Talk:First Republic of Armenia

"Refugees crisis" paragraph

The picture shows armenian genocide victim, and it is not in Yerevan. It is a serious mistake. The "Refugees crisis" paragraph contains many mistakes and the numbers are definitely wrong. There are not sources.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Map of the First Republic of Armenia in May–June 1919

• ... that the First Republic of Armenia (pictured) tripled in size from 1918–1919? Source: Hovannisian, Richard G. (1982). The Republic of Armenia: From Versailles to London, 1919–1920. Vol. 2. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0520041868.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Article was recently completely rewritten to over 100K bytes, thoroughly referenced and carefully written, and is accompanied by an accurate and also recently-created map.

5x expanded by Olympian (talk). Self-nominated at 14:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/First Republic of Armenia, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Unfortunately, the expansion of this article did not happen within seven days. It is possible to nominate following a successful GAN, however for both the GAN and the future DYK the article would have to be compliant with some MOS and NPOV, which it is currently not. For example, a huge overemphasis on Sèvres, the odd disinclusion of the TSFSR, and a WP:Lead which does not appear to be serving as a summary of the body. CMD (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Many broken footnotes

This article relies heavily on the footnots "Kazemzadeh 1951" and "Hovannisian 1971", but no such citation are ever given. In fact, errors for those two citation were explicitly inhibited by an edit by Nempnet, along with a few others. Why were these errors hidden, and how can the material be verified?

It's not even clear what reerence might be used; the "Publications" list in the Firuz Kazemzadeh article doesn't list anything for 1951. -- mikeblas (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2026

may i edit a mistake it says a map of europe in 1918 when the map is from 1910 Erik35110 (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Erik35110. The map is highly misleading, and also not obviously relevant, so I have removed it. JBW (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Map

The actual long-standing map that enjoyed consensus far greater than any map in this article is this one, which has been used in the article for 10 years and which is reliably sourced and can be found in reliable and expert sources such as Robert H. Hewsen's "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" (2001) on page 236. This was also pointed out in the failed GA nomination , and even the reviewer agreed that a map can demonstrate both claims and current situation . KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

KhndzorUtogh, thanks for opening a Talk page discussion. I've reviewed the map on p. 236 of Hewsen and it is completely different from the map you've inserted in the article, as such, I can't verify its sourcing. I understand the map you inserted was used for a considerable number of years in the 2010s, but it's outdated and problematic for a number of reasons, including its lack of a legend to indicate the meaning of colours, which can imply to readers that the FRA exercised de facto control over Wilsonian/Western Armenia whereas it was only an award that was never implemented. The consensus version map that you replaced is authored by me and chiefly based off of Richard G. Hovannisian's four-volume series on the (First) Republic of Armenia, including the maps throughout (which are used in Hewsen) and the details on which country controlled which territory (at the time of the map, mid-1919, which was the peak of the FRA's de facto control).

On a separate point, the current pattern of reverting to re-introduce a change to the consensus version is concerning and inconsistent with WP:BOLD. In good faith, could you please revert to the pre-dispute version and hold off on further changes while we work through the sourcing and scope issues (including what the map is intended to depict, i.e. de facto control, claims or both)? I'd prefer to resolve this here without WP:3O, but that depends on both of us pausing reverts and engaging on the substance of the map. Thanks, – Olympian ^loquere 07:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not currently have access to the Hewsen book. Regardless, here is a source verifying the borders of the long standing (2013-2023) consensus map and is even signed by Wilson himself. As for a legend map, one could easily be added, and I can do this myself. The issue with your map is the same as I explained in 2024, that it is original research from your own interpretation of the Hovannisian and Saparov sources. I have flipped through all of the chapters (which should be specific pages) you attributed the map to and I could not find a map resembling the one you created anywhere. Maps need to be verifiably sourced, we cannot base them upon a vague description as this will inevitably lead to inaccuracies. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

KhndzorUtogh, apologies for the delayed reply.

