Talk:Armenia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armenia article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

	Armenia Portal Armenia is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Armenia, or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on its quality. This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. WikiProject Echo has identified Armenia as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Slovenian language Wikipedia.

Armenia is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents 1 Archive. &Image in corner. Prime minister. 2 Minor changes needed 3 Prime Minister 4 boarders spelling error 5 First nation to adopt Christianity 6 What's going on? 7 Foreign rule - harmony with other people 8 How long... 9 Edits to chronically protected page 10 [Proposed edit 1] 11 [Proposed edit 2] 12 Armenian civilization 13 Junk link in references 14 User Corticopia 15 Civilization 16 Badachian 17 Europe or Not Europe? 18 To Badechian 19 46 Troops 20 Europe 21 Հայք 22 Armenian hypothesis 23 Herodotus record 24 armenian genocide 25 redundant information 26 Armenian transliteration 27 A guideline for the Romanization of Eastern Armenian 28 The first reference 29 Good Article Nomination 30 Armenia Page Blatantly BIASED 31 Missing history? 32 Aratta 33 image_map 34 thumb default size 35 Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories 36 Formation and independence 37 Serzh is President 38 Population 39 Religion 40 Religion 41 Fake Motto

[edit] Archive. &Image in corner. Prime minister.

There are many things wrong about this article.

1. Why has this talk page been completely archived? An editor should not archive a page completely and i will put back some recent conversations later.

2. The image in the upper right corner of the article is a semi-protection lock, but this page is protected completely.

Y Done Harryboyles 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

3. The prime minister of Armenia died so we need to put under Prime minister (on the Armenia template) "vacant" to match the Politics of Armenia template. Yaanch^Speak! 21:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Harryboyles 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor changes needed

Since the page has been protected, we can't make minor (or any) edits, so here's the beginning of a list of problems:

• The link from "Van" points incorrectly to Van rather than Van,_Turkey

Where is the link. Using find in Firefox, I couldn't find it.Harryboyles 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops: I actually saw the mistake on Armenian Genocide, another protected page. Can you change that one, Harryboyles?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.231.67 (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

• (As stated above) The lock image in the upper right corner of the article is a semi-protection lock, but this page is protected completely.Yaanch^Speak! 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Harryboyles 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• (As stated above) The prime minister of Armenia died so we need to put under Prime minister (on the Armenia template) "vacant" to match the Politics of Armenia template.Yaanch^Speak! 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Harryboyles 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the page for us. Yaanch^Speak! 23:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Minister

Will one of the administrators please get on and remove the deceased Adranik Margaryan from the current PM on the infobox and replace it with "vacant", it's been long enough now. It's all good and well to block unregistered users but we are not all vandals. 212.24.91.2 07:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Harryboyles 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] boarders spelling error

A ways into the page, the word "boarders" is incorrectly used. The correct term would be "borders" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.27.138 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First nation to adopt Christianity

I recently discussed how the Assyrians were the first "nation" to adoopt Christianity, thats what the article Assyrian New Year states any way and thats what all Assyrians traditionally believe in, yet I got a nonesense response talking about an old 2nd millenia BC Armenian King and Assyrian Qyueen, nothing to do with Christianity. So what is the response? Should not all other wikipedia articles that relate to this matter acknowledge the first true christian nation?Tourskin. PS don't delete this because I want to know. This is not a personal attack on Armenians.

I don't think Assyria has been a country since about 609 B.C. It is possible some Assyrian communities (as did some Jewish and Greek) adopted Christianity very early, but in order to be the first Christian nation, you have to have an independent nation. The Assyrian New Year article, as far as I can tell, says nothing about being the first Christian nation. Why nobody came out and said that in the first place, I do not know. The Myotis 07:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, the projection of modern nationalism 2000 years back is fallacious. The Christian church is a direct antithesis to the idea of "nation". The term "state religion" is probably misleading even in the 4th century. Armenia at the time was a client state of the Roman empire, and the 301 adoption of Christianty merely reflects the rise of Christianity in the Roman empire as a whole. dab (𒁳) 08:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Christianity was spreading through the Roman empire and surrounding states, and Rome would make its own state religion Christianity less than a 100 years later. However, this does not change the fact Armenia did it first. The article should remain as is.The Myotis 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

if you want to identify the contemporary Republic of Armenia with the 4th century Kingdom of Armenia, that is. The statement would be more at home on History of Armenia or Kingdom of Armenia, since it doesn't deal with the political entity treated in this article, but with a (rather remote) predecessor state. Saying "Armenia was the first nation to adopt Christianity" when the nation state itself dates to 1991 is questionable. A more correct way of saying it would be

"the Kingdom of Armenia in 301 adopted Christianity, making Tiridates III the first ruler to prescribe Christianity as the official religion of his dominion [followed in 337 by Mirian III for Georgia, and in 380 by Theodosius for the Roman Empire]."

Likewise, the 2492 BC (??), 1000 BC and 600 BC dates are most questionable and reek of antiquity frenzy. dab (𒁳) 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article describes the Armenia of 301 and the Armenia of today as being more or less the same entity, being that Armenians have existed more or continuously and as a distinct political and ethnic entity in the same general area since that time. If you feel it would neutralify the statement, we can mention that it was the Kingdom of Armenia and not the the Armenian Republic. The Myotis 17:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, it doesn't make a difference if Armenia accepted Christianity under a previous political regime (Kingdom instead of Republic). Armenia is Armenia, and it was the first to accept Christianity as state religion, period. -- Davo88 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, in a nationalist view of "nation" as an immortal essence. It's a possible way of seeing things, but it is by no means the only, or most rational, way. I am not trying to delete the reference to the 301 foundation of the Armenian church, but since this is the article on the state founded in 1991 (there is a different article on the Armenian kingdom, are you suggesting we merge the two?), I don't think it belongs in the intro. The "ethnic entity" is discussed at Armenians, not here. This is the article on the modern state, founded 1991, are we agreed on this at least? dab (𒁳) 09:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

nationalsim as a form of political legitimacy became more prevalent in recent centuries, and there is much debate in the arena of political science over the precise definitions of nation and culture; but things haven't gotten yet to the point where those who hold that nations have existed long before nationalism have their position labelled irrational. An excellent professor on this topic, an Armenian-American as fate would have it, is Ronald Suny. The Jackal God 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Woah, I left this discussion as soon as I started it. I am back now! Well hang on, according to Assyrian tradition, the Assyrians asked Jesus to come to Assyria for refuge but instead sent Thomas (who also went to India). So there.Tourskin 18:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Are the Assyrians not a Nation? Do you all deny the existence of the Ayssrians as a nation? I cannot see the opposing argument!!!!Tourskin 05:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The current source for this is a Lonely Planet guide (!). According to Britannica, the first city-state to adopt Christianity as an official state religion was Sanliurfa (see Edessa), in what would today be south-eastern Turkey, in AD 200; which is substantiated by the Wikipedia entry (specifically, under the rule of Abgar IX of Osroene). Also, B. sets adoption by Armenia at c 314, which would post-date the Edict of Milan. And yes, these were not nations in any modern sense, hence B's use of the term "city-state". I would suggest the more neutral formulation "Traditionally, Armenians view their country as the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state religion around AD 300.^[1] --Psm 01:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No comments to the above, so I'll assume it's correct and make the appropriate changes in the article. --Psm 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A) Edessa was not a nation nor a state. B) Edessa was not independent, in 301 Armenia was fully independent and was country in every sense.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"The conversion of Armenia to Christianity was probably the most crucial step in its history. It turned Armenia sharply away from its Iranian past and stamped it for centuries with an intrinsic character as clear to the native population as to those outside its borders, who identified Armenia almost at once as the first state to adopt Christianity". (Nina Garsoïan in Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, ed. R.G. Hovannisian, Palgrave Macmillan, 1997, Volume 1, p.81). --Folantin 08:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

General comment I think much of this discussion could have been avoided by a better choice of terms. The word "nation" is too ambiguous. --Folantin 10:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As for "nation" or "state", neither word applies very well historically. Definitely not "nation". According to the wiki entry, Edessa was the capital of the Kingdom of Osroene who had twenty-eight rulers from c.132 BC to 214 AD and adopted Christianity around 200. Not sure what "country in every sense" means when applied to the third century, but Osroene was at least semi-autonomous. When the Kingdom of Armenia adopted Christianity around 300, Osroene hadn't been around for almost a century, and in any case had territorially became more or less a part of the the Kingdom of Armenia - and quite far away from what is modern-day Armenia, btw. Both capitals (Edessa, now Sanlirufa, and Tiganakert, near current Silvan) were geographically in what is present-day Turkey. But I'm not going to dive into the whole issue of what current Armenia has to do with the the ancient Kingdom of Armenia from almost 2000 years ago. The point here is simply that the nation state of Edessa adopted Christianity as a state religion around 200 AD, and was thus the first to do so. Below are some citations to that effect. --Psm (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries By Adolf von Harnack, translated by James Moffatt, Published 1908: "One of the most remarkable facts in the history of the spread of Christianity is the rapid and firm footing which it secured in Edessa [...] there is no doubt that even before 190 AD Christianity had spread vigorously within Edessa and its surounds, and that (shortly after 201 or even earlier?) the royal house joined the Church [1], so that Christianity became the state-religion." [1] On the "Act Edessena" see Tixeront's Les origines de l'eglise d'Edessa (1888), Carriere's La legende d'Abgar (1895), von Dobschutz's "Christusbilder" in the Texte u. Unters., N.F. iii., and Litt.Geshichte, i. pp. 553 f., ii. 2. pp. 161 f.

