Talk:Armenia

"While Armenia is geographically located in the South Caucasus, it views itself as part of Europe and is generally considered geopolitically European." - This sentence is an oversimplification. Armenia is a member of numerous Eurasian and Asian organisations such as the Asian development bank and Eurasian economic union. To claim Armenia views itself as European, geopolitically European, is a gross simplification. It is unclear who views themselves this way - the government or the people? There should be more nuance to this or the line should be removed entirely. ~2026-63754-3 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This is cited to the CIA World Factbook. Perhaps you can provide a source that says otherwise? Mellk (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Published sources that contradict or qualify the idea that Armenia is unambiguously geopolitically European:

“Armenia’s aspiration to join the European Union and its membership in the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) are incompatible.” - Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, referring to Armenia’s EAEU membership.

Armenia’s relations with the EU are based on the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) and the initiation of an accession process (which is separate from full EU membership).

“Since 1991, the main partner and the sole strategic ally of Armenia has been Russia. In contacts with other power centres - the EU, NATO, and the United States - Armenia will try to develop its relations, but there are red lines that it is not ready to cross.

"The Republic of Armenia is a member of ADB since 2005, after the "Founding Agreement of the Asian Development Bank" was ratified by the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia on May 24, 2005. The 2019-2023 Country partnership strategy aims to support Armenia’s inclusive growth through development of infrastructures and human capital, as well as the regional cooperation programs."

In earlier years (around 2013), a majority of Armenians thought Eurasian and European integration could be combined, and approximately 70% would prefer Eurasian integration over European integration if they could not be combined. This was part of the basis for Armenia’s decision to join the Russia‑led Eurasian Economic Union. Source- Armenpress, 10 January 2025. ~2026-63754-3 (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Russian anti-West propaganda isn't the best source of reliable information. In addition, membership in the EEU isn't inconsistent with being in Europe—note the Eurasian part of its name. "Eurasian" isn't a synonym for "Asian".

I'm not sure that showing that Armenia also has some relations with Asian nations undermines a statement about it generally considering itself European. "Generally" and "unambiguously", like "Eurasian" and "Asian", aren't synonyms. Perhaps that's the nuance you're looking for?

The thing is, none of the materials you've quoted directly contradicts the statement in the article. You're inferring the contradiction via your own analysis of the materials.

Finally, their membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) isn't inconsistent with Turkey and Poland not being North Atlantic nations. The proposition that, politically, Armenia generally considers itself European isn't inconsistent with it belonging to predominately Asian organizations. Largoplazo (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

While it is correct that “Eurasian” is not synonymous with “Asian,” it is also not synonymous with “ generally European.” If such a general political self-conception existed, it would be expected to manifest in Armenia’s institutional and strategic orientation. However, Armenia has no EU membership or accession process, no NATO membership or Membership Action Plan, no alignment with EU foreign or security policy frameworks, and no consistent framing of itself as a European state in official doctrine.

By contrast, Armenia is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and has historically been security-dependent on Russia. Its foreign policy is best characterised as being shaped by geographic and security constraints, rather than Europe-centric.

These facts do not imply that Armenia is “Asian,” nor do they deny cultural or historical links with Europe. They do, however, undermine the assertion that Armenia generally considers itself European, ~2026-63754-3 (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

While it is correct that “Eurasian” is not synonymous with “Asian,” it is also not synonymous with “ generally European.” I didn't say it is. I said considering itself generally European isn't incompatible belonging to an organization with "Eurasian" in its name. There's no undermining, just as the membership of the US and UK, among other countries, in the Southeast Asia Treat Organization (SEATO) didn't undermine the fact that the US and the UK consider themselves Western nations. This undermining that you're reading into it as your own analysis, so WP:SYNTH applies, and it's a good example of why that guidance exists. Largoplazo (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of synth, we should split the sentence up. The "while" is our own synth, and we should cover the basic geographical position and cultural identity separately. CMD (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. The cited source also says: "geopolitically, it can be classified as falling within Europe, the Middle East, or both." Mellk (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree, if we are using the source we can’t omit parts of it. The lede should also mention the Middle East or both part. It’s also a confusing statement to begin with, Armenia considers itself part of Europe, in what way? Geographically it recognizes itself as in the continent of Asia per the official MFA website and geopolitically we have already stated. Why does this need to be repeated? I propose this sentence be rewritten to meet encyclopedic standards. TagaworShah (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It may be confusing because the body does not say anything about it being part of the Middle East geopolitically (and we have MOS:LEAD). The foreign relations section mentions European and Asian organizations but does not say whether Armenia geopolitically belongs to one continent or both from what I can see. Mellk (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I suppose for now we can either remove this sentence from the lead or find a way to mention geopolitical alignment in the main text and rewrite the lead accordingly. Mellk (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It also turns out that CIA World Factbook has now gone offline so we probably need to find another source anyway. Mellk (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I just added an archived copy so that's what it will now display. Largoplazo (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