On your point regarding Hewsen's book, you have stated you do not currently have access to the source, yet you rely on it to justify changing the consensus version map. I do have access to Hewsen's book and the map on the cited page (p. 236) differs completely from the version you inserted. A secondary "verification" of borders is not equivalent to a directly corresponding map and adding a legend post hoc doesn't address that. The burden is on demonstrating that the exact map used is supported by reliable sources in substantially the same form.

On your interpretation point, the map I introduced (which existed in the consensus version) is based on reliably published works (Hovannisian, Saparov). It would be helpful if you could identify how exactly my map departs in detail from those sources; I list the maps I relied on below, which are from Richard G. Hovannisian's 4-volume series on the First Republic of Armenia and drawn by Hewsen (Volume III, p. xv):

• "THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA, JUNE 1919" (The Republic of Armenia, Volume I: The First Year, 1918-1919, p. 474)

• "THE TRANSCAUCASIAN REPUBLICS, JUNE, 1919" (The Republic of Armenia, Volume II: From Versailles to London, 1919-1920, p. 3)
  • The above two maps based on June 1919 illustrate that Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh was outside of the FRA's control, as it had acceded to temporary Azerbaijani governance pending the outcome of the Paris Peace Conference (Saparov, p. 94). It's depicted as a light grey area in my map, with a label indicating local Armenian governance.

• "THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA, SUMMER 1920" (The Republic of Armenia, Volume III: From London to Sèvres, February–August 1920, p. 4)
  • This map illustrates the FRA's loss of control over Nakhichevan, due to Muslim insurgents instigated by Azerbaijan and Turkey. As such, June 1919 (the last instance where Nakhichevan was stably controlled) was obviously the height of the FRA's de facto territorial control.

• "THE PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF "WILSONIAN ARMENIA" (The Republic of Armenia, Volume IV: Between Crescent and Sickle - Partition and Sovietization, p. 41)
  • This map was only relied on for the boundaries of Wilsonian/Western Armenia, which were legally awarded to the FRA, but the FRA never exercised de facto control over.

If this explanation isn't acceptable for you to restore the consensus version containing the previous map, I'm happy to request a 3O. Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 09:51, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Well first of all, the consensus version of the map is the one currently displayed on the article, because it has been used for over a decade. The map you are proposing was added in 2023 without any consensus. And as I already said, it is an interpretation of text made into a map, which is original research. In the Routledge source I provided, there is an image of official borders from a contemporary document. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

KhndzorUtogh, you haven't addressed the substance of my above reply which provides detailed sourcing and explanations for the previous map – it's not an interpretation of text but a recreation of the above maps contained in Hovannisian's volume series as outlined above. The map you provided from the Routledge source is of the Western boundaries of the lands awarded to the First Republic of Armenia, not a map of its official borders – these are reflected in the consensus-verison map. Noting I've referred this for 3O which can hopefully provide a useful perspective for us both. Also, the map which you removed from the infobox was the consensus version as it existed in-place and without controversy from January 2023 until your removal over three years later. Olympian ^loquere 11:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The map on those pages is already accurately depicted in orange on the present map, while also being more informative of the republic’s entire two years, not just one specific month. It is also curious that you depict the Sevres borders with the same color as different countries. This is not only possible POV pushing, but also just an objectively bad color coded map.

And no it did not exist without controversy, it was reverted multiple times. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

KhndzorUtogh, the 13-year-old map which you inserted is problematic in that it lacks sources, lacks a legend, is extremely lacking in detail, inaccurate in most its "orange" borders, and misrepresents through its colours that the First Republic of Armenia exercised de facto control over the western territories awarded to it in the Treaty of Sèvres in late 1920. To address shortcomings/inaccuracies, the previous map fixes these issues and represents the awarded western territories as a dark red line as it depicts the First Republic of Armenia's de facto territorial height/peak (June 1919, over a year prior to the award) where the rest of the map follows Wikipedia's standard map colour conventions (which you describe as "objectively bad color coded"). I also don't appreciate you making uncalled for and inappropriate aspersions.

