Europe the Americas etc. Taking most of the materials to a place called "Armenians by Country" is a disfavour to the Diaspora, not an improvement. We want to emphasize uniqueness of the Diaspora and its historical basis, whereas what your proposal simply does is to leave a skeleton article called "Armenian diaspora" (just a few paragpraphs) and then shifts its materials elsewhere dilute the impact that an Armenian Diaspora Central place creates. werldwayd (talk)

I think what you say is a bit weird. Why should one "respect" the armenian diaspora more, just because he/she does not have to click a link in order to see a table, that contains no continuous text anyway, but just some numbers (that might - as you just wrote in the other paragraph - not all be that probable, but rather wrong, because out of date)? As I wrote down there in the other answer, I think it's this article's task to explain the armenian diaspora with all its (also recent) history and also give some important numbers (that don't have to be exact, but to give an impression of the diaspora's significance). It's superfluous to mention that the new article should also contain some 2 or 3 lead sentences that say, that the armenian diaspora has a very long (with a number) history and many of today's diaspora don't identify with the republic or do not even know much about it, but that many feel like armenians though, no matter how many of their greatgreatgrandparents also did so and so on (just in a better English, of cource ;) ). I also think a see also link to the diaspora might be discussable, even if this article is linked in the lead sentence and in the navbox (armenian diaspora). So I don't see any problem and, above all, none that is made by splitting this section into an own article… Greets, Bavarjan (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I do understand your point. Actually I think two separate approaches could live together. For example I understand the importance of the "Armenian population by country" section that would be the very contemporary and most recent picture of the community, the most recent with a link put to Armenian Diaspora page. I mean as we speak new communities are being established. A contemporary list of populations in an independent page is valid, provided it is updated all the time. Then there would be a parallel Armenian Diaspora article that we have carrying the more historical origins of the Diaspora of how it was established and how it developed. In the country pages, it would be made clear we in which section we are speaking about historical roots, and which figures are contemporary recent developments. A good example is Armenian community of Afghanistan. There was a big community, it completely disappeared. Now we have a new Afghani-Armenian community from Armenia and post-Soviet countries that has nothing to do with the historical Afghani-Armenian community. According to our list, now 35,000 Armenians live in Afghanistan. Or that's what our list says anyway.. werldwayd (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So we both agree on that? fine…, Bavarjan (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

figures being out of date

When we go to details, some countries will have historical and actual figures. These may vary hugely. For example historical number of Armenians in Egypt, quite high, and their actual number now, quite low after Nasser nationalisations. Most Egyptian Armenians are now in Canada and the States. Similarly the historical figure for Armenians of Lebanon (before 1975 Civil War in Lebanon) and now due to immigration. Figures for Armenians in Iran historically and now after Khomeiny Revolution. Is it just half of what it was? Figures of Armenians in Azerbaijan proper earlier and now after the Karabakh War. Similarly for Armenians of Nakhichevan. There was a historic presence, but now presence is just minimal. When we create Nachichevan as a separate entry, we should also indicate earlier figures versus new figures. Number of Armenians in Syria, Turkey are also a diminishing figure. There are more Turkish Armenians outside Turkey than in Turkey proper although figures are not clear etc. It is not as straight forward is it? werldwayd (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So these (historical numbers) would have to go in the article itself (and the articles about armenians in those countries) being the history of the armenian diaspora. For me that is another reason to have three different things: current census data and estimates in the "Armenians per country" article, the history of the diaspora in the "Armenian diaspora" article and an overview of the current armenian population in the Box in the "Armenians" article

One could argue though, that the "Armenians per country" article could also show the trend of the armenian diaspora. Maybe we'll someday have graphs in wikipedia about when how many armenians (or any other people) lived where, but I think we should have to come back to this lateron after finishing our current tasks ;)

I hope I answered everything you wanted to know. If not, ask again of course ;)

Greets from Munich,

Bavarjan (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort and all the detailed quotation. Some figures in bold (used for sorting), most probable etc... I love it for the expert guys who can see all the different scenarios... But sometimes too much is just too confusing for the general reader.... Just creating new coinflicting data side by side in the same box doesn't help much. I wish we have kept the original and made a draft progress report of these extra info in a separate file. Our list would stay and we would just work on this here on this page let's say... Would it be too much to ask that we bring back the original table back for the world to see and put the draft here in Discussion area and work it here? Just for the sake of the general reader... A grotesque example of how confusing it is is in the case of Jordan. Armenian population is 5000, but some say 65,000. Excuse me? 65,000 is an atrocious figure and I've been to Amman. How did we arrive there? Not in the wildest dreams! For France we are saying 250,000 and 500,000 in the same breath. It simply blurrs our conception of French Armenians and their exact number. Iran has 170,000 and in one jump 502,500. I am more and more convinced to have two columns: Historical and actual. like Before and after..before Khomeiny and after Khomeiny, before Lebanese civil war after Lebanese Civil war. Regrading precise number I hate the precise numbers for some countries. It is so pretentious to say 2736 for Lithuania, or 3285 in Kyrgyzstan or 576 in Albania. We should round these into the nearest figure. 2700, 3300, 600 respectively. werldwayd (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind moving the changes to a temporary article, but - maybe this sounds a bit rediculous - then there is less preassure for me to continue the work and I fear I won't do anything anymore… At least not until my next holydays. But this should not be the most important argument. I don't think two seperate columns for census data and estimates is that confusing, I rather think it was the right decision to leave away the capital and it would be the right decision to re-arrange the order of the columns (country, numbers, centres, dialects, wikilinks). I know (or at least I hope ;)) you allready know that, but it was not me, who added the allready existing numbers. And it were the bigger numbers that had been there before (after the revamping all data without any source findable should have been removed). But this is exactely what has to be in the diaspora article itself (in continuous text, not as a list). To mention these events and give before-after numbers (and perhaps also mention other minor, but also existing reasons (if there are any in these cases) for the decline - so that it sounds more NPOV). see the answer I'm going to write to your other paragraph ;). This article is about interpreting the numbers an the Armenians article is about shortly mention some probable numbers in a quick overview. I think it's the right way to make a difference between censuses and estimates and to give the corresponding dates and not to just write any number or even guess (of course I don't say the numbers before where guesses - I think, you know what I mean)Greets andsoon ;), Bavarjan (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