Early Eastern Christianity: St. Margaret's Lectures, 1904, on the Syriac-Speaking Church, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Cambridge, published in London 1904. "[...] the new religion came to be favorably received bysome of the noble and cultivated pagan inhabitants, though it did not become the State religion till after the end of the second century" (p34) (Has a whole lecture on the "Early Bishops of Edessa".)

The Encyclopedia of Christianity, By Erwin Fahlbusch, Geoffrey William Bromiley, 2003. "[...] the onset of the second century in the city-state of Edessa [...] Christianity became for the first time a state religion" (p566)

In fact, the Christian influence on Armenia came from Edessa. E.g. Armenia a Country Study, Federal Research Division, 2004. "After contact with centers of early Christianity at Antioch and Edessa, Armenia accepted Christianity as its state relition in AD 306 (the traditional date, the actual date may have been as late as AD 314)". (p40)

A History of the Church, By Philip Hughes, 1979, originally published 1948. "The buffer State of Edessa was so thoroughly converted in the second century that Christianity became the official religion of the kingdom" (p153)

[edit] What's going on?

Who keeps adding all this information about ancient records? What do they want? -- Augustgrahl 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It must be Ararat Arev, a banned user. It's exactly his style. -- Davo88 02:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what he wants, but he has been doing the same at Turkey for the last fifteen days - that article also got fully protected four times in that period of time. It is indef banned User:Ararat arev, and I had put a post about this at AN/I yesterday and a check user was done by Dmcdevit and he blocked all his proxies a couple of hours ago. But he seems to have found a way to sneak back in. I left a note at requests for page protection as well as the admin who had requested the checkuser to see if the new proxies can be banned as well.. Baristarim 02:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Check this out: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ararat arev - and that's only half of them as far as I know!! :) He definitely is persevering... Baristarim 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My God, when some people get an idea in their head... -- Augustgrahl 02:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is really tiring all this business. Does anyone know what he wants? I heard that he got into a dispute at the Urartu page and that he got angry for that reason... Baristarim 03:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He thinks that Armenian history is longer than it really is. After a long discussion with him a concluded that it's revisionism, basically... -- Davo88 03:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

he tried to discuss his ideas in the past, but he was too confused to be able to make any progress, and now he vandalizes Wikipedia out of frustration. It's not a problem, we get dedicated vandals from time to time, they give up after a couple of months at most, seeing that they are just wasting their time. In the meantime, some articles will need to be intermittently protected or semi-protected. dab (𒁳) 09:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign rule - harmony with other people

Under this point, we should give more information about the harmony of the Armenian people with the other people of the regions (Turks, Kurds, Laz etc.). I think this is very important especially considering todays politics. We should remind people that they once, under a multiethnic state, lived peacefully together and how this enriched their cultures (how Armenian culture effected kurdish, turkish cultures and vice versa).

It's not very nice if we always point out the negative conflicts of different people! I hope that some committed Wiki-Fans can help improving this aspect. Yours --SilverWiki 14:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph already starts by saying that the Armenians lived in relative harmony with other groups, so why are you complaining? In fact, relations with Turks and Kurds weren't really harmonious, especially in Eastern Anatolia, so we can't just lie to make that part look good. -- Davo88 17:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not a complaint, but a suggestion for improvement. See, saying that something was "harmonious" but then adding hundreds of reasons why it was NOT harmonious does not sound convincing. Instead, one should also say WHY it was harmonious. Besides that, I do believe that it was quite harmonious during the time before the problems started leading to all those massacres and ethnic-based politics. As far as I know, the Armenians were highly praised in Ottoman society because of their contributions. However, this article only focuses on the last period of ottoman-armenian (one should probably say turkish-kurdish-greek-armenian) relations.

And you missed my second point, which is describing SHORTLY (one could make a huge article on that topic) the influence of each cultures to each other. The different people have been relatively free and independent (compared to other countries) but yet, that does not mean that their was an immense cultural exchange (naturally!). Yours, --SilverWiki 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That "cultural exchange" was an unfortunate consequence of the invasion, rape and occupation, the affects of which are still being cleansed to this day in Greece, Armenia and the Balkans.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you say so, nice, great attitude. I'm sure this will solve all problems and is based on a solid fundament of facts. But it does not harm to be at least a little open-minded. People won't hate you if you don't hate them. But let's leave everything as it is right now then, people seem to enjoy it. Sincerely, --SilverWiki 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, if you want to add verifiable information about the positive aspects of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, that's fine. However, I'd caution against editing Wikipedia to make a political point. -- Augustgrahl 03:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How long...

...is this article going to be protected? This is getting to be ridiculous. -- Aivazovsky 11:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to chronically protected page

Feel free to outline your edits here and an admin may add these to the protected page for you. Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience. El_C 02:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [Proposed edit 1]

I think we should remove the Freedom House stuff, it does not belong in country articles QZXA2 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [Proposed edit 2]

The christian stuff in the first paragraph is not cited.

[edit] Armenian civilization

There is no such thing as Armenian civilization, as there is no Georgian civilization or say Russian civiliztion. I recommend to replaced the word by culture. most historic has no clear meaning and should be removed too. Tamokk 16:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Civilization" can refer to any society (typically ancient in this context) that has been organized to the point of having a social hierarchy, government, economy, etc. I think that early Armenian kingdoms, the ones that coexisted with Rome, Greece, and Partha, certainly fit this description. As for your comment about Georgia and Russia, I think Georgia is also ancient and distinct enough to use the term civilization (see Georgian history), though Russia is far more recent. The Myotis 22:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide one credible source referring to Armenia as civilization. Tamokk 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally I don't think it is necessary to cite sources just to prove a definition, but if you insist... [1],[2]

[3][4] Is that enough or do I need to cite more? The Myotis 16:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant just on the talk page. It is not necessary to cite general statements in the article. By credible sources I mean encyclopedias or notable scientific publications. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamokk (talk • contribs) 05:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

I realize you meant only for the talk page, though I still find finding sources to prove that early Armenian civilizations are, well, definable as civilization. I also would think that Universities using the term would be perfectly credible. The Myotis 03:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If Armenia really is refered to as civilization in literature it should not be difficult to give a good evidence of this, which I still expect from you. What you have provided this far is just some names of university courses, what certainly is not credible. Tamokk 06:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I chose Universities because they are particularly credible, in fact, it is difficult to find a more credible reference than one from a university. However, if you for some reason believe that Universities are uniformly untrustworthy, here are independently-written sources. [5][6][7][8]. Satisfied? The Myotis 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really saticfied. I wanted an evidence that Armenian civilization is a commonly used term. Not that it is used somewhere, for that wikipedia alone would be sufficient. Ok, one question then do you consider France, Germany, Italy, Spain as civilizations? Tamokk 07:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And a general notice independently from the above. A country can not be a civilization. (You may speak of Armenian civilization, but one can not say "Armenia is a civilization".) Tamokk 07:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody speaks of a modern country as a civilization. In using the word on this article, it is fairly clear they are referring to ancient Armenian civilizations, such as Urartu (860 BC) and the Kingdom of Armenia (600 BC). As for your comments on Spain, France, Italy etc, I think that there is such a thing as Germanic civilization and Hispanic civilization. You could also class the Etruscans and the Roman Empire as ancient Italian civilization. Though, clearly, many of these countries appeared far too late on the scene to be referred to as civilization or to qualify as a civilization. France, for example, does not become a distinct region until the formation of Roman Gaul, and did not become ethnically distinct until the Frankish invasion. And would the Gothic tribes count as civilization, lacking an organized government or momentary system. But since can speak of Roman Civilization, Parthian Civilization, and ancient Greek Civilization, and ancient Armenia coexisted with all of these. Why should Armenia be an exception? Because, unlike it counterparts, it survived with the same name and ethno-cultural composition to the modern day? The Myotis 14:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You do speak of a country as a civilization Armenia is a unitary, multiparty, democratic nation-state and one of the oldest and most historic civilizations in the world

And you definitions of civilization are very original. There are many ethnic groups in the modern world which have preserved their ethno-cultural composition. Is there jewish civilization in wikipedia?

Yes, Armenia is, like Greece and Israel, both and Ancient civilization and a modern nation, and both of these are discussed in the article. Would you not be able to say the same things about Greece? And I would say that there is such a thing as Jewish Civilization, though in historic contect it would probabaly be better termed 'Hebrew civilization'.