Moreover, citing 3 reverts in those 3+ years by an IP (violation of WP:GS/AA) and two blocked users ( ) is hardly sufficient to demonstrate that consensus hadn't formed around the previous map, as no extended-confirmed nor unblocked user has had an issue with the previous map other than yourself. – Olympian ^loquere 09:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

You don’t need to ping me in every reply. GS/AA was implemented in September 2023, and regardless what you said was your map was “without controversy”, I showed the contrary by simply going over the article edit history. Now you’re moving the goal post.

The current longstanding map is without a doubt better color coded, more informative, and is sourced as I showed before. A map legend is extremely easy to implement similar to here, for example, and hundreds if not thousands of articles include a legend in text form so please stop making this a problem that it clearly is not. Let’s keep the objectively better map, we don’t have to go back and forth constantly. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate you expressing a preference for one map, but you haven’t addressed the substantive points on its issues I raised above. As such, I’m content to leave this for a 3O. – Olympian ^loquere 13:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

More sources for the currently displayed map:

• Galichian, Rouben. A Glance into the History of Armenia: Through Cartographic Records., 2015, p. 68.
• Armen, Garbis. Historical Atlas of Armenia., 1987, p. 27+ (page number shown like this in the book).
• Tsutsiev, Arthur; Nora S. Favorov. Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus. 2014, p. 138.

KhndzorUtogh (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hello KhndzorUtogh and Olympian, I am here from the 3O noticeboard. I have read through the above discussion but in order to make things easier for me I would request you fill out the "form" that I will put below. When doing this please only write the positives of your point of view ("This map has pretty sparkle colors") and refrain from negatives of the other map ("That map has boring poo poo colors"). I'll come back in a bit and give my third party, impartial, and non-binding opinion. Moritoriko (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

KhndzorUtogh

• Map Link:
• Source(s):
• Schayegh, Cyrus; Arsan, Andrew (5 June 2015). The Routledge Handbook of the History of the Middle East Mandates. Routledge. p. 42. ISBN 978-1-317-49706-6.
• Galichian, Rouben (2015). A glance into the history of Armenia: through cartographic records (PDF). London: Bennett and Bloom. p. 68. ISBN 978-1908755261.
• Armen, Garbis (1987). Historical atlas of Armenia. New York: Armenian Natl Education Committee. p. 27+ , . ISBN 978-0961793302.
• Tsutsiev, Arthur (2014). Atlas of the ethno-political history of the Caucasus (PDF). New Haven and London: Yale University press. p. 75 (Map 27), 138 (Map 49). ISBN 978-0300153088. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 June 2023.
• Reasons why this map should be used in the article:

1. Instead of narrowing in on just one month (June 1919), this map captures the broader territorial claims and reach of the First Republic of Armenia throughout its whole existence. It gives readers a clear visual sense of the state's geographical context, which is helpful for a Wikipedia article.
2. Keeps it simple and easy to read. It's color-coded perfectly and the visuals are straightforward and easy to understand. The commons map link has a text legend, which could be implemented here as well; it already had one before, just like thousands of Wikipedia articles.
3. The map is consistent with the equivalent Azeri and Georgian republic articles: Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and Democratic Republic of Georgia. Both of those articles use maximalist maps in their infoboxes; I don't think this article should be an exception.
4. This map is the stable, long-standing version and was used in the article's infobox for over a decade. Its long-standing presence without controversy further adds to the points I raised above. And for what it's worth, the GA reviewer in their closing comment voiced support for this map.