"Eurasia" when used to mean a political alignement with Russia does not contradict a vision of itself as European. Belarus is strongly integrated into the Eurasian union with Russia but both Belarus and Russia remain mainly European nations and cultures (Russia has its capital in Europe as well as 80% of its population. Armenia ought to be considered as a fully culturally European nation who politically is divided between the European union, and the, also mainly European Russian led CSTO/EEU. Armenia, while it is part of numerous European, and numerous Russian led, supranational organisations, is not part of any supranational organizations that mostly includes middle eastern countries, and the only Asian organisation it is part of, the Asian Development Bank, does not include any middle eastern country except Israel, and does include plenty of European countries. Also, even if the consensus was that Armenia was a fully Asian country, it would still not in any way justify considering it part of or mentioning the words "middle east" on the article, as any traditional definition of the middle east never included not only Armenia, but even not Azerbaijan, a country that is significantly more historically and culturally aligned with the middle east, and sometime also excludes Turkey. ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this. The sentence is not sufficiently qualified. Saying that a country “views itself as European” is a very generalised statement. Who holds this view and on what basis? A country is made up of different groups with different senses of national identity. Also a country cannot view itself one way or another. For example, it would be odd to say that the USA thinks of itself as a global superpower. A country is a construct, not a thinking being. There are many parties in Armenia opposed to the 'European' direction Pashinyan is heading towards. ~2026-13375-75 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Saying in the introduction that Armenia is unambiguously an Asian country geographically is very misleading. The border of Europe and Asia is a controversial and debated topic, some placing it at the level of the Araxes river, making Armenia fully European. Notably, the European Union goes by this definition, and has officially, consistently and unambiguously stated that Armenia was fully eligible to European membership, while they refused Morocco, a country that is geographically extremely close to Europe but not European. The president of the Republic of Armenia also consider this, as well as several preeminent Russian and Western geographers. The phrasing should be replaced by something neutral, like "Armenia, officially the Republic of Armenia, is a landlocked country of the Caucasus region of Eurasia. Whether it is part of Eastern Europe or of Asia is a debated topic." ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Details are in the Geography section. The lead is a summary not meant to go into the complexities. The EU is a decider of geography only for its own purposes. Largoplazo (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The Armenian, French and Russian version of the articles have a lead that takes a neutral point of view instead of claiming it unambiguously as Asian. The lead can take the form "Armenia, officially the Republic of Armenia, is a landlocked country of the Caucasus region of Eurasia", and the nuances discussed later in the article, instead of starting by a statement that can be viewed as biased and misleading. The border between Europe and Asia is a contentious, politically charged topic that is not universally settled or agreed upon, so the opinion of the biggest European supranational organisations (like the EU and the council of Europe) on the matter should be taken into consideration. I'd like to refer to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia–European_Union_relations#Individual_opinions article where numerous notorious figures publicly support a definition of Armenia as part of Europe and not Asia, and given the number and preeminence of the organizations and public figures thinking otherwise, the sentence "Armenia, officially the Republic of Armenia, is a landlocked country in the Armenian highlands of West Asia." presented as an unambigously agreed upon fact in the lead is pretty non-neutral and biased. There are numerous possible solutions, like only referring to the Caucasus, only to Eurasia, "on the border of Eastern Europe and Asia", "traditionally considered to be geographically in Asia although also sometime viewed as Eastern European.", and using some of the sources of the Armenia–European_Union_relations#Individual_opinions wikipedia article. ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The EU has not as far as I've seen ever issued a statement on where the border of Europe is. CMD (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on closer ties between the EU and Armenia and the need for a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia

8.3.2024

"3. Believes that Armenia has a European perspective pursuant to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union and may apply to become a member of the European Union provided that it adheres to the Copenhagen criteria and the principles of democracy, respects fundamental freedoms, human and minority rights and upholds the rule of law; calls for the EU to explore options for granting candidate status to Armenia and to provide the necessary support in this regard;"

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2024-0165_EN.html

"Accession of new member states to the European Union (EU) is governed by Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union. A state that wishes to apply for membership of the Union must satisfy two conditions:

it must be a European state;"

https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/glossary_en

The European union simultaneously recognises that Armenia is a potential candidate that adheres to the Copenhagen criteria, and that for a state to potentially become a candidate, it must be a European state ; implying that it does view Armenia as an European state.

"The exact boundaries of what constitutes Europe is a controversial matter. It is neither well defined, nor the subject of common agreement. Particularly difficult to decide whether or not they are part of Europe are outlying islands and countries such as Greenland, the arctic islands, Turkey and the trans-Caucasian republics." https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/92-826-5409-5/page003new.html

On this document relative to the ecological situation in Europe, the European union states that the borders of Europe are a controversial and difficult topic particularly regarding the South Caucasus. It does clearly conflict the view that Armenia is unambiguously in Asia and acknowledges diversity of opinion and controversy, unlike what the head of the Wikipedia article implies. ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It's very strange you cut "In the main, this report uses the common geographical definition which excludes the trans-Caucasian republics, Greenland and Anatolia." from the quote of that last source. CMD (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

". Being an environmental report, however, it focuses on environmentally significant geographical units which may straddle the often artificial borders created by this definition, for example when considering river catchments or sea areas." This report is not specifically about the Caucasus or geopolitics, it just acknowledges that the border of Europe is a contentious question. Why do you think it is not worth it to clearly acknowledge the diversity of opinion and controversy (like the other languages version of the article do) instead of only taking one side in the head? ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Politics may have attached themselves to the matter of the division between Europe and Asia but the variation in the definition of their division was around for centuries before the EU existed and anyone cared. The world does not revolve around the EU and its own choices regarding membership in that organization. Largoplazo (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, variation in the definition of their division was around for centuries before the EU existed and anyone cared. The republic of Armenia, a country created in 1991, previously part of the USSR/Russian empire west of the Ural can be placed in either Asia or Europe depending on the division chosen, and the article should state it clearly instead of taking a side. The EU is just one argument/angle of reflection among others. ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The government of Armenia makes it clear that Armenia is geographically in Asia. From the official site of the Armenian MFA: “The country is situated in western part of Asia..” Also there is a widespread consensus among academic sources that Armenia is geographically in Asia. Changing that would be presenting a Wikipedia:False balance. TagaworShah (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Given the extensive number of armenian officials saying the exact opposite, as can be seen in these sources :

https://web.archive.org/web/20070607153503/http://arminfo.am/political-issue22.html

https://armenpress.am/hy/article/410055

https://www.libertas-institut.com/de/PDF/Armenia%20ante%20portas.pdf

It is quite the opposite of a false balance, the question is to give the due weight to the now popular opinion that Armenia is geopolitically considered in Europe, a due weight that is already shown in the other languages versions of the article, but that is barely mentioned in the English article, giving the misleading impression that Armenia is uncontroversially and unarguably in Asia. ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The first of those sources says nothing about what continent Armenia is in.

The second source is giving on person's opinion, a person who has a lot staked on getting Armenia into the EU.

The third of then gives a list of reasons to say it's in Europe that I've already said are irrelevant. In fact, the middle three criteria out of the five listed under "European State" apply just as well to Australia and New Zealand as Armenia. Are you going to argue that those countries are politically part of Europe?