And the definition of civilization I am using is not at all origional, see civilization as established largley by V. Gordon Childe, which lists the charecteristics of civilization, including cities, trade systems, division of labor, etc. The Myotis 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But wikipedia does not make use of any of those terms, I mean Hebrew civilization. I know that practically anything can be called civilization per different definitions. Tamokk

After reading civilization I have to agree with Myotis, Armenia does qualify to be called a civilization. VartanM 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Junk link in references

The 30rd reference is a junk link, please remove. (Artsrun 11:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

It still works, I don't see what's wrong with it. -- Augustgrahl 11:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

May be that it doesn't cite the information it should cite but it's quite common problem in this article. Article also doesn't contain template indicating that it is locked for all due to disputes.--Pethr 17:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Corticopia

Do not alter the section that has passed TWO separate RFC's thus is part of Wiki community consensus.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I will boldly edit as required. And, given your 1RR edit warring ArbCom block, I'd advise against escalating anything further. Corticopia 21:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I will boldly revert, citing that it has passed TWO seperate RFC's. VartanM 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the 3rd article that you have gone on to unilaterally edit and disrupt to your liking. First it was the article on Europe, then Georgia and now this. What gives you the right to wantonly sabotage the work of months of discussion and consensus building in two RFCS? Furthermore, refrain yourself from threatening fellow users when you are flaunting the restrictions they are subject to in their faces. If you file a complaint against them because of the very own edit wars you initiated, do not think that we will not respond in kind.--MarshallBagramyan 23:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Marshall's right. I've seen your behavior on the Georgia article, Corticopia. You're only succeeding in disrupting this encyclopedia. -- Aivazovsky 00:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And I have returned. It's funny that all of the above users -- in one way or another, directly like Eupator (and I have been editing Europe for some time, thank you), or not -- have been implicated in dickery (see the related ArbCom case) regarding these articles, and noone has yet pointed out where these 2 RfCs are. Calls for an RfC against me and other groupthink verbiage ring rather falsely and are meant to intimidate, and won't succeed. What is this, a 'Caucasian' cabal? If you carefully read the introduction I drafted, it presents the same information but in a different, logical order and far more equitably than its predecessor. For example (in prior intro): at the juncture of Europe and Asia Minor -- how imbalanced and inaccurate is that? Anyhow, until someone can demonstrate why we should retain a frankly substandard and unencyclopedic introduction, I see no reason to. Push your viewpoints elsewhere, please. Corticopia 01:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

All he has done is improve the articles by making them factually correct. --Caligvla 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

TY! Corticopia 01:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civilization

And what do we have here? Armenia seems to be a tougher nut then Georgia. Never mind this comment.

I was writing about Armenian civilization above. Do not you find it strange to assert that a modern state, which is unitary and multiparty, is a civilization. True it could be applied in historic context.

Say, if Armenia is a civilization, then do modern Armenians represent this civilization? Tamokk 15:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, and I know that an average reader will guess that the country's historical heritage is meant. But agree that technically this is what the statement in fact suggests. Tamokk 15:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Any comments? Tamokk 11:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badachian

Badechian: You're welcome, of course, to ask the question in a regular post on the Armenia talk page. Just put a line or something to separate your post from the prior post... and maybe three colons in a row to start your message... and then sign using four tildes in a row... a tilde, of course, is a ~ sign. This is all in lieu of tacking your question or comment onto the end of Tamokk's post. Shad shnorhagalutiun! Xenophon777 19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Xenophon:But y did it happen i am 11 and i need someinfo

[edit] Europe or Not Europe?

I tried to mediate this issue by creating a "Controversies regarding Europe" section, which was roundly reverted. It seems there needs to be some sort of consensus about whether this nation is part of Europe in here. I note in this map it is [9], but in other references it is not [10], [11], & [12]. Has consensus been reached on this issue already? --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah..I just found a discussion in the archives. I will back away from this, but it does still seem to be controversial to a number of editors. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Last note, this is clearly controversial to at least two editors...see these difs [13] & [14]. I believe we need a clear sense of consensus. Has one been reached? The discussions on this that I have read in the archives leave this answer muddy, from what I have seen thusfar. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about it, the section is well written and sourced. What some user with personal agenda thinks is not a reason to start moving text around. VartanM 18:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the links I just provided demonstrate that there are at least two viewpoints on this subject. This is also clear from previous talk on this very talk page. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Two rfc's were initiated, that section was passed. According to Wiki consensus it stays. Caligvla, you reverted more than 3 times. I see you back here again and I will report you.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Great...might someone point us to the RfC's? --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 05:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to ask the same Tamokk 11:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Armenia is on the border of Europe and Asia, and this is not arguable. It could be arguable whether it is in Asia or Europe. Tamokk 11:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm bewildered by all the hullabaloo over whether Armenia is in Europe, Asia, or both. Does it really matter? Garevor e? I'd readily accept Tamokk's attempt at a compromise here. I'd never thought that this question mattered. The division between Europe and Asia is arbitrary, much as the dividing lines between the oceans are. For what it's worth, of course, the Wikipedia article on Europe would suggest that Armenia were entirely in Asia.

"The southeast boundary with Asia is not universally defined. Most commonly the Ural or, alternatively, the Emba River serve as possible boundaries. The boundary continues to the Caspian Sea, the crest of the Caucasus Mountains or, alternatively, the Kura River in the Caucasus, ..."

The Kura River, which also goes by other names, does not touch the Republic of Armenia, but rather arises in Turkey, flows north into Georgia, and then crosses over into and through Azerbaijan... which would ironically seem to make Azerbaijan arguably a partially-European country, and Armenia a wholly Asian country. For that matter, the "crest of the Caucasus," I believe, is also wholly outside of Armenia, generally to the north. I guess Armenia could be considered a European country on cultural grounds, much as one might say that about the United States and Australia... All of this tumult should best be simply left alone. Well, as I started out saying, if it'll buy the peace, I'd suggest just leaving Tamokk's compromise language in place in the article. Xenophon777 14:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The mountains are the only widely accepted boundary. Armenia is wholly in Asia, in spite of the BBC and some people's cultural longings otherwise. I'll try to re-write to please all of you!! -Korky Tashjian Day Korky Day (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You want to lump it into Europe or "Eurasia" Otherwise it often gets lumped into the "Middle East" and we are not a Middle Eastern people or culture - it gets to be very misleading.

[edit] To Badechian

There is an excellent book called A Shameful Act, by Taner Akcam, which explores the social, political, and economic reasons for the Armenian Genocide. See if your local library has it. -- Augustgrahl 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Thank you for the answer i will read the book.

[edit] 46 Troops

The Military section refers to Armenia's "46 troops". What does this mean?

[edit] Europe

Armenia does not have to equalize Georgia generally, but in this particular case the sitionation is somewhat similar, I think. Under cultural Europe many people understand Western Europe, its history and culture. Armenia is not universally considered to be part of Europe. Many editors are uncomfortable with the current formulation. In fact it does nothing but serve as a source of continuous edit warring. The change of wording might have helped. Tamokk 12:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not going to happen. In the archives you will find all the discussion needed to put this issue to rest alon with two passed rfc's for that specific paragraph. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check. Archive number which? Tamokk 14:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're so interested in Armenia, why don't you read all the archives?

Can I demand another rfc? Tamokk 14:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A third one on the same topic? A little redundant no?

And a question. Do you consider that that statement is correct. Is Armenia considered culturally and historically to be in Europe? Tamokk 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

Some of the editors clearly do not consider Armenia to be in Europe, and they point to sources. So I would recommend you to change the wording. Tamokk 15:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, like who? User Caligvla? lol Do you want his backstory?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... I, for one, never considered Armenia to be a part of Europe, as I mentioned in the "To Europe" section above. I don't think the question is worth all the ink, or bytes, spilled on it, though. Let me ask a somewhat different question of all sides: In your opinion, why is the question, along with the minutiae of its phrasing in the article, so terribly important? Why is it such a great honor to "be in" Europe? Why would it be such a great shame to "be in" Asia? And vice-versa? Why, exactly, is the phrasing of this issue of such importance? Perhaps if each side could articulate, honestly and candidly, why this issue is so important, some better consensus or compromise could be reached. Xenophon777 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that you are sharing your thoughts but personal opinions are pretty much irrelevant here (you could consider the earth is flat for example), so how about we stop flooding the page with this nonsense? Lets not beat a dead horse anymore. As a result of the rfc's there is a community consensus for that paragraph. That's it. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer to Xenophon777 many whys is simple: some edditors want these countries (Georgia and Armenia)) to be in Europe. It is less interesting why do they want so. Maybe they just want, and that's ok. But when these people write that Armenia is considered Europe, it is nothing but pushing POV. And who considers? Is that rfc? Then you should indicate in the article that rfc considers and not generally considered. Not everybody considers Armenia in Europe, so the statement is factually inccorect. Tamokk 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Replaced Armenia is considered part of Europe with Armenia is part of Europe. This way we do make a controversial claim that Armenia is in Europe. But at least we do not say that Armenia is considered in Eruope, what is clearly factually inccorect, because many do not consider Armenia to be in Europe. Tamokk 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep pushing your own pov without providing any sources to back up your claims, WHO doesn't consider Armenia or Georgia or Cyprus for that matter to be "culturally, politically and historically" European. Show me one reliable source! We are not talking about arbitraty and ambiguous geographic borders but what that line states!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tamokk the sentence you changed was sourced and by changing it the source became useless. --VartanM 18:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That source is quite a long pdf. What does it say, that Armenia is considered part of Europe? Upon what ground is that claim made there? Tamokk 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tamokk, by saying that the source is quite long, and you don't intend to read it, completely disqualifies you from editing this article. What you're actually saying is that you've been edit waring without the full knowledge of the article and its sources. My suggestion to you would be to read the pdf, the full 18 pages of it, and then we can discuss it here, or if you have no intention of reading it please leave this article alone. --VartanM 01:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know many people do not consider Armenia to be in Europe. Tamokk 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple sources, nore than is required. Lastly, nobody is interested in what you think you know or what you've heard. This is not a discussion forum.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Refrain from incivility. I think our discussion is highly relevant to the article. Tamokk 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm being prudent not uncivil if you think otherwise I suggest you report it! For the billionth time, this space is for discussing the sources, not your or my opinions.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Another RfC is in order -- enough argumentation is presented to substantiate a number of viewpoints regarding Armenia's nature, and I refuse to cow-tow to editors who continue to push a point of view at the exclusion of others. And editors do not 'need to know' about an article's history to edit it -- anyone is free to edit as they choose. And if assertions regarding consensual content herein were so clear, consensus should not be difficult to point out or it should be self-evident. Really, why all the pretense? And if/when an RfC is posted, trust me that it will be posted broadly to garner the widest possible feedback. Corticopia 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Corticopia's last edit. Let's keep it like that until this dispute is resolved. -- Aivazovsky 02:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Until a consensus can be demonstrated for the prior version,and this is not the case currently, why should we 'keep it like that'? Corticopia 02:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