Comment: The reference to the GA reviewer's comment is misplaced: the reviewer said "a map could present both the actual situation and claims", which can't be read as support towards either map. Consistency with other articles' maximalist infobox maps is not a basis for inclusion; each map should stand on its own sourcing and accuracy. The "long-standing" argument isn't determinative either: the 2013 map persisted in the absence of a more detailed alternative, and has since been replaced from 2023; longevity alone doesn't establish suitability. Also, while I agree simplicity can be desirable, it shouldn't come at the expense of accuracy; the current map presents areas (e.g. Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions) in a manner (orange colouring) that doesn't clearly distinguish between effective control and other statuses, which risks reader misunderstanding even if a text legend is added. – Olympian ^loquere 12:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Moritoriko keep in mind you asked to refrain from negatives toward's each other's maps, let alone comment on them, but Olympian did both. So I hope you don't mind that I'm responding to their comment.

The reference to the GA reviewer's comment is misplaced: the reviewer said "a map could present both the actual situation and claims", which can't be read as support towards either map.

Olympian’s map was a point of dispute during the GA review too. There were no other maps in the discussion besides these two, and I doubt Borsoka's closing comment meant support for either map. But I'm pinging them for good measure if they would be kind enough to clarify which one they meant.

Consistency with other articles' maximalist infobox maps is not a basis for inclusion; each map should stand on its own sourcing and accuracy.

Olympian is not only linking an essay (not a policy or guideline), but that essay is for article deletion (AFD) discussions - this is what’s “not a basis” here, and essays aren't WP:P&G regardless. Again, if the closely related articles to this one use maximalist maps, why should this article be the exception?

The "long-standing" argument isn't determinative either: the 2013 map persisted in the absence of a more detailed alternative, and has since been replaced from 2023; longevity alone doesn't establish suitability.

Earlier, Olympian used the argument of "without controversy" to describe their map, which I showed was in fact controversial . Now I used the same reasoning to show that the current longstanding map enjoyed consensus far longer and without controversy; that was my point.

Also, while I agree simplicity can be desirable, it shouldn't come at the expense of accuracy; the current map presents areas (e.g. Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions) in a manner (orange colouring) that doesn't clearly distinguish between effective control and other statuses, which risks reader misunderstanding even if a text legend is added.

The accuracy of the map is not for us to decide but for the sources provided, and the suggested text legend is there to ensure there is no misunderstanding, like with thousands of articles on Wikipedia.

Out of respect for the third opinion's wishes, I'll refrain from commenting again until they provide an opinion. But it was only fair that I responded to a comment under my own section. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Olympian

• Map Link:
• Source(s):

1. Hovannisian, Richard G. (1971). The Republic of Armenia. Vol. 1: The First Year, 1918–1919. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 474. ISBN 978-0520019843.
2. Hovannisian, Richard G. (1982). The Republic of Armenia. Vol. 2: From Versailles to London, 1919–1920. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0520041868.
3. Hovannisian, Richard G. (1996a). The Republic of Armenia. Vol. 3: From London to Sèvres, February–August 1920. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0520088030.
4. Hovannisian, Richard G. (1996b). The Republic of Armenia. Vol. 4: Between Crescent and Sickle: Partition and Sovietization. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-0520088047.
5. Saparov, Arsène (2014). From conflict to autonomy in the Caucasus: the Soviet Union and the making of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh. Routledge. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-317-63783-7. OCLC 1124532887.
6. Tsutsiev, Arthur (2014). Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus (PDF). Translated by Nora Seligman Favorov. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 65 (Map 24), 75 (Map 27). ISBN 9780300153088. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 June 2023.