I repeat that there is room to discuss all of this, but it doesn't need to be crammed into the lead. Largoplazo (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The point is not to cram the lead with arguments and debate, only to remove from the lead the misleading statement that Armenia is unambiguously in Asia, with a more neutral formulation that still stays concise and relevant. There are plenty of formulations like "Caucasus" "Eurasia" "at the crossroads of Europe and Asia". The debates and arguments for each positions can be potentially explained in more details in another section if you feel it is needed. ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The one thing I'd agree with is the removal of the word "unambiguous"—actually, I'd advocate for that—which itself seems argumentative, besides being an absolute, the absoluteness of which is contradicted by what follows in the article. Largoplazo (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The article does not uses the word unambiguous, I said "unambiguous" in my comment to refer to the fact that only Asia is mentioned with no nuance or counterpoint. I am obviously not arguing for saying that Armenia is in Europe either, that would be a non neutral parti-pris that I would vehemently oppose. I just suggest to keep the controversial idea that Armenia is part of Asia either out of the lead, or to amend it with a counterpoint to show that it is currently not a fully accepted uncontroversial fact. ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You're the one who wrote The border between Europe and Asia is a contentious, politically charged topic that is not universally settled or agreed upon, so the opinion of the biggest European supranational organisations (like the EU and the council of Europe) on the matter should be taken into consideration. In other words, you're the one who's concerned about it being politically charged and you're the one who brought the EU into this. My response was basically that we're interested in factual matters, not political ones, when it comes to something that isn't at its root political, and that how the EU treats Armenia is irrelevant, at least as far as the lead is concerned. As for Armenian, French, and Russian Wikipedias, we don't tell them what to do, they don't tell us what to do. Largoplazo (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The border between Europe and Asia is very obviously a politically charged topic. There is no way to factually define it without it having political repercussions. The question of whether Armenia is in Europe or Asia is inherently political, and should be approached with measure and neutrality instead of appealing to a false consensus. Europe and Asia belong to the same landmass and the separation between the two is only political, and was political at the time when Philip Johan von Strahlenberg defined Europe at ending at the Ural, as this new definition was enthusiastically spread by the Russian empire. Nowadays, presenting Armenia as an unambiguously Asian country is a political, non neutral opinion that does not qualify as a factual matter, and should therefore not be presented as a non-controversial fact. ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It's as though you haven't read anything I wrote in response to the relevance of it being politically charged today. Reality doesn't change because at some point along the way people attach political significance to it. Largoplazo (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The question of the border of Europe and Asia is only political, it is a frontier with no basis in reality and differing definitions depending on the era, the country or the author. Saying "the Reality is that Armenia is in Asia" is misleading, as it is considered to be false by a consequent share of experts on the topic. ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I would like to get a consensus for immediately shutting down any new discussion from the point forward related to what the lead says about Armenia's location in Asia, Europe, or both, with no response being called for other than a note directing the original poster to this discussion.

Since March 2025 alone, over a dozen, overwhelmingly repetitive, discussions have been initiated here about this matter, which is well beyond disruptive insofar as most of them are making the same arguments, leading to a need to address the same arguments repeatedly. I'm even wondering the extent to which more than one of these discussions has been kicked off by the same person, because, if so, that person is being disruptive (and, if any of them is Catperson1 [originator of the discussion at /Archive 9#Correction requested], is improperly editing while indefinitely blocked). For that reason, I'm calling for a moratorium on this issue. Choices I suggest are (a) one year, (b) two years, (c) five years. I opt for (c) because, unlike the typical country name-change discussion for which moratoriums are invoked, the status quo is unlikely to change in the short term, if at all.

Discussions since March 2025 (with their originators):

• /Archive 10#Europe vs Asia: again (A455bcd9)
• /Archive 10#European Union policy (212.34.242.138)
• /Archive 10#Suggested edit regarding Armenia's continental classification (Armenchik15)
• /Archive 10#Maastricht University about European Union membership geographic...criteria. Morocco have been rejected in 1987 (212.34.242.138)
• /Archive 10#Continental classification, once again (Stevg08)
• /Archive 10#both europe and asia (2001:8003:D459:0:E5A6:ACB5:444C:27)
• /Archive 10#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2025 (2001:8003:D459:0:25B7:360E:261E:FAF1)
• /Archive 10#Request to establish a consensus on Armenia's geographical status (2a00:f3c:16cf:0:2543:9207:a3c6:5c4a)
• /Archive 10#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2025 (2A00:F3C:16CF:0:2543:9207:A3C6:5C4A)
• /Archive 10#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2025 (~2025-41131-97)
• /Archive 10#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2025 (~2025-41131-97)
• #Change "While Armenia is geographically located in the South Caucasus, it views itself as part of Europe and is generally considered geopolitically European." (~2026-63754-3)
• #Change "Armenia,[c] officially the Republic of Armenia,[d] is a landlocked country in the Armenian highlands of West Asia.[3][9][e]" (~2026-39690-1)