...because that was how it was before you changed it. We should discuss any major revisions to the present [my last] version before going forward. -- Aivazovsky 02:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please demonstrate how the changes are major? It's all there, but phrased differently. The fact that it a version lingered beforehand means little, since editors implicated in recent ArbCom dickery are culprits herein -- this is the web, after all, so change is the norm. As well, this is being discussed, and reverting toa stale-dated editions is anything but moving forward. Corticopia 03:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Weren't you leaving? I guess you missed edit warring too much. The burden of proof sits on you! You are removing a heavily sourced, neutral paragraph that has been here for over a year, you are also going against consensus. If that wasn't enough you are also edit warring! Reverting more than once by a single user is just that. Why don't we file a user rfc on your conduct intsead?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did -- particularly with your ilk. Any more ArbCom decisions against you lately? Feel free to initiate your spats of wikiprocess -- like it'll do any good. And I'll reciprocate in kind and see where that leads.

And you have not provided any proof here to support your argument, so you're the one that's being burdensome. Anyhow, I will devote my time hereafter to more useful pursuits instead of conversing with limited editors who fester on mediocrity. A bientot. Corticopia 03:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You do realize you can be blocked just for the above comment right? I think i'll save it just in case you continue disrupting the article. How have I not provied any proof if all the references for the paragraph have been added by me and I have at least three pages of other relevant written material (with sources) in the archives? You don't know what you're talking about.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Spare me your threats: you seem to have a penchant for ad hominen arguments, and feel free to try to initiate something -- it will only escalate things for all parties unnecessarily. And making obtuse references to two prior RfCs (still not provided) and reaffirming your position without specificity further deprecates it. Why should your sources usurp others that have also been added? I can provide a wealth more. This is a classic breach of neutrality guidelines regarding content in Wikipedia.

How many people must you refer to as 'not knowing what they are talking about' before acknowledging and admitting your own errors? After all, I have not been sanctioned by the ArbCom. Corticopia 13:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have rved Corticopia for the following reason: Corticopia please watch out that other content is unchanged when rving. Tamokk 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets stop pushing rvs now and discuss. Tamokk 03:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Like what content? How much discussion needs to occur? Anyhow, for now, I will leave these articles to the morass of editors currently editing them. Corticopia 03:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why do some want to keep clumsy formulations. Georgian version is good in my opinion. At least two other editors share my point of view. Tamokk 04:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to express opinions, and the two editors you mentioned have a long history of POV pushing in this and other Armenia-Europe related articles. VartanM 05:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We have heard plenty of criticism of the current version. Maybe opponents would like to criticize the suggested one? Otherwise you will be constantly reverted. Tamokk 04:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the one trying to change the article. Please tell us how is your version better then the current one. VartanM 05:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one trying to change the article -- I as much as any editor can change the article as needed.

Anyhow, my version is better for a few reasons: (1) logical flow of information, which notes its location first (as do most country articles), then country details; (2) better syntax -- even Tamokk indicates the prior introduction is clumsy; (3) importantly, information is presented equitably -- numerous sources indicate Armenia (and other Caucasian countries) to be of Europe and/or Asia (online, just about as many for each); the prior version skews content in favour of its inclusion in Europe. My edits are far from biased: e.g., Cyprus is similar. If you read carefully, you will note that nothing has been removed, but merely restructured and tweaked. And, as of yet, no one has demonstrated why this introduction is in invalid. Lastly, if I am one of the two editors you're referring to in terms of pushing a POV of view at Europe, think again -- this has been thoroughly discussed, and I am not the one who continues to readd entries to the table against consensus. Corticopia 13:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing: 1) Armenia is not universally considered to be European, thus more moderate language of new version is recommended. 2) Stylistically the new version is better. E.g. it avoids putting that boundaries of Europe and Asia are arbitrary. Tamokk 06:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For the information, suggested formulation comes from user:kober, from the article about Georgia, if I am not mistaken. Tamokk 06:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fact: Every credible reference book on earth places Armenia in Asia, Asia Minor or Middle East. Don't believe go grab a reference book from your bookshelf right now and look. The only sources that counter that view are from obscure websites who primary purpose is something other than disturbing factual geographical information. There is no need for an RfC because there is no debate to be had here. This article has been hijacked by editors with a POV that doesn't stand up to the facts. I would suggest correctly removing all unsubstantiated claims that Armenia is European in anyway and locking the Article for 1 year. --Caligvla 09:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Caligvula, I do agree that this and related articles have been hijacked -- some of the involved editors have been sanctioned as the result of a recent case brought to the Arbitration Committee, and yet other involved editors have been implicated. Anyhow, none have yet critically disputed the revised introduction, because they can't or won't, so it shall stay. Apropos, sources may indicate that Armenia is in Europe and/or Asia -- the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, for instance, indicates both: that the current country is in Southeastern Europe, but the former kingdom is of Western Asia. Remember: our goal is to present information equitably, and cite along the way. :) Corticopia 14:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Webster issue is very controversial. They recently changed it under pressure and fear of litigation from radical Armenian political groups. --Caligvla 19:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cm'on ... Corticopia 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Caliglava too. Georgia and Armenia are in Asia, but some editors are uncomfortable with this for political reasons. Although some definitions may place these countries in Europe too. Let us retain the current wording. It does not say that Armenia is in Europe anyway. Tamokk

I would suggest to remove the transcontinental country. Tamokk

Why? VartanM 03:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Litigation notwithstanding, even I would not remove this notion, but wouldn't resist refactoring it (e.g., physiographically wholly/partially in Asia, strong sociopolitical/cultural connections to Europe): the notion that Armenia is of Europe is in enough reputable publications that this viewpoint cannot be ignored. I suppose this will always be the case with countries such as those in the Caucasus which straddle the border of two continents, hence them being transcontinental countries. If the main crest of the Caucasus Mountains is a determinant of the border between Europe and Asia, I believe all of Armenia would be in Asia but portions of Georgia would be in both. Corticopia 13:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Let's just keep it as it is. Tamokk 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a Russian-Armenian, however I would like Armenia to be considered part of the Middle East. It is embarassing and shameful at what level the Armenian editors here have lowered themselves to. You guys are begging Armenia to be considered part of Europe. Politically Armenia may resemble a European country. But culturally we don't have that much in common with the Europeans (only that were Christians). However, on the other hand, we have a great deal of things in common with the Middle Easterners. Historically, culturally, and politically all throughout Armenia's history we have been considered to be Middle Eastern, lets keep it that way. If you look at the Europe article, you can see they have no regards for Armenians, they included Turks as Europeans, and Azeri's in some parts, but they did not mention anything about Armenia, except that it was an indo-European language. I want to know why so many editors here are against Armenia for being part of the Middle East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.202.139 (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

128.151.34.190 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)You're Russian-Armenian? Well, I'm just Armenian, and so please, tell me how we have more in common with the middle east over Europe... are we Arab people? are we Muslim? Does our government or has our government ever been centered around an oppressive religious regime? The answer is no every time. You clearly don't know your roots. Middle-east implies arab + muslim (all the other countries, with the exception of Israel, fall into that umbrella). Thats why we don't want to include Armenia in that group. Physically Armenia falls wherever you want to draw geopolitical lines. As far as a people or culture is concerned we are neither European nor Middle Eastern. If you want to lump us in with what's closest then Europe is the way to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.34.190 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Հայք

Hayq was recently changed to Hayk, because according to ISO 9985: ք = k’ I have no desire or energy to argue with someone over one letter. I'm inviting everyone to express their opinion on whether we should use Hayk or Hayq, thanks. VartanM 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you this: is it Հայք or Հայկ? Both of these versions are in the article right now. If it is really Հայք, then the transliteration should be Hayk', with an apostrophe; if Հայկ, then Hayk. No "q" sounds in Armenian.--Crzycheetah 07:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

q appears to be a common transliteration of ք, but we generally favour ISO. If you are interested in presenting a transliteration scheme where ք is q, you should do that at Armenian alphabet#Transliteration, not here.