PS.: How did you imagine the moving? Do you want to protect/lock this article for the while and tell to edit my draft? via template? because you cannot just merge the histories as people, who change something here just did not edit my draft, right? Or did I get something wrong with GFDL? Greets, Bavarjan (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Since a lot has been changed, it is impractical to go back. So you may just continue but try to finish the work needed sooner as it is in public domain for everybody to see. Consider this as a challenge to finalise in due time. werldwayd (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

actual numbers of Armenians in Turkey

The "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" a leading German newspaper, quotes turkish politicians with numbers of legal and illegal armenians living in Turkey: Prime minister Erdogan says: "In my country live 170,000 Armenians, 70,000 are my citicens, 100,000 are here only temporary (...) ". In 2009 Erdogan talked about only 40,000 "illegal Armenians" in Turkey, and the turkish minister Egemen Bagis talked about 70,000 citicens of Armenia who work nowadays illegal in Turkey. (Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 18. March 2010, page 7, "Erdogan droht Armeniern" (Erdogan threatens Armenians), translations by me). By the way: I only quote these numbers, I did not qualify them. I think the context why Erdogan talked about illegal Armenians in Turkey is known. Perhaps these numbers can be used in the article. Plehn (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

File:DistributionOfArmeniansInTheCaucasus.png

I don't understand the reason to add this map to the article as it shows the borders of "Greater Armenia". Ther is no relation between Armenian diaspora and some historical state that included not only Armenian people and was destructed hundreds of years ago. --Quantum666 (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume the reason why it was included is that it shows where most diaspora Armenians originate from : Eastern Turkey or Western Armenia. And that area had always been called Armenia by Western geographers and inhabited by Armenians until the early 20th century, so it's clearly not just "some historical state". However if you're talking about Tigranes' Armenian empire, well, it merely shows what Armenia looked like at its greater extent (not confined to the borders of the Republic of Armenia), whether you like it or not. --Davo88 (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"It merely shows what Armenia looked like at its greater extent", but what is the relation between the terriotories of this historical state and nowdays Armenian diaspora. 2 questions: 1) is there any source telling that all of the shown territiries were inhabited by Armenians. 2) is there any source telling that the diaspora originates from these territories? --Quantum666 (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In the article Kingdom of Armenia, it is written that by the second century BC, the population of Greater Armenia spoke Armenian, implying that today’s Armenians are the direct descendants of those speakers. Here it is said that Armenia is heir to an ancient culture that flourished in eastern Asia Minor, and also says that modern Armenia is but a small part of the area historically inhabited by Armenians. Here it is also said that North Eastern Asia Minor is regarded as part of the historical Armenian homeland. I think that I've answered both of your questions, and besides, I have not encountered sources claiming that the population of the Kingdom of Armenia was not Armenian, apart perhaps from Turkey and Azerbaijan which denies Armenian statehood in History...--Davo88 (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You say it is written that by the second century BC, the population of Greater Armenia spoke Armenian.Do you mean that the map shows the territories of the G.Armenia by the 2nd century BC? And what can you say about Medes, Atropatene, Syria, Phoenicia, that are shown on the map? When were these territories conquered by Armenians? Their territories were later temporarily conquered by Armenians but they were inhabited by non-Armenian population. So this map gives us misunderstanding about origins of Armenian diaspora. And evenmore this map is more suitable for the article(s) about historical Armenian states but not for the article about the people who left the region and whose exact place of origin you cannot specify, apart perharps from those who left Turkey at the beginning of the past century. --Quantum666 (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a logical mistake in your answer: you are talking about populatin of GA in the second century BC but about the territories in the first century BC. So if you find reliable sources telling us that all of the shown territories were inhabited by Armenians I will have no questions about this part of the problem. --Quantum666 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In your very first comment here, you were only talking about Greater Armenia in general (or it may have not been clear), but later, you narrowed down your argument to the empire of Tigranes the Great... Anyway, a better map would be something that shows the Kingdom of Armenia in its traditional borders, when it did not have the status of an empire, as well as the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. This is a similar map. If you can make the fix, please do so. And the Armenians did not merely "leave" Turkey as you would like to think, but were forcefully expelled during the Armenian Genocide. -- Davo88 (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you find sources about the territories that were the origin of Armenian diaspora you can add such a map to the article. But I have already said that maps showing historical states are not suitable for the article. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)