• Reasons why this map should be used in the article:

1. Depicts a clearly defined snapshot of the First Republic of Armenia (FRA) in June 1919, which is the period in which it reached its maximum de-facto (actual) territorial control, as illustrated in the above sources' maps.
2. Directly reflects reliably published historical maps of the FRA by Hovannisian (maps drawn by Hewsen) and Arthur Tsutsiev, with each territorial feature depicted exactly traceable to those sources.
3. Clearly distinguishes between de-facto control, disputed or locally administered areas and unimplemented awards (e.g. Wilsonian Armenia), ensuring consistency with its cited sources and not conflating distinct territorial categories.
4. Incorporates specific historically attested conditions, including the status of Nagorno-Karabakh (labelled "Karabakh Council") as outside effective FRA control pending the Paris Peace Conference (per Saparov and others) and the FRA's brief control over Nakhichevan before it fell to local rebel-control from July 1919.
5. Uses clear visual distinctions (colour, borders and labels) consistent with Wikipedia mapping conventions and visual features (fill, boundary lines and country/region labels) to clearly separate categories of control and status.

Hello KhndzorUtogh and Olympian, I am back from reading through the sources and looking at lots of maps. I have a couple of issues with both maps as they currently exist so I think I am actually in favour of just making a new map that is a bit in-between. Problems I have with this map are lack of key on the map itself, no borders besides FRA (where is the Georgian Azerbaijani border?), and relatively amateur typing (spacing between Ottoman and Empire is too big, country names are different sizes, etc.). Problems I have with this map are the colors are too subdued for the information that is trying to be conveyed, there is also no key (what does Wilsonian Frontier mean?), and anachronous county names especially for a map of a snapshot point and I am not sure why you picked 1919 as it seems June 1920 might be bigger although the situation was constantly changing. Looking through the sources I ended up loving map 27 from this Atlas that both of you cited as a source. I think it is too busy and some information should be removed like the arrows showing troop movements and we can simplify the different shadings but I think it is a good start for making a new map that should be acceptable to all parties. Please let me know what you feel about this Atlas map and any points I should keep in mind using it to make a simplified map, and as before please respond to me and don't respond to each other, it makes it a lot easier for me to keep track of everything. Moritoriko (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Moritoriko, thank you for rendering your 3O. I'm not opposed to using a slightly simplified (and arrow-less) version of Map 27 from the Tsutsiev source as the article's main infobox map; I think it accurately depicts the FRA's de-facto borders throughout its 2.5-year existence (including Muslim uprisings in the westward peripheries of Kars/Surmalu and Armenian self-rule in Syunik (Zangezur) and Nagorno (Mountain) Karabakh). As well as removing troop movements and arrows, I would also suggest omitting Georgia's territorial claims (at most, keeping only the Georgian claims within the awarded Ottoman territory and not the ones that extend into the South Caucasus). I also note that I'm unsure if Map 27 doesn't fully capture the northern tip (northeast of Akhalkalaki) of Armenia's claimed territory in the South Caucasus, if you compare it to this 1919 map submitted by the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference: it doesn't have the panhandle, whereas in this similar map it does. Let me know what you think. Thanks, – Olympian ^loquere 12:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for taking soooo long to respond, I got busy and then got distracted as life goes.I was in the process of editing a svg map of the region when I realized it was made by you! I overlaid map 27 with it and there were a couple differences that I hope you could elucidate for me.

1. Your map has the British Occupation Zone which matches closely but not exactly to the Batum Province, what should go there? Does it matter talking about the FRA?
2. The region around Ahkalkalaki is different in all 3 maps, yours, the original yellow and orange one, and map 27. What should go there and why?
3. Map 27 shows that FRA at least claimed the region reaching out to NK, that should be represented with some kind of line at least, no?
4. [edit] What panhandle are you talking about in those maps presented in French? They are very busy and I couldnt tell the difference.

Otherwise I have updated the names of neighboring countries to Ottoman Empire, Persia, and USSR and made the colors a bit more visible.