As far as I understand, Հայկ is the mythical patriarch, Haik, while Հայք is the term for Armenia itself. dab (𒁳) 08:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

btw, you should not use the apostrophe, *k'. The official transliteration is k’, with a right single quote. Also permissible (scholarly, though not ISO) is k῾, with a spiritus asper.

dab (𒁳) 08:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian hypothesis

Im here to discuss to you about something, Im talkinga bout the Armeian hypothesis page, Dbachmann, In accordance with "most" western sources, the Armenians have populated Eastern Anatolia for over four thousand years. The Modern Encyclopedia of Religions in Russia and the Soviet Union. Retrieved on 2007-03-01. Chahin, Mack (2001). The Kingdom of Armenia. Routledge (UK), p. 182. ISBN 0700714529.  Redgate, Elizabeth (1998). The Armenians. Blackwell Publishing, p. 25. ISBN 0631220372.  Armenian community. Retrieved on 2007-03-01.

why did you revert that info. This and many other proofs like the Kura-Araxes IE presents, and many ancient records all fit together. If "most" western sources reveal Armenians there in the historic ancient times, why did you add that oudated info back in the Armenian hypotehsis? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.23.134 (talk • contribs).

you are contradicted by the very links you provide:

While classical historians cited the tradition that the Armenians migrated into their homeland from Thrace and Phrygia, contemporary scholarship suggests that the Armenians are descendants of various ancient indigenous people who combined in the tenth through seventh centuries B.C. to produce the Uraratean people (Ararateans). These views are not necessarily contradictory since present-day Armenians undoubtedly are an amalgam of several peoples, indigenous (Hayasa-Azzi, Nairi, Hurrians, etc.) and immigrant, who merged as one linguistic family around 600 B.C.

I fully subscribe to this. According to "most western sources", Armenian ethnogenesis took place in the Iron Age, say the 10th to 6th centuries BC. It would appear that people of Phrygian or Iranian stock formed a superstrate, referred to as patis "lords", which word by the crazy sound-changes that resulted in Proto-Armenian in the final centuries BC became hayk.

This has nothing or precious little to do with the Armenian hypothesis, which is a topic of Indo-European linguistics. You have clearly no idea what you are talking about. The Kura-Araxes culture is hypothetised as the locus of Proto-Anatolian (Proto-Hittite) within the Kurgan hypothesis, which is in opposition to the Armenian hypothesis. Do everyone a favour and spend some time reading the articles we already have. dab (𒁳) 08:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dont play words games with me, you know what I mean exactly. Yes, of course it has to do with Armenians and their Indo-European homeland theory. I told you "most" western sources reveal Armenians were there over four thousand years, "some" however say about the 8th century BC. Not to mention the Kura-Araxes IE presents as I aleady said, and the ancient records that identify with Armenians, these people still refer to us with those same forms of their records. And finally, history is incomplete, stop trying to conclude as it everything has been found completely, no thats not true. 75.4.23.134 08:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You obviously dont look around enough, I know thats from Hyeetch, thats not the only page you have to seek to find out. Like I said history is incomplete, and it will probably be incomplete, until some time 75.4.23.134 08:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Another quote from Artaxiad's sources: "The Armenians appear to have been a tribe within the Phrygian community which crossed the Bosphorus into Asia during the tumultuous times of great ethnic movements and political change towards the end of the thirteenth century BC... Other theories have been suggested as to the original appearance of the Armenians in the land which bears their name, but this one seems to be historically the most acceptable". (Chahin, page 180; [15]) Artaxiad, why are you cheating with sources? --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please put back that info, where it says "Assyrians, who are direct descendants of Akkadians, refer to Armenians by their inscription form Armani to this day 75.4.23.134 08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

what does "this day" have to do with anything? You seem to want to suggest that a term Armani was in use by the Assyrians without interruption. You will need to cite a reference for this. Modern Aramaic Armini, Old Persian Armina and Akkadian Armani are certainly related, but the modern form is not the "inscription form". This is an artefact of transliteration. Old Assyrian Armanî transliterates cuneiform 𒅈𒈠𒉌𒄿 or similar, while Aramaic Assyrian Armini transliterates ܐܪܡܝܢܝ or similar.

I fail to see how the modern Aramaic form is at all relevant to this discussion.

You are patently wrong with your assertions on academic consensus. Not even addressing "most" sources, you fail to provide a single academic reference that puts Armenian ethnogenesis near 2000 BC. Consensus is clear, and assumes Armenian ethnogenesis in the first half of the 1st millennium BC. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats like saying the "land of Karda" from 3rd millenium BC, referring to Kurds(Dbachmann look in the Kurds page to see what I mean) is possiblyy not them, but I dont see it put in that way as maybe, it clearly says Karda is Kurds. I mean you're making the audience confused man. You didnt add half of the content, seems you added whatever you want. You need to mention Ermenen also by Thotmose, to show there were many records in the past of the Armen name. Or atleast add in there, "there are many other records too" 75.4.23.134 09:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

are you saying that just because Kurds happen to add BS to the Kurds page, Armenians are within their rights to add BS to the Armenia page? If you spot nonsense on Wikipedia, remove it, don't add your own nonsense on top of it. Note that we have a full Armenia (name) article now, where you are welcome to discuss any number of records, as long as you can provide their precise origin. dab (𒁳) 09:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok can you add in atleast to say "there are other records also", in this Armenia name section I mean. What do you think of the Kurdish record? You have doubts its them also? You also have doubts personally about ours? Just consider, and that history is incomplete you agree? There is more to be found.

If you notice its obvious the name Armen, Armin-Arman is a common origin, like the Germans and Persians have also. For us all being Indo-Europeans thats even more proof of it. Cant you see this? Thats also why Armenians call themselves by Hayk, and not Armenian. 75.4.23.134 09:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Karda and Armanum were both names for places in the 3rd millennium, or say, 4,500 years ago. Placenames. It is well possible that the ethnonyms Kurds and Armenians are somehow continuations of these terms, but this does not mean in any way that there were "Kurds" or "Armenians" in the modern sense back in the 23rd century. In particular exonyms name people simply after the region they live in. The Persians may well have called the Armenians Armani or similar, because they lived in the region known in Assyrian by that name. That's all very interesting, but of little relevance to the article on contempoary Armenia, a state created in 1991. dab (𒁳) 09:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

we can well mention Egyptian Ermenen and its possible connection to Minni. I did not mention it because I was unable to verify it. In any case stop conflating this with modern terms that are "amazingly still in use". The modern terms are all influenced by Greek Armenia, and it is inappropriate (OR) to derive them from Bronze Age forms directly. dab (𒁳) 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Whats the problem with putting the modern?? Didnt you read other pages like Kurds, which show all the surrounding peoples refer to them one way and another. It says for example like "Persians refer to them Gudi, and Armenians refer to them Gurdi.. etc etc." So why are you not allowing in the Armenia page, if its in other pages like that. Dbachmann, Im not a slow one brother, you got to be accurate here, please. Alex mond 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say you do seem rather slow to me, and I won't repeat myself another time. Feel free to do a whole list of "Armenia in other languages", on Armenia (name), but stop this silliness here. dab (𒁳) 19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If its silly, why is it in almost all other Wikipedia pages of ethnic groups like Kurds, which I already mentioned to you, you ddint give me a single answer on that, which proves you have seen it on "their" main pages, but yet you still try to say otherwise. Alex mond 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

will you stop going on about the Kurds page and address the matter at hand? If you are unhappy with the Kurds article, use Talk:Kurds. dab (𒁳) 11:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I was unhappy about the other ehtnic pages like the Kurds page for example, I was just stating that they also have the info of other people referring to them by this and that. Alex mond 16:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah? but they don't suggestively intersperse this information among a discussion of Bronze Age references. Do a separate list of modern terms and we'll see where we can put it. Stop messing with the historical discussion, "you're not qualified". dab (𒁳) 18:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, all these records from 3rd millenium BC, and 2nd millenium BC is right in front of us to use for info. Why are you trying to hide certain records? Put the Egyptian records there atleast. I dont mean modern, just stating things to reveal to the audience more clearly. By the way, the Kuro-Araxes culture which reveals Indo-European presents in the 3rd millenium BC, is located in the same place those scholars Tamaz and Ivanov place the homeland of IE in Armenia, thats the same place of that culture. Another thing Im showing you there is Indo-European presents in the Armenian Highlands from 3rd millenium BC, continuing in the 2nd millenium BC, with all these records too. Starting from Armani in 3rd millenium BC, then in 2nd millenium BC, Ermenen, and on and on. All this reveals IE presents and records identified clearly with Armenians, that is Indo-Europeans, cause other Indo-Eureopeans(Aryans) like Persians and Germans have the same type of Armen name, like Armin, Armanen, Ermenen, Arman, etc etc. This is not a coincidence, we are all Indo-European and we have that IE name. Alex mond 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is also important information and many have misunderstood what Herodotus meant, yet Xenophon, another Greek historian, gives us a glimpse of this issue:

Herodotus, in his review of the troops opposing the Greeks, wrote that “the Armenians were armed like the Phrygians, being Phrygian settlers" ^[2]. Whether his comment described all Armenians as Phrygian settlers, or only those warriors he happened to see, is still unclear. Xenophon, a Greek general waging war against the Persians, describes many aspects of Armenian village life and hospitality. He relates that the people spoke a language that to his ear sounded like the language of the Persians. [Xenophon, Anabasis, IV.v.2-9.]. Alex mond 01:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Xenophon's comments are amazing, cause here is a Greek, explaining that Armenian sounds like Persian? If a Greek is saying Armenian sounds like Persian, obviously its more near Persian(Indo-Iranian), rather then Greek. This also supports what I mentioned above of our links with them, and since were more like Persian, its inaccurate to say Armenians migrated from Greek lands, Balkans, Phrygians etc. This is all "backed up" by the ancient records identified with Armenians, and Indo-European presents in the Highlands Alex mond 01:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Alex, your problem is that you do not listen. If you think that people reverting your confused babbling are indulging in "Jewish propaganda", I frankly do not think further debate is fruitful. dab (𒁳) 08:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not reverting because of what I wrote here in Talk page, they have not even responded here in Talk page. It is you who hasnt even responded to my conversation here. You cant just ignore what I wrote, and simply revert back to your own version as you feel like it. I also put back to the stable version since there is so much edit war. Nobody reverted back from the stable version that was before. It appears I was referring to you on the Jewish progaganda, since you keep ignoring what I write, specially right above. My points are pretty clear up here, Im not going to repeat myself from above. Alex mond 15:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This just shows again how inaccurate you are, by not reading completely what I wrote. It is very important, if you even take this seriously. If you dont take this seriously, than this site is BS. This is not the only place people look for info on Armenian History, http://www.armenianhighland.com is a really good place to look, if you really want to understand, and read, and it is you who doesnt listen. Alex mond 16:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave you a lot of evidence of Armenains ancient history in the Highlands, we didnt migrate in the 1st millenium BC. I told you many times Indo-European presence was in the Armenian Highlands from 3rd millenium BC, like Kuro-Araxes culture (Indo-European presence continued through the 2nd millenium BC, as we see various states and cultures during that time also), and then we see Ancient records from 3rd millenium BC, to 2nd millenium BC, on and on, backed up by Greek Historians like Xenophon, who clearly reveals what Herodotus meant, we didnt migrate since in their ears Armenian was like Persian not Greek. This is all nationalism to you?? Alex mond 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I know you didn't migrate. Various pre-proto-Armenian tribes did, upon which they underwent ethnogenesis around the 8th c. BC. At least that's the mainstream scenario, and hence what we'll report in the article. We can refer to scenarios of Bronze Age Indo-European presence, but you seem to choose to ignore that (a) Proto-Indo-European does not equal "Armenian", and (b) these are minority views at best. It is little surprising Xenophon (in the 4th c. BC, full 400 years after generally admitted Armenian presence) should have thought "Armenian sounds like Persian". Even modern linguists up to 1875 thought Armenian was an Iranian dialect. That's because proto-Armenian suffered extremely strong influence from Iranian. dab (𒁳) 10:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, and you have no idea what you're talking about, and you're one of the last people I would want to even discuss about Armenian language. Alex mond 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

no, I'm not? does it transpire why we have WP:RS yet? dab (𒁳) 17:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would I even "want to" discuss with you? Since you look at the walls, and not my writings?? *laugh* Alex mond 17:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I want to sit down and talk like a man, not your childish behavior. Yet I have this urge to share this, cause there is a lot of things incomplete in history and language. There is some important info if you even would read what I discuss, then I will discuss with you, otherwise, no. I know were suppose to back them up with reliable sources, but every word or statement doesnt need a reliable source. These cases are very well known in many examples, you dont need reliable sourcs for every single statement you make. Alex mond 17:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This info below is not what I was referring to when I said, I wanted to share some things with you that was incomplete, and a lot is missing in regards to history and language by those so called mainstream scholars you keep mentioning about: (as the so called mainstream scholars use keywords like, its "unknown" or "uncertain", or difficult)

There is a clay tablet written by the Hittites about 2000 BC (discovered in an excavation of the Hittite capital Hatusas--or Boghazkeui-- in N. Central Turkey), which first mentions a tribe of people called Haius, and said they were from the country of Haiassa-Aza. This was a predominant tribe in the region, vassals of the Hittite kingdom, and said to be a distinct Indo-European tribe (2nd millenium BC) that introduced its language and customs to neighboring tribes. The Haius were often in rebellion with the Hittites, and they were influential in spreading their culture eastwards, to the peoples on the Armenian plateau. In addition, the architectural and cultural influences of the Hittites were filtered into the region through Haiassa-Aza.

The combination of migrating with native Indo-Europeans was bound to create more than a little cross-fertilization of people, language and ideas, and within the next 1000 years several regional kingdoms using an Indo-European language emerged. Alex mond 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Herodotus record

Herodotus is the only record that we have that claims Armenians are from Phrygians, or any other Greek related people or lands. Since Herodotus is from 450 BC at the earliest stating that Armenians (not referring to all Armenians serving under Persia at the time) were armed like the Phrygians, as I stated, this is the only record that we have about Armenians being near Greek people or Greek lands, from that time 450 BC, and no earlier. So this is what I meant, when Xenophon was saying our langauge sounded like Persians, cause we dont have records that show Armenians were in Greek lands as you said 400 years before that time. This is around that time of both of these Greek historians in the 400's BC. I just needed to clarify that statement you made that Armenians were in Greek lands 400 years before Herodotus, when there is no record claiming that. So this is why I agree with those linguists who explain that Indo-Iranian branched out from ancient Armenian(Aryan Armenian), and Armenian became a separate branch of that family tree. Not to mention all the ancient records and seeing Indo-European presence in the Highlands. There is tons of evidence that shows that Indo-Iranian branched out from ancient Armenian, and I don't want to explain, since you wont even agree, I wont even waste time on that. Alex mond 05:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

nobody in their right mind ever suggested Indo-Iranian branched out of Armenian. You don't want to explain, that's fine, go away then. dab (𒁳) 08:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep putting different things that I did not state. I did not say Indo-Iranian branched out of "Armenian", I said "Ancient Armenian", there is a lot of difference in that. Please dont keep changing my words to confuse other readers. Secondly, those linguists who place the homeland of the Indo-Europeans (Aryans), in the Armenian Highlands, also made a language tree that shows Indo-Iranian branched out from "Ancient Armenian" (also known as Armeno-Aryan etc.). So here is your answer that you were not aware of. Yes, I will not explain about Armenian language to you Alex mond 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

you are just making things up. "Ancient Armenian" is the same as "Old Armenian", spoken in the 4th century AD. Proto-Armenian was spoken maybe 500 years before that, nobody knows. The hypothetical "Graeco-Armeno-Aryan" has nothing to do with Armenian in particular and is certainly not the same as "Ancient Armenian". The term "Aryan Armenians" that you come across in early 20th century sources (ISBE) refers simply to what we now call "Armenians", to distinguish them from "Turanian Armenians", that is, Urartians. dab (𒁳) 12:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, you seem to finally be understanding some of this, but you're still not seeing the complete picture. You're not seeing all this completely, cause you're still missing a lot of info to understand all this, that Indo-European (Aryan) presence was in the Armenian Highlands from 3rd millenium BC, continuing with various native and migrating tribes in the 2nd millenium BC, like Hayasa, Mitanni, Hittites (Anatolia), etc etc. By the way Arax (from Kuro-Araxes rivers) is the most common Armenian women's name also. And the Thutmose III didn't mention about Turanian Armanians, he mentions Ermenen, in the time and area of a Hurrian and Aryan state. Thutmose III didnt go very far up, he mentions Ermenen in the southern Armenian Highlands. Alex mond 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like someone doesn't understand what a block is. When you return, Alex mond/216.175.84.39, please try to cite some scholarly sources that back up your arguments; otherwise this is all original research and irrelevant to Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not Alex mond, so please dont block me also. Almost everything this guy just mentioned is already cited sources from Wikipedia, except for commenting about Arax being an Armenian name, yet it is an Armenian name. 63.43.102.184 18:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not Alex mond (I have my doubts), but you seem to have the same misunderstanding regarding original research. Are there any reputable secondary sources that make these arguments? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the correct order and "terms" of the IE language tree that I was mentioning to you the term "Ancient Armenian", when I meant this: Aryano-Greco-Armenic --> Greek branches out later --> Armeno-Aryan --> Indo-Iranian branches out --> then Armenian is a seperate branch after that. I got this info from part of the IE language tree by V.V. Ivanov and Tamaz Gamrklede. Alex mond 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gamkrelidze. dab (𒁳) 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] armenian genocide

well i was born in armenia and lived their for 6 years before moving here, but every summer i go back, and i would consider myself pretty well educated on their history, so i woudl just like to point out that on april 24 the trukish government didnt arrest all of our intellectuals, but they slaughtered them. and we didnt have time to prepare resistance, hence the the name being " the armenian genocide". the only reason america cannot put this in writing for the world to see, is because we have formost and always considerd money above all other importance, and have very good connections with the Turkish goverment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.61.193 (talk • contribs)

I felt our anonymous anti-Armenian friend's remarks were potentially destabilizing to the discussion here, so I had to delete it.--TigranTheGreat 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

we have a huge article on the topic. Armenian Genocide. So it's hardly the case that "america cannot put this in writing". I pride myself that the first court verdict condemning denial of the Armenian genocide was pronounced in Lausanne, Switzerland. Incidentially, I have nothing against Turks, and those responsible are long dead anyway, so I don't really see why the Turkish government insists on shooting itself in the foot over this. --dab (𒁳) 19:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the viewpoint of an 'Armenian Genocide' but believe that by definition listing it as a fact is a biased article; No definite fact has been established, and the Armenian and Turkish governments (and peoples) disagree vehemently. There has been NO consensus of countries or pacts that have unilaterally either authenticated such a thing as a 'Genocide' nor denied it (France voting for it, for example, the UK, against it and so forth). I do believe the term Armenian Genocide needs to at least be questioned, not presented as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.183.170 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If there happened a genocide-like action, why didn't Armenians sue Turkey (or Ottomans)? I know there happened some disgusting things because at that age Ottoman were at war. After WWI, there were conflicts between Armenian, Turkish and Kurdish ethnicities. After Republic, there were still Armenians living under Turkish rule. And, not surprisingly, they were peaceful. I mean, there are no sources about there happened a genocide. And if it is a history issue, why do governments accept it, while there are no court decisions? It is a political issue I think. And, I think there is no need to fight about it. I don't have stereotypes about Armenians but many Turkish people have. They think Armenians are enemies of Turkish government. I see many Armenians has stereotypes too. Wikipedia isn't for fight I guess. If there happened an Armenian genocide let historians say this. And please don't forget the "genocide" definiton of UN. Protothyas (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] redundant information

Is it really neccesary to mention in the opening text that Armenia is a member of UEFA and the IIHF? Almost every sovereign nation is member of one regional football association, it's nothing special. The same goes for Ice Hockey. They compete on an international level, that's it. --85.183.213.124 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC) this information really would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.222.100 (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian transliteration

(Cut and pasted from User_talk:Švitrigaila#Armenian_transliteration. The talk is about this edit Švitrigaila made.)