Largoplazo (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I was not aware of these previous discussions. The number and regularity of these only shows that there is definitely something to be modified in the current innacurate information of this article. These discussions would not come back if something was done to adress the issue. ~2026-85099-7 (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, given the unstable political situation in the South Caucasus and the current Armenian government having recently passed a motion to officially candidate to the European Union, the situation seems extremely likely to evolve and keep being debated in the following years. ~2026-85099-7 (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Unless Armenia physically picks itself up and moves itself somewhere else as an outcome of these "unstable political conditions", they're irrelevant to the question of where it is located. Hence, my preference for a very long moratorium. Largoplazo (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The purely geographical border between Europe and Asia has been defined in several different ways depending on the source or author. One of the views is that the Araxes river is that geographical border. That would make the territory of the modern Republic of Armenia fully European. Completely independently of culture, and of politics, and unchanging since millennias. The geographical idea, already very popular especially in Russia, Georgia and Armenia but also in the west, that the Araxes is the border between Europe and Asia, might become more and more proheminent even in anglophone context after an integration of Armenia to Europe. The geographical idea that the greater Caucasus is the border separating Europe and Asia, while traditional and widespread, is not the only consensus. It is one idea among others, and its defenders are also very often influenced by underlying political implications. The article on Armenia ought to not consider it the only acceptable definition of geographical Europe and Asia, but to give due recognition to the other popular and solid geographical definitions of Europe as ending at the Arabes, or even souther. ~2026-85099-7 (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a discussion about whether to have a moratorium on discussing the issue, not yet another locale for discussing the same issue. You're illustrating why a moratorium is warranted for at all. Any further discussion of the issue itself in this section about a moratorium on discussing it should be treated as off-topic and disruptive. Largoplazo (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand and shall therefore restrain to argue about the issue on the moratorium discussion. But I thing that was a warranted response to your comment that « unless Armenia picks itself up the situation will not change », as my opinion is that the political situation may influence the geographical consensus witch may therefore influence the necessity to have a discussion on this very topic, hence why a long moratorium, or in my personal opinion any kind of moratorium, is unwarranted. ~2026-85472-2 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I support the moratorium on this issue. It is like beating a dead horse. Also, Western Armenia, where most Armenians in the diaspora are from, took up a large portion of land unequivocally in modern-day West Asia. The current position of Armenia is a tiny fraction of what was left - the region once under Russian control. For the vast majority of Armenians, their roots are in Adana, Diyarbakir etc, now on the Asian side of Turkey. I find this debate about whether modern-day Armenia is geographically in Europe or Asia futile. ~2026-13375-75 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

We can't actually know how many people have initiated these discussions because nearly all of them have been temporary accounts or IPs. It could be one person with a dynamic IP or using proxies. I suggest creating an account and staying logged in so we can know how many different editors are actually initiating these discussions. Valereee (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I posted an inquiry about this a few days ago at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Possible sockpuppet problem at Talk:Armenia two days ago but no one's responded. Largoplazo (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• support memorandum I think it's the best way to deal with all the sock puppets -no need to protect the talk page so that others can still post other recommendations.Moxy🍁 20:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Which option? Largoplazo (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

oppose moratorium for reasons explained in my above comments, until a compromise is reached and an unbiased formulation is agreed upon. I also have no relations to any of the previous commenters until today. ~2026-85472-2 (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

To clarify: "for reasons explained in my comments above", yet ~2026-85472-2 appears nowhere else on this page, so, whether you were aware of it are not, the account under which this comment appears is related to at least one of the other participating accounts.