Moritoriko (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

No worries. To answer your questions:

1. The British occupation/administration of the Batumi province lasted from December 1918 to June 1920, prior to that, it was under Ottoman occupation (per the treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Batum) and afterwards it was incorporated into the Georgian Democratic Republic. My view is that these 3 statuses of the province needn't be represented in a map based on the FRA as it's not relevant (although the FRA did, unsuccessfully, try to negotiate a rail corridor through the Batum province from Georgia to guarantee themselves sea access).
2. and 4. I don't have a strong view on the line represneting of the FRA's claim on Akhalkalaki–Borchaly; my instinct would be to follow the lines drawn in the claims submitted by the Armenian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, which tend to follow natural geography/topography and ethnographic boundaries:
3. I agree the FRA's claim on the Nagorno-Karabakh region, and the highlands above it (Gardman-Parisos in this map ), should be represented, along with its claims on Akhalkalaki–Borchaly. The nuance here is that during the FRA's existence, the Nagorno-Karabakh region was de facto independent and self-governing, only submitting to provisional Azerbaijani rule pending the outcome of the Paris Peace Conference (which did not address the inter-Caucasian borders) – this too should be represented on the map where possible.

Let me know if I can help answer any more questions. – Olympian ^loquere 10:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that additional map, its much clearer what the claim was. I'll get back to you tomorrow hopefully. Moritoriko (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The basic legend of the map that I am envisioning right now is something like:

• Area claimed by the First Republic of Armenia [when]
• Areas not under control of FRA
• Wilsonian border of FRA but never controlled
• Karbach Council: self-governed area that provisionally submitted to FRA

I am not sure how the Lori Neutral Area fall into this scheme and what exactly the Buffer Zone is supposed to be. Could you help me with that? please look

Moritoriko (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

1. The areas claimed (specifically, the claims in the former Russian South Caucasus, excluding claims on former Ottoman territory) was submitted by the Delegation of Integral Armenia (the Armenian delegation) on 26 February 1919. The former Russian South Caucasus claims map was drawn up by Lieutenant Commander Zatik Khanzadian, based on the direct military-strategic instructions of General Tovmas Nazarbékian (then Commander-in-Chief of the Armenian Army).
2. This is a complicated point, as the FRA changed significantly in territorial control over its 2.5-year existence. In summary, they always controlled the area around Yerevan and Lake Sevan, however:

(a) Nakhichevan was briefly incorporated in mid-1919, otherwise it remained in Ottoman or local Muslim hands due to its Muslim majority and the ethnic cleansing of the local Armenian population, however, the northern tip (corresponding to the area around Sharur) was reincorporated in mid-1920.

(b) the Kars-Surmalu region was incorporated into the FRA in April 1919, and remained largely in its control until it was invaded by Turkish nationalist forces in September 1920.

1. It may be worth shading Wilsonian Armenia in another colour in your map and/or adding a caption to indicate it was only legal awarded to the FRA, but the FRA never exercised de facto control over it.
2. The Karabakh Council briefly submitted to the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR), not the FRA. They sought unity with the FRA, however, for geographical and political reasons, this was difficult and only partially attained when the ADR and FRA went to war over Karabakh in March 1920.
3. The Lori neutral zone was enacted by the British following a brief border war between the FRA and Georgia in December 1918, essentially it made the disputed area in neither's de facto control, however, as the British left the region, oversight over the neutral zone was shared between the FRA and Georgia.
4. The buffer zone is supposed to represent areas under local Muslim (Kurds/Turks) control, that wasn't de facto controlled by the FRA. They were borderlands along the old Russian-Ottoman pre-war frontier. – Olympian ^loquere 09:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

   Regarding the Wilsonian, it is yellow compared to green for the areas that were nominally Armenian but I will change it anyway to make to more obvious, I will also change the "buffer zone" to be that same green. Thanks for clarification on the Lori Neutral Zone, I will keep it distinct like the KC. Should a green area be added for the area around Nakhichevan? if so what are the boundaries? So the FRA claimed KC but the council submitted to AZ? Should it be represented in the grey of other countries then or the green of uncontrolled claims, or? Moritoriko (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