Please see ISO 9985. If you want to use another convention, please identify it and let us know on Talk:Armenia. dab (𒁳) 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. Note that this article (in its present form) has nothing to do with my renamings. Neither the "Robert Kocharian" form, nor the "Robert Kotcharian" form, nor the "Robert Kocharyan" form are predicted by one of the proposed systems. Švitrigaila 13:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

you should distinguish transliterations and anglicizations. "Kocharyan" is an anglicization. The corresponding transliteration would be K’očaryan. --dab (𒁳) 13:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. Who speaks about a transliteration? It's exactly why I say ISO 9985 has nothing to do with my renamings. I'm writing a new article called Wikipedia:Romanization of Armenian, using the same model as Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian. When it's ready, everyone will have the possibility to modify it or to add any suggestion. I hope it will be a good working base for any further discussion. Švitrigaila 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit of yours. Your "renamings" are fine. --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes use the word "transliteration" instead of "transcription", it's true. But I don't really mistake the two means. But I don't know why you want to use a transliteration in Armenia article's box (that should be Mek Azg, Mek Mšakowyt and not Mek Azg, Mek Mshakowyt) and a transcription everywhere else. Furthermore, the ւ letter doesn't exist anymore in Eastern Armenian alphabet and is replaced by ու which stand as a letter by itself. There is no good reason to transcribe ու by "ow" instead of "u". And as single letter, "ու" must be transliterated by "u". Švitrigaila 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

must it now? According to which transliteration standard? It this is proper practice according to ISO, that's fine, but please point us to a references saying as much. btw, this should really be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Armenian, since it has wiki-wide import. --dab (𒁳) 14:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

according to this ISO has ու=ow, և=ew. If you want to use ու=u, you'll need to opt for using another convention, such as ALA/LC. I'm not sure I'd be willing to support that, because we generally favour ISO by default. --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why ու=ow. It's like they combined ո/o with ւ/w instead of treating ու as a single letter when it would have made more sense to use u (oo). -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

but ու isn't a single letter. It's a digraph (inspired by Greek ου). We don't transcribe ου as u either. We'll just have to go along with existing conventions. In ISO, it's ou. In H-M, otoh, it is indeed u. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, ւ is no longer a letter in standard spelling of Eastern Armenian. Instead, ու and և are considered separate letters by themselves, occupying the 34th and 37th places in the alphabet. Do I mistake? Švitrigaila 11:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A guideline for the Romanization of Eastern Armenian

Hi,

I've written a new guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Armenian). It's not been voted yet. Everybody is free to add a comment and to vote for or against the proposition.

Švitrigaila 11:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The first reference

"The earliest reference to Armenia (Ἀρμενία), was made by Greek historian Hecataeus of Miletus in 525 BC.*[4]": this quotation is seems to be the authors (Chahin) point of view. There isnt an agreement between historians if that reference was the earliest one. f.e. more notable Dr. Thomas J. Samuelian marks: "Others cite Sumerian inscriptions of Naram-Suen dating to 2260 BC as the earliest mention of the name in a form recognizable as Armenian. These inscriptions refer to Sumerian battles with the Armani [21]".[Thomas J. Samuelians work] We need to represent both versions. Andranikpasha 15:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No we don't. A fringe, radical, minority nationalist Armenian view does not need to be present on the Armenia article.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, stop to call respected historians radical and nationalist! Have you any facts or it is your OR? Is the Chahin also an Armenian nationalist, or no? how do you describe it- by your own opinion or any other base? And what about this (B. Hrozny, Naram-Sim et ses ennemis: un Texte Hittite, 56-75) source cited by Samuelian- is the Hrozny also an "Armenian nationalist, extremist, and I dont know who else"? Andranikpasha 19:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You just need to prove these Wiki rules are not for the Samuelian's research nothing more! OR on Samuelian's neutrality is not welcomed. Andranikpasha 20:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything. We have had multiple confirmations that the information you are trying to spread in Wikipedia is unreliable. We've also had multiple editors criticize this practice of trying to promote a POV by including selective quotes from such minority views. Not only what you are adding is a MINORITY view you are unable to find a reliable source to back that minoroty view. You know this very well, and yet you chose to do this anyway, without any kind of a qualifier. I recommend an RFC.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ill repeat myself! Go for sourced discussions. Otherwise Ill ask to Admin board for your unexplained activities.Andranikpasha 18:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Two other researchers also mark the Naram-Suen:

• "The king of Akkad Naram-Sin used the Armani state name for the state in Armenian highland (2500s BC)". (in Armenian) Anzhela Teryan (PhD on historiography, senior researcher of State Museum of Yerevan), "The cult of Ar god in Armenia", Yerevan, Aghvank, 1995, p. 29.
• Dr. Karapet Sukiasyan marks among other names for Armenia also the Assyrian Armani and Arme forms. (in Armenian) Karapet Sukiasyan, "Armens and Ararat", LA, 1996 p. 48.

About Samuelian: "Mr Samuelian is the author of a number of books, articles, reviews, and translations in the field of Armenian language, literature, and history, including a recent English translation of St. Gregory of Narek’s Book of Prayers: Speaking with God from the Depths of the Heart (www.stgregoryofnarek.am), a two-volume Course in Modern Western Armenian, Dictionary of Armenian in Transliteration. He has taught at the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, and St. Nersess Seminary. Mr. Samuelian holds his J.D. from Harvard and his Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania" [16]. His Armenological researches and works used by [17] (a research for ICHD), [18] (Gomidas Institute journal), [19], [20], [21] (Oxford journal), [22], [23] etc. Andranikpasha 22:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not Samuelian's opinion. Samuelian himself is a credible source. But he says some scholars and cites Artak Movsisyan, who is not a credible source! So we have one Artak Movsisyan and two other unknown Armenians. Can you find me ONE, just one non-Armenian source? This idiotic view is a minority view even among Armenian pseudo-scholars and scholars.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Samuelian wrote: "Others cite Sumerian inscriptions of Naram-Suen dating to 2260 BC as the earliest mention of the name in a form recognizable as Armenian. These inscriptions refer to Sumerian battles with the Armani [21]". The ref. #21 didnt mark Artak Movsisyan (Im not sure but as I know Artak Movsisyan's books are related to Aratta, not Naram Suen: surely this Naram Suen version existed before him), it marks an Armenian academian (Ishkhanian, On the Origin..., 1989, p. 46, and Bnik hayeren barer, 1989, p. 56) and a foreign scolar (B. Hrozny, Naram-Sim et ses ennemis: un Texte Hittite, 56-75). Samuelian's book is free at Internet, why to not read it while calling it nationalist, unreliable ect? Samuelian mark this view as an scientific discussion (the name of his book is Armenian origins: An overview of ancient and modern sources and theories), he call them others, not pseudo-scolars, idiots, nationalists etc. Is the senior researcher of State Museum of Yerevan Dr Anzhela Teryan an unknown researcher? Her book is cited by other researchers and reviewed by Prof. Levon Shahinyan (some quotations are free at Internet, and you can find her or Samuelian's books at Internet bookstores). And Sukiasyan is one of the main authors of Matenadaran's printed catalogue. Andranikpasha 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. You're not saying anything new. You have yet to find me one non-Armenian scholar that even remotely agrees with that fringe hogwash supported by a minority of only Armenian biased authors.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrozny is that scolar! And also Armenian scolars are allowed to represent their POV on Armenian history! And is there any non-Armenian scolar who agree with Chahin? Is the Chahin even an Armenian historian, who is he? Ill be glad if you add a little sourced info on this person. Andranikpasha 11:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I so far found three books by three major Armenian historians suggesting that Armani refers to an Armenian tribe and/or early city state. Two of them, Rafael Ishkhanyan, and Bagrat ulubabyan, have been contributors to the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, which has some degree of reputability. The third--Artak Movsisyan, currently authors the post-Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia. These are major historians in Armenia, so I don't think it's a fringe view. I may do some research to find out if it's a consensus among historians in Armenia (and we can't ignore Armenian historiography about Armenia), so until then I won't insist on the mention of "Armani" in this article. But the phrase "the earliest mention of Armenia" is way too strong and certain in the face of the suggestions. We don't know if it was the earliest, and we can't make such a strong assertion. So I suggest, until more research, we say "one of the early mentions." Good academics avoids absolutes.--TigranTheGreat 09:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We can just add the marked opinion as an another scientifical view cuz the scolars like Samuelian are widely recognized. Andranikpasha 14:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the new addition is good for the article, Andranik. Naram Suen didn't write in Sumerian, but in Akkadian. That's a minor point, however. Most importantly, it suggests a contradiction where there is none. My compromise version says "An early reference was made by Greeks." It doesn't say "the Greek version was the earliest one." So, the "Armani" view is not a contrary view, it's just something that some scholars have suggested. Third, even if its true, how do we know the "Armani" inscription is the earliest? It's an absolute--we can't be sure, so we shouldn't write it.