As for until a compromise is reached ...: My proposal is a moratorium on any new discussions. If you understood that detail and what you mean here is that if you don't get a conclusion that satisfies you from the current discussion, you're going to keep initiating new discussions until you get an outcome that satisfies you, then you're exactly why a moratorium is justified. Largoplazo (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

my other comments of sooner today were posted under ~2026-39690-1. I never participated in any discussion on this topic before today. Sorry for the confusion. ~2026-85472-2 (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

And the fact that as you showed numerous people keep initiating discussions about this very topic shows the need to have a true discussion / modification about it, closing every possibility of debate because you personally disagree is utterly counterproductive. ~2026-85472-2 (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The point is that when a discussion comes to an end, it's been had. It's disruptive when people try to have the same discussion over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, especially when their arguments come from the same limited set every single time and all those arguments have been addressed. Largoplazo (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Various and numerous arguments have been made by me today and by others as I have seen on the archives and none or very few have been actually addressed in good faith. If you do have an argument for why Armenia is unanimously considered an Asian country with no significant diverging opinion reaching broad support, please post it in the discussion. If then people start posting sources of significant actors stating otherwise, it should be considered and discussed, not dismissed by a moratorium. ~2026-85472-2 (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

... none or very few have been actually addressed in good faith: For you to ascribe every instance of someone disagreeing with your position to bad faith is, by definition, a failure on your part of assume good faith. Others have made arguments in opposition to it. (As for me, perhaps you missed the part where I agreed with removing the word "unambiguous".) As far as I know, you interpret any failure to agree with you to be bad faith because you are so certain that your view is correct. Well, if you think that justifies reprising the same arguments in multiple discussions over and over and over and over and over and over until you get the result you want, you're wrong. It's disruptive, and editors are supposed to avoid disruptive editing. Beating a dead horse isn't acceptable. There is no valid argument for why disruption would be OK. Repeating your arguments again isn't a valid defense for disruptive editing. Moratoriums occur, and are applied in exactly cases like this. Largoplazo (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not defend any point of view, personally I do not have any opinion on Armenia being in Asia or in Europe. I think that as this is a controversial and widely debated issue with political implications, the Wikipedia article should reflect the complexity of the issue and not only take the one side you seem to agree with, especially on the first paragraph, that is why I am in favour of continuing the debate and against a moratorium. I did not even disagreed with your position or argued for the opposite, I just pointed out that several proheminent figures had an understanding of the situation that is not congruent with the current state of the first paragraph. These concerns, repeatedly raised by many others before, have not been addressed meaningfully, because you seem to have a personal opinion that is opposite to it. Which you are entitled to and is not false, but the article should reflect a neutral point of view and not take a side. That is why these discussions are very important, and that a moratorium is counterproductive. No one is asking you to change your opinion or belief on the geography of Armenia, only for the article to accurately reflect the reality of the various contradictory points of views on this topic instead of strongly endorsing in the first paragraph the one you happen to have. Anna98765 (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

What the concern is...is that no one from the actual editing community is concerned about this, thus it seems to be a concentrated effort from outside. Moxy🍁 23:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I am not a very frequent editor of Wikipedia in any significant way. I stumbled upon the page and found it quite jarring to see. I would like to respectfully ask experienced editors like you to please debate or look it up more thoroughly so that the phrasing can more accurately represent the actual state of the opinions of diverse actors regarding the topic at hand, instead of this moratorium whose effect would be to prevent the debate on the very strong and polarising statement that is presentely presented as uncontroversially factual to someone reading only the first few lines of the article. ~2026-84958-6 (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain what value you believe there is to launching another 1,500 discussions about the same thing just because the people who want it changed don't prevail the first 1,499 times? What do you think would be different the 1,500th time? This becomes disruption for the sake of disruption. Talk pages are not places to hold the equivalent of years-long protest marches and candlelight vigils. There's a worthwhile essay about this: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Largoplazo (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

A small core of ideologically biased people refuse to change the phrasing that correspond to your personal position into a neutral and uncontroversial one. Saying « Armenia is in Eurasia » is an uncontroversial, widely agreed upon statement. « Armenia is in Asia » presented as fact in the first paragraph is not. As long as you refuse for no valid reason to consider the arguments of to the many people saying so, discussion is definitely needed. ~2026-85654-0 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