   This map () might be able to help represent some of the complex border changes around Nakhichevan. The best way I can describe it is that it was at first uncontrolled entirely, briefly controlled entirely, uncontrolled entirely again and then partially controlled from the northern half (Sharur, then known as Bash-Norashen). I would favour representing the Karabakh Council in the same colour as the Lori neutral zone, as it was an Armenian polity and before/after accepting Azerbaijani rule it tried to unify itself with the FRA. – Olympian ^loquere 12:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

   Oof, that took longer than expected to get everything the way I wanted it. Please check out

   

   And yes I saw the legend text looks smooshed in some sizes and I'll deal with it later (or you can) Moritoriko (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Moritoriko Hello and apologies for the late response. I don’t mind using Map 27. However, there are several issues with the newly created map you linked below compared to Map 27. First is the color coding. The most noticeable is the red "Wilsonian Armenia" having a completely different bold color, which Map 27 does not have in the book. It's almost a repeat of the issue of it being colored the same as 'not-Armenia'. The commons map legend saying "never controlled by the FRA" is problematic, the legend on Map 27 doesn't say this. The ivory color coding for "Lori neutral zone" and "Karabakh Council" is also too similar to the grey 'not-Armenia'. The neutral zone was controlled by a third party, while the Karabakh Council (which existed until Sovietization) was autonomously affiliated with the FRA. These are not similar.

The next most apparent issue is the borders don't accurately align. Evidently the northern border is after the Armeno-Georgian War in 1918, however the southern and eastern parts of this map are labeled "FRA claimed territory under de facto control of others" (e.g., Nakhijevan Goris) point to areas that the FRA controlled until 1920. This map is labelled "circa 1919", so either we change the map title or remove these areas. It's almost as if the borders were selectively chosen from different periods to make this map as small as possible.

Why is this map "Original by User:Olympian derivative by..." when Olympian's map had many problems, which seem to be sneaking into this map as well? Wasn’t Map 27 the agreed one here? As I said, I don’t oppose it but we’re deviating from it.

And there is also the issue with the labels. This map says "Wilsonian Armenia", but in the book it's labeled as "Western Armenia". I think it should be called Western Armenia just like in the book. Also, the legend distinguishes "Wilsonian Armenia" from "Territory claimed by FRA". The FRA also claimed Wilsonian Armenia.

We can solve the legend issue by changing it to the following:

a) areas de facto controlled by FRA

b) areas de jure assigned to Armenia (by Treaty of Sevres)

c) self-governed Karabakh (the original map says "Mountain Karabakh (essentially self-governed by the Armenian National Council)". KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for moving your comment and thank you for your response.

First off, the easiest question and answer; Why is this map a derivative? Because it began as editing Olympian's svg file, nothing more or less is implied. Lori Neutral Zone and Karabakh Council were colored the same and not described in the legend because I thought it would take too many words to accurately describe the situations in those areas, but you are right they are not the same situation so they should be colored differently.

Second your comment It's almost as if the borders were selectively chosen from different periods to make this map as small as possible. is dangerously close to casting WP:ASPERSIONS. You can ask why I have done something if you do not know. The label of 1919 should actually be changed to August 1920 so that we can have the Wilsonian Armenia section on the map by which time the areas in the east had come under de facto control of others.

The legend on map 27 says Territory of the Ottoman Empire nominally assigned in November 1920 to the Republic of Armenia by Wilson's Arbitral Award [...] but still under control of Turkey [...] to describe the Wilsonian Armenia section and that area of the map is colored differently from the Borders of the Transcaucasian territory proposed for Armenia by the Armenian delegation to the Paris Peace conference. which is the border that the legend labels territory claimed by FRA but the legend of the new map should be clearer to state Territory claimed by FRA at Paris Peace Conference. Additionally Western Armenia and Wilsonian Armenia are different things, Western Armenia had existed well before 1920 whereas Wilsonian Armenia is specifically in regards to the Treaty of Sevres.

When I get the next version finished I will ping you as well. Moritoriko (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)