The Name section is short, I think we should focus there on what we know. The disputing views should be in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia_%28name%29 article. That's just my suggestion to keep the quality of the article high.

By the way, can you list the authors (and their books) who say that Armani was related to Armenia?--TigranTheGreat 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the possible link between Hayasa and Hay should not be deleted. It is part of mainstream Armenology, not just Armenian scholars, and is included as a potential link in any serious study of Armenian history. Here is a quote from Christopher J. Walker:

"Besides their mysterious origin, the name which they call themselves poses a problem. To this day an Armenian calls himself 'Hai'; Armenia is 'Haiastan'. Hai is traditionally derived from Haik, the heroic patriarch of Armenia, a great archer, who slew the titan Bel in an epic battle beside lake Van. Less colourfully, the word might come from Khayasha"

Christopher J. Walker, "Armenia: Survival of a Nation," p. 21 --TigranTheGreat 16:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, Im not going to do an OR here and ask what is ok and what is not at my POV. I just added a source (Samuelian) which seems to be respectful (I asked why earlier). If no, discuss it here and make your editions, I dont see problems! Andranikpasha 21:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN. The Naram-Sin stele is relevant to Armenia (name), but it is by no means "another view" as you would like to make out. Armanum as a name for the region may be attested in the Middle Bronze Age. This is (a) an exonym, and stays an exonym, and has nothing to do with the self-designation of Armenians, and (b) is irrelevant to the Armenians, who, as a people are first mentioned in the 6th century BC, it just means that the region may have been known as Armanum long before the Hayk dwelled there. This is all very interesting for a discussion of Armenia (name), but patently offtopic in an article on the Republic of Armenia. --dab (𒁳) 08:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

the present brief summary under "name" is fully sufficient for this article. if you want to discuss details and fringe views, come to Talk:Armenia (name). It is inconceivable to me how anyone who knows anything at all about the Armenian language, at all, could suggest a relation of Bronze Age "Hayasa" and Armenian "Hayk". --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Nomination

Folks, is there a reason why this article hasn't been nominated yet as a candidate for "Good Article"? Steelmate (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is one. It's not a good article because it is very far from meeting the good article criteria.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How far is "very far"? Can you please list here outstanding issues that need to be fixed in order to comply to good article criteria. It may not be a full list, just something we all can start focusing on in order to improve quality of the article. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a source that Hayastan got the "-stan" from Persian. Even "Iranian" is unsourced, but at least it's not specific.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks TigranTheGreat, that is more specific, will try to find that out. Steelmate (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Steelmate, I added citation needed tags to the Antiquity section that are most likely to be challenged. The way to the GA and why not the FA status is lots and lots of reliable and verifiable sources. The best place to look for them is Google books VartanM (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, it is good, but I have a question regarding Garden of Eden, looks like there is a wikilink to that article already and on that Article there is a sourced reference (Mesopotamian Trade. Noah's Flood: The Garden of Eden, W. Willcocks, H. Rassam pp. 459-460) mentioning Armenia as one of the places in Genesis, now do we really need to replicate this reference here, or isn't the wikilink to that article already itself is a reference to the reference? Steelmate (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Each article needs its own references, so you can copy the source to here. VartanM (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• A read through WP:GA?, WP:GVF and related pages should help, but to pick off a few things immediately - there's no references at all in the Armenia#Culture section, and that whole section is looking pretty much WP:OR at the moment. The more references you can get for that kind of vague stuff, the better. I've highlighted some weasel word use, but really that whole section needs some work.

More generally, there should be a reference for any numerical statistics anywhere in the article. Also you need to provide some kind of "explanation" for any words that might be not obvious to the average reader. The best way to do that is to wikilink the word to the appropriate article, if there's no article then you either have to create one, provide a suitable footnote, or think about removing that particular bit of jargon or thing-that-is-too-obscure-to-justify-an-article. For a start, there should be no red links on a GA.

But apart from that, it's not looking too bad, once you've sorted out those issues then you should be pretty much a GA I would have thought, although the locking suggests that stability may be a problem. You might also want to request a copyedit from Wikipedia:LOCE/R once you've sorted out issues of referencing etc. FlagSteward (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armenia Page Blatantly BIASED

Interestingly enough, not ONE segment of the Armenia Page can be edited. What do they want to hide or prevent from coming to the forefront: the TRUTH? Many pages in Wikipedia CAN be edited. Even the Azerbaijan Page can be edited. BUT NOT the Armenia Page. HAHAHAHA! Come on Armenians, are you that scared? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.146.249 (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Every section of the Armenian page CAN be edited, IF you are a registered user and have signed in. No problem. Frankatca (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing history?

There would appear to be an opportunity to flesh out the history section with information about the Kilikian Kingdom in Armenia, founded on January 6, 1198 (according to http://www.visavistour.com/eng/aboutarmenia.html ) with the official declaration of Kilikian Kingdom which is when Levon from the rubenias dynasty apparently came to rule the Kingdom of Kilikian that apparently lasted until 1375. Someone who knows more about Armenian history than I do, might undertake this. Yes? Frankatca (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aratta

Steelmate, Artak Movsisyan is a very strong pov source for Armenia being the main location of the legendary Aratta. That is a big no no. Also what is the quotation from the source that allegedly says that Aratta=Ararat? In addition, Jiroft is currently the main candidate. I think that whole bit should be removed from this article.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

indeed. Steelmate, if you are interested in Armenian antiquity, help us build a sound and scholarly Prehistoric Armenia article. But do not waste our time with pathetic antiquity frenzy of the "Aratta" sort. I see you inquire about "Good Article" status above. I will tell you because this article never made it that far: because it is constantly disrupted by confused nationalist nonsense about the Ark, Urartu, Mitanni, Aratta, the cradle of civilization and what have you. It is impossible to develop a good article if half of people's energy is spent fighting off the crackpots. dab (𒁳) 20:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, I didn't know he is, will remove him then, also the other source says : "Ararat where the arc of Noah came to rest is Sumerian AR. ARATTA('Height of the highland, or of Elam')". dab, Will be interested to build the Prehistoric Armenia. My edits were done not in nationalist tone but might have been an honest mistake as I am not an expert in history. I made a research, found sources and included them in the article. If any of them is POV then ok let's remove it, will be asking on this talk page before making new edits regarding content. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image_map

Folks, is everybody satisfied with the image_map #1 ? My concern is that it is not showing the region on the global world map. What do you think? I personally would prefer #2 or #3 as the do show territory on the world map.

1. 
2. 
3. 

Steelmate (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The present map (#1) is fine. It shows Armenia closer to Europe, where it is more engaged. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I too prefer image #1 because the white/orange has a strong contrast which helps better distinguish the borders from the background. ~~John

[edit] thumb default size

Folks, would like to propose to leave Image thumb size to it's default value (by not specifying the size), excluding certain images where it will diminish/descrease the value of the image(like maps f.e.). By doing that we will allow users to specify the thumb size in their Wikipedia preferences, and make all images more consistently sized. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelmate (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories

Why was this category added to this article? Armenia is no longer under Russian/Soviet rule, Russian is not an official language of Armenia, and Russian is not native to Armenia. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian has no official status but everyone speaks Russian. You can live and work in Armenia just fine knowing only Russian.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct, it's for the information, not for imposing Russian on anyone. --Atitarev (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formation and independence

Let's stick to modern statehood guys.Shall we remove the rest?What you think?--Eagle of Pontus (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

armenians=love

[edit] Serzh is President

We have to change the President to Serzh Sargisian

MosMusy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population

The latest CIA Factbook states that Armenia's estimated population is 2.9 million. I think the vast majority of sources have the pop under 3 million and I think we should change the 3.2 million figure accordingly. If I don't see any objections, I'll change it in a few days. E10ddie (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Mistake regarding religion.. Armenia adopted Christianity as its main religion around 301 A.D., not Islam as the article says. This should be corrected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbabayan (talk • contribs) 07:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Adopted Christianity in 301, not islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbabayan (talk • contribs) 08:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Second paragraph from top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbabayan (talk • contribs) 08:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fake Motto

Hello. Can anyone give me a link to official source confirming that motto of Armenia is "One nation, one culture"/«Մեկ ազգ, մեկ մշակույթ»? I do remember requesting citing of that information by putting {{fact}} template. But someway I see that removed without any source provided. There is only a cultural festival for Armenia-Diaspora with such name, but this is no way official motto of Republic of Armenia. Still motto is being kept, and the only source for that I can find is wikipedia and other websites refer to en:wp for that. Armenia doesn't have an official motto. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)