"If they don't agree with us, they can't possibly have considered it" is a false proposition. "If people disagree with us, we're going to dismiss them as a small core of ideologically biased people, because God forbid we should consider their arguments" is a loosing proposition. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You did not give any real argument as to why Armenia is only and unanimously an geographically Asian country. When you mentioned that it was based on a strictly geographical definition of Europe and Asia, I answered by saying that the strictly geographical definition of Europe and Asia was itself not universally agreed upon. You did not argued or showed proof that it was and instead avoided the topic by reminding me that the discussion should only be related to the moratorium. I oppose the moratorium because you want to prevent any discussion without engaging or considering the arguments that contradicts your views. And I do not even endorse the view that Armenia is European nor asked that it should be the only opinion presented, I just tried to ask you to consider modifying the first paragraph, not to "Armenia is in Europe" obviously, (and I would vigorously oppose such a statement), but to any form of less affirmative phrasing of your choosing that would more accurately present the diversity of opinion of both experts, tradition, relevant institutions, and the general public, on the strictly geographical classification of the territory of the Republic of Armenia, as compared to the reductive and dismissive "Armenia is in the Armenian Highlands of Western Asia". I very much hear and understand your arguments and do not wish to dismiss or reject them, I am only interested in working together to find a compromise so that the fist paragraph of the article can accurately present the existing controversy about the geographical (as per your request, without considering its geopolitical nor cultural alignement) situation of the southern Caucasus country of Armenia, and a moratorium on this unresolved topic seems counterproductive. ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't give you any argument here because here is not a place to discuss your proposition, it's only a place to discuss whether there's a moratorium. I was talking about in the over a dozen previous discussions about exactly the same issue. Largoplazo (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Therefore, I argue that the moratorium is a wrong decision to take given that you did not meaningfully respond to the core argument of the other people that initiated the dozen previous discussion, as the question seems to preoccupy and dissatisfact enough people, and it warrants in my opinion to find a compromise and take action instead of closing the debate. Did you tried to propose a compromise that would be less controversial as a way of closing any of the previous debates? It seems like the most logical step to take instead of a blanket ban on discussion. ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Did you stop beating the dead horse? There is not an entitlement to keep raising the same discussion over and over and over and over and over and over until a result turns out that you find acceptable. Largoplazo (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

It clearly does not apply in this case as a huge number of various people stated their concern that only you and one or two people dismissed. You are not taking into account the opinion of anyone but your own and are completely closed to discussion or compromise. You are in a way taking the article as "hostage", repeatedly dismiss and refuse to engage with anyone having a differing view (and I do not even disagree or have a differing view from you, we are I think of the same opinion in the end, only I thing it is important for the article to reflect diversity of opinions present in the world), and afterwards when someone keeps asking for a more equilibrated debate, you accuse them of beating the dead horse. Given the volume and frequency of complains, a compromise (on the model of the french, russian and armenian wikis, (Russian and Armenian being the two languages of the concerned people I should add)) should have been adopted years ago, yet you keep blocking any form of possible debate. That demand of five year moratorium being a definite way to enshrine your opinion for the foreseeable future. ~2026-39690-1 (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussions among numbers of people with differing views have been had. Opinions of multiple people been taken into account. Where you say "repeatedly dismiss and refuse to engage", that is a misstatement of the reality. There are pages and pages of engagement, ending in disagreement with your stance. People are allowed to disagree with you and you aren't entitled to prevail or to hijack this talk page until you do. Largoplazo (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support moratorium Armenia is not moving geographically. This has been discussed to no end and many editors are confusing geopolitics with geographical position which has caused a lot of disruptive editing. We have had a longstanding consensus which is supported by the vast majority of academic sources and even the official government websites of Armenia itself. It is time to drop the stick and move on to other conversations. TagaworShah (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  Which option? Largoplazo (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  Option C - 5 years TagaworShah (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  I support the moratorium too. Let's end this discussion. Armenia is in West Asia - agreed upon by the vast majority of geographers, scholars and academics. It is like questioning the safety of vaccines because a minority of doctors question their effects. The general consensus should win. If you want to argue where Europe ends and Asia starts, this page is not the place. ~2026-13375-75 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Indefinite moratorium Armenia is entirely on the Eurasian plate, so with the commonly-accepted (though somewhat arbitrary) geographical boundary between Europe and Asia, this should be settled for at least 250 million years. If future sources adopt a new consensus boundary for Asia, this can be updated once we have agreed that the consensus exists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  If you are interested, I have a draft of an FAQ at Draft:Armenia/FAQ. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support option C per nom. Mellk (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

how can I support the moratorium? Is there a vote? I agree. ~2026-13375-75 (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

You can precede your statement of support with an initial "Support ..." in boldface like the other people who've already expressed their support. Largoplazo (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The redirect ARMENIA has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 20 § All caps country names (A-C) until a consensus is reached. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)